Populism = evil = solipsism


I had a dream once that combined a number of notions from American movies. In it, I was one of the few remaining people uninfected on earth. The others had been struck like a disease that made them zombies, but unrecognizably so. As in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, they appeared normal, and unlike the aliens in They Live they were 100% human. Like Night of the Living Dead, they suffered a compulsion to attack the uninfected, but unlike it, they had their full faculties and could not be detected. But more like in They Live, they endorsed an ideology that was equal parts complacency and elimination of non-compliance. Then I awoke and realized I had not been dreaming at all.

What I call Crowdism is the union of individuals for an individualist end: the suspension of social standards and order so that the individual can act without responsibility for consequences. They want freedom, from judgment, sense, aesthetic taste, evolution and higher standards. It is the rabble demanding its right to be as degenerative as it wishes to be, as measured by the individual and not the group. In fact, the Crowd is united by the fact that it acts like a group in defense of the individual, which is why it fits into none of the usual slots. A certain mentality both creates Crowdism and is created by it, and that is solipsism, or the tendency to think the world should adapt to the individual instead of the other way around, which implicates a mental process in which the world which is normally perceived through the individual is perceived as being within that individual. In other words, the individual becomes the world and the world something that resists the individual, much like we have conflicting impulses within us that resist each other.

This concept of what we might unfashionably call evil — undeniably a subset of Kant’s notion of “radical evil” — suggests that evil is not a discrete and isolated thing, but a constant tendency in human beings which we beat down like our desire to eat one more slice of cheesecake. There is no Satan needed because humans invent their own evil, and its root is not in a desire to do evil, but in an error by which humans substitute self for world. In fact, as Plato suggested, without guidance human emotions and desires turn toward this very destructiveness, which is why most humans live in misery and most societies fail. Humanity is self-destructive, much like individual humans drink too much or eat too much cheesecake, or vandalize the things that make them happiest. When we deny responsibility for our actions, happiness is no longer our own task, but something we view as happening like a lottery. This enables us to pursue the unfulfilling objects of our desire and then engage in “sour grapes” type rationalization where we come to the point of seeing that nothing would have made us happy anyway. Unhappiness becomes a weapon against striving for anything better, or to rise above. This evil pathology explains both the victimhood mentality of modern people and the seemingly unerring capacity of democracies to select the worst possible plans in any situation. But what makes this evil so pervasive is that it exists within us and cannot be purged, but it can also be spread between people, like the hybrid zombie/body-snatcher infection described above.

Most of us will refuse to recognize this evil. That is because solipsism feels good; we sense in it that we can never die, and that we are always good and right no matter to what degree we are not. It saves us from self-criticism, and criticism by others. It makes us feel justified in selfish behavior because the world has made us its victim, and in self-pity we have a cause for resentment and thus a systematic revenge on the world. When we do bad things, and create socialized costs for others, that is not a personal loss but victory because we harmed the force that oppresses us. This evil recognizes no boundaries: it crops up in good people as well as bad, in smart as well as stupid, and in smart it may take on a greater life because they have the ability to make it interesting. Even when we argue against it, we are not immune; like a fire dares us to stick our hand into it, evil dares us and seduces us. And of all frustrating things, it has no home. There is no Hell to destroy, Mordor to invade or Berlin to reduce to rubble. Evil simply takes a new form, spreading by contact between people who (in an effort to disguise their own weakness) re-style it as good, or cropping up again anywhere a mind thinks. It is the enemy without form, an invisible aggressor who almost never appears in a guise of bad but always appears good, or at least convenient.

Recently I launched a corrective attack on Neoreaction, the system of post-libertarian thought launched by post-libertarian bloggers during the early 2000s. Neoreaction has a number of good things going for it: it recognizes the failure of The EnlightenmentTM and consequently, rejects equality, democracy, and populism or the tendency to motivate people by pandering to the lowest common denominator already accepted by them. It is more of a virtual salon or symposium in that, like Plato’s Republic, it offers a series of thought experiments to stimulate awareness outside of the confines of the accepted and to thus open channels to thought beyond the status quo. In this attack, which is designed to expand the field of Neoreactionary theory to include the conservatism from which it has come and to clarify both, I identified a number of problems:

  • Neoreaction fails because it is reaction; that is, it reacts to what is instead of plotting another course. Reactionary thought is not bad at all, but limits itself by trying to look backward, instead of realizing that it does not need to justify itself, and can merely pick high-level common sense solutions as a philosopher would.
  • Neoreaction suffers because it is inherently social. The original spark for this discussion arose from one person taking a blog offline, which usually happens when personal conflicts make it undesirable to continue with a group. When I say Neoreaction is “social,” that means that it reflects what groups of people want to talk about and think about, which quickly becomes a form of populism. It has confused the desire to attract audience with the desire for truth because of the nature of its appeal: it makes STEM majors and assorted internet critics feel that, by engaging in the act of academic-style criticism, they have become a new vanguard of truth. We have seen this phenomenon before, you and I, in the burst of “traditionalists” who came about in the early 00s as well. If a movement of thought does not have a purpose, it becomes a purpose in itself, and that inevitably falls prey to the evil mentioned above and becomes a form of Crowdism. In Neoreaction, the Crowdist impulse has taken form through endless play-acting at being theorists with a nasty in-group enforcement, driving away the truth-oriented instead of those who want to live out the image of being neoreactionary. This is both an inherent tendency of humanity and an evil particular to discussion groups, in that the act of discussing becomes the power those people desire, instead of having a desired end effect.
  • Neoreaction loves the idea of “exit,” both as theory-object and reality. Exit is departure from a society, whether by literally moving or having some other way of existing outside of its power. What originally was a way of subjecting societies to market forces by showing how individuals would leave for greener pastures, and thus a post-libertarian society (free markets + a lack of liberalism, essentially) could out-compete other societies. This model fails because any such society becomes a threat and gets eliminated. Those of us who have run through this mental simulation for some time realize that the only solution is to re-capture the West, which becomes easier as it gets weaker, and create a new civilization. This is the antithesis of chatter and yet is less satisfying than chatter, because discussing it does not make the above average thinker feel like a profound genius. “Insight porn,” some call it, and it is aptly applied here.
  • Neoreaction still believes in “systems.” Free markets, democracy, laws and regulations all belong to the world of systems, or the idea that we can set down some kind of rules and have everything work out fine because of the results of those rules. A Gödel might have observed, no system will cover every case, and so systems inevitably end up being hijacked and turned on themselves, with the unfortunate attribute of now being concentrated power which is hard to resist. That is what happened in the West, ancient Greece and Rome, and virtually every other society that has become destroyed: the leadership became corrupt and, since they wielded centralized power, were able to suppress dissent. With postmodern civilizations, the power is no longer centralized but is just as strong, and it is this — called “the Cathedral” by neoreactionaries — that must be overthrown and replaced with actual leadership, throwing out all the laws that served as intermediaries and failed.

If we are going to attack The EnlightenmentTM, nothing remains but to do it. Democracy, equality, liberty, freedom, “rights,” populism and the idea of systems itself are all wrong. They go to the dustbin of history, but so also should other thought that promotes socialization as a substitute for actuality.

In contrast, history and common sense show what works. Aristocracy, nationalism, social conservatism, heroism and transcendentalism work together as a system that is both traditional and fits within Neoreactionary thought. The social community however rejects this because it breaks what makes Neoreaction accessible, which is that any STEM graduate or internet typist who memorizes a few ideas can participate in the theory, and that in itself is the goal. The goal lies outside the social group, which like a force of entropy becomes populist, and without that to unify the group, it relapses into being a social event instead of an actual one.

Any movement can become social. Where the index of selection, or how it chooses what becomes part of its library of ideas, is social in any way, it is a social movement. Cliques of intellectuals succumb to this as well. This is why Crowdism is said to be pervasive: it is a human monkey tendency that corrupts truth with the pragmatic convenience of getting along in a group and motivating them toward a goal, albeit at the expense of the clarity of the goal. Understanding this is crucial to the anti-equality idea, as it displaces our faith in “systems” and voting and returns to the idea that a decision must be made by those capable to make it.

My goal with any kind of new movement is to have less chatter and more solid expression of motion toward these ends. Neoreaction served its purpose well as an introduction to these ideas, but then got caught up in its tendency to be talking points instead of practicality. We see the results now in the constant drama across the Neoreactionary blogs and the writing of much theory, little of which expands any substantive issue, as people jockey for position in the salon. As the years pass, the goal emerges more clearly, and it is time to discard intermediates and — emerging from our comfort zones — go for the goal.

“Your rights end where my rights begin.”


In the byzantine labyrinth of justifications and rationalizations that comprises modernity as an idea in practice, one trope — and it should be called nothing greater: an intellectual fad, trend, talking point or defense — that stands out is the idea of freedom. Notably, that we can have a freedom such that anyone can do anything, unless it infringes on the same freedom of others. Rationally it makes sense, with nice compact logical containers and clear defense against overlap. In practice, it denies everything that makes life beautiful and challenging.

The notion that “my freedom ends where your freedom begins” (and assorted variations) fulfills this convenient mental convention. It allows people to feel confident in a logical system with clear endpoints; if someone murders, that violates the freedom of another, and similarly with rape and assault. This gets more complex when we look at things like cigarette smoking in public and other factors addressing the commons. For example, how it is infringing on the freedom of another to cut down a tree in a forest? Perhaps they are deprived of the enjoyment of that tree, but then, we seem to be really stretching for that one.

Similarly, excluded middles abound with this tactic. What about the right not to hear loud music? In theory, that music is infringing on your freedom of silence, but silence is an unreasonable expectation; where does it stop? Do we ban engine noise, flatulence and coughing, or declare that we have a sort of minimum standard for noise and anything above that is prohibited? Then we might run into problems with construction noise and dust. You have a right to renovate your house, but your neighbor has a right to be free of your renovation. And yet, if the house is not repaired, it will fall down, and then his rights will be infringed anyway. This practice only works when everyone owns enough land to be separated from the sight and sound of others and, while that is probably a good idea in itself, it is impracticable because that would increase the distances between people and places to a staggering level. The commons are excluded, as is any shared space in which people interact. Do others have the right to ask someone conversing to be quiet? His freedom to speak collides with their freedom to silence. And on the flip side, if too many people are active in the same area, it may infringe on his freedom to be heard. Ironically, the loud person and the person wanting to quiet desire the same thing, which is a blank canvas on which to live. This blank canvas however conflicts with the very nature of society itself, which is sharing of space and resources in a way that does not fail, which in nature is generally unequal and does not involve absolute rights. The mouse has a right to seek food, but it may also involve the anti-right of being eaten by an owl. Heck, the owl has the right to seek food as well, and this distills “rights” down to what they always recede to, which is a conflict of strength. So much for rights.

The greatest excluded middle is the right to choose a type of society. Many of us want to live in quiet places so we can pay attention to our own internal thoughts and those of others without intruding noise; this creates both a fascism, in that people who make noise will be restrained, and a liberty, in that we will be free from noise. Taking this further, what if someone wants a conservative moral order? Under “rights,” each person is an atomic granule which does what it wants, and everyone else must accommodate that externalized noise and social consequences. Individual acts have consequences on the social order itself. If you set up a Swinger’s Club in your house, that encourages others to do the same, and to differentiate themselves, to take it to further extremes. If you choose to smoke weed, that creates a community where stoned behavior is the norm. What about people who want a community that is the opposite of stoned behavior? Are they supposed to “just move,” and then wait for the destruction of their community when stoners see it is a nice place and move in, tearing apart the social order? “Rights” protect those who are doing what destroys social order more than those who are upholding it, and gradually grind every society down into the same old individualism, solipsism and deception that governs third-world places.

This most recently came up with gay marriage. What about freedom from gay marriage? If you want your children to grow up in a moral society, you want negative influences outside; we are not speaking here of influences like Socrates that consist of reasoned discourse that applies to the 5% of society that might understand philosophy, but constant behavior which innocents especially inexperienced ones tend to unconsciously emulate. If you do not want your kids thinking sodomy, dope smoking and loud noise are okay, where do you go for a social order that reflects that? A gated community perhaps; but then you have lost your ability to have a normal life, and exist entirely in retreat and paranoia.

This is the struggle humanity faces after The EnlightenmentTM, which is that we recognize the problem is not a need for individual rights, but shared rights. This includes the continuity of tradition, heritage and culture; the ability to have values higher than “do what feels good”; and even the ability to have a society where intelligence is a prerequisite for interaction. We are the ultimate minority, those of us who recognize the excluded middle of the commons, and want to have standards, versus all of those whose “rights” conceal a desire to destroy standards so the solipsistic ego can wreak havoc on otherwise nice places. Such people are drawn to nice places, not only because they are nicer to live in, but because they want to destroy them. For those people, the existence of anything but their own emptiness is a threat, and they wish to tear it down. That is the circular and perpetual conflict in which humanity finds itself enmeshed several centuries after the birth of inalienable “rights.”

The true face of diversity


I seem to take flak from a number of people because instead of targeting specific groups, I target mental processes. In particular, I identity the process of “egalitarianism” or equality — which is the basis and uniting force behind all liberal belief systems — as the root of our downfall, and a subset of it called internationalism (or diversity, or multiculturalism) as the root of our problem. The enemy is not Jews, or Blacks, or the Rich; it is a breakdown in social order.

The above map confirms my approach. Some areas have become majority Hispanic or majority Black, but the interesting data comes in the “no clear majority” category: all of the major cities seem to fit within this category. That means that African, Asian, Caucasian and various hybrids outnumber any clear group. As I have said for years, this is the future. The forces in power will replace the indigenous WASP population with a mixed-heritage “grey race” that has no culture, ethnicity or values system to fall back on, and instead will get those entirely in the form of ideology passed on by government. These people will be perfect consumers because they will lack things they need, like purpose and a framework for guidance such as what culture provides, and so will like California New Agers cast around for “new” ideas and lifestyle additions constantly. This means they will buy lifestyle-oriented products constantly, as well as products to assuage their anomic misery and ennui, trying to use external forces to replace what must be internal, which is a sense of something sacred toward which life must be pointed. They will always vote leftist, having nothing from the past to defend as is a pre-requisite for conservatism, and will tend to be obedient because of their indoctrination. This is what happens when government becomes a parasitic force and acts not for the good of its citizens, but for the good of itself — and the elites who command it — at their expense.

I waste no time with minority crime statistics and other data which attempt to indicate that the problem with having minorities among us is their behavior. No: the problem of diversity is that it destroys our shared purpose and reduces society to mechanical obedience, leaving behind a mixed-race population like we see in the places where former great empires failed. This is the endgame of diversity, which is total destruction of anything but the obedient at the hands of incompetent Communist-style leaders, and then when society collapses, the deposit of a mediocre population living in perpetual kleptocracy. Diversity itself is the problem, and any surrogate for that is a scapegoat and a mission doomed to fail.

Minions are Everywhere


They’re everywhere and they’re infecting the minds of your children. If Pit-Pat, the “magical, pansexual, non-threatening spokesthing”, and an Ewok, member of the original species jammed into a movie primarily for merchandising, were genetically spliced together in an unholy ritual while being scanned by the laser from Tron, the result would be minions.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, bless your heart and promptly crawl back under the gracious rock that has sustained your innocence. The rest of us have been under constant assault by these bland yellow animated dildos at every turn, being near ubiquitous for their dual role in marketing their films and being materially manifested merchandise. Every time we see one our thoughts drift off into questions of what would happen were they to be bashed against a large rock–would they crack open and release a stale miasma as indistinct as their raceless miscegenated colour, or would they smoosh and ooze out a sickeningly sweet bavarian cream?

If you doubt that their ancestry has been admixed into oblivion, I direct you also to their language, a terminal stage pidgin mashed up from every language on Earth. It’s the crowd-sourced, more hideous version of Esperanto, and the native tongue of the Last Man. They are fundamentally nothing, without even distinguishable personality. Having achieved equality, they distinguish themselves with superficial decorations and pre-packaged identities they can put on and take off.

These things, these nothings, have no concept of time and live their life as a series of distractions. Because of this, when left to themselves they multiply endlessly and achieve nothing but quantity. Somewhere in the back of the cluster of nerves that processes sensory input into motor control there must be some recognition of this insignificance, as they have an instinctual urge to enslave themselves to any greater force that promises them a share of the spoils of vindictive destruction. In doing so, they abdicate responsibility for their own actions and have something to blame other than themselves when anything goes wrong.

So described, they’re an excellent metaphor for the useful idiots of the left, first order liberals.

And they’re everywhere. A sane person today, who recognizes the absurdity of something like “gay marriage” is literally surrounded daily by it’s daft cheerleaders, a vanishingly small number of whom have actually given any thought an idea like this, never mind its consequences. They simply follow all the other minions, seeking to serve whatever villain will feed them excuses to solipsistically succumb to their basest desires. What homogenous fetid mixture fills these hollow human-shaped nothings?

Our environment was sacrificed for hollow pretense


Imagine for a moment that you suffer from electro-hypersensitivity. This is a condition where exposure to the radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices damages your health. There are two different responses you’re likely to face. The first response is “I don’t think that really exists”. The second response is “Well, that sucks, but this new wireless technology we got is awesome, so hopefully they’ll figure something out for you!”

Now, imagine for a moment that you suffer not from electro-hypersensitivity, but from carbon-hypersensitivity. That’s the situation that our ecosystem faces. It evolved under conditions of low levels of carbon dioxide, if the levels of carbon dioxide increase, the whole world changes in such a way that most species are decimated.

So far, we have seen two responses to the carbon-hypersensitivity condition. Half the population has settled on “I don’t think that really exists”, the other half of the population has settled on “Well, that sucks, but this new wireless technology we got is awesome, so hopefully they’ll figure something out for you by the latter half of the 21st century”!

In all likelihood, life itself won’t go extinct, but that hardly serves as a consolation. After all, if your child suffers a severe peanut allergy, you don’t want the school to agree that “it would suck if your child dies, but we really like peanuts and some other child will take his place and the peanut allergy gene will simply be wiped from the gene pool”.

As a culture, we don’t seem willing to consider the possibility that industrial civilization is not a phenomenon that can be reconciled with the preservation of the biosphere we were born into, because that would turn a technological problem into a test of our moral nature.

Instead, what limited time we have to prevent catastrophe we spend grasping at straws. We waste resources on non-solutions. The IPCC refers to the burning of peat as “slow-renewable”, because, so the logic goes, a few hundred years after its destruction in a power plant helped end the Holocene, the peat could theoretically have reformed.

Even the solar panels, precious darlings of the modern greens, are effectively a non-solution. As low tech magazine explained, solar panels are installed above their sustainable rate, which means that in the near term, the energy transition actually increases emissions. Car manufacturers have moved over to simply lying about the energy-efficiency of their vehicles.

I’m not the type of person who suggests that if you write enough columns and comments on the Internet, show up to a protest, or make a really impressive documentary, you’re going to change the course of civilization. Rather, the value in observing the ongoing crisis lies in its ability to reveal to us our moral failure.

The Earth died, because at some point we decided that we should be able to have everything we want and decided to consistently pursue that path. Not every culture does that, in fact, most healthy cultures are riddled with seemingly arbitrary taboos, that to us appear as little more than bigotry and arbitrary constraints on our freedom.

Many hunter-gatherers prohibit meat to young fertile women, ensuring that their body fat remains too low to have children. In the West, such arbitrary constraints of human freedon would likely be decried as #sexism, thereby leading to population growth, eventually making their lifestyle unsustainable and finally forcing them, excuse me, giving them the “right” to join the ranks of social media specialists and help desk technicians, who believe themselves to be free but can be reduced to beggars on the street if any of their racist jokes on the internet happens to offend anyone.

Western society is now based on the notion that everyone should be free to do what they want save engaging in violence, which we define as any non-state sanctioned form of physical aggression against other individuals. Society turns into mediocrity as a result. A punch against your head can generally be recovered from, while the fact that you can never be alone or experience silence is a lifelong burden we try not to notice.

There are two moral failures here that characterize Western civilization. The first failure is our failure to say no to ourselves, both as individuals and as a society. We believe that we deserve everything. Restricting gluttony does not per definition necessitate self-castigation, in fact our lives would be better if we restricted our gluttony. Our greed has imprisoned us in a form of hyperreality, where we experience only synthetic substitutes for authentic experiences. Candy instead of fruit, zoos instead of forests, texting instead of conversation.

As an example, consider an XKCD comic from a while ago. “Technology’s going to be so cool. All in all, the future will be okay! Except climate; we fucked that one up.” Is what it argued. This represents an implicit form of denial more malignant than anything you will hear from Joe Sixpack. It’s important, because it’s representative of our general response as a culture to the problem we face.

Instead of Mr. Sixpack’s use of some new factoid or speculative theory he read in The New York Times that’s supposed to prove that the world we inherited isn’t being destroyed in an orgy of greed, the destruction is now turned into a footnote, an unfortunate side-effect of the fruits of modernity. Gaia might be dead, but we now have anime-sexbots, so everything turned out alright.

This might seem like an unjustified caricature of our society’s response to the catastrophe, but it is the only conclusion we can draw. Technological progress isn’t going to help us all move to Mars or any of the other ridiculous scenarios some people propose. Even if it did, we’d face largely similar lives there that we face here, except for our further isolation from nature.

Humans need to be entertained and their favorite method of entertaining themselves has proven to be staring at screens. Thus, the consequence is that if left free to do what we want but unable to violate the laws of physics, we pursue hyperreality further until we find ourselves having sex with virtual reality anime sex-bots.

The second moral failure our society has endorsed is failure to say no to others. This is a form of laziness, where we avoid hardship and instead choose the easy solution that delays catastrophe. We declare that it’s perfectly acceptable that people have eighteen children, motivated by some iron age myths they reinterpreted for themselves.

Simple calculations by ecological economists demonstrate that we can not afford for the third world to pursue the standard of living that we in the Western world now enjoy, instead, our standard of living will have to be reduced to theirs. We’re unwilling to say this to them, for fear of being accused of racism. As Paul Watson noted: “Today [the accusation of] racism, cultural rights, and the right to exploit nature for commercial gain are the weapons used to defend gross over-exploitation of species and the destruction of natural habitats.”

Our entire society is pervaded by a fear of any kind of conflict that might lead us to be seen as intrinsically bad people. Our most vulnerable and precious beings are the victims of our moral failure. If the example of climate change is becoming tiresome, just consider the girls in Rotherham, who were gangraped by Pakistani pedophiles because those tasked with protecting them were afraid of being accused of racism. The correct virtuous response there would have been to do what is necessary, even if five hundred years from now, your name is still used as a synonym for racism.

For another example, consider Prince Bernhard, who we now know sold his family paintings to set up a program to hunt down poachers and kill them, in an effort to prevent the extinction of the Rhinoceros. This program required cooperation with the South African apartheid government, which mainstream conservationists were unwilling to do, for fear of tarnishing their name. Future generations won’t care if you were called a racist and hated by your own contemporaries or not, they’ll care if there are any megafauna left.

The world we are creating is a mediocre one, born from the accumulated totality of our moral failures. It’s a world without forests, where anywhere up to nine billion people with an average IQ of around 85 will spend their days twerking, until we are all finally wiped away by the forces of nature like a mediocre Etch A Sketch drawing.

European blood is not exhausted.


Recently, some European cardinal or other made the statement that European needs immigration because its blood is tired and exhausted and its needs replacing. We hear this trope frequently, which means it is most likely a distraction or deflection and surely a lie, so it is worth looking into.

The idea of blood being “exhausted” — as if its vitality was spent in the past — makes no sense. Children are born as vital as ever. Something crushes them in adulthood. This suggests, then, that our problem is not exhaustion but a society which is exhausting, or “grinding its wheels” by engaging in unnecessary, unproductive and paradoxical activity. This describes modern society beautifully.

Most environmentalists attack modern life as “not natural” which quickly collapses on them when it is pointed out that very little, natural or human, is actually “natural.” It is just a talking point, an advertising term. But looking closely at it, it is self-defeating. Working all day to support parasites, commuting through ugly cities, shopping among commercial charlatans, marrying whores or liars, and listening to absurd nonsense from government and media that our fellow citizens will enforce on us as truth or ostracize us… well, that is exhausting.

In other words, our problem is not that our blood is tired but that our leadership — including this nitwit religious leader — is tired, because they are repeating slogans and ideas which conflict with reality but even more importantly conflict with what we need. We need more time for family and friends, being outdoors and working on things meaningful to us, and less time in meetings, filling out paperwork, shopping, watching television and indulging in other activities which are nonsense proxies for real life experience.

We can lose our tiredness right away by facing the difficult truths that are suppressed in this society: equality is a nonsense concept because most people are bad or at least nothing more than “talking monkeys with car keys,” the good should not work to support the less-than-good, and the good life does not consist of material goods but rewarding, engaging and challenging situations. Our one-size-fits-all bite-sized-pieces modern reality is as toxic as the smoke from our factories, and if there is any exhaustion it is in feeling that we must continue this way, and can thus be quickly removed.

We have met the enemy and he is us.


When Hernán Cortés landed in the new world, he saw a vast and powerful empire stretched before him. He wanted to conquer it, but faced numerically superior forces of well-trained fighting men. He looked for its Achilles heel and found it working in the fields, the kitchens and the laundries. This powerful empire thrived by the strength of its upper classes, but lived on the work of its lower classes. Cortés mobilized the lower classes to attack the higher, and rode that wave of revolution into power, which allowed him to reach his actual objective: the gold ornaments of the elites.

Those who wanted to destroy the West used the same method, and they have succeeded. They approached with a sob story about the lower classes being oppressed, and mobilized those against the elites. In doing so, they turned the society against itself and in the ensuing confusion have been able to live off it as parasites. These parasites take many forms: politicians, advertisers, journalists, lawyers, bureaucrats, salespeople, authoritarians and others who depend on being “useful” by being in power. They make their profit off of what the majority wants to purchase, think, hear, and use as an identity.

The only glitch with this comes to us from Charles Darwin, who rightly points out that there are only two directions a group of organisms can take: either they go upward by shedding the worst among them, or they head downward — degeneration — by keeping the worst among them. This leads us to an unfortunate truth about human individuals which is that whether we call it merely maladapted or evil, most people are not focused on reality at all. They exist in worlds of their own minds, fantasies and ego-posturing, and are essentially useless. This is why 95% of humanity lives in poverty, filth, disease, tyranny and corruption. Western Europe represented the 5%, and the other 95% were allied in one thing, which is that they should destroy it. That which lacks something also lacks the knowledge to maintain it, and since it could not produce it, also cannot be taught that knowledge. It will simply destroy it. It will consume it, in the oldest and most primitive human superstition, which is that its “magic” will be conferred upon the killer. This is what 95% of the world wants to do to the 5% who have escaped the human standard of poverty and failure.

Instead of being content with being a 5% who had escaped the mess, Western Europe adopted a policy of equality which allowed insane ideas to be expressed alongside sane ones. Since most people do not live in reality, they picked the insane ones because they were (1) more easily understood, thus made the individual person feel good about understanding them, and (2) more pleasant since they were lies. Thus the downfall began, and the 5% began to join the 95% in increasing degrees of poverty and failure. That is what equality means, is it not?

What Western Europeans steadfastly refuse to see — a form of social posturing; those who are elevated fear nothing, and those who want to be them cosplay being them — is that the 95% wants to take what we have and destroy it, and that when we are divided, we do its work for it. Most of this world lives in a failure of its own creation and yet the one thing it will not accept is that the enemy is within, and by that fact alone it fails to cure its ills. If these societies could say, “Look, the problem is that we are crazy as individuals, we need someone strong to rule us and implement social order,” they would begin a rise out of poverty. Their people would change, too, by Darwin’s rule with the more intelligent being more useful and therefore having more children. Instead, they go the opposite direction, killing off the intelligent as “witch doctors” and choosing those who are sociable over those who are useful. The 95% remains mired in failure because its methods are bad; Western Europe rose above the rest because its methods were good. Now we have adopted the methods of everywhere else, and our fortunes have fallen.

But wait, say the local experts in the audience. Our fortunes have not fallen! We have all this wealth and technology. To this I say: your wealth is debt built on the strength of the past, and your technology is mostly gadgets. We have increased efficiency but added to our list of work to be done an innumerable horde of unnecessary tasks. We have increased technology but found no better outlet for our time, and so we also increased obligations. Much of our technological power now is spent maintaining technology that does not help with vital functions of our species. Our vital functions have never changed — food, shelter, medicine, communications, defense — and anything outside of these does not add to our wealth or power except on paper. And so we have created top-heavy societies that spend most of their energy on infighting, feeding the parasites that will eventually destroy them.

Consider the boy in the above photo. He is what every person on earth hopes their little boy will be: masculine, creative, analytical and moral. He has few toys, but he lives in a nice house in a stable place. Social order is more expensive than people think, and worth more, too. He is an innocent, even at the advanced age of nearly a decade, and he idealizes an innocent future: maybe the military, maybe science, but probably a college education and then a chaste relationship and family just like him. People refuse to understand this, but that right there is the best it gets as a human. All of the drama about looking for an exciting life or something cutting-edge is designed to hide the fact that most people cannot have what this little boy does. Their IQs are too low, their societies too disorganized, their values too individualistic. And so they gnash their teeth and envy this little boy. They will never admit it, but if they could, they would be him. Since they cannot, they will try to destroy him, although since they are socially aware humans they will not do so directly. No: they will teach him neurotic politics, sell him pop culture encouraging self-pity and consequent degeneracy, sabotage the social order around him and turn all the women he might have into self-obsessed whores. That will destroy him, but not get what he has to others, but the worst aspect of the crowd is its notion that if only a few can have what is best, it is better that no one have it. That is the raw unvarnished face of humanity.

The West was undone through appealing to those within us who more resemble the 95% than the 5%. Not visually — no, they look just like us. But in their souls was a weakness and an envy, and they wanted to destroy what they could not have. Since I do not believe in lying, I will not sugar-coat the following: almost all of them were from lower castes. They were guided by neurotics, generally the product of caste-mixed marriages, from the upper castes. These people felt like fish out of water in their social circles and so turned on them with the brattiness only achieved by children who hate their parents, which is to burn down the family house and then turn to those parents and say, “See? I have destroyed everything! I was right, and you were wrong,” forgetting that this leaves only ash for everyone including themselves. Together these neurotics and untermenschen — because if we are being honest, let us point out that the true lower castes are those who are useless at anything beyond being told what to do, and probably represent what Darwin would have us slough off — overthrew the one escape from misery that humanity had under the principle that if all of us cannot have something good, none of us can.

The enemy is within; or rather, the enemy is us: what allowed this to happen was the tolerance of Western man and his women, including the worst kind of tolerance which is simple oblivion. Over the last centuries, the remaining halfway alert people in Western Europe have forced themselves into a shrinking area of what they permit themselves to notice. When the neurotics and revolutionaries started their raging, instead of doing the manly thing and beheading them, the men of Western Europe listened to their wives: “Do you need to do that today? It’s inconvenient. And there’s a leak in the bathroom that I need you to fix.” So they shrugged it off, shared a joke with friends about it, and then put it out of sight and out of mind. That was a green light as far as degeneration was concerned, because now it knew it was not only tolerated but ignored, which left its target defenseless. Great work, Western women. Since that time, Western men have been shrugging and ignoring a whole lot of stuff until now where if it is not in their commute, garage, auto parts store or work, they are 100% oblivious to it. As a result, they struggle on completely surrounded by those who want them destroyed. This explains why most great empires go out without a trace. Overnight the resentful 95% consume the remaining 5% and then there is no one to write down what happened.

Unlike most people who recognize this, I have hope because I realize how easy it is to defeat it. Hernán Cortés would not have gotten far had the Mayan warriors recognized that they had a fifth column among them and started to slay or exile their underclasses. Similarly now, the people who have actual power are often those who can understand this problem, and if they united to disenfranchise the mob — this requires severing ourselves from the mentally dysfunctional concept of “equality” — they would be able to reverse the process and begin kicking out the parasites. Unlike many, I do not advocate execution. The fairest thing to do to people who are 95% in soul is to send them back to the majority. Send them to third world nations where they can ply their trade as writers of neurotic lifestyle pieces or organizers of triplicate forms. What happens after that is not our responsibility. We have the power to restore the Golden Age of the West, but it begins when we stop attacking scapegoats — Jews, African-Americans, “the Rich,” Democrats, Republicans, false-flag activists — and begin attacking the actual problem, which is equality itself. Any society which insists that an insane idea is “equal” to a sane one, or a sane person equal to an insane one, has gone against Darwin, God and common sense and will destroy itself. Reverse that and we save the day for the first time in centuries.

The normal life


Normal people are beginning to awaken to the travesty of diversity. More than travesty, it is failure: a policy upon which we based our future that has turned out to have originated in lies, deceptions and a long history of not working. We were fooled, it turns out. Voices even in the media shout for its reconsideration. How did we get here?

For decades, normal people in the West have put up with the impositions of government. They have done so because ultimately it did not impact their lives that much. They could still do the normal things that people do, like having careers, falling in love, creating families, shopping and socializing with friends. Prices kept rising to subsidized failed policies, but they shrugged it off with practiced world-weariness. Government always wastes our money. It almost became a joke.

Now people are seeing it differently. Instead of a “post-racial” society, we have constant race riots and violence against white people. SJWs show up everywhere to remind us of the latest microaggressions. Government supports gay marriage despite any actual need to do so. But now, the tide has turned, and government is pushing its will on us. It will relocate the poor to middle-class suburbs and prosecute anyone who does not obey the ideological agenda, even in bakeries. It will force us to accept the doctrine of absolute equality or it will destroy us.

Now the ability to have a normal life is threatened. Some have realized that, as conservatives have said for centuries, once you go to a State it justifies itself with an ideological agenda and enforces that on everyone. You will be afraid to say no because they might call you a racist, and then all your friends, coworkers, family members and clients will abandon you and you will die alone in a ghetto. All of these policies that we considered little inconveniences, while busy working on job #1 which is creating a normal life, have become the basis for a totalitarian state as moribund and absolute as those in the Soviet Union and the last days of Rome.

Government got away with it for a simple reason: most people supported it. They were afraid to say no because no one likes racial cruelty, unpunished rape, pogroms against homosexuals or other persecutions. But the forces united in media and government created a big category for anything which not pro-equality and equated it with racism, sexism and homophobia. That meant that instead of eliminating those who engaged in aberrant behavior it hunted down anyone who was not in agreement with it. The writing is on the wall at that point.

As the mass wake-up begins, we have to ask ourselves: what do we do to replace this? People like myself long ago awakened to the obvious truth, which is that “systems” like democracy and the managerial state, designed to eliminate power in individuals, do not fix the problem and only create nexuses of control which can be seized by those who seek to rule and abused. You either put good people in power, like we did with the kings, or you spend your entire life struggling with a State that ultimately is a parasite that wants to increase its power at your expense.

Humanity now enters a new age. We have to decide whether we keep up with the moldly old 1789 democracy jive that has failed us so many times, or whether we strike out for a function social order and leadership that can avoid the nonsense we see now. Kings have more power, but they also consider things that voters cannot understand and constantly botch. The proof is in the pudding, or the near history at least. We did not get this government imposed upon us; we chose it, through the magic of voting for the lesser evil so long as it did not endanger our normal lives. Now our normal lives are impossible and that era is over, and we need to be brave about our choices for the future.

Response thread (07-12-15)


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Types of post

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

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

You post too often these months. – 1349

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

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

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

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

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

Philosopher of the Month

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing Style

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The garden of earthly delights


Gregor awoke to a cool wind blowing over him. Dew had settled on his skin and he felt a chill from within, mostly related to the tumult in his mind. How had he arrived here? And why could he remember nothing but being here and a few moments from the day before?

He tugged himself under the large fronds of a nearby tropical plant. Animals noises occurred far away, sounding like small creatures. Hunger drove him away from his shelter and he found himself removing large yellow fruits from a nearby tree. They satisfied his hunger, both sweet and starchy, but giving him energy as if he had eaten a meat-based meal. Puzzled, he wandered on.

In one clearing he found a plant on which every other branch was dead and devoid of leaves or twigs. He pulled on one and it came away in his hand. Remembering a long-ago lesson he plugged it into a thick swathe of dry bark and began turning it. As if it were coated like easy strike matches, it burst into flame rapidly. He added more dry wood — it seemed oddly convenient in its scattering nearby — and he soon had a blazing fire.

While the coals smouldered, he wandered among the trees and discovered that this strange place possessed a number of caves, each about the right size for a person or two to hide out or hole up for the night. Some even had natural flues. Cupping coals in a wet leaf, he transferred his fire to one, dumping dry grass and sticks onto the embers to create a roaring blaze. Hungry, he tried another sort of fruit. The same result: sweet like juice, but filling like a meal of meat and potatoes.

He must have drifted off at that point, and slipped into dream. He woke to the sensation of a hand on his shoulder, but could see no one around. Perplexed, he tried to rise, but felt himself forced down. Then strange bright lines appeared across his perspective, and the verdant Eden melted away. He found himself in a chair, holding a pair of headphones with strange spoon-like appendages for his temples.

Two guys in uniform stood on either side of him. “Another one, lost in the loop,” said one. “Come on, fella, we’ve got to get you out of here.”

“Who am I?” he said, bewildered.

The other shrugged. “Sim-amnesia,” he said. “Keep it under your hat, but we get a few cases every month. It’s the interface. It can heat up and scramble you a little bit. Dave will pull your record and figure out who you are.”

And so it was Gregor found himself holding his identity card, reading his file on a computer screen. He was an Actuarial Lifestyle Estimator, it said. He read his home address which seemed oddly numeric, with no street name, and his work location. Then they clapped him on the shoulder and put him in the elevator.

When the bell clanged downstairs he stepped out into the world. There he paused. The street thronged with cars under an unbroken block of skyscraper-buildings forty stories high, each filled with units of equal size for business or dwelling. Every block had a number, and since the buildings filled a block, that designated the units within it. Addresses took the form of three groups of numbers: neighborhood and region, building and unit. He almost fainted when he saw that his unit was numbered in the ten thousands.

Gregor found a public terminal and logged on with skills he could not remember acquiring. There he accessed the People’s Dictionary and saw that the entire planet was covered in blocks like these, all filled with people. Last names had been abolished and people used their work description instead. Education had taken over any other form of qualification, and Gregor realized he had been training since before he could walk for this role. Crime was near non-existent and deviation from the norm impossible, except in the simulators like the one from which he had come. There people could be anyone they wanted to be, forever unique and amazing in their own way.

Once this planet had been wracked by warfare, he read. That had been conquered by equality and managerial science. Now people were assessed only by how far they went in education, which had been adjusted to reward number of hours spent on it instead of natural skills, and everyone earned almost the same amount of money. Each person got a cube at work and a cube to live in, complete with its own air filter, climate control and algal garden to produce food. No one wanted for anything. Peace and prosperity reigned. The average work-week was sixty hours.

A line formed behind him, so Gregor logged off. The day had ended and the sun was setting. He looked up to see the slanted rays of daysend cutting down the avenue, lighting infinite blocks of uncountable buildings, each filled with people acting out their function and thinking of nothing else. A scent came to him, that of a fire in a jungle. Bereft of anything but this moment, he turned and began the long walk to his new home.