Picking up the pieces


Ross Elder wrote something interest on his Facebook the other day when people were as usual talking politics. To paraphrase his statement: we all know that government doesn’t work, but the people who seem to complain loudest about it are not involved with it.

There’s truth to his words if we take them at a higher level, which is to say that people who complain loudest about society tend to do the least about it. There’s a culture of shifting blame, and retreating into our own little worlds. When I was a kid, the standard line from adult males was that they were doing the right thing: going to their jobs, leading moral lives, and not doing any of the deviant things others do, and that doing that was enough. “I’m not the problem,” they’d say, defensively. “I’m doing the right thing. I’m living a good life.”

I remember thinking, “Yes, but…” because while that approach leads to flag-waving freedom and liberty and all that good stuff, it ignores the basic problem:

The bad is still going on out there.

As time has passed, I’ve come to see all the arguments about institutions, freedoms, etc. as a way of dodging this essential fact. Society is inherently collective. There is no escaping “collectivism”; it’s always going to be here (although it does not need to be socialistic, as liberals want it to be). You cannot outrun a term just because liberals have made a mess of it. You have to inherit that term and re-capture it from the re-definers, moving its definition back to what’s sane. When we realize that society is collective, we realize that it’s not enough to just try to run our own lives in a moral way. We have to kick out the bad wherever we find it and replace it with the good.

In other words, it’s not enough to complain. But even more, it’s not enough to get involved with a political party. We all need to get involved with society not just on one battlefield, but on all of them. That means both interacting with people locally, joining your local “conservative” party and steering it back toward conservatism, helping out at church and other local institutions and on top of all that, leading a moral and successful life and letting others know why.

That’s a tall order and it seems like too much. But most of these activities you already do, just not in a form that can be successful toward changing the world. There’s another caveat, too, which is that it’s essential to know what you want, which is why on Amerika.org we write so much about conservatism and its roots in realism, meaning not just the practice but the theory and its connections to philosophy, religion, self-discipline and commonsense interaction with the environment. It’s important to know what you want before you start acting toward it, or you’ll likely get subverted by something along the way that sounds good but is deceptive.

The bigger point is that we treat politics as something removed from everyday life when we talk about it as is normally done. In fact, politics is just a way of thinking about how we organize people and resources, and to what goals we do so (which is where it overlaps with philosophy). Even more, fighting civilization collapse is not any different from any other task, whether fixing up a failing company, restoring an old car, planting a garden or renovating a house. You pick up the pieces, throw out that which is broken, and rebuild what you need that got destroyed, and then set about doing all the detail work to make the picture complete.

Since weekends are lag time as far as the internet goes, I’d like to open up the conversation to our participants for some lazy weekend conjecture. The questions that interest me — you will have more of your own — are: what is an effective way to get involved? What are non-political ways to have political influence? And how do you fit this into your busy lives?

What is the left’s endgame?


When witnessing the latest insanity from the left, and trying to ignore the sinking feeling in one’s gut that suggests society is tearing itself apart, it helps to consider what the leftist endgame might be. In other words, what do they want, and how does this eventually come about? When they “win,” what does the result look like?

To analyze this, we have to look into the psychology of leftists and the difference between what they claim they want and what their actions indicate they want. In theory, the left believes that history was a horror, commerce is corruption and that we — collectively, We the People — must unite on the idea of egalitarianism to make life fair and end these injustices.

From an outside perspective, it is clear that this is Utopian thinking. To insiders, not so much. In their view, they are correcting error, rather than perfecting society. However, to those with a broader view of history, what leftists see as error to be correct is in fact the normal course of history, which needs to be guided (requiring leadership) but not eliminated (as is the goal of leftist ideology).

Thus we have to look at what the left desires, rather than what they think will implement it, since it seems there’s confusion there. At its core, leftism is formed by people who are outraged by the modern world; however, like most emotional reactions involving a victimhood concept, it ends up affirming its putative abuser.

The left fundamentally believe that commerce as a guiding principle of society is a wrong-headed idea. Having watched industry consume any open land or decent concept (and a few musical genres) that it has encountered, I have to agree, but with a twist: commerce without leadership and culture is as reckless a force as any uncontrolled impulse. The problem is that the leftist solution to commerce is that which creates societies where commerce is the only viable form of self-government.

Commerce is not a “thing” like Godzilla. Rather, it is an event like an algal bloom. Many people come together and have needs, thus creating an opportunity for a product to be sold. At some point, the sellers realize they can expand this opportunity with advertising, lobbying for change of laws, or other forms of social engineering. The crossover between the left and commerce is that both believe in egalitarianism, and both believe in social engineering as a method of perfecting it.

Thus while the left thinks they are taking a stand against commerce, they in fact have been subverted by commerce. Worse, they are the mechanism by which commerce takes over from culture and leadership by decent people with depth of intelligence. The more leftists rage against commercialization, the more they insist on egalitarianism as a solution to it, which in turn empowers it by removing any kind of values above the level of the individual that might hold it back.

Even better, commerce isn’t stupid, because it uses us against us. Our best people go to work for it. They then find ways to subvert the left further. What they discovered in the 1980s was that they could make the 1960s ideology into a business. Suddenly, you could buy the regalia and symbolism of the sixties anywhere. The music was used in commercials. And these commercials advertised products that were “ethical” but branded to demonstrate higher status. Thus you could make liberalism into a lifestyle: see, I’m hip and with the young kids, but I’m also successful and important! Look at me!

No one told the 1968 types — and they were too hostile to facts to research it — that everything that was endorsed in 1968 had been endorsed by the French Revolutionaries. They weren’t the new, fresh, hip kids with radical ideas. They were the latest generation of sad solutionless people banging the same tin drums because otherwise, they had no place in life. Ordinary existence did not suit them; without ideology to give them purpose, they would have been more anonymous people adrift in a society where nothing had any particular relevance to anyone.

This is why liberalism follows population growth: conservatives found a society, make it successful, then the population swells, then cities are formed, and in the anonymity of the cities liberalism ferments as people find that having a job and drinking habit alone does not fulfill them. Thus they want some reason to be a big cheese. Their reason is ironism. Whatever everyone else is doing, I’m not — I’m different, unique and against all of that. Contrarianism disguised as self-deprecating wry humor is the basis of this new population, and since the dawn of time there have been people like hipsters, liberals, radicals, anarchists, etc. who adopt this viewpoint as a method of social coping. It allows nobodies to be somebodies, just by pulling off the stunts of language and outrageous behavior required to draw attention to themselves in the anonymous crowd.

It’s hard to know how to cure this situation. Some people will say that both the political parties are bunk, so cut and run and head off in some “new” direction or to some other “radical” idea. But these people are doing the same thing the liberals did, and for the same profit motives. Visit my blog! Read my book! Buy my videos! Even when they claim to be conservative or more extreme, these individuals are ultimately cultivating social and commercial groups for themselves, not refuting the problems of our society at their core.

If you want to know why I tend to scorn third position, neoreaction, Dark Enlightenment, etc. “new” movements, this is the fundamental reason: their ideas aren’t new, but are camouflaged versions of older ideas; these “new” ideas are being promoted not because they’re correct, but because they draw attention to the person speaking. They are attention whoring because they want to claim their space in commerce, and their place in the liberal hierarchy, not refute it. This is why the only radical reaction is to choose conservatism at the most basic level, which is a fundamental philosophical shift, and is why many conservatives are religious or something similar.

The right message for our time is not Revolution. We’ve had enough revolutions to know that no matter what flag you wave, all revolutions result in the same conditions, which is a liberal type republic. You cannot achieve consensus among revolutionaries except on dislike of what is, but the primary gripe is usually disenfranchisement of the revolutionaries in the system as it was, not with the design of the system itself. Most so-called underground conservatives — the ones who smash the mainstream conservatives the loudest — would if given power essentially recreate society as it is, except with themselves and their peer group on top. This is the psychology of the human in a political context.

Because I am a blockhead who thinks with his plodding gut and back brain, not his electric forebrain and its witty social awareness, I have never claimed for myself the type of brand or revolutionary cred that might make me a best-seller among the dissident, dropout and reactionary types. Instead, I have advocated a simple policy: conserve what is good, and reclaim what is not. Thus if the Republicans are mentally obese, the solution is not to stage a revolution and throw away the Republican party, but to reclaim it by working within it. Redefine what it is, instead of redefining who you are. If it doesn’t represent the right issues, take a place in it and demand those issues be brought to the forefront.

Fragmenting the vote — and the power of people in focused groups — helps no one but our enemies. We don’t need a third political party, and we don’t need new philosophies. We don’t even need conservatism, just the principles behind it: pay attention to reality, keep the good and toss out the bad, and thus, aim for something higher in quality with every generation. This is in contrast to the quantity-based revolutionary mindset, which thinks that it can overthrow a system and replace it with a different one, or in other words to have two systems instead of one and thus solve a quality problem with quantity.

All of the problems of our age result from the revolutionary mindset. Because we are egalitarians, we are forbidden by social rules to differ in any fundamental way; this converts everything to image, not substance. The basis of political correctness is this social concern for image. When we are shocked by some large system like commerce, our solution is to be more egalitarian (quantity, not quality) and thus to replace one evil with another, which since it never was centralized but is implemented by humans, promptly takes over again but with greater strength as we’ve thrown out all the social institutions that could oppose it. The source and perpetuation of our downward spiral is this revolutionary mentality.

So what is the liberal game? I confess: this was a trick question. There is no endgame because there is no actual purpose or goal to liberalism. Rather, liberalism is the end result of people trying to define a social identity based on not being the same as everyone else. It causes them to want to destroy standards in common, thus they bond together — anarchists unite! — to crush any standards. What’s left at that point is every person doing what is convenient for himself, which causes seemingly opposition philosophies to unite.

We the People wants commerce and consumerism, but also wouldn’t mind some Socialist subsidies and free bennies. It wants equality, but if there’s a chance for it to purchase better than equality, it wants that too. Liberalism is perpetually incoherent and inconsistent because the ideology is a coverup for the fact that liberalism is basically a squabbling crowd, each person wanting to be more important than the next, each demanding whatever it sees that its neighbor has and all trying to demonstrate how unique, ironic and “different” they are.

Thus, whatever liberals suppose their own endgame (Utopia) is, the actuality is different. Their endgame is the same as their method. Their method is the same as their assumptions when they started out. It is a perpetual state of individuals being individualistic and asserting control on that basis, thus unraveling civilization from within. Thus civilization grows like an obese cancer, expanding to cover everything with more quantity, because we have alienated ourselves from quality, values, choice and anything sacred in our misery.

Thank God for Progress!


Thank God for progress! Where would we be without it?
Progress is what brought us all out of the dark ages, where the common man toiled all day, while the common man’s wife toiled for him, all day, for little more than being able to survive the night.
Those were bad old days, for sure. Little point to life, you’d think.

But now, in the sunny present, things are very different. Most of us common men can lie around, drink beer and get high, tapping away on social networks, and sharing our vast wisdom on every possible thing, or maybe view porn while gorging on junk food, while dumping temporary partners, willy-nilly, on a whim.

Indeed, freed from the onerous and time consuming drudge of unimportant things, like growing food and gathering fuel, we have unlimited time for more productive things. Like activism, and demonstrations over this and that, or whatever caprice takes our immediate fancy.

To think! There were times when stuff like food, warmth, shelter, family, were important. It’s hard to even imagine what that must have been like. We know better now, of course, thanks to progress. Now we know what really counts: the names and appearances of random people called ‘stars’ who do mysterious things that magically render them famous, but are difficult to actually describe. We all might be like them, too, because another thing we all know, nowadays, is that we are all equal.

Which is why we spend large amounts of money – usually other people’s – on lottery tickets and gaming. Because, logically, being equal means we all have an equal chance of winning big, like the last big winner we are all equal to.
And if we tire of that, well, there’s always a bit of altruism, to rack up our social standing.

It’s a good thing, really, that there are still so many things to be concerned about, though, and so many remaining problems to raise people’s awareness of, because there are just so many hours in the day. Imagine what it must have been like to have to spend all of it producing useless stuff, like food, warmth, housing and clothing.

Yes, it is a happy time to be alive. We can rejoice in our incredible success as a species, having eliminated every possible form of competition, and replacing it with over seven billion of us. No bears, tigers, snakes, wolves. No mice, foxes, raccoons or ants. No birds, bees, slugs or fleas. No flowers, creepers, vines or trees. Nothing. How wonderful is that?
It really is a case, in modern times, of ‘Low-Maintenance’, and ‘Humans Rrrrrock!’

And God. Ah, such naivety beset our dimwitted ancestors. It seems so unlikely, in retrospect. Cavemen being scared of some angry old creator. You couldn’t make it up. It is ironic, though, somehow, don’t you think? That we still say things like:

Thank God for progress!

Cities destroy romance


If there is an ideal for our egalitarian time, it is the city. Move there, do your duty to society by working a job, and everything else is all yours. No one cares how you spend your time or money; you’re anonymous. There are no traditions, culture, values or folkways to hold you back. Just do whatever you feel like.

And you will be guided by whim: feeling, snap judgment, prejudice and desire. You have eliminated everything else with tradition because to think on those things is to touch on what tradition made real. In fact, you have eliminate everything beyond the Right Now. You are “living in the moment.”

From this, we’re supposed to get a sense of romance. What could be more romantic that throwing it all away for a moment of emotion? Whether passion or pity, that moment is you in control. You are the only one acting. You are the only force. You are doing only what occurs to you. It’s you, you, you: “I, me, mine.”

And yet, this misses the point of romance.

Romance has historically been based in a sense of the transcendent. When Dante spotted Beatrice, he saw an enchantment outside this world through her beauty. The object was not the physical woman, but the effect of beauty. Similarly, in his Heiligenstadt Testament, Ludwig van Beethoven expressed a will to keep composing despite his failing hearing, basing his composition in the informational beauty of the notes in abstraction. Spirit was separated from flesh, so that flesh did not control spirit.

In the modern sense, flesh controls spirit. We have eliminated the transcendent, whether religious or other, in favor of the materialistic. The market rules us, the popularity of our ideas with others rules us, and we are forever paying attention to our personal whims, which are really a form of comfort rather than a goal, purpose and meaning to life. We are the opposite of the romantic. We are that which has no hope of rising above, no hope of a moment of clarity in which world and self align, and no desire to see beauty itself, only objects of beauty which it can control.

The natural modern response to this is, “Who cares? I have a good home, a nice job, and I can spend my time doing whatever I want. In fact, since most people are incompetent, I’m able to do my job in a few hours a week and the rest of the time is mine. Thanks to a steady flow of third world labor, I can afford servants. I am my status in this society; I am a Somebody. This is more important than some fanciful notion of ‘beauty.’”

Or is it? Being in the city is to be perpetually surrounded by other people. Dependent on them. Your time dictated by their behavior. And shaped by their collective whims and prejudices, which form a narrow substitute for culture. Even more, you get to see the caged animal syndrome that happens when critters like humans are cut of from their natural environment: they keep acting out their animal desires compulsively. Thus instead of lovely sex and loving sex, there is constant sex, often in the bathrooms of bars (how romantic). Where food in nature was a matter of need, now it is either gorging yourself until obesity or fetishizing food as a “foodie.” Instead of friendship, there is a kind of “personal Communism” where people form groups to buy each other drinks. All good things have been turned into mechanical, functionalist and yet unrealistic roles.

The city kills romance. For romance to exist, there must be meaning beyond the moment. That is what makes the moment intense: it is an alignment of context and focal point, and a decision that defines character. It is a glimpse of the beauty present in life and the ability to reach for it. It is the union of souls for more than the easy moments, but for the hard ones as well. It is humanity overcoming itself and its circumstances. It is us rising above and evolving to be more than we are. One might call this the essence of love, to be willing to change the self for a goal in the world.

But that’s not egalitarian. The problem with Darwin is that he scares us sightless. Natural selection means that of a thousand lemmings on a plateau, only eight hundred survive to child-rearing age. It means that not everyone can be a superstar. Our modern solution to that is to stop having superstars so that everyone can be a hero in their own minds. We have backed away from actual competition in favor of individualism. The threat of actual romance is that it is rare, and it is foreclosed to those who do not discipline themselves and reach out of their comfort zones. This makes it unpopular, not because most would fail, but because all fear they will fail.

The epitaphs of civilizations are not written by outside forces. They are created from within, when citizens stop working together. Often that arises from simple ugliness, when life is miserable despite being pitched to us by marketers as the best thing ever. Often that arises from having wealth and power but no longer having a goal to dedicate those to, at which point focus turns inward and toward “keeping order” and control where citizens have nothing in common.

But that murders romance. Love isn’t love. And thus citizens, in the name of self-interest, tear apart whatever was once there in an impulse like vandalism, an externalization of misery. It would be better for them to admit that doing well in misery is not the same as avoiding misery, and that in the pretense of protecting some of us from endless night, we have denied to all sweet delight.

The alpha-beta distinction needs to die


Before the internet, there was suburban lore. It produced stunning stories that seemed plausible and served in a certain way as metaphors for what we wanted to believe. For example, it was once “certain” that Richard Gere had done something unmentionable involving a gerbil or hamster. It turns out to be not true, but back in the day, just about anyone would confirm it.

Now that we send messages back and forth instantaneously, lore has expanded and become memes, which are ideas or images that convey factoids or opinions that at the moment make sense. Most of these are projection: what we want to think is true, rather than what we know. Sometimes this is profound, when we cannot articulate what we actually mean; often, it is merely more of the same illusion that causes our society to be moribund and to keep picking manipulative leaders.

One such item of lore is the ethology of rankings in herd animals, where different types are assigned to different personalities:

  • Alpha. Confident, aggressive, and fiercely competitive. These, we are told, are the handsome, wealthy and powerful.
  • Beta. Underconfident, unsure and diffident. These are the people who work for the alphas and plot against them on weekends.
  • Omega. Entirely granularized people. These have little obedience to job or society, and just wander off and do what pleases them, but often have nothing to show for it.
  • Sigma. Wildcards, these are cerebral intraverts who are less concerned about social status than their own pursuits.

What a convenient hierarchy for those who wish to declare themselves alphas, and use that as a justification for self-serving behavior.

I have known many such people. They tend to have demi-leadership positions like project manager or store manager. They specialize in being “aggressive,” which means unyielding and pushy, to them. However, they tend to often miss underlying issues, which is why despite their ability to meet deadlines, they never advance above their position because their projects tend to fail in the long-term. That is to say: when your “aggression” consists of being pushy, you force people to overlook certain aspects of their projects which are important after the deadline. Very few think of this.

Others are simply selfish and like to use their perceived alpha status to justify near-larcenous behavior. Their problem is that then the people they attract to them tend to be of a similar mindset, which creates nests of semi-thieves trying to prove which one is cleverest by robbing the others. This is more the setup of an Agatha Christie novel than a healthy way to live.

You mostly find the alpha-beta descriptions in use among the internet groups dedicated to neoreaction, men’s rights, “the red pill,” the dark enlightenment and other groups that want to convince you that you — you, the shining ego — are super-important and you have a justification for rising above others and doing what you want at their expense. This is basically no different than French Revolutionary rhetoric, except it’s targeted at the single male who wants to spend more time having sex, drinking and playing video games.

I offer an alternate explanation: we are measuring aggression wrong, and the alpha-beta hierarchy is misunderstood.

Aggression is not a mindless thing. At least, if you watch martial arts, it’s clear that mindlessness leads to failure. Aggression in life is the ability to see things through to their logical conclusions. To make sure that you identify the problem, and come up with a realistic solution that doesn’t have excessive loopholes or side-effects. Aggression is first the battle to see the situation as it is, and then, to create a realistic solution. It has nothing to do with selfishness, which is in fact the opposite of aggression: instead of trying to fix the situation, you’ve given up on it and are trying to weasel away as much cash as you can.

What the ancients thought of as “aggression” wouldn’t make sense to us today because we are ruled by appearances. To us, aggression must have righteous anger and threats behind it. We do not see the calm thinker, or the general over a map, as aggressive. We see someone who is out there shouting in a strident voice, demanding things, protesting and engaging in other passive activities as aggressive. We, like our sense of language, are all screwed up.

This leads us to the alpha-beta hierarchy. Clearly there is social rank, with some animals needing to be at the top of the stack. However, in communicable social animals like humans, this ranking occurs within the framework of society. If anyone sets up this framework, it’s the people they call “sigmas” in the above hierarchy: the independent thinker who can visualize and render incarnate a complex idea, such as — when you’re a hunter-gatherer — the idea of agriculture, fixed civilization, running water, etc.

The main reason that the alpha-beta hierarchy exists in internet lore is to let certain animals preen and adorn themselves. “Look at me, I’m an alpha.” Why? “I work out five times a week! I earn a certain amount of money! I have sex with 400 women a year! I am somebody! I am important! I am a good person!”

Like most shorthands for social purposes, this misses the point. What we need is not to sit around like schoolkids grading each other by social status, but to return to aggression. Focus on getting things done in such a way that they are in balance with everything else. Not simply hack solutions that work for the deadline, but leave behind piles of toxic waste, secondary effects, socialized costs, and the like. That focus is the mark of the leader and creator of a society, not some internet ego badge.

Inner war


Whether we like it or not, we Westerners are all infected with degenerate thoughts, habits and morals.

This goes especially for the youth. If you are under 30, you will almost certainly have been contaminated during your upbringing (unless you were raised in the forest by wild animals).

You have been bombarded by stupefying entertainment-culture and governmental equality-propaganda from the moment you were born. It was probably ingrained in the belief system of your parents, and it most certainly affected your social environment and any notion of “coolness” and “being accepted” in a very profound way.

In fact, your entire life has been lived in the midst of degeneracy and broken ethos even when it seemed “nice.” And if you belong to the vast majority, you probably haven’t even noticed it. You’ll be one of the millions of people shrugging it off, thinking “it isn’t that bad” and then proceeding to perpetuate the rot.

If you belong to said group, then these words will probably mean nothing to you, and if you parse them at all, you will probably think that they mean something entirely different from what they do.

But if you are one of those rare few, who has always sensed instinctively that something was profoundly wrong with society, and if you feel this as a despondency emanating from the gut of your very soul, then this is for you.

This is a declaration of war.

But not a war with some great outer enemy. It’s an inner war. It’s all within.

What is misery? What is it to feel powerless? What is it to despair?

It is anything but your sense that something is wrong with society. It is all that tries to keep your inner dissent down. It is everything trying to convince you that nothing is wrong.

Because everything is wrong: everything but that inner voice telling it like it is.

That inner voice is something rare. Something beautiful. Something subtle, but strong. It is called sanity.

Sanity is your spirit, your will, your love and your life. It is the real within you, that cannot be drowned by all the artificial nonsense that surrounds you. Commercials cannot kill it. Propaganda can’t. Rock music and reality TV can’t. It’s there, and it will be there till you die.

You can try to ignore it, and maybe you’ll succeed. But thinking that everything is okay won’t make it so. That will only reduce your life to a never-ending quest for the temporary fix: Something to silence that sanity, because you’re mistaking the sanity for the cause of your misery. You think that the voice reminding you of society’s insanity is the insanity itself. But it’s the other way around.

Don’t question the inner voice — obey it. Fight for it, kill for it and die for it: Fight everything in yourself trying to keep that sanity down. Cleanse the insanity from your soul.

Make no mistake: This is war. And we have a name for this war: It is called life. There is a name for fighting too: It’s called living.

You are a soldier. The dishonor of desertion is a fate worse than death. Don’t even think about it. Banish the thought from your mind, because this war is destiny, and only the fool or the madman plots to escape it. It cannot be done.

Instead, acknowledge it. Say yes to every battle great or small. You are fighting for the only thing worth fighting for: a life in accordance with itself.

Say yes —

And slowly but surely, you’ll find yourself in natural surroundings more often than before. You’ll cut back on excessive socializing, favoring time with the people you truly like and respect. You won’t need TV. Reading is reserved for the timeless classics. You’ll make an effort to appreciate classical music, and you will be rewarded — instead of playing that tired old predictable popular stuff over and over again. Perhaps you will start building stuff. Perhaps you’ll start to promote some sanity to the ones who’ll listen, without shame, guilt or fear.

Not saying that you will do all of these things specifically, but the essence remains: your sanity wants to be challenged — and you will meet the challenge with joy, because your soul is fed up with the empty calories of modern life. It wants to be rewarded, and it knows that no reward comes without effort.

Accept the challenge —

And you will breathe deeper, every breath being sweeter than the last.

You’ll discover that life is an adventure — dangerous, wild, and free.

Not the fixed “freedom” of a multiple choice test, but the real, dangerous, thrilling freedom of actually being free.

You will come to peace with the fact, that nothing is certain but death. But this won’t matter, because you will finally have something truly worth dying for.

You will have life. And you will be living for the pure sake of it. Living till your very last breath.

Daring to be sane in an insane world — what greater challenge can there be?

There’s only this one way to free yourself from the insanity of society: free yourself from the false notions of yourself and everything insane you’ve ever been taught to be. Don’t ignore the conflict: Fight it — and overcome yourself.

True freedom awaits on the other side, and it is as real as reality itself.

How to put the fear of God into liberals


On the heels of the recent politically-motivated dismissal of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, a number of thinkers have questioned the wisdom of this “soft totalitarian” approach toward quashing conservative values.

Of all sources, pro-gay-marriage writer Andrew Sullivan writes against the hounding:

It turns out that Eich might have saved his job had he recanted, like all heretics must. But given the choice of recanting, he failed. Hence the lighting of the fires:

Throughout the interviews, it was not hard to get the sense that Eich really wanted to stick strongly by his views about gay marriage, which run counter to much of the tech industry and, increasingly, the general population in the U.S. For example, he repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he would donate to a similar initiative today.

Instead, he tried to unsuccessfully hedge those sentiments and, perhaps more importantly, did not seem to understand that he might have to pay the inevitable price for having them. Thus, something had to give — and it did.

He did not understand that in order to be a CEO of a company, you have to renounce your heresy! There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents must be purged! Yep, that’s left-liberal tolerance in a nut-shell. No, he wasn’t a victim of government censorship or intimidation. He was a victim of the free market in which people can choose to express their opinions by boycotts, free speech and the like. He still has his full First Amendment rights.

Many conservative writers are suggesting a boycott of Mozilla in response. Some have even noticed the hand of a corporate monopoly behind it. But in my view, boycotts of one company for one incident of many that are part of an ongoing problem is not enough.

We are dealing with two issues here: (1) the persecution of conservatives via “soft totalitarian” methods and (2) the ongoing question of whether conservatives and liberals can co-exist in the same society.

Let us look at this from the perspective of a Realist, or someone whose bottom line is functionality and the design of things that work. In other words, we are not ideologues, nor are we politically-minded; we care what works, not what we can declare “should be” or “should work” and then go home.

The persecution of conservatives has steadily accelerated over the past sixty-nine years. Much as happened in Revolutionary France and in the Soviet Union, the official centralized authority has declared that any belief but its own is insane, morally wrong, and must be crushed. The difference with “soft” totalitarianism is that the crushing is done by our fellow citizens using legal methods like boycotts, ostracization, and so on. Looking back over American law since WWII, it seems that this was always the intention, which was to marginalize any viewpoint except that of the left.

While this process takes a leftist face, it is my opinion that what we’re actually seeing here is a universal tendency of human groups called Crowdism. When radical individuals gather, they form a Crowd based not on what they want, but on a desire for no obligations or values to impede their pursuit of personal desires. Once they’ve formed a lynch mob, they go on a witch-hunt for realists so that there will be no dissenting voices, so that the Crowdists can be as individualistic as they please. Society becomes dysfunctional at that point and collapses shortly thereafter, but Crowdists never notice this because narcissists (or as I call them, solipsists) are generally oblivious to anything but themselves. Reality is usually an unwelcome surprise for such people.

Looking at the process from this top-down view, it’s clear that no amount of compromise, reasoning, etc. is going to stop the hate-train. They will continue until they eliminate us and then eliminate themselves, leaving behind a burnt-out wasteland with third-world levels of corruption, hygiene, disorder and lack of public services.

This ties into the second question, which is whether conservatives and liberals can co-exist in the same society. Liberalism is a Messianic philosophy that, in order to suppress reality, has invented an alternate reality. Because that is a reality replacement, anyone who does not accept it is a threat. Thus liberal philosophies must crush dissenters (good parody here) or there’s a threat that someone might opt-out of the fantasy reality and people will see that the Emperor has no clothes and all will end badly for the left.

And with those two questions out of the way, we might ask ourselves: what should conservatives do about this?

We have tried live and left live, but as the above shows, that cannot work. We have tried compromise, but that ends up creating mainstream conservative parties that are half-liberal and thus lose their actual constituents and fail to gain any new ones, who’d rather have full liberalism instead because it’s easier and promises more freebies. We have tried making moral objections and calling for fairness, but to a Messianic belief system, the only fairness is in crushing our evil and replacing it with their “good.” So what to do?

I suggest we try the one thing we have traditionally refused to try: we become threatening. In particular, I think we should remind people that actions have consequences.

Right now, you can grow up in this society, adopt crazy liberal views, and go through your life with reasonable certainty that you will never suffer any real consequences for them. After all, conservatives generally play fair and view political views as separate from job performance, your fitness as a neighbor, and so on.

I suggest that we attack the weakest link in that chain, which is youth. Anders Breivik hit on one version of this by shooting young Communists, which encouraged parents across Norway to withdraw their children from leftist programs because suddenly — wake up call! — their kids are at risk from participating in such things. I suggest we do something similar here, which is to identify teenage leftists and find ways to exclude them from jobs, schools, and other opportunities. I suggest we hit them so hard that their parents realize that far from a harmless trend, leftism will damage their children’s futures. At that point, parents are going to stop supporting such things.

And what about the kids? Won’t this just encourage them to be more leftist, like smoking dope and listening to heavy metal? No, because unlike those two, the consequences here are real. A kid caught with small amounts of marijuana faces little actual legal action unless that kid has priors. There’s also little risk of being caught when everyone else is doing it and none of them are facing any consequences. That changes when it is no longer a question of law enforcement. Kids like rebellion that won’t really get them in trouble. They tend to avoid rebellion that does get them into trouble, like hard drugs or joining neo-Nazi gangs. If we can extend the same stigma to leftism, the next generation will drop it and bury the current ones as they age.

Leftists can’t object to this. After all, it’s their own strategy reversed onto them. Turnabout is fair play. And since it’s clear they intend to genocide conservatives as surely as the passenger pigeon, we should counteract this not with an impotent boycott of Mozilla, but with an attack on liberalism itself.

Free will and fate


The denial of free will is a curious thing. One almost has to wonder why there would be a question in the first place. I suppose it is because we all have limitations and therefore construe that we are not “free.”

On the other hand, when one overcomes a challenge, we realize we are capable of more than we thought. We are not at the mercy of fate. We are unstoppable and we choose our destiny.

I think that the free will deniers simply take exception to the term “free will.” They would say we are limited by our circumstances. Not everyone can be a professional athlete and there are only so many options. I believe that they would prefer the term “limited will.”

That is fair enough, and strictly speaking, true. You can’t flap your arms and start flying if you wish hard enough. You did not will your birth; you did not will your circumstances. However, this misses the broader point that choice exists.

I suspect that many people know darn well what is meant by free will. It means you can either choose to do something or choose not to do something. If you do X, Y will happen; if you do B, A will happen.

You could just as easily cast a straw man the other way, and liberals do this on a regular basis. You cannot blame me for anything, I have no free will. Criminals? It’s just their genetics, there’s nothing that can be done. We are all helpless, hapless victims of reality. Why leave the house? Why deny myself another candy bar? If I don’t eat food I will die — I’m enslaved by the Culinarchy!

Absolute helplessness goes hand in hand with the demand for absolute freedom. If we are not absolutely free, we take it out on the concept of free will. We feel better about our helplessness now. The denial of free will becomes the alibi and backwards rationalization of our bad decisions and lack of both assertiveness and restraint.

I propose we stop nitpicking the term “free will” and go with it for tradition’s sake. The concept is already too well established to cede ground on this. The bottom line is that free will means choice and capacity for assertiveness or restraint. If you give in on a technicality the rationalizers of helplessness win.

Soft totalitarianism


The most interesting aspect of the New Right is that, in following Vaclav Havel, it has diagnosed “soft totalitarianism”: the absolute state administered not by its police force, but by its citizens. Citizens turn each other in for rewards, whether official or simply social.

Soft social forces like this can work in a positive way. If there is a neighborhood pedophile, having people come together and remove that person is a benefit to all. However, we switched to organized government long ago because vigilante justice and mob retribution are too often misused or inaccurate, as happened in the Salem witch trial or when online user groups play detective.

In the case of soft totalitarianism however the subject matter is not something as natural as beating down predators. Rather it is the hunting down and elimination of all “politically incorrect” viewpoints. Consider the term “political correctness”: it literally means adjusting everything we say and do to fit with the political ideology of our time. It is the opposite of “think for yourself,” or even “think.” It is the jackboot slamming on the face of humanity, but within our own minds. Why enforce with police, or even courts, when you can get the population to panic instead and flee from any “bad” thoughts, flinging feces at the person implicated?

Soft totalitarianism succeeds because it taps into our instincts going back to our glorious Simian heritage. Monkeys live in “troops,” or small groups like tribes but less strictly associated with heritage. If one monkey comes down with a disease, the other monkeys will throw stones at it and drive it out of the troop. Thus in monkey society, the primary social concern is: where do I rank in the troop, aka how close am I to getting thrown out? Humans have adopted this into in-group/out-group logic within a modern society united by nothing but political-economic ideology; when people have nothing in common with each other, the instant the crowd turns on someone they will have no compunction about destroying that person.

And this requires zero intervention from government. It’s “freedom,” after all, to form a mob and go after people so long as you don’t literally murder them. This is what happened to Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who has driven out of the troop not for hating gays, but for not supporting gay marriage. He did nothing affirmative against gays; he denied that they should have a right historically extended to heterosexuals. The Crowd gathered and deposed him. From Mozilla’s press release:

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.

We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

The rest is more of the same groveling.

What does soft totalitarianism mean?

First, it means that any dissent with be met with destruction of your livelihood. The only people with true free speech will be billionaires, because they do not require income. Anyone else who speaks up will be driven out of his job; anyone who aids him will be driven out of her job. Anyone who speaks up in her defense will be driven out of his job, in turn. You are the diseased monkey, and the only permissible act is to throw stones at you. We have un-done civilization itself and reverting to witch hunts and lynch mobs.

Second, it means that our society is entirely inwardly-focused. Those who can create things, like Brendan Eich who guided the development of JavaScript, are secondary to those with the right opinions. The resulting hybrid of corruption and ideological nepotism ensures that soon we will have Beautiful People in our elites everywhere, but that they will be useless. Sure, they can memorize instructions and repeat variations on actions from the past. That’s why they’re all so good at developing web apps despite the crushing tedium of doing so. But when it comes to making strategy decisions, or inventing actual new technology, they will be lost. We have replaced the innovators and their politically incorrect opinions with a herd of politically correct but fundamentally useless people.

If you wonder what brings down empires, it is this internal policing of reality. The Soviet Union fell because it was politically incorrect to say that fewer beets had been grown that what the Five Year Plan said should be grown, thus people simply lied. They faked it. Ancient Greece faded from history because they executed philosophers who spoke up for the truth when it was politically incorrect. Ancient Rome became decadent and unable to defend itself because of its own internal system of ideological nepotism based on praising Rome, rather than acknowledging its problems and fixing them. Those who spotted problems were attacked in a “kill the messenger” fashion. The same is true here.

Brendan Eich was a messenger for our society. He dared to differ from the herd on a few crucial points, and for one of those, they attempted to destroy him. When this sort of behavior becomes the norm, you have a society that insists on programming itself toward conformity and ignoring serious warnings about its socially-correct but realistically-incorrect ideals. At that point, the only missing ingredient is time, as the nation waits for the Vandals to finally appear and enforce the reality principle with swords and fire.

Waking from the dream


For those of us stuck in the deficit-ridden, austerity burdened, degeneracy celebrating, multicultural, globalist, liberal Nanny police state nightmare of the West, any strong leadership seems appealing. But the opposite of something bad is not always something good.

We desperately year for someone like Ron Paul — who spoke out against the “soft” imperialism of the west and stood up for gun rights — to be a leader and a focal point for the movement against the disease that infects our civilization. When we see leaders in other countries taking a stand, particularly European-descended ones who are unapologetic and strong-natured, we take notice of them. Such is what happened with Vladimir Putin, who has attracted a flotilla of admirers in the West, mostly conservatives, who look toward his strong leadership and perceived lack of politically-correct tendencies.

Until a few nights ago, I like many others in the West who long for a leader of our people with more bravery than salesmanship, was caught under his spell. To see a leader crack down on radical Islam, speak openly about traditional morals, endorse the church, oppose immigration as a solution to population swings, and yet act with force and diplomatic cunning while flagrantly flaunting the decadent West’s liberalism and globalism, cheers us and makes us hope that he is the one to lead us out of this morass. Could he be the one who will create a European resurgence?

Alexander Dugin, a close ideologue of Putin, believes so. He says that Russia wants to “liberate” us Americans from our political class, that we should have a second American revolution, that Russia supports traditionalism in our country and a revolution to take it back… Wait, that sounds sounds oddly familiar — Where have I heard that before? Hmm…

Oh, right. Dugin was a communist. In some ways, he still is a communist. He once created and led the “National Bolshevik Party” which combines the idealism and the shortcomings of Nazism and Communism. Russian “conservatives” hail the Soviet Union. This is a huge problem, because we need to see that Russian ideology is not based on a set of timeless moral principles. Instead, it is based on the idea empowering Russia and Russians above all others. This is not the Traditionalist revolution you seek. It’s swapping one superpower for another, and all the surface “conservative” elements are Potemkin artifacts designed to use you as foot soldiers to bring Russian imperialism into being.

Dugin is simply making a play in a haphazard attempt to stir things up in a less effective but combative role to counter what our CIA does in places like Ukraine and Syria. Dugin wants a revolution here for one reason: it destabilizes Russia’s major competition and Putin’s main rival: the United States of America. Two events convinced me that this is true and thus, that Putin’s “Traditionalism” is merely an act and Dugin its actor.

The first incident happened on that most postmodern of activities, social media. Olena Semenyaka, a writer I respect highly who is now the press secretary of Ukraine’s nationalist party “Right Sector,” was blocked on Facebook by Dugin. He had said that the Ukrainian nationalists were “neo-nazis” as if he were writing American propaganda against European right-wing parties. Olena confronted Dugin with the truth, and he silenced her because she proved to be too tough for him to deal with intellectually and honestly.

Earlier Olena had quietly informed me of Putin’s real nature as well, hinting to me that Putin is no friend of real nationalism and certainly not to the heritage of the West. I did not want to believe her. But the incident in which Dugin blocked Olena for dissenting from the Sovietist party line was the first blow to my idealized view of the Russians.

The second event was the reaction by a Russian contact to an article reciting a rumor that Putin wants to “re-take” Finland. I had stated that if in the unlikely event Russia had decided to invade Finland, I would stand with the United States in support of a massive intervention on behalf of Finland. Hearing this, the Russian contact unfriended me and said rather bluntly “it’s nice to see your true colors.” What was most stunning was that we had a cordial and friendly relationship over the past year. We often laughed and joked, and basically agreed on most issues, but one single remark about a vague rumor spurred her to discard me and silence my dissent.

Up until those two events, I could make excuses about the nature of Putin and Russia. Even though the invasion of Finland is an unlikely event, the reaction of these Russian “right wingers” shows they are not willing to have an open dialogue about the motives and consequences of Russia possibly going too far, and this above everything else shows me these people cannot be trusted entirely. They wish to use us as assets, allies in their fight against our power, and will discard us if we become a nuisance. The Russians do not seem to tolerate dissent – and for those of us in the west, dissent is a part of our culture.

Putin is not a friend to the west. Revolution here (America) won’t lead to an equally strong power balance with an equal ideology, it would lead to Russia taking advantage of the situation and making strategic moves against us. The Russians ensure we know little about them, but we know from experience that they are cunning, ruthless and that their nationalism is primarily concerned with one thing: Russian power. We of the west are concerned for our own kind mutually and must defend our brothers in neighboring lands. We are nationalists, not imperialists. We do not view any of the nationalists of the west as inherently better than one another, but the Russians do see themselves as superior to us. The mythology of “The Third Rome” drives their core ideology and informs them that they are destined to Rule all of Europe and Asia. We as nationalists oppose this, oppose both empires of the east and west, and wish to reclaim our own cultures and keep them strong.

I am not a russophobe, but I am not a “putriot” either. I admire many things about Putin, Russia, and even the Soviet Union (GASP! a conservative said that? oh no!) but I recognize that they are geopolitical rivals, and until the policies of the west change, and the policies of Russia change, and we come to a mutual understanding and diplomacy and stop maneuvering against each other, then we are enemies. We have abandoned the chauvinism that used to plague our nationalist movements, and now we fight alongside each other for our civilization and our culture. We want our mutual culture to survive, which is the crux of our nationalism and the source of its opposition to imperialism.

Putin, a former KGB agent who did well under the Soviets, may be using right wing beliefs in the same way Soviets used left wing beliefs: as an ideological justification for power, influence and control. I want to like Putin because I like many of his policies, but these are surface changes, not deep alteration to Russian society to move it in a conservative direction. With that in mind, it would be gullible for me to take him at face value. His “conservatism” is too easily faked and too powerful as a manipulator, much as Soviet ideological benevolence attracted many during the Cold War.

Many of us in the West have not capitulated to our liberal and degenerate leaders. Particularly in the military our people have a warrior ethos. In Greece, France, Ukraine, Finland, Sweden, UK, and more, our nationalist brothers are rising. We will fight if we have to. We will defend our fellow Western nations. We will not let you simply take lands as you choose. We will respond with overwhelming power and force. Russia and Putin should take note that the west may be in a slump, but it is not dead.

We will not capitulate just because we wish we had strong leaders like Putin appears to be. The West is our home, comprised of our allies, our lands and our brothers. From Ukrainian patriots to Greek patriots, from the National Front to the UKIP, we are waking from our slumber and taking back our lands. And we will fight to the death to defend them. Who dares wins.

41 queries. 0.955 seconds