What neoreaction should have told young men


The neoreactionary (and insert other trendy names here) movements are designed for media zombies. The groups behind them attempt to use re-naming as a way to avoid association with conservatism, and with the lowercase-conservatives Conservatism, Inc. types who are quick to tell us all to “be responsible,” shuffle off to careers, marry slutty women and produce a new generation of grist for the mill.

For this reason alone they’re not credible unless you think that people manipulating you with clever terminology is a good thing. However they tap into something that young men across America and Europe can feel but can’t articulate: they’ve been had. Worst of all, this isn’t a one-time ripoff. It’s slavery for the rest of your life.

The problem for young men is that for them to face this requires they reject the dominant lie of our time. This lie is so pervasive that it is a meta-taboo to even mention it in most cases. It is something we are taught from birth to avoid speaking of, by parents, teachers, employers, police, media and even our friends. It is what blinds us and keeps us enslaved.

Most people lack the will to break this taboo. Doing so requires too much honest courage for your average person, and it’s easier to be an iconoclast by throwing around some edgy ideas before drinking yourself silly, playing video games, smoking a little sinsemilla and humping an unpaid prostitute before getting up the next day and marching off to your job, where you’ll serve in tedium for the rest of your life.

Before we talk about the taboo, let’s talk about the high cost of parasitism. Before the 1950s mania for selling things to each other descended upon this country like airborne Ebola, people worked less. They got up early, got to the shop, and gave it a hard go for about six hours and then headed home. They took long lunches, smoked whenever they wanted, drank like fish and ate delicious high-fat foods. They also lived longer that we’re going to, in the biggest part because they were less stressed.

You could be working French Socialist-style hours at 25-30 hours a week, and having more time to just be yourself. You’d get tired of the booze and video games quicker and move on to better things. Maybe some real hobbies, adventures with friends, getting to know some better quality women than whatever staggered into the local watering hole and rasped out the name of your favorite alternative band and a drink order.

You’d be fitter too. People walked more then, just wandering around. Parks, wildlife, jaunts with companions. It was healthier all-around, and less ugly too. Cities were less violent in their non-ghetto areas. Architecture was less pointlessly trendy and uninspired. There was a sense that people should live whole lives, not just be function. When we’re all function, all that matters is who you can boss around in order to make yourself feel powerful.

The sad truth is that you work most of your life paying for others. Some are rich, some are poor; who they are and whether or not they deserve the money doesn’t matter. The fact is that it is taken from you to support that which otherwise could not support itself. Time is money, as Marx said, and it’s your time they are stealing. Like stabbing you in the chest at age 50, taking forty years off your life. Or jailing you from age 17-27. That’s the kind of loss you have, spending all your time working to support parasites.

Conservatism is taboo because it seeks to un-do the parasitism. You are slaving away for the pretense of others. They are radical individualists who believe they should not be accountable to the collaborative need to create civilization and work within reality. Thus they launch off on ivory tower pursuits, neurotic lives, self-indulgent lifestyles and invent “moral reasons” why you should pay for them and their bloated governments, their fat inefficient corporations and their media products.

When these people form groups, they take over societies. These groups aren’t majorities, but they are fanatically active because such people have nothing else. With their ideology, they’re big cheeses and important people who can vote for the creation of new roles for them to have lucrative jobs on your dime. Without their ideology, they’re just lumpy mundane neurotics sweating away in anonymous apartments.

In fact, their whole game is to avoid being top dog at all. It’s to make being top dog illegal. They hate anyone on top, unless that person got there through the system they’ve designed. They like rules, lots of rules. They like competition, which is basically a game to see who can stay in the office longest. They like making you jump through hoops, cutting your balls off with speech codes and PC taboos, and otherwise humiliating you so that you recognize their power and importance.

The taboo in this all is radical individualism, which in groups is expressed as “equality.” To these people, equality means that they can be crazy and you can be sane, but it’s still your job to pay for them, because they’re equal. Make sense? If you give it anything more than surface thought, it’s obviously crazy. It’s like mosquitoes demanding that every night you strip down and stand on your porch with the light on so they can get some blood because, hey, you have some and they’re like, starving, man…

Neoreaction, the Dark Enlightenment, the Red Pill and other such “new name, old ideas” philosophies are designed to help you see this. They dance around the real issue though. They flatter you and tell you that you should be a king, while endorsing the philosophy that keeps you a slave. Keep going to that boring job, chatting up those women who are far beneath you, and wasting your time in activities that are basically a receptacle tip for the masturbatory wasting of your vitality, youth and abilities. Oh, and buy their stuff.

At the root of all of this is a sickening pretense developed during the EnlightenmentTM. That pretense is that each and every one of us is important for just existing. Realism is the opposite principle: nothing is important “just because.” We make ourselves important by doing good things, and make ourselves irrelevant by chickening out and failing to rise to that challenge. But the irrelevant will always want your money, your time and your humiliation to salve their own rotten souls.

Where Conservatism, Inc. went wrong


In the USA, we have three silos of political reasoning: Liberal, Conservative and conservative. Note the lowercase “c.”

The main party of lowercase-conservatives is the GOP, which many refer to as being part of “Conservatism, Inc.” or those who profit from offering conservative opinions, stirring conservative rage, selling conservative products, and then losing elections or otherwise fumbling it so that the politics of outrage can continue. They are a parasitic thing, industries, and making conservatism into an industry was no exception.

What defines the lowercase-conservatives is that they have accepted liberalism as bedrock. They are inclined toward compromise and working within the system. You will recognize them by statements such as this:

The idiots are running amok in Washington again, so we’ve got to double-down on the fundamentals and hold that line. We need a strong economy and strong defense. Free market capitalism and American military power will save the day. We need to be inclusive and reach out to the common man, the minorities, women and homosexuals. It’s a different world than the one my grandfather grew up in, but like any good business, we need to adapt and move forward. The liberals get these people in to vote, so we can do the same. Just give them what they want. If we can compromise with the liberals on the big issues, we can hold that line on the economy and military. We can all get along.

If you think you recognize a zombie in those words, you are right: this is someone beginning the zombie ritual. The zombie ritual is the modern march to the end that is best exemplified by World War I: “This sounds insane, but everyone else is doing it, so I guess I’ll follow along in the assumption that someone somewhere thought about this and not just their own prestige, power and wealth.”

Several types of zombies populate the American countryside. The most dangerous are the infectious ones who actively patrol around looking for brains to eat. These are generally of the type that want nothing to come before their egos, so they invent a crowd-based philosophy which boils down to everyone doing whatever they want, and enforcing this “right” via group retribution. When they bite into your brain, you see a glimpse of heaven you will keep chasing for the rest of your undead life. But really, you’ll just be stumbling about looking for some brains to replace the ones you lost. Nasty business, those.

Then there’s the helper zombies. These are like enablers in quit-drinking programs. They help hold others down for the bite, and feast on the leavings. These are the ones you see standing in the shadows of the doorways of places they used to know, vacant-eyed and drooling, often holding the half-eaten forearm of a loved one. Conservatism, Inc. fits into this group. They can’t stop the infection, so they’ve “learned to live with it,” but as a result they have no direction. Thus they keep going through the motions, taking in the money and dishing out the product, with no endgame in sight. They do not believe they can ever escape zombie status, and so they do not act boldly, cleanly and decisively. Their best hope is for coexistence and that the inevitable nightly beatings, gulags, mass executions, etc. are “kinder and gentler” thanks to their bipartisan approach.

The zombie ritual encloses us all. Every day, we walk past its destruction and have to endorse it because it is what we have for a society. We have to shop in the same stores that sell products for zombies, whether big blockbuster films about the bittersweet lust for human flesh, or the more extreme variants that populate convenience stores across the country. We have to use government institutions, and comply with their regulations, even though we know they’re insane and in that intention, totally destructive. Even more, we see zombies among us and we’re not allowed to lock them up and administer medication to cure them of their lust for human flesh.

Conservatism, Inc. went wrong because it settles for compromise. There is no longer any active principle in it; it exists to defend, and to coexist, but never to remove the unseeing eye of the zombie from the land. It doesn’t even strive to actually better life in America. It has rejected everything radical about the conservative tradition, which is actually the only radical tradition there is. Conservatism starts from the principle that a society is the sum total of its people, not the product of institutions. Thus high moral caliber must be maintained on every level. Liberals try to replace this with institutions, rules and equality, but that translates to license to behave badly for most of society and so unleashes social decay so profound it crumbles once-thriving societies into third-world ruins.

Remember when France was the world leader in military and economic power? Remember when Russia was the cultural capital of both Europe and Asia? Something went wrong, and kept going wrong. Remember when Athens was the pride of Greece? The victim-states of zombie attacks never even get a chance to scream. A zombie arrives, and they tolerate him out of good intentions, but then zombies start appearing everywhere. The inspector who licenses your shop is a zombie; the local car mechanic is a zombie; your maid is a zombie, and your local rich man has a daughter who’s a zombie too. Soon to be anti-zombie is to be anti-patriotic and you’ll end up in jail. The ritual begins yet again, with unseeing eyes and the insatiable thirst for blood.

Conservatism, Inc. went wrong when it stopped the conservative tradition of order and moral basis to government. No one can be both moral and a zombie; zombies are allies of Death and Evil, not growth and health. They are a cancer within the civilization in which we are each cells. What held the zombies back was strong culture rooted in the idea of a constant moral duty toward every task we do, and this is the essence of conservatism. Conservatism, Inc. forgot this, and it’s why they hate themselves and drink alone in the dark.

Our new future involves replacing this self-pitying and empty emotion with a resurgence: neither you, nor I, nor anyone else needs to be a zombie. It’s just part of the ritual, following others to our doom, trusting in the system. Conservative renewal begins when we attack this notion and show its empty core to the world.



Yet another thread, on yet another forum, eliciting yet another comment, containing yet another cheap-shot.
I felt like replying: “How does it feel to be on the losing side, in a war that doesn’t even exist?”
But I didn’t.

Instead, I do what I always do, with anything anybody writes. I considered it…

This ability to consider, lies at the heart of all that is amiss in our current state-of-society.
It is an ability remarkable for its near-complete absence.
I have discovered that, no matter what I write, or how it’s put, or which words I choose, no matter the topic, it is never seen for what it is, or what it says, but instead is seen as anything other than what it is.
In fact, very, very little of what I write, is responded to with anything other than a blatant attempt to ridicule, misinterpret, or undermine. As far as figures go, approximately 0.1% of responses indicate that the reader even understood my post. And so I am left with the undeniable fact that 99.9% of readers are completely unable to receive my transmission.

As you can see, this is not because I do not write well, or clearly. In fact, according to a silly grammar software program I once owned, many years ago, I write in a way that even five-year-olds can understand, and I might want to – it suggested – raise my ante a bit. God only knows what my percentage of comprehending readers would have fallen to, if I had taken that little snippet of critique to heart.

“Why do you do it?” my wife is fond of asking me. “With all the abuse you get, how can you possibly keep it up?”
I always attempt to explain that this is something I must do, not because I enjoy it, but because someone must, and almost nobody else is going to. Besides, as I so often point out: how else would I get to experience all that is so wrong with people, in so concentrated a form, in actual, day to day life?

And so I drone onwards, through the spears and bear-traps, and the utter stupidity and boorishness of that 99.9% of readers, to that unforeseeable result that I had been searching for, all along…

What is it like, to be on the losing side? In a war that not only does not even exist, but to which there can be no possible conclusion? What on earth is that like? Which is a very good question, in that unless you happen to be on that losing side, there is no way you can possibly conceive of why anyone would, voluntarily, be.

Let’s see…
Pick a loser. Any loser. No need to be specific. But, remember, the more losers you pick, and the more diverse they are, the better the chance of being on that elusive losing side:

Feminists. They lose out because the stinking patriarchy is aligned against them. Vilify men!
Homosexuals. They lose out because there are some that do not like what they do, and that’s not fair. Declare war on non-gays!
Medieval French Peasants. They lose out because they are not all aristocrats. Get out the guillotine!
The Poor. They lose out because they are not rich. Eat the rich!
Black people. They lose out because they are not white people. Exterminate white racists!
Brown people. They lose out because they do not live in our country. Open the borders!
Illegal immigrants. They lose out because they must do stuff to have our stuff. Pack ‘em in and give it all away!
Leftists. They lose out because, well, they always feel they lose out. Make sure they win!
Losers. They lose out because they are losers. Criminalize winners!
And on, and on, and on…

I met a woman, just today, who told me she once had an Iranian friend. She realized, one day, that she had treated her friend graciously, and with an exaggerated respect, that had that friend been white, she never would have been so kind. She was horrified at this realization, so she said, because it showed her how subconsciously racist she was.
I studied the woman, unsure of how to proceed. Then, being me, I dove in to an empty pool, headfirst, and told it like it was…
“That’s terrific. Why treat anybody with graciousness and respect, just because they are not like you? Why not just treat everybody, from anywhere, in exactly the same shoddy, disrespectful way you treat your own kind?”

And that’s equality. That is where it goes. Down.

As always, it really comes down to Heaven versus Hell. We are a lot like sharks. We must be ever-moving, or we die. We either move, purposefully, by degrees, Heavenwards, or move, purposefully, by degrees, towards Hell.

Society builds itself, over centuries, the gifted alongside the not-so-gifted, each contributing according to his differing abilities. Until the point of comfort is reached, where the gifted lose track of what it is to be gifted, and extend the fruits of their labours to the not-so-gifted. This is often referred to as ‘education’.
Intellect becomes something available to all, regardless of innate ability. The intellect replaces God as the highest aspiration a man may have. Even dolts come to see themselves as intellectuals. Which, in many ways, is understandable, since intellect, without God, really is a dolt. Disaster follows quickly on its heels.

Utopia? It sounds so good, doesn’t it? But what is it, exactly?
A state of having whatever you want, whenever you want it, without the inconvenience of ever having to do anything at all in order to get it. A dolt’s paradise. And what is a dolt? One who simply can not understand that if all the members of his country contribute nothing to that country, and instead, endlessly take from it, at some point, there will no longer be a country.

That’s fine, says the dolt. Countries are obsolete now. It’s all global, man.
Ah, says I. I see. Not only do you not give a toss about destroying your own country, but now, you operate globally as well. Contribute nothing to your planet, and instead, use up everything upon it and within it, until…

Utopia is reached.

Bring the war


Many things in life are mysterious. All of them succumb to thinking about them the right way. Most people think about them backward, looking to events as a cause in themselves. A better way is to look for the cause that will produce them as an effect.

In the case of sane people in the modern West, in the midst of its suicide brought on by liberalism which is essentially a proxy for organized individualism which is a form of criminality, most despair. How do you undo such a profound change? How do you resist that which seduces with lies, promises free goodies, corrupts definitions and turns us against each other?

I submit a simple answer: the same way you’d tackle any other problem.

Our crisis is not one of being outnumbered, yet. The average person in the West is essentially conservative but is taught to be afraid of conservatism. However, if given a plausible option and the ability to support it without threat of retribution, they will go for it.

For all the writings on the internet, and all the ink spilled in the press, conservatives have not yet found a way to unify themselves. This is in part because they are afraid of violating the idea of individualism/egalitarianism, which is expressed for conservatives with the usual platitudes about liberty, freedom, independence and get-off-my-lawn.

It is also in part because it is the human tendency to complain in lieu of acting. It is the human tendency also to become self-pitying, and in face of an obstacle to look toward another method instead of finding a way of working the obvious solution. We are all self-destructive in that we are evasive.

This casting aside is the oldest of human foolishness, which is to measure quantity not quality. When we encounter a challenge, we decide to try something else (we need more things = quantity) instead of improving things as they are (quality) until they meet our needs.

In politics, this is the equivalent of finding crab grass in your lawn, so you sell the house and move to another state.

Our forefathers built the West from nothing. Our homeland Europe is not the most opulent of places and in fact is quite forbidding. The winter alone drove most away. But they forged on, taking what they had and improving it, generation after generation, until something great emerged from the flames.

The same task is upon us now. We recognize that our institutions are broken and our society has run away in the grips of the philosophical equivalent of rumors. These are expressed in the form of pleasant illusions, snake oil salesjobs, and trendy sayings that make people feel intelligent and superior to repeat.

If this illusion were different, for example a reliance on measuring in cubits instead of metric or English measurements, we would know what to do. We would get out there and talk to others with the goal of achieving group agreement on what is needed. A group would form and gain momentum, and change would occur.

The present situation is no different.

We know what went wrong: long ago, we decided that the choices of human individuals were more important than the shared values and goals necessary for collaboration. In doing so, we began unmaking our civilization. This radical individualism takes many forms, but it tends to form groups in a process called Crowdism that mobilizes people to demand zero accountability for their actions.

Sure, they’re okay with being barred from murder, rape and the like. They fear those. But they want to be able to borrow money without consequences, live crazy lifestyles, think crazy thoughts, take wealth and time from the rest, and all without someone pointing out that they’re crazy. Eventually they will even demand that society subsidize them in doing so, a process known as Socialism.

We know their weak spot, which is that the Emperor has no clothes; when challenged in their beliefs, they tend to panic and call names, and then retreat. But they have to be challenged. They fear challenge, and so they tend to be bullies. In order to maintain the illusion of being concerned with our common welfare, they become passive aggressive bullies who try to provoke us into responding so they can amass an angry mob and retaliate.

You won’t read about this in mainstream conservative (or any other) publications. It is simply too on fire, and cuts too close to the bone. Like many other things that make lots of people afraid, we use “social” forces like peer pressure, ostracization, censure and “everybody knows better” as a meme to cow people into not mentioning these things. But the truth is there every instant staring us in the face.

The individualists gained conquest by a simple strategy:

  1. Adopt a veneer of moral right.
  2. Project a greater popularity than exists.
  3. Appear everywhere and in every guise.
  4. Retaliate against those who do not agree.
  5. Reward those who advance the Ideology.

This isn’t unique to the individualists. It is how any idea gains dominance in a society. I suggest we can do the exact same thing, but with a twist: our idea is based in end results, not in moral measurements. In other words, we are the brave few who venture out beyond the herd and point out the glaring reality. We are the people who want the glory that comes with being more proficient because we saw that reality.

Thus I suggest the following:

  1. Reality is right, and everything else is manipulation. The same way we’d spank back a snake oil salesman. We talk about “show me the money” and demand to see results. We demand accountability which means showing us what works and throwing out what does not, even if jobs are lost.
  2. We are the party that crosses all class lines. Whether you are poor, rich, old, young, man, woman, sheep or goat, you have an interest in function and in avoiding snake oil sales. We are the reality principle that rewards good people and kicks out the bad.
  3. Get the word out on the streets and in the boardrooms. The right has too many chiefs and not enough Indians. More on this in a moment, but the basic idea is this: don’t wait for the right movement to get involved in; pick up what’s there and push it forward to its conclusion.
  4. Let individualists know there are consequences. Anders Breivik shot their children, and caused parents to yank their kids out of liberal programs by the hundreds. We can simply promise legal consequences and public shaming of people who espouse individualism because they are insane. Insanity, stupidity and criminality will always be taboo.
  5. Advance our cause with nepotism and camaraderie. When there are others who are even close to our ballpark, give to them before others. Push their names to the top of the stack. Feel no guilt; the opposite of us is the enemy of life itself.

Does that sound extreme? No and yes. It is not extreme in that we are not demanding revolution, executions, gulags and guillotines like the individualists. It is extreme in that it demands we stop the last few centuries of ivory tower fantasizing about what might be and focus on the reality in front of us.

The only remaining thought is the question, “What do we stand for?” A quick survey of realists through history finds these might fit:

  • Society is always at risk of being parasitic. Government, rich criminals, poor criminals, and other parasites are always a risk. When a society organizes, it tends to become afraid of disrupting what it already has, so it buys off troublesome people instead of exiling them. “Don’t rock the boat” and “Can’t everyone just get along” are the same sentiment. Kick out all parasites and parasitic institutions, including any government that is not absolutely necessary.
  • Our society has become ugly and has made us self-destructive. We focus on the miserable and pretend to be “elevating” them, but really we are the ones who need saving. Forget the third world, the poor, the dying, the sick and the suicidal. Focus on building strong and healthy people and others will follow.
  • There is only one environmental crisis: too many humans. When there are enough trees and open land, animals are safe. When every human being can move anywhere on earth, get a job and borrow money for a house and car, they all will and soon we will crowd out these creatures. We need to stop allowing people to subsidize themselves and borrow their way into covering the earth in selfish humans.
  • We need a common identity, values and goal. Without having a direction to go in and a way to go about doing it, we wander in circles and start picking each others’ pockets. We need to aim for being a much better version of the civilization we once were. “Helping the poor” is a proxy for this that does not work.

The main point is this:

We are the people who compose this civilization.

When we sleep, people who are crazy come in and break it. They will try to use guilt and passive aggression to scare us away from forcing reality back on them. But this is not a question of their freedom to be crazy; it’s a question of our freedom to live without the craziness, ugliness, selfishness, greed and dishonesty they bring.

We are the people who can reclaim this civilization and put it on track.

This requires people to take their energies away from complaining on the internet or trying to be “bipartisan,” and focusing them instead on building a strong party. The individualist Democrats will never do it. Turn to the right, get involved and become vital to their efforts, and start turning heads in the correct direction.

Bring the war. Push back against the enemy. Bravery and truth are our only weapons. Bring the lies they tell to their homes, to their jobs, to their faces. Shame them and drive them back into the dark. Stand up for what is right not with angry words, but by rebuilding from within. Reconquer.

The squeaky wheel is the one that gets the grease. We need to be that squeaky wheel. And now, in our darkest hour, we need to speak in unison and demand sanity and reality in place of the great criminal enterprise which in the name false “good” has torn our civilization apart from within.

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.

37 queries. 2.949 seconds