How Google destroyed the internet


The internet was created to resolve a simple problem: in communications networks, any central node through which all messages passed was immune to attack or takeover. Instead, engineers designed a network where any node would pass messages to other nodes, routing around any damage.

Then came commerce and the democratization of the internet. Under this model, frightened sheep flock to certain central sites that provide the services they need, and avoid everything else lest it be politically incorrect or upsetting.

Enter Google. This company made its fortune on a simple premise, which was that picking the most popular sites allowed them to rank all other sites based on whether those popular sites linked to them. Guess what this does? It eliminates the small sites. We are back to centralization.

Consider Wikipedia. When Google had trouble with its algorithm often missing the best results, it came up with a simple idea: have thousands of internet volunteers plagiarize all of those other sites onto one big site, call it The People’s Encyclopedia, and use that to generate “accurate” search results every time.

Fast-forward, and a few big sites — among them Google, Amazon, Apple, Wikipedia and Facebook — dominate most of the traffic on the internet. The days of independent thinkers putting quality information online are mostly gone, simply because 99% of the traffic will type in a search and click on the most obvious result, and go to one of those corporate-controlled sites.

Writing from a more political, than economic, viewpoint, one article points out the problem of internet consolidation:

The Internet, like other computing resources, operates on a pendulum swing: from centralized to decentralized, from rampant innovation to predictable results, from controlled to transparent processes. Some speakers at this year’s Black Hat conference were publicly concerned about an ever-more-centralized Internet and what we as an industry need to do. Otherwise, they fear, the Internet turns into TV, and the people who least understand the environment will control it.

…Technology used to enforce existing power structures, Granick said, but we discovered that people have not learned how to protect themselves. So we have centralized with choke points where regulation can happen. The problem is that, in the next 20 years, these policies will be created by governments with local concerns, not global concerns. And by powerful players with money.

The problem of this internet is that complaints rule the day. Businesses are interested in profit, and so they take down any content which will obstruct that goal, which includes exactly the type of content which “free speech” was created to protect: unpopular material that contravenes the dominant paradigm, but nonetheless could represent either insanity or an alternative to our current methods which are not working.

When the six large sites which control the internet see something which might reduce the tendency of others to use their services, they remove it. Google has so far avoided removing content from the internet, but acts out an even worse future by prioritizing that which is popular and burying the unpopular on page ten of the search results. Bing does the same. The result is a self-referential, self-confirming masturbatory hugbox that eliminates what it is afraid of, including what it should pay attention to.

Similarly, Google influences the direction of business, and points those toward ideological objectives in the guise of business expansion:

Page estimates that only about 50 investors are chasing the real breakthrough technologies that have the potential to make a material difference to the lives of most people on earth. If there is something holding these big ideas back, it is not a shortage of money or even the barrier of insurmountable technical hurdles. When breakthroughs of the type he has in mind are pursued, it is “not really being driven by any fundamental technical advance. It’s just being driven by people working on it and being ambitious,” he says. Not enough institutions – particularly governments – are thinking expansively enough about these issues: “We’re probably underinvested as a world in that.”

What this shows us is the internet, both as a network and a market, consolidating and centralizing. In other words, it is doing exactly what it was designed to avoid. This will have consequences for speech not so much through governments, but through the tendency of government to avoid things that offend people. The future is a world where every complaint leads to censorship, only mainstream ideas are tolerated, and under the guise of “free speech” they are marginalized through search engines and business logic that scrupulously avoid anything but the popular interpretation of the dominant paradigm.

I have found it fascinating for years how humans fail by succeeding. Any enterprise — business, civilization, group, rock band, committee, church — that begins to succeed quickly destroys itself by becoming self-referential based on what people want to think is true because that is the perceived method of its success. That in turn sabotages its actual method of success, which is delivering results contrary to whatever the herd is thinking. Thus Google goes from liberator to tyrant, democracy turns into authoritarianism, Metallica becomes a pop-rock band, churches are taken over by the Joel Osteens of the world and committees become echo chambers. Humanity is its own worst enemy.

Liberalism is inhuman


Good advertising pitches a simple formula: use this product and be successful. Liberalism promises a similar process, but in its case, social success is what is sold. Use the product named liberalism, and you will be popular or at least, fit in.

Unfortunately — as is well known — advertising does not equal reality. In fact, most advertising is strategically vague lying. Much is the same case with liberalism, which makes grand promises based on its intentions, but does not care to assess its intent relative to reality, which will show the results of those intentions. As Lloyd Marcus writes:

Liberals wrongfully get high marks for compassion. The truth is real compassionate leadership makes wise responsible decisions. Liberals define a compassionate nation as how long that line is of people showing up for their daily allotment of free fish. In America today, 94 million Americans are unemployed. And yet, they have all the necessities and many of the luxuries of working Americans. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. Millions of capable Americans are receiving disability.

Conservatives define compassion as liberating citizens from government. Government handouts are always accompanied with government dictates and controls. There ain’t no free lunch.

Real compassion consists of achieving good results, not good intentions. After all, as our grandparents knew, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” This leads us a to further conjecture: advertising induces us to buy products in lieu of fixing bigger problems in our lives. What is liberalism distracting from?

A short list: ecocide by humanity, the declining amount of open space balanced against our rising population, the decay of our civilization, the foolishness of voters as individuals and as a mass, the rising third-world which wishes to exterminate us, a decaying infrastructure, corruption infiltrating our institutions, and visual pollution in addition to noise pollution and litter, toxins and rotting abandoned human settlements strewn across our natural land.

Those are actual problems. Liberalism presents distractions.

Justice and band-aids


Victimhood does not become the right. Such is the case with the many articles bemoaning non-white people asking for bandaids in their own skin color. The question upon us is what is fair, and what that in turn implies. For myself, I can only answer that the request by these non-whites is entirely reasonable.

Breitbart writes that non-Swedes in Sweden are calling pinkish band-aids “white privilege” and objecting to the lack of non-white-colored band-aids:

Triggering a national discussion about whether sticking plasters are a symptom of something more sinister, Dahlberg said the beige coloured patches were symptomatic of what she called the everyday “whiteness norm” where manufacturers presumed their customers to be white by default.

She said on radio: “Usually I try and find a clear plaster, to try and be a little more discreet, precisely because there are no plasters available close to my skin colour… its part of what is usually called the whiteness norm, that white people are normal”.

Other than the obvious comment — if you are in Rome, do as Romans; in Sweden, do as Swedes — she has an entirely legitimate point. A culture designed for whites will make products for whites, and everyone else will feel left out. This is just another way diversity fails as an ersatz substitute for what is needed, which is one nation for each ethnic group.

Self-rule and self-determination alone make for a happy nation. The happiest nations are homogenous; why not use this principle for every nation? It offends our pretense that we are individuals beyond natural categories like race, ethnicity, gender, intelligence, social caste and the like. But if we get over our ego-pretense, we see that we are all these things. Our intentions do not determine who are we; our genetics do, coupled with our choice to join a population in heritage, culture and values.

The band-aid debacle illustrates one of the billion details wrong with a mixed-race state. If one variety of band-aids can be made, it will favor some skin tones over others, and whatever skin tone that nation idealizes will make everyone else feel bad. On the other hand, those who adopt nationalism will have their own nations and, since those are delineated by ethnicity, the band-aids appropriate for the skin-tone of that population.

Mainstream cuckservatives want us to believe that pluralism does not exist. They want to take diverse groups and force them into a blender to produce one single, standardized norm. This outlook reflects The EnlightenmentTM view that the human individual is the only quantum by which we measure humanity, and that groups, sexes, castes and other variations are “social constructs.” Looking past the plastic junk-food mainstream conservatism, we see a profound observation in the clash over band-aids: each population needs its own band-aids, just like it needs its own leaders, culture, values, language, customs and cuisine.

If anything, conservatives should embrace — rather than belittling — this point of view. We cannot design a one-size-fits-all society, which is why the happiest societies (and the happiest areas within mixed-race societies) are homogenous. Rather than forcing a false homogeneity by designing generic grey band-aids, we should accept this fact and facet of reality and separate the ethnic groups and races. We all need our own nations where our skin tone and instincts are normal, and diversity deprives us of this. Diversity is the problem, not people wanting band-aids to match their skin tone.

The five types of people you will meet in extreme politics


In the mainstream, there are opinions that most people agree are not necessarily true, but safe. They will not disturb a social gathering, which now includes mixed-sex as well as mixed-ethnicity. If you want to know why empires disappear without a trace, it is because almost every person plays “follow the leader” and parrots these mainstream opinions without reference to reality, which is the only standard of actual truth.

When one steps outside the mainstream, the reason most people stay in the mainstream becomes apparent: here be dragons. In fact, most of non-mainstream thought is gibberish concocted for reasons other than trying to find and promote truth, and is prized like a consumer product for being inoffensive and thus unlikely to get the purchaser blamed for its failure. “Well… it was ISO 666 certified!”

However, whether you are left or right — and there are no other philosophically-distinct options, only clever marketing — you will encounter within the world of extreme politics a number of interesting characters. They can be identified by their psychologies, or even pathologies, and here’s a list to help you avoid the worst…

  • The Poseur. The poseur exists to put others down. He believes in things in order to be “better than” other people, which explains away his mildewed townhouse, entry-level (20 years running) job, and general dissatisfaction with life. His purpose is to appear larger than he is.
  • The Hipster. Hipsters are defined by one salient trait: they use external things to define internal. Thus, they listen to bands you have never heard of, wear combinations of clothing you would never consider, and embrace outsider political views just to be different, ironic and unique.
  • The Suicide. This person has given up; life is for nought. He wants a reason to die so he will be remembered well, and so he drifts toward extreme ideology so he can have a solid and exciting reason to kill himself.
  • The Sniper. Some people exist to feel important by tearing down others. The sniper is the person who reads a 400 page manifesto and thinks a minor footnote debunks it all. A person of no power or importance in life, he feels most alive when tearing down those above him.
  • The Innocent. This is the person you actually want to attract. She means well, wants the best results possible, and has found that mainstream politics will never achieve this. Thus she drifts to outsider politics, a nerd among the extremists, and will always do what she thinks is right.

What makes these people similar? Like hipsters, they are “outward in”: they use external accessories to signal internal value. A hipster listens to obscure music so that the hipster seems knowledgeable and like an altruistic librarian, poring deep through the music world to find hidden gems. In fact, what he is pimping is usually obscure because it sucks, but the hipster does not care. He only wants to look good. That is what all of the above, save the Innocents, have in common.

Extreme politics means stepping outside of the nicely-laid path which most walk. That means you are on your own to separate lies from truth, and that because there are no rules, this path will attract a disproportionate number of mental defectives and neurotics. Know the major types that infest extreme politics, right and left alike, and you can avoid having your time wasted by people who are essentially moral parasites.

The heart of the world


Man is a single cell. On his own he is powerless; how could a single cell make any difference? But when cells come together to a common aim, they become a supremely powerful organ capable of heavy labor. This organ is like a great heart: it can do what no one would have thought possible. Working alone our efforts come short, but working together people may achieve great things.

Most people exhibit a broken spirit; when they meet with resistance they give up and they are so used to giving up that their lives are a continual process of being walked-over. They proceed by resignation, making their lives comfortable but living without meaningful foundation, having no spirit, no goals and being part of nothing worthwhile. In this state they call others mad that try and do the “impossible” as if they are but dreamers for not having the same loser mentality.

Faced with challenges you could fail, and the poor of spirit is afraid to. These would rather have us come down to their level and care only for our own complacent welfare while wasting our lives away. Rather than step up to the challenges of life they make sure that others do not, holding them back. This way they continue to look OK in a surrounding wherein everyone is equal. They avoid challenges and do not involve themselves in real movements that require hard work and a focus on getting things done. If they do become part of a movement it is only for show.

A real movement has a core that is organized which has intent. Its participants work hard to accomplish what it set out to do. But society is not like this. It is fragmented, humans stand alone or their movements exist without a solid core, both accomplish nothing. Uniting for a common aim and putting in effort is required for life to continue. What exactly is that aim?

Personally I think there can be no more conclusive definition at this stage than “saving the world.” It would seem larger than life, but as we congregate by and by more things become possible. We channel our struggles through conservatism, changing things by the root by methods which have proven successful, cooperating with the like-minded. Together we are much stronger than any of us could ever hope to be on our own. We are the heart of the world, working diligently, without complaint.

Zombie attack


The interesting thing about civilization decay is that societies die by succeeding. Like the city neurotic who quests for the perfect career, apartment, arugula and futon, those societies which do everything that they are supposed to promptly self-destruct.

The reason for this is the Achilles heel of humanity, which is that what we want is rarely what we need, but we are afraid in social situations to change our desires lest we be seen as inferior. Social competition means that people are always trying to prove superiority to others.

Essentially, this situation is no different than a troupe of monkeys. A few have fought to the top, and the rest try to sabotage those in order to feel important and receive esteem from their friends. Very few do much other than feed themselves, and so the ones on top are often there because they do stuff like notice predators in advance of a fatality. To an outsider, monkey civilization resembles a great beast fighting with itself.

The problem with such a system is that most people in it will be zombies. That is, they rely on external measurements like what other people do or what you are supposed to do as a means of figuring out what to do, and since they trust in that they never question it until it fails. Sadly for them, certain ideas will seem to succeed for a long time until suddenly they fail catastrophically. Many people drank toxic water for years, experiencing no symptoms until the toxins built up enough in their tissues to kill them without warning. The same is true of unstable architecture: it works just fine, until it falls down in a handful of seconds. A plane can have a crack in its fuselage or wing for years until it finally is put under stress and an explosion results. The worst threats in life are traps like these.

Zombies surround us. They repeat the dogma that their television says is right, and use it as an excuse to beat down people smarter than them. They do exactly what everyone else does, even if it is abundantly clear that it is stupid, and they will break and panic with the herd if anything goes wrong. It is not so much that they are stupid, although most of them are not very bright, but that they are inattentive and morally not alert. Like zombies, they stagger onward seeking sustenance that never will make them full, and so they are constantly on the march, pathologically so. This makes them both terrifying and tedious.

Let us witness some Christian zombies and analyze their moaning:

They city Michael Emerson’s conclusion in Divided by Faith that, far from being a solution to racial segregation, the American creed of individualism is part of the problem. They summarize the “fundamental creed of the United States of America” as the belief that “individuals are endowed with rights and freedoms and that there should be liberty and justice for all,” and add: “At least in its current interpretation, it simply declares that within limits, people should be free to do as they wish and not restrict other people from doing the same. Divided by Faith showed the ways and reasons that this creed has led to numerous religious affiliations in the United States, resulting in about 90 percent of worshipers attending racially homogeneous congregations. When religious people make choices based on their individual rights, they largely end up in homogeneous congregations” (4).

First a criticism, and then, with Niebuhr lurking in the background, two observations. The criticism: The authors make use of a questionable understanding of “race,” one with a specifically American origin (for background, see C. Loring Brace, “Race” Is A Four-Letter Word, valuable and detailed though not convincing in some of its central claims). If a congregation includes people of German, Polish, Irish, and English origin, it is an “inter-racial” church by some definitions. It certainly is inter-racial by comparison to 19th-century churches. Their book would have been strengthened if they had probed the meaning of the central concept of “race.”

First, anyone who puts race in scare quotes is an idiot. See the biological basis of race and The Race F.A.Q..

Second, individualism is the cause of wanting to obliterate ethnic boundaries. Ethnic groups arose, by nature or God or both, for a reason. But this seems to be a boundary or limit on the individual and he wants to “break free,” so he smashes his way out by declaring race invalid and race-mixing to be a positive value, not a sign of failure as all sane people consider it.

Third, someone might want to point out the difference between ethnicity — German, Polish, Irish, and English — and race, with the knowledge that multiple groupings exist within a race. For example, Germans and English are enclosed in the Western European group, which is what we traditionally think of as “white.” Polish people are often hybridized with Asiatics, and Irish are hybrids with North Africans. Race is more complex than a single level of division, but all levels are important.

Finally, if the author of this article were honest, he would admit that the reason churches are mono-ethnic for the most part is that “birds of a feather flock together.” People like being with people like them who understand the world the way they do and share their values. There is no crime in that. Only leftist ideologues complain about such a thing, and this makes us wonder why a church would advocate leftism in any form. Not only because leftism destroys the things that serve as the basis for religion, such as transcendental logic and reverence, but also because leftism is destructive and forms a substitute for God.

Churches have followed the zombie train for many years. They see some people getting popular for being left-leaning, so in order to succeed, they do the “right thing” and turn left as well. Each year more people leave and the churches must scrape for parishioners they would have rejected in healthier times, and somehow put on smiles for the cameras as they announce their new, improved liberal ideas and also, ah that little thing, the increasingly falling rates of attendance. Liberalism is a dead end for churches. But they have begun the zombie ritual, and they just cannot stop themselves.

Correcting confusion about the alternative right


Most of us know what a tree is: a large plant with woody branches. A tree is also an abstract form of data that resembles the outlines you did for papers in high school. There is a topic, and off of it, branches that support a thesis or interpretation of that topic.

Over at Alternative Right, the gang found some guy trying to explain the alternative right. He did an admirable job, but for the clarification mostly of right-wingers, I offer the following elucidation, using the form of the tree.

The ideologies espoused by “alt right” types can vary greatly, but broadly speaking includes certain sorts of extreme libertarians, immigration critics and “race realists” (basically intellectual racists and anti-semites), “neo-reactionaries” (who argue against democracy, human rights, and other manefestations of modernist philosophy), and anti-feminists, including some of the “Men’s Rights” crowd.

Stop: ask yourself: what is the topic? The answer is: people who think the modern world is screwed. What defines the modern world? Its egalitarian basis. Therefore, people who dislike the modern world are not egalitarians, or in other words do not believe people are equal, but valuable in proportion to what they contribute or their innate qualities.

All of those other definitions are branches off that topic. Race realists look at the differences between ethnic groups. “Racists” — the word “racist” is made up by leftists and has no meaning — are those who dislike other ethnic groups, or as liberals define it, simply notice ethnic differences and/or wish to live among their own. Nationalists are those who, like me, believe in self-rule and respect for every ethnic group and race (races get continents, ethnic groups get nations). Neoreactionaries get the best definition above, but he might add that modernist philosophy is defined by its egalitarian, utilitarian basis. Anti-feminists are opposed to a form of egalitarianism called feminism that focuses on equalizing the gap between males and females. When you view the above as branches of anti-egalitarian thought, the associations become clearer.

But there is also a more generic or moderate flavor of alt right thought that may not fully embrace any of the above agendas, but still be sympathic to their contrarian messages of skepticism towards prevailing conventional wisdom on matters like race, gender, and electoral politics.

Alternative right in my mind means two things: (1) right-wing (2) in ways that the mainstream will not acknowledge. This means actual conservatives, since mainstream conservatives have always been liberal apologists at least in part, and so have failed to achieve anything over their 200 year long slow retreat. Alternative right as a term is used like the phrase “alternative music” once was, meaning that which the mainstream is not yet ready for but will mine for ideas once its own get too stale.

Its main subjects of scorn tend to be out-of-touch, left-wing elites in politics, business, academia, and the mainstream media who they believe to be actively ruining society through their aggressive embrace of feminist, multicultural, and post-modernist ideas.

Not really. Our main source of scorn is mob rule, which is enabled by democracy, equality and altruism.

Our response to it is hierarchy, or having a social order where we put the most competent on top and exclude trends, fads and manias from dictating our policy.

The elites — who are not natural elites, or the most competent, but meritocratic elites or the most obedient to education, government and industry — are in power because of mob rule. People in committees or bigger groups always make bad decisions. What is popular is generally bad.

I would say the alt right is primarily about cultural issues, and less interested in economic policy or public policy in general.

We are primarily about change through culture, since change through government tends to be corrupted by the franchise that is government. Government has the aegis of public interest to protect it as it goes about activities that resemble those of profit-making corporations, except for government the profit is distributed in salaries to the elites and benefits to business entities. This includes regulation, which essentially provides a liability shield for companies that conform to the paperwork, which enables them to hide bigger transgressions that are not formally defined. Law is always “by the letter of the law” and not by intent, which enables regulated entities to get away with near-murder.

The alt right is an interesting, creative, growing intellectual movement within broader American conservatism. It appears to be led, and most enthusiastically supported by young white men, who could rise to become an important force within Republican politics and Republican-aligned media. Already we are seeing some “mainstream” conservative publications and institutions — particularly Brietbart and the American Enterprise Institute — coming under greater sway of the alt right, as a new generation of young, web-savvy conservatives begin to rise to prominance within them. Alt right fans are passionate and energized, and represent an attractive demographic of readers, activists, contributors, consumers, and voters for any savvy conservative leader to harness.

No disagreement. But it makes more sense to style it as a movement than his earlier comment:

The “alt right” exists mostly in the form of an archipelago of blogs, podcasts, and social media accounts, many of which center around a single pseudonymous commentator.

It exists as a group of people who agree on roughly the same thing: democracy and equality are lies; we chose a bad path at a fork in the road two centuries ago, and we need to go back and pick another route.

We are pseudonymous because opposing democracy and equality will get you fired from your job, have your business confiscated, your family taken, your friends abandoning you and your rental or owned home removed from your control. They will destroy you for failing to affirm the dominant illusion.

He makes a point for alt-righters that is very much worth attending to:

A lot of alt-right commentary tends to be more easily defined in terms of what it opposes than what it supports.

It is also a cheap shot. We are the resistance movement to liberalism; we want non-liberalism. In my mind, that means going back to the root and through cultural change, removing individualism and replacing it with self-interest in context of social role. It means nationalism, or one ethnic group per country (send all non Western Europeans back to their homelands). It means having an aristocracy, or people chosen by ability and character rather than obedience to industry, academia and popularity, instead of mob rule. It means a removal of millions of lines of law and their replacement with a few informal principles.

But, it is not a terrible thing to contemplate what our world would look like. We tend to do a fair amount of it here, but it is hard to visualize from abstractions. Nevertheless, that is too wide of a scope for this article.

Confusing consequentialism with utilitarianism


Few people recognize just how deeply liberal reprogramming goes. Any term of importance will be subtly altered so its meaning is lost in such a way that suggests the dominant paradigm is in fact correct. Since these alterations occur at a very low level, they go unnoticed and, because most people are generally thoughtless and vapid, get repeated millions of times by “well-intentioned” selfish little beasts.

You can see an example here in the wild from WIRED magazine:

Researchers generally use these scenarios to see whether people hold a) an absolutist or so-called “deontological” moral code or b) a utilitarian or “consequentialist” moral code. In an absolutist code, an act’s morality virtually never depends on context or secondary consequences. A utilitarian code allows that an act’s morality can depend on context and secondary consequences, such as whether taking one life can save two or three or a thousand.

This writer has correctly summarized mainstream opinions on the issue of consequentialism, but if we look at the terms by their meaning, it becomes clear that there is a paradox here. He equates utilitarian and consequentialism, but what do the two mean? In theory they are similar because they are based in results, but with a little sleight-of-hand to keep them crowd-friendly. Utilitarianism means choosing what is “best for the most” but this is assessed, in classic EnlightenmentTM style, by what those people think is best for them.

Consequentialism — in theory — means measuring by results. But in the hands of the Crowd, this becomes utilitarianism, or what most people think they want just as in democracy and consumerism. The definition has literally be reversed from “results” to “intentions.” How clever! How subtle! And yet how completely illogical. It is comic, just as one might expect if rhesus monkeys suddenly discovered language and made themselves a political system.

Under the reign of the Crowd, every term gets redefined to what they want because it makes a better product that way. Results, responsibility, accountability and objectivity? No one wants to buy that. But the idea that if you do what most people will nod at, which generally gives you free rein to deceive them and offer token substitutes for what has been taken from the oblivious herd, will always be popular. Simple, ego-flattering lies never fail to find an audience, but truths remain just as unpopular as ever.

The hatred of the bourgeois


If there is a single thread that runs through the work of philosophers as diverse as Kirkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Evola, it is an extreme level of contempt and disgust for the bourgeois lifestyle.

Kirkegaard thought that comfort and respectability weakened the absolute faith necessary for a striving life; Schopenhauer opined that the lifestyle of the German middle class dealt in unreasonable optimism. Nietzsche resented the patriotism, slave morality and put-on Christianity of Wilhelmine Germany; Heidegger thought that the pursuit of money, family and the accoutrements of a middle class lifestyle distracted us from the few moments we could actually experience Being, instead feeding the Geworfenheit, or random necessities of life. Evola’s first conscious intellectual efforts were as a Dadaist painter, because, as he reflected later on in life, “I always had contempt for the bourgeoisie.” The materialism of the middle class was evidence of the sickening decline into materialism and sentimentality, according to the Italian Perennialist.

These critiques are both valid and wrongly placed at the same time.

There is, as these great men observed correctly, a wrong way to live in this world. We are awash in the artifacts of a civilization that has been revolutionized by the political will of the bourgeoisie writ large. The American Republic itself was the first bourgeois state, enshrining in its founding documents the right to strive towards happiness, to property, and to trade and engage in newspapering and religious functions. Current political debate focuses on which faction can deliver the maximum amount of comfort and wealth to the voter, with the minimum amount of pain. The masses follow das Gerede, the “chatter,” let it consume their lives, and seek only wealth, comfort and sexual satisfaction. The bourgeoisie we think of today is the myopic SWPL, the cheating housewife, the banal neighbor obsessed with the performance of his IRA, the Sunday-morning Christian who signals his faith more than he actually prays, and the ubiquitous Supporter-of-the-Troops. They are all products of this bourgeois impulse.

Clearly, this is a narrow minded and self-defeating way to live, and the philosophers were right about these types of people. They are a sign of the decline, the modern world made manifest. But we all cannot be kshatriya and Brahmins; there always have been, and needed to be, men to till the fields, women to raise children and make the material element of the nation continue. Is there a Traditionalist way to live authentically as a householder that does not degenerate into money-worship?

There is such a path, and the greats have always acknowledged that such a dharma is one of the Traditional ways to exist. Plato defined three castes — the gold, silver and bronze people — each with their role and place in the world. The ancient Aryans had three castes as well, the priests, warriors and the regular folk- those this eventually became the four (or five) castes that we are familiar with through the Varna and the laws of Manu. The Zoroastrian Persians had such a caste as well, the Vastrayosh, or herders of cattle.

So how does one exist as a householder, or bourgeoisie, while seeking some sort of transcendence through the lifestyle?

The first thing is an initiation, or a ritual to set one’s self towards the goal of being a householder in the world. Initiations have largely been lost in the West, but the commitment and the symbolism of the practice is what matters. Consider something difficult or significant that demonstrates commitment to work, family and God.

Secondly, one must strive towards actual traditional values of the householder. These are a balance between work, religious devotion and charity- neither of these should dominate, but all should be engaged in. Work should be done by the sweat of one’s brow, and actually earned through honest means. Transcendent religion needs to be a daily ritual that reminds the man of his place within the cosmic order and connects him symbolically to the transcendent. Charity can be as simple as devoting labor or time to something you believe in.

Finally, the vaisya should seek to cultivate optimistic resilience as their signature trait, what Sikhism calls chardi kala. The householder understands that we live in a cyclical world, but it is his labor and children that carry society forward, long after his death. This is the ultimate optimism- to feel one’s self part of an immortal entity, a race/tribe/society whose physical existence you embody and live. Even during this time of degeneration and suffering one can live knowing that you are the living Remnant, and your people will form the physical nucleus of what is to come.

On diversity


As conservatism comes to grip with the liberal takeover of the West, voices are starting to attack the sacred vanguard of all liberal/leftist politics, multiculturalism. An extension of egalitarianism, it functions by forcing conservatives to accept liberal rule out of fear of appearing racist by opposing it.

One of the more sedate voices, from the conservative sect known mostly for taking care of their lawns in lieu of uniting for political change, penned a critique of diversity based in its utility as a political weapon:

Modern diversity, like the ice-cream sign, has nothing to do with real diversity and everything to do with bludgeoning your foes into silence. It threatens all with having insulted fictional group caricatures, mimicking sensitivities that must be carefully cultivated or hardly exist, drawn by the intentionally blind merely as a tool for intimidation. It is crude and utterly illogical in its application, but how subtle does a pick-axe need to be?

My problem was that I entered the conversation midway, long after real diversity had been crowded offstage, after the word had been tortured into something else by the left-wing, and then objected to by a right-wing that never challenged the term. Diversity is now anything but diversity; it is part of Orwell’s Newspeak, wherein “war is peace” and “freedom is slavery.” Diversity is uniformity, relentlessly made the same everywhere. It is the bed of Procrustes, Greek mythology’s daemon hotelier, who chopped off the legs of guests too long for his bed and stretched those too short. He should be the patron “saint” of all ideologies, for whom reality never fits expectations and so bloodshed ever ensues.

While the above is completely correct, it also fails to tell the full story. As usual, liberal individualism infests the conservative, which is why people avoid individualist conservative critiques because they tend to boil down to, well, keep your lawn tidy and go to work and church and everything will be fine. If only those pesky liberals would stop bothering us.

This misses the actual point, which — hold onto your hats — is better articulated by Ta-Nehisi Coates as revealed in an attack on his most recent book:

Though Coates resurrects the old themes of black beauty and black power, blacks appear in this book as little but victims. Black agency disappears. Coates conjures even black-on-black crime as nothing other than a construct and creation of The Man (or, as Coates has it, the “Dreamers”):

“Black on black” crime is jargon, violence to language, which vanishes the men who engineered the [restrictive property] covenants, who fixed the loans, who planned the projects, who built the streets and sold red ink by the barrel. And this should not surprise us. The plunder of black life was drilled into this country in its infancy and reinforced across its history so that plunder has become an heirloom, an intelligence, a sentience, a default setting to which, likely to the end of our days, we must invariably return.

The killing fields of Chicago, of Baltimore, of Detroit, were created by the policy of Dreamers, but their weight, their shame, rests solely on those who are dying in them. There is a great deception in this. To yell “black-on-black crime” is to shoot a man and then shame him for bleeding.

Coates takes the wrong approach as he veers toward the actual truth: diversity is the enemy because under diversity, someone is always on bottom. In a diverse society, in theory, we are all equals. In actuality, equality does not exist in nature, and one group either rises above or is perceived to have done so. This means that all others are subject to the whims of that group, which are cleverly disguised as mass consensus.

Further, by its nature as a “melting pot,” diversity destroys the culture of all groups involved. When you are surrounded daily by mixed culture, and your kids marry people from that mixed culture, what you are is obliterated. This will happen to black and white America alike, which is one of the many reasons why anti-diversity is not anti-black or any other group; it is opposition to diversity itself, which is a paradoxical/unworkable and fatally flawed program.

The point of opposition to diversity is not that it is a liberal weapon, nor that it is favoring one race over another. The point is that it is destructive in itself. It favors government because people without culture and heritage rely on television and government propaganda for their replacement for culture. However, it is just like many other liberal ideas simply an emotional reaction that ignores the reality of a situation.

Instead, the question upon us is one of history: what type of society thrives? The answer is simple: a homogenous one, united by culture as well as heritage and values, where government is less important. Ethnic self-rule and ethnic self-determination for all ethnic groups creates this outcome and avoids the constant social chaos of diversity. This puts the question to conservatives in a different light: do we wish our society to be heading in the direction of Finland, or toward Brazil? Diversity is the latter and its negation the former, and those who want more out of life than mere political recognition instinctively desire the end of diversity.