The technician represents the final elevation of human consciousness to a position of control. He wields the new magic, technology, and by his membership in the secret society of those who know how things work, is given power over others, who he views as inferior to himself.
He must constantly assert, for example, how simple certain technologies are. Once you know the principle, you see, it is all very simple. That is, if you have learned all of the background material and tools and are comfortable with the environment, which most people are not. Therein lies the key to his power: he has mastered what makes others uncomfortable, and therefore, his incentive is to make it even more uncomfortable.
As a result, the successful geek or nerd specializes in telling us how simple technologies are while making them as alien, awkward, counter-intuitive and joyless as possible. This protects his secret world in which he is master by driving everyone else out, sort of like a bacteria producing ammonia to ensure that it alone can enjoy a food source that it has poisoned for every other type of life-form.
Through this power — and he experiences it as power — he elevates something other than intellect. He mistakes it for his will, but really it is his personality’s desire for stability. Much as our thoughts tend to ratchet between fully coherent and stable and incoherent and threatening, our personalities contain a mental model of the world which is carefully constructed to assert order and reason to everything around us. We feel a sensation of power (but not power itself) when we are able to control the world in consistency with our model, reinforcing our perceptions and eliminating doubt, ambiguity, risk and uncertainty.
Among nerds, this power is most highly realized — and most specific. They have no power on the playing field, or the battlefield, and most likely not in social circles, but they have power over the secret world of gadgets and how to shape the behavior of others by using them. A nerd can make his gadget lower garage doors halfway so people must crawl under them, call a SWAT team to your house in the night, or delete your credit record. It makes him feel like a King for a day.
The problem with technology is that this mentality becomes infectious. People who work with technology are both exhausted by the sheer weight of tedium and detail-oriented memorization they must undertake, and also possessed of a desire to humble or humiliate others with their power. As a result, they set up illogical models which are deliberately inhuman because this gives the most power to the nerd.
‘[B]eeps are one of the most stressful noises humans can be exposed to.’ She explains: ‘The human brain is designed to respond to sound. Every time it hears a sound, it is deciding whether there is a danger, or whether this sound is something you need to pay attention to, and how to react.
…Lisa says that single tones, such as beeps, are called tonal sounds and ‘go through our brains like a laser beam’. They are difficult to ignore even when not very loud.
‘Not only might the brain not easily understand what the sound is, it also finds it hard to tell where the sound is coming from,’ she adds. ‘This causes the release of stress hormones.’
Who on earth would design something in this way? Let us return to the heart of geek power, the laboratory.
There, all is divided into procedures. The procedure for using a microwave, for example, is that the user reads the manual, inserts food, and then goes to sit in a rest area until it is done. When they hear the beep, signifying that the food is done, they return to the laboratory test kitchen and extract it from the gadget, then eat it right away.
The nerds who run the department have a concern: what if the person becomes distracted? Well, we had better make the device beep every fifteen seconds until they come get the food — because, you see, in our laboratory there is only one activity, and that is using a microwave. Everything else in life is forgotten. We are here to microwave, and so if the user becomes distracted, well, what the heck is wrong with them? Force the idiots to get back in here and get their food. Control their behavior.
It is for their own good, after all. The food might get cold.
But when every gadget is designed this way, soon you have an army of egotistical gadgets who are all screaming for your attention, creating a cacophony:
Indeed, research has shown that beeping hospital machines actually slow down patient recovery.
American research has also found – alarmingly – that staff can become so desensitised to alarms they don’t react in emergencies. Schools have found that pupils also find it hard to concentrate when there is a lot of background noise.
…‘John Lewis did some research that found that more than 50 per cent of people wanted their household appliances to be less noisy ,which is why they have just started marking quieter machines with a special “Quiet Mark” label.’
And welcome to the nerd non-solution. Being masters of details, they will never redesign the system from the ground up, so they instead add optional sanity as a luxury purchase item. If you would like sanity with your device, buy this special kind of device, they say, which is like saying, “If you insist on defying our authority, here is a short bus device for you to use so we know you are retarded.”
If nerds and geeks wonder why they get punched in the mouth on a regular basis, this attitude — this pretense, this unwarranted arrogance — could well explain it.
Unfortunately our whole society is based on this pretense: that every action occurs in a vacuum, that humans can control outcomes, and that our superior intellect (monkey howl goes here) enables us to anticipate every situation. This makes us into permanently pretentious, manipulative people with a pathology that insists on subjugating reality to what is mentally convenient for us.
The ancients saw this as hubris, the root form of evil. When mankind thinks he is above reality, the apple that God designates as forbidden becomes a temptation, or an otherwise sane man insists on baiting the gods with knowledge of how he has deceived them. The human drive to feel the sensation of power creates this impetus. The “individualism” commonly lamented in my writings is a form of hubris, one that is inherent to the human consciousness.
When nerds look at civilization, they see something that they can “manage” with rules, incentives and punishments, forgetting that people will not be in a laboratory and will simply change the definition of those things to suit themselves, just like they selectively interpret everything else. Nerds cannot believe life is beyond their control and handy little mental formulations like that.
Now that Western civilization has shown its failure, and democracy being the late stage of that has revealed its toxicity, people go questing for “new” ideas. If they can claim an idea is new, it means they did not overlook perfectly decent options out of a sense of personal pretense; instead, they have discovered what everyone else did not know, and this makes them feel profound and brilliant.
In reality, the human animal and the questions of civilization — leadership, culture, incentives and non-tangible goals — have been known for nearly 6,000 years. Nothing is a mystery. The only question is whether we accept life for what it is, and adopt the time-honored practices that have always worked best, or keep looking for novelty in order to flatter our pathological need for the sensation of power.
Looking forward to this. Select Trump, and arrest the Leftist decline; choose Clinton, and get a more competent version of Obama. The real question is strategy. Many want “worse is better,” and it is difficult to say they are wrong. Others say, pragmatically, that we should choose what is less bad, and then exert influence on it to force improvement.
Trump comes across as a businessman. He is repetitive, off-topic, focused on the deal. He speaks in generalities like one who is aware that the means of power define the methods that will be used, not the voters and pundits hovering at 50,000 feet above six months before. He drifted from topic, and assumed too much that his audience could complete his sentences and understand his context, and often failed to directly answer the questions even though one sentence could do so. However, this may be part of his strength: instead of playing the game, he keeps hammering on the points that are of relevance to the voters. This conveys a simple message, which is that he is there to make the deal work and he knows that he cannot anticipate this. Points for honesty, but looks good on camera.
Clinton (Hillary) came across as entirely polished and having memorized the correct thing to say in every situation. She reminds me of Angela Merkel or Francois Hollande in this regard, but it is alarming because these people are leaders of a quality inversely proportional to how well they do in press conferences and speeches. She answered every question directly with “something,” but that was almost always generalities composed of strong visual images that seem tangible until you realize that they are super-over-simplifications. She sounded like every high school principal and A-student girl in high school, always knowing the right thing to say, but entirely uncaring about how it would in application. She is all image and no substance, which means “totally untrustworthy” and creepy to boot.
Peter Heft — a frequent contributor to Alt Right sites — has written a most excellent review of Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity. In it, he discusses the ideas of Nihilism from a philosophical standpoint.
It is gratifying — no, inspiring — to see this book receive the kind of detailed analysis and rigorous assessment that is given here. Heft’s analysis brings to light the concepts of Nihilism and contrasts the different perspectives therein. Even if the book is not for you, this may be something enjoyable to read for its exploration of the depth of the issue.
In the meantime, copies continue to arrive to readers. I hope they will enjoy it. If nothing else, it is an intellectual journey into what kills off high-IQ civilizations and how to avoid that. At its best, it is a call to action not just in the world, but in ourselves.
Thank you to all who have joined us on this exploration.
In Pravda-on-the-Hudson today, a lament for the collapse of globalism contained this interesting signaling:
Mr. Clinton spoke of the globalist vision of a “nonzero-sum” world in which everyone wins together and of how that idea was under attack by “zero-sum” tribal politics.
Translation: start advocating a “nonzero-sum” world as a proxy for globalism, which is the triumph of Leftism by eliminating its adversaries through the mechanism of extending membership in the great money chain of global commerce only to those nations with the “right” ideas.
But what is a nonzero-sum game? A zero-sum game means that there are finite resources, like ten apples for fifteen people, and some must take the apples, leaving others with none. A nonzero-sum game then is that there are infinite apples and everyone can have one, or that we cut up the apples so that each person gets some.
Libertarians say that life is a nonzero-sum game because if we follow sensible economic principles, more wealth can be created, and “a rising tide lifts all boats.” This is true, but applies to economics alone. The consequences of producing more apples may include cutting down all the forests to make room for orchards.
However, this entire question is false when it centers on resources. The real reason that the world is a zero-sum game has to do with decisions. That is: the choice to vest a certain system in power drives out other methods, and also, the fact of making the decision influences history, pushing other ideas out of the way.
It is a zero-sum game in that if your nation chooses one system over others, they are marginalized and must work within their opposite, which changes their definitions — or “inverts” them — and effectively excludes them.
The real zero-sum game here is that we are choosing our future, and to make one choice excludes the others. This is why the Left focuses on zero-sum games as a question of resources, not choices. Choices are by their nature a zero-sum game.
Economists speak of “opportunity cost,” or the foreclosure of possibilities created by a choice that by its very nature excludes all others. This is what we are speaking of when we look at the world: we either choose the best, or the rest, and each choice destroys the other as a potential option.
Our choices include only two real options. On the Left, there is a relaxation of concentration of wealth and power; this creates a quantity-oriented society where whatever is most popular wins. The Right, by contrast, emphasizes quality and hierarchy, attempting to promote the best above the rest for the benefits of their greater competence.
One is natural: the Right. The other, the Left, emphasizes human fears and the desire to make human intent superior to nature. This generally ends badly, as with a few exceptions, human intent focuses on desires, which rationalize a choice between available options based on the impulses of the individual.
The Right, on the other hand, suppresses our desires in favor of making logical choices.
Rightists tend to look at life as a question of quality, which can be improved gradually with increases in excellence. This does not achieve what the Left promises, which is one bold stroke that ends a problem forever without understanding its causes. Instead, the Right looks into causes, and accepts them, but maximizes realistic options.
This is the choice before our people today. We can chase the dream of absolute solutions, or we can take life as it is, and working by inches and not miles, improve our lot and aim ourselves toward an unattainable and ongoing goal, like excellence. That is the path to a great civilization.
With the Left, we get an eternal pursuit of an ideal that exists only in the human mind, and when results differ from intent, a redoubling of efforts toward the pathological failed strategy. This is why globalism has died. Our people have tired of chasing an illusory goal, and prefer the hard path to excellence instead.
The past lives with us. Events are effects of causes in the past, and over time that present becomes past, and a cause of the new present. We live in the future of the past and the past contains not just its causes, but the archetypes we see re-cur time and again as patterns.
For those who are relatively new to the history of this site and its writers, some backstory may help. Amerika is the latest of a series of online communities dedicated to the idea of abolishing the notion that human intention is more important than reality.
Its origin hides three decades ago when a kid, barely a teenager, chose nihilism as a personal philosophy. In his eyes, all of humanity was infested by self-deception, and the root was a lack of understanding of the logical structure of objects and events in reality, usually because it was glossed over with social feelings, personal emotions and deceptive simplifications designed to make other people accept it as real.
This manifested in an early series of writings distributed by a hacker group known as the American Nihilist Underground Society (ANUS); it was sometimes also spelled Amerikan Nihilist Underground Society. Run through a group of dial-up bulletin board systems (BBSs) and dedicated to public pranks, subversion of political ideograms, and telecommunications knowledge, the group was a bit of an anomaly.
For starters, while its members were in theory liberals, it embraced a Nietzschean elitism and a skepticism toward humanity, resulting in a tendency toward anti-social behavior as a means of rejecting the approval of the herd, which would result inevitably in its ideas being assimilated, which involved corruption through simplification and removal of controversial elements, thus denaturing them. The group had seen too many metal bands go down this path in a search for public approval and thus big mass culture dollars, and wanted no part of it.
Throughout the late 1980s, the group published a newsletter and text files — short blasts of information about technical and philosophical topics — through the bulletin boards of the day. You can read more about this era in the article “Hacker Metal” in longstanding music e-zine Perfect Sound Forever.
With the advent of the public internet in the late 80s and early 90s, ANUS took to the global bulletin board USENET with its screeds and members became active in metal and politics subs, abrading the dominant paradigms and socially acceptable political tropes with anti-humanistic and pro-atavism propaganda. In addition, other hijinks transpired which served to destabilize the sheep-herd areas of the early internet.
On USENET, members tackled difficult topics in groups including alt.fan.unabomber, the Ted Kaczynski fan group, and were active in numerous attacks on illusions in groups dedicated to them. This got ANUS an early reputation as a “troll group,” and confirmed for many members that public discourse had passed into mob rule, and therefore that logical discussion was impossible, and the only means of interacting with the audience was to deceive and mock them, forcing a re-evaluation of opinions by those observing.
Throughout this time, members of the groups were fans of dissident music. This began with synthpop like Kraftwerk and punk like the Cro-Mags, but evolved into thrash bands like Dirty Rotten Imbeciles (DRI), Cryptic Slaughter and Dead Horse, and eventually migrated to underground metal, a type of heavy metal that threw out the rock elements of usual heavy metal to become a new style, divided into “death metal” music with its emphasis on structure and phrase, and black metal which strove for atmosphere and melody which rejected the anthropocentric nature of rock.
As part of this, members of the group created a radio show in Southern California which reached millions of people and lived on from 1997-2001 as an early online podcast. Continuing the mission of publishing metal reviews that began on BBSs like The Metal AE during the 80s, the group published reviews of underground metal first to USENET, and then to a succession of web servers.
In the mid-90s, these moved to a web domain, ANUS.com, here captured in its second year of operation. This site combined social criticism, philosophy, an early ezine, death metal reviews and interviews, black metal articles and theory, gore pictures, blasphemy and many random exhibits centered on the topic of nihilism. This site frequently bounced between web hosts because of the taboo nature of its content, which back then was enough to get a site thrown off of its paid host, usually without refunds.
ANUS also operated one of the first free speech forum, which started in earlier versions — now lost — on other servers. This forum gave rise to the right-wing direction that was forced upon ANUS by its rejection by the Left, who demonized it at first for its elitism, and only later for its refusal to endorse class warfare and its rejection of the multicultural, pacifist, atheist, and socialist dream in which many Western citizens of the 90s were vesting their hopes. Such people, referred to by ANUS members as “tools” in the 90s slang and currently called “cucks,” found themselves alienated by the content on the site and were quick to call for boycotts and bans of mention of the site on other forums.
During the late 90s, our members contributed to a number of rising projects, including the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (LNSG) which contained the formative elements of the nascent dissident or alternative (90s slang for: “not mainstream”) right: a strong Nationalist awareness, an aversion to democracy and cruelty, but most importantly, a focus on resurrection Western Civilization not just Western politics. This controversial site operated one of the most active forums of the day, which attracted among others school shooter and all-around good guy Jeff Weise, who is remembered fondly by former members from there.
Starting in the year 2000, some of our members became active with a mail-order business, Evilmusic. This outlet sold black metal, death metal and related genres, and unlike the standard of the time, did so with shipping confirmation in professional packaging and used a reliable e-commerce system. Unfortunately, this venture jumped into a genre at the time when it was dying, which meant that the good bands had lapsed and were replaced by either sold-out versions of themselves or inferior copies, which drove away anyone intelligent from the fan base, replacing them with idiots who wanted the usual rock-n-roll jive with metal flavoring. This business was abandoned in 2005 for that reason.
As time went on, it became clear that the web had changed, and people wanted sites which focused on a single topic at a time. Following Jorn Barger’s invention of the blog (“web + log”) in the late 90s, the website format had changed from the archive to the news stream. As a result, ANUS split in two: the underground metal began migrating to Death Metal Underground, and the politics went to a new site, named CORRUPT (which is not an acronym, but was always spelled out in all caps, for reasons now lost to time). This site later blossomed into an organization and later, a zine named Exponentiation and a full-time blog with multiple contributors.
During this time, members also participated in troll groups including the Gay African-American Association of America (GNAA) which relentlessly trolled people in the grips of the modern dysfunction, including Apple users and multiculturalists. This further enhanced the reputation of ANUS as trolls which was used by its enemies to discredit its innovations in the early internet, including in site design, e-zine publishing and heavy metal journalism.
CORRUPT thrived because something was needed that would unite human biodiversity (HBD), the nascent nationalism of the West, a Nietzschean desire to end the decline and fall of Western Civilization, and anti-democratic feelings which did not fall into the National Socialist or fascist models but sought a way “out” of the American political system without waffling about “third ways.” CORRUPT recognized that one was either realist or humanist, and that there were no grey areas at this high level of abstraction about basic approach, and quickly published a number of articles overthrowing the dominant groups of the day and questing for a new path.
At some point, CORRUPT began to go on its own path more toward the third way. Some members wanted another outlet, so Amerika was resurrected from its nascent days and time as an Al-Qaeda fan site (for which it is still banned as a “hate site” by many services) and converted into a platform for non-mainstream Rightist writing. In early versions of its current form, it continued the CORRUPT mission in a more Nietzschean and environmentalist direction, but rejected the idea of any idea-sharing or compromise with the Left.
With that change, we arrive at the present era. The ANUS mission has matured and become the full raging realist manifestation that it always was, rejecting the idea of social morality and the necessary social control it creates in favor of a results-based view of humanity working from naturalistic principles. As such, it is within the Right, but often barely so, and continues to push the boundaries of what is accepted by thwarting human pretense and solipsism, rejecting the idea of human intentions as more important than reality, and demanding a higher standard of quality rising toward excellence from those who have every ability to achieve it.
The truth is hurtful to the professionally brilliant and intellectual. The more heavily invested these people become in pseudo-erudite nonsense for their paychecks, the more they have to step lively through the dangerous minefield known as reality.
Rutgers university professor of social pyschology Lee Jussim attempts this subtle introduction of hard truthinto fantasy land below.
But as biased and destructive as these images may be, many stereotypes – fixed characterisations of specific groups – turn out to hold kernels of truth. In fact, even if vicious stereotypes are always inaccurate, that hardly disproves what most everyday people think of African-Americans, women, Jews, Muslims, or any other group. Which raises the question: what do people actually believe about groups, and are those beliefs inaccurate?
The rest of us, who live in our suburban peasant huts rather than the Ivory Tower of academic bliss, lack the luxury of believing in that which is not. Normal people are forced to interact with the world rather than study it from altitude and distance. That immediately puts us afoul of the fundamental assumptions of microeconomics. We, as consumers of reality, are always forced to make our decisions in a state of imperfect rather than perfect information. This forces us to have to rapidly overcome an information asymmetry, or risk making a series of poor decisions.
So we have to reach for more information under time duress. We need to get smarter and we need tog et their quickly. In Computational Operations Research, we can “plus up” a sub-optimal decision process via a heuristic. A heuristic is a logical law that simply sets the value of some X equal to a value k per each type of situation. We commonly call these “rules of thumb.”
So what happens when we have to operate in the complex system of a diverse population and don’t have the time or opportunity to figure out everything about everyone. The survival mechanism that kicks in in the face of our obvious information asymetry is to develop social rules of thumb.
To apply this, first divide all of these diverse and unique human beings into comprehensible equivalence classes that enable you to take comprehensible data. The observer assigns them variables like a physicist studying some bizarre new particle. Race, Social Class, Religion, Ethnic Origin, Spoken Language and anything else you can use to organize a recognizable sample.
Then the observer studies the sample and attempts to deduce rules of behavior. It allows him to state the following proposition: “If I encounter individuals in group X, under situation Y, I should do Z.” If the observer then tries out behavior Z, then reality will judge the accuracy of the underlying hypothesis. If it works, the observer and all his merry drinking pals will repeat behavior Z and tell all their buddies to do likewise. If behavior Z works everytime like Colt .45, it will become a social rule of thumb. Group X may not like or appreciate this, but they have just been stereotyped.
The more diverse and chaotic a society becomes, the more and more we need these rules of thumb to quickly and effectively negotiate social terrain. Diversity and disorder require an increased reliance on stereotyping. It’s like Pokemon Go. You’ll never be able to catch ’em all. People will increasingly rely on stereotyping.
So if stereotyping is E-vil, if it offends you personally, then you need to get rid of the conditions that necessitate the more frequent creation and use of stereotypes. In the end people stereotype because it works like hell.
I cherish my Jewish friends, and I have publicly—and again, I think, more than once—expressed gratitude in print for the positive contribution Jews have made to our civilization, way out of proportion to their numbers.
That said, I know the following thing, which anyone who has observed the American political scene surely also knows: A subset of American Jews—a subset, a minority—suffer from a kind of psychological deformation that keeps them trapped in a particular, strangely atavistic type of paranoia, of victim mentality.
In this mentality, it’s always 1881 and we’re still in Russia. The Jews are cowering behind their doors in fear as the Cossacks rampage through the town, or Christian peasants with pitchforks and flaming brands march on the Jewish quarter.
Jews will never have confidence in their host nation unless it is entirely Jewish, at which point they can trust the people around them to have similar interests, including protecting Jewish people, culture, language and religion.
As the Left gears up for a new round of anti-Israel propaganda, Jewish Americans find themselves wondering if they are safe from anyone. Initially they assumed that with the Left, and its embrace of diversity, they were safe, but now they are seeing that equality including racial equality always means taking from high-performing groups and giving to lower-performing groups. Jews are a high-performing group, and thus, are targets.
The solution here as with all diversity questions is to recognize that every group acts in self-interest, and that these self-interests are incompatible between groups. For this reason, as Theodor Herzl noted, Jews need their own ethnic state — and until that day, they will always be unstable and tempted toward “easy answers” like Leftism.
Diversity creates endless clashes. The solution to these is to recognize that there is no universal society, and that each group needs its own space and self-rule. In other words, to save diversity, we must abolish diversity. Instead, we can have diversity where each group has its own nation, and none are thrust into the kind of instability that afflicts the Jewish mind in the West.
His basic ideas are strong, but he — like most white commentators — struggles at the crucial point. The question is not whites and blacks, but diversity versus Nationalism, or the idea that the nation is defined by its founding ethnic group. When read in this context, his words take on greater weight.
Two weeks before the ’65 Watts riots, President Lyndon Baines Johnson, upon signing the Voting Rights Act, said, “Today, the Negro story and the American story fuse and blend.” The Life editorial astutely acknowledged that “the promise of American democracy has always aroused expectations that take more than laws to fulfill.” Amen. In human matters, changes of policy must been accompanied by changes in attitudes and within individual hearts. Equality for minority groups necessitates understanding and depth of empathy rather than empty posturing. Empathy for blacks has never been a strong point among Americans.
In 1965, as the Watts riot calmed, Los Angeles Police Chief William Parker compared blacks to “monkeys in the zoo.” He doubled down on the condescension and contempt that spurred the riots: “We’re on the top, and they are on the bottom.” In 2016, Rep. Robert Pittenger echoed that tone-deaf condescension and contempt in claiming blacks in Charlotte “hate white people because white people are successful and they’re not.”
As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.
Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the “beautiful mosaic” — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.
“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”
What torments African-Americans is this: they cannot have pride in their society. This occurs for two reasons: history and diversity.
No matter how much America and Europe change into multi-ethnic societies, Africans in these nations will be aware of history, which is that they were brought here as slaves or post-colonial subjects. This society was not designed for them, or by them; no matter how much they advance, in it they are a conquered people.
Diversity provides the other half of the denial of pride. When a society is diverse, behavior becomes an unknown and trust evaporates. In a society of people of the same heritage, everyone has roughly the same goals, inclinations and capabilities. In a diverse society, no standard like that exists, so each person is an unknown, working for personal goal.
This denies the ability to have society-wide standards and identity. These are necessary for pride: a belief that the society one is in has been created for people like oneself, and that it has cultural and moral standards which benefit people of that type. Instead, people are merely occupants, hanging out for the money and political stability.
The candidate is a charlatan, a grifter, a sexist and a racist. He enjoys the support of a significant portion of Americans because these people live in an ahistorical vacuum and view American history only through distorted lenses that reflect their own delusions back to them. They live in a world where blacks created racism (racism against whites and racism against themselves), where blacks have had the same educational opportunities as whites as well as unfair advantages, where whites are blameless victims, bewildered by the inferior, dark animals among them. They live in a world that is a direct inversion of reality.
In actuality, diversity is the inversion of reality. In a realistic view, each group works toward its own self-interest, but this is obviously stifled by a diverse society. A Machiavellian realist would expect white Americans to work toward what is in their own best interests, and to trust other groups would do the same.
Western Europeans act in self-interest toward the type of society that benefits them: a nerdy, reverent, and highly organized social system. Whether or not others want the same, the version of that which fits their ethnic group is different, and so constant clash exists with the white order.
Conflict arises from the nature of diversity itself, which we can verify as true because other ethnic groups have clashes as well, not only African-Americans and European-Americans. Each group wants its own order and control of itself so that it can have pride and a sense of well-being. Diversity denies this.
The recent clashes in America have more to do with the introduction of Hispanics and (other) Asians than a white-black conflict. Without compatibility between its citizens, a nation becomes a conflict between special interest groups, and blacks are getting squeezed out. Instead of blaming an ethnic group, it is time to blame diversity itself.
Conservatives find themselves at a disadvantage in political conflict because the Left is more polarized and less concerned with decency and unity. Their goal is to sacrifice society as it is for their idealized Utopia. Nothing is off the menu for them.
But as a recent article on American Thinker discovers, this means the two sides are incompatible — Left and Right cannot coexist, which means the only method of survival for the Right is to seize power, disenfranchise the Left, and then physically remove them (probably deportation to Brazil or Mozambique).
We cannot construct a new framework with the Left or its amoral members, just as we would not form a business or marriage or friendship with someone we know we can never trust or respect.
The Left has won where the Right has failed because conservatives are unable to comprehend that Leftists are not at all like Conservatives. Conservatives want to be responsible, resourceful and realistic; Leftists want to advance an ideology of Utopianism, and everything else is a means to that end.
Where conservatives view their goal as to save civilization from humanity, Leftists want to cannibalize civilization so they can achieve Utopia. To them, all else is a distraction and therefore an evil, and they will crush it.
They are motivated to do this because Leftism is personal: it is defense of individual through abolishing standards by a collective attacking its host society, like a gang taking over a small town or culture dominating a city. Leftism is a virus.
Western civilization suffers from two problems: First, it is infested with Leftism; second, it lost its ability to think inside-to-out. The two are related, as both are symptoms of increasing individualism/hubris brought on by social success.
The only solution to Leftism is recognizing what it is (egotistic individualism expressed collectively through egalitarianism) and then facing the ugly fact that conservatives, or indeed anyone who is not Leftist, cannot coexist with Leftists.
We do not have to kill them, but they must go elsewhere. They use other groups like ethnic minorities, gays, transgenders and women as a weapon against people who want sane and realistic lives and believe in civilization. The solution is thus not to attack those groups like moronic neo-Nazis, but to go to the source, and attack Leftism.
As part of this, it is essential to raise the cost of being a Leftist. Since democracy always shifts Leftward, for the past two centuries Leftists have faced no real risk, since government supports them when they agitate, riot and subvert. But if there were actually some danger and penalty for being Leftist, many would abandon the movement.
If we had to designate a dividing line for the Alt Right, it would be Anders Bering Breivik. A man who wants to both defeat Leftism and restore classical Western Civilization, Breivik waged a war against Leftists by distracting government with a large bomb, and then shooting 77 Leftists on an island where they went for a Left-themed retreat.
In doing so, he avoided the classic problem of Right-wing violence: he did not target the government, or minorities, or any other implement of Leftism; he targeted Leftists. This forced parents to reconsider whether they should let their children be Leftist, which previously they had viewed as a no-risk prospect with high reward for affirming the dominant paradigm.
Should the Right want to triumph, it will do so by embracing the outlook of Breivik: the Left must go, and there must be a constant threat to those who are Leftist. At that point, the herd will back away from the Leftist ideal, leaving only the fanatics, who are the ones who must take helicopter rides… to Brazil, ideally.
Most Leftists do not realize that Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea are the Utopia they desire: a place where ideology — not moral goodness and realism, as on the Right — has triumphed over everything else. No one who wants that kind of life can coexist with real people, and the sooner we realize this and act on it, the better.
We repeatedly tell stories about a white protagonist who goes on a journey of self-discovery by mingling with exotic brown foreigners and becoming better at said foreigners’ culture than they themselves are. We eat it up in the form of faux-historical epics, splashy science-fiction special effects extravaganzas, and earnest nonfiction projects about writers paid by their publishers to take exotic vacations.
The frustrating thing about being annoyed by the Mighty Whitey trope—and there are a ton of people upset— is that it’s so frequently employed by the well-meaning “good guys.” The whole point of “going native” is that the familiar Western civilization is portrayed as inauthentic, ugly, broken, flawed. The “exotic” foreign civilization is somehow more natural, more primal, more sensual, the way people really ought to live.
…It’s hard to avoid the feeling that this repeated fantasy—of a white person shedding their whiteness, abandoning their home culture, joining the oppressed, and finally taking up arms against all the other, still-racist white people and killing them all—stems from a desire to be absolved of guilt. White guilt, that dreaded emotion that’s been inflicted on countless white Americans through social studies classes, Black History month TV specials, and lectures from left-wing non-white bloggers like myself at this very moment.
Arktos/RightOn founder Daniel Friberg interviewed by Russia Today
“If intelligent life has evolved (on Gliese 832c), we should be able to hear it,” he says while hovering over the exoplanet in the animated “U.S.S. Hawking.” “One day we might receive a signal from a planet like this, but we should be wary of answering back. Meeting an advanced civilization could be like Native Americans encountering Columbus. That didn’t turn out so well.”
The grim fact is that in all of life, the race is on, and the end result is more like zero-sum than not. Any alien species worth its salt will be patrolling the stars to find potential threats — and eliminate them. This means humanity has only a finite amount of time to get its act together before wandering aliens eliminate us, probably by introducing a pathogen that our science cannot thwart.
The consequence of solipsism: people believe they are action heroes in their own movies, equating trivial acts of self-interest with noble contributions to humanity:
“Our goal now is to ensure that this never happens to another innocent citizen,” Tiffany Crutcher said. “We’re going to break the chains of injustice. We’re going to break the chains of police brutality.”
In that solipsistic world, objecting to the police shooting your brother after he attempted to cuck them is “breaking the chains of injustice.” They might as well call it “ascending to the state of angels” or “being a black American Gandhi.” It is all virtue signaling, concealing self-interest, which will come in a $5-$10 million dollar payout.