Some years ago, I wrote the first parallelism primer as an attempt to introduce a method of understanding our world that was both practical and helped us understand how to know what is actual and real.
This started with the supposition that politics and social trends only made sense if analyzed as philosophies, or ideas, and that once you understood the base idea, you could see how it would grow over time and expand its reach.
That in turn led to the idea that since society was basically a battleground of ideas, it could be viewed through the lens of information theory, or a study of the patterns found in that information which existed in parallel between economics, morality, nature, history, culture, religion, mathematics, and philosophy.
In designing this search, I hoped to get to the bottom of the question which has vexed me since I was a small child: how our civilization had failed, and by extension, why throughout history civilizations of intelligent people seem most prone to catastrophic failure.
Early in life, it became apparent to me that things were not going well in our society, and either as cause, effect, or both, of that, adults were crazed. This word means something different than “crazy,” because it implies a caused and temporary condition.
Something about modern life tormented people to the point where they were manic, yet despairing, constantly bemoaning the shortness of life and how much time was wasted on money and power, yet seeking money, power, and prestige instead of pursuing the excellence and joy which we can discover in life.
It seemed that they were driven by fear, and as I got older, I realized that the source of this fear was the vortex of modernity, which drags all things downward toward poverty and against whose flow people scramble to stay afloat. No wonder they were depressed.
Years later, it has become clear that we are coming to the end of modernity. All of the ideals of egalitarian society are failing at once, and we are finally realizing that there is no personal escape from the collapse of a once-mighty civilization.
Everything is awful: neurotic people, ruined families, slave-like jobs, ugly cities, moronic mass culture, insane leaders, prison-like schools, wholesale destruction of the environment, loss of orientation toward the good, a sense of being adrift, total loneliness.
This comes after the inventions that made life easier and more plentiful, the adoption of modern institutions, and the use of modern materials. We lived in a clean, shiny, and futuristic society, and now it has revealed that it was failing all along.
Clearly, humanity has entered the endgame of its death phase. Something that we are doing is wrong, in the sense of “non-functional” more than “immoral,” but then again, anything which destroys us is immoral.
A something of this nature will not be tangible; it cannot be a group. It spreads too rapidly and reappears too much to be the result of a physical object or agent. Instead, it is an idea which is both destructive and appears to be good. This seductive virus is killing us.
Spread through social contagion, or people liking the idea and so repeating it to each other as “truth” in the wishful thinking that it might become universally accepted, this idea grew as we did and eventually took over, and at that point, the collapse began in earnest.
The idea that destroyed us came from a process. This process occurs through human socializing, in which behaviors, ideas, and attitudes are spread through people emulating one another. Whatever is simplest and most convenient wins because socializing is both stressful and viewed as if it should be “fun.”
When individuals interact, they are forced into a process of acting out an external character, like an actor on a stage but representing the individual in the best light. That generates an impulse toward self-promotion but most of all, of seeing the world through the filter of the self.
Individuals therefore begin to focus on themselves as others see them, which creates a false image that many then come to believe about themselves. That in turn causes them to push aside threats and ignore contrary information that might damage their self-esteem, which causes them to see the world as negative and other people as threats.
This negativity forms the basis of individualism. When we see ourselves as the ultimate good, we must then see the world as bad because otherwise it would take precedence over us. This negativity and desire for power for its own sake, and with it the need to control and manipulate the world around us, comes from the ego when translated into social circumstances.
As this process takes place, people need a reason to justify it. Raw individualism does not sell well in social groups, so the natural reaction appears, which is to offer the group the same right. Everyone can be me-first-before-all-else.
The group then defends the right of its members to behave this way despite its fundamentally antisocial nature. If you want a group to like you, you tell them that all of them are important and equal, while planning yourself to be “more equal” by getting ahead.
Endorsing me-first-for-all creates a secondary benefit, which is that it distracts other people from the actual task — competing for social status, wealth, and power — while concealing the raw self-interest of the individualist.
This accomplishes a victory that we might recognize from game theory, in which the ideal strategy (1) achieves exclusivity over the target, (2) induces other players to avoid the target, and (3) conceals the motivations of the player so that he cannot be attacked.
In fact, it is this resistance to attacks which makes this strategy so powerful. The individualist asserts first that he wants me-first-for-all, and then if attacked, responds as if the group has been attacked.
Furthermore, an attacker must now explain why he wants to deprive every member of the group of a right, even if the individualist plans on abusing this right to dominate all of them. The passive-aggressive nature of this defense portrays the individualist as a victim in all cases.
In Western Civilization, we know this strategy as a philosophy, egalitarianism, which manifests most clearly in the Left as “equality.” However, since it is a social virus, it can take any form, and specializes in infesting any institution which is not explicitly aligned against it.
The association with victimhood makes this philosophy especially tempting. Any person who has suffered a misfortune or finds themselves lagging behind is tempted by this, because it allows them to scapegoat others for their misfortune and simultaneously feel a sense of hubris, or importance beyond their nature role in the order of things.
It endorses the oldest human failing, solipsism, which is a natural trap for the big-brained. Since we know the world through our perceptions, we mistake our perceptions for reality, and see reality as part of ourselves.
Combined of schizophrenia, paranoia, megalomania, and neurosis, this outlook creates a terminal spirit disease for any civilization or group infected with it because it is aligned toward the negative. In fact, it seeks out the negative and uses it as a source of power, using failure as a justification for the control of others.
Conservatives have proven unable to wrap their heads around egalitarianism. To them, it sounds like it means fair play, or that everyone gets the same chance to succeed. That is what “all men are created equal” means, namely that being born is as equal as you are going to get.
To a philosopher, ideas expand over time and have a life-cycle as they are adopted. Egalitarianism starts out one way, and ends another. Here are the phases of egalitarianism:
Any degree of egalitarianism fits somewhere on this cycle, and the different stages lead to one another without fail. In the modern world, they represent libertarianism/classical liberalism, liberalism, socialism, communism, and the end stage of tyranny. We call these phases “the Napoleonic Arc” because they describe the process of every revolution, which starts out demanding fairness and ends up demanding total control.
Again, most find it impossible to understand this, but the above phases apply to equality adopted in any group. Once you start down the path that says that fairness consists of treating everyone equally, you arrive at control and subsidies — taking from the good to give to the bad — inevitably and invariably.
For example, consider a sports team. In its native form, inequality is the rule; some are better at every role, and the coach will put them in as much as possible. If you leave it up to the parents and players, however, coach will be forced to bring out some of the lower performers at every game. After that, standards will relax so that other players are considered good, too. Then everyone will have to be given a chance to play a full quarter. Finally, it will be required that all members get the same court time. Eventually the team is so far behind that it adopts a “win at all costs” mentality in order to keep people engaged.
Or we might look at an office. Everyone is processing claims forms; for some reason, Dave does more than others, and so he is paid more. This irks both employees and management, so they assign Dave other duties until the remaining employees can catch up. Not enough is getting done so they have Dave help other employees with their forms. That still does not work, so they hand out forms to each employee in equal numbers. At this point, Dave has left to go somewhere where he will be rewarded for greater ability, and not enough forms are getting processed, so management simplifies the forms and pays everyone less unless they hit their targets. Within six months, no one from the original team remains.
Another view comes from a friend group. A few members really drive all the excitement, but these leave others out, so it is decided that some events will be hosted by them. Those are not as exciting, so it is decided that the popular members must help with the other people hosting. That still does not produce results, so soon the group rotates between hosts. Finally, the friend group simply fragments, because its popular members have left, but not before berating all the people that it knows into attending the unpopular parties.
For another view, we can conjure up the image of a rock band. Two members are clear standout songwriters and performers, but everyone else wants equal air time. Their solos and compositions are not as popular, so the band begins including a few in each set. This still does not work, so the band decides that for every song or solo by the hit performers, the others get one as well. That still does not do it, so they force all songs to be written as a group. Since their songs are now bloated and half-bad, the band cuts all solos and any songs that are not simple, catchy, and very much like everything else out there. The good members leave, and the remaining band is mediocre.
Where did egalitarianism come from? First we had Mongol invasions, and then peasant revolts, as the peasantry saw that the new order of Genghis Khan — equality, religious tolerance, fewer social standards, no aristocrats — was easier for them to rise. Then as we recovered from that, the middle class arose, consisting of people who knew how to sell goods and services but were inept at leadership. Finally, our intellectuals through a series of movements like the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and late Romantic period moved the focal point toward individualism. Finally, we had the French Revolution, and we have spent the past two and a half centuries trying to find ways to make the new form of society, the republic, stable enough that it does not self-destruct instantly.
In all of these we rely on the individualism-egalitarianism nexus, meaning that we assume that if given liberty and freedom, people will do what is logical and therefore, we will get better results. In reality, we find that people — in a parallel to how they focus on individualism instead of reality — put their effort into making themselves win within the system we have set up, by choosing the most popular items to vote upon or say, and so they gradually drift away from reality toward a world of human wishful thinking, desires, feelings, judgments, emotions, and fears.
Egalitarian revolts replace hierarchical systems, like those found in the military or business, with centralized ones, meaning that you have many equal people ruled by a tiny number of elites.
We can visualize different forms of egalitarianism as existing on both a spectrum of intensity and time-scale measuring the distance since the beginning of egalitarianism. Over time, egalitarian societies become more fanatical and therefore, more controlling.
Worse, equality makes people go crazy because the lack of equality in nature means that it must be imposed by humans, which leads to control, or the manipulation of the techniques and methods used by others utilized as a way to program their minds; by excluding certain methods, control teaches the mind to think only in terms of the methods approved by the controllers, which are those that lead to egalitarianism.
We accept this in language thanks to the theory of linguistic relativity:
A hypothesis holding that the structure of a language affects the perceptions of reality of its speakers and thus influences their thought patterns and worldviews.
In other words, the terms that you use for things can change how you think about those things; in the same way, the methods that you use to deal with daily problems change how you think about what is permissible. When you have a hammer, everything is a nail.
This backward thinking is the hallmark of control. In egalitarianism, it exists through the will of the herd, which badly wants to believe that everyone can be equal, and therefore there will be no friction, which allows the individualist to pursue “me first” without being interrupted by pesky social standards, values, morals, beliefs, and customs.
When a society has goals and principles, including standards, we can all be down-ranked for acting in a way that fails to live up to those objectives. If the objectives are abolished, then we can all do whatever we want and still enjoy the benefits of civilization.
This encounters only one major problem, which is that some people know better. Those who are naturally more intelligent, honest, realistic, healthy, and attractive have no need for a philosophy of revenge, victimhood, and compensation; they will achieve what they need without the herd. This makes them natural drop-outs from the egalitarian agenda.
Egalitarianism, since it is not found in nature and must be imposed, therefore requires control, which in turn requires a narrative, or an explanation of how things work that justifies them as “good” since it cannot explain them as natural or logically functional within the realm known as reality.
Since egalitarianism requires people to affirmatively join in, and defectors hurt it, it therefore punishes with destruction — or as close as it can get — any who deviate from the narrative.
Importantly, this does not mean those who oppose the narrative, but simply those who fail to affirm it enough. Egalitarianism becomes a runaway chain reaction as people attempt to confirm the narrative to one another by pushing beyond the established level, lest they end up showing too little loyalty. Only excess is good enough.
This creates the atmosphere of a madhouse. Reality must be denied in order to affirm the narrative; everyone must conform to what they know is not real. The system does not work, but this cannot be noticed, and instead, all effort must go into fixing how things work. This means that every action becomes political, because it is either working toward propping up the system and supporting the narrative, or it is not, and must be punished.
Such societies enter a dark chasm in which they make more and more rules, add more programs, and hire more bureaucrats to deal with the problems created by the fact that people are not equal. Individuals take advantage of this by doing as little as possible to save themselves, relying on the state to bail them out and set things right, because in an egalitarian society, whoever is a victim wins free stuff and those who are not must provide the free stuff.
Ultimately this situation creates a kind of pretense that parallels the passive-aggressive mentality that caused egalitarianism. Assuming themselves to be good, people degraded the world as bad; assuming their egalitarianism to be good, they portray the world as bad, and then with this pretense lash out at anyone who fails to follow their ideological quest.
The egalitarian state aims for a Utopian condition where all people are equal. This requires abolishing culture, race, sex, class, ethnicity, religion, family, and even individuality. All must serve the goal of equality; all must be a means to the end of equality. The ideal egalitarian citizen is of mixed-race, androgynous, atheistic, self-centered so that they are easy to manipulate, and most of all loyal only to the state because they depend on it.
In this way, we see how the tool becomes the master in human groups. Instead of looking toward reality and adapting to it, people create the group as a bureaucracy to stand between them and the world, protecting them from it. This bureaucracy then demands their total allegiance, and to prove this, they advance it with ideological fervor, ultimately leading to warfare and totalitarian oppression.
If we think practically, totalitarian oppression and warfare are by themselves not bad things. They are tools, and the use of a tool can only be measured in its results. All of us would kill or oppress in order to protect people or things that we love because if we were not willing to do that, we would not have souls. Under egalitarianism, however, cause and effect and intent become a closed circuit, where egalitarianism uses control as a means to more egalitarianism. There are no stopping points and no end point except for the Utopia which will never arrive.
We can view human relationships through economics. Once we create government, it becomes a market for who satisfies government, whether this means merely filling out the right forms or joining in the doctrinal fervor. In the same way, in any human group, the ruling group becomes the market, replacing the wider world of reality, which makes the task of adapting much easier but also more focused, requiring total allegiance.
Crowdism pervades all aspects of the systems because it is an unconscious attitude. Conservative politicians, not really knowing what they stand for, argue for “equality” because they know that the crowd will approve. Large corporations do the same in their advertising. Even in friend groups or a rock band, the leader will buy the loyalty of the group by promising equality, then cheat on that equality because if he did not, nothing would be done. Over time, the ability to cheat produces an incentive for him to cheat in his own favor instead of that of the group.
For equality to thrive, all differences must be abolished. It begins in class warfare, since if any have more wealth, power, and prestige that makes the herd feel unequal, but extends to a psychological compulsion to obliterate difference. Egalitarians are happy when the ugly equals the beautiful, the bad equals the good, the unhealthy equals the healthy, and the insane equals the sane, because then no one will suffer a loss of social status (“virtue” in egalitarian terms) for any attribute of theirs.
In short, egalitarianism becomes a war against inner attributes. Someone who is morally better proves a threat to the herd, as does someone who is more intelligent, or wiser. If any person is naturally healthier than the rest, it makes them feel bad, much as someone being wealthier will evoke their ire.
This eventually makes people into horrible beings. Entirely isolated and selfish, they have no context in which to exist, since they lack culture, heritage, customs including religion, values, and even family, all of which must be taken by the state so that it has total control. Trained to obey external rules and incentives, they no longer have the ability to choose even basic direction for themselves, and so their approach to life is grudging and resentful, and their attitude toward others is even more paranoid. Each person holds on to what they have, and since the laws often work against them, are unwilling to enter into permanent bonds with others like friendship, love, and even fellowship. They are completely alone.
Currently we find ourselves riding the wave of a vast historical shift. Although those in the aboveground do not know it yet, faith in egalitarianism and liberal democracy has fallen farther than even polls can reveal. People have no belief in its goodness.
This, coupled with the coming crises, means that we will soon see a massive upheaval. Egalitarianism failed to deliver on its promise of equality despite being in control of public attitudes for the decades following the second world war, and it has also brought us new and unexciting problems to tackle. As the human population has exploded, resources have become scarce, and now wars for territory in order to ensure access to water and food sources have become inevitable. Simultaneously, environmental pollution has built up to the point where we are seeing real effects. It is clear that whatever we were doing was bad, and we will do something different in the future.
We find ourselves confused because Leftism has shaped our minds around egalitarianism, or the notion of making masses of people or government act as the only source of possible solutions, and ideology itself, which says that we need one big idea like “equality” or we have nothing to offer. The Right simply fails to rebrand itself, which causes conservatives to in confusion adopt Leftist ideas, resulting in bizarre hybrids like neoconservatism and National Socialism. Since the Right then offers little that the Left does not, it finds itself failing, and doubles down on emotional points like abortion, the flag, defense, protecting business, and Christianity, which causes it to miss the bigger picture, namely the need to arrest and reverse civilization decline.
One might choose the right because it is a comprehensive philosophy, or more accurately what we might call a “folkway,” or combination of ideals, aesthetics, principles, and customs more like a lifestyle than an ideology. Where white nationalism and other philosophies have a singular point in their belief systems, such as racial nationalism, in emulation of ideology, the conservative approach offers a way of addressing both civilization and individual. It cannot compete with an ideology because an ideology is both simpler and broader; an idea like “equality” can apply in all situations in a direct and reductive manner. It offers however what ideology cannot, which is a way of life instead of a command to apply simple rules to complex situations. This is why I choose conservatism over any other form of thought, albeit with a desire to avoid all modern interpretations since they are hybrids, and return to the essential ideal of conservatism, conservation:
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to protect.” It forms all or part of: conservation; conservative; conserve; hero; observance; observatory; observe; preserve; reservation; reserve; reservoir.
It means that we choose the best outcomes from known history and figure out what was done there and emulate it, which requires that we both are realists (measure by outcomes in reality and not human preferences) and transcendentalists (so that we might know what is best). This leads to a more complex formulation, less a doctrine than a gut level approach, in conservatism:
Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society—that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics. This suspicion of government activism distinguishes conservatism not only from radical forms of political thought but also from liberalism, which is a modernizing, antitraditionalist movement dedicated to correcting the evils and abuses resulting from the misuse of social and political power.
For modern conservatives, a troubling path awaits because of the lack of an easy one-sentence way to explain conservatism that sounds interesting. In addition, any conservative reformers lack the advantage of having a new label for what they are doing; the Tea Party gained the most ground of recent conservative movements because it was identifiable as a simple formula, essentially libertarian economics plus a desire to return to the simpler society of the 1980s. Terms like “radical traditionalism” and “Alt-Right” also gained ground because they distanced themselves from the confused, impotent, and corrupt political parties bearing the name “conservative.”
Perhaps we could make it simple and say that we are rebuilders, or civilizationists who recognize that our civilization has crashed and needs restoring, and state our central principles as these:
The core of this movement might be seen as continuity, which takes on several dimensions. First there is continuity with past; next we insist that our actions be continuous with our origin in nature and our intent; finally, we demand that actions pass in continuity between people, making one of our principles unity. A society where all members share an intent works; a society where they have different intents results in a bickering mass of humanity squabbling over divisions of power, wealth, and prestige. With unity, we can have cooperation, but without it, we must have control in order to bring the petulant herd to some level of function. Disunity leads to tyranny because it inevitably requires leaders who not only have strong power, but must micromanage their citizens, causing them to rely on simple rules and activities that everyone does at once, a phenomenon known as mass mobilization.
Rules in turn lead to a curious corruption. When people understand the why behind an event, they can share the same intent. When they must be constrained and motivated by rules, they lose focus on the why and instead look toward satisfying the rules, which essentially defers responsibility to those above them to tell them in excruciating enough detail what must be done. This type of passive-aggression initiates a cycle where citizens resist authority, and authority must become increasingly dependent on threats and bribes to get even the basics accomplished. In addition, because exceptions keep cropping up thanks to the passive aggression of the citizens, the rules proliferate, and the society becomes tentpegged, a condition named for how a badly erected tent requires increasing numbers of pegs to hold it down, at which point it collapses from lack of structure.
At this point, we are like children in an unstable family, told what to do and threatened constantly with punishment or lack of reward if we fail to obey. We try to make everyone happy of our own volition, reaching out to them with offerings of what we think they will like, but they have the power and gain more over us when they turn us down, so they usually do. Eventually we settle on being alone, and appreciating that as the best possible option, such that we are unable to make any bigger decisions of our own initiative. This serves a controlling society well, as now it has people who huddle in their apartments or cubicles, and venture out rarely, and will not dare to intervene in the ongoing tempest of power which gathers over them.
This civilization promotes sociopaths, or at least those who are willing to lie without concern for the effects of their lies in the actions of others. Almost all of our leaders are horrible, and survive only through the relatively simple challenges which faced them, because the only people who seek to have power through public means are those who are narcissistic enough to believe themselves to be gods, and manipulative enough to see public rule as a sinecure or appointed position whose benefits they then enjoy. They specialize in knowledge of people as bad: knowing their surface attributes, they know how to manipulate them, and assume correctly that the democratic people underneath will not care that they are manipulated so long as they get what they think they want, based on what others want. These narcissists serve as conductors of the herd, leading it one way and the next, always away from difficult questions and actual issues and toward issues which appeal to emotion, jingoism, pity, guilt, greed, fear, and most of all, a need to be important in a way that others recognize.
Most people do not understand the psychology of the sociopath and narcissist. These people view themselves as the center and the focus of the world and other people and objects as a means to an end of the mental contentment of the sociopathic or narcissistic individual. They acknowledge that others are independent, but more in a sense of how we forget where our car keys are than a sense of that other people are beings like us, and have no problem using others or themselves as a means to mental contentment, including the satisfaction of desire. The classic narcissistic or sociopathic personality is a con man, prostitute, artist, or religious leader. They want to use others, and become outraged when someone uses them, because in their view, a pleasant mental state for them is the goal of the universe, and only they define this mental state. Usually this involves the joy of subjugating others.
Under democracy, our society has taken on the attitude of narcissism because we live entirely in our heads. We are separated from consequences by a series of proxies, including jobs and voting, where our goal is to satisfy a system and not achieve consequences at the final end state in reality. This makes us immune to anything but the opinions of others, and those favor whoever flatters those others by including them equally at the same social status level, so we can “go through the motions” and spend the rest of the time in little thought-bubbles comprised of our desires, notions, wants, and the small amount of input on the world that we get from news, entertainment, our favorite haunts, our friend group, and now, hordes of angry people on the internet.
For us to be successful conservatives, we must first understand what we believe. Conservatism is a lifestyle based on gradual change, choosing the best of the best, and upholding tradition but we do not know the why. The philosophy of parallelism best explains this, but it starts by assessing how we can know anything in this world of infinite possibility. The law of parallelism states that causality occurs through patterns, and the verification of actuality to these patterns occurs only when they are found in parallel to some degree between all parts of the system. To find out if your house is on fire, you check for smoke, look for fire, and measure temperature; if all three of these indicate to some degree, you have fire, but otherwise the cause is likely something else. To see if an assertion about a proposed policy is true, you look for every instance throughout history in which something like it was tried to see if results are consistent; if not, the policy is chaotic and produces unstable results. Parallelism is an extension of the continuity principle which understands the universe as a contrast and struggle between stable and unstable states, and looks for continuity to the past and to all of its parts as a way of measuring the stability of a state.
We can see parallelism through real-world applications:
This contrasts what most people like to believe in, which is an order purely based on human preference and cognition. Inspecting the inner world requires that we use intuition and other unconscious forces, disciplined through appreciation of the patterns of reality, to understand our world instead of projecting ourselves onto it. The human world exists on the surface, through impulses that make it through our process of self-rationalization in the ego and those things shared with other humans, including through communication, tokens, symbolism, and emotions. Conservatives affirm the inner world and reject the outer.
When people concentrate on the outer world, the result is Crowdism, or a tendency toward the lowest common denominator of the group, exhibited in the individual, and defended by the group as a universal right to be mediocre a.k.a. free from the dual pressures of natural selection and social judgment, which can result in a lowering of social status in the de facto hierarchy in any group. When people get together, they tend toward legitimizing hubris so that everyone may maintain a positive mental state about themselves, and then gang up on anyone who does not agree that all (modern people tend to slightly roll their eyes and open their mouths while pronouncing this, usually slowly) individuals have the right to be individualists. This happens time and again throughout human history, and is how nature keeps individual human groups from getting too powerful: they self-destruct. Once Crowdism is in place, the group becomes alienated from reality and any goal higher than the individual, and so they relentlessly pursue benefits for the individual at the expense of the group, externalizing the cost to everyone, until the costs of those acts — monetary, time, energy, tedium, danger — overwhelm the group and it dissipates.
From Crowdism comes utilitarianism, which means “the best for the most” in a non-realism context, which guarantees that it is measured by what people say they think is good rather than what ends up being actually good. Since most people are competent within limited spheres, and groups tend toward a de facto democracy known as the “heckler’s veto” where people do not mention anything controversial in order to avoid being shouted down and losing social status, the group decision tends not toward what is good but toward what makes people feel good about themselves, which is usually pretense, bragging, passive aggression, and religious fanaticism. The worst of humanity comes out in utilitarianism because it denies the need for leadership to determine what is correct, and throws the question to the mob.
Modernity depends on utilitarianism, and this shows us that modernity is not a time frame (such as “years after 1678”) but a phase in the cycle of civilization. When people successfully start a civilization, it has stability but faces external and internal threats; its stability comes from the unity of intent that its citizens have. As time goes on and the society beats down internal and external threats, it loses unity because there is no longer a task or objective for its citizens to unite in working towards. The civilization then decays to a state of instability, and either chooses unity or dissolution, the latter taking the form of the individualism we see in the third world: people living at subsistence levels, oblivious to other people or the world beyond their thought-bubbles, a lack of shared institutions, racial and ethnic mixing, and low standards of behavior. Nature keeps humanity in check by ensuring that its civilizations usually destroy themselves, and that the remaining people are bred into a regression to the mean, resulting in those who will never rise above that subsistence level again.
Crowdism is a socially-transmitted virus. Among the poor, it takes the form of peasant or caste revolt, called “class warfare” in modern terms; among the moderately affluent, it manifests as the bourgeois mentality that society does not need maintaining, and that all individuals must do is interact with it in order to achieve the greatest wealth, prestige, and power for themselves; among the highly intelligent, it becomes neurosis which translates into ideological fanaticism, resulting in highly creative but unrealistic and therefore doomed experiments like communes. Crowdism is always the socially popular answer to the question of how humans should organize, self-govern, and distribute the aforementioned social status in the form of wealth, power, and prestige. It supports the individualist delusion, which is the notion by individuals that the world will stay as it was when they first matured (16-18) and that they can do whatever they want and do not need to maintain intangibles like civilization, customs, values, culture, heritage, identity, purpose, and faith. Crowdism infects every society that is not clear-minded enough to declare it insanity and exile those who exhibit symptoms, noting accurately that these are probably deleterious mutations which do not belong among any ascendant society in the process of organizing itself toward greater accuracy, efficiency, and clarity.
For those of us who study civilization collapse, the amazing fact emerges that high-IQ civilizations are most likely to fail. Their citizens are too clever to see the limits of their intelligence, which rewards treating the world as a counterpart to the self, and therefore has us project human terms onto the world. We think in linear terms: if I need X, I use Y tool in Z method to achieve it. We conclude from this that the world, too, thinks of one thing at a time (linear thinking) instead of in multiple threads converging and diverging between states of stability and instability (parallel thinking). We have been grasping at this understanding since the dawn of time, but recent developments like relativity and postmodernism have attempted to explain how multiple perspectives of an event or object can exist, but have fallen back into linear thinking by assuming that only one can be true (universalism) or that all must simultaneously be true (pluralism). In contrast, parallelism says that all have some truth, and the pattern in the intersection of those that eliminates the unrealistic will consist of the most accurate heuristic approximation of what is actually there, which is as close as we get to knowing reality.
Leaving behind linearity for pattern-based reasoning requires a descent into the raw inner core of the human being, rejecting everything outer and socials, called nihilism. While most conservatives — who are hybrids with Leftists, and therefore believe in universalism — find nihilism disconcerting, it simply means the absence of a shared mind between human beings, and this is the process of descent:
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Nihilism reject the idea of universal truth, values, and communication. Universal truth would require all people to understand it the same way, when people are in reality limited in their parsing of any fact by the biological limits of their understanding, a phenomenon called the Dunning-Kruger effect. A universal truth becomes an interpretation in any individual. Similarly, any value will be re-interpreted, and any communication depends on both people knowing exactly what the symbols, tokens, words, and grammatical structures are intended to mean by the speaker and writer. Our ability to communicate is only an approximation; my understanding of this text will be different from yours, much as I would like to limit the degree of variance in our understanding through the precise (some would say anal-retentive use of language). In this way, nihilism is factually correct because there is no identical replication of understanding between humans, save perhaps love, much as all of our facts, truths, and assessments of reality are merely heuristic approximations, and never exactly mirror the object (reality) being described.
This in turn leads to a rejection of symbolism, which many associate with Judeo-Christian philosophies. Symbolism means the use of a single thing to stand for a complex situation, usually because it summarizes the emotions or the general experience. Humans face a trap with symbolism because it leads to seeing the symbol as more real than the results of the experience, such as the old saying, “It is not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.” While that is not wholly untrue, you have still lost; winners rarely repeat this sentiment. The symbol of fair play becomes more important than the outcome. In the same way, in the Jewish scriptures later brought into humanity, God acts as a force of symbolism, with actions taking symbolic significance and later being validated by God through mystical acts which border on superstition. If we need a reason for the widespread loss of faith in Christianity, it may lie within the choice of the writers of its holy book to rely on symbolism instead of outcomes of a more varied nature, by actors who are not symbolically “good” nor “bad,” much as happens in Greco-Roman, Europagan, and Hindu writings. When we reject symbolism, we reject not only linear thinking, but the idea that something more significant than results exists, and with it the notion that a god will save us taking us to another pure world where symbolism is reality, or intervening in this one such that symbols become real. Symbols are merely an extension of our linear thinking and our desire to control the world, rather than accepting it as is and working within its patterns to improve ourselves in such a way that we are compatible with its pattern order.
Conservatives fall prey to such thinking because ultimately we view ourselves as preservers of the good, and we believe that this starts with making things work or causing the existing system to function as intended. By saving the existing system, we stray into a trap, because if the system is not good as it is during the unstable period of any group, we are supporting not just a great evil, but the ideas that it wants to ratify among us. With this in mind, actual conservatism belongs to neither the revolutionary or reactionary genre, but to one of renewal. We do not fix what is broken; we restore an order which leads our group into a period of stability. This places us at odds with modern society, what most people wish to believe is true, and what is popular, which in turn drives us to reconsider hierarchy, because without leadership by our best and affirmation from the geniuses in our society, we will be shouting at an audience that is not only deaf to our words but will close its ears because that makes each individual feel the greatest sense of power in hubris, and therefore closest to being a defiant god himself who has defied reality and imprinted his image, his control, upon the world. That path leads to the mental isolation of human beings, a rejection of reality, the inevitable Crowdism, and collapse.
We now know what we believe. We favor an organic, biological, genetic, hierarchical, and reality-based approach to life coupled with a transcendental desire to find excellence (arete) and bring it to life in our daily and civilizational existence so that we may be an ascendant civilization again. Our transcendental approach leads us to see the brilliance of the overall structure of reality, and to recognize that despite our personal misfortunes or successes within it, maintaining that pattern order and impulse toward the good is important above all else.
Now we must turn to the question of reification, or making our ideas become facts of our reality. These topics are best sketched rather than outlined in mad detail, not only because such detail is unavailable at this time, but also because we do not know who is reading, and providing too much detail allows insincere people to emulate the how for their own ends while ignoring the goal, the why. Our first task is to create a general image of what it is that we offer that does not deprive people of what they already have; that is, they are prosperous enough now, and will not change unless they see something better on the horizon. They must not give up what they have, which is a chance of a normal and prosperous life despite disadvantages, merely to squash those disadvantages, and they must not be asked to turn power over to people who are overly emotional, unrealistic, or pointlessly prone to violence, suppression, and genocide. These are on the whole reasonable demands, and reflect the marketplace nature of all things, including philosophy. People will choose a better option, not merely a not-worse option. They cannot be asked to give up their lives and lifestyles for some conjectural grass-is-greener theory or hypothesis. They need to be shown, in gradual layers, that what we bring is good and that it will bring even more good things in the future.
With that in mind, we must choose and agree upon our eventual target, or we will simply fragment as the special concerns of various members are addressed. For example, if we fix the onslaught against gun ownership, a certain number of people will conclude that everything is fine again, drop out, and never be heard from again. It makes sense to reiterate that nothing is fine because when your civilization is on a path to collapse, everything will go wrong progressively until that collapse has rendered you into a third-world civilization with no future. For that reason, we cannot be a collection of issues, but a vision of life like the “folkway” that conservatism is, where people can see themselves living and enjoying existence. That future consists of the Ult Right and a restoration of traditional civilization, which has four main pillars:
Civilization in the sense described above will seem alien to most modern citizens of liberal democracies, but faith in liberal democracies has declined because of the multiple intractable problems that they promised to address but did not. In short, their solutions failed, and their response was to call us “deplorables” and “racists” for noticing that diversity does not work, demand-side economics produce frequent recessions, tax-and-spend raises the cost of everything and concentrates wealth among the undeserving, wars for democracy slaughter us, sexual liberation has destroyed the family and love, and egalitarianism produces a terminal spirit disease which makes us detest ourselves and act out suicidal or at least self-destructive impulses. Few will have articulated this, but more will simply have noticed that things are not as promised, and that our leaders and economies seem to be going down a path parallel to that of the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire during its decline, or Athens after it killed Socrates. As a result, people are willing for the first time in centuries to embrace the idea of structural change in how we govern ourselves and the lifestyles that we take on.
For example, the largest demographic shift in America has been of young people who have other options moving to the country to live on homesteads, or small farms that provide food and income in addition to the day jobs of their owners, away from the big cities. Black markets and a barter-based economy, both of which avoid taxes, are booming. Instead of looking toward large suburban homes, increasing numbers are turning to small houses with more yard, and people are starting to consider industrial pollution in their choice of location. Resentment of the high costs of everything caused by high taxes, and the destructive effect of those taxes on personal choice, is also making itself known, most prominently in the second French revolution of the “yellow vests.” Populist movements, which combine libertarian economics with ethno-nationalism, are rising across the West. The time is ripe for change, because people have no faith in what we have been doing in the long years since 1789.
To achieve our goal, we must think systematically and coldly, and look toward the minimum that we must do in order to create what we desire. This means “by any means necessary,” which does not as popular parlance holds mean that we seize up weapons and begin firing, but that we use the easiest and less traumatic methods first. We have democracy, and we can use it to undo democracy, mainly by seizing power in our nations at local and federal levels. At that point, we can begin unraveling the layers of bad laws and policies created by Leftist rule, and start working back upward toward sensible ideas. At each stage, people will watch. If our actions produce better results, even if those are delayed, we will have the go-ahead to go on to the next stage. Our first thought should be to liberate people from the high cost of living, horror of our cities, and ugliness of the sexual revolution because they will see results most quickly with those changes.
Along those lines, we can visualize a set of general principles:
These attitudes can serve us in the process of our renewal, which features two simultaneous prongs:
Doing either one alone will not work; they must be done alone. Since most modern people think in terms of themselves and profits, they will acknowledge this but then work exclusively on self-oriented activities — buying books, lifting weights, dating, watching lots of videos on homesteading — instead of working on both. For this reason, anyone who fails both prongs should be viewed not as a member of the tribe but a free rider, parasite, and opportunist.
We face opposition in the form of the nu-elites, which are the people who work in government and those who profit from it, and these are Leftists by convenience. No other philosophy will justify the expansion of a massive government in order to take care of the weak, and so like all good salesmen, they pitch a rosy future while delivering an ugly reality. As with most Crowdists, they help each other across institutional lines, ensuring that if money comes in, it goes to one of them and not us. They create new roles for people like them. This “deep state” represents the intrusion of a dark organization into the system of government, and can only be rooted out by using its tactics, and slowly shifting the flow of money from Leftists to Rightists. In doing that, we make ourselves part of the marketplace which is inherent to government, and that makes us an important constituency to address, at which point we gain power. When people are afraid to exclude you, the tribe you represent has power over them, and use that power against you, so they will start to accept some of your demands, at which point the uniformity of their approach is fractured and your ideas permeate into their audience.
Our passage can be described in the following stages:
This plan as presented deliberately avoids many details because we will know more as we approach each point in the outline. We do not need to concern ourselves now with fighting over details of a future that we cannot yet foresee, nor should we turn our quest into an ideology. We know the folkways in which we want to live, and we can utilize the obvious and commonsense procedure for getting there. If the governmental route fails, we will have to stage armed revolution by seizing local areas and denying government tax revenue. Terrorism and murder will not work for us because they harm the population that we want to protect, and alienate us from those who will naturally support us. Instead, we will need to organize and act as units, not so much fighting as occupying areas and bullying out all government representatives, so that much of the USA becomes a “black box” to its centralized leadership, meaning that it will have lost control and can be allowed to fail on its own rather than engaging in a costly, destructive, and lugubrious civil war.
Our hardest trials come from within ourselves and our group. Many will want a scapegoat — the rich, the Jews, the Africans — instead of attacking the real problem, which is the system created by egalitarianism and the spiritual fault (hubris) which ignited that political motion. We must keep our eyes on the goal, which is to achieve civilization and end this horrible time, and then to become greater than before. Any who do not understand this should be viewed as incompetents at best and traitors at worst, and we cannot trust them, because they are motivated by a desire to have a positive personal mental state, which means that they will gladly sacrifice our goals for money, social status, or simply feeling good about themselves for being nice to others. We must remember the Hober Mallow rule (from Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series) which is that loyalty must be “in the face of death, or it’s useless” and that the “antidote” to disloyalty is the threat of violence.
When you have completed reading this tract, please go outside and look into the night sky. The tension between void and will is the essence of the cosmos. We have given in to the hidden void within what seems to be our will but instead is our surface characteristics, like dogs humping chair legs or people addicted to drugs, over-eating, or excessive sex. While we conquer the external world, we must conquer the internal world and purge ourselves of this tendency. Life presents a paradox in that to access the will, one must first go through the void. Most cannot or do not want to do this. Nihilism provides a path, which is recognizing that there is no shiny world of symbols which is more real than reality, but only reality, whose laws, rules, and structure we know through our intuition. With our minds empty but our intent clear, we can overcome the failings of “human nature” and do what is essential for our survival.
The following may provide further reading of relevance: