B->A Error In New Ben Shapiro Column


Ben Shapiro, whose work is normally quite enjoyable, raises a few points of interest in his new column, but makes a technical error:

The only way to preserve “Western civilization” is by allegiance to European ethnicity. What sort of “Western civilization” must be preserved? Not limited government; not individual responsibility; not equality of rights.

Language can fool us. We know that in logic A->B does not necessarily mean B->A. The most common error in human thinking — seen in reversed cognition, neurosis, superstition, pareidolia and cherry-picking — is to assume B->A. And yet, sadly, Shapiro does it here.

He assume that for us to have limited government, we must explicitly demand it under those terms, forgetting that other methods can achieve it. Limited government is both B and A in his view, when really, it is B and there are many As that can cause it come about.

For example, aristocracy. No government; only leadership. (Government is managerial, where aristocracy approximates the role of military leadership in setting goals and rewarding those who achieve them while clearing non-contributors aside. It does not attempt to manage all people to get to the same result because it is inherently inegalitarian.).

He also assumes that conservatism is not its principles, but the methods used to achieve them. The A is conservative principles; the B is methods. B does not necessarily lead to A, so it is better to uphold principles, and the Alt Right does that with dramatic flair.

In fact, the Alt Right is the resurrection of conservatism from its milquetoast version which was designed to be compatible with democracy and American internationalist (Leftist) policy goals: the core of conservatism is consequentialism, or looking at results to see what has worked best throughout history, and conserving those best principles so that we always have a roadmap when encountering new things.

Let us look at Alt Right ideals:

  • Genetic basis to culture and thus, nation. History shows this one again and again: people like those who are like them, in part because this is the most efficient way to live because people are acting in the same direction without requiring police, media, government and education to hound them. Why is it surprising that the people most opposed to this theory — called Nationalism — are police, media, government and academia?

  • Consequently, diversity does not work. We are not “white supremacists” who blame other groups for our own failings, nor anti-Semites. We recognize this: each group acts in its own genetic self-interest, and therefore, no two groups can share the same interest. Diversity always fails, no matter what groups are involved.

  • Hierarchy not equality. People are not equal on a genetic level, and therefore have widely varying abilities mapped on a “Bell Curve” where most are of only moderate ability. For this reason, we need a strong hierarchy to put those on the far-right seventh of the curve ahead of the rest. Putting those who are most competent in charge guarantees the best results for all and ends the constant internal friction of power struggles.

  • Reward must come only from performance. Unions, socialism, pacifism, equality and social group style inclusion have a fatal flaw: they reward the worst the same as the best, which creates a disincentive to the best through the added penalty of unrewarded and taxing labor. If the reward goes to the worst as well, the best are taking on additional time, energy and money to do what will not be rewarded; this is a de facto penalty. Subsidize nothing, reward only performance.

These are timeless conservative principles. Edmund Burke would agree with them, as would Plato. They are presented here in a form distilled down from the memery and chaotic ideation of the Alt Right, which it preserves to avoid entryism and also to keep itself internally competitive so that it always produces cutting-edge ideas.

Where mainstream conservatism slept, the Alt Right rose; unlike mainstream conservatives, the Alt Right do not require “politeness” and “sociability” from themselves because they realize that these hamper truth, which is more complex and less pleasant than the euphemisms and talismans required for social interaction. That is the difference: the mainstream conservatives are dominated by socializing and its requirements, where the Alt Right maintains a feral, atavistic and anti-social outlook that allows it to be truth-driven and not led around by the nose by human concerns, emotions, feelings, desires and pretenses.

Let us look at what he feels is non-conservative:

Those who cheer it spring from the so-called alt-right, who have been insisting for months that conservatism is a “failure” and that it must be replaced with an ethnicity-based white solidarity movement, and from the Pat Buchanan paleoconservative wing of the party, which believes that free trade is economic voodoo, immigration from non-European countries is inherently problematic, and isolationism on foreign policy is the best way to protect the country.

The common factor here is Nationalism, or the idea that the presence of only one ethnic group defines the nation.

Not proxies like capitalism, small government, democracy, equality, individual responsibility or other B/methods that Shapiro suggests.

The core of conservatism is nationalism because nationalism produces the best results throughout history. It is not surprising, then, that every Leftist ideal and group is against Nationalism. They fear it because it undoes Leftism.

With nationalism, we do not need the Cathedral — the intersectional elite of government, academia, media and entertainment — because we have culture that can be universally practiced because all of the people are the same. This is why Leftism fears Nationalism, and why conservatism promotes it.

As far as the death of conservatism goes, Shapiro writes an interesting discussion of it, but fails to penetrate into the depths: the Alt Right is conservatism, once you strip away the nonsense required for conservatism to play nice (“bipartisanship,” i.e. compromise and collegiality) with Leftism.

Donald Trump is not the end of conservatism; he is the liberation of it. Whether or not he wins, he has broken the surface tension that says conservatives cannot talk about vital issues like Nationalism and our incompatibility with Leftism. There is nothing more Rightist than that.

In my view, Donald Trump is a good candidate because he intends to win. For him winning does not mean merely attaining a position or public recognition, as it does for Leftists. He wants to make a successful project in terms of its results as a conservative would, and that requires strengthening the country and fixing its problems. In intent, at least, he will settle for nothing less, and thanks to Barack Obama’s precedent-setting abuse of executive orders with the Supreme Court’s approval, he has a legal foundation on which he can override the Left and achieve these things.

But even more, he is the standard-bearer for a new conservative mentality: we will not be bullied anymore. We will speak of the obvious and real. We will mention the unsociable and factual, including logical facts (such as “diversity cannot work because groups have self-interest specific to themselves which clash when more than one group occupies the same space”). We will be honest, forthright and clear.

Conservatism died long ago. Ronald Reagan was its last gasp of agonal breathing. After that, it was the muddle. Conservatism has existed in a state of denial of what it is to be conservative, and instead clings to a few methods that conservatives insist qualifies them as conservative, even though the lie is put to that statement by their failure to achieve conservative results, which is the only measurement conservatism recognizes.

Cheer up, Ben. You are halfway to Alt Right yourself. Now it is time for you to join us on the dark side.

Tags: , , ,

10 Responses to “B->A Error In New Ben Shapiro Column”

  1. Jake Saga says:

    I don’t really find Ben very entertaining, but great analysis. I’m sure Ben will join us when…. hell freezes over?

    • I have tagged him in on Twitter, so maybe he will. He seems really solid on some topics; his best movement was when he advocated deporting Palestinians from Israel, but then the cuckservatives ganged up on him because they saw that if Israel can do it, every other nation in the world will want to exile its own third-world dependents.

      Thank you for reading that whole thing. I have this recurring dream where someone starts a blog that summarizes each of my posts in 250 words, at which point people begin suffixing my name with “, verbose hack.” I wake up in a pool of sweat, but a glass of warm milk usually chases away the memory.

      • Bill Jones says:

        You do, of course have it backward.
        The solution is deporting Jews from Palestine.

        The past 70 years have been a horror show compared to what happened prior.

  2. Haxo Angmark says:

    you alt-Rights, while mostly Jew-wise, still don’t get it. You still think you can vote your way out of a Judeo-globalist, anti-White demographic deathtrap that has already snapped shut. For your sake, I hope Zion-owned con-artist Trump does not win the current dog-and-pony show election; if he does, the Buyers’ Remorse will shortly be so intense as to occasion suicides among you. There is only one way out: Race War.

  3. Doug says:

    Ben is, half way there, your right Mr. Stevens. Half way is why the cucks suck. Why being Alt-Right is winning, because there is no half way. Being Alt-Right is the gestalt, you don’t become Alt-Right, your are Alt-right. It is difficult, maybe next to impossible to grok that unless you are Alt-Right, it’s why it is the zeitgeist.
    It’s like crusade bitchez. It’s why the left and the conservatives are terrorized, but the crusaders are calm, they are manifest. The Alt-Right is indomitable, it is a dish of perserverence served bone chilling cold.

    • The Alt-Right is indomitable, it is a dish of perserverence served bone chilling cold.

      That is wonderful and poetic. You are either born to realism, or born to run from it.

      • crow says:

        This observation is new; never seen it before.
        You are what you are, and there’s not a lot of changing what you are. Realist or fantasist.

        • This observation is new; never seen it before.

          Interesting. I knew I wrote about cause-effect logic too much in the past, but am not sure I used these specific terms.

          You are what you are, and there’s not a lot of changing what you are.

          To make it more convoluted, I am not the cause, but the effect.

      • Doug says:

        It just is what it is Mr. Stevens, to be Alt-Right is to be indomitable. To be Alt-Right is to have won.
        There is a parallel, Consent.
        Consent is a very unique thing. I don’t know what you classify consent as in human action, but it is something unlike almost anything else, but one other thing, and I’m not sure the two are really much different, as they are inextricably linked. But consent, it is something that can not be taken, it can not be forced, it only can be given. Nobody can “make” you consent to anything, you have to, regardless of anything, choose to consent to something. The reverse is true also, withdrawal of consent, yet, in a way, withdrawal is more not choosing to consent, it is the default mode of freedom. So do you really choose to withdraw consent, or is just not consenting? Which is the natural order, and which is the actionable choice?
        But what bakes my noodle about it, is The Alt-Right the default mode of the human condition of what freedom is? Do people choose to be slaves, to things like the State, to cuckery, to statism, cultural marxism, the human extinction movement, politics, in it’s myriad ways?
        Nobody can make you be Alt-Right, nobody can make you not be Alt-Right, you don’t “adopt” the Alt-Right, so is the logical thing here being The Alt-Right is default by nature. And are you choosing to be not all the things the Alt-Right is not so in default you are Alt-Right. Or do you choose to be Alt-Right? Which come first, the chicken or the egg, which is the default condition?
        It is almost like Schrodinger’s Cat
        But then, does any of the above matter, is the profound nature of Alt-Right what makes it profound? That what matters is to just accept the Alt-Right, it exists, and that is both the answer, and the profound nature of it.
        And the only thing is, you are Alt-Right?

        There is another thing like consent, I think it is like the Alt-Right also, but it is different too, in an important way, and it is not exclusionary, in fact in some way this third thing is as inextricably linked and consent and Alt-Right. Inside, all through it, is exists a common thread linking the three. It is subtle, but profoundly sublime.
        Now at first blush, it may seem about as unconnected as something could be, but if you are Alt-Right, it is palatable to the heart and mind. For so many reasons and the reasons themselves, the scope to tell it is as vast as creation itself. But bear with me here, because I think I am on to something, and it is worth the telling, as I hope you will see.
        The third thing is guns. Guns! Oh lord a little cheeses must a fell off my cracker, right?
        Not so fast. It is not guns per say, it is property, guns are property, that is the first thing. (And let me say up front, you think the cucks and the left lost it over the Alt-Right, just wait, you ain’t seen nutting’ yet brother.)
        Guns are property, that is the first thing. Like your home, your vehicle, the gold and silver coins you have saved, like your sovereignty, that is your most intimate property. So by default, so is your liberty, so is being Alt-Right. It Is Yours. It Belongs To You. Nobody else. It is property, all of it. Am I right? It is property, or it isn’t property, there is no middle ground on this. Like slavery, is a little bit of slavery ok? How can it be a little slavery? Slavery is your a slave or you isn’t. Kind of like Alt-Right. Or your property, or your consent, or your gun.
        Do you see something here? There is a link here that is of a phenomenal nature, it is manifold and manifest.
        A gun is like consent, nobody can make you use it, and nobody can “make” you give it up, especially your gun, because unlike all the property that is yours, and makes up you, the gun is the one thing which is an extension of force to protect all the other things, not from not being forced, but from having to have a choice in the first place, because why should you have to make a choice of consenting, of being Alt-Right, of keeping your property, to begin with?
        And that is the crux of Alt-Right, and why it is so loathed and feared, because of that pure primal absolute there is not even a question, Alt-Right, how it is an indomitable force itself, it is it’s nature, to begin with.
        And we all know, to be indomitable, is to be free, and that can not be permitted.
        Lets ditch all the politics, all the politics of the day, all before, and hereafter, what do we have? Culture, we have the human terrain, it is upstream and on top of everything else. First, and last. Isn’t that Alt-Right also? I think it is. And it is why also, Alt-Right is indomitable.
        I don’t like the idea it is power, it is something else, something better, it is motive power. Not power in of itself, but motive power, the Alt-Right. Like Liberty, like primal freedoms.
        Believe me, The Alt-Right is feared more than anything, you know who fears it. The Alt-Right is the existential threat, it needs hardly exist, but for an idea, an inkling in mens minds and hearts, and it is a threat. And like the birth of liberty, the birth of Alt-Right, can not be put back in the bottle, you have to kill every one to kill the idea of Alt-Right, and if the cucks and the left by chance reaches the nadir of the power and tyranny it covets, they will come after the Alt-Right with everything they have.
        That property, guns, the barrels of which, is where the power of tyrants grows, and the motive power of being free, remember property, being Alt-Right is defended and protected, and ultimately if force and violence is ultimately employed against Alt-Right, it will require that property, guns in it’s defense.

        • Do people choose to be slaves, to things like the State, to cuckery, to statism, cultural marxism, the human extinction movement, politics, in it’s myriad ways?

          As groups, yes. As individuals, it varies, but there are more who would choose it than not, and it is easier to choose it than not.

          Culture, we have the human terrain, it is upstream and on top of everything else. First, and last. Isn’t that Alt-Right also?

          Undeniably, with the proviso that culture arises from genetics and is not universal. Same with the New Right.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>