Election 2012 is about demographics and direction

In the modern time, we dwell in two worlds. There is the sayable, that we can publicly say, and there is the unsayable, which we all know is true but not accepted by society at large.

Writers hide the unsayable for several reasons. First, people are not ready for it. Knowledge is esoteric and can only be assimilated when the learner is ready for it. Second, there is no point adopting what people fear in order to educate them. Finally, to speak of these topics would bestow too much power on the electorate.

The foundation of the unsayable is that modern society is in decline because its fundamental assumption, equality, is unrealistic. Having said that, we need say little more. It’s clear that if equality folds, so does the idea of democracy. Then falls the idea of a caste-less society, and the idea that we don’t need to shape ourselves like evolution once did by rewarding the best, smiting the worst, and ignoring the mediocre.

In the election that’s coming up in four days, the collision between the sayable and unsayable will be unavoidable. Almost none of what is publicly being said about this election has any bearing on the actual task, which is part of the unsayable. You have a choice between two points of view:

  1. Intentions. In this choice, you accept the sayable as the only important topic, and reject the unsayable. You believe in equality, peace, and freedom as solutions to the human problem, and your solution is to put society’s power behind trying to raise up those who are “lowered” and make them equal. This solution is manifested in a spectrum from mainstream Democratic politics all the way through the Soviet Union. It’s the same basic idea, just a question of degree.
  2. Consequences. In this choice, you accept the unsayable, which is that our fond intentions and acceptance don’t matter, but our achievement — or lack thereof — does. Here you acknowledge that the fundamental human problem is that there are too many people willing to do bad things in exchange for temporary wealth, and you seek to disenfranchise those people. Instead, you want to elevate the good above the rest, and not put your society into a tailspin through the eternal quest to save the clueless from themselves.

Both of these options are gradients. This means that once you choose one, you are a moving in a direction toward more of the same and less of its opposite. They are also both mutually exclusive, since each choice favors an entirely different goal.

This process could be seen in the election of Barack Obama as well. His rhetoric started out moderate, then moved more toward the extreme with calls for universal healthcare, socialized entitlements, immigration amnesty and a more relativistic foreign policy. The voters spoke, and then continued pressure, which caused Obama to move closer to the source of his mandate, which isn’t him personally but the intention-based ideology he represents.

Currently it’s popular among the more alienated members of the right to claim that they will be boycotting the vote by not voting. I respectfully disagree; as far as I know, gentlemen can still do that without inducing enmity.

We’re now trying to reverse that process. It’s a sea change, not just an election. It’s a shift in our mentality from one that accepts a liberal state, to one that recognizes that any degree of liberalism is going to lead down a slippery slope to more liberalism, until we’re in total reality denial.

Even more, there’s a recognition of ethnic interests. Non-whites have always voted for their interests, which is why Democrats have made it a point to import them and cultivate them with entitlements. With this election, whites are realizing that this is their last chance to show up in great numbers and be represented as a group, or they will be replaced with new plans for amnesty and benefits:

I’ve written here before that politics is all about showing up. And in recent months, people on the Right have been doing a lot of showing up. They’ve showed up at Romney-Ryan events in unprecedented numbers. They made Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016: Obama’s America” a huge hit despite a virtual blackout from traditional media. They stood in line for hours at Chick-fil-A restaurants to buy chicken sandwiches in response to politicians’ bullying. They packed houses at the “Hating Breitbart” premiere.

Will they now pack the voting booths and vote for Romney, and against Obama, in similarly unprecedented numbers? If they do, Romney will win in a landslide. – “The ground-glass election,” by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Washington Examiner

What’s going on here is part of a sea change in politics. People are no longer thinking that liberalism is a positive direction, and in fact have realized that the nature of equality is that it creates dependents, and those dependents in turn vandalize and parasitize their society.

People want to go in a right-wing direction, but this is not going to happen through an ideal candidate arriving from the heavens and mentioning the sayable. It occurs in increments: a candidate appears, pushes the boundaries of the sayable, and gets elected. The next election, more from the unsayable realm is sayable.

You have a choice in this election to represent your interests. If you do not choose it, you will not be represented, and you will be rolled over by those who are representing their interests.

To this statement many people will retort with the idea that our society is so far gone that it will need to be replaced entirely, and that we should not vote, but hold out for the end. There are two major flaws with this.

First, the end does not come quickly, but slowly. We decline to a second-rate power, then a third-world kleptocracy, and at that point the people breed themselves into uselessness. If the Vandals ultimately show up to sack the capital city, that’s centuries later, when the damage is already irrevocable.

Second, introducing radical change is a bad idea. By suspending the normal rule of law, you introduce a winner-take-all mode which most commonly goes to the biggest liar, since most people will panic and reward whoever promises stability. You are unlikely to get a conservative leadership out of this instability.

The left is aware of this. They are playing dirty politics and engaging in election fraud because they know that if they win this election, they can roll out immigration amnesty and more entitlement programs and create new voters to replace us. The same process is happening in Europe, where the threats to liberal power are so great that censorship and political persecutions have returned.

Election 2012 is about demographics and direction. Do we want a voice at all? If not, we will consent to be governed by others. Do we want to change direction from liberal back toward conservative? These are the real choices, not the false media narrative created in order to drum up drama.

I understand the frustration of those who want to throw in the towel on modern society and its vile nature. The fact is that with all things in life, slow and steady work gets results, while radical leaps create uncertainty and work against the reformer. This election, opt for a move closer to what you want, instead of giving up because perfection is not at hand.

68 Comments

  1. Anthony says:

    Editing tip: too lt; strong gt; opinions

    1. Sorry about that; we’re having webhost problems.

  2. Lisa Colorado says:

    I found myself in a strange situation about sayable things and I learned something for myself that I’d only heard about before:

    I was at an event where a friendly acquaintance I know was leaving on his bike. He is an enthusiast of fixed gear bikes or “fixies” and he builds them. The bike he was riding that day was very pretty to me and I commented, “wow, that is a great looking bike.” and to add further emphasis I said, “we Americans appreciate a great piece of machinery.”

    Where I come from, that comment would’ve been taken as a light, not all-encompassing statement, and left at that.

    But where I was at in the moment there were a couple of other people there who, let’s just say, weren’t humored by me saying that second emphatic comment. They frowned and one of them said, “If you think American machinery is great, that’s nothing compared to German machinery.”

    Okay, first of all I know Germany and Switzerland are awesome machinery makers, duh, and second of all, that guy treated me like some kind of a jingo.

    Upon later reflection that moment looked to me as if what I’d said had triggered some kind of a trained response in their brains, a kind of “we don’t think like that” and a prejudicial judgment, like it’s not okay to use the term “American” in a positive way!

    I had come up against the unspoken. I had forgotten to make sure I expressed my thoughts about the US in leveled, diminishing fashion. I was politically incorrect, and those people I was speaking to had no idea at all what I was like or what I knew about the world. All that mattered was, I triggered their ant-brained lefty knee jerk.

    I’m not saying this doesn’t happen on the right, but it just chilled me that I hit up against brainwashing, and these people are certain they are correct in all things. This in turn is provoking me to get defensive.

    1. Upon later reflection that moment looked to me as if what I’d said had triggered some kind of a trained response in their brains, a kind of “we don’t think like that” and a prejudicial judgment, like it’s not okay to use the term “American” in a positive way!

      That’s pretty typical for liberals.

      Being proud of who you are is declasse, in their view, because it’s so ordinary.

      Gotta go to the exotic. German machinery, black President, midget bondage porn, etc.

  3. crow says:

    This whole post made me weigh the apparently unassociated problems my wife and I are currently facing with our – ah – rabbit

    We didn’t go out looking for this rabbit; it arrived, from nowhere, and took up residence. It turns out to be a self-harmer, and manifests this by eating one of its back feet. $1000 later, it is still trying to do this, and must wear a bandage, non-stop, and now that the winter rains are upon us, must live indoors, to try to keep the bandage dry, and gangrene at bay.
    So, we feel terrible about this poor cooped-up bunny, and must attend to all its needs, feeding, cleaning, re-bandaging and treating, while mopping up the massive amounts of urine and beans that a rabbit unendingly creates.
    And this is social-conscience:
    It’s not a question of simply helping-out where help is needed.
    ‘Simple’ is not a word that applies, here.
    Once you elect to go down this helping path, you can never stop, or the object of your help will revert, immediately, to its former path, undoing and wasting all you have invested in helping.
    We hope, of course, that a new balance will assert itself, and the rabbit will forget about eating its foot, will heal, and be able to be free, outside, again.
    You never know.
    Meanwhile, it is a good example of pouring resources into a quite possibly doomed venture, in the mere hope that something worthwhile will result.

    In the real world, the bunny would either die, or not.
    In the empathetic social world of emotional humans, there is no end to the draining of resources into a black-hole that does nothing but gobble up good intentions.

    It’s a very, very nice rabbit though (:>

    1. If your rabbit listens to emo music, it will self-harm. Get that rabbit back on a steady diet of bluegrass, folk and punk rock.

  4. Eric says:

    Like I have stated here before, my fear is what is in store in the long run. If multiple projections can be trusted, from sources such as the U.N. and our own government, among others, the United States’ population is projected to reach somewhere between 400+ and 450+ million by 2050. That part is bad enough as far as I am concerned, but I will make no secret of the fact that I do not believe the stated demographic shift that is involved is a non-issue. I think it only entails a further slip. You have to decide who you are and what you value and what kind of future you would like to see. If anything, I would ideally like to be apolitical. I just think this stuff comes down to a popularity contest, with candidates willing to make promises to whatever constituency they feel has votes they can win. It is not about the long-term vision.

    I am tired of the old argument of how we need to compete with the world, and that somehow this added population will give us an edge. The world as a whole needs a new paradigm, one centered around each country or region creating a livable reality for the types of people that make of that space. And what works for one will not work for the other, because we are very different on so many levels and I don’t see that as a bad thing.

    But for now, we drown ourselves in the “hot button” issues, ignoring some very “inconvenient truths” that are around the corner. In my opinion, it is like arguing about what color the new sails should be, all the while there is a gaping hole in the bottom of the ship, and it is going down fast. I am just not sure what candidate can address that. I almost think it is up to people to start talking about and addressing issues that really matter, not fashionable popularity contest talking points, regardless of Tuesday outcome. At least that is my opinion. I just don’t see how stuffing more rats in this cage, irrespective of the issue of the source of these rats, is going to solve our problems.

    If I can ramble on here a bit more, I think there needs to be some sharing of knowledge, globally, so that people can start applying solutions locally, in ways that are culturally compatible. But for any nation to sell itself out, absorbing the world’s problems, in a manner that will sink the ship for all is in my opinion very irresponsible. I know some people would label me a hater for saying this, but I am just trying to address reality as I see it based on the data. I feel dealing with reality is the highest level one can operate on, and I am convinced most do not, in fact those are the ones that might call me a hater. But I cannot worry about that. It is a pure numbers thing in the end, and a really bad idea on some many levels as far as I am concerned. I understand the behavior of exponential numbers. Most do not.

    1. Eric says:

      As an added note, on the whole competing globally thing, humanity has so much knowledge right now and we still cannot get our s*** together. To think that more knowledge is going to save us is a crock of s***. We cannot do well with the troves we already posses. This isn’t some off the cuff comment. I have thought very, very deeply about this issue, and am pretty confident in regards to my opinion on it.

      1. crow says:

        Thus you don’t hold an ‘opinion’.
        You hold an informed position, based upon considered observation.
        Congratulations.
        Opinion-holders are unaware of the distinction.

    2. ferret says:

      “The world as a whole needs a new paradigm…”

      Do you mean stopping migrations?

      “I am just trying to address reality as I see it based on the data.”

      Can you elaborate it; most people are not only bad with exponential numbers, but also have difficulties reading other’s mind :)
      Or you are just talking about overpopulation?

      1. Eric says:

        I think by new paradigm I mean this notion of competing with each other on the economic front. Obviously we need some of that, but I don’t think what gets pressed by the politicos will lead to a good outcome. Maybe zero-sum game is the right term? We need to address consumption needs for a stable population. I think we just have our priorities messed up. It is almost like it is a race to the “top” which in my view is really a race to the bottom. We are totally messed up in regards to what life should be about. I stress again, we have more know-how tight now than we even know what to do with, and we still cannot make effective use of it and “get it together.”

        As far as addressing reality as I see it from the data, yes, at the very basic level I am talking overpopulation. But I am also talking about having not only too many rats in a cage, but incompatible rats as well. I for one see this to be a huge potential problem.

        1. Eric says:

          correction: what gets pressed by the politicos (and others) will *not* lead to a good outcome.

          1. ferret says:

            These multiple negations of negations confuse me. I will try to put it simple; correct me if I wrong.
            1. The new paradigm is about countries or areas inhabited by people of compatible type. These groups suppose to compete economically with each other and with the world, but not too much.
            2. If pressed by politicos, the outcome of this competition will be bad.

            Not sure I understand “zero-sum game” the same way as you, because zero-sum is a rare condition in economy. Or you are referring to the game theory?

            1. Eric says:

              I’m probably not the best at expressing what I am thinking at times, especially when I don’t quite have the right words. Sometimes I might use the wrong terms. So yeah, I am maybe not the best to sometimes talk about this stuff.

              I just see things and sense things that appear to not be right. I am not saying everyone has to be separated by types in some sort of strict fashion.

              In the end, on some basic level, I think we need more regional engagement, that every region needs to get its shit together. And yes, we need this to slow migrations, so everyone can take care of there own instead of flooding in elsewhere, escaping their own hell-holes only to create new hell-holes.

              A future of Jay-Z concerts and digital gadgets is not a substitute for good living. Don’t ask why I said this other than I saw in the NYT paper the other day about the opening of a new stadium in Brooklyn, a Jay-Z concert. So much in life had become surface bullshit, that is all I am saying. We are on our way down in a lot of ways it often seems.

              That is all I got ferret, ramblings that sometimes hit spot on and sometimes are, well, just ramblings.

              1. So much in life had become surface bullshit, that is all I am saying.

                Sounds like we’ve got the lowest common denominator blues. I hear you catch it from pathological altruism, which is transmitted exclusively by wild-eyed revolutionaries in black sweaters.

        2. It is almost like it is a race to the “top” which in my view is really a race to the bottom.

          That’s “progress.”

          In a Utopia, there would be no war, no social class, no genders, no marriage, no different IQ test results, no race, no difference of opinion. We would all be one, finally.

          Then peace would rule earth and all humans would be lifted up.

          1. crow says:

            Like, on a stretcher?

    3. Like I have stated here before, my fear is what is in store in the long run.

      You mean the West falling like Rome? It’s already been known for so long that it’s a cliche. No one cares. They’re too busy pursuing their own pleasures, since they think the end is at hand.

      If they just got their shit together, none of this would be necessary of course.

  5. Eric says:

    One last quick thought, but we live in very “existential” times (yeah, I suppose one could nit-pick this statement, but I hope people get what I am saying.) I think most people for some reason do not get this and hence are looking for some sort of scapegoat as to why things are as they are. But personal stuff in my life forced my to be hyper-aware starting over twenty years ago, as a young adult. I have been paying attention ever since on some level, and I am convinced most people have gripes that don’t actually address the true reality of what is going on. So our society gets shaped by the clueless, who are either unable or unwilling to see the real issues at the heart of things. We become a destructive society on the decline, and yet it is all someone else’s fault. Again, the ship then just keeps sinking. What color should those sails be again? Maybe I’ll get a tattoo of a ship to show my solidarity with the sinking, maybe a couple symbolic holes in my body to distract away from where the real hole lies, at the bottom of the sinking ship. And maybe I’ll find a scapegoat to deflect blame from my own role in all of this. Yeah, maybe I’ll band together with like minded people and we can collectively lay blame to the rest, never willing to look in the mirror. Yeah, let’s do it!!

    1. ferret says:

      “So our society gets shaped by the clueless, who are either unable or unwilling to see the real issues at the heart of things.”

      Who are these people – proles, elites, leftists, liberals, or what?

      “Maybe I’ll get a tattoo of a ship to show my solidarity with the sinking, maybe a couple symbolic holes in my body”

      The moment you make these symbolic holes you will be accused for witchcraft and burnt on the stake.

      1. Eric says:

        Truth be told, I think the clueless can be found across most spectrums. I’ll leave the more nuanced debate up to others at this point. I tend to watch people, and see cluelessness or at the very least a narcissistic destructiveness among many type.

        The whole tattoo and hole thing was a jab at a social culture that seems to encourage short-term popularity behavior that is often a long-term bad decision. I’m all for the long view.

        1. Eric says:

          Just to add, I poked fun a subset of what I consider a destructive culture. There are many other examples out there. What is healthy? Well, don’t ask me that. I’m still struggling to figure it all out…

        2. Most people are clueless about their own lives. What makes us think their votes are informed or intelligent?

  6. Mihai says:

    There is something very weird going on here these days.
    I have not commented on these articles until now because, as a non-american, I have no legitimate part in this. However, I will say something concerning the new-right and its methods, which are of a more general nature.

    First of all: a site that claims to be anti-democratic (and presents valid arguments for why a democratic process always has, as a result, the lowest common denominator) believes that through voting in a democratic direction things will actually change for the better, given a few years and a few more elections. Now I don’t want to be ironic, but this sounds like fighting fire with flamethrowers.

    Second: This site has always emphasized that conservatism stands for a way of life, which is above mere economics and socialization. Yet, it supports a candidate that is in no way different than its cvasi-communist opponent. For Romney, like Obama, everything begins and ends in the economical and the social. And don’t tell me that this is only a cover which hides a very profound “unsayable”, because there is no sign of such a thing. Plus, this guy is a Mormon. Someone who claims adherence to such pseudo-spiritual caricatures is unlikely to be of much intellectual hope.

    Thirdly (and here is something which is of a more general type): the new-right
    claims to abhor modernity’s reduction of everything to quantity and to promote quality and principles. Yet, their methods are as quantitative as those of the left and they believe that the key to victory is to “convince” as many people as possible and to have greater numbers than their leftist opponents. It seems that, for the new-right, the way to quality is to have the largest quantity on its side. Perplexing.

    Last, but not least: The new-right claims to stand for solid principles and a superior vision of life. Yet, reading the likes of Alain de Benoist one only finds there a curious mixture of “rightist” jargon, a few Nietzschean slogans perpetuated mechanically, some vulgarized ideas from Evola and loads of mystifications.
    Worst of all, the new-right is greatly infiltrated by all sorts of pathetic neo-paganisms, crowleyan occultisms, new-agey type of naturalism and, worst of all, darwinian evolutionism, this last being the main pillar on which the modern mentality is built.

    Now I do not doubt that this right that is at stake here may, in the future, gain some political support and even find itself in a position of power. Fortunes are always changing. But then what ? Are we to replace the current lie with some even more dangerous half-truths? Because this is what the so-called “principles” of the new-right amount to. And then we’ll replace the caprice of the mass and of the lowest common denominator with the caprice of a single individual or that of a small circle of a pseudo-elite. Nazism was something like this, to be honest.

    1. ferret says:

      “…a site that claims to be anti-democratic … believes that through voting in a democratic direction things will actually change for the better…”
      It may actually inhibit the process of economic decline, giving a chance.

      “For Romney, like Obama, everything begins and ends in the economical and the social.”
      That’s true. But, again, it is better to avoid economic collapse.

      “It seems that, for the new-right, the way to quality is to have the largest quantity on its side.”
      You are mixing here goals and methods. Methods could be whatever you like; the quantitative ones are just fine, if the goal is achieved. And the goal was about quality.

      “Are we to replace the current lie with some even more dangerous half-truths? Because this is what the so-called “principles” of the new-right amount to.”
      First of all, these principles have never been clearly articulated on this site; so you cannot tell what is more or less dangerous.
      Talking about quality, principles, traditions, etc., doesn’t mean we know what are they; instead, we believe they exist, and we have a corresponding feeling.

      Mihai, I have an impression you misinterpret this site. After reading its archives and some researching, I’m convinced it is not a political blog. Just read Paleoconservatism articles on the Internet, e.g. viki, and you will see.
      If this site were about politics, I would label it as “communist”. As a guy who was raised in a “communist” country and familiar with both, capitalist and communist ideologies, I can prove it.
      But, again, this site is not about ideology at all, so there is no relevance, other than talking about better society.

    2. Use any method you have.

      That’s the gentle version of “by any means necessary.”

      Sometimes, that means dismember and disembowel your victims or some other horrible outcome.

      Sometimes, it means take a short drive, check a box on a form, and go home for a hot pot of the Early Grey.

      Use any method available.

      Never give up. Never give in.

      Never pass an opportunity.

    3. 1349 says:

      Yet, it supports a candidate that is in no way different than its cvasi-communist opponent. For Romney, like Obama, everything begins and ends in the economical and the social.

      Wouldn’t a candidate talking religion, tradition, metaphysics, philosophy look a bit odd in the current situation – i mean the current state of society, the (western) mentality. Would he even reach this final stage of the campaign?

      (Not that i support the democratic process in principle. But politics is a dirty game where one often needs to do things that from a “household” everyday level look like pretending, cheating, lies and even betrayal; which was also true in pre-modern, usually romanticized, times.)

      The new-right claims to stand for solid principles and a superior vision of life. Yet, reading the likes of Alain de Benoist…

      Sometimes this site criticizes the New Right.

      1. Mihai says:

        “Wouldn’t a candidate talking religion, tradition, metaphysics, philosophy look a bit odd in the current situation ”

        Yes, it would. Which is why I would settle for a one who at least doesn’t voice the same progressist propaganda like his alleged leftist opponent. However I hear Romney, then Obama, and I really have a very hard time convincing myself that they are opponents and not allies in the same party.

        ” First of all, these principles have never been clearly articulated on this site; so you cannot tell what is more or less dangerous.”

        And that is exactly my concern.

        And I have asked this several times: Brett usually talks “common goals”, but I’ve never read a concrete example, at least, of what he envisions by this. Common goals could mean just about anything, many of which by no means positive.

        And I agree it is not always a political blog. Actually I am more fond of the articles that do not directly talk about politics, than the ones that do.

        1. 1349 says:

          Common goals could mean just about anything

          I suspect that almost any common goal turns people rightwing and realistic. When there’s a goal (and not necessarily a purely creative one; still i think the more creative, the better), you have to choose the proper methods, tools and team in order to achieve it. The more trial and error, the more souls grow.

          1. 1349 says:

            The “higher” and more complex they grow, i mean.

            1. Mihai says:

              “I suspect that almost any common goal turns people rightwing and realistic.”

              But our society already has a common goal. To provide such a situation that any individual can live according to his “own reality” no matter how deviant, and to put down anyone who questions such an insane state of affairs.

              I also could organize with more people and have, as a common goal, to start a random killing spree.
              And some internationals (like the EU) do have as a common goal to destroy all culture and all differences in order to impose their eschatological vista of a neo-communist utopia.

              So, no, not any common goal goes because it is a “common goal”.

              1. 1349 says:

                But our society already has a common goal. To provide such a situation that any individual can live according to his “own reality” no matter how deviant, and to put down anyone who questions such an insane state of affairs.

                Such a goal hasn’t been officially declared.
                And it logically can’t be a common goal since it essentially is a goal to have nothing in common.

                I also could organize with more people and have, as a common goal, to start a random killing spree.

                Too small-scale and too quick. Of course its accomplishment won’t help you get in contact with reality. (Perhaps except your last seconds before being executed.)

                And some internationals (like the EU) do have as a common goal to destroy all culture and all differences in order to impose their eschatological vista of a neo-communist utopia.

                Undeclared and similar to the first one.
                And do you believe that the likes of Brin & Page want to destroy their own culture?

                So, no, not any common goal goes because it is a “common goal”.

                Of course! I was speaking too generally, but expected you would understand.

      2. Wouldn’t a candidate talking religion, tradition, metaphysics, philosophy look a bit odd in the current situation – i mean the current state of society, the (western) mentality. Would he even reach this final stage of the campaign?

        Not a chance that he would.

        He wouldn’t even make it into the primaries.

        If we’re going to win this, it’s going to be by getting rightists in office to clean house (and not start more wars).

        Each time we win, we move farther right.

        This is the exact same thing the left has been doing.

    4. First of all: a site that claims to be anti-democratic (and presents valid arguments for why a democratic process always has, as a result, the lowest common denominator) believes that through voting in a democratic direction things will actually change for the better, given a few years and a few more elections.

      I don’t see the contradiction. Democracy fails, but it’s what we have. You don’t stop work just because your tools are inferior. You work more slowly and more carefully.

      For Romney, like Obama, everything begins and ends in the economical and the social.

      That’s the parameters of modern life and at this point, any candidate who does not do this will not get elected. His views in private are unknown.

      Yet, their methods are as quantitative as those of the left and they believe that the key to victory is to “convince” as many people as possible and to have greater numbers than their leftist opponents.

      Yes, because that’s how you win an election and avoid a worse result. The method doesn’t matter, the result does. That’s the conservative way always.

      The new-right claims to stand for solid principles and a superior vision of life. Yet, reading the likes of Alain de Benoist one only finds there a curious mixture of “rightist” jargon, a few Nietzschean slogans perpetuated mechanically, some vulgarized ideas from Evola and loads of mystifications.

      This is true. The new right needs reform. Many of us, including other people on this blog, have suggested roots conservatism. It always works. The real problem with the new right is that they’re neocons with a nationalist twist, which means they’ll quickly defeat themselves.

  7. Mihai says:

    PS: I do not wish to undermine this site, nor its authors. I have always recognized (and I still do) its merits, I do praise its articles that I consider praise-worthy etc. It does have some solid ideas, but its final “destination” is flawed.

    Perhaps it would be better to set more modest goals- “reforming society” and “convincing people” is unrealistic. Writing for the few who still affirm and hold solid principles in life and helping these few to incorporate them at the personal level is a lot more productive than hoping to win the largest quantity of followers.
    Just a suggestion. Of course, you have already set your goal- to win as many people as possible- so there is no point in me to argue.

    I won’t quit visiting here from time to time, though.

    1. ferret says:

      “Writing for the few who still affirm and hold solid principles in life and helping these few to incorporate them at the personal level is a lot more productive…”

      Sounds like a “support group” (for people with “solid principles disorder”?), too depressing.

      1. Sounds like a “support group” (for people with “solid principles disorder”?), too depressing.

        That’s one of the risks of aiming too much inward toward an existing audience.

        1. Aiming toward an existing audience? What a convenient political statement. I’d suspect you of being self-serving except that you seem to win nothing by this, although you should. Why aren’t you writing the books like Ann Coulter and making millions off this crap? At least get your family and friends out of the way of the falling tree.

          Amerika can do better than that, you need to start moving people not toward an election but toward a cultural reform. This is what the new right offers (besides warmed over 1930s nationalism camouflaged in liberal economic theory). Metapolitics is cultural sea change in attitudes toward politics. Do that.

          Mihai gave you a few good points before he had an aneurysm and suggested hobbyism. The real problem with the right is that we’re scattered everywhere in front of the massive assault of the left. We need to regroup, join under one flag, and charge these scumbags and cut off their heads.

    2. Writing for the few who still affirm and hold solid principles in life and helping these few to incorporate them at the personal level is a lot more productive than hoping to win the largest quantity of followers.

      This is an interesting division, and one that I’m not sure exists.

      My goal (personally) here is to explain how things work (or rather, don’t work).

      This is so that people understand why it makes sense to do what we idealize here.

      I can shout propaganda at them all day, or as you note, parrot some kind of emotional-populist propaganda in order to be popular, but the truest role of writer is explainer.

      We tell the stories, then the logic pops out by itself, flowering in a billion minds…

      1. ferret says:

        …the truest role of writer is explainer.

        It shouldn’t be the only role. Any writer, if he is writing more than one article in his life, is not static, he is in a process of constant development, which is a part of our advancement to our best.

        If not that process, you’d be still a democrat.

        About this site and its undermining: Mihai has been commenting here for a long time, contributing to a good style discussions. No undermining was ever noticed.

        But nothing is eternal. Mihai has expressed a concern.

        There are at least two ways of addressing this concern.
        The first one, in accordance with the writer’s role as an explainer, is to clarify whatever is not clear. And, maybe, to try to understand the roots of these concerns or misconceptions. Otherwise, what is the point of publicity of one’s ideas?

        The second way is to persuade everybody there was a leftist enemy suddenly born due to the hurricane followed by elections in the US; prompt the enemy to shut up, and then continue expecting these 5% of our fellow citizens become convinced in right ideas.

        This second way has proved to be the most elegant and least expensive one – if the goal is to keep these right ideas as a secret.

        1. The first one, in accordance with the writer’s role as an explainer, is to clarify whatever is not clear.

          Do that.

          The second way is to persuade everybody there was a leftist enemy suddenly born due to the hurricane followed by elections in the US

          No, this is wrong and you should know better. They never said this was recent, only that you should always pick the white conservative option over the rabble.

    3. crow says:

      If you don’t wish to undermine, Mihai, then don’t.
      A large part of the modern malaise is to offer negative input, rather than to say nothing that undermines.
      Modern society seems to float, without a rudder, upon a sea of endless negativity and incipient destruction. No wonder it’s in such a mess.

      1. A large part of the modern malaise is to offer negative input, rather than to say nothing that undermines.

        Truth there. Also you can help by spreading the word. I don’t exactly see an Amerika.org street team putting up fliers in my town, or even mentioning it to many friends. It’s like our little secret.

    4. 1349 says:

      Perhaps it would be better to set more modest goals- “reforming society” and “convincing people” is unrealistic.

      Why “unrealistic”? Do you mean “unreachable in a lifetime”?

      Voicing ideas, as opposed to explaining how to implement them, is the farthest reaching, most effective method of control.

      1. Mihai says:

        @crow: So you only expect positive comments and agreement on every single thing and from every single reader ?

        @Brett, 1349 and others:

        My main concern is that in our current situation no reversal is possible. Our society has gone too far past the point of no return for there to still exist the possibility of “saving it”.

        However, there still exist islands of sanity here and there (even if so small as a village, a district, a street or as little as a household or even a single person), which I find worth fighting for. If we can extend these “islands” and annex some more territory, even better, but the thought that a major turn-about is possible is illusory. Which is why I think that a smaller audience is always preferable to a larger one, this latter being always liable to drag the whole discourse into mediocrity.

        1. crow says:

          I expect nothing, not even from you.
          But undermining never did any good, so why bother with it?
          People often assume I expect agreement, but that is not true.
          I prefer forbearance of things not agreed with, over outright conflict.
          It might be a worthy goal, to make the effort to get along with each other, at least here, in this tribal fragment of humanity, to show ourselves it can still be done, in an age where all the evidence would suggest otherwise.
          The idea is for each man to do his best.
          Isn’t it?

        2. 1349 says:

          However, there still exist islands of sanity here and there, which I find worth fighting for.

          Why fight for them if “no reversal is possible”?

          If you’re sure no reversal is possible, can you describe where we’re heading?

          /*
          What if the Earth-scale yugas cycle works not in the way traditionalists describe (great -> good -> mediocre -> bad -> suddenly great again) but in a more natural, “seasons changing” fashion: great -> good -> mediocre -> bad -> mediocre -> good -> great again? =)
          */

          1. Mihai says:

            As to your question regarding the cycles, this is much larger topic than we have space here. Suffice to say that the passing from one age to the next represents a “sudden fall” which marks a difference of levels that can only be surpassed with a similar sudden jump, for which there is not enough power for the whole of creation, since with each fall, the grip of the downward gravitational pull is stronger. It can only be realized by some cases on the micro level. For a good description see Plato’s “Statesman” (or Political, whatever the translation)

            Inside each age, a reversal is possible in the sense that we can return to a higher point of the same level, as such making the best of an already bad situation and avoiding another major collapse.

            Is this, at least, still possible and can the end be postponed? Who knows ? Clearly, on a major level it is, at the moment, illusory. That’s why I say, start from the micro. Start with yourself, then your family, then your immediate environment. Start from the inward and expand towards the outward and see how far you can go. To be able to change the greater you must already have changed the lesser.

            Many “traditionalist” I see expect to have the best possible environment before they can start “working” on themselves. For the most part, their lives are as disordered and as vulgar as that of their liberal counterparts, but they think that radical change is possible.

            So, I don’t know how far we can go with the hopes of a positive change, but the world is starting to look more and more like a someone caught in an avalanche.

            1. 1349 says:

              can the end be postponed?

              What will be the end, i asked?
              Will there be an end at all?
              If it’s inevitable, why are you trying to postpone it?

              1. Mihai says:

                Like I said, this is really a topic to large to be discussed here.

                Plus, I am not really sure it belongs here.

                1. 1349 says:

                  Still you’re posting verbose comments on how we’re screwed.

                  We need all kinds of rightwing activity – from writing abstract essays on worldview or promoting traditional values in art, or running businesses and financing conservative movements, to maintaining your kin or even encouraging your colleagues to make chin-ups and push-ups during breaks… Good for us all if you can fight on several fronts simultaneously.

                  1. Mihai says:

                    I was writing about three things:

                    1. That it is an illusion to think you can overthrow democracy using democratic means.

                    2. The fact that the situation is irreversible through conventional, non-violent means results from the simple observation of our current society, down to the root causes. You don’t have to go to the cosmological doctrine of cycles in order to realize the obvious of our case (though they can help in figuring out certain subtle aspects of our times).

                    3. If this new-right or whatever right-wing group will actually come, through whatever means, to overthrow the current democratic chaos, I must really ask if they uphold genuine sacred principles for a true reconstruction. Otherwise, we will only have interwar Europe all over again: some particular changes for the better that only end up causing a bigger disaster after their collapse.

                    1. 1349 says:

                      1. This worked in my country. Democracy was overthrown 18 years ago when the people voted for an anti-democratic candidate.
                      As for the US, i doubt that the elections are fair (in the democratic sense); they seem an overproduced show with results predetermined.

                      2.

                      irreversible through conventional, non-violent means

                      Tell that to the Chinese who speak with their business partners from the position of strength and who organize international contests where the participants compete in the knowledge of the Chinese language and culture;
                      or to the Hindus who have set a formal goal of Maha-mantra being read in every smallest village on earth.

                      3.

                      I must really ask if they uphold genuine sacred principles for a true reconstruction.

                      Amerika.org seems the wrong place to ask about the European New Right…

          2. Why fight for them if “no reversal is possible”?

            They’ll get obliterated in the fall.

          3. ferret says:

            About the Earth-scale cycles: they are subject of cybernetics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics). Technically, it is possible to find a way of changing the waveform of these cycles applying a minimal control force – something it worth to ponder upon for those who want to make a change in life.

            In the nature we have seasonal cycles, when trees lose their leaves completely in fall. This is how democrats believe everything should work. Destroy -> Celebrate -> Build from scratch -> Protest -> Destroy, etc.

            But, there are evergreen trees exist, they make us happy through the whole year. No much dirt, no much noise, just stability. Healthy year-round fresh air. I associate it with the conservative approach.

        3. Our society has gone too far past the point of no return for there to still exist the possibility of “saving it”.

          This is a trendy but stupid idea. I’ve heard this a lot from people. It’s really just a big fat excuse for doing nothing.

          Society can always be saved. Just stop doing the stupid stuff.

          1. ferret says:

            “Just stop doing the stupid stuff.”

            THIS is the problem. If a person was stupid enough to take a rope and soap and hang himself, it doesn’t matter whether we believe he could always be saved, or not. A stupid stuff was done, and the man has gone.

            Some societies could be saved, but weren’t. Ancient Greece, Ancient Sparta, Rome Empire – where are they?

            It is impossible to stop doing the stupid stuff for those who believe they are doing the best. They just have no idea what they are doing. And this condition of having no idea what’s going on is inherent to the society.

            To stop doing the stupid stuff one should stop being stupid.

            1. Mihai says:

              @ferret: this is EXACTLY the problem.

              No one thinks that we have a problem. Or least no one actually sees the true depths of our problem. Any criticism stops at the surface and the people go on believing that we are actually ok, have progressed a lot and we will be great once we change a minor problem here and there.

            2. It is impossible to stop doing the stupid stuff for those who believe they are doing the best. They just have no idea what they are doing. And this condition of having no idea what’s going on is inherent to the society.

              To stop doing the stupid stuff one should stop being stupid.

              The voters aren’t going to stop being stupid, so we need to deceive them and get smart into office where it can begin disenfranchising them.

          2. Mihai says:

            “Just stop doing the stupid stuff”

            And this is precisely why I say the situation is irreversible. A lot of people think, like you, that it is merely a minor problem, which can be stopped by simply “stopping with “, where “that” is just an abstraction, without its roots being properly known and, clearly, without a real solution to extirpate them.

            The rest of your posts are not worth responding to because you just misinterpret everything I say and call it ” stupid” without offering any real argument.

            If you would only read closer, I am actually advocated doing something very real and very present in everyday life, which clearly requires a lot more effort than going to the voting booth (which never actually does anything), and then complecently tell yourself that “you did something”.

            1. A lot of people think, like you, that it is merely a minor problem, which can be stopped by simply “stopping with “, where “that” is just an abstraction, without its roots being properly known and, clearly, without a real solution to extirpate them.

              I think part of our problem is what you’ve got going on here. This isn’t mystical or difficult. We have idiots in charge who are more interested in pleasant thoughts (means) than results (ends). They depend on a mass of imported third-worlders, neurotic women, homosexuals and guileless teenagers. This group votes them into power because this group doesn’t know a good idea from a hole in the ground.

              That’s the situation. When we fix that, we fix stupidity. But where I was agreeing with you is that we need to re-tune our sense of what is stupid and not, so we can create a cultural groundswell to smash the current perception of what is “right” and “intelligent.”

              The rest of your posts are not worth responding to because you just misinterpret everything I say and call it ” stupid” without offering any real argument.

              If you’re afraid to continue, don’t let me force you.

    5. Writing for the few who still affirm and hold solid principles in life and helping these few to incorporate them at the personal level is a lot more productive than hoping to win the largest quantity of followers.

      That’s the worst possible idea every suggested here.

      The problem then remains.

      You’ve made avoiding it into a hobby.

      While you’re busy with your hobby, the rest of society self-destructs and takes you with it.

      You could have advocated drug use and had a more productive plan in your hands.

  8. Everdarkgreen says:

    I’m still coming to gripes with what I believe the proper methodology should be for the right, but seeing as there’s no clear-cut method for “what will definitively get us out of this mess”, I can’t help but agree that anything that moves us in the right direction, no matter how marginal, is something that should be done.

    Detractors will understandably point out that for real change to occur, our situation has to decline to the point where we can no longer sit in comfort in our armchair internet/tv fiefdoms and masturbate till the problem goes away. If life is just that much more frustrating, decadent and unfulfilling, only then will real change occur. This may well be true as the cycle of death has to come to fruition before the cycle of rebirth may begin anew, but even if voting Romney does nothing in the long run, then these votes don’t matter and collapse will happen regardless (making gripes about the uselessness of voting that much more useless). Are they worried that we’ll make it that much worse? Is that not what they claim they want? Or (the more likely) is it that they worry that a marginal progression will occur that will constrain momentum required to bring the apocalypse into fruition so that real change may finally occur? That in itself is an admittance that there may be some change in the right direction.

    That said, I don’t see why we can’t do both: vote and prepare for the apocalypse. Collapse will come in some form, hard or soft, but any kind of mobilization effort towards an ideal can happen in concurrence with “waiting it out”.

    I still do wonder if like with donations to Africa, voting Romney is just delaying the inevitable move towards population collapse.

    1. Everdarkgreen says:

      I realize I just turned on myself there in the end after making it seem like any marginal move in the right direction is the right methodology, but I’m largely undecided as to what works and what doesn’t. Mostly because I am not a prophet and can only guess at how our future will pan out. Only time will eventually confirm or deny these methods.

    2. I can’t help but agree that anything that moves us in the right direction, no matter how marginal, is something that should be done.

      This makes sense to me.

      Given two choices, one of which outright sucks and one of which is better, I’ll take better.

  9. 1349 says:

    …too much power on the electorate

    “Electorate” is close to an insult in our country. =)

    1. ferret says:

      Do you mean insult or heart attack?

      1. 1349 says:

        Insult, “оскорбление”.
        “Almost an insult”, i should’ve said…

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.685 seconds