Further Thoughts On The Richard Spencer Speech At TAMU

The important thing about the Alt Right is that — contrary to appearances — it shows the right growing up and merging its two threads, opposition to delusional Utopianism on one hand, and its resistance to “modern society” on the other.

Few are willing to mention the truth about the West, which is that it is soul-killing. Jobs are spirit subjugation; the cities are ugly; all of our products are designed to take advantage of us and deprive us of the function of that product. What kind of rising technological empire cannot make a refrigerator that lasts longer than ten years?

In the hands of the proles, the vote went to the people, and this seems to empower whoever wants to treat the population as a cash cow and milk it for all that it is worth. Governments are self-interested businesses, but so are regular businesses. All want to extract the most cash out of the population through deliberately broken policies, which then require more money to try to make them work, and planned obsolescence. The reason for this that these organizations are comprised of people, and each person wants a job forever and more money and power, and they are given an aegis of public interest behind which to engineer theft.

In social situations, people do the same thing. The name of the game is to take all that you can and externalize the costs. People are inept and do sloppy work, knowing someone else may have to clean it up. The ultimate modern symbol is litter because the citizen who enjoys his pleasures and then leaves behind a mess has externalized the cleanup, making him seem victorious for having taken more than he has given. All of these problems arise from a lack of purpose to society, which leaves it as a group of conflict special interests warring it out for power at the expense of the normal working population who just want stable lives.

We like to talk about how democracy freed us from insane wars and totalitarianism, but we live under “soft totalitarian” circumstances where the wrong opinion means losing jobs, home, family and friends; we also have under democracy embarked on two World Wars and many proxy conflicts in which nothing was permanently resolved. Our future is one of endless war in which those who fail to affirm the Narrative and its ideology are treated as enemies of the state, enforced through fear of collective punishment in which others shun the heretics in order to avoid being associated with heresy. Our modern life is more controlled than life under fascists or National Socialists, and seems to have replicated the conditions in the Soviet Union, albeit with better shopping and slicker products that nonetheless break after a few years.

In this modern totalitarian state, we live in misery. Jobs are jails because there is no focus on the end result, only appearances. This puts vicious manipulators in charge and marginalizes those who try to be efficient and do their job and get out with more free time. Those who spend the most time at the job succeed, even though this by definition implies inefficiency and ineptitude. The person who designs a product which is cheaply made and heavily advertised wins, because the highest margin of profit is achieved, while quality products are beaten out of the market because it is always easier to find ten idiots willing to buy junk than one person who values performance over price.

Most people are insane as a result. In order to handle a necrotic society of this nature, they must rationalize it as good, which means accepting dysfunction as function. This makes them prone to spend even more time on pointless activity and to resent those who do not, against whom they retaliate. Their search for some substitute for purpose and meaning causes them to become perverse and fetishize all sorts of broken behaviors just so they can feel important and that their lives are worth living, which furthers social decay.

The core of the revolution against modernity is realizing that our thinking is backward. Instead of finding positive goals and directing economics and society to achieve them, we work by attending to demotism — consumerism, democracy, popularity — and assume that it finds the right answers. Instead, it discovers inferior substitutes and makes them mandatory norms, which ensures that most of our time is wasted fighting back against the vast waves of dysfunction around us.

We need to discover values and purpose again. This requires identity, which is the core of Spencer’s speech: Amerika is not great because it is rotting from within, and the core of that rotting is the herd of cultureless, purposeless, and raceless grey lumpenproletariat that Leftism manufactures. We have no goals, nothing to strive for, and it is killing us. We either discover identity — which requires the most basic foundation of identity, which is race and ethnicity — or we are doomed to be nothing but servants to an ideological empire which values mediocrity and compliance over life itself.

In ideology, life is a means to an end, which is ideology. This circular reasoning turns us into “free” slaves toward the Utopian ends of our leaders, which are in public expressed as egalitarianism, but in private the profit taken from pitching an ideological product that people want, and from that, by achieving power and wealth as career criminals like the Clintons, Obama, Merkel and others demonstrate. Our leaders do not care about the results of their actions, only appearances, because like corporations selling planned obsolescence products, they are shilling a cheap substitute that the herd will buy in order to take profit out of the civilization.

We are ruled by parasites, and by our own hand. Who has sympathy for the worker? Any time a “free” government program, union benefit, or socially dysfunctional reduction of standards comes along, the workers vote for it because they perceive it to be in their interests. They are shocked and amazed when the free stuff turns out to have costs, and those costs make workers too expensive, so business offshores and outsources as a means of avoiding the parasitism. They blame business, but in this area, business is innocent; the parasitic nature of the voter/worker has driven them away in order to remain competitive.

Under the publicly permitted dialogue, we cannot say that we lack purpose and allow economics, politics and popularity to lead us around like a domesticated animal. After all, what is popular is perceived as us, but this fragments when we look around and see how we have little in common with others. That leads us to realize that we either choose values-first, or we end up with methods-first, which is the type of “means over ends” analysis that is favored by both the Left and people who fear that having goals will make them appear as having fallen short.

Spencer pointed out the root of this mentality:

America is not great because in my lifetime, America has lost an essence. It’s lost a people, it’s lost a meaning. You listen to presidential inaugurations, these are these times when presidents will go up and tell us “what this is really about” and get everyone fired up, they don’t talk about America as an historic nation and a people with a story, as the product of a race, of a worldview, they basically talk about America as a platform for all of humanity. They talk about America as an economic system, effectively.

He identifies the failing of the Right in America as occurring sometime over the previous century when it shifted from a perspective of “a people” to the notion of “an ideology,” but instead of accepting Leftist socialism, made capitalism the root of its belief. That created a permanent fusion between Left and Right because they both agreed on ideology over realism, and within that, wanted a hybrid of the capitalist state and the liberal social programs of Europe and the East.

That in turn represented a shift toward the herd mentality of the third-world and especially Asia, as exhibited to the West first by the Mongols. Third world societies tend to be defined by a lack of social order, and instead a need for strong power and granular power, usually a matriarchy. This enables them to hold themselves together despite having no unity, but the cost is that exceptional leaders and innovators are scarce if evident at all. This keeps them in the stage of doing the same things over and over, not improving.

This trend fits within the general path of the West for the past thousand years. With fixed civilization and excellence, people began to thrive, but this created a population bloom in which few had the aptitudes of the founders that enable them to collaborate. Western Civilization began splitting into different Special Interest Groups a thousand years ago, and with The Enlightenment,™ formalized this to the level of the atomized individual. With that, the roots of a rootless time were formed.

Modernity is thus not so much a technological level, but any time based on the intent of the individual instead of a collaborative will to thrive. Paradoxically, the intent of individuals forms a herd where collaboration does not, simply because groups of individuals converge on a lowest common denominator, which like the third world consists of everyone doing what they want except when it comes to whatever principle holds the society together like a fence around chickens, and that becomes sacred in a way that nothing else does.

That foundation of Control creates people who are incapable of independent thought and dependent on the herd for guidance, and creates an unhealthy focus on popularity and emulating others as a means of being included in the group. It is a pre-civilization state, not like hunter/gatherer wanderers, but like a civilization that has given up on the principle of civilization, which is working together to make life more pleasurable, intense and sacred. Not surprisingly, the flight from civilization ultimately manifests in a selfish mob manipulated by cruel parasites.

Spencer elaborated:

Americanization, in this worst possible sense of the word, this is what Hillary Clinton was talking about when she said she wanted a “hemispheric open market.” This is what George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg want. They want an undifferentiated global population, raceless, genderless, identityless, meaningless population, consuming sugar, consuming drugs, while watching porn on VR goggles while they max out their credit cards. Don’t deny that that is the kind of passive nihilism that so many in the elite class actually want. They want a world without roots, they want a world without meaning, they want a flat grey-on-grey world, one economic market for them to manipulate.

With this, he positions the Alt Right against Modernity, which is what Right-wingers have been wanting for centuries. We dislike the industrialization of the countryside, the concentration of people into cities, the loss of traditional virtues and knowledge, and the rootless modern city where people are dedicated to self-pleasure that makes them miserable through its lack of meaning.

Modern society can then be described as meaningless because there is no purpose to civilization, and without that, each person is an island in himself. This in turn reverts human behavior to that of monkeys, self-interested to the point of excluding everything else, and gives us with no way to “reach out” to things of importance, including excellence in the physical and metaphysical realms. People will not give up the pretense and rationalization that this is good, because it gives them a sense of power — think of the One Ring in Lord of the Rings — but become existentially miserable.

The Right has traditionally espoused time-proven types of social order, heritage/identity, hierarchy, transcendental visions of nature and religion, and a pursuit of excellence as means toward not just functional society, but human thriving. These give us firm guidance and a sense of some things as immutably important such that we do not mind sacrificing for them, even before we realize how important they are to our own happiness. This is how to build a civilization, and with our retreat from it, we have failed; however, we can rise above that state.

This leads us to wonder what the soul of the West actually is. Some say it is conquest and aggression, others piety, and still others mention a sense of order, balance and harmony within a natural golden chain of being. All of these are true, but in my view, the root of the West is that it is reflective: we stop to reflect on life, and require meaning from it, because that is how we motivate ourselves to survive the difficult and rise above challenges.

Western man, by virtue of being reflective, discovers all these other aspects of life as parts of a natural order which make life significant to us. It is more than “human nature”; it is the mathematical structure of life itself that requires a center, constant struggle to affirm principles, and a hierarchy in which those who are best rise to the top so all may benefit from their insight. This in turn leads us to an understanding of an order to life, the interconnection of its parts — structure, design, form — as being more important than material, and that leads us to spiritual and mythic understanding.

Spencer has in the past pointed to the root of our downfall as “individualism,” against which he posits an aggressive realism. We must not project ourselves onto the world, but accept it as is, and then we see what we can do with it, instead of creating fantasy worlds of Utopian ideology and then insisting that others treat them as real.

This leads to a riff from Bruce Charlton that is both not quite correct, and more importantly, a good guide for the future. In his view, the Alt Right must tackle spirituality:

I don’t see it as plausible that there can be any fully-Christian mass movement from where we are now – which is a situation in which public discourse does not admit the objective reality of anything at all outside the material realm – everything else is psychological, subjective, labile, and manipulable.

Thus a secular Alt-Right will inevitably be simply a different version of Leftism; a Leftism which has different materialist priorities, and panders to a different set of subjective emotions as a means to that end.

(Indeed, my impression is that most of the Alt-Right are exceptionally materialist, positivist, anti-altruistic and reductionist in their outlook – taking a positive delight in simplification of politics to their own power, security and well-being — only to be shared, grudgingly, with those who directly assist this agenda.)

The idea of the Alt Right as materialist only makes sense when one takes into account that political learning is an arc and not a binary where one steps over an exoteric threshold and suddenly understands everything. The Alt Right is a bewildered people emerging from the Utopian dream of Leftism to realize that they had been seeing the world in symbols alone, and realizing these are empty, attempting to find the hidden meaning in reality. This is why some of us suggest the black pill as a means of removing the illusion which is communicated like a virus through social contact, and from that position of absolute emptiness, rediscovering reality.

These are all thoughts for the future. As Spencer pointed out, the Alt Right arose from the Leftist assimilation of the Right, causing those focused on sanity to reject the Right and Left alike and look toward a new beginning. That new beginning means that the Alt Right is nascent even as it appears to have certain conventions graven in stone, and that it has a future to discover through recapitulating the history of reaction, ancient conservatism and traditionalism.

On our way back from the event, we stopped in Brenham, Texas to visit the tobacco barn and enjoy some of the local scenery, despite discovering how much modernity has ravaged this isolated outpost of beauty. Of course, no Texas road trip is complete without a stop at Whataburger (pronounced roughly as “water burger” by locals). One does not have to believe in signs to imagine that the universe was winking at us.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

26 Responses to “Further Thoughts On The Richard Spencer Speech At TAMU”

  1. crow says:

    “We need to discover values and purpose again. This requires identity…”

    We had values and purpose, if somewhat clumsily and inaccurately set-out, by Christianity. We had an identity, in tribe and nation.
    Now everybody claims life is meaningless, that there is no purpose, and identity centers around the individual.

    There are very few things you really, really need to know:

    There is God; not the Christian cartoon, the actual God.
    There is purpose; living life in accordance with natural law.
    There is life after death; what decides the nature of that life is the kind of life lived before death.
    There is identity: at root, this is your soul, and beyond that, your tribe. Your individual ego plays no part in identity, and is – in essence – a non-identity.

    There are no proofs for these Truths, in life, other than in the pudding; live thus and your life will be filled with purpose and meaning. Beyond that, the very idea of ‘proof’ is absurd. Non-applicable. Only you can run this experiment, in as far as it directly affects you. You’re the scientist; find out for yourself.

    Conservative views alone will not do. No ‘view’ will do. The natural law is clear; look outside your window, if there’s any nature left, and follow its examples. Too many conservatives are in effect, leftists with an identity crisis.

    Get with the program, the real program. The program hard-coded into your genes and racial memory. The chip off the old block. Don’t just ‘believe’ it: LIVE it.

    • There is God; not the Christian cartoon, the actual God.
      There is purpose; living life in accordance with natural law.
      There is life after death; what decides the nature of that life is the kind of life lived before death.
      There is identity: at root, this is your soul, and beyond that, your tribe. Your individual ego plays no part in identity, and is – in essence – a non-identity.

      These seem accurate to me.

    • Dualist says:

      All great, except for the part about the Christian God being a cartoon of the real one. No, the only cartoon is your own view of the Christian God. I understand that much of your dealing with Christianity was from shallow evangelical Christians, and perhaps you’d also had your fill of denominational-type faiths from events in your home country (and I could easily understand why, if this was the case), so I’m sure many of the Christians you will have met really DO see God as an ‘old man with a beard in the sky.’

      But that’s not how any of the great spiritual masters, the Saints, saw Him, or I should say, knew and experienced Him. They often tried to explain what they could in words and, even more so, by the heroic example given by their lives and deaths.

      For example, don’t misinterpret the Most Holy Trinity to mean there are 3 Gods, or whatever. There is only One. If this idea doesn’t sit well with you, it is only your Intellect that is getting in the way of this Mystery. Although it isn’t LOGICALLY necessary for this to be so – many of the greatest spirits were simple people – nonetheless, in practice, many people need to get over certain intellectual hurdles (‘if God is Good why does he allow Evil to occur?’ etc. etc etc.) BEFORE they can make further progress in the spiritual life, especially those of higher intelligence.

      Or do you know something the Saints don’t?

      [I feel free to be so direct, because last week I wrote you a suggestion to explain to people about how you started along your spiritual path, which I’m sure many would have appreciated if you had, yet 30 minutes after your answer to me you wrote a comment mocking people who ‘demand’ that you explain your whole knowledge. I couldn’t believe this response, hence my question at the time: as much as I try, I do not yet possess the patience of a Saint :) As I had merely asked you to explain how you had STARTED off, and I framed this in my usual incredibly-polite terms, literally going out of my way not ‘demand’ anything, I’ll just be more direct from now, as you would probably prefer anyway. ]

      • crow says:

        “Or do you know something the Saints don’t?”

        Indeed I do. If those saints did not know all that may be known, then they did not see the complete picture.

        This does not translate, and may not be described, other than to observe that everything is One thing. And One thing is everything. All of it alive. All of it aware.
        And this is God.
        Nothing human about it. No identity, no intellect, no logic.

        No saint could have said this. Because no human could have called anyone who said it a ‘saint’.

        There’s only one phrase in human language that conveys anything worth conveying, and in so doing, conveys nothing:

        “It Is What It Is.”

        • Dualist says:

          “Only One Thing has ever existed” – words I’ve written before. Also, about the relationship between physical Law and reality, “it just IS”. So, on the surface, it would appear our ‘understandings’ (see, language is already starting to fail us here) are similar. But I suspect we have differences that are fundamental.

          Due to this, it would be pure folly for me to give point-by-point ripostes to anything you say, so I’m going to start off by trying to understand parts of your ‘thought’, starting from scratch.

          You say Reality is ‘aware’. Yet has no Intellect etc. How do you know that? Is it not possible that all reality ‘just is’ physical matter, with consciousness being only the result of purely brain-activity? (Obviously not my own views, but why do you think/know otherwise?)

          You talk often of ‘thinking’ as something that gets ‘in the way of’ what I presume you may call Pure Intuition. This notion undergirds all your writing, so there is little point me saying much more until I fully ‘get’ what you understand by Pure Intuition. I have spent too much time trying to philosophise online by writing long comments, only to find that the other party has slightly (but crucially) different understandings to the terms that I am using. I have my own views on Intuition, especially in relation to the spiritual, but it would do little good mentioning any of it until I was sure we even meant SIMILAR things by it.

          I suspect the only fruitful way that you and I could ever hope to communicate ANYTHING would be by slowly starting from the most basic terms, and see were that leads. It is much better than me writing long essays and then you saying ‘yes, I already knew all that’, leaving us at square-one. I also think it would be better if we did this via email, to begin with. I have already discussed why I don’t think you would enjoy my presence on your own site. But using email, this also reduces any suspicion that my motive is to ‘outsmart’ you in the eyes of others, and allows me to be more direct with you, with less chance of the Ego perceiving anything I say as being condescending.

          So, as a starter for ten, let’s try this one:

          Is not thought ALWAYS involved in perception?

          [If you want to do the rest via email, mention this in your reply and I’ll put an email address in my answer back to you.]

          • crow says:

            Thought is never present in perception.
            Senses -> mind indicate things about things, but this is not perception. It is simulation.
            The only perception possible is via intuition, which itself does not perceive much, until it is elevated to the apex of hierarchy.

            I have a fine mind. It is capable. Yet I hardly use it. Why? Because I have discovered something exponentially more capable. Pure. Accurate.

            There is no point in us emailing, or anything else.
            You are starting from mind. I am not. There is no common ground, as all my efforts with Brett and Bruce have shown.

            To gain anything from interaction with me, is to place yourself in a position you are – by your nature – unable to place yourself in. Until you are, if ever, you’ll just have to go on being mystified.

            If you’re satisfied with your mind, and what you know, there’s nothing I can offer. I offer what I have to those who seek what they don’t know. Not so different from what Brett does, really. Except Brett offers societal and philosophical expertise, while I offer the spiritual.

            • Dualist says:

              You started off well, then trailed-off as you misunderstood what I was doing. Not your fault – I said I was going to be direct, then wasn’t. That final question was not my OWN belief. Moreover, I also knew that YOU never agreed with it, either: you had made this clear when you mentioned that Reality was ‘aware’ but had ‘no intellect. No logic’. I was attempting to instigate medieval disputation, the finest way to pass on knowledge, wherein I mention an assertion and then we both discuss for/against its validity. It is in the dialogue itself whereby much is learned, even (or especially) of things not pertaining to the question at hand.

              Despite this, and very remarkably, your answer HAS answered the first thing I wanted to understand about your terminology – you draw a distinction between the senses and something deeper, that you call ‘perception’. It may seem naive to even need to verify this, but there are surprisingly high proportion of people who actually believe that we see with our eyes!

              Extremely briefly, my own ‘thoughts about thought’: thought* is VITAL to understand Nature/reality – though knowledge is always impossible here; both thought AND intuition being required to know Reality, including the Spiritual, with thought being most necessary in the early stages, but losing in importance as the ascent progresses, eventually becoming irrelevant during the later journey, when knowledge of many has now become knowledge of the EXISTENCE of One. The exact amount needed of each varies from person to person, at each stage.

              Most, indeed fortunate to have made it this far, mistake this point for the summit, while others are dragged down by Sin and fall to their deaths, but a few Blessed ones are finally given the Grace to know that they cannot ‘find’ God by their own efforts alone. Only He can find them. And even then, everybody retains the ‘right’ to reject Him.

              For the few who remain, they have now passed through knowledge, passed the Cloud of Forgetting, and towards the Cloud of Unknowing Itself. A terrible gulf will always separate them from Life until they ALLOW thought AND intuition to be replaced with the ‘dart’ of pure, metaphysical Love. Without this, no human could ever hope to reach the other side of a mountain that is insurmountable, being summitless. It is only Love that allows the would-be Master to master himself, and in so doing become a faithful servant to the Master of All.

              And the object of that Love is the One Single Thing we can NEVER know.

              Be careful, Crow: The Devil has his own Contemplatives**. One who doesn’t trust, cannot Love. Do you trust? Only you know that.

              I hope you should now revise the rest of your comment in light of all this, if only to yourself. Even if you believe I have nothing to learn from you, how do you know that you have nothing to learn from me? If you believe you do not, then you have just demonstrated there is at least one thing you do not know. The only question is: will our dialogue aid or hinder you? If you love Life Itself, it could only ever do the former.

              __________

              *I said ‘extremely briefly’ when referring to ‘thought’ because, even here, language is a problem. I suspect when you use that word you normally signify ‘sequences of Rational ThoughtS’ or ‘using the Intellect’ (which is the meaning I used above) as opposed to a single, clear Idea in the Mind (which I suspect to be what you mean by ‘perception’, but I am not sure, hence why this groundwork is necessary). My own beliefs on the matter are closer to saying that there IS no such thing as Rational Thought, but I’d have a lot more to say on this and, again, there’s little point me continuing until I knew what you meant by either ‘thought’ or ‘perception’.

              ** This word has a specific meaning also, I’ll no doubt mention in future.

              • crow says:

                I am not a teacher, nor can I learn from those who would teach.
                I am a mirror of Reality.
                No more, no less.

                If you know as much as you think you know, you’re most welcome to take up where I leave off. You certainly seem to have the enthusiasm for it.

                This probably isn’t the best of places to do it, but Brett seems to like, and encourage, esoterica.

                • Absolutely! And the importance of a lively dialogue, especially with those who have a talent for expressing complex truths in digestible ways (that would be both of you, and many others, in these comments).

                • I am a mirror of Reality.

                  The problem, when a smaller thing mirrors a larger thing, is that the smaller thing can only reveal part of the larger thing. This is the same basis as your critique of intellectualism (thinking for thinking’s sake, which always defaults to human impulse).

              • you had made this clear when you mentioned that Reality was ‘aware’ but had ‘no intellect

                Evola has a few great riffs on the “sleeping gods” nature of reality.

  2. Meow Blitz says:

    I’m not sure what Bruce Charlton is on about, there isn’t a day that passes on the Alt-Right that doesn’t involve Christians and Pagans sperging out against each other.

    • I cannot speak for him, but I think that based on his past writings, he wishes the Alt Right were anchored in spiritual topics as the cause-of-all-causes in its worldview.

      • crow says:

        The blind prefer to lead the blind.
        There’s nothing wrong with prioritizing spirituality, but there’s a lot wrong with doing so with intellectualism as its vehicle. Wrong tool.

        You don’t use a flat iron to open a can of sardines.
        There’s a can opener for that job.

        • There’s nothing wrong with prioritizing spirituality, but there’s a lot wrong with doing so with intellectualism as its vehicle.

          Not a highest level enough of abstraction (thus applicability) for me. Prioritize realism, and spirituality emerges, and it is grounded in the world and not the human mind. “Intellectualism” refers to thinking for its own sake, which no realist finds relevant.

          • crow says:

            The spiritual is not realised via the mind. The mind may suspect a spiritual aspect, but it can never connect with it.
            Imagine a blind genius trying to send messages to Mars via semaphore.
            No matter how smart he is, it’s not going to happen.
            Yet Mars may be intimately known by becoming Mars, without leaving the room.
            Only a spiritual adept could do such a thing.

            • What you refer to as “thinking” or “the mind” seems to mean “introspection” in that sense of contextless self-exploration.

              • crow says:

                I refer to thinking as the noise that goes on non-stop inside peoples’ heads.
                The Truth, that you refer to as being non-existent, requires nothing but silent observation. It is what it is, and I recognize it.
                Thinking is the process that immediately turns Truth into something other than Truth. Which really is non-existent.

                You demonstrate an ability to maintain long threads of thinking without losing the plot, which is rare. Perhaps you don’t realize that very few can do this.
                In this you are a genuine philosopher, which may – or may not – be of some general value.
                It might be far more valuable, though, if you also had the ability to suspend it, at will, to allow Truth to enter your private world of abstraction.

                • I refer to thinking as the noise that goes on non-stop inside peoples’ heads.

                  That seems to me to be impulse, not thinking. Again, terminology is a problem here.

                  I do not believe in Truth. I believe in reality, and we can say that some statements about it are true, but they are encoded in symbols which are dependent upon the receiver to interpret, thus are entirely fallible. For this reason, it makes more sense to set aside the proxy/intermediate of truth, and focus on cause-effect relationships.

                  You demonstrate an ability to maintain long threads of thinking without losing the plot, which is rare. Perhaps you don’t realize that very few can do this.

                  What a nice thing to say! The basis of philosophy is the ability to make sense; per esotericism, the reception of that depends on the ability, inclination and cumulative knowledge of the perceiver. Within “ability” there are a number of factors possibly belabored here, including genetic intelligence, honesty (moral character) and will-toward-health, which seems to me to be rare.

                  You might enjoy the latest on a similar topic:
                  http://www.amerika.org/science/evidence-versus-logical-fact/

                  • crow says:

                    It wasn’t a compliment, only an observation.
                    But make hay while the sun shines…

                    What your response indicates, is the high regard in which you hold thinking. Now imagine transferring that reverence to where it actually belongs: Reality, minus your thinking.

                    I know you can’t do that, but if you could, you would find you had no further use for thinking, yet your accustomed literary output would gain a power and veracity unimaginable to the current you.

                    There would, of course, be a downside to this. You would experience what I experience with every word I write: 99% of people could make no sense of it.

                    So: either you seek to be the best you can be, or you take a short cut and exhort others to be the best they can be, without first doing the same yourself.

                    Does this sound familiar?

                    • I think you mistake the means for the ends. For me, the end is reality; the means is thinking (which includes what you refer to as non-thinking).

                    • crow says:

                      You mistake what you consider to be my mistake for the non-mistake it is.
                      There can be no Reality for the thinker. Only a simulation of what the thinker thinks Reality is.
                      Thinking takes you part way, but there it stops, far short of Reality.
                      You’re missing the boot-code that gets the whole process going. The computer looks nice, looks efficient, looks like it will kick ass, but until you can boot it, you’ll have no idea of what it can really do.

                      Thinking allows you to come up with a fiendishly difficult plan to amass the funds to buy the fabulous machine, but it will not make it run.

                      For that you need code. Not yours. THE code.

  3. Thresher says:

    You misrepresent the main ideas of Spencer and the Alt-Right in an attempt to suggest that your core issues are their core issues.

    Spencer and the Alt-Right agree that race is the central issue of their movement. “Race is real. Race matters. Race is the foundation of identity.” Although you do mention race once, your main argument is that the central issues are opposition to modernity, individuality, and liberalism. You are like some cuckservative saying that Trump’s victory demonstrates the public’s desire for tax cuts.

    You are clearly trying to coopt this movement in the service of your personal hobbyhorses.

    Spencer and the Alt-Right are about ethnic nationalism. All other issues are secondary.

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>