Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘adolf hitler’

Find The Enemy Before He Destroys You

Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

When under attack, there are two reasons to find your enemy quickly: first, to figure out where to counterattack, of course, but second, to know where the enfilading fire is coming from.

As we approach the end of modernity, it becomes clear that the enemy is not clear. We are fighting a guerrilla war where the enemy can look exactly like us, act like us, and still be evil in intent. This means that we are surrounded by false enemies that we will not know are distractions until we destroy them, and then notice that the problem remains.

Mjolnir took up the quest to avoid the “JQ” and instead to focus on the actual problem, which is mental breakdown within our citizens and social order. Their analysis encourages a more holistic view than the JQ can provide:

These “Hitler was right” types have no sense of reality – or of history – and think that Joe Public is suddenly going to start embracing the Führer and revolt against their masters. The problem is they spend all their time in little cliques and on the internet and then believe everyone is like them deep down.

[There is] a wider problem in the movement, and that is a sort of autistic focusing on a single antagonistic group, as though with the removal of that group, the whole world would hold hands and sing songs together. For some it is the Jews, for others the Muslims, still others Negroes, and so on. And here I believe young Jack has been led astray by older heads who ought to know better, but who, like their Leftist counterparts, have never grown up – people who in middle age and beyond still fantasise about the Third Reich of their imagination. While I do not subscribe to the official narrative concerning the Third Reich and the Jews, the fact remains that that regime had determined upon an expansionist war in the East, beyond the 1914 boundaries, in order to turn White European ethnostates into German colonies, a war that would cost millions of lives of the best of European men.

…So what does one do with the Jews? The simple answer is they have a place to go: Israel. And that is why Israel is actually needed. Individuals who have attempted to ensure our genocide must be punished as individuals, just as those individuals of our own people would be. Yet one cannot put all the world’s woes on Jewry. Do not forget that only a few centuries ago, they lived in ghettoes and were forbidden power. So who let them out and why?

Our problem has always been eternal human weaknesses. No strong nation perishes solely from outside influence; it commits suicide by choosing illusion over reality. Since our society began to thrive, our people have been entranced and zombified by the idea of “equality,” which really means that each person can be part of society no matter how much or little they contribute.

When this situation — a default weakness of humankind, emboldened by The Renaissance™ and legitimized by The Enlightenment™ — gained power, the result was the French Revolution, which left behind a prole-goverment so unstable that it quickly embarked on a world war to spread democracy to everyone. Since that time, we have been repeating this pattern, over and over again.

The solution is to get away from the idea of equality. We are not equal and we need hierarchy. We cannot rule ourselves with mass votes, no matter how much we adjust democracy with Constitutions and regulations; democracy is evil because it is based on the lie that people are equal when in fact they are not.

Part of this involves changing how our culture works. We can expect to be unequal participants in a larger process, each with a unique role, or we can demand that we are equal and be interchangeable conformists repetitively doing the same stuff. The most profound realization of our time comes from recognizing that equality does not work, so our choice must be the other option.

That notion is creeping in from the edges of mainstream consciousness:

My personal opinion is that the form of government where a person is anointed as ruler by the clergy and receives not just a mandate from voters to exercise governing powers for a certain period of time, but a sanction from God, through the Church, to his rule—and the rule is for life, until the monarch passes power to his heir—has proved itself favorably in history. It has many advantages in comparison with any election-based forms of government where a person comes in for some specific term.

While everything said there is true, it still dances around the issue: some are more fit to rule than others, just like some are better musicians, plumbers, neurosurgeons, soldiers, artists, writers, athletes and dancers than others. You cannot take a generic (“equal”) person and turn them into a world-significant leader. You must find the raw material for that leadership first.

Democracy and equality totally oppose that idea. In the narrow mental landscape of equality, only a “meritocracy” is safe, which means treating everyone like they are equal and forcing them to leap through endless hoops, choosing the most obedient and least likely to see things differently. This is how societies fall into lock-step around illusions and self-destruct.

The future belongs to those who recognize what just became obsolete in the past, and therefore what to avoid investing in. Equality is the ghost of the last century and the one before it, but as of 2016, its validity as an idea died. The future belongs to those who think outside of the mental ghetto of equality.

How Anti-Semitism Wagged The Dog For Adolf Hitler

Monday, May 15th, 2017

Contemporary sources — who are bound to lies because in an egalitarian time, everything is a lie — seem baffled by the Holocaust. Was it mere racism, ideology or pathological cruelty? Perhaps some of the above, and also, “philosophy.”

It was clear to me early on that Adolf Hitler attempted to fight back against the root ideology of socialism, which is a tricky animal because it is both collectivist and individualist. Individualism — “me first” before nature, society or others — is its goal, but collectivism is its method. Already this concept is too complex for any but a few in modern society.

He also recognized, as did Schopenhauer and Plato, that a thriving civilization acts by choosing the idea it strives for first and method later, where dying civilizations choose a method and then rationalize the results as being the idea for which it was striving.

As Plato wrote, during the Golden Age of humanity, materiality was viewed as a means to an end. Good men had wealth so that they could do good things; bad men were deprived of wealth because with it, they would do bad things. Hitler wanted to refute materialism.

He — like many others — may have misinterpreted the crucifixion of Jesus in the Bible, or just given in to prevailing superstitions and analysis, which assigned to the Jews a role as materialists and to Christians, that of idealists. This is not entirely wrong but it is misinterpreted.

Jewish materialism is in my view a Buddhist-like attempt at rejecting dualism, or the idea of a perfect world with the true actual rules of reality in it, as opposed to this world which is just symbolic or otherwise irrelevant. Buddhists recognize dualism as early onset schizophrenia.

In addition, the point of the crucifixion scene in the Bible was not that Pontius Pilate was Roman and the crowd were Jews, but that a crowd demanded the death of Jesus, and they did so through democracy. A vote was taken and the herd opted to kill the prophet instead of an actual criminal.

History fans notice that this mirrors what happened to Socrates, the story from which the crucifixion story is almost certainly derived. (Fundamentalism regard the Bible, which is a metaphorical story compiling spiritual knowledge from a half-dozen traditions, will also make you schizoid).

But Hitler wanted a unifying concept, one that could motivate his people toward the right idea and away from what he hated, which was the shallow materialism that defines the modern time. Unlike Nietzsche, who associated this with Christianity, Hitler took another direction.

We have no records of Hitler reading Nietzsche, although he was certainly conversant with the ideas of that philosopher. We do know that he was fond of carrying a volume of Schopenhauer around, and that this philosopher argued that Christianity, like Hinduism, was an attempt for a heroic idealism, where Judaism had a materialistic basis:

While all other religions endeavor to explain to the people by symbols the metaphysical significance of life, the religion of the Jews is entirely immanent and furnishes nothing but a mere war-cry in the struggle with other nations. – “Fragments for the history of philosophy”, Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I.

This may have been the source of the metaphor that Hitler used. He wanted the Germans to rise above mere individualism, and so he gave them a metaphor for individualism through Judaism. However, this proved too popular, and quickly caught on and the base anger overwhelmed the finer details of the idea.

At the point where he was most popular, Hitler could no more have backed down on his anti-Semitism than a fundamental campaign process. Germans knew something had gone wrong in their society, and they blamed the foreigners. How much of this was true is a question for another time, but clearly the method became wrong, but because scapegoats are always more popular than nuanced truths, this should have been expected.

However, Hitler was an artist, not a politician, and so he was swallowed up by the idea. At this point, his constituents expected him to act on it, and according to Albert Speer, he did so by first attempting to scare away Jews, then imprisoning them, and finally turning to more extreme methods.

This reflected an apocalyptic view of Judaism in the Nazi imagination:

According to Confino’s historical-cultural analysis, the Holocaust cannot be explained as just another one of the events of the horrible war, or as an outcome of its circumstances. The Nazi urgency to murder all the Jews but not the members of other persecuted groups, Confino writes, is explained by the Jews’ consistent apocalyptic role in the Nazi imagination. In other words, and Prof. Confino says it brilliantly numerous times, the annihilation of the entire Jewish people was the Nazis’ supreme goal in World War II. They came to save the world from the Jews and from Judaism, regardless of the price of this “salvation.” It was their mission in this world.

Providence, as Adolf Hitler told the Reichstag in December 1941, when he declared war on the United States, consigned to the German people the leadership of the battle which would shape the world’s image in the following 1,000 years—the uncompromising battle against the Jews and Judaism. This perception was not limited to the members of the Nazi party: Many Germans participated in the persecution of Jews, Confino states, while many others—basically, the entire German society—did not oppose the Nazi regime’s anti-Jewish initiatives. Not a single group in the German society rejected the Nazi offensive on the Jews and on Judaism—for the information of Israelis and Jews in Berlin.

Hitler may have thought this treatment was relatively uncontroversial. The world has barely blinked during the Boer and Armenian genocides, and laughed off mass killings in the New World and India. To his mind, this may have been a standard method within the norm, not an aberration.

Imagine an American candidate running on the idea of eliminating “materialism” among us, and identifying a group of “materialists.” You cannot touch materialism, but you can wring the neck of a materialist, and so that is what the crowd will demand.

In a sad repetition of the acts of the French Revolution, the crowd swept Hitler up in a wave of popularity he could not control and demanded the return of the guillotine. This unfolded in events that to our great sadness were modern, all too modern.

If we are to survive into the future, our path lies elsewhere from modernity. We do not need more crowds chanting for the crucifixion of Jesus, beheading of nobles or gassing of Jews. We need a calm process of sorting out who should stay from those who must leave, and to do so as gently as possible, if nothing else for the conservation of beauty and clarity in our own souls.

Happy HitLARP Holiday!

Thursday, April 20th, 2017

April 20th brings with it many memories, including Columbine, teenage potheads, and of course, Adolf Hitler. This brings out the HitLARPers who want us to believe that if we just adopted National Socialism, everything would be fine, and they are going to act the part as defined by Hollywood to show us how.

My own opinion has long been that Hitler, like every other leader, was a mix of good and bad. The bad in his case seems traumatic because it invokes genocide and tyranny, but in reality, this pales in comparison to what, say, Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao did. The Left just LARPs on the anti-Hitler trip in order to conceal how much more their people have been committing murder, torture and oppression since the French Revolution at least, having become known for secret police, gulags, executions at dawn and guillotining whole families.

But Hitler had a few good points. He recognized that diversity cannot work. He wanted to restore an organic state based in the ethnic group. He knew that modernity was a failure and its aesthetics needed reversal. Unfortunately, he tried to do these from within a modern context, and so ended up with modern results, namely catastrophe. Not that he could have escaped it; the world was poised for downfall, and most people were suicidal after “the war to end all wars,” so it demanded a fratricidal and pointless war and got it. Did anyone win WWII?

We also have to wonder how much of The Official History™ is actually fake. After all, they’ve been lying to us for centuries.

The Left always lies, and the Left is the party of modernity, and modernity has turned out to be kind of boring, where we all live in bubble worlds and work in cubicles and no one is really happy but the money is OK so we carry on. Maybe we can finally escape the Left. It will require going farther Right than Hitler and rejecting modernity entirely. We need to restore Western Civilization, and since the dawn of time, there has been only one structure of civilization that has worked. It is not that we want to go back to that; we want to go forward to it, like moving from winter to spring even though spring was only six months ago.

In the meantime, the Alt Right needs to get over its HitLARPing. We are not White Nationalists; we are nationalists, but only as a part of a general program that wants a traditional society. That means rejecting modernity entirely, starting with the sacred cow (and mental crack for white people, apparently) of “equality.” If you want to celebrate Hitler, celebrate what he tried but could not do, which is abolish the idea of equality and with it, the State. We need nations, not nation-States. We want a traditional society because it works and everything else does not.

Hitler had his day, but he was more symbolic — resistance against modernity and racial erasure — than literal. To the (possibly inevitable) sadness of the Germans, they followed him literally and encountered a great defeat. This was not from their lack of prowess, but from the vast forces they faced, since illusion is always more popular than realism. And yet, we would be ultra-morons to make the same mistake twice.

To avoid making that mistake, we must revisit the core of modernity, individualism. Individualism makes people demand equality, so that all individuals are included, no matter what they have done in the past. But to an independent person, individualism is a crutch, a thing to be overcome. If you want to be more Hitler than Hitler, accept the nihilism of literal reality, and that you are a small part of a vast civilization, not a god-like consciousness to which civilization should be dedicated.

It is fascinating and lugubrious that we face the same challenges as we did during the First World War and the French Revolution. Nothing, really, has changed; we are still trying to advance the same dying ideas and they are failing as they always have. This Hitler Day, let us reject those ancient and moldy failures and move on to something more sustaining and cheerful!

Burying Hitler (Finally)

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

No matter what side of the aisle one appears on, Adolf Hitler presents a divisive figure. Although he is demonized in the West, much of that has to do with the need to produce a non-Leftist killer to compete with The Terror in France, Lavrentiy Beria, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao who killed far more and for far less purpose.

At the same time, The Holocaust troubles us. We know that Hitler wanted to relocate Jews first to Israel and then Madagascar, but was blocked by the Allies in both attempts. Albert Speer in Inside The Third Reich describes the forced labor program that attempted to use the Jews to produce munitions, and its failure. And then we have the Wannsee Conference, which produced some troubling language:

Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.

The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)

…The evacuated Jews will first be sent, group by group, to so-called transit ghettos, from which they will be transported to the East.

The question arising here is one of literality: does “transported to the East” mean sending them to their deaths, by means of the “so-called transit ghettos,” which are known today as concentration camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau? Or was it literal, meaning that they would be sent somewhere to the East once the Nazi war machine conquered the territory?

One possible answer is found further in the document:

The beginning of the individual larger evacuation actions will largely depend on military developments.

Even in 1942, Nazi success in Russia was highly in doubt. For one thing, all of these military leaders had read European history and knew of the difficulty of invading such a vast and inhospitable terrain for previous armies. They were also aware of the raw population differential between Russia and Germany, the American lend-lease program, and other factors working against them.

However, none of this seems relevant. What matters is that under Nazi authority, Jews perished, although the bulk of the deaths now attributed to The Holocaust occurred in Eastern Europe at the hands of partisans who anticipated German conquest of their homelands. This places responsibility on the Nazis.

Naturally, few of us — even some of the raging anti-Semites out there — want to approve of this. It is at the least some kind of tantrum inspired by the same Leftist mania as The Terror, symbolism taking over from reality. At best it is administrative incompetence and callous indifference to human life.

Once we are past The Holocaust, however, we can see that Hitler was like every other world leader: a mixed bag. The bulk of what he did was uncontroversial and beneficial, much as many things that Stalin did were about what a Republican or Democrat candidate in America might have come up with to solve the same problems.

Do we blame Hitler for the Autobahn? His war on cancer? The ground-breaking Nazi environmental policy? And clearly he was right on some big things: diversity does not work, in any form. Communism is insanity. Democracy is dysfunctional. The Americans and English political structures had become corrupted from within.

On other fronts, he seems simply wrong not in a moral sense, but a historical one. Socialism does not work, although Hitler adopted the same form that the US and Europe were using at the time. Dictatorship does not work, either, but that does not mean that democracy worked any better except by historical accident.

Approaching Hitler and the war with balance we see that a complex, nuanced, and detailed view is required to get anywhere with the study of this period of time. The typical narrative that we impose on every war, such as “Saddam Hussein was a terrible man who murdered dissidents and gassed Kurds,” is like all great lies partially true and misleads us into action we would otherwise not take.

Hitler strikes me as interesting among recent Western leaders because he may have done this to himself. The aesthetics and symbolism of Nazi Germany were massively powerful, and it seems likely that Hitler found himself correctly understanding needs but not the solutions to get there, and thus falling back on primal and uncontrolled responses like The Holocaust.

Our goal in the future is to recognize with every leader what they did right and wrong. Stalin had some good ideas about military organization. Hitler was right about the environment, diversity and democracy. This is how we will remember them: as junctures in history where certain things were learned that we can carry on into the future.

For this reason, it makes sense to bury Hitler and lose the historical guilt and instead learn from the past:

“History is a whore of politics,” Björn Höcke, one of the party’s most radical politicians, said in an interview. “A great people like the German people, which lost two world wars in one century, no longer has a historical narrative of its own.”

In an ornate Dresden ballroom in January, local AfD candidate Jens Maier told the crowd that what he called Western Allies’ re-education efforts after World War II led to Germans being convinced “we are bastards, criminals, that we are worth nothing.”

As his voice rose, Mr. Maier hollered into his microphone, to applause: “I hereby declare this cult of guilt to be over! To be over, once and for all!”

At this point, German historical guilt serves nobody because it can only weaken people. It weakens Jews by making them identify with being victims. It weakens Germans by making them afraid to act. It weakens Europeans by making them doubt their own need to exist, instead going into a pacifistic wonderland for fear of being like those evil Germans.

Even more, we realize that Hitler was ultimately right about a number of things. Diversity cannot work and never will. The environment needs protection through the Nazi method, which involved limiting the amount of land that could be used. Democracy has done nothing but produce a further Leftward slide in the West which has made life miserable and driven us to insanity.

As Hunter Wallace writes in a related article:

In the 21st century, Swedes live under the same Iron Curtain of political correctness, multiculturalism and mass immigration as the British, the Germans and the Americans. Do you know who really lost the World Wars? It was all of us.

The White race was the loser of the 20th century. We started the 20th century as the rulers of the planet and ended it under siege in our own homelands. Everyone who was unborn at the time was the loser of those disastrous wars. Liberalism was the victor.

In other words, just like the Napoleonic Wars, the World Wars were wars of Leftist ascension that ended with Europe weakened and divided against itself. Now we live under another Iron Curtain, one which just like the last one is a product of liberal ideology, which now as then is based in egalitarianism, internationalism and population replacement.

None of this is new. There is one way of living which works for civilizations, if they want to be great, and any deviation from that leads down this path to breakdown. Plato mentioned how tyrants spoke of equality and imported “foreign” people to be their allies, shortly before taking control. History repeats itself.

The question for the West now is whether we can bury Hitler, accept what he got right and discard his horrors, and then apply that same standard to Leftism. We are living in a horror as great as Nazism or the Soviet Union, and every year for European-descended peoples has been this way since we allowed Leftism to take over in 1789 with the French Revolution.

Hitler was wrong to think that we could beat modernity with a modern-style society, as Nazism created. We cannot find any good in this thing known as modernity. Instead, we must escape it by recognizing that it is a false type of existence, and that we need to choose the method of civilization that works no matter what year it is, or soon we will be buried just like Hitler.

Woke

Sunday, December 25th, 2016

People like to think of knowledge as an infinite field, but rather it is like the musical scale: there are only so many basic variations, and the uses of those are obvious, so knowledge comes from layers of interpretation over time. This is why music, like history, is cyclic, running through patterns as a means of returning to a balance.

With that in mind, there is nothing new — only the rediscovery of old concepts:

If there be nothing new, but that which is
Hath been before, how are our brains beguil’d,
Which, labouring for invention, bear amiss
The second burden of a former child.
O, that record could with a backward look,
Even of five hundred courses of the sun,
Show me your image in some antique book,
Since mind at first in character was done!
That I might see what the old world could say
To this composed wonder of your frame;
Whether we are mended, or whe’er better they,
Or whether revolution be the same.
O! sure I am, the wits of former days
To subjects worse have given admiring praise.1

This is not popular, because the Crowd wants to be thought of as genius, and so it is always re-inventing concepts so that it can take possession of them and add spin to them. Check out the public history — which is always lies — of the slang term woke:

It can be hard to trace slang back to its origins since slang’s origins are usually spoken, and it can be particularly difficult to trace a slang word that has its origins in a dialect. Woke’s transformation into a byword of social awareness likely started in 2008, with the release of Erykah Badu’s song “Master Teacher”:

Even if yo baby ain’t got no money
To support ya baby, you
(I stay woke)
Even when the preacher tell you some lies
And cheatin on ya mama, you stay woke
(I stay woke)
Even though you go through struggle and strife
To keep a healthy life, I stay woke
(I stay woke)
Everybody knows a black or a white there’s creatures in every shape and size
Everybody
(I stay woke)

Stay woke became a watch word in parts of the black community for those who were self-aware, questioning the dominant paradigm and striving for something better. But stay woke and woke became part of a wider discussion in 2014, immediately following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The word woke became entwined with the Black Lives Matter movement; instead of just being a word that signaled awareness of injustice or racial tension, it became a word of action. Activists were woke and called on others to stay woke.

How clever, but as usual with the herd and its organs like the mainstream news-entertainment industry, it is lies. Here is the actual origin of the concept of being awakened in a political sense:

‘Deutschland Erwache’ was one of Adolf Hitler’s favourite sayings especially in the lead up the January 1933 when he was appointed Chancellor. ‘Deutschland Erwache’ was still used by the Nazis after Hitler had got power as a way of warning the German public about the Jews getting everywhere. No one is quite sure where ‘Deutschland Erwache’ came from but it is almost certainly from work down by Richard Wagner – Hitler’s favourite composer. ‘Deutschland Erwache’ became the title for one of the most popular songs in Nazi Germany:

Storm, storm, storm, storm,
From tower to tower peal bells of alarm,
Peal out. Sparks fly as hammers strike.
Come Judas forth to win the Reich.
Peal out. The bloody ropes hang red
Around our martyred hero dead.
Peal out – that our thundering earth may know,
Salvation’s rage for honour’s sake.
To people dreaming still comes woe
Germany awake! Awake!”

A similar version was also used at rallies called ‘Germany Awake! Perish Judah!’ This ‘chorus’ was meant to have been chanted by those present to give the impression of unity across the land against the Jews in Germany.

The concept of being in a dream orchestrated by the herd and its public organs is nothing new, but the Hitlerian usage exists within the realm of politics exclusively. Previously, the idea of awakening from a dream was a spiritual and metaphysical concept, describing the moment at which the initiate recognized that physical reality was comprised of effects and not causes, giving it more of a symbolic value in a non-human sense than an actual value to materiality itself, leading to the concept of Idealism as discovered by ancient Hindus, Germans and probably everyone else.

In the meantime, we have 21st century Afro-pop (?) re-discovering Adolf Hitler’s personal lexicon and using it in service of Black Lives Matter. If nothing else, this should be good for a chuckle!


1. William Shakespeare, “Sonnet 59,” retrieved from http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/59detail.html.

American Establishment Tries, Fails to Revive Cold War

Sunday, December 11th, 2016

It is hard to tell whether the American media is an organ of its government, or the government an organ of its press. Either way, this group took the original idea of American liberty, which was egalitarian, and converted it into the type of end-times-of-Rome egalitarianism to which any degree of liberalism inevitably expands. They now act together as an ideological bloc that we call the Establishment or Cathedral.

Currently, this Establishment wants you to believe that the Russians interfered with the American election, relying on earlier dubious statements attributing the Wikileaks dump of Democrat emails to the Russians. Official state organ Pravda-On-The-Potomac issued the following communiqué:

The Post’s report cites officials who say they have identified individuals connected to the Russian government who gave WikiLeaks emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and top Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta. One official described the conclusion that this was intended to help Trump as “the consensus view.”

The report highlights and exacerbates the increasingly fraught situation in which congressional Republicans find themselves with regard to Russia and Trump. By acknowledging and digging into the increasing evidence that Russia helped — or at least attempted to help — tip the scales in Trump’s favor, they risk raising questions about whether Trump would have won without Russian intervention.

This shows us the uncanny insect-like persistence of the Left. They have combined two agendas: overthrowing the election, which they spent $1.2 billion to lose, and unifying their base by creating a new Emmanuel Goldstein. That character was the constant state enemy in 1984, a book written by Leftists to disclaim the more disturbingly accurate Brave New World, an anti-modern diagnosis by Aldous Huxley that argued it was not totalitarianism but mob rule that would do us in.

Leftists have tried several strategies to subvert this election. First, they announced and then performed almost a week of riots which failed because the only people they could recruit were in Leftist stronghold cities, and burning those down bothers very few, since the cost is socialized to insurance and taxes, which is a Leftist tenet anyway. Next, they tried claiming Trump was a Nazi again. When that failed, they announced the recount. Since the recount backfired as voter fraud appeared back on the public television screen, they are trying a new angle.

The Left intends to argue that Trump stole the election with the help of a foreign power, and that therefore, the courts should intervene. It is a simple strategy based on the Leftist majority at the Supreme Court, and it is as dishonest as it is clear. The point is to invent a plausible excuse for overthrowing the election, and then to demand that all goodthinkers get excited about it and demand it, putting pressure on those who do not want to be excluded from the Left-herd to do their duty as good Commu– Democrats.

Naturally, this will also fail. If Russia leaked emails and these unnerved people so much they voted for the other side, that is hardly a convincing case for intervention. The media is hoping always that it can present two stories side by side and then by shaking up the narrative, get them to blur together. One story is that the digital voting machines were interfered with; this is the recount myth. The other is that Russia leaked emails. Blur them, and you get “Russia hacked our computers and helped Trump steal the election,” which is exactly the kind of slogan that demagogues want to see carried in filthy little hands during the next round of riots.

Their second agenda is more insidious. The Left, following its birth from peasant revolutions and the French Revolution, always needs a symbolic enemy; this takes the form of the enemy-who-is-not-the-threat. In Revolutionary France, for example, the actual threat was overpopulation and continued European conflict; the false target, or official state enemy, was the King. During WWII, the actual threat was the Soviet Union, but the fake enemy was Hitler, who was not concerned with the USA except as an intervening party in a European conflict against Leftism.

With the rise of Trump, the fake enemy of Hitler finally fell. This was helped by Brexit and the populist revolt in the EU which essentially affirmed that Hitler was right about diversity and Leftism: both were paths to a uniquely European doom. The Lügenpresse came out all guns blazing to call Trump and his supporters racists, KKK, Nazis, Hitler, etc. and the Trump team shrugged it off. They had no guilt, and their supporters, who had witnessed the rise of extreme Leftism — a.k.a. moderate Leftism given power — under Barack Obama and the ensuing war on whites and anyone else with money, simply did not care. So the old enemy, Hitler, fell, and the Left has to vary it up a bit.

Our new pseudo-enemy in Russia takes after not the Reagan years of fighting Communism, but a far earlier political myth. As with the French Revolution, America was born of overthrowing a monarchic power ruling over it, but the Americans, being savvier to the ways of humans than the French, did not go full democracy because they feared and specifically stated that they feared mob rule. But, a revolution requires a tyrant or it is illegitimate, so the Americans cooked up George III as not just a tax-greedy leader, but a true-blue Platonic tyrant.

This turned out to be half-right, mostly because George III was in an impossible spot owing to British politics, which were no longer monarchic except in name, and in order to keep the UK’s own overpopulation problem in check, and satisfy the wealthy interests that now routinely bumped the elbows of the Crown, he was in a difficult political situation involving apparently unending wars and domestic instability. The “tyranny” imposed on America was mostly that it was taxed to pay for England’s needs, including a union with near-white disaster state Ireland, and that it was ruled from afar by sailing ship, which meant that any command of the king was obsolete long before it arrived at its destination.

In Putin, the Left has found an enemy. He is not a weak leader, which makes him a possible threat. He is not a Leftist leader — the Russians have less than fond memories of their flirtation with moderate Leftism given power — and he has made rumbles of creating an alternative to the Americanization project that is the EU (not NATO, as most Rightists incorrectly identify). His European project is the idea of European cultural unification, not political unification. Most importantly, he has turned down the shibboleths of Leftist goodthink obedience, such as championing gay marriage and diversity.

How much he believes any of this is hard to say. An intelligent realist sees each country as a self-interested actor, and the self-interest of Eastern Europe has always been the conquest of the West. Eastern Europe is formed of those who fled feudal service in the West and, like Satan reigning in Hell, they are mostly content — but always seek to validate themselves and justify their choices by reconquering the higher authority that rejected them. A Revolution, if you will, in parallel to France, but this time comprised of recapturing territory once made off-limits.

The Soviets, never fools, tapped into this mythos among the Russian people when the West became its enemy. The Russians love the idea of finally getting to own Germany, much as they tried to by retaining control and destroying Eastern Germany. They adore the thought of being able to crush Germany again and rape its women. This fulfills a hole in their own souls: the knowledge that they were those who could not make it in Germany or were exiled, as after the Peasant Revolts, fills them with resentment which they think physical conquest can master.

Pure Machiavellian questions also arise. Eastern Europe is broke and starving despite having vast oil reserves, massive amounts of land, and plenty of talented scientists. Prole-rule does not work after all, and in Eastern Europe, the states are all dysfunctional because too many of the people are dysfunctional, as is the condition in Southern Europe and third-world states everywhere. As a result, political myths are more important than reality, which is everyone eating beets after making all of the potatoes into vodka from now until eternity.

Not being fools, or completely fools, the Left have resurrected Putin-as-Hitler instead of Putin-as-Soviet because they need a new Cold War but know it cannot be against Communism. The Americanization project, based in the idea of equality and diversity, is the new Comintern, and the American system is essentially Communism plus working grocery stores — they learned from last time — so if we exhume the Cold War, it will become apparent that we are the new Soviets and the Russians are not really the new Nazis. So we dug up George III, implied he was Hitler and the Confederacy at once now, and hope to send people off to fight the new racist, sexist, xenophobic, ableist, saneist, elitist, realist myth-monster in the political sky.

This puts us at an interesting juncture in history. The Leftist attempts to unseat the presidency have failed for a simple reason: most people, even if they voted against it, are OK with it, especially as signs of health and order return after the positively Soviet Obama years. Trump has ably defeated the slurs against him by treating them as the tantrums of spoiled children, which they are, and the recount effort ended in shambles and the knowledge that Jill Stein just legally defrauded her donors to the tune of millions. The Left is disunified at the failure of its magic words — “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia” — to cow its adversaries and unite its base.

And so, in the grand tradition of banana republics everywhere, something must be done to tie us all together and most importantly, distract from the fact that we are an empire in decline, a bag of special interests instead of a people cooperating toward a goal we all share. The distraction enemy must avoid the real threat, which is the decline of our civilization and its impending third-world status, by focusing us toward a scapegoat. And so, a new Cold War hybrid with World War Two is born, and yet it is stillborn, and we remain desperate, seeking an escape from reality and an explanation for our failure that does not involve the obvious: the real enemy is, as always, us.

Fixing The Trabant

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016

trabant

A decade ago, the new car was purchased. It was a triumph of scientific engineering, using all the principles that people knew to be good and well.

“It uses Ironic Prediction,” the salesman said. “Whatever you think is normal and right, it does the opposite, because life is just not how it appears.”

The family took it home. It was an odd car, with multiple engines in strange compartments, odd utilitarian seating, and styling that was a cross between art deco and a concrete box. But no mind: it was new, and the envy of all the neighbors, and besides, there might be something to this scientific ironism thing.

As days went by, the family praised the car. Unlike their past car which was fast and dangerous, the new vehicle never made hasty moves. In fact, it was difficult to steer at all, so generally the best path was to find a simple route to wherever you needed to go. They spent more time walking to and from parking lots far from their objective, but the family rationalized this as good exercise producing good health.

Glitches arrived with age. After the first six months, the father noticed that the car was making a knocking sound. He took it in to the repair shop. The mechanic called him a few hours later.

“The exhaust system had troubles, so we re-routed it through the cabin. No more knocking noise.”

Now the family drove everywhere, even in the depth of winter, with windows open as exhaust spewed out from the vents under their seats. It got to the point that the car went in again to the shop.

“Well — I can make the exhaust go elsewhere, but it is a little bit expensive…”

So they paid. They needed a car, and it was the pride of the neighborhood, so they shelled out almost the cost of the car again to have a new radiant exhaust system put in. Now wherever they want, the car blasted exhaust in all directions, so that they arrived in a cloud of smoke.

This kept the peace for almost four more years. Then one day the knocking was back, as if there were a prisoner in a cellar under the car. The mechanic lifted the hood.

“Eeeyugh,” he said. “A tough problem. I have a workaround.”

When the car came back, it was wrapped in rubber tubing. The new cooling system worked by chilling alcohol and pumping it through the engine, then up to a radiator on the roof. They could not open two of the doors and the car had lost all aerodynamic properties, but that was fine as it did not go fast anyway, which was what they liked about it.

“Finally fixed, so we have more time for work and play,” said the father gaily.

Barely another year had passed before the wheels fell off. As the tow truck pulled away, the father viewed the mechanic — the only one around for hours — warily.

“I can fix this, but it is not expensive.”

When the car came back, the children burst out laughing. The rear wheels had been replaced by several dozen roller skates. The front wheels on the other hand were made out of cast iron.

“It certainly looks like the latest scientific enhancements,” said the mother hopefully. They had moved from their nice suburban home to an apartment so that they could keep up the payments on the car fixes.

Finally normal life could return! The car, in a cloud of smoke and the grating noise of iron wheels, never arrived anywhere fast and was impossible to park because the steering was erratic, since they had replaced the wheel and brakes with a theremin six months previous.

Most of what brought the normalcy back was that they had worked around the car. Since they had no money, they no longer went out to restaurants. The children rode their bikes everywhere so that they did not have to be in the smoky, unstable car. The father found that walking to work, an hour each way, was much easier than struggling with the temperamental steering system.

But some places required a car. So they all got in what had once been their pride, and hustled off in a shuddering wall of noise and the grinding sound of roller skate wheels. One day, just as they had purchased their groceries for the month, the car simply failed to start.

And so they paid. Paid for the taxi ride home with all their groceries, melting in the heat. Paid for the tow truck. Paid for the repair shop to take a look.

Then: “The drivetrain needs an overhaul. It is still designed with too much conventional wisdom. We need something unexpected, a flair of the human…”

When the car came back from the shop, the family was too tired of the process to even laugh. Now it had a giant contraption like a salad shooter mounted on the hood. It rotated as they drove, casting brightly colored lights over the walls of nearby buildings. The only difficulty was that to see around it, the father had to lean his head out the window, which caused him to constantly have an aching neck and back, in addition to being barely able to steer the car.

At this point, they used the car only on official holidays. Otherwise, it was just too troublesome, and it always ended up costing them money. “Stay away from the verdammt horseless carriage!” the father said. “Too much modern progress can kill you.”

Unfortunately, they still needed to use it on some occasions. When the eldest son got married, they drove up to the church in a cloud of smoke, grinding wheel noise and carnival aura of multicolored lights. But when it was time for the couple to leave, the car refused to start.

“No problem, we can walk. It is only a few dozen miles,” said the son, his bride enthusiastically agreeing. No one wanted to be the first to criticize the car which had been the pride of the neighborhood now for some years.

The father went back to the shop, feeling much older than he was. “What now?” he said simply.

The mechanic poked around inside the engine compartment, then looked under the car, checking fluids and fiddling with bolts. “The problem is that its design is still too much, begging your pardon sir, natural. We must re-align every part of the car on a grid, and give each one equal importance.”

The father looked down at his old shoes, patched pants, and thin wallet. “No,” he said simply.

“You must,” said the mechanic. “You have put so much money and years into this already, and everyone knows, it is the only right way.”

“No,” said the father again.

When he got home to his wife, he said, “We are not the pride of the neighborhood anymore. I sold the car. Maybe we can just have a normal life.”

“Good,” she said. “That Enlightenment™ thing never worked for us anyway, no matter how many times we patched it up.”

***

The history of modern humanity can be summarized thus: an Idea was introduced that seemed profound because it was not real. No matter how many modifications we made to it, it did not work, even though it flattered us.

In the process, we found that those who spoke against the Idea — despite their lack of being 100% good heroes much of the time — were right, and we denied them. The American Nativists, Anders Breivik, Adolf Hitler, The Ku Klux Klan, Ted Kaczynski, Varg Vikernes, the John Birch Society, Enoch Powell: they were right all along, even if they did some bad things as well.

Equality does not work. The Enlightenment™ is dead. Long live the naturalistic future.

Let Us Finally End World War II

Friday, December 2nd, 2016

hitler_speaks

Why is Hitler, and by extension the Nazis, still a prime obsession in our society?  One obvious answer is that the post-WWII world, and the legitimacy of American hegemony, is tied up in it. 

America, we are told, can never go back to minding its own business because of The Holocaust™ and Isolationism.  And that’s just coming from the garden variety cuckservative that will always bind together the US military with Leftist foreign policy, providing us the true fasces of our time. Today’s iteration of the Roman Empire is once again a double headed eagle, one head Spartan red state militarism with its brain gnawed out by its blue counterpart from Foggy Bottom.

The Cult of Hitler, and make no mistake, his cult of personality is still going strong, is a remarkable thing made up of worshipers from every walk of life.  It isn’t just his ironic fanboys on /pol/ that worship the long dead dictator, but all the “right thinking” goodwhites who never pass up the opportunity to curse his name to this day.  Just because they’ve made Hitler the patron deity of evil, doesn’t change the fact that they still give him the honors of a deity.  In fact, most of his worshipers belong to the latter camp, making Hitler’s status as the G_d that Holocaustianity worships the precise definition of irony.

Breaking free of this cult is a great, unfulfilled challenge for the Alt Right, but let me be clear of what we need to break free from.  I do not mean we fall in line with the frame set by the Cathedral in regards to Hitler.  Anyone of sufficient intelligence understands that pop history, and especially the politically relevant pop history of WWII is nonsense.  We just don’t know how it’s nonsense.

Opinions on the Alt Right vary widely from condemning Hitler as just as bad the Cathedral claims, to those that claim he was, “The Greatest Person Ever!!!!” — no, for reals.  I read that on a Hollywood Nazi site once.

In fact, the failure to sit down and have a definitive, honest redpill on Hitler and Nazism is essential to any political movement coming out of the Alt Right to succeed.  It was a major oversight on the part of Mencius Moldbug to just assume, after having deconstructed liberal democracy and its Cathedral, that he hadn’t just inadvertently rehabilitated Nazism and even Soviet-style Communism. 

If you demonstrate that everyone has been in a false reality, there’s no reason to assume that any of the foundational assumptions of that false reality hold true once you break free from it.  Naturally, no one on the Alt Right was inclined to meme Stalin back to greatness, but /pol/ had been drawn to the natural Schelling point of Hitler for years.

History is all about interpretation.  It’s about constructing a plausible narrative based upon available evidence.  But the interpretation is the key part to this, because unlike mathematics or physics, the human actor is the key to history.  2 + 2 will still be 4 and the laws of thermodynamics are set, but why the War of Northern Aggression happened is a human construction.

And adding to all of this is the fact that the Cult of Hitler is the law of the land in many parts of Europe, and the de facto law of the land in the US and the UK.  Questioning Hitler’s status as the King of All That is Evil is heresy, punishable by loss of your job, friends, family and good name.

The trap that is far too easy to fall into is to yell “black” when the enemy says “white” and by so doing to engage in the assumption that Hitler was just Jesus except not dressed like a hippie.  Jim Goad published an image of German soldiers crucifying Hitler on the back of Answer Me! No. 3, an arresting image that exemplifies the 1488-er cult of Hitler.  (“He killed for your sins….” to borrow a line from Adult Swim’s Sea Lab 2021.)

Hitler is dead.  He’s been dead for 71 years.  He’s going to continue to be dead until the heat death of the universe.  He is not divine, and no, you cannot meme someone into godhood.  It didn’t work for Kek or Gnon either.  Learn about allegory lads.

The challenge before us is that the keystone of the Cathedral that towers over us is the Hitler Meme.  To remove it, and bring down Babel 2.0, the Alt Right is going to need some honest, genuine scholarship, showing who Hitler was, what National Socialism was, and to give those of us who care about reality an honest assessment of both.

Why the Alt Right Won’t Succumb to Leftist Hysteria

Saturday, November 26th, 2016

typical_russian_soccer_hooligans

Why is using NSDAP imagery a bad strategy?

First, the Alt Right does not equal National Socialism, so Alt Rightists would be misrepresenting themselves. But we also aren’t Libertarians, yet there is no outrage when Alt Rightists use Libertarian sources. So this is not the real reason why using NSDAP imagery is a bad strategy.

The real reason is that people in the political mainstream have a conditioned repulsive response to NSDAP imagery: their minds shut down when they see a swastika, and they become unable to consider any ideas with such branding or association. This is reinforced by mainstream media that actively vilify and attack NSDAP symbols and ideas. Because of this, introducing anti-progressive, anti-liberal, and anti-modern ideas to them generally works more smoothly without it because it denies them that excuse to stop listening.

However, there is a problem with this. That conditioned response is not triggered only by NSDAP imagery. It is also triggered — though to a duller degree — by any hint of suggestion that significant racial or sex differences exist, by critiques of democracy as a fundamentally flawed system, and any lack of support for egalitarianism. Even expressing the desire for the continued existence of European people can cause alarms and inhibit thought in those who are in the political mainstream.

Further, the mainstream media make no distinction between genuine NSDAP convictions and any anti-egalitarian ideas. Those who make purely scientific observations about racial differences are still called “Nazis.”

And so the same reasoning that suggests complete rejection of any symbol associated with the NSDAP in any way would also seem to suggest avoidance of the very ideas that are at the heart of our cause. In order to not be shut out of mainstream discourse, and in order to avoid being tarred with incorrect labels that reinforce that censure, it seems we must water down our communication to the point that anything substantial is lost, and simply hope that one day WWII propaganda and the mass media that reinforces it will fade away on its own.

This is obviously not a sound strategy. We have two routes around this impasse.

With the first, we can charge ahead boldly and speak openly, honestly, and unapologetically the truths that need to be said. We will be vilified and attacked, and many will shut off their minds when they hear us, but the conditioning is not absolute, and brighter minds (which are more important to us) will have a chance of breaking through. We will never convince everyone, but we don’t need to or want to. This is the path that has been taken by this site.

With the second, we can meet Hitler in a warm embrace, emblazon the swastika on hitherto innocuous cartoon frogs, and crank up the death camp ovens to 6,000,000 degrees. Take the Nazi straw man that has been wielded against us, pump him full of post-ironic steroids and send him back to the enemy so that their absurd hysteria entertains and delights us. Create such an over-the top scathingly mocking caricature of the left’s caricature of us that the epithet “Nazi” falls limp and impotent from their hateful lips. This is the path taken by sites like The Daily Stormer.

What must be recognized is that those in the first path do not benefit by attacking those in the second. Doing so will not save them from being labeled “Nazis” — nothing will. Now is not the time to be tip-toeing around the left in the hope that they’ll leave us alone. Even the flimsy excuse of not wanting to hurt Trump’s image has become completely irrelevant now that he has won.

On the contrary, those who take the first path have much to gain from the success of the second path. If these trolls and jokers succeed in breaking the NSDAP taboo they will have opened a wide space of ideas in which all the principles and ideals that lead to an ascendant civilization can breathe freely and thrive.

The left has absolutely no credibility. At this point, this rare chance we have with Trump, this narrow opening through which we may possibly use political means to save our civilization it would be utterly foolish for us to pay any attention to leftist hysteria except as an opportunity for exploitation.

Realize that any leftist, any mass media outlet that would attack the Alt Right because of a few audience members raising Roman salutes would have attacked the Alt Right in any case. Instead of succumbing to your their hysteria and bickering with your allies, focus your martial energies on your enemies!

As The West Swings Rightward, A Need For Greater Clarity

Friday, November 25th, 2016

current_year

In the 1990s, Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington battled for the future theory of Western Civilization. Fukuyama believed that liberal democracy was the ultimate evolution of humanity, but Huntington saw the chaotic formation of groups based on religion, culture, and ethnicity warring against each other for dominance.

As it turned out, Huntington was right and Fukuyama got the “also ran” award. The point is that there is no perfect society, only a clash between approximations. People fight over the possibility of identity, which is an intersectional hybrid between ethnic group, religion, political group and social caste. There are no easy answers.

The “clash of civilizations,” Huntington’s vision in which identifiable groups separated, won out over the “end of history,” in which we all ended up being safe and uncontroversial by joining the trend of liberal democracy. Fukuyama’s vision was safe; Huntington’s, disturbing and as lawless as the American frontier.

As the dust settles, it becomes clear that Huntington won. Fukuyama predicted a future of endless liberal democracy, and bravely revealed the emptiness of this option; Huntington, as if anticipating this, projected a future of endless warfare in which group identity would be more important than individual identity.

Time passed. “The end of history” (sensu Fukuyama) gave way to the Huntingtonian vision of world tribalism with the rise of terrorism and clash between West and Islam. This new tribalism invalidated old concepts, like liberal democracy, equality, diversity and the nation-state.

“The end of history” was, after all, a hopeful vision. Perhaps we could stop struggling and see a certain form factor as the basis for politics forevermore. But that made no sense. Nature abhors a vacuum and it also hates the static. Instead, we have endless conflict, from which clarity emerges, much as it does through Natural Selection.

The world is far from static. Instead, constant conflict allows the sanest among us to suppress the rest so that the minority viewpoint of sanity can prevail above the usual monkey dynamics, drama, neurosis, attention whoring, victimhood pimping, passive aggression and other distractions.

In this new reality, the humans who have some sense of reality are looking toward avoiding the nonsense warfare of those caught in symbolism, and instead are hoping to find a pragmatic balance where even the isolated can have political interests simply by standing up for what they want, outside of the public drama.

This creates not a void, but a momentum which demands that clarity arrive. The Alt Right has triumphed with the election of Donald J. Trump, but where to go from here? Clearly the candidate needs support but the public is at a loss for how to articulate what is needed.

Fellows at Alternative Right give us, as always, a clear direction where the rest of media is fetishing choas. Their outlook sees a the Alt Right as one step toward an ultimate evolution of politics, one in which clarity needs to beat out trends for a sense of direction and purpose:

Also remember this: the Alt-Right can inspire its chosen and future audience—and also trigger its opponents—simply by focusing on moral and mature European identitarianism and Western traditionalism, and by addressing the awkward issues of race and excessive Jewish power in a spirit of honesty and humaneness. Our opponents are so extreme that we can trigger them merely with our common sense and moderation.

The point is this: end the Enlightenment™ notion that good intentions are good policy, and replace it with the core of the Right, which is uncompromising intense Realism that urges us to find transcendental goals above focus on human egos and intent. Speak that in plain language, and apply it in every policy question, and people will find themselves drawn to it.

Realism works. The policy of “good intentions” does not. If we speak this in a neutral and informed way, for example saying “Diversity does not work because it denies each group the ability to set standards and values, creating a constant conflict over that topic,” instead of ranting on about inferior races that we hate like Hollywood Nutzis, then we crush illusions and convert people.

There it gets more complex however. The Alt Right is an ecosystem. This means that instead of all of us doing the same thing, like cogs in a machine or Communists marching in uniform, we all have unique roles and we exist as a “big tent” with much internal variation so that we do not need external critics to keep ourselves consistent.

For that reason, we obey a “no enemies to the Right” motto which means we allow people to be themselves in our big tent, and express whatever extremities they wish, as long as those extremities serve in some what to advance the “transcendental realist” outlook of the Right. Let the left attack them, but we should not be attacking those who are helping us to advance our ideals, whether they are mass murder fetishists or just 400 lb naked basement trolls.

This does not mean we must endorse their viewpoints, or claim that they speak for us. We can criticize those viewpoints, and this is commonly done by pointing out the inconsistencies in those philosophies. It is also fair game where certain beliefs have been tried to bring up the past and infer a connection between philosophical inconsistencies and bad results in reality. This can be done without attacking any person as the Left does, even when quoting them and disagreeing; such behavior is part of informed debate and is how the Right thrives. We need constant inner war to clarify where our values overlap and where we should be advancing in order to keep consistent with those most basic shared values.

This gives at least two fronts. On the facing end there is the responsible Alt Right:

People who come to the Alt-Right (if I’m any indication) are usually a bit uneasy at first with ideas they have been taught to despise their whole life. Months ago, when I first started exploring these new ideas I was still cautious, and seeing Spencer yelling ‘Hail Victory’ back then might have turned me off. While I had been questioning what I had been taught about race for some time before coming to the Alt-Right, it took a while for me to get comfortable with my own thoughtcrimes. Normies have to be eased into this.

On the back end however, we need more of the “bad boy” appeal that made the Alt Right so powerful during this election. In the West, we have a mythos of informed outsiders telling us the plain truth that cannot be spoken in society, so has been forgotten. Whether that truth-teller is Beowulf or Zarathustra, we are accustomed to civilization inserting its head in its posterior and becoming oblivious only to the vital facts it needs to know.

trump_npi_salutes

This rowdy and uncivilized behavior — including trolling, provocation, mockery and irreverence — is what allows the Alt Right to keep widening the Overton Window and going beyond it. The goal of this type of behavior, including edgy Hitler references at NPI conferences, is to force acceptance of previously taboo ideas. This aims to throw away the Overton Window entirely, to finally end World War II by terminating the guilt and shame heaped on the losers, and to allow us to once again openly discuss previously censored ideas like eugenics, nationalism, the different IQ levels of different social castes, the failure of liberal democracy and other topics that were commonly discussed before WWII but not after.

What is vitally important is that this second wing not disrupt the first. Many who were advancing the “Alt Right = White Nationalism” trope allowed this symbolism to become a replacement for ideation and direction. This is symbolism, and we need to approach it as being only what it is, which is putting certain previously-taboo topics back on the table so we can finally figure out what we think about them.

Huntington, Nietzsche and Houellebecq should probably be named patron saints of the Alt Right. Huntington told us that nationalism was going to emerge naturally, not through ideology, as the world linked up. Nietzsche told us that a morality of pacifism, equality, tolerance and non-violence would make us weak and existentially miserable. Houellebecq pointed out that Western Civilization is falling apart because we have made life an ugly and overly-sensualized obligation, removing any sense of pleasure found in the natural process of living itself.

This is the direction the Alt Right now needs to push: nationalism from Huntington, a new morality from Nietzsche, and a renovation of joy in life itself from Houellebecq. We must cross another taboo barrier, which is the taboo against Social Conservative ideas because anything which does not encourage constant sex, drugs/drink and media consumption must be un-fun. The problem is that while “fun” might be had in the short term with the constant prole party atmosphere of the dying West, it also crushes us inside, and so makes us weaker and ultimately, self-hating.

We need to turn this society around. Trump/Brexit was just the first step, peeling the outside layer of an onion composed of many layers. At the heart of the onion is this: societies that succeed lose their sense of purpose because they have achieved the goal of creating civilization. Then, they allow too many less-useful people to breed while the wealth empowers people to become special interest groups who do not view their future as bound up with that of the civilization. This produces an alliance between the wealthy and the proles to essentially abolish all laws, standards and morality, replacing them with “anarchy with grocery stores” so that profits can be high and behavior low. The problem with this type of society is that it immediately reverts to third world levels.

The raging egomania of this time was caused by allowing people to have power outside of the hierarchy or in opposition to the goals of that society. This in turn is caused by lack of a purpose outside the reactive, a type of stasis where we assume that everything is basically right except for small problems that then can be fixed with direct action. This has us reacting to material details, instead of noticing patterns, and so decline sneaks up on us.

To escape this pattern, we need to restore the notion of civilization having a purpose again, so that instead of reacting we have inner momentum toward a semi-attainable but ultimately never fully attainable goal, such as the transcendentals (goodness, beauty, excellence, virtue, truth/realism).

This is what Bruce Charlton explains as a struggle to find a will toward goodness in our hearts which is the basis of the revolution against modernity:

To analyse Life (including politics) in terms of power-differentials, economics, nationalism, racialism, or sex-politics is objectively and historically Leftism; hence the Alt-Right are (merely) Leftist heretics – and this can be seen by the clear motivation of the movement to take-over The State Apparatus in order to sort-out the economy, harness and encourage national pride, reverse the racism and sexism of the Left and so on.

It’s not that these objectives are bad, actually or necessarily, but that these are all Leftist objectives which merely tweak the system without reversing its direction – all of them were historical objectives of radical political movements, mostly in the 18th or 19th century, and all flowed-into modern New Leftism (political correctness, SJWs) for the simple reason that they are this-wordly and gratification-orientated and justified (i.e. utilitarian).

…Perhaps/ Probably we cannot at this point and from here, go directly to Christianity (although that is the eventual goal); but at least, and as a first-step, we absolutely-must reject the materialism, scientism, positivist, hedonic focus of modernity; and restore spiritual objectives as the natural and universal focus and motivation of human life.

Another way of phrasing the above: modernity — and this is what we are warring against, the civilization created by The Enlightenment™ after years of decline — consists of purely material reactions because it has negated the ability to have a purpose.

The philosophy written about on this site, parallelism, emphasizes an opposite to rationalism, or the tendency to zero in on a single attribute of a situation and to derive a cause that will create it. Parallelism instead uses cause-effect reasoning in a historical sense as a means of understanding the likely consequences of any given act, and suggests that we pay attention to patterns, especially those that manifest in parallel in multiple areas.

Now this is where it gets interesting.

Wanting a spiritual revival makes sense, but we will achieve it indirectly. We cannot demand the effect we want directly and have it occur because we will not have done the groundwork for it. Instead, we need to awaken the desire to do good in a general sense, and have that manifest in parallel in politics, culture, religion and socializing. That will produce an emergent spiritual revival as we innovate new methods for achieving the changes we desire, including simple ones like Nationalism.

In other words, we cannot have a spiritual revival by working directly toward one. Instead we need a mentality that understands why a spiritual revival would be a good thing, and by implementing that across the board in society by demanding realist programs that achieve good results, instead of merely good intentions, we will awaken that revival.

This comes at a time when the Alt Right is wavering in its purpose because having achieved one big goal, its consensus is now fraying. This can be stopped with a simple prescription: we want to end Modernity because it is an existential horror that has caused our people to stop breeding, and implement a society free from policies designed around anti-realist thinking.

It is fortunate, too, because the Left will retaliate as they usually do. For them, equality is Utopia and any means to that end is a morally good act, even if the method is immoral like guillotines, gulags and concentration camps. This Utopian ideology makes them willing to go to greater extremes, ones that the Right generally cannot comprehend because they are corrupt and destructive. As Matt Briggs writes, the Leftist counterattack will be an attempt to silence us:

The Left has already purged all mainline offline institutions, and so it was natural enough for them to move online.

Yet all their efforts online would if not abetted largely come to naught, because the (Alt) Right adapts as quickly to the tactics of the Left as the Left moves to attack. If unaided by external forces, the Left would at best come to a stalemate, if not endure outright losses, as they have with Brexit, Hungary’s reform, the success of Marie Le Pen, the rise of Trump, and other versions of elite-rejecting “populism” (losers in democracies always call their enemies populists, but democracies by definition are populist).

…The effect will be twofold. Governments themselves silencing critics, and companies using stringent interpretations of government rules and laws to increase banishment. The Internet itself is (more or less) in the hands of the United Nations, and if there is one consistency of the UN since its inception, it is that it uses its powers to stifle dissent.

He makes a good point. Already the Leftist press is beginning the witch hunts. They will not stop at a single event, but keep pushing until they are able to once again destroy lives as a warning to others: conform or be shattered.

In response to this, it seems that there is only one reasonable response: counterattack!

The positive reason is that if we press the attack into real-world arenas, we cannot lose! Let that sink in. If we establish a beachhead in meatspace, then two things happen. One, our various enemies, both organizations and individual ideologues, will be forced to divide their efforts between attempting to squelch an online community and attempting to stop it from growing further into the material plane, which will only become more and more difficult as our numbers increase. The second effect is a reciprocal one; those who join the alt-right as a result of real-world actions will participate in the online community and vice versa. Note that the first and second events here show us an even larger feedback loop.

This process requires a singular step: we must legitimize all political ideas and all methods so that they can be discussed without the willingness to take up the topic being seen as proof of being evil like Hitler. When the Alt Right desensitizes this world to Hitler-like behavior, and if it does not get absorbed by its own symbolism, its victory will be that we can finally talk reasonably about these ideas, and not be forced to swing toward Hitlerism because it is the only zone where such things are acceptable.

Marginalizing the Right has created that type of dichotomy, between mainstream cucks who will not mention anything smacking of these things, and an underground drugged on ideology who talks only of these things. The Alt Right has begun to end the marginalization of the Right, and in its place will come a newly liberated dialogue.

Bruce Charlton again, with perhaps most important advice for the Right, which is to be obstinate in asserting that what we see is real, and what they say is all lies, so we cannot back down. It starts, for him, with accurate perception of Reality, i.e. realism:

Perhaps the most important thing we can do, is not to do – to cease to help, to stop actively assisting the false-reality Matrix in its interaction with the false-selves of the mass of people. Being reasonable helps The System – while being un-reasonable, ceasing to fear, being uncompromising in of personal support of The Good so far as we understand it… all such helps Reality, which is divine, and operates by many, including unknown, pathways.

Also – our main ‘act’ in this world is thinking – I mean conscious thinking that comes from our real selves: that is the primary act; without which no behaviour, words, nothing can possible be of positive value.

The Alt Right needs to clarify its position. We hate Modernity. It is all lies. It starts with Enlightenment™ thought in recent history, but really, anything which reeks of individualism (intentions of the self > reality) is toxic. We aim to defeat these things and restore Western Civilization, and it begins with being able to be introspective enough to know our intuition, despite living in a civilization that is addicted to distraction for the very purpose of crushing any introspection or intuition.

With that in mind, we are fortunate that Richard Spencer and the NPI decided to push harder and invoke the Hitler taboo instead of pretending to be respectable and getting co-opted that way. Much of the Alt Right is now being forced into virtue signaling its disapproval of Spencer, and this has forced upon us the need to figure out what we stand for — and quickly.

Recommended Reading