Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘alt-right’

And The Alt-Right Shall Inherit The Right

Friday, November 10th, 2017

The Alt-Right doesn’t like everyone on the Right and most of that so-called Amerikan Right would rather not be associated with the Alt-Right. This, of course, has nothing to do with whether the Alt-Right has the right of things morally and politically speaking. We do, they don’t, and the more and the harder the SJWs double down on their purge of the non-believers, the more those non-believers of various belief systems, and predominantly alabaster skin hues, will be quietly and unobtrusively slinking into the rear pews of our less pompous version of the cathedral every Sunday.

The Alt-White grows as SJWs project their own behavior in order to accuse all who denigrate or dissent from their agenda as !RACIST! Here we can see the accusation.

Here we have the reality.

Newton’s Third Law is not just a law of physics. It is probably a Platonic Form representing an absolute, God-Breathed Truth. You cannot indefinitely tension a spring. It will gain potential energy until it overcomes all friction and opposing force. The restoring force will be a reaction, and that doesn’t just apply in the realms of engineering and physics.

Consider Rod Dreher the Cuckservative version of a tension-bearing spring. He will put up with much Umgwalagwala before submitting, as he must, to the inherent truth and beauty of the Gawdawlmiddy Alt-Right. Here he reacts to how the Dems are recruiting their new base of tech talent.

They do not want white heterosexual males to apply (unless you’re a transgendered male). Note the “they/them/theirs” at the bottom. Doesn’t matter if you have the tech skills to help the Democrats win elections. If you’re a cisgendered straight white male, your application goes to the bottom of the pile. Brilliant, just brilliant. The thing that just slays me about liberals like this is that they have no clue whatsoever that this kind of discrimination is immoral and offensive.

Well, no. It didn’t actually slay poor Cuck Dreher. But it stuck hard in his craw because once upon a time it just about did. His tale of woe at the hands of the SJW Tolerance and Diversity Torquemadas follows below.

This stuff is not new. I was told in 1997 by a newspaper that initially welcomed my job application that my CV was put in limbo because the publisher decided that he didn’t want a white male in that job, unless they couldn’t find anybody as qualified as me. After a national job search that lasted several months, their search was fruitless, and they said they would now like to bring me in for a job interview. By then, I had just taken a job in NYC, and was on my way to a different life. I’m glad things worked out the way they did for me, but man, did that experience ever stay with me. It impressed upon me the injustice of the days when prejudice kept women and minorities for being considered fairly for jobs. That was unjust. But you don’t make up for one injustice by perpetrating another. That’s what the (white, male) liberal publisher of that newspaper was trying to do.

So what did he realize about Muh Civil Rites? The same thing that BLM recently taught us about rights in general. You have the rights that you are willing to eat some other bastard’s filthy intestines over in order to perserve.

Do you know when you have a first amendment right in Amerika? There are four occasions. 1) You are surrounded by law-abiding individuals who actually accept their socialization into our current managerial state. They will voluntarily allow you to say things they may or may not like without brutalizing you. 2) You are Chuck Norris. 3) You come armed well enough to not have to be Chuck Norris. 4) The State enforces on whomever would like to forcibly shut you up. So neither one nor four happened at The College of William and Mary in Virginia. If they consistently don’t happen, then you either become a hard, hard man or fornicate and forget whatever right you have some delusional belief in from your High School Civics Class.

So poor Rod Dreher, (and I don’t even call him that to mock him anymore) he has to act completely outside his fundamental nature as a man in order to preserve any illusion that he can keep on Cucking in The Free World. He has to shoot (or at least vote) to kill if he doesn’t want he, his offspring, and his beloved kind disposed.

This mentality exemplified by Madeleine Leader has a lot to do with why, at the end of the day, I’ll end up voting Republican out of pure self-protection, and to protect the job prospects of my children, especially my sons. Good job, Democrats. You are telling straight white people that they are second-class citizens who don’t deserve fairness. You’ll continue to find self-hating liberal whites who are willing to accept this garbage, but many more aren’t falling for it — and know what kind of world Democrats are preparing for them when and if they take power again. As a registered Independent whose economic and foreign policy views are to the left of the average Republican’s, I would love to have the chance to consider voting Democratic in a national election, especially with the GOP in such a mess. But out of self-protection, I can’t take that chance.

I was (even) way more the Cuck once. Then I, like Rod Dreher, was told by these Cuckwads that they could taste my stink. It’s a message that resonates. It alters how you think. It is already altering how Rod Dreher votes. How many other NeverTrumps felt a similar moral and philosophical alienation? How many of them felt that everything they were told by their moral betters was right was also rat poison to their own future and that of their offspring? How long do they stay in tension before Newton’s Third Law kicks in?

How long? Not long. Neo-Reaction is to politics what the restoring force is to Newtonian Physics. When the tension makes the Cucks snap back, they are coming our way. You can only only roll to disbelieve reality in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. You can only live on the philosophical equivalent of nothing but Twinkies and Scotch in a satirical Kurt Vonnegut story. The closest I ever came to actually liking Nick Saban and The University of Alabama football team was when Coach Saban called the narrative being spun by the local media covering his team rat poison.

Not even an idiot like (((Rod Dreher))) is stupid enough to order rat poison as his favorite upscale Bistro. Nobody else will either. This is why we need to perservere, critique and rail against the madness of diversity and demand Freedom of Association. We, the Alt-Right are actually right. No matter how the SJWs lie, not matter how the Cucks stab us in the back, we and only we are the few and brave on the side of God. Deus Effing Vult. The Alt-Right shall inherit the Right. Nature cannot otherwise function. We must continue onward in our righteous crusade.

Why The Alt Right Is An International Movement

Thursday, November 9th, 2017

You may have heard someone ask this one: “Is the Alt Right a whites-only movement, or can anyone take part?”

And naturally, like the waters of the Red Sea, the audience divides into two. On one side are those who want to argue for civic nationalism or patriotism to some ideology or flag or another, and on the other side, those who argue that this movement is strictly racially-based.

We know that the former group are not quite correct because The Age of Ideology is over, and so we are out of the time of proposition-nations, nation-states, patriotism, “civic nationalism,” “systems” and other comedic attempts to achieve both equality and order (you cannot: those are opposites). But is the second group fully correct, or merely not as wrong as the first group?

Naturally it makes sense also to issue a warning about the second group, which is that “white nationalism” is not something we wish to embrace. As a form of ethno-bolshevism, it seeks to unite different ethnic groups on the basis of race alone and invent culture after that, which is why it has been unstable for years and alienated those with the power to implement it.

At the same time, it makes no sense to swing toward libertarianism, either, as many during the Trump years are attempting to do, because “everybody do whatever they wantthey can afford” is anathema to social order just as equality, communism, democracy, consumerism and anarchism are. Libertarians are right about the economy, but a civilization is more than its economy.

This leaves us in the position of wanting an organic movement, or one that is both based in populations as ethnic groups, and addresses society as a whole, meaning that it is more concerned with social order than individualism. All other systems — libertarianism, communism, democracy — are based in The Renaissance™ notion of individualism.

With that in mind, we face a difficult realization: while anything derived from Leftism, including “civic nationalism,” is the wrong side, white nationalism is not fully the right side either. In fact, it is an artifact of the past that we should leave behind:

A pretty good rule of life is that failure is assured if you follow in the footsteps of previous failures. It’s why adopting Nazi symbols is stupid. The Third Reich was most notable for being a disastrous failure. Associating your thing with failure is just bad marketing.

…Putting all of that aside, prior iterations of white nationalism always suffered from the fact they were reactionary. At their very best, they could only offer a critique of the prevailing order. They had nothing to offer as an alternative, beyond demands to wind the clock backwards. Reactionary movements always fail in the long run for the simple reason that yesterday can never follow tomorrow.

…Whatever comes to define white identity in the age of identity politics will have to appeal to and serve the interests of the vast majority of whites. That can’t just be a visceral hatred of non-whites. Whites in America are mostly from west of the Hajnal line, which means low clannishness. Old fashioned tribal signalling against the next tribe is not going to work. What comes next has to be an ideology that promotes a positive identity offering a promising future.

The two biggest points here are that white nationalism lacks a plan that promises a better future and it needs something more than race to unite people.

In other words, we have to present an alternate vision of history starting tomorrow where we do certain things that not only avoid our present problems, but add something better to inspire people. This is not optics; it is advertising. It also has to be true, because people have had it up to the neck with ideology and its promises that turned out to be lies.

From a practical perspective, it makes sense to start with the economy, and this is where Anarcho-Capitalists, Libertarians and Neoreactionaries have it 100% right: capitalism is the last man standing of the proposed economic systems; everything else destroys your economy and turns your people into zombies addicted to government, as in Europe.

That however is not enough, just like nationalism by itself is not enough.

We are planning a civilization here, not arguing for one economic system over another. We know we need nationalism and capitalism, but those are two items in a list because they address different needs. Nationalism means that culture replaces government as the force that orders our daily lives; capitalism means that reward occurs for practical reasons, not ideological ones.

The Alt Right proves itself unique among all political movements because it seeks not just a contemporary solution, but an epic one that spans the ages; the Alt Right seeks to restore Western Civilization to the greatness of the ancients, whose art and philosophy far surpass our own, with the technology of today. That means ending our corrupt modern age, and then aiming much, much higher.

A starter list for those who wish to restore Western Civilization will likely include the following:

Restorationists desire the four pillars of making civilization functional again:

  1. Rule by culture. Government and police are inferior methods compared to citizens who view society as a cooperative endeavor toward a goal, according to principles held in common. These are a product of culture. To defend culture, all who are not of the ethnic group must be excluded; this is a principle called Nationalism. With nationalism, government is deprecated and day-to-day order is kept through use of shame, ostracism and exclusion to keep outsiders and saboteurs at bay.
  2. Hierarchy and excellence. Society can either take its rich and powerful and assume they are good, or find those among its people who are excellent — superior in ability, leadership, intelligence and moral insight — and give them the wealth and power to use well. 99% of humanity will make these decisions wrong, and all people in groups will choose to avoid facing real issues. We need those who do the opposite to have power and wealth to ensure that it is used well, much as (in theory) we entrust nuclear weapons only to those of excellent character.
  3. Positive reward systems. Again we face a primary division: we either force everyone to conform and look for anomalies to punish, or we diligently reward those who do well so that they ascend to positions of leadership. A heroic culture does some of this, but on a more practical level, so does capitalism: it rewards those who find opportunity and meet needs, as kept in check by culture and hierarchy.
  4. A transcendental goal. No healthy society has merely material goals. It aims to achieve the impossible so that it can constantly improve, such as the motives of ancient societies to achieve balance, harmony, equilibrium and excellence. Religion is part of this, but not the whole. We must collaborate toward a goal again and have it be more than tangible, but eternal.

Each of these four pillars is so massively taboo in our society that mere mention of it sends the people who are vested in the system scurrying for cover. These are the poisons that un-do our current dysfunctional order, which makes them medicine for those who wish to escape certain doom as civilization collapses, including the destruction of all they have worked for.

On top of capitalism and nationalism, this list adds the notion of hierarchy to replace the idea of equality, and the thought that we must have a purpose which is not finite and material, but based in an appreciation of the wisdom of the order of the universe and a desire to be compatible with it and by acting in accord with it, improving ourselves naturally.

Add to that the idea of organicism itself, which is that civilization must be based in innate similarities between people — Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” shows this to be the future — and must address civilization as an organic whole, meaning that it looks for a meaningful social order instead of attempting to defend individualism against realistic obligations, as democracy does.

Stated from a slightly different angle, this looks like redesigning civilization around adaptation to nature, instead of isolating the individual from the need to adapt and confront the core of life, which is finding a reason to exist and pursue virtue:

The Ult Right consists of these basic beliefs:

  • Social order. Some people are good; “people” in general are not good. They may not be fully bad, but they are not pointed toward what is good. As a result we need a hierarchy of categories, known as castes, where we select people by intelligence and moral outlook so that the best are on the top, with layers beneath. This encourages upward motion and ensures that the upper castes, who have more wisdom, make the decisions that influence daily life, products, culture and art. This benefits everyone by improving the quality of these things.
  • Leadership. Politicians are actors presenting fairytales to fool an audience into voting for them so that they can deliver the same thing time and again. Their power comes from the illusion that they are taking care of us. Instead, dispense with this idea, and promote actual leaders with unlimited power to fix problems, and let people take care of themselves as they do in nature, according to self-interest. By recognizing this principle instead of demonizing it, we can accept people as they are, and have our best at the top showing the way. Since dictatorships are unstable, the best method here is hereditary aristocracy, in which we take our best people and breed them as a permanent group from which leaders are chosen.
  • Culture. The root of culture is the ethnic group; when that group is separated from others, it has the ability to make daily choices by a values system, instead of needing a maze of laws and regulations. Citizens enforce rules on each other through social approval for good behavior and fleeing in fear from bad. This enables cooperation because people are similar and moving in similar patterns, so there is no need for the neurotic internal chatter, excessive competition and debate that afflicts democratic societies.
  • Purpose. Early civilizations have a goal: become organized and survive. When civilizations become successful, this goal evaporates and is replaced by looking inward and backward in a quest for meaning. We need meaning through a desire to become not only successful, but to improve our quality and to rise to the point of wisdom and power where we can explore the stars, invent the greatest of arts and philosophies, make our cuisine inspirational, and live well in every sense of the word. At some point, this includes having a metaphysical direction, or a meaning beyond the physical, so that we can understand every aspect of the challenge of existence.

How could this happen? Unite the top 5% of society by natural ability around some form of these ideas, and start removing laws. Eventually replace them with others. These laws would form the basis of our transition. They will also entail the peaceful and generous repatriation of those outside the founding ethnic group, and the gentle removal of those whose values conflict with our own, such as neurotic Leftists and those who engage in destructive behaviors.

Who rules over us that we cannot criticize? It is us. We the people, enshrined by Enlightenment™ ideas of individualism, are the ones making the decisions. We are doing a bad job of it and there is no sense that we will improve in the future, even with momentary thrusts toward sanity like Brexit and Trumprise. Herds make poor decisions; we are dooming ourselves by demanding power.

People — especially those top 5%, who basically hold everything together by being able to make sane decisions — require some vision of the future that is distinctive enough from the present to be a path that delivers us from the evils of the present, but also presents a clear enough vision of something to aspire to, toward which they can push themselves and in which they can see themselves succeeding, where they end up with a good feeling about themselves because they are fighting back bad and replacing it with good.

For us to see this vision, we have to discard the artifacts of the past era. In the Age of Ideology, people “won” by finding whatever simplistic illusion pleased a herd enough for them to vote for it or watch it on television. People are more cynical now, since with the Obama years, we saw how ideology and reality are light years apart, and ended the second Obama term as a divided nation with a ruined economy, inept military, huge drug addiction problem and lost national prestige.

In the future, we will stop looking for one big simple unifying vision because we distrust such things after having seen that they are illusory. Instead, it is time to embrace the complexity: there is no one simple theory that explains everything. Instead, we have a short laundry list of things that work, and everything else we take on a case-by-case basis.

That includes simplistic ideas like “white nationalism.” It is not a whole philosophy; it attempts to use one simple idea, racial separation, to solve every problem, and that is unreasonable. It is contra-Darwinian in that it includes all whites and ignores differences in ethnicity, caste, quality, class and region. It fails to demand necessary things like cultural restoration, hierarchy, something like religion or transcendental philosophy that gives us intangible purpose, and the need for a more functional equality that leaves fewer good people in the dirt.

We know Leftism is dead; when given power, it realized its goals and produced a dystopia instead of Utopia. But we cannot repeat its mistakes or we will throw ourselves on the garbage bin of history.

All of this boils down to a simple idea: the Alt Right is not a white nationalist movement, but a shift in how we view human civilization. We are no longer looking for a universal human order that spans the globe, but every nation is starting to see itself as an ethnic group which needs to figure out what works for itself so it can command its future instead of relying on the globalist trend to take care of it in the way that a Communist government takes care of (maybe put that in scare quotation marks) its citizens.

You can join the Alt Right no matter what ethnic background you have, but if you are Alt Right, you are joining the Alt Right within your ethnic group. We are not a worldwide movement, but a movement of movements, one in each ethnic group, striving to find a responsible structure for their civilization after a few centuries of Leftist insanity.

That will not satisfy anyone whose thinking is locked into that of the previous era. They want a big Leftist-style movement where government seizes all the power and forces people into molds that make them turn out as a mass culture that does what the ideology says is right. But that age, The Age of Ideology, has ended.

Our new future consists of finding a path away from the combined failures of the past and present, choosing the people to implement that, and leading those who can work within that order to set up new forms of civilization that are not failing like our present one. Everyone could participate, but only those who understand it, can.

Understanding The Constitutional Notion of “Equality”

Monday, November 6th, 2017

The Left is a mob, and mobs are composed of individualists, because they all want to do whatever they want and be protected from the consequences of those actions by being faceless in a crowd. Lower classes with economic mobility, cities and governments all contribute to the formation of crowds, who then act according to herd behavior.

In order to rationalize its behavior, the Left claims to support something called “equality,” which they never really define but interpret to mean that everyone has the same freedoms, minimum economic status and social rank. This is how they expand the crowd: they sell it to others with the promise that removing social hierarchy means they will get the “anarchy with grocery stores” that they crave.

When considering the American Constitution, many point to language by the founders about equality. However, they misinterpret these words because what the founders spoke of was natural equality, which is distinct and opposite to human-enforced equality. Their notion refers to lack of government intervention and not the opposite as the Left argues:

He’s positing on behalf of the Founders a normative equality of persons founded in Christian metaphysics: As persons created in the image of God, we all have inherent dignity and value and are equal as rights possessors regardless of our physical, empirical inequality.

In other words, the founders recognized that we were unequal in ability, and argued only for equality under the law, which to them meant not meritocracy or defense of criminals against their victims, but that no one was excluded from due process and fair treatment in trial.

We can tell why they did this by looking at what was roiling Europe at the time: secret trials, convictions based on the words of an accuser, and exclusion of whole groups — say, Protestants — from being participants in a legal system. In the view of the founders, the point of the Constitution was to limit government from being abusive.

The above quotation comes from an article about the Alt Right that is entirely wrong because it conflates recognizing a genetic basis to behavior with “materialism,” which in this case means thinking that humans make decisions on anything but a blank slate basis. In fact, the opposite is true: only by acknowledging that people operate according to their inclinations, and that very few are conscious, do we understand an escape from materialism, because the blank slate is arguing from the effect, or saying that we are all equal because we all have material bodies, and therefore our choices are entirely based on our intellects and do not reflect our underlying differences in ability, social stature and moral character. Read it if you want an example of clever and well-written but ultimately deceptive reasoning.

For those of us looking to construct the next iteration of Western Civilization, it is important to recognize what the founders did not: equality is a concept that expands to fill all available money, power and time. After all, if people are treated uniformly, and yet results are not uniformly, the inner human monkey will always blame the process. Humans are notorious for playing the victim especially when they are victimizers — one need look only as far as Kevin Spacey’s recent statements explaining his drunken homosexual molestation of a fourteen-year-old — and so, in a democracy, the illusion that the system “created inequality” will always be popular and thus, always win.

Instead, it makes sense to phrase our theory of justice this way: intelligence and moral character are unequal, therefore understanding is relative, and we want to reward those who rise above type, if they are members of the group that created this civilization and will be the only one to successfully inherit it. If a prole does something prole-like, that is not exactly the news, and in fact is the overwhelming normal. However, when someone rises above his heritage, it is important to reward that person and keep an eye on him toward advancing his family line to higher status in the future.

On the other hand, the great American quest for justice by eliminating discrimination has clearly backfired, so even normative equality is a dead concept. There are no blank slates, and people act out their genetic programming based on what they can understand enough to value. However, to make natural selection work for us, we need to take into account what people are — probably through a caste system — and then elevate those who do right while punishing those who do wrong.

Interview With Matt Forney

Friday, November 3rd, 2017

When you live under a control-based regime, your brain longs for accurate depictions of reality, because almost everything you encounter is propaganda, whether advertisers trying to trick you into buying useless products, chatty acquaintances pimping their bands and lifestyles, or outright ideological mental viruses beamed into your head by media, government and academia.

Back in the day, many of us encountered a site called In Mala Fide whose author was notoriously pseudonymous, and since that time those who thirst for pragmatic realism have followed the work of Matt Forney, an incredibly talented writer with whom we are pleased to present an interview that must have taken no short amount of time to complete. Please join me in extending a big thank you to Matt Forney, and reading his very deliberate words with a sense of intellectual curiosity.

You have been active for nearly twenty years as a writer, moving from a Men’s Rights direction to a more Alt Right perspective and now, sort of choosing your own path. How did you get into writing, and how did these different outlooks lead to one another and to where you are now?

I got into writing back in 2009 due to persistence and luck. At the time, I was graduating college and moving into an unrewarding civil service job, as well I was coming off a couple of crises in my personal life. I’d spent the past three years obsessively reading books on politics, sociology, and philosophy, and I also followed proto-manosphere/proto-alt-right sites such as Steve Sailer’s blog, Taki’s Magazine, Roissy in DC, CORRUPT.org and others.

I started a blog called In Mala Fide mainly to vent and talk about the ideas I’d learned about and thought up. I’d attempted to start blogging before several times but gave up because I wasn’t able to earn an audience. With In Mala Fide, I struck paydirt: I didn’t just earn a large audience (peaking at 50,000 unique visitors a month), but an intelligent one, one that was able to help me grow and mature as a thinker and a man. Some of the people I encountered online during that period have become close real-life friends of mine. The site has also been acknowledged by many as a formative influence on the manosphere and alt-right.

I transitioned to writing under my real name in 2012 after reading Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men and realizing that I would eventually have to stop being a pseudonymous shadow if I wanted any credibility. I was also tired of the “Ferdinand Bardamu” pen name and wanted to take my writing in a different direction. Since then, I’ve gone through several different focuses, from travel writing to sex to anti-feminism to political journalism to morality and ethics.

With regards to the different outlooks I’ve had over the course of my writing career, I’ve always been good at studying and synthesizing different viewpoints — men’s rights, white nationalism, etc. — to see the merit in them. In the In Mala Fide days, I had an excessive amount of free time at my job and spent it reading blogs and websites (because reading a book at my desk would get me in trouble), and would link to interesting stuff on my blog on a weekly basis. At NPI’s fall conference two years ago, a reader of mine told me that my weekly roundups of manosphere and white nationalist/alt-right articles were a big influence in driving the growth of the alt-right, because they helped connect segments of the Internet that had overlapping ideas but little contact.

Can you tell us what your worldview is comprised of today? What are your philosophy, religion, political direction and general existential outlook?

I describe myself as a nationalist, full stop. Labeling in the social media era is more about group identity and posing than actual belief: for example, see how “alt-lite” personalities like Paul Joseph Watson used to describe themselves as “alt-right” when it was fashionable, then dropped the branding after the Heilgate incident. The same can be said for anime-watching teenagers who claim to be “alt-right” despite also being Satanist furries or whatever (and claiming I’m not “truly” alt-right even though I started writing before they entered puberty). I describe myself as a nationalist (or more generically as “right-wing”) because it encapsulates my beliefs — white identity, ethnic pride, putting family and nation first — without the baggage that other labels such as “alt-right” have accumulated.

Economically, I have libertarian leanings, but libertarianism as a complete ideology is unworkable because it cannot address the fact that our world is already post-capitalist, as James Burnham described in The Managerial Revolution. It’s because of managerialism that corporations are now enforcers of leftist orthodoxy and Silicon Valley has done an end-run around the First Amendment: big business and government are essentially fused at the hip. At the same time, I’m utterly opposed to socialism, because socialism breeds weak people who are more focused on anal sex and smoking pot than being productive, which is obvious to anyone who’s spent time in a left-wing area.

I used to consider myself an agnostic or apatheist, but I’ve gradually warmed to Christianity for many reasons, one of which is its importance as a unifying force in European and American life. I’ve realized over the past year that a large amount of whites’ problems are self-inflicted, due to our fixation on pleasure and comfort above all else. It’s evident in the mass acceptance of homosexuality, transsexuality, and the 31 flavors of gender in white countries, evident in our cowardly rationales for mass immigration (we “need” immigrants because whites can’t be bothered to have children to prop up failing social welfare programs with their taxes), it’s evident in the way we stick our heads in the sand when the third-world immigrants we import openly hate us and try to kill us.

While the churches of the West have become deeply corrupted (as evidenced by an Argentine communist becoming pope), it’s also true that the only white countries that are actively resisting globalism — such as Poland and Hungary — are overly Christian ones. Atheism is a social experiment that has failed miserably. Ultimately, I believe that a shift towards right-wing and nationalist politics is insufficient on its own to preserve white and European societies; some sort of spiritual revival needs to occur in order to stem social decay. The events of the past two years have (depressingly) borne my predictions out.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve also become more comfortable in admitting that I don’t know as much as I thought I did. Young people are always overconfident in their knowledge and abilities: I can’t look back on some of my In Mala Fide-era writing of mine without cringing a little. This overconfidence is driving a lot of dysfunction in the alt-media (my term for non-mainstream right-wing commentators, including the alt-right and alt-lite) landscape, as people make snap decisions based on incomplete information. For example, see Richard Spencer’s completely pointless and unnecessary anti-war protest in the wake of President Trump’s Syria strike in April. It’s because of this that I’ve pulled away from commenting on day-to-day politics.

Did you always want to be a writer, and how did you break into writing professionally? If you could do it again, would you do anything differently?

I’ve obsessively written privately since I was a kid — journal entries, short stories, the like — so expanding into blogging and online writing was a natural extension of what I was already doing. As Jim Goad put it, “If I don’t work, I’ll starve. If I don’t write, I’ll die.” I started out in college as a journalism major primarily because I wanted to write: a really dumb move, and I ended up transferring out of the program a year later after uncovering widespread plagiarism among my colleagues.

While I switched to majoring in English after that, most of my important writing experience and work came from studying and reading on my own and networking with like-minded people. I spent most of my teenage years reading books by the likes of Philip K. Dick, Hunter S. Thompson and Charles Bukowski; it didn’t help my sad social life, but it paid off as an adult because I knew what separated good writing from bad. I also owe a great debt to Mark Ames and John Dolan; as dumb and pathetic as they’ve become, they were my gateway to understanding the mechanics of good writing and honest journalism.

If I were to do anything differently, I’d have studied how to monetize my writing much earlier. I started In Mala Fide basically as a hobby, and had I figured out how to make money doing it sooner, I’d have been able to get my career going earlier. Alternately, I would have skipped going to college entirely, or majored in something useful like engineering.

You had quite a following as “Ferdinand Bardamu,” but changed direction to write under your real name. What encouraged you to go in that direction? Did it coincide with your desire to write about more than manosphere themes?

As I mentioned above, three years into In Mala Fide’s existence, it felt like I had outgrown the “Ferdinand Bardamu” pseudonym. I started the blog during a time of upheaval in my personal life and it felt like I was being forced to write in a voice that was no longer authentically mine. To paraphrase my friend Trevor Blake, when you need to cross a river, you build a bridge, but you don’t take the bridge with you when you get to the other side. I didn’t feel the need to keep using a name that was tied to a period in my life that was ancient history by that point.

Moreover, while I recognize the value of pen names (and encourage anyone who wants to write in this day and age to use one), the danger with them is that you can develop an unhealthy divide between your private and public lives. Internet anonymity has the side effect of encouraging defective personalities to develop elaborate fantasy lives in pursuit of narcissistic supply. See: all the manosphere dweebs who brag about “spinning plates” and having multiple LTRs, yet still have time to post on r/TheRedPill twenty times a day. When people like this get doxed, it usually ruins their lives, because the gulf between what they claim to be online and who they are in real life destroys their credibility.

Writing under my real name with my real face keeps me accountable. My friends and family know I’m a writer, and I can’t lie or pump myself up online without them calling me on it. While there are haters and critics who will try to attack me for my beliefs, I don’t care because almost none of them are actually reading what I write, but skimming it and filtering it through their own skewed perspectives. For example, I love it when people claim I’m not really an “alpha male” or a “PUA,” because I’ve never once claimed to be either of those things. I’m just a writer who observes the world and tells people what I think.

Do you think there is a particular style in which people have to write for the web, and does it dumb down content ever? It seems to me that you are frequently rebelling against this style… do you have any tips for people who want to push the envelope?

I’m not good at fitting into cliques, and past a certain point, to become more popular you need to join an online clique. That means adopting their look, their lingo, and their beliefs, even the dumb ones. This is plainly evident with what the alt-right has become, with Macklemore whoosh haircuts, gay electronic dance music, and speaking in terms like “normie” and “fashy” now required if you want to be one of the cool kids. Same thing happened with the manosphere years ago: it went from normal guys talking about how to get girls and trying to understand modern sexual dysfunction to nerds spazzing out over “N-counts” and the “feminine imperative,” making it impenetrable for mentally adjusted people.

I think a large part of this is due to the fact that when movements or subcultures become popular, they inevitably attract defective people who want to use the movement/subculture as a substitute for a normal life. While there’s nothing wrong with turning online relationships into real-life friendships — many of my closest real-life friends are people I’ve met online now — there’s something wrong with entirely substituting organic meatspace relationships. I blame social atomization.

The shift to social media as the primary form of online communication has also seriously dumbed down online discourse. When I was starting out eight years ago, Twitter was still relatively obscure and Facebook was basically for keeping in contact with friends. Smartphones were still relatively new. The primary means of spreading ideas back then was blogs and websites. Fast-forward to today and social media companies have a stranglehold on communication. This not only conditions people against deep thought — how much nuance can you put into a 140-character Tweet? — but also rewards mindless attention whoring, due to the Skinner box-like environment that social media provides.

This is evident in how the alt-right and the alt-media in general has melted down over the past year. The constant drive for social media re-Tweets, likes and one-ups drives people to do and say provocative things solely for attention. I’ve also noticed a disturbing trend among young alt-righters and alt-leftists: they’re utterly incapable of communicating in anything other than memes and one-liners. I think this is the result of exposure to social media and smartphones at a young age combined with a lack of meaningful real-world relationships. They’ve sustained brain damage from constantly repeating memes and quips from whatever clique they claim allegiance to. It’s so bad that teenagers aren’t even dating and having sex anymore, because they’d rather fish for attention on Instagram or whatever. The adults in the alt-right and these other movements aren’t providing them with any masculine guidance or leadership, either.

I’ve always strived to grow my audience — egomania is part of being a writer — but I’m not going to blatantly spread falsehoods just so I can fit in with an online community of people I’ll never meet and probably wouldn’t want to. While I’ve engaged in attention-getting stunts in the past, I’ve gradually realized that doing so is self-defeating, because I just end up attracting morons who I can’t stand and who don’t appreciate the nuances in my writing. As a friend put it, when you get together with dysfunctional people who have dysfunctional ideas, you end up with dysfunctional results.

As for people who want to push the envelope, I recommend you don’t get too invested in any online community or political movement. As Common Filth puts it, do not put your faith in man. Get off the computer and interact with people in real life. Hang out with your friends. Get laid. Take up a hobby, like playing the guitar or chess. Gain some perspective. Life isn’t as bad as mental defectives on Twitter claim it is. Stay out of online echo chambers and your view on life — and your mental state — will be much healthier.

How relevant do you think men’s rights is these days, or has it been eclipsed by the overall struggle against false equality?

Men’s Rights is dead and decomposing. I was a men’s rights sympathizer years ago due to the fact that they were one of the few groups that was bringing attention to divorce law, false rape accusations and other major injustices against men and families. However, feminists massively overplayed their hand during Obama’s second term, and the UVA rape hoax, Emma “Mattress Girl” Sulkowicz and other massive blunders have woken up much of the population to their perfidy. We now have a Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, who is basically implementing the men’s rights program by rolling back overzealous feminist rape policies and more.

Moreover, the men’s rights movement (as well as Men Going Their Own Way) was subverted by the left years ago. Stealth leftists such as Dean Esmay and Bar Bar infiltrated men’s rights organizations such as A Voice for Men and began pushing the lie that men’s rights’ was “beyond” politics and that there was “no difference” between the left and the right, despite feminism being part of the left’s political program. This lead to absurdities such as Esmay accusing the victims of Muslim-led rape attacks in Germany last year of being “liars” and Paul Elam declaring that he would vote for Hillary Clinton unless Trump pledged to legalize marijuana. Men’s rights was effectively blunted as a political force because of this.

Finally, feminism itself is receding in importance in white countries due to the rise of demographic-driven racial identity politics. Feminism is largely a preoccupation of upper middle-class white women: concerns over “manspreading,” “mansplaining,” and nonexistent rape epidemics on college campuses don’t register with black or brown women. As white countries become less white, feminists will gradually lose political power.

We’re already seeing this in Europe due to the migrant crisis: feminists have been ignoring the rapes that Muslim men commit against European women and attacking right-wingers who bring attention to the problem. In the Netherlands and Sweden, Muslim populations have formed their own ethnic interest political parties, like Michel Houellebecq predicted in Submission. Hillary Clinton was the last gasp of white feminism in American politics: future leftist leaders will be non-white and will exclusively engage in racial identity politics.

You have been critical of the Alt Right of late, and so it makes sense to ask: where did they lose the narrative, and what should they be doing instead?

The alt-right focuses on material problems and ignores the fundamental spiritual maladies that have led to whites’ current predicament. As I mentioned above, whites are fixated on pleasure and comfort above all else: to quote Common Filth again, they want to be “veal wrapped in cotton.” Virtually every problem that the alt-right lays at the feet of other groups stems from whites’ own spiritual emptiness, and even if the white ethnostate were to be established tomorrow, it’d tear itself apart in less than fifty years as the same problems reemerged.

For example, the alt-right is correct to criticize Jews for their disproportionate involvement in movements that erode public morality and social cohesiveness. Thing is, the Jews didn’t invade our countries and impose themselves on us at gunpoint: we invited them in. The first country to emancipate the Jews was France in 1791, in the throes of the French Revolution, the birth of leftism. Nobody forced the French to liberate the Jews: they did it on their own. In 1791, the French also legalized homosexuality, again without any prompting from the Jews. Filmic pornography was also invented by whites. Jews are merely exploiting character traits that whites have embraced on their own. The merchant cannot sell what the goyim will not buy.

Similarly, the whitest cities and countries in the U.S. and western Europe are degenerate fleshpits right now. Seattle, one of the whitest major cities in the U.S., elected a homosexual mayor who was forced to resign after he was caught molesting children. Portland, Oregon, is full of bluehairs, feminists, homeless junkies, and the biggest wastes of white skin on the planet. Iceland, which has no Jewish or non-white population to speak of, is the chlamydia capital of the world, is aborting babies in record numbers, has a culture revolving around having casual sex while blackout drunk, and elected a radical lesbian as prime minister.

The alt-right has done nothing to address these spiritual problems and is arguably making them worse. When Richard Spencer is enthusiastically endorsing universal healthcare, a furry is moderating AltRight.com’s Discord server, and so-called intellectuals are claiming that “intolerance of homosexuality is Jewish,” there’s a major problem going on. As I mentioned above, social media and smartphone addiction has also rendered many young people — including alt-righters — incapable of genuine thought. This is evidenced whenever any right-winger criticizes the alt-right, even if the criticism has nothing to do with politics: “Don’t punch right!” “Don’t counter-signal!” “Don’t purity spiral!” It’s no different than when SJWs whine about being “tone policed” whenever people accuse them of being histrionic.

If the alt-right wants to recover, they should stop acting like the white version of “WE WUZ KANGZ” and start addressing the spiritual maladies of white people. Cast out the homosexuals and other reprobates from their ranks and start encouraging spiritual and philosophical growth. Instead of staging big, ineffectual public events like Charlottesville, focus on building connections and affecting change in their local communities, which are supposed to be the most important part of any person’s life. Yes, the alt-right should bring attention to the problems caused by racial diversity, but they should do so with an eye to exorcise the demons in whites’ souls that led to these problems to begin with.

The alt-right also needs to accept the fact that Christianity will be an unavoidable part of social revival. I have sympathy for neopagans and I’m interested in Greek and Roman mythology, but the only faith traditions that work are ones that are already rooted in peoples’ traditions and communities. Most whites have some connection to Christianity through their families and communities, but vanishingly few have a real, organic connection to Odinism or pagan traditions. Christianity provides meaning to peoples’ lives, a moral framework that is time-tested, and a system of social organization that binds people without reliance on government. Moreover, religious Christians are by far the most receptive audience to identitarian and nationalist ideas (as shown by Trump’s popularity among evangelicals and Catholics and nationalist governments in eastern Europe), making the alt-right’s anti-Christian attitude self-defeating from a practical perspective.

America is changing, and so is Europe. Where do you think things are going? What should people do to encourage this change, and to shape it toward positive ends?

I believe we’re on the verge of a great shift in political perception: what Jim Donald calls a “left singularity,” a period when the leftward drift of politics ends. I don’t know what ultimate form that shift will take. However, it’s clear that the status quo of corporate liberalism cannot last much longer. The problems of diversity, sexual deviancy, social atomization and economic decay have made life for many whites intolerable, which is what fueled both Donald Trump’s election victory and the Brexit campaign. Similarly, non-whites in many Western countries have become belligerent and openly antagonistic towards whites.

We’re likely going to see major upheaval in countries such as Canada and France which are desperately trying to maintain the corporate liberal status quo. For example, Emmanuel Macron, who was feted as the “centrist” antidote to the evil racist Marine Le Pen, has seen his approval ratings collapse after implementing the austerity programs he’d been pledging to implement during the campaign. Islamist terror attacks will be met with vigilante responses and political violence between leftists and right-wingers will become commonplace. The latter is already happening in the U.S. Some countries will be able to stem the worst of it by electing nationalist governments, while others are doomed.

My advice to people who want to aid nationalism and fight leftism is to keep their heads down and work on improving their personal lives. As Jordan Peterson puts it, clean your room. Cultivate your friendships, find a wife or husband, consider having a family. Work on making your local community stronger. If you’re not in a white, right-leaning, Christian community, find one that you can integrate into. Disengage from social media and the 24/7 news cycle; it’s out of your control anyway, so focus on what you can control. If you must get politically involved, keep it on the local level (think city council or school board), where you can do the most good.

How do you think the Right — those on the Alt Right and other non-mainstream forms — can protect itself from the Great Erasure led by Google and other large companies?

I recommend that right-wingers stay away from pointless social media and real-life publicity stunts, such as Charlottesville or the umpteen million dramas that are playing out across the alt-media right now. All attention will accomplish now is earning you the ire of the left’s electric eye without any guarantee you’ll have a positive impact. Focus on cultivating clear thought, purity of soul and real-life networks: past a certain point, seeking fame is detrimental to the quality of your work.

In many ways, we should think of ourselves as living in the Soviet Union or any repressive police state, and adjust our behavior accordingly. Until such time as we can break the stranglehold the corporate left has on online discourse, we should avoid taking dumb risks that result in being deplatformed and unpersoned for little or no gain. The general population is moving in a rightward direction anyway, thanks to the left’s open contempt for whites and white men, so the gains of the past three years aren’t going to be erased simply because we aren’t trolling lefties on Twitter as vigorously as we used to.

You have a large body of work, and it is a bit hard to keep track of. What should people read that you have written, and how should they follow what you are up to now?

Everything I’ve ever written online is archived at MattForney.com, including articles I’ve written for other sites: you can find a chronological archive here. I haven’t been as active lately because I have another job that’s been taking up much of my time, but you can find everything I do there. I also host an infrequent podcast, which can be found on YouTube, SoundCloud, and my website. I’m also on Gab, though I try to avoid social media as much as possible these days. I write for Return of Kings occasionally, and I also recently joined Alternative Right as a co-editor. Along with co-editors Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki, I’m hoping to bring the alt-right back to its original values.

I’ve written several books, but the most relevant for Amerika readers is Three Years of Hate, a compilation of the best writing from my In Mala Fide days. You can buy it direct from MattForneyBooks.com or from Amazon and other booksellers. I’m currently nearing completion of a book on the 2016 presidential election based on my first-hand coverage, as well as a compilation of my best articles from the past five years and a series of memoirs about my adventures when I was younger. Follow MattForney.com to find out more about those books when they’re ready for release.

What Is Conservatism?

Saturday, October 28th, 2017

Much confusion follows the terms conservative and conservatism. This misunderstanding arises from the fact that we live in a time of ideology, but conservatism is not an ideology; more like customs or folkways, it is a philosophy of life based on direct experience, and does not summarize into handy bullet points like the much simpler Leftist doctrine.

Leftism has one idea: it believes in human equality, which is another way of saying that any given individual can never be wrong, barring a crime against another individual. Equality means that sensible decisions are on par with nonsensical ones because in each case, the person making the decision is equal and therefore accepted and given a minimum basic social status regardless of outcome.

Notions like egalitarianism — that all individuals are equal, and therefore beyond criticism with any impact on their social standing — fit within the form of ideology, or prescriptive belief systems which tell us what we should or ought to do. These assume the presence of civilization as a constant independent of our actions.

Conservatism centers itself around the idea of adaptation, or instead of thinking in prescriptive terms, to conserve the best of what has been done in the past. This contains two notions: first, that we look toward cause-effect relationships over time to determine what is functional, and second that we look at a qualitative assessment of its results.

Prescriptive belief systems measure entirely by human standards, as in what we think should be true or should be made true, where conservatism applies a results-based standard known as consequentialism which measures effects in reality over both short-term and long-term.

We can see glimpses of this in how others have described conservatism. Jonathan Haidt introduces conservative thought as a balancing between multiple factors that measure goodness:

Haidt (pronounced like “height”) made his name arguing that intuition, not reason, drives moral judgments. People are more like lawyers building a case for their gut feelings than judges reasoning toward truth. He later theorized a series of innate moral foundations that evolution etched into our brains like the taste buds on our tongues—psychological bases that underlie both the individual-protecting qualities that liberals value, like care and fairness, as well as the group-binding virtues favored by conservatives, like loyalty and authority.

…Researchers have found that conservatives tend to be more sensitive to threats and liberals more open to new experiences.

…”People do indeed reason, but that reasoning is done primarily to prepare for social interaction, not to search for truth.”

…Building on ideas from the anthropologist Richard Shweder, Haidt and his colleagues synthesize anthropology, evolutionary theory, and psychology to propose six innate moral foundations:

  • care/harm,
  • fairness/cheating,
  • liberty/oppression,
  • loyalty/betrayal,
  • authority/subversion, and
  • sanctity/degradation.

…Liberals jack up care, followed by fairness and liberty. They rarely value loyalty and authority. Conservatives dial up all six.

Because Leftism is based in a human-oriented instead of results-oriented framework, it perpetually seeks to control, or impose a uniform standard on all as a way to use them as a means toward its goals which are outside of the civilization itself. The goals of Leftism exist independent of any civilization, and are intended as ideological achievements, not practical or realistic ones.

Control consists of removing any variation and directly imposing the will of some central entity or idea, rejecting individual assessments of how to apply it or how it should be adapted in different contexts. Control, like universalism, exists without context, and imposes a world of human symbols upon the more complex contexture of reality.

For control to succeed, it must address the individual outside of civilization. This is why liberals jack up care/harm, fairness/cheating and liberty/oppression. Conservatives favor social order instead, and so for them, while fairness and non-tyranny are important, so are loyalty, hierarchy/authority and having something sacred at the core of what we do. This is geared toward perpetuating civilization.

In this way, we can summarize the two belief systems as follows:

  • Right = order
  • Left = individualism

Order occurs outside of the human individual, but requires the individual to have an inner motivation toward achieving it, because it is not the kind of thing that can be measured as in a meritocracy or allegiance to an ideology. The symbol and reality are separate, where with ideology, the symbol intends to become the reality.

We find this hard to understand, because all of our modern thinking is strictly ideological:

Note the difference between concept and ideology. An ideology has a tight, well defined set of rules, while a concept is amorphous and changing.

Once you go outside of ideology-land, you find yourself in a nebulous space where you have principles and knowledge of the past, but have to apply these as best you know how. There is no right answer; there are some wrong answers, and then others which are varying degrees of quality in terms of results, and whoever gets the best one relative to the others wins the race, with everyone else getting second, third, or fourth place (and so on).

Ideology guides control, which tries to force everything to fit a human ideal, which is an artificial construct because it is our simpler minds imposing what we think is order on a more complex world, created by something smarter than us. For those who are agnostic or atheist, this greater intelligence can be as simple as millions of years of iterations, each time testing what existed against its environment, and selecting the improvements. If you have ever watched a computer program loop through successive calculations, maybe graphing the result on a screen, you know how many thousands or millions of iterations can make a huge difference in precision.

Human thinking tends toward squares. We like blocks, evenly spaced, in rows on a grid. We like absolute balance such as opposites. We have things we desire, and things we fear. We like to believe we are unique and important in a cosmic or universalist sense, and that the proof of this is that we have many different goals for many different individuals. This simplistic vision contrasts the organic essence of nature, where every action is indirect and seemingly spontaneous, objects are unequal and scattered in dense patterns, and there is no factory-style process repeated identically for every object or person, only many different paths which hope to reach the same goal and do so in varying degrees.

Even more, our thinking tends toward centralization. We have trouble separating our individual perspective, as beings occupying a single part of a complex system, from what it would be like to be in charge of that system. If something bad happens to us, we want to ban all methods by which this bad thing could happen to anyone, because only by doing that will we have banished it, and therefore made ourselves safe.

Along those lines, we also do not handle cause-effect reasoning well. When we see an effect, such as poverty, we want to operate directly on it, by having an all-powerful force send out money and police to force everyone to be in conditions where they are not facing the evils we fear. It is not so much that our minds tend toward the totalitarian, but we favor one-step solutions, because to us problems appear out of nowhere in a single step, so there should be some simple and all-powerful counteraction that we apply like swatting a fly, ripping out a weed, or hammering a board over a broken shutter.

Unfortunately, reality does not reward centralization:

The contrast with national solutions to problems rather than federal (i.e., state government) solutions to problems is the difference between monopoly and markets. When states exercise power over education or labor relations or abortion or civil liberties, then the wise exercise of that power will attract to well-governed states people, commerce, brains, and talent.

This marketplace of governments works in practice and it also allows the sort of diversity which leftists pretend to pine for so deeply. The greater the nationalization of government, the fewer areas in which states can be truly independent, and the less those independent policies matter.

N.B. the above source uses the term “national” to refer to central control at a nation-state level, not nationalism.

There are a number of “2D political compass” type tests floating around that try to add another axis to the Right-Left divide, which they erroneously categorize as individual-versus-collective. This new axis might be called method in that it covers the spectrum from anarchy through totalitarianism, but its essential goal is to blur the difference between Right and Left.

Either side can adopt any methods, including centralization, and so this distinction is not sufficient to differentiate them. The Rightist method, however, is to eschew human control and instead to see what actually succeeds, and pay attention to that, instead of what we think should succeed.

In Right-Left hybrids, such as neoconservatism or National Socialist, this distinction becomes confused because, by pursuing a Leftist idea of equality, they commit themselves to the model of the universal human, which in turn requires an assembly-line style of applying equal pressure to all people. This causes them to fail through an informational counterpart to thermodynamics:

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It’s not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

The rigid nature of control, which creates identical objects or events regardless of context, naturally leads to chaos because these are imposed on an uneven topography and by their centralized nature, are oblivious to different local conditions, where a cascading authority — king, duke, baron, lord — would have someone recalculating at every level, especially the lowest.

This shows us the two models we can use in our approach toward life.

The first, which is high entropy, relies on us treating the world as an extension of ourselves. We find what we want, and then apply that rigidly everywhere, which leads to a gradual introduction of greater amounts of variation, leading to chaos. Identical responses to different starting points lead to radically different outcomes over time.

The second, which is low entropy, involves us treating ourselves as an extension of the world. We establish a general goal, purpose and set of principles, and then apply it on a case-by-case basis as has been the wont of conservatives since the dawn of humanity. This looks more chaotic, but because all results adapt to the same end-point, it involves many different paths leading to similar results.

In Leftism, the paths/methods are standardized; in conservatism, the purposes/endpoints are the same, and so parallel paths eventually reach similar goals. There is no pretense of making objects, people or ideas identical, because identical objects are only fit in the flat, grid-like topography favored by human minds.

This distinction between individualism and orientation toward order shows us why all political systems ultimately break down into Left and Right or something like them. We either favor the self, or we favor order, which requires the sacrifice of the self, which is necessary for any self-actualization, self-discipline, mindfulness or virtue:

The big difference between these two schemes is that The Four Kinds of Happiness moves from the self-transcendence individual to the relational and finally to the transcendent and collective. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, on the other hand, moves from the collective to the relational and, at its peak, to the individual. In one the pinnacle of human existence is in quieting and transcending the self; in the other it is liberating and actualizing the self.

Most religions and moral systems have aimed for self-quieting and, figuring that the great human problem is selfishness. But around the middle of the 20th century, Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers and others aimed to liberate and enlarge the self. They brought us the self-esteem movement, humanistic psychology, and their thinking is still very influential today.

…Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has always pointed toward a chilly, unsatisfying version of self-fulfillment. Most people experience their deepest sense of meaning not when they have placidly met their other needs, but when they come together in crisis.

Through this distinction, we can see what conservatism is not: it is not any order based in the individual, all of which depend on egalitarianism or meritocracy as a means of reducing individuals to a uniform standard and then elevating the most obedient, which is a hallmark of control. Tyranny, totalitarianism, the managerial state, bureaucracy, administration and external discipline are all forms and methods of control.

We can see now why “classical liberals,” sometimes called neoconservatives or Libertarians, are not conservatives. They refuse to consider anything at a level above that of the individual.

They are correct when they defend capitalism, because unlike socialism this is not centrally controlled and so is low entropy, but incorrect to make it out to be more than it is. Capitalism is an economic system, and it requires inputs from culture and leadership to function; if we remove those, it becomes self-serving like anything else and consumes all in its path.

Conservatives are not strictly capitalist, but see capitalism as a means to an end, which is that of implementing a flexible economic system in which results are more important than human intentions or desires.

In fact, the only civilizations which we can plausibly call “conservative” belong to the category of designs which are oriented toward a singular goal through flexible, independent methods, and these cannot be classically liberal, because in those the goal is determined by individuals, and thus the system becomes self-serving like anything else and consumes all in its path.

For these reasons, people who discuss individualism and capitalism as the cornerstone of conservatism have missed the boat; conservatives are those who aspire to being as great as ancient Greece and Rome, who defend the monarchy, and who believe strongly in the genetic roots of populations. Our unstated and informal goals are to restore Western Civilization and make it great.

“American conservatives,” who are essentially classical liberals who like a strong defense budget and Christian-ish morality, are not conservatives; they are a hybrid with Leftists, like the National Socialists, who do not realize that their methods will lead to social breakdown just as any other Leftist approach will.

The Alt Right came about from a fertile brew of influences — libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, neoreactionary, human biodiversity, Old Right, radical traditionalism, anarcho-monarchism — which ultimately synthesized into a Right-wing movement which favors hierarchy and social order over individualism. This was not random.

The analysis above shows that there are only two options, Right (order) and Left (individualism). We cannot escape the duality of approaches inherent to being human. Neither should we try, since to avoid one is to embrace the other, which means that any “third way” will ultimately distill to one or the other, as the evolution of the Alt Right in recent history shows us.

Survivability Is Ideological Deterrence

Monday, October 23rd, 2017

So let’s say you live in the vicinity of a bully who gets off on playing Knock-Out King. Let’s say the police are so ineffective you’d rather they all just quit so you could save the tax money that pays their salary. So what can you do about King Kayo? Here are your options.

  1. Run and Hide. This involves avoiding the bully whenever avoidance is possible. This has an advantage of avoiding the risks associated with conflict. If you succeed, you don’t ever absorb the punch. This has several disadvantages. You lose freedom of action because you spend your time avoiding the bully. You lose the opportunity cost of what you could be doing instead of retreating. You lose freedom of association of being around anyone the bully associates with. And finally; everyone pretty much thinks you are a mantwat. Run and Hide is therefore a sub-optimal choice among other options.
  2. Hit ‘Em First. This involves walking right up to King Kayo and kicking him the nuts or cracking him with a Louisville Slugger before he even knows you are on to his game. This can be devestatingly effective if it works. He can’t knock you out if he is in The Land of Nighty-Nite. But then again, there are drawbacks. There is a social cost to being perceived as the guy who cracks someone’s ACL with the aluminum bat without being attacked first. You lose anyone who thinks it’s possible that you’ll smack them next. Your intent can be mistaken for cruelty or evil and *then* the hypothetical cop gets there in 10 seconds flat. Or, worse yet, they all decide thay should try and take you out because they are scared of your aluminum bat.
  3. You Develop the Ability to Withstand the Punch and Give it Back With Some Extra Love. This is the high road on dealing with bullies. Isegoria describes the advantage you get:

    Assume, for example, that you are trying to choose between two forces, one which we will call Force A, and the other Force B. A is such that if you strike first, you will be able to get 90% of the enemy, but if he strikes first, you will be able to get only 20% when you strike back. B is a different kind of force. It gets 40% of the enemy whether you or he strikes first. It is indifferent to how the war starts.

    The drawback here is that requires time and effort. You lose opportunity cost for the time and preparation needed to have a good deterrence. I believe the benefits outweigh the costs on this option, but you can’t pump an option w/o telling both sides.

Now, how does any of this relate to ideology? In the presnt, this relates to what any non-Marxian deals with in the contemporary SJW-dominated cultural scene. It’s the Spanish Inquisition out there and all non-SJWs are the (((Goldstiens))) to the SJW INGSOC. This begs the question of how these people are persecuting anyone. Fair question. Just calling someone a poop-head isn’t assault. It’s just unpleasant free speech.

Unfortunately, SJWs don’t just stop at unpleasant speech. They attack, attack and attack. They chase people like Gonzalo Lira, Pax Dickinson, James Damore, and numerous others. They kill careers over lack of defference to lifestyle perverts, radical feminists, raceturbators, and essentially Marxian ideals. And like the Knock-Out Game Artiste, they lean heavily on the sucker punch.

They lie. They project. They double down. Harvey Weinstein, at a pro-feminist march wearing a pussy hat is the archetypical example of what we can expect from the modern SJW Leftist. Like John Podesta complaining about dirty political deals with Russia influencing elections, the SJW cries out while he strikes. He lies and accusses you of doing exactly what he does to get his rocks off. The SJWs are dishonest, snarky, obnoxious bullies who seek to destroy you for doing exactly what they do for fun.

All gripes aside, how now does this relate to our initial palette of anti-bullying relate to an ideological fight between SJW thugs and Alt-Right cultural restorationists? The Run and Hide Strategy here is to publicly cuck. The Cuck attempts to redirect the SJW towards the “real racists.” This strategy has the short-term advantage of saving your job or reputation for a few more months. Then the piranhas circle back. You eventually run out of other white boys. Believe me, with SJWs you hang together, or they’ll damn sure make you hang separately.

The Hit ‘Em First tactic involves the aggressive Neo-Nazi. This would be someone looking for to clobber under the assumption that if they disagree, they just have it coming. The problem with this tactic is that after you succeed with it a few times (assuming you aren’t just shot and killed in the street), you wake up one morning, look in your mirror and see the SJW scumbag you deplore looking right back at you. If a BLM SJW is just a Nazi with a tan, then by converse, Protifa is no better than Antifa.

We therefore withstand the punch and then give it right back to them. How does this work? It starts with never conceding the premise of an SJW argument. They are wrong, therefore their assumptions are wrong. Always assume dishonest cynicism from both the arguments and premises from any SJW. Argue on their terms and you always lose and are always the bad guy. You’ve just given them permission to punish you.

Then, get together with your friends and condemn the SJW loudly. Make a point of specifically calling them out as a slimy liar, rather than merely claiming their facts are wrong. Stopping an SJW is all about destroying their moral pretensions so that they have no grounds to ever attempt to punish you. The entire point of their enterprise is to accuse you of something like racism, sexism, intolerance or any other nebulous, yet reputationally damning charge with which they can ruin you.

Once you’ve successfully impugned their reputation and destroyed their right to accuse you, make sure they pay a price for attacking you. Any sort of destructive action you can take that will make them known as a complainer, a grievance-monger, a hypocrite or a false accuser basically disarms them by making others unwilling to take their accusations seriously. So defend yourself by refusing to accept the merits of the accusation, gathering your allies to reject its veracity and then destroying the reputation of the SJW. This is ideological deterrence, it is how the Alt-Right can dissuade the SJWs from their purges and ideologically survive.

Why The Alt Right Is Winning

Monday, October 23rd, 2017

Across the media, mass bloviation has broken out. They dislike the Alt Right and want to explain it away as a fluke or a dark gesture of primeval hatred from the unrefined portions of the human psyche. And yet, it and similar movements continue to grow, mainly because they are an organic alternative to the plastic world in which we live.

Humans have a pathology — at least if you pay attention to the stuff written on the outside of boxes of home and body care products — for the “natural.” We like 100% natural ingredients, natural methods, and ancient Indian recipes for hemorrhoid care because we distrust the scented, artificially-flavored, plastic wrapped, safe, corporate and sugar-added world of slick products designed to appeal to our lowest desires and worst impulses.

Implicit in this desire is the idea that somehow, everything wrong with our society is the opposite of the “natural”: the fake, contrived, flavored, over-produced, and deceptive human world common to both extensively-advertised products and human social groups, where little white lies and euphemisms quickly adulterate and divide any logical perspective into mental goo reflecting our simian weaknesses.

We have become accustomed, brave moderns that we are, to a society that is mostly toxic in the guise of being safe and sterile. Pasteurizing milk was a great success, so we pasteurized our brains. We know that most of the products in the grocery store are nearly poisonous fodder for morons, that commuting is a giant waste of time, and that 90% of what we do at our jobs is unnecessary.

We are aware that commercial districts grow like a fungus, that advertising is lies, that newspapers are written to flatter advertisers and dazzle us with addictive nonsense so we want to know more. We know that movies are fake, that anything said in public is probably a lie, that most of our taxes are wasted on counterproductive or outright destructive activity.

When we seek out “natural” products or experiences, we are trying to escape the common experience of an artificially-constructed society, starting with the opinion of the herd that everyone is good and therefore whatever they think is right probably is. If we are honest, we admit that we hate our society, but that it is popular with most people, so we do not expect it to go away.

Countering that notion, the Alt Right shows us a group of people who are intelligent, well-spoken and determined to execute a plan of saving this civilization from itself by reversing that artificiality. They want to restore Western Civilization and to get rid of the pervasive hopelessness that we all have, watching insanity happen and knowing it will never change because “most people” want it that way.

The Alt Right has us asking why every European civilization starts out blonde-haired, blue-eyed, long-faced and high-IQ, and ends up with lots of short dark-haired and dark-eyed people who are good at making money. It asks us why every civilization in human history has self-destructed. It looks deeply into our motivations and finds a dark plastic void.

This ties in to what we have observed about our world: we are run by the wrong group of wealthy people, meaning that we got the scumbag exploiters instead of the noble aristocrats. And they, as a means of keeping the herd pacified, have spun a pack of lies which are as insincere as advertising or any other talk in public:

In the world of the wealthy, liberalism is something you do to offset your rapacious behavior in other spheres.

…Most people on the left think of themselves as resisters of authority, but for certain of their leaders, modern-day liberalism is a way of rationalizing and exercising class power. Specifically, the power of what some like to call the “creative class”, by which they mean well-heeled executives in industries like Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

…This is a form of liberalism that routinely blends self-righteousness with upper-class entitlement. That makes its great pronouncements from Martha’s Vineyard and the Hamptons.

People figured out centuries ago, or maybe always knew, that it is easier to make a large public donation than to do the right thing in every case. Similarly, Leftism teaches that there is one area where one must be moral — making everyone equal — and this, too, is easier to implement than it is to do the right thing in every moment. These are shortcuts, a part standing for the whole.

There are great profits in lying, cheating and stealing. If all it takes is to give a tenth of your income to a church or NGO, but you are able to go from making millions to making billions, then it is all worth it. Consider the Sackler family, who donate lavishly to charity but got their money from hooking America on Valium and Oxycontin.

One of the big stories about the West over the past few decades has been the concentration of wealth. This is not so much a story of people being more competent, but of our tax systems: we zap anyone who realizes income as salary, while those who are able to own companies find themselves able to pay a lot less because they do not take anything more than a nominal salary; their wealth is in the firm itself.

For example, consider Bill Gates and his billions. When people first started talking about him being “worth $60 billion,” that conjured up an image to most people of a man with a huge bank account. In reality, his wealth was almost entirely all Microsoft stock, and while he took a high CEO salary, it was relatively small compared to his holdings.

The average American or European voter understands economics about as well as history, so is oblivious to the fact that over the past four decades, the middle class has been eroding:

Over the same period, however, the nation’s aggregate household income has substantially shifted from middle-income to upper-income households, driven by the growing size of the upper-income tier and more rapid gains in income at the top. Fully 49% of U.S. aggregate income went to upper-income households in 2014, up from 29% in 1970.

When presented in the standard narrative, this makes it sound like those evil rich people just took all the income for themselves. What it really means is that the middle class is being squeezed by taxes to pay for a growing underclass, higher expenses due to taxes and regulations, and pressure from below as a steady flood of immigrants depress wages.

This becomes clear when we look at the fact that real wages have not budged since the mid-1960s, at about the same time we changed our immigration policy, began our welfare state and started shuffling women into the workforce.

It is relatively simple economics: whatever you have more of is less valuable; compare tin to gold, for example. And when you have a workforce, and raise the costs of each worker through unions, taxes, regulations and lawsuits, you will then create a situation where business wants cheaper labor, but providing that cheaper labor will shatter salaries, with all of the money still being frittered away in taxes, union fees, legal costs and hiring of endless bureaucrats within companies to deal with regulatory compliance. In other words, we took the money from the middle class and gave it to government and those who, by working with government, have made themselves quite wealthy. This is the same mistake that humans always make, because of defective wiring apparently, which is that they want government to protect them, so they give it power, forgetting that it is self-interested and provides income opportunities to many who will then enlarge those opportunities. Soon government is an industry in itself, and this takes money out of the functional economy and puts it into the political fantasyland economy.

Your middle class person now has seen their fortunes fall. They are working longer hours for less, in part because the increase in taxes has come not through income tax but through withholding, property taxes, healthcare taxes, sales taxes and other ancillary taxes which increase the total load. In Europe, they rely on the social benefits system to get them through, which it does, but increasingly this means they will enter retirement later and still have a nation in deep debt when they leave the workforce.

In addition, they have seen the fundamental transformation of their nation by liberal social engineering, have been excluded from many opportunities by affirmative action, realize there is a runaway altruism spiral that is propelling big government, have witnessed the rise in existential misery, have become accustomed to political violence as a norm, are waking up to demographic replacement and the failure of liberal democracy, and now they are ready to leave behind liberal democracy so that they can leave the “liberal” part, that seems inextricable from the rest, behind.

The Alt Right appeals to the middle class because it addresses these issues instead of explaining them away with moral justifications. It sees that the fundamental problem of humanity is herd behavior, and that when this takes over, people engage in some kind of group-think that always favors the simplistic, so we find ourselves applying increasing amounts of force to change effects instead of addressing their underlying causes. Across the West, “populist” parties are winning for the same reason.

People have tired of The Age of Ideology, which is based on the idea that we can create a human-only order which is superior to nature. This human order invariably involves the notion of removing differences, akin to pacifism, through equality or other universal acceptance for all humans instead of ranking humans in a hierarchy by how realistic they are, as measured by whether their actions turn out to have positive consequences instead of negative ones. This naturally implicates qualitative thinking, or measuring how much better one result of actions was than another.

After the age of ideology comes The Age of Organicism. In this age, people desire civilization again; they want to have human social order, instead of rampant individualism producing greed and obliviousness to the consequences of our actions. They see a wisdom in the natural order that we abandoned long ago, when we became confident that our pacifism was better than the terrifying Darwinism of nature and its social component, where doing something stupid, selfish or unrealistic marked us as being of lower status. That confidence is gone now, and natural order has returned, bringing with it an inherent desire to restore Western Civilization and recognize that its roots are genetic, not ideological. Ideology springs up from that desire toward pacifism so that a purely human world can exist, where our individual desires and their counterparts in what the social group wants are more important than consequences in reality, which are regulated by the rules of natural law, logic, history and common sense.

Part of this impetus comes from realizing that other groups have an agenda contrary to our own because each group has its own identity and seeks to make itself powerful by conquering other groups. Diversity is a prescription for constant conflict followed by genetic degradation, at which point we have as little hope of restoring civilization as ethnically-mixed groups like Italians, South Americans, Eastern Europeans or the Irish. We need to take a stand for Western identity, which has its roots in the Western European people, the same group that left mummies in the Tarim basin, founded Greece and Rome, invaded or originated in India, and then created the modern nations of Northern and Western Europe which share that Nordic-Germanic genetic root.

The Left has begun to notice this when it realizes belatedly that, by embracing identity politics, it opened the door to European identity politics, which had been suppressed since they were a primary part of the nationalist message in WWII:

“They’re targeting white male students,” said Lecia Brooks, Southern Poverty Law Center’s director of outreach, who worked on a guide about how to deal with the “alt-right” on campus. “For the young white men who feel excluded from the diversity of campus culture — these groups offer an alternative. It’s a counter to the popular culture that they think doesn’t include them.”

Spencer and his allies all claim to be working toward the preservation of “white American culture” — a culture they view as threatened existentially by multiculturalism…Spencer advocates only for creating a whites-only ethnostate.

Naturally, the question of this whites-only ethnostate invokes the question of nationalism, which is generally ethnic (“Germany for Germans”) and not racial (“Germany for all whites”). This issue further threatens the break-up of the modern state, which embraced multi-ethnicism before multiculturalism or multi-racialism, as it might be properly described, possibly causing it. This issue appears tangentially on a regular basis:

“Actually, he probably hates me,” Spencer added, half joking. “Because I’m a WASP and he’s Scots Irish.” I tell him that the Scots Irish didn’t get along with Irish Catholics either—they didn’t even consider us white for a while—so he probably hates me too. Finally, we’re interrupted by his fans, and only later I think to ask Spencer: Does he consider me white?

And yet, if one is to escape the artificial modern world, half-measures will not really work; only going to the roots of organic society and identity will. People do not want imposed identity, like ideology, and they are skeptical of elective identity, like being a Star Trek fan or a radical Christian. They want innate identity, such as only comes with an ethnically-isolated civilization.

The Left has counter-attacked this movement by claiming that, instead of demanding equal rights for European-descended groups, this new movement exists to subjugate other groups. Like all Leftist claims, this is a begging-the-question fallacy: the Left assumes that a multicultural, liberal democratic, and sexually tolerant society is the only acceptable form of civilization, when it is merely a test hypothesis that we have acted out, in increasing degrees, for the last two centuries.

As Leftist commentators gather to try to defuse the situation, they have come up with only one plan: to argue that liberal democracy is the end of history, and therefore, that we are stuck with it and need to make it work. For people who talk about change and progress, they get awfully shifty when the arc of history bends away from their preferred humanistic assumptions, all based in the liberal ideology of equality.

For example, The New York Times wants you to think that our problem is not that our society is falling apart, but that some people have noticed this and begun criticizing the multicultural republic as the ultimate model of human society, because this harms the sensation of well-being that we have in the midst of this decay:

As an ideology, white nationalism poses a significantly greater threat to Western democracies; its proponents and sympathizers have proved, historically and recently, that they can win a sizable share of the vote — as they did this year in France, Germany and the Netherlands — and even win power, as they have in the United States.

Far-right leaders are correct that immigration creates problems; what they miss is that they are the primary problem. The greatest threat to liberal democracies does not come from immigrants and refugees but from the backlash against them by those on the inside who are exploiting fear of outsiders to chip away at the values and institutions that make our societies liberal.

Anti-Semitic and xenophobic movements did not disappear from Europe after the liberation of Auschwitz, just as white supremacist groups have lurked beneath the surface of American politics ever since the Emancipation Proclamation. What has changed is that these groups have now been stirred from their slumber by savvy politicians seeking to stoke anger toward immigrants, refugees and racial minorities for their own benefit. Leaders from Donald Trump to France’s Marine Le Pen have validated the worldview of these groups, implicitly or explicitly encouraging them to promote their hateful opinions openly. As a result, ideas that were once marginal have now gone mainstream.

Left and Right are different things, but in a Leftist time — one originating in democratic, humanist, Enlightenment,™ or Renaissance™ thought — the Right-wing party is part Left-wing. And so you can hear essentially the same message from conservatives, which is that what matters are our rules, not our people, nor continuation of the past through heritage as a repository of values:

Bush’s speech deserves our attention.

Here’s what he said: “Our identity as a nation . . . is not determined by geography or ethnicity, by soil or blood. Being an American involves the embrace of high ideals and civic responsibility. We become the heirs of Thomas Jefferson by accepting the ideal of human dignity found in the Declaration of Independence.”

That’s exactly what Abraham Lincoln said in 1858. What makes us Americans is our allegiance to a creed.

Both of these Left- and Right-wing commentators are saying the same thing: the institution of democracy is our only hope, and so we must reason backward to figure out how to support democracy, instead of thinking toward what we need as a civilization. In other words, civilization itself is a means to an end of democracy and the ideas it enshrines in rules, like equality.

The Age of Ideology has ended, however, and so these fellows are barking at the tail-end of a receding trend. Democracy brought with it many great promises, but what it really meant was that the lowest common denominator always won out over any kind of sensible realistic thinking, and so we are constantly in crisis, with our civilization in decay.

They must think it is normal to turn on the news and read of political, social, economic, military, environmental, and diplomatic crises every day. In reality, this is a sign of our dysfunction, as are the subjugating careers we undertake in order to pay high taxes and fund the permanent underclass, the debt of our national governments, and the ugliness of our cities.

Modernity is a failure. Modernity results upon the Renaissance™ idea of the human individual, not social order or natural law, being the primary focus of humanity. It appeals to a desire in all of us to stop struggling against the endless illogicality, parasitism, venality, and stupidity of the herd, and instead to just be tolerant and retreat to our suburban homes while the madness rages outside.

That has not worked. What you tolerate, you get more of. And so, when we retreated from trying to have a sane and virtuous society, we let the chaos monkeys run free, and they have managed to steal, vandalize, adulterate and bowdlerize every single aspect of our world. It has been a fundamental transformation indeed.

The Alt Right points out a brutal reality, which is that the medium is the message. In other words, how we live is more important than the words we use to rationalize our lives, and we are seeing the failure of that rationalization.

We have also noticed the agenda to replace us, much as equality was a hidden agenda to overthrow higher echelons and replace them with mercantile middle classes:

For Taylor, the endgame of the “alt-right” is create an “ethno-state” for people of European heritage.

“If there is no territory that white Americans can call their own, we will ultimately be shoved aside,” he said. “If that is not done, are what point are white Americans allowed to say it has gone too far? When we’re 20 percent of the population? When we’re five percent of the population?”

He feels that this goal has been misrepresented by the media – and that it is a peaceful movement. He said it is a fundamentally different ethos than white supremacy.

“I’m not even sure what white supremacy means,” he said. “If it means anything it means whites are supposed to be ruling over other races. I don’t think anyone in the ‘alt-right’ wants that.”

He makes a point that any other ethnic or racial group could easily do, but when spoken by a European person, is seen as taboo. This occurs because Europeans, as a strong and creative group, threaten the idea of the worldwide herd being equal. Those who rise above must be cut down in order for equality to occur, and the Left are a neurotic bunch who are driven by the parasitic mental virus that demands they always push for equality and see it as the only form of “good” in our world.

The Alt Right is winning because we have chosen to reject The Age of Ideology, with its creeds and demands for the destruction of quality in order to have equality, and have embraced The Age of Organicism, in which results and traditions matter more than conjectural ideologies and their promises. Those promises have failed. And so now, we venture bravely forth into a new era.

Entering The Age Of White Civil Rights, The New Counterculture Has To Decide If The Medium Is The Message

Friday, October 20th, 2017

It is no secret that the tables have turned, and former counterculture is now the Establishment, opposed by those who understood what the prior Establishment claimed to represent but never could quite achieve. The real question now is whether the new counterculture aims to become the next Establishment, which is any type of old dogma weakly defending itself, or to be something better.

This cycle of home team versus away team creates the sportsball nature of politics. Everyone sticks with their team because it fits their individual identities. Home team argues that they are winners, where away team portrays themselves as underdogs gunning for an upset. The people who think life is good “as is” join the home team, and people who are dissatisfied join the away team.

More than Left-versus-Right, this creates the seesaw nature of modern politics. When one side gets in power, it begins dismantling what the other side did, and then the process repeats again. Every few decades there is a fundamental power shift, usually provoked by an enemy which seems allied with either the Establishment or counterculture, and that puts the corresponding party out of favor.

In our case, the most recent enemy after the Soviets has been the globalists, who take a toxic mixture of Leftist ambitions and capitalist funding, amplify it through Keynesian tax-borrow-and-spend policies, and enforce it with the notions of “freedom,” “justice” and “equality” that sound like they should be good things, and so people are afraid to oppose them.

Domestic parties that support similar ideas, mainly the mating of egalitarian sentiments with culture-destroying international business, have suffered a bit of a hit as a result. When they were the counterculture, they promised the opposite of what now that they are finally fully in power, they have delivered.

In addition, their approach has taken on a decidedly Soviet character. Their neo-Communism consists of the same drive toward mass equality, similar attitudes toward censorship and declaring dissidents to be unperson, and a strikingly similar result: a mass culture of workers, living in small apartments, owning little and with no future prospect of escape, in this case because they are taxed to provide for a growing and hostile underclass.

Enter the Alt Right, which could be described as “traditional conservatism” in that it embraces aspects of the Right that were discarded by the mainstream Right in order to be able to compromise with the Left as it won the culture war and consequently, political dominance only occasionally interrupted by a moderate conservative like Ronald Reagan.

In particular, the Alt Right endorses nationalism, which is the recognition that diverse or multicultural nation-states lead to the destruction of the founding group, which in the case of Western Civilization is Western European people. Without this group, there cannot be Western Civilization, although mainstream conservatives would be happy with a mixed-race group upholding its Constitution, capitalism and Christianity.

The Alt Right also endorses a strong social conservatism, in defiance of the trend of the mainstream Right to be more libertarian or “classical liberal,” in response to the disaster of sexual liberation and divorce that has blighted the family and ruined the chances for happiness for many young men. It also seeks to differentiate itself from white nationalism, a movement which focused too much on race alone and ignored the bigger problem which is the real target of the Alt Right, namely the collapse of Western Civilization and our need to restore Western Civilization in order to survive.

Recognizing the success of the Left, the Alt Right sought a simpler goal than the political intrigues of the mainstream Right or underground Right like white nationalism. It sought to create a cultural wave of cynicism toward equality, and in the void created by that doubt, insert the idea of a redesigned and revitalized Western Civilization which would end white genocide and the ongoing consumption of our natural world.

Now that the Alt Right is the new counterculture, or the underdog confronting a calcified Establishment with new ideas that it claims will lead to a better way of life, it has to decide whether it will continue the cycle of in-power versus out-of-power, or if it will entirely upend the paradigm.

Upending the paradigm looks like this: we escape ideology entirely, and instead of imposing human order on the world, we study its order and learn to impose it on ourselves. Darwinistic adaptation instead of humanism. Tradition instead of individualism. In other words, we get over ourselves, transcend our fears, and accept life as not just logical but beautiful, optimal and glorious.

The Alt Right is coming to this place. It is not a political revolution, and not just a cultural one, but a philosophical upending of all that we have considered sacred for the 228 years since the French Revolution. It is the end of mass culture, mass politics and utilitarianism; it is the rise of realism, futurism and sanity.

Only one question remains: what path does the Alt Right choose toward cultural dominance?

Two options exist. First, we could follow the usual pattern and try to get as many warm bodies as possible. Second, we could aim instead for the head, and target the one-in-twenty people who are the natural leaders of humanity. These are the people in any office who always know what to do, understand the core of their tasks more than anyone else, or just can find a path where everyone else falters.

The warm bodies option appeals most to us because it was the way to succeed in the era we have just come out of, The Age of Ideology. In that time — defined by the individualism that says what a person wants is more important than culture, nature or reality — whoever accumulated the largest mass culture movement won. But faith in democracy has shifted; people want results, not the warm feeling of participation.

In our new era, The Age of Organicism, hierarchy and standards have returned. These two go hand-in-hand because standards mean that each individual meets those to a differing degree, which creates rank not based on money and popularity, but ability to fulfill the needs and goals of culture. Organicism refers to the preference for innate tendencies like ethnic, cultural and religious identity as a replacement for the ideology, or motivation of the masses, preferred during The Age of Ideology.

If the Alt Right is the new counterculture but does not want to end up being the new Establishment, it must break free from the methods of the past entirely, which corresponds to an understanding of what the famous utterance by Marshall McLuhan that “the medium is the message” means; much like understanding that demography is destiny, it apprehends that changing behavior is more important than ideology:

McLuhan tells us that a “message” is, “the change of scale or pace or pattern” that a new invention or innovation “introduces into human affairs.” (McLuhan 8) Note that it is not the content or use of the innovation, but the change in inter-personal dynamics that the innovation brings with it. Thus, the message of theatrical production is not the musical or the play being produced, but perhaps the change in tourism that the production may encourage. In the case of a specific theatrical production, its message may be a change in attitude or action on the part of the audience that results from the medium of the play itself, which is quite distinct from the medium of theatrical production in general. Similarly, the message of a newscast are not the news stories themselves, but a change in the public attitude towards crime, or the creation of a climate of fear. A McLuhan message always tells us to look beyond the obvious and seek the non-obvious changes or effects that are enabled, enhanced, accelerated or extended by the new thing.

McLuhan defines medium for us as well. Right at the beginning of Understanding Media, he tells us that a medium is “any extension of ourselves.” Classically, he suggests that a hammer extends our arm and that the wheel extends our legs and feet. Each enables us to do more than our bodies could do on their own. Similarly, the medium of language extends our thoughts from within our mind out to others. Indeed, since our thoughts are the result of our individual sensory experience, speech is an “outering” of our senses – we could consider it as a form of reversing senses – whereas usually our senses bring the world into our minds, speech takes our sensorially-shaped minds out to the world.

But McLuhan always thought of a medium in the sense of a growing medium, like the fertile potting soil into which a seed is planted, or the agar in a Petri dish. In other words, a medium – this extension of our body or senses or mind – is anything from which a change emerges. And since some sort of change emerges from everything we conceive or create, all of our inventions, innovations, ideas and ideals are McLuhan media.

In other words, message is change and medium is what changes behavior, usually as a labor-saving device.

For the Alt Right, the medium is politics as an expression of hierarchy; that is, we listen to what is the most accurate depiction of reality, recognizing that only the top 2-5% of our population will “get it.” This conveys the message of traditional society: social order, above all else, represented by values, customs, ethnic identity, standards, hierarchy, principles, caste and norms.

We want social order back. We want to restore Western Civilization. But we cannot do that through the medium of mass politics because mass politics inverts signal and noise by choosing popular semi-truths over unpopular complex ones, which most people cannot understand and consequently, discard because they consider it insane or stupid.

The medium distorts the message, and this was the longstanding contribution of The Age of Ideology. By translating an idea into something that a mass culture can understand, we are forced to twist it until it no longer resembles itself, but is most like everything else, because everything else is attuned to the simple fact of what the crowd can understand and what it likes to think is true (once called “pretense”).

This fits with an ancient idea, derived from Plato and represented in the Bible, that only a small number of people make all the important changes in our world, while everyone else basically creates chaos through their individualistic behavior:

As the word masses is commonly used, it suggests agglomerations of poor and underprivileged people, laboring people, proletarians, and it means nothing like that; it means simply the majority. The mass man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.

…Plato lived into the administration of Eubulus, when Athens was at the peak of its jazz-and-paper era, and he speaks of the Athenian masses with all Isaiah’s fervency, even comparing them to a herd of ravenous wild beasts. Curiously, too, he applies Isaiah’s own word remnant to the worthier portion of Athenian society; “there is but a very small remnant,” he says, of those who possess a saving force of intellect and force of character — too small, preciously as to Judea, to be of any avail against the ignorant and vicious preponderance of the masses.

…In the 18th century, however, certain European philosophers spread the notion that the mass man, in his natural state, is not at all the kind of person that earlier authorities made him out to be, but on the contrary, that he is a worthy object of interest. His untowardness is the effect of environment, an effect for which “society” is somehow responsible. If only his environment permitted him to live according to his lights, he would undoubtedly show himself to be quite a fellow; and the best way to secure a more favorable environment for him would be to let him arrange it for himself. The French Revolution acted powerfully as a springboard for this idea, projecting its influence in all directions throughout Europe.

The Age of Ideology was the age of domination by the masses; The Age of Organicism will be dominated again by the Remnant through the principle of hierarchy, by which we place those who have “force of intellect” and in parallel also “force of character” above the rest, and entrust them with wealth and power, because they will conserve it — keep it out of the hands of the insane — and use it well.

From elsewhere in The Republic:

When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.

The “true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things” is what we need. Mass culture has ruined Western Civilization, even though this decline had its origins far earlier when corrupt merchants began using lesser aristocrats and fallen churchmen as a weapon against the kings. The goal was always to seize wealth and power from those who would not abuse it.

The Florida demonstration constitutes a victory for the Alt Right. The Alt Right went in saying that the masses are delusional, that they hate any ideas they cannot control, and that they are violent Communists who use diversity as a weapon to destroy white people. Antifa and other Leftists promptly showed up and proved the Alt Right correct, for the third or fourth time in a row.

America and Europe are looking at this and thinking, “Holy mackerel. We let these people — the Left — rule us?” Not surprisingly, a wave of populist victories in Britain, America, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Poland and The Czech Republic are showing us that people are in fact rejecting the Leftist idea in its ultimate form as globalism.

Globalism expresses the single idea that the Left really has — human equality, which is the individualism legitimized during The Enlightenment™ — by removing any borders and standards imposed on human behavior. It creates the one worldwide mass culture, unified by consumerism and socialism, which like the French Revolutionaries which are its ideological ancestor, demands more for the individual from society and in the name of equality.

Most people find it hard to reject the idea of equality. Like pacifism, it seems to make sense when you take it for granted that civilization will always be there, and that your immediate need to transact business and socialize is more important than goals above the individual, like values, philosophy, heritage and purpose. But when “equality” reveals itself to be a path to neo-Communism, censorship, third world levels of disorder, constant ethnic violence, corrupt governments, and racial replacement by foreign populations, people oppose it; even more, they have realized that the roots of globalism were formed of democracy and equality and proceeded inexorably from that seed, eventually flowering into its final form, which suspicious resembled Communism with consumerism.

But to the Alt Right, equality is a false god that replaces the need to strive for virtue. Egalitarians of course will insist that equality is the only virtue, which is a popular message because it is easier to be politically correct in one area than to be morally upright in every area of life.

How a message of virtue became contorted into a message of upholding only one presumed virtue shows us the medium as the message. When we simplify for the herd, corruption and inversion of the message occurs, and that always reverts to the most base instincts of humanity. Those boil down to a desire for “anarchy with grocery stores” and free stuff paid for by other people, as propelled the French Revolution.

In Florida, the Alt Right triumphed. It has revealed its enemies to be the Establishment. Its strength is rising, and at this point, the only enemy that can defeat it is the Alt Right itself, if it does not heed the lessons of history and focuses on pandering to the lowest common denominator instead of looking toward informing, inspiring and revitalizing the Remnant.

Can The Alt Right Perfect “Scientific Government”?

Friday, October 20th, 2017

Understanding risk in the context of organizations involves breaking down a relatively simple definition into its multiple implications:

Business risk is the possibility a company will have lower than anticipated profits or experience a loss rather than taking a profit.

This identifies two areas of concern, first inefficiency and second, failure of productivity. Governments and civilizations, like business, belong to the category of organizations and are subject to risk, including the ultimate risk, which is that disorganization or lack of productivity will cause a collapse as seen in the Soviet Union or Venezuela.

Using the book as input, we can see how to apply risk to American civilization instead of the current government, as it is normally viewed by voters.

In our modern world, we do not refer to nations or civilizations as organic things, but as products of the state, and so when we think of risk, we worry about our government shutting down, spending too much, not taxing enough or being unable to achieve internal compromises and becoming locked up.

The Alt Right, being of a variety of conservative that occurred before the neoconservative and classical liberal forms that were adopted because of their compatibility with Leftism in the era after the French Revolution, views risk different because we see a different target: Western Civilization, or the organic and naturalistic collaboration of Western peoples.

For the crime of looking at civilization instead of the state, we are dubbed “white supremacists” and “bigots,” but in reality, we are looking at the organization which creates and empowers the state. In theory, the state is the caretaker of civilization, but once it becomes powerful enough, it simply replaces civilization with itself through ideology, usually of egalitarianism.

According to the book, risk applies only to objectives, and when civilization does not have an objective, no risk management applies to the typical threats apparently only perceived by the Alt Right. For that reason, an Alt Right view will take the opposite viewpoint: that risks lead to objectives, and not vice-versa.

In other words, civilization has an inherent objective, which is to survive in a Darwinian sense, which at some point requires encoding its values and culture into DNA so they can be passed on without relying on political constructs like the state and social constructs like equality, rights, liberty and freedoms.

Using the ISO 31000 standard, risk is defined as the “effect of uncertainty on objectives,” resulting in the management imperative to “coordinate activities to direct and control an organization with regard to risk.” The White House has no risk management for its “America First” goal because its authorization extends only to setting up a sub-organization to address risk as defined in ANSI/ASSE Z690.2-2011 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines.

In other words, governments cannot address civilizational risk, but can only look after themselves, and only indirectly. This requires us to re-interpret risk as applicable to civilization itself instead of the institutions of those civilizations. This becomes complex because risk involves both threats and opportunities. For example:

The approval of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was intended to infuse the US economy with desperately needed funds. The risks associated with issuing multi-million-dollar grants and contracts as required by ARRA in such a short period of time were great: however, the opportunity to stimulate the economy and make economic gains was projected to outweigh the risks.

This means that a standard threat-versus-opportunity guideline does not exist because most people think only in terms of threats. The eventual outcome of “predicted” threat and opportunity scenarios are never confirmed after the fact meaning that lessons are never learnt and mistakes repeated over multiple administrations, as is obvious from the way risk management in American government is structured.

But at least the Government Accounting Office (GAO) has a “High Risk List” including solutions used. It address solely the government: “The US federal government is the world’s largest and most complex organizational entity, with about $3.5 trillion in outlays in fiscal year 2012.” These risks are:

  1. Limiting federal government’s fiscal by better managing climate control risks.
  2. Mitigating gaps in weather satellite data
  3. Strategic human capital management
  4. Managing federal real property
  5. National flood insurance program
  6. Improving and modernizing federal disability programs
  7. Pension benefit guaranty corporation insurance program
  8. NASA acquisition management
  9. Protecting health through enhanced oversight of medical products
  10. Protecting the federal government’s information systems and the national cyber critical infrastructures
  11. Revamping federal oversight of flood safety
  12. Restructuring the US postal services to achieve sustainable financial viability

The above risks are defined as “important” which translates to sustained manpower and budget allocations. But in the aftermath of flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey, the Manhattan Institute found that instead of mitigating the effect of flooding, that the US Government makes matters worse by tempting people into Hurricane’s paths.

Identifying “all” risks to “America First” — itself a proxy for protecting our civilization, as opposed to setting global standards to protect the world economy — is obviously not possible because it would require inputs from all managers in the American government. Identifying a risk also requires an important methodology of detection, verification and scope before manpower is allowed to define and spend resources on it.

Various sources of risk are possible, but these fail to include threats to civilization. The RIMS (Recent Risk Events) for 2013 is an example of the variety of risk, as follows:

  1. Horse meat discovered in UK beef
  2. New rule strengthens mine safety
  3. Brazil nightclub fire kills 242
  4. The cruise from carnival
  5. Meteor explodes over Russia
  6. Sinkhole swallows Florida man
  7. Data breach exposes 50 million accounts
  8. New avian flu threatens humans
  9. Massive explosion levels fertilizer plant
  10. Bangladesh building collapse kills 1100
  11. Tornadoes tear through Midwest
  12. Vermont fights patent trolls
  13. Washington bridge collapses

If you are not concerned about the risks above, you should be, because of what is missing. For example:

  • Globalism is not a risk
  • Migration is not a risk
  • Economic collapse is not a risk
  • Political succession is not a risk
  • Diversity is not a risk
  • World wars are not a risk
  • Private censorship is not a risk

These omissions present the Alt Right with an opportunity to demonstrate its rightful leadership by addressing risks that affect civilization, even if they do not affect institutions like the American government or clusters of institutions such as those which administrate the world economy.

What the Alt Right can bring to our consideration of risk is the understanding that politics is actually about life or death challenges; the government and its institutions are supposed to serve the people, which does not necessarily mean doing what they want, but in protecting them from that which can destroy them while enhancing that which brings quality of life.

This will force a move away from decadently setting “political goals” based on utopian visions of ideology, and instead toward consideration real risks. For the past two centuries we have focused on symbolic correctness, whether economic or social, and ignored consequences of our actions to the organic entity of civilization.

As the age of ideology fades, and is replaced by consciousness of the need for civilization above the desires of the individual, attention focuses on actual risks instead of what we might call political risks, or things which would displace our rulers or destabilize their institutions.

Luckily for the Alt Right, average people understand risk because they are accustomed to balancing threats and opportunities in their own lives and for the sake of their families. Through bypassing the entire world of political risk, and focusing on actual risk, the Alt Right can address the actual concerns of people instead of these utopian notions.

America Cannot Control Its Leftists, So Declares A State Of Emergency Over Possibly Upsetting Words

Tuesday, October 17th, 2017

For the Left, success is easy because it uses the methods of a cult or criminal gang. You must declare an enemy who is obstructing the achievement of the only way to succeed, then show how that enemy is holding back the share of the loot that goes to each person, and then you must portray this future golden land in such a way that it makes your audience feel like it will solve all of their problems.

Modern Leftism has succeeded for the last seventy years by using race as a dog whistle. Racists are bad, so anything which is called racist is an impediment to progress, peace, justice, equality, happiness, legal marijuana, or whatever else they can make it stick to. Hillary Clinton attempted to do this when she mentioned the Alt Right in her speech, but really, she merely emboldened an already inevitable revolution.

People are tired of the age of ideology. It promised a golden land and delivered a Soviet wasteland covered in paste-on brick finish. It hoodwinked us by appealing to our lowest urges, basically for anarchy and unearned wealth, and then befuddled us with lust through sexual liberation, drugs through the culture war, and an endless array of theories which are basically irrelevant to anything but themselves.

As the Alt Right surge sweeps the land, the Left is reacting badly because they realize that, unlike the Right, the Left has only one wall around its citadel. If the theory dies, so dies the Leftist movement, and so they are doubling down on anything that can be used to defend egalitarianism, with diversity at the forefront.

Not surprisingly, panicked Leftists who are seeing their justification for their lifestyles about to go up in smoke are enraged and rioting. The Alt Right, betrayed by police at several events, has capitalized on this by essentially telling local communities that they either protect free speech, or the Alt Right will show up with Antifa in tow, and Antifa will then as usual burn, vandalize, loot and destroy.

Florida is trying to get out of this by declaring a state of emergency, which gives them expanded police powers:

Spencer is scheduled to speak at the University of Florida campus in Gainesville on Thursday.

Scott declared the state of emergency in Alachua County, noting that Spencer’s speeches in other states have in the past “sparked protests and counter-protests resulting in episodes of violence, civil unrest and multiple arrests,” according to the Tampa Bay Times.

…”The left wing establishment is built around anti-white policies,” Spencer told the group.

This is typical democratic thinking: instead of fixing the problem, stop whatever makes the problem visible. The Alt Right is a whistleblower telling America that not only is our multicultural nation-state dead in the water, but that our principles are all garbage, and we are living through the Fall of Rome 2.0 with only our social media presence to keep us from going insane.

Florida may declare a state of emergency, but they cannot stop the decentralized nature of riots. Now it is the Left, who usually uses riots as a weapon, who must face their own tactics used against them as the Alt Right instigates these riots by… speaking words that cause some people to question their existential value and path in life. Nothing more.

If we were looking for a sign that Rome has truly fallen, no better one could be presented than this ridiculous response to an innocent request to be heard.

Recommended Reading