Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘alt-right’

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.

How To Conquer The Herd

Thursday, October 12th, 2017

Equality brought an age of mass politics: to get anything done, it requires finding a “personal army” of warm bodies to support that idea. This in turn meant that ideas became simplified and more emotional.

Many have focused on the problems of democracy as a system for achieving sensible ends; few have focused on what democracy does to people. Because the message must be simplified, people in turn resort to simplistic thinking.

This in turn shows us how pandering to the herd distorts the message and ensures that no actual idea will be transmitted:

But without following up this suggestion, I wish only, as I said, to remark the fact that as things now stand Isaiah’s job seems rather to go begging. Everyone with a message nowadays is, like my venerable European friend, eager to take it to the masses. His first, last and only thought is of mass acceptance and mass approval. His great care is to put his doctrine in such shape as will capture the masses’ attention and interest. This attitude towards the masses is so exclusive, so devout, that one is reminded of the troglodytic monster described by Plato, and the assiduous crowd at the entrance to its cave, trying obsequiously to placate it and win its favor, trying to interpret its inarticulate noises, trying to find out what it wants, and eagerly offering it all sorts of things that they think might strike its fancy.

The main trouble with all this is its reaction upon the mission itself. It necessitates an opportunist sophistication of one’s doctrine, which profoundly alters its character and reduces it to a mere placebo. If, say, you are a preacher, you wish to attract as large a congregation as you can, which means an appeal to the masses; and this, in turn, means adapting the terms of your message to the order of intellect and character that the masses exhibit. If you are an educator, say with a college on your hands, you wish to get as many students as possible, and you whittle down your requirements accordingly. If a writer, you aim at getting many readers; if a publisher, many purchasers; if a philosopher, many disciples; if a reformer, many converts; if a musician, many auditors; and so on. But as we see on all sides, in the realization of these several desires, the prophetic message is so heavily adulterated with trivialities, in every instance, that its effect on the masses is merely to harden them in their sins.

Even where the group is intelligent, mass culture selects for those ideas which are lowest common denominator, and thus unite some large group of people behind them, even if the original intent is lost. This is how you win, get the A+, succeed at the job of politics, etc., and it means that any complex or long-term ideas are filtered out before the point of decision.

Democracy makes people insane. It combines the lottery with the type of social reasoning that groups use in choosing where to go for dinner, and the result is that whatever flatters the most and offends the least will win, which by its nature excludes anything truthful, realistic or relevant. The herd chases after dreams and ignores realities.

Much as we talk about “peer pressure” influencing teens to engage in risky behaviors, democracy institutes peer pressure as a means of making decisions. What will win is more important than what is right, so the task becomes the cultivation of the audience instead of being accurate, which brings out the type of thinking common to entertainment or socialization, but not leadership.

The alternative is to do what the Alt Right is attempting: to reach the 2-5% of civilization who are still capable of analytical thought, convince them to think toward a goal that is immediately impractical but offers a long-term future, and then by inducing these natural leaders to have an idea, convince others to emulate them.

This process of emulation works unconsciously among people, and consists of imitating what is perceived as successful rather than an analytical process of questioning what is right, efficient, appropriate or helpful:

In new research that appeared Sept. 29 in Psychological Science, they find that focusing on how norms are changing can help people alter their behaviors.

…The researchers also conducted an experiment involving conserving water during the recent California drought. They posted signs in laundry facilities at high-rise residences of Stanford graduate students with static messages (“Most Stanford Residents Use Full Loads/Help Stanford Conserve Water”) or dynamic messages (“Stanford Residents Are Changing: Now Most Use Full Loads/Help Stanford Conserve Water). While the number of laundry loads were unaffected in buildings with no signs over the next three weeks, there was a 10 percent reduction among those who saw the static message, and nearly a 30 percent reduction for those who saw the dynamic message.

…“Dynamic norms may play a large role in social change,” Sparkman said. “Just learning that other people are changing can instigate all these psychological processes that motivate further change. People can begin to think that change is possible, that change is important and that in the future, the norms will be different. And then, if they become persuaded and decide to change, it starts to become a reality.”

Left to its own devices, the group imitates itself, with people seeing what others have done and then doing the same. This herd behavior proves damaging because it is entirely self-referential, which means that realistic concerns are ignored in favor of social concerns, namely keeping up with what the other monkeys are doing.

Luckily, this provides an option for future change, in that instead of reaching the masses, we need only to reach those who the masses imitate, which does not require simplifying the message. With this approach, the full questions can be presented, and those who can understand will pick up on those, with the less thoughtful imitating.

This knowledge clashes with the idea by many of the Right that we must create our own herd. They suggest that instead of tackling difficult truths, we should present a simplified version as a means-to-the-end of acquiring a large audience. But as research and historical evidence suggest, this approach will fail as it will simply destroy the message, where presenting a clear idea to the naturally capable has a chance of victory that is denied by mass culture cultivation.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 9: Interview With Jared Taylor of American Renaissance

Wednesday, September 27th, 2017

This week Nationalist Public Radio brings you our anticipated guest interview with renowned white advocate Jared Taylor of American Renaissance. The interview runs just over an hour covering a myriad of topics. The majority of the questions and topics of discussions can be seen below.


Download (79 minutes, 190mb)

1:00 – Introduction by Everitt Foster asking Jared Taylor about himself, his work and his inner motivation.
8:00 – Brett remarks on the rise of PC in higher education in the late 80s/early 90s.
9:00 – Brett asks if the problems we face is diversity or specific ethnic groups, and how this problem relates to leftism.
14:00 – Brett asks if we can end diversity and if so how?

17:10 – Roderick asks if there will soon be an inability of government and universities financially due to leftist policies.
21:20 – Everitt asks if the destruction of statues/monuments is directed at white people and not simply confederates.
24:30 – How can we in America compare apartheid and the targeting of whites in South Africa to our future if whites become a minority?
27:00 – Is it possible that the media and higher academia doesn’t represent a white population that is majority conservative?
30:00 – You made a video that went viral semi-recently. What were your reaction to it being removed from YouTube?
34:20 – James asks if censorship on both registrar’s and social media will become more rampant and what course of action should be taken.
40:30 – Roderick asks why Jared thinks leftists condemn white advocacy while glorifying transgenderism in children.
42:40 – James observes how Antifa targets and polarizes people with moderate political affiliations away from leftism.
46:40 – Everitt asks if Trump’s election is progress toward our goals as well as Jared’s take on how he responded to DACA.
51:30 – Roderick asks how Jared responds to feminism and how to reverse declining birth rates in white populations.
57:00 – Roderick asks if it is a waste putting women through college on frivolous degrees and instead focus on children.
59:00 – Brett asks if there is a root to cultural and social change and if it is modernity. As well if white people need to invent or resurrect a more visible culture for themselves.
1:02:30 – Asks if problems demographically harm the middle class due to the tax code.
1:06:20 – James poses a question from the audience regarding the divide in the alt right concerning the Jewish Question.
1:15:25 – James ask what course is best going forward in accordance with freedom of association and wealth distribution.

What Actually Threatens The Alt Right

Thursday, September 21st, 2017

The Alt Right arose as an alternative both to the Left-leaning neoconservative mainstream conservatism and to the antisocial and violent underground far Right. As such, it gained great momentum in a time when people are tired of the options that placate the crowd, because anything popular converges on the inevitable mix of pacifism, egoism and neurosis.

Since that outsider status is what gives the Alt Right its power, its one fatal mistake — as opposed to missteps involving Nazi flags — is to become what it succeeded by not being, namely the Right-Left hybrid that is neoconservatism or other herd-friendly doctrines. The Alt Right succeeds by being all Right, which people accept even if disadvantageous to them because it is stable and sane.

From the days of its inception, the Alt Right has been threatened by infiltration from within by people who do not realize that they bear the Leftist idea-virus, and therefore convert the Alt Right into the Left by bringing into it their assumptions and dogma. If this de facto fifth column succeeds, the Alt Right becomes subverted like the mainstream Right.

Unfortunately, this fifth column is unaware that it exists. It consists of people who have gone through life, absorbed aspects of the Leftist hive-mind that is now our mass culture, and then turned toward the Right, without realizing how much of the Left is within them. This is why the Alt Right struggles with an angry audience of skraelings who will doom it just as they doomed white nationalism:

The comments sections of our website devolved into a cesspool filled by the most despicable pond scum, former 4-chaners who would routinely pile on in trolling attacks against me every time I published something with a bit of intellectual content.

The anti-4chan negativity seems off-base to this author, since 4chan is a mixed bag with some insightful commentators among the Reddit-style angry crawlspace NEETs and Whole Foods workers.

However, the larger point is a good one: when the herd takes over, it converts everything to a lowest common denominator, which then subverts the target and turns it into de facto Leftism. People allowed to express their individual judgments, desires and feelings become a force of entropy, fragmenting any focus by injecting their own personal needs where shared goals need to prevail.

This condition is not the fault of our leaders, but represents something against which they must struggle, because otherwise they will become Left-converged by those who, despite taking a hard-Right direction, do not understand — or do not care — about the meaning of the Right, and will convert it into the same old herd behavior that is the basis of Leftism.

The only solution to this behavior is to aggressively point ourselves toward clear goals and to extend our ideas to their logical conclusions, as this effectively excludes the neurotic intermediate steps favored by the herd. With a purpose, we do not fall prey to the swarm behavior of the aimless herd; without it, we become exactly what we were formed to oppose.

“Unite The Right” Went Better Than People Think

Monday, September 4th, 2017

We live in a relative universe where it would not be possible to have good without having bad, and sometimes to see what is good, you have to see who the bad guys are. This is what happened in Charlottesville, and it is why the Alt Right is rising: despite the media chiming in about Nazi flags and “Jews Will Not Replace Us” chants, the world shrugged and thought, “If other ethnic groups can have identity politics, I guess it’s only fair that white people do as well.”

This flipped the narrative.

Among other things, it rendered the Nazi flags obsolete because now simple statements of European identity are something the media fears more, and so the Hollywood Nazis have lost their power. It introduced many people to the idea of European identity politics which, when presented by well-spoken normal-looking people wearing polo shirts, seems less of a hateful diatribe than another take on a political scene that desperately needs different ideas to escape from its echo-chamber ideological spiral.

Even more, it showed us who the bad guys were. The media, government, police, and big corporations are all on one side, designing a technocratic egalitarian utopia which sounds as boring as Soviet architecture. On the other side were normal people arguing for an organic view of human life which emphasizes positive values, in contrast to the resentment politics of the Left.

It also showed us that our authorities are negligent and seek to instigate violence:

The vast majority of our people enter Lee Park and begin socializing. The shield wall takes up a defensive position at the entrances to Lee Park. This was due to the failure of the police to enforce a neutral barrier. You can also see the shield wall race into the crowd to rescue people who are attacked. #UniteTheRight protesters actually show little interest in engaging with the Antifa.

I’ve been to dozens of events and have never seen anything resembling the policing on display in the video below. It is incomprehensible. Everywhere else I have been the police established and enforced a neutral barrier. It makes even less sense when you consider the fact that the Department of Homeland Security warned McAuliffe and Charlottesville about the potential for violence.

At every protest where Antifa were unmasked, violence did not occur; at Charlottesville, where the police not only refused to unmask Antifa as required by state law but also pushed the two groups together, violence and chaos resulted. This was their plan: the Leftist mayor wanted to cause violence, then goad the Leftist media into blaming it on the Right, so that Leftist government would act against the Alt Right. This failed because the public did not pick up the media outcry, and Donald Trump made a statement about bad actors “on both sides,” implicitly condemning Antifa for their part in instigating the mess.

This negligent policing is going to get these cities sued at some point, but we are lucky they did it. America woke up to a media narrative about Right-wing violence, and saw the opposite, at which point the Left turned on Antifa because politicians like Nancy Pelosi realizes that the Left thrives in the polls, like Angela Merkel, on appearing to be a stable order who is holding back the bad guys who want to take over and wage race war and Holocaust 2.0.

It was the reaction to Charlottesville, rather than the event itself, which fully put the Alt Right on the map: people took the Alt Right seriously and became more vocal in their criticism of the Leftist ideal of multiculturalism, which is to most minds unfair if it allows one group to have an identity and self-advocacy and denies it to another group.

When you get normal-looking people marching on the streets and saying, “If every other group can have identity politics, we want that right, too,” then you have a rebellion against the dominant paradigm which is going mainstream; it’s not weird guys on meth, living in trailers and dating their sisters, planning for the great race war because they have personally failed at life, as the media narrative repeats to us daily.

Years ago, some rebellious students founded The Hessian Studies Center with two objectives: to parody identity politics, and to encourage the study of heavy metal:

The Hessian Studies Department believes that any truly diverse multicultural population will contain representatives of this world-wide underground culture, with its rich and spanning historical and social contributions.

The Alt Right is similarly part comedy and part serious: we believe that European-descended peoples have the same need for ethnic self-determination as other groups, and by doing this, we turn multiculturalism against itself and reveal it for the parodic idiocy that it is. If we can have black, Asian, Hispanic, LGBT+ studies and other advocacy groups, college majors and politics, why not white versions of the same?

Maybe we can make the casserole our symbol. White people can show up and do typically white things like program computers, have block parties, go to museums, watch nature documentaries and trade stock tips. By adopting the normal white guy attire of polo shirts, slacks and loafers, the white studies team is winning the war of optics.

The point is that either no group gets an identity — this is what assimilationists want, believing that if we unite people with economic and legal systems, they all become good citizens who carry on whatever it is that we’re doing — or every group gets its own identity, and there is no way for these groups to exist, but instead they will each live in balkanized “Chinatowns” if not their separate continents.

Americans and Europeans have opened their countries and their wallets and hearts to The Diversity Project only to find their countries broke, themselves marginalized and discriminated against, and their societies converted into alien places that do not resemble any form they recognize from the past. Diversity has failed.

The police at “Unite the Right” were the bad guys, hired by Leftist unions and commanded by a Leftist mayor, and this meant that the Alt Right was the scrappy underdog in an old American trope updated for the present era. The bad guys bet on the wrong trend because they were looking at society as it was during the early Obama years, when praising diversity was a path to government approval and success, and not the later Obama years, when the wreckage of Leftism and diversity left people overworked, feeling persecuted and exhausted.

By the end of Obama term #2, people worldwide had seen quality of life in America collapse alongside American prestige, in the hands of a government which not only refused to recognize the problem, but was doubling down on its ideological agenda. Instead of having fewer racial troubles because it elected a black president, America experienced all of them but worse as a Leftist/minority coalition, emboldened by multicultural propaganda, went on the warpath.

Ironically, this came about because of the rise of neoliberalism, which hybridized socialism and capitalism to make a conservative type of society which was waging war for Leftist ideals:

The book’s central indictment is that President Clinton, in submitting his welfare, budget, and tax bills from 1995-1997, “signaled surrender: the Reagan revolution was going to achieve its major goals.” The Reagan neoliberal program of small government, tax cuts, deregulation, free trade, and monetarist financial policies was more than just consolidated. In signing the Welfare Reform Bill of 1996 and the subsequent 1997 budget compromise, Clinton broke the back of the New Deal. The government commitment, however modest and poorly implemented, to protect the poor against the worst ravages of the market was thus ended. A central redistributional bargain crumbled as well: the top 20 percent of income earners in the United States would gain after-tax relief, while the bottom 20 percent of Americans would further suffer the marginalization of deepening poverty.

Presidents after Clinton essentially followed his ideal: keep the core of the economy capitalist, then tax the heck out of it and use that to buy the allegiance of a permanent underclass of third world minorities, blue-haired obese feminists, pajama boys and angry single women. This same coalition brought Obama into power and, heavily employed by media and academia, quashed notice of the failure of these policies.

This unstable situation morphed into globalism, or a worldwide extension of both American capitalism and the Leftist ideology, creating misery everywhere as it produced Soviet levels of demands for obedience to dogma while reducing the quality of life for most. Third world nations found themselves lifted up, only to become overpopulated sources of raw labor, and discarded as soon as costs rose; the first world discovered that it was planned to be the host for the world, importing that cheap labor to drive the fires of industry and pay the taxes that bought votes for Leftist leaders.

Globalism brought itself down because of its tendency to homogenize humanity, which put it at odds with the idea of multiculturalism, which is that different cultures would exist. This paradox detonated when it confronted those in minority-majority cities, who realized that the dynamic was not white-versus-black, but many groups, each striving for its own control, laws, leaders, culture and values:

When I recently mentioned, to a friend at the local Pacifica radio station in Houston, the “melting pot” as a concept that had worked well for us throughout most of our history, I was met with utter befuddlement, and the firm rejoinder, “But we should all hold onto our cultures!”

When minorities become the majority, we see that the narrative is not as simple as white oppression of the other, but many others, all struggling against everyone else, because biology, genetics, standards and desires differ. One cannot have multiculturalism and make war against Islam, nor can one be multicultural and deny the right of Germany to be German.

The “diversity is our strength” mantra hit the floor, and the Alt Right has picked up the narrative and re-directed it toward a future where we can escape both multiculturalism and globalism.

Recommended Reading