Posts Tagged ‘brett-stevens’

Brett Stevens Live On The Philosophy Of Power And L0de Radio Hour Podcasts Tonight

Saturday, February 18th, 2017

Just a quick note: tonight at 7 PM EST I will be participating on James Theodore Stillwell III’s The Philosophy Of Power podcast on the topic of nihilism and my first book, Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity.

Three hours after that, at 10 PM EST, I will be one of the guests on l0de Radio Hour, a decade-plus-running radio show based on trolling, subversion, confusion, chaos and dissent from any identifiable dominant paradigms.

See you out there on the airwaves!

Update:

The James Stillwell appearance:

Unfortunately, the L0de Radio Hour experience did not happen owing to technical difficulties. We will revisit this possibility in the future.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 3: Copyright Law

Thursday, February 16th, 2017

Despite our Valentine’s Day being hampered by a lack of Roderick, we went ahead and sat down at the round table to open up a new discussion. In this episode of NPR, Brett, Everitt, and Peter discuss a listener suggested topic: copyright law.

As usual, the highlights can be found below.

0:00 – Introduction of the topic by listener 1349.

1:30 – Everitt’s Intellectual Property Law lecture

  • We are not giving you legal advice – don’t sue us!
  • Origins of copyright law in 1709 and the changes that occurred as production has grown

13:45 – What guides the future of a work? What ought we value?

  • Who owns source material?

18:40 – Peter and Brett discuss cultural appropriation and the world of Sherlock Holmes

  • Peter defends derivative works and critiques the concept of “intellectual theft”
  • Peter also defends plagiarism by critiquing by-lines

24:18 – Everitt and Brett go deeper into cultural appropriation

29:20 – The table discusses the idea of “writing in the same world”

37:00 – Peter expands upon his views on copyright

  • The reader’s interpretation may be just as, if not more important than the author’s intent

41:40 – Government granted ad-hoc monopolies are discussed

44:00 – How ought international scientific cooperation work?

  • Should drugs be patented?

48:00 – Brett discusses who ought to control patents

53:30 – How are we going to enforce copyright laws?

  • We shouldn’t punish individuals with huge fines for pirating a $3 song

57:40 – Peter and Everitt discuss their respective content and paywalls

1:05:40 – What liability ought file sharing sites have?

1:08:35 – Peter confirmed for crypto-Libertarian?!?

1:17:10 – Brett confirmed for open-source nerd

1:18:30 – Any questions can be directed towards podcast@amerika.org

1:18:35 – Closing and Outro

Visit our Nationalist Public Radio Archives to listen to past episodes of the show.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 2: Social Conservatism

Saturday, February 11th, 2017

While Roderick is off gallivanting across the third world (either getting a kidney stolen or throwing commies out of a helicopter with Based Duterte), Brett, Everitt, and Peter sat down at NPR’s round table to discuss a meta-topic not often discussed in the Alt-Right: practical social issues. Specifically, the discussion revolved around three major topics: abortion, gay marriage and/or gay rights, and women in combat. We all have different opinions on these topics (even if some of us haven’t given them much thought) and so it was nice to sit down and hash them out.

As usual, below is an outline with the highlights from the show (as well as links to articles and books referenced) and we’ll see you next time!

0:00 – Introduction

0:54 – Peter clarifies his role at NPR and is confirmed for Contrarian Alt-Right (Con-Alt-Right)

3:35 – Everitt lays out the meta-topic for the episode

5:00 – What does abortion mean for the Alt-Right?

  • Brett chimes in arguing that unfettered abortion leads to it being used as birth control
  • The conclusion, as per Brett, is that abortion ought to be between a woman and her doctor
  • What happens when if a woman messes up her birth control? How ought we deal with those cases?
  • 11:00 – Peter pushes back upon Brett’s position and argues for contraceptives and argues that there are more legitimate uses for abortion than Brett claims
  • The conclusion is, according to Peter, that if a teenage parent is unable to take care of the child, then the child should not be birthed
  • How can we give the child the best life?
  • 19:22 – Brett brings us to the real issue: is casual sex permissible?
  • Peter defines casual sex as hookup culture while Brett views that as merely half of it; the other half is dating without purpose
  • Peter argues for a destigmatization of sex
  • Brett concludes that we shouldn’t have casual sex and ought to focus on marriage exclusively while Peter agrees that we also ought to strive for marriage

33:48 – Should abortion be used as a eugenic tool?

  • For Brett, abortion is the wrong tool for the job of eugenics
  • For Peter, we don’t know enough about human nature to eliminate various traits as some traits may have unforeseen positive effects
  • 37:12 – Richard Spencer on racial superiority – 1:10:40

43:44 – How ought homosexuality be treated in the Alt-Right? Should a baker be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

  • Peter argues that forcing bakers to bake anything is absurd and concludes that individuals should be able to do whatever they want behind closed doors
  • 47:33 – “The Rainbow Coalition” by Richard Spencer
  • 47:57 – Richard Spencer’s infamous tweet on implicit white identity
  • Everitt blindsides Peter with a killer question…
  • Brett agrees that the bakery shouldn’t be forced to bake the cake and argues against the state
  • Both Brett and Peter argue for legitimate gay communities
  • 59:40 – Gay Bar story, Savage Hippie Podcast episode 27, 42:20
  • Everitt notes that we ought to treat the gay community as simply an other tribe

1:03:50 – What do we think about women in combat?

  • Peter thinks notes that women should be allowed in combat and, in the current system, required to sign up for selective service
  • 1:06:50 – Kurdish YPG Fighters
  • 1:07:20 – Danish student kills 100 ISIS militants
  • Everitt opposes selective service and Brett opposes women in combat
  • 1:09:50 – Not a Gentleman’s War: An Inside View of Junior Officers in the Vietnam War by Ron Milam (2012)
  • Peter argues for a pragmatic understanding for women in combat and opposes selective service
  • Women in men’s battalions might hinder operational effectiveness, according to Everitt
  • 1:16:10 – The Arab-Israeli Wars: War and Peace in the Middle East by Chaim Herzog (2005)
  • 1:17:20 – Robert A. Heinlein on women in the military:

    “[T]here is very strong reason why female Naval officers are assigned to transports: It is good for trooper morale…Can you think of anything sillier than letting yourself be fired out of a spaceship with nothing but mayhem and sudden death at the other end? However, if someone must do this idiotic stunt, do you know of a surer way to keep a man keyed up to the point where he is willing than by keeping him constantly reminded that the only good reason why men fight is a living breathing reality? In a mixed ship, the last thing a trooper hears before a drop (maybe the last word he ever hears) is a woman’s voice, wishing him luck. If you don’t think this is important, you’ve probably resigned from the human race.” – Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers, (New York: Ace Books, 2006), 260.

  • Brett rejects materialism and wants to preserve the feminine mystique that combat might destroy

1:21:20 – Any questions can be directed towards podcast@amerika.org

1:21:30 – Closing and Outro

Brett Stevens on Red Ice Radio

Wednesday, February 8th, 2017

I am fortunate to be the interview subject for an episode of Red Ice Radio, the longstanding dissident realist Right radio program that tackles challenging topics and brings out the more thoughtful side of the alt right and related cultural shifts. Host Henrik Palmgren conducted an informed interview, and I did my best to keep up. You can listen to the show here.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 1: The Alt Right Rises

Thursday, February 2nd, 2017

During the inaugural episode of Nationalist Public Radio, the round table (Everitt, Brett, Roderick, and Peter) meets to introduce your new source of news and entertainment in The Current Year™, NPR! We discuss what we see NPR as being, who we are, and a myriad of other topics. Specifically, we discuss what the Alt-Right is and how we each view it, we examine questions of history and culture, as well as straying down the path of biological determinism.

Below is an outline with the highlights from the show (as well as links to articles and books referenced) and we’ll see you next time!

0:00 – You are Now Listening to Nationalist Public Radio!

0:40 – What is Nationalist Public Radio (NPR)?

2:00 – Introductions

10:20 – What is the Alt-Right?

19:30 – Is History Cyclical, or is there a ‘Right Side’ or ‘Wrong Side’ to History?

  • Roderick discusses inequality amongst humans, notes that a natural hierarchy arises, and discusses eugenics and genetic engineering
  • Peter on individualism and in-group preference and how that may play a role in success
  • Brett on exceptional people and mixing culture and genetics

31:00 – Does Human Nature Lead to Nationalism?

46:00 – When Does A Tribe Become a Nation? What is the Culture-Genetic Feedback Loop?

1:07:40 – Closing

Reminder: Brett Stevens Q&A (“AMA”) On Reddit Tonight

Thursday, December 22nd, 2016

  1. The “ask me anything” (AMA) Q&A session will be held in /r/altright.
  2. Go here to set up an account.
  3. Feel free to upload the promotional image anywhere and everywhere.
  4. The session starts at 8 PM EST on December 22, 2016 and goes for as long as there are questions.

I look forward to chatting it up with you all. (This was originally announced here two weeks ago.)

Update: Reddit has banned the original account; the new account — for verification purposes — is “amerika_blog”. The AMA is live now!

Interview With Brett Stevens At Divine Truth Ministries

Saturday, December 10th, 2016

I am fortunate to be interviewed at Divine Truth Ministries on the topics of race, religion, and civilization collapse. That should cover pretty much every area of interest for Alt Right readers. Thanks to Divine Truth Ministries for a to-the-point interview!

Discovering Nihilism

Wednesday, December 7th, 2016


Reader-submitted photo.

Writing about nihilism presents a problem in that most people equate nihilism with fatalism, or the giving up on any chance to make life saner, better, more pleasurable, or even excellent. Fatalism is in fact the most common human response to life, and consists of both a grudging acceptance of the failures of life because it is more convenient than fighting them, and a resentment which allows the individual to consider themselves a victim, pity themselves, and then use that feeling as a justification for indulging their self-centered urges as compensation for their suffering.

Nihilism as espoused in Nihilism: A Philosophy Based in Nothingness and Eternity, on the other hand, is a radical skepticism toward the means of perception that are convenient for humans. The large Simian brain tends to fit perception into what is convenient for its own modes of thinking, which means that it projects its own order onto reality, and tends to create a tunnel vision by making a first impression and then filtering out data that does not conform with that thesis.

In addition, nihilism rejects false dualities like “subjectivity” and “objectivity” based in universalism, or the idea that all human minds work alike, which is a projection by the individual that makes them feel as if they control their world. There is no truth, communications or standard value system; rather, each of us acts according to what we are as genetic organisms, and that determines what we can understand and thus what truths we perceive, how we interpret language and thus how we translate communications from others into our own meaning, and a values system specific to the degree of excellence and realism we can analyze and interpret.

The doctrine of nihilism wages war against proxies, or intermediate human measurements which can be gamed and therefore create dark organization within human groups. Proxies create conditions for their own satisfaction which do not achieve satisfaction of their ostensible goal, creating perverse incentives for deception by adhering to the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit. Instead, nihilism argues for a morality of cause and effect, such that we measure our acts by their results and consequences and not our intent.

This “black pill” reverses every idea of The Enlightenment,™ which posited that human reason was universal and therefore, we could understand things in groups instead of relying upon the exceptional among us to comprehend them. Nihilism is a war-cry for the competent to rise in a hierarchy and oppress the rest, even if merely by dominance of opinion, because humans are not equal and accuracy of perception is more important than ideological conformity and the social good feelings it produces.

Over at Praefuscus Ferrum, occult writer D.A.R.G. has conducted a three-part examination of the book, culminating in an inspection of its esoteric and traditionalist aspects:

Brett Stevens advocates nihilism as a gateway to realism and idealism which, hand in hand and dealt with higher intellect, take the mentality of the individual towards transcendentalism. In a summarised manner, it is an extreme acknowledgement of what is without trying to impose human illusion over the tangible and measurable universe, only to then head towards the highest ideals that we can think of in an ever-ascending path. The beneficent effect of this outlook is twofold: first, it bypasses any impulse towards compromise and mediocrity, and second, it forces us to consider the permanent first of all, and the temporal in view of it.

Furthermore, to achieve such a vision, humans are required to put aside their egos, and so any illusions of socially-imposed egalitarianism in favour of a holistic vision of what is good as per ultimate consequences. Unfortunately, some divide this into two black-and-white categories in the common means versus ends dilemma, which is only so for those afflicted with narrow minds and short sightedness. Each question should be evaluated in its own context, not dealt with in prescribed absolutes such as “this is bad/good”, and rather as “what will the effect of this course of action be in this condition?”.

To follow up on these ideas, readers might also seek out the general introduction to nihilism offered by the publisher.

This follows an in-depth analysis of the underpinnings of Germanic Idealism present in the philosophy of nihilism

However, according to Brett Stevens, reality must be perceived or understood as having an underlying logic. But like the ancients and their esoteric holistic fusion of science, philosophy and religion, and unlike most post-Descartes and Aristotelian philosophy, it recognises that reality is ineffable.

This recognition may explain why so many different coherent explanations have cropped up in modern philosophy, without one or another possessing an objective superiority. This ineffability of reality leads to the esoteric method and the recognition of occult properties: those which we may never perceive directly; not even through scientific instruments, for physical science can only study effects. The apparent incoherence of esotericism, including the way Brett Stevens approaches nihilism, can only be resolved through direct experience in what is termed as a ‘coincidence of opposites’.”

The author also explains the roots of nihilism in heuristic realism:

By destroying all illusion of human-given value one comes to a direct and plain experiencing of reality. Thereby the plain, consistent workings of an immanent reality become apparent, or the emanations and manifestations thereof. This is the Godhead of the semi-esoteric Western Christian, which in the Tree of Life consists of the Supernal Triangle containing the higher Trinity (the “Father”, for all intents and purposes) that defines the abstract ‘mechanics’, relations and polarities of reality at every level.

Be that as it may, such conceptualisations may serve a further conscious study, but an attentive and self-directed mind will perceive and attain these notions unaided by theoretical systems, mystical or otherwise. The individual may thus be led, in his search for value, to consciously selected methods and systems by the way they address reality itself rather than by external imposition. This attainment of power is exciting and decisive in the future of the individual.

Any writer would be fortunate to attract the readers who have written in on this book — alert, introspective, analytical and rigorous — and it is its triumph that, regardless of ultimate popularity, it has found the group who are forging the future of humanity in hearts and minds. With any luck, it will be a popular Christmas gift this year, spreading perplexity and terror to humanity.

Trump Rise Shows That Diversity Has Failed

Friday, November 11th, 2016

white_power_accessories

Six years ago, you might have found this column, entitled “Diversity doesn’t work,” on the front page of Amerika. Among its arguments:

The problem is not blacks, or whites, or any other ethnic groups — it’s that combining them destroys cultural consensus and shared values, which are genetically encoded in every population, by averaging two or more distinctive and different cultures.

Culture makes ethnicity; ethnicity makes culture.

The point here is that in breaking from almost other right-wing writings, this piece attacked diversity itself. It does not matter if the other groups are highly intelligent and law-abiding or of low intelligence and violently criminal; diversity itself — the very fact of more than one group being present — ruins civilization.

Survival can be found only through separation.

You might even recognize this sentiment from a post five years previous, entitled “Surviving Multiculturalism,” in which the case against diversity is laid bare:

We’ve all read the articles in National Geographic talking about the isolated tribe of Whatitsname “fighting hard to preserve their traditional culture and ways in the face of the onslaught of modernity.” You would never guess from public rhetoric in America that Indo-Europeans are fighting the same battle. We can win it by taking our society’s mechanisms and adapting them singularly to our own need in the type of scenario described above. If we begin building something new that is an option within the realistic spectrum of choices offered to people in our society, the hardiest among them will consider it and be likely to move. The others are too busy “just doing my thing, man” and we are fortunate for their voluntary exclusion.

This plan would require an Indo-European living space. To get started, it needs some kind of economic base, even if only a single corporation that is willing to hire local people. Once the character of the community is started, the laws of our society must be changed. Anti-discrimination legislation, including the Housing and Urban Development rules, no longer need apply in a modern society, so we can campaign to have them removed, not on the grounds that we “hate” other groups, but on the ethnocultural grounds described above – “white people” are no longer in charge of America, and this group of Indo-Europeans wants the right to preserve itself. Similarly, other affirmative action legislation needs to be repealed. It has served its purpose, and now isn’t needed; we want the right to hire only our own kind so we are not forced to alter the makeup of our community to fit racial quotas. This would be a quiet revolution in American law against “one size fits all” legislation to something that would allow actual diversity by giving localized groups the ability to rule themselves, as culturally appropriate, in ways different than those preferred by the undifferentiated masses.

Where this early piece looked for parallel diversity within the same nation, the years showed a need for total independence, or parallel diversity in different nations. Now it makes sense to see this in continents: Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, Europe and North America for Europeans, and mixed-race groups in South America and the Middle East.

With the rise of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States, we see a rejection of globalism including diversity, which is necessary for the global mobility of workers according to market forces. Globalism is a variety of neoliberalism, which is the idea that political ends can be achieved through manipulation of the economy, protecting the initiators from discovery and making the changes seem like a natural “right side of history.”

This occurred because as whites became a minority in new generations, it occurred to them that diversity was not what had been sold to them under that name. As the pundits, professors and politicians tell it, diversity involves more ethnic restaurants and people “assimilating” or coming here to work and partake of what we have through their own contribution.

Instead, we saw the classic diversity folly: whatever group is perceived as being on top will be held responsible for any differential in success between it and others. This theory is enshrined in law through programs like Affirmative Action and ideas like “disparate impact,” which state that if a minority group — who are worldwide more numerous than whites — does not achieve white levels of success, it is due to “racism.”

This reached a peak with steadily increasing ethnic violence which rose on the pretext that white cops were killing too many non-white people, when in fact statistics show that the police were doing their best to avoid any unfairness. The message of the Ferguson riots was: the guilt and extraction of money from you will never end until you are dead.

Looking critically at diversity, we see this is an anticipatable consequence of diversity. Each group acts in self-interest which include wanting their standards, laws, values, culture, and ethnic identity to rule the land. If they do not rule, they are always unstable because another group may insert its own values, which will either create a “grey race” mishmash which serves no group, or replace the values of the first group. Diversity creates conflict.

When one group is on top, the other groups see that top group as the source of the displacement of other ethnic interests. This causes them to resent it, but because it is on top, they cannot attack directly but must instead do so through passive-aggressive bullying, which requires them to both play the victim and use guilt to victimize the other group.

In minority-majority areas with multiple minorities, we can see this play out at the edges of communities in which a single minority is predominant. Resentment flourishes, and anything bad that happens is blamed on the other group. Theodor Herzl noticed this condition years ago when he warned that Jews, as not being of the nation groups among which they dwelled, would always be scapegoated by the majority whenever something went wrong.

As time has gone on, more people have noticed this. It is not that they hate other ethnic groups, but that they love their own, and want its values to prevail. They will only feel comfortable in a society designed for them, by them, with their specific needs in mind.

The Left adopted diversity as part of its class warfare platform as a means of achieving equality. To make people equal, the difference between good acts and bad acts must be erased, which requires abolishing standards, heritage, culture, religion, values and even the family.

With Trumprise, people have recognized that diversity is not working for anyone. While there is still the hope of patching it, this is a false hope, based in the idea that groups do not have conflicting self-interest, and that groups do not need the pride of self-determination, despite that being one of the most potent motivating forces among human societies.

If we continue to follow the globalist path of diversity, our future will include only more racial enmity, race riots, affirmative action lawsuits, tense murder cases, open ethnic warfare on the streets and other artifacts of the failure of diversity. Our only solution is to turn back, undo the mistake, and then move forward in a new direction.

“An Introduction To Nihilism” And An Interview With Brett Stevens

Friday, October 21st, 2016

brett_stevens

Over at Manticore Press, a short writing entitled “An Introduction To Nihilism” which explains in straightforward terms the philosophy applied in Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity.

Perhaps its most biting moment:

By facing the darkness of life directly and allowing the cold wind of the abyss to lick our faces, nihilism creates acceptance of the world as it is, and then embarks on a search for meaning that is not “social meaning” because it is interpreted according to the individual based on the capacity of that individual. Nihilism is esoteric in that it rejects the idea of a truth that can be communicated to everyone, but by freeing us from the idea that whatever truths we encounter must include everyone, allows for lone explorers to delve deeper and climb higher, if they have the biological requirements for the mental ability involved.

For this reason, nihilism is transformative. We go into it as equal members of the modern zombie automaton cult, convinced that there is objective truth and we have subjective preferences. We come out realizing that our preferences are entirely a function of our abilities and biology, and that “objective” truth is as much an idol as the Golden Calf of Moses’ time: a fiction and consensual reality created to keep a troupe of slightly smarter than average monkeys working together.

Its most interesting part however may be its clarity on the idea of nihilism as a different method of finding reality than the intermediaries and symbolic realities normally chosen by humans:

Nihilism rejects the ideas of universalism, rationalism and empiricism which have ruled the West for centuries. These ideas arise from our social impulses, or the desire to include others as a group and motivate them with what is perceived as objective truth.

Universalism holds that all people are essentially the same, and therefore that values are a matter of respecting the choices of each person, truth is what can be verified in a way a group can understand, and communication relies on words which have immutable meaning. Rationalism supposes that the workings our minds can tell us what is true in the world without testing, and implies universalism, or that the workings of our minds are all the same. Empiricism, now linked to its cousin logical positivism, states that truth is only found in observable and testable, replicable observations.

In addition, for your reading pleasure, Everritt over at A Natural Reaction has published “An Interview with Author and Philosopher Brett Stevens” in which he asks the big questions and some subtler ones that reinforce them. This was a well-executed interview.

Apparently this section has generated the most reaction:

Do you have hope for the future? If so why?

There is always hope. Humans can change themselves, or at least some can, and they tend to influence others by their natural leadership abilities. Right now, every Leftist policy is failing at once, and so history will force us to make a change. In my view, it will shift toward the vision of futurism and not the old, tired, and failed system of liberal democracy.

You may also notice that we have a new site design. This arose from practical concerns — how to make the text more readable, work around some technical glitches and support mobile devices — but also as an upgrade to our aging three-year-old site design. There will be minor corrections over the next few weeks as there always are, but if you spot something that has gone wrong, please mention it.