Posts Tagged ‘civilization’

Revitalize The West By Fighting Yourself

Friday, December 15th, 2017

Getting old is not for sissies, they say, but no one explains what this means. That is like fighting the Establishment when there are things you must say but cannot, and nobody complains if you die starving in a gutter after your life is destroyed for crossing the taboo line.

The secret is not that the Establishment is nasty and should be destroyed by any means necessary, it is that you are unconsciously enforcing it on yourself without knowing it. The only way to beat the Establishment is to fight yourself so that you remove these assumptions from yourself and stop passing the infection on to the next generation.

When people get old they let things everyday practices go to seed. Maybe they stop washing dishes every day, or bathing regularly, and slack off on tending the garden as they should. And it is quite acceptable to see older people stumbling along the street with unkempt hair, wearing cast-off looking clothes, and staring vacantly around them.

Children sympathize with this state of decay and help as they can: “Take a load off, Dad, and let me bring you some tea.” They see us as halfway between life and death, like shadows of former lives. My daughter once said that we speak “as if we were still young.” To her our bodies looked older, while our minds were still “normal,” which seemed anomalous, as if our minds should fade away with our bodies.

One retiree told me yesterday that while his wife still works, he’s got to do all the house work. Compared to garden work, it is a dreadful experience for him because it never stops. Clearly older people like a little less routine stuff, so they let things “go.” When it comes time for your 26,000th shower, you just stop caring a bit.

When you talk to older people they will admit that they want to take it “easier” and that priorities change. But what few talk about is their own bodies, such as hair falling out, teeth decay and inability to dance or an entire lack of sex.

Free speech is limited to what the Establishment allows, but it is also limited to what your own body allows. The difference is that older people “let go” of the Establishment consciously (because they can’t change it anymore), but they also let go of the own bodies, by hating them subconsciously and refusing to talk about them as a result.

Despite the above, it is known that older Conservative people voted for Trump as a deliberate alternative to the Establishment, which means that Trump convinced their minds to revitalize themselves. But despite that, the subconscious of these same people will not allow them to fight the decay in their own bodies.

To truly fight the Establishment requires more than a vote, because to get the message across to their own kids and grand-kids or fellow men, who ignore their opinion precisely because they have visibly “let go” of life already, now requires of the old guard to revitalize their bodies. As far as minds go, these are normally quite all right and in fact have the benefit of experience.

Revitalizing the body is of course much easier said than done because there is a reason old people have been giving up on bodies for millennia. However, a short cut may be possible through this maze.

Most will remember being physically active in those younger years, e.g. when one could jump over a hedge or exercise with consummate ease. Therefore your memory will be quite wonderful and may even motivate you to start going to the gym. However, the short-cut here is that you must now internalize the mantra that you are not doing normal exercise, you are doing physical therapy.

When you engage those machines, you should not go at it full bore. Remember: your body is in therapy. The reason for therapy is the lengthening of muscles which, if therapy is successful, will strengthen those muscles and tighten them back to their earlier lengths. After that one could start normal exercises to attain one’s vanity objective that might even include a beach body.

Generally, it is a good thing to consult with a biokineticist for physical therapy. They can design exercises for specific muscles after determining which muscles have been affected, but they have also studied psychology. They can not only tell you what the physical problem is, but understand when you tell them why you dropped the ball on maintaining your body.

The important part of psychological introspection is not understanding how you let your body go, but how to stop you from pushing those exercises too hard. This means your mind wants to go full speed ahead and doesn’t understand why you must take it slow, resulting in internal conflict.

You will literally fight yourself.

The conflict objective is to align your body back to what your state of mind is. Most older people’s state of mind is quite sound, despite the younger generation ignoring their advice because they look old and this provokes empathy, not respect. Empathy is one step away from pity, and you listen politely and ignore those who are to be pitied.

To get to the point where they will see you as one of them, or perhaps a wiser version of what they are, you will have to not only align your body with your own mind, but also be able to demonstrate a younger body.

Once they accept your body, the next internal fight will be to stop yourself from talking too much. It will help if you can find that part of your own capability that translates to “black magic.” Something you have intimate knowledge of that very few people have. For example, both my father and father in law were artisans and both told me about this black magic thing.

Both were trained by German master artisans, a job description that probably does not exist today. The master designation applies to those artisans that were able to perform in that dark area of knowledge that no scientist or engineer could determine. For example, in making steel, the intensity, temperature and color of the flame is critically important. Some artisans had the ability to inexplicably make better steel than others despite similar instrumentation used during the process.

It’s not just about technical stuff, but also connections you might have, or other abilities such as understanding The System,™ being a very good salesman or interpreting labor law.

Lastly, understanding whether you are left or right brain will help you decide whether you should follow a discipline oriented or more intuitive approach to revitalization. The black magic provided by the biokineticist will help you along the way, because after all, you want to cede your family flag to your children and allow them to remember how you really were, not just another old man stumbling aimlessly through the side streets of society.

This spirit can not only inspire your children but your fellow man. They see that life can be good and is not merely inevitable entropy that makes us ruined husks as we age. From that they see that there may be a point to revitalizing not just bodies, but civilizations. They see a way past the Establishment, and a reason to aspire to a path of sanity.

You are teaching them part of the black magic that someday, they too will wield. Time means less than your body. In the same way, years and ages may pass, but a civilization that clings to its timeless methods of excellence will rise above the decay, and revitalize itself endlessly so that it can exist in an eternal state of youth.

Getting From Here To Restoration Of Western Civilization

Wednesday, November 1st, 2017

At some point, every person who thinks about politics reaches the next level and directs their musings toward the question of civilization. For those of us who realize how degraded the modern time has been, this leads to questions of effective restoration, maintenance once it is restored, and how much of our comfortable modern world we must give up in order to have a real society.

These thoughts bring us back to the divide between Athens and Sparta. Athens opted for relaxed and accepting society, where Sparta attempted to create meritocratic natural selection through a militaristic culture. Neither endured. The former imploded, where the latter faded away because it was too intense to exist.

We wonder how strict of a standard is required for there to be civilization in a longer term than two hundred years. Must we tow a specific line of belief in all that we do? That would probably lead to something no one wants to live under, a certain roboticism. A society that is civilized is well ordered, but order should not be confused with a strict regimental lifestyle. More it should be concerned with having harmony with nature, and would be focused less on rules and more on goals that unite its people toward a transcendental purpose.

In one of those twists of logic between cause and effect that resemble irony, strict regimental lifestyles have a cause: the freedom obsessives. It starts with early liberal thought that is best represented today by libertarianism. Because we are aiming for freedom, we disappoint ourselves when freedom does not create good outcomes for everyone. Our focus on freedom is a focus on a method, with no end in mind; it seeks freedom for the sake of itself. That replaces goals and purpose, which encourages the “free” people to each go on a path unrelated to any others, as if designed as an antithesis to cooperation and collaboration. This social disunity creates disorder which leads to chaos, and in order to achieve baseline functionality again, the civilization evolves into a strict regimental society like the Soviet Union, or the warlords who rule third world societies with iron fists.

When we instead turn our minds toward thinking of the end result first, the idea of “I want to live in a free society” — an arbitrary notion which cannot be adequately articulated — makes far less sense. “I want to live free” translates to “I don’t want restrictions on my behavior” and shows us the anarchy hiding behind this social pacifism. It is the opposite of being civilized. Being civilized is a mode of being that has purpose, being free is saying you don’t want to be have anything required of you. Since purpose imposes standards, and those impose an obligation to meet those standards, freedom is the opposite of purpose and the doom of civilization.

Freedom in the short term is a sort of reward for achieving a well ordered society. “We’ve done well, streets are clean. Everyone is well behaved. I guess we can do what we want now.” Then generations later the charlatans will say “this is what created civilization” but really, this is what came of it and then ended it. They will say “we weren’t quite at the pinnacle of civilization until we allowed everyone unrestricted access to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

This misses the point of civilization, which is to achieve something for the organic whole, which is the sum of a group of people and the purpose and values they live by, and to maintain a harmony with the natural order. When we allowed unrestricted access to the masses, we quickly fell into decline. Perhaps we can say in a sense, “it was the most prosperous period of our history,” but would it be fair to say it was good? I think not. Good is when balance and order is maintained, and we do right by nature by keeping ourselves responsible and good stewards  of our natural surroundings. We should be revering the things that occur in nature, great art, and architecture. These things give us life, beauty, truth and goodness.

We might confuse ourselves when we think of the industrial revolution, because we had rapidly improved our technological innovations, and as we allowed the market to flourish, it grew rapidly, and lots of individuals who were poor became wealthy. Wealth switched from an honor granted to people who did great deeds for king and country to a a profit for people who pleased the masses, and because there were more of them, we thought, oh, more people are successful, so we are more prosperous. In fact, we just lowered standards and increased quantity as a result, which proportionately decreased quality.

We became more free, thus we became less restricted in what we could achieve, but most of us should have remained enslaved, because clearly we have squandered it all. When we allow the undifferentiated as much freedom (and don’t get me wrong, no ruler is free either, he is also bound by responsibilities) as a king, we are saying that all of us are equal in our endowments. This gives the undifferentiated more pride than he knows what to do with, and more freedom than he can handle. Some of us are naturally capable leaders and thus do not falter even when lots of wealth is given to us, and others when even a small amount of wealth is given is corrupted by it.

We rewarded our ancestors by granting freedoms to our lessers, who granted freedoms to their lessers and so on. We took the long and painful struggle of implementing intricate design in our civilization, and we turned it upside down. We decided that wealth was not determined by what you do for society, in maintaining social order, but how good a salesman you are. Can you sell your product to the most people for the highest price? Well then, you are worthy of high praise, and respect, and we shall kneel to you. Did you receive a high quantity of warm bodies writing your name on a ballet paper? You, sir, are right honorable and worthy of respect!

This shows us that when the axis tips too much toward Athens, it fails just as much as pitching toward Sparta. Libertarianism/classical liberalism is the most moderately Left-wing position to have, but like everything that is not full Right-wing, it inevitably leads to Communism which is ironically enough, the most regimentally strict form of civilization achievable, but it also has no purpose. It needed civilization to leech off of to get to the point where Communism can exist. All leftism is parasitism. It opposes social order, but like all things eternal, social order has to come eventually, but for the left, it’s not till almost everything is destroyed that they realize they need less freedom to restore some of the things they took for granted.

In order to restore order, then, we need less “freedom” and not more. Specifically, instead of going full Sparta and trying to regulate people, or going full Athens as libertarians and the Left would have us do, we need a middle path where people face the consequences of their actions. This requires abolishing all of the social safety nets that they have put in place, all of the regulations that create do-nothing jobs, and shattering — like the NFL, Target and Twitter have been negatively affected — their business model by depriving them of a consumer base. This requires us to understand that we are breaking away from a mentality and a way of life.

There are some who thrive in modernity. They are slaves to the immediate, slaves to their short sighted ideals, slaves to their conveniences. They are the city dwellers, those who hang out in your local shopping mall, always spending money on useless junk, rather than saving for the future, but they are also socialites, extroverted, and thus they a good at getting people to like them. So they probably have more friends than you, and some of their friends might give them good jobs, thus social status that you will have a harder time achieving, unless you can become as debased and fake as them. Those of us more concerned with reality, and being good, can never achieve their status by using their methods unless we go against our nature.

Our defense against them consists of thinking long term, staying consistent, and knowing our place in the social order, and eventually when we allow them to suffer at the hands of themselves, sending them away because they need a different type of civilization. We want the virtues of Sparta through the methods of Athens, not the virtues of Athens through the methods of Sparta as Leftism prescribes. The best way to do this is to reward the good and banish the bad, and we can start right now by mentally breaking away from the modern outlook and values system.

America Slowly Wakes Up To The Fact That It No Longer Exists

Friday, October 13th, 2017

We no longer have anything in common as citizens of the USA or EU. Once we did, because we were born of a common root and shared a culture, but now we are merely those who attend a legal, political and economic system.

Arising from our pursuit of ideology, the notion of America as merely a system flourished for some time, but now has died, raising doubt about the question of unity as a nation:

It was Sept. 11, 2001, that sent existential concerns slamming into American speech. But there was something new, something dissonant, in the way we began to use the word — a change meant to accommodate the idea that just 19 men might strike at a nation’s being. We’d been exposed to an event people found truly unimaginable, one that shifted their sense of the world and what seemed possible in it. And yet, disorientingly, day-to-day American life continued. No armies massed on the country’s borders. The nation felt itself plunged into momentous conflict, and yet so much of that conflict existed somewhere else — not just in remote places but in abstractions and arguments over what developments, far from any battlefield, would indicate that “the terrorists have won.”

…For white nationalists, an America in which minorities mingle and miscegenate and share power with whites is an annihilating, nation-ending danger; for others, America cannot be itself until that happens. For the conservative columnist and radio host Dennis Prager, writing for TownHall in July, “left-wing-dominated media and universities pose an existential threat” to Western civilization — not because they seek to raze cities and scorch the earth, but because they envision it in ways Prager declines to recognize as the thing itself.

Any nation in which “minorities mingle and miscegenate” is a genocide factory. It takes in ethnic groups, and spits out people of no ethnicity. This fits with the Leftist ideal of removing inner traits — intelligence, moral character, race, intuition, faith — and replacing them with an external trait, namely the social ideal encoded as prescriptive philosophy that is ideology, and since this is based on human preference (“social”) rather than feedback from reality, it is always wholly individualistic and manifests as egalitarianism, or the rule that no individual can be seen as lesser than another for understanding less of reality.

In other words, the individual demands to be aided by others, even if they have not made a contribution. Consider how this contrasts the roots of civilization:

For many researchers, our cruelty to “them” starts with our kindness to “us.” Humans are the only animal that cooperates so extensively with nonkin, and researchers say that, like big brains, group life is a quintessential human adaptation. (In fact, many think big brains evolved in part to cope with group living.) Studies of living hunter-gatherers, who may represent the lifestyle of our ancestors, support this idea. Hunter-gatherers “cooperate massively in the flow of every imaginable good and service you can think of,” says anthropologist Kim Hill of Arizona State University (ASU), Tempe, who has studied hunter-gatherers for 35 years. “Anything you need in daily life, the person next to you will lend you: water, sticks for firewood, a bow and arrow, a carrying basket—anything.”

Thus the group buffers the individual against the environment. “Our central adaptation is to group living,” says psychologist Marilynn Brewer of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. “The group is primary.”

A few elaborations: first, the group is not primary; social order is. The reason that hunter-gatherers — and really, people in every type of non-modern civilization — aid each other is that they are sharing a task, and it benefits all to have more hands on deck. People are a scarce resource, and if you are going to hunt, make shelter, prepare food, or otherwise support a society through productivity, mutuality within the group is essential because it makes each person more efficient through delegation of tasks and specialization of labor.

In order to support that, social order emerges. With social order, you have some leaders, and some whose judgment is generally respected, so you achieve both hierarchy and caste. In addition, the basic formula of civilization appears: those who are willing to contribute to productivity are to be aided; those who are free-loading, or subtracting productivity, are to be hated. In addition, the group needs to be xenophobic and paranoid about outsiders because for the group to establish its standards, values and genetics, no competing versions must exist nearby; realists recognize that every group wants to dominate all others unless sufficiently removed from them that the task of conquest entails much burden for little reward.

Even in the years after our hunter-gatherer days, which really might simply be termed a time of nomadic civilization, this principle applied. Those who contributed were aided; once wealth was abstracted into gold and later ownership of businesses or farms, a general notion arose that people should be compensated according to the degree of their contribution, which was measured in the ability to make intelligent leadership decisions more than labor-by-the-pound.

Leftism — individualism — emerged in reaction to that condition. The Leftist wants reward-before-productivity, and they want to remove the system by which people are measured for their abilities. This is the desire of the individual for pacifism; he wants to eliminate the possibility of being lowered by his own failure, whether in battle or in daily tasks in which he will either demonstrate a knowledge of reality or a lack thereof, and by that will be assigned a status somewhere in the hierarchy.

This reveals the great secret of the Left, which is that despite their method of collectivism, they are fundamentally malignant individualists of the type we normally call “parasites,” but ironically, it is not because they cannot contribute, but because they fear their contributions will be insufficient. In this lies the key to defeating them: when you give them other tasks to do in which failure is anonymized, then they have only positive gain because of the “opt-in” nature of this new pursuit, and their fear of failure is alleviated; ironically, a caste system does this by assigning them to roles in which only egregious failure is punished, which gives the 80% who are functional a position that requires very little effort to achieve and maintain, freeing them up to spend more time on the rest of life. Interestingly, it does this without requiring novel changes to society so that there are always new opt-in pursuits to join.

Once we understand that social order is the root of civilization, and that individualism opposes social order, it becomes clear why America has fragmented entirely: the Leftist vision — including diversity — divides us from the sense of mutuality through shared purpose, and replaces it with obligation, or assigned tasks under the threat of social disapproval and possibly ostracism if one fails to do them. With individualism, there is nothing left but power, control, commerce and the chanting mob calling for your head on a pike.

The position someone holds in society — defined by social status, rank and hierarchical level — then, contrary to appearances, grants people stability and freedom from control, where individualism, also visually paradoxically, leads to dominance, control and rule by commerce. Diversity came about as a Leftist social weapon against hierarchy, because if you erase race and ethnic group, obliterate heritage and values, and mangle faith, language and memory, you create equal identical people who can be molded much as we shape products in a factory.

With diversity, Americans no longer had the mutuality necessary for civilization. Black people would look over at white people and wonder if those people were acting for the benefit of their own group, and not for the shared group created of political, economic and social boundaries. As it turns out, blood will out; people act not only for their own race, but for their own religion, ethnic group, political leaning, caste, region and class. They will, for a time, act together for so long as it is perceived that they share a common purpose. However, this does not last, and so diverse societies quickly fragment or self-destruct through endless caste warfare.

Americans adopted diversity in its most recent form because they believed it would end class warfare caused by racial, ethnic and caste differences in ability because of the genetic differences between those groupings. The Left likes to tell us how these divisions are “social constructs,” but that is deceptive because all language is a social construct; we notice similarities between things, group them into a category, and give that category a name. When language is used well, it groups people by the right traits, and the time-honored use of ethnic terms suggest that is true; when language is used poorly, it reflects the needs of the person coining that language, and focuses instead on political or external characteristics of groups like ideology, for example.

Internal characteristics are useful because they cannot change. You cannot alter your genetic code, and if that ability ever becomes possible, those who take advantage of it will be viewed with suspicion; to alter your genetic code is to hate your roots, which means without exception that those roots were bad which means you are bad and trying to hide that fact. In the same way, those who hate their own race or ethnic group have some actual reason for that hatred, in contrast to whatever reasons they state, which is most likely that they are broken and hate their roots as a result. If your roots made you broken, you would hate them as well. Internal characteristics like race, ethnic group, caste, moral character, intelligence, class and intuition allow us to act in good faith within the context of mutuality.

In the 1990s, America finally got onboard with the diversity agenda, since we no longer had a real fight — against the Soviets — and were now focused on fighting each other, which we did by “keeping up with the Joneses” on an ideological level, since WW2 and the Cold War had shifted us from being an organic nation based on realism to being an ideological nation based on politics and economics. In 2008, this new diversity elected Barack Obama; in 2016, amidst a downpour of other anti-globalist actions worldwide, the Obama agenda was rejected because of the disasters it created, Soviet-style, in manic pursuit of ideology even when it contradicted reality.

For us this means a seemingly uncertain future, but even that is human pretense. We know what the future holds: it turns out that diversity was wrong, in the sense of being a policy based on unrealistic/incorrect principles, and therefore, it is ending. People are pulling away from each other not just by race, but by ethnic group, religion, caste, politics, region and class. Two hundred years after we began this experiment, we have our answer: civilization requires both genetic commonality and hierarchy for mutuality, or it self-destructs.

Origin Of The First Conservative

Monday, September 25th, 2017

Zak and Thak were sitting around the entrance to the cave, just shooting the breeze in a primitive language that we have translated here into an even more primitive language. It was 24,032 B.C. and the sky was blue, the plains around them green and populated with many animals.

Thak: Things have been getting worse lately.

Zak: What do you mean? The last hunt brought in many wildebeast. We won the recent tribal war. It has rained bountifully, and all of our plants are doing well.

Thak: The problems that I can see coming, those never bother me. It is easy enough to notice that there are storm clouds on the horizon, but harder to know when your organization is about to fall apart. Remember Beta Cave?

Zak: Yeah, what about them? They just — poof! — up and vanished.

Thak: It is that sudden invisible doom that worries me. What happened in Beta Cave was simple: they had a big hunt and abundant crop, so the hunters and workers decided they did not have to work anymore, which made their leaders mad because they know that a big win this year can mean that next year will be lean. This meant that the leaders had to spent all of their time pushing people back into line so they would do their duties, and that meant that they were blindsided when Omega Cave attacked. They threw off that assault easily, but then people started to get uneasy because it was a surprise, and all the workers were complaining. The assumed their leaders were bad, kicked them out the door, and then tried to lead themselves. Every decision was a mass of debate, and soon they started deciding that some choices were off the table. They abolished the distinction between seed and feed. They stopped scheduling hunts by the moon. They allowed people to live wherever they wanted in the cave, instead of having people live according to their rank, so that warriors and leaders were near the opening. From what I hear, it was a virtual comedy — a “clown world” as they might call it someday in 2017 A.D. — because anything that was true was forbidden to say, and so people spent their time working on what was not true, and while they had enough competent people to have abundant crops and hunts, the confusion drove everyone mad so they simply scattered to the four corners.

Zak: Yes, that is what I heard as well. It was a mass craziness, like when the apples ferment and the pigs go insane after eating them.

Thak: That is what I mean by an invisible threat. Almost all of our failings as hominids occur because we are acting crazy. Sometimes it is like the pigs who ate the fermented apples, and there are some who are just broken in the mind, but usually it is simply us acting on things that we think were true or wish were true, or at first appeared to be true, but then we have not updated our knowledge from the world around us, and so we are acting as if we were in a different world, one located in our minds.

Zak: True, too true.

Thak: As we evolve, it seems to me that our biggest challenge is trying to stay organized. Life is like the hunt, a question of how to adapt to a rapidly-changing situation, which includes the need for logistics, doing things in the right order, and a hierarchy of command so that no question goes unanswered and we do not fall into confusion about how and when to act, and in what order. Our spearmen line up to charge a mastodon, but if they all throw at once, they will probably collide their spears and miss, then have no weapons as the injured animal turns on them. Someone must bring water and food, and if a hunter is hurt, there needs to be someone who can tell which two hunters we can take out of the hunt to carry him between spears. There are some who are better scouts, others better trackers, and some who are only good in the beginning or finishing of the attack. To have a successful hunt, the hunt-leader must assemble enough hunters who are good at each of the duties needed, then assemble the supplies and weapons, then have a plan about how to encounter the prey and what we will do at that point, including what happens when things do not go according to plan. Even with excellent hunters, we have had bad hunts when we were not prepared. When we are not organized, we fail.

Zak: We could just hunt rabbits. One man can take a half-dozen in a day.

Thak: And that will feed, what? Four people. When we go on the big hunts, or tend to the plants that produce the roots and fruits that we need, we can feed many more, which allows us to have a cave that can defend itself, where we have people to make pottery for storing food, keep the fires tended, and even have a shrine and altar so that we can keep up our spirits when there are storms or famines. What drives us to the big hunt is the opportunity to be greater masters of our world.

Zak: And yet, as you point out, it is this mastery that caused Beta Cave to collapse.

Thak: Maybe so. But I think there was something else as well. They became masters, but forgot their purpose, and so they allowed lesser men to dwell among them, and this made their leaders into slaves who had to spend all of their time keeping others in line. On the hunt, a man who cannot keep up is allowed to fall behind, and he gets nothing of the take. In a prosperous cave, everyone may have some of the plenty, and so soon there are many people who do nothing but take. If you want your cave to succeed, you have to send away the people who can do nothing or who need to be constantly told what to do.

Zak: Not very sociable, though.

Thak: What is socializing but looking for ourselves in others? For that we have the surface of a still river before dusk or after dawn.

Zak: What you say is true, but I cannot trouble myself by it. I am doing well enough, this year, and I know that over time, all things fall apart. Trees age and die, even mountains collapse. If I struggle against the inevitable, I will be wasting my life on the hopeless and will in turn become miserable. It is better to enjoy what I have.

Thak: Remember the time we brought down that giant woolly mammoth?

Zak: Oh man, do I ever. That was a great hunt! We almost lost. That thing was huge.

Thak: And would you have enjoyed it more if the beast had been smaller, or less dangerous?

Zak: No. That was what made that hunt the hunt I will always remember. We took down a beast that stood a good chance of killing all of us.

Thak: So if there were a smaller, weaker beast, would you hunt that instead?

Zak: Of course not! This is what distinguishes hominids like us from animals. We need a spirit, a feeling, a reason to enjoy existence. You cannot have that by hunting weaker animals, despite it being smarter to hunt those.

Thak: Or rabbits.

Zak: At that point, we might as well just go back to gathering roots, mushrooms and berries.

Thak: I think we understand each other. For me, the cave is the hunt: there is a challenge there, and a chance for greatness, not just an easy meal and place to stay. I think you are the same way. We are not satisfied with comfort, safety and plenty. We need mountains to climb, wars to wage, and great hunts where the beast has the upper hand.

Zak: Definitely that is true.

Thak: Our societies are not like mountains or trees, but like whole forests. They can live forever, or as long as the stellar gods allow this world to live, if they are pruned and renewed. When we take firewood, we pare down the old and the weak trees, and new trees take their place, so that even if there is a fire or drought, there are enough strong trees to endure and restart the forest again.

Zak: Such a fragile thing. If even one generation fails…

Thak: Nature is designed of many fragile things, because that way, they are not corrupted. They are either strong or they cease to exist. Strength comes from fragility. The lion seeks mates, but can easily become lost, bit by a snake, fall off a cliff, or be beaten by other lions. This fragility ensures that what endures is the strong.

Zak: And yet, over time, all things decay.

Thak: Individual lions decay, but the species of lions does not. It renews itself through fragility and strength.

Zak: And you would do this to our cave?

Thak: Yes, because I have a different approach than our leaders. We need leaders who are fragile inside, full of sensitivity and wonder for this life. They need to be able to be harsh and lazy like the king lion. Their job is not to clean up after others; it is to conquer, and to lead, and then to make a new generation. They must be willing to let the weak die out, and to send away the useless, because the very sight of uselessness offends them. In a world with so much to do, and so much greatness to discover, weakness and uselessness are intolerable. Any one who does not understand that life is sacred in this way is unfit to be in our cave. That is the pruning. And then, the renewal. People must be full of life, seeking challenges always, not reveling in what they already have, or they become crazy and bored at the same time, and give up. That path leads to clown world.

Zak: Do you think it is possible that our cave could become a clown world?

Thak: Strength comes from fragility, and fragility comes from strength that does not judge its object. When we are strong, it is because we recognize that not all are strong, and we send away the defectives. When we are weak, it is because we include everyone under the assumption that they can carry our strength just by doing the same things that we do. Most caves become clown worlds and perish, like Beta Cave. They all went insane, but they did not realize it, because everyone else was insane too, so insanity seemed like power, until all fell apart.

Zak: Surely this was the work of some demon, or a god for whom they had fallen into ill-favor?

Thak: You and I are hunters who have roved many plains. We have seen many things, including invisible things like the organization of a cave. But we have never seen demons, and we realize those are just ways that people represent their fears. The demon is within. Things fall apart, and when they are weak inside, hominids desire that falling apart. They do not want to struggle anymore. They want to just let go, and stop interacting with life, but this is a weakness that a predator would smell downwind, so they hide this behind false strength. This strength consists of a lust for power and prosperity because those enable them to escape their role in the cave. A bad hunter becomes an important man, or a weak person has a group of hunters to order around, or a dumb man finds a way to pretend that he is smart because he knows things, even if they are not useful, or especially if they are not useful, because then no one else knows them and he can cleverly invent ways to make them seem more important than what is useful. The weakness within must be concealed with activity that seems like power. A man who can be invisible because his orders go out through others feels as if he has hidden his weakness, and so he will do selfish things, confident in his invisibility. A man who is weak will in private do weak things, but in public, show off his strength. They are not fragile, like nature, because they do not respond to the world around them or even the gods, but they do exactly the same thing no matter what happens. This makes them strong until, like Beta Cave, they find themselves in a different world than this one, and then this world takes its revenge.

Zak: I fear for my daughters, that they may marry such weak men.

Thak: And well you should, but the better question is why we suffer weakness to live around us? We can send them to Beta Cave… I suppose we cannot. We must send them away, that is for sure, because the hearts of young people are filled with passion, and passion comes from the self and not the world, so they make bad choices.

Zak: I can tell them not to be seen with such men.

Thak: But then they will see them secretly, because strong hearts rebel against that which they do not understand.

Zak: I see that this is quite a challenge.

Thak: Like the Great Hunt, it must be. We find meaning in this world because it is a challenge, and when we master it, we have become greater. When we are surrounded by weakness, we become depressed, and stop caring if we go greater or lesser. This is why we must remove the weak men before your daughters find them.

Zak: But our leaders will not do this. They, too, seek power, and in the many heads of our tribe, they find it.

Thak: This is true. But then they are not leaders, but what will someday be called “government,” or a type of control that cultivates weak people so that they can be made to do what it wills, instead of what is natural and sensible. This is why our leaders avoid war. They do not want to lose any of those heads, even if many of them should be lost. It is not that we are prosperous that makes us do this, only what enables us to do so. It is a loss of strength because they are not fragile enough within to understand the difference between a good idea and a better one.

Zak: If we took the daughters and sons of our best hunters, and led them to a new cave, we could start over and be greater.

Thak: And we should be secret in doing so, and appear weak whenever possible, so that we escape the notice of those possessed by vanity and the lust for power and prosperity. They will find and fight others like themselves, increasing their weakness which they believe is strength.

Zak: I am a man of the Great Hunt. So it shall be done.

Thak: And this is why I have this conversation with you, and not with just any person from our old cave.

Dusk settled onto the land, and lightning played through the clouds. A soft rain fell. Somewhere, a tree splintered and caught flame, struck with the bolts of the gods. Still the men sat, looking out over the beauty and mystery of their land.

Follow the Leader

Tuesday, August 29th, 2017

Leftism is confusing because to those who are not Leftists, the tendency is to take it seriously. It has the first mover advantage both now and throughout history because it appears as an alternative to the status quo, and because it is unknown unlike the current state of things, it is presumed to be better.

To this date, no one has undertaken a scientific analysis of Leftism, meaning systematic, comparative and analytical inspection of it. Some have come close — Plato, Nietzsche, Burroughs, Kaczynski, Houellebecq and de Tocqueville are leading that pack — but none have gotten to its roots as a human behavior, instead of ideas that humans invent to explain their behavior.

If instead of treating Leftism as a logical reaction by human groups to their environment, we look at it as a behavior of individuals seeking to achieve personal life states, we can see it as a pathology. When an animal acts for internal, finite impulses instead of in response to external conditions or internal principles, that is a pathology.

Think of a dog compulsively scratching when it is scared, or how squirrels hoard nuts obsessively, or how dolphins are compelled to play with already-dead fish. This is the internal reminder that a behavior is good compensating for a lack of understanding of the immediate external world, with the supposition that a behavior that is ordinarily good will be a benefit.

This works for us, generally, as creatures adapting to a world of normally repetitive stimulus: it is never bad to eat, until you get fat; it is never bad to try to reproduce, until you produce too many offspring or mate unwisely and produce low quality offspring; it is never bad to fight or flee, until you cannot recognize actual threats and react to false ones.

Pathologies are a last-ditch attempt by nature to start over from square one. If there is a nuclear war, the dog must eat and reproduce, and if it starts out mixing a German Shepherd and Bichon Frise, that is not ideal, but gives nature a starting point. It will then apply 30,000 years of evolution and make something like a wolf again.

Speaking of wolves, we can see the pathology of Leftism in the economics of a wolf pack. Wolf1 is the leader of the pack, and Wolf2 has challenged him before and lost. Wolf2 turns to wolves three through nine and offers a simple proposition: come with me and be equal wolves under my leadership, and we can get rid of the hierarchy that gives each of you a rank from three through nine.

The target in that case is not the head of the wolf pack, but the ranking that illustrates that Wolf9 is smaller and slower than Wolf7. Wolf9 seeks a pacifism: he no longer wants to fight with Wolf7, nor serve under him, because this way, Wolf9 can feel better about himself. He is also less at risk of losing his rank if Wolf10 enters the pack and decides he wants to be the new number nine.

For Wolf9, there is a chance to remove the obligations to him that ultimately serve to maintain the pack, and this allows him to spend less time on that and more time on what he wants for himself. This is individualism: the individual acting for themselves contra the interests of intangibles like the group as an organic whole, its culture, history and values.

Once one wolf adopts individualism, others will follow. When Wolf3 sees that everyone else is allied against him and Wolf1, he can either try to maintain his current position or, in the time-honored practice of the middle class, agree to equality and then spend more of his time hunting for kills which he will not share with the group. He might get clever and dine exclusively on rabbits, not deer, leaving the rest of the pack to fend for itself.

The wolf behavior described above is a pathology because it shows the wolves acting reflexively in self-interest without considering the consequences of their actions on intangibles like the pack. A pack is made of invisible bonds; while these are important in the actions of the pack, they are not tangible and are assumed rather than observed. It is no different than a wolf eating compulsively.

We might view this pathology as a built-in limit on the power of any species. Once it reaches a certain level of dominion over its environment, the self-destruct process begins. In the pack scenario, it might mean that Wolf1 and Wolf3 go it alone; that type of classical liberal or libertarian outlook only works when two wolves can be as effective as a pack.

This wolf behavior analogizes to The Human Problem, or why all of our civilizations eventually fail, corporations go bad, and even friend groups succumb to entropy. The temptation for us is to say that we will do away with social order, and instead just decide as a group, because that way everyone feels good. Humans love the inherent pacifism of saying that we will no longer struggle to have hierarchy and instead will just accept each other, because that sounds to us like individualism: everyone wants to do whatever they want and the group has to support them. Eventually this becomes something like “from each according to ability, to each according to need,” which always translates into the idea that whoever is neediest gets the most and everyone else takes care of them, much as their families did when they were infants. Explaining order is a hard sell because the only people who understand it are those who would be in command anyway. When there are external threats, the group clings together and demands leaders; when there is no threat, people forget about any future time beyond the time until the next pay check, and indulge in the eternal human conceit that each of us is godlike and should have 100% control of his own future, forgetting that most of us are inept at doing that. When wolves one through three work together, they can keep the rest in check, but if the pack is unusually prosperous, there is no need for leadership and so the pack begins the slow process of self-destructing. In another few generations, the wolf cubs will be chubby with blue hair and tattoos, and demand equal rights for all because (obviously) no leaders are needed.

This type of social order causes a large game of “follow the leader.” People follow social trends because this makes them feel good; since there is no hierarchy, any participation is the same as success, and they are grateful to simply be included, and therefore spend most of their time trying to be part of the group, which effectively makes them blind to reality. They exist in a human-only world where opinions, judgments, feelings, conversations, appearances and emotions matter more than what the consequences of their actions will be. They are now acting according to internal behaviors, compulsively trying to be part of the group much like someone over-eating seeks the safety of food, and this puts their energy into behaving as others do, while noticing that paying attention to the truths of how our world works, natural order and logic, or the results of our actions does not make anyone more popular. The mob has become a runaway chain reaction.

Once you dedicate yourself to avoiding the natural hierarchy of the group, you are dependent upon public opinion, social feelings and consensus — a measure of the lowest common denominator interpretation of any issue that the group will accept — for what is right and true. This makes you pathological, or prone to do the same things independent of the changing external reality.

This transition to consensus-based reasoning breaks the feedback loop between individual and world. Normally, an individual perceives the world and reacts to it, then enters a cycle of assessing the results of that reaction and then fine-tuning the behavior until they reach a balance. When the individual is reacting to the group, there is no fine-tuning, only paying attention to what is trending at the moment.

Leftism creates this game of follow the leader. Clever human monkeys found a way around dealing with their lower social status, but in doing so, they made a devil’s bargain, because now they are dependent on what the rest of the herd thinks, since their leader (“Wolf2” in analogue) will not live forever.

From pack animals, they become herd animals, and eventually reach an order like that of insects where a single dictator presides over the rest. Ants are hated for a reason, namely that insects are almost entirely pathology. They have no brain circuits for reflection, only rote ceaseless behaviors coded in their genetics because they worked enough and so adapt to a minimal level of function.

Humans should decide whether we want to be wolves, sheep or ants, and recognize that the pressure of time and our own bad decisions is striving to make us into ants.

Given the vote, any group of humans will choose illusions over reality and society will begin its way down the path to Communism or something like it. In social terms, it is always right to vote for whatever makes people happy in the short term; it is always wrong to strive for long-term positives as a result, because these involve sacrifice of those short-term happy thoughts.

When you find yourself in a society where it is socially impossible to make accurate observations about your world, you are already in the grips of this decline. People have decided to filter out reality and replace it with what makes other people feel warm and fuzzy about the universe. This eliminates any negative or dark thoughts, resulting only in positive ones and a bias against negativity, which is interpreted in a paranoid fashion where humans assume that anything which will have a negative impact on them is in fact fact negative, when frequently, the negativity is a predictable response to their own unrealistic actions. This creates a feedback loop that systematically eliminates the realistic and replaces it with what humans wish were true. This is why civilizations exist on a spectrum from strong social order to weak social order: over time, people inevitably remove social order and in so doing, destroy the parts of the civilization that they share, resulting in dysfunction and alienation.

In follow-the-leader stages of civilization, trends rule the social and thus political, artistic, academic, and cultural scenes. Most people follow whatever trend they think will make them popular; it is like playing the stock market, but by using conversational and behavioral tropes instead of potential investments. Those who choose well become more popular.

That in turn creates a market for pretense. When everyone is equal, and they are all competing for attention through trends, the question becomes “who are you better than?” and questions of consequences of reality are ignored in favor of posturing, preening and posing. At that point, human social success is determined entirely by symbols and zero percent by reality including the consequences of our actions.

In the West, egalitarianism takes the form of Leftism. If you are egalitarian, you are a Leftist; if you support any order larger than the individual, you are the antithesis of a Leftist. Classical liberals or libertarians are simply a mild version of Leftist that insists on a lack of order and a competition by individuals for the approval of others which is called a “meritocracy,” and never is based on the actual merit of internal traits like intelligence, wisdom, and moral character, but on ability to be obedient in fulfilling the demands of a system designed to regulate all those equal individuals. If you are thinking of the average high school here, with its memorization-based tests and rewards for those who flatter their teachers, that is exactly the order that is produced, and it specializes in churning out people who are obedient to the existing way of doing things and unable to think of any other way that things could be done. It is prized specifically because it alienates thinkers with any depth to them, as those are the ones who discover unpopular and unsociable truths.

The Leftist approach is to take all sides of an issue, then eliminate whichever ones are closest to emphasizing social order. If a new park is proposed, the Leftist pretends to go into deep contemplation and consider all of the issues, but then seizes on the first complaint and uses it to sabotage the proposed plan. If any one person is inconvenienced, the Leftist leaps to their defense, mainly because they are following the trend of egalitarianism itself and expect social reward for it.

Leftism always opposes orders larger than the individual like culture/heritage, morals/religion, and markets because these create hierarchy. Hidden behind this is the Leftist desire to oppose inner traits entirely. Any contest which selects for natural ability or character is bad, and will be replaced by a competition for who does the Leftist version of the original task. For example, debaters are ranked not by who argued well, but by who argued the right thing, much as students are given high grades for repeating what the teacher told them.

The secret here is that humanity is insane. Individuals may achieve sanity in varying degrees, but groups do not, because they are referential to one another and not to the underlying reality or goal of their task. Egalitarianism is hostile to purpose, because that creates an order to implement it, and prefer a society where we all live in apartments, spend hours in rote jobs, and then engage in licentious and self-destructive behavior so that we are equally debased.

For this reason, human society needs order very strongly. We either have good leadership and a social hierarchy which keeps the natural human insanity at bay, or the craziness takes over and the follow-the-leader game ensures that the only voices which will be heard are those which affirm and promote the insanity. Societies play follow-the-leader to their doom, brazenly denying the obvious until it is too late.

People right now are looking for scapegoats for the failure of Western civilization. They would like to blame capitalism, agriculture, technology, ((( The Eternal Jew™ ))), fascism, Christianity, paganism, atheism, or even chance. The truth is that all societies die the same way, which is by revolt of the lower classes, and that this revolt is based in a desire for equality, which consists of the lower social echelons wanting to avoid competition among themselves and therefore insisting on a removal of social order.

While technology did improve conditions, and thus allow the decay to last longer than one would hope, technology is inherent to civilization. Once people start farming or hunting and making complex tools, they will begin to accrue knowledge that will eventually lead to high technology. Every society that rises becomes as technologically more advanced than its neighbors as we are to two thousand years ago.

Egalitarianism however removes the forces that can restrain free markets, technology and the flood of humanity, and in their place create a system of uncontrolled growth and increasingly chaotic behavior which flowers into brutal failure. The most advanced societies are the ones that die out, leaving a humanity of perpetually primitive people in third world conditions as the only “survivors.”

In the West, we have a pretense that the solution is “freedom,” meaning that the good people coexist with the bad and by using their independence, avoid engaging in the same behaviors. What this refuses to take into account is that behaviors have consequences, and when most people are engaged in insane behavior, the sane are reduced to a role of supporting civilization so that the insane can continue.

Freedom is not a goal in itself; given freedom, any group of people will inevitably recreate Communism because humans are inwardly wired for individualism. In one of the cruel paradoxes of nature, this impulse ironically leads to a reduction of their freedom, because when everyone behaves this way, we end up with a society of ants, each acting robotically in order to maintain the “freedom” of others.

The grim truth that none want to face is that we need order, and to have that we need to constantly raise our best people up and task them solely with maintaining that order. They must be lazy, spending most of their days in the type of leisure that forces them to confront boredom and through it, find purpose in understanding their world. They also need to beat down those among them who fall short of this standard.

Western Civilization rose because it produced a disproportionate amount of people of genius and inner strength who were able to create and maintain this order. That backfired, to some degree, because the order allowed lesser people to grow more numerous and begin their agitation. When we do not find a replacement for natural selection, we slowly poison ourselves with excessive genetic waste products, and this is what European aristocrats failed to take into account, mainly because of their noble, generous and tolerant nature.

For the last two centuries and change, we have been indulging in an experiment in not having that kind of order because it requires power and power makes a hierarchy, which trickles down to the lower echelons, where they find themselves competing for minor increases in rank much like gang members constantly fight to see who can be the next big thing. We have made ourselves hostile to the notion that any person can have inherent power and rank in our society, and in so doing, we have opened the door to people who want to use power for their own purposes, a variety of human which was in ancient times referred to as a type of tyrant.

Ancient societies avoided this internal competition by setting up caste systems where everyone had a role appropriate to his intelligence, and the only way to rise was to succeed at that role. This eliminated the infighting and also gave people a sense of purpose.

The bigger principle is that we cannot abolish power: no matter what we do, someone will have power, and so that someone must be someone good, and they must use it according to principles that are realistic not humanistic, which I mean to indicate those ideas which are focused on the idea of self and social group, or what humans prefer to believe about reality versus what it is.

Follow-the-leader is a game of temporary power. Whoever is most popular at the moment, or whatever is trending, takes over our minds as we all compete to gain status by following it, mainly because once we are equal, we are all equally not worth noticing, and so the only path to power is to compete for attention.

A saner approach will be to adopt a pattern of order and purpose. Individuals need to be ranked approximately, so that they are grouped with those like them. There needs to be a goal, so that those who fall short can be exiled or otherwise removed. And there must be constant upward pressure to make our best people — by internal traits — rise above the rest.

It is a fascinating privilege to watch a civilization die. If one were to explain it to a child, the answer would be that everyone goes insane, but the finer nuance is that they follow each other in going insane, creating a feedback loop of illusion. The simple answer of how to avoid this is to note that civilizations, like animals, require an order of the pack and a goal, or things fall apart and no one thrives.

Family World Order

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017

Humans thrive only with civilization, and civilization remains a popular topic in discussion although we do not frequently frame it explictly as such. Current talk about civilization is mostly spurred by the decline of what George H.W. Bush famously called a “New World Order” (NWO) which consisted of an American empire of globalist economics based in world domination by liberal democracy.

Its failure was apparent back in the middle 1990s when Samuel Huntington declared it dead in his epic The Clash Of Civilizations and the Remaking Of World Order, but has recently been in the news with the Chinese proposal of a “Real new World Order,” a replacement for the presumably (by the logical inversion) fake old NWO.

Meanwhile, based on the results of the multicultural experiment called South Africa, the top Institute for Security Studies in Africa has declared that the most important risk to society is “social organization.” Some books have been trying to entertain this idea as well.

This confuses economists and politicians unknowingly fighting the multitude of problems emerging from the above-mentioned social organization. We can’t blame them, because they are focused entirely on their own fields of expertise. However, these people only acknowledge standard societal risks identifiable as a combination of the following:

  • Health risks
  • Security risks
  • System risks

However, these standard risks ignore the risk of failure of social organization, which is cyclical by nature and apparently coincides with societal growth and decline. Using industry as illustrative example: a company starts a new patent becoming quite profitable, after which it goes bankrupt because the next creative patent destroyed its market. In the same way societies grow and decline, to be replaced by a next society.

Any organization within a failing society will also fail. This civilizational growth and decline cycle can also be visualized through a healthy (competitive) society becoming dark (defensive), ending up becoming toxic (decomposing) while its territory is taken over by the next healthy society.

The combination of risks as it applies to a healthy society has shown that life expectancy correlation with GDP/capita is 0.61. The same correlation in a dark or toxic society is obviously unknown, which implies that the risk of “social organization” has a funny (complex) effect on top of our “standard” society.

Projecting this idea further means that whatever handbooks economists and political professionals now produce will mean nothing in a future (healthy society) which is unfortunately also true of current leadership concepts.

A new social organization is undoubtedly on the way, whether Chinese or our own, meaning we may as well start discussing it. Since we cannot tell future leaders how to arrange their future organizations, the best would be to identify probable solutions to risks currently perceived as enduring over time.

To mitigate the currently unattended risk of social organization — the organizational cycle of health-to-dark-to-toxic) — a more realistic view of humans is required. Apart from the natural formation of culture, what we also confirmed historically is that women do things differently than men. In fact, we should expand on that because families are the most important economic unit of all.

Based on that, a slight change in how we do things is proposed herewith. Instead of the “equal” workplace where men and women are “equal,” why don’t we acknowledge the benefit of inequality and make women line managers, with men getting the job of project managers. This is of course a sort of matrix organization few “experts” know how to deal with, despite the fact that they are married.

The specialized roles are consistent with use in a matrix organization, which as the name implies is one where both horizontal and vertical aspects of power exist:

Employees in a matrix organization report on day-to-day performance to the project or product manager whose authority flows sideways (horizontally) across departmental boundaries. They also continue to report on their overall performance to the head of their department whose authority flows downwards (vertically) within his or her department.

Taking it further, since not all women are excellent line managers, or men excellent project managers, this inequality benefit can be even further “taken advantage” of by establishing whatever they might be excellent at that others are not. This will be made possible, because of the one benefit a matrix organization has above all else, which is that it optimizes resources from both angles continuously.

For example, look at the flexible structure of a family. It can include members of different abilities both horizontally and vertically, and by allowing each member to succeed using his own methods, a group of unequal people can cooperate flexibly and without excessive internal communication toward an implicit goal.

In a matrix organization, it is easier to accept “Who You Are,” through which implicit goals are set. Any group wants to be itself and improve itself qualitatively, which requires both external methods such as excluding the Other, and internal ones such as improving the moral discipline and capabilities of individuals.

By way of contrast, a typical pyramid-based or vertical-only structure relies on people being interchangeable parts, some of which rise by attempting to be “perfect,” resulting in a “crab bucket” effect where every person competes against every other for the same things. This encourages dark organization by forcing people into a defensive mindset, at which point they exploit the organization for their own purposes, which usually takes the form of incompetents getting promoted because they “worked the system” and “played the game” instead of trying to achieve the goals of the organization.

A more flexible organization can be found in a civilization of families, where the civilization itself is understood to be a “family” because it will almost automatically mitigate the risk posed by social organizations. In other words: everyone has a place, in exchange for these places being unequal, and everyone works toward the same goal as they can according to their abilities.

We could call it the Family World Order (FWO) after a statement by Queen Elizabeth II. When asked what (Her Majesty’s) highest priority was, she answered “Family.” She understands that civilization must be a family, and within that have health families, so that each individual is guided to a cooperative role instead of competing against all others.

Many of the defects of our society blamed on capitalism are in fact aspects of the managerial pyramid structure. Without social order, where each person has a rank and within that, a level of horizontal specialization, competition becomes destructive. Where there is stability first, the tendency toward dark organizations is limited.

For those of us looking to replace the NWO, the FWO offers a consistent model that is both flexible and resilient. It also fits with traditional ideas of nation, caste and decentralized cooperation through strong principles and implicit truths shared through culture and genetics. As the old order fails, let us strive for this new better option.

Nonsense Leftists Say

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

“He’s hungry, and I have food,” said the man being devoured by a rabid dog. “I have no more right to my flesh than he does.”

“We must not give in to fear,” said the man calmly being pummeled by a drunk. “Fighting back is exactly what the he wants.”

“All men are potential rapists,” said the woman to the men who would die to defend her.

“It is a grave injustice to be ruled over with no voice in governance; we demand a share of the power,” cried the gonads to the brain.

“We simply want to live, grow, and reproduce, just like every other cell,” said the bacterium.  “It’s xenophobic to create supremacist definitions such as ‘host’ and ‘infection’.”

“I feel like a bird,” said the rabbit as he jumped off a cliff.

“Look at all these beautiful, vibrantly colored paints,” said the artist.  “I will mix them all together uniformly and spread the mixture evenly across my canvas.”

“Love is love,” said the man to the boy as he opened a bottle of lubricant.

“Your appetites are unsustainable,” said the cat lady to her multiplying clowder.  “You’re just going to have to learn to live together with less.”

“Violence never solved anything,” said the man as he watched raiders take his harvest again.  “We simply need to educate them and open a dialog.”

“I’m not an extremist, don’t lump me in in together with them,” said the new leader installed by the occupying force.  “I didn’t participate in the invasion, and I denounce violence in all its forms.”


They call it an “awakening” because in a relatively short span of time, you come to realize that everything you have been told is not only wrong but designed to conceal the real problem: our civilization is in decline and just about everyone is lying, crazy or otherwise delusional. Nothing can be trusted.

Our society fell years ago, and those of us who still believe in the idea of civilization are under assault. What remains of a once-great civilization is being steered into oblivion by the dizzyingly insane and malicious.  If not stopped, they will continue to recklessly destroy, disintegrate, and grind up into meaningless shreds anything of value. 

The longer this continues, the uglier our options for survival become. We are not yet at the end.  We are far from the end. The end is not even an end, just a greater slow slide into irrelevance and third world style subsistence living. Those of us who are fighting are struggling for the ability to exist on a better level than the majority of humanity who live in poverty, corruption, disorder and filth.

Destroyers of civilization have disordered minds ruled by their appetites. They know only their own desires, and are constantly stewing with reality-denying nonsense. Those with clear minds who glare back unfazed at realty, those with an innate desire to know and understand truth, will reject this nonsense and join our ranks. But they are an eternal minority, not just here but in all of humanity.

Those who do not quietly shrink back when danger approaches but stand erect with feet firmly planted in the ground, eager for glory — these will fight with us. Those who have enough love in their hearts to imagine a civilization that is not constantly in decline, and to look instead toward the possibilities of greatness and beauty which this abundant life offers us, they will come to understand us.

Be patient. This crisis has taken centuries to become visible to the normal above-average intelligence person. Most are afraid of what is required and so will make excuses, rationalize and bow out. They will go back to their televisions, political platitudes, jobs and shopping as a way to silence the fears in their minds. This is a miserable way to live, but it is morally and intellectually easier than facing the problem head on.

Humanity has survived many bottlenecks, or events where most of us died or faded away, in the past. Ultimately, this horrific era of modernity may become a great filter through which our people will pass, leaving only the most honest, most courageous, strongest, and noblest. The future is dark but through it shines a luminosity that tells us that beyond this layer, greatness awaits.

Nationalism For All Peoples Is A Failed Ideology

Saturday, June 17th, 2017

We could say that it is in the nature of the post-enlightenment age for thinkers and intellectuals of all colors to contemplate on the burning issues of our times in terms of what we could call “perfect ideas.”

A modern intellectual, being conditioned since birth through educational system and middle class upbringing, approaches all issues from tautological standpoint, where he considers it necessary not to reach the solution within the given circumstances and available means at hand, but to come up with an idea composed of mathematical truisms which cannot be beaten in debate, completely separated from all material realities

One of such approaches unavoidably — since we are still not mature enough to shake of the ideological burden of our times — smuggled itself within the narrative of the most world-changing idea of those loyal to The West and its values, the otherwise anti-egalitarian idea of the Alternative Right. The  idea basically states that given our past experiences and a dire condition in which White race finds itself, especially once culturally its most productive portion, the most sensible solution is to preserve White races by strict segregation of all nations in ethnically exclusive nation states.

This otherwise completely healthy outlook of nationalism is then immediately self-sabotaged and presented with an obstacle by the same thinkers with following amendment: ethno-states are the only natural and perfect form of government, as well as an instrument of propagation of the interests of a nation or a race, and that as such, nationalism is to be proselytized or imposed onto all other nations, even those who historically have never founded such states or even had any idea of the concept of a nation itself.

This idea itself fails to graduate from the most basic courses in anti-egalitarian thought, but before we proceed to explain them, we shall outline the two fundamental problems with such an outlook:

  1. It, without any foundation, claims that all peoples can form, understand, appreciate or even benefit from organizing around a formation that in the West and elsewhere has been known as a nation, or even worse, that all peoples can reach the most sacred goal of every nation building process, which is the formation of a civilization apart from all others.
  2. It then proceeds to claim, that such peoples, will have any rational basis to, in these most dynamic and conflicting times, coexist next to each other and share the globe in peace. Even worse, it lays a claim that such a ghettoization of these highly divergent populations is going to establish a basis for permanent peace and not completely the opposite, which is the basis for the most temporary kind of lull in unavoidable political processes, which would in fact benefit only the most fragile and weak portion of the globe, the one which was in the process of its final disappearance into obscurity.

In order to direct ourselves to a correct path, we have to finally establish what ideal our ideas aim to preserve and propagate in the first place. The position which enables us to avoid this trap of tautological thinking is the position which is defined not by that which is measurable in an abstract way, but that which is measurable only from the point of view of an “insider,” and that is the position of values. Only in this way are we finally able to reach a proper nationalist position, nationalism by itself and without any strings attack, in a sense that it is defined indeed by intuitive, therefore, “inner” interests, which are again in themselves, nothing but a striving for a said hierarchy of values.

If we come from this direction, we are perfectly able to sanely consider where our own standards apply, and where they are not only completely inapplicable, but undesirable. Western European peoples and Western Civilization, whose core lies in The West and its genetic roots, will finally be able to shake of its pathology of historical “burden” as that of a people whose purpose is to give others direction, serve as their intellectual, political and technological nanny, and take responsibility for successful application of it’s own ideas  elsewhere, the ideas whose success (or lack of) was solely founded in their own capacities and dispositions.

I believe it is unnecessary to waste words on explaining how it is completely delusional to expect that third world populations will be able to conceive nation states and enjoy prosperity within them. We have seen, even with the best will, support from The West, and the most favorable possible conditions, how these societies simply descended on their own, to their more natural states in the case of Liberia and now Venezuela.

But even more importantly, recognizing this truth gives us a proper starting point to contemplate on our relations with other peoples, specifically, those whose hierarchies of values are somewhat more approximate to that of our own. There and only there, can we reach a mutual understanding of “nationalists” which in no way necessarily implies friendliness and cooperation. But it allows us to speak a language of similar ideas without interpreting them radically differently, and while communicating that nationalism for us — Western Europeans — is probably incomprehensible to other peoples and fundamentally distinct from what it will mean for them.

Then, we can also consider the dichotomy of ethno-states and empires. Empire as a concept, represents nothing else but hierarchy of values embodied within a state structure, whose source of life is its natural Elite, the Aristocracy. Ethno-states on the other hand are more intimate state structures, whose viewpoint concerns primarily the founding group, and are limited to its capacities. None of the two concepts are fundamentally opposed to the goal of ethnic, racial or cultural preservation. However, both of these can fall victims to their own short comings.

The primary advantage of an empire is its ability to utilize more opportunities which lie undefined by ethnic borders, but by a detached sheer sense of expansion, exploration, conquest and grandeur. These empires are often the hotbeds of individual intellectual, military and cultural marvels, much thanks to their greater open-mindedness, allowing gifted individuals to flourish. On the other hand, nation-states posses the strength of greater sobriety, imposed on them by defensive instincts which often characterize intimate and cohesive groups.

The shortcomings of the empires lie in their susceptibility to cosmopolitanism, loss of a sense of purpose, and over-extension of their vital portions, their elites, while the shortcomings of ethno-states lie in the danger of inter-group degradation through the necessity to spend its most valuable people in bitter conflicts necessary for their fragile preservations, coupled with susceptibility to “patriotic” egalitarianism and status-unconscious breeding. Within highly cohesive nation-states, there persists a danger of the rise of folkish sentiments, which lead the people of each to embrace more primitive life styles, defined by elan vital in the most naturalistic base meaning. However, the possibility of the existence of a highly structured ethno-state is not to be dismissed.

The choice therefore, by our own people and our own movement, which by historical necessity and greater geo-political imperatives, currently has a Pan-European form, which means that it is inclusive of the entirety of the White race, but is by no means egalitarian or defined by desire to erase crucial and important differences, has to be made entirely based on our own ideas under development and permanent scrutiny, ideas which are conceivable and understandable by us, and which we will without sense of guilt consider exclusively our own, while entertaining the possibility that others will also fall under the influence of our political wave.

But it under no circumstances means that the goal of our movement should be to promote any global, cosmopolitan solutions; the more these solutions don’t correspond to promotion and cherishing of our values, the worse. We will not pretend that what other people have in mind for the 80% of the world, which will be left uninhabited by us, will necessarily be good news for our future, our posterity, and our as we see, very fragile conception of security which is so easily threatened by devices of our own too easily distracted and solipsist minds.

Nationalism means we keep to ourselves and exclude others. Extending it to a broader political movement is a mistake. The model for our societies, defined by ethnicity, race or caste, or all of these combined, that will be the best for establishing ourselves once again as a civilization, will depend upon many circumstances, and all must be carefully considered, not to mention that different groups might find different solutions more fitting to their needs and purposes.


Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

Why do those of us who care about maintaining civilization need to be on the Right? And why maintain civilization at all?

Humans are inherently social beings. Born weak, we depend on tools; those make life more complicated. As a result, we exist in a symbiotic relationship with other humans so we can specialize some functions or at least cooperate toward group goals like building, hunting, agriculture and learning. Civilization is necessary for us.

To maintain civilization, humans need to keep the society sane and individuals sane. Sane in this case means aware of reality, or how our actions will play out in the world, and therefore prone to pick actions which achieve what we need to do. Deviation from this means that we will become unrealistic, chase symbolic challenges and ignore the real, and fail after that.

The Left consists of a single idea: equality. This notion protects the individual because equality translates into mandatory universal inclusion, or that every individual is kept within a civilization regardless of their behavior or contributions. This guarantees every individual a place at the table, which means that individuals cannot fail or die because their actions were unrealistic.

We know this through history. Much as happened in Athens, first there was The Enlightenment™ which proclaimed “man as the measure of all things.” From that came human self-worship, which deprecated ideas like a natural hierarchy of human beings mirroring the world of the divine or even of logic. Instead of natural order, we got a human order.

After that, all that remained was to put this into practice, which was done through democracy. Democracy proclaims that the vote of an insane homeless person is equal to that of a genius with superior leadership capabilities. Whatever the largest number of people want, they get, which is the type of utilitarian thinking that arises when people stop trying to find realistic answers and focus on what is popular.

Democracy is the political system of egalitarianism, which is the philosophy of equality:

An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative view expands on this last-mentioned option: People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. So far as the Western European and Anglo-American philosophical tradition is concerned, one significant source of this thought is the Christian notion that God loves all human souls equally. Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different types of equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, or might relate as equals, that might be thought desirable. In modern democratic societies, the term “egalitarian” is often used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of reasons, a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than currently exists.

The Right is that which did not adopt equality because we prefer a non-human order, or one based on things larger than the individual like culture, heritage, religion, values, natural order and hierarchy. To be conservative, one must care about the world beyond oneself on a longer time scale than an individual life. The Right are those who build civilizations; the Left tear them down.

Most conservatives do not know this because they are focused on individual fascinations — patriotism, religion, race and economics foremost among them — and so they do not look at the big picture in the long term as one must when designing a civilization. They think that we can have equality plus racial awareness, or that if everyone just finds Jesus everything will work out okay.

In reality, civilization is defined by its goals. When we focus on ourselves, which we do because the signals from our egos and social groups are in our heads and therefore stronger than perceptions of reality, we lose sight of our actual goal and replace it with human goals. These are largely symbolic, like other people liking us or an idea being popular, and innately deny reality.

The future belongs to those who want to build civilization. Under Leftism, our civilization has collapsed. We can only rebuild it by abandoning equality and focusing on the task of civilization — starting with the notion of understanding reality — itself.

What Is Civilization?

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2017

In the modern era, every term has been redefined to mean what is comfortable for those in control, namely the herd of individualistic voters who want to believe human individuals do no wrong. In reality, human individuals are usually wrong, and we need to restrain ourselves or face decline. But first, we must learn what terms mean.

We use the term “civilization” in many contexts. Someone who just arrived from a very rural area might see toilets, air conditioning and electricity as civilization. A person fleeing a war zone may arrive in a town with relatively non-corrupt police and think that is civilization. For others, it means a good symphony or excellent restaurants.

At its root, civilization is a simple thing: people learning to cooperate toward a goal that benefits everyone unequally.

If my nephew and his friends run away to the hills, as they have threatened to do, and start growing and hunting their own food and making their own tools and shelter, they will have created a civilization. It may not be a long-lasting one, but nonetheless, they will have learned to work together.

The primary form of civilization involves trade, military-style hierarchy, familial social order, shared customs and cuisine, and a founding myth or philosophy. With that, every group can get started. The founding myth explains the purpose of this civilization. It can be as simple as “we wanted to get away from others, so we are on our own to form the best civilization we can.”

Over the years, people have tampered with the formula for civilization. In most cases, this leads to the same result: a sudden rise in power followed by a slow collapse into irrelevance, leaving behind a third world ruin. Every civilization somehow confuses its internal mechanisms of power with achieving its goals, loses sight of what holds it together, and dissolves in a flurry of special interests and individualism.

Bruce Charlton laments the fact that civilization reaches its apex and after that, becomes a form of mental and physical slavery:

I certainly appreciate the benefits of civilisation (indeed I once wrote a book-length ‘hymn’ to the advantages of the post-industrial revolution); but ultimately the degree of compulsion and distortion of human life (by specialization, partiality, repetition – the need to treat the world as raw material; the need to treat people as ‘human resources'[)]… is probably not possible to justify; and – really – we shouldn’t even try.

Perhaps it was acceptable and spiritually advantageous for Man to have a period of this kind of thinking, knowing, being… but any such advantages were exhausted long before the end of the 19th century. Since then we have just been digging deeper and deeper into error and desolation.

At some point, every tool becomes a quest in itself. Money, which is meant to convey freedom, becomes an obligation; work, which should produce results, is done instead for the sake of itself; power, which means the ability to do good things, becomes a replacement for those good things. Inversion occurs when we replace purpose with our short-term desires and defensive need to feel justified in our choices.

This shows us that civilization — like capitalism, authority, sex, reading, eating or any other powerful human activity — can reverse our thinking. Instead of trying to achieve the goal, we do what is familiar, and then justify whatever goal it achieves as what we intended. The cart comes before the horse, the tail wags the dog, the kingdom is lost for a twopenny nail.

To the reflective mind, this means that we need civilization to a certain degree in order to avoid tipping over to the downward part of a ballistic trajectory. In addition, that civilization needs a purpose which is qualitative, or able to be achieved in relative degrees with an immutable core but never can be realized in full.

If the coming fashwave has any core idea, it is the rejection of equality, which makes us the goal instead of that form of transcendental purpose which allows us to have civilization without being consumed by it. Much as stomach acid enables us to live but would kill us if it escaped the stomach, civilization is essential to human life but must be guarded — and disciplined — carefully.

Recommended Reading