The Left has never understood conservatism because the Left has never wanted to. To them, their ideology of egalitarianism leads directly to Utopia, at which point there will no longer be conflict between humans and everyone will be accepted. Any deviation from this is a moral sin punishable by death, in their view.
That explains why the Left does not want to understand conservatism: they have zero room for it in their pantheon of ideologically-tinted symbolic representations of reality. This is because while conservatism is voiced as an ideology, fundamentally it is anti-ideological because it bases its perceptions on reality.
Conservatism comes from the term “to conserve,” which means that we preserve successful means of achieving excellence. In human terms, nothing can be preserved in a static sense, but must be regenerated anew in each generation, so “conservation” means not physical things but principles, methods and ideas.
Consequentialism. We judge success by end results and side-effects, not by human intent, feelings, judgments, universal symbols and emotions. Reality is external to us; internal focus is solipsistic.
Transcendence. There must be some goal higher than material reaction, like excellence, beauty, goodness and truth, and we discover it through intuition, which is within but not personal.
This contrasts with Leftism, which has only one attribute: egalitarianism, or the equality of people, which is presumed to lead to pacifism and universal acceptance, and from there to Utopia. Leftism works through negative actions, or things it wishes to remove; conservatism requires restructuring society around positive goals, or things we want to achieve.
For this reason, in our Leftist time, our Leftist media has trouble understanding why conservatism does not translate into Leftist terms. First they want to make it an ideology; then, they try to import egalitarianism — the core and principle of Leftism — into it, despite for conservatism, egalitarianism being at most a means to an end and not an end in itself.
Nash presented an influential portrait of conservatism as a river fed by three tributaries of thought: Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism). Although each could be rendered as a popular impulse or unthinking reflex of the mass mind, Nash insisted that all three were fundamentally intellectual traditions, nourished by a cast of characters who deserved both respect and extended study, among them James Burnham, the former socialist turned anti-Communist; Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian classical economist; and Russell Kirk, America’s answer to Edmund Burke. In Nash’s telling, these were the men (and they were almost all men) who created conservatism in the postwar years.
This article is patent nonsense. Conservatism is not a material ideology, but a timeless principle. It can be found in “Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism)” but they are not its constituent components. Rather, as a principle, it is found many places, and those are the ones we recognize — “observer bias” — because of their recent relevance.
A conservative is someone who likes what works. Because the question then arises “How well does it have to work?” he has to pick either bare minimums (utilitarianism) or best case scenarios, and that latter leads him to the goal of excellence. That in turn picks out the principle of nature: all works to produce a hierarchy that advances the best over the rest, and this extends to metaphysical principle.
For all that modern people know of conservatism, the above passage might as well be in ancient Greek. However, as we enter into a conservative area with Brexit rippling across the USA and Europe, we might want to understand the path out of the Leftist mental ghetto and how we can use it to save ourselves from the moribund inertia of liberalism.
After the FBI betrayal, the Left is counting on two things: first, the Leftist base will be energized with a sense of entitlement and revenge, and second that conservatives will as usual become despondent and resignedly throw in the towel as they have for most of the past seven decades.
Outrage, not despondency, is our best weapon at this point. If you must have an emotional response, and it is difficult not to be emotional at this time, view the situation this way: the betrayal occurred because government has been so thoroughly penetrated by Deep State manipulation that it is impossible to fix it.
This is why we need an outsider like Donald J. Trump: he needs to go in there and make government accountable to results, in the part displacing the Red Guards who currently rule by ideological purity alone. They say what makes their base happy and then ignore the mounting failures of these pleasant words when put into practice.
If we do not turn away this beast, we will see only more of the same from now until the end, which will not be far off. We will follow the path of Venezuela, Cuba, the Soviet Union and other societies which went down the ideological rabbit hole. All of them ended up in a state of failure because ideology is inherently a denial of reality.
Let the anger flow through you. You have been lied to, betrayed, deceived and victimized by those who are raiding the public wealth for their own personal benefit. Hillary was not a wealthy woman until she began selling political favors for money, and now she is quite wealthy. This is the face of corruption.
Conservatives need to get over their tendency to write off the world as broken and hopeless because idiots are ruling it, and instead, fight back. It takes 2-5% of a society to come together on an idea to force change. We have to be that unit, and to drive these corrupt and horrible people out of our country because they will do nothing but betray us, time and time again, ever and ever after.
The Alt Right rose, then tried to figure out what it was. It knew a general direction, which was that it said the stuff that the mainstream Right wanted to but could not and still keep its jobs, but beyond that, it was confused.
It arose from a mishmash of philosophies. The New Right, Traditionalism, White Nationalism, Paleoconservatives, Neoreaction, Nietzschean conservatives and Dark Enlightenment met in a blender. Some have suggested that the intersection among them is right, but more likely, it is their shared forward ideal: a resurrection of the greatness of Western Civilization, and to that end, the means and methods required to achieve it.
And that is only a small sampling of all that has been written on this topic, although these pieces at least cover all topics and link to all major articles. And still, the definition remains fuzzy… let us look at some recent sources:
It seems to me that, if anything, the Alt-Right is a blanket term applied to all non-mainstream conservatives of all stripes that serves more as a negation than a positive claim. In other words, if anything, the Alt-Right brings people together based on what they mutually dislike, not a shared set of ideas.
Mr. Heft makes an essential basic point here: the Alt Right is formed in opposition to modernity, and there are many degrees of this. On the farthest Right, people want a restoration of traditional civilization to provide a new golden age of Pericles, as Arthur Schopenhauer suggested. We know what we do not want: the soul-killing, environment-killing, culture-destroying, pointless and tedious modern age, despite its good shopping and wide variety of ethnic food.
Meanwhile, the movement itself is an amalgamation of all ‘alternative’ right wing views that are today considered heterodoxy. This means that the views of one person who considers himself to be part of the ‘Alt-Right’ can be, though do not necessarily have to be, radically different to another.
Summary: these views are socially unacceptable. Taboo, in other words, they are forbidden by informal social rules from being uttered. All of the people who are currently thriving in this wasteland think that these things should not be mentioned. So: speakers of hidden, or dare we say… occult… notions of reality.
What I mean with the Real Right are those people, organisations and ideologies who do not accept the framework that the Left has set on the public debate.
…The success of the Alt Right illustrates the effectiveness of metapolitical methods. Via cultural means they have changed discourse and the boundaries of the public debate; they have changed the restraints of how we are allowed to think and eroded the shared dogmas of the Left and Old Right.
Two points here: first, this is a cultural revolution, and second, it rejects Leftist vocabulary. This is important because social pressures invert terms or reverse their meanings in order to control a population of faceless equals. Cultural revolution means that instead of fighting over existing political symbols, we decide what we want first and then cause it to rise organically through many avenues.
Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious. This is the Alt-Right.
This expresses the formula that Alex Birch and I worked up for CORRUPT back in 2008:
Anti-democracy. Realizing that mob rule and trends do not successfully substitute for leadership by quality people.
Human Biodiversity (HBD). Recognizing the differences between groups, and more importantly individuals, and that every ability fits a normal distribution pattern in every population.
Ethnic Self-Determination. Every ethnic group needs its own self-rule and its own continent. This is not an argument against any specific ethnic group but a recognition that each group has its own self-interest and that under diversity these clash. Diversity does not work, no matter which groups are the ingredients.
Transcendental Purpose. We must find some way to connect to the beauty of this world and understand nature as an order superior to our own intentions, possibly including the metaphysical side of nature which is described by the various religions.
Anti-equality. Equality works for arithmetic, not people and not groups, including social castes, races, ethnic groups and families. People are different, with different abilities that are mostly genetic if not all genetic.
In a time when many people want to enter the Alt Right, and control it by redefining it, it is important to remember this bottom line: The Alt Right is against equality.
That dividing line separates the wannabes from the real deal. The wannabes will accept everything else but that; they want to eject certain ethnic groups, but are not against diversity itself; they want to throw out the elites, and then hold more elections to get new rotten elites. They want us to all be Orthodox Medieval Crusader Catholics, but then, equality is the basis of their social order (as long as one prays twice a day whilst facing Mecca, or, perhaps Pennsylvania). All of them get it wrong.
The Alt Right is a revolution against the past millennium. We do not believe in equality. From that, all else flows; equality is the illusion of our time dating back to before the Peasant Revolutions and the Magna Carta. It is the basis of all modernity, all Leftism, and the type of collectivized individualism that creates these things (which in turn arises from civilization success which enables lower orders to outnumber the higher).
This brings us back to the first opinion cited above: the Alt Right is a rejection of Modernity, with modernity not being a span of years or a type of technology, but a type of civilization design based in equality. Modernity is the cold night of the moon to the warm sun of the golden ages of humankind.
The Alt Right formed in order to get away from both mainstream conservatism, which is a hybrid of Leftism called “liberalism” or “neoconservatism,” as well as White Nationalism which essentially wants a classless society in the Leftist model in which all white people are merged together into a grey white race, sometimes called “ethno-Bolshevism.”
White Nationalism is filled with crazies and is at least 50% informants. It failed for a reason. If anything, White Nationalism is a stepping stone to reach the Alt Right. White Nationalism, and its precursor National Socialism, are still stuck in the modern paradigm of equality, “Systems” of rules and regulations, and allowing material orders like demotism — consumerism, democracy and social popularity/peer pressure — to determine what is right. The Alt Right wants us to find what is right, and then have society pursue that, instead of the other way around.
If anything, the Alt Right is more Nationalist than White Nationalism. It recognizes the need for national and regional identity in the identitarian model; it rejects the idea of forming a generic white race and then allowing modernity to exist as it has. It throws down the Constitution and burns the Declaration of Independence. The Alt Right is total rejection of modernity.
Unlike Neoreaction, the Alt Right gives a nod to Radical Traditionalism, the system of thought espoused by Rene Guenon, Aldous Huxley and Julius Evola. It wants a rising civilization against, capable of the greatness of the past.
For this reason, the Alt Right is challenging to define, because first and foremost it requires people to accept an entirely different view of civilization than anything they see around them. Then it leads them through rejection of what exists now, and some basic ideas of what they want instead. Then it shows them the substructure required to support those ideas, and suddenly, we have left modernity far behind, like Peter Pan sailing over London at night.
Those who want to control the Alt Right are trying to boil it down to a single principle, like how the Leftist ideology has “equality” at its core. This takes what is not-modern and places it back within the modern, effectively neutering it. This amounts to entryism by Leftism into the Alt Right and will sabotage it as surely as making it a Justin Bieber fan club.
Instead, the Alt Right suggests we keep going past all boundaries and all expectations. Our societies are doomed if they stay on the current path; this is a good time to dream, and for the first instance, to get it right. We are facing an evolutionary hurdle here: either we surpass modernity, or it buries us.
Perhaps the above will help some intrepid venturers make the journey.
VDARE always cuts to the chase, which is why it makes good daily reading. A recent article looked into the question the Alt Right has raised: the possible that “the end of history” has ended and liberal democracy has been debunked just as thoroughly as Communism. This in turn brings startling implications:
Codevilla’s basic idea: the cultural revolution of the last 50 years has destroyed America as a constitutional republic. As many on the Alt Right have noted, there is nothing left to conserve.
Growing up in a Leftist-dominated time, most of us on the Alt Right have never known any vocabulary for theory except what is drilled into us by the Left. This leads to the illusory thought that conservatives are here to conserve a previous age such as the 1950s or 1980s, either of which would be far superior to what we have now.
Conservatives aim to “conserve” not a specific time, but timeless principles and ways of life. The basis of the philosophy is consequentialism, or the idea of measuring our proposed acts by their likely consequences instead of the emotional feelings or sense of shared social communion that they give us. Conservatism upholds the triumph of reality over intent.
This way of life leads to a natural tendency to prefer optimums, or those principles and ways of life which lead consistently to the best outcomes, not merely acceptable (utilitarian) ones. This requires rejecting the idea of equality, because most people are naturally prone to think in the short term and groups always choose “committee think” style compromises instead of taking decisive action.
In this light, conservatives never approved of America and its Constitution. They like the founders saw the Constitution as a method of restraining democracy by limiting it to the upper echelons of society, mainly because democracy of some form was inevitable given the collapse of monarchies across Europe under the assault of The Enlightenment™ style thought.
Original conservatives recognized that sanity is a fleeting thing that is available to only a few exceptional individuals, and not to groups. For this reason, they opposed mass culture and its ideological arm, “Progress,” in every form. Progress means clear-cutting forests and displacing towns to make cities and industry producing pointless products for a clueless electorate oblivious to anything but its immediate personal impulses.
This explains the fundamental division of America into two states, the raw producers and those who make their money from reselling, cosmopolitanism and entertainment. This split has exploded in 2016 because with the lawlessness of the Obama-Clinton left, the conflict can no longer be masked.
This reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American economies. One, the “Ephemeral Zone” concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut.
The other America constitutes, as economic historian Michael Lind notes in a forthcoming paper for the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, the “New Heartland.” Extending from the Appalachians to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the Southeast and the Intermountain West.
In conservative lexicon, this conflict is one of the oldest in humanity: cities versus countryside. Cities are anonymous and people make their living in them by convincing each other to do things; they are naturally prone to salesmanship, advertising, marketing, peer pressure and other anthropocentric vehicles which are inimicable to the localized, normal and healthy lifestyle of a network of villages, towns and small cities.
It is not surprising that America has divided this way; in fact, it is a verification of conservative ideas yet again. The two sides have become incompatible because they want different ways of life entirely. The cities are increasingly in trouble as their liberal policies become more expensive, and are choking the heartland with taxes.
We have seen this situation before. In the years before the Civil War, the Northern Cities relied heavily on Southern agricultural products. Taxes began rising, but not enough. To fix this situation, the cities provoked a war and invaded the South so that they could incorporate it into the federal system and have more control over the raw product, which is where all the profit — and future tax bonanza — was.
Civil War 2.0 is now on the table. As VDARE states:
The fundamental reason for this fear among the elites: their guilty conscience. They understand that in the last 50 years they have completely upended the old order in America. They have created a revolution that opposes the most fundamental interests of the historic white American nation. They understand that this election could confirm their revolution—but only if Hillary Clinton wins.
The question for conservatives is then what there is left to conserve, and the answer is that we conserve the way of living that has eternally nourished heartlands in all Indo-European civilizations. Heartlands like social order:
Communities where everyone knows each other.
Caste or its less formal cousin social class to put the most capable in charge as social and consumer decision-makers.
Leadership based not on popularity but competence.
Customs, calendars, cuisine, language, values, philosophy and religion which are in unison in understanding of the world and the purpose of the civilization.
Civil penalties or exile of those who transgress against the civilization instead of stewardship through prisons.
Homogeneity of the group in heritage, identity and worldview/culture.
Economies based not on growth but perpetuity, in service to culture.
Personal codes of honor, moral attention and maintenance of the good, beautiful and true.
A shared goal both specific to the group, and a driving force toward excellence through elitism.
Conservatives today have mostly forgotten these in their desire to “remain relevant” by appealing to mass culture and mass tastes, but this is a suicide mission because mass culture rewards the instant gratification life of the city and not the more contemplative, long-term joys of the heartland. This is why “original sin” appealed so much to our ancestors: it explained that people are limited by their abilities, and most tend toward the monkeylike, and among the intelligent, without self-discipline they become agents of evil.
In a long-term view, conservatism is experiencing a revival worldwide as liberal democracy collapses in a stinking cloud of problems created by its own pursuit of the illusion of equality. The Alt Right, Neoreaction, New Right and Traditionalist movements are inheritors of conservatism not so much in details, but in spirit and inclination. With these, we can reclaim and rebuild a world ruined by human pretense.
The early days of experiments in rocket design were quite exciting. The boffins would troop out to the launch pad, hit the switch and more often than not, witness a spectacular explosion instead of a graceful flight. When flight did occur, it was often unstable and resulted in a slightly more distant explosion.
Civilizations have the same problem: they are complex designs in which each part of the system influences every other part simultaneously, so linear thinking is insufficient. Their status is also far less quantifiable than telemetry (or explosions), and it often takes centuries to see the impact of even a tiny change, which can have consequences far outreaching its perceived minor status.
From a human perspective, our species has been struggling since its inception to build a society which does not self-destruct relatively quickly. Paradoxically, the smarter and more powerful a civilization is, the more likely it becomes that it will implode. They die from internal disorder which eventually overwhelms this.
Those who dream of the stars wonder why their rockets detonate. They also worry that, even if we escape to the distant skies, our problems will come with us, because they are rooted in assumptions that we carry with us. In other words, something that we assume is “good” is in fact creating a fatal condition.
Usually our solutions involve “Systems,” or the idea of one big concept applied universally to all people. This is a form of control, or use of manipulation to make citizens into means toward an end of order, but all of these Systems self-destruct anyway. More force is not the answer.
With rockets, we eventually learned that certain invisible forces acted on the ships but in different ways at different times. Effects were cumulative, and complex, meaning that small variations led to radically different results. There was no singular theory that worked in a universal sense, only many forces acting together.
Life derives its complexity from this tendency toward interaction between forces and how that in turn changes the task over time, like layers of interpretation when one reads a novel, or thinking ahead a dozen moves in chess. This requires a strategic approach.
We call these questions which pop up by the name emergent properties. This refers to their intangibility and the inability to discern them from the initial conditions of an attempt, and alludes to their tendency to appear from out of the complexity set in motion itself. As in civilization design, in rocket design these are the challenge within the task.
It is now clear that something has gone wrong in Western Civilization. Our writers and artists have warned us for centuries that living for the self in large cities and faceless jobs has a tendency to destroy people, and that destroyed people then turn on the world around them and in turn destroy it. Our people are miserable.
This shows us the emergent properties of civilization. The more we do for people, the more they become dependent on control; this in turn leaves them existentially confused. The more we educate, advance and subsidize our population the less they know what they want. The more accepting we are, the more people lose pride and purpose.
And yet these acts seemed like good ideas when they were implemented. People adore the idea of using force to create a single-act solution that crushes a problem, and yet the harder they pound on the target, the more the details conspire against them. Cleverness emerges as the actual opposite of intelligence.
From this we can see why our civilization rockets keep exploding on the launch pad. We have thought ourselves halfway to a solution, but by not integrating all of the pieces into a whole system like the operation of the organs in the body, we have succeeded in simply chopping up social order and making it more complicated without being more complex, or interrelated among its parts.
Some find it odd that writers on this blog identify as “conservative,” because to them conservatives are weaklings. The answer to this is that conservatism embraces a core principle that can be used to find the many answers to a problem and to then balance them with one another. Mainstream conservatives are like mainstream culture, junk food, television and business, an inferior substitute.
Conservatism itself, however, is a simple principle: organicism. We look toward what works and incorporate it, like making a ball of string, instead of trying to make a theory that is convenient for the human mind which can apply to everything. There is only one theory, life itself, and we can observe what works and what does not by the results achieved, and then make our choices by looking to the results we desire and choosing the corresponding action.
This approach provides a starting point to the question of how to keep civilization blowing up like an ill-fated test rocket. Instead of aiming for the best as we see it in our intentions, we aim toward what works on a practical level and discard all ideology, emotion and social feeling from the process. This is an engineering question, not a social one.
As of 2016, another one of our rockets has become a fireball. We thought (once) that liberal democracy was the “end of history.” Now we know that it was just a bubble that existed between implementing it and seeing its results. It is clear we must leave this path, and the only question that remains is what principles will guide us.
Some are finding themselves surprised — shocked! shocked, I tell you — that neither big media nor presumed “conservative” sources like Fox News are playing this video, which shows Leftists celebrating the violence they instigate and Trump rallies and chastising the Right for playing within the rules.
This is not anomalous, but business as usual, because of what news media is: a business.
When civilizations are new, goals are clear. The forests must be cut down, the city built, crops planted and enemies defeated. The task is the action that needs to be taken. But when civilization ages, tasks are administered through proxies or intermediates where the task is to satisfy rules or objectives removed from end results.
For example, a modern citizen may be told to go to a certain location, dig a ditch and put in a concrete platform. He will not know what goes there, or why it is important; there is only the task.
Proxies create the necessity of “playing the game.” This means satisfying the rules and the bosses, not getting the task done. This tends to make people lazy and resentful because there is less of a connection between the immediate act and the reward of having something completed.
This gives rise to the type of people who play the game well. This process selects for people who do not care about the results of their actions, but want the intermediate reward of money and social acclaim. These are naturally manipulators, salesmen and narcissists.
Your average celebrity, politician and bureaucrat all fit into this pattern.
What this means is that news media is there to win the game because the people in it are there to win the game. That means that truth is never the goal; popularity is, specifically by advancing the narrative that everyone out there is a victim and that is why things have not worked out for them.
The only viewpoint that fits the narrative is the Leftist viewpoint, which implies that a lack of equality — not the incompetence and moral baseness of most people — is the problem with life. Fix the lack of equality, and you have Utopia. For Leftists, this is the only moral good.
Leftists view breaking the rules as a necessary sacrifice. Rules, decency, culture, God, family… these are all secondary. Only the ideology matters. For our forward-thinking brains, this is like crack and heroin mixed together. It shuts down all other processing, bringing sweet oblivion to the big questions of existence.
This is why Fox News rarely runs conservative news, and when it does, it slants to the Left. That is where the audience is. Many conservatives are in fact mostly Leftist in outlook, although they would scream if you pointed out that “small government, muh freedumbs, diversity and equality” are not conservative values.
We think of the news as an agency with the purpose of telling us the truth. It is not; the news is there to distract from the truth and instead pitch you a product, which is that you are a victim and all you need is freedom and equality. The news is entertainment.
Thus it is not surprising that you see very little of real life and real thinking mentioned there.
These faux elites react with a prophylactic, psuedo-erudite epistemic closure argument designed to write reactionary sentiment out of any debate. Wise and Venerable scholar of the Cathedral Mark Lilla deploys pity, with all the condescending dislike and disgust that that particular hostile emotion entails below.
The reactionary is anything but a conservative. He is as radical and modern a figure as the revolutionary, someone shipwrecked in the rapidly changing present, and suffering from nostalgia for an idealized past and an apocalyptic fear that history is rushing toward catastrophe. And like the revolutionary his political engagements are motivated by highly developed ideas.
David Brooks, NYT House Conservative (i.e. Quasi-White Step ‘n Fetchit of the Cathedral) capes for the ongoing infliction of “progress” on its defenseless victims below. First he stokes the mordant, pearl-clutching fears of the cuck hivemind.
Reactionaries, whether angry white Trumpians, European nationalists, radical Islamists or left-wing anti-globalists, are loud, self-confident and on the march.
David Brooks, unlike those Conservatives, is no gibbering barbarian. He believes that ratiocination and the honey-sweet tone of reconciliation can still win the day. He must patiently lecture all three Conservatives who still read the New York Times out of that Basket of Deplorables.™ So what could steer such a vast Fifth Column of Philistines to the beckoning banners of Pepe Le Hate Frog Demonique? He offers us up a self-serving explanation below.
Reactionaries come in different stripes but share a similar mentality: There was once a golden age, when people knew their place and lived in harmony. But then that golden age was betrayed by the elites. “The betrayal of elites is the linchpin of every reactionary story,” Lilla writes.
Soon, they believe, a false and decadent consciousness descended upon the land. “Only those who have preserved memories of the old ways see what is happening,” Lilla notes. Only the reactionaries have the wisdom to turn things back to the way they used to be, to “Make America Great Again.”
Perhaps the key to understanding the propaganda at work here is to patiently explain its untruths. It’s not the elites that do us in unless we fault them for sleeping on the job and letting degenrates catamite about on the hallowed grounds of the Haute Culture Country Club. Calling people like Hillary Clinton, who willingly hired, trusted and associated with a woman who voluntarily wed Anthony Weiner elite is not acceptable. Such an affront to the English language requires the presence of pink HTML sarcasm tags.
So the problem an intelligent Reactionary identifes is not the elite. The problem is the people who allow Anthony Weiner to pretend that he is elite. The problem is the mob. Crowdism is the vehicle by which the cathedral of apostates empowers a mob of morons to elect and elevate a trolladytic shlub like Anthony Weiner in return for an unending stream of gimmedats. I personally have no problem with a genuine (“natural”) elite. That sort of a group would reclaim the term as a compliment rather than an insult.
Lilla gets two things correct.
Reactionaries react against Modernism.
Reactionaries are not Conservative.
He gets things correct for the wrong reasons. Reactionaries act against Modernism. We are consequentialist, as opposed to nostalgia-laden. Many Reactionaries miss the extent to which religious faith was treated with respect and local culture was revered in respected in the 1860s. Not many American Southern Reactionaries are out there asking if we can bring back Civil War field medicine. We’d prefer, as a logical choice, that the local surgeon at Huntsville Hospital not have a rusty, old hacksaw and a bottle of Ancient Age in the his medical bag. Even if that was how things got done back in The Golden Age.
We see history as a living and viable discipline that should be dedicated to identifying and understanding what worked in prior human generations. Reactionaries react selectively; not reflexively. We take data from the world around us and examine it. We, not the “Progressives,” are the ones that just flippin’ love science. So based on consequentialist evaluation of what works and what doesn’t, we specifically critique the vast extent to which Modernism and democracy have obviously and completely failed to maintain the clear and indisputible standards of what “Makes America Great.”
As a consequence, Mark Lilla gets another one right as well. His Amerika.org kewpie doll should arrive in the email today. We are not Conservatives. We prefer virtue, with the postive and affirmative manhood that this entails, to Modern Conservatism. Conservatives stand athwart history asking nicely if it would slow down and not swamp their mutual funds or lustily deflower their daughters.
They lack the real guts to fight Leftism because they believe in a weaker form thereof. They secretly wish they could be the Left too. They are the nerds who melt in gratitude from a friendly hug from Michelle Obama. Liberals get this and therefore understand they can work them for anything they want. No Real Conservative would ever rock the boat by actually trying to repeal Obamacare. People (meaning the Leftists) would be scared and upset. Michelle wouldn’t feel like hugging them ever again. Oh No!
So David Brooks is dutifully doing his duty to calm down all of those people. It wouldn’t be dainty if all his liberal friends got worried. Like the trusty black overseer on an antebellum pine tar plantation, David Brooks gets busy stopping all the hootin’ and a hollerin.’ He needs to do that before Massa gets all upset. He fits into an outmoded role from a dark and evil period. It’s as if he came from the malignant heart of darkness found in that America. Is David Brooks the real stereotype of The Blind Reactionary? “The horror!” Said Mr. Kurtz. “The horror!”
And that, in essence, is what we get from the Cuck Faux Elite. We particularly get that from the ones who tell us they are “Conservative” and here to look out for our interests. They look out for us by telling us to tone it down. Just be patient and take your medicine. Don’t be a “Reactionary.” That would be unseemly. Being unseemly is far worse to the Cuck Faux Elite than being dead wrong. The tattermedalion reactionaries don’t like being dead wrong. Particularly the part about being dead. This is why David Brooks is blessedly losing. May his downfall become complete.
This week, the Alt Right fights for its own soul. It worries about how to keep itself from being assimilated like the mainstream conservatives on one hand, and on the other, if it has gone too far.
It should instead worry whether it has chosen the right method of going too far.
The Alt Right has a unique mandate in historical terms: the existing order of Leftism and globalism has spectacularly failed, and people are just barely catching on. The smart ones among us want an end to the immediate Leftist crisis, and to the conditions that have enabled it, namely the collapse of Western Civilization.
For the Alt Right, there are two missions as a result:
Stop the Leftist insanity.
Reverse the decline and fall of Western Civilization.
To achieve this, the Alt Right has to adopt a radical course that rejects the illusions of our time — equality, pluralism, utilitarianism, individualism — and replace them with a goal that rises above mere material and social convenience. That is not an easy task, but looking at those in the Alt Right, it is clear that we are up to it.
We can achieve that goal through the four pillars, which are actually more radical than anything suggested in the Alt Right so far. They combine Alt Right, Identitarian, New Right, Neoreaction and Traditionalist thought:
Nationalism. Exclude all Others; rule by culture. Zero diversity, not even a drop.
Aristocracy. Remove democracy and popularity. Give power and wealth to our best people.
Hierarchy. Reward for performance. No subsidies, welfare, unions or socialism.
Purpose. We find a goal that is not material or humanistic, like “excellence.” Good to the good, and bad to the bad.
These pillars have been mostly ignored by the underground Right because they are simply too extreme.
The White Nationalists want to combine all white ethnic groups and social classes into a single vanilla milkshake with no culture, origins or distinctions. This is just another form of Leftism.
The “civic nationalists” — fools using a term re-defined by the Left — want to make rules and obedience tests in order to make us all obey the right economic and political system. This and “culturism” are the same thing.
The theocrats want us all to simultaneously convert to Jesus or Odin, and forget about the other dimensions of our problem, some of which are in fact material, but can only be fixed by applicable of principle, which is not.
All of them have missed the point: we are trying to restore a golden age in which our civilization is the best because it seeks qualitative improvement in all areas.
We cannot do that with any vestiges of equality, modernity, politics, or other manipulations. We need to break free from all of this nonsense.
Most of these groups who are competing for control of the Alt Right make the same error: they are special interest groups who will achieve one change, but leave the system of modernity in place. Modernity is what got us to this stage. It must depart.
The real problem is egalitarian/individualistic thinking. This consists of individuals demanding their equal share, and in order to achieve that, forming mobs or “Crowds” who use their numbers to demand equality, in the name of the group but with the purpose of the individual. It is selfishness, collectivized.
The Alt Right has made great strides by denying the official narrative and instead pointing to the genetic and biological origins of culture, which refutes the egalitarian theory that a random group of people can be instructed in the same political and economic system and be as great as those who invented it. This is the magic dirt theory.
Against the magic dirt theory, the Alt Right suggests Nationalism: that each nation be defined by its founding ethnic group, and that all others be excluded.
Most people have forgotten what Nationalism means, but they can refresh their memories by recalling that World War Two was a war against Nationalism, or the nations that wanted “Germany for Germans,” and excluded all Others.
Nationalism is the belief that political groups should be constructed around the idea of “nation,” or population group unified by culture, heritage and language.
As such, Nationalist is “rule by culture” where cultural values come before profit motive or popularity, which enables forward-thinking leadership instead. With profit motive, every object and idea and person is for sale, and society leads itself in circles. With leadership, society determines its goals and moves toward them.
The term “nationalism” comes from the term “nation,” which has a different meaning in current politics. Currently, the nations of the world are political constructions made of borders, legal systems and economies, called “nation-states.”
Nationalism is the core of the Alt Right. The “proposition nation,” a creation of liberal democracy — equality plus democracy — has failed, and Nationalists are pointing toward a better order.
The twentieth century consisted mostly of war against Nationalism in the name of liberalism or Leftism, which is the idea of the equality of all people, independent of race, ethnicity and caste/class.
This alone constitutes the line in the sand which separates those who are Modernist zombies from those who will make the next great civilization.
Normies cannot accept Nationalism, because it offends them because it violates equality.
Join us on the dark side. We reject The Enlightenment™ and other ideas of human equality. This is the Rubicon which must be crossed. It is also what defines the Alt Right, and why it is thriving while mainstream conservatism and liberalism die the same death.
Ben Shapiro, whose work is normally quite enjoyable, raises a few points of interest in his new column, but makes a technical error:
The only way to preserve “Western civilization” is by allegiance to European ethnicity. What sort of “Western civilization” must be preserved? Not limited government; not individual responsibility; not equality of rights.
Language can fool us. We know that in logic A->B does not necessarily mean B->A. The most common error in human thinking — seen in reversed cognition, neurosis, superstition, pareidolia and cherry-picking — is to assume B->A. And yet, sadly, Shapiro does it here.
He assume that for us to have limited government, we must explicitly demand it under those terms, forgetting that other methods can achieve it. Limited government is both B and A in his view, when really, it is B and there are many As that can cause it come about.
For example, aristocracy. No government; only leadership. (Government is managerial, where aristocracy approximates the role of military leadership in setting goals and rewarding those who achieve them while clearing non-contributors aside. It does not attempt to manage all people to get to the same result because it is inherently inegalitarian.).
He also assumes that conservatism is not its principles, but the methods used to achieve them. The A is conservative principles; the B is methods. B does not necessarily lead to A, so it is better to uphold principles, and the Alt Right does that with dramatic flair.
In fact, the Alt Right is the resurrection of conservatism from its milquetoast version which was designed to be compatible with democracy and American internationalist (Leftist) policy goals: the core of conservatism is consequentialism, or looking at results to see what has worked best throughout history, and conserving those best principles so that we always have a roadmap when encountering new things.
Let us look at Alt Right ideals:
Genetic basis to culture and thus, nation. History shows this one again and again: people like those who are like them, in part because this is the most efficient way to live because people are acting in the same direction without requiring police, media, government and education to hound them. Why is it surprising that the people most opposed to this theory — called Nationalism — are police, media, government and academia?
Consequently, diversity does not work. We are not “white supremacists” who blame other groups for our own failings, nor anti-Semites. We recognize this: each group acts in its own genetic self-interest, and therefore, no two groups can share the same interest. Diversity always fails, no matter what groups are involved.
Hierarchy not equality. People are not equal on a genetic level, and therefore have widely varying abilities mapped on a “Bell Curve” where most are of only moderate ability. For this reason, we need a strong hierarchy to put those on the far-right seventh of the curve ahead of the rest. Putting those who are most competent in charge guarantees the best results for all and ends the constant internal friction of power struggles.
Reward must come only from performance. Unions, socialism, pacifism, equality and social group style inclusion have a fatal flaw: they reward the worst the same as the best, which creates a disincentive to the best through the added penalty of unrewarded and taxing labor. If the reward goes to the worst as well, the best are taking on additional time, energy and money to do what will not be rewarded; this is a de facto penalty. Subsidize nothing, reward only performance.
These are timeless conservative principles. Edmund Burke would agree with them, as would Plato. They are presented here in a form distilled down from the memery and chaotic ideation of the Alt Right, which it preserves to avoid entryism and also to keep itself internally competitive so that it always produces cutting-edge ideas.
Where mainstream conservatism slept, the Alt Right rose; unlike mainstream conservatives, the Alt Right do not require “politeness” and “sociability” from themselves because they realize that these hamper truth, which is more complex and less pleasant than the euphemisms and talismans required for social interaction. That is the difference: the mainstream conservatives are dominated by socializing and its requirements, where the Alt Right maintains a feral, atavistic and anti-social outlook that allows it to be truth-driven and not led around by the nose by human concerns, emotions, feelings, desires and pretenses.
Let us look at what he feels is non-conservative:
Those who cheer it spring from the so-called alt-right, who have been insisting for months that conservatism is a “failure” and that it must be replaced with an ethnicity-based white solidarity movement, and from the Pat Buchanan paleoconservative wing of the party, which believes that free trade is economic voodoo, immigration from non-European countries is inherently problematic, and isolationism on foreign policy is the best way to protect the country.
The common factor here is Nationalism, or the idea that the presence of only one ethnic group defines the nation.
Not proxies like capitalism, small government, democracy, equality, individual responsibility or other B/methods that Shapiro suggests.
The core of conservatism is nationalism because nationalism produces the best results throughout history. It is not surprising, then, that every Leftist ideal and group is against Nationalism. They fear it because it undoes Leftism.
With nationalism, we do not need the Cathedral — the intersectional elite of government, academia, media and entertainment — because we have culture that can be universally practiced because all of the people are the same. This is why Leftism fears Nationalism, and why conservatism promotes it.
As far as the death of conservatism goes, Shapiro writes an interesting discussion of it, but fails to penetrate into the depths: the Alt Right is conservatism, once you strip away the nonsense required for conservatism to play nice (“bipartisanship,” i.e. compromise and collegiality) with Leftism.
Donald Trump is not the end of conservatism; he is the liberation of it. Whether or not he wins, he has broken the surface tension that says conservatives cannot talk about vital issues like Nationalism and our incompatibility with Leftism. There is nothing more Rightist than that.
In my view, Donald Trump is a good candidate because he intends to win. For him winning does not mean merely attaining a position or public recognition, as it does for Leftists. He wants to make a successful project in terms of its results as a conservative would, and that requires strengthening the country and fixing its problems. In intent, at least, he will settle for nothing less, and thanks to Barack Obama’s precedent-setting abuse of executive orders with the Supreme Court’s approval, he has a legal foundation on which he can override the Left and achieve these things.
But even more, he is the standard-bearer for a new conservative mentality: we will not be bullied anymore. We will speak of the obvious and real. We will mention the unsociable and factual, including logical facts (such as “diversity cannot work because groups have self-interest specific to themselves which clash when more than one group occupies the same space”). We will be honest, forthright and clear.
Conservatism died long ago. Ronald Reagan was its last gasp of agonal breathing. After that, it was the muddle. Conservatism has existed in a state of denial of what it is to be conservative, and instead clings to a few methods that conservatives insist qualifies them as conservative, even though the lie is put to that statement by their failure to achieve conservative results, which is the only measurement conservatism recognizes.
Cheer up, Ben. You are halfway to Alt Right yourself. Now it is time for you to join us on the dark side.
As the media machine struggles to make sense of what is happening, it repeats the old tropes. Conservative and liberal writers have taken to their keyboards to write about how leftism is good, and anything else is bad. They claim the opposite, that they are attacking specific movements, but only non-Leftist movements are attacked.
The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the alt-right “a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.” Most Americans hadn’t heard about the alt-right until this election, and some not until last month, when Hillary Clinton gave a speech in Reno, Nev., linking Donald Trump to it.
The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute says it is “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.” Through his online writings and YouTube channel, Mr. Spencer is a key player in the social-media universe where this core group of Trump supporters get their “news,” from sources with which most people aren’t familiar. A quick scan shows that immigration is not only their most important issue, it’s pretty much their only issue.
“Immigration is a kind of proxy war — and maybe a last stand — for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile,” Mr. Spencer wrote in a National Policy Institute column.
The Left bemoans this as identity politics, which means voting according to your tribe’s self-interest. It is acceptable for homosexuals, Jews, African-Americans, Mexicans, Japenese, Muslims, etc. to act in their own self-interest, but not Europeans. Why? Because the goal of Leftism is to destroy the majority culture and replace it with an ideology.
We know this because history shows it to us. The Soviet Union bragged about how diversity was its strength. Rome became increasingly diverse in its final years, as did Athens, by the account of Plato. In each case, the rulers imported new people to shatter the culture, heritage and traditions of the society so that the people could be made a means to the end of that ruler’s power.
That is the decision before us at this time: be not racist, so that our leaders can replace enough of us to have permanent control, or be called racists and say out loud that diversity does not and cannot function as a positive policy, therefore it should be replaced. That means America for its founding group, the Western Europeans.
Across all continents settled by Western Europeans, the elites have had one super-weapon which they use liberally (no pun intended) and that is the epithet ¡RACIST!. Starting even before the Civil War, the elites decided they wanted to replace our people with others, first Southern and Eastern Europeans, and later, other racial groups. This made the job of being an elite leader easier, because no cultural consensus conflicted with the power of the State.
Since WWII, it has been easy — too easy — for the elites, since Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini were all nationalists, or those who believe a nation should be defined by its founding ethnic group only. This opposed the agenda of the ever-expanding Leftist State, and thwarted its power, so it needed to be destroyed.
This agenda was enforced by the social perception that “everybody knows” and “everybody agrees” what is true, and therefore, those who think differently are not just wrong, but wrong because they are bad or stupid and ignorant. This is a fundamentally social method of controlling the thinking of the masses, a type of hive-mind imposed by an appeal to the weakness and pretense of individuals.
Except that now, people are willing to be called ¡RACIST! and ignorant because they realize that this is it: this is our last shot and preventing the takeover of our civilization by the Left.
Next stop, Venezuela. Or Brazil. But it will not be the future we have been told that we have. Nope, all the wealth and technology is slowly going away as social order further disintegrates, and then we have nothing but the type of third-world strongmen we are familiar with from the news, ruling over a banana republic where everyone is corrupt, that never produces anything important ever again.
This is why events like the Donald Trump candidacy, and Brexit, have shaken the establishment to its core, but more importantly, have shocked its supporters, who are counting on riding the coattails of the “right side of history” to personal success, and being thoughtless like people who litter in national parks, care not for the consequences of their actions. Witness history being made:
The first was an almost universal surprise, since it was a truism that Leavers were a tiny handful of fruitcakes. A defeat for Remain was thus unthinkable. In fact there had always been widespread opposition to the EU among voters at all social levels, even though political parties, the media, and most national institutions had treated the idea with contempt and its adherents as eccentric at best. Suddenly the referendum rules meant that Leavers were on television making the case for Brexit nightly and, contrary to their caricature, they seemed quite reasonable. They persuaded some voters to switch to Leave, and Leave voters to be more confident of their own opinions. As the campaign developed, the polls swung towards Leave and many late polls showed the two sides as neck-and-neck. A Leave victory, though by no means inevitable, should have been seen as pretty likely.
In fact the reaction that followed surprise was a set of variations on horror, outrage, indignation, anguish and a desire for revenge. That was on the Remain side; the Leave side was pleased but not extravagantly so. For a while it simply pocketed its unexpected success and watched, bemused, from the wings while Remainers rioted angrily stage-centre. They plainly wanted the referendum result annulled but they were never quite able to explain why. Obviously they couldn’t say simply that they wanted a different result. So they had to invent a series of specious reasons that in their eyes cast doubt on its validity—that the Leave campaign was xenophobic and racist, that its voters (though not Remain voters) had not understood what they were voting for, that it had “told lies” (uniquely so in political campaigns, apparently), and so on and so forth. But the argument advanced with most passion by Remainers and repeated most often in the left-wing press ran as follows: because old uneducated people supporting Leave had outvoted young people with degrees voting Remain, these miserable old geezers had “robbed the young of their future” and, well, it wasn’t right.
We are on a precipice. The past seventy years of conservatism, 227 years of democracy, and thousand years of steadily marching toward egalitarianism have betrayed us; every year, more problems occur and our society is less the beautiful, hopeful, ambitious and excellent place it once was. Instead, we accept inferior substitutes, and are forced by social pressure into denying that oblivion threatens us.
And yet, slowly it dawns on people. This is not just another election, after which things continue as normal. Normal is terrible: our governments are broke, our jobs are slavery, our cities are cesspools and our future is worse. It will be a long, slow, painful slide down to third-world levels of oblivion. And what can we do?
One of the paradoxes—there are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate it.
Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?
What is the future of post-Enlightenment Western Civilization? If we search our hearts, we know the answer: going out like Rome or Athens, leaving behind a civilization which is thoroughly dysfunctional and produces nothing. We are not choosing which of these relatively inconsequential platforms to adopt, but fighting for survival, starting by reserving the ability to choose to beat down our potential tyrants in the future.
In the EU and the USA, the governments are basically the same: heavy regulations, social welfare programs, Leftist agenda, and a desire to replace their citizens with third-world people or “minority” groups, who always vote Leftist. They never vote right-wing, because it is against their instinct, since it would require admitting that their homelands did it wrong and that is why they are third-world, not because of colonialism or sunspots or whatever they’re claiming this week. And so, with a few statistically-insignificant exceptions, they will never do it.
That is what globalism means, when you distill down the meaning: worldwide trade because the Leftist empire has worldwide control, at least of the first world. Globalism = Leftism. Multiculturalism/diversity is the inevitable result of Leftism as it seeks to gain this global control. All else is noise and fantasy; we either destroy this, or it destroys us.