Posts Tagged ‘conservatism’

Means-Over-Ends Versus Ends-Over-Means

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

As the public tries to have a conversation about politics, tropes form. These are ideas that fascinate the public for a few weeks because they expect that, like in a self-help book, a complex process will distill down to a simple binary choice.

Naturally, their problem is this assumption in the first place.

In the meantime, it makes sense to clarify the conflict between means-over-ends versus ends-over-means thinking, as described in a recent article as “content” and “process”:

Computer scientist Curtis Yarvin applies to speak at a technical conference, and his talk is accepted in a blind evaluation process. After Yarvin’s speaking slot is announced, the conference organizers find out that he has an alter-ego as a blogger called Mencius Moldbug. His blog promotes views that much of the conference’s larger community finds abhorrent.

The content approach is to sever ties with Yarvin — because the content of his character has been judged to be objectionable. His work and their personality are deemed toxic or actively harmful. On the other hand, the process approach is to point out that Yarvin’s submission was selected blindly, on its own merits, and affirm that he will be ejected only via the process laid out in the pre-established code of conduct.

To put it in more abstract terms, content people focus on ends over means, and process people focus on means over ends. This is an imperfect way to summarize the principle, because the reason why process people focus on means is that they think this approach leads to better ends.

Let us compare the two: means-over-ends states that methods are more important than goals; ends-over-means states that achieving goals is more important than the methods used. All of us are, at the end of the day, essentially ends-over-means thinkers but we apply some filters to that, as in we are ends-over-means so long as it does not involve certain methods that contradict the goal.

For example, someone who is against crime will be happy with any way of reducing crime except those methods which seem to him to also be crimes.

But let us extend this to politics. The ultimate means-over-ends philosophy is egalitarianism, which states that the method (protecting the individual) is more important than having a goal at all. The individual is both means and ends in this case, which short-circuits the entire process, and this is why Leftists are known as means-over-ends people.

Conservatives on the other hand are more concerned with the maintenance of order and hierarchy because these are necessary for social function, and recognize that sometimes sacrifices by or of individuals are necessary. This is an ends-over-means calculus that avoids contradiction by recognizing that since goals are more important than method, method takes second priority.

Another trope falls before the axe.

Man Without A Nation

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

If the Alt Right wants to reform conservatives, it will have to wean them from patriotism, religion and hard work. Together these three things form a false nation comprised of a state and certain public behaviors which are ultimately egalitarian, therefore always drift Left toward Communism.

Conservatives may be the most self-defeating group in history. Their first problem is that they are not unified on a single idea like the Left, which both historically and philosophically centers around egalitarianism.

Their bigger problem is that conservatives select their ideas based on what is popular, which is always what is most convenient for the individual. The average person does not want to interrupt their lifestyle of easy jobs, shopping, watery beer and television.

For this reason, when confronted with real problems, their solutions are always individualistic: “I want this ability for myself while others do crazy stuff around me.” The flaw in this logic is that the crazy stuff only grows in popularity and takes over society.

This lazy, morally corrupt conservative thinking is the norm. It expresses the desire of individuals not to rock the boat or inconvenience themselves. Their solutions are selfish as a result, involving what these individuals want as part of their “lifestyle.”

Not only that, but these conservatives actually drive people away because their proposed solutions are so mind-bendingly stupid. “Get a good job, work hard, go to church, wave the flag and own guns!” is a ludicrously selfish and short-sighted response to a civilization in decay where most people are existentially miserable and a good many are essentially slaves caught in a trap of low wages, high prices and greedy predators both in employers and the products they must buy to survive.

Humans are exploited, and conservatives refuse to recognize that, and society is collapsing, something conservatives defer recognizing by bloviating on about “the Benedict option” or other mentalities which sound like dropping out but really are merely justifications for continuing to accrue wealth for themselves while paying lip service to fixing the rot at the core of our society.

Then again, this problem is inherent to Caucasians and other high-intelligence populations: they become trapped by their own cleverness, which means they find a way to navigate the immediate crisis to get the best possible option, but not ultimately a solution. They are clever, but not clever enough.

Leftism is energizing because it recognizes human exploitation and conjures up what looks like a systemic change. Everything is bad, it says, so we will do something else. Conservatives have no equivalent answer until you get to traditionalists and Nietzscheans, and those are a small group who might as well be speaking Greek to the rest.

In the meantime, conservatives fail to win over people because it seems that conservatives are defending the system as it is instead of working toward improving it. The entrenched, defensive and backward-looking nature of conservatism solidifies this perception.

To the average person, the dialogue seems fractured. The person speaks up about all that is wrong in the world, and how the current system does not address it, and conservatives basically say to keep the current system and then succeed within it at the expense of others. This grates on even the hardened!

This creates a kind of helplessness. Both Conservatives and Leftists want to preserve the modern system; this makes them natural allies who agree on a goal but disagree on methods. Conservatives also, by working to preserve a fundamentally Leftist system, admit defeat from the outset and seem “cucked” as a result.

Conservatives enable Leftism through conservative reliance on these three substitutes for an organic civilization:

  1. Patriotism. Conservatives love patriotism, which is loyalty to a Leftist state, founded as “classically liberal” which as a type of egalitarianism naturally drifts toward more extreme methods of equality such as Communism. In addition, patriotism replaces the organic vision of “Us” — a people joined by purpose, principle and heritage — with the inorganic and centralized idea of the nation-state, which is basically a government that rules territory and waves the flag any time it wants to bomb someone.
  2. Religion. Like Patriotism, religion creates a replacement for the organic nation which is based in rules and symbols, not reality. The Church famously does not care who it recruits so long as it has warm bodies, and so serves as an international attractor. The Church is like a nation unto itself, united by the ideology of a few dogmas of religion, and it acts against the organic nation by trying to control it.
  3. Work. All of us like to apply ourselves; jobs, however, are not self-application but its opposite, a game based on appearance and not reality. These make people weak and neurotic. In addition, they neutralize people by taking up all of their time and, by giving them an “identity” within society, compete with their natural identity as part of the organic nation with a role to play toward its health. This subverts any interest they have in real things, and replaces it with allegiance to an economic system.

By defending this system, conservatives consent to their own enslavement and resist the necessary realization that what we have now is fallen and must be replaced and rebirthed in order to have any goodness to it. They offer non-solutions which tend to involve dubious wars, which makes them doubly unsavory.

The difference can be visualized with a metaphor. Education consists of learning things; school is separate from education in that one can excel at school without any desire to learn much of anything. Those who get good at the system get ahead.

All of these substitutes for the organic nation are systems which will be gamed, and because that is easier than achieving real-world goals, soon all will aim for gaming the system. This replaces purpose with external goals which quickly become corrupted.

Leftism thrives in this environment because it has a single goal, which is to destroy the existing organic nation and replace it a mass of people who can be controlled. All of the pleasant noises about egalitarianism are cover for having the Crowd be in control and able to manipulate others.

When conservatives want personal convenience above all else, they turn toward Leftism as a means of being socially accepted by others. They translate it into a conservative form, which is based in the individual and not the group as a means of not criticizing the group.

If you wonder why modern conservatives seem to talk so much and achieve so little, this is why. They are unwilling to challenge the status quo at its root assumption — equality — and therefore get absorbed by it, marginalizing themselves into loud complainers who focus only on their own success.

At this point, the Leftist death spiral has accelerated so rapidly that many find themselves to be like me, a man without a nation. The only flag to which I could show allegiance is tied to the State, and the State is by nature a Leftist organization, so is insupportable.

We who would oppose this decay are fragmented by our own individualism, our lack of agreement on what must be done, and our fear of opposing the elephant in the room, which is the concept of equality itself. The sooner we rise above that, the sooner we can prevail in this do-or-die fight.

Hopelessness As A Personal Philosophy

Monday, May 15th, 2017

If the Right has an equivalent the impotent “raising awareness” of the Left, it is the idea of hopelessness. Conservatives adore negative headlines, so that they can throw vegetables at the screen and then retire, secure in their viewpoint but not in their future.

Think of the average stodgy conservative you know. Probably older, probably male; he like to watch Fox News or read The Wall Street Journal. Every conversation begins the same way:

You won’t believe what those crazy Leftists are doing now! They are trying to make transgenderism a national passtime! It just grinds my gears. This country is going to hell in a handbasket. There really is no hope. People are just… shrugs …just broken!

You can distill this to three simple words: I GIVE UP.

After this, the conservative has himself a six-pack, goes to bed and then wakes up the next day to work, work, work all day. He goes to church on Sunday. He waves the flag and praises the veterans. He reads conservative books, watches conservative television, and rants with his like-minded friends about how bad everything is. And he does nothing else.

Conservatives relish stories of social decay like ordinary people enjoy pornography. For them, it tells them that they are right and everyone else is wrong. This is all they need, since their philosophy is based in the personal morality of mass religion. The question is not reality; it is the self.

In other words, they are materialists and individualists just like the rest.

If the Alt Right has done one thing that has shaken the system to the core, it has been re-inventing conservatism to be focused on history, myth, legend and future instead of finding reasons to yell at the television screen right now.

The conservative has always been a dying breed. As the old saying goes, one is liberal in youth and conservative in old age. By old age, they are beaten down by the world and believe in inertia above all else. Nothing will ever change, they reason, and so all they can do is be outraged and keep plugging away at those jobs, churches and patriotic events.

Renovation came to conservatism after recognizing that, much as mainstream conservatives have been captured by the Establishment, independent conservatives have been captured through their personal philosophy of hopelessness. They do not want solutions; they want reasons to be right, so they can keep piling up money and enjoying a luxury lifestyle without interruption.

Conservatism as a principle — realism mated with a transcendental desire for the best possible outcomes — wins out over all else. In the hands of the herd, it is destroyed just as thoroughly as anything else, and turned into a personal philosophy of being better than other people. It will not be sad to watch that die.

Leftist “Tolerance” Versus Conservative “Intolerance”

Tuesday, May 9th, 2017

Apparently, the difference between Leftist intolerance and conservative intolerance is greater than previously thought:

But more recent psychological research, some of it presented in January at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), shows that it’s not so simple. These findings confirm that conservatives, liberals, the religious and the nonreligious are each prejudiced against those with opposing views. But surprisingly, each group is about equally prejudiced. While liberals might like to think of themselves as more open-minded, they are no more tolerant of people unlike them than their conservative counterparts are.

If prejudice is equal between the groups, then Leftist prejudice is greater than conservative prejudice. The reason for this is found in ideology: a philosophy of what “should” be, such as Leftism a.k.a. egalitarianism, demands universal compliance in order to be seen as legitimate. Conservatism, on the other hand, demands that people not violate things seen as sacred by the community.

We can observe this through history. Right-wing groups tend to crush the opposition, where Left-wing groups crush those who do not affirmatively become part of the ideological movement. It was possible to be neutral in Nazi Germany, but those who did not signal that they were good Communists in the Soviet Union were immediately at risk.

For the Leftist, non-compliance is dissent. For the Rightist, there is compliance, opposition and neutrality.

Conservatism Failed Because It Refused To Reject Equality

Thursday, May 4th, 2017

All of those of us who reject fanciful notions of ideology in favor of hard realism are conservatives, or at least conservatives in training, but conservatism as a movement failed because it did not hold back Leftism at all. Instead it rolled over and sold out its people for twenty pieces of silver, or a few media appearances and a book deal.

Conservatism failed because conservatives agreed with Leftists on the central tenet of Leftism: equality. They did so through a cunningly disguise that allowed them to appear as an alternative to Leftism, while hiding their egalitarian belief.

This was the notion of personal morality, or a form of moral individualism that separated the individual from the consequences of his actions. In this view, it does not matter what the long term results of an action are, so long as that action adheres to general rules that conservative considers righteous. The rules become a replacement for reality, which is equivalent to the Leftist replacement of reality with ideology.

For a Leftist, the end result of an action is secondary to whether the right method was used. It is always right to equally distribute wealth and defend the individual in his pursuit of whims whether these are real or illusory. While Leftist morality is based in the herd, conservative morality is based in the individual as judged by the herd, and so ends at the same result.

Both are toxic because they replace realism with proxies such as a morality of the individual which is based in how the individual appears to others as fair, kind, generous and accepting. Conservatives have created many such replacements for reality, starting with religion and patriotism, but they can take other forms too.

As the logical consequences of race realism (inevitable in a Diversitopia) are grasped and the ideas emerging from the theory are fully apprehended, along with what that portends for any philosophy which still clings to the penumbra of moral universalism, there will be a panic among Christian tradcons from realizing race realism is at odds with their teachings and professed beliefs.

They wouldn’t be entirely wrong in thinking this. Race realism subverts at least the superficial tenets of the New Testament. (The Old Testament was too genocidal and tribalistic to be anything but comfortable with race realism.) A generous reconciling between racial reality and Christianity/Tradconism (the Bene Gesserit Option) might suggest that post-modern Christianity has a cramped and incomplete understanding of the Bible, and that having lost touch with the more ancient, less New Agey Biblical injunctions the modern Christian is impelled to defend antiracism as a proxy for defending his religion from what he perceives as lethal heresies.

Traditional religious conservatives, like many other conservatives, deny race realism because they are still in love with the idea of equality.

Outside of the world of equality, we recognize that people are biologically different and that this determines their behavior for the largest part. That includes limits on what they can understand and their degree of impulse control. Nietzschean conservatives — extreme realists, grounded in biology more than religion or social feelings — view people as biological creations first and rational, thinking beings second, in varying degrees according to the individual, family, class, caste, ethnic group, personal habits and other limiting factors.

When we say that we reject equality, it means that we also reject the idea that people are little programmable units who can be fed the “right” input and made to behave as we wish. People are different; one of the basic tenets of conservatism is that most issues must be understood on a case-by-case basis instead of blindly through rules and categories. Nothing is equal, and no people are equal. We are individuals.

Ironically, individualism suppresses individuality. Individualism puts the whims of the individual first before reality, other people or an organic entity such as civilization. This causes people to live through their whims, instead of engaging in enough contemplation of the union of self and world to understand themselves. This is why Leftists tend to be robotic and zombie-like.

Recognizing that people are not equal means that we must breach several Leftist taboos. First, it means that people in society are ranked according to genetics, like the hereditary caste systems advocated around here. Second, it means that there is no one rule for everyone and no universal truth, only a need to place our most realistic and forward-thinking people higher in a hierarchy because they literally “see” things that others do not, and that others cannot comprehend.

Equality is the root of our disease, found in the individualism that sprouts once a society is wealthy and powerful enough to have beaten back immediate threats. People fall into introspection, or navel-gazing, but not the kind that wonders about the universe; instead, they become prisoners of their own egos because they have lost purpose that unites them to the world out there.

If conservatism has a statement on humans to counter equality, it is “they are what they are.” Like plants and animals, people are regulated by their genetics. They can improve on this through social capital, or things they learn from the culture around them, but they cannot fundamentally be changed from one thing into another.

On the Right, war is brewing — a civil war. The egalitarian conservatives, who tend to advocate PRWH, are going to war with the realist conservatives. But only the latter group is distinct enough from Leftism to escape being absorbed back into it through a process known as “entryism” which is consistent with Conquest’s Second Law of Politics.

Ult-Right

Monday, May 1st, 2017

To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

Without venturing into criticism of existing movements, let us agree for the sake of argument that it seems like conservatives have won very few battles since the French Revolution, if not The Enlightenment™ itself, and that current efforts hover dangerously close to being absorbed by the same force that defeated conservatism in the past.

This occurs for a simple reason: Leftism, like any other excuse for avoiding reality, is infinite more popular than the idea that reality is important.

Conservatism is the voice of reason: let us look at what works, and apply that. Leftism is the enticing illusion that says whatever we humans want is more real than reality as a whole. This is obviously anti-reality, but because most people fear the consequences of their acts — a measurement of reality — it is eternally more popular than a concern with what works in reality.

This allows us to see Leftism for what it is, which is a cult dedicated to ignoring reality and forcing other people to agree so that it seems as if this unreality is “proven” correct. Leftists are those who want to use the power of the Crowd to make unrealistic ideas the official “truth” and therefore, to drive out the good and replace it with a lack of standards.

That ultimately serves the individual because then there are no ways the individual can fall short and lose social status through bad behavior. The individual gains the benefits of society without the obligations. Crowds exist to enforce this individualism, which is why they are paradoxical: they act like a mass, but are composed of the need of individuals.

When a civilization succeeds, it begins to fail. The reason for this is that its success means that it is worth money and can make people popular. They want to take it over and gain that benefit; this makes society a target, and its conquest into a commodity that people can use to advance their own power, wealth and status. They make civilization a means to the end of their own individualism.

Their party trick is to define certain areas as places to demonstrate good versus bad behavior, which in turn has the effect of liberating all other areas from observation. As long as you virtue signal about accepting immigrants, you can behave like an idiot when you cut in line, drive carelessly, waste food, behave self-importantly and engage in many other little sins constantly.

Leftism is entirely comprised of virtue signaling for this reason. Its great secret is that its members do not care about the outcome of their actions. They just want to look good. Leftism is a social movement disguised as a political one, and it is this reckless indifference to truth that allows it become popular and have otherwise sane people pretend to believe in it.

The religion of Leftism will not end until it destroys everything. It ends civilizations. It has no single source because it arises through success paired with human failings, which wealth enables civilizations to tolerate. It gains momentum because it travels on a sea of guilt, resentment and envy which are eternal human frailties.

The only response to this religion is a counter-movement which denies cult-like thinking entirely.

Such a movement would take the core of conservatism without the intermediates which have made it odious. It would pursue the best possible results instead of symbols designed to manipulate the herd. The conservative reliance on apple pie, working hard, freedom, liberty, independence, money and Jesus would fall aside, replaced by the goal of revitalized Western Civilization.

A movement of this type recognizes that civilization is like an elevator, either heading up or heading down. There are only brief pauses of indecision and then the elevator goes back to the lobby, which (predictably) is Civilization 1.0, or third world style subsistence living plus warlords. We were on the third floor, now are on the second, but need to get to the fourth or beyond.

Our modern idea is based on constant growth. More people, more freedoms, more money, and more stuff. The past was not quantitative like our present time, but qualitative; it aimed for constant improvement of what it had, meaning that people got smarter, stronger, morally better and healthier, and that its architecture, art, philosophy and culture grew upward instead of outward.

A realist movement — which we should for the sake of convenience refer to the “Ultra Right” or “Ult Right” — would recognize this qualitative need for civilization. We do not need more or different methods; we know what works, and now it is a question of lots of small modifications, case-by-case basis decisions and other acts to improve its quality.

Democracy does not work. It encourages people to act without responsibility to results, because the only thing they are responsible to is appearance to their social group. By the same token, politicians offer visions, then blame the other side. Nothing gets done; the voters have power, but cannot coordinate to use it well, lost in a world of symbol and aesthetics.

Freedom also does not work. Choice is our primary weapon; instead of demanding no limits on choice, demand that all pursue what is good, beautiful and true instead. We need guidance from culture and the ability to make choices from the limited list of sane options, so that the best results possible are achieved for as many people as possible.

Consumerism does not work. It reduces quality by increasing quantity and novelty. This means that we are awash in too many options with too few good ones. This makes us rich in terms of the number of choices and objects, but poor in the quality of their function and as a result, deprived of time we could have spent on something meaningful.

Qualitative realism sees these things as false targets. Freedom, consumer choice and democracy are ultimately symbols used to make us have feelings, and thus to manipulate us, even if we — as a herd — are the ones manipulating ourselves. We can awaken from this world of symbolic unreality and instead act on what is necessary, and then gradually improve that until it is excellent.

The Ult Right consists of these basic beliefs:

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

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

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

This seems like a long path but the fact is that history has sunk liberal democracy, and we are going to be ejected from that sundered boat whether we like it or not. Our only power is our choice about where we land. The Right has so far backed down from these truths as a totality, but the time has come to face our future, and the possibilities it holds. Welcome to the Ult Right.

Ann Coulter Speech Cancelation Reveals The Problem With Conservatism

Wednesday, April 26th, 2017

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter has withdrawn from a planned speech at The University Of California At Berkeley, citing the failure of Young Americans for Freedom to support her:

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter has canceled her speech planned for this week at the University of California’s Berkeley campus after a dispute with university officials, who feared violent protests, over whether a safe venue could be found.

“There will be no speech,” she wrote in an email to Reuters on Wednesday, saying two conservative groups sponsoring her speech were no longer supporting her. “I looked over my shoulder and my allies had joined the other team,” she wrote.

As she wrote poignantly in a tweet a few hours later, “If we had continued to fight we would have won.”

Coulter was originally denied permission to speak by school authorities but vowed to press on. With the defection of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) however she lost her sponsor at the school, and had no case against Berkeley to defend her First Amendment right to speak in a public forum.

This shows us the problem with conservatives: they are willing to “take a stand,” but not when it endangers them personally, because they are enwrapped in the mythos of personal morality that emphasizes religion, hard work and patriotism but not changing the system as a whole. By approaching the issue as a moral question, and not one of civilization survival, they reduce all issues to questions of personal freedom and therefore, cede the battlefield as to the future of society as a whole.

As fans of history know, the modern Right was formalized after the French Revolution and was formed of, well, cucks. They knew that the old order was better, but decided to accept the assumptions of the winning Leftist side — namely equality — and to try to use those to work toward conservative goals. But when one accepts equality, the only change possible is at a personal level and from a defensive perspective. The idea of re-conquering our civilization and pulling it out of its tailspin is beyond what the browbeaten conservative mentality will accept.

This is why the Alt Right has arisen: we have a mission, which is to restore Western Civilization, which is not limited to the individual. We realize that civilization is an organic entity formed of the intersection between individuals, the group, heritage, principles and future. We cannot fight its decline by demanding the ability to co-exist with the decline; we must go to war against the decline itself.

At this point, even the slowest conservatives are starting to get the message that the Left will not relent until it turns the US/EU into Venezuela, a mixed-race socialist third world society like most of the failed societies on earth.

The question is whether conservatives can get over their individualism, or the desire for personal power that precludes acting toward the renovation of civilization as a whole. This entails risk. But in a do-or-die struggle, risk is upon us, and certain doom awaits on the other path.

How Nihilism Can Help Conservatism

Monday, April 24th, 2017

We live in a fantasy world of our own projection, formed of our desire to escape the needs of adaptation. Humans are self-deluding based on our need to feel that we are “in control” of the world we perceive, when in fact we are small parts of it subject to its whims.

The contrary impulse to this behavior, nihilism, starts by rejecting all human perceptions except those which can be traced to a source outside the human. In a world of cause and effect, nihilism sees causes as being mostly external to the human, and the human as merely reacting and rationalizing that response.

Nihilism negates the fundamental human idea which is that “the world is as I perceive it” and that this personal mentality can be shared with other people, especially using language and social cues. Instead, nihilism suggests that we are all alone, with our perceptions being unique to us.

This naturally terrifies people because it invalidates the feeling of “togetherness” or “we are all one” that is a type of pacifism, or a refusal to fight for clarity and quality of perception because it is more convenient to focus on a lowest common denominator in common.

Sometimes — frequently — we see conservatives who should know better getting confused on this point:

Parker spoke about “superior” British values and “regressive Islam”, as well as the “multiple incidents of grooming and rape-gangs, made up almost entirely of Muslim men, targeting women who are almost entirely non-Muslim and girls”.

As long as we remain trapped in this intellectual ghetto, we will never understand what we must do. The fact is that values reflect genetics, and Muslims — a code-word for North African and Middle Eastern people — act out the genetics that have survived in their societies for centuries.

We got into this multiculturalism illusion because we believed that cultures were universal, much as people were presumed to be “equal,” which meant that a Muslim was removed from an Englishman only by a tan and lack of education in English values, customs and wisdom.

Now these well-meaning UKIP speakers are compounding the issue by insisting on the same scale. They believe that if Muslims just quit acting like Muslims, and start acting like English people, somehow integration will occur and everything will turn out fine.

We must escape from this insanity and realize that equality is an illusion formed of human desires, pretense and mentally-convenient rationalizations. Nihilism debunks equality as well as every other human conceit. It can help conservatives in three crucial ways:

  1. Assimilation. Nitwit conservatives believe that we can integrate foreign populations. A nihilist realizes that this is impossible because these populations are too genetically distinct. Related Western European populations can mix and be somewhat stable, but the more distance between the groups, the less cohesion there is. The other thing about assimilation, sometimes called integration, is that it is genocide. The new mixed group replaces the old. Humans are afraid to think about this because they do not want to admit that genetics creates most of their behavior, because this minimizes their control. But genetics is all.
  2. Objectivity. There is no objective truth, nor any subjective truths. There is simply reality out there and we can each see it to varying degrees, with the best of us seeing the most as it actually is in reality. For this reason, there can be no laws which everyone understands the same way, nor anything as silly as democracy. Instead, we should always pick our best minds and let them decide. This also implies a hierarchy within humanity, both by individuals and by general bands known as “castes.”
  3. Goals. The individualistic human mind is full of fond notions of what society “should” do. It thinks of morality, pacifism and accommodating others. However, in reality the question for both individual and civilization is one of health. A healthy organism adapts to its environment, reproduces and lives well on an existential level, meaning that it has belief in the goodness of life because it understands how reality works as a higher order than its own desires. For humans, civilization is necessary for our mental and physical well-being. That offends us, to feel so dependent, but it also frees us from the illusion of being entirely self-directed and self-regulating.

The grim fact is that since our ideas are based in humanity and not reality, all of our thinking is backward. We think of what we wish were true, and that others want to believe as well which gives it the power to manipulate, and declare it true because it is popular. This tears apart every truth.

This includes what UKIP is tackling in the UK. Assimilation will never work, nor will diversity, because they are logically unsound as concepts and in application, reveal the consistency of that logic in pointing out their failure. They have always failed wherever tried for this reason.

Instead of trying to tell the world that our values are better, we should instead admit the obvious, which is that every group needs its own space and the ability to pursue its own goals, because those goals are never the same. Only social chaos comes from fragmented goals.

We can finally free ourselves of the nonsense under which we have been living where we must assume that every person is logical, reasonable, realistic, sensible and belongs anywhere they want to be. We vary by race, ethnic group, caste, family and individual. There is no equality. Nihilism crushes it.

Conservatism Pulling Away From Patriotism And Christianity

Monday, April 24th, 2017

Conservatism inevitably finds itself in conflict with its only real competition, which is the public form of conservatism. The root of conservatism is anti-social; conservatives recognize that most human ideas are pretense and vaingloriousness, and instead point to time-honored methods of achieving the best results.

In America, conservatives are additionally hampered by the fact of the founding of our nation-state in a modified version of Enlightenment™-era thought: individuals are assumed to be equal, which means that we have no social order like caste or hierarchy of aristocrats.

We bemoan our current state of affairs, but it is hard to see how it would turn out differently. When you begin a nation with the mistaken notion that all people are capable of guiding their own destiny, you end up with mob rule, no matter how many little rules — “checks and balances,” “accountability” — you tack on top.

What nihilists know that everyone else denies is that language has no inherent meaning. Only when two people are both using a word to mean the same thing can the word have shared meaning, and otherwise you have two people talking to themselves and hoping the other can intuit what is being gestured.

“There are no truths, only interpretations,” said a wise man, and this is true in that objects in the world are real, and we have only our impressions of them, which by the nature of our cognition are interpretations of fact patterns. This means that laws, like other facts, become adjusted to fit what the audience can understand, not just in a Dunning-Kruger sense but in all ways.

For this reason, checks and balances fail like other laws: instead of bending to the law, people bend the law and justify it however is convenient and popular. It took only a century and a half for the United States to completely invert the original ideal of its nation, which was an ethnically Western European agrarian nation with English-style social strata and a mostly absent government, and this change provoked the Civil War.

Since those who wanted a liberal-style modern government — also in vogue in Europe at the time — won that war, America successfully obliterated its Constitution and replaced it with a Leftist interpretation of the Constitution that emphasized more the emotional language of the Declaration of Independence than the substance of the law.

Americans talk about freedom, liberty, and independence, but these are surrogates for democracy. They represent the raging ego seeking to deny reality by saying “My intent and choices come first, and reality comes second,” because the smallest indivisible unit of society is now the individual. This leads to self-destruction and misery through social chaos, but the ego cares not about that.

People need guidance and hierarchy. A look at The Bell Curve reveals part of the reason why: most are not gifted with the IQs required to make complex decisions, and too many are given just enough intelligence to feel clever and make those decisions incorrectly. There are a few, maybe 5%, who do all the important thinking, and the rest oppose these because the rest will never understand the best.

Among that group, there are only some qualified to lead, which is a trait of moral character and personality as much as anything else. A leader is able to apply cold logic to filter out the normal human insanity, and to recognize that most people are self-deluding and pretentiously self-aggrandizing without falling into hatred for them. This group is at most 1% of any population.

For this reason, any form of demotism — democracy, equality, consumerism, social popularity — will lead to an inversion of the natural hierarchy such that the rest oppress the best, and this has predictably laughable results which we see around us daily: ugly architecture, garbage mass culture, insubstantial food, moronic leaders, tedious jobs, brain-dead moral interpretations.

Conservatism inherently recognizes this failing. We are realists who want the best qualitative degree of civilization and personal existence possible, and realize how those two are linked. Conservatism has never been pro-democracy, and with the collapse of the United States through the election of an outright Socialist charlatan like Barack Obama, we can now no longer be pro-America.

It is time to take the stars and stripes and set it on fire. Smash down all the American institutions. Blow up the Washington Monument, melt down all the statues, and consign the pitiful ruins of the United States to the dustbin of history. This experiment has failed, and from it we have learned that democracy cannot be successfully limited because it grows like a cancer since it appeals to the inherent self-deceptive tendency of human beings.

Patriotism at this point is the opposite of conservatism. If you become a patriot, you are fighting against conservative ideals like hierarchy, nationalism, moral goodness and transcendental purpose. The United States was not designed a Leftist republic, but ideas are measured not by their starting points or intentions, but what they become in the course of their natural life cycle. Any form of democracy quickly becomes something approximating Communism — roughly what we have now — and so there is no point setting even a toe on that path. It is a path to doom.

In the same way that patriotism has failed us, the idea of theocracy has run out on us too. Most conservatives embrace the mentally laziest path of least resistance, which is to insist that we cuck ourselves by following the “work hard, go to church and have a family” approach which enslaves all of us to paying taxes to our enemies and wasting our days in servitude. Obviously anyone advocating this has missed the point, which is to thwart this empire of death by dropping out of it.

As part of their desire to bond us to the failing regime, conservatives tend to say things like “we must follow the Bible first, and this must guide all that we do.” This destroys political activity by limiting its scope to the individual, which conveniently takes that individual out of circulation so that others can rule him. A more idiotic path would be hard to invent.

Unfortunately, this approach is inherent to the idea of a “personal God” as is found in Christianity. The ancients more correctly depicted the gods as uninterested in our affairs, which made it explicit and clear that we are in the driver’s seat and must save ourselves through cooperation. No amount of personal virtue overcomes a dying regime.

In addition, it is time that we mention the Otherness of Christianity. Although it is mostly Greek ideas — combined with the best of Babylonian, Hindu, Jewish, Nordic and Buddhist thought — Christianity consists of those restated in the personal and emotional methods of the Jewish cantors, instead of the more respectable Talmudic esoteric tradition. For this reason, like democracy, Christianity will always decay into a mass movement and adulterate any meaning into what the Crowd desires.

It does not make sense to, like Nietzsche, blame Christianity for the origin of Leftism. The dirty secret is that Leftism is merely the egoism of the herd, and it is an in-built flaw to humanity, especially among the smarter (but not genius) humans. We love to self-delude and this takes the form not of death-denial but solipsism, which is reality-denial, so that we feel like gods on earth. Crowdism took over Christianity just like it took over the West, by subverting and inverting it, but this means that Christianity is insufficiently resistant.

Part of this lack of resistance is its Otherness. We will always feel like a conquered people when our religion comes from lands other than our own, and when the symbols are not ours, but those of another culture. We obliterate our culture with Christianity by admiring its effectiveness in mobilizing others and forgetting that this means the Crowd will soon rule.

Many of us adore the European Christian traditions we know. We love the old churches, the hymns, the strong moral standards and the love of learning. Many good things happened under Christianity, but this does not mean that they are exclusive to Christianity. We need a new Bible, one that implies more than states rules which can be misinterpreted, that comes from our own lands.

Conservatives have faced a hopeless task for centuries. Leftism is always more popular and just as proportionately more wrong. Retreating to core values like purpose/work, religion and love of nation seems like a good idea, but when those things have been replaced by corrupt ersatz substitutes, this means you conservatives will be working for the enemy. Not a good idea.

I have dreaded writing this essay for years, but it needs to be out there. Reject patriotism and theocracy, and instead, let us look toward a future: we need a government by Us and for Us, and a religion that is the same, and we need to let failed institutions like the Church and Constitution slide into the abyss of failure toward which they will drag us, if we do not step off that treadmill.

A Spirit Of Power

Monday, March 6th, 2017


by Carey Henderson

God didn’t give us a cowardly spirit but a spirit of power, love, and good judgment. 2 Timothy 1:7

Let us all here at Amerika walk away from the noise for a time. Walk away from churches. Away from TVs. Step lively from the cacophony of our miserable, repetitive, make-work American lives. Where are we going? On a short trip to remember something about ourselves.

Far too many Americans underestimated the efficacy of Leftist thinking. After all, the politics of Envy, what Leftism boils down to at the plasma level, has been around since the Dawn. Which Dawn? The Biblical Dawn, an more Eastern timeframe? The Big Bang? Does it matter? Reams of data exist. Stories, fairy tales, folk tales, and religious lore passed down over generations, lost, rediscovered, and studied anew, give us as much data as we can stomach about the nature of envy, of Hubris, entitlement, and Pride. Thus, the Left conquered America (slowly to us, over decades, but lightning-fast in terms of history) by playing itself off as the compassionate, concerned, and Holy Warrior for All Things Modernity. The Left played fiddles and violins as virtuosos, luring Americans with relative ease into a trap. While castigating every single one of our American principles – principles not hammered down our throats by useless, “old white men,” tyrants, or leftist dictators but astute, often damn well inspired thinking and planning men — the Left programmed America through slicker and better TV, film, and literary works as time progressed. Americans thought this all new. Americans couldn’t have been more incorrect.

While many of us on the Right slept like comfortable babies, the Left continued to improve its ground game, because much of humanity truly loves to be entertained and lied to on a regular basis. This is human nature. Under the auspices of “love” and “tolerance,” the Left exploited every base desire and instinct humanity has in order to program Americans to pledge fealty to their cause tacitly, but with more and more of everyone’s bank account and time the immediate cost.

The Right often (correctly) purports its principles and ideas as perennial, time-tested, and provably useful. But as this site has noted more than once, the Right does not often understand the Left, and one thing that it does not grasp is that the Left, too, is working within a framework that has existed since time immemorial. There is, as a wise man once noted, nothing new under the sun. The Right underestimates the passion of a Leftist at his own loss. If he, much like the Leftist, cannot fathom anyone espousing an ideology so inherently different from his own, then there is no way to defeat the Left in most situations. The man on the Right, in order to defeat the Left beyond name-calling and schadenfreude, must look back. There are many paths, often intertwined within historical works and religious works, not to forget astute fiction, that one can take to embark on this journey, but the end result is more than worth the effort.

Yet even more important than this is that the Right leaning man needs to understand himself more than anyone else.

While research into the narratives and tactics that the Left uses takes time and dedication, it pales in comparison to knowing oneself. Few in America, including those on the Right, have mental clarity. How could they? This American Modernity is a cacophony of bored people doing whatever is necessary to dull that boredom. While it is easy to sit back and criticize John and Jane Q. Public for sitting in front of the TV for hours on end and then wondering why they have no peace of mind and their neuroses become like clay sent through a kiln, the truth is that to achieve mental clarity in this Modernity requires a strange but heavy sacrifice.

Strange because this sacrifice actually loses us nothing but gains us amazing results and yet it does affect every familial and peer situation we have. So few can compute the notion of two, maybe three hours of utter silence in a night. Fewer can compute a home without a TV. Most Americans see meditation as a light form of self-affirmation and, indeed, meditation is affirming to life itself, but it is not a quick placebo thrown into the mix between Facebook sessions and Dancing with the Stars.

Though there are myriad pieces on the internet about what the Right is (pick a subset), and though this piece has no interest in disparaging or arguing with these works, no amount of pounding out blog posts about what the Right is will settle the issue internally for those who have the heart for the mission, as those at Amerika here possess. Most simply do not have the heart for this mission. Most are what wartime historians and photographers understand as supporters. They’re not “shooters,” so it is important to neither disparage or undermine their role. You’ve likely heard the stories of men going through the aftermath of battle and finding certain men — shooters — who were supplied under fire with guns and ammo because the supporters were not cowards, and in their way they furthered victory.

The Right and places like Amerika are where the people with a heart for the mission are trying to gather. And the Right needs to reflect, to meditate, and take the necessary steps to know itself beyond what it has known of itself for the past several decades. It rises, then falls, the inevitability of the pattern visible so often in its own tone and defensive nature. The Right has so often appeased rather than conquered, because the Right lost sight, in many ways understandable, of what it represents:

The compassionate conqueror.

The Right does not come to steal, kill, and destroy. The Right, however, does arrive with a sword, in many ways like a surgeon, to split the Truth from the narrative. That is the crux of all of its principles. That is the apex of the Right, and the goal of those who have the heart for the mission at hand. This process hurts. Oftentimes, it will alienate. There is no process in existence, in our universe, that does not. And yet it is good, for the end result is the reduction of entropy toward order. The Right can and does tolerate many ideological and religious differences, unlike the Left, which merely mimics toleration in order to infect, much like cancer cells “talking” to healthy human cells, in order to make its way through the security systems in our bodies. But the Right, like the compassionate conqueror that its principles exemplify, requires order and stability, because it tries to deal with reality and not wishes or Utopian desires.

Above all, the Right in America today should take heart in its own identity, rather than listening to anyone else’s ideas about its identity. It is the compassionate conqueror who, as the opening verse noted, has a spirit of Power, not defeat. The Right need not usurp anything. The Left are the usurpers, easily witnessed daily in our world. Theirs is not a spirit of power but of envy, spite, and trickery. As old as time. Witness the anger of the Left when confronted with Truth and reality to see this further. The man on the Right should cast off any ideas rooted in Leftism, and in our world of mix and match ideologies, many have crept in. The compassionate conqueror knows that he is correct, because he is in line with a larger universe, one seeking to decrease entropy, thus he is reserved, but not timid. This is the meaning of the word “meek,” in that it is a strength of body and mind that is kept under observation and reserved. It is not weakness. Nor is it arrogance. Finally, it is not petty nor given to addiction to schadenfreude. It is reserved but powerful, more or less, the adult in the room, to simplify.

America and the West will endure much misery along with good fortune in the coming years. The Left has no coping mechanism. It will continue to do as it has done for eons. Those on the Right with the heart for the mission and its supporters have hope, and a heap of it, as so many wake up and know that what they believed was as right as Right can be, and has been for as many eons. While the Left usurps, the Right can seek, find itself, and conquer.

Devoted people cast off attachment and perform action to attain purity of self, with the body, the mind, the understanding, or even the senses — all free from individualistic notions. — Bhagavad Gita, Chapter VI

As the Right continues to work through this renewed energy it has been given, it needn’t look anywhere but within in order to find its spirit of Power, for as cliché as it sounds, it was always there, merely waiting to be rediscovered.

By day, Carey Henderson slogs through the boredom of the American Office. Any other time, you can find him on his sites, Speakeasy(X) and Speakeasy(X) Politically and, occasionally, on Twitter.