Posts Tagged ‘conservatism’

Where Conservatives Lost The Understanding of Conservatism

Saturday, August 19th, 2017

The same people who shriek “define your terms!” in any debate are perfectly comfortable living among entirely vague terms. Think of “equality,” or even “justice.” We have no simple, straightforward way to define these without referring to institutions, not their goals or the ideas behind them.

Conservatism fits into the same trap. As written here before, it descends from Plato, who wrote that our pursuit was to find the best life possible, that this consisted of virtue instead of pure self-interest, that it had a relative morality of “good to the good, bad to the bad,” that civilizations have a life cycle in which democracy is death, and that our best use of our time is to pursue transcendentals, or immutable yet ongoing goals such as excellence, beauty, goodness, accuracy and ascendancy.

This brings us into conflict with not just Leftists, but the world. In this life, we either have purpose, or we become agents of entropy, falling back into navel-gazing and pursuit of our own fascinations that are unrelated to the world. Conservatism emphasizes that purpose by focusing on order, which is naturally larger than the individual or materiality; the Left denies that purpose by focusing on universal acceptance of the individual, which by its equation of good and bad is a rejection of order, hierarchy and transcendentals.

With the French Revolution, the notion of “conservatives” arose to refer to all of those normal and learned theories that existed before egalitarianism rose and took over. Conservatives are a resistance movement in favor of tradition, classical knowledge, logical fact, truth and wisdom. But because it must collaborate with the Left in the new regime, it is compromised, and so most conservatives gave up on reclaiming their nations and focused instead on themselves with a “work hard, pray hard” ethos that emphasized business, patriotism, equality as a means toward meritocracy, and religion, but only as applied within the individual. They would never violate holy equality by suggesting a goal for civilization, only personal choices.

This confusion becomes visible whenever conservatives decide they like some egalitarianism, but that it can go too far. They forget that ideas naturally lead to others, and that any idea will expand in scope until it has the power it needs to implement itself, which in the case of universal philosophies like egalitarianism, is essentially world control. You can see this in action in a creative but misleading article which hopes to show us “good” egalitarianism versus that dark side communist stuff:

The American Revolution was sparked by the Enlightenment, Judeo/Christian moral beliefs, mixed with Greek and Roman philosophy and political theories. At its best, the American Revolution promotes universal human equality–a work still in progress–individual freedom, freedom of thought and speech, the rule of law, etc.

The French Revolution, in contrast, is Utopian, collectivist, authoritarian, intolerant, and punitive. It is anti-religion generally and anti-Christianity specifically. It accepts the belief that the ends justify the means.

Other than the obvious comparison to communism, which is not wrong so much as it is misleading, the above misses the point because the actual history is that the French Revolution and American Revolution were motivated by the same ideals, but the Americans choose to try to restrain them in the hopes that democracy would not take on its final form as they read about in Plato. The intent behind the founding of the United States seemed to be to create an extremely limited government that would hold democracy in check, and be run by the wealthy, educated and accomplished citizens arising from a natural aristocracy.

At its core, however, this does not differ from the French idea, which had an ideological heritage going back to the Enlightenment™ and the Renaissance.™ The individual is equal, in this view, and so all are treated the same under the law, which eliminates the privilege and power of aristocrats and the naturally more competent by degrees, essentially seeking to limit the power of those who are succeeding so that those who are not can participate as well. Instead of recognizing social order, this strives against it, and the Americans tried to re-implant social order in it through a complex series of rules designed to preserve the manor-based order that had bloomed in the new colonies.

In other words, like the French order, the American one was Utopian. Worse than believing that the ends justify the means, it believed that ends could be passed on by regulating means, at which point only the good and safe remained, which removes the need for society or its leaders to have agency and be working toward the good, as opposed to simply avoiding past known evil methods. The question of intent was not addressed, and so over time, as always happens in democracy, it was filled in by the default actions to which humans gravitate. This quickly asserted itself as mob rule, because if not driven by purpose, a human reverts to thinking of himself, and so will demand the ability to do anything he wants — despite not being able to name these things or their utility — and have an iron law where society cannot throw him out. And so, the American order fell into the same condition as the French order, because the two are different locations on the same continuum from hubris through full Soviet Communism.

A fellow anti-democracy analyst explains this in terms of what the founders did not see versus what they were able to comprehend:

It is not entirely unexpected that Dunning-Kruger cases like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have completely misunderstood what Plato was trying to warn them about. They believed that Plato was warning them that democracies always give way to authoritarianism, and thus built strong defenses against authoritarianism into the design for their democracy. But what Plato was really trying to tell them was that democracy inevitably devolves into such horrendous moral, social, and economic chaos that decent, smart, educated people will, with full deliberate intent, beg an authoritarian leader to take power and restore order, even if it does impinge on their liberties to some degree. The fear that these pseudointellectuals really did design a system that will make it impossible for a Caesar to come and save us is what keeps me awake at night.

In other words, if we do not have a purpose for our civilization, we fall back into being rabble, no matter how smart or educated we are. It happens in little stages, one year at a time, with those who are feeling alienated working like fanatics to dismantle whatever they can. They are clever, not intelligent, and so their methods are crude but effective in that they zero in on the support structures that keep society away from anarchy. For them, life is somehow not fair because they were born men and not gods, and it is this sense of hubris that makes them want to overthrow every order and replace them with anarchy where whatever is popular — that which gives in to the same impulse in others, since it is an infectious lowest common denominator among humans as it is with our simian ancestors — wins out every time, this being an order they think they can control since they share the disease with others, and so know what they want to hear, and therefore what they will support by making false elites and false leaders out of whoever says it.

Let us revisit Robert Conquest’s second law of politics:

Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

With what we know, we can expand upon this: any organization which is not explicitly directed toward a purpose will sooner or later become infected with hubris, from that give rise to a collective of individuals called a Crowd, and through that, arrive on the spectrum of Left-wing beliefs which terminate in Full Communism. We either have purpose, or ourselves, and when we declare ourselves to be the end instead of a purpose, everything unravels into silliness and stupor. The individual fears purpose because if there is a goal, the individual can fall short of that goal, and this is the root of all of the social horror that humans experience.

It is likely that people push for socialism, communism, equality, feminism, and the like not for economic reasons, but simply because they want to avoid being judged as individuals, and in the anonymity of egalitarianism can escape notice of their failings. This in turn dooms them because by becoming solely inwardly-focused, as happens with hubris and individualism, they lose sight of anything that could give their lives meaning, and end up in a darkened room formed of desires and power but without any potential for growth or discovery.

Conservatives understand this fundamental spiritual truth of humanity, which is that we die inside if we are given too much power as individuals, much as civilization dies if power is given to the wrong people. It loses momentum and collapses into its own circular inertia. Then everything grinds to a stop, much as it is in the contemporary West, which gave up on any hope of greatness during the second world war and has focused on growing its economy ever since so that some of us can win the wealth lottery and escape the Brazil 2.0 that is arising around us.

But as with any human structure, “conservatives” are a varied lot. The Bell Curve applies mercilessly here as well, which means that perhaps one percent of conservatives are worth reading, listening to and following; the rest are repeaters, and because they are focused on self and not world, they are repeating excuses, scapegoats, superstitions, trends, fads, panics and stampede-inducing ideas. This means that by definition, most conservatives are mostly wrong about most things most of the time. That does not mean that conservatism is wrong, only that any idea as interpreted by a group gets reduced to what is most convenient for the individual to belief in the context of an imaginary justification of his life to other people in his social group. Tom Wolfe calls that the fiction-absolute, and we might categorize it along with justifications, excuses and superstitions as the human animal attempting to control, rather than understand, his environment:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world–so ordained by some almighty force–would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.

The human beast’s belief in his own fiction-absolute accounts for one of the most puzzling and in many cases irrational phenomena of our time. I first noticed it when I read a book by Samuel Lubell called The Future of American Politics. Lubell was a political scientist and sociologist who had been as surprised as everybody else by the outcome of the 1948 presidential election. That was the election in which the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman, was a president whose approval rating had fallen as low as 23 percent. Every survey, every poll, every pundit’s prediction foresaw him buried by the Republican nominee, Thomas E. Dewey. Instead, Truman triumphed in one of the most startling upsets in American political history. Lubell was determined to find out why, and so he set out across the country. When he reached a small Midwestern town that had been founded before the turn of the 19th century by Germans, he was puzzled to learn that the town had gone solidly for Dewey despite the fact that by every rational turn of logic, every economic motivation, Truman would have been a more logical choice. By and by Lubell discovered that the town was still predominantly German. Nobody had ever gotten over the fact that in 1917, a Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson, had declared war on Germany. That had set off a wave of anti-German feeling, anti-German prejudice, and, in the eyes of the people of this town, besmirched their honor as people of German descent. And now, two World Wars later, their minds were fixed on the year 1917, because like all other human beasts, they tended to champion in an irrational way their own set of values, their own fiction absolute. The question Lubell asked was very much like the question that Thomas Frank asked after the election of 2004 in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? By all economic and political logic, the state of Kansas should have gone to John Kerry, the Democrat, in 2004. But it didn’t. Had Frank only looked back to Samuel Lubell, he would have known why. The 2004 election came down to one state: the state of Ohio. Whoever won that state in the final hours would win the election. Northern Ohio, the big cities of Cleveland, Toledo on the Great Lakes, were solidly for Kerry. But in southern Ohio, from east to west, and in the west was the city of Cincinnati, Ohio went solidly for George Bush. And the reason? That great swath of territory was largely inhabited by the Scots-Irish. And when the Democrats came out in favor of gun control, the Scots-Irish interpreted this as not merely an attack on the proliferation of weaponry in American life but as a denunciation, a besmirching, of their entire way of life, their entire fiction absolute. Guns were that important in their scheme of things.

Leftists have the same thing, only worse: for them, the best life can only be found in being defined by their opposition to the majority, and so they are addicted to and dependent on their image as Leftists to make them feel good. This is why they are fanatical and their cluster of opinions is narrower than people on the Right.

But on the Right, most conservatives still do not understand their own belief system. They have a gut instinct toward certain ideas that they think put the world in balance, like fairness derived from competition instead of government subsidy. They distrust anything that violates their local culture. Some of this is fiction-absolute, and some of it is common sense, ingrained over centuries. The Left can disrupt this easily however by shifting context, at which point the gut instinct gets a bit confused. To avoid this, conservatives tend to operate within a narrow context, which means that they always appear to be failing to answer the insane prevarications of the Left.

Because their beliefs are hybridized with Leftism by the very nature of having to work with a system — democracy, equality, tolerance — that is fundamentally Leftist, most conservatives have forgotten the nature of conservatism. To them, it is the methods it uses to fix human mistakes, and not the purpose of engaging in those, which is to create a virtuous civilization in which each person is rewarded for engaging in virtuous living. The point is to be good, not to have “muh freedom” or strong business and defense, and only secondarily is this related to defending Christianity, Israel, or even America. Conservatism is the same philosophy worldwide, but it is applied differently depending on where a society is in its cycle from birth to death, and therefore both what can be done and what must be done to address the problems of that stage are both relevant questions. That conservatives change strategy with context does not mean that their goal or principles change, only that they are using different methods to achieve them depending on their environment, but the problem with this is that most conservatives will understand only the methods and not the goals, which is why conservatism today is seen as a parody of itself scripted by the Left, even by its strongest adherents.

Even worse, conservatives succumb to a basic fiction, which is that if something is demonstrated to be logical or good, the rest of civilization will magically discover it and move toward it, a delusion which is a common solipsistic pathology of assuming the world will eventually agree with them that in turn makes them inert and unable to act:

“It often seems that partisans believe they are so correct that others will eventually come to see the obviousness of their correctness,” says behavioral scientist Todd Rogers of the Harvard Kennedy School, lead author on the research. “Ironically, our findings indicate that this belief in a favorable future may diminish the likelihood that people will take action to ensure that the favorable future becomes reality.”

…Data from over 800 people in China, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom indicated that the belief in a favorable future is a cross-cultural phenomenon, and additional findings revealed that the biased belief is distinct from other phenomena such as optimism and the false-consensus effect. Even when people are given an incentive to make accurate predictions about how people’s beliefs will change between now and the future, they tend to believe others’ attitudes will change over time to fall in line with their own current beliefs.

Importantly, field experiment data suggest that believing in a favorable future can influence people’s behavior in the here and now. Working with the Democratic Governors Association, Rogers and colleagues sent out two variations of a fundraising email to more than 660,000 supporters. Recipients were less likely to open the email if the subject indicated that a Democrat had the lead in a closely contested race compared with a message that suggested he was trailing in a closely contested race. Of those who opened the email, people were less likely to click the donation link and were less likely to make a donation when the Democrat was portrayed as having the lead compared to when the Democrat was portrayed as being behind.

What you are seeing here is the philosophical equivalent of the endorphins released when your body realized that it is freezing to death and cannot generate enough heat to save you. This triggers a dump of happy opiates into the bloodstream so that everything seems rosy and warm in those moments before inevitable death. This is mental state of the average conservative: in order to feel good about their existence in a dying civilization at all, they must rationalize their position by assuming that the rest of the world will someday agree with them. This allows conservatives to be individualists, or those who focus on their own working hard and praying hard, and ignore the fact that the world is falling apart around them and that if they do not intervene, we will all be doomed. Similarly, white nationalists spent generations waiting for that moment when whites would awaken and start the race war. Both of these are preemptive justifications, not realistic thinking, and represent a deep inner despair.

Coming from the ashes of an election in which Americans elected a man with almost no relevant experience, a shady past and obvious leanings toward the far-Left, the Alt Right attempted to fix these core problems of conservatism. Instead of confusing goals with method, it wanted solely to discuss goals and ignore method. Instead of focusing on the personal, it argued for re-taking society and making it healthy again, in a viewpoint that saw a temporary authoritarianism as better than a long-term one. It hoped to slide between the insanity of mainstream conservatism, which was trapped in hopelessness and a “work hard, pray hard” outlook that left it entirely impotent, and the non sequitur of the underground Right including white nationalism, which had no plan but endorsed and exhibited pathological behaviors that sent ordinary, upper half of middle class European-descended Americans fleeing to the hills.

After Obama, it is clear that Western Civilization is in decline, and as Samuel Huntington predicted, there was a “Berlin 1945 moment” for Leftism and liberal democracy which has created a void where we once thought our future would be. There is a space for someone to inherit the future which people expect will naturally follow this one, and so ideological conflict has broken out in the remains of the fallen West. For those who are conservative, but recovering from the errors of conservatives in the recent past, we realize that now is the time when we must seize authority and restore Western Civilization because any other goal will devolve into a variant of Leftism, and leads to defeat both for us and our people.

What Do “Right” and “Left” Mean?

Thursday, August 10th, 2017

The salient fact of modernity is that without a natural hierarchy in society, all actions must be accomplished through mass popularity. In order to gain approval of the herd, called consensus, leaders or commercial actors must mobilize a large army of warm bodies who claim to be excited about the idea.

Understanding hierarchy requires understanding the concept of order, or the idea that many unequal parts can work together in balance toward a purpose, guided by principles which ensure the evolution of that work. The opposite of this is mass culture, in which all are equal and are controlled by a force which manipulates them through images, bribes, terrors and guilt.

Mass culture therefore removes all meaning to terms by using them flexibly to argue for whatever is needed or desired. Any term like “Left” or “Right” will be abused, but that does not change the underlying meaning any more than an apple becomes a banana when referred to by the wrong term.

As written about before on this site, the nature of the Right is twofold and emerges from its primary goal, which is to conserve. This outlook recognizes that entropy and selfishness are the eternal enemies of humankind and also the pitfalls that are with us constantly in everything we do or fail to do, and so our goal becomes conservation of what works best.

While this is positive, it is also too backward-looking, and so we dig further into the historical and linguistic roots of conservatism, and find that it is conservation of order, arising from Plato’s “good to the good, and bad to the bad” statement, along the same lines as morality and Darwinism. It sorts people into a hierarchy from good to bad, and promotes the good while beating back the bad.

In this sense, conservatism is a folkway, or a time-honored tradition of choosing not just what works, but what produces the best possible results so that life is inspiring to our fellow citizens. It is the opposite of an ideology, which is a commandment about what “should” be true according human mass desires, instead of a revelation of what is true and how to maximize it.

When it manifests in politics, this way of life becomes the Right:

Historically, however, the famous terms “left” and “right” are around 300 years old. They have their roots in the “Assemblée des États”, the assemblies of the estates. Because of the belief of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God (the hand in which a man usually holds his sword in), the places right to the ruler were considered to be the more honorable seats. Therefore, aristocracy and clergy were sitting to the right hand of the king, the “lower” representatives of the free cities, the citizens, to his left.

This polarity carried on after the king was overthrown because those on the Right fundamentally wanted to restore the ancient order because they knew that aristocracy provided for greater stability than mob rule, and that while mob rule will always be popular with humans, so are many destructive things.

Naturally this created tension. It is impossible to work within a system you oppose without either compromising your principles, or being outright hostile to it and therefore unable to get anything done. The system selected for people who were willing to compromise, which explains why the West has steadily shifted Leftward since 1789 no matter what the Right seems to do.

Even worse, the fundamental conservative idea does not emphasize a change in direction because of its backward-looking desire to “conserve.” In this sense, backward-looking is not looking backward in time, but as a sense of retreat, where the conservatives try to defend a few vital institutions and ideals against a constant onslaught of Leftism. This strategy has not worked well either.

Most conservatives seem to accept society as a lost cause. To them, a society is born in a new state, rises to power, then becomes bloated with fools and parasites like every other human endeavor, and then lapses into a fallen state where conservatives just have to grin and bear it, keep paying taxes and supporting the military, and hope to silently pass into history, one presumes.

They rationalize their behavior with “work hard, pray hard” or The Benedict Option, but both are postures more than attempts to achieve anything. The modern conservative accepts defeat and, with his head held down low, trudges on through life, becoming bitter and passing that on to his family.

Launching a forward-looking conservative movement proves difficult because conservatives generally rationalize their way out of radical change. They also have no way to explain to people who are living the easy life why they should sacrifice and work hard in order to achieve a new system that looks like something from centuries before.

Any conservative party thus becomes a target for opportunists who are willing to cast aside the actual values of conservatism and replace them with pragmatic ones. They realize they can be the opposition party and still have power without having to do much of anything because they know and expect. To them, it is just another job, and they focus on the financial side of it.

Having given up on actually maintaining society, conservatives then treat politics as a business and try to compete, which dooms them because they are up against people who specialize in bribing voters with promises of free stuff. This is how conservatism ends up doing the work of the Left for them; by competing, it adopts Leftist methods, and soon becomes effectively Leftist:

The Progressive era of the West arrived by way of Bismarck and Germany. Otto, being a conservative, was, by that characteristic alone, a natural born progressive. He sought to stay the power and the rise of the Socialists in Germany. He did so thinking like a socialist, calculating as a socialist, and preempting socialist aims by providing what Socialists had not yet the wherewithal/power to dole out.

In the above, we see the classic pattern of conservatives “competing” by achieving socialism before the socialists. This way, the conservatives stay in power, but they also defeat themselves, much as American conservatives have by defending Leftist ideals and programs despite recognizing that these are anathema to their actual values.

This makes it clear as to why people are confused on “Right” and “Left.” When the Right acts like the Left, and the Left depends on the Right to keep the financial side of government operational, the dual parties seem like two heads of the same Hydra. In truth, the Hydra is the Left, and it maintains a public party as a means of forcing others to act out its agenda.

When considering this Hydra, it is worth realizing that it can take on many forms. The fundamental and only idea of the Left is egalitarianism, which means that bad and good alike can participate in society. This is their means of overthrowing any natural hierarchy and replacing it with a popularity contest so that the bad can seize power and profit from it.

In this way, the Left is an instance of both entropy and Crowdism, which is how all human endeavors fail by allowing everyone to participate, thus erasing hierarchy, at which point the Crowd demands the endeavor be made to fit its new audience, which inverts its meaning and adulterates its potency. That is what happened to conservatism as well: assimilation from within by people dedicated to nothing greater than themselves.

Humanity stands at a crossroads. We either find a way to beat this form of simian entropy, or we give on having advanced civilizations that can produce great art, literature and space travel. At that point, we will be assimilated from within by genetics, slowly introducing enough trace admixture to effect a soft genocide of our people, without whom civilization cannot be reborn.

The Alt Right shows promise by being willing to affirm the need to restore Western Civilization, which requires seizing power and driving out the parasites. In this way, it takes the ideals of the Right and the methods of the Left, uniting them toward a temporary force which can put civilization back on track, at which point it can develop naturally to its full potential.

Few will find it surprising that therefore the most intense appeal of the Alt Right comes from those who are existentially stranded in a boring modern existence and dreaming of exploring the stars.

Chesterton’s Fence

Thursday, August 3rd, 2017

Authors gain a footnote or chapter heading in history based on the accuracy of their descriptions of reality, even in fiction. Metaphor provides a powerful technique for describing the world around us, its patterns and tendencies, and our relationship to them.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) provided us with an abundance of metaphors, including “Chesterton’s Gate,” a defense of that which is historically functional against those who would replace it based on conjectural ideology. He describes the past as time-proven against the present which may not understand that history, but would do well to investigate it:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion. — G.K. Chesterton, The Thing (1929)

The same applies to nature: humans frequently assume that nature is arbitrary and therefore in need of fixing when in fact what they are seeing are behaviors that have functioned better than anything else discovered so far. When people say that we need new “genders” or to change time-proven ways like the family, aristocracy, faith, culture, virtue and honor, they are attacking Chesterton’s fence just as when they claim that we can exploit natural land and not worry about our impact on the species or ecosystems there.

If people were inclined to be honest, they would realize that the real test for any new idea is not “Will it work?” which is a minimum-based standard, but “Does it work better than what was there before?” because this is the standard used in nature and history. A new way needs to prove that it is worth converting to, not that it plausibly functions and therefore, it is argued, is better than what went before.

Understanding Feedback And Feedback Loops

Wednesday, June 28th, 2017

Some insight into feedback loops

The advantage of capitalism v. central planning, is that information is sent through prices, supply and demand. This information feedback, however, is still gameable by power blocs. The exact strategies are different than in a command economy, but the end result is the same. The West and America are currently undergoing this exact problem. The entire financial crisis was about inaccurate feedback, and broken feedback loops: it was about the financial and housing industries deliberately damaging the feedback system.

…In a hundred years, when historians and whoever deals with economic issues look back (hopefully not economists as we understand them), they aren’t going to be that impressed that Western Capitalism outlasted Soviet Communism by forty or fifty years. Instead they are going to look back and say that both were doomed, in large part, by inability to manage the exact same problem. In both cases the feedback systems which controlled economic production were so perverted by various internal power blocs that the societies were unable to reproduce the material circumstances necessary for their continuance.

This is why many of us oppose formal organization, because it creates rules which are de facto centralized power, as opposed to what conservatism favors, which is informal, particularized, localized and case-by-case basis decisions.

Leftism is the religion of the rule, and the rule involves the word “all,” which leads to control as it naturally creates a centralized power structure. All people must drive 35 MPH; all applications must be filed in triplicate; all people must go through the door on the right. This forces obedience by making people equal in the rule of the law.

The natural opposite to the religion of the rule is cooperation, which requires inequality, because not everyone can do the same thing. Instead of a rule saying that all people must do the same thing, which means they have equal obligation to the centralized control, cooperation says that each has different importance, we do not all do the same thing, and thus we have unequal obligations and rewards.

This thwarts the internal power structures which arise in human organizations to attempt to take control, such as dark organizations or crowdist cult-gangs.

Feedback is a vital part of the cooperative system. In it, power resembles a cascading hierarchy, which means that each level delegates to the level below and does not intervene on the basis of method. Instead, they assign tasks and say, “Use best judgment always” or “by any means necessary,” both of which are ends-over-means analyses.

Control on the other hand is means-over-ends. It requires that each person use the same method so that it can filter out methods that it believes weaken its power. The classic example is demanding that each person repeat back dogma on a regular basis, effectively programming their thoughts. Think of someone saying, “Diversity is our strength.” You either accept it and pass the test, or are identified as an enemy.

Feedback loops happen when something is wrong at the level above the one to which it has been delegated; you see this in the form of jury nullification, for example. The person to whom the task is delegated needs to report back that the task is wrongly framed, unintended consequences have arisen, or that a new type of problem has occurred.

The classic feedback loop is what William Gibson observed when he saw a young boy playing a video game. The boy moved the cursor, the computer responded, and the boy responded to that and then the cycle repeated. His inspiration William S. Burroughs saw feedback loops using naturalistic metaphors: monkeys attack the weakest participant in any altercation, so some monkeys play fey, which is a covert form of attack.

You can see feedback in your hand. You intend to grasp something, so you pick it up, and the hand radiates back that it is hot, so you do something else with it. A feedback loop might be a man adjusting a sluice: he fiddles with it, the water goes in a different direction, so he responds to that and the cycle repeats.

The importance of feedback loops is that they recognize what most humans deny: time, and the cyclic nature of history. Our moments are not unique, because they exhibit patterns that others can experience. And, the changes we want to make to the world must be interpreted not in the instant they are performed, but how the world will react, like thinking ten moves ahead in chess.

Classic human informal order recognizes the need for feedback with lattices of power, and for feedback loops with informal power. Lattices of power are hierarchies that are both vertical and horizontal, like the classic aristocratic model, and informal power avoids the rule as much as possible, relying on a case-by-case basis that avoids precedent and therefore can be negotiated not only unequally but specifically.

You can see conservative-style informal power anywhere leadership employs localized, particularized and case-by-case decisions made by culture, wise elders, a caste system where higher castes have social power, religious leaders, local respected voices, and the like. All of these systems are more flexible and resilient that rules, resolutions, laws, regulations, treaties, and command economies.

Why The Right Always Loses

Friday, June 16th, 2017

For the past millennium, being conservative-minded — valuing realism over human notions — has been a losing proposition.

Even more, it feels like supporting the idea of the good itself is also a path to constantly being disappointed. It has even become a cultural icon: we refer to people who rationalize losing as “being philosophical about it” and acknowledge the trope of the conservative, fists tightly clutched around whatever truth they were trying to save, going down with the ship. Or the lonely intellectual retreating from society.

Evil always wins, or at least mediocrity. Everything always gets worse and when a chance to fix it comes along, someone snaps up that opportunity, seizes the attention and redirects it to something profitable. No wonder people are exhausted. Modernity is hell to which we are sentenced to live out our terms as Cassandras howling into the wind.

Rightists have lost any expectation of winning and so, naturally, they do not win. Instead they make prosperous homes for their families, retreat into work and religion, but can be counted on to come out of the woodwork any time that their nation-state needs saving. They have entered into an unhealthy symbiotic codependency with the Left. This shatters them inside and makes them unstable.

The Left, of course, will insist on something like “the arc of history” or another fiction that supports their founding myth. In the Leftist view, nature is bad and egalitarianism is good, so any movement away from natural order and toward an order based on egalitarianism, in which human preference is more important than its results when applied, is good. To them, decay is good and so they insist on celebrating it.

But on more practical terms, it becomes clear that the Right has failed because it is unprepared to deal with the new reality of civilization during times of decay. All of its failings come back to that misunderstanding. Let us look at three key areas where the Right simply cannot grasp the task before it:

1. Entryism and Assimilation

Bruce Charlton gives us the clearest picture of how the Right inevitably gives way to the Left:

Because even when a genuinely non-Left (i.e. religious) group speaks in the public sphere, that aspect is filtered; such that what appears has moved the debate onto the core secular Left ground of ‘utilitarianism’ – the calculus of human pleasure or suffering in this mortal life.

…Therefore all supposed ‘victories’ of the ‘Right’ are merely reinforcing the deep-Left agenda.

The point here is that if you get faked out into using the language of your opposition, you will program yourself with their assumptions, and will then re-interpret your own political outlook as if it were a variant of theirs. At that point, you defeat yourself not by losing but by winning, and only later finding out that you carried the virus of the enemy with you.

In its most virulent form, this process can be seen through conservatives who endorse equality in any form. Conservatism does not support individualism, equality, freedom, liberty, feminism or anti-racism; it is an entirely different thought process than Leftism, based in recognizing an order bigger than the individual human rather than wanting the whims and wishful thinking of that individual to take precedence over reality.

The only way to understand the Left is to understand the Right, which is based in the idea of order, form, principle and purpose in unity with the world instead of as a human counterpoint to it:

The view of politics which the average person has come to possess, delineates things primarily according to economic policies – with communists and socialists on ‘the Left’; and laissez-faire capitalists or economic liberals on ‘the Right.’ This would leave the true – historical – Right out of it altogether, or leave it with a false position vaguely off the centre. Some modern Rightists helpfully compound this problem by terming themselves ‘Third Position’, and claiming to be ‘neither Left nor Right.’

A far more accurate way of understanding the above would be to put The True Right on one side (representing as it does; hierarchy, spirituality, organic unity…) and position both communism and laissez-faire capitalism on the other side as two different forms of the Left (valuing: equality, materialism, individualism – socialism is still essentially individualism; it is the banding together of individual egos for mutual benefit. Laissez-faire capitalism / economic liberalism literally arose out of the historical Left against the Right.)

This is what is being referred to by the schizoid nature of the Left. The Left arises out of an inversion of the Right, but it has at its disposal many different means of negating the ideals of the Right. These often appear to be the complete opposite of one another. Consequently many of the ideological oppositions of our time are in reality different versions of the Left squaring off against one another.

For those wanting to understand the Right, which most Rightists do not, it is worth looking into some writings on conservative theory and application.

The goal of the Right is to have an order based around the best that life has to offer, instead of what the Leftists want, which is an exclusively human order. The Right recognizes the importance of history, customs, heritage, beliefs, values, future, hierarchy, social order, organization, culture, philosophy, nature and other qualitative intangibles. The Left recognizes on the tangible, which is the individual and those it socializes with that make it feel more important than the natural world around it.

Whenever the Right gets sidetracked to intermediates — patriotism, equality, liberty, freedom, diversity — that may be important on their own but are not a whole plan for achieving the goal of the Right, it becomes weak. Each of these things is inherently Leftist because they are the assumptions that trigger an egalitarian viewpoint. If you accept that our goal is freedom, your next thought will be that then we need to abolish all things that stand in the way of freedom, including heritage and values. Next thought: culture must die, and wealth must be redistributed, so that everyone has “freedom.”

Rightists continually fail on this front because they get trolled into doing the footwork of the Left. “Well, we both agree that we want freedom, right?” says the Leftist. “Well, then, the best way to have freedom is to make everyone equal.” The conservative, outgunned because he never thinks along these lines, agrees, and only figures out that he was conned twenty years later.

2. It is Not Enough to be Correct.

Many a Rightist has consoled himself, after watching the herd boot away another chance to do good and rush headlong into the embrace of evil which dangled tantalizing illusions before their noses, with the idea, “Oh well, I’m right anyway and they’re just big poopyheads out there for not getting it.”

However, being right is not enough; you have to be both right in the correct context, and then put your plans into action instead of (like 99% of conservatives) staying home and working on your own stuff.

First let us examine a statement by a cynical writer. He knows what his audience wants to hear. He tells them that they are victims, and that someone else has ruined their future, so the obvious conclusion is to go smash down that Other. Like most good writers who are bad thinkers, he is doing it for the popularity points and not because he believes he is right.

His statement is correct in isolation, but off-the-mark when interpreted in the context of the broader question to which it points:

Of course one might ask why blacks would have any interest in most of what has been taught in American schools. Europeans trace their intellectual lineage from the invention of writing in Sumeria in the mid-Fourth Millennium BC through Greece, Rome, the Renaissance, their literary heritage from the Gilgamesh Epic through Tolkien. Blacks had no connection with this and did none of these things. It isn’t of their culture.

Cities have been the heart of the intellectual and artistic in all civilizations, as for example Athens, Rome, Florence, Vienna, New York. By contrast, blacks have destroyed city after American city after American city. Trenton, Camden, Newark, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Gary, Flint, St. Louis, New Orleans, Milwaukee. At one time in all of these one could live, walk at will, send one’s children to the schools. Now, no. Violence, crime, racial attacks, and illiteracy drive the civilized to remote suburbs. This is not my culture and I see no reason to apologize for it.

Massive popularity blast. White people are tired of being told how bad they are because they oppressed Africans. At the same time, Africans seem to be present in a whole lot of cases where pointless violent crimes occurred. On top of that, white America has felt that it was held hostage to black America during race riots, Ferguson effects and constant payouts for affirmative action and civil rights guilt.

White America wants to hear about how black people are not good, and how they should probably be sent far away, because they are a threat and have humiliated white America.

At the same time, this misses the broader point. No two ethnic groups can live in the same nation without absorbing one another. That means no more white Americans, only white-Asian hybrids, assuming you sent the Africans away of course. And what will the future of that nation be? It will not recapture the past.

Of course, that writer has already taken the first step because he has a Mexican wife. For him, diversity is not a problem; Africans are. However, as history shows us, it is diversity itself that is a problem even among groups from within the same race, as in Northern Ireland. So he is both correct, and not correct, because he offers a false solution.

Even if he were to upgrade his solution, the question then becomes, what are you going to do about it? As one writer opines, the Right is not ready for action:

Righties who like to build churches will build a church and worship in it. Lefties who like to build churches will build a church, write a book telling people how to build churches, go out and convince people church-building is the thing to do, run workshops on how to finance, build, and register churches, and then they’ll offer to arrange church guest speakers who’ll come preach the Lefty line.

Righties like hierarchy, so often think of the Lefties as taking marching orders from George Soros or whoever in a very hierarchical fashion. Not so much. A lot of left-wing organization is very decentralized, and they negotiate with other lefty groups as to exactly how they’ll do things and time things to not hurt each others’ work, so the labor movement’s march is not derailed by black-bloc window-smashing.

While this article has some dodgy data in it — the problem with the Confederates, for example, was resource and industry shortage, not disorganization — the truth of it is this: Leftists are fanatics and they are committed 24-7 to making things happen. Conservatives are not individualists, nor are they group-directed like the Left, but this makes them weak.

Conservatives engage in the perpetual fiction that, because if each person did the right thing, civilization would work out better, they will do the right thing in their personal lives and hope everyone else does the same. This is why people call the conservatives “the stupid party,” because there is no other word for this than stupid.

People do not do what they are not forced to do. Conservatives do not want to be forced to do anything, and because they have already accepted certain forces as sunk costs, do not notice that they are already being forced to do most of what they do. And so, doing “the right thing” at home amounts to nothing.

The Left understands force. They realize that unless people are scared to do otherwise than join the protests and work like fiends to make it all happen, they will sit at home and commit petty crimes. When the Left wins, it has no problem wielding totalitarian threats of violence, public shaming, destroying of lives and friendships, and even mobilizing the masses into a human wave that takes 50% casualties and has the machine guns mounted at the rear of the army, not the front like armies that are actually fighting for something.

Conservatives are broken in their outlook. They know that they live under a Leftist myth, equality, and with a Leftist system of government, democracy, at some level. They have shattered their own consistency of thought in order to accept defeat and declare it victory, and since they have accepted that they cannot control the future of their society, they naturally give up on everything except themselves.

Leftists are individualists, but they sacrifice greatly for the ability to be individualistic. What do conservatives sacrifice for, except wasting their time at jobs, paying taxes and dying for democracy in foreign wars? Conservatives are more competent than the Left but never put it into action because people volunteer, do what is convenient, and then go home, leaving the task to fail.

I have seen it time and again. Every now and then you get an issue that fires up conservatives. But nothing makes them as fanatical as ideology makes Leftists, and for this reason conservatives lose because they are not committed enough nor disciplined enough. While the Left organizes to take over cities, the Right are out there lifting weighs, filing taxes, buying stocks and mowing their lawns.

This is why it is not enough to be right. You have to address the actual issue and come up with a working plan, not just an emotional judgment. And then, you have to put it into action not as a hobby but as a full-time obsession. If you are not willing to do that, you are just posing at being a conservative because it makes you feel good to blame someone else for your life failures.

3. We need an agenda outside of modernity.

Modernity began with The Enlightement™ and has steadily won victory after victory since that time. It is the religion of progress, or making humanity more powerful even when this is a bad idea, and of the individual. It will not end until every tree is dead and converted into a fast food joint so the sons of housemaids can be rich men for a generation.

The only way to escape modernity is to reverse the changes made to our philosophy with The Enlightenment,™ which means discarding ideas like equality, democracy and diversity. Until we get rid of the ideas themselves, we will lead ourselves back into repeating them because our fundamental assumptions will be the same as they are now.

It also helps to recognize what Leftists are: a spectrum from Anarchist through Communist, believing in the same ideology of equality, who differ only in degree. That is important: all Leftists are the same, just with varying degrees of boldness. The “normal” Democrat, given enough power, is a Communist; the teenage anarchist, facing challenges in his Utopia, will also go to full Communism.

Their ideas — which they insist are radically different, deep, complex and difficult — are in fact all variations of the same idea, egalitarianism. This philosophy insists that all people must be included in society and that society must thus dedicate itself to them and their whims and desires, instead of having a social order, values and purpose of its own.

Leftism is a mental virus which produces fanatics. To the bored, neurotic or failed person Leftism gives a sense of meaning to life and an excuse for all that has gone wrong. It is addictive, and creates a pathology in these people because it only makes them feel good for a short while, requiring them to engage in more of it to feel good again.

Leftists and conservatives desire different types of societies and are incompatible with one another. Leftists are concerned with equality; conservatives like order and context. This fits with the idea of conservation, or keeping what works, instead of a focus on human desires.

Until we escape the Leftist mentality, we will forever repeat the last two centuries of Western history. Even if we create a pro-white dictatorship, it will still be formed of the basic idea of modernity, which is accepting everyone and turning them into a mass to use to impose ideas externally onto others. Maybe they accept fewer people, but the idea remains the same.

People type their fingers bloody wondering how all of this happened. The answer is simple: it was entropy brought on by our success. A society that succeeds suddenly loses its purpose, which previously was to succeed. Now it must answer the existential questions, such as what it can do to make life meaningful and good. That is heady territory, fit for philosophers perhaps but not democracies.

Expanding on that, human masses are entropy and they always follow evil, unless they give power to someone intelligent and generous who will work against the flow of nature, which is an inertia that leads to breakdown. Nature destroys everything except that which actively resists by reaching toward a positive future distinct to itself.

Humans are evil because they are aware only of themselves. Many grow out of this as part of the maturation process, but others — probably about 40% of our people at this point — do not, and so they become de facto low grade sociopaths who act for their own whims at the expense of everyone else and the mission they share in common, which is having a civilization which thrives.

Conservatives recognize this evil in humanity which is why they emphasize context, reality, order, hierarchy, values, principles and purpose over what people wish were true or want to be accepted just because they want to do it. This is why conservatism is so compatible with religion: to both, the primary question is avoiding evil by establishing a good order/organization instead.

Unfortunately conservatives suffer from a lack of unity. They are too individualistic, mainly because they see the herd conformity of the Left and attempt to rebel against it by going the opposite direction, not recognizing that the Leftist collective is powered by individualists who want to mandate their own inclusion despite whatever unproductive or degenerate behavior they engage in.

Instead of reacting, conservatives could analyze Leftism itself and understand its psychology. At that point they would see that the only defense is not retreating into individualism, but reforming the line and counter-attacking by pointing out that Leftism is wholly illegitimate, its practitioners are sociopaths, and its end result is deceit and destruction. Every time.

When conservatives overcome their infection with individualism, they will see the importance of order and become fanatical like Leftists. That day will also bring ultra-intolerance, meaning that anyone who wants any form of equality will become suddenly not welcome.

As liberal democracy winds down and craters, and the ruling Leftist parties on two continents steer their countries into polymorphic disaster, the light on the horizon appears. This light is the end of the dark era of Enlightenment,™ and a return to raw realism and a search for meaning in the world instead of navel-gazing within our social selves.

Nationalism, Not Economics, Elected Donald Trump

Thursday, June 15th, 2017

The Public Religion Research Institute, in coordination with The Atlantic, conducted a survey that revealed some surprising information about Trump voters among the white working class. In particular, it shattered the myth that economic hardships alone motivated voters to choose him.

Here are some highlights of the survey, which interviewed 3,043 adults by telephone after choosing their numbers at random from a pool of existing numbers. It selected for the working class by choosing those who are “white, non-Hispanic Americans without a four-year college degree who hold non-salaried jobs.” While this, like almost all surveys, is not definitive, it presents some striking conclusions:

1. Trump voters are more affluent than previously thought.

The media narrative told us that Trump voters were the poor and dispossessed who, being broke, resented those who were not. The reality turns out to be that among the working class, the voters who favored Trump were more financially secure:

Notably, while only marginally significant at conventional levels (P<0.1), being in fair or poor financial shape actually predicted support for Hillary Clinton among white working-class Americans, rather than support for Donald Trump. Those who reported being in fair or poor financial shape were 1.7 times more likely to support Clinton, compared to those who were in better financial shape.

In other words, these people are not at the edge of desperation, but are looking ahead and seeing only darkness. This coincides with their concerns being more social than economic across the board.

2. Trump voters are most concerned with loss of national identity and culture.

For example, Trump voters were those more likely to see a vanishing America being replaced by an immigrant America in which college-educated elites administer Leftism as a replacement for the original American culture. A clear pattern of concerns emerges:

  • Nearly two-thirds (65%) of white working-class Americans believe American culture and way of life has deteriorated since the 1950s.
  • Nearly half (48%) of white working-class Americans say, “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.”
  • Nearly seven in ten (68%) white working-class Americans believe the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. In contrast, fewer than half (44%) of white college-educated Americans express this view.
  • Nearly seven in ten (68%) white working-class Americans—along with a majority (55%) of the public overall—believe the U.S. is in danger of losing its culture and identity.
  • More than six in ten (62%) white working-class Americans believe the growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens American culture, while three in ten (30%) say these newcomers strengthen society.

Taken together, these different data points show distrust of foreign influence, immigration, and the Leftist agenda which has accelerated in the postwar period. Instead, we see that they are concerned with culture, way of life, and identity specifically.

3. Trump voters realize that college is a scam

One of the biggest stories of the last few years has been the growing power of Leftist opinions on college campuses and their tendency to eliminate other viewpoints and discriminate against white men. This has led to strong suspicion of college itself.

  • White working-class voters who said that college education is a gamble were almost twice as likely to express a preference for Trump as those who said it was an important investment in the future.

This is explained by the following:

  • More than half (52%) of white working-class Americans believe discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while 70% of white college-educated Americans disagree.

A values split, based on the realizations above, has caused Americans to realize that colleges are indoctrination camps that churn out people who bleat the Leftist party line, and therefore, this group sees decreased utility in college. They realize that between affirmative action and campus Leftism, white men especially will not get anything good out of college.

4. Trump voters are liberated from union propaganda.

Better even at brainwashing than colleges, unions raised the cost of America and then essentially died as labor was outsourced wherever a union was present. The reason for this was the cost in addition to the raised wages of workers: lawsuits, shutdowns, riots, sabotage and bad press.

Companies realized they could not operate factories that could be shut down at any minute, and so they opted for labor outside of the union worker pool. In so doing, they ejected most of the white working and middle class from union affiliation, at which point these groups reversed their Leftist direction and instead shifted to the Right.

Despite the white working class’ historical connection to labor unions, relatively few members of the white working class today have a union member in their household. Only 14% of white working-class Americans report living in a household with someone who is a member of a labor union.

Perhaps the voters have wised up to the scam: the union comes in, wages rise, quality goes down as jobs become specific “by the book” and non-competitive, and then all the jobs go away. In the meantime, the unions — who always seem allied with organized crime and the Democrat party — skip out of town with huge sums of money raised from companies and workers alike.

White working-class Democrats are almost twice as likely as white working-class Republicans to live in a union household (21% vs. 12%, respectively).

Burned once, the working class is less likely to support “systems” like college and unions, and more likely to rely on open markets and cultural links, such as those provided in a strong nationalistic culture. In other words, some learning about the past may have come about.

5. The young are swinging to the Right.

Much like their parents, who have come out of the union stupor and learned to distrust people who get vested in the system through college, young people appear to be moving in the direction of recognizing Leftism itself as a scam:

A majority (57%) of white working-class young adults identify as Republican or lean towards the GOP, compared to only 29% who identify as or lean Democratic—a gap of 28 percentage points.

Contrary to some biases in the media, this wave does not appear to emerge out of religion:

Nearly half (47%) of white working-class young adults are religiously unaffiliated, compared to 36% of young adults overall.


Twenty-eight percent of white working-class Americans say they attend services at least once a week, 30% say they attend occasionally (once or twice a month or a few times a year), while more than four in ten (42%) say they seldom or never attend religious services.

Where atheism and Leftism have been linked in the past, what is coming now appears to be a general agnostic wave paired with a desire for socially conservative values.

6. There is a divide between those vested in the system and those who are not.

The system rewards two things: being part of a minority group, or being an obedient white person who adopts the de rigueur Leftism and goes to college, gets a job in a big city, and then reaps the rewards.

Notably, about four in ten white working-class Americans report that they grew up in “middle-class” (29%) or “upper-class” (11%) households. In contrast, only about four in ten white college-educated Americans report that their family’s financial standing when they were growing up was “working class” (35%) or “lower class” (6%). Additionally, white college-educated Americans are more likely than the white working class to be raised in middle-class (42%) or upper-class households (16%).

In other words, these are the people the system selected against, not life failures. 40% of them have middle class or above backgrounds but remain in the “working class” (often indiscernible from the lower middle class) because they did not follow the path to success. From my experience, this means people who threw in the towel on the system and went their own way, accepting lower reward in exchange for independence from the mental compliance requirements of middle class jobs.

7. Healthcare was not a huge personal risk.

While Obamacare was not popular among Trump voters, it is not because they lost health insurance:

In contrast, nearly one in five (19%) white working-class Americans under the age of 65 say they do not currently have health insurance, including one-quarter (25%) of white working-class Americans under 30.

8. They have experiences that prove Robert Putnam was right.

Robert Putnam wrote that the presence of diversity decreases social trust in a community. This includes trust within each ethnic group. Further research confirms that diversity creates distrust in local communities and creates atomized, rootless individuals.

The survey includes quotations from participants, one of which exhibits exactly what Putnam talked about:

“And when I talk about values, I don’t mean necessarily my spiritual or religious values but family, community. Could you really go across the street and ask that neighbor, ‘Can I borrow a cup of milk?’ Which, in my neighborhood, we can, but it’s pretty rare. I don’t know most of my neighbors. Have lived there for quite a long time. When I walk down the street with my dog or over to the pound with my dog, there’s no eye contact.” —Man

Trump voters express a basic sense of unease: they feel their culture has been eroded, and what they see are the post-1950 changes through social and political Leftism in the country, coupled with the rise in diversity.

8. They support a “fash wave.”

These voters desire both a more authoritarian candidate, and one who is willing to break the rules, which in a highly democratic time means violating the principles and protections that democracy has erected so that he can get something done.

Fifty-eight percent of white working-class men, compared to more than seven in ten (71%) white working-class women, have authoritarian sympathies.

This is closely tied to a suspicion of immigration and diversity:

More than seven in ten (71%) white working-class Americans who believe immigrants are a burden on American society have an authoritarian orientation. In contrast, fewer than half (49%) of those who believe immigrants strengthen American society have an authoritarian disposition.

They are deliberately going against the attitudes of the elites, much as they rejected college:

Six in ten (60%) white working-class Americans, compared to only 32% of white college-educated Americans say we need such a strong leader; two-thirds (67%) of white college-educated Americans disagree.

Interestingly, this does not correlate to economic distress.

White working-class Americans who say they are in good or excellent financial shape express as much support for a leader who is willing to break the rules as those in only fair or poor shape (58% vs. 60%, respectively).

In other words, this is concern for the future and not the present, in which they think “the rules” are impeding what needs to be done.

9. They are born identitarians.

If any warning to Washington emerges from this survey, it is that voters want a strong culture and identity and have correctly identified diversity as an impediment and threat to that.

More than two-thirds (68%) of white working-class Americans—along with a majority (55%) of the public overall—believe the U.S. is in danger of losing its culture and identity.

They target diversity:

More than six in ten (62%) white working-class Americans believe the growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens American culture, while fewer than one-third (30%) disagree.

And recognize anti-discrimination law as a huge problem:

More than half (52%) of white working-class Americans believe discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.

In addition, the survey also revealed that 40% of white working class Americans agree that “efforts to increase diversity almost always come at the expense of whites.” In other words, society is a zero-sum game, and anything we add to it — immigration and diversity — requires taking something from the native population.

10. They have realized that diversity means removal of white people.

Although they have mixed views on diversity itself, voters at least refuse its advancement. They see it as having fundamentally changed America for the worse, and favor removing immigrants as a partial solution:

  • Similarly, white working-class voters who expressed anxieties about cultural change—a composite variable that combined a belief that the U.S. needs to be protected from foreign influence and feelings of being “a stranger in my own country”—expressed a much stronger preference for Trump than those who did not (79% vs. 43%, respectively).
  • White working-class voters who advocated deporting immigrants living in the country illegally overwhelmingly favored Trump, while those who favored alternative policies expressed far less support (87% vs. 49%, respectively).

Coupled with their strong identitarian tendencies above, it seems that the core issue of this election was diversity, and that they perceive it as the driver behind change in America that has left them feeling alienated.

As Samuel Huntington predicted, the 21st century has brought us the end of liberal democracy, which has faded out in unrealized promises like racial harmony, prosperity and peace, and brought us tribalism instead. In every area of real-world effect, liberal democracy brought the opposite of what it promised, whereas organic culture — as distinct from managerial “systems” — shows us promise in that it is more flexible and nurtures intangibles like culture and identity.

The rise of Donald Trump, like Brexit, was not based on the economic woes of the lower echelons of American society. This survey suggests instead that it shows a large group of normal people pulling back from the college-educated, city-living and liberal elites out of distrust for the changes that have occurred to our societies so far in the postwar period. This is values-based realistic opposition, not desperation.

Expect the mainstream media and entrenched elites in Washington to deny this and continue accelerating this separation by using language like Barack Obama’s “clinging to their guns and religion” or Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables,” both of which are dogwhistles for the classic accusations of the Left, which is that Right-wingers are ignorant, stupid and impoverished religious fanatics who are resentful over their lack of position above minority groups in this society.

The data shows us that the opposite is true: white people are content living among their own society, and are not doing economically badly, but are dismayed at how social engineering has wrecked a once great place, to the point where they have rejected Leftism, unions and our elites. Balkanization is well and fully upon us.

Conservatism = Realism + Qualitative Thinking

Thursday, June 8th, 2017

Some may wonder why Amerika identifies as conservative. The simple reason is that the other components of belief — nationalism, deep ecology, aristocratism, transcendentalism — both share a common root and do not stand alone as solutions.

We may never be able to compete with the Left, which wins fans by distilling all of human need down to the simple idea of mandatory equal inclusion, or egalitarianism, but we can offer a core formula.

The term “conservative” arose in response to the rising egalitarian attitude in Europe over the past thousand years, and came from the root word conservare:

late 14c., conservatyf, from Middle French conservatif, from Late Latin conservativus, from Latin conservatus, past participle of conservare “to keep, preserve, keep intact, guard,” from com-, intensive prefix (see com-), + servare “keep watch, maintain” (from PIE root *ser- (1) “to protect”).

As a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke’s opposition to the French Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his French disciples (such as Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration “Le Conservateur”).

Conservative as the name of a British political faction first appeared in an 1830 issue of the “Quarterly Review,” in an unsigned article sometimes attributed to John Wilson Croker. It replaced Tory (q.v.) by 1843, reflecting both a change from the pejorative name (in use for 150 years) and repudiation of some reactionary policies.

At that point, the idea is lost, simply because almost no one has been able to face the scope of what they are protecting, which is not “the past” as is commonly assumed, but the best of the past, meaning that which succeeded to the point of being responsible for whatever greatness remains today.

This should be strikingly obvious, but it does not distill to an easy concept, so it has been abbreviated to mean “holding on to the past,” when it actually means “striving forward to restore that which works in any year,” because conservatives fundamentally accept that history is cyclic, with golden ages formed of truths found and a long, dark fall as those truths are lost, replaced hopefully by its restoration.

That understanding invokes another concept, namely “the best.” Plato’s Republic opens with a question as to what the best life is, which inspires us to look at all of history as a series of options with their consequences plain to see by what happened in response from the world, which Plato views correctly as not having a personality as most assume, but utter consistency, like a logical calculation or the cycles of nature.

From this notion of the best arises the idea of qualitative thinking which commands us to look not just at what works in a sense of minimums, but what would be the most inspiring, enduring, excellent, and cheering. In short, it prompts us much as evolution did, not to stick with a subsistence existence, but to look at what we might have and strive for it, using the textbook and laboratory of history.

Joe Sobran elaborates on the nature of qualitative thinking:

“We must build out of existing materials,” says Burke. Oakeshott laments that “the politics of repair” has been supplanted by “the politics of destruction and creation.” It is typical of malcontent (or “utopian”) politics to destroy what it has failed to appreciate while falsely promising to create. Communism, the ideal type of this style of politics, has destroyed the cultural life of Russia, which flourished even under the czars. The energies of radical regimes are pretty much consumed in stifling the energies of their subjects; they try to impose their fantasies by force and terror, and their real achievement is to be found not in their population centers but at their borders, which are armed to kill anyone who tries to flee. Communism can claim the distinction of driving people by the millions to want to escape the homeland of all their ancestors.

Conservatism is not a political ideology but a folkway. It consists of the folk wisdom, passed down since the dawn of time, about how to make decisions. In this way, the definition of conservatism became inverted; we are not those who hold on to the past, because the present will very shortly be past, but those who cultivate the best in humanity.

From this comes a synthesis of realism, or paying attention to the way the non-human world reacts to our potential options and thus choosing the option which works, and qualitative thinking, which demands that we filter out everything but that which produces the best results out of those that work.

Conservatives are those that see that entropy is always present and humans always weak, and thus that with time, all good things are destroyed. They respond not by clinging to the last stable state, but by pushing us forward to evolve and mature into the best possible thing we can be, which includes ideas that shock humans like hierarchy, nationalism, and transcendental thought.

The latter confuses almost everyone. It consists of finding the logicality in the order of nature and the cosmos and seeing how it is superior to our short-term monkey-perspective human outlooks, which are fraught with emotion and doubt, and through understanding our world, coming to love it and see its beauties.

Together these ideas do not form something as pithy as “make everyone equal so that we all ‘just get along,'” but it does give us a template that never fails and gives us the possibility of the future being brighter than the now.


Thursday, June 8th, 2017

Conservatives are those who wanted the old order (“1788”) but accepted that they had to work with the victorious Left, and so have bent their beliefs to fit within an egalitarian spectrum.

From this idiocy comes conservative praise of liberty, justice, peace, freedom, equality, and diversity, all of which are symbols or proxies for doing actual good, which is the main concern of conservatism.

Even more, all of these require us to accept the status quo as permanent and therefore to consider it good, even though as is evident it is not just mediocre but outright evil.

The mental hobbling that ensues turns conservatives into the defenders of values that are the precursors to Leftist issues, effectively making the Right into agents of the Left.

Perhaps the worst and most common form of this is “Dems R the Real Racists,” or DR3, in which conservatives use the Leftist idea of equality to argue for conservative ideas, but instead merely strengthen Leftist ones.

Egalitarianism is the singular idea of the Left. If you are egalitarian, you are at least partially Leftist; most conservatives are in fact hybrid Leftists, which is why conservatism usually fails. Diversity is merely racial egalitarianism, and “anti-racism” is a political movement to suppress criticism of or resistance to diversity.

For this reason, any conservative expressing DR3 has not only been subverted, but has joined the other side. Conservatives recognize realism plus qualitative concerns; nothing in that requires enforcing equality or diversity. Further, we are not ideologues but realists, and so we have no need to enforce symbolic obedience to a singular political agenda. Conservatives consider racism part of freedom.

DR3 can be easily spotted by the trope of confusion over the party polarity shift in the 1960s and the Leftist mental chewing gum that is their incessant bloviation about the “Southern Strategy”:

Whenever a Democrat accuses a Republican of being racist, the talk show host will immediately go on a pre-programmed rant about how the Democrats supported slavery, the Democrats founded the Klan, Robert Byrd was a Klansman, Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act blah blah.

…Whenever Republicans try the “Democrats are racist” line, liberals retort that the Republicans simply absorbed the racist segregationist Southern Democrats as well as their agenda.

We can spot DR3 in its current form wherever conservatives accuse the Left of racism or reverse racism, inadvertently strengthening the Leftist argument against nationalism:

Many on the Dissident Right mock cuckservatives for engaging in “DR3” or DemsRRealRacists i.e. incapable of defending their values on their merits, they concede the Left’s moral premises, but accuse them of being the “real racists”, homophobes, sexists etc.

The Right will never win this debate unless we reframe it as follows:

  1. Anti-racism is censorship. As long as we are in a democracy that makes the pretense of having free speech and free thought, we need to stop witch-hunts against people for having the wrong opinion. We may smash those who are actively traitors to an enemy, but adopting racism is no more allegiance to Hitler than advocating socialism makes one an agent of the Soviet Union (although many turned out to be that anyway).
  2. We are nationalists. Racists concern themselves with whether specific other races are up to snuff; nationalists point out that diversity never works, and therefore it does not matter if the specific racial groups are good or bad because for our purposes, any racial, ethnic and cultural group but our own is bad.
  3. Theory is not always reality. The ideas of equality and diversity are assumptions, not theories proven to work over the long-term in the real world. No one should be forced to adopt an assumption as real without some indication of a corresponding tendency of reality to reward the implementation of that assumption.

Any time we turn tail and run, or worse accept Leftist precepts as our conclusions, we have self-defeated. This gives the Left a double victory: they are the party left standing, and we self-destruct, appearing incompetent (and rightfully so) to all who are watching.

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.

Recommended Reading