Posts Tagged ‘conservatism’

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.

Hopelessness As A Personal Philosophy

Monday, May 15th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist “Tolerance” Versus Conservative “Intolerance”

Tuesday, May 9th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatism Failed Because It Refused To Reject Equality

Thursday, May 4th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Monday, May 1st, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ult Right consists of these basic beliefs:

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

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

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

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

Recommended Reading