For a change, the Right should demote loudmouths

on_the_internet_no_one_can_tell

The Roosh V drama brought to light a troubling aspect of the Right, which is that we tend to give credence to angry, simplistic voices demanding ideological when we should look toward more realistic solution. These “loudmouths” infest every right-wing movement and inevitably drive away good people because they are fanatical without reason.

Against Roosh they raised, repetitively, two basic points: he is not white, and he writes about casual sex. The first point is non-serious, since anyone who is saying anything that supports our viewpoint is an ally and keeping them out because they are not of Us is the most reductionist form of nationalism. We should accept truths found anywhere and make them work for us. The second is something I find troubling as well, but when I see a voice that is partially broken and partially fixed, especially if it has gone from broken to mostly fixed, I see an ally who is only improving in clarity. We all have our mistakes to regret.

More importantly, however, the loudmouths clarified their role as destroyers. Simplistic approaches to our task result in “policing” of membership as a means of selecting only those with strong simple statements of ideology, which produces fanatics who cannot consider any of the subtleties of applying their beliefs — and are thus likely to engage in the thuggery, sneering superiority complexes and other behavior which will drive normal, well-adjusted people away. Loudmouths destroy the right by sacrificing its future audience for its present clubhouse mentality.

Strong statements appeal to the right because we face a mental virus, liberalism, which succeeds because it is simple. Liberalism boils down to a single idea: individualism, or the notion that the individual should not be accountable to social standards or results. Phrased as “equality,” this belief polarizes people because it appeals to their fear of being insufficient or wrong and demands they be included and tolerated despite mistakes. Conservatives have always thirsted for a similar statement that in its simplicity conveys strength.

At this blog, it has been suggested for many years that conservatism is not actually that much more complex. We have two basic beliefs, realism and transcendentalism. Realism means we take the world as it is and act on it according to its order, not our desires for what “should be”; transcendentalism means that while doing so, we steer ourselves always to what is best and not merely utilitarian or adequate. We have the simple, clear path we need.

However, as any realist will remind you, people are unequal — and minds are unequal. Each person understands what he can comprehend and those at the lower end of the curve will over-simplify to their level of understanding. In human groups, the tendency is to go after emotional statements or ideologically extreme simplistic ones because those are easily understood.

For this reason, the Right must police itself, but not in the simple “blue team vs. red team” way that the loudmouths desire. We need a hierarchy where the more accurate voices come out on top, not the clearer (i.e. simpler, louder, angrier) ones. We do not need to replicate Fox News in the alternative Right, new right, underground right, etc. We need to return to the days of statesmen and orators where the whole truth was heard.

We can see the loudmouth travesty play out wherever conservatism appeals because liberalism has failed. A normal person goes seeking answers, and gets back a rant on God, guns and the flag (plus “working hard” at do-nothing, pointless jobs). Someone goes to a white nationalist and instead of finding a working solution, encounters angry people who are more concerned with harming other races than promoting their own. Naturally, people of sound mind flee from these crazies, which gives the crazies the clubhouse they want: everyone inside must bow to their authority now, or be driven out and called nasty names.

In my experience, most of these loudmouths are only partially extracted from liberalism. They are still seeking the great simple ideological imperative through some kind of victimhood status. If given power, they will degenerate conservatism into a right-flavored form of liberalism as a result. Our hierarchy needs to push the loudmouths down to the bottom where they can stop driving away everyone who does not share their simplistic perspective.

As conservatives, we are grim realists who can understand that diversity, democracy, pluralism and equality are illusions which will never work. We can see that our society is in full decline and must be arrested by radical action. But we are not radicals for radicalism’s sake, which is what the loudmouths are, nor are we acting out emotional fantasies as they are. It is time to recapture our initiative from these people who will destroy it.

Why I am a conservative

parthenon_in_winter

In the current day and age, claiming to be conservative evokes disbelief. Not only is conservatism the banished enemy of our dominant liberal ideology, but “conservatives” — these days — seem to be people without a plan. Many people have gone looking for another alternative to being the captive opposition.

However, questions of philosophy do not reduce to who claims to hold a view, but what that view is. Over the years, every view becomes adulterated to fit to its audience instead of its audience fitting into it, and so periodic renewals occur when someone points out that the original idea has decayed. A view that is correct will always be so, and if it has been misinterpreted, needs correction not abandonment.

Another way of viewing this is that someone who possesses a conservative philosophy will manifest it no matter what name they call it. Philosophies generally have two major prongs: how to know what is true, and how to know what to do about it. In liberalism, this could be summarized as:

  • True: Whatever is new — not the existing order — is true.
  • Do  : If it makes people feel happy to think it is true, do it.

In this we can see the utilitarian nature of liberalism: whatever most people think will make them happy is right. Also revealed is its nature as a rebellious philosophy, namely that it assumes whatever has existed in the past is a nightmare and any replacement is an improvement.

We can imagine situations where this approach would seem right. If someone is emerging from a truly abusive situation, such as a bad family dynamic, the best thing to do is discard all that they have known as normal and to select new methods. Without further data, they pick whatever the group thinks will be good.

Naturally, this leaves us with half of a philosophy. How do we verify what of our preferred methods turned out well and therefore should be kept? Liberalism assumes this will be handled by the preference of the group, but that assumes that people remember what has gone before and what the options are.

Conservatism updates this with a philosophy that more resembles the scientific method, but with an artistic twist. Here is the conservative outline:

  • True: Whatever works according to results in reality, is true.
  • Do  : If what works leads toward transcendental goals, do it.

The scientific basis the reality test: does this produce the results it claims to, when actually tested in the real world? If not, it may be “real” as a thought can seem to be, but not accurate and therefore not true. The artistic twist comes from the transcendental goals, which are absolutes which can never be fully realized: excellence, beauty, goodness and truthfulness.

Unlike most philosophies, conservatism does not try to translate reality into symbols. Terms like “true” and “good” are left as an exercise to the reader, with the knowledge that the smarter and more honest/noble among them will figure it out while the other 98.6% (approximately) will do what Simians always do, which is do whatever their egos want to do anyway and rationalize it as good or true after the fact. (Some see liberalism as being of this nature, since it requires only intent and feelings and has no reality-based test).

As a guiding force for actual living people, conservatism works under any circumstance. It encourages us to know our world, and then to act for the best results. This does not mean that we can deny how the world works and conjure up an image of how we wish it would work, and then enforce that on others with the consensus of the group. At its heart, conservatism opposes group consensus because that consensus is a lesser method than truth.

The term “conservative” comes from the idea of conservation itself, which means saving good and functional methods under the constant onslaught of human desires to do anything but those. When we look at humanity, we see a species capable of remarkable self-delusion and a tendency to indulge in wishful thinking which it mistakes for realism. Against this flood of chaotic nonsense conservatives attempt to hold on to what actually works, fully realizing they are the smallest minority in their society because everyone else wants the opposite.

Trying to divorce the idea of “conserve” from the notion of conserving what is good has cost modern conservatives plenty. I fully acknowledge that these people are misguided, but I see them more as a consumerist production version of a good thing, like soda replacing sassafras, McDonald’s replacing food, light cigarettes replacing cigars, and Budweiser replacing beer. There is always a market for a dumbed-down version of any idea because this flatters the egoism of those who partake in it. They no longer need to know quality from junk, but can indulge in something conveniently sugared and salty and cheap and pretend they have the real thing.

Conservatism took me to some surprising places. In contrast to mainstream conservatives, I see the importance of conservation in both nature and human beings. This means setting aside giant chunks of land for its natural purpose, and liberating people from pointless activities including make-work jobs and bureaucracy. It also showed me the importance of keeping the law away so people can enjoy pleasurable activities like drinking at the pub, smoking a cigar with friends, or even the “reckless” fun things the Nanny State tries to keep away from us.

Not many anti-work and pro-conservation conservatives exist anymore, but we used to be at the forefront of both of these movements, resisting “Progress” back when progress meant industry at any cost. Conservatives have always defended the quiet life and the wild life so long as it brings actual pleasure, and not merely grim conformity like drug use and promiscuity seem to. We conserve life itself, holding back the flood surge of illusions dreamed up by lonely people in their unrealistic minds.

As new movements — inevitably based on liberal ideas infused with some conservative leanings — come and go, conservatism remains a bulwark because it is not a policy, but a way of thinking. It encourages us to recognize life for what it is and make the best of it. It forms the starting point of our thought and a workable basis for discovering where we should go. Since most of human thought is entirely irrelevant, it stands out as the one right answer in a sea of distractions.

Where conservatives can learn from neoreaction

this_is_the_future

Until recently, the political analysis movement Neoreaction has remained off the radar to most mainstream conservatives, but as we approach vital decision points in Europe and the USA, its influence should be reckoned with. Like the bulk of The Republic, Neoreaction is more a method of reframing issues and looking at what really matters than a strict prescription.

Two particular concepts take on a new meaning when taken together: “exit” and “formalism.” The former is the idea of small secessionist communities withdrawing from the global civilization type of liberal democracy with market-funded socialism, and the second is the notion that government should treat itself as a business and compete on the open market. Together they suggest the idea of competition between societies by type.

This might look like a small island being purchased and turned into a libertarian/capitalist freehold with leadership by strong natural leaders, whether fascist, royalist or as Neoreactionaries often advocate “a national CEO.” Citizens become shareholders in their own society, which is both a strength — accountability — and a weakness, in that it leads to the same problems as democracy since people often act against their own interest, having (per Dunning-Kruger and other theories) diminished ability to understand their actual needs. We can see this in action in our present society where people purchase lesser products like Budweiser out of convenience rather than hold out for what is good. Some of us criticize Neoreaction for its inability to escape the current paradigm but for now, let us look at what exit and formalism offer in terms of geopolitics.

An exit society is a threat to global society. If that exit society offers a better product in the form of lower cost and higher performance, the rest of global humanity will be forced to face the inferiority of its own system of civilization. The competition — or, more accurately, contrast — means that people can no longer tuck themselves into bed at night with the notion that liberal democracy + capitalism + socialism is the best option. Instead, they have a new option, and since they can emigrate and thrive there, globalist society will experience a brain drain.

If you wonder why Leftists are obsessed with universal and centralized solutions, which amount to the same thing, it is that they fear this competition. Leftism succeeds when it seems like the best game in town, but much like heroin use, the benefits decrease linearly at a certain point after having grown exponentially during the early days of breaking free from the old and the wealth that this process liberates. Think of the former Soviet Union: at first, things were bleak, but then picked up with the wealth boom of transferring state assets to private citizens. Then, as new wealth failed to be produced, that society plunged into troubles from which it has yet to emerge.

A competing society would reduce the question of civilization-type to an economic principle. Citizens would be able to see, for the first time, what other options exist, and that would rank liberal democracy + capitalism + socialism in its place as not the best, but somewhere in the middle, above raw tyranny but below an exit society, which in turn would be below a traditional society of aristocracy, mercantilism, nationalism and transcendental goals.

Right now, the only competition for the global order is our knowledge of the past, and this has been adumbrated with Leftist editing of history and broad moral panics (like the SJW epidemic) which deny obvious advantages by concealing them behind political objectives disguised as morality. If we had a working alternative, the bloom would fade from the rose of what we have now, and the fear of leaving what we think of as good for the unknown would be greatly reduced.

I proposed this idea some time ago as Mayberry, or the idea that if we could see a working version of a better community, people would desire that and agitate for it in a way they cannot for many disconnected issues. This is why majorities are so helpless against polarized minorities like Leftists: we do not think in terms of issues, but in terms of wholes. We want a whole society of a different type and politics is designed to break down this thinking and deflect from it.

Conservatives can benefit from this by offering whole solutions. Instead of responding to talking points about healthcare, create a mental diorama of what this society will look like and show people that instead. It is the answer to all questions: we want a different type of civilization, not only because the present one is moribund in a herd of convergent catastrophes, but because our vision suits our existential and moral needs more than what the present could ever offer.

The West serves two masters and one tyrant

the_ostentatious_cheer_of_the_dying_west

The tyrant has one command: thou must love none other than the tyrant, and by “love,” the tyrant means fear and obey. In the old days, tyrants made themselves well-known; welcome to Ozymandias Acres, sir, a lifestyle-oriented community… that is, if your credit’s good. But now? The tyrant hides behind layers of misdirection.

In Poland, there are riots for democracy. Fitting that a country which saw both nationalist and communist invasions should be a touchstone for a new debate: which way, democracy? The right wants free markets and traditional values, and the left wants multiculturalism, subsidies and no social standards. The situation illustrates a far deeper problem for European-style societies, and most acutely, the West.

We attribute our wealth and power to democracy, but our greatness predated those. Since the French Revolution in 1789, the West has been slowly and steadily shifting leftward with a few hiccups and blowbacks here and there. Since 1945, this liberalism knew no challenge except Communism, but incorporated the core of Communism — socialism, or state-subsidized living — as a means of defeating it with competition. With the fall of the Soviet Union, this race leftward has only accelerated.

The West thus serves two masters: socialism and conservatism, but neither will address the tyrant, which indirectly controls them both. True, the tyrant is closer to socialism at heart, but a tyrant uses all things as means to an end, and since conservatism exists by trying to carry forth the ancient order of kings and culture through the modern means of democracy, conservatism is corrupted by its own methods. And so we see-saw between the two, never identifying the tyrant.

Let us be honest and say that all liberals differ only by a matter of degree from the most “moderate” social democrat to the full-on raging communist. They want a society where the productive support the rest, first through political equality and later — as inevitably becomes necessary — through subsidies. They do not want a reward system that benefits the achievers over the rest. They want equality, which means the worthwhile and worthless alike receive the same, which creates an incentive to be worthless and soon those take over society. Conservatives vary widely but all are hobbled by the ball and chain of having to pretend a popular vote will ever choose sense over free giveaways, lotteries, circuses and donuts.

The modern leftist state is both capitalist and socialist. It permits capitalism in order to fund socialism because it is more effective to make money and then tax it than it is to rely on equality to generate wealth. European socialism has seemed to “work” because it has only existed for a short time, and has lived off the vast wealth of a powerful society that got to technology first. But as with all false solutions, the details begin to conspire, and now we see bankrupt states where people are too miserable to have families and children, and instead dedicate themselves to hiding away with private pleasures, alienated from the rest. The tyrant laughs, seeing in destruction his power, and vanishes in the night.

With a thorough inspection, however, the identity of the tyrant becomes clear. Who by acting en masse create trends, political disruptions and faddish ideologies? Who buys the media and Hollywood movies (or at least torrents them) and votes for the corrupt politicians? The tyrant is We The People, most specifically those on the left side of the Bell Curve who, lacking understanding, vote with their emotions and social impulses. They always insist on the wrong answers, and the media and government simply sell it to them.

This is the real Cathedral. Our false elites exist because enough of us keep voting for them and supporting them that they thrive as parasites among us. Even when they are proven wrong, the voters can be trusted to panic at certain keywords and thus line up to show they are good comrades by voting the “right” way! Suburban soccer moms, urban hipsters, and low-wage workers of the world all want us to all get along and with that pacifistic sentiment, they drown out the sensible voices.

We will never get anywhere until we overthrow this tyrant. What legitimizes the tyrant is the idea of equality, which is the notion that someone on the far left (lower IQ) side of the Bell Curve is equal to someone on the far right (higher IQ) and therefore, we count warm bodies instead of ideas. The tyrant stays in power because instead of making hard decisions, we hold elections and pick whichever non-solution has the most warm bodies clustered in front of it.

All of our problems originate with this tyrant, and the tyrant is us. Our society has become miserable through a maze of rules, lack of integrity, stupidity and incompetence. Our culture has been erased by the popularity of idiocy and weak substitutes. Our people are alienated, hateful and corrupt. All of this originates with the idea of equality, and until we depose that tyrant, we will shuttle between our two masters, waiting for the end.

Anti-work conservatives

jobs_are_monkey_behavior

Jobs are misery. Conservatives do not know how to respond to this because so much of the right is awash in “work hard and go to church” style thinking, but if we get to the core of conservatism, we can see an answer. Conservatism conserves the best that humanity has discovered. This includes liberating people from horrible jobs.

That task contains two parts. First, we can stop sending people to unnecessary jobs; second, we can make existing jobs better. This requires confronting a reality that offends the egalitarianism of conservatives, and using solutions that offend the special snowflake pretenses of liberals.

Eliminating unnecessary jobs requires rethinking work. An obstacle that arises here is that in our media-government lingo, “creating jobs” is always good, so our political authorities will oppose this idea. On the other hand, the way they create jobs — subdividing existing tasks and creating more by law — reduces the value of the end product, so there may be more opposition to them than they know.

The most important part of the idea of “unnecessary jobs” is the “unnecessary” part. Any role which does not directly produce can be eliminated by reducing the vast amount of regulation that requires paper-shuffling roles, and providing indemnity for corporations against certain kinds of lawsuits. Without civil rights, union-related and other government-imposed categories of liability, many paper-pushers could be sent home. In the same way, we could cut out a lot of middle management if companies were more free to hire and fire.

“But that’s against the worker!” says the well-educated (i.e. witless) modern person. Actually, it’s a question of what benefits the worker. Being able to quickly transition jobs, and having lower costs, benefits the worker by giving them more flexibility with fewer obligations that keep them entrenched in the nine to five. If we stripped aside all of the regulatory and liability crap we’ve added since 1945 or so, the average worker would have a lot more money and it would become easier to find new jobs because hiring would be less expensive. This would liberate many people from ugly job situations and force management to treat its employees better as a result.

In addition, we could halve the workforce by sending women home to have families. Those that are unmarried can live with their parents so that, instead of spending two decades in casual sex while wasting time at paper-pushing jobs, they can instead get started with families and have more time after the kids are grown to do fun stuff. Our bars, cafes and shops are filled with lonely single women who are wasting time trying to “date” when they should be looking for a marriageable candidate and creating a family instead.

That act alone would obliterate the perceived need for importing workers. Suddenly, we would have plenty, and competition would return in a positive form that emphasizes finding the best possible match for any job that is possible. Right now, hiring people is expensive and full of legal risk, so employers are highly conservative in how they hire. If that changed, they would take more chances on unproven workers and move many people up in the hierarchy.

In addition, we could shift our culture from a fatalistic celebration of the do-nothing cube slave job into one where proficiency was valued and thus, people took pride not in having a certain job, but in doing that job well. This in turn would reduce the manic number of hours people worked by redirecting our measurement of competence from time spent participating to results obtained.

Improving existing jobs requires making jobs relevant, useful and empowering. Jobs bore just about everyone because they are often “pro forma” or make-work done for the sake of appearances, repetitive and show no result other than a tiny detail in a large mostly redundant process. The solution here is to reverse all of those traits.

People feel power when they can have an effect. This means that they have an identifiable portion of the whole. Think of the credits at the end of a movie; even if a person has only a small role, they are listed and their work is shown as part of its necessary relationship to the whole production. Empowering people in the only sane meaning translates into giving them control over something where they will rise or fall based on performance, which encourages them to perform instead of languish.

In turn, giving people power reduces the extraneous and repetitious jobs because instead of the assembly-line mentality, where many people do small steps, someone walks a process through from beginning to end. At this point in our technological history, assembly lines are for robots; craftsmanship is for humans, and this applies to everything from filing loan applications to cooking a four-course meal. With the power to see a task from inception to completion, people feel they are masters of their own fate and boredom is reduced, as is job redundancy.

Employers counter this with the viable argument that it is hard to replace workers, so it is better to have a dozen cogs than two superstars. One solution to this is to hire people as contractors, and another is to avoid super-specializing jobs and instead, finding intelligent people and expecting them to “sink or swim” with learning the job. While this sounds cruel, it also gives them a sense of accomplishment and builds skills in a way that school never can.

This approach has to take into account congenital intelligence and temperament. Someone from farther right on the Bell Curve will by nature be less tolerant of repetition and lulls in the development process. Such workers need fewer hours of more intensity, where slower workers need the comfort of repetition and confirmation. This leads to conflict with the democratic ideology of empowerment through granularity.

The egalitarian ideal desires robotic, redundant jobs. In the minds of those who think equality is a solution to the challenges of life, the best job is one that anyone can do if given the right instruction. This approach eliminates the internal traits like judgment, aesthetics and depth of understanding and replaces them with external abilities like memorization, obedience and surface-level perception. Cogs utilize external traits; craftspeople use internal ones.

In an effort to validate our ideology of egalitarianism, we have made jobs into the type of dual hierarchy seen on Star Trek: a few main characters at the top do all the interesting stuff, and everyone else is a “red shirt” who can die and be replaced with zero interruption in the storyline. Egalitarian societies tend toward such “flat hierarchies with rock stars” because their ideology cannot admit the variation in natural ability, so it reduces everyone to a single level and elevates some on the basis of their supreme obedience. This does not promote the best, and as a side effect, it makes the people at the top remote and authoritarian. It is one of the supreme failings of egalitarian social orders.

Back in present-day reality, most people spend eight or more hours at the job and at least two preparing and commuting to work. This reduces their free time to fourteen hours a day, eight of which goes to sleep, which means they have six hours in which to exercise, eat and relax. That is enough time to waste on television, the internet or video games, but not enough to embark on any projects of significance, which keeps people forever in a loop where they go through repetitive days but never get a chance to work toward a real goal. They have time to make model planes, but not to build a plane, at least if they also want to get enough sleep to be healthy. Naturally, since the small amount of free time they have is where people have the most power and are most effective, they cheat on their time, which creates a society of sleep-deprived, bored, lifeless and zoned-out zombies staggering around going through the motions of unnecessary, irrelevant and demeaning jobs.

Conservatives have eschewed talking about the horrors of work because so much of our mythos in America rests in the “put your head down, work hard and get ahead” mentality, which itself is a compensatory behavior that arises in lieu of taking society as a whole in a positive direction. It is what people do when they believe they have lost and cannot change anything but themselves, so they desire to be successful as a means of offsetting the fact that their society is careening headfirst into the toilet.

However, the time has come to speak of all the ways in which the egalitarian liberal ideology has failed us since taking control starting in 1789. It has made life more boring, more crassly commercial, and more slave-like. It has given us “freedom” but then, because we must support the mass of others, strapped us into suicidally stupid, boring and ugly lifestyles in order to keep the system going. Like the Soviet Union, it removes the natural nature of free markets, free association and collaboration and replaces them with obedience and utilitarian, one-size-fits-all solutions. Since work is part of this, it should be noted that egalitarianism has failed there as well, and we should not be afraid to speak up for achieving a less miserable existence through an anti-work mentality.

Conservatives, turn to Plato

return_to_plato

Conservatism divides us because while it possesses many good attributes, it inevitably becomes swallowed by leftism and ends up advocating leftist ideals. For that reason, it needs restoration, and like any good renovation effort, this one begins by stripping it to its frame and rebuilding outward.

The essence of conservatism is “to conserve.” That requires some unpacking: one conserves only what is good, which can come in two forms. First, something can be good because it works; second, it can be good because it displays a value or trait which is always true.

That second part confuses people because in utilitarian societies, good means whatever most people think is pleasant-sounding right now. Conservatism conserves wisdom most of all, and recognizes that goods are eternal and independent of human thinking, but like the first plank, are measured by what produces good results. This is a form of accountability that has been forgotten in modern politics.

Conservation recognizes a truth of human beings: they are not uniform, but in various stages of learning, and how far they get is determined in the largest part by genetics. Most things are mediocre, and most people behave in mediocre ways, veering toward the selfish, venal, corrupt, deceptive and narcissistic instead of that which will bring them long-term happiness. Anything which is left in the hands of the crowd, where people have zero accountability, will be plundered and destroyed.

For this reason, conservatives see “the good” not as “the popular” but as the eternally good, meaning both in the long-term and that in every age of humankind, what will produce results above the mediocre norm. As popular wisdom dictates, we either aim high in life or getting dragged down by entropy, stagnation and the steady erosion brought on by time. Conserving means not preserving a past state, but having a future aim that can never be fully achieved because that means we are always pointing in an upward direction.

This leads to a clash with popular morality. Most people want a morality of “protect the weaker” because, as individuals, they fear falling short of social standards or required performance at a task. For this reason, they envision themselves as the weaker and reason that if society protects the weaker, they personally will never face consequences. The eternally popular idea in humanity is: receive the benefits of civilization, but take on none of the burdens, a mentality we might call “anti-accountability.”

Popular morality regulates by method. Murder is bad; therefore, all killing — a method — is bad. This introduces hilarious inconsistencies when we go to war, execute murderers or defend ourselves because those are killings, which are bad, but can often have good results. This hopelessly confuses the issue, which is not method but results. Killing a bad person is good, but killing a good person is bad, to use the simplistic nomenclature of popular morality.

As a result, conservatives will never get to the root of their philosophy while they adopt popular morality. Instead, we should turn to Plato. In his writings, he expressed a simple argument based on the above in which he pointed out that bad methods can lead to good results, therefore measuring universally by method is a bad idea. His formulation was much clearer: “good to the good, bad to the bad.”

Where popular morality is simplistic and pleasant sounding, this more complex view puts more of a burden on us. We cannot escape censure by merely doing nothing to offend anyone, and not engaging in certain methods, but must master those methods and put them toward both good intent, and a study of the world that ensures we achieve good results. This means that we have a duty to kill when appropriate, instead of a socially safe position of never killing and assuming through pretense that we are thus “good.”

Popular morality works through a zero-sum game. In its view, if we remove all of the bad, we are left with good. Under the Platonic conception, we have a duty not only to avoid bad, but to actively achieve good, even through bad methods. This means that pacifism, withdrawal and tolerance are not moral goods, but moral ills.

In this difference the extremity of conservatism emerges. It is not enough to avoid acting in a way that appears scary. Nor can one hide behind approving of everyone and everything. In contrast, we each have a duty to do what is moral in order to conserve the ongoing direction toward what is good. While this makes us all policemen for social order, it also obliterates the complacency that allows civilizations to slide toward chaos.

By doing that, it makes conservatives not just a moral few fighting a rearguard action to defend their way of life, but as the guardians of an idea bigger than past or present: that we must continue our own evolution toward the highest goals we can find. This is not a philosophy of do-nothing, like that of egalitarian society, but orders toward war, and if conservatives recapture that outlook, they can end their centuries-long retreat in the face of encroaching insanity.

Collectivism versus Capitalism

delicious_tobacco

As you sit down to your Thanksgiving dinner, you will be full of thoughts of what you are thankful for. The most important ones you will not mention because they are invisible to you. You cannot see them because you enjoy them every day.

First on this list might be stability of your civilization, unlike every other human civilization which like Italian cars and German soap operas seem to be non-stop screw-ups from the start. Most people live in disorder, filth, corruption and incompetence. We here in the West do not, although the gap has narrowed over the past few decades, and not by the acts of others.

What got us this way are two things generally considered opposites: capitalism and collectivism. Both have been replaced by modern, inferior variants that are useful to our society only because they do not offend our leftist ideology.

Capitalism in its raw form is the idea that economic decisions should be made by those who will face the consequences for them. In other words, a bakery must make the choices that determine if it lives or dies, and citizens must make their own spending choices and thrive or flail accordingly. Keep in mind that despite those radical opposites, most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

Collectivism, in its original form, meant that we understood ourselves as a society and kept its interests front and center. That meant that we took care of people who helped that society, in accord with Plato’s “good to the good, bad to the bad”: people who do good should be rewarded, and people who do bad should be driven away. It is natural selection in its social form.

These two offended leftists, naturally, because leftism is based on a single idea: “I deserve to be included for society no matter how little I contribute or how delusional I am.” It is freedom not to be accountable to reality. That is why it is eternally popular; accountability to reality determines who thrives and flails, and so it is not a popular reminder among humans. Using social control, which is peer pressure plus the assumption of goodness, they can banish reality and replace it with equality.

(That summarizes leftism from nose to nethers as far as its essential ideas; it is subsequently draped in layers of theory, studies, facts/interpretations, emotions, etc. that are mostly gibberish and always taken out of context. If you see a leftist, watch their hands instead of listening to them speak. They are most likely lifting your wallet.).

Both capitalism and collectivism have now come to mean something else through the transformative powers of leftist ideology. If our society has one disease, it is the use of a broad and simple idea to replace all other ideas, and in this case, liberal egalitarianism has replaced the original meaning of these terms.

Traditional society liked capitalism because it was efficient. Capitalism has never existed without restrictions because, before modernity replaced the idea of having a goal as a civilization with the notion that civilization existed solely as a means of empowering the individual to be a precious snowflake, capitalism was always subordinate to goals, values, social standards and practical demands. There were also legal restrictions placed on it, usually to protect the consumer but just as often, to prevent the boom/bust cycle where something makes a lot of money so everyone does it, neglects everything else and in the process bankrupts themselves. Crazes, trends and fads are as destruction in markets as they are in society itself, and just as vapid.

But the traditionalists had a different approach to regulating it. Instead of writing a million laws, they allowed organic forces — culture, religion, superior individuals, and social standards — to regulate demand instead of supply. Where moderns tell businesses what they can manufacture, the traditionalists tuned in their people to certain ideas of what is good, and regulated products through that. As a result, things were built to last, more elegant and often far more effective than their modern variants.

In the same way, collectivism has been spoofed. Once it meant that we were all in it together working for the same goal, so anyone who was trying to do that was welcome. This offends the leftist idea of universal inclusion, which has its roots in individualism: the individual wants to always be included, so he desires the removal of any restrictions on who is included so that he always makes the list. After leftism, collectivism means that we all work and throw money into the pot to support everyone else, no matter how useless they are — or how much we dislike them.

A healthy society needs both of these forces. A civilization cannot exist by economics alone, and by making the choice to use solely an economic system — capitalism or socialism — the society signals to its people that it will not have a values system, competent leadership or purpose, which turns people into miserable drips who feel correctly that their lives are without meaning. A society cannot exist without some sense of guidance, direction, and purpose, which is why traditional collectivism is needed and not its modern variety, which obliterates all of those with a single guilt-ridden imperative to be uncritical, non-discriminatory and in other words oblivious in choice of the people surrounding you.

While I admire the French New Right, I find their continued embrace of socialism to be problematic. Once you create benefits, you create an all-powerful state to enforce them, and you destroy the idea of regulating inclusion by who is useful. No society with standards that low can exist, and it imposes on people an immoral duty to spend their time, which translates into money, supporting those who they would not otherwise support. For this reason, socialism is the great evil that destroys societies and rightists should never support it. Under socialism your entire society becomes contorted to fund the bennies and justify them, even at the expense of society itself.

By the same token, I find the reliance on absolute capitalism as a motivator to be unworkable, which is why I am not a libertarian. Libertarianism always shifts leftward because it is based in the egalitarian idea of “Everyone do what they want, and the best will magically rise to the top.” This is far from true, as any look at the most popular movies, music, art and novels will show us. Instead, pure capitalist societies are a race to the lowest common denominator and, like socialism, they replace the idea of a purpose to the civilization with the idea of it facilitating individuals. This is also bad.

I have said in the past that if people were to look more deeply into mainstream conservatism, they would find a way of life more radical than their ideologies and economic systems could ever be. That is because the roots of mainstream conservatism — now buried under layers of lies by 75% leftist “neoconservatives” and “libertarians” — are extremely radical. In that view, most people are scatty little monkeys who will if the whip is not cracked simply engage in every venal behavior possible. No matter what economic or political system we use, the truth of humanity remains and never changes, so we must first look toward producing healthy individuals. That requires the opposite direction from egalitarianism and infuriates liberals, but it explains why conservatism is less formalized.

The idea from which conservatism arises is traditionalism, which has been around in many forms over the ages. It is basically thus: over the centuries, we have found some things that work and some that do not. These do not take the form of ideology, but of knowing our world and its logic, so instead of being individualists, we submit to natural order and find our place in that. Then we are known by how well we rise to that challenge and what it reveals of our moral character, which is the most important part of an individual. By applying this rigorously, we can breed ourselves into a better class of people and make a civilization as great as that of the ancients at their height.

Naturally, this is not a popular message. 5% of the population can understand it, so to the rest it sounds like gibberish and they hate it for making them feel dumb when they desire the pretense of intelligence (they do not understand the Dunning-Kruger effect either). Even among those 5%, traditionalism is controversial because it places limits on the individual, and they have been raised in a civilization that thinks the ultimate good is liberating the individual from limits, even — especially — reasonable ones. This is why people always look for an ideological solution, and choose variants of capitalism and collectivism as the answer when they need a more nuanced approach.

The importance of a nuanced approach is that it avoids collapse. Rigid, sharp-corners thinking like leftism and libertarianism will run a society into collapse as paradoxes emerge based on the attempt to impose a square form over an organic topography. This will force people to deny reality so they can keep ideology intact, and will then cause massive internal friction. On the other end of the pendulum’s swing, however, it is important to remember that both collectivism and capitalism — in their original forms — are vital, and trying to stop the decay brought on by liberalism by limiting them will also lead to failure.

To be right is to be rustled

typical_conservative_activities

Dearest readers, have you ever been rustled? You know, you see something on the internet, on television, or on the street that triggers some sort of rage in you? Something that you know is wrong, that you can feel a deep, terrible disgust about, though in the moment you are almost non-verbal? Later, perhaps, you can sit down and articulate exactly why what you experienced bothered you so. But it’s all a bit of justification, post hoc. If we are being honest with ourselves, we admit that our reaction was purely primal, and emotional- and there is not a thing wrong with that.

The reality is, to be right wing is to be rustled.

Let me explain.

“Rustling” is just the internet slang for when someone in a forum gets overly bothered by something, and rages or otherwise acts upset. In an anonymous forum, displays of out of control emotion lose you points, because sarcasm and snarkiness are the coin of the realm. More plainly stated, getting rustled is when you become disgusted or angry about something- something that everyone else is blissfully calm about.

I’ve written about Jonathan Haidt before, who has studied the differences in conservative and non-conservative minds. Haidt outlines six moral axis- care/harm, fairness (equality)/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. His conclusion was that liberals cared only about the first two categories- harm and inequality bothers them, but degradation does not.

This plays out rather observably in the real world. A description of a degenerate sex act is met by an indifferent shrug by your average Hillary Clinton supporter, while nearly causing you to vomit.

So why are you so much more rustled than she?

Because we live in a left-wing society, which apart from its present (temporary) foray into semi-free market, is completely and utterly dominated by fantasies about preventing harm and enforcing equality.

It is almost guaranteed that should you tune into television, read a newspaper, watch a standard-fare movie, or speak to someone on any topic not related to weather or sports, that you will encounter some version of the head-poundingly stupid proverbs bounded about by leftists as wisdom. These nasty poison pills invariably idealize equality, diversity, fairness and existentialism.

And this will bother you. And you will be bothered much more by this kind of filth than someone who has absorbed modernist poison into their souls, or the many more who have simply shut down their responses to these stimuli, preferring to ignore them and self medicate with drugs or alcohol. This is where the stereotype of “angry conservative” comes from, because stereotypes tend to have their basis in truth. Once you have shed the blinders of ideology and realized the truth about human inequality and democracy, almost everything produced for the masses in the last 50 years will begin to bother you, even if only in subtle ways.

Now should the reactionary seek to cram down his disgust reaction, numb himself, and live with these feelings, so that he can live in society?

Yes and no. My recommendation is to use these emotions. Every time you see something disgusting being accepted, remember that feeling. Every time you hear demonic nonsense masquerading as political discourse, remember the anger. Channel it into contempt. Contempt for the wretched state of our society- feel it in your bones that you are better than this, and should live in a better spiritual place than this.

And use that feeling to separate yourself. You have no loyalty to anything which embodies the worse urges of man. You owe nothing to a state which is determined to destroy anything good, or true, or beautiful.

Instead, you should channel your frustration and disgust into building something- a mannerbund, a gang, someplace to belong. Create your own society. Avoid the poz. Your soul is trying to tell you something every time you get rustled.

Listen to it.

Unite the Right

by Ashton Blackwell and Brett Stevens
by Ashton Blackwell and Brett Stevens

A singularity is coming: the mainstream right and the underground right are converging, but they need to do it faster. These groups share a worldview of realism which no other parts of the political spectrum possess. Both realize that Western Civilization is hurtling towards a catastrophe at the hands of the dictatorship of public opinion, and that this same force destroyed the great civilizations of the past. As Walt Kelley wrote long ago, “We have met the enemy and he is us”: public opinion denies common-sense realism because people prefer sugar-coated and flattering illusions. Gossip about the Speakership nomination, or Malia’s college party beer pong antics, dominates the headlines to hide the grim reality that we are literally fighting for our survival as a civilization.

When the Left took over through the French Revolution back in 1789, it separated politics into two groups: those who wanted to follow the “new” ideas, and those who wanted to conserve the fundamental principles and organizing behaviors that have produced the best results throughout human history. These tested precepts assume the mantle of “tradition” and history shows us that anything but this type of truth-based order will quickly devolve and collapse. Like writing code, or designing a house, you either get it right and over-engineer something to last a thousand years under all conditions, or you have created something feeble which will fail whenever Murphy’s Law comes knocking (as it does on a regular basis, that meddler!). Conservatives pursue tradition in two ways: first, they believe in reality-based common-sense engineering; second, they aim for “transcendentals” such as “the good, the beautiful and the true,” which are perpetually unattainable goals that nonetheless improve everything in quality, including life itself.

Currently, mainstream conservatives – the grassroots and the Tea Party, the smaller “conservatism lite” Establishment right-wing, and other Republican voters – define themselves as separate from what we might call the “underground right,” comprised of movements like the alternative right, Neoreaction, and the New Right. Establishment Republicans , who have adopted progressivism to fight progressivism, barely qualify as Right-wing at all, but groups with “anti-Establishment” sensibilities, such as patriot movement groups, “Middle American Radicals,” paleoconservatives, and perhaps “conservatarians” represent a rising niche of the Right. While the alternative right and Neoreaction appear to be totally different from the mainstream right, they share the overarching vision that they should live in a land that represents them. They also share some “idealistic realism”; their state vision is transcendental, but they believe that thinking about what “should” be true, is a worse way of making decisions that looking at what is true and adopting methods that have worked with that truth over time, then slowly improving the quality of results with methods specific to each local area. Both mainstream and underground right groups ally themselves with the idea of common sense: reality-based thinking. They see this as superior to progressive ideology, a vat of untested ideas advanced by conniving political opportunists as a means of seizing control through popular opinion and the chaos created through government meddling.

While important distinctions between mainstream right and underground right exist, similarities outnumber differences. Both groups advance common sense notions that intersect in the following areas:

  1. Freedom of belief. On the right, we recognize that societies are composed of individuals, and that those individuals receive their formative guidance outside of government, through their culture and religion. Individuals of higher moral character and abilities can improve the society around them by raising its standards, as we see from great people in history like George Washington, Socrates or even Ronald Reagan. Society should defend those who have higher standards, not force universal acceptance of all standards, which lowers the standard held in common. While this is inconvenient for commerce, as it means you may have to go to another store to get your gay wedding cake or birth control pills, it defends the right of people to live by their beliefs and to raise up the rest of us with higher moral standards. Moral order flows from the top down. The authors would argue that the classical liberal mandate, “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff,” proscribes too little and has been an easy target for subversion in an effort to destroy the moral fabric of our country.
  2. Freedom of association. Birds of a feather flock together, which means that collaborative groups can establish communities that succeed and inspire us to follow their example. Ideally, this happens at a national level, and obviates the problems posed by a “proposition nation” which praises as a social good, maximum social dysfunction, acrimony and competition. Dysfunction is created when the people in a community don’t want to work or live together; look at the artificially imposed state boundaries at the Middle East, or take divorce, for example. This is like a free market for ideas: people form small corporations called communities, and if their product – the lifestyle they offer – is superior, they thrive while others lag. A lack of freedom of association means that individuals are forced to live near, work with and interact with people with whom they disagree on a fundamental basis. That denies their human right to have a set of values, morals and standards to their community. Our Founding Fathers never intended equality to be more than individuals being treated fairly under the law without regard to their wealth or status. It was not designed to allow small groups to force conformity on the rest through mandatory tolerance of activities, lifestyles and individuals they find objectionable, or to privilege “oppressed” groups to pilfer and yoke “oppressor” groups. That is all tyranny, which the Founders intended to forbid in the Constitution.
  3. Small government. This term means both limiting the economic and personnel size of government, and more importantly, limiting its scope to practical and not ideological goals. When its only role is defense and putting up roads, government does not grow, so it must invent a reason – a rationalization, justification or excuse – to expand its power. This almost always takes the form of “Think of the children!” style ideological agendas based on guilt and pity, explained in public as altruism but like most public altruism, in private a cynical grab for power like the French Revolution itself. In political terms, small government means taking away from government the ability to act for any smaller group than society as a whole. This means an end to any payments to citizens, any socialized services, and any act which benefits a small group through money taken from the whole of the citizenry. Those types of subsidy-based actions, which resemble socialism in effect if not theory, are the hallmark of civilizations which will spend themselves to their own doom by sacrificing their productive citizens to the endless parade of those who are less willing or able to contribute.

Freedom of belief, freedom of association, and the principle of small government have been gradually encroached upon, and the right leaning coalition subsequently alienated. Yet, the American spirit of resistance is stirring. The rise of Donald Trump, whatever one may think of him, may show the future of conservatism: resistance to liberal social engineering, starting by attacking the liberal policy of multiculturalism for what it is – a social engineering program to replace normal Americans, who tend to be conservative, with third world populations which tend to vote liberal as they did in their home countries. The dividing line between mainstream conservatives, who will not mention race at all, and underground conservatives, who see diversity as creating internal division and distrust, is slowly eroding. Conservatives are seeing the liberal Plan for the first time: Politicians cultivate votes by giving away free things to citizens; the media drums up stories around unjust victimhood and horrors of poverty. The voters, prone to manipulation, fear voting against these things lest they be viewed as unsympathetic. These programs grow and can never be repealed because to do so is “political suicide,” or at least, so all the newspapers say. Elites form out of those in media, government and industry who realize they can help each other by reinforcing “The Narrative” which states that popular programs lead toward progress and anything else is primitive, selfish, cruel and ineffectual. This converts society into an echo chamber where people repeat the same views as fact and, by dint of a lack of opposing voices, confirm that bias and intensify adoption of the failed policies. With no way to change direction, society collapses, and this is what all conservatives hope to avoid.

So how does the space probe of the new right interlock with the docking collar of mainstream conservatism? The alliance begins in their common sentiment of anger at being dispossessed and their ideals and dignity made the subject of mockery, and graduates to their philosophical agreements. They two groups share an outlook in common sense, and both recognize that we are no longer in the age of “politics as usual,” but fighting for our very existence against the cancerous spread of liberalism. Both groups feel, and to a large extent, are, disenfranchised. This sense of disenfranchisement can be galvanized from despair to a renewing movement, as is plainly evident with The Make America Great Again campaign.

The underground right is the missing intellectual vanguard of grassroots America – and grassroots America is the missing power base of the underground right. The majority of grassroots America understands implicitly the dangers facing the country through immigration and out of control, criminal urban populations. The underground right doesn’t have to continue to be marginal if it can dialogue with people who are frustrated by their lack of representation, and the loss of their culture and way of life. Salt of the earth, normal American conservatives, that is those in flyover country or in the South who are cynical towards government, are looking for radical political integrity. The underground right, though merely agents of traditionalism, register in today’s political milieu as radical political truth-tellers, based on their frank acknowledgment of what is and is not sustainable. The goal of conservatism is to conserve civilization—and as its parapets crumble in the West, it is in grave need of our common defense.

Neoreactionary, Alt-Right and Libertarian convergence

man_with_pipe_hoping_for_a_neoreactionary_future

Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders may be the greatest gifts — or the only gifts — the Left has given to the Right.

Our media myth tells us that Leftists are smart (in lieu of wise), economically savvy and future-oriented. Then we get one in office, and another in the pipeline, and they pull aside the curtain and reveal their actual agenda.

Obama can be summarized in a simple phrase: “Get back at white America.” His is the resentment presidency, tempered by his Clinton-like tendency to read the polls and do whatever he can get away with, as long as he is acting like a football coach and moving the ball further toward the other team’s goal.

Sanders on the other hand seems to have stumbled straight out of 1917. What makes him frightening is the adoring crowds of clueless people who, upon finding themselves suffering through a Leftist society, have decided that the solution is more Leftism because it promises free money and bennies. Sanders has done more to discredit democracy than anyone else except Angela Merkel.

All of the resulting social, political and economic chaos shows us the West circling the drain. Europe, overrun by violent jihadi immigrants, shrugs her shoulders and re-adjusts the tablecloth; America, staggering under a surge of invading Mexicans, preens and pronounces itself The Most Accommodating Girl of All. Obama plays clever foreign policy games in Syria and gets one-upped by the quasi-dictator of Russia, while the populations and businesses of the West — burdened by regulation and taxes — get repeated trounced by rising forces in Asia.

And from our politicians? Silence: they are not leaders; they are actors. Their goal is to appear to be doing something while doing nothing about problems which require actual risk to solve. They sell a product, and it is peace of mind. It is an illusion of course, but all good products are. If heroin really made life better, would anyone use it more than once?

On and on, South of Heaven… the upshot of all of this chaos is that it is driving together all of those who are not fully liberal. Liberalism has, at the hour of its triumph and greatest vulnerability, gone ballistic with SJWs on one end and full-on 1960s radicals pushing their ancient 1789-1917 agenda on the other. Its agenda has changed from punishing those who wrong it to eliminating any who do not agree. This has bunched together a diverse coalition of libertarians, conservatives, traditionalists and those who simply fear the big government strong ideology type of society that this path will unavoidably create.

These groups are starting to recognize that egalitarianism is the idea that consumes all other ideas. Once you declare the everyone must be equal, everything in your society becomes “democratized.” There is no longer a standard of behavior. Quality standards fall as well, with flashy chrome replacing smoothly working machines. What was originally told to us — that we should accept others, but could keep living as we had been — has been revealed as a lie. The point of egalitarianism is to use equality to force us to all be identical, at least in the important ways.

All of us are seeing the same things: a cadre of elites who lie for their own benefit, a complicit media, years of terrible policy no one can seemingly remove, and a vast herd of voters who cast their lot with greed or panic but never reasoned activity. This is how democracy was designed: to retard power so that life could be normal, but in the process, it creates a replacement leadership that does not have the best interests of citizens in mind. Instead, it treats them like raw materials for an industry of its own creation. In other words, it becomes a parasitic business working against the interests of citizens.

In fact, awareness of the parasitism caused by the State — or any form of external government — is spreading at the fringes of media:

Fortunately, for those who benefit from the status quo, and members of something called the Deep State, the trillions of new currency units delayed the liquidation. But they also ensured it will now happen on a much grander scale.

The Deep State is an extremely powerful network that controls nearly everything around you. You won’t read about it in the news because it controls the news. Politicians won’t talk about it publicly. That would be like a mobster discussing murder and robbery on the 6 o’clock news. You could say the Deep State is hidden, but it’s only hidden in plain sight.

An even simpler explanation suffices, and by Occam’s Razor, supplants this explanation: government becomes a franchise. Without a clear purpose, it starts inventing purposes for itself as it did in the US in the 1820s, and then begins to increases its power. Like a utility company, it wants to charge you the most it can without having you flee to another company. It has an additional super-ability however which is that it can make laws that force you to do what it wants. Government grows like a hemorrhoid, engorged on the blood of taxes and lucrative industries reserved to itself alone, and soon like an overbearing corporation begins to control the market itself — the voters.

What are alternatives to the State? Libertarians and mainstream conservatives favor small government, which means removing the 60% of our government that is dedicated to ideological goals like equality, ending poverty and regulating industry. That leaves government in charge of the military and NASA, which is probably enough for any group. Others from the anarchist fringe want the state removed and left gone, but something must take the role of leadership so that seems unlikely. Still others want to replace the State with actual leadership, such as monarchs or military leaders, and to downsize government to the role of leadership — not morality — alone.

Neoreaction tends to identify the “Deep State” as “the Cathedral,” which carries overtones of a deliberate attempt at control; conservatives and libertarians see this as more of a market distortion created by a company protected against monopoly yet given an exclusive role. All of us agree that the postwar order has shifted steadily left, continuing the barely interrupted pattern since 1789, and that this has enfranchised a group of Leftists who profit from continuing business as usual in our left-leaning governments in the West. Not surprisingly, our fortunes have declined in direction proportion to our increasing Leftism, and existential misery and self-destructive behavior have increased. The latest barrage of outrage is only a symptom of that underlying will to die that liberalism has inculcated in the West.

With the rise of the Leftist establishment, the excesses of the left, which is now an old and bloated empire, are serving the purposes of the Right. Each crazed Bernie fan or Obama zombie, and every abuse and failure of those administrations, accelerates the point at which the remaining effective people in our society realize how deep the root of the problem goes: Leftism is incompatible with civilization. And to remove it, they will have to fragment the West and separate the Leftists from everyone else, letting the former face the long-term fate of their irrational ideas.