This question came up recently in a discussion of conservatism where the phrase “1788 conservative” was used. This one floats around at the periphery, but I have heard it in real life as well as on the internet, and think it deserves elucidation.
The name “1788 conservative” refers to this:
“My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.” ― Julius Evola
The French Revolution began in 1789, and so “1788 conservatives” are those who see this as a horrible error and want to go back to the point before the error, and try again.
We tend to see the French Revolution as formalizing the decay of the West. The decay existed long before that, but picked up when political and military pressures weakened our aristocracy and our society did not support them. Rules made on paper are never good, but having enlightened and intelligent people in charge always works.
The aristocracy made this happen at every level: kings, dukes, and lords. These served as a mediating force on growth and finance, kept most of the land intact as hunting preserves, conserved culture and religion, and avoided the unbroken string of idiotic decisions and pointless wars that democracy has embarked upon.
The term “Right-wing” came about after the French Revolution to describe those who thought the ancient order before the Revolution was a better idea than the revolution; after that, “conservatives” — or those who accept the new government of the post-Revolution years, but want to conserve as much as possible of what went before — and “liberals” who accept the ideals of the Revolution but want it applied through conservative methods, became the only options.
1788 conservatives merely take conservatism to its root: we conserve that which has worked best in the past as proven by history, which is a society with heavy cultural influence regulating liberty, aristocracy in the lead, no government and no safety net, and a tendency toward excellence, divinity and other transcendental goals. We are the most honest form of conservative and the least politically correct and socially acceptable in a democratic regime.
What makes 1788 conservatives unique is that we recognize the inter-connected nature of aspects of civilization. We cannot deconstruct and separate ideas, as the democrats do, from their effect and the existential experience of life in that civilization. Leadership is connected to values and all is vested in the organic nation, or the people born of a similar root with similar abilities and inclinations which form the basis of culture and values.
In our degenerated time, where most of the people who should be able to think exist in a one-dimensional cartoon of ideological thinking, these ideas are mostly lost and forgotten. However, as liberal democracy continues to fail despite our patching it up more than Windows 10, the brightest lights among our people are reconsidering the era of kings as a future and not the distant past.
Most political critique takes a look at political goals and ideals, but my own path has led to looking at politics as a manifestation of human pathologies. Humans everywhere have similar responses to the task of adapting to life, and those responses each show a type of strategy. Looking into the nature of those strategies reveals quite a bit.
One strategy is individualism, or the demand that society make the individual its goal and allow the individual to interrupt the goals of power with rights and an independence from judgment of individual internal quality, a philosophy known as “egalitarianism” or the demand for equality. This is individualistic because it protects the individual from responsibility for the results of his actions in the world.
In groups, individuals form collectives to defend this illusion because illusions need defense by some motivation other than “it just works,” and only in the combined emotional response of the group can such a justification be found. Ideology amounts to feelings and appearances, not a history of results in reality. It can only be applied by a fearful, chanting mob.
The problem with ideology is that, even when totally wrong, it cannot be opposed because it is nice, good and how successful people behave according to any society infected with it. By the principle of reflexivity, those who oppose it are presumed to be mean, evil/bad and failures, which is a byproduct of the moral binary that is created by declaring something arbitrary “good” and separating goodness from results in reality.
This weakens conservatives most of all because our intention is always to be good, and we easily confuse the symbol/appearance of good for the goodness itself. In a social context, symbols seem like reality; this error compounds an earlier one, which is that in a social context, emulating what has succeeded in the past creates the appearance of success and is therefore valued more than success by results.
Conservatives these days want to be good. They do not want to be seen as inegalitarian, racist and sexist. Unfortunately, by the same principle of reflexivity, that makes them adopt liberal views and then use conservative methods to achieve those liberal ends. The last 102 years has shown us that disaster unfolding.
I suggest that instead, conservatives aspire to be right, i.e. correct according to reality. Our morality is not arbitrary; it arises from (1) the actions taken by humans that produce the best results and (2) the implications of any divine design of our world, because to see the world as sensible is to realize that the best adaptations to it constitute a parallel response to its design.
Where have we heard this before? Why, in literature: The Odyssey by Homer. In it, Homer advances a moral argument: “goodness” is nonsense, and arrogance is our human problem. He hints that goodness may be part of this arrogance. And then he shows us a better way: while goodness is measured by method, actual good is measured by results, and the methods used to achieve those results do not matter.
To take that to an extreme, think of any situation where it is necessary to take one action to save the entire thing from going belly-up. If you are on the Titanic, and see the iceberg ahead but no one else pays attention, is it morally good to assault and disable the captain and steer away from the iceberg?
This is the real binary choice of life: do what is necessary, or allow entropy to win.
Of course it is most moral to punch out that captain and steer away from certain death. You have a choice: let everyone die, or let the captain get punched. It is even more moral to murder him in cold blood than let him steer into that iceberg. In fact, in theory, it is more moral to kill any number of people short of the whole group of people on the boat in order to stop the collision. You will still have saved lives, since the iceberg is certain death.
In The Odyssey, Odysseus returns home after two decades to find that his house is filled with suitors of his wife, Penelope. They are numerous and armed, and likely to simply kill him if he shows his face. He will be outnumbered, after all. He faces a choice: do what is good, and fight them like a man, or do what is effective, and hoodwink them and disarm them, then kill them all.
He kills them all. In cold blood, with no fairness or pretense of goodness. It is outright murder without remorse. If he did it now, we would arrest Odysseus and categorize him as a spree killer, then lock him up for life. Our moral sensibilities are appalled at the outright slaughter… and that is what the author intended.
Writers do not communicate by showing us halfway points. They show us extremes, and situations where we are inherently conflicted as to what to do and struggling with the question. The point of this is that when shown the extremes, we can extrapolate back to day-to-day events, but going the other direction does not work.
Conservatives want to be good, and so they would very obediently say, “Oh no, we should never do that. Killing those men in cold blood is wrong, as my Bible and all my friends tell me. The government says so too, and while I normally do not trust government, it just wrenches my gut and soul to have to kill all those people.”
That gut reaction — based in fear — occurs because we project ourselves into any victim. This is the root of equality, too. When we feel like we could be a victim, we come up with the easy lie that everyone is the same and therefore, we all deserve protection. Equally. Even though those who are victims are generally those who engage in foolish or parasitic behavior like the suitors of Penelope.
Heartiste, a sometimes-under-acknowledged contributor to the theory behind Neoreaction and the Alternative Right, offers his own analysis of the paper “The weirdest people in the world?” which points out that Western Europeans are unique worldwide in having this disease.
Unfortunately, the scientists have gotten it all wrong as usual.
The oddness of the West is not that odd when one considers that no society exists out there which is as wealthy and powerful as the West. We went further; when you go further, you encounter new challenges that others have not.
Blaming manorialism is comical. Manorialism was an extension of the feudal system, itself an informal method of maintaining the caste system. Manorialism encouraged the production of an aristocracy who were above the rest, and then confined the rest to duties suited to their castes.
You who have read your history, which excludes all scientists and STEM-types, will recall that among castes, there are only two that take active roles: the kshatriya (Carls) and brahmins (Jarls). Everyone else is told what to do because they lack the judgment skills and moral ability to do anything else. Under the manorial system, Carls were knights and freeholders, Jarls were aristocrats, and everyone else was a land-renting peasant. This kept the peasants from having power because, as said above, they would simply muck it up as history shows us they have.
What changed this situation was the rise of the middle classes. These people, who made their money (meritocratic! hard-working!) in trade, were not aristocrats and nor were they Carls. They were high-ranking peasants for the most part, and their modus operandi was to seize power from the aristocrats. Middle classes arise wherever there are not enough aristocrats to keep power, and after the Black Plague and the Mongol Plague, Europe was short on leaders.
Originally, society suppressed such people because their judgment tended to be terrible. First, they were peasants, although often of mixed-caste origins; second, they were accustomed to a merchant’s eye view of the world: products are sold, and the most popular products get ahead, and that determines the direction of society. Who needs a king, right?
The changes to the economy created a situation that made niceness valuable. Good merchants are nice, or inoffensive, if we want to use the accurate word for it. Pacifistic, they accept everyone and avoid conflict because conflict is risky and expensive. They oppose caste systems and strong leadership because those get in the way of unlimited commerce.
Even more, they are passive. They offer products and others buy them. They do not take bold action, but follow the herd. They make conformity into a virtue. As a result, the people who succeed are those who behave like merchants. Real men go off to low-paid, high-risk jobs in the military or exploring the wilderness, and the guys who get all the girls are the fat merchants with their steady paychecks and low risk.
What we see here is an inevitable pitfall of social success. A successful society becomes a rich society, and so its peasants and freeholders turn to merchants. Merchants then take over through a process akin to democracy or capitalism unchecked by strong leadership, and soon all of society represents the merchant model: the most popular product wins, and reality be damned.
Manorialism restrains this process by keeping freeholders and peasants connected to the land and small local communities. Cities, especially port cities, give rise to the regime of the merchants. And over time, the shift is not so much genetic as social. To succeed, you must be nice. We give it names like “bourgeois” and “conformist” when really, it is merely the merchant morality overtaking the rest.
Niceness lives on in conservatives through “good.” As Nietzsche says, there are no facts, only interpretations, and this applies to the Bible, too. As interpreted by merchants, it becomes a document of merchant values, even though it says nothing of the sort. But conservatives take the Bible and business most seriously, and so they, too, become like the merchants.
The only solution for this is to burn it out with hard, cold Realism. A total war can do it, or a mass famine, but even more so, we can do this by ending the idea of “nice” and “good” as determined by methods, and turn our assessment back to results. The good man is not the man who achieves a nice appearance, but the guy who makes results turn out for the best.
That in itself is the anti-merchant, the reversal of W.E.I.R.D. and nice, and a freeing of humanity from the chains of false goodness which, like our false elites, arises from the mass impulses of humans once given wealth and power beyond their abilities, which is a form of arrogance, as Homer warned us against.
There’s a lot of confusion out there mainly because nothing can be trusted to be what it is; all has been redefined as political objects.
As a result, people are casting around for a Grand Unification Theory that can make sense of their world. For example, the quest to define liberalism plagues many:
This situation seems to be assisted by the pervasive idea that what happens in society is a matter of collecting a group of ideas together (a political platform) and then advocating for your leaders to then implement the collection of wishes which then come true. So a Libertarian will make a list as so: I want liberty for all, weed legalization, free exit, small governance etc, while a designated socialist will demand a list as so: equality, social security, social justice etc.
Under the guise of criticizing liberalism, this is a liberal idea: let everyone do whatever they want and somehow the best result will come about.
It ignores the fact that all learning comes from asserting that some ideas are superior to others.
It confuses the methods of enforcing liberalism with its fundamental idea, which is egalitarianism, or the notion that all should be able to do whatever they want without criticism from others.
Look further for its actual core:
The starting point in all of this is firmly not in the “what does/ did happen.” The original cathedral analysis (not the nonsense it has become) was firmly in the “what did/ does happen” category, De Jouvenel’s analysis is firmly in the “what did/ does happen” category, Carlyle’s analysis of the effects of non-governance is firmly in the “what did/ does happen” category. All of these things lead to unpleasant, but deeply necessary conclusions.
In other words, embrace entropy, because we should not pay attention to better methods, but whatever most people normally do, even if this is known to lead to breakdown and decay.
The above philosophy is fundamentally indistinguishable from mainstream liberalism. Let people do whatever they want, and criticize no individual’s choices, because we are all equal.
In other words, it affirms the fundamental idea of liberalism.
We know (or should know by now)conservatism is a progressive offshoot that is younger than progressivism, and all this claims of classical liberalism are just attempts to resurrect an older form of leftism.
This confuses libertarianism with all conservatism, ignoring the large differences between the two.
Luckily the article takes a twist toward the interesting:
So white nationalism is a collection of platforms with a central premise of declaring that ethnic interests should be secured to varying degrees, whilst neoreaction seems to be a collection of libertarian, rationalist and paleo-con platforms with no real rhyme or reason plus an advocate of extreme non-governance via AI and/ or automated constitutions (the ultimate magic “should” and “must” political thinking.)
Here he nails it out of the park: all modern movements are built in the form of liberalism. They seek to provide a System that manages our future through automated means like rules and voting, simply so that we do not need to violate egalitarianism and appoint some to positions of power simply because they are better people.
As this shows us, the only escape from the modern time is the escape from Systems. These are based on what “should” be not in a practical/realistic context like nationalism, but in an emotional/social one like Leftism, because only a super-simplified way of life like ideology can unite such a chaotic system.
The only solution is escape from Systems into the wilds of culture-based leadership (nationalism) and leadership by the best (aristocracy). This eliminates the “should,” and produces the realistic, and even more importantly, the aspirational.
But it requires a slightly more complex analysis than the “finding the right answer is liberalism” introduction used in the original blog post.
The post Eternal September internet revealed its true purpose as memetic churn: it funnels the antagonism of our world’s basement NEETs, daytime TV watchers, retirees, apartment-bound disability recipients, bored cubicle slaves and welfare nodules into an emotional amplifier. People post concerns in simple catchy forms and the crowd rages with a new fire.
Everything has a weakness and a strength, and the two are usually the converse of one another. The internet echo chamber does a good job of putting its finger on the fears of modern people, and a terrible job at coming up with solutions, since what matters above and beyond all else is that its “solutions” be memetic. That means: simple, engaging, and emotionally satisfying.
Real life is different from how most people experience emotions: emotional satisfaction comes at the end of accomplishment. The farmer lighting his pipe, looking over the freshly-plowed fields, and thinking how proud and pleased he is; the artist looking over his creations, having finally spoken his muse. But on the internet, emotional satisfaction is what makes the crowd buzz, and it comes from the untested thoughts that seem to beat back those fears.
On Amerika the blog, I and other writers have taken a radical perspective: that conservatism is the root of all sane thinking about how to make society, and that our retreat from it has created “Amerika” the society: a Soviet-style system where a single path to success exists, and that is through using the ideology of the Crowd to please others and thus be selected as the most capable. All of our incompetent elites got ahead this way.
Conservatism takes another perspective. For method it chooses consequentialism, or results mattering more than methods, which includes the idea that performance comes after reward, which is the inversion of socialism. For goals it chooses a transcendental outlook, or the notion that we should aim for the best in all things, using consequentialism to figure out what works but then choosing what achieves excellence over the merely adequate.
Already this blog post is too complex for at least ninety-nine out of one hundred people on the internet. It will never achieve memetic status because it is both too complex and not emotionally satisfying. Over the wires, or in a crowd, it will be shouted down and replaced with an ikon of a cute bunny screaming SIEG HEIL.
But what people need to know is this: conservatism is the most extreme “ideology” of them all, mainly because it is not an ideology — a way around reality, based in what we wish were true instead of what is — but a look at Reality as our guiding force. Conservatism is extremist common sense. We are a species like any other; we must adapt to our environment; if giving choices between a good, better and best option, choose the best!
What has happened (as usual) is that humans cannot distinguish between essence and instance. The essence of conservatism is an idea; the instance is any person, group or product (books, movies, blogs) that claims to be conservative. The instance does not change the essence. It is the other way around: the essence determines what the instance should be.
And yet… our “conservatives” seem very far from any meaningful definition of conservative. “Conservatism has failed!” wails the internet hype machine. Or is it that our conservatives are simply not conservative, which means by definition that they are liberal, and that their failure is part of the vast decay of society through liberalism?
By Occam’s Razor and any other meaningful analysis, that explanation makes a lot more sense.
Most people do not realize that conservatism exists only because liberalism exists. Before liberalism, all was shades of conservatism, which has plenty of internal texture and variation. After the French Revolution, conservatives were those who arose to preserve the best of what had come before, in anticipation that — as de Tocqueville and others analyzed — the Great Liberal Experiment would collapse.
As lore has it, the conservatives sat on the Right and the revolutionaries on the Left in the French National Assembly. Thus Leftists and Rightists were born, with Rightists including both socially-acceptable conservatives and what I call “primal conservatives” who hung on to their aristocratic, manorial and tribal traditions. “Liberals” were the conservatives who believed in a slow retreat through libertarianism.
In the current day, a steady leftward shift has left us with a social outlook that demonizes most true conservative positions. Remember, to find a conservative position, you look at (1) results and (2) what produces the best results.
This gives us the four pillars of any sensible conservatism:
Nationalism. Internationalism produces cosmopolitan port cities that seem endearing at first until one realizes that they are filthy, venal, corrupt places with no culture and no purpose in life except mercantile exchange with consumers. Nationalism works and makes happy nations because they rule themselves with culture and not government, police and propaganda (media). Conservatives are more extreme than Hitler on this, but refuse to endorse his violent solutions for other reasons, namely that injustice and cruelty beget more of the same and thus produce bad results without need.
Aristocracy. Most people are stupid monkeys who have no idea of what they need versus what they want. The only solution is to put our smartest people — who are one in a hundred — in charge, because otherwise, we have oppression by the stupidest. If we are going to have oppression, let it at least be competent! Aristocracy includes monarchism, a network of lesser aristocrats who are more like a Greek college than a social club, manorialism anda caste system, and a total abolishment of the State and its nit-picking rules.
Capitalism. Sometimes you get a good, better and best choice, and sometimes you merely get a choice between bad and worse. Is capitalism bad? It depends how it is implemented; when balanced by the forces above capitalism works out well, but in the hand of low-caste merchants it turns into a third world style bazaar (the USA is merely a highly organized, corporate version of this). But every alternative to capitalism is a straight plunge into pure dysfunction, and socialism, government-protected unions and welfare states are proven parasite magnets.
A transcendental goal. In addition to the general ideal of transcendentalism in conservatism, every civilization needs a transcendental goal, or some aspiration to the purest things — the good, the beautiful and the true; excellence; divinity — in life, which means they are never tangible but can be attributes of things. You cannot hold an excellent in your hand, and no accomplishment is ever a definition of excellence, but the best choices can be said to be excellent, and those are the ones worth fighting for.
Our civilization is in decline. A thousand years ago, the above were recognized as common sense on the level of “do not defecate in your soup before eating.” Then again, the people who had to understand them were the top 1% of society by inner excellence, meaning intelligence and moral character. The herd has never understood anything and never will because it is biologically incapable of doing so.
Are the above fascist or Soviet? No: they are more extreme than fascism, and are honest methods unlike the Soviet approach which is to demand unrealistic ideals so that everyone must fall in line to obey the parasite State, which derives its power from having bought off the proles and thus harnessed The Revolution as a means to permanent tyranny. Fascism and National Socialism are degraded conservatism — hybridized with liberalism — just like libertarianism, neoconservatism and tankinis.
The common tropes of the nu-internet are that conservatism is dead and nationalism has taken over, or that conservatism is inferior to traditionalism. These are just posing. Nationalism and traditionalsm are subsets of the conservative idea. The point we must focus on is that if we remove the Leftist ideology, we are left with common sense, and from that flow all of the possibilities for good. Without it, we are left (heh heh) on the path to decline and fall.
In case you are wondering why a majority of the US population identifies as Conservative while the “Respectable Right” gets boatraced in every major policy dispute? Just watch the video below. It’s a perfect metaphor.
The Left, you see, is playing for blood. In a real rugby match, these guys would be grabbing scrotes and raking faces every time the referee and the touch judges were looking the wrong way. They instinctively scrap for every yard, every last bloody inch of pitch. They believe, the “Respectable Right” does not.
As a result, the “Respectable Right” gets walked back towards the wrong set of goalposts on every issue under the sun. No, 75% of The State of Mississippi does not have the right to any sort of religious freedom if 0.0001% of the state’s population represented by 1-legged, trans-gendered, midgets who identify as the sparkle-pony gender feel triggered in the slightest. You will be made to care.
This is why LGBT is running the show in states all across Amerika governed by all of those severe Conservatives of the “Respectable Right.” Governor Deal wasn’t up for Pickett’s Charge when a religious freedom bill similar to that of Mississippi’s was placed on his desk. And when the Activist Left demanded that Alabama get rid of the Confederate Battle flag, Governor Bentley got bent for his cucking.
So given the utter cowardice of these men of incontinent bowels in the face of any serious left wing political pressure, you would think that they would appreciate the help when somebody offered to fight back. If you’re saying “guess again”, you are accurate. The Men with Hollow Chests despise and deride all who would stand vigilant in the tackle and fight back against the entropic demotism and ongoing social decay.
Ian Tuttle of Cuckservative Review Magazine, (I’ll link Occidental Dissent and not send them traffic for ad revenue) tells us the following about the “Alternative” or what I prefer to call the Legitimate Right.
The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online presence. But for Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, the Alt-Right consists of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals — and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways. In other words, anyone familiar with Yiannopoulos’s theatrics, or Breitbart’s self-appointment as Donald Trump’s Pravda, will not be surprised to learn that the article is a 5,000-word whitewash. But it is valuable, in this way: It exhibits, albeit inadvertently, the moral and intellectual rot at the heart of the Alt-Right. …
Hunter Wallace accurately points out that our current “Respectable Right” is more interested in image than substance. They conflate social acceptability with moral good. The Left accurately attacks this by setting the rules on what gets considered acceptable. The Left wants its gay marriage, the GOP changes its platform to avoid nasty social issues. Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman would dispossess and inconvenience the otherwise patriotic, socially responsible and respectable Americans of a livestock-screwing orientation. They are human and want to be loved – just like anyone else does.
And you know what your failure to immediately sign up for the presidential run of JEB makes you? Do I even have to Cucksplain it? (I again link to a link. The Cuck doesn’t always come off after washing with standard laundry detergent.) No, because some overrated donkey’s rear end for The Federalist does the honors.
“Hey, lefties, we finally found your racists for you. For as long as I can remember, people like me—by which I mean advocates of capitalism and free markets and freedom of speech—have been accused by the left of being secret racists who pine for the gold old days of the antebellum South. Tiresome stuff like this. Then along comes a group of actual, declared racists who really do pine for the antebellum South, and who is one of the main targets of their invective? People like me. Kind of ironic, eh?
And the Lefties are just laughing. They have their mouth-frothing scrum of screaming, deracinated, fvck-heads just waiting to pack down and obliterate The Federalist, The Resurgent, Hot Air, Ace of Spades, Speaker Ryan, Governor Bentley, Governor Deal or any other bunch of “Respectable Right” panty-waists who have the guts to turn towards the appropriate set of goal posts and pack down.
And so it goes with the Amerikan Right. They will always be too cowardly to ever put their goddamn hand in the dirt, get their butts down low enough to drive and actually fight as if they genuinely had enough of a soul to still hold beliefs. They don’t. They are empty. They are phony. The Left knows this. They keep them alive out of convenience. They always look forward to the glorious expiration date when they get the sadistic joy of hanging them by their own viscera, sending their worthless, pathetic souls to Hell and helping out Beelzebub as he toasts marshmallows over the smoking remains.
Our public enjoys the protection of pretending that they cannot understand the “complex” differences between liberal and conservative. This allows them to claim to be either, and justify any impulse they have under that banner because the identity is obscured behind their own confusion. Stupid monkeys.
The actual differences are simple: conservatism is non-utilitarian consequentialism, or the idea that results matter and we should “conserve” the methods that produced the best results. Liberalism is the idea of equality, which is justified by social feelings, and the desire to want to be altruistic and inclusive toward others to achieve peace.
So there you have it. Lions or Bonobos. One group wants to conquer problems, but the other group wants to ignore problems and spend time pleasuring each other by distributing fruit and sexual favors. It’s amazing how similar the behaviors are in their human versions.
I submit an even simpler difference: liberals do not understand cause/effect logic. That is, they cannot mentally process the fact that to achieve a certain effect, you must do something different that puts events in motion so that effect comes about.
If you wonder why the liberal solution to everything is Government, here is why: they cannot understand any way of making things happen then ordering them to happen, as if they were talking to a bartender or salesman, and government is the only institution that responds to that type of behavior. Government says “Right away sir!” and then works all night on a detailed bill for next tax season.
For example, if we discuss ending poverty, liberals can see only the handout being the solution, and anyone who disagrees is just a blue meanie who hates poor people. Conservatives talk about setting up economic and social incentives to reduce poverty where it can be reduced, so that the end result is a lessening of poverty, in part because we recognize poverty is eternal to the human condition.
The liberal just does not understand. Why are we talking about reducing taxes and lowering housing costs, maybe even killing minimum wage, to end poverty? Just give them the money. Poverty is no money, so give money. Bonobo hoots and hollers.
Conservatives always strike out when trying to explain things to liberals for this reason. They bring up a problem, we make a suggestion, and then try to reason it out with them. But they’re missing the chip that handles cause-to-effect, so to them it is a binary question: have government throw money/rules at the problem, or you are Hitler and must die.
In contentious times, people want an option outside of the major choices. In some cases, the choices are made simple: accept the obvious, or run away from it. When those are your options, finding a third way is near impossible.
But, if it will make you “feel” better, let us consider my perspective a third way. There is Leftism/Liberalism, Rightism/Conservatism and my way, Raging Realism. A Ragin’ Realist is someone who denies all but what exists out there in the world, which humans normally suppress in exchange for the social world of emotions, desires and judgments (moralizations: “it shouldn’t be that way”).
As a result, Ragin’ Realism is not for the ordinary, which is why it is raging. It must achieve incredible momentum to reach escape velocity from the sickly treacle of the “feelings” of people around it. But at its core, it is very simple: our thoughts must correspond to reality.
Naturally this makes reality a target. The favorite human game is to redefine key terms, or to sample only part of the data necessary and draw broad conclusions for it, or even our “rationalistic” thought process, which is to think of a convenient hypothesis and filter out any data but what supports it. All of these are pretty bad but pretty normal.
In fact, that is what makes Ragin’ Realism so controversial. It says that what most people are thinking most of the time is not just nonsense, but concealment, deliberate deception designed to hide reality so that the monkey party can continue. The first step in realism is realism about what humans are.
By most, it does not mean fifty-one out of a hundred; it means ninety-nine out of a hundred. That is the grim fact that intelligent, aware and moral people have always refused to hear. You are alone, very alone. The rest are clueless and if not beaten back, will do their best to destroy you so that their cluelessness is not revealed. They call that “equality.”
These people love chaos as well. Why? In chaos they can hide. If there are no standards, they are never wrong. If everyone is screwing up all of the time, their screwups are invisible. Their desires to transgress — which fetishize something that is less interesting in reality than in their vision, which is usually based on illusion spread by the raving commentary of their friends anyway — can be hidden behind a wall of confusion.
“Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please,” said Brer Rabbit. “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
“The briar patch, eh?” said Brer Fox. “What a wonderful idea! You’ll be torn into little pieces!”
Grabbing up the tar-covered rabbit, Brer Fox swung him around and around and then flung him head over heels into the briar patch…Brer Fox cocked the other ear toward the briar patch, listening for Brer Rabbit’s death rattle…He turned around and looked up the hill. Brer Rabbit was sitting on a log combing the tar out of his fur with a wood chip and looking smug.
“I was bred and born in the briar patch, Brer Fox,” he called. “Born and bred in the briar patch.”
The briar patch for your average person is chaos. They were born in chaos, to chaotic parents who lived in disorder and squalor, even if modern conveniences helped obscure that. Their minds operate by chaos, which is to say that they have no hierarchical capacity, only the ability to understand lots of little things with specific details, like comic books and movies. Their lives are currently chaos.
If you catch them doing something low-level insane (a.k.a. their modus operandi) they will immediately create a false target: “Oh, don’t throw me in that briar patch!” Their point is always to get you to do something which increases the chaos, so they can hide in the chaos.
Now, conservatism, that is tempting. It introduces the question of degree to Ragin’ Realism. A Ragin’ Realist loves what works, but like the term “reality,” this is under assault by human reason itself. If you need to house a million people, you could just build giant Soviet-style apartment blocks full of 8×10 rooms with combination sink/toilet/shower holes in the corner. Technically this solves the problem.
Conservatism modifies this with degree. What is the best solution in human history? That is what conservatism conserves: best solutions, highest achievements, most intense greatness, awesomest pleasures. Most sources note a “zest for life” in conservatism, and I think that is the core of it: it is the philosophy of pleasure-seekers who have taken a moment to understand their own pleasures.
Maybe Ragin’ Realism can learn that from Conservatives. Can it learn anything from the Left? Since most of the Left is based purely in moralization, or a statement about what “should be” without understanding why it is not what is, i.e. why it is not as effective and efficient as what nature produced, most of Leftism should be discarded.
There is one thing however… perhaps it’s a trifle. Or maybe it should be mentioned. Leftists are self-destruction junkies, but they are also willing to admit when something sucks. They look too hard for that, because Leftism is really a way for lonely and miserable people to socialize with each other through commiseration, but they can point out obvious truths where Conservatives will tell you to suck it up and stop being such a pussy.
For example, that society sucks. That other people are mostly poisonous little dwarfs who get their only excitement in life from provoking others into failing or flailing. That on the whole, a housecat is better company than most of the human race. And so on. The Leftist “culture of critique” is what shapes intelligent post-collapse populations and becomes their raison d’etre. But right now, someone should mention that this society sucks. That is Realism too.
The real attribute of Ragin’ Realism that scares people is its utter nihilism. A realist cannot obscure a historical or factual truth with platitudes. We recognize that the universe is mostly emptiness and that which does not struggle against this emptiness perishes, and no one cares. There is no eternal glory in the sky for a species that dies out because it became mentally disorganized.
In life, only that which persists, matters. Everything else is swept backward into time. Maybe it lives on in the metaphysical afterlife, or not, but that matters less than what survives in reality. Most people are always looking for an excuse to self-destruct because they are tired of the burden of survival, which is like an endless series of Post-It™ notes reminding you that you can have better results if you just fix this one more thing one more time…
You get tired of it. It is tiring to beat back demons, to fiddle with fixes, to struggle against the crushing wave of entropy (and the bigger wave of the insanity of others) that always wants to drive you to the lowest common denominator or, preferably, chaos so that that happy monkey party time can continue in the trees. Free fruit for all! And we fermented it too, and there’s Bonobo sex parties. Fascinating.
A Ragin’ Realist recognizes all of this, and takes these two principles from conservatives and liberals. First, that we need not just the minimum functionality, but an experience that nourishes us. And second, that because life sucks, our first agenda should be to sweep aside all the tedious, exhausting, ugly and blockheaded experiences we can in order to conserve our limited energy so we can apply it to the good stuff.
But with that in mind, you can see the paradox of realism. There is an answer to life; it is not easy; without it life sucks. Therefore, we should choose that, and with this obvious fact in the room, two choices arise. Deny it or accept it. And most people will go for the former, of course, because their big brains tell them it might be like the lottery, where one in three hundred million people gets into money Heaven for being at the right place at the right time.
Right now, the predators and parasites are swarming. The voters clearly want Donald Trump as the president, and he has united groups on both left and right toward this end. The perception is that “business as usual” has become corrupt.
If our elites were anything but stumbling incompetents, they would go forth first with an agenda that does not include confirming that fact. But one succeeds in liberal democracy by being a salesperson, which demands a quasi-aggression that involves never considering anything but your own needs. And the GOP Establishment is acting by its needs.
Those who are currently in power in “conservative” politics know that a usurpation is coming. If Donald Trump wins, he proves not only that they were wrong, but that they were not trying for a good outcome. This implies that our current GOP Establishment has no intention of achieving conservative results, but wants to play-act at being conservative so that the money keeps rolling in.
Being a controlled opposition party pays well, it turns out. Politicians can make money by consulting or giving speeches; lobbyists, lawyers, consultants and all the staffs do well also. This is the difference between seeing politics as goal-oriented, and seeing it as a job or career. The GOP Establishment elites are careerists, and that involves working within the system and getting along with everyone more than getting anything done.
If Trump gets elected, the risk is not that he will fire them; it is that all of us will have been shown, clearly and dramatically, that we are getting nothing for our donations and votes to the GOP. Voters will demand replacement of anyone who has prospered in this system.
The GOP Establishment is going to block Donald Trump and in doing so, will make him more powerful than ever before.
They are the gatekeepers, and they will find ways to keep him out. There are thousands of rules, laws and regulations which could conceivably either frustrate his nomination, invalidate his election or form a lawsuit which could sabotage the campaign. They will use something clever, not something smart.
In doing so, the idiot elites will prove what Trump was saying all along: the GOP does not want to win; it wants to stay employed.
The next step from this, fortunately, will be the removal of all GOP elected leaders as their voters sleep in on voting day, and in the resulting liberal turmoil, massive discontent with liberal democracy itself.
For the first time, our people may see the actual problem instead of the proxy, the cause instead of the effect, and act on it. Not all of them — of a hundred people, one can understand the issues required. But people fortunately act with a herd instinct, and when the sheep walking point sniffs a wolf, they all panic together.
Unless you were fortunate enough to be hiding under a rock for the last twenty-four hours, you know that a planned Donald Trump rally in Chicago turned into a violent riot instigated by MoveOn, George Soros, Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders supporters.
What common factor do these groups share? They are all Leftist. As liberal democracy has spent itself into oblivion, debilitating its economies, and simultaneously made a series of horrible leadership decisions under leaders like Barack Obama and former Communist Angela Merkel, people have become desperate. And now their divisions are showing.
On one side are the committed Leftists: people who believe that egalitarianism, including its economic offshoot socialism, will solve our problems. On the other side, everyone else, including conservatives which now come in a dozen varieties based on degree of compromise with the Left-leaning governments the West has had since 1945.
Normally these divisions stay concealed. We mouth platitudes about free speech and each doing what makes sense to him, but secretly, the two sides hate each other because the societies they desire are incompatible. A Leftist world is the USSR to Rightists; a Rightist world is the NSDAP to Leftists. We want entirely different things but to be first to admit that is to be seen as an aggressor.
That barrier has been broken. By instigating the biggest political riots in America since the 1960s, the Left has declared war on all who have not joined the Left. The luxury of not taking sides no longer exists. You are either with them, or you are a target, and they consider “any means necessary” to include violence, theft, sexual assault and attacks on police for stopping the mayhem, as the Trump rally riot showed.
Trump, of course, has come out a champion. His comments both showed a leadership concern for the welfare of his people, and recognition of the transition through which America (and Europe, by extension) have just passed:
Following the melee, Trump said on MSNBC that he thinks he made the right decision in canceling the rally because he didn’t “want to see people hurt or worse.”
“We have a country that is so divided, that maybe you don’t even understand,” Trump continued. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
The divisions that have fractured America for centuries have come to the surface. These divisions arose entirely with the insistence of Leftists that they dominate this country, as they have dominated others and in the process destroyed them. They claim their disagreement is on certain issues, but in reality, they want a Leftist empire here. One where the strong are forced to serve the weak so that “equality” can be maintained.
As in Russia, France, Venezuela, Cuba and everywhere else it has been tried this will end in a burned-out third-world civilization with no hope of rising above that state, which is why even non-Rightists oppose it. History has spoken clearly on the matter, but the Bernie fans and MoveOn zombies know nothing of history, and they don’t care. They want what they want, and the rest of us should foot the bill and bow before them.
Some are still undecided. Europeans in particular point to their socialistic liberal democracies and claim that this type of society can work, but they do so from among the ruins of their immigration policy, failing defense and debt-laden societies where people are so miserable they do not reproduce at replacement rates. “Work” by that definition is equal to not work, because it is mostly a degree of that latter state.
Many Americans have woken up to the deception. They have realized that the welfare state means a permanent underclass, immigration means ethnic replacement, and liberal “tolerance” means a steady march toward tyranny. They are now recalling warnings from the past about how government is a self-interested actor that, if given a blank check mandate like “equality” and “diversity,” will quickly become near totalitarian.
And so, we wake after the Trump rally riots and realize a choice is thrust upon us. Do we go back to the 1980s and earlier, where there is no social welfare (backdoor socialism) and no great push for diversity? Or do we continue the march into what these rioters want, which is a subsidy state in which the former American majority is endlessly punished for its crimes, as in South Africa?
The real loser tonight was the group of moderates who keep trying to make these incompatible political philosophies function together. They cannot: conservatives want a society of performance before reward to encourage people toward greater heights, where liberals want reward before performance so that everyone is included. These two visions cannot coexist it and it is not surprising that tonight, they finally clashed.
The Left occupies its time these days by pretending it has no idea why Donald Trump is rising in the polls. It is the equivalent of stating that the theory does not permit certain results, so they cannot be true, which means some mysterious force — equivalent to a scapegoat, in our minds — is skewing things. As a result, the Left looks into psychology, sociology, astrology and phlebotomy to explain these “anomalous” (read: unintended) results.
What they are seeing is much simpler: the rise of the moderate extremist. This is the oldest category of people, and they recognize that a job is either done or un-done. If you have not actually fixed a problem, but deferred it, calling your acts a “solution” is a lie and a waste of time. This is a practical, can-do outlook that is common to people in the country everywhere, because in such places you need to make sure your knots will hold or you could end up injured, dead or starving.
Moderate extremists are not ideologues in the classic sense. They do not want to save the world, nor are they motivated by the type of ideological thinking that seeks to purify the world of the other. They want society to function well and they have a distrust of parasitic individuals. Their approach tends to be to use authority in as minimal a method as possible, but to reward good behavior and punish bad, recognizing the common sense awareness that whatever is tolerated is encouraged and we will get more of it, so it makes sense to tolerate only the good.
Unlike the ideological extremists, the moderate extremists tend toward middle-of-the-road policy that is enacted clearly and forcefully to remove doubt. They dislike laws that set traps for people by making it unclear what is expected of them and what will be punished. They are as a result not driven by symbolic issues. A moderate extremist may dislike abortion, but not see the point in an outright ban so much as refusing to support what they understand as an evil institution. They may think homosexuality is a sin, or at least a path to places they do not want their children to go, but will not support excluding someone from society for homosexuality, so long as he keeps private matters private, as the saying goes.
Unlike both garden variety extremists and moderates, moderate extremists are Nationalistic, which means they believe that every nation is formed of one ethnic group. This can be as simple as folk wisdom — “birds of a feather flock together” is the observation, in part, that people like to live, work, marry, befriend and interact with those of similar background — or as complex as a reading of history that shows homogeneous societies are happiest and most functional. To the moderate extremist, diversity was always a pipe dream, but because they are not ideologically motivated, they grudgingly accepted it so long as it did not disrupt their lives.
That is the weakness of the moderate extremist: they respond only when conditions impinge on their own hopes and plans. To them, society does many things, most of which fail, and they trust nature (and/or God and Darwin) to sweep up the broken pieces and let something more functional take their place. This outlook fails to take into account the nature of society, which is that the rules it make like tolerance encourage the growth of certain practices by subsidizing them. Diversity for example was causing problems long before those became visible, but the moderate extremist combines realism with pragmatism and self-reliance, and so remains unconcerned for too long.
When awakened however the moderate extremist becomes more extreme. He sees that the broken policies have piled up, and now it is time to demand they be removed. This is his extremist side: when something does not work, and consequences appear, he wants it gone entirely because as country wisdom tells you, leaving a rake in the grass will result in a broken nose eventually. In his mind, policies are either working, undetermined or failed, and failed things need to be destroyed and swept aside because they are future liabilities.
What we are seeing with Trump is a backlash against several Leftist policies: immigration, or replacement of our people with permanent Leftist voters from the Third world; the welfare state, or creation of a permanent underclass that depends on government and therefore votes Left; and “big government” or ideological government itself, which justifies its expansion with a morality of equality that hides its self-interest. Having tolerated these things for years, they feel justified in now demanding they be gone.
This approach seems counter-intuitive to the Left, whose response to a failed program is to check to see if it is ideologically sound and if so, to double down on it. Moderate extremists are not knee-jerk reactionaries, however. They are accustomed to trying new things and waiting for results. When the results are good, they keep them, but when they get negative feedback through bad results, they throw out the idea and try something else. Any home handyman or gardener can relate to this approach to technique.
The appeal of Donald Trump is that he is not a badged conservative attempting to defend an ideological interpretation of a way of life that is inherently anti-ideological. He is like a mechanic, testing to see where the problems are and fixing them with whatever method works best. Where this overlaps with conservatism, he is willing to use it, but he is not committed to any fixed system of thought because his ultimate goal is diagnosis and solution alone. This appeals to the moderate extremist in all of us.