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 Both have been replaced by modern, inferior variants that are useful to our society only because they do not offend our leftist ideology.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.
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.
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:
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 higherstandards, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Democracy has failed us, but most cannot see that yet. They do not yet realize that popularity contests produce the easiest answers that are most convenient for the individual, not realistic responses. They do not realize that our horrible politicians and big corporation loopholes are the result of media manipulators, like matadors with red flags, leading the voters on with scapegoats and false rewards. Or that voters gratefully fall for it every time.
Right now, people are tired of politics. They have not yet connected the fact of democracy with the necessity of politics: when action is taken by getting a plurality to pull a lever like trained monkeys, politics becomes the norm. That means that all things are measured by appearance and public opinion, never by logical, factual or historical basis. As a result, all government falls prey to “soft” corruption of selling illusions, and all democratic societies become “soft” totalitarian as the herd punishes those who point out that utter failure of the system on which they depend for benefits, comforting lies and self-esteem.
Politics arises when people must be convinced to work together on specific things. It does not happen when people already agree on what must be done; then, they discuss method. But in a democracy, where the active unit is the individual, people specialize in having different opinions. These coincide rarely and only in small doses, which encourages those in power to constantly “dumb down” every idea until it becomes popular like Budweiser, Coca-Cola, or McDonald’s. Everything must be sweetened and sugared, coated in fat and given a savory sauce, so the voters will lead themselves through the corral to slaughter.
Voters specialize in blaming politicians and big corporations for their woes, but those two groups are merely service providers who cater to the need of the voters for illusion. This illusion must paint the voters in a positive, almost heroic light, so it is always patriotic and/or altruistic. It must explain away actual threats by categorizing awareness of them as racism, and invent imaginary threats which can never be solved and therefore will serve as a perpetual jobs program for politicians and bureaucrats, who are all parasites. The voters create government by being, as a group, incapable of agreeing on anything but comforting lies and convenient illusions.
At this point, the Left — who initiated a series of Revolutions in the name of The Enlightenment™ that have devastated Western Civilization — and the Right, who attempt to “conserve” the sanity that existed before the Left took over, have failed. Both groups have become dominated by self-serving parasitic entities. On the Left are the people who intend to generate wealth by dissolving what is left of Western Civilization and selling it by the pound, and on the Right are people who benefit from being the “opposition party” that makes a big show, takes the payoff and leaves. Republican voters elected a Republican House and then watched nothing happen; Europeans elected quasi-conservatives like Cameron and then saw him accede to every liberal policy.
People are fed up, and the resulting emotional outbursts have polarized the two sides, allowing the middle to rise — and most importantly, enabling “extremist moderates” who we might call intense realists. These people have been denied a voice in this system because their viewpoint is always inconvenient and reasonable, which means it gets bulldozed by the more emotionally dramatic Left and more business-oriented Right. Only in a crisis, when all else has failed, do the moderates get a voice, and at that point they are finally seeing how the mechanism of democracy invariably works against them. This makes them into radicals, and maybe this time around, they will begin dismantling the parasite hierarchy and replacing it with real leaders.
An analysis of these radical moderates shows they come closer to original conservative positions than any conservative to ever be on camera. That however belongs to the best of them. For now, the moderates remain moderate, which means — since we are living in a liberal time and have been since 1789 — that most of their positions are leftist:
Warren called these voters Middle American Radicals, or MARS. “MARS are distinct in the depth of their feeling that the middle class has been seriously neglected,” Warren wrote. They saw “government as favoring both the rich and the poor simultaneously.” Like many on the left, MARS were deeply suspicious of big business: Compared with the other groups he surveyed—lower-income whites, middle-income whites who went to college, and what Warren called “affluents”—MARS were the most likely to believe that corporations had “too much power,” “don’t pay attention,” and were “too big.” MARS also backed many liberal programs: By a large percentage, they favored government guaranteeing jobs to everyone; and they supported price controls, Medicare, some kind of national health insurance, federal aid to education, and Social Security.
On the other hand, they held very conservative positions on poverty and race. They were the least likely to agree that whites had any responsibility “to make up for wrongs done to blacks in the past,” they were the most critical of welfare agencies, they rejected racial busing, and they wanted to grant police a “heavier hand” to “control crime.” They were also the group most distrustful of the national government. And in a stand that wasn’t really liberal or conservative (and that appeared, at least on the surface, to be in tension with their dislike of the national government), MARS were more likely than any other group to favor strong leadership in Washington—to advocate for a situation “when one person is in charge.”
Moderates are pragmatists. They want whatever society can offer them, which means they like the benefits state much as it exists in Europe, and they also want the prolonged pet problems of the Left to be pushed aside because they are both intractable and the solutions destructive. This is the bourgeois voice that wants to just write a check, have the problem go away, and go back to getting easy money from the job and shopping all night on the internet. But these moderates also represent a group that can be easily polarized by taking their positions to extremes.
While the article above refers to this group as “radicals,” that means solely that they are tired of politics and looking for pragmatism. They can go a step further to realism, which unlike pragmatism is not based on “getting along with others” or “working within the system.” Realism says there is a solid answer and when found it must be implemented by whatever means are necessary. Realism also recognizes that a problem half-solved leaves behind a problem that will return, springing out from hiding places and assaulting those who did not do the job thoroughly enough in the first place.
What moderate radicals — and future extremist moderates — do not have is a voice to guide them away from the strains of liberalism that have infected their thinking. They need to become more tired of politics, more used to the idea that democracy will never produce their leaders, and more prone to demand people in place who can fix problems and also prevent them from recurring. If the alternative right and neoreaction need a place to go shopping for ideas, it is seizing upon these pragmatic reactions and accelerating their radicalism so that it reaches extremist levels. Only then can we thoroughly enough attack the problem at its root.
For those who oppose the current civilization in the West, it becomes clear that we must backtrack to our original error and reverse it. Our greatest fear should be that we will not backtrack enough, and will instead legitimize the same path as we are on at an earlier stage, while convincing people the threat is over. While we have the attention of our people, it makes sense to fix this once and for all.
As an alert reader will have guessed, this presents a difficulty because getting to the root of this problem requires attacking some of the sacred cows of our society that most people believe are their only defense against it. Because we live in a democratic time, we see individual rights and equality as well as an extensive system of laws which apply uniformly to all as our firewall against crazy government and even crazier public opinion, with the sinister predatory eyes of raw commerce in the background. And yet, like heroin addiction, our reliance on these protections comes at a cost which perpetuates the need for such protections.
With that in mind… we need a change of direction away from democracy and equality to a society based on both results and creating a higher qualitative level of existence. This corresponds to the conservative ideals of consequentialism and transcendentalism linked by a sense of social order, values, morality, practicality and a sacred nature to life itself. In other words, we are looking past The Enlightenment™ to what existed before it, in part by recognizing that society is not a linear path from “primitive” to “civilized” by a cycle based on what ideals are adopted. The liberal democratic ideal is part of the death-cycle, but the conservative ideal, part of the springtime of a society in which it grows and matures with a zest for life.
This leads to confusion among conservatives, who believe they are supposed to “conserve” a previous state of society. This misreads conservatism: we conserve that which is both realistic and transcendental, wherever it is found, and this conservation includes pushing our society to higher levels of quality. We cannot defend something simply because it once was, nor do we adopt something “new” because it has not been done, as occurs with the novelty fallacy inherent to liberalism. Our goal is to re-make society according to what should be conserved, not defend how things have been going along here before some Other intervened. Inevitably, that Other originates in a scapegoat, and the hope is that by removing the other we end up with what is good. In reality, we will end up with disorder, because what made the past work will have been forgotten and we will have failed to re-connect it to the ideal that originally made it valuable.
Defense of the norms of people who hate you is the ultimate “cuckservative” failing. Most people act by convenience, and what is popular is usually wrong because it appeals to the lowest common denominator, enacts compromise, and consists of the greedy demands of a herd with zero accountability. Conservatives do not defend norms; they strive for ideals which are based in reality. Convenience is our enemy, as is popular opinion, because both of these shift the focus from what is optimal to what involves the least amount of stress on those around us. We must remember that we arrived at our present state by going down the path of public opinion, convenience, popularity and appearance. Our goal is to avoid that path entirely.
This world is incompetent and ruined. Under democracy and equality, our customs have been abolished, our people removed by soft genocide, and our leaders and elites turned into comic book figures who gesture vividly to appeal to the crowd and by thus avoiding real issues, steer us into disaster and then retire to riches.
We are fighting a war of sense versus public opinion. Our nation will be great again when it has a strong identity — formed of culture, AND heritage, AND values, with religion shared between values and aesthetics, a subdivision of culture — and by that nature develops a strong cultural resistance to parasites. The parasites we fight are found among our own people; parasitic ideas like liberalism, guilt, egalitarianism and victimhood form the basis for our internal division and self-destruction. The Other appears as a beneficiary of this, but by the foolishness of our own people, and not as an origin in the Other itself. For this reason, every minute we spend on Jewish conspiracy theories or cruelly denigrating African-Americans is a strong and energetic step away from what we must be doing. We need to fix ourselves.
Most people get confused because they think in terms of categorical logic, which uses broad mental containers to categorize actions by appearance. The simplest form of this is the destruction of morality by making it categorical, creating social constructs called “good” and “bad” which categorize by method and not goal, which measures itself in terms of results; the two are inseparable. Fools and parasites want us to measure our actions by social categories of good and bad, which judge in terms of appearance, which is what regulates method, because appearance is the basis of social interaction in groups. What looks good to the group, and is convenient for them, they approve; goals — which require results for comparison — and principles remain invisible to the herd. They like it that way. Goals, principles, values, heritage, culture and morality of the honest sort strike terror into the herd, because it threatens to divide the group by having a purpose, which means that some will be visibly falling short and thus be bumped down to lower social status. The herd unites itself on acceptance of all based on having no social order and no values system beyond the bare minimum, which enables it to become powerful and take over societies.
Our enemy is public opinion created by social factors instead of logical ones. Look to structure, not appearance; ultimate results, instead of convenience; and most of all, not what people think but what we can show is true. Truth is more important than popularity, and until you get to that point, you are only repeating one other variety of Enlightenment™ jive instead of looking at the root of the problem. We are under assault by this delusion of the Enlightenment™ among our own people, not the third world or The Jews, who are proxies used by our liberals who have been made into zombies by leftism. They use these proxies to destroy us, but they are the symptom, and not the cause. The cause is the neurotic delusion which creates the herd and from it liberalism/Leftism, and it is this we must defeat in whole if we wish to have a healthy enough society to sleep soundly ever again.
Victimhood does not become the right. Such is the case with the many articles bemoaning non-white people asking for bandaids in their own skin color. The question upon us is what is fair, and what that in turn implies. For myself, I can only answer that the request by these non-whites is entirely reasonable.
Triggering a national discussion about whether sticking plasters are a symptom of something more sinister, Dahlberg said the beige coloured patches were symptomatic of what she called the everyday “whiteness norm” where manufacturers presumed their customers to be white by default.
She said on radio: “Usually I try and find a clear plaster, to try and be a little more discreet, precisely because there are no plasters available close to my skin colour… its part of what is usually called the whiteness norm, that white people are normal”.
Other than the obvious comment — if you are in Rome, do as Romans; in Sweden, do as Swedes — she has an entirely legitimate point. A culture designed for whites will make products for whites, and everyone else will feel left out. This is just another way diversity fails as an ersatz substitute for what is needed, which is one nation for each ethnic group.
Self-rule and self-determination alone make for a happy nation. The happiest nations are homogenous; why not use this principle for every nation? It offends our pretense that we are individuals beyond natural categories like race, ethnicity, gender, intelligence, social caste and the like. But if we get over our ego-pretense, we see that we are all these things. Our intentions do not determine who are we; our genetics do, coupled with our choice to join a population in heritage, culture and values.
The band-aid debacle illustrates one of the billion details wrong with a mixed-race state. If one variety of band-aids can be made, it will favor some skin tones over others, and whatever skin tone that nation idealizes will make everyone else feel bad. On the other hand, those who adopt nationalism will have their own nations and, since those are delineated by ethnicity, the band-aids appropriate for the skin-tone of that population.
Mainstream cuckservatives want us to believe that pluralism does not exist. They want to take diverse groups and force them into a blender to produce one single, standardized norm. This outlook reflects The EnlightenmentTM view that the human individual is the only quantum by which we measure humanity, and that groups, sexes, castes and other variations are “social constructs.” Looking past the plastic junk-food mainstream conservatism, we see a profound observation in the clash over band-aids: each population needs its own band-aids, just like it needs its own leaders, culture, values, language, customs and cuisine.
If anything, conservatives should embrace — rather than belittling — this point of view. We cannot design a one-size-fits-all society, which is why the happiest societies (and the happiest areas within mixed-race societies) are homogenous. Rather than forcing a false homogeneity by designing generic grey band-aids, we should accept this fact and facet of reality and separate the ethnic groups and races. We all need our own nations where our skin tone and instincts are normal, and diversity deprives us of this. Diversity is the problem, not people wanting band-aids to match their skin tone.
With the latest election looming, the economy is in the toilet and the voters are clamoring for lifelines. This means gimmes, giveaways, bennies (benefits) and subsidies. As usual, the voters are wrong and their choices will damage them in the future.
On one side of the fence sits what is basically socialism, the ideal that came about after the French Revolution showed that political equality alone was not enough, which is economic equality, or giving money to those with less to make a happy economy.
Socialism fails in much the same way it would expect you to: it punishes the productive and rewards the unproductive, which in the time-honored Darwinian ways of nature, produces a population of criminal slackers and drives out the good. Witness this recent experiment in socialism:
When Dan Price, founder and CEO of the Seattle-based credit-card-payment processing firm Gravity Payments, announced he was raising the company’s minimum salary to $70,000 a year, he was met with overwhelming enthusiasm.
But in the weeks since then, it’s become clear that not everyone is equally pleased. Among the critics? Some of Price’s own employees.
…”He gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn’t get much of a bump,” she told The Times. A fairer plan, she told the paper, would give newer employees smaller increases, along with the chance to earn a more substantial raise with more experience.
Most people think of this from the perspective of themselves if they were desperately poor: “but it’s not fair that some have so much more!” However, for a moment consider someone who has his or her act together. They do not want to spend their lives at a job either, but they are putting in the effort to make a difference. Why should they be paid less?
But, you say, they are not being paid less. They are being paid the same, you opine. True — in basic math. At higher levels, we live in a relative universe. If those at the bottom get more, it will be taken from the top. This means that we want high quality work out of the top performers for a lower percentage difference between themselves and the slackers. Being a slacker becomes an efficient solution because one gets most of the benefits with none of the risk or obligation.
The classic example of grades breaks down because there is future reward for higher grades. Imagine that were not so, and passing was all that was required. Then imagine that standards were lowered so every student showing minimal effort would pass. A student would have to be foolish, or simply love the material, to do more than the minimum. Now imagine that to rise above the minimum required twice as much effort as passing. Incentive falls and the students that thrive will be those who do the least the fastest.
History shows us a graveyard of socialist states. Some, like Canada and Europe, maintain hybrid systems, and like their diverse populations, are functional — for now. The cracks in the facade are there: existentially miserable people, decaying social order, gnarled masses of laws, and lack of actual productivity versus simply cruising on the wealth of the past. The countries that jump head-first into socialism end up impoverished third-world ruins; the quasi-socialist states seem to have found a slower way of getting there.
Despite all this, conservatives offer no concrete competition to socialism. This happens for two reasons: first, conservatives do not believe in single ideological principles as a solution for the varied needs and problems of a society; second, conservatives are mainly inarticulate about their beliefs except on specific points, which relates to the first reason. A conservative solution will not fit in a nice tidy package like socialism, which boils down to equality by subsidizing the less productive with the “excess” of the more productive.
Instead, the conservative solution relies on time-honored principles in the exact opposite direction from socialism. It might begin with the idea of abolishing all benefits, welfare, subsidies and unearned benefits, and then doing its best to reduce taxes, costs and barriers to productivity. Its aim would be a society where people could work fewer hours at their jobs and have their money go farther, instead of one where they work more for less reward. It would not crusade against inequality or The RichTM, but aim to support the people in the middle by reducing the unnecessary. Peel away miles of regulations, protections that do not work, and subsidies, and you end up with a climate where the worker knows exactly what to do and is rewarded appropriately, at which point his money and time stretch far farther than they do under our current hybrid systems.
And The PoorTM? A conservative recognizes that categorical thinking fools us if not applied very carefully. There is no group by that name. There are people with less income for a variety of reasons, and each needs a solution. In many cases, the answer is for them to become functional at whatever level they can, probably through menial labor where they are supervised. Others may be permanent wards of the state, but under the conservative regime, this is achieved through charity. Some others are simply parasites and can be told to shape up or ship out, instead of forcing every other person to pay out to both reduce the value of their currency and keep around sources of social decay. This is not as emotionally simple and rewarding as socialism, but it works better, and even more, it aims to protect the productive/normal/functional instead of penalizing them in order to create more permanent wards of the state.
If instead of half of our incomes in taxes, we paid less than a quarter — with all taxes, including sales and property, added — our lives would be immeasurably better because we would require less for the same lifestyle. If instead of millions of rules about who can be hired and when, we had a flexible system with no expectation that employers and government provide happiness for everyone, people would find more jobs out there and thus find it easier to get to a job that fits them, and spend less time at it. Conservatives would reduce the manic competition created by narrowing the slots for jobs and instead open up the field, allowing more flexibility. In addition, by removing needless complexity and bureaucracy, they would make life existentially better by reducing daily frustrations. People do not need benefits; they need saner, shorter jobs that do not make them miserable, and a society where living is not a matter of keeping your head above the rising floodwaters of social decay and neurotic complications.
There is no way to make this sound as easy as the emotional ideas of giving to all and having zero risk for anyone. Those are illusions however, and like most illusions — and the Canadian style of society — they will eventually crash into reality and collapse, although this can be postponed with a hybrid system. However, our real problem is not monetary inequality, but feeling like victims of society because it is insane, ugly, boring and rewards opportunists. The conservative solution fixes this instead of attack intermediates like “inequality” which do not actually deliver what people need, which history shows us is a far different quantity than what they think they want.
A potent liberal mode of attack is to accuse conservatives of a lack of compassion. This occurs because liberals and conservatives have different definitions of compassion. For liberals, it is an emotion and an intent; for conservatives, compassion is measured in terms of results both immediately and in the future.
For example, we see people starving in the street in a city.
The liberal says that we must have compassion for these people and feed them, house them and give them medical care. Even more, we should set up institutions dedicated to helping them, and systems of welfare to subsidize them if they are unable or unwilling to work. This method appeals to our emotions: we see ourselves starving on the street, because humans project themselves into every other living being they see, and we become afraid. We ally our fears for ourselves with policy regarding the starving.
A conservative will ask what the cause->effect relationship is, and tend to shy away from broad categorical declarations in favor of looking at individual cases. If a person is starving because of a single sudden incident that was not of their own doing, we tend to think that local charities should address this, and conservatives — who give more than liberals on average — have no problem opening their wallets and donating their time to help.
Conservatives oppose the direction solution of finding everyone who can claim to be starving and giving them food and care. This is not from fear of cheaters so much as it arises from the knowledge that, without finding the actual cause, we are setting up a feedback loop that rewards poverty. Be starving, get money. This encourages society toward a role where survival and happiness are not duties of the individual, but a duty of society which it can never fill. Human misery is infinite; when this task is passed on to society, it will extinguish itself trying to meet an infinite need.
Further, society can never really address that need, because a chronically starving human is that way because of some underlying cause: depression, insanity, incapacity, or some other dysfunction. At least until society becomes so dysfunctional that being homeless is preferable to a “normal” life. A conservative would aim to address that root problem rather than its symptoms. Liberal compassionate care reminds me of palliative care for terminal patients: keep them comfortable, drug them with television and alcohol, and wait for the inevitable end.
In my mind, the greatest question would arise from this one: is society fair? That is, does it give good things to good people and bad things to bad people? This is both Darwinian and compatible with religious morality, which hold that the good should be something we all aim toward and the bad sent away. Society needs to establish a feedback loop where good receives good or it has created a negative influence which rewards badness and thus, will get much more of that instead of good. Liberal compassion tends to, by being a projection of the emotion of the liberal and not a reflection of the situation out there in the world, increase badness.
You have seen the meme; now what does it mean? Like so many things in modernity, the recognition begins before the understanding. To use a meme well requires knowing it well, so it makes sense to define this delightfully outrageous term cuckservative.
After spending about a year in neoconservative Internet circles, always feeling slightly out of place and gradually piecing together that they were playing by the rules as the Left and thus were controlled and toothless opposition, I found a better home in paleoconservatism and traditionalist communities. During my tenure, I witnessed time and time again as conservatives engaged in what is known in their circles as “circular firing squads,” something they purportedly lament, but which none of them pitch too much fuss over because they all have vested interests in not jeopardizing their relationships with gatekeepers to their professional success in Conservative, Inc. The squads are essentially formed to mitigate public relations damage control by throwing an offender to the wolves (other conservatives) when they break the rules of the left (hint: it’s happening now with #cuckservative).
She also mentions a more technical definition:
A cuckservative is a self-styled “conservative” who will cravenly sell out and undermine his home country’s people, culture, and national interest in order to win approval with parties hostile or indifferent to them.
Between these two, the point is clear: cuckservatives are impostors. They value their interaction with the left, a form of commerce, over being true and correct to conservative principles; this has created Conservatism, Inc. which is a Conservative-themed leftist party that has made vast fortunes for all involved. Like American cigarettes are cheap tobacco doctored to taste like the real thing, and like artificial flavoring added to soft drinks to imitate fruit juice, cuckservatives are conservative-flavored System Men who do what succeeds which always consists of flattering the Crowd, and they love leftist-style altruistic policies as a means of distracting from actual problems. For this reason, cuckservatives always get the initial upper hand over everyone else: inoffensive, they offer a variety of the dominant paradigm rather than challenging it, and create a socially acceptable form of conservative that inevitably provides only token resistance to the left.
Anyone who does not play by those rules gets called a “racist” and has their career destroyed by an angry mob. Cuckservatives in fact are kept around as not only controlled opposition, but hit-men for the empire: if a “conservative” feels another conservative has “gone too far,” then people automatically give that critique more credence than if it came from a leftist. Cuckservatism is a socially popular variety of conservatism, stylized as are neoconservatives as liberal goals applied by conservative methods, and like American beer, soft drinks and fast food it is a dumbed-down, denatured and harmless version of the original — actual conservatism — which serves to advance the leftist agenda. It does so by picking up token issues instead of essential ones, and designing obsolescence into all of its actions. Cuckservatives are like good office workers who prioritize getting along with others above any realistic view of a situation, and they exhibit the same disease we see everyone else in modernity, which is that for the convenience of the individual the Crowd demands validation which means that appearance triumphs over reality and those who disagree must be excluded.
Cuckservatives have been the norm since the early 1940s. At that time, people either got on board with the immensely popular government solution to the Great Depression, or saw themselves voted out of office. The important thing to remember about cuckservatives is that they are not the cause of themselves, but they are the effect of the voters wanting a socially acceptable conservatism. To be socially acceptable, you pretend that each person has an equally important viewpoint, and that all can be tolerated simultaneously. Actual conservatives are realists, and realism is the opposite of socially acceptable. It emphasizes results alone and realizes that most people will have hurt feelings because most people are self-deluding, undisciplined, short-sighted and impulsive. In groups these people both amplify those traits, and lose sight of actual goals by the “committee mentality” nature inherent to groups. For this reason, actual conservatives mostly restrain people from self-destruction and civilization-destruction rather than adopt “new” — and they rarely are — ideas in the hope of magical improvement.
The Conservatism, Inc. “stupid party” cuckservatives responded as we knew they would: they called their detractors racists, trolls and psychopaths. The reason the cuckservative meme stuck however has little to do with those who originated it; it resonated with the majority of Americans who are tired of handing the stupid party power only to watch them do nothing conservative with it, and the liberals back in power the next season. The Left (with cuckservative cooperation) is trying to eliminate this group by replacing them with third-world peasants, an idea they hit on after seeing postwar integration work well for the Democrats. All resistance to this process will be stylized as racist, evil, homophobic, trolling, sexist, terrorist and classist, but resistance to it is the only future not just for conservatism and its parent doctrine realism, but for America and the West themselves. If we disconnect from reality, we start a clock ticking toward the day our illusions collide with the hard truth. Generally those crashes eliminate empires and cast their people into third-world poverty. Resistance to this is not a choice; it is a duty.