Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘conservatism’

Ult-Right

Monday, May 1st, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ult Right consists of these basic beliefs:

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

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

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

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

Ann Coulter Speech Cancelation Reveals The Problem With Conservatism

Wednesday, April 26th, 2017

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter has withdrawn from a planned speech at The University Of California At Berkeley, citing the failure of Young Americans for Freedom to support her:

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter has canceled her speech planned for this week at the University of California’s Berkeley campus after a dispute with university officials, who feared violent protests, over whether a safe venue could be found.

“There will be no speech,” she wrote in an email to Reuters on Wednesday, saying two conservative groups sponsoring her speech were no longer supporting her. “I looked over my shoulder and my allies had joined the other team,” she wrote.

As she wrote poignantly in a tweet a few hours later, “If we had continued to fight we would have won.”

Coulter was originally denied permission to speak by school authorities but vowed to press on. With the defection of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) however she lost her sponsor at the school, and had no case against Berkeley to defend her First Amendment right to speak in a public forum.

This shows us the problem with conservatives: they are willing to “take a stand,” but not when it endangers them personally, because they are enwrapped in the mythos of personal morality that emphasizes religion, hard work and patriotism but not changing the system as a whole. By approaching the issue as a moral question, and not one of civilization survival, they reduce all issues to questions of personal freedom and therefore, cede the battlefield as to the future of society as a whole.

As fans of history know, the modern Right was formalized after the French Revolution and was formed of, well, cucks. They knew that the old order was better, but decided to accept the assumptions of the winning Leftist side — namely equality — and to try to use those to work toward conservative goals. But when one accepts equality, the only change possible is at a personal level and from a defensive perspective. The idea of re-conquering our civilization and pulling it out of its tailspin is beyond what the browbeaten conservative mentality will accept.

This is why the Alt Right has arisen: we have a mission, which is to restore Western Civilization, which is not limited to the individual. We realize that civilization is an organic entity formed of the intersection between individuals, the group, heritage, principles and future. We cannot fight its decline by demanding the ability to co-exist with the decline; we must go to war against the decline itself.

At this point, even the slowest conservatives are starting to get the message that the Left will not relent until it turns the US/EU into Venezuela, a mixed-race socialist third world society like most of the failed societies on earth.

The question is whether conservatives can get over their individualism, or the desire for personal power that precludes acting toward the renovation of civilization as a whole. This entails risk. But in a do-or-die struggle, risk is upon us, and certain doom awaits on the other path.

How Nihilism Can Help Conservatism

Monday, April 24th, 2017

We live in a fantasy world of our own projection, formed of our desire to escape the needs of adaptation. Humans are self-deluding based on our need to feel that we are “in control” of the world we perceive, when in fact we are small parts of it subject to its whims.

The contrary impulse to this behavior, nihilism, starts by rejecting all human perceptions except those which can be traced to a source outside the human. In a world of cause and effect, nihilism sees causes as being mostly external to the human, and the human as merely reacting and rationalizing that response.

Nihilism negates the fundamental human idea which is that “the world is as I perceive it” and that this personal mentality can be shared with other people, especially using language and social cues. Instead, nihilism suggests that we are all alone, with our perceptions being unique to us.

This naturally terrifies people because it invalidates the feeling of “togetherness” or “we are all one” that is a type of pacifism, or a refusal to fight for clarity and quality of perception because it is more convenient to focus on a lowest common denominator in common.

Sometimes — frequently — we see conservatives who should know better getting confused on this point:

Parker spoke about “superior” British values and “regressive Islam”, as well as the “multiple incidents of grooming and rape-gangs, made up almost entirely of Muslim men, targeting women who are almost entirely non-Muslim and girls”.

As long as we remain trapped in this intellectual ghetto, we will never understand what we must do. The fact is that values reflect genetics, and Muslims — a code-word for North African and Middle Eastern people — act out the genetics that have survived in their societies for centuries.

We got into this multiculturalism illusion because we believed that cultures were universal, much as people were presumed to be “equal,” which meant that a Muslim was removed from an Englishman only by a tan and lack of education in English values, customs and wisdom.

Now these well-meaning UKIP speakers are compounding the issue by insisting on the same scale. They believe that if Muslims just quit acting like Muslims, and start acting like English people, somehow integration will occur and everything will turn out fine.

We must escape from this insanity and realize that equality is an illusion formed of human desires, pretense and mentally-convenient rationalizations. Nihilism debunks equality as well as every other human conceit. It can help conservatives in three crucial ways:

  1. Assimilation. Nitwit conservatives believe that we can integrate foreign populations. A nihilist realizes that this is impossible because these populations are too genetically distinct. Related Western European populations can mix and be somewhat stable, but the more distance between the groups, the less cohesion there is. The other thing about assimilation, sometimes called integration, is that it is genocide. The new mixed group replaces the old. Humans are afraid to think about this because they do not want to admit that genetics creates most of their behavior, because this minimizes their control. But genetics is all.
  2. Objectivity. There is no objective truth, nor any subjective truths. There is simply reality out there and we can each see it to varying degrees, with the best of us seeing the most as it actually is in reality. For this reason, there can be no laws which everyone understands the same way, nor anything as silly as democracy. Instead, we should always pick our best minds and let them decide. This also implies a hierarchy within humanity, both by individuals and by general bands known as “castes.”
  3. Goals. The individualistic human mind is full of fond notions of what society “should” do. It thinks of morality, pacifism and accommodating others. However, in reality the question for both individual and civilization is one of health. A healthy organism adapts to its environment, reproduces and lives well on an existential level, meaning that it has belief in the goodness of life because it understands how reality works as a higher order than its own desires. For humans, civilization is necessary for our mental and physical well-being. That offends us, to feel so dependent, but it also frees us from the illusion of being entirely self-directed and self-regulating.

The grim fact is that since our ideas are based in humanity and not reality, all of our thinking is backward. We think of what we wish were true, and that others want to believe as well which gives it the power to manipulate, and declare it true because it is popular. This tears apart every truth.

This includes what UKIP is tackling in the UK. Assimilation will never work, nor will diversity, because they are logically unsound as concepts and in application, reveal the consistency of that logic in pointing out their failure. They have always failed wherever tried for this reason.

Instead of trying to tell the world that our values are better, we should instead admit the obvious, which is that every group needs its own space and the ability to pursue its own goals, because those goals are never the same. Only social chaos comes from fragmented goals.

We can finally free ourselves of the nonsense under which we have been living where we must assume that every person is logical, reasonable, realistic, sensible and belongs anywhere they want to be. We vary by race, ethnic group, caste, family and individual. There is no equality. Nihilism crushes it.

Conservatism Pulling Away From Patriotism And Christianity

Monday, April 24th, 2017

Conservatism inevitably finds itself in conflict with its only real competition, which is the public form of conservatism. The root of conservatism is anti-social; conservatives recognize that most human ideas are pretense and vaingloriousness, and instead point to time-honored methods of achieving the best results.

In America, conservatives are additionally hampered by the fact of the founding of our nation-state in a modified version of Enlightenment™-era thought: individuals are assumed to be equal, which means that we have no social order like caste or hierarchy of aristocrats.

We bemoan our current state of affairs, but it is hard to see how it would turn out differently. When you begin a nation with the mistaken notion that all people are capable of guiding their own destiny, you end up with mob rule, no matter how many little rules — “checks and balances,” “accountability” — you tack on top.

What nihilists know that everyone else denies is that language has no inherent meaning. Only when two people are both using a word to mean the same thing can the word have shared meaning, and otherwise you have two people talking to themselves and hoping the other can intuit what is being gestured.

“There are no truths, only interpretations,” said a wise man, and this is true in that objects in the world are real, and we have only our impressions of them, which by the nature of our cognition are interpretations of fact patterns. This means that laws, like other facts, become adjusted to fit what the audience can understand, not just in a Dunning-Kruger sense but in all ways.

For this reason, checks and balances fail like other laws: instead of bending to the law, people bend the law and justify it however is convenient and popular. It took only a century and a half for the United States to completely invert the original ideal of its nation, which was an ethnically Western European agrarian nation with English-style social strata and a mostly absent government, and this change provoked the Civil War.

Since those who wanted a liberal-style modern government — also in vogue in Europe at the time — won that war, America successfully obliterated its Constitution and replaced it with a Leftist interpretation of the Constitution that emphasized more the emotional language of the Declaration of Independence than the substance of the law.

Americans talk about freedom, liberty, and independence, but these are surrogates for democracy. They represent the raging ego seeking to deny reality by saying “My intent and choices come first, and reality comes second,” because the smallest indivisible unit of society is now the individual. This leads to self-destruction and misery through social chaos, but the ego cares not about that.

People need guidance and hierarchy. A look at The Bell Curve reveals part of the reason why: most are not gifted with the IQs required to make complex decisions, and too many are given just enough intelligence to feel clever and make those decisions incorrectly. There are a few, maybe 5%, who do all the important thinking, and the rest oppose these because the rest will never understand the best.

Among that group, there are only some qualified to lead, which is a trait of moral character and personality as much as anything else. A leader is able to apply cold logic to filter out the normal human insanity, and to recognize that most people are self-deluding and pretentiously self-aggrandizing without falling into hatred for them. This group is at most 1% of any population.

For this reason, any form of demotism — democracy, equality, consumerism, social popularity — will lead to an inversion of the natural hierarchy such that the rest oppress the best, and this has predictably laughable results which we see around us daily: ugly architecture, garbage mass culture, insubstantial food, moronic leaders, tedious jobs, brain-dead moral interpretations.

Conservatism inherently recognizes this failing. We are realists who want the best qualitative degree of civilization and personal existence possible, and realize how those two are linked. Conservatism has never been pro-democracy, and with the collapse of the United States through the election of an outright Socialist charlatan like Barack Obama, we can now no longer be pro-America.

It is time to take the stars and stripes and set it on fire. Smash down all the American institutions. Blow up the Washington Monument, melt down all the statues, and consign the pitiful ruins of the United States to the dustbin of history. This experiment has failed, and from it we have learned that democracy cannot be successfully limited because it grows like a cancer since it appeals to the inherent self-deceptive tendency of human beings.

Patriotism at this point is the opposite of conservatism. If you become a patriot, you are fighting against conservative ideals like hierarchy, nationalism, moral goodness and transcendental purpose. The United States was not designed a Leftist republic, but ideas are measured not by their starting points or intentions, but what they become in the course of their natural life cycle. Any form of democracy quickly becomes something approximating Communism — roughly what we have now — and so there is no point setting even a toe on that path. It is a path to doom.

In the same way that patriotism has failed us, the idea of theocracy has run out on us too. Most conservatives embrace the mentally laziest path of least resistance, which is to insist that we cuck ourselves by following the “work hard, go to church and have a family” approach which enslaves all of us to paying taxes to our enemies and wasting our days in servitude. Obviously anyone advocating this has missed the point, which is to thwart this empire of death by dropping out of it.

As part of their desire to bond us to the failing regime, conservatives tend to say things like “we must follow the Bible first, and this must guide all that we do.” This destroys political activity by limiting its scope to the individual, which conveniently takes that individual out of circulation so that others can rule him. A more idiotic path would be hard to invent.

Unfortunately, this approach is inherent to the idea of a “personal God” as is found in Christianity. The ancients more correctly depicted the gods as uninterested in our affairs, which made it explicit and clear that we are in the driver’s seat and must save ourselves through cooperation. No amount of personal virtue overcomes a dying regime.

In addition, it is time that we mention the Otherness of Christianity. Although it is mostly Greek ideas — combined with the best of Babylonian, Hindu, Jewish, Nordic and Buddhist thought — Christianity consists of those restated in the personal and emotional methods of the Jewish cantors, instead of the more respectable Talmudic esoteric tradition. For this reason, like democracy, Christianity will always decay into a mass movement and adulterate any meaning into what the Crowd desires.

It does not make sense to, like Nietzsche, blame Christianity for the origin of Leftism. The dirty secret is that Leftism is merely the egoism of the herd, and it is an in-built flaw to humanity, especially among the smarter (but not genius) humans. We love to self-delude and this takes the form not of death-denial but solipsism, which is reality-denial, so that we feel like gods on earth. Crowdism took over Christianity just like it took over the West, by subverting and inverting it, but this means that Christianity is insufficiently resistant.

Part of this lack of resistance is its Otherness. We will always feel like a conquered people when our religion comes from lands other than our own, and when the symbols are not ours, but those of another culture. We obliterate our culture with Christianity by admiring its effectiveness in mobilizing others and forgetting that this means the Crowd will soon rule.

Many of us adore the European Christian traditions we know. We love the old churches, the hymns, the strong moral standards and the love of learning. Many good things happened under Christianity, but this does not mean that they are exclusive to Christianity. We need a new Bible, one that implies more than states rules which can be misinterpreted, that comes from our own lands.

Conservatives have faced a hopeless task for centuries. Leftism is always more popular and just as proportionately more wrong. Retreating to core values like purpose/work, religion and love of nation seems like a good idea, but when those things have been replaced by corrupt ersatz substitutes, this means you conservatives will be working for the enemy. Not a good idea.

I have dreaded writing this essay for years, but it needs to be out there. Reject patriotism and theocracy, and instead, let us look toward a future: we need a government by Us and for Us, and a religion that is the same, and we need to let failed institutions like the Church and Constitution slide into the abyss of failure toward which they will drag us, if we do not step off that treadmill.

A Spirit Of Power

Monday, March 6th, 2017


by Carey Henderson

God didn’t give us a cowardly spirit but a spirit of power, love, and good judgment. 2 Timothy 1:7

Let us all here at Amerika walk away from the noise for a time. Walk away from churches. Away from TVs. Step lively from the cacophony of our miserable, repetitive, make-work American lives. Where are we going? On a short trip to remember something about ourselves.

Far too many Americans underestimated the efficacy of Leftist thinking. After all, the politics of Envy, what Leftism boils down to at the plasma level, has been around since the Dawn. Which Dawn? The Biblical Dawn, an more Eastern timeframe? The Big Bang? Does it matter? Reams of data exist. Stories, fairy tales, folk tales, and religious lore passed down over generations, lost, rediscovered, and studied anew, give us as much data as we can stomach about the nature of envy, of Hubris, entitlement, and Pride. Thus, the Left conquered America (slowly to us, over decades, but lightning-fast in terms of history) by playing itself off as the compassionate, concerned, and Holy Warrior for All Things Modernity. The Left played fiddles and violins as virtuosos, luring Americans with relative ease into a trap. While castigating every single one of our American principles – principles not hammered down our throats by useless, “old white men,” tyrants, or leftist dictators but astute, often damn well inspired thinking and planning men — the Left programmed America through slicker and better TV, film, and literary works as time progressed. Americans thought this all new. Americans couldn’t have been more incorrect.

While many of us on the Right slept like comfortable babies, the Left continued to improve its ground game, because much of humanity truly loves to be entertained and lied to on a regular basis. This is human nature. Under the auspices of “love” and “tolerance,” the Left exploited every base desire and instinct humanity has in order to program Americans to pledge fealty to their cause tacitly, but with more and more of everyone’s bank account and time the immediate cost.

The Right often (correctly) purports its principles and ideas as perennial, time-tested, and provably useful. But as this site has noted more than once, the Right does not often understand the Left, and one thing that it does not grasp is that the Left, too, is working within a framework that has existed since time immemorial. There is, as a wise man once noted, nothing new under the sun. The Right underestimates the passion of a Leftist at his own loss. If he, much like the Leftist, cannot fathom anyone espousing an ideology so inherently different from his own, then there is no way to defeat the Left in most situations. The man on the Right, in order to defeat the Left beyond name-calling and schadenfreude, must look back. There are many paths, often intertwined within historical works and religious works, not to forget astute fiction, that one can take to embark on this journey, but the end result is more than worth the effort.

Yet even more important than this is that the Right leaning man needs to understand himself more than anyone else.

While research into the narratives and tactics that the Left uses takes time and dedication, it pales in comparison to knowing oneself. Few in America, including those on the Right, have mental clarity. How could they? This American Modernity is a cacophony of bored people doing whatever is necessary to dull that boredom. While it is easy to sit back and criticize John and Jane Q. Public for sitting in front of the TV for hours on end and then wondering why they have no peace of mind and their neuroses become like clay sent through a kiln, the truth is that to achieve mental clarity in this Modernity requires a strange but heavy sacrifice.

Strange because this sacrifice actually loses us nothing but gains us amazing results and yet it does affect every familial and peer situation we have. So few can compute the notion of two, maybe three hours of utter silence in a night. Fewer can compute a home without a TV. Most Americans see meditation as a light form of self-affirmation and, indeed, meditation is affirming to life itself, but it is not a quick placebo thrown into the mix between Facebook sessions and Dancing with the Stars.

Though there are myriad pieces on the internet about what the Right is (pick a subset), and though this piece has no interest in disparaging or arguing with these works, no amount of pounding out blog posts about what the Right is will settle the issue internally for those who have the heart for the mission, as those at Amerika here possess. Most simply do not have the heart for this mission. Most are what wartime historians and photographers understand as supporters. They’re not “shooters,” so it is important to neither disparage or undermine their role. You’ve likely heard the stories of men going through the aftermath of battle and finding certain men — shooters — who were supplied under fire with guns and ammo because the supporters were not cowards, and in their way they furthered victory.

The Right and places like Amerika are where the people with a heart for the mission are trying to gather. And the Right needs to reflect, to meditate, and take the necessary steps to know itself beyond what it has known of itself for the past several decades. It rises, then falls, the inevitability of the pattern visible so often in its own tone and defensive nature. The Right has so often appeased rather than conquered, because the Right lost sight, in many ways understandable, of what it represents:

The compassionate conqueror.

The Right does not come to steal, kill, and destroy. The Right, however, does arrive with a sword, in many ways like a surgeon, to split the Truth from the narrative. That is the crux of all of its principles. That is the apex of the Right, and the goal of those who have the heart for the mission at hand. This process hurts. Oftentimes, it will alienate. There is no process in existence, in our universe, that does not. And yet it is good, for the end result is the reduction of entropy toward order. The Right can and does tolerate many ideological and religious differences, unlike the Left, which merely mimics toleration in order to infect, much like cancer cells “talking” to healthy human cells, in order to make its way through the security systems in our bodies. But the Right, like the compassionate conqueror that its principles exemplify, requires order and stability, because it tries to deal with reality and not wishes or Utopian desires.

Above all, the Right in America today should take heart in its own identity, rather than listening to anyone else’s ideas about its identity. It is the compassionate conqueror who, as the opening verse noted, has a spirit of Power, not defeat. The Right need not usurp anything. The Left are the usurpers, easily witnessed daily in our world. Theirs is not a spirit of power but of envy, spite, and trickery. As old as time. Witness the anger of the Left when confronted with Truth and reality to see this further. The man on the Right should cast off any ideas rooted in Leftism, and in our world of mix and match ideologies, many have crept in. The compassionate conqueror knows that he is correct, because he is in line with a larger universe, one seeking to decrease entropy, thus he is reserved, but not timid. This is the meaning of the word “meek,” in that it is a strength of body and mind that is kept under observation and reserved. It is not weakness. Nor is it arrogance. Finally, it is not petty nor given to addiction to schadenfreude. It is reserved but powerful, more or less, the adult in the room, to simplify.

America and the West will endure much misery along with good fortune in the coming years. The Left has no coping mechanism. It will continue to do as it has done for eons. Those on the Right with the heart for the mission and its supporters have hope, and a heap of it, as so many wake up and know that what they believed was as right as Right can be, and has been for as many eons. While the Left usurps, the Right can seek, find itself, and conquer.

Devoted people cast off attachment and perform action to attain purity of self, with the body, the mind, the understanding, or even the senses — all free from individualistic notions. — Bhagavad Gita, Chapter VI

As the Right continues to work through this renewed energy it has been given, it needn’t look anywhere but within in order to find its spirit of Power, for as cliché as it sounds, it was always there, merely waiting to be rediscovered.

By day, Carey Henderson slogs through the boredom of the American Office. Any other time, you can find him on his sites, Speakeasy(X) and Speakeasy(X) Politically and, occasionally, on Twitter.

Alt-Lite Versus Alt Right

Saturday, January 28th, 2017

The Alt Right rose as an alternative to a Leftist-hybrid mainstream conservatism and a pathological underground conservatism absorbed by directionless neo-Nazis both. As a result, it knows more of what it dislikes than what it likes, and has struggled to define itself despite an incipient sense of general direction.

This has caused tension with the Alt Lite, who are also seeking an alternative but base their objections in the Leftist ideal of equality, expressed in freedom of speech and association, following the vein of the Libertarian wing of the Right. This periodically explodes into factionalism and virtue signaling as the Alt Lite tries to both reject the path of modern civilization, and hang on to its core ideas:

“The reality is, if you force everyone to play identity politics, if you insist in pitting whites against blacks, women against men, straights against gays, the reality is you guys are gonna win and the left isn’t going to like it very much,” declared MILO. “But there’s a better way. Don’t fight identity politics with identity politics.”

“White pride, white nationalism, white supremacy isn’t the way to go,” he continued. “The way to go is reminding them and yourselves that you should be aspiring to values and to ideas.”

“You should be focusing on what unites people and not what drives them apart,” MILO concluded.

While the Alt Lite has done much good, namely by forcing the Left to abandon its double standard on free speech, it also misses the point: all politics is identity politics because each group represents its own interests. People are altruistic in name only because public altruism wins them virtue signaling points, which enables them to act for the self-interest of their group but in covert ways.

Currently humanity finds itself in a struggle between first world and third world. The first world has advanced its level of learning, technology and social organization and consequently finds itself wealthy and powerful, with high average IQ populations and smoothly functioning institutions, or at least it did until the Leftist takeover following the First World War.

The third world on the other hand never produced these functional behaviors, and so remained mired in self-destructive behavior, as is exemplified by the constant graft, theft, bribery, assault and vandalism that is the norm in those societies, which have low average IQ populations.

In order to acknowledge this struggle, we must first see that each group acts in self-interest. Using that reasoning, we can see that neither are first world multiculturalists altruists, nor are immigrants coming to be “assimilated.”

They are coming to conquer. That they use passive means — moving in, demanding society adjust to them, and reproducing until they can vote themselves into power — does not matter, nor does it matter that they do not consciously intend these things. Their presence, whether they mean it or not, amounts to an invasion.

For this reason, those who reject identity politics are in turn rejecting the uncomfortable reality of politics, which is that it is a racial construct more than anything else. Ideology does not replace self-interest; it is merely used to cloak it while convenient and then discarded. The West will destroy itself by accepting ideology at face value.

We know that the Alt Right wants to navigate between cuck and sperg, or the two extremes of the Right, with “cuck” being the Leftist hybrids in the Republican party and “sperg” being the people who seem to delight in racial cruelty on the White Nationalist front. Neither is a functional model.

In fact, the Alt Right represents a third path: recognize that what the spergs talk about is part of the truth even if it is socially taboo, but that we can understand it in a logical/factual and not emotional/personal way. Further, that while the cucks are clearly broken, any political movement will have to focus on keeping civilization as functional as possible.

The Alt Lite wants us to see two divisions: real conservatism and identity politics. There are in fact three divisions, with identity politics being present in the third, but not the whole of what it is about; while the spergs fixate on race (and Jews) the Alt Right takes a more realistic view, which is to acknowledge that all parties act in self-interest and to unite the self-interest of our leaders with our self-interest as a tribe.

Everyone is lying to you. The mainstream Right wants you to think that respectable politics cannot recognize racial and ethnic self-interest. The White Nationalists want you to think that politics is limited to that issue. And the Alt Lite comes in on the side of the mainstream Right by pretending that we can fix the current system with more “muh freedom” and “muh equality.”

Conservatism failed as a movement, not as an idea, because the movement drifted away from the idea as the West drifted Leftward in the fervor to be anti-conservative (including nationalism and resistance to moral relativism) after the First World War. The idea has always been consistent, but its public face was modified to make it more accepting of Leftism so that Leftists would accept it.

However, now we know that there is no bargaining with Leftism or any other form of cognitive error. They act to destroy us, and will call us Nazis whether we advance a moderate idea or a radical one. Their goal is to enforce a Leftist takeover of the West by constantly pushing the public debate Leftward, so that at some point they can include conservatives entirely.

While it does not have a formalized platform, the Alt Right comprises a clear set of ideas inherited from its roots in libertarianism, the New Right, nationalism, Neoreaction, red pill and traditionalist communities. It knows what it wants, but that path does not involve either the mainstream Right or the underground Right.

The Alt Right is part of the same cultural movement that propelled Donald Trump to victory, and this cultural wave is a rejection of Leftism and affirmation of realism, including the fact that all groups act in self-interest. We have had enough of ideology; it is time for sanity, adaptation to reality, and a civilization oriented toward being good and thriving instead of using itself as a means-to-an-end to achieve world Leftism, or “globalism.”

It can win when it takes a third path. It does not need the dead notions of “White pride, white nationalism, [and] white supremacy” as Milo notes, but a revitalized nationalism. It does not need totalitarianism, nor democracy. It needs to provide a path out of the ruin of modernity, starting with the assumption of human equality, but it cannot stop there.

The Alt Right thrives when it provides a vision of what it wants in concert with what it rejects. The modern order of liberal democracy has failed; we want a traditionalist society with strong nationalism, based in realism and not humanism, and we barely know what it looks like… yet. All previous Right-wing orders have failed, and only the Alt Right remains; now is our time to dream.

How Individualism Defeats Conservatism

Thursday, January 26th, 2017

Conservatives do not succumb directly to the Left; rather, in classic Leftist strategy, they are covertly invaded, divided against themselves, and thus subverted and turned into a vehicle for Leftist ideas. This can be seen in mainstream conservatism through O’Sullivan’s First Law:

O’Sullivan’s First Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist and former National Review editor John O’Sullivan.

…[A Left-drifting conservative’s] primary motivation is signalling his fidelity to the One True Faith by pointing at the nearest heretic and yelling “witch” [through] the use of the transitive property to link the targeted enemy to some imagined evil and, of course, the demand that the target abandon their position or face being branded a heretic [with] his issues are ruled out of bounds for decent people.

…They were always just to the right of the Official Left… [Their presence was] never expressly right wing, rather it was just a marketing vehicle for the people who started it. All of them have moved on as the enterprise served its purpose.

In other words, a market opportunity is created for Rightists, but the best product is one that is just like everything else, but different enough to appeal without invoking the ire of the rest of the herd. As a result, it drives away the principled Right and attracts opportunists, who make themselves a tidy income by blustering on about how different they are but in the end, giving way to the dominant trend.

The individualism of these opportunists converts conservatism into another form of Leftism, and makes it easier for the herd to accept because it is like what other people do, and humans are nothing if not conformist.

The Right can only beat this by making the big tent not intersection, but hierarchical. Conservatism must rediscover its core principles in the simplest fashion possible and derive all other principles from those.

As written about before on Amerika, the core of conservatism is twofold:

  1. Time-proven results, or consequentialism based not in individual preference but effects in reality, allowing us to match cause to effect and understand the principles that make a thriving society.
  2. In order to understand why to have a thriving society, and what it looks like, conservatism also relies on transcendentalism or an understanding of the order of nature as more intelligent than humankind, and through that, discovery of a desire to exist in balance with it.

The corrupted form of consequentialism, destroyed the same way conservatism was, is a preference-based version that equates “consequences” with “what people think they like,” in a classic utilitarian gambit. The original consequentialism is looking at results not just in the present, but over all time, so that we can accurately and honestly compare different actions/causes.

Until the Right rediscovers this primal orientation, it will forever be subverted because its intermediate principles — free markets, liberty, freedom, small government — are in fact toes dipped in the water of Leftism, or close enough to it that the two will quickly become the same in the minds of its audience.

If it reverts to having a distinct path that is incompatible with Leftism, and therefore not subject to silliness about “bipartisanship” and “compromise,” it can achieve its goal of slowing and eventually reversing civilization decline. But when it gets made into a simplified and margin-oriented product like a cheeseburger, it reverts to being the same thing as everything else, just with added flavoring and no substance.

Conservative Martyrs

Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

As we look back over the wreckage of the past two centuries, a time during which Leftist power steadily increased, we have to wonder: why are our conservatives so inept?

The first reason of course is that people love to be on the winning side, and the Left with its policy of social inclusion is always more popular in terms of sheer numbers. However, among groups of the notoriously competent, conservative ideals — or at least unarticulated gut-level instincts — prevail.

Another reason may be that conservatives defeat themselves by misunderstanding conservatism. The root of conservatism, or the Right, has been with us since the dawn of time, but it was formalized in response to the French Revolution: the Right were those who liked the way things were before, and the Left were the egalitarians who wanted a world based on Enlightenment™-era conjectures about equality and universalism.

For the Right, this meant that defeat was a foregone conclusion. The old order had been replaced, and we were trying to carry it forward as a values system, using Leftist methods as a basis for its justification. This perverted what we knew, and created a hybrid which in the nature of all hybrids, defaulted toward the simpler of its two parents: Leftism.

Out of this duality of mindset we got lots of brave and bold posturing about “standing athwart progress, yelling ‘stop'” and other forms of martyrdom. A martyr wins by losing — as opposed to civilizations, which lose by winning and then attracting parasites — and sacrificing himself to his cause.

Only, if the martyr does not die, he might as well enjoy a few well-earned comforts of life…

This leads us to the mentality of conservatives. They have abandoned winning, which would involve restoring civilization as it was in 1788, with aristocrats, strong nationalism and culture, hierarchy and a values system including an inherently but not explicitly transcendental view of life. They have accepted the enemy within their gates, and are looking for a compromise, which causes them to see themselves as martyrs, and so instead of focusing on the hard task of fixing the decline, they rationalize it and instead, focus on enriching themselves and being socially popular.

In a nutshell, this explains why conservatives are both strikingly ineffective and prone to being selfish and focused on business alone. They have given up on changing society. Instead they concentrate on image and money, religion and virtue signaling, and in fact basically everything that makes them comfortable while ignoring what they should be doing, which is reversing decline.

It is hard to find a clearer statement of this than with this apology for selfishness that justifies ignoring the problem, leading to another generation of fat old conservatives obsessed with money and church, but oblivious to the actual problem and committed to never risking their own fortunes to fix it:

And that’s where the Church must come in. As we go about “being the church” as Chuck liked to say, loving God, loving our neighbors as ourselves, letting our light and good deeds shine before men, pointing toward every human’s true hope in Jesus Christ and God the Father, then we’ll have a greater and greater impact on those around us, and on the culture, and in the end, our local and national politics.

And of course, we can do this only by drawing nearer corporately and individually to Jesus, seeking fellowship with Him and with each other.

Naturally, it is followed by a subtle plea for donations. What is interesting about this article is that it borrows an alt right trope for its minimum truth quotient — because all great lies begin with partial truths, selectively omitting that which does not fit the manipulative narrative to come — by acknowledging that culture is upstream of politics:

We talk a lot on BreakPoint about what the French philosopher and theologian Jacques Ellul called the “political illusion”—the idea that our problems are primarily political ones with political solutions.

…Politics most often is downstream of culture. Culture will shape politics. And as Chuck said during his final speech, the culture is shaped by “the cult,” its belief system, what people truly believe and care about.

In other words, they want you to replace cultural awareness with religious fanaticism, repeating the same errors that has made conservatism a failure for decades and are guiding the church to lower attendance across the board. We do not want to replace culture with the cult of Christ. We want culture first, and Christianity to fall in line in support of culture.

One reason to enjoy Bruce Charlton — probably the leading Christian reactionary out there — is that he pairs the practical and the spiritual by calling for conversion to Christianity, but a type of Christianity that emphasizes realistic action:

Your choice is simply whether to surrender, as usual, to go-with-the-flow. Or not-to-surrender. To refuse. That is as much as most people are given to ‘fight’ over. Nothing glamourous – simply saying ‘no, I won’t’. It is enough – it is everything.

He is suggesting that conservatives do the opposite of what they have done for centuries: instead of going along with the flow while enriching ourselves and acting out a martyr syndrome by being right instead of effective — it is always easier to make a few statements and then go back to earning money than it is to change the direction of history — as they have been, conservatives need to change direction and focus on resistance to conformity by demanding conservative change instead.

This is news to all the conservative martyrs and wannabe theocrats out there, most of whom are seeing dollar signs for themselves more than a path to victory for their cultures, who are caught in the narcissism/solipsism/individualism/egotism of “the Me Generation” (Baby Boomers) and the previous generation, the “Greatest Generation,” who serve nothing but their own selfish interests at the expense of their nation, and even their religion.

After all, the lesson of Christ is that it is necessary to become spiritually clear, but also to take action. He did not come in peace, but with a sword, dividing us against each other much like Brexit and the Trump election: realists on one side, individualists on another. He overturned tables of money-changers, drove out Pharisees and sophists, and otherwise said NO in the strongest terms possible.

Sadly for them, most conservatives are on the side of the money-changers. They will talk a good game, but all they do is rant a bit to let off steam, then go back to working “hard” at their jobs, hoarding money, paying taxes to those liberal welfare programs, and in their hearts, rationalizing their selfishness by the very fact that they cannot see a way conservatism can win.

Those on the Alt Right have a different message: conservatism not only can win, but must win. Our civilization, long in decline, now has a chance to turn back from the final death-spiral. It is always darkest just before dawn, and one must hit rock bottom in order to climb back up, and this is what the Alt Right wants to do.

To all conservative martyrs, I suggest a different approach. They must redeem themselves by admitting their hubris, changing their ways, and donating half of their hoarded wealth to the Alt Right. Only then will we respect them as moral people of worth. Only then will Generation X stop kicking over their graves and spitting on their memorials, as it is right to do. Only then do they really become… conservatives.

Striving For Sanity, Not Intermediates

Tuesday, December 20th, 2016

With the election of Donald Trump, many who supported him are asking themselves what they stand for. Are they conservatives? Moderates? Or merely against the far-left direction that the country has taken since WWII, including the disastrous policy of diversity?

Underneath all that Trump stands for, there is a simple principle: realism. He believes in assessing his ventures by their results, not the feelings generated, and expects to see those investments functioning smoothly and making people wealthier. Otherwise entirely a moderate candidate, he differs only from the bulk of politicians in this way; he opposes politics itself, and prefers results-based realism.

Most writers remain locked in the prison created by the categorical boundaries of words. They wonder if this means that Trump is in favor of the “free market” and “freedom,” or other abstractions that serve as proxies or symbols for what we ultimately want, which is a healthy nation (and, if we are sane, a restored and self-improving Western Civilization).

What they forget is that all of these things are means to an end, and that end is the goal of a healthy nation and thriving Western Civilization. Currently we do not have that because we stopped cooperating toward that purpose, and instead focused on the human individual and its “reason” as the be-all end-all of social goals. From that, we got a society which could not remain united.

Having a purpose such as health, however, does not unite a herd. They do not all understand it, which means that it must be left to wise elders or otherwise competent people. This offends the mob. And yet, it is the only stable state of humanity because most knowledge exists in specialized domains. You do not elect your pilot on a transcontinental flight, nor your neurosurgeon, or even your arborist. You choose the competent.

Conservatism — for those of us who still use the word, knowing that “mainstream conservatives” is based mostly in the first word — is that which conserves, which means keeping up those time-proven ways of life that produce the best civilization, including a transcendental view of life such that we hold it holy and revere it. Unlike Leftism, conservatism is complex and nuanced with depth and breadth (Leftism is simply “equality now!”).

This approach requires tearing objectives down to their most basic targets, as measured in terms of results and not social appearance and emotions as Leftist “successes” are. At the end of the day, it is realism through consequentialism plus a desire for excellence and beauty in all forms. We want sanity in our society, after centuries of insanity accelerating after WWII, and we cannot point to intermediaries or proxies for that.

For example, “freedom.” Freedom from what? To sane people, we think of the ability to go about our lives and do that which is not destructive. However, when we say the word freedom, we tear down that complex idea and replace it with an unbounded abstraction. We have no idea what we are fighting for, but it can fight back, because anytime anyone does anything destructive, he will claim “muh freedom.”

Free markets are the same way. These are a means to an end; basically, everything but free markets amounts to some type of socialism and always fails so spectacularly that we want to avoid it forevermore. Wealth redistribution — this is all that socialism is, in reality — converts thriving places to impoverished ones where half of the beets on the truck are rocks and all the potatoes go toward vodka.

Conservatives need to refocus on goals and not methods. Using methods, or “means-over-ends,” in place of goals is a Leftist trope because it enables them to replace functional things with social conceits. Applying ourselves toward purpose and goals allows us to achieve the fulfillment of conservatism, which is preserving the way of life that works out best.

How The Left Misunderstands Conservatism

Thursday, November 10th, 2016

leftists_are_unhappy_people

The Left has never understood conservatism because the Left has never wanted to. To them, their ideology of egalitarianism leads directly to Utopia, at which point there will no longer be conflict between humans and everyone will be accepted. Any deviation from this is a moral sin punishable by death, in their view.

That explains why the Left does not want to understand conservatism: they have zero room for it in their pantheon of ideologically-tinted symbolic representations of reality. This is because while conservatism is voiced as an ideology, fundamentally it is anti-ideological because it bases its perceptions on reality.

Conservatism comes from the term “to conserve,” which means that we preserve successful means of achieving excellence. In human terms, nothing can be preserved in a static sense, but must be regenerated anew in each generation, so “conservation” means not physical things but principles, methods and ideas.

As written here before, that means that conservatism has two attributes:

  1. Consequentialism. We judge success by end results and side-effects, not by human intent, feelings, judgments, universal symbols and emotions. Reality is external to us; internal focus is solipsistic.

  2. Transcendence. There must be some goal higher than material reaction, like excellence, beauty, goodness and truth, and we discover it through intuition, which is within but not personal.

This contrasts with Leftism, which has only one attribute: egalitarianism, or the equality of people, which is presumed to lead to pacifism and universal acceptance, and from there to Utopia. Leftism works through negative actions, or things it wishes to remove; conservatism requires restructuring society around positive goals, or things we want to achieve.

For this reason, in our Leftist time, our Leftist media has trouble understanding why conservatism does not translate into Leftist terms. First they want to make it an ideology; then, they try to import egalitarianism — the core and principle of Leftism — into it, despite for conservatism, egalitarianism being at most a means to an end and not an end in itself.

As a recent article demonstrate, our society is now struggling to understand conservatism which is as distant as a foreign land to a society brainwashed in two centuries of Leftism:

Nash presented an influential portrait of conservatism as a river fed by three tributaries of thought: Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism). Although each could be rendered as a popular impulse or unthinking reflex of the mass mind, Nash insisted that all three were fundamentally intellectual traditions, nourished by a cast of characters who deserved both respect and extended study, among them James Burnham, the former socialist turned anti-Communist; Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian classical economist; and Russell Kirk, America’s answer to Edmund Burke. In Nash’s telling, these were the men (and they were almost all men) who created conservatism in the postwar years.

This article is patent nonsense. Conservatism is not a material ideology, but a timeless principle. It can be found in “Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism)” but they are not its constituent components. Rather, as a principle, it is found many places, and those are the ones we recognize — “observer bias” — because of their recent relevance.

A conservative is someone who likes what works. Because the question then arises “How well does it have to work?” he has to pick either bare minimums (utilitarianism) or best case scenarios, and that latter leads him to the goal of excellence. That in turn picks out the principle of nature: all works to produce a hierarchy that advances the best over the rest, and this extends to metaphysical principle.

For all that modern people know of conservatism, the above passage might as well be in ancient Greek. However, as we enter into a conservative area with Brexit rippling across the USA and Europe, we might want to understand the path out of the Leftist mental ghetto and how we can use it to save ourselves from the moribund inertia of liberalism.

Recommended Reading