Posts Tagged ‘conservatives’

Right Versus Left As Different Psychologies

Friday, October 6th, 2017

We know from the work of Jonathan Haidt that Right and Left care about different issues, and therefore have entirely different approaches to both politics and all other life issues. But what if these were distilled to personality types?

Older research suggests that conservatives are introverts and Leftists are bipolar based on an assessment of how people act when exhibiting those tendencies:

Current evidence is strongest for introversion as a possible premorbid trait in primary nonbipolar depressions. By contrast, driven, work-oriented obsessoid, extroverted, cyclothymic, and related dysthymic temperaments appear to be the precursors of bipolar disorders.

Introversion makes sense as a match for conservatives: in a complex world that we know only through our own perceptions, we must discipline our perceptions to match reality, which requires a great deal of effort devoted to inner discipline and clarity. On the other hand, those who are externalized, or addicted to group esteem as a means of achieving their goals, need to be more emotional and expressive than disciplined or realistic, and so tend more toward manic disorders like bipolarity rather than inner disorders like depression.

Conservatives look within to understand the outer world; Leftists alter their inner state in order to rationalize the external world. That rationalization, ironically, takes the form of demand that the world change, mainly because the change they desire is consistent with the pattern of failure in the world. If your ship is sinking, demand that more water be pumped in, because that way, everyone feels OK about standing around in waist-deep water.

In that light, introversion represents a desire to make choices as to how to change the world, where bipolarity reflects a feminine and social notion of adaptation to the pragmatic acceptance of what is happening in the world, which is the opposite of a realistic assessment about what needs to be done that clashes with the current agenda. Leftists rationalize decline because it is the current implicit agenda.

Scratch a leader, find an introvert. Look deeply into someone at the lower echelon of employment or social activity, and you will find someone whose personality is entirely regulated by the social scene around them. This regulation will make them extroverted, which means that participation in the group is of primary importance for them, but the resulting indulgence in personal drama, which is needed to “market” the self to the group, creates a fundamental instability which follows the ups and downs of socializing:

With cyclothymia, you experience periods when your mood noticeably shifts up and down from your baseline. You may feel on top of the world for a time, followed by a low period when you feel somewhat down. Between these cyclothymic highs and lows, you may feel stable and fine.

Understanding these different outlooks shows us exactly why conservatives and Leftists differ, and how completely incompatible the two groups are except in a situation where introverts lead the social scene, and therefore regulate extroverts in a more regular way, in that they make clear standards and consistently enforce them because their standards are internally-guided and not responding to a changing social focus (trends, fads, news).

In our current society, extroverts rule, and the resulting instability makes them more manic, not less as they consistently estimate would be the case. The sooner we admit the fundamental incompatibility between extrovert-rule and introvert-rule, the sooner we will be able to separate, with the reality-responsive introverts outpacing the socially-responsive extroverts as happens naturally.

Where Conservatives Lost The Understanding of Conservatism

Saturday, August 19th, 2017

The same people who shriek “define your terms!” in any debate are perfectly comfortable living among entirely vague terms. Think of “equality,” or even “justice.” We have no simple, straightforward way to define these without referring to institutions, not their goals or the ideas behind them.

Conservatism fits into the same trap. As written here before, it descends from Plato, who wrote that our pursuit was to find the best life possible, that this consisted of virtue instead of pure self-interest, that it had a relative morality of “good to the good, bad to the bad,” that civilizations have a life cycle in which democracy is death, and that our best use of our time is to pursue transcendentals, or immutable yet ongoing goals such as excellence, beauty, goodness, accuracy and ascendancy.

This brings us into conflict with not just Leftists, but the world. In this life, we either have purpose, or we become agents of entropy, falling back into navel-gazing and pursuit of our own fascinations that are unrelated to the world. Conservatism emphasizes that purpose by focusing on order, which is naturally larger than the individual or materiality; the Left denies that purpose by focusing on universal acceptance of the individual, which by its equation of good and bad is a rejection of order, hierarchy and transcendentals.

With the French Revolution, the notion of “conservatives” arose to refer to all of those normal and learned theories that existed before egalitarianism rose and took over. Conservatives are a resistance movement in favor of tradition, classical knowledge, logical fact, truth and wisdom. But because it must collaborate with the Left in the new regime, it is compromised, and so most conservatives gave up on reclaiming their nations and focused instead on themselves with a “work hard, pray hard” ethos that emphasized business, patriotism, equality as a means toward meritocracy, and religion, but only as applied within the individual. They would never violate holy equality by suggesting a goal for civilization, only personal choices.

This confusion becomes visible whenever conservatives decide they like some egalitarianism, but that it can go too far. They forget that ideas naturally lead to others, and that any idea will expand in scope until it has the power it needs to implement itself, which in the case of universal philosophies like egalitarianism, is essentially world control. You can see this in action in a creative but misleading article which hopes to show us “good” egalitarianism versus that dark side communist stuff:

The American Revolution was sparked by the Enlightenment, Judeo/Christian moral beliefs, mixed with Greek and Roman philosophy and political theories. At its best, the American Revolution promotes universal human equality–a work still in progress–individual freedom, freedom of thought and speech, the rule of law, etc.

The French Revolution, in contrast, is Utopian, collectivist, authoritarian, intolerant, and punitive. It is anti-religion generally and anti-Christianity specifically. It accepts the belief that the ends justify the means.

Other than the obvious comparison to communism, which is not wrong so much as it is misleading, the above misses the point because the actual history is that the French Revolution and American Revolution were motivated by the same ideals, but the Americans choose to try to restrain them in the hopes that democracy would not take on its final form as they read about in Plato. The intent behind the founding of the United States seemed to be to create an extremely limited government that would hold democracy in check, and be run by the wealthy, educated and accomplished citizens arising from a natural aristocracy.

At its core, however, this does not differ from the French idea, which had an ideological heritage going back to the Enlightenment™ and the Renaissance.™ The individual is equal, in this view, and so all are treated the same under the law, which eliminates the privilege and power of aristocrats and the naturally more competent by degrees, essentially seeking to limit the power of those who are succeeding so that those who are not can participate as well. Instead of recognizing social order, this strives against it, and the Americans tried to re-implant social order in it through a complex series of rules designed to preserve the manor-based order that had bloomed in the new colonies.

In other words, like the French order, the American one was Utopian. Worse than believing that the ends justify the means, it believed that ends could be passed on by regulating means, at which point only the good and safe remained, which removes the need for society or its leaders to have agency and be working toward the good, as opposed to simply avoiding past known evil methods. The question of intent was not addressed, and so over time, as always happens in democracy, it was filled in by the default actions to which humans gravitate. This quickly asserted itself as mob rule, because if not driven by purpose, a human reverts to thinking of himself, and so will demand the ability to do anything he wants — despite not being able to name these things or their utility — and have an iron law where society cannot throw him out. And so, the American order fell into the same condition as the French order, because the two are different locations on the same continuum from hubris through full Soviet Communism.

A fellow anti-democracy analyst explains this in terms of what the founders did not see versus what they were able to comprehend:

It is not entirely unexpected that Dunning-Kruger cases like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have completely misunderstood what Plato was trying to warn them about. They believed that Plato was warning them that democracies always give way to authoritarianism, and thus built strong defenses against authoritarianism into the design for their democracy. But what Plato was really trying to tell them was that democracy inevitably devolves into such horrendous moral, social, and economic chaos that decent, smart, educated people will, with full deliberate intent, beg an authoritarian leader to take power and restore order, even if it does impinge on their liberties to some degree. The fear that these pseudointellectuals really did design a system that will make it impossible for a Caesar to come and save us is what keeps me awake at night.

In other words, if we do not have a purpose for our civilization, we fall back into being rabble, no matter how smart or educated we are. It happens in little stages, one year at a time, with those who are feeling alienated working like fanatics to dismantle whatever they can. They are clever, not intelligent, and so their methods are crude but effective in that they zero in on the support structures that keep society away from anarchy. For them, life is somehow not fair because they were born men and not gods, and it is this sense of hubris that makes them want to overthrow every order and replace them with anarchy where whatever is popular — that which gives in to the same impulse in others, since it is an infectious lowest common denominator among humans as it is with our simian ancestors — wins out every time, this being an order they think they can control since they share the disease with others, and so know what they want to hear, and therefore what they will support by making false elites and false leaders out of whoever says it.

Let us revisit Robert Conquest’s second law of politics:

Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

With what we know, we can expand upon this: any organization which is not explicitly directed toward a purpose will sooner or later become infected with hubris, from that give rise to a collective of individuals called a Crowd, and through that, arrive on the spectrum of Left-wing beliefs which terminate in Full Communism. We either have purpose, or ourselves, and when we declare ourselves to be the end instead of a purpose, everything unravels into silliness and stupor. The individual fears purpose because if there is a goal, the individual can fall short of that goal, and this is the root of all of the social horror that humans experience.

It is likely that people push for socialism, communism, equality, feminism, and the like not for economic reasons, but simply because they want to avoid being judged as individuals, and in the anonymity of egalitarianism can escape notice of their failings. This in turn dooms them because by becoming solely inwardly-focused, as happens with hubris and individualism, they lose sight of anything that could give their lives meaning, and end up in a darkened room formed of desires and power but without any potential for growth or discovery.

Conservatives understand this fundamental spiritual truth of humanity, which is that we die inside if we are given too much power as individuals, much as civilization dies if power is given to the wrong people. It loses momentum and collapses into its own circular inertia. Then everything grinds to a stop, much as it is in the contemporary West, which gave up on any hope of greatness during the second world war and has focused on growing its economy ever since so that some of us can win the wealth lottery and escape the Brazil 2.0 that is arising around us.

But as with any human structure, “conservatives” are a varied lot. The Bell Curve applies mercilessly here as well, which means that perhaps one percent of conservatives are worth reading, listening to and following; the rest are repeaters, and because they are focused on self and not world, they are repeating excuses, scapegoats, superstitions, trends, fads, panics and stampede-inducing ideas. This means that by definition, most conservatives are mostly wrong about most things most of the time. That does not mean that conservatism is wrong, only that any idea as interpreted by a group gets reduced to what is most convenient for the individual to belief in the context of an imaginary justification of his life to other people in his social group. Tom Wolfe calls that the fiction-absolute, and we might categorize it along with justifications, excuses and superstitions as the human animal attempting to control, rather than understand, his environment:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world–so ordained by some almighty force–would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.

The human beast’s belief in his own fiction-absolute accounts for one of the most puzzling and in many cases irrational phenomena of our time. I first noticed it when I read a book by Samuel Lubell called The Future of American Politics. Lubell was a political scientist and sociologist who had been as surprised as everybody else by the outcome of the 1948 presidential election. That was the election in which the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman, was a president whose approval rating had fallen as low as 23 percent. Every survey, every poll, every pundit’s prediction foresaw him buried by the Republican nominee, Thomas E. Dewey. Instead, Truman triumphed in one of the most startling upsets in American political history. Lubell was determined to find out why, and so he set out across the country. When he reached a small Midwestern town that had been founded before the turn of the 19th century by Germans, he was puzzled to learn that the town had gone solidly for Dewey despite the fact that by every rational turn of logic, every economic motivation, Truman would have been a more logical choice. By and by Lubell discovered that the town was still predominantly German. Nobody had ever gotten over the fact that in 1917, a Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson, had declared war on Germany. That had set off a wave of anti-German feeling, anti-German prejudice, and, in the eyes of the people of this town, besmirched their honor as people of German descent. And now, two World Wars later, their minds were fixed on the year 1917, because like all other human beasts, they tended to champion in an irrational way their own set of values, their own fiction absolute. The question Lubell asked was very much like the question that Thomas Frank asked after the election of 2004 in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? By all economic and political logic, the state of Kansas should have gone to John Kerry, the Democrat, in 2004. But it didn’t. Had Frank only looked back to Samuel Lubell, he would have known why. The 2004 election came down to one state: the state of Ohio. Whoever won that state in the final hours would win the election. Northern Ohio, the big cities of Cleveland, Toledo on the Great Lakes, were solidly for Kerry. But in southern Ohio, from east to west, and in the west was the city of Cincinnati, Ohio went solidly for George Bush. And the reason? That great swath of territory was largely inhabited by the Scots-Irish. And when the Democrats came out in favor of gun control, the Scots-Irish interpreted this as not merely an attack on the proliferation of weaponry in American life but as a denunciation, a besmirching, of their entire way of life, their entire fiction absolute. Guns were that important in their scheme of things.

Leftists have the same thing, only worse: for them, the best life can only be found in being defined by their opposition to the majority, and so they are addicted to and dependent on their image as Leftists to make them feel good. This is why they are fanatical and their cluster of opinions is narrower than people on the Right.

But on the Right, most conservatives still do not understand their own belief system. They have a gut instinct toward certain ideas that they think put the world in balance, like fairness derived from competition instead of government subsidy. They distrust anything that violates their local culture. Some of this is fiction-absolute, and some of it is common sense, ingrained over centuries. The Left can disrupt this easily however by shifting context, at which point the gut instinct gets a bit confused. To avoid this, conservatives tend to operate within a narrow context, which means that they always appear to be failing to answer the insane prevarications of the Left.

Because their beliefs are hybridized with Leftism by the very nature of having to work with a system — democracy, equality, tolerance — that is fundamentally Leftist, most conservatives have forgotten the nature of conservatism. To them, it is the methods it uses to fix human mistakes, and not the purpose of engaging in those, which is to create a virtuous civilization in which each person is rewarded for engaging in virtuous living. The point is to be good, not to have “muh freedom” or strong business and defense, and only secondarily is this related to defending Christianity, Israel, or even America. Conservatism is the same philosophy worldwide, but it is applied differently depending on where a society is in its cycle from birth to death, and therefore both what can be done and what must be done to address the problems of that stage are both relevant questions. That conservatives change strategy with context does not mean that their goal or principles change, only that they are using different methods to achieve them depending on their environment, but the problem with this is that most conservatives will understand only the methods and not the goals, which is why conservatism today is seen as a parody of itself scripted by the Left, even by its strongest adherents.

Even worse, conservatives succumb to a basic fiction, which is that if something is demonstrated to be logical or good, the rest of civilization will magically discover it and move toward it, a delusion which is a common solipsistic pathology of assuming the world will eventually agree with them that in turn makes them inert and unable to act:

“It often seems that partisans believe they are so correct that others will eventually come to see the obviousness of their correctness,” says behavioral scientist Todd Rogers of the Harvard Kennedy School, lead author on the research. “Ironically, our findings indicate that this belief in a favorable future may diminish the likelihood that people will take action to ensure that the favorable future becomes reality.”

…Data from over 800 people in China, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom indicated that the belief in a favorable future is a cross-cultural phenomenon, and additional findings revealed that the biased belief is distinct from other phenomena such as optimism and the false-consensus effect. Even when people are given an incentive to make accurate predictions about how people’s beliefs will change between now and the future, they tend to believe others’ attitudes will change over time to fall in line with their own current beliefs.

Importantly, field experiment data suggest that believing in a favorable future can influence people’s behavior in the here and now. Working with the Democratic Governors Association, Rogers and colleagues sent out two variations of a fundraising email to more than 660,000 supporters. Recipients were less likely to open the email if the subject indicated that a Democrat had the lead in a closely contested race compared with a message that suggested he was trailing in a closely contested race. Of those who opened the email, people were less likely to click the donation link and were less likely to make a donation when the Democrat was portrayed as having the lead compared to when the Democrat was portrayed as being behind.

What you are seeing here is the philosophical equivalent of the endorphins released when your body realized that it is freezing to death and cannot generate enough heat to save you. This triggers a dump of happy opiates into the bloodstream so that everything seems rosy and warm in those moments before inevitable death. This is mental state of the average conservative: in order to feel good about their existence in a dying civilization at all, they must rationalize their position by assuming that the rest of the world will someday agree with them. This allows conservatives to be individualists, or those who focus on their own working hard and praying hard, and ignore the fact that the world is falling apart around them and that if they do not intervene, we will all be doomed. Similarly, white nationalists spent generations waiting for that moment when whites would awaken and start the race war. Both of these are preemptive justifications, not realistic thinking, and represent a deep inner despair.

Coming from the ashes of an election in which Americans elected a man with almost no relevant experience, a shady past and obvious leanings toward the far-Left, the Alt Right attempted to fix these core problems of conservatism. Instead of confusing goals with method, it wanted solely to discuss goals and ignore method. Instead of focusing on the personal, it argued for re-taking society and making it healthy again, in a viewpoint that saw a temporary authoritarianism as better than a long-term one. It hoped to slide between the insanity of mainstream conservatism, which was trapped in hopelessness and a “work hard, pray hard” outlook that left it entirely impotent, and the non sequitur of the underground Right including white nationalism, which had no plan but endorsed and exhibited pathological behaviors that sent ordinary, upper half of middle class European-descended Americans fleeing to the hills.

After Obama, it is clear that Western Civilization is in decline, and as Samuel Huntington predicted, there was a “Berlin 1945 moment” for Leftism and liberal democracy which has created a void where we once thought our future would be. There is a space for someone to inherit the future which people expect will naturally follow this one, and so ideological conflict has broken out in the remains of the fallen West. For those who are conservative, but recovering from the errors of conservatives in the recent past, we realize that now is the time when we must seize authority and restore Western Civilization because any other goal will devolve into a variant of Leftism, and leads to defeat both for us and our people.

Why The Right Always Loses

Friday, June 16th, 2017

For the past millennium, being conservative-minded — valuing realism over human notions — has been a losing proposition.

Even more, it feels like supporting the idea of the good itself is also a path to constantly being disappointed. It has even become a cultural icon: we refer to people who rationalize losing as “being philosophical about it” and acknowledge the trope of the conservative, fists tightly clutched around whatever truth they were trying to save, going down with the ship. Or the lonely intellectual retreating from society.

Evil always wins, or at least mediocrity. Everything always gets worse and when a chance to fix it comes along, someone snaps up that opportunity, seizes the attention and redirects it to something profitable. No wonder people are exhausted. Modernity is hell to which we are sentenced to live out our terms as Cassandras howling into the wind.

Rightists have lost any expectation of winning and so, naturally, they do not win. Instead they make prosperous homes for their families, retreat into work and religion, but can be counted on to come out of the woodwork any time that their nation-state needs saving. They have entered into an unhealthy symbiotic codependency with the Left. This shatters them inside and makes them unstable.

The Left, of course, will insist on something like “the arc of history” or another fiction that supports their founding myth. In the Leftist view, nature is bad and egalitarianism is good, so any movement away from natural order and toward an order based on egalitarianism, in which human preference is more important than its results when applied, is good. To them, decay is good and so they insist on celebrating it.

But on more practical terms, it becomes clear that the Right has failed because it is unprepared to deal with the new reality of civilization during times of decay. All of its failings come back to that misunderstanding. Let us look at three key areas where the Right simply cannot grasp the task before it:

1. Entryism and Assimilation

Bruce Charlton gives us the clearest picture of how the Right inevitably gives way to the Left:

Because even when a genuinely non-Left (i.e. religious) group speaks in the public sphere, that aspect is filtered; such that what appears has moved the debate onto the core secular Left ground of ‘utilitarianism’ – the calculus of human pleasure or suffering in this mortal life.

…Therefore all supposed ‘victories’ of the ‘Right’ are merely reinforcing the deep-Left agenda.

The point here is that if you get faked out into using the language of your opposition, you will program yourself with their assumptions, and will then re-interpret your own political outlook as if it were a variant of theirs. At that point, you defeat yourself not by losing but by winning, and only later finding out that you carried the virus of the enemy with you.

In its most virulent form, this process can be seen through conservatives who endorse equality in any form. Conservatism does not support individualism, equality, freedom, liberty, feminism or anti-racism; it is an entirely different thought process than Leftism, based in recognizing an order bigger than the individual human rather than wanting the whims and wishful thinking of that individual to take precedence over reality.

The only way to understand the Left is to understand the Right, which is based in the idea of order, form, principle and purpose in unity with the world instead of as a human counterpoint to it:

The view of politics which the average person has come to possess, delineates things primarily according to economic policies – with communists and socialists on ‘the Left’; and laissez-faire capitalists or economic liberals on ‘the Right.’ This would leave the true – historical – Right out of it altogether, or leave it with a false position vaguely off the centre. Some modern Rightists helpfully compound this problem by terming themselves ‘Third Position’, and claiming to be ‘neither Left nor Right.’

A far more accurate way of understanding the above would be to put The True Right on one side (representing as it does; hierarchy, spirituality, organic unity…) and position both communism and laissez-faire capitalism on the other side as two different forms of the Left (valuing: equality, materialism, individualism – socialism is still essentially individualism; it is the banding together of individual egos for mutual benefit. Laissez-faire capitalism / economic liberalism literally arose out of the historical Left against the Right.)

This is what is being referred to by the schizoid nature of the Left. The Left arises out of an inversion of the Right, but it has at its disposal many different means of negating the ideals of the Right. These often appear to be the complete opposite of one another. Consequently many of the ideological oppositions of our time are in reality different versions of the Left squaring off against one another.

For those wanting to understand the Right, which most Rightists do not, it is worth looking into some writings on conservative theory and application.

The goal of the Right is to have an order based around the best that life has to offer, instead of what the Leftists want, which is an exclusively human order. The Right recognizes the importance of history, customs, heritage, beliefs, values, future, hierarchy, social order, organization, culture, philosophy, nature and other qualitative intangibles. The Left recognizes on the tangible, which is the individual and those it socializes with that make it feel more important than the natural world around it.

Whenever the Right gets sidetracked to intermediates — patriotism, equality, liberty, freedom, diversity — that may be important on their own but are not a whole plan for achieving the goal of the Right, it becomes weak. Each of these things is inherently Leftist because they are the assumptions that trigger an egalitarian viewpoint. If you accept that our goal is freedom, your next thought will be that then we need to abolish all things that stand in the way of freedom, including heritage and values. Next thought: culture must die, and wealth must be redistributed, so that everyone has “freedom.”

Rightists continually fail on this front because they get trolled into doing the footwork of the Left. “Well, we both agree that we want freedom, right?” says the Leftist. “Well, then, the best way to have freedom is to make everyone equal.” The conservative, outgunned because he never thinks along these lines, agrees, and only figures out that he was conned twenty years later.

2. It is Not Enough to be Correct.

Many a Rightist has consoled himself, after watching the herd boot away another chance to do good and rush headlong into the embrace of evil which dangled tantalizing illusions before their noses, with the idea, “Oh well, I’m right anyway and they’re just big poopyheads out there for not getting it.”

However, being right is not enough; you have to be both right in the correct context, and then put your plans into action instead of (like 99% of conservatives) staying home and working on your own stuff.

First let us examine a statement by a cynical writer. He knows what his audience wants to hear. He tells them that they are victims, and that someone else has ruined their future, so the obvious conclusion is to go smash down that Other. Like most good writers who are bad thinkers, he is doing it for the popularity points and not because he believes he is right.

His statement is correct in isolation, but off-the-mark when interpreted in the context of the broader question to which it points:

Of course one might ask why blacks would have any interest in most of what has been taught in American schools. Europeans trace their intellectual lineage from the invention of writing in Sumeria in the mid-Fourth Millennium BC through Greece, Rome, the Renaissance, their literary heritage from the Gilgamesh Epic through Tolkien. Blacks had no connection with this and did none of these things. It isn’t of their culture.

Cities have been the heart of the intellectual and artistic in all civilizations, as for example Athens, Rome, Florence, Vienna, New York. By contrast, blacks have destroyed city after American city after American city. Trenton, Camden, Newark, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Gary, Flint, St. Louis, New Orleans, Milwaukee. At one time in all of these one could live, walk at will, send one’s children to the schools. Now, no. Violence, crime, racial attacks, and illiteracy drive the civilized to remote suburbs. This is not my culture and I see no reason to apologize for it.

Massive popularity blast. White people are tired of being told how bad they are because they oppressed Africans. At the same time, Africans seem to be present in a whole lot of cases where pointless violent crimes occurred. On top of that, white America has felt that it was held hostage to black America during race riots, Ferguson effects and constant payouts for affirmative action and civil rights guilt.

White America wants to hear about how black people are not good, and how they should probably be sent far away, because they are a threat and have humiliated white America.

At the same time, this misses the broader point. No two ethnic groups can live in the same nation without absorbing one another. That means no more white Americans, only white-Asian hybrids, assuming you sent the Africans away of course. And what will the future of that nation be? It will not recapture the past.

Of course, that writer has already taken the first step because he has a Mexican wife. For him, diversity is not a problem; Africans are. However, as history shows us, it is diversity itself that is a problem even among groups from within the same race, as in Northern Ireland. So he is both correct, and not correct, because he offers a false solution.

Even if he were to upgrade his solution, the question then becomes, what are you going to do about it? As one writer opines, the Right is not ready for action:

Righties who like to build churches will build a church and worship in it. Lefties who like to build churches will build a church, write a book telling people how to build churches, go out and convince people church-building is the thing to do, run workshops on how to finance, build, and register churches, and then they’ll offer to arrange church guest speakers who’ll come preach the Lefty line.

Righties like hierarchy, so often think of the Lefties as taking marching orders from George Soros or whoever in a very hierarchical fashion. Not so much. A lot of left-wing organization is very decentralized, and they negotiate with other lefty groups as to exactly how they’ll do things and time things to not hurt each others’ work, so the labor movement’s march is not derailed by black-bloc window-smashing.

While this article has some dodgy data in it — the problem with the Confederates, for example, was resource and industry shortage, not disorganization — the truth of it is this: Leftists are fanatics and they are committed 24-7 to making things happen. Conservatives are not individualists, nor are they group-directed like the Left, but this makes them weak.

Conservatives engage in the perpetual fiction that, because if each person did the right thing, civilization would work out better, they will do the right thing in their personal lives and hope everyone else does the same. This is why people call the conservatives “the stupid party,” because there is no other word for this than stupid.

People do not do what they are not forced to do. Conservatives do not want to be forced to do anything, and because they have already accepted certain forces as sunk costs, do not notice that they are already being forced to do most of what they do. And so, doing “the right thing” at home amounts to nothing.

The Left understands force. They realize that unless people are scared to do otherwise than join the protests and work like fiends to make it all happen, they will sit at home and commit petty crimes. When the Left wins, it has no problem wielding totalitarian threats of violence, public shaming, destroying of lives and friendships, and even mobilizing the masses into a human wave that takes 50% casualties and has the machine guns mounted at the rear of the army, not the front like armies that are actually fighting for something.

Conservatives are broken in their outlook. They know that they live under a Leftist myth, equality, and with a Leftist system of government, democracy, at some level. They have shattered their own consistency of thought in order to accept defeat and declare it victory, and since they have accepted that they cannot control the future of their society, they naturally give up on everything except themselves.

Leftists are individualists, but they sacrifice greatly for the ability to be individualistic. What do conservatives sacrifice for, except wasting their time at jobs, paying taxes and dying for democracy in foreign wars? Conservatives are more competent than the Left but never put it into action because people volunteer, do what is convenient, and then go home, leaving the task to fail.

I have seen it time and again. Every now and then you get an issue that fires up conservatives. But nothing makes them as fanatical as ideology makes Leftists, and for this reason conservatives lose because they are not committed enough nor disciplined enough. While the Left organizes to take over cities, the Right are out there lifting weighs, filing taxes, buying stocks and mowing their lawns.

This is why it is not enough to be right. You have to address the actual issue and come up with a working plan, not just an emotional judgment. And then, you have to put it into action not as a hobby but as a full-time obsession. If you are not willing to do that, you are just posing at being a conservative because it makes you feel good to blame someone else for your life failures.

3. We need an agenda outside of modernity.

Modernity began with The Enlightement™ and has steadily won victory after victory since that time. It is the religion of progress, or making humanity more powerful even when this is a bad idea, and of the individual. It will not end until every tree is dead and converted into a fast food joint so the sons of housemaids can be rich men for a generation.

The only way to escape modernity is to reverse the changes made to our philosophy with The Enlightenment,™ which means discarding ideas like equality, democracy and diversity. Until we get rid of the ideas themselves, we will lead ourselves back into repeating them because our fundamental assumptions will be the same as they are now.

It also helps to recognize what Leftists are: a spectrum from Anarchist through Communist, believing in the same ideology of equality, who differ only in degree. That is important: all Leftists are the same, just with varying degrees of boldness. The “normal” Democrat, given enough power, is a Communist; the teenage anarchist, facing challenges in his Utopia, will also go to full Communism.

Their ideas — which they insist are radically different, deep, complex and difficult — are in fact all variations of the same idea, egalitarianism. This philosophy insists that all people must be included in society and that society must thus dedicate itself to them and their whims and desires, instead of having a social order, values and purpose of its own.

Leftism is a mental virus which produces fanatics. To the bored, neurotic or failed person Leftism gives a sense of meaning to life and an excuse for all that has gone wrong. It is addictive, and creates a pathology in these people because it only makes them feel good for a short while, requiring them to engage in more of it to feel good again.

Leftists and conservatives desire different types of societies and are incompatible with one another. Leftists are concerned with equality; conservatives like order and context. This fits with the idea of conservation, or keeping what works, instead of a focus on human desires.

Until we escape the Leftist mentality, we will forever repeat the last two centuries of Western history. Even if we create a pro-white dictatorship, it will still be formed of the basic idea of modernity, which is accepting everyone and turning them into a mass to use to impose ideas externally onto others. Maybe they accept fewer people, but the idea remains the same.

People type their fingers bloody wondering how all of this happened. The answer is simple: it was entropy brought on by our success. A society that succeeds suddenly loses its purpose, which previously was to succeed. Now it must answer the existential questions, such as what it can do to make life meaningful and good. That is heady territory, fit for philosophers perhaps but not democracies.

Expanding on that, human masses are entropy and they always follow evil, unless they give power to someone intelligent and generous who will work against the flow of nature, which is an inertia that leads to breakdown. Nature destroys everything except that which actively resists by reaching toward a positive future distinct to itself.

Humans are evil because they are aware only of themselves. Many grow out of this as part of the maturation process, but others — probably about 40% of our people at this point — do not, and so they become de facto low grade sociopaths who act for their own whims at the expense of everyone else and the mission they share in common, which is having a civilization which thrives.

Conservatives recognize this evil in humanity which is why they emphasize context, reality, order, hierarchy, values, principles and purpose over what people wish were true or want to be accepted just because they want to do it. This is why conservatism is so compatible with religion: to both, the primary question is avoiding evil by establishing a good order/organization instead.

Unfortunately conservatives suffer from a lack of unity. They are too individualistic, mainly because they see the herd conformity of the Left and attempt to rebel against it by going the opposite direction, not recognizing that the Leftist collective is powered by individualists who want to mandate their own inclusion despite whatever unproductive or degenerate behavior they engage in.

Instead of reacting, conservatives could analyze Leftism itself and understand its psychology. At that point they would see that the only defense is not retreating into individualism, but reforming the line and counter-attacking by pointing out that Leftism is wholly illegitimate, its practitioners are sociopaths, and its end result is deceit and destruction. Every time.

When conservatives overcome their infection with individualism, they will see the importance of order and become fanatical like Leftists. That day will also bring ultra-intolerance, meaning that anyone who wants any form of equality will become suddenly not welcome.

As liberal democracy winds down and craters, and the ruling Leftist parties on two continents steer their countries into polymorphic disaster, the light on the horizon appears. This light is the end of the dark era of Enlightenment,™ and a return to raw realism and a search for meaning in the world instead of navel-gazing within our social selves.

UK Election Reveals That Future Of Politics Is Polarization, Not Compromise

Friday, June 9th, 2017

Like many women in power, Theresa May specializes in canny negotiation that involves compromise whereby each party gives something up and no one gets what they want, even if they could have had it by holding out and being less “reasonable” and more focused on a goal.

Now that the results are in, it is clear that May failed to win a majority, but has forged a partnership between her Tories and a Christian-oriented party. This may unite different factions as the Left attacks them as a unified group, but could just as possibly lead to internal struggles for direction.

What makes this result amazing is that, had the Tories stayed on message with the idea of breaking away from the EU and limiting or eliminating immigration, the people who voted against them would still have done so, but those who stayed home from lack of inspiration in this election would have come out in force.

By obeying conventional wisdom, which is to try to play nice with everyone in order to keep the peace, May lost ground and has created a divided government.

The worst path for her to take, which May took, was to do little to avert an ongoing disaster. Liberal democracy has spent, regulated and specialized itself into a state where the middle class cannot survive, and not surprising, the young are hardest hit, and, being impressionable, are swaying to Left-radicalism in a forlorn hope.

It was time for her to double down and crusade against the crazy assortment of unions, diversity special interests, government elites, and industry lobbyists who favor the current system. If, like Trump, she had promised tax cuts and a slashing of regulations to put more money into the pockets of people who are desperate, she would have gained support for her ideological agenda.

Instead, mirroring other European mainstream Right failures, May tried to be bipartisan and as a result, inherited blame for the current system. Now is not a time to be a fence-sitter. It is a micro-era in which conservatives win, like Reagan and Trump did, by united social conservatism, anti-Leftist action, and libertarian economics.

The system is crushing its people, as democracy always tends to do. Very few can understand or articulate this. They can understand that the bulky and bloated State is in their way, and that everyone would breathe easier with a heady dose of economic competition and removal of government from every aspect of life. The voters need saving first, and only later to see how conservative values pair with that.

It is not beyond the grasp of the average UK voter to see that immigration drives down wages, EU regulation shatters small businesses, or that the civil rights agenda has crushed job prospects for those not from protected groups. For now, one does not need to get more extreme than that, but those who play like savvy career politicians will find themselves in the middle while voters are heading to the edges.

Maybe there is a metaphor in that. When voters find themselves in the margins, they move toward the edges. The worse off things are, the more people are likely to gamble on a solution as opposed to what May offered, which was the status quo with a few tweaks. People crave radical action because they feel the inertia of the present path dragging them toward an abyss.

May attempted to transition the Brexit effect from a single issue to support for a broad conservative agenda, but her agenda was both not conservative enough and not practical enough. What her textbooks told her to do was wrong in this case.

This result will benefit the Right in the long-term because polarization of the electorate is a good thing. It has become clear that Right and Left cannot co-exist, and therefore, that having the nation divide will be a positive thing in the long term. It will force clear articulations of the issues from parties who have been content to hide in the middle for too long.

Politics is conflict. The tendency of professionals, such as May, is to avoid that conflict in order to create stability for their office. When parties serve ceremonial roles, politicians get to hang out and get paid for doing nothing more than making symbolic changes. Their acts become visual instead of structural alterations to the political landscape, as is needed to achieve what they are elected to do.

In the meantime, the takeaway for future Right-wing leaders as we transition out of democracy is that they should not be afraid to polarize and take a radical stance as long as it also addresses the daily concerns of people, like salaries and cost of living. The first political group to demonstrate a working system will dominate the future, even if in the short term there will be conflict.

Man Without A Nation

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

If the Alt Right wants to reform conservatives, it will have to wean them from patriotism, religion and hard work. Together these three things form a false nation comprised of a state and certain public behaviors which are ultimately egalitarian, therefore always drift Left toward Communism.

Conservatives may be the most self-defeating group in history. Their first problem is that they are not unified on a single idea like the Left, which both historically and philosophically centers around egalitarianism.

Their bigger problem is that conservatives select their ideas based on what is popular, which is always what is most convenient for the individual. The average person does not want to interrupt their lifestyle of easy jobs, shopping, watery beer and television.

For this reason, when confronted with real problems, their solutions are always individualistic: “I want this ability for myself while others do crazy stuff around me.” The flaw in this logic is that the crazy stuff only grows in popularity and takes over society.

This lazy, morally corrupt conservative thinking is the norm. It expresses the desire of individuals not to rock the boat or inconvenience themselves. Their solutions are selfish as a result, involving what these individuals want as part of their “lifestyle.”

Not only that, but these conservatives actually drive people away because their proposed solutions are so mind-bendingly stupid. “Get a good job, work hard, go to church, wave the flag and own guns!” is a ludicrously selfish and short-sighted response to a civilization in decay where most people are existentially miserable and a good many are essentially slaves caught in a trap of low wages, high prices and greedy predators both in employers and the products they must buy to survive.

Humans are exploited, and conservatives refuse to recognize that, and society is collapsing, something conservatives defer recognizing by bloviating on about “the Benedict option” or other mentalities which sound like dropping out but really are merely justifications for continuing to accrue wealth for themselves while paying lip service to fixing the rot at the core of our society.

Then again, this problem is inherent to Caucasians and other high-intelligence populations: they become trapped by their own cleverness, which means they find a way to navigate the immediate crisis to get the best possible option, but not ultimately a solution. They are clever, but not clever enough.

Leftism is energizing because it recognizes human exploitation and conjures up what looks like a systemic change. Everything is bad, it says, so we will do something else. Conservatives have no equivalent answer until you get to traditionalists and Nietzscheans, and those are a small group who might as well be speaking Greek to the rest.

In the meantime, conservatives fail to win over people because it seems that conservatives are defending the system as it is instead of working toward improving it. The entrenched, defensive and backward-looking nature of conservatism solidifies this perception.

To the average person, the dialogue seems fractured. The person speaks up about all that is wrong in the world, and how the current system does not address it, and conservatives basically say to keep the current system and then succeed within it at the expense of others. This grates on even the hardened!

This creates a kind of helplessness. Both Conservatives and Leftists want to preserve the modern system; this makes them natural allies who agree on a goal but disagree on methods. Conservatives also, by working to preserve a fundamentally Leftist system, admit defeat from the outset and seem “cucked” as a result.

Conservatives enable Leftism through conservative reliance on these three substitutes for an organic civilization:

  1. Patriotism. Conservatives love patriotism, which is loyalty to a Leftist state, founded as “classically liberal” which as a type of egalitarianism naturally drifts toward more extreme methods of equality such as Communism. In addition, patriotism replaces the organic vision of “Us” — a people joined by purpose, principle and heritage — with the inorganic and centralized idea of the nation-state, which is basically a government that rules territory and waves the flag any time it wants to bomb someone.
  2. Religion. Like Patriotism, religion creates a replacement for the organic nation which is based in rules and symbols, not reality. The Church famously does not care who it recruits so long as it has warm bodies, and so serves as an international attractor. The Church is like a nation unto itself, united by the ideology of a few dogmas of religion, and it acts against the organic nation by trying to control it.
  3. Work. All of us like to apply ourselves; jobs, however, are not self-application but its opposite, a game based on appearance and not reality. These make people weak and neurotic. In addition, they neutralize people by taking up all of their time and, by giving them an “identity” within society, compete with their natural identity as part of the organic nation with a role to play toward its health. This subverts any interest they have in real things, and replaces it with allegiance to an economic system.

By defending this system, conservatives consent to their own enslavement and resist the necessary realization that what we have now is fallen and must be replaced and rebirthed in order to have any goodness to it. They offer non-solutions which tend to involve dubious wars, which makes them doubly unsavory.

The difference can be visualized with a metaphor. Education consists of learning things; school is separate from education in that one can excel at school without any desire to learn much of anything. Those who get good at the system get ahead.

All of these substitutes for the organic nation are systems which will be gamed, and because that is easier than achieving real-world goals, soon all will aim for gaming the system. This replaces purpose with external goals which quickly become corrupted.

Leftism thrives in this environment because it has a single goal, which is to destroy the existing organic nation and replace it a mass of people who can be controlled. All of the pleasant noises about egalitarianism are cover for having the Crowd be in control and able to manipulate others.

When conservatives want personal convenience above all else, they turn toward Leftism as a means of being socially accepted by others. They translate it into a conservative form, which is based in the individual and not the group as a means of not criticizing the group.

If you wonder why modern conservatives seem to talk so much and achieve so little, this is why. They are unwilling to challenge the status quo at its root assumption — equality — and therefore get absorbed by it, marginalizing themselves into loud complainers who focus only on their own success.

At this point, the Leftist death spiral has accelerated so rapidly that many find themselves to be like me, a man without a nation. The only flag to which I could show allegiance is tied to the State, and the State is by nature a Leftist organization, so is insupportable.

We who would oppose this decay are fragmented by our own individualism, our lack of agreement on what must be done, and our fear of opposing the elephant in the room, which is the concept of equality itself. The sooner we rise above that, the sooner we can prevail in this do-or-die fight.

Hopelessness As A Personal Philosophy

Monday, May 15th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop Trying To Help

Sunday, April 10th, 2016


The thesis of this site is that social factors took over the West and led to its current liberalism and decline. When we mediate our decisions with reality, we do OK; when social factors take over, pleasant illusion is rewarded more than the less-exciting process of maintaining civilization.

In a socially-mediated society, the main goal is to sell yourself. You convince others that you are a good guy or gal by showing that you mean well and contribute. The best way to do this is not through the humdrum process of keeping the trains running or water clean, but through a gushing gesture of altruism and compassion for the less fortunate by “helping” those who are in desperate straits by their own choices.

This is why for the past centuries it has been clear to people that to get popular, you help The Poor™ which means finding any group of cashless people and doing something for them. Whatever happens once the news cameras leave, …well, who cares? The whole thing is advertising just like banks giving away free toasters and politicians kissing babies.

Conservatives in particular are afflicted with this disease. We recognize that most people are in dire straits through a consistent pattern of reality-denying decisions, resulting in a state of intertwined dysfunctional behaviors. This makes us social Darwinists who see self-interest as the path to rising above the rest who are, in fact, the ones keeping themselves down.

But then we feel guilt. How is it that I drive to work in this nice comfortable air-conditioned car, and go home to a beautiful wife and kids in the suburbs, while Treyshawn, Manuel and Yang live in miserable ghettos and eat junk food? We second-guess the order of nature and God, and it makes us even more pathetic than liberals, who know what they are doing is a lie. Conservatives are true believers in the church of trying to help

If anything we need a restoration of the morality of self-interest. If what you are doing advances your civilization, and in doing so you succeed, let everyone else face their own fate. They either chose it or were predestined for it and there is nothing you can do. Instead of feeling guilty for what you have, make sure you are using it wisely.

For instance, many conservatives live unnecessarily opulent lifestyles. It is not enough to have a nice 2,500 square foot house in the suburbs but because important to have 5,000 square feet in a tony neighborhood. That Honda or Volvo is not good enough; move up to BMW or Mercedes. Your neighbor bought an internet-connected stove that alerts Twitter when dinner is done? You’ll need one too, then — or not.

The reason people get on the false humility needle in the first place is that by dedicating some of their time to these absurd activities, they buy off their own guilt for the rest of their lifestyle. They can feel better about their ludicrous spending and the mountain of discarded gadgets and food packaging they leave behind. Guilt is salved by public acts of nice.

And yet, it is not. Those who are not thriving will always resent the thriving (with the exception of a one percent who will be busy working toward thriving; this is evolution, too). There will always be poor, drug-addicted and mentally scattered people. We cannot change this, except by not importing more of them. But the condition of suffering is the norm in most of the world.

All we can do instead is to lead with our own choices. Instead of acquiring mountains of plastic crap, pile up a few good things of high quality and use them for a lifetime. Spend your time on your family, friends and activities in which you can show mastery. Dedicate your former charity time to getting to know God and Nature.

Of course, this message is not convenient. Throwaway actions for The Poor™ will always be popular because they are isolated to a few instances and the rest of life remains untouched. What I suggest demands re-ordering our worlds around actual value instead of the appearance of it. But in the end, it is the only way to really satisfy oneself and drive away the snickering monster of guilt.

The Continued Manshaming of The “Respectable Right”

Friday, April 8th, 2016


In case you are wondering why a majority of the US population identifies as Conservative while the “Respectable Right” gets boatraced in every major policy dispute? Just watch the video below. It’s a perfect metaphor.

The Left, you see, is playing for blood. In a real rugby match, these guys would be grabbing scrotes and raking faces every time the referee and the touch judges were looking the wrong way. They instinctively scrap for every yard, every last bloody inch of pitch. They believe, the “Respectable Right” does not.
As a result, the “Respectable Right” gets walked back towards the wrong set of goalposts on every issue under the sun. No, 75% of The State of Mississippi does not have the right to any sort of religious freedom if 0.0001% of the state’s population represented by 1-legged, trans-gendered, midgets who identify as the sparkle-pony gender feel triggered in the slightest. You will be made to care.
This is why LGBT is running the show in states all across Amerika governed by all of those severe Conservatives of the “Respectable Right.” Governor Deal wasn’t up for Pickett’s Charge when a religious freedom bill similar to that of Mississippi’s was placed on his desk. And when the Activist Left demanded that Alabama get rid of the Confederate Battle flag, Governor Bentley got bent for his cucking.
So given the utter cowardice of these men of incontinent bowels in the face of any serious left wing political pressure, you would think that they would appreciate the help when somebody offered to fight back. If you’re saying “guess again”, you are accurate. The Men with Hollow Chests despise and deride all who would stand vigilant in the tackle and fight back against the entropic demotism and ongoing social decay.
Ian Tuttle of Cuckservative Review Magazine, (I’ll link Occidental Dissent and not send them traffic for ad revenue) tells us the following about the “Alternative” or what I prefer to call the Legitimate Right.

The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online presence. But for Bokhari and Yiannopoulos, the Alt-Right consists of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals — and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways. In other words, anyone familiar with Yiannopoulos’s theatrics, or Breitbart’s self-appointment as Donald Trump’s Pravda, will not be surprised to learn that the article is a 5,000-word whitewash. But it is valuable, in this way: It exhibits, albeit inadvertently, the moral and intellectual rot at the heart of the Alt-Right. …

Hunter Wallace accurately points out that our current “Respectable Right” is more interested in image than substance. They conflate social acceptability with moral good. The Left accurately attacks this by setting the rules on what gets considered acceptable. The Left wants its gay marriage, the GOP changes its platform to avoid nasty social issues. Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman would dispossess and inconvenience the otherwise patriotic, socially responsible and respectable Americans of a livestock-screwing orientation. They are human and want to be loved – just like anyone else does.
And you know what your failure to immediately sign up for the presidential run of JEB makes you? Do I even have to Cucksplain it? (I again link to a link. The Cuck doesn’t always come off after washing with standard laundry detergent.) No, because some overrated donkey’s rear end for The Federalist does the honors.

“Hey, lefties, we finally found your racists for you. For as long as I can remember, people like me—by which I mean advocates of capitalism and free markets and freedom of speech—have been accused by the left of being secret racists who pine for the gold old days of the antebellum South. Tiresome stuff like this. Then along comes a group of actual, declared racists who really do pine for the antebellum South, and who is one of the main targets of their invective? People like me. Kind of ironic, eh?

And the Lefties are just laughing. They have their mouth-frothing scrum of screaming, deracinated, fvck-heads just waiting to pack down and obliterate The Federalist, The Resurgent, Hot Air, Ace of Spades, Speaker Ryan, Governor Bentley, Governor Deal or any other bunch of “Respectable Right” panty-waists who have the guts to turn towards the appropriate set of goal posts and pack down.
And so it goes with the Amerikan Right. They will always be too cowardly to ever put their goddamn hand in the dirt, get their butts down low enough to drive and actually fight as if they genuinely had enough of a soul to still hold beliefs. They don’t. They are empty. They are phony. The Left knows this. They keep them alive out of convenience. They always look forward to the glorious expiration date when they get the sadistic joy of hanging them by their own viscera, sending their worthless, pathetic souls to Hell and helping out Beelzebub as he toasts marshmallows over the smoking remains.

Where conservatives can learn from neoreaction

Monday, February 1st, 2016


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The alternative Right rises

Thursday, January 21st, 2016


This week, the phrase “alternative right” enters mainstream consciousness as the vested franchisees of the current system attempt to explain the dissent rising around them like a maelstrom. They wanted a handy phrase to describe the mostly young, post-libertarian conservatives who are supporting Donald Trump. Calling them racists and Nazis has failed, so there needs to be a new slur, and establishment conservatives and liberals alike would like to give the alternative right a bad name.

Most of them have forgotten the roots of the name alternative right, which finds its inspiration in the phrase alternative rock. Back at the origins of that term, it described music which could not find support in the mainstream but believed itself a legitimate inheritor of the role of rock music. In the same way, “alternative right” describes right-leaning thinkers who believe society has shifted so far to the left that truth cannot be told, so it needs a new medium.

This of course freaks out the mainstream conservatives. They are being told that, like most forms of opposition in a market, they have been bought out, and the conditions of the sale mean that they cannot discuss certain ideas. In particular, few will speak up — Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan being the most visible exceptions — to mention the logical fact that diversity cannot work, and that Leftist delight in it exists only because a Third World population is being imported to permanently skew the vote to the left. That the native population of the United States and Europe is being replaced is beyond what conservatives will discuss because they are unwilling to challenge the liberal Establishment.

The alternative right also speaks hard truths about democracy, namely that most people vote for short-term self-interest instead of what will maintain civilization, and that in groups people compromise on the lowest common denominator. Democracy does not work; the American Constitution was an attempt to limit it so that it would, but that quickly became overthrown. Now we live in a Leftist time and we are seeing the consequences of Leftism as our economies, environment and societies plunge downward into chaos, but mainstream conservatives have failed to do more than a token effort against it, collecting votes and money as The Opposition Party without opposing the core idea of liberalism — that all people are equal — at all.

Perhaps the biggest contribution of the alternative right is to mention the real elephant in the room which is the decline and fall of Western Civilization beginning with The Enlightenment™ and worsening as its ideas became more mainstreamed. The idea of human equality means that choices can be arbitrary because they are equal, which has the effect of banishing reality from the room. When the assorted fat feminists, minorities, lunatic liberals and apartment plankton millennials vote for Bernie or Hillary, they are unconcerned about the results of that act. They know what they want to be true and that is enough. Voting is wishful thinking. Naturally, with this mentality in place, the West has become unable to respond to reality and chases dreams and illusions instead of looking at hard problems.

Since the mainstream right will not mention these truths, and the Left and its enthusiastically compliant media will not mention them, actual conservatives needed another outlet. The alternative right draws together several groups — libertarians, paleoconservatives, white nationalists, New Right, neoreactionary — and unites them under the idea that our current way is dead and our conservative opposition will not stop it because it will not mention forbidden truths. As a result, there is great variation between alternative right beliefs. The leftist media and politicians will try to spin the alternative right as having “Nazi” or “neo-Nazi” origins, letting one trait speak for all others as usual, as will compliant mainstream “cuckservative” conservatives. Both groups are threatened by this outsider voice that accurately describes what mainstream politics will refuse to address.

With that in mind, we should look at some political definitions…

Useful idiots: These are voters who want to believe the least possible must be done to change anything because they are clinging to what they have. Useful idiots gush and drool over pacifism, anti-majority groups, revenge narratives and underdog success stories. Every enemy they want to believe is a friend, and every actual threat they wish to deny. UIs were originally a small group, but 200 years of liberal politics has increased their number and imported Third World peoples, who as a result of the natural selection they underwent back home, always support strong promises from government and forget when they turn out less than optimal.

Liberal: This is a deceptive word because liberalism is a spectrum from moderate Republican through full-on Communist and as power increases for liberals, they always drift leftward. Since it is a conformist ideology, it demands its adherents demonstrate it constantly, which they do by applying the same unrealistic theory — equality — in new and exciting ways. Thus liberalism always grows like a tumor, ending up in power, at which point it conveys the society into a Third World cultureless mixed-race population ruled by cynical tyrants. Liberals champion UIs by appealing to their fears and promoting them within the power structure.

Conservative: Originally, this meant those who conserved the best of the great ages of humankind, since humans have never changed in their psychology. Over time this became a defensive action to hold on to whatever recent past was less infected with liberal insanity than the status quo. As a substitute for stopping the decay of society, conservatives offer symbols of health — strong defense, growing economy and nods to theocratic ideas — but because the name of the game in democracy is having more UIs than the other guy, they reduce this to simplistic flag-waving. In addition, they attempt to woo liberals by being more liberal-like, and in the name of working within the system, generally give liberals whatever they want after a token resistance to keep the votes and donations flowing in.

Libertarians: These are people who have woken up to the fact that government constantly expands and does nothing well merely in order to justify its continued expansion, like a tumor. To counter leftism, they argue for extreme equality in the form of free markets, free association and freedom of contract, which would in theory allow people to exist with extremely low taxes and the ability to exclude ongoing social problems. Unfortunately, this does not appeal to UIs, and so this group forever marginalizes themselves, taking potential conservative voters out of the pool. It also suffers from the same problem as conservatism which is that it has not rejected liberalism, only tried to make a devil’s bargain with it, and the result is that any libertarian society will become Leftist at the first mass vote.

White Nationalists: It is tempting to understand these as a variety of conservative, but really they are a variety of liberal that instead of blaming the unbroken chain of terrible decisions made by democracy, foist the blame on one or more of the symptoms, usually African-Americans and The Eternal Jew™ (which they refer to as “The Jewish Question” or JQ). White Nationalists want the present world but with these others removed, but are generally content to keep well-behaved others like Asians around, resulting in hybridization and destruction of the white race. It is not surprising that most of these are trace hybrids from Southern, Eastern and Irish Europe. In addition, they serve an important role as bogeymen for the Left by acting out every Hollywood stereotype of Nazis, allowing both conservatives and liberals to drive the UIs closer to democracy by pointing out the craziness threatening from the wings.

Anarcho-Capitalists: Honest libertarians who feel no need to conceal their belief in Social Darwinism, AnCaps want a world without government ruled by business, figuring that the most competent in business will be more competent than mass-polling the UIs and apartment plankton. However, they forget that as long as the UIs exist in large numbers, they will buy products that flatter them, which will result in the return of liberalism and also massively crass commerce taking over culture. Some AnCaps, specifically the Neoreactionary wing, have tried to temper this with a belief in business leaders or other strong authoritarian presence, but generally believe this can be applied to small communities, forgetting that the vast masses surrounding them will simply vote to invade them and take their stuff.

New Righters: The New Right arose in France as a means of restoring traditional society without upsetting the much-beloved European socialist benefits system. To keep those two contradictory impulses in balance, New Right thinkers generally insist on strong centralized power, nationalism and a religious basis to society, forgetting that these external methods cannot be imposed without causing a counter-reaction, and that without the internal impetus to adopt them, people will merely work around them as they do most strong power. Nonetheless the New Right deserves credit for systematically dismantling arguments for liberalism, democracy, equality and multiculturalism, although only a small segment of the population can understand their theory-heavy writings.

Donald Trump voters: Anyone who wants Donald Trump as a President. This is a wide group, including mainstream conservatives, Tea Partiers, libertarians and yes, some from the alternative right, New Right and even white nationalist groups. Generally however, Trump voters are middle American types who simply do not want to be ethnically replaced and ruled over by Leftists, who have proved incompetent in every instance where they have seized power.

I hope this little summary can help our politicians and media differentiate the types of voters they will encounter.

Recommended Reading