Few consider how much ideology serves as a substitute for reality because, in their view, reality is a physical thing and ideology consists of choices made about how “we” should correct reality. In that however is a germ of truth: ideology inevitably requires deposing what is natural, logical and true for what is emotionally satisfying.
Ideology also replaces reality by placing itself between the world and our knowledge of it. To be correct in reality, you act so that the outcome you intend occurs; to be correct in ideology, you act in such a way that you do not transgress that ideology. This means that every action you take is filtered by a desire to conform, before you even act, and that you are granted permission to act in any way that you can get away with by justifying your intentions with the ideology.
This means that whenever a question of how a proposed action will work out, we do not think in terms of how it will actually turn out. We think about how it looks when we tell others what we intend, and how that reflects on us, and whether it will please the group. Witness this mentality in action:
When someone says a refugee might be a terrorist, we can respond with the idea that yes, he/she might be trying to sneak in to Canada to do some harm. But that same person might be a doctor, an engineer, a teacher, or have any other number of useful skills. Someone might even be a social worker who’s already found the solution to chronic homelessness in rural and remote communities. We don’t know. These refugees could be the perfect fit for our community. But we won’t know till we let them in.
Two interesting points arise from this excerpt. First, the writer argues that we must act as if ideology is true regardless of the outcome. Second, the writer demands that we ignore secondary consequences, affirming that the true decision is what to say and not outcome in reality. Result: complete denial of fact and likely consequences in favor of looking good in the moment.
This is how ideology programs our brains to replace reality with this strange world of human intent, social pressures and appearances. This also has the effect of reframing the debate. A sensible person might ask, “What kind of society do we want to be?” and point out that heterogenous societies have throughout history consistently suffered more problems, internal division and eventual collapse to a third-world state.
But none of that is mentioned here. The only topic is applying ideology, and the only measurement is what other people think. This is conformity and control in their raw form, but no one is to blame but the social group. Without strong leaders to point back toward reality, people always retreat into their own minds and emotions, and when given power, reality replacement — and its dire consequences — is the inevitable result.
Generation X is referred to as the “bridge” generation, linking the massive cohorts of the Baby Boomers with the zombie Millennials. But more likely, that generation was a bridge to nowhere because it was raised by the same people who brought us the liberal takeover of the West in 1968.
Unlike the Millennials, who grew up in the stability after the 1968ers hit their 40s in the mid and late 80s, Generation X knew a world where there was more than one path of history. This world had mild disasters, like the oil crisis and depression, but also knew real threats, like the Soviet Union and its reckless militarism.
Millennials on the other hand have only grown up in a liberal-controlled world. 1968 values were taught to them by children’s television, children’s books, their elementary school textbooks, the words of celebrities, the movies from Hollywood and by liberal politicians in Hollywood. For them, there is only a liberal-dominated world, moving slowly toward “Progress” by destroying all who dissent.
As a result, Millennials are the most obedient and conformist generation ever. Like Baby Boomers, who took the WWII-era values of their parents and turned up the intensity, Millennials take PC to the next level with “social justice worrier” style rhetoric. For them, society has always been stable, without want or fear, and all that we need to do is give away enough free stuff that everyone is happy and pacifistic.
Generation X was savaged by divorce, being latch-key kids of working moms, and facing the instability of the incredibly selfish “Me Generation” as it attempted to parent kids it viewed as little more than possessions for its own glorification. It saw the lunatic nature of the 1968ers as they were, which was horrible parents and unstable neurotics who chased “profundity” and “art” at every turn yet returned to selfishness as a guide.
Its response was mostly to drop out. Unlike Baby Boomers and Millennials, Generation X has no loyalty to political agents such as its country or an ideology. It respects that which works, mainly because it has seen its countries disintegrate in the onslaught on the family, values, and standards. It has stepped aside to watch the disaster from the comfort of its own homes.
One recent survey of Generation X both missed the mark, and revealed quite a bit.
Gen Xers didn’t just turn inward because there was nothing to capture their attention outward—they were purposefully turning away from a world that didn’t hold much promise from what they could see.
There is what you must know. Generation X saw what their parents, the 1968er Baby Boomers, had done to society using its postwar mandate of absolute equality, and noped out. They wanted no part of the disaster. Unlike Millennials, who like zombies absorb the propaganda and bleat it, Generation X simply stepped aside to watch the giant fall.
Why hasn’t Gen X been able to shake the shackles of its misspent youth (and what youth isn’t misspent?)?
Partially, they haven’t tried very hard. It’s an introspective generation that never felt a need to explain itself.
Well, that’s cute. Translation: they trust no public voice with the truth, so keep silent and out of sight. The motto of Generation can best be encapsulated by the name of a radio show, “In My Room”, namely that it has retreated to the space it can control. Crazy parents control the world, crazy democracy controls society, but maybe there are dropout spaces.
As a friend of mine voiced:
It feels like there was a boat missed in the 90s and now we have the current generation split between some really savvy thinkers who are not doers, some pretty smart doers, and some clever (snarky, sarcastic) wishers who are loud with their emotions and that’s what’s catching everyone’s attention.
I think our generation opting out was a mistake, and I don’t know what we would have done differently.
When you trust zero public institutions and public voices, how do you protest? You do not: you drop out. When every institution is corrupted by the same illusion, and every person who wants not to be fired parrots it, who do you trust? You do not; you preserve yourself, and wait for the big BOOM! to tell you that it’s time to awaken and act.
Generation X learned firsthand what the liberal ideal is. It is not a big happy pacifistic group, but a giant ego swallowing all else while flattering others by telling them what it is known in advance they will agree with. There is no escape once an illusion grasps your society, and all who want to succeed endorse it. There is only retreat, and waiting for the collapse.
Few have learned the lesson of Generation X. There just was not much to be done; those who spoke up were destroyed, and those who agreed with the ideology and became enfranchised in the system turned into yuppie zombies with no souls. The only solution was to express yourself quietly, and then get out of the way so the raging bull of failure could self-destruct.
And they are still waiting. Even the successful Generation Xers are cynical. The Boomers and Millennials — both zombie generations — do not understand, but Generation X does. They saw a tragedy in formation and will never be the same. Even if they cannot articulate it, they want the old over the new, but the new has gained power and crushed all dissent.
In the future, we will all be Generation Xers. Millennials and Boomers assumed that society was a static thing which they could tweak and get more out of at the expense of its future, but Generation X realizes how fragile social order is. They also recognize how crazy the Boomers and Millennials, who are like a single group interrupted by a generation, are. And they want nothing of it.
The 1968ers betrayed Generation X. In the name of altruism, they betrayed their own families. In the name of egalitarianism, they betrayed and subverted their own children, leaving them cowering like PTSD victims. And because they had popularity on their side, the Me Generation could not be opposed. And yet, opposition rose.
The world has yet to see what Generation X will do. A sensible guess is that they are waiting for a cataclysm so they can finally point out where their parents were wrong, where Millennials are wrong, and thus the necessity of dispossessing such zombies and seizing control in the name of common sense. We all await that day for deliverance from the successful lie and private Hell of post-1968er society.
Ideas not only change how we think about a certain subject, but provide us a template for thinking about all subjects. If an idea turns out to be powerful, or to give us justification or license for certain behaviors we desired anyway, we seize it like a tool or weapon and wield it wherever we can make it fit the subject.
Democracy is the most powerful idea of later civilization. Having lost its initial impetus which arose from the need to make civilization itself work, the society becomes lazy and bloated, justifying this inattention by believing itself to be the greatest empire on earth. The citizens want to earn more money or be more powerful and so they seize power, and in order to unite the herd, they chooses the idea with broadest appeal: “everyone is equal, and therefore, we are only weak and many because the others oppressed us, so let’s do away with better people and focus on a mediocre minimum.”
This idea makes many women swoon and appeals to the young and those who have found life did not work out as they expected. This group has a gap between the real and the ideal to explain, and instead of making themselves more realistic to solve the problem, they scapegoat the rich, powerful and intelligent. Psychologically this thought is like crack because in one fell swoop, it explains all of their shortcomings and gives them a purpose — which they previously lacked — in life.
Through this ideology of equality, democracy infects even many of those who claim to oppose it. They cannot escape the mental programming that all people are the same, and therefore, all they need is the right System to control those people and make them do what “should” be. It takes years of thoughtful contemplation to figure out where this idea goes wrong, and to realize that instead of viewing people as many equal units, they must be seen as an ecosystem or large family with different roles in which no one is responsible for the success of everyone.
Ideology serves as a reality substitute and a replacement of the great void of life, formed of the questions of what one should do with irreplaceable time and how to deal with the pressures from others. This includes the mightily feared “judgment” of the individual and its achievements. Equality is a form of pacifism, or a desire to cease the risk and struggle of conflict, and to bribe others with promises of brotherhood and peace so they do not attack. Socialism is the same; it works by buying off the workers so they do not riot, unionize or otherwise disrupt as they are prone to do.
All of those ideologies serve a single role, which is to excuse humans from having to get their act together. Quality demands struggle, conflict, discipline and self-refinement; equality says there is no reason to improve, and since the individual is equal as it is, people can indulge in whatever illusions they find comforting instead of discovering reality. At the heart of every liberal philosophy hides this desire.
The West has been driven insane by this impossible dream because it corrupts the minds of those in its grasp. They see life as a task of finding self-expression, when they should find self-discipline; they look toward society as an omnipotent group which solves all problems through uniform solutions. Even the great anti-hero of democracy, Adolf Hitler, held on to many of these illusions and they drove him mad as they have every other leader.
Democracy is an unworkable fiction. It always has been. Most people are crazy until they self-discipline; democracy removes knowledge of this need. People in groups choose easy compromises over hard truths; democracy legitimizes this process. The ideology of all people being equal creates a pervasive guilt and paranoia in all people, and it makes them existentially miserable. They turn to fetishes, greed, and inanity to escape, but nothing can save them.
We live in a time that is thoroughly sick with this deep mental illness. Sanity is considered insane because insanity is mandated to be normal and sane. The paradox breaks people, starting with the most intelligent. While democracy has bungled every decision it has been handed, it has also muddled and distorted the minds of its citizens, so that now misery rules the land but no one will admit it.
The first step in escaping this mental disease is to realize that most people are the cause of their own misfortunes. Were they to discipline their approach and try to be realistic, they would in time get used to that. But throughout history, most people have fought tooth and nail against this type of humility and reverence for life. They want to worship only one god, and that is themselves. To them, reality is a competitor and an enemy.
When confronting this illusion — democracy, egalitarianism, socialism, pluralism — this first step enables a person to realize that the few who have their minds disciplined, and the ability to lead, should rule us. The rest will only screw it up if given power, and will in fact deliberately do so because a dysfunctional society camouflages their own personal dysfunction. The illusion is just common weakness disguised as profundity.
Democracy makes people into zombies by making them dependent on ideology. It destroys their self-esteem by judging them only by external traits, and not giving them credit for who they are; it creates a world so vapid it drives people into a fury of self-loathing. And yet, without equality, they think they will be judged and found wanting, so like addicts they return to the needle even as it kills them.
The West is currently winding down. Like every society before it, it has collapsed, probably because its wealth allowed illusion to be as successful as realism, and then it went down the path of democracy. We still have a chance to save ourselves, but the biggest battle is in our heads, to rid ourselves of the insanity before it drives us into lashing out, failing and then self-destructing.
The champion oversimplified fighting into a formula: charge fiercely to pressure, eat a few punches to get into the clinch, and then apply Olympic level judo to finish. This works every time if the opponent plays into those assumptions and is unable to withstand them.
But a skilled opponent and their coaches peer further into this assembly line aggression and notice where substance is lacking, allowing the attack to be evaded, countered from angles at opportune moments, and gradually dismantled. By keeping the fight away from the standard formula that chews up opponents, its strategy is stifled, and gets no help from an inept coach who calls for more of the failing customary attack.
Exerting fruitless effort and taking strikes soon brings on exhaustion. Form suffers into sloppiness and invites more strikes. The final moment soon comes, sending the champ to the ground unconscious. The myth of invincibility is at once shattered.
This same supposed invincibility exists for the political approach that relies on blustering intimidation to control discussions. It has been able to succeed in saying that massive untested changes to society that no one wants are inevitable because laws make them so, and therefore we must change as codified and tolerate whatever happens, rather than crafting the type of society that has proven best.
Modern political discourse is premised on irrational, senseless aims supported by a bullrush of names, accusations, and other incantations:
Racist! Hater! Microaggressor! Privileged Bigot!
But once you survive this initial onslaught, there’s nothing else coming. They will wail like victimized innocents and complain that you have victimized them and hurt their feelings by expressing ideas that differ from their preferences. Don’t be baited.
Circle away, stick and move, and stay true to your winning strategy.
Tactics such as doxing someone, i.e. posting personal information to get them fired and homeless to silence their political opinions, were previously successful methods used by left-wing opponents, but are increasingly familiar and becoming a generic lackadaisical attack. People with anonymity, financial independence, and nontraditional employment don’t even have to prepare defensive counter moves.
Calling everyone racist without cause has spread wide immunity to the term and made it synonymous with crying wolf. By turning the word into a farce, its use for slandering others has become ineffective.
Clearing out those haymakers leaves little in the way of legitimate arguments. The promised results of left-wing activists can be contrasted with the actual results observable when those policies have been attempted. For all their slick marketing, the demonstrated product experience of misery and lowered quality says it all.
Many in media and college campuses hold fast to old slogans and ideology as those lose strength through debunking, inspection, and awareness of better alternatives. Those who stay the course remain unaware their camp is losing the luster of novelty when its grand promises of utopia become repurposed as memes to derisively mock the naive and obtuse.
Bullies fall into utter confusion to see their tactics stop working. Their legs become awkward hunks of rubber and their wild telegraphed swings miss. Their formula has been exposed and countered, and there is nothing they do can save it.
Exhausted, they struggle to stay upright, open for the final strike to fell them and dispel the nonsense they have tried to make us believe by sheer force. The giants fall, having turned out to be puny after all.
We live in a time where victimhood is king. Once we declared that equality was the law of the land, or at least what the crowd would chant for in rage, it became clear that we must raise up the less-than-equal and if it happened at the expense of the more-than-equal, that was too bad, because they had enough.
In wealth, this means that “the Rich™” gave up some of their wealth to “help” the rest, and in socialization, it means that we stop looking at A-average football players and pay attention to the nerds (and hey, I was one once… or maybe still partially am). It appeals to our inner humanity, our sense that if we are not included in the group regardless of our failures, the group is somehow bad: the enemy.
With an egalitarian society, only the victims become King. Society owes them something and those who do not hand it over are bad and evil. Through this, we are trained to justify — or argue for after the fact, according to our intent as consistent with the dominant paradigm — our positions as those of victims. With victimhood, we can force others to recognize us.
A side-effect of this is that those who want realistic leadership in the West have started framing their viewpoints through the victimhood narrative. In order to partake of this, we must portray ourselves as victims unjustly persecuted by some easily-eliminated foe, which like The Rich™ can be simply executed or fined and then justice magically prevails.
Among people who have recognized the displacement of indigenous Western European peoples, this takes the form of:
Democracy? Equality? We didn’t do this. The Jews™ did it to us; either them, or the banksters. They manipulated us with their news programs, entertaining movies and newspapers. We are innocent victims of corrupt controllers!
The problem with this is that it misses the point. In its urge to appeal to the sensibilities of the Crowd, it bypasses the actual causes. In addition, it emasculates us by forcing us to portray ourselves as victims on bended knee. And possibly worse, by the nature of scapegoating, which is what it is actually doing, it makes us likely to do horrible things in the name of justice while ignoring actual justice.
Even more, it puts us in a passive position, like sitting to pee. We deny our own responsibility to act responsibly, such as by assessing media and ignoring the insane and acting on the realistic. Instead, we portray ourselves as children, acting foolishly just because the glowing box tells us it’s OK to do so. We remove from ourselves the responsibility to shape our own destiny, and to make rational decisions to that end. That neuters us and makes us weak.
As often is the case, the grim reality behind the decline of our society is that it is mundane. There are no exotic causes; human weakness outweighed common sense, and then power was handed to the democratic herd which proceeded to ruin everything through its tendency to project wishful thinking over reality. When democracy seems like a good option, your society is already exhausted of energy and is merely looking for a compromise.
There is no complexity to this. Our society grew, it prospered, and then it faced disasters. The Mongol invasion. The Black Plague. But mostly, it faced its own prosperity. People no longer had to prove they knew what they were doing in reality. They only had to become popular enough that others would nod and say, sure, he’s a good fellow.
We need look no further than that. We succeeded, and as is the nature of success, we were challenged by others. While our best fought off the threats, our worst gathered and plotted. Then they had their revenge, and took over, and although it took them two centuries, by the 1990s they had control, and since then, they’ve run our society into the ground.
Our response to this should not be to try to compete with them on the basis of victimhood. Those who cannot succeed in reality and depend upon group approval to thrive will always be bigger victims. They will offer a Devil’s Bargain: join us, and get free stuff from our betters; you cannot match that for no-accountability all-reward deals! Nor can we beat them by being more egalitarian; they have no standards — what is more egalitarian than that?
Instead, we should take responsibility for our past. We made a boo-boo. We accepted the equality of all people in lieu of demanding that people prove themselves through creativity, loyalty and real-world results. As a result, we were overrun by incompetents.
All of the people blaming The Jew&trade, The Rich™ or other scapegoats are concealing this fundamental truth: we did this to ourselves by accepting equality as a notion. Even if we destroy all of those scapegoats, our problem remains. We have to fix the problem, or it ends us.
Victimhood is the opposite of responsibility because victimhood necessitates scapegoating. We cannot simply say, “The gods screwed us,” as William S. Burroughs suggests is healthier. We must blame someone for our own failings. This leads us away from the obvious, which is to look at where we went wrong and to correct it.
Amerika the blog will never be as popular as those blogs which say, “There, there, little Caucasian. Some horrible Other did this to you, and you do not need to change yourself, at all.” Those blogs offer a scapegoat and an emotionally-satisfying story of the white victim versus the other.
But that mentality puts us in the position of meek underlings, not conquerors. We need to instead regain our role as leaders and conquerors. We can only do that by identifying our bad decision, sucking it up and admitting our mistake, and then choosing a new direction. Let us finally escape the past of error. But first, we must become accountable for our mistakes, and for the duty to overcome them.
Let us admit, now that we have seen its arc from launch to impact, the true effect of modern society: it displace what is healthy and replaces it with what is obedient to a low standard of behavior that makes it easy to manipulate.
That “modern society” is brought on by leftism, which is one version of the dysfunction called Crowdism around here. Crowdism occurs when a social group enforces individual neurosis as reality through the power of the group. Like a street gang, it lets in anyone who will fight for it and gives them a place which they could not achieve in society. Their first demand, “equality,” is a requirement that people be considered important even if they gave nothing. This enables them to use a scapegoat, or symbolic source of their ills, to hide the actual cause. Equality becomes their watchword, and soon every part of society is contorted to accept everyone no matter how useless, which adulterates quality and destroys standards, and soon society is a third-world ruin.
That is the process which we are currently living through. When it is done, the West — USA, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe — will resemble Brazil: vast hordes of impoverished third-worlders ruled by a few rich people who must dedicate all of their time to maintaining their wealth, thus become bored and hopeless and die out through degeneration. That is the end result of going down the path marked EQUALITY: instead of highs and lows, you have a uniform field of identical objects, and to rule them, you need tyrants, but those then become miserable and cruel. Obligation makes them so.
The replacement of our society occurred by the displacement of social standards, indigenous populations, cultural values, ways of life and even common knowledge. All had to be altered to make way for the great Utopia which will occur when all are finally equal. This displaced a functional society, and replaced it with one like the third world, although the institutions and people still cling to the ways that have worked for centuries.
“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Let us decode that statement by revealing what these behaviors really are, underneath the political categories in which they have been shoved:
- Guns mean independence for the good to keep the bad at bay;
- Religion means reverence for life and a moral (not ideological) code,
- Antipathy to those not like you is common sense recognition that other groups envy you and want to conquer you;
- Anti-immigrant sentiment is recognition that the happiest nations are formed of homogenous groups by race/ethnicity, culture and values;
- Anti-trade sentiment occurs when people realize most of the world is a mess and “globalism” will only create an average of that mess, which destroys the finer strains of humanity.
The Crowdist has a single goal: make all people the same so that everyone needs the Crowd and it has, as a result, absolute power. Then, the visions in our heads of what “should” be can be forced upon people and dissent eliminated. This creates a replacement for reality, a human-only world, composed of our desires and feelings more than logical responses to the world around us. It makes wishes into reality, or rather, eliminates the requirement that what we desire be realistic, like the mindset of children playing with a dollhouse or people watching porn.
Their goal is to replace this reality in our minds, first, and then enforce those new conceptions on people through the eternal popularity of illusion. If we tell people that the color purple is actually orange, and enough repeat this, it will spread as people try to socialize with, sell to, buy from, romance and instruct those who think purple is orange. Soon the old way will be unknown; most will rationalize that this change is acceptable because it is just swapping one word for another. And yet, over time, consequences will emerge — old color patterns will not work because they are now ugly. Old books will not make sense. And so, gradually, the past will be replaced by an inferior substitute.
In one area alone they are right: when it comes to fixes for our civilization, these are collective endeavors. “To each his own” leads to the few who always do right becoming marginalized, and the behavior of the many — who always go with the flow — becoming normed. Conservatives for the last two centuries have been left baffled: they did what was right, and tried to improve things, but then the crowd rushed in and took over. While they were busy with their own, they were quietly replaced.
This displacement is necessary for the replacement of reality with the pretend-world of those who dislike existence, and want to feel a sense of power by controlling it according to their wishes. They are hurt that the world does not operate like their minds, and too narcissistic to adapt their minds to the world which has thrived for eons before them. In the process of this play-acting, they forget the reasons for why reality is the way it is, which exist to avoid the type of catastrophe that will soon come.
But, absorbed only in their own desires, the new conquerors will merely ignore the dysfunction and blame another scapegoat, then skip away toward their own banal pleasures, convinced of their own supremacy.
You are living in an illusion. It was crafted by your fellow citizens for their benefit at the expense of yours. You can safely ignore it, except that then all you do will be wasted, and you will continue living in Hell.
Yes: I said Hell. You are living in a thinly-disguised, well-compensated hell. It is crafted so that only the sane can detect it, and since the sane have always been a minority, that means that it is never noticed. The point is simple: to eradicate the sane using the mechanism of Darwinism. Reward the insane, and this occurs, regular like clockwork.
This is why our society is based around democracy, equality and tolerance. Most of our people want to hide the fact of our decline, and profit from the wealth of the past, while driving away anyone who might notice what a farce it all is. To hide our decline, they have created false versions of everything, and a Potemkin economy to conceal its lack of value.
A Potemkin economy — named after the quaint and cute “Potemkin villages” used to convince people that Russian proles lived well instead of the third-world scatty poverty that was normal — is one in which every price tag is fake but everyone supports these fake prices to avoid the personal economic consequences of letting the cat out of the bag and pointing out that everything is near-worthless.
Take a look at these twelve ways your economy is fake and how that indicates that your society is cratering.
1. It’s all the same.
I was in a bookstore the other day, surrounded by grazing sheep looking for Christmas gifts. I started opening up biographies, novels, and science books, and found one comment denominator: they’re all the same. The writing could have been produced by a machine; the approach is similar too. Each one has a “secret” which it promises to reveal, but spends most of its time hiding the obvious so the secret seems important. All of the writing uses lots of vivid language to reveal simple things, and simplifies complex things to the point of offering no information. All of the characters are the same gray personality-less equal person who spends all of his/her time in introspection as a means of glorifying the self at the expense of the world. Every book ran at least a hundred pages longer than content provided, which means that after the first five chapters, it’s the same song and dance to distract from its emptiness before turning up the volume for a conclusion. Just like blogs, which standardized writing into an NPR-inspired format of heavily emotional, breathy and adjective-heavy quirkiness which ends up being the opposite of distinctive, writing now is as regimented as end of year reports from corporations or threat assessments in the military. This creates writing that is both random and repetitive. At first, it seems interesting, until you realize that it’s just technique and the content is very, very thin. What’s the value in this? People take a few generations to catch up with reality, so they’re still buying novels that “look interesting” (and reading four chapters before leaving them on the bus), giving gift books of “fascinating” science that turns out to be the obvious plus broad conclusions which will be disproven thoroughly in five years, and surrounding themselves with genre-books (from genres invented in the 1980s) to display an identity and life-purpose to others that is just as fake as the Potemkin economy itself.
2. It’s controlled just like Pravda.
Back in the Soviet Union, the official newspaper Pravda could be counted on to spin partial truths into statements that seemed to support the narrative that Communism was taking over the world. You read Pravda to find out what wasn’t true and what the government wanted you to believe so you knew the right answers to tell other people so they wouldn’t inform on you and send you to the gulag. The Soviet Union operated by a negative standard, while the modern West operates on a positive standard. You listen to controlled media so you have the right opinions and get promoted by people who like those opinions, otherwise you remain at “merely equal,” which because it is not subsidized by a Communist/Socialist state, means boring entry level jobs until you’re 65 and then a heart attack from frustration a decade later. Our media here are staffed by people who made it through liberal arts courses in university, in which success came from finding new ways to parrot the same old ideas based in egalitarianism and its associated “theory,” and they keep doing that in media. They then become popular because there is a large enough audience that wants to feel smart for having absorbed liberal theory at public schools and private universities alike, and they recognize only that which parrots this chatter back to them. For this reason, our “diverse” media represents a single opinion in many forms, and successfully spams your brain as it would take decades to entangle all of the deceptions. Its favorite trick, like that of Pravda, is to take a partial truth and spin it into a broad conclusion. A famous comedian said, “Reality has a liberal bias,” but what he means is that a controlled media and science publishing establishment can find facts to support the liberal narrative and present those as the whole truth when they are far from it.
3. Its value has fallen 40% during the 0bama years.
Barack 0bama is not a Muslim, the antichrist or a Communist. What he is, if analyzed correctly, is a standard 1968 liberal: the name of the game is wealth transfer from the useful people to the proles so that liberals remain in power forever. As the old joke goes, the difference between a Socialist, Communist and moderate liberal is the spelling. These ideologies differ only by degree, which is a function of time because once liberalism takes control it inevitably and necessarily continues a drift leftward until total anarchy or true Communism is achieved, either of which reduces a population to a third-world vassal state under the thumb of cynical tyrants. The consequence of wealth transfer are striking: it places economic decisions in the hands of those least competent to make those decisions well. As a result, your economy is suddenly geared around end-stage consumer products, not stuff like what the successful people buy, which tends to generate more income: land, homes, businesses, stocks, etc. Each dollar we take from the upper half of the middle class and above goes into lottery tickets, cell phones, cheap liquor and entertainment, and that money goes nowhere else. The result is that your money purchases less, and the quality has declined. American construction is at an all-time mediocre low, our food has never been more adulterated, and even our entertainment products are going full dunce. None of this crap is actually worth much but that’s the point; in order to keep you from seeing that your currency is now worthless, you must see a steady stream of stuff in formats you recognize so you think everything is normal. The media will not report on this. Just as we look back to 1980s dollars fondly, now 2006 money seems like it would be a really nice thing to have now. Forget it; your dollars are based on your drunken debt in order to fund liberal social programs like welfare, subsidies, benefits, food stamps and diversity programs. All of these are merely disguised wealth transfer.
4. Your technology is not advancing.
Tell us again about the great advances in technology. Your computing is based on a 1990s networking format using 1970s operating systems. Our self-driving cars are built around the same ideas that enabled cruise missiles in the early 1980s. Those handy digital assistants are basically Eliza programs maintained by hordes of workers pre-programming them with answers. None of this represents an actual leap in technology; if anything, it is a declaration that none are coming, so we have to reshuffle the deck to give ourselves new products. What actually does an iPad do? How does it add income? Similarly, what about Facebook and Amazon — how are they different from internet forums and Wal-mart? These non-innovations are designed to hide the lack of invention. Even Google is hovering near the abyss, since after a nice ten-year run of good advertising revenues, it is now finding that the internet is covered in ads that people ignore. Apple had a few big sellers, but those are now gone. What next? The phones get bigger screens and the iPads get better wi-fi. Fantastic.
5. The value of your society is based on its reputation, which is fading.
Once upon a time, people bought American products because they were the best. Then they bought American media, because it was seen as the best. Finally, they followed what Americans were doing, because Americans seemed cutting edge. Guess what — those trivial advances have now been equaled. The rest of the world has its own Hollywoods, search engines, social media and trends. The value of the USA and Europe is based on an old standard which is now obsolete. Add to that the obvious failings of American social policy, which has gone full Socialist and thus sabotaged its value to match the European subsidy states, and the plummeting value of the American brand as a wimpy president and crazy voters pursue illusory foreign policy, and you see why America and Europe are no longer the world’s leaders. Sure, the West — America, the antipodeans and Europe — can support each other and keep the farce going, but that only has so long on it. The Baby Boomers just want to enjoy another decade of retirement before the cancers from industrial pollution kill them off, and after that, who cares.
6. Your leaders are bad because your people are bad.
Most people are cool with the idea that they choose their leaders. They are less accepting of the complementary proposition, which is that they are responsible for who they choose. The last two generations have increasingly picked candidates with illogical platforms, no experience and little competence merely because those leaders have promised free things. Free college and free medical care are two of the more compelling policies for voters in this group. The problem, in addition to the fact that these are wealth transfer (see above), is that the money to pay for these things comes from a dwindling group. Most people now work relatively entry-level jobs and to them, a few thousand gone in taxes in exchange for tens of thousands of freebies sounds like a good idea. But then who pays? And what is sacrificed to pay for it? Our rotting infrastructure tells the story: we stopped building quality roads, bridges, subways, electrical lines and public buildings, and instead, have shifted that money into payments to people at the bottom of the social hierarchy. When we kept the money at the top, it went to things we can all enjoy and benefit from; now that we distribute the money at the bottom, it vanishes into a black hole of seedy businesses and entertainment products, and the things we share are neglected.
7. Your people are bad because your economy sustains idiots.
Every society dies by thriving. This enables it to support people who could not exist without it, generally because they are foolish — or in other words, have unrealistic judgment ability — and require jobs, stores and education to guide them because otherwise their witless minds would ramble on like a gossip column. Strong people want to exile the useless idiots; weak people want to “make peace” with the idiots by giving them benefits, subsidies and jobs. The result is that voting, which was always a bad situation because every human group approximates a mean not a peak, becomes worse as you have many millions of helpless people dependent on government and the liberalism that sustains it. These parasites bleed the society dry. They also lower social standards wherever they go because any standard higher than mediocre is personally offensive to them. This means that soon you have an angry mob of fools who become “useful idiots” for any totalitarian, left-leaning or otherwise control-oriented power.
8. Tolerance is our sacred value in order to prevent “noticing.”
“Noticing” is what happens when someone looks at society with clear, realistic eyes. They see a population that is miserable, with the worst being the most intelligent and productive. They see cities which are covered in advertising, awkward to use and designed around avoiding the rioting lower classes. They see a total lack of unity in anything, including national identity. They observe the incompetence of our leaders, products and public institutions. They intuit that this society is a form of hell, and that unless it deviates course radically, it is heading toward becoming Brazil — a vast third-world horde enslaved by a few cynical wealthy people and their private armies. They also realize that “tolerance” means accepting the mediocre as fact and as a result, our voters have comfortably opted for oblivion and policy after policy that is delusional and self-destructive. They notice the man behind the curtain and that the Potemkin village hides a far uglier reality. They also see how those who feel they have succeeded in this society fight kicking and screaming against noticing because those people are addicted on a brain chemical level to the artificial sense of self-esteem provided by “success.” This is why of all of our taboos, “tolerance” is the strongest. Tolerance means the lower is raised to be equal to the higher, so no one can say anything definitively because someone somewhere disagrees. This keeps decisions mired in obscurity — doubtless at the same time organizations publish lengthy lists of “facts” in the name of “transparency” — so that nothing will ever change our course, even if the smartest among us recognize that it is time-wasting, soul-wasting, depression-inducing suicide.
9. The world operates on Darwinian principles plus pretense.
Almost no one will face this: your tribal identity is formed by any set of traits you share with others. This includes (in overlapping conditions frequently) race, religion, ethnic group, class or caste, sexual preference and intelligence. Every other group looks at your group; if you are above them in any way, their goal is to tear you down and subjugate you, taking your women and impregnating them. This is one half of Darwinism. The first part is that the best rise above the rest, and the second part is that if the best degenerate, or lose their ability or will to rise above, the rest assimilates them. This is why over time eagles become sparrows and grey squirrels drive out red squirrels. We do not like to think about being subject to Darwinism, as humans, because that thought belongs to a category alongside death, defecation and our insignificance in the universe of thoughts that not only disturb us personally but create threatening instability in social groups when mentioned. So we file them away, along with the instructions for our 1040 forms and grandma’s recipe for hemorrhoid cream, hoping that they just Go Away like the bad thoughts which plague us late at night when we cannot sleep.
10. The agenda never changes: other groups hate you.
As a corollary to point #9, the grim truth is that no matter how much pleasant talk about altruism and equality goes on, other groups still hate you and want to conquer you, much like other people want to advance themselves above you whether rightfully so (by competence) or not. Life is war, even in the air-conditioned tea-sipping suburbs. Other groups want to conquer you because until they have control, they are unstable, and if someone is above them, they run the risk of being subjugated by that group. These are not conscious thoughts. They are pure instinct, and they cannot be changed. Any human group that thinks it has ended this in others by giving them equality, welfare or affirmative action has missed the point: parity is a fiction of those on top, and everyone else knows it is a lie, and is using it against you.
11. The crowd is always wrong, just like most people mildly insane.
You do not know it, but you are a slave. You are not enslaved by a central authority, but by the Crowd. Their opinions determine what you can say; their product-buying choices determine what’s on the market; their government preferences create a “window” of acceptable ideas and anything else is excluded. This is tyranny by the Crowd, and it is how our society keeps order, because the Crowd can be counted on to cheer for free things and boo at anything which requires individual responsibility, obligation to reality or admitting that the self is not the end-all-be-all of judgment, wisdom and direction. A quick look around you will tell you that most people do not have their act together. They can make it through school and to a job, but that’s about it. Their homes are often disasters, their families neurotic nightmares, and their personal choices — from sexual partner to products they buy to their opinions — utter wastelands. It has always been this way, but in the past we used social standards to encourage people to perform above mentally lazy and morally sloppy behavior. No longer; they are liberated now! But their liberation is enslavement of anyone above them in ability. The group does not understand any decisions above its own level and rejects them as nonsense, which means that thought which requires an IQ of above about 110 is entirely incomprehensible to them — and they hate it for making them feel that. In our society, only those who can be victims or show victimhood are fortunate, because in an egalitarian society, only those who need more equality gifted to them will thrive, and only victims can demand that. “Education” cannot help them; they will merely misinterpret what finer minds would understand. Rules do not shape them, because to them every rule is a mystery unless it tells them what they want to hear. Why are products bad? Because it’s easier to sell morons junk than make something actually good. Why is government bad? Because the votes have it, which means the small proportion of smart people — the 13% on the far right of the Bell Curve — are vastly outnumbered. When it comes to the decisions that regulate our future, one in a hundred people can make a sensible choice, and the rest will not understand or fall prey to personal failings. That is the source of your slavery.
12. Your media is fifty years behind.
While the media reports on current events, it does so through a filter based on what has succeeded in the past. Because large groups of people take several generations to get accustomed to any new idea, the media bangs on tropes from fifty years ago. The constant reporting on diversity, class and “gender issues” is part of this, but even political articles fit this narrative from older times. Movies recount events from twenty years ago as if they occurred twice that long in the past, and present this as shocking and revolutionary, but the point is that the audience shapes the message. People do not know what is new; they only know what they recognize as having been cutting-edge when they were children. As a result, the tropes linger far behind the reality, which enables media to keep pushing a simplistic agenda for their own profit.
…and so, what does this tell us for the brand new year?
The crazies run the funhouse. Our economy reflects our society: fake, oversold and based in (crazy) illusion. The opposition is divided not because it notices what is wrong, but because it cannot agree on a plan because its members are too busy with self expression to look at realistic solutions. We have 6,000 years of human history and the solutions are obvious but the illusion is more popular. This suggests a first course of action: find unity of purpose, and seize power. The methods do not matter because failure to do this ensures self-destruction. We either evolve and adapt, and take over from the human insanity, or we fail and pass into the graveyard of history.
What has killed the West is not so much the threats against it, but the joylessness of life. There is no seeking of pleasure, only of power. This is the nature of mob rule, which seems to happen any time a group succeeds and can thus subsidize the weaker among them, who then become the strong as they form mobs questing for “justice.”
When people ask, “What went wrong?” the answer is simple: Nothing. Or rather, we walked into a trap at a time when our best were depleted by repelling Mongol invasions and the black plague. Civilization fails once it seems to offer support to people, because then they can conveniently blame it for their own failings; it has, after all, assumed responsibility for them on some level and as a result, they will assume none of their own.
As people bloviate on Twitter and in mass media about “white privilege,” we should ask ourselves why Europe — a tiny area with a forbidding climate and low natural resources — thrived where others did not. Some of the answer can be found in methods, such as agriculture, rule of law, hygiene and learning. But the core of it is in our Faustian spirit.
For most of humanity, looking at the world promotes distress. Everyone dies and everything fades; constant waves of aggression from nature and time erode and ablate all good things and leave behind decay. The tendency is to become “butthurt,” in the internet slang, and do the least possible, compensating ourselves with small rewards like alcohol, sex, drugs and wealth. Indeed, the third world exists under this principle: do not struggle against but accept the inevitable, and do the best you can to find sensual pleasure instead, if even only in meditation or other religious experience.
And yet, the West threw out this playbook. Instead, our principle was rage: warfare against the disorder, against the disheveled nature of the undisciplined human intellect, and aggression against things being out of order, with our eyes set not toward the pragmatic but the ideal. The key difference between that ideal and our present ideology is that the former ideal was not human in nature, but transcending of individuality, and striving for civilization as an organic entity which reached great heights of discipline, learning, art and technology.
Alas, this is not an inclusive order. It rewards the best, and those who can restrict their impulses for delayed gratification, and this meant that not everyone was important. Most people had no social power because they had done nothing of importance. They formed large mobs to retaliate against this with the idea that everyone was important without having done anything noteworthy, and since that time, life here has been joyless.
We now know where we took a wrong turn on the road of history. We now know why we live in joyless times where surrogates like money and power take the place of well-being. The only question is whether we can get over ourselves, and admit that equality is slavery — and thus, that we are not important simply for being alive. Do our spirits still have the strength to let go of the convenient, and aspire to greatness?
Neoreaction, like libertarianism before it, grew popular because it offered a plausible argument against the Left, and did so by using the liberal ideas which have become accepted as truth in our highly-liberal society. People want a way around liberalism because they realize it is delusional and will destroy us.
Neoreaction and libertarianism share a vanishing point: if they revert to the Enlightenment™-era ideal of individualism, they will become mob rule just as liberal democracy has, because humans in groups choose pleasant-sounding ideas and compromises instead of realistic solutions.
Any system that has as its core “everybody do what you want if you can afford it” will restore us to exactly the same point where we are now.
Since its inception, Neoreaction has been dangerously divided between a tendency to become mainstream right, and protect capitalism and liberty as the core of our society, and underground right, which tends toward authoritarian means of restructuring society. It also suffers from Leftist entryism through related ideas, such as libertarianism which rapidly becomes liberalism, and White Nationalism which is a form of Leftist ideology adapted for ethnic self-rule.
Free Northener offers a clarification on Neoreaction:
Formalism is the essentialist notion that the symbolic and the real should align, particularly when it relates to power. The mythic, factual, and social truths of power should be the same. He who rules in name should rule in fact, and he who has power should hold an office and title truthfully indicating his power.
Neocameralism flows from formalism. It is the truth that the state is simply a group of people working towards a common goal, it is a corporation. The only difference between it and other corporations are sovereignty and territoriality. Sovereignty is the right to force obedience through violence, while territoriality applies this sovereignty to a particular geographic area.
Formalism and neocamericalism are neoreaction, everything else flows from these two ideas. Combined these ideas give the neoreactionary position: that the state should acknowledge that it is a corporation sovereign with ownership over its particular territory and the residents therein and that it should openly wield and delegate its power as an owner.
The problem with these ideas is that they still straddle the line between the old way and whatever must come next. On one extreme, we are back at the mainstream right but in a sci-fi format: gated communities as services sold by a non-ideological state. That is a Republican dream. On the other hand, some want a state run by benevolent tyrants, which more resembles the Stalin-esque solution but with capitalism. These more resemble modern-day China than anywhere else.
As with many other experiments in post-Liberal social design, both of these threads of Neoreaction attempt to adopt a new “System” in place of the old.
The greatest problem Neoreaction faces is becoming like American Republicans: defending God, country and economy but as a result, ceding the vital ground — “What should our civilization look like?” — to leftist assumptions. That is a slow defeat but a fatal one, and it always happens when the leftist notion of a System is used in place of reversing leftism itself.
Let us then look at these definitions in terms of where they assign control. Formalism tells us that government should accept that it is a corporation, but whose are its clients? If the answer is “everyone,” we have no need to change as thing, as our open-borders globalist welfare-consumerist liberal democratic contemporary state is exactly that.
The problem with consumerism is the same as that of democracy: most people make bad choices, and in large groups, everyone makes bad choices. Profit depends on demand, and demand depends on consumers, who as a loose mob of dubious analytical skills, usually prefer Budweiser to Grolsh, Marlboros to Semois, and Coca-Cola to tea. We’re right back at rule by the mob.
Neocameralism tells us that a civilization is a group of people working toward common goals, which could make it a corporate state — or a cultural one. Culture contains values, methods and ideals that implicate the goal of achieving those on an ongoing basis. It is like a baseball team whose ostensible goal is “winning” but whose actual goal, as a means to that end and an end in itself, is improving its aptitude as individuals and ability to function as a team. With culture in charge, people make better decisions than on their own.
The Right has flirted with these ideas before. Under Mussolini, Fascism, which was less oppressive than Hitler who was less oppressive than the Communists, defined itself as “corporatism.” In that case, however, it was an inversion: the state took over the means of production not for the worker, but for the Nation as a whole, much as Neocameralism argues that a civilization could be people working toward something other than individualism through democracy, consumerism and social popularity.
As Mussolini himself wrote in “What is Fascism?”:
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.
The point he makes is that economy and government must be in unity and must have a goal beyond utilitarianism, or what most people think they want. Utilitarianism appears in democracy, consumerism and social popularity. If those control government, it is democratic (Leftist); if government leads those, it is ideological-authoritarian (Leftist); if culture leads, it is organic-authoritarian (Rightist).
Through this we see a format where certain goals — like capitalism and liberty — are not goals in themselves, but something that emerges from a society in properly working order. The team wants to win, but its necessary antecedent is being a team good enough to win.
Jonathan Sacks writes about the necessity of a cultural underpinning for markets in “Markets and Morals”:
The striking feature of religion, for Hayek, is its attitude of humility, even reverence, towards the great moral institutions without which our complex liberal democratic societies could not have developed. It guards against what he calls “the rationalist delusion that man, by exercising his intelligence, invented morals that gave him the power to achieve more than he could ever foresee.” Of course it does so by insisting that our morals were given by God. For Hayek, they were arrived at by the evolutionary forces of history. What these two views held in common, though, was a strong and principled opposition to the idea that individually or collectively we can devise a better system rationally constructed to maximize happiness or some other good.
It is a fascinating argument, and it places Hayek in a line of thinkers—such as Edmund Burke, Max Weber, and most recently Francis Fukuyama—who have reflected not only on the morality of the marketplace (what we call nowadays “business ethics”) but on the wider question of what kind of society gives rise to and is able to sustain a market economy. The answer each of them gave—an answer that has been given new salience by the rise of the economies of Southeast Asia—is that it tends to be a society with a strong respect for certain kinds of tradition.
When power is allocated by “everyone do what they want so long as they can pay for it,” control shifts to the masses who do what masses do which is pursue the venal, trivial, perverse, idiotic and banal. This shows us where mainstream conservatives, Neoreactionaries and far-rightists alike miss the point: the problem is managing human individuals who are not equal, not designing the right “System” to fit interchangeable cogs.
Systems descend from the French Revolution. Previously, functions were handled by people who served in lifelong roles. They did not have many rules or laws, but used judgment — a function of their intelligence and “nobility” of moral character — in particularized ways. Every decision was situational and took into account the histories of the people involved and the specifics of the locality, area of expertise, and other factors.
“Particularized” is an interesting term here because it is a classic conservative word that has been forgotten. It means local, specific and taking into account the history of events, as opposed to making “universal” rules that take none of that into account. Saying that every person should clear their parking space daily is universal; suggesting to Mrs. McGillicuddy that she should sweep her infirm elderly neighbor’s space, which doesn’t get it fully clean but clean enough, is particular.
The idea of a System was that instead of relying on people who are hard to replace, like smart/noble people, we would design many thousands of rules and procedures so that any idiot could fill the role. Where that failed, we have elections, so that whatever most people think is OK will pass, and this keeps us from having revolutions. That is what Systems do: enforce compromise and order through control, based on the idea of equality.
In other words: if you’re thinking in terms of Systems, you are a liberal.
Here is what conservatives recognize — people are not equal because they are biologically unequal:
I’ve been doing some thinking recently about the findings of behavioural geneticists and their implications for education policy. For instance, a study of more than 10,000 twins found that GCSE results are nearly 60 per cent heritable. (This research, by Robert Plomin, was first revealed in The Spectator.) So genetic differences between children account for almost 60 per cent of the variation in their GCSE results, with the environment, such as the schools they go to, accounting for less than 40 per cent. One very obvious implication of this research is that we may need to lower our expectations when it comes to the impact schools can make on the underlying rate of social mobility.
But behavioural geneticists are upending our assumptions in other areas, too. Parenting, for example. Most middle-class parents, me included, believe that how you bring up your children has a major impact on their life chances. That’s why we spend so much energy on -getting them to put down their screens, do their homework, practise the piano, etc. But, as The Spectator also pointed out back in 2013, if you look at some of the biggest determinants of success — IQ, conscientiousness, grit — they are far more heritable than we like to imagine. Our children’s destinies aren’t set in stone from the moment of conception, but the difference that a good parent makes is fairly negligible.
In other words, each of us is ranked by our genetics in terms of our adaptation, which is not just to mere survival but to the ability to perform in and possibly lead a civilization. Darwin is with us always, and his system shows how the more adaptive rise over the rest; all of liberalism is a vast compensation designed to circumvent this. That is what “equal” means, past the mumbo-jumbo about courts and opportunities: that no one is judged or noticed for being lower than others. Liberalism is war against Darwinism itself.
This means that civilizations hover between two points: rule by the best, or rule by the rest, which happens to destroy them. The goal of every civilization must be to suppress its idiots and raise up its intelligent. You do not achieve that effect with mind-numbing jobs and paying lots of taxes. You achieve it by having intelligent people in power at every level, making particularized choices.
Orwell and Huxley wrote the same book from two different angles. In Orwell’s book, humanity suffered under the methods used to rule it; in Huxley’s, humanity created a life of perpetual misery because its individuals lacked impulse control. Those who find Orwell appealing are liberals, where those who see Huxley’s vision are conservatives. The enemy is us. Most people, if given license, will run society into the ground for small personal rewards.
The point of Neoreaction is to argue around liberalism with thought-models. It is not to be a goal in itself. Moldbug said as much, as have many other Neoreactionary thinkers. The end goal is to find a system that puts the intelligent back in charge at every level and recognizes that most people need to be guided. This is not like totalitarianism, where a centralized authority regulates their lives, but it is an organic and decentralized authority that upholds social standards not with rules but with particular decisions.
We are working toward that because anything else is liberalism. We took a wrong turn in the past, and now it is time to turn back. That does not mean back toward the past, but toward the methods that actually work instead of ideology, which is based on what should be true and not what is. We cannot veer toward Huxley’s hell and claim by that by escaping Orwell’s hell, we are not still in hell.
For that reason, it is time for Neoreaction to climb out of the ghetto of liberal and libertarian thought. Capitalism, liberty, and nationalism are things that emerge not from having the right system, but from chucking out the idea of systems altogether. We need an organic society in which the stupidity of most of our species is suppressed and our best people are free from soul-sucking jobs and bureaucracy. Arguing for anything else is effectively a vote for the Socialists.
A question that lingers around all of us on the alt-right is, “So what are you against, exactly? And what are you for, exactly?”
Another way to phrase this is: (1) what’s wrong now and (2) what will replace it and (implicitly) what are its tangible advantages?
From (of all places!) The New York Times, talking about the “dystopian” nature of the new Michel Houellebecq book:
When I say “dystopian,” the casual reader may infer — as many people did when the book first appeared, literally at the same moment as the “Charlie Hebdo” massacre — that the dystopia is the Islamicized France, that Houellebecq is trying to do for Islamism or “Eurabia” what Orwell once did for Stalinism. But if you’ve read the keener reviews (or Houellebecq’s previous novels) you probably understand that no, actually, the dystopia is the contemporary West, and the Islamified future that Houellebecq’s story ushers in is portrayed as a kind of civilizational step forward, or if you prefer a necessary regression back to health.
I sort of knew this going in but even so it was remarkable how — well, I think neo-reactionary is really the only term to use to describe what Houellebecq seems to be doing in his portrait of contemporary France and his mischievous prophecy about its potential trajectory.
If I had to point to a foundation for postmodern reactionaries (“neoreactionaries”) it would be Houellebecq, through his influence in Louis-Ferdinand Céline. They pointed out in simple terms that not only is modern society Hell, but that it is a pointless hell that achieves nothing, and it is not unique in history but a typical decay-stage of a civilization heading downward. They point to a lack of transcendent purpose and common sense realism as the root of our decline.
Most people cannot handle what they write because not only is it biting, funny and satirical, but it also presents a simple equation: we know what we are doing wrong, so stop doing it and go the opposite direction. Turn our wheels from Hell to Heaven, in other words, because these writers believe in goodness, beauty, truth, decency and above all else, human happiness and thriving. But we will not find those through individualistic democracy, diversity, liberalism and consumerism, they say.
It is our individualism — the pursuit of the individual above all else, which requires abolishing social standards, values and heritage which imply a Darwinian ranking to each individual — that leads us into a blindness. This blindness has us avoid seeing how the modern time is Hell and how it is just going to get worse because we are going down the exact same path, just intensified.
Movements, you want movements? The Red Pill focuses on honest talk about the differences between sexes; Neoreactionaries point out the failure of Crowdist (individualists in groups) leadership; the New Right shows how dysgenics, consumerism and multiculturalism are destroying us; the Alternative Right shows the absurdity of a lack of social order and our participation in sacred fictions and virtue signaling. All of these point to the same thing: everything is broken. We are using universal methods — like individualism/equality and signaling/altruism — where we need to look at realistic common sense results, and adjust our behavior accordingly. Democracy hasn’t saved us from tyranny, but transferred it to a new form where it is invisible to us, and this tyranny is tyrannical precisely because it is destroying us by putting our people into existential hell, which makes them hate society and want to destroy not only themselves, but others and nature.
Take a peek at this burst of profundity regarding the gap between what we really want and need, and what we settle for in the sexual/romantic arena:
I was casually scrolling through Twitter one night and came across the most accurate post that I have come across in the four years I’ve been on the site: “Being a hopeless romantic in a hookup culture is a special kind of hell.” If this doesn’t deserve a hundred retweets, favorites, Instagram posts, and Facebook shares, then I don’t know what does.
Everyone wants the fairytale. Whether they want to admit it or not is their choice, but ultimately, everyone wants that one person who they can ride off into the sunset with. I wanted that, but things do not always go as planned.
Fairy tales are not mere fiction; they are aspirational fiction. Every princess wants a prince, and every man wants to be a brave noble warrior. Every kingdom wants to be good, and it wants a good king. Every person wants their life to mean more than trading hours of pushing paper for enough money to live outside the ghetto.
In my view, the neoreactionaries starting with Houellebecq did something unique and powerful: provided a toolbox for the non-liberal to explain why liberal logic leads to Hell. We are inundated in liberal justifications for their actions, and the propaganda toward equality/individualism within them, but few of us have any counter-arguments. This is why majorities are always defenseless: we don’t know why we do what we do because it is non-ideological; it simply works, and it cannot be broken down into the polarizing vectors of ideology like our opposition can. So we hear their arguments, fail to offer resistance that explains around these arguments and invalidates them, and thus by inertia, compromise and herd appeal the nonsense wins out over fully working existing methods.
What is aiding us now is that the Narrative is failing. Not just in one area, but across the board. Take, for example, this vicious insight into why both our news and our modern heroes are fake:
The wonderful heart-warming story of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the blood-testing startup, is almost as fantastic as Valeant’s accounting. Her fear of needles led her to drop out of Stanford at 19 to commercialize a blood test that relied on a finger prick instead of drawing blood from a vein. She became the youngest person ever to be given the Horatio Alger Award and was appointed to the board of fellows of Harvard Medical School. Time magazine named her to its list of the world’s 100 most-influential people. Her closely held company was recently valued at $9 billion, making her a multibillionaire.
That’s a wonderful story. At least it was until it turned out that the blood test didn’t perform as expected.
…My apologies for once again beating the drum on ignoring the narrative and focusing on the data, but it seems that every six months or so this subject returns with a vengeance. If you feel like catching up with my past tirades on the failures of narratives, see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.
It isn’t just stocks. A story can be used to justify almost anything, be it a portfolio position or an ideology. Just ignore the facts and data, and hold on tight for the ride.
This is what we are waking up to in the modern time: everything we have been told is lies, based on the interval between telling a lie and see it turn out to be the opposite. This is true of democracy and liberalism as well, which made promises centuries ago which are only now showing that they were indeed the foulest of lies, used to justify the legitimacy of the oldest of human failings: greed, power-lust, control and an impulse to destroy.
Houellebecq identifies himself as “anti-liberal,” but because liberalism is the newcomer and everything else is based on what has worked in the past, anti-liberal is the same thing as looking at conservatism. That broad umbrella, with its dual planks of common sense realism and transcendental aims, contains the core of what has worked for all successful societies during 6,000 years of human history. It is only in turning away from it that we have guaranteed not only our doom, but our life sentence in Hell while we wait for the end.