Conservatives rediscover pluralism


Conservatives and libertarians are getting excited about Allum Bokhari’s article over at Breitbar, “Rise of the Cultural Libertarians.” In it, he argues that the rising leftist wave of censorship has awakened a new movement of people who are not really conservative, but want to preserve the ability to criticize any beliefs, which includes — to the shock of our media and enfranchised political establishment — criticism of Leftist viewpoints.

Uh oh.

While this new movement, unified and galvanized by the article, seems to have great momentum, it suffers from not having conducted the approach of a philosopher: analyze things through to their ends and compare to what we know of reality. This method, the parent of its less-rigorous cousin The Scientific Method™, means that we look at not what seems like a sensible counter-argument to the dominant paradigm, but what will be the actual results of our acts as planned. This is the only form of accountability and responsibility that exits, and on this blog, we call it “Realism.”

The rising leftist wave of censorship was born of a social phenomenon known as “Social Justice Warriors,” or SJWs. These people participate in politics as an activity, generally to distract from their personal misery, usually a combination of alcoholism, social ineptitude and obesity. They are strident, angry and gather in swarms to attack all who disagree with them, knowing — like terrorists and guerrillas — that by creating a Public Relations incident, they can force the opposition to apologize, kowtow and change its policies. SJWs are effective mainly because there are always thousands of them on the internet at any given time, ready to mob attack the next target.

The cultural libertarian response is to emphasize independence of thought and resistance to any form of coercive attempt to silence others. In other words, classic American freedom. Here’s the summary from the article:

They’ve also worked out that the people leading the charge in social media mobs have vastly disproportionate influence thanks to their publishing platforms and that not only are they hopelessly out of touch with popular opinion but that their tactics are unpleasant and hectoring, often veering into outright cruelty and persecution.

…Cultural libertarians recognise that efforts to police language and expression are not only counter-productive, but also fragile. The people pushing for greater control are a small segment of the population, whose voice is amplified by media support. To fight them, all you have to do is ignore them – or, better yet, mock them.

This may sound familiar to you, because it re-capitulates what by now is an ancient defense of the right. Faced with the onslaught of the French Revolution, they retreated into “classical liberalism”: do whatever you want, on your own property, so long as I can do the same. It sounds so simple and pleasant! It even feels like a social order at times. And yet, it completely fails because it denies the need of a society to have direction: identity, purpose, values, heritage, customs and some sense of the transcendent.

In fact, the “cultural libertarian” approach can be understood as a variant of a well-known political philosophy, pluralism:

Political pluralism usually starts with the observation that there are different value systems in use in the world, and there are various positions that arise out of that observation. Political pluralism is concerned with the question of what sort of restrictions governments can put on people’s freedom to act according to their value systems. The strongest version of political pluralism claims that all these value systems are equally true (and thus presumably all ought to be tolerated), a weaker view is that these value systems all ought to be tolerated, and probably the most common version of the view is that some of these systems (the reasonable ones) ought to be tolerated.

The idea that all value systems are equally true, or at least equally valid — a social surrogate for true that purports to regulate behavior — requires us to believe we can base a society on disagreement at a fundamental level. This is not, as the Left would have it, similar to different tastes in food, clothing or attire, or even a tolerance of eccentricity (which, oddly, seems to belong to the Right). It refers to sharing the same basic values and outlook on the world, which is preferable to the alternative, which first looks like a coat of many colors and rapidly begins to resemble an unruly mob.

We can argue that pluralism could go farther and for example, demand freedom of association. With this, we would not have to hire, buy from, sell to, rent to, talk to or do business with others for any reason. While most societies view this as somewhat of a right, or at least a convention, our society sees this as troublesome because it introduces inefficiencies. If Person A wants to buy a gay wedding cake at a baker, and the one near them refuses to sell to them, they can always go down the road. But time is lost, and money is thus lost, and we lose the simple certainty of business which says we can go anywhere and do anything if our credit rating is good. A sane society would see values as more important than commerce, but pluralistic societies have nothing in common but commerce and maybe some ideology, so pluralism inevitably leads to the conditions that necessitated its creation.

Some have tried pluralism by community. In particular, the original government of the United States, and later the Confederate States of America, were committed to the idea of “states rights” or the notion that individual states could choose their own rules. This conflicted with the desire of Northern liberals to control the South, so they picked a fight over slavery because it was a polarizing issue. After that war, it became clear that states rights was a dead concept, replaced by the notion of a Single Right Way. While pluralism opposes the notion of a singular correct path, it cannot overcome the tendency of governments to make rules, laws and regulations “in your best interest” which can then compel obedience to ideological objectives. For example, a government might insist that hospitals admit anyone regardless of whether their staff wants to associate with that person or not, or demand that pharmacies sell abortion drugs in case people “need” them. Pluralism fails the more people demand function and efficiency from their society.

In addition, pluralism fails to take into account that there will be at least one privileged viewpoint: that of The Establishment™, which refers to those who work in government, media and the public face of industry. People who join the establishment are those who have a higher commitment to working within the system — and thus gaining personal success — than to any truth, purpose or ideal. When someone wants to succeed at government, he must invent new ways for government to be important so his future resume can show an addition that was uniquely his creation. In a pure pluralism, government would have one of many perspectives, but in reality, some kind of leadership will have a privileged position by the nature of having to make and enforce rules. If that leadership takes the form of a State, it will create an establishment — hereditary aristocracies do not have this problem, having barred entry to all but the truly exceptional, who are rare — as people compete for personal success. There pluralism will also die under the ambitions of individuals.

This leaves us with the perspective of pluralism as prolonged suicide. Since the Right has been demonized in the decades following the Second World War, it has focused mostly on “thought experiments” which take the form of arguments to circumnavigate the logic of the Left. As an argument, pluralism may have some success because it points to the hypocrisy of the Leftist viewpoint — but only to outsiders. Inside the Left, it is tacitly acknowledged that the one goal is egalitarianism (or “equality”) through collective altruism, which throughout history has without exception amounted to taking from the competent to subsidize the rest. For that reason, leftists do not see their jihad against non-egalitarian viewpoints as hypocrisy, since their goal is not “freedom” or even actual equality, but a subset of equality defined by its method of using subsidies. Leftists fear their own insufficiency, and create a barrier through equality which forces society to accept them as part of the in-group regardless of their personal choices. This alone, a malignant form of individualism, represents their only goal and it can never be hypocritical in their eyes.

This returns us to the question, then, of civilization design. How do we design a civilization that is improving in quality, rather than degenerating and hiding that fact behind the facade of “progress”? It starts by recognizing that the real enemy is what undoes the civilization compact, an agreement between people to sacrifice some individualism so that social order can exist. This occurs not so much because social order is efficient, or safe, but because it enables a society to rise above the norm of all but a few human groups, which is poverty and corruption through social disorder. Those who fear insufficiency want the benefits of civilization without the obligation, so they cobble together a set of ideas enabling them to have “anarchy with grocery stores”: egalitarianism, anti-hierarchy, altruism and liberalism/progressivism. This destroys the civilization compact but allows the individual to feel safer because they are included by command, and can never be found in a Darwinistic moment to have failed to live up to the civilization compact.

Cultural libertarianism represents the latest attempt by the non-Left to walk back up that path to social order. It does so by demanding that the anti-order order be weakened, but it can only serve as an intermediate step, and will fail for the reasons above and an even more fundamental one. The enemy operates by lumping together individualists into a mob dedicated to establishing individualism by abolishing standards and order; under pluralism, they will still form this mob, and then conveniently declare pluralism over and take their revenge, as they did in the French and Russian Revolutions. While the pushback against SJW ideological imperialism is a noble fight, the danger of being human is that we rely too much on methods, and then go back to sleep. In that role, cultural libertarianism serves as a proxy for the actual quest we must undertake, which is to build a society once again unified by principle and goal.

The economics of civilization


In a school of my design, economics would be taught alongside literature, mathematics, history, philosophy and science. It belongs among the basic skills that shape thinking — keeping in mind that education beyond fifth grade is only useful to those of IQs 120 and above — by revealing the world as it is, and not as our in-built human delusions, emotions, judgments and biases would portray it.

Economics shows the world in terms of supply and demand regulating value. What people want becomes more expensive at first, and then with economies of scale, becomes normalized. From this comes an important realization, which is that civilization itself has an economics of behavior. That which people desire always wishes to overcome the impulse toward civilization itself, and if that society allows it, will become the norm.

We live in a time of democratization of values. The Enlightenment™ began this process by prioritizing individual choice over traditional social structures, morals, values, and learning (except science, which focuses on details and not the whole, as history, literature and philosophy tend to). Values democratize when the scope of what is tolerated expands. The whole idea that whatever people do in their homes or personal lives has zero impact beyond those lives is the cornerstone of this belief.

Contradicting this comes the basic notion that whatever behavior we allow will take root and expand. What we tolerate becomes the de facto goal. And so, if a town allows some people to engage in adultery, the process will continue — slowly at first, then accelerating — until you have Ashley Madison, the online dating site for people looking to cheat on their spouses. If that town allows some people to get away with smoking weed, then gradually it will shift toward allowing more drugs. Slippery slopes exist all around us, but they are not so much slopes as gradually widening until all behaviors are permitted and thus nothing unites that settlement.

Over the past two centuries since the French Revolution, the West has allowed increasing amounts of personal freedom, usually focused on making what were previously considered as moral violations into accepted behaviors on the basis of “individual rights” and “civil rights,” both terms for the egomania of the individual as defended by the mass herd. The result toward the end of this process is that almost no behavior can be demonized except political infractions, which has created a society of manic intensity to punish ideological dissidents but with almost no moral standard in common. We have suffered greatly for this.

We now have open corruption in the governments of America, Canada, Australia and Europe; on our streets, behavior goes unchecked which would make our grandparents disregard all involved as Darwinistic failures. Our brains were hacked by the idea of the simple incident being localized, e.g. “what goes on in your bedroom is none of my business,” and not changing the principles by which we live. What we tolerate, breeds. What we refuse to tolerate decreases. Our democratization process has ultimately resulted in increased horrible behavior at the expense of good behavior, which is both not rewarded and persecuted for violating the ideology of the individual arising from The Enlightenment&trade.

Conservatives speak often, but even more in the post-war years with the rise of the New Right, about the need for a cultural revolution. We have had political revolutions, and the end result has been ideological change, but that only goes in one direction, which is more permissiveness. As we see problems become ungovernable, what we are seeing is the end result of those small infractions which were thought to be localized at first, now becoming principle. At that point, nothing can be done. The work-around — the hack to oppose the brain hack of tolerance — can be found in resurrecting the idea that we have standards in common and these principles are more important than what any individual wants at any given time, no matter how much the herd delights in the latest transgression. Of course, that requires culture, and culture requires heritage, which is why the left works so hard to make “racism” taboo, when in fact the impulse behind most racial antipathy is a desire for “birds of a feather to flock together” and our society to have actual unity instead of a chanting mob.

The advantage of cultural revolution is that it can happen at any time and attack from any angle. If we decide that dishonesty should be beyond tolerance, businesses will suffer for their dishonesty (something which has not happened for a long time). If we decide that promiscuity is intolerable, then people will start toeing the line to avoid being excluded. We have the power, not as voters, but as members of a civilization who can agree on these standards. When enough of us agree, bad behaviors are punished by our ostracism of those who engage in them, and good behaviors are rewarded by our favor. This moves us back up the evolutionary scale from “adequate” toward “good.” Government opposes this with its many rules and demands for equality, but this tendency increasingly reveals itself to be a self-serving defense of the riches that can be had through government work. Our political problem, after years of fighting over ideology, boils down to a social one: opposing the inherent social impulse to tolerate “small” infractions, which leads to civilizational breakdown, with a social impulse to raise standards and by so doing, raise our civilization from its own ruins.

Identifying the enemy — correctly


With all of the rancor thundering through the news about race, the temptation is to fall into the competitive spirit and embark on that type of thinking commonly referred to Us vs. Them. You may be familiar with this trope when you see nasty things being posted about white people or black people, or even The Jews™.

Unfortunately for those who get worked up about these issues, such blame is a form of scapegoating. It will both replace the real issues we should be talking about, and turn you into an angry person who inflicts harm on those who do not deserve it. Cruelty is not a hallmark of my people.

As human beings, we respond in groups to changes in the perception of what is desired for our future as a civilization. This means that ideas, not physical groups, force change upon the tapestry of future history. The most difficult enemy to spot is an idea, because we carry it like a virus, and can never locate a tangible form. Like drunken men we rage at the invisible monkey on our backs.

…and thus you ask, wisely, what idea has created racial violence and mass third world immigration in America and Europe? What idea has so thoroughly corrupted our society, like a clandestine camouflaged conspiracy, that we can never quite figure out who is behind the curtain, pulling the strings? Ideas form ladders from general to particular; let us start with the particular and walk backward.

Failure of race relations is caused by the need for identity in every ethnic group

We see black on white violence in the streets and figure the cause must be the symptom: blacks. But every visible symbol has a cause, and that cause is what motivates African-Americans, or rather, what fails to motivate them. What fails to compel them is a sense of group identity because they are always cast out and kept away.

Yes, we could go on about IQ statistics and MAOA genes and high testosterone, but these same factors would act on any ethnic group, although the attributes mentioned above (and others) determine the exact expression of the underlying crisis. That crisis is a lack of identity. With identity, one has a transcendent — or rising above, and giving order to, the material world — sense of purpose, of past and future, and of what it is to be a good version of what one is. Identity includes culture, heritage and values/philosophy simultaneously, much like traditional society includes aristocracy, religion and principle as one. Without identity, a person always feels a sociopathic ennui toward their civilization. Our mixed-race civilization is administered by white liberals, according to white history, and thus everything white people do feels like a token gesture to all minorities. They sense their role is as a captive people in a foreign land, deprived of identity and the ability to plan and control their own destiny, and this is naturally enraging to all healthy people. Thus whatever you see fit to heap on minorities — blacks, Mexicans, Jews™, whatever — you can see how the origin of it lies in feeling like slaves even when “free.”

Of the minority thinkers, some understand this. Among Jews(™) it was Theodor Herzl, who wrote that the reason for anti-Semitism was the lack of ability to integrate into national populations by Jews, something that would require their self-destruction as culture, language and ethnic group. The African-American writers have produced Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey, among others such as the insightful Osiris Akkebala, who point out that without self-determination a population is doomed to resent those who seem to be in control. Other examples exist among Mexicans, Asians and North-Amerinds (“American Indians”). All see a singular fact: their plight is not so much a direct result of white interference, but situational, caused by the fact of being a minority who must either be assimilated and destroyed or must stand out and fail to reap the benefits of those who are integrated. Even if they were to integrate, most red-blooded people of minority status recognize that they would never be what whites idealize: the tall Northwestern European type, with light coloring and narrow faces. Even if they succeed at the integration game, they fail, on some subtle level, if only in the fact that their offspring will never resemble the ideal.

We must be clear: the enemy is diversity. It is not blacks, or whites, or Jews™. It is the idea of diversity itself, which is the notion that multiple populations can occupy the same space and become a nation. This is false for the reasons shown above, and history echoes that sentiment. The happiest nations are homogenous and in control of their own destinies; the least happy are those that resemble Brazil, a jumble of ethnic groups in competition and managing each other through the nastiest form of authority, which is wealth and the power it buys. Even if you think other ethnic groups are just the worst people ever, the problem does not go away until diversity goes away. With a destruction of diversity, it is possible to part with other groups, saying truthfully, “An error of history was made, and now we have corrected it.”

Democracy has failed because it gives power to those who cannot, should not and will not participate in leadership.

Democracies operate by control. Designed around many millions of individualists each doing their own thing, democracies herd people with carrot (reward) and stick (punishment). This quickly becomes a system where the obedient rise and everyone else is beaten down as if enemies of the state, because in a sense they are. Their inability to become obedient is a counter-argument to the idea that democracy is an ideal system of government. This is why democracy embraces “soft” totalitarianism, or a system where social disorder is used as a weapon to corral people toward being obedient, and rewarding them with wealth and consumer goods. Those who go to school, memorize the drivel and pretend it is important, and repeat the official dogma — “we are all equal” and fellow travelers — and then truck off to work for ten hours a day before watching state-approved television get to live in the nice areas and feel little physical pain or fear. The rest live among the disaster democracy has created, with the duty imposed on the citizen to be a good little tool enough to get money sufficient to crawl out of the morass. This forms a factory for making selfish robots with no long-term or transcendent thoughts in their heads, and explains why the next stage after democracy is a third-world style kleptocracy.

Leadership distinguishes itself from control. A leader looks to the future and plans for the optimum; a democracy settles itself with the minimum, except in material comfort and wealth, because its modus operandi is not to choose principles or goals, but to enable its citizens to choose those for themselves, knowing that most will choose wrongly and thus make themselves easy to control. A leader picks a target that no one else can see and makes it happen directly; a democracy hides its target, if any exists, and manipulates people into pursuing it by publicly destroying as examples those who do not. The witch hunts and lynch mobs of democracy are not accidental. They are a form of signaling to the herd how it must obey on pain of what is done to those who disobey, which is usually a form of ostracism that throws them into the worst of poverty and chaos to self-destruct. Democracy hates leadership because actual leadership makes democracy look as impotent, purposeless and self-stimulating as it is. Democracy is inherently solipsistic, or self-referential and in denial of external reality. Leadership looks to external reality both to change it and to understand its principles and apply them within.

Democracy has failed. In the scarcely over two centuries that it has been the standard in the West, we have gone from world leaders to world shopping mall. Our culture has failed, and produces trivial objects. Our once-shining cities are dirty, ugly and full of fear. Our governments are bankrupt, and keep going by bribing citizens to comply. Through our aversion to war and strong action as voters, we have empowered permanent criminal classes domestically and fanatical enemies abroad. In addition, we have laid waste to our environment and, far from replacing it with castles and elegance, we have paved it over and put shopping malls and suburbs into it so people can escape the rotting cities. Under democracy, humanity becomes a disease. People cannot choose direction in committee, and politics — a symptom of democracy — requires choice by appearance and not reality. Thus our leaders are a progression of con artists and actors who deceive us and leave long-term problems like buried bombs all around us.

The root of our failure is liberalism, or the idea that individuals working separately can choose our collective future.

Civilization is not something one attends like a grocery store or bank. It is an organism. We keep civilization alive by avoiding degeneration or the loss of important cognitive abilities, both individually and as a group. Liberalism holds the contrary principle, which is that degeneration is fine as long as we have enough rules to control it, and gains its power by flattering the individual that any choice they make is right. Liberalism offers to the individual unquestioning acceptance no matter what life choices they make, but is only too happy to penalize them so that the more obedient can climb over them on their way to the top. When you look at our elites, you see self-centered and viciously acquisitive people who destroy everything in their wake on the way to success. Those of us trying to hold civilization together — alas, conservatives — too often perform the role of cleaning up these messes because of our fear of collapse. But collapse is better than perpetual corruption.

Leftism, which is the ideology of liberalism, starts with The Enlightenment™ idea that the individual is the measure of humanity. Forget having culture, values and heritage, say those thinkers, what we really need is society as a blank canvas upon which the individual can project their drama. And yet, over the past two centuries, people have grown more miserable not less. This occurs because individualism itself is a trap; it locks us inside ourselves, alienates us from reality, and infantilizes us as a result. Modern people spend most of their time on trivial decisions which amount to those a child struggles over, like what to eat, wear and buy. That helps block out the dark space inside of us where we put our fears, including mortality but mostly a fear of wasting our lives on the wrong decisions. Liberalism by approving of all decisions deprives us of guidance and resorts to facilitative modes of society that enable us to do whatever we want, and then take advantage of our shortcomings. Liberalism is a long con job that distracts us from the real issues, turns us into a mob that makes decisions by the committee mentality, and then enslaves us all to the collective chaos that is created, all in the name of “freedom” and “equality,” two terms which are always used and never defined.

The disease of our time is that we defer authority to the group, which leaves no one accountable for its results.

With democracy, liberalism and diversity a pattern emerges: that of individuals, making choices as groups, and then since no single person made those choices, having no one accountable. Our presidents? Surely you jest: after four to eight years they move on to making millions in speaking fees and book residuals. Our congresspeople? Also laughable: they get us both coming and going by promising to fix problems, scapegoating someone else when they fail, and then getting elected to clean up the even worse mess that is created. The group decides, which means no one decides, which means no one is accountable. The pollution grows, society decays, and our futures grow darker, but who do we blame? Anyone but ourselves, and yet what put us in this predicament is the belief in human equality which forces decision-making upon a group ill-equipped to do it.

We can fix our problems rather quickly: abandon individualism. Realize that we are part of an organism called civilization which is part of a larger organism called nature, possibly part of a physical+metaphysical organism known as the cosmos. This system has an order, and where we work with it, we thrive; that is what the transcendental principles teach. This requires us to give up the pretense that we are gods in man-monkey bodies and instead look toward the pattern of the whole universe, and see in that our purpose. It feels bad, at first, but then it becomes warming. We have a goal again! We have a reason to exist! We have something to live for more than take-out food, new television, discount shopping and political shouting matches. Our problem is not blacks, Jews&trade, or anyone else; it is our own delusion, and we can fix it by thinking in a different direction. At once, our soul — and our futures — are together reborn.

Western civilization is imploding


Over the generations, a sense of dread has been building: the observation that — despite some things which have improved — our society is heading downward. Its organization, or the pattern of how it holds itself together, is fraying. It is the death of the West.

We all make fun of the old guys who rail about how in their day the steaks were redder and the whiskey sweeter, but perhaps those were merely symbols for an ongoing decay in quality. Quality is measured by the experience as a whole, and not particular items that seem brighter and newer than others.

Over at The Mad Monarchist a new article gives voice to concern about the collapse of the West:

We are at or are fast approaching the point of critical mass for western civilization…The internationalists have the world firmly in their grip and with the United States circling the drain, western civilization is going the same way. Of course, all monarchists know that the USA was never a pure example of western civilization, it has never had any of the high culture of Europe but that is to be expected as it is a branch rather than the tree itself.

…The leaders of the EU have emasculated the countries of Europe to empower their central EU government while also making sure that Europe itself is never significant again. They are all part of the same internationalist clique. They don’t want any European country to be great because that would detract from the European Union and they don’t really want Europe to be great because they have nothing but contempt for European culture, European history and western civilization in general. Some actively want to destroy it while others are just looking out for themselves and willingly go along with those who do want to destroy it to further their own interests.

He makes excellent points and the following notions are designed to harmonize with those, not contradict them.

We do not get to a state such as our present condition without first having lost track of our future. Future is tied to past; past shows us not only what worked and what did not, but also who we are and from that, where we should be going. But that past was rejected in favor of egalitarianism during The Enlightenment™. Egalitarianism states that all people are equal, which means that the individual — not culture, values, philosophy, heritage or social order — determines the future. We base our decisions not on what has worked, or what would be good, but what individuals want to do. This creates a transition to a facilitative society.

Facilitative societies have many problems, but the two largest are the need for control, and the passivity of the population. When each person does whatever they want, there is no balance in social order nor is there a central idea to which people “harmonize” or find themselves in resonance with and attempt to fulfill. Morality would be one example of this type of order. Control in turn creates passivity. Citizens are accustomed to doing whatever they want unless stopped, but also become familiar with correction by their ideological leaders. As a result, they do not act toward any purpose, but instead flit around and do nothing of import unless explicitly told to do otherwise. The far extreme of this is what happens in authoritarian societies where people refuse to act unless commanded because the risks of unauthorized action are too great, and the state will step in at some point and tell them what to do anyway. Like children of an overbearing parent, they wait for this correction and achieve nothing in the meantime.

Control-based societies become miserable places. As the 21st century has taught us, even when “free” and “tolerant” places they become tyrannical because those in power — or those who want to join them — must manufacture a constant series of ideological crises in order to keep motivating the population. A facilitative society has no objectives, therefore must style every change as a “war” or a defensive action. This self-pity mentality spreads to the population at large. Between the constant war for ideological clarity, and the general apathy of the population to everything else, decay results and the society plunges downward into a spiral of despair. Eventually it loses all social order and becomes a third-world style society, unable to organize itself to have public hygiene, rule of law, freedom from corruption and even social order itself.

The origin of this decay begins with egalitarianism (or “equality”) which is itself a form of individualism, or the demand by the individual that society support him in his choices without a corresponding investment by the individual in society. All of the subsidy states — socialism, communism, and even consumerism which is capitalism supported through low-return consumer purchases funded by state welfare programs — are based in this form of radical individualism. It comes about when societies become “bottom-heavy,” or have many individuals who know nothing about how to run a society who nonetheless demand participation in its decision-making. These individuals band together into a “Crowd,” and through a philosophy of Crowdism develop a sense of victimhood based in self-pity which spurs them to attack their society and convert it into a facilitative society.

Control then becomes required because facilitative societies are chaotic and individuals, acting on radical individualism, tend to externalize the costs of their actions to others. Conservatism arises as a resistance to this movement, but generally fails because its adherents are unable to articulate what they really need, which is an end to the facilitative society. Early experiments in liberalism in France and Russia showed how quickly revolutions turn to ideological enforcement, usually by inventing or discovering enemies, and from that to authoritarianism. Conservative experiments in using this force against liberalism, as seen in Italy and Germany, met with less than shining results because of the inherent control-tendencies of liberal society which prevented the restoration of organic culture.

Opposite the control-based facilitative society is the leadership-based society. This is part of what is called “tradition,” which is a way of viewing the world through both (a) realistic and (b) transcendental viewpoints. These aim to discover methods that work in the real world, but to point them toward “transcendentals” or eternal goals that can never be fully realized and thus can both harmonize and motivate a society without the war/victimhood narrative of egalitarian societies. In these societies, leaders do not “control” their population but actually lead it, meaning that they discover necessary tasks and keep people organized toward transcendental goals. Leadership societies have purpose, and as a result, in them people have roles in which they fulfill parts of the overall ongoing goal. Paul Woodruff refers to the basis of the glories of the past as “reverence,” or an awe and transcendental appreciation for our world, and this seems like an appropriate basis for the combination of strong cultural, religious and moral feeling that traditional societies have.

Perhaps the best definition of tradition comes from Aldous Huxley, who wrote The Perennial Philosophy to detail what is present in such societies. He outlines a mixture of religion and philosophy that serves as a principle of social order and personal order simultaneously:

More than twenty-five centuries have passed since that which has been called the Perennial Philosophy was first committed to writing; and in the course of those centuries it has found expression, now partial, now complete, now in this form, now in that, again and again. In Vedanta and Hebrew prophecy, in the Tao Teh King and the Platonic dialogues, in the Gospel according to St. John and Mahayana theology, in Plotinus and the Areopagite, among the Persian Sufis and the Christian mystics of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance–the Perennial Philosophy has spoken almost all the languages of Asia and Europe and has made use of the terminology and traditions of every one of the higher religions. But under all this confusion of tongues and myths, of local histories and particularist doctrines, there remains a Highest Common Factor, which is the Perennial Philosophy in what may be called its chemically pure state. This final purity can never, of course, be expressed by any verbal statement of the philosophy, however undogmatic that statement may be, however deliberately syncretistic. The very fact that it is set down at a certain time by a certain writer, using this or that language, automatically imposes a certain sociological and personal bias on the doctrines so formulated. It is only the act of contemplation when words and even personality are transcended, that the pure state of the Perennial Philosophy can actually be known. The records left by those who have known it in this way make it abundantly clear that all of them, whether Hindu, Buddhist, Hebrew, Taoist, Christian, or Mohammedan, were attempting to describe the same essentially indescribable Fact.

The original scriptures of most religions are poetical and unsystematic. Theology, which generally takes the form of a reasoned commentary on the parables and aphorisms of the scriptures, tends to make its appearance at a later stage of religious history. The Bhagavad-Gita occupies an intermediate position between scripture and theology; for it combines the poetical qualities of the first with the clear-cut methodicalness of the second. The book may be described, writes Ananda K. Coomaraswamy in his admirable Hinduism and Buddhism, “as a compendium of the whole Vedic doctrine to be found in the earlier Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanishads, and being therefore the basis of all the later developments, it can be regarded as the focus of all Indian religion” is also one of the clearest and most comprehensive summaries of the Perennial Philosophy ever to have been made. Hence its enduring value, not only for Indians, but for all mankind.

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

  1. The phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness–the world of things and animals and men and even gods–is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
  2. Human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
  3. Man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
  4. Man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

Tradition treats reality as fact and includes in that fact a philosophical and metaphysical exploration of the order of life. Julius Evola gave us a hint in “On the Secret of Degeneration”:

If we look at the secret of degeneration from the exclusively traditional point of view, it becomes even harder to solve it completely. It is then a matter of the division of all cultures into two main types. On the one hand there are the traditional cultures, whose principle is identical and unchangeable, despite all the differences evident on the surface. The axis of these cultures and the summit of their hierarchical order consists of metaphysical, supra-individual powers and actions, which serve to inform and justify everything that is merely human, temporal, subject to becoming and to “history.” On the other hand there is “modern culture,” which is actually the anti-tradition and which exhausts itself in a construction of purely human and earthly conditions and in the total development of these, in pursuit of a life entirely detached from the “higher world.”

In a traditional culture, all is viewed by its significance as ideal; in a modern culture, all is material. This does not limit the ideal to the metaphysical alone, because ideas like loyalty, values and morality come first before material convenience. The difference lies in the tendency of traditional cultures to view the significance of acts as if, in Kant’s words, they were to “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The order of nature itself as an idea matters more than material fate or condition. Where a modern culture is pragmatic, a traditional culture views itself through the lens of purpose and in that a sense of the underlying informational order to the universe. When radical individualism takes over, and cultures view themselves through egalitarianism, the idea of individuals deferring to an invisible social order formed of honor, loyalty, duty, culture, values and heritage becomes impossible.

That outlook creates a transcendental effect on a society by which it sacralizes itself not as an end, but as a means to more of the sacred. Like the transcendentals “the good, the beautiful and the true,” a traditional culture aims for the principle of every act and aspect of being. These principles are more important than materiality because, in the view of traditional cultures, they create materiality. Whether this is atheistic or theistic matters little. A society can either idealize the patterns of reality itself, or its own people, and the latter path leads to decay and ruin. On a simple level, when principles such as law, justice, integrity and honor are lost, corruption reigns. On a greater level, when principles such as morality are placed first, it becomes impossible for wholesale abuses in which damages of individual acts are socialized to the group to become valid. Tradition is the opposite of utilitarianism, which argues from what a group feels — statistically, or by majority — benefits them as individuals. As the West has turned from this traditional view, it has plunged into slow but inexorable decline.

While we search today for answers, all of our methods resemble symptomatic or palliative treatment. That is: we do not believe we can strike at the core of our decay, and instead apply intermediates. To reverse our decline, we must first — as Kant reminds us — choose to be good. We must target the transcendentals. With a little thought and some reading of history, we can see that these mandate a society quite unlike our own: ruled by an aristocracy, united by heritage and culture, governed not by laws but by principles and, perhaps most importantly, one that has reverence for life and the fact that there are more important things than convenience and survival. The answer is not as simple as a theocracy, or nationalism, or even cultural reign, but includes all of the above. We must restore our identity as the West not just as a physical group, but as a principle: those who do what is right, no matter how inconvenient, and rise accordingly.

How Google destroyed the internet


The internet was created to resolve a simple problem: in communications networks, any central node through which all messages passed was immune to attack or takeover. Instead, engineers designed a network where any node would pass messages to other nodes, routing around any damage.

Then came commerce and the democratization of the internet. Under this model, frightened sheep flock to certain central sites that provide the services they need, and avoid everything else lest it be politically incorrect or upsetting.

Enter Google. This company made its fortune on a simple premise, which was that picking the most popular sites allowed them to rank all other sites based on whether those popular sites linked to them. Guess what this does? It eliminates the small sites. We are back to centralization.

Consider Wikipedia. When Google had trouble with its algorithm often missing the best results, it came up with a simple idea: have thousands of internet volunteers plagiarize all of those other sites onto one big site, call it The People’s Encyclopedia, and use that to generate “accurate” search results every time.

Fast-forward, and a few big sites — among them Google, Amazon, Apple, Wikipedia and Facebook — dominate most of the traffic on the internet. The days of independent thinkers putting quality information online are mostly gone, simply because 99% of the traffic will type in a search and click on the most obvious result, and go to one of those corporate-controlled sites.

Writing from a more political, than economic, viewpoint, one article points out the problem of internet consolidation:

The Internet, like other computing resources, operates on a pendulum swing: from centralized to decentralized, from rampant innovation to predictable results, from controlled to transparent processes. Some speakers at this year’s Black Hat conference were publicly concerned about an ever-more-centralized Internet and what we as an industry need to do. Otherwise, they fear, the Internet turns into TV, and the people who least understand the environment will control it.

…Technology used to enforce existing power structures, Granick said, but we discovered that people have not learned how to protect themselves. So we have centralized with choke points where regulation can happen. The problem is that, in the next 20 years, these policies will be created by governments with local concerns, not global concerns. And by powerful players with money.

The problem of this internet is that complaints rule the day. Businesses are interested in profit, and so they take down any content which will obstruct that goal, which includes exactly the type of content which “free speech” was created to protect: unpopular material that contravenes the dominant paradigm, but nonetheless could represent either insanity or an alternative to our current methods which are not working.

When the six large sites which control the internet see something which might reduce the tendency of others to use their services, they remove it. Google has so far avoided removing content from the internet, but acts out an even worse future by prioritizing that which is popular and burying the unpopular on page ten of the search results. Bing does the same. The result is a self-referential, self-confirming masturbatory hugbox that eliminates what it is afraid of, including what it should pay attention to.

Similarly, Google influences the direction of business, and points those toward ideological objectives in the guise of business expansion:

Page estimates that only about 50 investors are chasing the real breakthrough technologies that have the potential to make a material difference to the lives of most people on earth. If there is something holding these big ideas back, it is not a shortage of money or even the barrier of insurmountable technical hurdles. When breakthroughs of the type he has in mind are pursued, it is “not really being driven by any fundamental technical advance. It’s just being driven by people working on it and being ambitious,” he says. Not enough institutions – particularly governments – are thinking expansively enough about these issues: “We’re probably underinvested as a world in that.”

What this shows us is the internet, both as a network and a market, consolidating and centralizing. In other words, it is doing exactly what it was designed to avoid. This will have consequences for speech not so much through governments, but through the tendency of government to avoid things that offend people. The future is a world where every complaint leads to censorship, only mainstream ideas are tolerated, and under the guise of “free speech” they are marginalized through search engines and business logic that scrupulously avoid anything but the popular interpretation of the dominant paradigm.

I have found it fascinating for years how humans fail by succeeding. Any enterprise — business, civilization, group, rock band, committee, church — that begins to succeed quickly destroys itself by becoming self-referential based on what people want to think is true because that is the perceived method of its success. That in turn sabotages its actual method of success, which is delivering results contrary to whatever the herd is thinking. Thus Google goes from liberator to tyrant, democracy turns into authoritarianism, Metallica becomes a pop-rock band, churches are taken over by the Joel Osteens of the world and committees become echo chambers. Humanity is its own worst enemy.

Exit cuck


Few people understand the enemy when it is intangible. When one fights an idea, it is essential to learn to recognize the enemy, but most people do not do it.

I write here often about Crowdism, which is the combination of personal solipsism/individualism which in social groups becomes advocacy of egalitarianism/altruism and then, when politicized, becomes liberalism or a near variant. We live in liberal regimes in the West, and if we wish to survive, we must change that.

The problem is that most recognize liberalism only by its methods, and not by its intent. In response liberals change methods and vocabulary frequently, which baffles conservatives for whom methods are dependent on effect in reality and not merely on manipulating a large group of people socially. This allows liberal methods to infiltrate conservatism as people fail to recognize them as toxic.

The most fundamental idea, egalitarianism, is in fact a form of individualism. When an individual says “I want to do whatever I want and no one can tell me I am wrong or stupid,” this is individualism, but when applied to a population — for example the idea of universal validity of lifestyle approaches and values, or pluralism — it keeps the same form but is argued from the group instead of from the individual. This disguises its fundamentally parasitic nature. Civilization involves a trade-off between individual needs and responsibilities involved in keeping civilization afloat; the individualists only see the first part. This means that they use civilization for their own ends, partaking of its benefits and externalizing — or making into obligations for others — the results of their behavior.

When Crowdism takes over, it infects every ideology, religion, institution and values system. Individualists see the system and make it a vehicle for their own desires, changing whatever ideas it has to serve their own desires. Then they use the appearance of those values to justify their desires. The classic example is the new preacher who shows up at church talking about God rewarding the deserving, and two months later has a new Ferrari and a syndicated cable TV show.

This pattern of people projecting themselves into a belief system and then using the corrupted form to justify their own desires is quintessentially modern. It exhibits all of The EnlightenmentTM arrogance of humanity, in placing our form and our choices before the order of nature and the cosmos, and does so with the simple social subterfuge of pretending to agree with something and then using it as a disguise for the basest of motives. These do not need to be outright sociopathic, or controlling, for them to utterly corrupt what has been infected.

In many different types of belief system, I have seen this process repeated. People take it and use it as a support structure for their social explanation of what they were doing anyway. The preacher always wanted a Ferrari, but did not want to appear ostentatious, so he cloaked himself in piety. In conservative politics, we refer to this as “cuck” because we see politicians who — like hipsters, scenesters, and other imitators — use conservatism to hide their real motives, and to justify their real desire, which is to succeed in the system. A cuckservative cares more about succeeding in the system as it is than succeeding at achieving conservative goals. The cuck phenomenon is not limited to mainstream conservatism; it infests White Nationalism, Traditionalism, the New Right and Neoreaction as well.

Perhaps the greatest form of cuck is the individualist delusion which is usually justified with libertarian free market principles or religious ideas. In this, the person conjures up a philosophy that says that all is lost, and what they must do is focus on their own success, family, career and participation in small marginalized groups. This is a vastly comforting vision, because when translated through a filter of realism, it says do not change what you are doing. The belief system becomes a justification for doing whatever pleases the individual, with some modifications that they use to justify this choice and explain away what they lack. Not a billionaire like Trump? It is because you chose truth.

These beliefs are immensely popular because they do not require people to change themselves. Instead, they must adopt a certain jargon and dogma, and loudly agitate among others who essentially agree with them, while doing what they would do anyway: enrich themselves and set up a comfortable life. When challenged, they will claim to have been “activists” or some other synonym. The religious side has this as well; for centuries conservatives and Christians have been ceding ground and retreating into their own little groups with the rationalization that society is a blown fuse, a dead letter and a burnt ruin. This enables them to ignore all the larger problems and focus on themselves. The belief justifies this, at least as they style it, and enables them to be exactly like everyone else — self-interested, atomized and inconsequential — while loudly proclaiming the meaning and importance of their activity. This is no different than ex-hippies volunteering at homeless shelters, people who collect GreenSM appliances, and bohemians who justify their excesses by giving the profits to Take Back the Night.

Among this group, the most common form of cuck is exit. This is the idea that they have somehow mystically separated themselves from society and will go live elsewhere by their own rules, usually guaranteed by a corporation or small community. This lets the disaster go on, and will rapidly be absorbed if the community or corporation does not fail by itself, but most importantly, it allows them to keep doing exactly what they were doing. For them, this transition is no more than moving to a nicer suburb like their grandparents did when fleeing the city. White flight takes on a new form as ideological white flight and achieves the same results as the anarchists, hippies and naturalists who did the same: utter marginalization, followed by failure from lack of infrastructure and, as if silently acknowledging the intellectual fraud, a lack of impulse to stick together with their cohorts.

A truth of this world discovered late in life dictates that almost all people follow the same pattern, which is to take whatever they can for themselves and invent some reason to (1) justify what they have and have not and (2) cease involvement in changing the direction of society. When writers say that the West is dead, they mean the State and all ideas associated with it descended from The EnlightenmentTM, not “give up the ship.” If we do not recapture our society, it will destroy all who exit as its needs for wealth to re-distribute expand. But first, we must recapture our own minds. Individualism is a The EnlightenmentTM trap even if it disguises itself as the most radical neo-Nazism or Neoreaction, and it leads to the same place: many people abandoning society to pursue their own interests while externalizing costs to society itself.

Any sane philosophy of this time realizes that the populace of the West will not survive unless they recapture their leadership, depose the liars and filter out the bad so the good can shine again. Dropping out and marginalizing ourselves not only does not work, but is a convenient excuse for cucking out and refusing to face the actual task. People want an excuse to keep doing exactly what they would have been doing anyway but to explain it not as selfishness but heroism; from the bohemians to the hippies to the hipsters, this is a classic post-EnlightenmentTM trope. And yet, it is cowardice and foretold failure, and none who intend what they say should be fooled by it.

The Cathedral is a state of mind


Movements — this refers to any group seeking change — tend to attract popularizers, or social butterflies who bring people in and make them feel important. That is the essence of modernity: recognition before results. It brings together large numbers of people who feel lost and turns them into a weapon.

The problem is that in the process the movement changes its original idea from a clear one to a version of what everyone always believes anyway, both by individual incompetence and the group tendency to prefer easy non-controversial ideas, which makes it into a variation of EnlightenmentTM thought.

Many know I believe in “no circular firing squad.” This means that I refuse to attack others on the Right, but it does not mean that they are free of criticism. In fact, to refuse to critique their ideas is to deny them the respect one gives a thinker in a group, and to weaken that group by allowing ideas to stand which cannot withstand analysis.

Neoreaction speaks often of the Cathedral, or the union of “elites” and their institutions who propagate the EnlightenmentTM ideas that form the basis for the cancer eroding our society. In their view, the Cathedral controls the people with lies and forces society down a bad path.

I suggest they have their cause->effect reasoning wrong. Instead, the Cathedral exists — and is eternally re-created — because people in groups want the kind of illusions it offers, and desire a strong central agency to enforce those ideals on others. They want to be able to believe illusions and not face criticism or consequences for it. In other words, the Cathedral is a state of mind inherent to humanity like many other errors of perception. It is not a finite “thing” but a tendency like any other human impulse.

When that line is breached, and the downfall of humanity recognized as individual failings magnified by egalitarian/altruistic groups, then analysis becomes useful again. Instead of targeting tangible but interchangeable parts, we wage war against an idea and do so by replacing it with better ideas. Otherwise, the Cathedral simply arises again in a new form.

Neoreaction, for example, has created its own Cathedral within which will lead to the exact same problems of which it complains. If you are reminded of liberal Napoleon wanting to become emperor, or Soviet leaders living like royalty while the peasants starved, you have identified the psychology correctly. Most revolutions are not about actual change, but changing who is in charge, and those tend to reveal less restraint than their predecessors.

Every one of us has a Cathedral inside our minds and souls. It whispers to us that we can deny reality and then demand from our social group that we be equally recognized. With others who agree, we can engage in Crowdism and demand that the group not notice and certainly not mention where our ideas drift far from reality. We either beat this Cathedral, which is a form of illusion of a solipsistic nature like evil itself, or we fight an instance of it and then birth it anew within ourselves, like an infectious phoenix of our own downfall.

Populism = evil = solipsism


I had a dream once that combined a number of notions from American movies. In it, I was one of the few remaining people uninfected on earth. The others had been struck like a disease that made them zombies, but unrecognizably so. As in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, they appeared normal, and unlike the aliens in They Live they were 100% human. Like Night of the Living Dead, they suffered a compulsion to attack the uninfected, but unlike it, they had their full faculties and could not be detected. But more like in They Live, they endorsed an ideology that was equal parts complacency and elimination of non-compliance. Then I awoke and realized I had not been dreaming at all.

What I call Crowdism is the union of individuals for an individualist end: the suspension of social standards and order so that the individual can act without responsibility for consequences. They want freedom, from judgment, sense, aesthetic taste, evolution and higher standards. It is the rabble demanding its right to be as degenerative as it wishes to be, as measured by the individual and not the group. In fact, the Crowd is united by the fact that it acts like a group in defense of the individual, which is why it fits into none of the usual slots. A certain mentality both creates Crowdism and is created by it, and that is solipsism, or the tendency to think the world should adapt to the individual instead of the other way around, which implicates a mental process in which the world which is normally perceived through the individual is perceived as being within that individual. In other words, the individual becomes the world and the world something that resists the individual, much like we have conflicting impulses within us that resist each other.

This concept of what we might unfashionably call evil — undeniably a subset of Kant’s notion of “radical evil” — suggests that evil is not a discrete and isolated thing, but a constant tendency in human beings which we beat down like our desire to eat one more slice of cheesecake. There is no Satan needed because humans invent their own evil, and its root is not in a desire to do evil, but in an error by which humans substitute self for world. In fact, as Plato suggested, without guidance human emotions and desires turn toward this very destructiveness, which is why most humans live in misery and most societies fail. Humanity is self-destructive, much like individual humans drink too much or eat too much cheesecake, or vandalize the things that make them happiest. When we deny responsibility for our actions, happiness is no longer our own task, but something we view as happening like a lottery. This enables us to pursue the unfulfilling objects of our desire and then engage in “sour grapes” type rationalization where we come to the point of seeing that nothing would have made us happy anyway. Unhappiness becomes a weapon against striving for anything better, or to rise above. This evil pathology explains both the victimhood mentality of modern people and the seemingly unerring capacity of democracies to select the worst possible plans in any situation. But what makes this evil so pervasive is that it exists within us and cannot be purged, but it can also be spread between people, like the hybrid zombie/body-snatcher infection described above.

Most of us will refuse to recognize this evil. That is because solipsism feels good; we sense in it that we can never die, and that we are always good and right no matter to what degree we are not. It saves us from self-criticism, and criticism by others. It makes us feel justified in selfish behavior because the world has made us its victim, and in self-pity we have a cause for resentment and thus a systematic revenge on the world. When we do bad things, and create socialized costs for others, that is not a personal loss but victory because we harmed the force that oppresses us. This evil recognizes no boundaries: it crops up in good people as well as bad, in smart as well as stupid, and in smart it may take on a greater life because they have the ability to make it interesting. Even when we argue against it, we are not immune; like a fire dares us to stick our hand into it, evil dares us and seduces us. And of all frustrating things, it has no home. There is no Hell to destroy, Mordor to invade or Berlin to reduce to rubble. Evil simply takes a new form, spreading by contact between people who (in an effort to disguise their own weakness) re-style it as good, or cropping up again anywhere a mind thinks. It is the enemy without form, an invisible aggressor who almost never appears in a guise of bad but always appears good, or at least convenient.

Recently I launched a corrective attack on Neoreaction, the system of post-libertarian thought launched by post-libertarian bloggers during the early 2000s. Neoreaction has a number of good things going for it: it recognizes the failure of The EnlightenmentTM and consequently, rejects equality, democracy, and populism or the tendency to motivate people by pandering to the lowest common denominator already accepted by them. It is more of a virtual salon or symposium in that, like Plato’s Republic, it offers a series of thought experiments to stimulate awareness outside of the confines of the accepted and to thus open channels to thought beyond the status quo. In this attack, which is designed to expand the field of Neoreactionary theory to include the conservatism from which it has come and to clarify both, I identified a number of problems:

  • Neoreaction fails because it is reaction; that is, it reacts to what is instead of plotting another course. Reactionary thought is not bad at all, but limits itself by trying to look backward, instead of realizing that it does not need to justify itself, and can merely pick high-level common sense solutions as a philosopher would.
  • Neoreaction suffers because it is inherently social. The original spark for this discussion arose from one person taking a blog offline, which usually happens when personal conflicts make it undesirable to continue with a group. When I say Neoreaction is “social,” that means that it reflects what groups of people want to talk about and think about, which quickly becomes a form of populism. It has confused the desire to attract audience with the desire for truth because of the nature of its appeal: it makes STEM majors and assorted internet critics feel that, by engaging in the act of academic-style criticism, they have become a new vanguard of truth. We have seen this phenomenon before, you and I, in the burst of “traditionalists” who came about in the early 00s as well. If a movement of thought does not have a purpose, it becomes a purpose in itself, and that inevitably falls prey to the evil mentioned above and becomes a form of Crowdism. In Neoreaction, the Crowdist impulse has taken form through endless play-acting at being theorists with a nasty in-group enforcement, driving away the truth-oriented instead of those who want to live out the image of being neoreactionary. This is both an inherent tendency of humanity and an evil particular to discussion groups, in that the act of discussing becomes the power those people desire, instead of having a desired end effect.
  • Neoreaction loves the idea of “exit,” both as theory-object and reality. Exit is departure from a society, whether by literally moving or having some other way of existing outside of its power. What originally was a way of subjecting societies to market forces by showing how individuals would leave for greener pastures, and thus a post-libertarian society (free markets + a lack of liberalism, essentially) could out-compete other societies. This model fails because any such society becomes a threat and gets eliminated. Those of us who have run through this mental simulation for some time realize that the only solution is to re-capture the West, which becomes easier as it gets weaker, and create a new civilization. This is the antithesis of chatter and yet is less satisfying than chatter, because discussing it does not make the above average thinker feel like a profound genius. “Insight porn,” some call it, and it is aptly applied here.
  • Neoreaction still believes in “systems.” Free markets, democracy, laws and regulations all belong to the world of systems, or the idea that we can set down some kind of rules and have everything work out fine because of the results of those rules. A Gödel might have observed, no system will cover every case, and so systems inevitably end up being hijacked and turned on themselves, with the unfortunate attribute of now being concentrated power which is hard to resist. That is what happened in the West, ancient Greece and Rome, and virtually every other society that has become destroyed: the leadership became corrupt and, since they wielded centralized power, were able to suppress dissent. With postmodern civilizations, the power is no longer centralized but is just as strong, and it is this — called “the Cathedral” by neoreactionaries — that must be overthrown and replaced with actual leadership, throwing out all the laws that served as intermediaries and failed.

If we are going to attack The EnlightenmentTM, nothing remains but to do it. Democracy, equality, liberty, freedom, “rights,” populism and the idea of systems itself are all wrong. They go to the dustbin of history, but so also should other thought that promotes socialization as a substitute for actuality.

In contrast, history and common sense show what works. Aristocracy, nationalism, social conservatism, heroism and transcendentalism work together as a system that is both traditional and fits within Neoreactionary thought. The social community however rejects this because it breaks what makes Neoreaction accessible, which is that any STEM graduate or internet typist who memorizes a few ideas can participate in the theory, and that in itself is the goal. The goal lies outside the social group, which like a force of entropy becomes populist, and without that to unify the group, it relapses into being a social event instead of an actual one.

Any movement can become social. Where the index of selection, or how it chooses what becomes part of its library of ideas, is social in any way, it is a social movement. Cliques of intellectuals succumb to this as well. This is why Crowdism is said to be pervasive: it is a human monkey tendency that corrupts truth with the pragmatic convenience of getting along in a group and motivating them toward a goal, albeit at the expense of the clarity of the goal. Understanding this is crucial to the anti-equality idea, as it displaces our faith in “systems” and voting and returns to the idea that a decision must be made by those capable to make it.

My goal with any kind of new movement is to have less chatter and more solid expression of motion toward these ends. Neoreaction served its purpose well as an introduction to these ideas, but then got caught up in its tendency to be talking points instead of practicality. We see the results now in the constant drama across the Neoreactionary blogs and the writing of much theory, little of which expands any substantive issue, as people jockey for position in the salon. As the years pass, the goal emerges more clearly, and it is time to discard intermediates and — emerging from our comfort zones — go for the goal.

The true face of diversity


I seem to take flak from a number of people because instead of targeting specific groups, I target mental processes. In particular, I identity the process of “egalitarianism” or equality — which is the basis and uniting force behind all liberal belief systems — as the root of our downfall, and a subset of it called internationalism (or diversity, or multiculturalism) as the root of our problem. The enemy is not Jews, or Blacks, or the Rich; it is a breakdown in social order.

The above map confirms my approach. Some areas have become majority Hispanic or majority Black, but the interesting data comes in the “no clear majority” category: all of the major cities seem to fit within this category. That means that African, Asian, Caucasian and various hybrids outnumber any clear group. As I have said for years, this is the future. The forces in power will replace the indigenous WASP population with a mixed-heritage “grey race” that has no culture, ethnicity or values system to fall back on, and instead will get those entirely in the form of ideology passed on by government. These people will be perfect consumers because they will lack things they need, like purpose and a framework for guidance such as what culture provides, and so will like California New Agers cast around for “new” ideas and lifestyle additions constantly. This means they will buy lifestyle-oriented products constantly, as well as products to assuage their anomic misery and ennui, trying to use external forces to replace what must be internal, which is a sense of something sacred toward which life must be pointed. They will always vote leftist, having nothing from the past to defend as is a pre-requisite for conservatism, and will tend to be obedient because of their indoctrination. This is what happens when government becomes a parasitic force and acts not for the good of its citizens, but for the good of itself — and the elites who command it — at their expense.

I waste no time with minority crime statistics and other data which attempt to indicate that the problem with having minorities among us is their behavior. No: the problem of diversity is that it destroys our shared purpose and reduces society to mechanical obedience, leaving behind a mixed-race population like we see in the places where former great empires failed. This is the endgame of diversity, which is total destruction of anything but the obedient at the hands of incompetent Communist-style leaders, and then when society collapses, the deposit of a mediocre population living in perpetual kleptocracy. Diversity itself is the problem, and any surrogate for that is a scapegoat and a mission doomed to fail.

The normal life


Normal people are beginning to awaken to the travesty of diversity. More than travesty, it is failure: a policy upon which we based our future that has turned out to have originated in lies, deceptions and a long history of not working. We were fooled, it turns out. Voices even in the media shout for its reconsideration. How did we get here?

For decades, normal people in the West have put up with the impositions of government. They have done so because ultimately it did not impact their lives that much. They could still do the normal things that people do, like having careers, falling in love, creating families, shopping and socializing with friends. Prices kept rising to subsidized failed policies, but they shrugged it off with practiced world-weariness. Government always wastes our money. It almost became a joke.

Now people are seeing it differently. Instead of a “post-racial” society, we have constant race riots and violence against white people. SJWs show up everywhere to remind us of the latest microaggressions. Government supports gay marriage despite any actual need to do so. But now, the tide has turned, and government is pushing its will on us. It will relocate the poor to middle-class suburbs and prosecute anyone who does not obey the ideological agenda, even in bakeries. It will force us to accept the doctrine of absolute equality or it will destroy us.

Now the ability to have a normal life is threatened. Some have realized that, as conservatives have said for centuries, once you go to a State it justifies itself with an ideological agenda and enforces that on everyone. You will be afraid to say no because they might call you a racist, and then all your friends, coworkers, family members and clients will abandon you and you will die alone in a ghetto. All of these policies that we considered little inconveniences, while busy working on job #1 which is creating a normal life, have become the basis for a totalitarian state as moribund and absolute as those in the Soviet Union and the last days of Rome.

Government got away with it for a simple reason: most people supported it. They were afraid to say no because no one likes racial cruelty, unpunished rape, pogroms against homosexuals or other persecutions. But the forces united in media and government created a big category for anything which not pro-equality and equated it with racism, sexism and homophobia. That meant that instead of eliminating those who engaged in aberrant behavior it hunted down anyone who was not in agreement with it. The writing is on the wall at that point.

As the mass wake-up begins, we have to ask ourselves: what do we do to replace this? People like myself long ago awakened to the obvious truth, which is that “systems” like democracy and the managerial state, designed to eliminate power in individuals, do not fix the problem and only create nexuses of control which can be seized by those who seek to rule and abused. You either put good people in power, like we did with the kings, or you spend your entire life struggling with a State that ultimately is a parasite that wants to increase its power at your expense.

Humanity now enters a new age. We have to decide whether we keep up with the moldly old 1789 democracy jive that has failed us so many times, or whether we strike out for a function social order and leadership that can avoid the nonsense we see now. Kings have more power, but they also consider things that voters cannot understand and constantly botch. The proof is in the pudding, or the near history at least. We did not get this government imposed upon us; we chose it, through the magic of voting for the lesser evil so long as it did not endanger our normal lives. Now our normal lives are impossible and that era is over, and we need to be brave about our choices for the future.