The Left rose through a singular power: a simple idea that made people feel comfortable in their social group, binding them together into a band to conquer all so that it would serve this idea.
For that reason, it makes sense not to say that Leftists are individually totalitarian, but that the thinking of Leftism is inherently totalitarian and individual Leftists will not be satisfied until they achieve a state that is both totalitarian and reality-denying.
The nature of ideology, after all, is to replace reality. It is the anti-reality. It tells you not how things work, but how they should according to human social logic. Leftism is at war with reality.
As a variant of Crowdism, Leftism is based in individualism. Every individual in the group wants guaranteed acceptance by the group. For this reason, they form a gang to make this so, but while their method is collectivism, their motivation is individualism.
What gives Crowdism power is the transfer of society from cooperative — where all people work unequally toward a goal that all understand — to control-based structures, where a formal goal is set up and applied equally to all in order to maintain power structures despite the fragmentation of society into many special interest groups, with individualists being one of these.
This gives rise to dark organization or a counter-current within society, formed of the individualist gang, that operates against its goals. Special interest groups do not share the goal of society as a whole, and therefore become parasitic: they take from the whole to support their own agendas.
For these reasons, the gang/cult of the parasite is always in motion. Its agenda never rests because it has hacked the human brain with a simple pleasing concept that short-cuts everything else. “If everyone is accepted, no one is at risk, and there will be no conflict,” is its underlying appeal, and the very fact of this simplification makes the meme powerful. It appeals to fear.
Since its motive is always conquest from within, the Crowd uses a number of hooks to short-circuit the psychology of others, and these in turn shape its own thinking into a pathological (repetitive without regard for results) obsession. This mental state can be recognized by the following internal cycles:
Begging the Question. To advance itself, Leftism uses this fallacy to transition political ideas to perceived social morality ideas. As we see with political correctness, the basic form is to assert that certain things are universally good, and therefore that in the converse, anyone who opposes those ideas is bad. The basic form of the fallacy is as follows:
The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (“begging the question”), occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated (example: “Gregory always votes wisely.” “But how do you know?” “Because he always votes Libertarian.”).
A special form of this fallacy, called a vicious circle, or circulus in probando (“arguing in a circle”), occurs in a course of reasoning typified by the complex argument in which a premise p1 is used to prove p2; p2 is used to prove p3; and so on, until pn − 1 is used to prove pn; then pn is subsequently used in a proof of p1, and the whole series p1, p2, . . . , pn is taken as established (example: “McKinley College’s baseball team is the best in the association [ pn = p3]; they are the best because of their strong batting potential [ p2]; they have this potential because of the ability of Jones, Crawford, and Randolph at the bat [ p1].” “But how do you know that Jones, Crawford, and Randolph are such good batters?” “Well, after all, these men are the backbone of the best team in the association [ p3 again].”).
Strictly speaking, petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction, since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise.
The final line may be the most important: this argument type is a linguistic sleight-of-hand, and the only reason it works is that the premise is associated with universal moral good, a concept that itself is an assumption. But because of its appearance in a social setting, the argument seems convincing because universal acceptance is a necessary basic attribute of socializing in large and thus broad groups. This is how the Crowd forms.
For example, consider the Leftist argument for diversity: variety is good, therefore we need ethnic variety. The only way to oppose this seems to be to criticize the conclusion of the argument, when the real solution is to attack the assumption and the inexact language that allows it to seem relevant. Variety is good in certain contexts, and only certain types of variety, and these do not analogize to civilizations very well.
The Left moves into circulus in probando by stacking its assumptions: “Because (we assume that) morality is universal, (we assume that) diversity is good, and since (we assume that) diversity is working so well, we need to expand the program.” In fact, all of Leftism can be seen as a circulus in probando starting with the idea that personal intent is more important than reality — the core of individualism and The Enlightenment™ — and moving to universalism, democratization and finally, to the extension of those principles to other areas. Diversity might be viewed as ethnic democracy, welfare as subsidized universalism, and strong state control as democratization of power.
Rationalism. Humans like to think that reason alone will bring them to correct answers, but they forget that our reasoning is shaped by our minds and must correspond to a reality more complex than our minds. Reason is thus not a singular thing, but many grades of an idea, and in addition to that, it varies with the individual.
For those reasons, saying that reason will guide us to correct answers necessarily overloads our minds with the imposition of the idea that all people are the same, and that reason works like a calculator, when in fact it is more varied. That in turn creates the curse of rationalism which is that it enables people to have tunnel vision by identifying a plausible answer and then finding facts to support it, instead of assessing all facts and finding a model which fits all of the known data.
Rationalism in this sense is not essentially distinct from rationalization, or developing a way of visualizing an unfortunate event as a positive one. In this case, the unfortunate event is civilization collapse, and so instead of fighting it, the Left rationalizes it and directs its attention away from fixing the problem to finding a way to feel good about the problem. Both rationalism and rationalization start by accepting a perception and then altering facts by filtering out those that do not conform to the thesis so that the perception appears not just true but inevitable.
Control. When cooperation can no longer exist because society is pulling itself apart into special interest groups, control appears: force everyone to go through the same procedures, or “means” versus “ends” or goals, equally or in the same way, so that details can be managed from central control or through a centralized narrative, even if independently interpreted as is the case with egalitarianism, the founding idea of the Left.
The modern method can be seen as Social Control, or use of the threat of ostracism and reward for making people feel good as dual pincers of the control mechanism. Guilt is the primary weapon there: those who are not ideologically conforming become aware that others will be “upset” or “offended” by their acts, and are made to feel bad not about the consequences of their actions in reality, but in the perceptions of others.
This process of regulating people through public appearance proves deadly effective because humans — like our Simian forebears — are social creatures. Alienation does not require government intervention, and because it causes others to fear for themselves if they are associated with the alienated person, spreads like a disease. It is more effective than any other means of punishment because the consequences are all-pervasive.
When noticed by humans, social control is referred to as peer pressure with all the implications of collective punishment that this indicates. A small group, like a local community, fears being associated with bad ideas, so it punishes those who have them. In addition, this group will punish a group within it for deviation from the norm. This means that the individual is totally dependent on the group for behavioral cues and must follow whatever is decided, in an inversion of democracy but an extension of democratization. When all people have a voice, conformity results, and then it is made mandatory.
Crybullying. To advance a petitio principii fallacy, one must act as if the assumption therein is normal and universally liked. This requires playing the role of an innocent, benevolent and passive party. However, when someone refuses the assumption, this requires the fallacy advocate to act the role of wounded victim, which then justifies (synonyms: rationalizes; excuses) retaliation.
This produces a type of weaponized passive aggression or indirect bullying. The Leftist needs to appear somewhere, insist on a Leftist method, and then act wounded while summoning the troops — the rest of the gang/cult — to attack. This enables Leftists to infiltrate any area of society and, by using their passive aggressive “victimhood” narrative, force others to conform to what the Leftist desires.
The psychology created by the above cannot be properly viewed as a philosophy, but an inversion of philosophy: instead of finding reasons to act in certain ways, it assumes basic human impulses — which like most undisciplined things, are usually wrong — are correct and then invents explanations for those that make them seem reasonable.
That however implicates a philosophy with two branches:
Means Over Ends. Leftism embraces a classic “means over ends” analysis. In that view, the goal does not matter so much as behaving in a correct way, in this case for social approval. That allows necessarily goals to be ignored if the methods needed are upsetting or inconvenient to the group, which “wags the dog” because then instead of thinking toward purpose, people think away from purpose and let methods become a substitute for goals. This rationalizes the lack of purpose inherent to a dying civilization and creates an imitative society where people repeat past successful acts without knowledge of what made them successful, simply by placing trust in the method and being afraid to contemplate goals.
Cause And Effect. Normally, we see our actions as the cause of an event which had certain effects, or outcomes. In the inverted world of Leftism, cause is removed by the assumption of moral goodness to methods, which signifies that the methods are both effect and cause. This removes the human ability to see cause, and by declaring the irrelevance of ends or effects, obliterates our ability to formulate independent goals. This creates atomized, infantilized, and domesticated people who depend on strong authority for guidance, as their acts otherwise are goalless and therefore become self-destructive in addition to pointless.
The root of this philosophy is a resistance to life itself: people would prefer to be gods in their own minds than to realize their place in an order — structure, hierarchy, flow of events — that makes life what it is. This is the essence of control within the human mind. It rejects all that is natural and replaces it with a world composed entirely of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. This is comforting to the under-confident and neurotic.
All high-level societies die through some form of Crowdism, which is usually Leftist. When a civilization is forming, its purpose is clear: create civilization, beat back nature and disease, and organize so that the pleasures of life are possible. After that point, civilization is taken for granted because most people cannot see the reason to choose a new purpose, since they have the effects of the work that created that civilization.
Dysgenics factor in here as well, especially in cities large enough to be anonymous. People need only to find a job, rent a place to live, and purchase food from street vendors. Everything else is optional. It is not surprising that modern Leftists are enamored of the job/rent/restaurant lifestyle. This, and the advances in institutionalized hygiene and safety that save people from their own bad choices, create people who are living but have no will to live other than the mechanical and material process of survival itself. With this, purpose and bravery die.
Anti-goals afflict successful civilizations only. One mode of thought, embraced by primitivists and Nietzscheans to varying degrees, is that civilization — if it wishes to survive — needs to back off of “perfecting” everyday life, and should preserve dangers. The idea of social Darwinism that is not in love with jobs and money holds that there should be no externalized costs to individual actions, such that each individual faces the consequences of his actions including potential death. This means strict punishment for any costs incurred to society by the individual, a lack of things like insurance and uniform methods of survival, and daily challenges so that the clueless weed themselves out.
Another possibility for civilization survival is to design it such that every action must have a purpose, and the results are compared to that purpose, with those who achieve parity between intention and reality being promoted in a hierarchy. This creates constant internal evolution and at the very least disenfranchises those who are inept at everything but collecting social approval. In other words, society must be less “social” and more purpose-driven.
Diversity presents a fundamental problem in any society because with the presence of a single person from the Other group, either social standards must be widened to include the standards of both self and Other, or those who are Other will be at a disadvantage and appear to be victims. That in turn jump-starts the begging-the-question fallacy by making it easily observed that the Other is failing, and assuming that this is bad, and therefore that “change” must occur.
Above all else, we must remember what Walt Kelley told us years ago: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Inside of each of us is a monkey. This monkey reacts to life out of fear and lives in a miasma of superstition, projection and denial through filtering out inconvenient and upsetting information. This monkey is driven by impulse, which leads to rationalization of that impulse, and reverts thought. The healthiest civilizations are disciplined more in terms of private thoughts than public behavior, but not through Control; instead, they aim for realism and other methods of refining the spirit to be rigid about its thinking and to push down the monkey impulses.
Our inner monkey resents life for not being equal to our intent as individuals. That choice forces us to either accept reality as it is (nihilism) or to accept only ourselves, then rationalize that denial as good, and in turn blot out reality without a consensual hallucination of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. Since this has its root in the monkey impulse toward self-importance in defiance of a reality structured otherwise, it is also a regression and the source of the dark organization that is Crowdism.
We have come to recognize Typical Leftist Behavior (TLB) with increasing frequency as the achievement of Leftist goals (diversity, equality, democratization, globalism) has made reality totally unknown to most people, resulting in terrible consequences when their ideas are put into practice, as usually happens with reality-denial. TLB takes many forms but all are based in the schema above.
The threats in front of us — Leftism, The Enlightenment,&trade civilization collapse — are themselves effects of this inner transformation of human beings. We no longer intend to achieve good results; we focus instead on making our feelings happy despite the darkness around us, but this deprives us of a sense that life can be a joy and a pleasure. That in turn pushes us toward more dark thoughts and behaviors.
Salvation for Western Civilization begins when we not just reverse this process, but commit ourselves instead toward a purpose which replaces the original purpose of survival that kept our civilization united in its early years. We also must protect ourselves genetically, so that we are not replaced with the Other, even in traces, as those alter what we were and through atavisms of that, what we must be again.
The Left won because it had a simple idea that dominated all other thinking. The solution is not to try to replicate that, but to understand that simple ideas which dominate are in themselves a terrible notion, and that instead, we need a more nuanced, purpose-driven and realistic view of life. As Leftist society crashes in chaos around us, more are turning toward this idea or something like it.
A specter haunts humanity: the knowledge that our best societies tend to implode after a relatively short time. It makes us wonder if thought itself betrays us, or if there is something dark inside of us that destroys all we hope for.
The actuality may be more prosaic. Civilizations tend to pursue the same goals, and over their lifespan, reach a point where they lack inherent purpose because their former purpose, having stable civilization, has been achieved.
At that point, errors arise. Specifically, the human tendency to collapse inward without a purpose gives rise to individualism, or the desire to reduce the risk of doing wrong by making wrong and right arbitrary categories determined by human intent alone. If you mean well, then whatever you did was acceptable, even if it turned out badly. This gives rise to ideology.
There must be a center to life. It is either found in purpose, which requires accepting reality as it is, or the self, which is formed of material reactions. Reliance on the self creates individualists who then bond together into groups through a form of collectivized individualism known as Crowdism.
This viewpoint is necessarily “dark” because it denies good, which requires purpose that acknowledges the need for balance and harmony with the order of nature, which is larger than human intent can encompass. Good requires interacting with reality and improving our lot in it according to the terms and structure of reality, and this offends the ego because it makes purpose, not the self, the focus of living.
Control is the method used to achieve the Crowdist agenda. Control occurs through “means over ends” thinking, which rejects ends because they create a goal that competes with the self. The darkness in humanity is the part of each of us that wants to be the most important thing in the world, replacing reality and the divine.
Our time derives its dark nature from this pursuit of Control, which creates neurosis by removing purpose and replacing it with methods that do not achieve their aims. In that shadowy and conflicted mental state, people become agents of destruction. This is how civilizations die.
On to today’s video…
Vikernes identifies the problem of civilization as civilization itself. He may be confusing civilization with empire or cities because he mentions the Roman and Greek empires, but not the civilizations of Western Europe that arose before and since. They were distinct from the larger empires in that they were mostly rural and did not attempt conquest and standardization.
What seems more likely is that cities and standardization bring with them the desire to protect people from the risk of being wrong. They insulate people against risk by putting them in jobs, instead of production/ownership roles, and by creating laws, guide the unwary sheep away from their natural dysfunction which might make others avoid them, creating the selection pressures necessary for evolution.
In short, cities are dysgenic, but the root cause of that is the desire toward administration and management of those who are not united by a common purpose. This shows a response to loss of shared purpose and the rise of individualism.
For a civilization, the most important goal — that which it survives on, above all else — is clarity. It must have a clear purpose. Its leadership must be singular and not divided by special interest groups with their fingers in the pie. Its standards, culture and values must be clear, so diversity is fatal. Any failures of these give individualism, always a lurking evil, the power to take over.
Succeeding civilizations on the other hand tend to give way to individualism because they are unwilling to state a purpose beyond the creation of the civilization, which makes the ego of the individual take precedent.
High functioning White societies, like Canada, built by Europeans adapted to the harsh conditions of the last Ice Age develop overactive economies that then create degenerate societies that are unable to successfully reproduce. (Note: I use “degenerate” here in a strictly technical sense, to merely indicate a society unable to maintain a birthrate of 2.1 per woman among its core population).
Unable to reproduce, these societies, in order to maintain property values, customer and client base, and taxpayer numbers, then, with the connivance of the ruling class, suck in lower functioning populations attracted by the higher living standards they are unable to achieve in their own lands.
We must ask first whether the economies are overactive, or whether that is the result of people acting individualistically. When people have purpose, they are content with enough; when they do not, they seek more than they need as a form of symbol of their importance. Social order, including caste systems, keeps this in check, but when the wrong people are allowed to have wealth, society unravels.
People refuse to reproduce for two reasons. For some, it is simply selfishness or the immediate consequences of it. They embark on an orgy of sensual experience and as a result, never get around to having families. For the vast majority however it is a sense of not fitting into a society that has become hostile to goodness and sanity, believing that life is fundamentally bad and without meaning, therefore, why reproduce?
Especially: why condemn children to the same misery that has the would-be parents feeling terrible about life? Living in a dying civilization has existential consequences, meaning that it disturbs the sense that life is good and has purpose. That feeling of well-being is replaced with uncertainty, anomie, isolation, and atomization. People become islands in themselves.
The managerial society gives rise to what we can dark organization, or the rise within an organization of an inner cult dedicated to some purpose other than that of the organization. In this case, the civilization is the organization, and the dark organization is the gang of collectivized individualists within it.
Control produces dark organization. It does so by removing the sense of shared purpose, and instead, trying to create unity through uniformity. Control regulates means and not ends, and assumes that by getting people to do the same things, it can influence them toward a goal. This works, at first, but then decays as despair spreads through the population.
We find ourselves in a decaying civilization now. While it is similar to Rome on the surface because of its quasi-imperial nature and highly organized system, at its core it resembles Athens, which went down the path of individualism over two millennia ago. See how much of this resembles our present day society.
…And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot.
…This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colours to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States.
…See too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the ‘don’t care’ about trifles, and the disregard which she shows of all the fine principles which we solemnly laid down at the foundation of the city –as when we said that, except in the case of some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy and a study –how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honour any one who professes to be the people’s friend.
…Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others –whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.
…he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he-is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.
…his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many.
Civilization decline begins with the idea that we are not here together in collaboration, but for ourselves alone, and are entitled to whatever our intent desires without concern for the results of our actions. This lack of cooperation requires motivation to be enforced instead, and it is done so by the powers that be controlling who gets access to wealth. That in turn makes people selfish, cruel and vengeful.
The reason that the greatest civilizations die is that they go down this path of control. They standardize, make uniform and employ utilitarianism as a way to keep the herd under control, but the lack of direction to the herd leads to breakdown. Soon there is nothing but attention whoring, usually through political gift-giving and virtue signaling, and empty pursuit of personal desires which never satisfy.
For a civilization to avoid this path, it must retain a sense of purpose and a clear hierarchy and power structure. With a goal, we can assess every one of our actions as pushing us closer to that goal, or holding us back. Only the former are desired. This allows us to reject those who fail, and promote those who succeed, in the method of natural selection, but without using means-based control.
The West had this wisdom long ago. It is hubris for humankind to try to design a “perfect” society, such as the figurative Utopia of Plato’s republic, because perfection is the enemy of hierarchy and selecting our best of every generation, pushing down the rest. Nature once managed us through these methods, and when we discard them, in our arrogance we chase ruin.
When one has to explain Leftism to a child, at some point the term “unhappy people” comes up. Leftists are those who hate life for being unequal, which means having risk to them as individuals relate to the consequences of their actions.
Despite having that ideology, the Left never seem happy. In fact they are generally agitating, and instead of creating working examples in local communities of their ideals, they demand total control so that all of us face the same fate as a whole.
This suggests that Leftism is less a philosophy and more of a pathology, or neurosis perhaps. Leftists are those who dislike what exists, but the solutions they propose always lead to worse outcomes because they deny reality. As a result, Leftists are perpetually unhappy, and act out the anger of the self-created miserable.
One of the leading hermeticists of our time, who like Alex Jones hides her important commentary behind an aesthetic of chaos, speaks to the nature of desiring disharmony among neurotics:
Focusing on what you don’t want only gives you more of what you don’t want. So this woman claims to want “harmony” but is focusing on the lack of harmony; therefore, more disharmony is manifested. Also, she is expecting that her desire for harmony trumps others’ desires for “disharmony.” She cannot see what others’ motives are because she is caught up in her own wishes and imposing those wishes on others.
The person to whom she is speaking shows the signs of neurosis. That person is looking for others to make her feel good and to give her what she wants, which both will never happen, and if it does, will deprive her of any sense of accomplishment. That in turn will lower her self-esteem and make her feel helpless to make decisions because she never learned how.
Hermeticism is based on several rules which include the Law of Attraction, which states that people visualize what they desire, and if they visualize only what they do not desire, they get more of that instead. It has some basis in information science, in that if patterns in the mind correlate to external objects, thoughts attract the objects that resemble the pattern of those thoughts.
Liberals got exactly what they wanted out of this election. Their consequent disturbance comes from being dishonest with themselves about what they really want. Secretly, they desire a perpetual sense of victimhood so that they have an excuse for non-performance, which eliminates the social risk of acting and achieving bad results by the choice of action performed.
If Hillary is president, the Left will not get its continued sense of victimhood. Instead, they will have to face the results of their ideology, which is a crumbling nation of dying international prestige.
In this sense, a Trump election is their victory. It allows them to play the victim card endlessly and relentlessly with impunity. These riots are not from outrage, but a renewed sense of purpose. They wish to be victims until the bitter end.
Ironically, they got exactly what they wanted with a Trump presidency. He will go about fixing up the country as Western Civilization shifts rightward, having had its fill of the delusional liberal democracy and its globalist/diversity dream. They will be able to keep rioting, and displace their internal unhappiness from themselves onto the scapegoat of the world, never maturing because they deny themselves the chance.
Evil settles into everyday life when people are unable or unwilling to recognize it. It makes its home among us when we are keen to minimize it or describe it as something else. This is not a process that began a week or month or year ago. It did not begin with drone assassinations, or with the war on Iraq. Evil has always been here. But now it has taken on a totalitarian tone.
Evil has settled into the USA, all right, but it happened long ago, and was inherited from the crumbling Western Civilization in Europe.
This evil, like all evil, appears to be good. It sounds pleasant and causes our brains to release squirts of dopamine when we hear it. It is the idea that there are no differences between human beings, therefore we can accept everyone, sparing us the need to be on guard against error and evil, including malevolent human beings.
The Trump election was an act of self-defense by white and other Americans who realize that the ideology of equality will not stop until it destroys our society. By demanding that the unequal be raised, it is inherently bigoted against and will always seek to destroy the successful, normal, healthy, moral and sane.
Only when mediocrity rules will people feel “safe” because their own failings are invisible, camouflaged in the chaos of a lack of social order and acceptance of evils.
With Donald Trump, people voted against Political Correctness and the idea that we need to “correct” our society with equality. Instead, they voted for nature: let those who can succeed rise, and the rest need to go somewhere else, because trying to “fix” this natural Darwinistic condition of life causes us to become a monster managerial state like the Soviet Union.
The Left, which supports one form of this evil, is counter-attacking by telling us that acting in our self-interest is bad, while everyone else acting in their self-interest is good. This is a classic egalitarian position: a double standard disguised as morality, in order to take from the successful to give to the unsuccessful, who will then run society into the ground by repeating the same behavior patterns that made them unsuccessful in the first place.
We elected a racist demagogue who has promised to do serious harm to almost every person who isn’t a straight white male, and whose rhetoric has already stirred up hate crimes nationwide. White people were 70% of the voters in the 2016 election, and we’re the only demographic Trump won. It doesn’t matter why. What matters is there’s a white nationalist moving into the Oval Office, and white people — only white people — put him there.
What they call “white nationalism” is really “white self-defense,” if it is even “white,” given the high number of non-whites who voted for Donald Trump.
We do not want to be forced to give up our society to the same people who occupy most of the globe and are having troubles succeeding with their methods. First, we want to be able to exist, and not be ethnically cleansed through mass immigration and outbreeding; second, we realize that most societies do not succeed and that we need to stick to the methods that made ours succeed, including having a unified culture and heritage, and taking Charles Darwin at his word and promoted the most competent instead of taking politically correct positions.
The Left wants a recurring human dream to become real. This dream appears in pacifism, egalitarianism and other fantasies that we can all “be One” by removing our differences. In nature, as in mathematics, differences propel change and through that, better results displace weaker ones. This is reality; the Left opposes this not for the reasons they state, but because as individualists, Leftists want to avoid having to face the challenges of life itself. They want the intent of their egos to be more important than the results of their actions, and this life-denying philosophy will lead to failure here as it has elsewhere.
Across Western Civilization, notably the United States and Europe, a revolution is brewing against Leftism. We have now seen where it leads and that resembles the Soviet Union plus anti-racism, the philosophy which has given Leftists unlimited power since the second World War, too much for our tastes. We see that it is a path to doom not just for us, but for our civilization and with it, for humanity.
Modernity — outside of technology, which we like — has brought us existential misery and failing societies. We are pushing back. As another article in The New York Times (ironically) tells us, this may require doing away with the illusions of The Enlightenment™ which enshrined individualism as our highest goal:
Indeed, the modern history of Europe has shown that those countries fortunate enough to enjoy a king or queen as head of state tend to be more stable and better governed than most of the Continent’s republican states. By the same token, demagogic dictators have proved unremittingly hostile to monarchy because the institution represents a dangerously venerated alternative to their ambitions.
Reflecting in 1945 on what had led to the rise of Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill wrote: “This war would never have come unless, under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany.”
This election is more than a pivotal American event. It is a huge change in the direction of Western politics, and a watershed moment for humanity. We are realizing that what seems good is often evil, and what seems evil is often good, because appearance is not how we should judge our choices; results are.
Humans are self-destructive by nature. Our big brains tell us what to like, and those brains understand the world through forms that are convenient for our brains to process. This breaks down the complexity, nuance and depth of nature into little identical boxes called categories, and leads us to think those categories are more real than reality. But they are not.
The Left needs to understand that peaceful coexistence with the rest of us is not possible. We have rejected Leftism as a philosophy and will continue to do so. We have resurrected our self-interest through self-defense against people who want to destroy us. If it is fair for others to do that, it is fair for us to do it, and no amount of egalitarian hand-waving can conceal that fact.
Bruce Charlton writes an analysis of Evil, which he identifies as the cause of the decline of the West:
In other words, the evil can only imagine others as being as evil as themselves. In other words, we can recognise evil by the way of thinking, by the fact that their world view is constrained by imputing evil intentions to others.
The evil cannot even imagine that others may be different from themselves, may not be evil.
…My guess is that although everyone is a mixture of Good and evil; the evil are blinded to Good, while the Good are not blind to evil. It is not the special virtues of the Good which make them wiser; it is the malformation of thought which is induced by evil intent.
This restores the Greek version of moral evil, or hubris, to the definition. Hubris is to act outside of one’s place in the natural hierarchy of things. This requires a misunderstanding or denial of that order and the reasons for its existence, removing cause from effect as people usually do when they want society to subsidize them for their illogical decisions. In doing so, reason itself is perverted and made malformed.
With this vision, we see that evil has two parts: first, error on a level so fundamental that it corrupts all understanding of cause and effect by distorting a primal concept of cause and effect, or how the world came to be and the source of its order; second, an individualistic, narcissistic and egotistic rejection of all order larger than the individual in order to make the individual feel justified in selfish or illogical choices.
Individualism alone will do this. In order to prioritize the individual and its intent over results in reality, the person afflicted must reject the idea of natural order entirely, including any sense of cause and effect, also including primal causes such as the origin of the universe or the reason for its order. Individualism creates a pathology of denying sanity so that the individual can appear to be the cause of the world.
In turn, this makes the individual unstable, because that which was not intended by the individual thus appears as a variety of evil, which is unfortunate since all but a very small part of the world is not guided by intent of the individual. This inverts good and evil; natural order becomes “evil,” and individual pretense and reality-denial becomes “good.”
This shows us the root of our modern time. Civilization became successful and therefore could preserve those who normally required high mortality to keep their numbers in check, like mice or birds. As a result, the insane outnumbered the sane, and eventually took over through the mechanism of democracy through its philosophical justification (or perhaps rationalization) of “equality.” Since that time, our fortunes have increasingly gone ill.
As the old saying goes, there are those who “get it” and then there is everyone else. This applies to just about any idea and forces a binary on the population, separating it into two groups.
In the West, we have reached the point in politics. There are those who want to think realistically about the future and those who want to think ideologically.
Realistic thinking is measured by likely consequences in reality, independent of what we think about them; ideological thinking is based entirely on human intent, judgment and feelings. In that view, what makes most people experience pleasant mental sensations is the best policy.
Under ideology, we have driven ourselves to overpopulation, war, ecocide, corruption, bankruptcy, ruined social order and a political climate under which certain types of observations trigger reactions that destroy lives.
The West has become an existentially-miserable place, and this has been growing for some time. Realistic people do not like modernity because it is ugly, bedecked in bureaucracy, encourages the worst in humanity, and tends to sacrifice the good in order to defend the bad or mediocre.
In a sane society, someone growing up has the expectation that if he achieves good results and lives morally, he will be rewarded. Not so in this society; he will be penalized and squeezed for taxes to pay for those who did not follow his path. Like in the Soviet Union, we have created perverse incentives against goodness, intelligence, decency and honor.
The result is a place that is outwardly wealthy and exciting, but miserable within.
For the last centuries, this path has been visible to the top level of our thinkers, writers and artists. They have railed against it and demonstrated the power of alternatives, in their own form. At least, all of twentieth century literature seems to have followed this model. Even now, the resentment of our condition arises.
This has split us into two groups: those who see nothing wrong with our current path and those who want to escape it. The former group generally believes it can squeeze more blood from the stone and gain personal benefit at the expense of society, where the latter wants a functional civilization.
The West has been in decline for some time. We are finally in a position to stop it. With that accomplished, we can focus on how to rise again, making life more pleasurable for our people and encouraging them to greater heights of goodness, excellence and honesty.
It is only natural that this will polarize our population in preparation for the inevitable civil war.
Ye are not other men, but my arms and legs; and so obey me. — Captain Ahab, Moby-Dick
As societies mature, they need methods of holding people together so they can cooperate toward goals, which express purpose and values in tangible form. They have lost their original goal, which is to have civilization in the first place, because they have achieved it.
At this point, the growing civilization faces a more difficult task than ever before: it must unify its citizens toward purpose, including self-discipline to uphold moral standards, without a pressing threat. It is easy to unite people when famine or invaders threaten, but otherwise, people default to the Simian “everybody do whatever they want to.”
The only way known to make this work, throughout all of history, is to make citizenship contingent upon people being useful and understanding the purpose.
Since this is not only true but obvious, a movement immediately forms in every society like mold on cheese. This is compromised of individuals, acting in their own self-interest, who desire to be included despite lack of contribution or purpose, and they form a collective to use peer pressure to enforce their inclusion under the guise of universal inclusion.
This usually follows a diversity event, or interaction with other cultures such that sufficiently different people are included in the society. Once the people are markedly different, one can no longer point to the values of that civilization as absolute, but most widen values so that all can be included. At that point, the values seem arbitrary and people agitate against them because they secretly desire “everybody do whatever they want.”
At the moment that a society accepts universal inclusion, it commits itself to control, or the habit of having (1) a centralized authority that demands (2) uniform, or “universal,” obedience to the same rules. Purpose has been replaced by rules, which are a proxy or symbolic substitute for purpose. Rules are popular because they can be easily gamed, or subverted in intent while staying within boundaries of the rule as written.
Control is destructive because it forces people to externalize the process of making decisions to the rules. People no longer think about the consequences of their actions; they think about the rules, and whether they will be seen as good or bad for their attitude toward the rules. Authority and leadership are replaced by power.
In long term physical consequences, control creates societies that are destructive for the same reason that red tides — algal blooms that absorb all the oxygen and choke all life in ponds and oceans — are devastating. With no need to be focused on purpose, people expand in every direction chaotically, and this encourages reckless growth in order to sustain the vast number of people doing nothing particularly important.
The greatest damage however is done inside of people. When they defer responsibility to external forces, they lose the ability to make decisions. This in turn savages their ability to understand what is important, and what their own values are. Soon only two things exist: against-the-rules and permitted by dint of not being prohibited. This fosters random behavior, perversity, parasitism and other human ills that civilization needs to keep in check.
People in such societies are made neurotic. They no longer know what is real, only what is rewarded with popularity. Like lemmings, they would march over a cliff by following the person in front of them. They are entirely regulated by social control, or what others think of them based on appearance, and so “reality” becomes alien.
For this reason, they never know what the outcomes of their actions will be, and start to become conformist or prone to negatively restrict their actions to what has become popular in the past. This creates a herd instinct that focuses people on trends, panics, fads and precedent and punishes any who deviate through social censure. That in turn creates a headless society, like a circle of people each following the other.
At this point, people begin to feel pretty bad at an existential level, or the depth at which one considers the meaning of life and the value of existence. Nothing they do that is good will be rewarded, and any attempts to break out of groupthink will be punished. A darkorganization has arisen that opposes creative and realistic thinking.
The only way out of the ensuing death spiral is to effect an artificial bottleneck, or filtering of the population for its most fit, in this case those that still understand the purpose. Either that group must leave and set up a new civilization, or it must exile the purposeless.
Among diseases, the spread of this mental virus is unique because it attacks the strong. Civilizations that rise above the minimum now must contend with a threat from within, and many people are frightened of the type of strong authority — with consequences of potential exclusion — that this return to health requires.
In the modern West, we have needed such a purge for some time. It is not because these people are bad but because their purpose is elsewhere. If we want to restore the greatness of the past and rise to new greatness in the future, we need a civilization unified on that purpose.
Election 2016 presents a moment ripe for such a decision. Half of the country wants a third-world style socialist government, and the rest wants something going in the opposite or, better, a healthier direction. Whichever side wins will destroy the other, so the bottleneck is coming whether we like it or not.
Vaclav Havel wrote his influential essay “The Power of the Powerless” to describe why people follow along with soft totalitarian regimes. This essay attempts to understand why people create soft totalitarian regimes.
Havel pitches his thesis with an everyday example:
THE MANAGER of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.
Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?
Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.
As Plato wrote long ago, cause and effect are different animals, but people frequently confuse effect with the cause of itself (although it is the cause of what comes after it). We see the effect here, which is that normal people make symbolic gestures of everyday obedience in order to avoid ostracism by the regime.
The cause of that situation is the powerless of the power, or the group that forms like a gang, cult or union within a thriving society. Once society establishes itself, it loses its initial purpose, which is to establish itself. At that point, humans become spoiled because they have benefits they could not create for themselves.
The Rise of Ideology
This represents a departure from the state of nature. In the natural setting, small groups have only what they can produce, and those who produce nothing or are unwise tend not to survive. Once civilization is established, its morality takes over from that Darwinian role, and if it fails to weed out the idiotic, the society fails.
The “Powerless of the Power” refers to the group that survives when civilization conquers nature. These people are without actual power, i.e. the ability to do things effectively. But in social groups, they have the power of a gang: they can thwart society. And so, society buys them off, with bribes, welfare and benefits.
Although it seems intelligent and peaceful, that approach backfires because whatever we tolerate, we get more of. Buying off the dysfunctional creates a new layer of dysfunctional people who then need some reason to feel good about themselves and some purpose to which to dedicate to themselves.
Havel explains ideology as the product of the regime, but it is the other way around: the regime is the product of the ideology, because the ideology is personally compulsive to those it ensnares. Ideology explains a not-very-happy life as a process of struggle toward an ultimate good, and thus is the one size-fits-all band-aid for any doubt, low self-confidence, or indecision.
Like most moderns, Havel finds his thinking inverted because he is thinking backward from the present, not from the past to the present. In his view, totalitarianism is the cause because he sees it in the present tense and noticing it causing ideology, which can be explained because causality is a cycle where every cause attempts to re-create the conditions responsible for producing itself, so that it can perpetuate. All things desire power, and this is where Havel misses the cause of totalitarianism — unlike Plato — despite having utterly brilliantly described its mechanism.
As he writes:
Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.
In other words, ideology is a cover story and self-marketing. Whatever is wrong with us, we are made equal by ideology, and then those who wield it well can become more-than-equal.
Pretense And Control
That advantage makes ideology as eternally popular as it is perennially wrong. Healthy, capable people have no need for it; ideology is like explaining why you failed a test or lost a sports game by saying that you did it for the greater good. Ideology excuses failings by demanding that failure become equal to success in the eyes of social judgment, which means that a new decision of failure/success is introduced based on how well one flatters others.
Flattery is telling others what they want to hear. If you want to know the secret of humanity, it is that it is not ruled by secretive groups like the Bilderbergers or Skull And Bones, but by the pretense of the crowd. Each person has some failings or hang-ups, and these are obvious to those around them; the people who reach out to others by explaining those glitches as victimhood will instantly be popular.
This pattern reveals itself at every level of a human group as if we were looking at a high school. The popular kids accept each other despite their basic instability, since they are all attention whores. The nerds group together and forgive each other their weirdnesses and fears.
The fat kids can fit in with the nerds and all the emotionally needy kids cluster in the theater department. In each group, all members forgive others and flatter them with the idea that obvious problems are not problems; this is a defensive outlook created in anticipation of criticism, and it replaces purpose and goal with a perpetual cycle of doubt and denial. The defensive nature of this psychology creates a type of pre-emptive strike, or passive-aggressive projections, called pretense, where those with the most to hide pretend they have the least to hide.
This is the mechanism used to control human groups because it renders them inert by making them focus only on themselves, and in the ensuing state of solipsism, reject the idea of noticing the direction of the group as a whole. That makes it ideal for controllers, who want their subjects to go firmly to sleep so the control forces can use that group as a means to the ends of the controllers.
Human social groups with strong leadership create unselfconscious cultures where people feel that doing right by the group as an organic whole is enough. The person who spies the enemy sneaking in through the woods is not a hero, but someone recognized as a contributor in the group. When that group protects enough people who are not healthy, that group like a cult or gang then seeks to replace the distinction between contributor and non-contributor with a single scale, which is how well one repeats the words and symbols of the ideology that in the absence of purpose is presumed to bond them together.
What results is a conspiracy of flattery. It is impossible to diagnose because it has no center and no leaders, and worse still, none of its members are aware they are doing it. Like a viral infection of the mind, it spreads through the process of socializing between individuals, because when one meets a new person, the choice becomes one of either adopting their mode of behavior or being rejected. Thus it passes along, every person flattering the others in order to form groups, and in so doing, they create a society where there are no permanent things, no guarantee that those who contribute will always be loved. Every day one must keep up the flattery or be excluded. By promising to accept everyone, the conspiracy of flattery has made them slaves to constant threatening social interactions.
These people then rationalize their misery as happiness because to do otherwise is to admit that a great mistake has been made. If they recognize the existential terror and confusion in which they live, the value of ideology as a personal ego-support system fails, and then they will fall out of sync with the rest of the group. Instead, they double down as a way to win the “game” of social success, or at least to have a position where they feel safe.
Civilizations die by going crazy. They do so because the powerless, united by ideology, become powerful and divide the group. At that point, the only coherent message is a very simple lowest common denominator one, and ideology — based on what “should” be, usually in the form of universalism or inclusion of everyone whether contributor or not — quickly absorbs the rest of the citizens. Imitating each other in their insanity, they march into the abyss.
Most people of functional mind now understand that the American dream is not only dead, but was an illusion, brought on by a pocket of history between bad decisions and the moment their consequences arrive.
Even more than that, we are now seeing that Western Civilization has died, and we who are left — functional minds, again — want a new civilization to replace it.
Something went wrong, long ago, and we have been surviving since that time on the slowness of decay. Like a monkey on our back, this original mistake lives on as an assumption, and for this reason, no matter what we try, it is infected with the bad assumption.
We are like a person trying to clean a virus from a computer network while using an infected machine, so that no matter how much he cuts away, he re-infects everything he touches. The disease lives in us, the Typhoid Mary of bad ideological dogma assumptions.
The trouble is that, while war, slavery and poverty are in general bad things, they may well be profitable for some. Especially in small doses. And if you can create a feedback loop by which Universalism causes war, slavery or poverty, but does so in such a way as to reward those who practice and promote Universalism, you have a loop that can continue indefinitely.
Take, for example, the “peace process” in Israel and Palestine. Now 60 years old and counting. How confident are you that this “peace process” is not, in fact, the cause of this similarly unending conflict? It certainly generates a very comfortable living, full of meaning and importance and not a few frequent-flier miles, for all those involved. Why shut it down?
RF hits back with his own analysis, which is closer to the truth:
What we have then is the system itself being the driver. This is the key point, and one which can only be repeated in as clear a way as possible, without the added distraction of the additional context provided by Moldbug when trying to explain it – the unsecure system is the problem, and the mechanisms of this unsecure system create the environment which selects for progressivism. Power is above culture.
The power system literally created this culture.
Power systems are proxies for leadership; people decide that kings are too dangerous, and so they implement a series of rules and incentives (a “system”) for managing people who are presumed to be roughly equal in moral character, mental ability and instinct.
Perhaps instead we should look toward the fundamental assumption there, which is equality. Equality is a human tendency wired into us since early days because it is how one forms a group. Offer inclusion into a new group, or tribe, to a number of people, and promise them that they share equally in its profits, and they hop on board. This is an addictive virus to the human brain: less responsibility, and the possibility of more gain.
This is why equality seems, on a mathematical level, to be a good game-playing strategy. The forgotten factor (as usual) is time, or more accurately, iteration: profit-based systems, over time, decay from high-margin to low-margin as the efficiency effects they bring become more widely distributed.
Visualize a new technology product, for example the iGroin. This product constantly stimulates the groin with small electrical shocks to keep the wearer awake at his boring job, tedious television watching, and stultifying small talk. At first, it sells for $700. But as more people own them, costs go down and competition increases, so prices drop.
Ten years later, the iGroin is a generic type of product that sells for $50 at grocery stores.
Equality has the same curve. At first, it is a brilliant power grab: the new tribe takes everything it can, distributes it, and becomes wealthy. Over time, there is less to grab, and so the parasitic process becomes unruly. This then requires the implementation of the same administrative and leadership roles that the parasites took from their host tribe, a larger group. At this point, the parasite becomes the host, but because it has no mode except parasitism, it starves itself as it fragments into smaller groups trying to parasitize it.
This is why all advanced societies have died so far, on Earth and in the heavens: the society becomes wealthy, subsidizing those who could not have survived without it, and then those take over through equality, because equality is social magic because it cannot be opposed without the opposer looking like a cruel tyrant to the herd. Then, the society chokes itself to death, and reverses the process of civilization.
In this view, the system is the result of the assumption, not the cause of it. This is more accurate.
The problem is Us. Individualism arises from people who do not understand civilization. They exist within it because they can only exist when someone else takes care of the basics of life and social order. At that point, they take it all for granted, and start agitating for more (hubris). With that, the parasitism begins.
With the rise of parasitism, all values and meanings are inverted, meaning that they come to mean the opposite of what they were originally intended to mean. The reason for this is that equality demands inversion. To include everyone equally, one must remove any differences between choices, and even words themselves, by making them mean the same thing, ideologically. This means that any terms describing something other than the ideology must be inverted.
Now the cycle is complete. Inversion = Equality = Individualism. The needs of the individual, expressed through a collective, alter the definition of symbols, and create a false consensual reality in which realistic thought is suppressed. Then the society drives itself insane with its inability to find the assumption which started it on a path to doom.
There is only one solution for this: keep the people of highest intelligence and moral capacity in power, make as many of them as you can, and drive away the useless people. Darwinism in nature has no analogue in civilization except this, and it is vitally needed.
In the future, an advanced civilization will survive this threshold. It will do so by adopting the view of the Spartans not in a military sense, but in a social one. Its people will wage constant war against stupidity and idiots, and exile them to distant lands, without having to make a case for laws being broken. People will be sent away simply for being fools.
This society will not be excessively wealthy. The casting away of fools removes the vast profit motive of consumerism, and also requires that even the highly intelligent do actual work. That will paradoxically reward them, as it gives them a break from their over-heating brains, and allows for a lack of the tedium of nonsense work.
In such a civilization, people will spend very little time on inventing new theories, except as pertains to physical science discoveries. Most of their time will be spent in silence, contemplation and enjoyment of life. They will embrace the mundanity and reject the “exciting” as fetishistic.
This type of civilization fits with what Plato saw as ideal:
In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us. – The Republic
The gold are those of excellent moral and mental ability, and the silver those who can implement that vision. When these castes are mixed, those raw abilities are lost.
Hierarchy in human tribes takes this form: there must be some who rise to the top not by manipulation or brute strength, but by ability and the direction in which they appoint that ability.
Here are the gold, silver, bronze and iron castes in another form:
He is called a Brahmana in whom are truth, gifts, abstention
from injury to others, compassion, shame, benevolence and penance.
He who is engaged in the profession of battle, who studies the Vedas, who makes gifts (to Brahmanas) and takes wealth (from those he protects) is called a Kshatriya.
He who earns fame from keep of cattle, who is employed in agriculture and the means of acquiring wealth, who is pure in behaviour and attends to the study of the Vedas, is called a Vaisya.
He who takes pleasure in eating every kind of food, who is engaged in doing every kind of work, who is impure in behaviour, who does not study the Vedas, and whose conduct is unclean, is said to be a Sudra. – “The Four Orders Of Human Beings”
In failed societies, we find false Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas as we see in our current society. These are caste-mixed people who take on the behavior and moral attributes of Sudras.
In healthy societies, we find Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas who act according to their station, much as they were called Jarls, Karls, and freeholders in Europe according to their ability and inclination.
This hierarchy is the opposite of equality. It is quality-based, meaning that it aims to produce more of quality, instead of attempting to normalize everything to one level as equality does.
Equality arises from social politeness in mixed groups. One must assert the opposite of the truth in order to include everyone else. For that reason, the ugly person becomes beautiful and the weak strong. Then the group bullies and gangs up on everyone else to enforce this.
Maintaining this order over centuries requires a maintenance of genetics, because only people of quality can enforce it. The tendency of civilization is to burden those people with responsibility for the welfare of less capable others, thus exhausting them and driving the good ones into exile.
This is why Darwinism is the solution: the less capable and bad must be driven out, not “rehabilitated” or kept as serfs, because they are the destroyers of civilization, even if it takes centuries.
The Spartans understood this on a gut level, but used military aptitude as a proxy for goodness. The next civilization to inherit this earth and the stars will use no proxies, and will simply rank people with a cold and emotionless eye, always pressing the best upward and the worst outward.
In Jared Taylor’s most recent video attempting to define the Alt Right in response to the giant wave of traffic his websites had garnered, he said that while it was a range of perspectives, “They all agree about one thing: equality is a dangerous myth.”
This focus on inequality is the broadest agreed upon position in the Alt Right, where the say that egalitarian thinking is a war on the “distinction” between peoples. People are unequal as individuals within racial groups, and racial groups themselves are unequal when compared to each other. This comes down to one of the key political precepts of the movement, agreed upon no matter if they identify as Nazis, neo-monarchists, or neoreactionaries. A society is healthier when it has strict hierarchies, castes, and stratifications.
Leftism is egalitarianism. The Alt Right wants to overthrow not just Leftism but its precursor state. This requires unearthing and destroying the state that caused Leftism, and in so doing rooting out egalitarianism and its parent philosophy individualism wherever they can be found.
In the Alt Right view, genetics, not laws, determine social outcomes. For this reason, the “proposition nation” where people are unified by political and economic interests is a failure, and our desire is to achieve a nation created on the basis of genetic similarity, with internal hierarchy based on individual differences not in test-scoring but in innate ability. This opposes the entire idea of modernity, and with it, politics.
With the downfall of egalitarianism, the possibly of moving beyond the modern time becomes available. We will no longer be constrained by mass politics and the necessity of dumbing down every idea so that a herd can approve of it. We can aspire to greatness, instead of pandering to the fears and lusts of a crowd composed of individuals who know nothing higher than their own immediate sensations.