Darwin on genetic entropy


What process kills every civilization? Degeneration, or the genetic adaptation to lower conditions by its population, precipitating a collapse into third world status. Too much inclusivity normally causes this, which leads a civilization to value its least productive and moral citizens along with others, and that quickly leads to disastrous policy including unnecessary wars and diversity.

Every effect has a singular cause, however, and the cause of too much inclusivity is a lack of direction. Without purpose, societies become subsidy engines through easy work, producing hordes of parasites who think that by showing up to a job and reaping the benefits, they have participated in society. The “bourgeois” attitude of more than laissez faire but “out of sight, out of mind” applies there.

Lack of purposes emerges from an unwillingness to strive for more than the material. In turn, that originates in a lack of belief in the physical world and withdrawal into mental worlds, including personal religion. When people reject the goodness of our world, they reject a purpose to life itself by passing off their human judgment as absolute truth, which then creates a ghetto where only human desires, judgments and feelings are accepted as real, which creates a very real neurotic hell.

Darwin rightly points out that degeneration occurs naturally to any population without the strength to resist it:

Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan,19 they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are born by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts—and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ‘struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.” — Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Evola shows, in turn, that degeneration arises from lack of purpose toward the transcendent:

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.” — Julius Evola, “On the Secret of Degeneration”

Conservatism is what conserves. What is conserved? That which is excellent. Conservatism has two prongs. The first is consequentialism or measurement of all things by their effect in reality in full scope, meaning for all time and in all contexts. The second is transcendental purpose to life itself, based in — if nothing else — our ability to establish an order above the default, and achieve “the good, the beautiful and the true” and “the perennial things” (Huxley) or “Tradition” (Evola).

We define ourselves by that toward which we strive. With a physical goal, we become more physical things; this includes physical goals like equality and pacifism. With a transcendental goal, we push ourselves toward what is not just reacting to life, but what is enhancing it, and in that power we see the reason to ascend to greater clarity of consciousness and through that see the wisdom of nature and any gods in which we believe.

Until that point is achieved, all discipline is “outward in” meaning manipulating manifestations in appearance of inward tendencies, not the tendencies themselves. Very few humans achieve this point, and only later in their lives, and even then they see in varying degrees. This is why the ancients put their best people into aristocracies and kept them in sheltered, introverted, and meditative states of contemplation and surrounded them with other wise people, to produce leaders who were fully aware and capable.

Without leaders of this nature, we succumb to degeneration because of the inevitable compromise and eroding of standards and through that purpose over the years, and so we end up degenerating within and having that manifest itself in declining genetics. At that point, our civilization becomes moronland, the outright stupid and thoughtless becomes the approved norm, and anyone with a brain flees to the hills, leaving behind a third world level of disorganization and venality.

The Great Filter that dooms non-leftist movements


Recapping history in brief: The EnlightenmentTM legitimized egalitarianism — lack of social standards to hold back the individual — as a viewpoint, then the French Revolution in 1789 made it a political force. The French went on from there to rage across Europe in the first of the ideological wars, and the Americans tried to invent a form of liberalism that would not consume itself.

We all know the problem of liberalism: it destroys civilizations and leaves third world remnants. It does this by dividing the people against one another and substituting the quest for civilizational and personal health with an ideological jihad for ever-greater equality. Its policies are unrealistic, its advocates insane, and it constitutes a power grab that then fails to rule because it is mob rule.

Why, you may ask, with every intellectual who was not awash in personal problems knowing this since 1500 AD approximately, has nothing been done?

The first is democracy itself. Crowds reward emotionally-pleasing ideas that are easy to understand, which cuts out any long-term plans (longer than the next year at most) and any complex ideas that cannot be explained in one sentence at a bar. Crowds also like to receive things from society, and to not be accountable, so radical changes are bad but entitlements are good.

The further problem is the compromise problem which is that in a group of people, each person will differentiate himself by having a unique opinion or need; the process of differentiation is important for that person to succeed socially. This will force a norming onto the many divergent ideas which involves taking their lowest common denominator. (See LCD, r/k, Dunning-Kruger.)

Between these effects, you have a political system that is hostile toward leadership. Leadership sees what others do not, acts toward it, and worries later about getting all the special interests into line. Politics works the exact opposite way: it is “pragmatic,” and involves currying favor among special interests and flattering voters and accepting lobbyists and the interests of foreign powers, a process that politicians hide behind altruism because if you can justify your plan with helping pity objects — the poor, women, LGTBBQ, minorities, orphans and cripples — then the credulous wide-eyed voters will go for it and completely fail to observe its actual goal.

This is analogous to advertising. If you want to make good beer, you create a painstakingly crafted product that is more expensive than the average and has low margins. If you want to make money making beer, find a way to do it at low cost so that you can both sell it cheaply and have a high margin. This requires making bad beer, but you can offset that with a relatively minor cost — compared to that of making actually good beer — of advertising. When you advertise, do not sell them cheap beer. Sell them an image of how this is sexually successful person beer, and being essentially monkeys with the facility of language, they will buzz warmly to that image and buy the product. Politics is no different.

In addition to the problem of politics, there is the problem of internal politics on the right:

On the other hand, it has happened several times already in the history of the Right that intellectual movements have gotten to this level. Then they dissipated. For whatever ultimate cause, they became corrupted and oversimplified; they lost the enthusiasm of their followers and the attention of everyone else. These schools of thought all failed to impede the advance of liberalism. Between its initial awakening and world historical influence there seems to be a Filter (perhaps several, but let’s keep things simple), and no antiliberal movement has yet survived it. And this challenge is before the neoreactionaries, not behind them. – Bonald via Outside In

What, indeed, is this Great Filter?

I submit it is two things: First, people interested in normal life do not have a concentrated demand that is deconstructive like the ideological people do. Second, people on the right are easily seduced by the ego, which demands social success over accuracy, and so they modify their philosophies to include what people want to hear and special interests demand, and get rich and popular and so everyone follows them.

Truth is a lonely path that can only be appreciated by at best the top fifth of the population in terms of intelligence. Then the question of their honesty arises. Have they disciplined their emotions? Are they mature enough to view a world in which they and their personal success are not the most important things? Can they think on a long term basis? And the biggest: can they think of situations with more than one actor, such as market forces, culture and leadership working together, instead of the standard modern solution of making a law to create an institution to address a problem with a strict rule?

Most right-wingers know they are not-liberal by their gut feelings and their intimation that liberalism is sheerly insane.

There are some who are not right-wing per se, but also recognize that the liberal/leftist plans will end in disaster.

These two find it very hard to unify in any way because to do so requires unpopular thoughts, violation of trends and fashion, and even more, personal sacrifice by not profiting from selling people what they already want to hear, and personal negation by recognizing the world outside of the narcissistic ego.

Any right-wing movement is easy to split up. Wait for it to get going, then re-state liberalism with a conservative surface. The crowd will flock to you! You have given them a path of least resistance, and the ability to be popular for upholding it. This is why conservatives always try to be like liberals, even though it hands them defeats over the long term.

It is easier for conservatives to be the “party of NO” because it enables them to hide their own ideas and focus solely on why liberal ideas are insane, dysfunctional and destructive. While this is less popular than the “and it’s all free!” style of politics, it gains support from those who want lower taxes and to avoid following the ideological train into the graveyard of empires along with the Soviets.

But can Neoreaction survive entryism by populism through self-promotion?

Understanding the extremism of modernity


Ideology makes itself tempting by providing a single set of symbols and categories to explain civilization and its problems. What if, on the other hand, politics were not a cause but an effect? Including possibly the type of mistaken effect that occurs when something is used as a justification, or an explanation after the fact to make an event seem favorable.

Biology explains much of our society and its behavior better than politics does. Imagine that society were a single animal, or a herd of animals. Knowing that it was in trouble, perhaps with a disease or famine or threat of invasion, that herd might go a bit wild. It would accelerate normal behaviors of life to extremes in order to save what it could of itself before the end.

Using the herd analogy, a herd under stress tends to produce more offspring so they will outlast its losses. It becomes more violent, both to fend off attackers and possibly subjugate other herds and occupy their environmental niches. As part of this, it forces its animals to demonstrate greater loyalty.

What does this translate into for humanity?

  1. Hypersexuality. Like crazed animals, we repeat the sex act frequently as if it were a talisman against our downfall.
  2. Obesity. Cornered animals will often eat impulsively to give themselves something to do, and to try to boost health.
  3. Zealotry. When the herd is threatened, its members obsessively come together and exile discontents.
  4. Competition. Members of the herd assert position and test others to firm up the command and control hierarchy.
  5. Paranoia. Feeling constantly alert, and wary also of instability within, members become hyper-alert and suspicious.
  6. Superstitious. Confronting an ill it does not understand, the herd becomes neurotic and superstitious looking for causes.

Our past 200 years could be viewed as the spasms of a dying animal or a dying herd. Aware of its short time, it is manically trying to conduct the patterns of life in compressed form so that there is a chance of survival.

This creates pathology where the method is repeated without the purpose, and as the method does not produce the right results, it is repeated even more obsessively. Like instinct in the domesticated animal, it arises out of place and is repeated creepily and fanatically.

For the West, the writing has been on the wall for centuries. A peak of culture, massive internal conflict, massive political instability, lack of good leaders, incursion of commerce into all areas, and lower echelon revolt that seems more destructive than constructive. We can argue about causes later, but it is clear that we are in decline.

That has — like all crises — created a division in our society. At the highest level, there are two groupings of humans: those who recognize the problem, and those who do not. The denialists invent excuses for how our collapse is a good thing, which explains the beady-eyed fixation of the left on the Third World, and/or come up with other “problems” that are not real but will distract us, like the war on drugs or the quest for social justice.

As the doom still approaches despite our efforts, and no real consensus exists about it, people become more frenetic and unstable. Very few of them can articulate what is going on because it requires someone who has the equivalent of a PhD in philosophy and history who also has lived as an outsider, and thus not been tainted by denialism, his or her whole life.

Some exist. The herd takes revenge on them as it always does, by ignoring what they say and then pretending to not notice the steady increase of doom, because this gives the herd power with what it has left. Yet the only real power consists in recognizing the problem and counteracting it, because otherwise all of what we have exists on borrowed time.

Robert Sapolsky and the urge to neuter in Stress: Portrait of a Killer (2008)


Liberalism wants to remove power. It has two views on power, a public view and a private view. In private, liberals fear power because it requires competence, and competence entails oversight because it allows the powerful to point out where others are acting in illogical or venal ways. The private goal of liberalism is to abolish oversight of the individual, which requires the justification of egalitarianism/altruism to whip groups into a hive-frenzy to implement it. In public, liberals fear power because it results in “oppression,” and their response is to diffuse power through democracy and de-masculinization, replacing it with the Society of Endless Compromise which always defaults to inclusivity, removing oversight and allowing venal and illogical behaviors to be “equal” to intelligent ones.

As part of this myth, liberals enjoy the concept of pacifism. In this mental state, they assume that life would turn out just fine or even better without warfare and conflict. This ignores the fact that most people are unreasonable and that the stronger, by virtue of being more competent, tend to improve conditions by imposing violence on the lesser. In nature, we call this “Natural Selection” and newspapers run the kindly picture of grandfather Darwin. But our human pretense disallows us from realizing the same rule applies to us: evolution occurs when the more competent beat down the less-competent and take their place.

One form of this pacifism myth appears in the interview with primatologist Robert Sapolsky in the National Geographic Society documentary Stress: Portrait of a Killer. Sapolsky talks about his experience with the Keekorok Troop of baboons, and he relates his conclusions as if they were experience, fully aware than an audience of credulous useful idiots will adore him for his precious and passive stand against masculinity, power, violence and anything else that affirms reality over individual human desires, judgments and feelings.

Here is his statement in the documentary:

Sapolsky: The Keekorok Troop is the one I started with 30 years ago.

Narrator: The Keekorok Troop took to foraging for food in the garbage dump of a popular tourist lodge. The trash included meat tainted with tuberculosis. The result was that nearly half the males in the troop died.

Sapolsky: It wasn’t random who died.

Narrator: Every alpha male was gone.

Sapolsky: And what you were left with was twice as many females as males, and the males who were remaining were, you know, just to use scientific jargon they were good guys. It completely transformed the atmosphere in the troop. And this particular troop has a culture of very low levels of aggression and they’re doing that 20 years later. If they’re able to, in one generation, transform what are supposed to be textbook social systems sort of engraved in stone, we don’t have an excuse when we say there’s certain inevitabilities about human social systems.

Let us translate: in this group the alpha males died, and peace reigned. And it has kept going! Why can’t we humans be as enlightened as the baboons?

He does not mention that 20 years is to evolution the blink of an eye, or elaborate whether this troop continues surviving because it is living off the refuse of humans. Then again, that would be a socialist experiment that would make liberals and especially the armchair women pampered with easy jobs or dysfunctional modern family subsidies squeal and shout out in delight how “adorable” it all is.

Pacifism wins the day, and all that scary stuff in life — death, conflict, personal inferiority — is banished. The feeling is religious.

Not surprisingly, the Red The New York Times covered this in pure ecstasy of a passivity-superiority complex:

Remarkably, the Forest Troop has maintained its genial style over two decades, even though the male survivors of the epidemic have since died or disappeared and been replaced by males from the outside. (As is the case for most primates, baboon females spend their lives in their natal home, while the males leave at puberty to seek their fortunes elsewhere.) The persistence of communal comity suggests that the resident baboons must somehow be instructing the immigrants in the unusual customs of the tribe.

That is the Great Liberal Dream in a nutshell: remove the powerful, replace them with foreigners, and have them take care of us in subsidy and happiness forever. The article even states this explicitly:

The new work vividly demonstrates that, Putumayo records notwithstanding, humans hold no patent on multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism = peace, pacifism, love and happiness. Get rid of those blonde meanies who rule over us and we will finally be free!

Like the liberal love affair with the Bonobos, the tribe of monkeys who pacify each other with sex instead of fighting, the Keekorok Troop is a myth elevated to fantasy because it conforms to the liberal agenda.

”We don’t yet understand the mechanism of transmittal,” said Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky, a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford, ”but the jerky new guys are obviously learning, ‘We don’t do things like that around here.’ ”

Jerky guys versus good guys, in the rhetoric of a scientist. How is this science? It is as if ideology went looking for meaning, picked it out of a more complex situation and ignored the rest of it, and now is using it to hammer home its zombie viewpoint without regard for the truth of the situation.

What happens to the Keekorok Troop when the human garbage goes away, or a stronger troop moves into the neighborhood? Probably the conditions of whatever is “third world status” in simian troops.












What could be the driving source behind such a scientist? Again, from nu-Pravda:

Dr. Sapolsky, 43, grew up in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, a place he describes as ”a true tribal enclave.” His career blossomed during boyhood visits to the Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, where he spent hours fantasizing about living in the African dioramas.

By age 12, he was ”your basic misanthropic egghead,” as he put it, and writing fan letters to primatologists (later on, at John Dewey High School in Coney Island, he taught himself Swahili). He dreamed of escaping Brooklyn.

”Bensonhurst was not the place to be a short scholarly Jewish kid with no proclivity toward athletics or gang violence,” he explained.

He was a short nerdy kid who did not like sports and he was of course, oppressed, by the strong. Or at least the violent. Or maybe not the strong or violent, but the criminal. It is unclear what he is saying here, but also clear that if he is reciting this 31 years later, he harbors a life-long resentment of people stronger than him.

Liberal pathology at work is an amazing thing. They wish to neuter the strong and embrace the foreign, if not the outright enemy, and have it take care of them. In my day, we had a simpler term for this: giving up.

Brett Stevens interview at The Right Stuff


Recently I conducted an interview with Meow Blitz of The Right Stuff. This summarizes many positions and connects past and present ideals written about on this and other sites. It also answers dicey areas such as the need for interracial collaboration by nationalists, the rejection of the so-called “Jewish Question,” and why I endorse active nihilism instead of a religious basis to right-wing beliefs.

As of last night, the interview was removed for undisclosed reasons. In the spirit of getting the information out there, it is republished here in part, leaving off some of the cultural questions that are less relevant to readers of this site:

Your output would fill a book with several thousand pages. Despite this, many people are completely unaware of your existence due to your low-key approach. Can you briefly explain how you first became involved as an internet writer and what your initial impetus was?

I started writing about heavy metal because there was a scarcity of information. As time went on, I needed to write about what made some metal good and inevitably, as a means of explaining what metal is, what its ideas are. This led to a look at “outsider” ideas that are not tolerated by society. My outlook has always been a form of intense realism that is sometimes called “active nihilism,” and it took me away from socially-accepted answers toward those that our society denies but which might potentially represent actual solutions.

The “low-key approach” you mention keeps me on the fringes because it de-emphasizes emotion and other individualist sensations. This makes less exciting reading for those who want an outlet for their frustrations, but that group is the segment of my audience who are least prone to act on what they read. I aim to describe reality, which places me in the minority because most writers intend to cater to an audience. This produces circular writing, which consists of human reactions to a topic, failing to ever penetrate the issue and find reasoning, solutions or personal growth.

Tell us about how you became involved with Corrupt.org, what kind of things you tried to do with the site, and what made you ultimately abandon it.

I was fortunate at Corrupt.org to work with some of the finest thinkers in the emerging alternative right arena. Our editor Alex Birch is a man of many talents and great depth of perception, although like all sensitives in the modern time he suffers greatly for what he notices, and I worked with him in addition to many talented writers.

Corrupt.org was an attempt to take the raw id that the writings on nihilism expressed and apply it to sober and sensible policy which could avert the twin tragedies of ecocide and civilization decay in the West. At its core, the site was about transcendence, or seeing the underlying order to nature and learning to appreciate its beauty, then applying the lessons learned to our material world, since the organization of matter and thought share a common principle. It was abandoned when Alex Birch moved on from it at a time when I lacked the time and energy to keep it going.

Let’s talk about your homepage, Amerika.org. It has been running strong for over a decade and your output has been constant and seemingly inexhaustible. I know other talented writers have been involved in the site but you have been the most consistent and dedicated writer. One of the most recurring themes of your site is the concept of Crowdism. Can you explain this theory and how it relates to the political left?

Crowdism can be compared to the process of life. A person is born and moves to an unsettled patch of land. He sets up a house, tills the fields, raises animals, and sets up a family. He then succumbs slowly to a process of calcification. He no longer thinks about conquest, but of maintaining and improving what he already has. He seeks to avoid risk and, as socializing with others and trade enter the picture, becomes more concerned for appearances than realities. As a result, he slowly drifts away from knowledge of the world into an entirely human sphere composed of his own thoughts and how he can transfer those thoughts to others. He becomes focused on control and management, which euphemisms for projection and manipulation, and tends to think in terms of the types of simple structures that support those and forgets the more complex designs of both nature and his own imaginative thought. The result is stagnation from within, and while he may identify scapegoats outside of himself, the cause and solution both lie within how he disciplines his thinking.

In the same way, Crowdism emerges from the human individual in a civilization. He already has grocery stores and hospitals, schools and roads, and other benefits of civilization, and he takes those for granted. What he wants is to avoid being seen as insufficient or inferior by the standards of the civilization. In other words, he fears not being included because he either falls short or people in society notice his motivations and find them dubious. To avoid the possibility of being excluded, he goes to war against the idea of standards itself. His main weapon is to play the victim: he claims that he has been oppressed, or otherwise injured, and demands a subsidy to raise him to the base level that others enjoy. We call this idea egalitarianism, but those who uphold it do not do so for others, but for themselves. They want zero social oversight so their behavior can never be wrong and they will always be included in the wealth and power of the civilization.

Crowdism manifests psychologically through passive-aggression expressed through altruism, which is a form of advertising by the individual. Public acts of charity are a pre-emptive defense against criticism because the person attacked can point all the good that he has done as a selfless benefactor. From that unassailable position, he can then construe any criticism of himself as oppression, play the victim and get sympathy from the group. This is where the “Crowd” in Crowdism comes in: the individual, who fears social oversight, finds others in the same predicament and bands together to form a swarm. This swarm has one rule: attack anyone from outside who attacks any one of us. This is the same psychology behind street gangs and cliques in elementary school. They swarm as a group and so people join so that they can be defended. This group offers one thing which is the promise of universal inclusion without regard to behavior, which means that all individuals escape oversight. Its natural enemies are morality, common sense, history, logic and knowledge of beauty. It wages war on these things so that it can force society to include those who are otherwise insufficient, which gives it a numerical advantage over any sane system of government or leadership. All societies are destroyed by Crowdism, which weakens them and divides them internally to the point where they cannot respond to external threats and cannot make realistic decisions, leading them into a cycle of endless foreign wars, internal crises, and faddish self-rule.

Leftism is one form of Crowdism. Leftism is the ideology emerging from The EnlightenmentTM — or as I call it, “The Age of Emo” — and it can be summarized as egalitarianism. It has two stages, the first of which resembles modern libertarianism, and the second of which resembles modern socialism, distinguished by its introduction of subsidies. The founding idea of socialism is that workers own the means of production which in practical terms means that they are shareholders to the wealth of the society and receive dividends simply for being alive. It is a subsidy and nothing more. Socialism arises from classical liberalism because once you have said that all people are equal, you rapidly start to see that results do not end up being equal; some end up wealthier than others. To avoid the appearance of inequality, societies adopt subsidies which enable them to take from the wealthy and give to the less wealthy, which avoids this “disparate impact” in end results. Leftists use equality as their goal to mask their actual intention, which is to seize power and wealth, and as a method they argue for altruism because it is a binary that is impossible to criticize.

When leftists say “we want equality for everyone,” the only inversion of that which is recognized by the average person is that someone wants inequality for everyone, and that sounds bad in the social logic of human beings which says you should be inclusive and share with others. In reality, there is a third option which is neither equality nor inequality, but as Plato said, “good to the good and bad to the bad,” in varying degrees. People should get what they give, based not just on effort but competence. However, competence is mostly biological, starting with IQ, and this makes it unpopular because it is not under the control of our intentions. We cannot will ourselves to be smarter than we are; we are what we are, and no amount of pretending or engineering can change that. For this reason, altruism wins out socially and becomes a form of social control. Those who oppose it are presumed to be enemies, and the Crowd attacks them, without government having to do anything. This is why Crowdism is a more advanced system than totalitarianism, but achieves the same ends.

Amerika documents Crowdism and the ongoing collapse of the West and counters the leftist notion with a few ideas. The first is self-interest, which is that no person should be obligated to take care of another. The second is social hierarchy, in both caste system and aristocracy. The third is purpose, which requires identity, which requires nationalism. This complex chain of notions holds that social standards are not the enemy at all but the only thing capable of saving us from our callowness as individuals, and that to have social standards society must have a moral standard, which requires a goal so that we can compare our actions to that goal and see what results we have achieved in reality. This is a complex form of the conservative notions of consequentialism, or measuring our acts by results not methods, and responsibility, meaning that we are assessed by whether or not we achieved the goal or purpose of our society if even in a small part. This philosophy is called Futurist Traditionalism for lack of a better term and it is the subject of several ongoing writings.

At many points you have described yourself as a pan-nationalist. Do you still consider yourself to be one?

Absolutely. The news media and academics have hidden a secret from us all:

white power = black power

Nationalism for any group leads to nationalism for all because the idea of nationalism demands a world order where each nation is composed of people who are more related to each other than to anyone else. To want nationalism for Germans is to also want it for Zulus, Basques and Jews. Our current civilization is based on the idea of internationalism, or one type of utopian ideology for every society on earth and every type of person in each of them. This order ensures that there is never any actual culture in any place, which means that people have no reason to obey social standards except fear of getting caught, which in turn necessitates governments with increasing amounts of power over their citizens.

Identitarianism holds that we cannot police individuals. Policing is a negative goal, the threat of punishment. We can however use positive goals, like collaboration, to establish social standards and exclude those who violate them. Social standards require culture, and culture requires identity, which is a sense of history and an immutable notion of belonging to a specific land. That sense of “belonging” makes people personally invested in its well-being — including that of nature — even involving acts that do not directly impact the individual. Nationalism confers self-determination and self-rule to each group through the use of culture instead of force alone. Leftism hates social standards, which is why it opposes nationalism and imports third world peoples to destroy it.

Unlike others on the right who want to forcefully eliminate or at least suppress certain decadent behaviors (drug abuse, homosexuality, pornography, etc) you have recommended creating sectioned-off communities, like little Amsterdams, where people can participate in those activities without bothering the rest of the population. In some instances you have recommended this solution but in others you have stated that you want such lifestyles to be driven underground for the sake of modesty (the quiet gay relative, if you will). What is your current position and what are the limits of permissible behavior?

These two positions are the same. Homosexuals, for example, should have communities for themselves where they can practice as they want. This however requires them to localize the behavior to that community. This means that their homosexuality no longer becomes public, except in the community where it is the norm. Conservatives tend to say “what happens in the bedroom remains private,” which has two elements to it: first, we do not run around trying to find deviants for their sexual behavior, but second, they also keep their sexual tendencies private. In that outlook, there would not be such a thing as gay marriage because homosexuality is an exclusively sexual behavior, not a reproductive one, and is thus unrelated to family and needs to remain a private choice of the individual.

Allowing gay communities extends the bedroom further for the simple reason that it allows gay people to search for mates. Homosexuality has occurred in every society known to humanity, and persecuting it only drives gay people into cover as heterosexuals, at which point they have children and introduce possible deleterious behaviors and genetics — homosexuality is often a signal from nature that particular genetic combinations should not be reproduced — into the gene pool to the weakness of all. While it seems paradoxical, this policy of tolerance in exchange for invisibility offers both homosexuals and heterosexuals a chance to not just co-exist but not loathe each other when doing so. No one likes to mention this, but homosexual behavior is something heterosexuals are biologically inclined to find repellent, and vice-versa. We will never like what the other group does, so it is better that each has its own locality.

What would you say your current political and philosophical views are? You had once mentioned an ideal world of small kingdoms connected by trains.

My current political view is: get rid of liberalism, government and ideology. Replace it with what has worked for most of human history, which is aristocracy and a caste system, monarchy, strong national culture which produces a binding between individuals, society and nature through identity. The real questions are not being asked. Those are how we get leaders of quality at every level, how we establish working social roles, how we limit growth, and how we enforce rewarding the good people and exiling the bad without having to rely on a strong centralized government or decentralized mob.

In my ideal, people would associate with those like them. This would lead to a world of smaller kingdoms which would be aware of one another, but also so virulently xenophobic that they did not mix. This would enable each ethnic group to refine itself and improve qualitatively, instead of obliterating its refinements through mixing, but also allow co-existence and a trade in ideas. In addition — and this is what the left fears — it would allow some societies to be visibly more successful and/or more civilized than others.

Which figures have had the biggest impact on your philosophical views?

The most important thinkers in my world are Plato, Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich W. Nietzsche. The biggest influence on my thought however is nature. I walk in the woods and think, using equal parts analytical thinking and synthetic thinking (cf. Vikernes’ “syncretic eclecticism”). The result is a greater clarity than can come through the filter of language (in philosophy) and character drama (in fiction).

In addition, I gratefully acknowledge the following influences: Julius Evola, Ted Kaczynski, Aldous Huxley, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, Guillaume Faye, Alain de Benoist, Joseph Conrad, William S. Burroughs, H.P. Lovecraft, Immanuel Kant, Paul Woodruff, Guillaume Faye, Alain de Benoist, Ralph W. Emerson, Paul Gottfried, Michel Houellebecq, Pentti Linkola, Theodor Herzl, Colin Flaherty, Garrett Hardin, Dr. William Pierce, Michael Crichton, Samuel Huntington, Steve Sailer, Gwendolyn Taunton, Johannes Eckhart, G.K. Chesterton, Bruce Charlton, C.S. Lewis, Nigel Farage, Graham Greene, Jane Austen, Christopher Alexander, Mary Shelley, David Brooks, Knut Hamsun, Thomas Sowell, Jared Taylor, Tom Wolfe, William Faulkner, Arne Naess, Bill White, the Prince of Wales, William Blake, Chinua Achebe, Peter Brimelow, Lawrence Auster, Junichiro Tanazaki, Richard M. Weaver, Anders Breivik, and many others including essentially all of the classics of Western literature. Most of my heroes are philosophers or fiction writers. There are many others as well, too many to count, including a number of conservative, traditionalist, New Right, Neoreaction and far-right blogs.

A lot of people on the dissident and mainstream right have come down hard on Michael Brown and mocked him not only as a symbol of modern black American degeneracy but as a symbol of a failed and increasingly idiotic liberal narrative about black victimhood and white evil. It was very surprising when I opened your page and saw that unusual article in which you basically defended Michael Brown, not as some innocent victim, but as the product of the failure of multiculturalism. I understand this concept but what would you say to a rightist who is completely cynical about the abilities of blacks to successfully govern themselves due to genetic shortcomings? Should we simply respect that blacks will never be on our level or is there hope for making them some kind of superior race?

“Superior” and “inferior” both require an object. Superior or inferior for what purpose? Africans have been happy in Africa since the dawn of time and see no reason to change. I do not either. The root of the problem in America is diversity, which forces different groups to either give up their culture and be assimilated or be perpetual outsiders living in relative poverty. This destroys the good people, who will want to hang on to culture, while rewarding those with no sense of pride in who they are except at the most trivial level of “personal accomplishment,” which is financial success through obedience in the workplace and to government.

I wrote an article once called “Creating the African Superman.” In it I described what would happen if eugenic principles were applied to African-Americans, namely keeping the best and removing the rest. This would have the same effect as the bottlenecks enforced on societies by nature that select for morality in order to get along with others and higher intelligence and a willingness to work collaboratively. Were I African-American, I would look toward this solution, and also read the writings of Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X and Osiris Akkebala who champion a strong African nationalism and repatriation to Africa, which if it does not thrive under African rule will quickly be re-colonized by China, India, the Middle East or some combination thereof. Africans risk being dispossessed of their homeland within the next century if strong indigenous leadership is not found.

Through my upbringing in the South, I have been fortunate to know good people of every ethnic group. It shocks and disturbs some white nationalists when I say that I know good, moral and loving black people that I would not mind having as neighbors if it were not for the long-term social consequences of diversity itself. While Asia appalls me, I know some wonderful Asian people. It seems to me that in every race that are castes, and in the highest caste among each are good people who both intelligent and able to apply that intelligence on a practical level. That combination is rare and denotes the people who should be in leadership positions but under democracy they never are. These people tend to oppose diversity, although if they are from third-world populations less so, mainly because they are humiliated by the low quality level of the society around them.

Diversity on the other hand can never work. The Robert Putnam study on diversity, which found that higher levels of diversity reduced trust both among different ethnic groups and within those groups, was one of the first cracks in the wall of zombie-like assumption that “diversity = good.” Diversity is a weapon of the left which hopes to destroy majority culture and remove social standards so that we can all be equal; it is a successful weapon because it is a binary, where you either support diversity or you are assumed to be Adolf Hitler II who wants to kill all who are not white. In reality, no race likes diversity. Under integration, all races will be replaced by a mixed-race group — a form of passive genocide — as has occurred to notorious failure in Brazil, Mexico, parts of the Middle East and many other of the formerly-great but now ruined civilizations worlwide. Somehow, every civilization that extinguishes itself manages to go the mixed-race route right before the end. The problem is diversity, no matter what groups are involved. Even where hybrids have been attempted between supposedly superior variants of Asian and European, the result has been an average of the two that loses the exceptional traits of both.

Mike Brown never had a chance. He grew up in a culture destroyed by diversity. He could either be the lapdog of liberals and assimilate, or stick with a “black culture” mostly managed by Hollywood. Absolutely no one gave him a positive direction he could follow because to do so would be to refute diversity and say, “Forget integrating into mixed-race America — be good by the standards of your community alone.” He was thrown into a social world that embraced victim culture and took on its trappings through gangsta rap and racial resentment, all of which primed him for the events which ended his life. Stoned, probably paranoid, angry and confused, he went on a crime spree and then panicked and assaulted a police officer. These actions ended as one might expect and ultimately, while he was not a positive actor in the situation, he was very much someone who never was given any realistic option to his fate. We all know about the black kids who are good at school, go on to Harvard and make lots of money, but Mike Brown was not that. He was probably an individual of 90-95 IQ points who could have been a perfectly normal contributor in an African identitarian society, but in a mixed-race and racial pity infused society, he became a pawn for the political struggle of leftists to destroy majority culture, and it destroyed him.

You caused a bit of controversy over your views on Neoreaction. I know you are friends with many in the NRx crowd but you look like you may have burned a few bridges with your statements. What specifically do you find wrong with NRx?

Neoreaction has many positive attributes. It inherits the idea that ideological government is a parasite from its post-libertarian origins, and instead wants to take social engineering to its logical extreme: run government like a corporation, where it bills citizens for services and delivers limited and functional services only, doing away entirely with the ideological State which is the basis of liberalism. This is the starting point of Neoreaction, which then branches out into other areas including monarchism, theocracy and nationalism.

My critique of Neoreaction is based in two areas. The first is that, in an effort to attract a popular audience, it reduced itself to a form of individualism. This happens to all internet movements as people want to join so they can appear “edgy,” but fear getting too far from socially acceptable ideas. Second, Neoreaction refuses to accept its conservative heritage and to endorse organic civilization. Liberalism operates through “systems” which are designed to avoid strong culture and leaders, relying instead on “invisible hand” methods like market forces and popular votes. Conservatism desires almost no government and self-rule by culture. Culture requires a racial basis and race requires nationalism, and those three are necessary together to create identity, without which social standards — other than the nominal prohibitions on murder, rape, pedophilia and the like — are impossible. Neoreaction without strong nationalism simply becomes libertarianism, which then quickly degenerates into liberalism.

I read a good many Neoreactionary authors, including but not limited to Nick Land, Justine Tunney and Henry Dampier. I have in the past read Mencius Moldbug but previously found most of his ideas elsewhere, notably Huxley, Houellebecq, Plato and Nietzsche. Neoreaction also denies many of its invisible influences, like Houellebecq, Charlton and Kaczynski, and its Nietzschean basis. But Moldbug was significant in that he said that while he was not a white nationalist, he had sympathy for them; that broke the invisible barrier that kept people from accepting ethno-nationalism as an objectively better method of social organization than the nation-state.

On the topic of NRx you recently suggested that it was becoming a spent force or dividing into bickering camps. Can you elaborate a little more on this?

Conservatism will inevitably absorb Neoreaction because the philosophy behind Neoreaction is a type of Conservatism. It is hard to realize how almost all political movements are variants of leftism, and how leftism infects all political movements because it introduces the individual as a reference point. People think that unless everyone in a room recognizes something as truth, it cannot be true, and this leads to making decisions by consensus or popularity instead of simply picking which point of view is most accurate. Neoreaction struggles with this because it is an internet movement, a young movement, and its members are undertaking the tremendous psychic weight of defying taboos and looking toward a direction that is not a variation of mainstream ideas.

In addition, they fear conservatives because most who publicly identify with being on the right are in fact “cuckservatives” or those who value compromise with the left over taking a stand. The problem is that Neoreactionaries take the term “public conservative” and focus on “conservative” when they should look at public. Anything which is designed to curry favor among a large number of people is by definition driven by compromise and appearance instead of actual reasoning. This clashes with the nature of conservatism, which is consequentialism (results in real world) and transcendence (a focus on the best results, i.e. “the good, the beautiful and the true” and “the perennial things” per Huxley or “tradition” per Evola). The idea of a popular conservative movement is nonsense and that is a hard pill to swallow. Liberalism and other forms of populism exist only as denial, apologism and distraction from this truth and the awareness that our society is in decline.

Neoreaction had the greatest power when it said that our society took a wrong turn with The EnlightenmentTM and that now we must fix that by moving away from the notion of equality entirely and embrace social hierarchy and consequentialism. This was too extreme for most of its audience. They want to make little fixes and then go on with life as normal. The result is a loss of focus and a gradual entryism of populism. People are looking for reasons to avoid the obvious task ahead of us. As a result they — like generations before them — distract themselves with what are on the surface innovations, but essentially justifications for remaining with the status quo.

Another point of controversy involves your views on Zionism. Yes, here comes the inevitable and obligatory Jewish Question. I find your approach to be strikingly contrarian. Can you explain why you hold this position?

If I wanted to destroy white people, I would create a false target for them. They would then exhaust themselves in that pursuit, as they did in the great wars against nationalism from the Napoleonic Wars through WWII, and be left weakened. The “Jewish Question” (JQ) is such a false target.

Theodor Herzl — the writer who inspired the founding of modern Israel — wrote that Jews would be safest and happiest in Israel because the cause of anti-Semitism was Jews standing out among other groups who were trying to preserve their own national identities. He recognized that strong nationalism is inherent to any population which wishes to save itself. The modern West fears nationalism because it clashes with the fundamental idea of liberalism, which is equality. The decay of the West came from The EnlightenmentTM when we decided that the individual was more important than social order or natural law. Our society will be in decline until we identify egalitarianism as the actual target, and the JQ distracts from this.

The JQ is tempting because it is an excuse for our failure and enables us to avoid taking responsibility for our actions. We did not do this to ourselves, we say, it was those evil Jews. They somehow came in here as a tiny population and took over. Then all evil came from them. If we just remove the Jews, the thinking goes, the good times will return again. The ugly truth is that the cause of our decay is within us and we can blame no one else. Our people chose the degenerate products, illusory ideologies and venal behaviors that JQ-ites attribute to Jews. Even if we assume Jews promoted these behaviors, we cannot blame the salesman for the popularity of his goods.

This leaves us with the hard recognition that we must reject the flattering idea of individualism and the guaranteed inclusion in the group that it provides to the individual. That type of thinking rejects the parallel roles of natural selection and morality which exile people who will do harm to social order. This offends the ego, but throughout history, we see this kind of “group individualism” manifesting before empires collapse. Originally it was called decadence and it comes from within. Until we accept responsibility for our decadence, we remain in a “victimhood narrative” that makes us passive and whiny.

Where were the Jews when the Maya collapsed internally, long before the Spanish arrived? What about the collapse of ancient Angkor Wat or the Tocharians? No Jews there, nor did they play a sizeable role in the collapse of Greece. Using the Jews as a scapegoat will lead us to attack a false target. By doing that, we will miss fixing what we must to survive and guarantee our doom. In the process, we will commit atrocities that make us hate ourselves. While The Holocaust began as a slave labor program, it became mass extermination. No person of noble European heritage wants to murder men, women and children.

Further, we have much to learn from the Jews. While they have their own struggles, most notably neurosis and venality, they also have a rich tradition of scholarship and a practical outlook that has every Jewish kid studying to be a doctor or lawyer while his white cohorts are busily fixating on football, video games, masturbation and Big Macs. If white Europeans emulated this and the strong nationalism of Judaism, they would be a healthy society again. The JQ is just a distraction from that necessary goal.

Amerika has had a love and hate relationship with the GOP. What role do you think the Tea Party still plays in the GOP today or at least conservatism at large?

The Tea Party represents a desire to reverse leftist drift. Since every journey begins with a single step, the Tea Party redirects mainstream conservatism toward conservative goals. I have zero faith in democracy but while it is available to us, we are fools not to use it. It is easily subverted by even small groups who are organized and motivated. It also avoids the sheer chaos of armed revolution and the unsavory possibility of having to murder our fellow citizens for following the orders of a decadent regime.

As far as the Baby Boomers go, the Tea Partiers are the best of them. They either never believed the 68er hippie quest or have repudiated it and are pushing hard in the opposite direction. The original name for the Baby Boomers was as you probably recall “the Me Generation.” There has never been a more self-focused group of people, and their modus operandi was to take all they could and then sabotage the means by which they got it so no one else could. They know nothing but themselves and want the world to be consumed by fire when they die.

The rest of us have inherited a world the Baby Boomers ruined. We should confiscate their assets and exile them to Mexico, then burn their garbage music, neurotic films and vapid literature in vast heaps. But the kicker of it is that Baby Boomers themselves were victims of decay. Their parent generation were the same people who embraced jazz and speakeasies in the 1920s and became flappers. The parents of that generation were the Bohemians, following the same regimen that the hippies did of free love and peasant living, much like self-styled iconoclasts for the previous two centuries. It is a perennial sham. These are first-world people adopting third-world lifestyles, much like anti-racists today, because they want to make a name for themselves as being egalitarians.

You have mentioned Hinduism as an important influence on your thought. What role, if any, do you think Hinduism has in reviving the West?

Hinduism resembles the other pagan religions I admire, mainly those from Northern Europe and ancient Greece. Several really important ideas come from Hinduism. The biggest is esotericism: there is one reality, thus one truth, and all religions try to approximate that truth, but religions learn like people do, which is that at each stage of revelation a new level becomes apparent and those with more ability and drive make it farther than others. I find great inspiration in the Bhagava-Gita and other writings of classical Hinduism.

It does not make sense to treat religions as discrete ideologies; as a wise man said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” I would view any religion as a fact and most of those practicing it as interpretations. At that point, it becomes clear that some are farther along than others. This knowledge, and the Hindu monist cosmology, could go far in revitalizing Western Christianity to be not only coherent, but relevant in a scientific age.

You’ve had a dramatic shift in your views on Christianity, from hostility to some kind of acceptance. What is your view on Christianity?

When I started out, I wanted to murder every Christian in existence, burn down their churches and tear up their holy books. Over time, I came to see how “Christianity” has become infected by liberal logic and not the other way around. The herd does this to every idea it gets its paws on, so there is no advantage to choosing another religion, but our interpretation of Christianity can be improved.

No religious principle can exist which contradicts that which is apparent from reality. The herd Christianity, like liberalism, promises reward in another world for doing moral good. That in itself is the problem, not Christianity, which can be re-interpreted to de-liberalize it and remove its populist elements and replace them with warlike and realist tenets, creating what Adolf Hitler called “positive Christianity” as inspired by the thought from Schopenhauer that Christianity had positive attributes which could be brought forth by a Hindu influence.

Some years ago a fan archived all of Amerika’s articles into a PDF file. Is there a possibility that you’ll put out a collected works of Brett Stevens?

I remember someone archiving the ANUS articles, the 2009 articles from Amerika.org and the 2010 articles from Amerika.org. These are great resources to have. I can say that there is something similar planned for the future, but cannot elaborate at this time.

I recall your writing starting out very bleak and edgy. Later, the site adopted a pan-nationalist and even a Zionist and Christian-friendly view. Can you tell us a bit more about the bizarre political history of the site and how it changed?

The basic opinions offered on the site have never changed, but over time, they have evolved to get closer to the root of the diagnosis of the human problem, and as a result have removed some intermediary targets from their radar. The philosophies of Pentti Linkola, Julius Evola and Varg Vikernes still have an influence, along with Nietzsche and the Western canon of literature and philosophy. My contribution to this heap of historically unprecedented mental clarity is to recognize the causes of social decline in the individual, and the importance of identitarian culture and realism together in counteracting those.

Conservation is a conservative ideal. Environmentalism makes sense with the liberal ideas that make it unworkable removed. Most humans not only contribute nothing but actively sabotage civilization through carelessness or selfishness. They go to jobs, sure, and buy stuff, sure, but they are fundamentally not active in maintaining and advancing society. They are aware of this, and it makes them underconfident, so they adopt a surrogate belief system in liberalism which lets them claim to be anything but the self-absorbed and parasitic little monkeys they are. I couple these green outlooks with active nihilism, which is widely misunderstood. Nihilism denies all human thoughts and sensations which do not correspond to reality on a structural level. It prefers to know how things actually work, as opposed to their appearance and the (endless) “reactions” through human response in the form of desires, judgments and “feelings.” This vein of thought rejects all human illusions, including democracy and the basic goodness of human beings, culminating in a viewpoint that advocates a less formalized and less inclusive society where natural selection and hierarchy prevails.

As far as extreme environmentalism goes, my philosophical writing began in order to solve a single issue: ecocide. Over the past century, humanity has gone from co-existing with nature to consuming it. The problem is that solutions cannot be found at the level of method. We need entirely different leadership and values. Any society which, as the West has since The EnlightenmentTM, sacralizes individual choice will make reality optional. When reality becomes optional, people — most of them being as selfish, venal and manipulative as monkeys — do what is convenient for them and as a result, consume all resources and crowd out nature.

We cannot stop ecocide with “green” or “environmental” solutions; the only solution is to change our leadership and our culture so that we regard our environment as necessary, as the Deep Ecology movement pointed out. That in turn requires us to subordinate the individual to both natural law and social hierarchy, which requires putting the smarter and better people in leadership above the rest. This is perennially unpopular because it contradicts our view of our individual selves as uniquely important and valuable just for being alive, and incompatible with democracy, equality, inclusion and other modern Western sacred cows, but it is also a better representation of reality. If we choose it, we succeed; if we do not, we fail and destroy the ecosystems around us, eliminating the diversity of species and leaving only the “adaptive generalists” of fast-growing small trees, rapidly-seeding ground cover and generic critters like raccoons, squirrels, rats, sparrows and crows.

If any readers have questions inspired by the above, feel free to drop them in the comments here.

Our political enemy is politics itself


History reveals a striking difference between leadership and elected heads of state. Leaders act toward a goal and are accountable for achieving it; elected heads of state negotiate political goals, which is a public image exercise. Truth and reality take a back seat to what other people think.

The instant humans start thinking in terms of “How will this appear to others?” instead of “Will this achieve the goal intended?” all is lost, although it takes centuries to become apparent, because political leaders are enabled by past centuries of labor, struggle and invention and essential ride the momentum of that wave of wealth and power.

If you want to reduce your own mentation to a tenth of its power, think about every action you plan to take as a public relations exercise. How will it look? Will it flatter your audience — there’s a reason flatterers went to Hell in Dante’s Inferno — enough that they like it? Two errors rest in this approach. The first is that the audience knows what should be done, on a planet where “what we want and what we need have been confused,” and the second is that you can anticipate it. You are guessing at what other people will guess is good, which is a point removed from truth and reality into the world of what-should-happen, and that is even assuming the honesty of voters. That they will not vote simply to sabotage some other group they despise. That they vote with brains and not resentful hearts and vengeful personalities. That they are aware of anything more than their home, favorite bar and job for the two week period until the next paycheck.

In the West, we have been dancing around the problem of politics for centuries. No one likes the results, and everyone wants to blame someone else, which conveniently lets us all off the hook for actually fixing the problem. That is what nature offers that humankind does not: accountability, or the sense that with limited resources we must achieve a realistic goal that also improves our situation. In nature, the strong eat the weak; in society, the weak band together and consume the strong.

For humanity to have a future, it must discard politics. Voting is a form of external mechanism that allows us to defer to the voting itself. Instead of having anyone in control and responsible, we are playing a game of dice. We roll the dice, the vote comes in, and we look at the results and say, “Huh, just my luck.” Never do we take on the harder task of actually resolving the issue, which is done by discussing it until points of clarity are reached. That is hard work. Voting is what happens when no one can agree and no one wants to take the time and energy to break the issue down, make it clear, debunk the lies and then find a course of action that is both consistent with the facts and not veering off-topic or into mission creep. Voting is “let’s agree to disagree, and see what the dice give us.”

That view contrasts with what our government and fellow citizens teach us. The same voters who engage in retaliation and opportunism through their votes want to preserve that power. They fear the rise of an actual leader who will identify certain desires as lies and enforce reality as a principle. Voters, being people, mostly desire a lack of accountability. They want to enjoy benefits, have someone else pay for them, and dodge consequences. That way, they have “won,” in the same way consumers haggle with shopkeepers and employees negotiate for raises with their recalcitrant bosses. Voters want to win at the expense of society at large. Government wants to keep the status quo going because government provides an excellent jobs program for those who are damaged enough to be obsessive and sociopathic enough to not mind that the consequences will eventually be bad.

If the people who are discontented could agree on this one fact alone, they would have defeated that which holds them back and keeps them from achieving their goals. They would also have bucked the one social standard that everyone in our society fears to challenge. It is easy and trivial to be a gay activists, or even a Klansman, because there are others who will stand up for you in that role. But to undermine the very principle upon which political control in our society is founded takes a bit sterner stuff. In its absence, politics continues to doom us all, with dishonest profiteers running government by fooling the deceptive and deceivable with public image programs while ignoring the gathering storm of actual problems that will eventually — but not this election cycle — destroy the franchise as a whole.

Hidden democratic entry through capitalism


For 226 years, conservatives have struggled to resist liberal ideas. This proves almost impossible because what conservatives want is a civilization as a whole, where liberals have the easier job of criticizing details and chipping away at it. Destruction is always more powerful than creation in this way.

Conservatism proves difficult to articulate. As written about here, it has two parts: first, rely on what produces the best results throughout history, and second, aim for the highest level of quality possible. This clashes with the leftist idea that what is important is not civilization, but the individual.

The EnlightementTM started this trend. After years of plagues and invasions, Europe finally had stability, and so the social aspects of society took over. To make a group of people happy, treat them as individuals. No matter what they want, it is correct. This is the core of The EnlightenmentTM: what the individual wants to believe is true, is true, or at least must be accepted as a preference.

For example, if someone points out that Mike Brown was, indeed, committing felonies and attacking a police officer when he was shot, a liberal might choose to not recognize those facts at all. Instead, they might say “This is another example of police brutality and institutionalized racism,” and either deny those facts are true, ignore them, or explain them away with more dubious logic. It takes ten times as long to debunk a lie as to tell one, so for each detail they are always a step ahead of the game with another excuse.

The problem with liberalism is that it is not an ideology, although it ends up creating one. It is a mentality. The mentality of solipsism produces individualism which causes groups to demand egalitarianism, which can be roughly summarized as acceptance for all individuals no matter how broken or unrealistic their ideas or behavior.

Neoreaction experiences the birth of liberalism within itself, an avowed anti-liberal outlook. The hidden democratic entryism comes through the capitalism inherent to producing an internet movement: the product that cultivates the biggest audience wins. At that moment, the goal changes from “express truth” to “express what people want to hear.” This shift is cosmic but so normalized that most do not even recognize it happening.

Cultivating an audience is what converts internet movements from goal-based expeditions to echo chamber “hugboxes” in which people confirm their beliefs through the affirmation of others. They are essentially support groups for the wounded who believe this belief will salve their hurts. If you wonder why “no one does anything,” it is generaly because hugboxes are not about doing, but feeling.

Hugboxes, like capitalism itself, reward the most extravagant stagements that affirm the narrative. People do not line up for cold logic and detailed reasoning; they show up for the circus. Pro-wrestling styled fights, Maury Povich style drama, and nature documentary style free flowing emotion are what attract the crowd, even in an alienated belief like Neoreaction or white nationalism.

Look at the history of movements on the internet. The Men’s Rights movement went from demanding consideration of male status to demanding “equality” in a defensive role, mainly because it became flooded with incel cuck betas and browbeaten husbands looking to feel better about their plight with some strong statements. But ultimately, they just re-affirmed feminism by demanding equality, and in doing so argued against themselves. Equality always rewards the underdog because anyone in presumed higher position does not need equality.

In the same way, white nationalism became ethno-bolshevism. It started as the idea of affirming a white political presence, but became a leftist-style type of class warfare which demanded equality among whites and retreated to a position of talking about fantasy genocides and race wars instead of doing the obvious to gain power. It neutralized itself.

Capitalism is like other invisible hand systems: it requires guidance, or the tool becomes the master. With pure capitalism, we arrive at a planet covered in advertising for Coke and McDonald’s, where products are cheap junk because it produces the highest margins, and dumping toxic waste in lakes because externalities deferred equal profit. Capitalism requires culture to keep it in line so that people shun brands that dump toxic waste, and by “people” I do not mean a few hundred thousand east coast liberals, but just about everyone.

When capitalism applies itself to ideas, it shifts them into the McDonald’s model. Why tackle the big picture, like the big picture of what civilization is wanted that conservatism struggles with, when one can be like liberals and attack issues? Why seek truth, when it is more rewarding to stir up drama, resentment and outrage? Truth becomes pushed aside and with it, effective action dies.

Neoreaction is increasingly looking not like a political or social movement, but like a “we want condos in SF too” movement for the young men who did not achieve success with their dot-com dreams. This has occurred because Neoreaction has, through its group action, banished its own objectives and dreams.

This hidden democratic entryism through capitalism has undone many ideologies before. It is why modern society remains so intractable: it infiltrates everything it touches because its method is to flatter the ego of individuals in exchange for them ignoring the actual goal and replacing it with personal drama.

For Neoreaction, the goal remains as clear as it ever was: reverse The EnlightenmentTM. Ten thousand more pages of theory and drama will not change that. How to do it? Focus on what has worked before, for leftists and others: get a committed group to agree on a simple idea and then infiltrate social institutions and use those to maneuver the population toward that idea.

Literally, that is all that must be done.

And yet it remains beyond reach because simple truthful answers are less interesting than constant drama and posing at being academic theoreticians. Do we need more theory? Not when the answers, goals and methods are each plain and obvious.

As described by others, The EnlightenmentTM is the zombie ideology manipulating the West to its doom:

What stands out for me, and for other writers I have learned from, is that the assertions those enlighteners make about how the mind works, and about the nature of the human being, are intimately tied to their political project to liberate us from the authority of kings and priests. In other words, it is epistemology with an axe to grind, polemical at its very root.

Yet this original argumentative setting has been forgotten. This is important, because Enlightenment anthropology continues to inform wide swaths of the human sciences, including cognitive science, despite that discipline’s ritualized, superficial ridicule of Descartes. We need to be more self-aware about the polemical origins of the human sciences, because those old battles bear little resemblance to the ones we need to fight. – “The World Beyond Your Head: NR Interview With Matthew Crawford”

The EnlightenmentTM changed the West from a place that believed in external order, to one that believes whatever the individual wants to think is true should be breated as a social equivalent to truth. Since feelings and simple answers are easier to understand than reality-based logic, those false solutions get chosen first. This spreads and soon a society that only acknowledges lies exists.

In the West, we are cruising on the wealth and knowledge of the past. Our technologies were developed thanks to centuries of labor by those who did the really hard work, and we have been steadily improving ideas from two centuries ago but have not invented our own great revelations. That is because we are too busy fighting over the attention of groups to sell them products, and not focused on reality.

Neoreaction has a chance to reverse this process. It involves recognizing how democracy is a mental disease like any other lie taken to an extreme, and how we need to watch for it both out there and inside our own gates. Then, we must do what is obvious and work toward a goal so we do not become another circular echo chamber of a hugboxes like the ruins of every other belief in this modern time.

Potemkin morality in Brezhnevland


I just finished a semester of the most manipulative propaganda conceivable.

As a medical student, I have encountered the American education machine and its propaganda on both an academic and a personal level. Not only was it vile in its attempts to shape young minds toward a clear agenda, but it was also corrupt in its tendency to omit, downplay or ignore information that did not fit with the narrative. On top of that, the academic staff ferreted out and persecuted dissenters, so that the only option for a student who wanted to continue being a student was to nod, smile and (gulp) wolf it down.

One of our teachers literally kills whitey for a living. He is some ethics guy who is involved in determining who gets transplants. He said that they quantified it and in a nutshell, younger white men tend to have the best survival with organ transplants (they give the most organ transplants, being responsible, healthy and altruistic). That was unfair, he thought, so he decided to move for them to give more womens and browns organs even though over all more humans die with that strategy.

He, an old white man, literally said “given a choice between max survival rates and killing whitey, I prefer to kill whitey.” He said this to his students. Then he watched, to see if anyone objected. And while they tell us that our grades are standardized, we are no fools. Any portion of our testing that is not pure Scantron can be graded “subjectively,” which is a euphemism for “truth optional.” Assignments can be lost. And teachers have optional participation grades they can use to drop us a half-letter if we are politically non-compliant.

One of the questions on this teacher’s exam was the following almost verbatim:

“One individual you know is more or less conservative and thinks very negatively of the ideas of social justice and human equality. He considers his position quite reasonable and well thought out. When he discusses his ideas with others, he accuses them of hidden agendas and bias. Which Freudian defense mechanism is he relying on?”

The correct answer is “projection,” of course. That isn’t even how projection works, but what do they care? They just have to push their agenda, truth is a distant second. The point is to — like their Soviet forebears — categorize anything but liberal thought as a mental health disorder. They want to grind it into our heads like everything else they teach us so that in our overworked future lives, it becomes a knee-jerk reaction. Liberal good, anything else ignorant, insane and cowardly.

Throughout the course I was sickened by the overt Marxism with which we were being indoctrinated. All printed materials referred to the default doctor or patient as she/her, and we were taught that the fundamental principle of insurance is wealth redistribution. That’s funny, my good friend out here worked in insurance and he was under the impression it was to spread risk, not to effect communism. The point is for the teachers to spin everything toward a liberal explanation, so that our only way of understanding the world is liberal theory, so that when we encounter the unknown, we project liberal theory onto it.

By the time I am a practicing doctor, these ideas will be the party line in public. They are no longer the domain of 60s radicals, but mainstream, with government, academia, media and celebrities arm-in-arm singing them out as a kind of People’s Liberation Chorus. My fellow classmates, who lack my introspective tendencies and background in theory other than liberalism, will accept these ideas wholesale. And why should they not? In the nu-America, you get ahead by conforming not to culture, but ideology.

This country is turning into Brezhnevland.

During our next term, we have a class with a very substantial lab component. Prior terms had us assigned to lab groups, but this term we are advised to freely choose our own groups, yay! Sort of. Each group of eight must contain at least three women and be “ethnically diverse.” That is the requirement imposed on us by the teachers; if we do not conform, we fail and end up with a vast amount of student loan debt with nothing to show for it.

The insidious nature of this requirement hides behind the illusion of choice. Normally, teachers would choose the groups themselves and ensure that the right distribution of minorities and women was present in each. But that does not teach us the real lesson they want us to learn, does it? The lesson is: conform to the politically correct, or you will fail in life. That is why they demanded that we choose the group. Education consists of repeated behaviors that become instinct. They are training our instincts to always select diverse groups, without even thinking about it.

It also allows them to claim that the students “chose” to be diverse. They can show their little Potemkin village to visitors, who will notice that each group is appropriately diverse. In their minds, they will make a little check-mark on their list: diversity is working OK here. The students will infer that this was their own choice, and then justify it by claiming it was what they wanted all along, because their only other choice is to admit they were forced to do it. They are too proud fo that, and their ego will lead them to claim the ideas of another as their own.

The awards for the groups actually rate on level of diversity. They are literally offering feelgoods for us to offer proof that their retarded idea actually works, and that diverse lab groups are more effective than homogenous lab groups. Never mind that if we are actually all equal, a diverse group will work just as well as a non-diverse group and vice-versa. They know that diversity is a failure. They want to force us to accept it anyway, to humble ourselves and by giving up on our pride in independent thinking, to become good little ideological robots like they are.

In Brezhnevland, everyone will be judged by degree of ideological conformity. Today it is diversity; tomorrow it is diversity and promiscuity; next it will be killing off dissidents, or anything else they need. They want nerve endings they can touch with an electrode and see them twitch the same way every time. That way, when liberal high command makes an order, all of us obey exactly as intended. Power will be absolute. And, we will be extensively trained in the most important art, which is “not noticing” where the narrative fails.

They taught us extensively about the horrors of “paternalism,” where “doctor knows best” and the doctors simply followed their judgment and ignored silly patient nonsense. They used as a prime example some 1960s case where a 16-year-old girl got on oral birth control without telling her parents and the doctor let her dad know, saying he “feared for her moral health.”

Being a slut is a human right! You should be able to let all the boys you want raw dog you without daddy even getting to know, much less disapprove!

So from there on, we were taught how we shouldn’t presume our way is best, and how we should ask the patient what they think is wrong and what they think the treatment ought to be and go from there. Equality means that every individual is right, which is a backdoor way of insisting that there is no right and wrong because only the ideology and the narrative are true. Everything else is reality-optional.

We had to watch a video where a Hmong family wanted to try a tribal rite to cure a six-year-old girl’s heart defect by tying a white ribbon around her wrist while people bowed and chanted in front of a tree. We were taught to pretend that their silly nonsense is working, and simultaneously apply medical science to actually cure the problem. Then to let them attribute their kid’s survival to the plant worship. Never, ever tell them that their idea is retarded. Always affirm the delusion, unless of course it contradicts the narrative.

This is where the Potemkin village nature of our society reveals itself: there are always two layers, a public image surface and an underlying agenda of control. On the surface, we accept and even praise the magic ritual and diversity. Underneath, the real goal is to make everyone into robots so that our overlords can rule with an iron hand. They do not want thought and they do not care about competence. They want obedience. That is all their ideology amounts to, because all the “altruistic” stuff is just the surface layer. The real goal is total control.

Later in the class, they taught us a story about the origins of the Hippocratic oath. Hippocrates oversaw a group which intermixed healing arts with religious ideas. They took an oath of secrecy to never reveal anything about how the body actually works to their patients, ever. It sounds odd, but seeing how medicine has become corrupted in the hands of academia, I’m beginning to think it was a great idea.

“I can breathe again! How’d you do it, doc?”
“Magic! And if you don’t comply perfectly, the gods will put a curse on you!”

Looking at the behavior of my teachers and fellow students, Hippocrates makes more sense to me. Knowledge should go only to those who have the wisdom to use it. My teachers, as leftist zombies who are clearly in denial of history and common sense, are bending “the truth” to fit their own narrative. They are moral degenerates who do not deserve positions of authority. Hippocrates would have told them that healing was magic and sent them back to the only job appropriate for people that callow, manipulative and foolish, which is picking crops in the fields. They are white but they should be slaves.

I think Hippocrates was a swell guy and we should bring back more of his ideas. Maybe start by removing Google and Wikipedia from general public access. Maybe start teaching good info only in Latin and never allow commoners to learn it. The ancients were right again, and when we arrogantly assume we can do better, we end up with forced diversity and magic rituals being validated in the name of medicine, all so that nu-Brezhnevland can keep its citizens under control.

Liberalism and The Red Pill


The internet possesses a remarkable ability to create immensely faddish movements that disappear just as quickly, but leave behind slight alterations to the group consciousness.

One such movement is The Red Pill, named after a fictional choice between reality and socially-endorsed fantasy in a mediocre movie. In this movement, men recognize the reality hidden underneath social pretense, specifically as regards women and the necessity of taking a strong masculine role in interacting with them, as opposed to doing what the TV says is right which is to be a meek and passive feminist-man.

Whether or not this movement is ultimately found to be “valid” by our nancypants society which can only approve indirect fascism, The Red Pill offers a number of interesting ideas. One of which is that women need a strong masculine presence, and frequently rebel against that presense through something called “shit tests,” or small passive-aggressive incursions where they do something illogical and/or insulting and test to see if their male responds with a strong correction or not.

A frequent shit test is for a woman to announce that she’s going to do something weird or stupid, and to wait for her man to either (a) be masculine and demand something else or (b) meekly accede and appease her in the grim hope of having continuing sexual relations through being “nice.” The man who rolls over is the man whose woman goes searching for a more masculine man.

What makes The Red Pill so offensive to many people is that it pulls aside the curtain and looks at how humanity works. People need leadership and guidance; men and women have different roles. But more importantly, even outside the context of women alone and applied to society at large, it describes rebellion as what it is: a test of power.

Shit tests explain liberalism in a way that liberals would not like. The vast majority of people are passive by virtue of being unable to lead, invent, create or be aware of how to maintain complex things without a checklist. They shit test their leaders to see if the leaders are still in a position of power, because if the leaders are weak, the majority will seize what the leaders have created and take it for themselves.

This was the wisdom of the ancients: social rank is everything. Those who are lower will, unless oppressed, always attempt to subvert the higher, and they will do it cleverly because they invest their intelligence in dissimulation instead of logical future-oriented planning.

Perhaps there was a trigger incident — the Black Plague, the Mongol Invasions, or even simply a population boom — that set off the testing, but once it started, the masses confronted their leaders with a choice: beat us down or be beaten down. Their leaders, too full of heart and sympathy to do what was needed, began a gradual retreat that continues to this day.

At some point, the shit test will get the response that every passive person secretly desires, which is to be dominated. A leader will line the horizons with heads on poles and tell everyone what to do. This will acknowledge the basic tendency of humanity, which is that unless given purpose, the average person becomes a clever agent of destruction and nothing more. Oppression is freedom.

The “wrong side of history”


We are told it would be terrible to be “on the wrong side of history”, which is another way of saying whoever wins a war is morally righteous and deserves sham pledges of loyalty for toppling the previous order.

Revolutionaries are quick to utter this demoralizing propaganda to normalize their reckless acts, while the forces driving culture wars send millions of useful idiots into battle promising to overturn standards held since the beginning of civilization.

These agitators eager to make history through their actions expect to prevail, though few of them ever experienced any success or excellence in the actual world. They are all bluff, noise, phony posturing, fake outrage, and passive aggression.

The standards they propose possess neither a new capability nor new idea, while delegitimizing desirable and historically proven forms. They tell us they will win, and smugly suggest we should therefore stand aside, declare surrender, and accept their dictated demands.

They propose idealistic fantasies as a solution to genuine problems, and though it is possible to spend fortunes gathered from tax payers and pass laws requiring people to act out these fantasies, this merely props up illusion with flimsy scaffolding. At some point reality will rudely intrude with ruthless mockery of this farce.

If the action they seek to mandate was beneficial, rational people would choose it without law requiring them to do so. The first few supporters yielding beneficial results would start a wave of copy-cats seeking the same advantage for themselves. No coercion or threats of force would be needed.

As no demonstrable benefit exists and no rational advantage can be credibly asserted, advocates attack by accusing all non-believers of harboring extreme irrationality that cannot be mediated by intellectual means, and therefore requires the imposition of law to force all to accept a position that is claimed to be substantially advantageous, though the supposed gains can’t be explained and most oppose these changes as undesirable.

Opposition to these new measures is ignored, whether the concern is personal harm, degradation of society, moral objections, religious principles, or philosophical recognition that evidence is entirely lacking for the claim that benefit should be expected from these changes.

Once debunked by rational examination, advocates will describe the new laws as being benign, and promise they will have no net effect, which makes their vigorous fight for binding legislation to nullify centuries of standards seems like overkill to achieve a non-result. Doing nothing so that no errors are introduced accomplishes the same without agitating the public, undermining trust, and sidetracking a government which is intended to act on behalf of citizens.

As public discussion on the plan highlights the lack of evidence for any advantage, advocates will claim neither is there evidence for harm because the experiment has never been attempted, and therefore we should try it on ourselves to find out what happens. They will say many people want it and will be angry if it isn’t done, again precluding a reason or consideration of its consequences.

With these politics, it’s a mob all the way down.

Bake me a cake, photograph my wedding, pay for my abortion and my contraception.

We’ve seen these tactics before, and they are merely tactics without a basis in reason, science, or improvements in quality. By deferring each time to the same propaganda techniques, attacks and false promises in an effort to create history, the mob has overreached in their attempt to overthrow standards that have stood the test of time.

As there remains plenty of history to still be written, and their baseless experiments are likely to fail once played out, society will do its best to absorb these blows before gradually restoring its institutions. Its path will allow it to discover the healthiest system, eventually deciding upon something close to what we already figured out before, inevitably restoring the traditional form that was originally reached through the same comparative measurements for robust results.

These confused and angry outbursts share a similar origin and the healthy parts of society both refrain from contract with rebels and shelter away from any effects caused by the fruitless attempt at remaking the world.

With good nature, we would do well to advise those cheering for the mob that they should not want to be on the wrong side of history by joining a group with such an abysmal record of errors and oversights. Their proposed improvements for civilization are poised to fail and be remembered as an embarrassing mistake with which no one should desire association.