Neoreaction, like libertarianism before it, grew popular because it offered a plausible argument against the Left, and did so by using the liberal ideas which have become accepted as truth in our highly-liberal society. People want a way around liberalism because they realize it is delusional and will destroy us.
Neoreaction and libertarianism share a vanishing point: if they revert to the Enlightenment™-era ideal of individualism, they will become mob rule just as liberal democracy has, because humans in groups choose pleasant-sounding ideas and compromises instead of realistic solutions.
Any system that has as its core “everybody do what you want if you can afford it” will restore us to exactly the same point where we are now.
Since its inception, Neoreaction has been dangerously divided between a tendency to become mainstream right, and protect capitalism and liberty as the core of our society, and underground right, which tends toward authoritarian means of restructuring society. It also suffers from Leftist entryism through related ideas, such as libertarianism which rapidly becomes liberalism, and White Nationalism which is a form of Leftist ideology adapted for ethnic self-rule.
Formalism is the essentialist notion that the symbolic and the real should align, particularly when it relates to power. The mythic, factual, and social truths of power should be the same. He who rules in name should rule in fact, and he who has power should hold an office and title truthfully indicating his power.
Neocameralism flows from formalism. It is the truth that the state is simply a group of people working towards a common goal, it is a corporation. The only difference between it and other corporations are sovereignty and territoriality. Sovereignty is the right to force obedience through violence, while territoriality applies this sovereignty to a particular geographic area.
Formalism and neocamericalism are neoreaction, everything else flows from these two ideas. Combined these ideas give the neoreactionary position: that the state should acknowledge that it is a corporation sovereign with ownership over its particular territory and the residents therein and that it should openly wield and delegate its power as an owner.
The problem with these ideas is that they still straddle the line between the old way and whatever must come next. On one extreme, we are back at the mainstream right but in a sci-fi format: gated communities as services sold by a non-ideological state. That is a Republican dream. On the other hand, some want a state run by benevolent tyrants, which more resembles the Stalin-esque solution but with capitalism. These more resemble modern-day China than anywhere else.
As with many other experiments in post-Liberal social design, both of these threads of Neoreaction attempt to adopt a new “System” in place of the old.
The greatest problem Neoreaction faces is becoming like American Republicans: defending God, country and economy but as a result, ceding the vital ground — “What should our civilization look like?” — to leftist assumptions. That is a slow defeat but a fatal one, and it always happens when the leftist notion of a System is used in place of reversing leftism itself.
Let us then look at these definitions in terms of where they assign control. Formalism tells us that government should accept that it is a corporation, but whose are its clients? If the answer is “everyone,” we have no need to change as thing, as our open-borders globalist welfare-consumerist liberal democratic contemporary state is exactly that.
The problem with consumerism is the same as that of democracy: most people make bad choices, and in large groups, everyone makes bad choices. Profit depends on demand, and demand depends on consumers, who as a loose mob of dubious analytical skills, usually prefer Budweiser to Grolsh, Marlboros to Semois, and Coca-Cola to tea. We’re right back at rule by the mob.
Neocameralism tells us that a civilization is a group of people working toward common goals, which could make it a corporate state — or a cultural one. Culture contains values, methods and ideals that implicate the goal of achieving those on an ongoing basis. It is like a baseball team whose ostensible goal is “winning” but whose actual goal, as a means to that end and an end in itself, is improving its aptitude as individuals and ability to function as a team. With culture in charge, people make better decisions than on their own.
The Right has flirted with these ideas before. Under Mussolini, Fascism, which was less oppressive than Hitler who was less oppressive than the Communists, defined itself as “corporatism.” In that case, however, it was an inversion: the state took over the means of production not for the worker, but for the Nation as a whole, much as Neocameralism argues that a civilization could be people working toward something other than individualism through democracy, consumerism and social popularity.
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.
The point he makes is that economy and government must be in unity and must have a goal beyond utilitarianism, or what most people think they want. Utilitarianism appears in democracy, consumerism and social popularity. If those control government, it is democratic (Leftist); if government leads those, it is ideological-authoritarian (Leftist); if culture leads, it is organic-authoritarian (Rightist).
Through this we see a format where certain goals — like capitalism and liberty — are not goals in themselves, but something that emerges from a society in properly working order. The team wants to win, but its necessary antecedent is being a team good enough to win.
Jonathan Sacks writes about the necessity of a cultural underpinning for markets in “Markets and Morals”:
The striking feature of religion, for Hayek, is its attitude of humility, even reverence, towards the great moral institutions without which our complex liberal democratic societies could not have developed. It guards against what he calls “the rationalist delusion that man, by exercising his intelligence, invented morals that gave him the power to achieve more than he could ever foresee.” Of course it does so by insisting that our morals were given by God. For Hayek, they were arrived at by the evolutionary forces of history. What these two views held in common, though, was a strong and principled opposition to the idea that individually or collectively we can devise a better system rationally constructed to maximize happiness or some other good.
It is a fascinating argument, and it places Hayek in a line of thinkers—such as Edmund Burke, Max Weber, and most recently Francis Fukuyama—who have reflected not only on the morality of the marketplace (what we call nowadays “business ethics”) but on the wider question of what kind of society gives rise to and is able to sustain a market economy. The answer each of them gave—an answer that has been given new salience by the rise of the economies of Southeast Asia—is that it tends to be a society with a strong respect for certain kinds of tradition.
When power is allocated by “everyone do what they want so long as they can pay for it,” control shifts to the masses who do what masses do which is pursue the venal, trivial, perverse, idiotic and banal. This shows us where mainstream conservatives, Neoreactionaries and far-rightists alike miss the point: the problem is managing human individuals who are not equal, not designing the right “System” to fit interchangeable cogs.
Systems descend from the French Revolution. Previously, functions were handled by people who served in lifelong roles. They did not have many rules or laws, but used judgment — a function of their intelligence and “nobility” of moral character — in particularized ways. Every decision was situational and took into account the histories of the people involved and the specifics of the locality, area of expertise, and other factors.
“Particularized” is an interesting term here because it is a classic conservative word that has been forgotten. It means local, specific and taking into account the history of events, as opposed to making “universal” rules that take none of that into account. Saying that every person should clear their parking space daily is universal; suggesting to Mrs. McGillicuddy that she should sweep her infirm elderly neighbor’s space, which doesn’t get it fully clean but clean enough, is particular.
The idea of a System was that instead of relying on people who are hard to replace, like smart/noble people, we would design many thousands of rules and procedures so that any idiot could fill the role. Where that failed, we have elections, so that whatever most people think is OK will pass, and this keeps us from having revolutions. That is what Systems do: enforce compromise and order through control, based on the idea of equality.
In other words: if you’re thinking in terms of Systems, you are a liberal.
I’ve been doing some thinking recently about the findings of behavioural geneticists and their implications for education policy. For instance, a study of more than 10,000 twins found that GCSE results are nearly 60 per cent heritable. (This research, by Robert Plomin, was first revealed in The Spectator.) So genetic differences between children account for almost 60 per cent of the variation in their GCSE results, with the environment, such as the schools they go to, accounting for less than 40 per cent. One very obvious implication of this research is that we may need to lower our expectations when it comes to the impact schools can make on the underlying rate of social mobility.
But behavioural geneticists are upending our assumptions in other areas, too. Parenting, for example. Most middle-class parents, me included, believe that how you bring up your children has a major impact on their life chances. That’s why we spend so much energy on -getting them to put down their screens, do their homework, practise the piano, etc. But, as The Spectator also pointed out back in 2013, if you look at some of the biggest determinants of success — IQ, conscientiousness, grit — they are far more heritable than we like to imagine. Our children’s destinies aren’t set in stone from the moment of conception, but the difference that a good parent makes is fairly negligible.
In other words, each of us is ranked by our genetics in terms of our adaptation, which is not just to mere survival but to the ability to perform in and possibly lead a civilization. Darwin is with us always, and his system shows how the more adaptive rise over the rest; all of liberalism is a vast compensation designed to circumvent this. That is what “equal” means, past the mumbo-jumbo about courts and opportunities: that no one is judged or noticed for being lower than others. Liberalism is war against Darwinism itself.
This means that civilizations hover between two points: rule by the best, or rule by the rest, which happens to destroy them. The goal of every civilization must be to suppress its idiots and raise up its intelligent. You do not achieve that effect with mind-numbing jobs and paying lots of taxes. You achieve it by having intelligent people in power at every level, making particularized choices.
Orwell and Huxley wrote the same book from two different angles. In Orwell’s book, humanity suffered under the methods used to rule it; in Huxley’s, humanity created a life of perpetual misery because its individuals lacked impulse control. Those who find Orwell appealing are liberals, where those who see Huxley’s vision are conservatives. The enemy is us. Most people, if given license, will run society into the ground for small personal rewards.
The point of Neoreaction is to argue around liberalism with thought-models. It is not to be a goal in itself. Moldbug said as much, as have many other Neoreactionary thinkers. The end goal is to find a system that puts the intelligent back in charge at every level and recognizes that most people need to be guided. This is not like totalitarianism, where a centralized authority regulates their lives, but it is an organic and decentralized authority that upholds social standards not with rules but with particular decisions.
We are working toward that because anything else is liberalism. We took a wrong turn in the past, and now it is time to turn back. That does not mean back toward the past, but toward the methods that actually work instead of ideology, which is based on what should be true and not what is. We cannot veer toward Huxley’s hell and claim by that by escaping Orwell’s hell, we are not still in hell.
For that reason, it is time for Neoreaction to climb out of the ghetto of liberal and libertarian thought. Capitalism, liberty, and nationalism are things that emerge not from having the right system, but from chucking out the idea of systems altogether. We need an organic society in which the stupidity of most of our species is suppressed and our best people are free from soul-sucking jobs and bureaucracy. Arguing for anything else is effectively a vote for the Socialists.
When I say “dystopian,” the casual reader may infer — as many people did when the book first appeared, literally at the same moment as the “Charlie Hebdo” massacre — that the dystopia is the Islamicized France, that Houellebecq is trying to do for Islamism or “Eurabia” what Orwell once did for Stalinism. But if you’ve read the keener reviews (or Houellebecq’s previous novels) you probably understand that no, actually, the dystopia is the contemporary West, and the Islamified future that Houellebecq’s story ushers in is portrayed as a kind of civilizational step forward, or if you prefer a necessary regression back to health.
I sort of knew this going in but even so it was remarkable how — well, I think neo-reactionary is really the only term to use to describe what Houellebecq seems to be doing in his portrait of contemporary France and his mischievous prophecy about its potential trajectory.
If I had to point to a foundation for postmodern reactionaries (“neoreactionaries”) it would be Houellebecq, through his influence in Louis-Ferdinand Céline. They pointed out in simple terms that not only is modern society Hell, but that it is a pointless hell that achieves nothing, and it is not unique in history but a typical decay-stage of a civilization heading downward. They point to a lack of transcendent purpose and common sense realism as the root of our decline.
Most people cannot handle what they write because not only is it biting, funny and satirical, but it also presents a simple equation: we know what we are doing wrong, so stop doing it and go the opposite direction. Turn our wheels from Hell to Heaven, in other words, because these writers believe in goodness, beauty, truth, decency and above all else, human happiness and thriving. But we will not find those through individualistic democracy, diversity, liberalism and consumerism, they say.
It is our individualism — the pursuit of the individual above all else, which requires abolishing social standards, values and heritage which imply a Darwinian ranking to each individual — that leads us into a blindness. This blindness has us avoid seeing how the modern time is Hell and how it is just going to get worse because we are going down the exact same path, just intensified.
Movements, you want movements? The Red Pill focuses on honest talk about the differences between sexes; Neoreactionaries point out the failure of Crowdist (individualists in groups) leadership; the New Right shows how dysgenics, consumerism and multiculturalism are destroying us; the Alternative Right shows the absurdity of a lack of social order and our participation in sacred fictions and virtue signaling. All of these point to the same thing: everything is broken. We are using universal methods — like individualism/equality and signaling/altruism — where we need to look at realistic common sense results, and adjust our behavior accordingly. Democracy hasn’t saved us from tyranny, but transferred it to a new form where it is invisible to us, and this tyranny is tyrannical precisely because it is destroying us by putting our people into existential hell, which makes them hate society and want to destroy not only themselves, but others and nature.
Take a peek at this burst of profundity regarding the gap between what we really want and need, and what we settle for in the sexual/romantic arena:
I was casually scrolling through Twitter one night and came across the most accurate post that I have come across in the four years I’ve been on the site: “Being a hopeless romantic in a hookup culture is a special kind of hell.” If this doesn’t deserve a hundred retweets, favorites, Instagram posts, and Facebook shares, then I don’t know what does.
Everyone wants the fairytale. Whether they want to admit it or not is their choice, but ultimately, everyone wants that one person who they can ride off into the sunset with. I wanted that, but things do not always go as planned.
Fairy tales are not mere fiction; they are aspirational fiction. Every princess wants a prince, and every man wants to be a brave noble warrior. Every kingdom wants to be good, and it wants a good king. Every person wants their life to mean more than trading hours of pushing paper for enough money to live outside the ghetto.
In my view, the neoreactionaries starting with Houellebecq did something unique and powerful: provided a toolbox for the non-liberal to explain why liberal logic leads to Hell. We are inundated in liberal justifications for their actions, and the propaganda toward equality/individualism within them, but few of us have any counter-arguments. This is why majorities are always defenseless: we don’t know why we do what we do because it is non-ideological; it simply works, and it cannot be broken down into the polarizing vectors of ideology like our opposition can. So we hear their arguments, fail to offer resistance that explains around these arguments and invalidates them, and thus by inertia, compromise and herd appeal the nonsense wins out over fully working existing methods.
The wonderful heart-warming story of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the blood-testing startup, is almost as fantastic as Valeant’s accounting. Her fear of needles led her to drop out of Stanford at 19 to commercialize a blood test that relied on a finger prick instead of drawing blood from a vein. She became the youngest person ever to be given the Horatio Alger Award and was appointed to the board of fellows of Harvard Medical School. Time magazine named her to its list of the world’s 100 most-influential people. Her closely held company was recently valued at $9 billion, making her a multibillionaire.
That’s a wonderful story. At least it was until it turned out that the blood test didn’t perform as expected.
…My apologies for once again beating the drum on ignoring the narrative and focusing on the data, but it seems that every six months or so this subject returns with a vengeance. If you feel like catching up with my past tirades on the failures of narratives, see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.
It isn’t just stocks. A story can be used to justify almost anything, be it a portfolio position or an ideology. Just ignore the facts and data, and hold on tight for the ride.
This is what we are waking up to in the modern time: everything we have been told is lies, based on the interval between telling a lie and see it turn out to be the opposite. This is true of democracy and liberalism as well, which made promises centuries ago which are only now showing that they were indeed the foulest of lies, used to justify the legitimacy of the oldest of human failings: greed, power-lust, control and an impulse to destroy.
Houellebecq identifies himself as “anti-liberal,” but because liberalism is the newcomer and everything else is based on what has worked in the past, anti-liberal is the same thing as looking at conservatism. That broad umbrella, with its dual planks of common sense realism and transcendental aims, contains the core of what has worked for all successful societies during 6,000 years of human history. It is only in turning away from it that we have guaranteed not only our doom, but our life sentence in Hell while we wait for the end.
Neoreaction stands out among right-wing movements because it is essentially a toolkit of arguments to use against the vast flood of liberal propaganda in which we are immersed constantly. Liberalism has dominated the discourse for 226 years by generating a constant flood of “new” ideas which are picked up by compliant voices among intellectuals, media and the arts.
One of the best arguments to come from Neoreaction is the notion that liberalism operates mainly by “virtue signaling,” or allowing preening individual animals to show how good and moral they are by repeating the right dogma. I propose a more radical amendment: liberalism is virtue signaling in order to throw others off the scent of success, which is achieved by conservative methods.
In addition to explaining the somewhat schizophrenic nature of liberals, who tend to embrace realism when it concerns their own profits but publicly condemn realism and preach liberalism, this theory explains the utility of liberalism: it enhances success by allowing individuals to hide their actual motives behind flowery words, like politicians donating a few bucks to the poor and grafting millions behind the scenes.
Interesting, Tom Wolfe covered this years ago as part of his analysis of how competition for social status as a means of distinguishing the individual from others is the basis of all contrarianism, which is the essence of liberal thought. In other words, people hope to get ahead by loudly endorsing dogma that makes them seem different and unique from the rest of the herd:
Status groups, Weber contended, are the creators of all new styles of life. In his heyday, the turn of the 19th century, the most stylish new status sphere, no more than 30 years old, was known as la vie boheme, the bohemian life. The bohemians were artists plus the intellectuals and layabouts in their orbit. They did their best to stand bourgeois propriety on its head through rakish dishabille, louder music, more wine, great gouts of it, ostentatious cohabitation, and by flaunting their poverty as a virtue. And why? Because they all came from the bourgeoisie themselves originally and wanted nothing more desperately than to distinguish themselves from it. They seldom mentioned the upper class, Marx’s owners of “the means of production.” They seldom mentioned Marx’s working class, except in sentimental appreciation of the workers’ occasional show of rebelliousness. No, as the late Jean-Francois Revel said of mid-20th century French intellectuals, the bohemians’ sole object was to separate themselves from the mob, the rabble, which today is known as the middle class.
I thought bohemia had been brought to its apogee in the 1960s, before my very eyes, by the hippies, originally known as acid heads, in reference to the drug LSD, with their Rapunzel hair down to the shoulder blades among the males and great tangled thickets of hair in the armpits of the women, all living in communes. The communes inevitably turned religious thanks to the hallucinations hippies experienced while on LSD and a whole array of other hallucinogens whose names no one can remember. Some head–short for acid head–would end up in the middle of Broadway, one of San Francisco’s main drags, sitting cross-legged in the Lotus position, looking about, wide eyes glistening with beatification, shouting, “I’m in the pudding and I’ve met the manager! I’m in the pudding and I’ve met the manager!” Seldom had so many gone so far to feel aloof from the middle class.
While this seems like competitive behavior, it more resembles compensatory behavior of the form “If I can’t get to a good place, I’ll at least be a big fish in a small pond.” No one seriously doubts that the West is in decline any longer, although they will not admit it in public because that makes it look like they are complaining in order to excuse their own failures. There is no longer an expectation of a good life for people here other than materially (desirable zip code, fancy car, good money). They accept that, and then try to make themselves seem important. To such a person, posturing becomes the basis of all their acts, with it becoming important to demonstrate moral and social pretense that affirms their role. A status-seeking person will never complain about a bad meal, or a ding on their bumper, or someone slowing them down by moving slowly, because to demonstrate pretense they must show that they are masters of their time, that a few hundred dollars are “nothing” to them, and that they are altruistic, egalitarian and moral potlatch-givers who expect everyone else to screw up and in response just pat them on the head and say, “There, there, good little serf.”
This compensatory behavior consists of not going to war against the problems that make the West slide into oblivion, but trying to be the most important fish in the pond left by the collapse. Their pretense is such that they do not even bother to note the decline, but wave it off like an undercooked soufflé as if to say, “Well of course society is self-destructing my dear, it’s what these little monkeys do. In the meantime, I’m getting a promotion and a BMW that runs on used cooking oil.” Wolfe was followed by David Brooks who wrote one of the most important books of our time, BOBOS in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, showing how these new pretentious citizens replaced the old Western European order back in the 1960s by using the pretense of liberalism. What to know why today’s SJWs, hipsters, nouveau riche and status climbers all employ public and hyperbolic liberalism? Because it worked last time.
Wolfe again on compensatory behavior:
Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world–so ordained by some almighty force–would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.
What he has described above is pretense. You set up values that benefit you and make you look like the center of the universe, and then act like these are universal truth, which allows you to retaliate against anyone who does not accept them as if they attacked you. It is both passive-aggressive behavior and the “Begging the Question” fallacy in behavioral form, and the more pretentious and unrealistic it is, the more you force others to recognize your importance and grant you social status.
This explains the combination of nanny-style Agony Aunt and Berkeley radical that defines today’s liberals. From Brooks:
Bobos turn out to be the parsons of the pubic region. Nearly gone are 1960s traces of Dionysian wantonness. Instead, “Play Safe” and “Play Responsibly” are the slogans that are repeated again and again in sophisticated sex literature. The practicioners talk so much about how healthy it all is you’d think they were doing jumping jacks…Today’s Marquis de Sades don’t want to create an immoral underground society. They’re not trying to subvert normalcy. They’re trying to join it. They want to win mainstream acceptance and so gain a respectable place in the middle-class world.
To them, ideology itself is a means to an end of raising their status, justifying their lifestyle as necessary, and showing higher pretense than others thus making them look appealing and powerful as people. It is no different than birds puffing up their feathers before a fight, or monkeys posturing before throwing feces at one another. It is one of the oldest animal processes and no amount of layers of business clothing, perfume, Marxist theory, or even hip club lingo can disguise the raw animality of it.
If we decode liberals in this way, we see them as not outsiders trying to take over our society, but insiders trying to hide their own middle class origins and rise above them with pretense and the social boost that having the right opinions gives in liberal circles. If you look through media, government, entertainment of much of business, you will see the reason that liberals like Masons or Toastmasters remain popular: liberals helping liberals get ahead by promoting fellow liberals above everyone else.
Looking at this psychology through other eyes, we come to the question of guilt, shame or pity culture — from a post over at Dividuals:
Basically, it is about prestige. When we argue we have a moral obligation to do X we are saying we should deduct prestige points from people who don’t do X…the West is a guilt culture, not a shame culture.
As shame is basically low social prestige, it is fairly obvious how shame cultures really work like this.
For a guilt culture, the simplest explanation is that guilt is internalized shame, and thus the idea of moral obligation is internalized shame, internalized prestige loss, you feel bad about yourself if you did something bad, thus basically reduce your own prestige points in your head even if nobody else did.
This is probably a good thing, at some level. Installing a prestige policeman in everybody’s head.
The distinction between guilt and shame cultures strikes me as nothing more than a gap between pre-emptive mental process filtering and post hoc behavioral filtering. In guilt cultures, people use compliance as a means to get ahead, as if in a free market; in a shame culture, the only consideration is getting caught. If you look at shame cultures worldwide, whatever their average IQ, they have less of a strong middle and upper echelon level of intelligence than we do (still) in the West. These are cultures where it is acceptable to destroy certain individuals when they are caught doing wrong because they become token sacrifices and scapegoats.
THE MANAGER of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.
Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?
Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.
Guilt cultures control everyone. We all want to rise, so like Havel’s grocer, we clearly signal our obedience to the dominant paradigm of liberalism. Our modern SJWs for example form a shame culture as a means to guilt culture; SJWs gain personal prestige for shaming others. Thus we see that the guilt-shame distinction really gets in the way of seeing what is actually happening here: whether by consuming others (shame) or censoring themselves (guilt) modern people are raising status, and raising job prospects, through liberalism. That is all it is: a giant street gang where the secret handshake involves repeating something you read in The New York Times or Salon. When you join the gang, the gang will help you out and defend you, and you can gain power in the gang by doing audacious stuff. The kids of a century ago who lit firecrackers under police horses and became legends on their blocks are the kids of today who go on Twitter and Tumblr to demand that people stop using gendered pronouns.
Now for the “Success for me, but not for thee” part: at the same time these people are using liberalism to advance themselves and push down others, they are also using it to conceal their greatest secret. If they are succeeding, it is with conservative methods and principles, but they must hide these because they are unpopular, so like the politician kissing babies they make a big public show of liberalism, and then in private, act as conservative as possible. As a mainstream source notes:
Greg Gutfeld says conservative principles are more common than you think in professions sometimes identified with liberals—music, exercise, and cooking. “If liberals applied their no-score, no-winner, no-loser belief system to their hobbies and professions, they would fail miserably,” says Gutfeld, author of “How to Be Right: The Art of Being Persuasively Correct.”
The best thing about liberalism is that it is old. Ancient, even. 1789 was its first real formulation, but the disease had been festering for some time. People like me argue that liberalism came about because the West overpopulated itself with idiots after sacrificing too many of its good people to fight off Mongols at the same time it became diverse from too much trade, but the gory truth is that every society faces this high noon. If you do not purge the idiots, outsiders, perverts, fetishists, neurotic intellectuals, criminals and grifters among you, they eventually gang up on you and win out by superior number.
Luckily the situation is easily changed — from Dividuals again:
Thus the only potential for true change is to change how prestige is assigned. I mean, prestige is assigned by e.g. socially valued achievements, but also by moral arguments, such as “we have a moral obligation to do X”, thus doing X is high-prestige and not doing Y is low-prestige.
When a civilization shifts from an individual-based model to a culture-based model, these guilt/shame/blame/pity feelings get redirected into a singular question: “Did you uphold the culture?” Since culture takes the form of values, honor, pride, behaviors, aesthetics, customs, and includes in itself things such as civilizational goals, this serves as a non-intrusive control mechanism that harnesses these weird animal impulses and directs them toward a positive end. With individualism, we get animals competing for pretense; with culture-based societies, as known in Nationalism, we have individuals competing to achieve things that benefit all people in past, present and future of that society.
Wolfe himself affirms this with a nod to the rising prevalance of Nationalism in societies where people are not divided against themselves by competing for status:
More recently, I returned to Washington and Lee for a conference on the subject of Latin American writing in the United States. The conference soon became a general and much hotter discussion of the current immigration dispute. I had arrived believing that, for example, Mexicans who had gone to the trouble of coming to the United States legally, going through all the prescribed steps, would resent the fact that millions of Mexicans were now coming into the United States illegally across the desert border. I couldn’t have been more mistaken. I discovered that everyone who thought of himself as Latin, even people who had been in this country for two and three generations, were wholeheartedly in favor of immediate amnesty and immediate citizenship for all Mexicans who happened now to be in the United States. And this feeling had nothing to do with immigration policy itself, nothing to do with law, nothing to do with politics, for that matter. To them, this was not a debate about immigration. The very existence of the debate itself was to them a besmirching of their fiction-absolute, of their conception of themselves as Latins. Somehow the debate, simply as a debate, cast an aspersion upon all Latins, implying doubt about their fitness to be within the border of such a superior nation.
In other words, identity works not just because it is a motivator, but because it motivates people to act in their own interests. Who cares what’s fair? Get more of us here!
As modern society crumbles from within, not only Nationalism but every form of “birds of a feather flock together” is rising. People are grouping together by ancestry, values, caste and moral system as they anticipate the acceleration of decline.
This shows the importance of Nationalism as the vital cornerstone of a successful society. With Nationalism, people work toward values; without it, they become chaotic beings competing with each other to see who looks coolest according to an unrealistic and delusional ideology. Others argue that we need conveniently one-step fixes like a restoration of religion, and a return to pure capitalism, and while we need those also, they will get nowhere without a return to rigid nationalism. Only the group with an unbroken identity can construct for itself a society that does not tear itself apart from within.
What we see with modern liberalism is merely more of the tearing-apart: people who have given up hope on a future, trying to make themselves more important now, so they can justify their inaction in the face of obvious problems. As history shows us, most great empires go out that way, not so much in flames but falling from the pages of history and resurfacing centuries later as third-world ruins.
Conservatives do not acknowledge enough that modern life is hell and all sane people should feel perfectly normal for hating it and wanting it destroyed.
We are daily submerged in the tyranny of the lowest common denominator, which results in a rat race for the more banal, venal and meaningless interpretation of any aspect of living.
Most people have submitted to the order and accepted that this is just the way things are, which in turn corrupts them by removing their internal gauge of what is good. Jobs: 90% of what we do is unnecessary pro forma busy work to feel important. Behavior: shove the costs of your self-interest onto the group, hiding it with public acts of altruism. Living: food, water and activities are dumbed-down, semi-toxic and expensive varieties of the real thing, and all people are insincere. Cities: cram too many people into a space and force them to “tolerate” each other, making all of them give up on life. It is slow spirit-death every day.
We went down this bad path when we adopted democracy, which is the political wing of the idea of individualism, which states that instead of fitting in to a larger order based in purpose, the individual is is that larger order and can invent purpose to suit himself or herself. That sabotaged the idea of enduring values, goals and meaning. It made life the means to the end of individual desires, which reduced everything to the lowest common denominator.
No other cause existed for this. No other reasoning is necessary. We made a bad decision because we made a selfish one. It was just a screwup. All other bogeyman — the Rich, Jews, Blacks, Christian, Communists, even Hitler himself — are intervening causes arising from this original bad decision. We can change this bad decision at any minute, and it is not a complex fix, but it requires us bathing in the blood of our real victim, which is the human ego.
We need to stand up and say: no, we are not each the center of the world, nor is the world something we control. We are each part of it and working together we can escape Hell, but working for ourselves alone, we can only perpetuate it.
People have no idea how easy it would be to put the car into reverse and zoom straight back out of Hell. It would start with someone saying loudly, in public and for all to hear — and as if forbidden by Devils this never happens — that our problem is the reign of the Ego. That no, we cannot make choices as individuals; we have to decide as a civilization, for the sake of past, future, nature and everyone together, not as special interest groups.
The instant that happens, the bad people among us — and they are there, like mosquitoes at a campsite — will start panicking because they know their era is over. When we have purpose, bad actions stand out because they contradict that purpose. When we have social order, people who behave like lunatics, idiots and devils stand out. That is what they wish to camouflage, and their chosen method is the Reich of the Ego.
I am not saying that we need a religious order, alone. Not that we need a cultural order, alone. We need an order, period, and that will involve religion, culture, heritage and values acting together instead of as separate special interests. But first and foremost, it involves individuals giving up the pretense of being God and instead selecting a social order to which we all submit for the greater good of not just ourselves but everyone else and all else.
Only through that can we escape Hell, and experience for the first time the actual world out there, feel the wind on our faces and see the sun on the horizon. We might even get a glimpse of Heaven or something like it, and, laughing playfully, begin walking that way.
Human downfall occurs when our intangible ideas collide with tangible realities which we did not notice because our symbols did not correctly reflect the underlying reality. One vector for this is ideology.
An ideology which is not producing variations — like natural mutations among species in nature, causing constant conflict but also avoiding stagnation — is incapable of responding to changes in the environment. In nature, genetic variations provide random traits which can prove adaptive to new ecological niches or changing environmental conditions. Without the chaos that creates these “glitches,” the organism is incapable of responding to its environment and does not survive.
To apply this to the ideological dimension of human ecology, it is important to consider each human ideology within the context of a civilization and then civilization’s role within the planetary ecosystem.
Ideological civilizations succeed when they can explain the ecological conditions a civilization finds itself in and provide a means of subsisting within that ecology. This process of selection diminishes the propagation of maladapted variations. Thus, within a civilization — the human ecosystem — a species of ideology becomes more numerous as it finds acceptance with an existing generation as well as new generations. It achieves that status by successfully explaining the conditions of civilization survival and motivating people to meet them.
Because civilizations function as a means of concentrating wealth, they place strains on the non-human ecosystem in the form of disruptions of natural cycles and resource depletion. As ecosystems strive for equilibrium, nature pushes back on human intrusion by finding equilibrium. Individual species or systems within an ecosystem do not do this on their own; it is an effort of the whole system. The usual form human civilizations deal with are changes in climate, invasions of intrusive species (ideological/human/nonhuman) and changes in wild-caught food supply. Unlike its controversial global cousin, the most common form of climate change is localized in disrupted rainfall patterns lending to drought in response to growth of urbanization and agriculture.
An ideology which has lost the capacity for variation is incapable of responding to ecological conditions that differ from those to which it is already adapted, as well as the negative feedback prompted by a civilization acting on its beliefs where they do not correspond to natural reality. An ideology will continue to seek propagation through preservation by responding to change through increasingly extreme reinforcing of the status quo. When wealth distribution programs fail, the response is more distribution programs. When aggressive foreign policy and one sided diplomacy fail, the response is more aggression and less diplomacy. When manufacturing financial goods and services fails to prompt the growth of real goods and services, the response is more printing, more bailouts, austerity for the poor and more cheap credit.
Caught within these patterns, ideologies drag their civilizations down with them. This is the intangible mode of collapse prompted by the tangible adaptive challenges listed above. The intangibles can persist so long as the conditions under which they evolved remain so; intangibles such as ideology can have such effects on the condition of the world that they prompt environmental changes, such as to rainfall, food supply or scarcity of other resources including water.
Successful ideologies do not cease creating variation entirely. Instead, that variation exists on the intellectual fringes in the realm of unacceptable belief. Ideas propagate more successfully when the ideological data points between each individual are nearly identical. This is why diversity creates conformity that serves to avoid ideas, and instead repeat new forms of accepted notions, and why societies that are homogenous can have difficult or challenging conversations that their mixed-culture cousins could not.
Through this process of increasing enforcement, the demand for conformity to conventional wisdom forces a need for ideological homogeneity onto each new member of a population. This tightening of control follows the power law and is exponential rather than arithmetic, which means that it increases at a far greater rate and that intensification accelerates as time goes on. The likelihood of adaptive variations propagating within such an environment is very low. The resulting phenomenon, known as groupthink or Crowdism, is nothing more than natural selection caught in the process of that intensification, and represents the end-stage of an ideological civilization which has reasoned itself away from adaptation into control.
In the modern West, our dogma has become tiresome. It insists that ancient ideas are new ones, forgetting that the Greeks discovered democracy and equality thousands of years before us, and the Hindus struggled with it even centuries before that. As written about on this site, however, democracy and equality themselves are little more than theory legitimizing the human trait toward solipsism. They are individualism justified by this theory, called ideology, that amounts to little more than advertising: it promises a better future, but avoids specifics including a timeframe or other verification of its success.
Democracy is the like the beer advertisements on television from the 1980s: attractive athletic and obviously hip young people playing volleyball on the beach, or racing motor cars, or relaxing near the hot-tub in their million-dollar homes. The images are obvious — sexual success, financial success, and social success — but the promise is never made. Only the association. “Some hip young rich people love our product,” is the claim, and as any lawyer will tell you, that one is hard to disprove. How many are required for “some”? How rich is rich? Who defines hip? Some fat old editor at a youth publication says he does, so we can rely on that, right?
Since The Enlightenment™, but gathering momentum with the French Revolution, the democracy-advocates have had the advantage of appearing as “new” ideas, which requires that people get stupid enough to forget what happened to the Greeks and Romans. “So, how did democracy work out in Athens?” is probably the most hostile small talk anyone can think of in this society. The democracy-advocates, and civil rights is just another form of democratization, have always styled themselves as young, hip, successful and most of all, iconoclastic. Hate our society? Here is a new way… a different way. It leads to new places not the same old ones.
Conveniently it also served the Iconoclastic Fallacy, which let everyone assume that because people as a group are idiots, whatever person is not doing what the group is doing must be right; the majority is always wrong, in other words. This created a convenient set-up where anyone with a minority opinion could point to the group, claim moral correctness and victimhood status, and conjure up an instant army of those who would defend against the herd. Except… the instant army were in fact the herd, and the majority was often a false construction in the form of a scapegoat plus popular approval, like “The Rich,” “The White,” The Jews™, “the banksters” and other false targets. The herd was justifying itself by purging itself of unpopular symbols, and the result was a strengthened herd.
This came to a peak in 1968. Students, emboldened by the misstep of their fathers in fighting a war for something so nebulous as “freedom” and “equality,” used those ideas as passive-aggressive weapons to dismantle the social hierarchy. In their view, this would overthrow the commercial interests that had somehow magically seized control of democracy, and usher in a new age of prosperity. In reality, by getting rid of social standards, they in effect replaced them with commercial standards, strengthening the interests of money and weakening those of individuals and culture. This created the 1970s and 1980s, in which vapid oblivion covered for the advancing takeover of our society by commerce and its lackeys in ideology. Again, this was the crowd justifying its own takeover by pretending to be revolutionary.
This leads us to the question: were there ever any legitimate revolutions? Historical analysis suggests no: revolutionaries are parasites who destroy societies, but they attempt many times before they finally get a home run streak like The Enlightenment™ through the Magna Carta and onward to the French Revolution, all likely spurred on by peasant revolts at roughly the time the Mongols were invading Europe. All of these revolutions have been false, simply commercial interests seizing power through the Crowd as frequently happens when empires die, in the name of being the opposite of what they are.
And now, we look at real rebellion — realistic opinions speaking truth to popularity, which is always power for the parasitic — and we can see how the liberal revolutions were in fact anti-revolutions, or a strengthening not of a specific group of powerful people, but of the principle of conformity for the purposes of “everyone getting along” and thus easier commerce. Witness this recent censorship hilarity from Liberalism Inc.:
A peaceful student demonstration at a Virginia high school ended with school administrators suspending 23 teens for wearing clothing emblazoned with the Confederate battle flag, which violates the school’s dress code, according to school officials, students and parents.
The students, who attend Christiansburg High School in southwestern Virginia, said they wore the controversial Confederate symbols to protest a school policy that prohibits them, which they view as a violation of their free speech. Students are barred from wearing any clothing that could “reflect adversely on persons due to race” and specifies that “clothing with Confederate flag symbols” falls in that category.
Montgomery County schools spokeswoman Brenda Drake said that half of all middle schools and high schools in the county do not allow the display of the Confederate battle flag. About 8 percent of Christiansburg High School’s 1,100 students are black and more than 80 percent are white, according to the Associated Press.
What do we, doing our best to be impartial observers, see here?
The usual justification: a kindergarten teacher wagging a critical finger and saying, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
The usual method: punish anyone who steps out of line and notices the Emperor has no new clothes after all.
The usual result: anyone with a functional brain will leave, and the idiots will look around and seeing no dissent, conclude they were right all along.
As always, democracy drifts toward endless compromise in favor of individual rights, which quickly means that society can have no meaningful hierarchy, culture, values, philosophy or direction. All that is left is the individual and, well, commerce of course. It is essential to separate this commerce from capitalism itself, which tends to obliterate such consumerist entities by enabling competition. This is social commerce, or the products which afflict people with too much time and money for the lack of direction that they have. Bored housewives, elderly camped in front of the TV, ghetto-dwellers on welfare: the psychology remains the same, a combination of victimhood, entitlement and old-fashioned haggling for more for the individual and less for everyone else.
In this case, administrators felt emboldened to make this move because they realized they were immune from criticism. America has changed, mostly through the Hart-Cellar Act, to a place where most of its people feel that racism is the biggest sin ever and all racists should be destroyed (joining other demonized groups like hackers, drug users, smokers and Satanists as media scapegoats). No one will ever experience any negative consequences for banning Confederate symbols; the historical majority does not yet realize — being dedicated to multiple goals, not a single one like an insurgent group, which always has the advantage — that the herd sees this symbol as representing the historical majority. “Whuh would they think that means me? I’m jus’ white, not Confeedyrate or nothin’. Hyuk!”
But this shows us the nature of revolutions. The idea behind a revolution is that instead of fixing the current system, you discard it and start over. This is obviously a false idea because most of what follows any deposed system is more of the same because nobody knows how else to manage a society, but the falseness is compounded by the mentality it creates. Revolutions create a mentality of the shopper, which is one-way obedience only. The products owe you; you owe them nothing. If the product is wrong, return it and find another. Do not fiddle with it, or work with it, or try to figure out why it might be good. If it is too mentally difficult, cast it aside. You are king and God alike in this choice; it is your power. This is why you want commerce in power over everything else, Comrade Citizen Customer.
We have created a model of disposability in our society. Empires are disposable; so are types of society. The only thing not disposable is the individualist consumer, who alone has the power (or they think). Anything that does not bend to their will and their control can be destroyed, executed like Russian dissidents in the gulag or French aristocrats at the guillotine. Everything is disposable for the convenience of the individual: all that does not crawl before them like obedient subjects — as they perceive products to do — must be subjugated and destroyed. Only this way will everything be safe. This is the process we call “progress.”
A little bit of analysis, or even a whole lot, pokes holes in this Narrative. If you wonder why society seems to systematically wage war against alertness, intelligence and depth, now you know: it is counter-revolutionary. If you notice failures in the Narrative, you are literally Hitler who wants to kill six billion Mexican transgender orphans. You are anti-egalitarian, Comrade Citizen Customer, by failing to ignore the problems with the Narrative. Don’t you see — it is good, and everything else, is bad. Choose a side. You are either good, and endorse our use of lying and murder to make our world ideologically good, or bad, and by resisting us you give us no choice but to destroy you.
This is how civilizations exterminate themselves. With lots of money, tons of products, mucho tolerance, and many fakes. Fake revolutions, false prophets, hollow cults and lies as foundations of their being. Then people become afraid to criticize the lies, and soon you have a whole group of people who, seeing no dissent, think they were right all along. A few brave souls speak out with honest revolutions, but they are bad, so they are destroyed. Progress continues. Until suddenly it stops, and the civilization drops from the radar of history, forgotten except as a memory.
In the course of rambling through modernity, you will encounter any number of cults. These are self-justifying self-image clubs based on their ability to selectively admit members. To be a member, you must justify the cult; if you do that better than others, you will be given power. As a result, the cult does not need a formal structure or can rely on it less than groups with actual leadership.
What makes cults fascinating is that they replace internal commonality, or agreement on basic values and directions in life, with external commonality in the form of paying the entrance fee by justifying the cult. Cults replace self-image with group image and make the individual dependent on group approval in order to have self-esteem. This is their power and Achilles heel.
It is difficult for an outsider to see this, but the innate collectivism of a cult is based in individualism. Each individual sees himself as likely to gain more from the cult than he gives. Among other things, he gains a gang, and if he can spin the justifying myth of the cult to include his personal objectives, he will have an army to batter his enemies and force his dreams into reality.
Cults play both side of the fence, however. Like democracy, cults emphasize individual preference with collective action, so that each person is a participant but none are accountable. As with riots, mobs, gangs and stampedes, everyone just follows the herd and figures there is safety in numbers and thus they cannot be blamed, and exiled either from the cult or its host, the civilization in its later years.
This flexibility allows cults to infect any type of group. Apple products form a cult where users justify their purchases by attacking any criticism of them. Communism forms a cult where participants use equality to remove the power of those who are more successful, which allows revenge on that group through subjugation. Even the neighborhood bar can be a cult oriented around the idea that drinking into oblivion is not a bad thing and in fact a good thing. Cults succeed by changing objectionable aspects of reality for their members, and their members reward the cult with allegiance and war against its enemies. This is why cults are a variant of Crowdism and create a pathological, solipsistic and parasitic outlook in the individual.
Perhaps the most tenacious cult is that of the ego, or individualism. People who join this cult agree first and foremost on positivity. They live for love, peace, happiness, fulfillment, uniqueness and any other term that flatters their self-conception. The price for entry to this cult is to ignore the megalomania of others in exchange for them doing the same to you. This allows cult members to compete on bases other than reality, such as actual achievements, using image alone to show that they are in fact leading the perfect life and are worth admiring.
This cult takes many forms. The bloggers who post pictures of their children and perfect homes, carefully angling the camera to avoid the rotting fence or drunk husband on the couch. The New Age adventurers who want nothing more than a chance to tell their story of divinity and have others act as if it were irrefutable fact. The self-help and support groups where each person wants not to heal, but to commiserate, and feel justified in remaining locked in the circle of their own misery. Even heroin addicts, camped out in airless tenements, form a cult of self-pity where entry requires finding the world distasteful and praising heroin as not just compensation, but enlightenment.
Conservatism rejects the cult of the ego through two mechanisms which turn on a single axis. The first plank of conservatism is consequentialism, or brutal realism measured by results in reality and not estimations, calculations or (worse of all) utilitarian surveying of who agrees. The second plank is transcendentalism, which looks for an order to the cosmos which makes sense of the physical, instead of rejecting the physical and looking for an alternate order — a different quantity — in an undiscovered dimension. Both of these planks turn human focus from the individual to the outer world, and insist that it can be sensible and therefore should not be rejected in order to focus on human thoughts, feelings and judgments as a “better” form of reality.
When people rage against conservatives, the issue they choose as the basis of their stance is rarely their actual focus. Deep inside of themselves they know that they want to force everyone else to accept their mental illusion as reality, and they see anyone who refuses to validate them in this manner as an enemy. No compromise can exist between conservative realism and liberal — everything but conservatism — solipsism. We want the world, and they want to reject it and replace it with themselves, then use a group to create an echo chamber to make that into Official Reality.
Conservatives and anyone else of sound mind and body tends to look at that as we should, as a form of disease. Those who pity themselves and reject the world have insulted the greatest gift any being can imagine, which is the gift of choice and ability to explore the many possibilities of life. The cult of the ego rejects life not so much because they fear death, as to a real egoist death is simply the end of the world and not of themselves, but because they cannot control it. This explains why when given power, the megalomaniacs immediately begin a regime of destruction and murder, starting with the best of everyone and anything outside of themselves.
Brett, do you have any concrete proposal which would allow us to regain control of our civilization? Or is this just a question of stating ideals without taking into account the reality of what the situation is?
You criticize those who focus on family and close allegiances of being shortsighted for not understanding that it takes a civilization to maintain a civilization.
However, being one of that camp, I feel that this is ultimately likely to bring better results as our position is unpopular, too much to become explicitly a status quo without the use of force. And force can only be used when it is at least equal to that of one’s foe, which isn’t our case.
Let us take the radical step of viewing this as a problem or challenge in life which requires our action, and treat it like any other situation.
First, we must define our goal: to protect our people so that civilization can not just endure, but improve itself. This is the essence of conservatism, to conserve that which works toward the best possible results, and to therefore implement that and move our society along a forward vector of evolution, quality and transcendentals — good, beautiful, true, perennial things — so that we equal or surpass the ancients.
If our goal is to protect our people, we then have to ask if we can do this by segregating ourselves like the Amish, Exodus ministries, Rastafarians, Scientologists, Quakers, wealthy in gated communities, survivalists and the like. My answer is no, because as soon as society gains enough power it will also begin the faster part of its downward descent, and will scapegoat and assimilate or destroy all outliers. With modern transportation, being alone in the mountains will not help. Just like at Waco and Ruby Ridge, they come for you, because you represent a threat to them because you disprove the idea that one “must” be part of the Great Herd Step Forward in order to have a decent life. Doubly so if you succeed.
There is a reason that the elites are caught unaware in almost every Revolution and are thoroughly destroyed. First, they are disconnected from daily life because it repulses them and they have retreated from it. Second, they are massively outnumbered and cannot call on any popular support, so even if they kill off their enemy a thousand to one they are still doomed. The French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, colonial revolts and the collapses of the ancients are all instructive here.
Thus, if we wish to preserve our people, we must come to power and use that power to keep the crazy crowd at bay. People in a group do not think as individuals responsive to reality, but as individuals proving themselves to the crowd. They ignore obvious fact as a result, because responsibility and accountability are not part of their goal. They are accountable only to the public image concerns of the crowd, forming a wave of public opinion that is uninformed and generally retributive against scapegoats for the failings of individuals in the crowd. Democracy has failed. The first democracies murdered Socrates for speaking the truth; under Pontius Pilate, the crowd demanded the death of Jesus Christ instead of the thieves and murderers on trial.
This means we are no longer kidding around: our goal is not to achieve victory in the current political system, but to replace it. This is not a victory in an election, but a victory over the neurotics who comprise the Crowd and thus leftism, and their permanent displacement. It is not resistance, it is redirection. Our society — based on liberal democracy and consumerism, a.k.a. “economic democracy,” subsidized by the State — has failed. There is nowhere to go but down if we do not reject the liberal way. That means removing it from power and permanently subjugating it. We tried to coexist, but it cannot happen; the Crowd is too strong because it has no accountability and is guided by an ethic of convenience. Liberal plans appear positive but that reflects the pretense of the Crowd, not its intentions. Its intentions are only power and destruction of all culture, heritage and values in the name of individualism so that it can rule forever. Like Communism, which it eventually becomes as Socialism becomes unstable, it is a one-way street to failure.
Next, we must define our method: Political power arises by one or more of methods — popular revolt, invasion, financial domination, military coup, or pluralistic revolt — and in order for us to achieve our goal, is necessary. Pluralistic revolt, in which a relatively small group unifies itself and agitates for control, represents our most likely possibility with military and economic methods secondary. In pluralism, many groups vie for power; if a plurality is more singularly committed than others, it can seize power by forming a voting bloc that invalidates all other options. This is common in democracies. One group will have enough sway not to win on its own, but to thwart any other group from winning, and therefore will predominate. Direct armed revolution or military coup before reaching this stage is unlikely; financial insurrection is riskier because of the taxation power of government. If conservatives unified enough of their base to be focused and to agitate constantly, it would prevent other groups from being able to act without the consent of that conservative base. From that point, political compromise in the form of “You do this, and I’ll help you with that” can be used to achieve the affirmative goals of a political transition, such as removing the Constitutional amendments, laws and court interpretations that stand in our way.
Even with only a democratic majority, there are steps we can take: Conservatives have been playing resistance for the past 200 years, standing athwart “progress” — first industry and later liberal politics — and howling STOP. An affirmative plan for the future, called “forward conservatism,” can present an alternative to a continued resistance-aggression cycle. This plan has a vision of what America should be like, which is a relaxed place that rewards the good, and simple steps toward its achievement. Many of these overlap with the libertarian and even liberal agendas although by different methods.
A successful conservative world looks like this:
Isolated, powerful nations. Ethnic self-determination for every group allows them to define standards and exclude outsiders. This means that we stop complaining about when Israel builds a border wall, or when America exiles all non-Western Europeans and returns to its nativist roots.
Strong, lazy leadership. We want leaders who maintain a state of functional society and also push us toward higher dimensions of quality, which do not require “new” ideas so much as high standards and a lack of micromanagement.
Constraint of the irresponsible. Most people have always been and always will be, to a large degree, irresponsible. They do not understand cause->effect reasoning and so cannot comprehend the effects of their actions. Restraint of these, while promoting those who do understand, is essential.
Upward evolutionary force. Conservatives have always valued improvement of the individual and nation through becoming better at what it always has been, instead of trying to find a “new” way to be something else. Good to the good, bad to the bad, and everyone else gets nothing.
This conservative civilization would require a strong and sensible policy.
Remove anti-discrimination law. This is not a role for government, and justifies government expansion both in size and power. On every level it is a failure. HUD, civil rights, affirmative action: Repeal.
Remove ideological government. The goal of government is not to replace culture, but to provide it a strong foundation of protection by keeping society functional. Government is a utility, not a for-profit corporation, when implemented best.
Remove in loco parentis. Government is not there to protect you from yourself. Nor is anyone else. Each person is responsible for his own survival and happiness. No one else can do it for him and we should not try.
Balance the budget. Without ideological government, our budget is half of what it otherwise would be. Build armies and infrastructure and keep everything else as a private function if at all. Our budget will balance and we can reduce taxes, in turn simplifying transactions.
Abortion as a medical procedure. Abortion should be a decision between a woman and her general practitioner (GP). If the doctor feels the pregnancy is a risk, he or she can terminate it at that time; no abortion clinics where it is treated as a cosmetic procedure.
Drug legalization is a local concern. If Dewlap, MI wants to legalize drugs, let them, so long as the rest of us do not carry the burden (i.e. abolish socialized medicine). Government is not here to protect us from ourselves, nor to endorse drugs by legalizing them. Local communities can do this and reap the whirlwind while the rest of us watch with popcorn in hand.
End immigration. We are full. We do not need more people; we need our existing people to be more useful. Repeal the Hart-Cellar and related acts, and invalidate all drive-by birthright citizenships. End sanctuary cities.
Remove legal protections for unions. Unions drove up the cost of American labor and compelled companies to seek immigration. Let unions compete in the market. Workers would prefer to negotiate their own salaries rather than pay the 25%+ overhead of unions.
Common sense proposals
Remove economic interests from government. Liberals defend low-end growth, or importing more citizens to be consumers and paying them welfare to keep the economic Ponzi scheme going. Conservatives have too often defended merely established economic interests. Send the lobbyists home and make politicians do the work themselves or, better, do nothing.
Redefine wealth. Currently, wealth is measured in growth, demand for our currency and consumer interest. Measure it instead by production and how well we do in overseas markets. We are no longer the consumer superpower and this is better for us. We need to become a producer again of agriculture, industry and also the current fave, intellectual property products.
Cut the red tape. Remove sales taxes, regulations, paperwork, and approvals wherever possible and simplify all laws. Each town has one government building where all public interactions are transacted. End traffic fines and simply remove bad drivers. Make life simple, elegant and hassle-free wherever possible.
Remove subsidies and tariffs. We subsidize industries to keep them alive when we should allow them to renew themselves. Remove all subsidies. Remove all tariffs to products from other nations in exchange for their agreement to not tariff or tax our products.
Conservatives need to understand there is no middle ground. Liberals have shown they will destroy you if possible; there is no way to “coexist.” If you do not achieve supremacy, you will fail completely and utterly and be destroyed. Even if you ride it out now, you will be dispossessed in retirement and your descendants will face horrible consequences.
Most conservatives, like most modern people, are caught up in the individualism loop. They observe problems in the world, think that these are insoluble, so focus on advancing the one thing they do control… themselves. Eventually they see all else, including the environment and their own children, as means to this end. This thoroughly corrupts them in mind and soul but allows them to continue ignoring the gathering stormclouds and get some sleep at night. It also guarantees their doom.
Liberals are pathological and they form a cult based on mutual co-dependency. They are driven by fear of inferiority and as a result seek to destroy anything above their level while rendering those below as mute, servile accomplices. They consume everything and leave behind inferior substitutes for once-great social institutions, brands, standards, values and ideals. Hint: they will get to your children through schools, media, peers, and ersatz role models. Those children will become brainwashed and work against you. Ask the “Greatest Generation,” which birthed the 1968er “Me Generation” which brought Soviet-style liberalism to America.
We have to remove the blinders from our eyes and realize that politics is not a football game where we cheer for the Red and they cheer for the Blue. It is what determines our future and those results will shape us as a people, and also genetically. What our politicians reward through Darwinian evolution thrives and pushes out the rest. This helps our false elites maintain control by having a permanent majority of voters who are easily fooled or follow short-term personal incentives and are too oblivious to connect the dots when these programs fail. We, the intelligent and practical Western Europeans are being replaced by the hipsters, idiots, third world immigrants and neurotics. We either take a stand and gain control, or we suicide.
Every sheep secretly thinks he is a lion. For that reason, we overstate our contributions and under-estimate how much we depend on those around us. This mentality is similar to that of scapegoating, in which we assume that our intent was right and any failure must have come from external forces.
The Individualist Fallacy falls into the same pocket. Specifically, it holds that the individual is or does not need civilization, while living within civilization. This can be seen in the rebellious types who want “anarchy with grocery stores,” libertarians, and many conservative Christians and conservatives, including fairly underground types.
There are three main areas of the Individualist Fallacy:
That the individual can do what is right, and associate with others like him, and this solves the problem of civilization downfall.
This version of the fallacy mainly affects mainstream conservatives. Their idea is, based in part in Christianity and in equal part in economic liberalism, that society is comprised of individuals and that each individual has responsibility to do what is right, and then things will end for the best. This makes sense at first because it parallels Social Darwinism, with the idea that the most adapted — raising happy families, maintaining wealth and health and moral standards — will outproduce the rest. It fails to take into account however that the others will reproduce more thanks to the efforts of society and, that in civilization, other factors exist than for isolated families in the wild. The responsible will end up paying for the rest and the rest will use their greater power in numbers to parasitize and eventually destroy the responsible. This version of the fallacy is most frequently heard from baby boomers who just want to die before their children inherit the utter ruin the boomers made of the West.
On the left, this version of the fallacy mutates into the idea that everyone is good and we will all survive together and somehow, magically, the choices that exist for you today — or back in 1965 when the boomers were young — will be there for you in the future. One would have to be blind to the current state of Brazil, the history of the French Revolution or Soviet Union, and human nature to believe this. Choices and opportunities change as society does, and whatever is tolerated proliferates, so that those people who are doing bad things eventually outnumber the rest. Again, this type of reasoning serves as an excuse and justification — backward-looking, inverted thinking — than forward-looking, planning-type analysis. People just want an easy answer that allows them to “keep on truckin'” without having to “rock the boat.”
That rules which affect society at large do not affect the individual, and therefore that the individual has no right to object to rights or privileges granted others.
Mostly on the left, this version of the fallacy goes like this: how dare you oppose someone else doing what they want, such as gay marriage or legal marijuana, because it is an individual choice and affects only them? Any sensible and experienced person will interject here with the observation that nothing affects only the individual. Gay marriage for example sets a new lower boundary for permissiveness in society and changes the nature of marriage from “mature, get married and have a family” to “date recklessly, and when your current significant other needs health care, go perform a trivial civil ceremony.” The children after gay marriage have lost the sanctity and purpose of marriage. Similarly with legal marijuana, a social value is changed — and a market is created. Now children will be surrounded with the paraphernalia, behavior and lifestyle behavior of those who are using drugs. With one drug legal, others become acceptable. Even more, society embraces a type of thinking that it has firm reasons to oppose. Every individual “right” in turn forces the normalization of that right on others, and deprives those others of their right to a society of their choice. The liberal will fire back that they can have that at home, which is fine if they and their families never leave that home and will not be interfered with there. In reality, it means that they are attacked passive-aggressively by society — passive aggression is a form of the “begging the question” fallacy where one party assumes as behavior is right in order to challenge others with it, then play the victim when they are not approving — and forced to either submit to the new order which goes against their conscience and wisdom, or become targeted as a potential pariah for ostracism.
That collectivism is formed of a collective, and not individualist impulse, rather than being a collective enterprise to demand individualism.
This version of the fallacy has found popularity with the Internet-style Libertarians who believe that, since they exist only in their apartments and jobs, everyone else should do the same. In their view, the enemy is Statists who are collectivists, which means they believe all money should be pooled and used to support all people. They are correct in recognizing that this is insanity, but incorrect in that they forget that society itself is a collective enterprise. In it, we all do things which do not benefit ourselves directly but because they benefit everyone, serve to increase the value and utility of life in that society. This denies the leftist impulse which is to create “equality” by penalizing the successful to subsidize the unsuccessful — zero historical counter-examples exist — which involves paying benefits to specific groups which are smaller than the whole or even the majority, thus “minorities.” The problem with this version of the fallacy is that it denies the simple formula collectivism = individualism. Collectivism is individualism in a group context where individuals join together to form a large group that uses the superior numbers of that group to demand that individualism — no higher purpose than self-gratification — to become the law of the land. This irrevocably changes society. While a libertarian system seems to oppose this, what it really does is create a society based on individualism which will inevitably turn toward “collectivism” as a plurality of people emerge who, exhausted of no purpose except self-interest, will support it.
Hope you enjoyed our brief tour of one of the most common fallacies today and its three common variants. You will see these regularly and expressed fervently, but like almost all of human thought, they are signals, distractions and rationalizations to allow that individual to both (a) continue to live life as they have been, for individual comfort a.k.a. “bourgeois values” and (b) feel justified and in fact morally good about doing so. Illusion is an easier sell than reality.
“Go away,” the old woman said, clutching the shotgun as she stood next to her battered shack in the wilderness. “We don’t like any stranger-types around here, from those weird cities or foreign lands. We like ourselves only. So be off with you!”
We know this image. We know it as trope, meme and cliché from books, movies and plays. The country bumpkin with a cruel streak and xenophobia factors heavily in our imagery of why it is wrong not to be egalitarian, tolerant and encouraging of new experience. In this trope, the people of the country are small-minded and inbred, stupid and angry, poor and with even poorer ways.
For centuries, this image has popped up in our culture like a mandala among stained glass murals. It seems like wisdom to us at this point. It reflects a less comfortable former time — all of our history is based on technology and politics, forgetting everything else — that we fear to return to, and most of all we do not want our neighbors thinking we are “like that.” Following that idea and letting it expand in our minds as ideas inevitably do, we launched on a path over the past thousand years that led to modern liberalism. First the peasant revolts, then the Magna Carta, then The Enlightenment™, then the French Revolution and when that failed, the Communist revolutions to patch up the holes in liberalism by demanding the state subsidize its unequal but ideologically fervent citizens. All of these things come from the same impulse.
With what approximates a lighter vision of Guillaume Faye’s “convergence of catastrophes,” the West now sees the consequences of those decisions a thousand years ago. This type of time scale will not surprise readers of history, but politicians never want to admit that we should be paying attention on the level of centuries and millennia and not four-year election/economy cycles. (Most economic booms or busts reflect actions the market takes in anticipation of a new candidate, rather than his policies.) As our immigration policy fails, diversity detonates around us, sabotage of the family destroys us through lack of reproduction, and democracy continues to choose weak and criminal leaders, it has become clear that those thousand-year-old decisions were in fact a path to doom.
As a result, people are peeling back layers of the onion. They start with the most local threats, where liberal ideas have sabotaged their communities. Then as they ask, “How did this come about?” they look deeper to liberal positions on issues. Then they wonder why those seemed like a good idea, which necessitates peeling into liberal ideology itself. As that starts to look alien and weird, they stop taking it at face value and start to look into the kind of psychology that would adopt it. Suddenly a lot becomes clearer. At this point, they are close to seeing the thousand-year deception in full, and to revoke it entirely. Forget our happy vision of human individualism in which every person is good; remember the wisdom of the ancients, which is that most people are either bad or self-deluding, and that the dumbest and worst are the most arrogant, not the smartest and best. Realize that we in European-descended societies are the target for everyone else because they could not attain what we have. They hate us for rising above the herd and making the herd look bad. And then see that among us there are many who side with the herd and want to tear us down so that no individualist may feel less than equal by his own failures.
This is the return of darkness and evil. The old woman by her battered cottage cracks a wry grin. Outsiders are bad; only those who are of us and for us are good. Cities breed stupidity, contagion and deception. Someone who goes to a city must be bad, or at least, will come back tainted. Evil is everywhere and must be fought constantly, not with evil but with darkness itself, or the knowledge that all which does not show goodness is in fact bad, a threat and death. The battle lines are drawn once again. We have escaped Enlightenment™ for a new dark age where once again reality makes sense and humanity is seen for the craven, manipulative beast it is, and the few exceptions held up to the ages as our only hope.