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, what kind of things you tried to do with the site, and what made you ultimately abandon it.

I was fortunate at 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. 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, 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 and the 2010 articles from 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.

Solipsism is the nature of Crowds


What does a crowd of people lack that an individual has?


When in a crowd, the individual takes credit for anything good that comes of the crowd action, but if something goes wrong, there are always the others in the group to blame.

It is a perfect perversion of civilization into parasitism. Take the benefits, externalize the weaknesses.

Crowds have great inertia for this reason. They sponsor rent-seeking behavior where people see that something profitable is happening, so they join the crowd for the good parts. But the costs? Those they pass on to others.

We can see this phenomenon in all human activities: business, government, religion and socializing. When people are in a group, they feel that membership entitles them to the good but when something goes wrong, they push the problem off their desks and go on their merry ways.

As the West spirals down to internal collapse, the nature of the crowd stands revealed. By removing accountability, it detaches people from reality. They then go further into themselves and mentally associate with only the positives — what they desire, easily understand and feel — and ignore everything else.

This creates a mental state known as solipsism. In this state the individual believes that the world exists within himself. He knows only what he wants it to do, and excludes the idea of consequences outside of that intent. Good intentions become reality to such a person.

As a side effect, crowds create great inertia. When a good thing appears, many people show up to take their part of the benefits. When its errors become visible, they deny them, because in their solipsism they want only the desired and wish the bad away. When it finally cracks, the group scatters and the blame game begins. But at that point, everything under its control has been ruined.

This phenomenon can be seen in the rise of companies. A good idea comes forth; just about everyone wants to be hired by this company. To it they bring their own wants and a lack of care about what makes it actually succeed. They do not care about its future; they only want to take what is there now. With many contradictory directions, the company becomes enmired in trying to ensure compromise. Its business changes from whatever earns it money to managing itself internally.

The modern West finds itself in this situation, as it has been since it legitimized Crowds as the rule of law in 1789 with the French Revolution. Centuries later, the inertia is finaly slowing. As Slavoj Zizek recently argued in a revealing interview for those who read between the lines:

We have a right to set limits. We feel too guilty in Europe — our multicultural tolerance is the effluent of a bad conscience, of a guilt complex that could cause Europe to perish. The greatest threat to Europe is its inertia, its retreat into a culture of apathy and general relativism. I am dogmatic in that sense. Freedom cannot be sustained without a certain amount of dogmatism. I don’t want to cast doubt on everything or question everything. Liberal dogmatism is based on what Hegel called moral substance. That’s why I am also against every form of political correctness, which attempts to control something that should be a part of our moral substance with societal or legal bans.

Inertia is what comes of personal freedom without limits. With democracy, we become a Crowd, and then we become solipsistic. At that point, no one wants to either rock the boat or pay attention to reality at all.

Zizek contrasts “social freedom” to this, which seems to mean the ability of societies to make choices. With democracy, we go in only one direction, which is more personal freedom. That turns our societies into moribund entities in the business of compromise, but no longer in the business of thriving.

Final hour of democracy


The demise of Lee Kuan Yew has prompted much speculation on the reason for Singapore’s success, with the left decrying its “fascism” and the right leery of the type of highly-managed, poly-ethnic society that it has produced.

Few look at the real reason for its success: what it did not do. Blessed with natural wealth because of its position in one of the world’s most lucrative shipping routes, Singapore could have done any number of things, but it refused to follow the democratic trend of its time and instead focused on government as management, as one might organize a business venture or lead a military unit.

Herein we see the convergence of conservatism and libertarianism. Libertarianism might be seen as the absence of liberal social and economic problems causing chaos. Similarly, conservatism is the absence of liberal control — through a powerful government enforcing ideology in replacement for culture, heritage and values — which allows nations to thrive by not obligating the productive to the unproductive, and not uniting all citizens toward wishful thinking goals about what “should” be, and instead focusing on what is and how to find the wisdom and even beauty within it.

The West has denied these values for a long time, and it fears any kind of Singapore on its own shores. This is not to praise Singapore — it sounds like an infuriating gated community based on economics alone which succeeds only because of its position as a major port — but to point out that the West is, under the guidance of liberalism, focused on non-real things and policies that do everything wrong. If a Singapore comes along that simply avoids liberalism, it will outpace the West and quickly banish it to the dustbin of history with other failed empires that now live on as third-world punchlines.

Democracy always tends this way. When we adopt the attitude of the Enlightenment that the individual human is not only correct but optimal, we have created a situation where we argue in reverse. “Because all people are right, we must accept this too as right,” we say to an ongoing stream of offenses and stupidity. Then because liberalism sees itself as right, it becomes impossible to criticize liberalism itself as a philosophy, and the only dialogue becomes criticism of parts of society for not being liberal enough. This is why churches admit female pastors and endorse gay marriage, why conservative politicians approve of war for democracy in irrelevant lands, and why corporations gladly approve of whatever outrage makes the news of the day. Once democracy starts, there is only one path: to liberalism.

So far, the West has gotten away with its liberal bent. We destroyed those among us who opposed liberalism in a series of wars from the Napoleonic conflicts through World War II, and then we capitalized on the learning of the past to build a vast technocracy. Now life no longer has doubt it; we feel our society will last forever because it is so powerful. And yet an auditor would see troubling signs that for now can be explained away as details, but reveal a far deeper problem. The utter lack of common direction; the selfishness and obliviousness of people; the fear of reality itself; and the decay of infrastructure and knowledge of the reasons for things, replaced by memorization of method alone, would alarm a truly disinterested outside observer.

The charade goes on as long as the wealth remains. This process has been ongoing for several thousand years but, thanks ironically to the strength and intelligence of our people, we have been able to hold it back. That strategy is hard to avoid since the other option is to be conquered by rampaging Mongols, Russians or Arabs and to become vassals of moribund powers. However, as we approach the end of the democracy experiment yet again — we’re repeating what happened in Greece and Rome and ushered those empires into oblivion — it becomes clear that our problem is not some external force, but our own choices. Since the French Revolution we have adopted every toxic policy imaginable as people use these insane ideas to prove their allegiance to democracy and to make a name for themselves as revolutionaries expanding the franchise. The pain deferred now comes rushing at us like a wronged avenger.

We should contemplate these wise words from the founding sage of Western philosophy:

Next comes democracy; of this the origin and nature have still to be considered by us; and then we will enquire into the ways of the democratic man, and bring him up for judgement.

That, he said, is our method.
Well, I said, and how does the change from oligarchy into democracy arise? Is it not on this wise? –The good at which such a State alms is to become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable?

What then?
The rulers, being aware that their power rests upon their wealth, refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift youth because they gain by their ruin; they take interest from them and buy up their estates and thus increase their own wealth and importance?

To be sure.
There can be no doubt that the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens of the same State to any considerable extent; one or the other will be disregarded.

That is tolerably clear.
And in oligarchical States, from the general spread of carelessness and extravagance, men of good family have often been reduced to beggary?

Yes, often.
And still they remain in the city; there they are, ready to sting and fully armed, and some of them owe money, some have forfeited their citizenship; a third class are in both predicaments; and they hate and conspire against those who have got their property, and against everybody else, and are eager for revolution.

That is true.
On the other hand, the men of business, stooping as they walk, and pretending not even to see those whom they have already ruined, insert their sting –that is, their money –into some one else who is not on his guard against them, and recover the parent sum many times over multiplied into a family of children: and so they make drone and pauper to abound in the State.

Yes, he said, there are plenty of them –that is certain.
The evil blazes up like a fire; and they will not extinguish it, either by restricting a man’s use of his own property, or by another remedy:

What other?
One which is the next best, and has the advantage of compelling the citizens to look to their characters: –Let there be a general rule that every one shall enter into voluntary contracts at his own risk, and there will be less of this scandalous money-making, and the evils of which we were speaking will be greatly lessened in the State.

Yes, they will be greatly lessened.
At present the governors, induced by the motives which I have named, treat their subjects badly; while they and their adherents, especially the young men of the governing class, are habituated to lead a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind; they do nothing, and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain.

Very true.
They themselves care only for making money, and are as indifferent as the pauper to the cultivation of virtue.

Yes, quite as indifferent.
Such is the state of affairs which prevails among them. And often rulers and their subjects may come in one another’s way, whether on a pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or fellow-sailors; aye, and they may observe the behaviour of each other in the very moment of danger –for where danger is, there is no fear that the poor will be despised by the rich –and very likely the wiry sunburnt poor man may be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has never spoilt his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh –when he sees such an one puffing and at his wit’s end, how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them? And when they meet in private will not people be saying to one another ‘Our warriors are not good for much’?

Yes, he said, I am quite aware that this is their way of talking.
And, as in a body which is diseased the addition of a touch from without may bring on illness, and sometimes even when there is no external provocation a commotion may arise within-in the same way wherever there is weakness in the State there is also likely to be illness, of which the occasions may be very slight, the one party introducing from without their oligarchical, the other their democratical allies, and then the State falls sick, and is at war with herself; and may be at times distracted, even when there is no external cause.

Yes, surely.
And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot.

Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the opposite party to withdraw.

And now what is their manner of life, and what sort of a government have they? for as the government is, such will be the man.

Clearly, he said.
In the first place, are they not free; and is not the city full of freedom and frankness –a man may say and do what he likes?

‘Tis said so, he replied.
And where freedom is, the individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases?

Then in this kind of State there will be the greatest variety of human natures?

There will.
This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colours to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States.

Yes, my good Sir, and there will be no better in which to look for a government.

Because of the liberty which reigns there –they have a complete assortment of constitutions; and he who has a mind to establish a State, as we have been doing, must go to a democracy as he would to a bazaar at which they sell them, and pick out the one that suits him; then, when he has made his choice, he may found his State.

He will be sure to have patterns enough.
And there being no necessity, I said, for you to govern in this State, even if you have the capacity, or to be governed, unless you like, or go to war when the rest go to war, or to be at peace when others are at peace, unless you are so disposed –there being no necessity also, because some law forbids you to hold office or be a dicast, that you should not hold office or be a dicast, if you have a fancy –is not this a way of life which for the moment is supremely delightful

For the moment, yes.
And is not their humanity to the condemned in some cases quite charming? Have you not observed how, in a democracy, many persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk about the world –the gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?

Yes, he replied, many and many a one.
See too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the ‘don’t care’ about trifles, and the disregard which she shows of all the fine principles which we solemnly laid down at the foundation of the city –as when we said that, except in the case of some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy and a study –how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honour any one who professes to be the people’s friend.

Yes, she is of a noble spirit.
These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.

We know her well.
Consider now, I said, what manner of man the individual is, or rather consider, as in the case of the State, how he comes into being.

Very good, he said.
Is not this the way –he is the son of the miserly and oligarchical father who has trained him in his own habits?

And, like his father, he keeps under by force the pleasures which are of the spending and not of the getting sort, being those which are called unnecessary?

Would you like, for the sake of clearness, to distinguish which are the necessary and which are the unnecessary pleasures?

I should.
Are not necessary pleasures those of which we cannot get rid, and of which the satisfaction is a benefit to us? And they are rightly so, because we are framed by nature to desire both what is beneficial and what is necessary, and cannot help it.

We are not wrong therefore in calling them necessary?
We are not.
And the desires of which a man may get rid, if he takes pains from his youth upwards –of which the presence, moreover, does no good, and in some cases the reverse of good –shall we not be right in saying that all these are unnecessary?

Yes, certainly.
Suppose we select an example of either kind, in order that we may have a general notion of them?

Very good.
Will not the desire of eating, that is, of simple food and condiments, in so far as they are required for health and strength, be of the necessary class?

That is what I should suppose.
The pleasure of eating is necessary in two ways; it does us good and it is essential to the continuance of life?

But the condiments are only necessary in so far as they are good for health?

And the desire which goes beyond this, or more delicate food, or other luxuries, which might generally be got rid of, if controlled and trained in youth, and is hurtful to the body, and hurtful to the soul in the pursuit of wisdom and virtue, may be rightly called unnecessary?

Very true.
May we not say that these desires spend, and that the others make money because they conduce to production?

And of the pleasures of love, and all other pleasures, the same holds good?

And the drone of whom we spoke was he who was surfeited in pleasures and desires of this sort, and was the slave of the unnecessary desires, whereas he who was subject o the necessary only was miserly and oligarchical?

Very true.
Again, let us see how the democratical man grows out of the oligarchical: the following, as I suspect, is commonly the process.

What is the process?
When a young man who has been brought up as we were just now describing, in a vulgar and miserly way, has tasted drones’ honey and has come to associate with fierce and crafty natures who are able to provide for him all sorts of refinements and varieties of pleasure –then, as you may imagine, the change will begin of the oligarchical principle within him into the democratical?

And as in the city like was helping like, and the change was effected by an alliance from without assisting one division of the citizens, so too the young man is changed by a class of desires coming from without to assist the desires within him, that which is and alike again helping that which is akin and alike?

And if there be any ally which aids the oligarchical principle within him, whether the influence of a father or of kindred, advising or rebuking him, then there arises in his soul a faction and an opposite faction, and he goes to war with himself.

It must be so.
And there are times when the democratical principle gives way to the oligarchical, and some of his desires die, and others are banished; a spirit of reverence enters into the young man’s soul and order is restored.

Yes, he said, that sometimes happens.
And then, again, after the old desires have been driven out, fresh ones spring up, which are akin to them, and because he, their father, does not know how to educate them, wax fierce and numerous.

Yes, he said, that is apt to be the way.
They draw him to his old associates, and holding secret intercourse with them, breed and multiply in him.

Very true.
At length they seize upon the citadel of the young man’s soul, which they perceive to be void of all accomplishments and fair pursuits and true words, which make their abode in the minds of men who are dear to the gods, and are their best guardians and sentinels.

None better.
False and boastful conceits and phrases mount upwards and take their place.

They are certain to do so.
And so the young man returns into the country of the lotus-eaters, and takes up his dwelling there in the face of all men; and if any help be sent by his friends to the oligarchical part of him, the aforesaid vain conceits shut the gate of the king’s fastness; and they will neither allow the embassy itself to enter, private if private advisers offer the fatherly counsel of the aged will they listen to them or receive them. There is a battle and they gain the day, and then modesty, which they call silliness, is ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nickname unmanliness, is trampled in the mire and cast forth; they persuade men that moderation and orderly expenditure are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them beyond the border.

Yes, with a will.
And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names; insolence they term breeding, and anarchy liberty, and waste magnificence, and impudence courage. And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.

Yes, he said, the change in him is visible enough.
After this he lives on, spending his money and labour and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as on necessary ones; but if he be fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his wits, when years have elapsed, and the heyday of passion is over –supposing that he then re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not wholly give himself up to their successors –in that case he balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium, putting the government of himself into the hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn; and when he has had enough of that, then into the hands of another; he despises none of them but encourages them all equally.

Very true, he said.
Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others –whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.

Yes, he said; that is the way with him.
Yes, I said, he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he-is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.

Yes, he replied, he is all liberty and equality.
Yes, I said; his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many; –he answers to the State which we described as fair and spangled. And many a man and many a woman will take him for their pattern, and many a constitution and many an example of manners is contained in him.

Just so.
Let him then be set over against democracy; he may truly be called the democratic man.

The problem with democracy is not so much democracy as a system — althrough reliance on systems is itself a problem, as it is an indirect admission that we no longer have competent leaders — but how it changes us. Democracy makes us look inward, become egotistical and narcissistic, and eventually relapse into a world of our own desires and those shared with others, so that socializing behavior replaces reality itself. Once that happens, reality is exiled and suicidal and insane acts become the norm, in the process destroying all that is good among us and replacing it with zombies who know nothing but the symbolic and emotional world created by the radical individualism of democracy.

As this old order dies, and it inevitably will, it becomes clear that conservatives of the more extreme bent were right all along. They have won the war of ideas by being not only logically correct, but correct in application. Our wealth allowed us to deny those truths for a long time but much as our debts will eventually come due, so will there come a time where we must once again engage with reality and rebuild ourselves. Or we go to where so many others have, the path to third world status and irrelevance.



Too late the slumbering lummoxes who supposedly are the guardians of our society have discovered that colleges are echo chambers of leftist thought. Why, thank you for noticing; it has been this way since 1968 or so, maybe earlier. All of us went through them and being young and impressionable, both gritted our teeth and ignored the crazy or imbibed it because it made us feel better about our lack of knowledge.

Why are colleges leftist echo chambers? The simple answer is ugly: the person drawn to be an educator is usually someone stalled at the point of his own education. This combination of nostalgia and regret has people revisit the point of their injury in life, much like PTSD, and try to re-live it through others. As with the best leaders, the best teachers are often those who do not want the job but feel obligated to take it or take it as a matter of laziness. It is after all an easy job because if you avoid a few errors, there is almost no accountability and the task itself — explaining in simple detail things you learned long ago — is not challenging. Even more, it allows these people to feel power over the knowledge they once struggled with and a time of life that once made them miserable. It is revenge through empowerment.

The leftist echo chamber has accelerated in the last decade for two simple reasons: first, we have sent too many people to college where now two-thirds of high school students go on to college of some form, and second, as liberalism fails the dogmatists feel it necessary to become either more strident lest they be forced to admit their lives are built on a lie.

The grim fact is that only about a fifth of our population, those above 120 IQ points, benefit from any kind of education at all. The others just misuse it and become cleverer, or more able to hide behind technicalities and clever use of language but correspondingly less likely to find answers to problems. In democracy however those who have the most favorable appearance win, and so our politicians used simple reasoning: college makes people richer! Everyone wants to be rich! So send everyone to college! …cleverly ignoring that this would create an industry whose goal is to parasitically sign up as many people as it can and deliver the cheapest possible product. From this, political correctness emerged: a desire to make the product as “safe” and inoffensive as possible so as many people as possible could be induced to take on mind-blowing amounts of student debt and get specialized degrees that credential them to work in a specific field.

As part of this politically correct expansion, colleges invented back in the 1990s something called a “trigger warning”: if a dangerous or possibly offensive topic — which means a topic that might cause any person to question the legitimacy of their participation — arises, a warning must precede it that warns students that the topic may “trigger” their fears and delicate sensibilities.

While this is laughable on its face for how pretentious and narcissistic it is, it also creates another kind of mirth. As a writer, my job is to trigger people. Words cannot convince any person of any thing. What they can do is reveal a pattern, like a metaphor or stylized drawing, that triggers a memory in the consciousness of the person. “Ah yes, I remember thinking something like that once, but less fleshed-out,” they think, and then their brains begin to work on the idea. Soon they see instances of it everywhere, like thinking of a plate of shrimp and seeing plates for sale downtown and shrimp on the menu. This is the opposite of paranoia: where paranoia uses selected instances to prove a pattern, triggering causes people to remember what they have noticed and then see where the pattern applies. This is how writing works. It makes people think when they see their own experiences through the more streamlined and articulated eyes of the author.

Our society fears triggering. Of course it does! It fears reality. It fears anything which may destabilize the individual by pointing out the illusions which they use to prop up their personalities. Triggering removes their justifications and pretenses of importance and places reality in place of the human individual as the most essential thing in life. Society fears triggering become it removes the legitimacy of this “altruistic kleptocracy” and reveals it to be the community in tumbling decline that it is. We are expected to pre-emptively apologize for speaking the truth, because it might “trigger” someone, and use that as a reason to sweep it under the rug and pile lies upon it so that it can never escape. And we do this knowing full well that our only salvation has ever come from confronting truth, and that lies always lead to future downfall. Triggering is interruption of denial, and it is a moral duty for every human being to do it as frequently as possible on all topics.