Posts Tagged ‘crowdism’

The Powerless Of The Power

Monday, October 24th, 2016


Vaclav Havel wrote his influential essay “The Power of the Powerless” to describe why people follow along with soft totalitarian regimes. This essay attempts to understand why people create soft totalitarian regimes.

Havel pitches his thesis with an everyday example:

THE MANAGER of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

As Plato wrote long ago, cause and effect are different animals, but people frequently confuse effect with the cause of itself (although it is the cause of what comes after it). We see the effect here, which is that normal people make symbolic gestures of everyday obedience in order to avoid ostracism by the regime.

The cause of that situation is the powerless of the power, or the group that forms like a gang, cult or union within a thriving society. Once society establishes itself, it loses its initial purpose, which is to establish itself. At that point, humans become spoiled because they have benefits they could not create for themselves.

The Rise of Ideology

This represents a departure from the state of nature. In the natural setting, small groups have only what they can produce, and those who produce nothing or are unwise tend not to survive. Once civilization is established, its morality takes over from that Darwinian role, and if it fails to weed out the idiotic, the society fails.

The “Powerless of the Power” refers to the group that survives when civilization conquers nature. These people are without actual power, i.e. the ability to do things effectively. But in social groups, they have the power of a gang: they can thwart society. And so, society buys them off, with bribes, welfare and benefits.

Although it seems intelligent and peaceful, that approach backfires because whatever we tolerate, we get more of. Buying off the dysfunctional creates a new layer of dysfunctional people who then need some reason to feel good about themselves and some purpose to which to dedicate to themselves.

Havel explains ideology as the product of the regime, but it is the other way around: the regime is the product of the ideology, because the ideology is personally compulsive to those it ensnares. Ideology explains a not-very-happy life as a process of struggle toward an ultimate good, and thus is the one size-fits-all band-aid for any doubt, low self-confidence, or indecision.

Like most moderns, Havel finds his thinking inverted because he is thinking backward from the present, not from the past to the present. In his view, totalitarianism is the cause because he sees it in the present tense and noticing it causing ideology, which can be explained because causality is a cycle where every cause attempts to re-create the conditions responsible for producing itself, so that it can perpetuate. All things desire power, and this is where Havel misses the cause of totalitarianism — unlike Plato — despite having utterly brilliantly described its mechanism.

As he writes:

Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.

In other words, ideology is a cover story and self-marketing. Whatever is wrong with us, we are made equal by ideology, and then those who wield it well can become more-than-equal.

Pretense And Control

That advantage makes ideology as eternally popular as it is perennially wrong. Healthy, capable people have no need for it; ideology is like explaining why you failed a test or lost a sports game by saying that you did it for the greater good. Ideology excuses failings by demanding that failure become equal to success in the eyes of social judgment, which means that a new decision of failure/success is introduced based on how well one flatters others.

Flattery is telling others what they want to hear. If you want to know the secret of humanity, it is that it is not ruled by secretive groups like the Bilderbergers or Skull And Bones, but by the pretense of the crowd. Each person has some failings or hang-ups, and these are obvious to those around them; the people who reach out to others by explaining those glitches as victimhood will instantly be popular.

This pattern reveals itself at every level of a human group as if we were looking at a high school. The popular kids accept each other despite their basic instability, since they are all attention whores. The nerds group together and forgive each other their weirdnesses and fears.

The fat kids can fit in with the nerds and all the emotionally needy kids cluster in the theater department. In each group, all members forgive others and flatter them with the idea that obvious problems are not problems; this is a defensive outlook created in anticipation of criticism, and it replaces purpose and goal with a perpetual cycle of doubt and denial. The defensive nature of this psychology creates a type of pre-emptive strike, or passive-aggressive projections, called pretense, where those with the most to hide pretend they have the least to hide.

This is the mechanism used to control human groups because it renders them inert by making them focus only on themselves, and in the ensuing state of solipsism, reject the idea of noticing the direction of the group as a whole. That makes it ideal for controllers, who want their subjects to go firmly to sleep so the control forces can use that group as a means to the ends of the controllers.

Human social groups with strong leadership create unselfconscious cultures where people feel that doing right by the group as an organic whole is enough. The person who spies the enemy sneaking in through the woods is not a hero, but someone recognized as a contributor in the group. When that group protects enough people who are not healthy, that group like a cult or gang then seeks to replace the distinction between contributor and non-contributor with a single scale, which is how well one repeats the words and symbols of the ideology that in the absence of purpose is presumed to bond them together.

What results is a conspiracy of flattery. It is impossible to diagnose because it has no center and no leaders, and worse still, none of its members are aware they are doing it. Like a viral infection of the mind, it spreads through the process of socializing between individuals, because when one meets a new person, the choice becomes one of either adopting their mode of behavior or being rejected. Thus it passes along, every person flattering the others in order to form groups, and in so doing, they create a society where there are no permanent things, no guarantee that those who contribute will always be loved. Every day one must keep up the flattery or be excluded. By promising to accept everyone, the conspiracy of flattery has made them slaves to constant threatening social interactions.

These people then rationalize their misery as happiness because to do otherwise is to admit that a great mistake has been made. If they recognize the existential terror and confusion in which they live, the value of ideology as a personal ego-support system fails, and then they will fall out of sync with the rest of the group. Instead, they double down as a way to win the “game” of social success, or at least to have a position where they feel safe.

Civilizations die by going crazy. They do so because the powerless, united by ideology, become powerful and divide the group. At that point, the only coherent message is a very simple lowest common denominator one, and ideology — based on what “should” be, usually in the form of universalism or inclusion of everyone whether contributor or not — quickly absorbs the rest of the citizens. Imitating each other in their insanity, they march into the abyss.

Inversion = Equality = Individualism

Tuesday, October 4th, 2016


What is the root of our disease?

Most people of functional mind now understand that the American dream is not only dead, but was an illusion, brought on by a pocket of history between bad decisions and the moment their consequences arrive.

Even more than that, we are now seeing that Western Civilization has died, and we who are left — functional minds, again — want a new civilization to replace it.

Something went wrong, long ago, and we have been surviving since that time on the slowness of decay. Like a monkey on our back, this original mistake lives on as an assumption, and for this reason, no matter what we try, it is infected with the bad assumption.

We are like a person trying to clean a virus from a computer network while using an infected machine, so that no matter how much he cuts away, he re-infects everything he touches. The disease lives in us, the Typhoid Mary of bad ideological dogma assumptions.

Reactionary Future describes this as it was envisioned through the writings of Mencius Moldbug as a type of Puritan reaction:

The trouble is that, while war, slavery and poverty are in general bad things, they may well be profitable for some. Especially in small doses. And if you can create a feedback loop by which Universalism causes war, slavery or poverty, but does so in such a way as to reward those who practice and promote Universalism, you have a loop that can continue indefinitely.

Take, for example, the “peace process” in Israel and Palestine. Now 60 years old and counting. How confident are you that this “peace process” is not, in fact, the cause of this similarly unending conflict? It certainly generates a very comfortable living, full of meaning and importance and not a few frequent-flier miles, for all those involved. Why shut it down?

RF hits back with his own analysis, which is closer to the truth:

What we have then is the system itself being the driver. This is the key point, and one which can only be repeated in as clear a way as possible, without the added distraction of the additional context provided by Moldbug when trying to explain it – the unsecure system is the problem, and the mechanisms of this unsecure system create the environment which selects for progressivism. Power is above culture.

The power system literally created this culture.

Power systems are proxies for leadership; people decide that kings are too dangerous, and so they implement a series of rules and incentives (a “system”) for managing people who are presumed to be roughly equal in moral character, mental ability and instinct.

Perhaps instead we should look toward the fundamental assumption there, which is equality. Equality is a human tendency wired into us since early days because it is how one forms a group. Offer inclusion into a new group, or tribe, to a number of people, and promise them that they share equally in its profits, and they hop on board. This is an addictive virus to the human brain: less responsibility, and the possibility of more gain.

This is why equality seems, on a mathematical level, to be a good game-playing strategy. The forgotten factor (as usual) is time, or more accurately, iteration: profit-based systems, over time, decay from high-margin to low-margin as the efficiency effects they bring become more widely distributed.

Visualize a new technology product, for example the iGroin. This product constantly stimulates the groin with small electrical shocks to keep the wearer awake at his boring job, tedious television watching, and stultifying small talk. At first, it sells for $700. But as more people own them, costs go down and competition increases, so prices drop.

Ten years later, the iGroin is a generic type of product that sells for $50 at grocery stores.

Equality has the same curve. At first, it is a brilliant power grab: the new tribe takes everything it can, distributes it, and becomes wealthy. Over time, there is less to grab, and so the parasitic process becomes unruly. This then requires the implementation of the same administrative and leadership roles that the parasites took from their host tribe, a larger group. At this point, the parasite becomes the host, but because it has no mode except parasitism, it starves itself as it fragments into smaller groups trying to parasitize it.

This is why all advanced societies have died so far, on Earth and in the heavens: the society becomes wealthy, subsidizing those who could not have survived without it, and then those take over through equality, because equality is social magic because it cannot be opposed without the opposer looking like a cruel tyrant to the herd. Then, the society chokes itself to death, and reverses the process of civilization.

In this view, the system is the result of the assumption, not the cause of it. This is more accurate.

The problem is Us. Individualism arises from people who do not understand civilization. They exist within it because they can only exist when someone else takes care of the basics of life and social order. At that point, they take it all for granted, and start agitating for more (hubris). With that, the parasitism begins.

With the rise of parasitism, all values and meanings are inverted, meaning that they come to mean the opposite of what they were originally intended to mean. The reason for this is that equality demands inversion. To include everyone equally, one must remove any differences between choices, and even words themselves, by making them mean the same thing, ideologically. This means that any terms describing something other than the ideology must be inverted.

Now the cycle is complete. Inversion = Equality = Individualism. The needs of the individual, expressed through a collective, alter the definition of symbols, and create a false consensual reality in which realistic thought is suppressed. Then the society drives itself insane with its inability to find the assumption which started it on a path to doom.

There is only one solution for this: keep the people of highest intelligence and moral capacity in power, make as many of them as you can, and drive away the useless people. Darwinism in nature has no analogue in civilization except this, and it is vitally needed.

In the future, an advanced civilization will survive this threshold. It will do so by adopting the view of the Spartans not in a military sense, but in a social one. Its people will wage constant war against stupidity and idiots, and exile them to distant lands, without having to make a case for laws being broken. People will be sent away simply for being fools.

This society will not be excessively wealthy. The casting away of fools removes the vast profit motive of consumerism, and also requires that even the highly intelligent do actual work. That will paradoxically reward them, as it gives them a break from their over-heating brains, and allows for a lack of the tedium of nonsense work.

In such a civilization, people will spend very little time on inventing new theories, except as pertains to physical science discoveries. Most of their time will be spent in silence, contemplation and enjoyment of life. They will embrace the mundanity and reject the “exciting” as fetishistic.

This type of civilization fits with what Plato saw as ideal:

In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us. – The Republic

The gold are those of excellent moral and mental ability, and the silver those who can implement that vision. When these castes are mixed, those raw abilities are lost.

Hierarchy in human tribes takes this form: there must be some who rise to the top not by manipulation or brute strength, but by ability and the direction in which they appoint that ability.

Here are the gold, silver, bronze and iron castes in another form:

He is called a Brahmana in whom are truth, gifts, abstention
from injury to others, compassion, shame, benevolence and penance.

He who is engaged in the profession of battle, who studies the Vedas, who makes gifts (to Brahmanas) and takes wealth (from those he protects) is called a Kshatriya.

He who earns fame from keep of cattle, who is employed in agriculture and the means of acquiring wealth, who is pure in behaviour and attends to the study of the Vedas, is called a Vaisya.

He who takes pleasure in eating every kind of food, who is engaged in doing every kind of work, who is impure in behaviour, who does not study the Vedas, and whose conduct is unclean, is said to be a Sudra. – “The Four Orders Of Human Beings”

In failed societies, we find false Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas as we see in our current society. These are caste-mixed people who take on the behavior and moral attributes of Sudras.

In healthy societies, we find Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas who act according to their station, much as they were called Jarls, Karls, and freeholders in Europe according to their ability and inclination.

This hierarchy is the opposite of equality. It is quality-based, meaning that it aims to produce more of quality, instead of attempting to normalize everything to one level as equality does.

Equality arises from social politeness in mixed groups. One must assert the opposite of the truth in order to include everyone else. For that reason, the ugly person becomes beautiful and the weak strong. Then the group bullies and gangs up on everyone else to enforce this.

Maintaining this order over centuries requires a maintenance of genetics, because only people of quality can enforce it. The tendency of civilization is to burden those people with responsibility for the welfare of less capable others, thus exhausting them and driving the good ones into exile.

This is why Darwinism is the solution: the less capable and bad must be driven out, not “rehabilitated” or kept as serfs, because they are the destroyers of civilization, even if it takes centuries.

The Spartans understood this on a gut level, but used military aptitude as a proxy for goodness. The next civilization to inherit this earth and the stars will use no proxies, and will simply rank people with a cold and emotionless eye, always pressing the best upward and the worst outward.

The Alt Right: Revolution Against Egalitarianism

Thursday, September 29th, 2016


From a recent article by flaming Leftists, an insight into the Alt Right that has been provided by Amerika for some time:

In Jared Taylor’s most recent video attempting to define the Alt Right in response to the giant wave of traffic his websites had garnered, he said that while it was a range of perspectives, “They all agree about one thing: equality is a dangerous myth.”

This focus on inequality is the broadest agreed upon position in the Alt Right, where the say that egalitarian thinking is a war on the “distinction” between peoples. People are unequal as individuals within racial groups, and racial groups themselves are unequal when compared to each other. This comes down to one of the key political precepts of the movement, agreed upon no matter if they identify as Nazis, neo-monarchists, or neoreactionaries. A society is healthier when it has strict hierarchies, castes, and stratifications.

Leftism is egalitarianism. The Alt Right wants to overthrow not just Leftism but its precursor state. This requires unearthing and destroying the state that caused Leftism, and in so doing rooting out egalitarianism and its parent philosophy individualism wherever they can be found.

In the Alt Right view, genetics, not laws, determine social outcomes. For this reason, the “proposition nation” where people are unified by political and economic interests is a failure, and our desire is to achieve a nation created on the basis of genetic similarity, with internal hierarchy based on individual differences not in test-scoring but in innate ability. This opposes the entire idea of modernity, and with it, politics.

With the downfall of egalitarianism, the possibly of moving beyond the modern time becomes available. We will no longer be constrained by mass politics and the necessity of dumbing down every idea so that a herd can approve of it. We can aspire to greatness, instead of pandering to the fears and lusts of a crowd composed of individuals who know nothing higher than their own immediate sensations.

Civilization Is A Trap

Thursday, September 29th, 2016


Civilization is a disease which is almost invariably fatal.1

The rich are different than you and me. In particular, they are better at making money, which requires having the pulse of trends and being able to see to some degree where they are going. From a story about bunkers/panic rooms for the wealthy comes this tasty tidbit:

Adds Mike Peters, owner of Utah-based Ultimate Bunker, which builds high-end versions in California, Texas and Minnesota: “People are going for luxury [to] live underground because they see the future is going to be rough. Everyone I’ve talked to thinks we are doomed, no matter who is elected.”

What do they know that the rest of us do not? They have probably noticed the downfall of the Obama years — the declining currency, increasing corruption, decreasing competence — and view the current presidential contest as a disaster, perhaps because of Hillary Clinton’s ability to evade prosecution for obvious lawbreaking and the tendency of media to act as her propaganda organ. These are third world events, not first one ones.

We are now at a point of what Guillaume Faye calls a “convergence of catastrophes.” This refers to what happens when 227 years of bad politics and seventy years of extremely bad Leftist rule drive a civilization, like Western Civilization, to the point of collapse. Ecopocalypse hovers on the horizon, either from environmental crash or the rising amount of environmental pollution that will eventually render the planet inhospitable. The economy is not just crashing, but leaves behind record debt and devastated industries destroyed by globalism. Political instability is at an all-time high. Leftism will leave us in a cloud of shame, again, as the destroyer of all that is good, based on an idea — equality — that was really popular because it sounded good. Appearance is not reality.

In addition, modern life is hell. Cities are designed around retreat to the home and blocking out of life around us. Jobs are tedious and pointless, usually achieving nothing but make-work and titles to peacock around with. The consummate ugliness of our architecture, graffiti, urban decay and product-oriented lifestyle is repellent. Social groups are warzones between races, ethnic groups, social classes and political factions. We are surrounded by “null culture,” or music, art and literature advertising fatalism and self-indulgence without any glimpse of what is real, beautiful or accurate.

People are asking how we got to this point. The answer is that we got conned, but as every good con man knows, the person who is conned is a collaborator in the deception because of his desires and fears. In our case, the desire to be important and to have our intent — not our will, because that would be unequal — render unto reality has made us egomaniacs, and our fear of being not equal enough has made us into nasty, squabbling people who treat everything like a negotiation at a bazaar.

How did it all come down to this?

The answer is that civilization is a deviation from the balance of nature, and unless that is compensated for, civilization quickly self destructs. The most intelligent civilizations seem to rise the fastest and fall the hardest. This points toward a disparity between what humans think they should do, and what they actually should do. The problem lies in human intent.

Intent defines our lives. We seek to adapt to our world and put plans in motion toward that end. Those plans are based on what we know of the world, plus a hypothesis about what will achieve the results we intend. The question arises then whether those results are actually the results we need. Our brains like nice, orderly, equality-based structures where each part is divisible and replaceable, where nature prefers complex tiered orders of inter-related balances based on inequality, with each part serving a different role in the organic method.

In designing human society, this leads us toward the idea of the one-step solution. If there are too many people, put them in apartments in big cities for convenience. If people are displeased, make them equal. If the group fragments, implement an ideology to keep the team together. If some do not fit in, beat them down until they do; if some fall behind, subsidize them. If it is too large to know who is good, implement proxies — tests, certifications, schools, laws, middle management — to choose the ones who can implement the goal.

The root of this failure is control. Control occurs when humans micromanage by deciding that instead of having unequal people working in parallel toward a goal, they want to specify that goal and force it to be applied exactly as they intend. It is a mark of bad leadership, and also of a situation where there are too many fools to be trusted with their own work. There is a path to power in organizing all of the fools together and telling them exactly what to do like equal interchangeable cogs, and this is the order that overwhelms all civilizations.

At the right level of zoom, humans and yeast become nearly indistinguishable in this regard. They encounter an opportunity, multiply beyond carrying capacity, and then die out. The civilization of the future is the one that solves this problem.

Amerika is a blog for hard truths, which is why it is not as popular as the blogs from the easy answers crowd, which takes infinite forms and so can come from any orientation, outlook, ideology, discipline or perspective. As such, the texts on Amerika appear to be absurdly effete, stating plain observations without the usual emotional agitation and calls for extreme action; then again, the blogs that succumb to those tendencies are either from the easy answers crowd or inevitably assimilated by it as the blog owners attempt to remain relevant and popular.

We now have a mandate for extreme change. Most people have no idea how big the screw-up is. Leftism, and its final stage globalism, have left a ruin of the first world and made its citizens so existentially miserable that they are refusing to reproduce and in many cases, refusing to leave the house. Globalism has collapsed just like the previous Leftist scheme, world Communism, has. Like the Soviet Union, it has fallen apart in a shambles of the failure of its own policies. It has no one to blame, and people are struggling out of their democratic stupor to reach this realization.

That leaves humanity with a long trail of failed Systems. National Socialism failed, Communism failed, and now it seems like liberal democracy and its socialistic understructure has failed, leaving us wondering what could possibly come next. This gives us a hint: not a System.

Systems rely on the modern notion of the mass. A mass is formed of equal people who have no hierarchy but are ruled by government. They act in self-interest disconnected from its effects on civilization or nature, a condition called individualism around here.

This mass motion acts according to human social rules, meaning that it is based on appearance and including all others in order to keep the group together. This is the basis of the universalist values that since the Enlightenment™ have formed the basis of Western political thinking. This is not unique to the modern West; universalist values arise any time a society has lost purpose, and instead of finding one, chooses control as a means to keep itself together.

Whenever people are grouped together in a mass, or group without internal hierarchy, and herded through mass motion, a System results. This contrasts the hierarchical and tiered orders of nature in which each type of thing has a role and fulfills that activity alone, relying on the combined actions of all parts in balance to produce the stability of the order.

In order for a System to work, it must create a consensual hallucination of an objective space in which symbols are actuality. We reference this space any time we say “science proves it” or “it is recognized that” in reference to an idea. The space of ideas, in a universalist system, is assumed to be shared equally among all people and therefore, people react to ideas as if they were programming distributed through a computer network.

From this come the pitfalls of civilization: the cities where people are anonymous, the accumulation of broken people and deleterious mutations, the loss of any culture or idea which cannot be spread universally, which requires it to be very simple and based on the archetype of the idea of universalism itself. These ideas flow from the basic assumption of egalitarianism which arises when a civilization becomes prosperous enough to lose its implicit goal of establishing itself against the restrictions of nature and lack of knowledge of the world, and become the toxin that destroys it.

Civilization is a trap. We go in expecting to make things better, but by improving our lot, we create a path to fatality. When civilization goes, all that we have contributed is lost. In the process, civilization forms its own sort of Darwinism that selects not for the smartest and strongest, but for the least offensive. It turns Vikings into pajama boys. It takes a thriving people, and leaves behind a stupider, more docile version, as if they were domesticated animals.

What can be done? This task seems hopeless. And yet, as the good book says, our suffering is what makes us know who we are; it is a gift from God (this is not of much comfort during the suffering, however). This is a challenge which demands our best of intellect and heart, and charges us to rise above the malaise and sloth into which we have fallen.

Instead of relying on Systems, we can move toward a traditional civilization. This will include, in addition to the “big theory” four pillars, the following methods:

  • Anti-Formalism. Instead of rules and laws, depend on people. That is: put your best people in power, and let them learn what life is, organically. This means a lack of uniformity, which offends our minds and pretense, but a breeding ground for people of more complex understanding.

  • Localism. Big, anonymous cities are death. Small cities and towns provide places where each person knows everyone else. This encourages decisions based not in the moment, but upon what someone has done with their life. Anonymity destroys trust.

  • Anti-Control. Control seeks to rule details from a centralized place of abstraction; traditional societies allow a cascade of authorities, from the highest to lowest, with each one managing only its domain.

  • Hierarchy. This has two parts: first, we elevate our best people — morally, intellectually, by character — to positions of authority, so that they may oppress the rest, as a binary option to the inverse, where the rest oppress the best. Second, we allow Darwinistic competition, including in free markets, to fill in where authority is not needed.

  • Incompleteness. The societies that thrive are those which preserve an internal dialogue and combat between extremes. This reinforces the reasons why for positions, instead of merely repeating thing, and strengthens them by testing.

  • Darwinism. In every society, some will arise who are either chronically negative or without any direction. Natural selection demands these be exiled, along with any defectives, for the greater strength of those who remain. Nature is cruel; so must we be.

Civilization creates proxies, or intermediates which can be gamed by the unscrupulous, wherever it is afraid to directly confront the question of hierarchy. It works best when administered by culture, not government, and kept focused on ongoing and unattainable goals like excellence. These things seem contrary to the very idea of civilization itself in appearance, and so they are rejected universally, despite being salvation.

As we approach the doom of this particular instance of civilization, it will cheer us to know that many civilizations have died before. This one is no different. We chose a wrong path, and now it is time to find a better one. As we discover it, we can let go of the past like memories of a fever, and instead aspire to the greatness to come.

1 — William Ralph Inge, “The Idea of Progress”, Romanes Lecture (27 May 1920), reprinted in Outspoken Essays: Second Series (1922).

Freedom Is Slavery

Thursday, September 29th, 2016


If Neoreaction has a founding idea, it is that the mechanisms of power and not intent define the role of government; if the Alt Right has a core concept, it is that all things are merely what they are and act in self-interest. When we apply these ideas to our sacred cow institutions, we see something entirely different.

We might ask ourselves, for example, why the book 1984 is taught in every high school. Would a regime teach books that actually threaten it? Can a book, which is interpreted by its audience according to what they can understand and therefore limited in what it can express if it wants to reach a wide audience, ever threaten a regime, if understanding the power structure of that regime requires more than a one-dimensional emotional gloss?

To understand the nature of power is to validate the postmodern idea of the dichotomy of text and subtext. Text is the meaning of words as found in the dictionary, and the saying of publicly-acceptable things; subtext is the implications of the patterns found in words, and the articulation of that which will not make it past the social filter of public acceptance. In our society, nothing important is said in text because public opinion will destroy the speaker with ostracism, boycott and outright hostility.

What this means for the modern citizen is that what is said by government is not what it actually intends. What it intends is defined by its role, which in turn reflects who will be attracted to government. Those who want power without the legitimacy of ability will always be drawn to government. The competent will not.

In politics, the text is what government says it wants; the subtext is what government always wants, which is not optional or a choice, but what it needs to do in order to hold power. Those who understand this will rise in government, and those who do not will be shuttled off to somewhere else.

For this reason, government will always promise open-ended terms, or those which use the ambiguities of language to appear positive to us: equality, freedom, diversity, peace, love, friendship, empathy, compassion, kindness, and sympathy. These mean nothing, on the subtextual level, but have high importance on the textual level, and this alone tells us they are misleading.

These terms are open-ended because they do not indicate against what they are protecting. Equality, against what force of inequity? Peace, against what war? Love, against what hatred? Freedom, from what? — these questions are never answered. They want to use these terms which, linguistically, include all in their scope — freedom from everything to do anything — as a means of manipulating the human mind.

The root of this mentality is control. In any group, power belongs to the person who can hold the group together and direct them toward an objective, if for nothing else to keep them too busy to revolt or desert. Control is what holds the group together; it is equality, or the notion that every person must be motivated and threatened by the same forces. It appeals to the mentality of a powerful leader who wishes everyone else to fall in line and do his bidding, and flatters the individual, who believes he is receiving far treatment because everyone else gets exactly the same thing.

If human history has an Eternal Moron, it is the notion of equality/control. The two parts are inseparable: equality mandates equal treatment, which conveniently is what control demands, so that none threaten the hierarchy of two parts, comprised of a controlling agent and his minions.

A human group can always be held together by the notion of “everyone do the same thing.” This eliminates all internal conflict by assigning people the same rank, which allows the controller to directly micro-manage each person and avoids the need for secondary and tertiary ranks who could challenge the controller. Instead, each person has a choice: obey the herd, or face its wrath.

We call this “freedom” because we all have the same rights and obligations. On the other hand, this freedom requires us to give up most of our time to the process of being equal. We all truck on down to jobs that look about the same, which means that the fastest and smartest spend the same amount of time as the others, which flatters the others because then they do not feel inefficient.

In addition, because none have rank above any others, all face the same social problems. This means that instead of localizing the problems to those who cause them, all suffer alike. Similarly, any bureaucratic process is geared toward the lowest common denominator so that the least capable person can achieve it, but this means that the more capable wait through pointless tedium that they do not need.

1984 was a forgery. Written in respond to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, it posited a counter-theory to the Huxley idea, which was that societies destroy themselves through the selfish demands for power of individuals. Instead, Orwell argued, the problem is power itself, and the authoritarian systems it creates, ignoring the fact that there is a cause for the effect that is these authoritarian systems, and historically, it has been the notion of equality.

Our problem is not totalitarianism, but what creates totalitarianism, and that state suspiciously resembles “freedom.” The more different directions in which people move, the more strong authority is needed, until the point where only an all-powerful controller can keep the society together because it is so chaotic. Freedom is slavery. Huxley recognized the oppressive nature of groups with freedom, but Orwell tried to conceal it.

These groups form like tornadoes. At first, it is simply a few claiming victimhood who clash with the others, and then smarmy leaders arise to end that conflict. Their method is to reduce all to the same role. This mentality, called Crowdism and manifested in our time as Leftism, relies on self-pity: each person believes themselves to be a victim, and projects this onto others as a way of creating a group of victims who demand power.

In this way, we arrive at modernity. People spend all day at tedious jobs and bureaucratic functions in order to avoid poverty. They hide in their apartments and homes from the social decay exploding around them. They are told what they cannot think or say, and commanded to always do what the herd wants. Their oppressor is not the controller, but the herd, which is composed of pretense and vengeance.

Control kills civilization and replaces it with a type of slavery which goes unrecognized by the majority, who are oblivious to such concerns. Only the intelligent suffer, which is the point; the intelligent can challenge power, where everyone else is pretty much inert. With pleasant thoughts of freedom, the herd votes itself into slavery, and civilization dies, over and over again.

Dear Black People: It’s Not You; It’s Diversity

Wednesday, September 28th, 2016


A riot is a form of protest. It is also a form of spontaneous criminal activity, or an emotional outburst. One might also see it as the failure of order, the loss of social structure, or a mass expression of a frustration that is so unspecified that the only tangible expression is to burn it all down.

From the people at Black Lives Matter riots across America, we hear the same message: institutional racism is keeping us down. However, this is after seventy years of the same forced inclusion policies that power affirmative action, civil rights, anti-discrimination laws, and the media push for “united colors” in all ads and movies.

Think of the last time you saw a movie where the entire cast was white. Or a presidential cabinet.

For that reason, the “institutional racism” explanation seems unlikely to most of us out here. We pay every day for diversity, you know. Every product is more expensive because of civil rights regulations and affirmative action lawsuits. Companies must hire minorities in order to avoid government interference, and so they do, and pass the costs right on to us. Plus we inherit the red tape, the constant riots, the no-fly areas, etc.

Since white people started to notice this, there have been two camps. The first is headed by a writer who is universally respect on the Right, John Derbyshire. He wrote a highly influential piece, “The Talk: Nonblack Version” in which he warned people about the dangers of African-Americans:

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

The second group includes your author, who has been writing about this idea since the middle-1990s: the problem is not African-Americans — and yes, that term has more meaning for Rightists than Leftists — but diversity itself.

Diversity is the notion that more than one identifiable group — race, ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, and most likely political alignment — can occupy the same space and work together to provide a government, economy and civilization.

Sometimes called “multiculturalism,” or by its original name “internationalism,” diversity relies on what legendary Right-wing writer Peter Brimelow calls the “proposition nation” and John Derbyshire describes as the “magic dirt” theory. This species of theory says that we must assume that all people are equal, and therefore when we subject them to the same laws and economic pressures, they perform the same way. It is an implicit argument for diversity, which Leftists view as a subset of class warfare designed to achieve equality.

The Alt-Right expresses one of its pillars as the idea that genetics, not laws and propaganda, determine the future of a nation. We cannot mold people into equal citizens. The first group would argue that is because of defects in certain groups; the second group argues that this is because different groups have different expressions of self-interest, starting with the need for identity and pride in who they are.

The question upon us then is whether diversity could work — that is, function as a policy which contributes more good than harm to society in accord with its goals — at all. Policies fail all the time; we implement them with good intentions, then realize that their goals are paradoxical or at least paradoxical to our goals, and then revoke them. Think of how Prohibition, which was more popular than diversity even, became enacted through a Constitutional Amendment and then repealed the exact same way.

The root of race realism is recognition that each group has its own ways, and that these do not apply to any other group; it also includes knowing that every group, like every individual, acts in self-interest, and that the interest of every group is to conquer all others and assert itself — culture, heritage, values, language, customs, calendar, cuisine and morality — through total control in as much territory as it can get. This is the Machiavellian realpolitik of ethnicity and is the only universal thing about humanity, mainly because it is not based on “human-ness” but on the needs of survival.

Diversity conflicts with this race realism. It supposes that you can dump random people into an area, enforce laws on them and bribe them with “good jobs,” and you will get the same results as you did with the people who invented those laws. This reverses causation: the original group created those laws as an expression of their culture, itself an expression of their ethnic makeup and values, and no other group will find itself compatible with those laws.

When seen through the lens of race realism, diversity cannot work because different groups are different and have different self-interests, therefore when combined in the same area, those self-interests will inevitably conflict. We all need different things, which is why we formed different ethnic groups in the first place, originating either from Hyperboreans (per the Traditionalists) or a migration from Africa and then parallel evolution as modern science alleges.

As a Southern man, one is more likely to be mugged by Mexicans than blacks — but the same is true for blacks, Asians and middle easterners. The orientals run rigged businesses which are notoriously good at extracting government aid; the Mexicans and South Asians steal by convenience and holdups; the blacks are known for violent muggings and gang violence; the middle easterners tend to run illusory businesses and focus on contraband and graft. These stereotypes exist for a reason, and they exist across ethnic groups; each perceives these behaviors in each other. This is not racism, but observation of generalities in our world.

Expanding from that however, what we see are conflicts between the type of society that people are genetically programmed for — an expression of their self-interest — and the society created here by Western Europeans. When one lives in the middle east, different behaviors are rewarded and these are handled by society there through designing itself to accommodate those enough to channel them toward somewhat productive results. The same is true of the other groups and their behaviors. When one lives in Africa, gang warfare is the norm.

We can verify that this is true because of stereotypes among different white groups. Western Europeans are perceived as priggish, moralistic and yet prone to deviance. The Irish are known for corruption as well as rigid and fanatical Catholicism. Southern Europeans are expected to participate in Mafia style activities, loud family fights and promiscuity. Eastern Europeans are known for missing the obvious, violent racketeering, and being willing to sell you their women for the right price (often, a Lexus with a gold package).

Even more, we have different castes. The Brahmins are known for being brainy, but also weak to social influences. The Kshatriya are known for their excellence in warfare and craft, but tendency to use pragmatic instead of realistic solutions. Our laborer-caste are known for needing to be told what to do, and requiring constant supervision to avoid slipping into day-to-day “white trash” behavior.

If we are going to be race realists, we must go all the way.

Among Western Europeans, there is little variation. We share Nordic-Germanic roots and are more similar to each other than to any other group. We like the same type of social order, use the same type of gut feeling to assess any action we might take, and have the same need for some kind of reverent or at least purposeful order. We are approximately the same, and other groups — including Eastern and Southern/Irish Europeans — seem alien to us, even if less alien than (in decreasing order) blacks, middle easterners, South Asians and North Asians (Orientals).

Growing up in the South, one knows many good black people. They are not the same as us, but they share many of the same values, which they achieve through their own ends. Their Christianity is different; their cuisine is different (and alternatingly baffling and irresistible); their neighborhoods and social ways are different. But it would be hard for a Southern man to say that “all negroes are bad,” because he knows many good blacks, if not most of the blacks he encounters. Still, they need a different social order and as a group, cannot exist within the white order, which is why after emancipation the white man left the black man to run his own neighborhoods and have his own businesses, schools, police and even courts.

The same is true of any other group. In a massively multicultural majority-minority city such as are common on our Southern border, the average white person knows Jews, Mexicans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Iranians and members of every other group who are good people, that is, trying to do “the right thing” as best they can perceive it. And yet their needs are different and their methods are different in parallel, which reflects their self-interest as needing a society of their own.

The elephant in the room is pride. Every ethnic group needs to know it lives in a society of its own creation, designed for its ways and goals, which it guides. This gives it a chance to improve qualitatively to the point where the group can say it used its methods to overcome the challenges of nature both visible and invisible, and that its results are entirely the result of its work. This is the basis of pride, and it is part of self-interest.

Diversity takes away not just pride but recognition of self-interest from each group, and forces it to go to war with other groups in order to decide which values system will prevail. In the United States and Europe, the founding populations seem to assume that this issue is settled, and that our languages, laws, values, etc. will always be there. But those are negotiable. Diversity creates a battlefield where each group is forced to try to assert its values over those of other groups.

This is why members of the second group of race realists object to diversity itself, and not simply African-Americans. We do not want to live with even “model minority” groups like North Asians because that, too, is diversity. We recognize that it is unlikely that liberals and conservatives can co-exist for long, even within the same group, much as difference of religion — for example, Catholic versus Protestant — is unstable. We realize that any diversity, even one drop, destroys social trust and hope for the future.

We are what history refers to as “xenophobes.” Back in the day, we opposed slavery because it is a form of diversity. We opposed importation of Chinese workers not because we hate them, but because they would create diversity, and we know that any loss of unity leads to a death spiral of distrust, rebellion against the norm — some would say that the alarmingly teenage Leftist movement came from this — and struggle for power, culminating in social collapse.

The problem is diversity. Diversity does not work. It does not work because it cannot work. In any form — race, ethnicity, religion, politics — it fails and creates a ruin of society. This is why Leftists adore it: their goal is to create a dark organization in our society, attack it and subvert it, then dominate what is left and use that to transfer wealth and power to themselves. They are the parasites that arise when social trust is destroyed by diversity.

Our only future lies in ending diversity. This means that every person who is not of our founding group — Western Europeans in America, ethnic French in France, ethnic Germans in Germany, and so on — must go back to their continent of origin. If we end this as gentlemen, which we should because it is in our nature, we will do so by giving them reparations contingent upon repatriation, so that they may get a good start and we end this bad policy as friends and allies, not resentful enemies.

But it must end. Diversity is paradoxical; it is illogical; it is denial of obvious reality. Over the past 150 years, it has shattered America and over the past forty years, seriously damaged any integrity to Europe. The longshot of this is that it has deprived us of pride and made us into morose, angry, selfish and bitter individuals. Our only survival comes through ending diversity so that we can then tackle those other problems by ourselves, for ourselves, so that someday we may have pride again.

Social Media Is Crowdism Made Easy

Friday, September 23rd, 2016


Social media is dying. The primary reason is not because of its censorship, but because of what its censorship portends: it has given up on getting the cutting-edge audience, and wants instead to go out like MySpace, catering to the least competent users for as long as possible, then collapsing.

As an internet service, one has a choice. The service can be designed for the power users, and the rest will tag along as best they can, or when the power users leave, it can be designed for the lowest common denominator. The latter gets a larger audience, over the short term, but the former produces growth.

This creates the “MySpace cycle”: a new hip community grows from an elite of power users and early adopters, then becomes accessible to all, at which point the modern pattern occurs and the masses alter the character of the service by doing the same stupid stuff they do everywhere else. Quality declines.

With the fall of quality, the early adopters and power users flee for greener pastures. The company providing the service has grown and added dependents — more employees, lawyers, stockholders, and advisors — and is reminded by them of its need to kick up the profits. And so, in a classic MBA move, the service slashes costs and makes itself friendlier to the broadest section of its potential audience.

When we see social media banning people for stating the obvious, this cycle is in operation. The company providing the service wants more people in, and the masses always like illusion and human groups fear anything that is not “we are all one” inclusive, so the service hires trigger-happy idiots to remove anything that generates complaints. That way, they can be a safe space and bring in more neurotics, fools, idiots, geeks and hipsters.

The use of bans and censorship shows that the service is no longer interested in being a community. In a community, people exchange conversation, and with it, points of view. They are able to handle having different points of view, including controversial ones, because there is an active dialogue and difference is respected because the issues are interesting.

A service run only for profit however has no interest in community. It is there to provide an illusion as a product, and the people who consume this product — like television watchers in a former generation — want only a reflection of themselves and their thoughts, mainly because people are solipsistic and the less intelligent ones even more so.

Twitter (for example) knows it is going to die, because MySpace died and Digg died. All social media dies when it becomes popular with the idiots and then the power users leave as a result. Twitter is just trying to squeeze as much from the lemon as it can before the end, which requires pandering to total idiots like SJWs — otherwise unemployables — and if it loses some smart people, oh well. Its new audience will not care or want them.

The point of this is what we are looking at is economic Crowdism: how audience demographic shift on the Bell Curve takes once-thriving products and converts them into the same thing as everything else, thus reducing incentive to use them and ending their life cycles.

Crowdism is terrifying because it says that our enemy is not government, economics, politics, etc. but mass thinking; with mass thinking, all things — regardless of discipline or origin — are made into the same low standard, low future-time vision social-type organization. In social organizations, people compete for attention instead of accuracy or moral goodness.

For example, Crowdism has infested the world of publishing. Most books are written on trivial topics, contain little content and have no relevance except for the first year when they are published. They are mostly surface works in that what distinguishes them is the setting of the story, the unique twist on known ideas, or a novel combination of past aesthetics and concepts. The surface changes constantly, but the content is the same, much as how a Crowd will take a new genre or discipline and quickly convert it into more of “the usual.”

When people in the last century referred to something as “typical” or “common,” this was what they were alluding to. Once you let in the Crowd, they make everything into the same thing, a vast field comprised of equal — because that is the social measurement, equal inclusion — actors doing roughly the same stuff and struggling desperately to make their own variant look different. It is like an IQ test: the people who cannot see through the surface get trapped at this level, which we might describe as Sudra or Thrall to use the old Indo-European caste terms.

Therein is the problem: we cannot say that social media is the problem, only that it is conducive to the problem. The same conditions and pathological behaviors can arise anywhere, as they have in blogs and before that, in dial-up systems.

Your average 1980s BBS, once it became popular, shifted Left because Leftism is the socially appropriate answer to any question, and most people do not care about the question or the consequences of action taken in its name, but how they look to others. Boys and girls want to hook up. Middle aged people want business connections. Lonely people just need someone to talk to. Drug addicts and neurotics want far-out stuff to talk about that makes their failed lives seem meaningful. The result is constant activity, and that requires an abolition of eternal standards so that there can always be “new” (old, recombined) theories and topics.

The prevalence of Crowdism in the blogosphere leads to noticings or observations like the following:

Time out gives a man room to think. It is why vacation is an important part of a work-life balance. It is why male only spaces were so crucial to the continued survival of Western Civilization – you had to get away from the nagging wife to concentrate on the bigger picture.

Since I posted my ‘Exit’ post I have maintained relationships with allies, talking to many on a daily basis. In recent weeks I have also kept one eye open on those still blogging. What I see is sad and disappointing.

The more popular publications in this ‘sphere’ are still publishing nonsense articles about topics we already discussed years ago…The masturbatory self indulgence that many crave is happening for them, they rehash the same dead topics, they continue to abyss gaze with the same sick fascination.

Bypassing the excellent observation about “male only spaces” which can be expanded to the ideas of solitude and leisure, essential to any cogent antiwork argument as well as the right side of the Bell Curve in any health society, we see an excellent point being made: the blogosphere rewards those who write about the obvious as if it were mindblowingly complex, which makes people with nothing to contribute feel important and gives writers a way to advance themselves at the expense of others.

Begging your indulgence, perhaps we can review the writings on this site which have covered this topic in the past:

<blast beat>

  • “Neoreaction hits choppy waters” (April 4, 2015):

    The same writers who gave Neoreaction its early strength pulled it apart as they competed for audience with blogs, books and YouTube videos. To differentiate their product, they had to each invent unique theories and viewpoints. These in turn created confusion about the core of Neoreaction, and drifted farther away, which meant they lost their conservative core and as a result became increasingly liberalized.

    If we listened to the liberals at the outset, Neoreaction was doomed because it was not liberal enough. As it turns out, it was too liberal, but not by ideology but rather by the behavior of human individuals seeking to profit from it. All those blog hits, video watches, and book sales became a goal in and of themselves, and the idea of Neoreaction got lost in the muddle.

    Thus the movement became moribund in the same way a civilization does: it becomes a vehicle for individuals to express their own self-importance, not a cooperation toward a qualitative end. Neoreaction became assimilated by liberalism because it adopted the methods of commerce and popularity, part of the demotism that makes up modernism.

  • “Neoreaction in reverse” (April 17, 2015):

    That essay raises the question of goals. If the goal is to be Neoreactionary, that should be done, in full. When that goal gets supplanted by another goal, like money or power, then the goal of Neoreaction is inescapably lost.

    Endure a metaphor, if you will: when an artist writes a book to tell a truth, he creates a story, characters, metaphors and setting to express that truth. However, if the same artist realizes that people look forward to confirmation of their existing ideas, and writes books to that end, the method of making money has replaced the goal.

    We are all familiar with this process. It explains why a brand that produced good solid products a decade ago now makes flimsy plastic crap, banking on its good name. It explains why every rock band goes to a terrible place after three albums. It explains why promising political candidates, once they get into office, suddenly turn their backs on their own beliefs.

    This is the nature of politics: it reverses our thought from acting toward a goal, to acting toward the reward that normally comes from achieving the goal. This means that instead of acting from cause to effect, we are acting from effect (money) and inventing a cause (the book) to match. It is a form of corruption of will.

    This is what has happened to Neoreaction. In the struggle for individuals to differentiate themselves and gain an audience, they have moved from writing about relevant topics to writing about that which they know will cultivate an audience, and for that concern alone. This has distorted their message and created entryism by demotism.

  • “Neoreactionary fragmentation” (April 11, 2015):

    [I]n an effort to attract a popular audience, [Neoreaction] 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.

  • “The Neoreaction/Dark Enlightenment tantrum” (March 27, 2014):

    My point to the DE/NeR was basically that if your philosophy is functionally similar to conservatism, and you don’t admit it, you’re avoiding the truth out of some personal pretense. Further, this confines your thinking based on the taboos of liberalism, which means you’ll end up back at liberalism. Then I pointed out many of the liberal aspects of the DE, namely that its crusade against the Cathedral is a liberal-style revolution, e.g. an attack against the institution and its replacement with people power. What we actually need is an idea of what we want and thus a competing vision to the current set of pretenses held by our new elite.

  • “Exceeded By The Alternative Right, ‘Official’ Neoreaction Struggles” (July 7, 2016):

    Most of Neoreaction and many of the Right choose to ignore my 20-plus year history of writing on the same topics they now approach. This is not solely because I am obnoxious, but because I threaten them. If someone else wrote it before, and possibly better, others become irrelevant. In turn, I find it hard to link to much of “Neoreactionary” writing because it is simply going over old ground and often, doing so with more of a robotic outlook.

  • “Neoreaction Goes Off The Rails Just Like White Nationalism Did” (June 29, 2016):

    In the past, I have warned Neoreaction that it veers too close to become a Leftist-style ideology because Neoreaction has come to include the principles of collectivized individualism. Any time you find yourself arguing that there is a “system” which will manage people and come to good results, you have left behind the fundamental distinction of Dark Enlightenment societies: they believe in hierarchies and moral codes, and therefore, they select the morally best as leaders.

  • “What is Neoreaction?” (April 15, 2015):

    What is subverting Neoreaction is what Neoreaction was designed to avoid: “demotism,” or a substitute for leadership where whatever idea is most popular is chosen. Demotism occurs in politics through democracy, in economics through consumerism, and in socializing through flattery. Neoreaction has been subverted by its inability to purge its opposite from itself, because when emerging from a political system the most common tendency is to carry over unseen elements of that system into the post-revolutionary future society.

    The same conflict that crushed Napoleon crushes Neoreaction. He wanted to be a King, but with the revolutionary ideology of egalitarianism behind him. These two ideas conflicted, and so he became a tyrant, using the advertising of the ideology of altruism to justify his seizure of power and wars to enforce these ideas on others.

    Neoreaction has stopped moving in a linear direction toward a goal, and instead is circling itself, trying to rid itself of an entryist it cannot identity.

</blast beat>

I came from another tradition of writing about these topics: European philosophy, starting in the late 1980s, with a somewhat idiosyncratic take — as is appropriate for any philosophical exploration, to avoid the confinement of crowd-defined language — on society. I posted rants to hacker bulletin boards, published an ezine, raged across USENET, then began distributing my writings through an early underground website, the American Nihilist Underground Society, then CORRUPT which pre-dated the “alternative right” idea with a similar concept, many web bulletin boards back in the day, and finally transitioned to Amerika.

My influences were Friedrich Nietzsche and the philosophical and literary canon, underground (heavy) metal, and life experience. In addition, newer writers like Michel Houellebecq and Ted Kaczynski were massively influential, as well as the rants and outlook of outsider communities like the hacker underground and the heavy metal underground.

Others from the same era picked up the pen and began waging war — words are bullets — through increasingly clarifying statements. One of these, Bruce Charlton, recently penned a pointed critique of the Alternative Right (a silo in which he includes Neoreaction, probably because Neoreaction has been absorbed by it) which was widely ignored by online reactionaries because it hit too close to home:

The (online) excitement among the Alt-Right since they were mentioned in a speech by Hillary Clinton – and since it becomes clear that Donald Trump is (de facto) running unopposed – is palpable.

And it is natural; since the secular Right always sells-out, and opportunities for the secular Right intellectuals to be bought-off, co-opted and in general sell-out (for power, status, cash, sexual opportunity etc.) are looking very good, just at present.

No wonder the leading Alt-Right bloggers are so cheerful!

His point is that political movements default to a focus on people and material concerns when they do not have some transcendental goal, which we can observe happening in Neoreaction and the Alternative Right because to succeed as a blogger there, one must dumb down the message and tell the Crowd that it is the victim. This re-starts the liberal cycle under a new name, in a classic Crowdist gambit, and is not deliberate but is even more destructive than if it were, because the people who now think they are solving a problem are in fact bearing a mental infection that will reproduce the problem.

Inversion, in other terms.

Earlier on, this post mentioned how the threat of censorship and bans on social media services like Twitter destroys the prospect of community. To last, a community requires a transcendental goal, such as the idea of accuracy in information itself, or that problems can be beaten and beauty, goodness, truth and excellence restored through realism plus a gumption that demands a higher aesthetic quality of life; pleasure, even.

When dissident movements become inverted, they lose this sense of community and replace it with a false sense of community based on universal inclusion. At that point, they become Leftist in all but name, and many of the recent attempts to control the narrative are done solely in this aim, even if they state otherwise.

As one writer recently noted:

Any incoherence or challenges must then be met, unless they present such a challenge that the model proves wrong. As a result, strict and active management of new ideas must be enacted, prior held ideas which are incompatible must be dismissed, strong discipline must be maintained intellectually to such a degree that those who undermine the tradition are made aware of this issue and encouraged to correct, or stop claiming to be part of the tradition. Relaxing of intellectual rigour and doctrine for mere social requirements should be dismissed as rank stupidity.

…Much of what gets released under the neoreaction banner is intellectually incoherent.

Crowdism has infested social media, but it will infest any platform, and it has infested Alt Right and Neoreactionary blogging. The solution is simple: return the focus to ideas and action, not people. But that will never be as popular as social thinking, so instead, focus on the quality blogs like New Alternative Right, Atavisionary and many of the others listed in our blog list.

In the meantime, all of social media is having a sort of MySpace moment, as we see first and foremost in the backlash against using cell phones to constantly “stay in touch” (appeasing Fear of Missing Out, or FOMO) with social media:

Last week, superstar Kanye West tweeted: “I got rid of my phone so I can have air to create.” Singer Katy Perry replied: “unplug to connect.”

Stand-up comedian Brett Kline got so frustrated with smartphone selfie sticks that he made a video of him snipping them with bolt cutters all over New York. It turned out to be a prank, with fake phones and actors as the victims, but the video has more than 1.3 million views on YouTube since Sept. 1.

“Technology is making people sociopaths,” says Buddy Bolton, a comedian who recorded the selfie-stick clip-and-run incidents with Mr. Kline.

These people do not mean they literally got rid of their phones, but that they are using their phones as phones again instead of small portable computers ideally suited for social media.

In fact, widespread support for exit from social media has been gaining steam.

This is a result of the Myspace cycle described above, but applied not just to the aging big social media services (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit) but to social media and the internet itself. Once, it was a new frontier, because the Crowd had not arrived. Then Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft made it brain-dead easy to get on and use it, and then social media arose. At first, that was a new space, but then all the people that the people on social media were trying to flee showed up there as well.

Now, it is a bother where most of what is being posted is the same brainless drama that is spoken of at the water cooler, at family dinners or shown on daytime television. People want out as a result. The exact same phenomenon is happening to Neoreaction and Alternative Right, and those who care about the power of those movements should flee the dying zone and head toward a higher level of behavior immediately.

Consolidating The Alt Right

Wednesday, September 21st, 2016


The Alt Right combines many non-liberal movements — Traditionalism, Nationalism, Identitarianism, Theocracy, National Socialism/neo-Nazism, Libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Social Conservatism, Neoreaction and the New Right — into a single dissident Right perspective.

Its purpose is to get past the “social filter” that limits the mainstream Right to inoffensive topics, where offensiveness is gatekept by Leftist ideals like equality.

While the Alt Right as a whole exists in the intersection of these ideas, their minor points clash even as their major points agree, and each Alt Righter tends toward one or the other, which is fine except that taking any one of those viewpoints re-orients the interpretation of the Alt Right toward the minor points of that view.

As with the New Right, the Alt Right gets the basics right. It is essentially a Nietzschean/Platonic Right, but implementation details remain confused. Many who are coming into the Alt Right now are bringing with them numerous assumptions that descend from Leftism, simply because they grew up in a Leftist time.

For many, a common trope involves rejection of the “left/right dichotomy” by choosing a third option, which ends up being a hybrid of the two. As always, fence-sitting results in confusion and thus, indecision. The importance of Left and Right is that we can only head in one direction, and that requires eliminating the other — and thus hybrids.

The division between socialist and capitalist is a case in point. The Rightist is neither, but he is also anti-socialist, because it conforms to a Leftist principle (equality) and not a Rightist one (hierarchy). The Rightists recognizes that capitalism works, but like any other method, it must be guided by principle or it becomes a cause in itself, and dominates the objective with its own needs.

This leads to the core of the Alt Right: flagrant realism. Alt Righters care about consequences in reality, and they use this to reject the current illusory policies in favor of those which will create a rising society. As one writer opines:

There are several core tenets of alt-right thinking, however, which unify the different factions within the movement. Key to these is realism when it comes to race, gender, culture and beliefs. Despite the histrionics of the leftist establishment, these views have not been considered controversial historically. For everyone except postmodern Cultural Marxists, it is obvious that there are distinct differences between the races and between the sexes. Some cultures are obviously more successful at creating civilisation than others. If it is sexist that women bear the primary responsibility for raising progeny, then biology is sexist. If it is racist that East Asians have higher IQ’s, lower crime rates and higher incomes than Sub-Saharan Africans, then genetics is racist. Even if reality hurts your feelings, it’s still reality.

It has also been true throughout history that humans prefer their own tribe. Leftists today don’t mind ethnic nationalism, as long as it is not whites adopting it. Why is it that Black Lives Matter, a group associated with domestic terrorism who are clearly ethnic nationalists, are feted at the White House while white nationalists are profiled by the authorities and castigated in the media? Why is the demographic displacement of whites through mass immigration and the destruction of white cultures official government policy in Western countries? Why do we lambast this process as cultural genocide when it was done to indigenous peoples but celebrate it as diversity when it is done to whites?

The point of the Alt Right is to escape the world of human symbols, and look at reality according to its function. There, we no longer rely on morality or social opinion, but on comparing the results of actions and choosing what action we will take based on what results we want to achieve. Life is both simpler and more complex.

As someone coming in from the Traditionalist side, I see the Left/Right division not as false as many in the Alt Right do, but the capitalist/socialist division as silly. Socialism does not work in any form. Capitalism does not work by itself, without some privileged and intelligent group to make the choices instead of a consumer mass.

This is why I summarize the Alt Right as the four pillars:

  1. Aristocracy. Our best people must lead, and we will breed them to make even better leaders.

  2. Nationalism (including HBD). Culture rules; this requires exiling all who are not genetically of the founding culture. Class and caste are important because we are only what our genes program us to be.

  3. Hierarchy (including “no socialism”). All people have different abilities; there is no room for groups to negotiate. The best must rise, and those who are lesser, be demoted, or they will take over. No socialism or subsidies in any form.

  4. Transcendental goals. Our purpose cannot be material, or even in the present tense, but must involve the future we wish to achieve, which we translate from ideal to material through known principles.

Not everyone agrees on these, mainly because of recent generations’ bad experiences with state-mediated capitalism. To them, socialism is necessary because capitalism in the hands of the herd is abusive. I ask: what is abusive, the herd, or capitalism? We are capitalist because socialism is death.

The Alt Right must purge from its soul — we’re talking ideas, not people — its remaining Leftist tendencies which arise from its members having grown up in a time when Leftist thought is all one sees, hears or reads. Leftism is death. Once we cast it aside, we can look at what remains and choose the best.

The point of the Alt Right is to unify two goals, (a) defeating globalism and (b) ending and reversing the decline of Western Civilization. To do this, we must reject not just socialism but modernity entirely. We want a new type of society, the kind that appears every now and then in history when people want more than just subsistence.

For us to rise to that level, we must reject all of the pretense of the modern time and replace it with an organic goal, which is seeing civilization as a life-form in itself that needs nurturing. Its opposite is the eternal human temptation toward individualism.

All other considerations are details toward this goal. The point is this: reject globalism, and then peel back the rest of the lies of modernity and create a civilization to rise above anything we have known in our lifetimes. The egalitarians lie in all forms, so we must choose a healthier way.

The Alt Right is consolidating. It has many different factions, but they overlap on a few core ideas, and that overlapped center excludes some of the peripheral details. That leaves us with a singular focus, which is how to create greatness in the midst of a wilderness of ruin, tedium, conformity and deception.

All else is extraneous. Unlike politicians, for whom lying is a job, for the Alt Right, all that matters is results. We are no longer content to be a dead and ruined civilization. We want to rise above, and this requires we reject the pretense of the current time, and establish what is eternal.

The Scandinavian Paradox

Wednesday, September 21st, 2016


Those of us who think in Alt Right terms view our mission as twofold: end globalism, and stop the decline and fall of Western Civilization.

As part of that, we find ourselves wondering how deeply we should dig into the foundations of modernity to get to the root of the problem, rip it out and then start again.

One clue is provided by what we might call The Scandinavian Paradox: how it is that the most wonderful places with the bravest warriors end up the most “pozzed” or infected with Leftist dogma, a subset of Crowdism, a form of collectivized individualism.

The only sensible answer is that by making conditions safe, good and orderly, we enact the greatest removal of Darwinian evolutionary pressures on the population. This results in a proliferation of people with crazy ideas, and a society which is adamant in its defense of individual liberty at the same time.

Civilizations that collapse tend to be the most promising ones. The intelligent, valiant and mentally organized produce conditions under which their citizens thrive but then, thanks to the weakness of the human heart, those citizens find themselves taking civilization for granted. They then side with those who are born purposeless.

In nature, predation and starvation filter out those who cannot be realistic enough to adapt to their environment. In primitive human civilization, the same happens. Only in advanced civilizations, where each person is presumed to be intelligent and therefore worth defending, does humanity unmake its greatest accomplishments.

Scandinavia represents in every way the perfect society. Its people are intelligent, handsome and compassionate. And yet it has been overwhelmed by egalitarian drama, like Germany and France before it. Those that fly highest have the farthest to fall.

The Echo Chamber Of Equality

Wednesday, September 21st, 2016


Philosophy enables us to see life not as objects bumping into one another, but the concepts that cause us to act in certain ways as resembling a Matryoshka doll: one inside of the other, until you get to the smallest one, which is the original assumption that set off the chain.

When we look at modernity, at first we see technology. But then it becomes clear that technology is only as good as how it is implemented, and that our present implementation reflects mass tastes through purchasing (consumerism) and popularity (democracy). On to the next layer by removing the outer doll layer with a floop sound.

When we look at consumerism and democracy, we see that both are unified by a belief in the equality of the individual. Floop! goes another layer.

When we look at equality, we see that it is based in the idea of equal consequences for unequal actions, or that the person who achieves good results by his actions, and the person who achieves poor results, both being rewarded for that. In other words, people want insulation from consequences. Floop!

When we look at insulation from consequences, we see that this benefits the individual and not the group. In fact, the “collectivism” of equality is based in individualism, or the idea that the choices of the individual are more important than anything else — including, and starting with, the results and consequences of those choices. Floop!

When we look at individualism, we see that the motivating force behind it is an Ego which wishes to be free of consequences and their potential Darwinian effects, which in civilization means exclusion from the group. Individualism therefore uses universal inclusion as its primary goal. Floop!

When we look at universal inclusion, we see a desire to make understanding the world optional. That is: people cannot be judged as good or bad based on how well they understand the world, which is what determines the actions they take and thus their results. They want their own thoughts to be accepted whether real or not. Floop!

And finally, we are at the smallest doll. People want their thoughts to be accepted so that what they intend, wish, desire, feel or judge is real, not reality itself. “What I perceive or want must be real,” stands revealed as the core psychology behind this whole mess.

That mentally unstable state is the origin of modernity. Or rather: it is a perpetual pitfall of human thinking, but it won out. Why? Probably because society succeeded, which caused a proliferation of people who could not exist except for society, who were able to reproduce because the institutions and social order of civilization protected them.

Perhaps there is a final Floop! here, if only in our minds. Civilization replaces nature as the arbiter of who lives and who dies; we need a replacement for Darwinism, or the process which filters out the insane, unfit, deranged, retarded, criminal and pathological.

Modernity arises from an echo chamber produced by the social collaboration of those who are individualists. They demand equality, and filter out any ideas which contradict that emotional vision, which rises from individual fear of insufficiency.

Where the Alt Right nods to Nietzsche and Plato is in its recognition of the Jack London style quest for adaptation that needs to be at the heart of our societies. Our hearts are too big and our methods too good; our intelligence and morality is what produces a surplus of those who will destroy civilization.

Naturally, none of this is politically correct, but — Floop! — it is more fundamentally not socially correct. It upsets people. And yet, it is the only path to survival for an advanced civilization.