We are the rebellion


In the modern West, our dogma has become tiresome. It insists that ancient ideas are new ones, forgetting that the Greeks discovered democracy and equality thousands of years before us, and the Hindus struggled with it even centuries before that. As written about on this site, however, democracy and equality themselves are little more than theory legitimizing the human trait toward solipsism. They are individualism justified by this theory, called ideology, that amounts to little more than advertising: it promises a better future, but avoids specifics including a timeframe or other verification of its success.

Democracy is the like the beer advertisements on television from the 1980s: attractive athletic and obviously hip young people playing volleyball on the beach, or racing motor cars, or relaxing near the hot-tub in their million-dollar homes. The images are obvious — sexual success, financial success, and social success — but the promise is never made. Only the association. “Some hip young rich people love our product,” is the claim, and as any lawyer will tell you, that one is hard to disprove. How many are required for “some”? How rich is rich? Who defines hip? Some fat old editor at a youth publication says he does, so we can rely on that, right?

Since The Enlightenment™, but gathering momentum with the French Revolution, the democracy-advocates have had the advantage of appearing as “new” ideas, which requires that people get stupid enough to forget what happened to the Greeks and Romans. “So, how did democracy work out in Athens?” is probably the most hostile small talk anyone can think of in this society. The democracy-advocates, and civil rights is just another form of democratization, have always styled themselves as young, hip, successful and most of all, iconoclastic. Hate our society? Here is a new way… a different way. It leads to new places not the same old ones.

Conveniently it also served the Iconoclastic Fallacy, which let everyone assume that because people as a group are idiots, whatever person is not doing what the group is doing must be right; the majority is always wrong, in other words. This created a convenient set-up where anyone with a minority opinion could point to the group, claim moral correctness and victimhood status, and conjure up an instant army of those who would defend against the herd. Except… the instant army were in fact the herd, and the majority was often a false construction in the form of a scapegoat plus popular approval, like “The Rich,” “The White,” The Jews™, “the banksters” and other false targets. The herd was justifying itself by purging itself of unpopular symbols, and the result was a strengthened herd.

This came to a peak in 1968. Students, emboldened by the misstep of their fathers in fighting a war for something so nebulous as “freedom” and “equality,” used those ideas as passive-aggressive weapons to dismantle the social hierarchy. In their view, this would overthrow the commercial interests that had somehow magically seized control of democracy, and usher in a new age of prosperity. In reality, by getting rid of social standards, they in effect replaced them with commercial standards, strengthening the interests of money and weakening those of individuals and culture. This created the 1970s and 1980s, in which vapid oblivion covered for the advancing takeover of our society by commerce and its lackeys in ideology. Again, this was the crowd justifying its own takeover by pretending to be revolutionary.

This leads us to the question: were there ever any legitimate revolutions? Historical analysis suggests no: revolutionaries are parasites who destroy societies, but they attempt many times before they finally get a home run streak like The Enlightenment™ through the Magna Carta and onward to the French Revolution, all likely spurred on by peasant revolts at roughly the time the Mongols were invading Europe. All of these revolutions have been false, simply commercial interests seizing power through the Crowd as frequently happens when empires die, in the name of being the opposite of what they are.

And now, we look at real rebellion — realistic opinions speaking truth to popularity, which is always power for the parasitic — and we can see how the liberal revolutions were in fact anti-revolutions, or a strengthening not of a specific group of powerful people, but of the principle of conformity for the purposes of “everyone getting along” and thus easier commerce. Witness this recent censorship hilarity from Liberalism Inc.:

A peaceful student demonstration at a Virginia high school ended with school administrators suspending 23 teens for wearing clothing emblazoned with the Confederate battle flag, which violates the school’s dress code, according to school officials, students and parents.

The students, who attend Christiansburg High School in southwestern Virginia, said they wore the controversial Confederate symbols to protest a school policy that prohibits them, which they view as a violation of their free speech. Students are barred from wearing any clothing that could “reflect adversely on persons due to race” and specifies that “clothing with Confederate flag symbols” falls in that category.

Montgomery County schools spokeswoman Brenda Drake said that half of all middle schools and high schools in the county do not allow the display of the Confederate battle flag. About 8 percent of Christiansburg High School’s 1,100 students are black and more than 80 percent are white, according to the Associated Press.

What do we, doing our best to be impartial observers, see here?

  • The usual justification: a kindergarten teacher wagging a critical finger and saying, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
  • The usual method: punish anyone who steps out of line and notices the Emperor has no new clothes after all.
  • The usual result: anyone with a functional brain will leave, and the idiots will look around and seeing no dissent, conclude they were right all along.

As always, democracy drifts toward endless compromise in favor of individual rights, which quickly means that society can have no meaningful hierarchy, culture, values, philosophy or direction. All that is left is the individual and, well, commerce of course. It is essential to separate this commerce from capitalism itself, which tends to obliterate such consumerist entities by enabling competition. This is social commerce, or the products which afflict people with too much time and money for the lack of direction that they have. Bored housewives, elderly camped in front of the TV, ghetto-dwellers on welfare: the psychology remains the same, a combination of victimhood, entitlement and old-fashioned haggling for more for the individual and less for everyone else.

In this case, administrators felt emboldened to make this move because they realized they were immune from criticism. America has changed, mostly through the Hart-Cellar Act, to a place where most of its people feel that racism is the biggest sin ever and all racists should be destroyed (joining other demonized groups like hackers, drug users, smokers and Satanists as media scapegoats). No one will ever experience any negative consequences for banning Confederate symbols; the historical majority does not yet realize — being dedicated to multiple goals, not a single one like an insurgent group, which always has the advantage — that the herd sees this symbol as representing the historical majority. “Whuh would they think that means me? I’m jus’ white, not Confeedyrate or nothin’. Hyuk!”

But this shows us the nature of revolutions. The idea behind a revolution is that instead of fixing the current system, you discard it and start over. This is obviously a false idea because most of what follows any deposed system is more of the same because nobody knows how else to manage a society, but the falseness is compounded by the mentality it creates. Revolutions create a mentality of the shopper, which is one-way obedience only. The products owe you; you owe them nothing. If the product is wrong, return it and find another. Do not fiddle with it, or work with it, or try to figure out why it might be good. If it is too mentally difficult, cast it aside. You are king and God alike in this choice; it is your power. This is why you want commerce in power over everything else, Comrade Citizen Customer.

We have created a model of disposability in our society. Empires are disposable; so are types of society. The only thing not disposable is the individualist consumer, who alone has the power (or they think). Anything that does not bend to their will and their control can be destroyed, executed like Russian dissidents in the gulag or French aristocrats at the guillotine. Everything is disposable for the convenience of the individual: all that does not crawl before them like obedient subjects — as they perceive products to do — must be subjugated and destroyed. Only this way will everything be safe. This is the process we call “progress.”

A little bit of analysis, or even a whole lot, pokes holes in this Narrative. If you wonder why society seems to systematically wage war against alertness, intelligence and depth, now you know: it is counter-revolutionary. If you notice failures in the Narrative, you are literally Hitler who wants to kill six billion Mexican transgender orphans. You are anti-egalitarian, Comrade Citizen Customer, by failing to ignore the problems with the Narrative. Don’t you see — it is good, and everything else, is bad. Choose a side. You are either good, and endorse our use of lying and murder to make our world ideologically good, or bad, and by resisting us you give us no choice but to destroy you.

This is how civilizations exterminate themselves. With lots of money, tons of products, mucho tolerance, and many fakes. Fake revolutions, false prophets, hollow cults and lies as foundations of their being. Then people become afraid to criticize the lies, and soon you have a whole group of people who, seeing no dissent, think they were right all along. A few brave souls speak out with honest revolutions, but they are bad, so they are destroyed. Progress continues. Until suddenly it stops, and the civilization drops from the radar of history, forgotten except as a memory.

The cult of the ego


In the course of rambling through modernity, you will encounter any number of cults. These are self-justifying self-image clubs based on their ability to selectively admit members. To be a member, you must justify the cult; if you do that better than others, you will be given power. As a result, the cult does not need a formal structure or can rely on it less than groups with actual leadership.

What makes cults fascinating is that they replace internal commonality, or agreement on basic values and directions in life, with external commonality in the form of paying the entrance fee by justifying the cult. Cults replace self-image with group image and make the individual dependent on group approval in order to have self-esteem. This is their power and Achilles heel.

It is difficult for an outsider to see this, but the innate collectivism of a cult is based in individualism. Each individual sees himself as likely to gain more from the cult than he gives. Among other things, he gains a gang, and if he can spin the justifying myth of the cult to include his personal objectives, he will have an army to batter his enemies and force his dreams into reality.

Cults play both side of the fence, however. Like democracy, cults emphasize individual preference with collective action, so that each person is a participant but none are accountable. As with riots, mobs, gangs and stampedes, everyone just follows the herd and figures there is safety in numbers and thus they cannot be blamed, and exiled either from the cult or its host, the civilization in its later years.

This flexibility allows cults to infect any type of group. Apple products form a cult where users justify their purchases by attacking any criticism of them. Communism forms a cult where participants use equality to remove the power of those who are more successful, which allows revenge on that group through subjugation. Even the neighborhood bar can be a cult oriented around the idea that drinking into oblivion is not a bad thing and in fact a good thing. Cults succeed by changing objectionable aspects of reality for their members, and their members reward the cult with allegiance and war against its enemies. This is why cults are a variant of Crowdism and create a pathological, solipsistic and parasitic outlook in the individual.

Perhaps the most tenacious cult is that of the ego, or individualism. People who join this cult agree first and foremost on positivity. They live for love, peace, happiness, fulfillment, uniqueness and any other term that flatters their self-conception. The price for entry to this cult is to ignore the megalomania of others in exchange for them doing the same to you. This allows cult members to compete on bases other than reality, such as actual achievements, using image alone to show that they are in fact leading the perfect life and are worth admiring.

This cult takes many forms. The bloggers who post pictures of their children and perfect homes, carefully angling the camera to avoid the rotting fence or drunk husband on the couch. The New Age adventurers who want nothing more than a chance to tell their story of divinity and have others act as if it were irrefutable fact. The self-help and support groups where each person wants not to heal, but to commiserate, and feel justified in remaining locked in the circle of their own misery. Even heroin addicts, camped out in airless tenements, form a cult of self-pity where entry requires finding the world distasteful and praising heroin as not just compensation, but enlightenment.

Conservatism rejects the cult of the ego through two mechanisms which turn on a single axis. The first plank of conservatism is consequentialism, or brutal realism measured by results in reality and not estimations, calculations or (worse of all) utilitarian surveying of who agrees. The second plank is transcendentalism, which looks for an order to the cosmos which makes sense of the physical, instead of rejecting the physical and looking for an alternate order — a different quantity — in an undiscovered dimension. Both of these planks turn human focus from the individual to the outer world, and insist that it can be sensible and therefore should not be rejected in order to focus on human thoughts, feelings and judgments as a “better” form of reality.

When people rage against conservatives, the issue they choose as the basis of their stance is rarely their actual focus. Deep inside of themselves they know that they want to force everyone else to accept their mental illusion as reality, and they see anyone who refuses to validate them in this manner as an enemy. No compromise can exist between conservative realism and liberal — everything but conservatism — solipsism. We want the world, and they want to reject it and replace it with themselves, then use a group to create an echo chamber to make that into Official Reality.

Conservatives and anyone else of sound mind and body tends to look at that as we should, as a form of disease. Those who pity themselves and reject the world have insulted the greatest gift any being can imagine, which is the gift of choice and ability to explore the many possibilities of life. The cult of the ego rejects life not so much because they fear death, as to a real egoist death is simply the end of the world and not of themselves, but because they cannot control it. This explains why when given power, the megalomaniacs immediately begin a regime of destruction and murder, starting with the best of everyone and anything outside of themselves.

What’s the plan, Stan?


Gary asks:

Brett, do you have any concrete proposal which would allow us to regain control of our civilization? Or is this just a question of stating ideals without taking into account the reality of what the situation is?

You criticize those who focus on family and close allegiances of being shortsighted for not understanding that it takes a civilization to maintain a civilization.

However, being one of that camp, I feel that this is ultimately likely to bring better results as our position is unpopular, too much to become explicitly a status quo without the use of force. And force can only be used when it is at least equal to that of one’s foe, which isn’t our case.

Let us take the radical step of viewing this as a problem or challenge in life which requires our action, and treat it like any other situation.

First, we must define our goal: to protect our people so that civilization can not just endure, but improve itself. This is the essence of conservatism, to conserve that which works toward the best possible results, and to therefore implement that and move our society along a forward vector of evolution, quality and transcendentals — good, beautiful, true, perennial things — so that we equal or surpass the ancients.

If our goal is to protect our people, we then have to ask if we can do this by segregating ourselves like the Amish, Exodus ministries, Rastafarians, Scientologists, Quakers, wealthy in gated communities, survivalists and the like. My answer is no, because as soon as society gains enough power it will also begin the faster part of its downward descent, and will scapegoat and assimilate or destroy all outliers. With modern transportation, being alone in the mountains will not help. Just like at Waco and Ruby Ridge, they come for you, because you represent a threat to them because you disprove the idea that one “must” be part of the Great Herd Step Forward in order to have a decent life. Doubly so if you succeed.

There is a reason that the elites are caught unaware in almost every Revolution and are thoroughly destroyed. First, they are disconnected from daily life because it repulses them and they have retreated from it. Second, they are massively outnumbered and cannot call on any popular support, so even if they kill off their enemy a thousand to one they are still doomed. The French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, colonial revolts and the collapses of the ancients are all instructive here.

Thus, if we wish to preserve our people, we must come to power and use that power to keep the crazy crowd at bay. People in a group do not think as individuals responsive to reality, but as individuals proving themselves to the crowd. They ignore obvious fact as a result, because responsibility and accountability are not part of their goal. They are accountable only to the public image concerns of the crowd, forming a wave of public opinion that is uninformed and generally retributive against scapegoats for the failings of individuals in the crowd. Democracy has failed. The first democracies murdered Socrates for speaking the truth; under Pontius Pilate, the crowd demanded the death of Jesus Christ instead of the thieves and murderers on trial.

This means we are no longer kidding around: our goal is not to achieve victory in the current political system, but to replace it. This is not a victory in an election, but a victory over the neurotics who comprise the Crowd and thus leftism, and their permanent displacement. It is not resistance, it is redirection. Our society — based on liberal democracy and consumerism, a.k.a. “economic democracy,” subsidized by the State — has failed. There is nowhere to go but down if we do not reject the liberal way. That means removing it from power and permanently subjugating it. We tried to coexist, but it cannot happen; the Crowd is too strong because it has no accountability and is guided by an ethic of convenience. Liberal plans appear positive but that reflects the pretense of the Crowd, not its intentions. Its intentions are only power and destruction of all culture, heritage and values in the name of individualism so that it can rule forever. Like Communism, which it eventually becomes as Socialism becomes unstable, it is a one-way street to failure.

Next, we must define our method: Political power arises by one or more of methods — popular revolt, invasion, financial domination, military coup, or pluralistic revolt — and in order for us to achieve our goal, is necessary. Pluralistic revolt, in which a relatively small group unifies itself and agitates for control, represents our most likely possibility with military and economic methods secondary. In pluralism, many groups vie for power; if a plurality is more singularly committed than others, it can seize power by forming a voting bloc that invalidates all other options. This is common in democracies. One group will have enough sway not to win on its own, but to thwart any other group from winning, and therefore will predominate. Direct armed revolution or military coup before reaching this stage is unlikely; financial insurrection is riskier because of the taxation power of government. If conservatives unified enough of their base to be focused and to agitate constantly, it would prevent other groups from being able to act without the consent of that conservative base. From that point, political compromise in the form of “You do this, and I’ll help you with that” can be used to achieve the affirmative goals of a political transition, such as removing the Constitutional amendments, laws and court interpretations that stand in our way.

Even with only a democratic majority, there are steps we can take: Conservatives have been playing resistance for the past 200 years, standing athwart “progress” — first industry and later liberal politics — and howling STOP. An affirmative plan for the future, called “forward conservatism,” can present an alternative to a continued resistance-aggression cycle. This plan has a vision of what America should be like, which is a relaxed place that rewards the good, and simple steps toward its achievement. Many of these overlap with the libertarian and even liberal agendas although by different methods.

A successful conservative world looks like this:

  • Isolated, powerful nations. Ethnic self-determination for every group allows them to define standards and exclude outsiders. This means that we stop complaining about when Israel builds a border wall, or when America exiles all non-Western Europeans and returns to its nativist roots.
  • Strong, lazy leadership. We want leaders who maintain a state of functional society and also push us toward higher dimensions of quality, which do not require “new” ideas so much as high standards and a lack of micromanagement.
  • Constraint of the irresponsible. Most people have always been and always will be, to a large degree, irresponsible. They do not understand cause->effect reasoning and so cannot comprehend the effects of their actions. Restraint of these, while promoting those who do understand, is essential.
  • Upward evolutionary force. Conservatives have always valued improvement of the individual and nation through becoming better at what it always has been, instead of trying to find a “new” way to be something else. Good to the good, bad to the bad, and everyone else gets nothing.

This conservative civilization would require a strong and sensible policy.


  • Remove anti-discrimination law. This is not a role for government, and justifies government expansion both in size and power. On every level it is a failure. HUD, civil rights, affirmative action: Repeal.
  • Remove ideological government. The goal of government is not to replace culture, but to provide it a strong foundation of protection by keeping society functional. Government is a utility, not a for-profit corporation, when implemented best.
  • Remove in loco parentis. Government is not there to protect you from yourself. Nor is anyone else. Each person is responsible for his own survival and happiness. No one else can do it for him and we should not try.
  • Balance the budget. Without ideological government, our budget is half of what it otherwise would be. Build armies and infrastructure and keep everything else as a private function if at all. Our budget will balance and we can reduce taxes, in turn simplifying transactions.

  • Abortion as a medical procedure. Abortion should be a decision between a woman and her general practitioner (GP). If the doctor feels the pregnancy is a risk, he or she can terminate it at that time; no abortion clinics where it is treated as a cosmetic procedure.
  • Drug legalization is a local concern. If Dewlap, MI wants to legalize drugs, let them, so long as the rest of us do not carry the burden (i.e. abolish socialized medicine). Government is not here to protect us from ourselves, nor to endorse drugs by legalizing them. Local communities can do this and reap the whirlwind while the rest of us watch with popcorn in hand.
  • End immigration. We are full. We do not need more people; we need our existing people to be more useful. Repeal the Hart-Cellar and related acts, and invalidate all drive-by birthright citizenships. End sanctuary cities.
  • Remove legal protections for unions. Unions drove up the cost of American labor and compelled companies to seek immigration. Let unions compete in the market. Workers would prefer to negotiate their own salaries rather than pay the 25%+ overhead of unions.
    Common sense proposals

  • Remove economic interests from government. Liberals defend low-end growth, or importing more citizens to be consumers and paying them welfare to keep the economic Ponzi scheme going. Conservatives have too often defended merely established economic interests. Send the lobbyists home and make politicians do the work themselves or, better, do nothing.
  • Redefine wealth. Currently, wealth is measured in growth, demand for our currency and consumer interest. Measure it instead by production and how well we do in overseas markets. We are no longer the consumer superpower and this is better for us. We need to become a producer again of agriculture, industry and also the current fave, intellectual property products.
  • Cut the red tape. Remove sales taxes, regulations, paperwork, and approvals wherever possible and simplify all laws. Each town has one government building where all public interactions are transacted. End traffic fines and simply remove bad drivers. Make life simple, elegant and hassle-free wherever possible.
  • Remove subsidies and tariffs. We subsidize industries to keep them alive when we should allow them to renew themselves. Remove all subsidies. Remove all tariffs to products from other nations in exchange for their agreement to not tariff or tax our products.

Conservatives need to understand there is no middle ground. Liberals have shown they will destroy you if possible; there is no way to “coexist.” If you do not achieve supremacy, you will fail completely and utterly and be destroyed. Even if you ride it out now, you will be dispossessed in retirement and your descendants will face horrible consequences.

Most conservatives, like most modern people, are caught up in the individualism loop. They observe problems in the world, think that these are insoluble, so focus on advancing the one thing they do control… themselves. Eventually they see all else, including the environment and their own children, as means to this end. This thoroughly corrupts them in mind and soul but allows them to continue ignoring the gathering stormclouds and get some sleep at night. It also guarantees their doom.

Liberals are pathological and they form a cult based on mutual co-dependency. They are driven by fear of inferiority and as a result seek to destroy anything above their level while rendering those below as mute, servile accomplices. They consume everything and leave behind inferior substitutes for once-great social institutions, brands, standards, values and ideals. Hint: they will get to your children through schools, media, peers, and ersatz role models. Those children will become brainwashed and work against you. Ask the “Greatest Generation,” which birthed the 1968er “Me Generation” which brought Soviet-style liberalism to America.

We have to remove the blinders from our eyes and realize that politics is not a football game where we cheer for the Red and they cheer for the Blue. It is what determines our future and those results will shape us as a people, and also genetically. What our politicians reward through Darwinian evolution thrives and pushes out the rest. This helps our false elites maintain control by having a permanent majority of voters who are easily fooled or follow short-term personal incentives and are too oblivious to connect the dots when these programs fail. We, the intelligent and practical Western Europeans are being replaced by the hipsters, idiots, third world immigrants and neurotics. We either take a stand and gain control, or we suicide.

The individualist fallacy


Every sheep secretly thinks he is a lion. For that reason, we overstate our contributions and under-estimate how much we depend on those around us. This mentality is similar to that of scapegoating, in which we assume that our intent was right and any failure must have come from external forces.

The Individualist Fallacy falls into the same pocket. Specifically, it holds that the individual is or does not need civilization, while living within civilization. This can be seen in the rebellious types who want “anarchy with grocery stores,” libertarians, and many conservative Christians and conservatives, including fairly underground types.

There are three main areas of the Individualist Fallacy:

That the individual can do what is right, and associate with others like him, and this solves the problem of civilization downfall.

This version of the fallacy mainly affects mainstream conservatives. Their idea is, based in part in Christianity and in equal part in economic liberalism, that society is comprised of individuals and that each individual has responsibility to do what is right, and then things will end for the best. This makes sense at first because it parallels Social Darwinism, with the idea that the most adapted — raising happy families, maintaining wealth and health and moral standards — will outproduce the rest. It fails to take into account however that the others will reproduce more thanks to the efforts of society and, that in civilization, other factors exist than for isolated families in the wild. The responsible will end up paying for the rest and the rest will use their greater power in numbers to parasitize and eventually destroy the responsible. This version of the fallacy is most frequently heard from baby boomers who just want to die before their children inherit the utter ruin the boomers made of the West.

On the left, this version of the fallacy mutates into the idea that everyone is good and we will all survive together and somehow, magically, the choices that exist for you today — or back in 1965 when the boomers were young — will be there for you in the future. One would have to be blind to the current state of Brazil, the history of the French Revolution or Soviet Union, and human nature to believe this. Choices and opportunities change as society does, and whatever is tolerated proliferates, so that those people who are doing bad things eventually outnumber the rest. Again, this type of reasoning serves as an excuse and justification — backward-looking, inverted thinking — than forward-looking, planning-type analysis. People just want an easy answer that allows them to “keep on truckin'” without having to “rock the boat.”

That rules which affect society at large do not affect the individual, and therefore that the individual has no right to object to rights or privileges granted others.

Mostly on the left, this version of the fallacy goes like this: how dare you oppose someone else doing what they want, such as gay marriage or legal marijuana, because it is an individual choice and affects only them? Any sensible and experienced person will interject here with the observation that nothing affects only the individual. Gay marriage for example sets a new lower boundary for permissiveness in society and changes the nature of marriage from “mature, get married and have a family” to “date recklessly, and when your current significant other needs health care, go perform a trivial civil ceremony.” The children after gay marriage have lost the sanctity and purpose of marriage. Similarly with legal marijuana, a social value is changed — and a market is created. Now children will be surrounded with the paraphernalia, behavior and lifestyle behavior of those who are using drugs. With one drug legal, others become acceptable. Even more, society embraces a type of thinking that it has firm reasons to oppose. Every individual “right” in turn forces the normalization of that right on others, and deprives those others of their right to a society of their choice. The liberal will fire back that they can have that at home, which is fine if they and their families never leave that home and will not be interfered with there. In reality, it means that they are attacked passive-aggressively by society — passive aggression is a form of the “begging the question” fallacy where one party assumes as behavior is right in order to challenge others with it, then play the victim when they are not approving — and forced to either submit to the new order which goes against their conscience and wisdom, or become targeted as a potential pariah for ostracism.

That collectivism is formed of a collective, and not individualist impulse, rather than being a collective enterprise to demand individualism.

This version of the fallacy has found popularity with the Internet-style Libertarians who believe that, since they exist only in their apartments and jobs, everyone else should do the same. In their view, the enemy is Statists who are collectivists, which means they believe all money should be pooled and used to support all people. They are correct in recognizing that this is insanity, but incorrect in that they forget that society itself is a collective enterprise. In it, we all do things which do not benefit ourselves directly but because they benefit everyone, serve to increase the value and utility of life in that society. This denies the leftist impulse which is to create “equality” by penalizing the successful to subsidize the unsuccessful — zero historical counter-examples exist — which involves paying benefits to specific groups which are smaller than the whole or even the majority, thus “minorities.” The problem with this version of the fallacy is that it denies the simple formula collectivism = individualism. Collectivism is individualism in a group context where individuals join together to form a large group that uses the superior numbers of that group to demand that individualism — no higher purpose than self-gratification — to become the law of the land. This irrevocably changes society. While a libertarian system seems to oppose this, what it really does is create a society based on individualism which will inevitably turn toward “collectivism” as a plurality of people emerge who, exhausted of no purpose except self-interest, will support it.

Hope you enjoyed our brief tour of one of the most common fallacies today and its three common variants. You will see these regularly and expressed fervently, but like almost all of human thought, they are signals, distractions and rationalizations to allow that individual to both (a) continue to live life as they have been, for individual comfort a.k.a. “bourgeois values” and (b) feel justified and in fact morally good about doing so. Illusion is an easier sell than reality.

The return of darkness and evil


“Go away,” the old woman said, clutching the shotgun as she stood next to her battered shack in the wilderness. “We don’t like any stranger-types around here, from those weird cities or foreign lands. We like ourselves only. So be off with you!”

We know this image. We know it as trope, meme and cliché from books, movies and plays. The country bumpkin with a cruel streak and xenophobia factors heavily in our imagery of why it is wrong not to be egalitarian, tolerant and encouraging of new experience. In this trope, the people of the country are small-minded and inbred, stupid and angry, poor and with even poorer ways.

For centuries, this image has popped up in our culture like a mandala among stained glass murals. It seems like wisdom to us at this point. It reflects a less comfortable former time — all of our history is based on technology and politics, forgetting everything else — that we fear to return to, and most of all we do not want our neighbors thinking we are “like that.” Following that idea and letting it expand in our minds as ideas inevitably do, we launched on a path over the past thousand years that led to modern liberalism. First the peasant revolts, then the Magna Carta, then The Enlightenment™, then the French Revolution and when that failed, the Communist revolutions to patch up the holes in liberalism by demanding the state subsidize its unequal but ideologically fervent citizens. All of these things come from the same impulse.

With what approximates a lighter vision of Guillaume Faye’s “convergence of catastrophes,” the West now sees the consequences of those decisions a thousand years ago. This type of time scale will not surprise readers of history, but politicians never want to admit that we should be paying attention on the level of centuries and millennia and not four-year election/economy cycles. (Most economic booms or busts reflect actions the market takes in anticipation of a new candidate, rather than his policies.) As our immigration policy fails, diversity detonates around us, sabotage of the family destroys us through lack of reproduction, and democracy continues to choose weak and criminal leaders, it has become clear that those thousand-year-old decisions were in fact a path to doom.

As a result, people are peeling back layers of the onion. They start with the most local threats, where liberal ideas have sabotaged their communities. Then as they ask, “How did this come about?” they look deeper to liberal positions on issues. Then they wonder why those seemed like a good idea, which necessitates peeling into liberal ideology itself. As that starts to look alien and weird, they stop taking it at face value and start to look into the kind of psychology that would adopt it. Suddenly a lot becomes clearer. At this point, they are close to seeing the thousand-year deception in full, and to revoke it entirely. Forget our happy vision of human individualism in which every person is good; remember the wisdom of the ancients, which is that most people are either bad or self-deluding, and that the dumbest and worst are the most arrogant, not the smartest and best. Realize that we in European-descended societies are the target for everyone else because they could not attain what we have. They hate us for rising above the herd and making the herd look bad. And then see that among us there are many who side with the herd and want to tear us down so that no individualist may feel less than equal by his own failures.

This is the return of darkness and evil. The old woman by her battered cottage cracks a wry grin. Outsiders are bad; only those who are of us and for us are good. Cities breed stupidity, contagion and deception. Someone who goes to a city must be bad, or at least, will come back tainted. Evil is everywhere and must be fought constantly, not with evil but with darkness itself, or the knowledge that all which does not show goodness is in fact bad, a threat and death. The battle lines are drawn once again. We have escaped Enlightenment™ for a new dark age where once again reality makes sense and humanity is seen for the craven, manipulative beast it is, and the few exceptions held up to the ages as our only hope.

Public image and the battle for social control


No such thing as a “free society” exists. Every society has its rules and mores. Some try to pare that down to only direct intervention against others — theft, assault and murder — but this ignores the ability of people to change society itself and thus destroy the environment someone else wants to live in. The ideal of “freedom” is people living in little cubes where they have complete control, not communicating with one another because every action could lead to offense.

No one likes to hear that.

We like the idea of being able to make changes to society and then have it continue otherwise unchanged. Like people throwing rocks in a pond, we want the splash, but not the ripples that eventually rock our boat and make it hard to aim. When people talk about their political ideas, they mean as additions or deletions to the present, with no secondary consequences. That world exists nowhere but in the human mind.

As a result of needing to limit “freedom” — a word never defined — societies tend to impose forms of social control on their population. Some of this is through government, but as the great Communist and Nazi experiments showed us, this is less effective than buying up ad space in newspapers and co-scripting television shows. People emulate what they see. Even better, they use what they see as a means of moral superiority to enforce on each other. Every society no matter how “advanced” has these means of indirect control.

One of the most powerful of these is shame. When someone does something out of line, people gather together spontaneously to observe that person and comment or otherwise communicate displeasure. The difference between groups shaming people for transgressions, or merely one-upping them according to whatever paradigm is dominant, takes some effort to see. But shame and guilt rule us. As Ed West writes:

One possibility is that it is a reflection of the gap between shame and guilt cultures, a distinction suggested by anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict. It was Benedict who laid out the differences between America’s guilt culture, emphasising internal conscience, and Japan’s shame culture, which in contrast looked at how behaviour appears to outsiders.

…There are at least two theories as to what drove the creation of a guilt culture. One is that European societies tended to involve far more interaction with people to whom we are not related, and internalising one’s conscience was the only way of adapting from more clannish societies. The other, and more likely cause, is Christianity, which transformed shame-based societies, like that of Anglo-Saxon England, into guilt-based ones.

Here he is both insightful, and a bit confused. There are two axes here: guilt<->shame and internal<->external. The point he hits on that is worth our attention is that our culture has made itself sick with guilt; what he does not do is identify how cultures can be internally-directed shame cultures (Japan, Anglo-Saxon England) or externally-directed guilt cultures, like our present civilization in the West. Internally directed means that people feel a sense of unwellness when they are transgressing; externally-directed means that they are afraid of how they look to others. Our guilt over refugees comes from both our internal sense of fair play, which is dismayed at the mess that most of the world is, but also from our conditioning by external forces to feel awkward around anything that is not explicitly egalitarian. In this sense, the guilt/shame distinction is secondary to how that guilt/shame is judged, whether is internal from a desire to fit into social order, or external from a desire not to be excluded from a social order. As with all things egalitarian, equality operates by a negative quantum, removing those who are not egalitarian enough. That is where our modern Western guilt culture originates.

While he all but blames Christianity, it seems likely that another source has transformed us: public opinion. How we are seen by others, in an egalitarian time, determines our survival. Since we are all equal and free, people are free to abandon us if they think we are “bad,” and bad is conveniently defined as all that is not egalitarian. As a result, we are caught in a type of soft totalitarianism where we either act out egalitarian ideals, or we are punished; even more, those who become famous for being egalitarian — our politicians and elites — rise above the rest. This creates a squabbling herd determined on an individual level to out-do each other for asserting egalitarianism, and shaming those who do not live up to. Our public guilt is thus created externally by people competing out of fear that they will be found to be ideological enemies of our society.

A user named “1665averygoodyear” had the following commentary to add:

The reason that Europe is so in thrall to this new intolerance – namely the myth of multiculturalism – is because of the Nazis. The entirety of western history post 1945 is best viewed as an attempt to come to terms with, and atone for, the horrors of the Second World War, seeing their ghastly apotheosis in the fires of Belsen and Auschwitz.

A narrative that placed the blame firmly on the shoulders of White European Nationalism was formed. And the vehemence of the reaction was such that this narrative spread to include the basic concept of European society. The very idea of Europe and the West was fundamentally rejected. Not only that, but the hatred for anything to resembles traditional European culture is such that the Jews and Israel, being white and ethnocentric, ironically have also become subject to this rejection.

Almost every single left wing person in this country is walking around with a deep, deep sense of shame and internalised self hatred. It seeps from their pores and manifests itself in their all consuming desire to prostrate themselves (and our society) at the feet of anyone and anything that they feel is un-European. Everything that has been foisted on us as a result of multiculturalism is just a tiny tiny portion of what they deem to be adequate reparations for our colonial and ethnocentric histories.

The famous quip that it’s ‘too early to tell’ what to think of the French Revolution, could equally be applied to World War II. The entire basis of western society for the past two millennia has been fundamentally revoked and undermined, and the ramifications will be so far-reaching and profound that we are only just starting to appreciate them.

His or her comment about the “famous quip” refers to the fact that when looking at history one sees how consequences of actions take centuries or millennia to manifest. The laws of 1965 will still have massive impact in 2065 and 2965, but lawyers and politicians do not want you thinking about that, as then you would become more conservative and oppose all changes which did not have a thousand-year record of success, which rules out almost everything profitable. The point is that without precedent, we reversed our civilization with the French Revolution and then again by denying nationalism. Even liberal republics over time drift toward nationalism as a way of keeping their people together; however, liberals hate that idea because they fear differences between themselves and others, which means any social standard like culture — tied to heritage — must go. And so they war against nationalism and with World War II, got their excuse to declare it a bad psychology like drug addiction, crime and smoking in bed.

Another point of view on this topic comes from Megan McArdle:

The elevation of microaggressions into a social phenomenon with a specific name and increasingly public redress marks a dramatic social change, and two sociologists, Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning, have a fascinating paper exploring what this shift looks like, and what it means. (Jonathan Haidt has provided a very useful CliffsNotes version.)

Western society, they argue, has shifted from an honor culture — in which slights are taken very seriously, and avenged by the one slighted — to a dignity culture, in which personal revenge is discouraged, and justice is outsourced to third parties, primarily the law. The law being a cumbersome beast, people in dignity cultures are encouraged to ignore slights, or negotiate them privately by talking with the offender, rather than seeking some more punitive sanction.

Here we have another axis: honor/dignity. This explains more of the mechanism of control in our society, which is that “freedom” of speech trumps freedom of public integrity, which puts all of us on the defense against large mobs of people shouting nasty things about us. The only real winning strategy is total anonymity, which anecdotally seems to be the choice of successful people who work outside of public-facing jobs. But this dignity culture, like the guilt/shame culture of the modern West, is also externally-directed which means the definition and motivation behind guilt is public opinion, not an internal sense of right and wrong. The shift to dignity culture reflects that movement toward dictatorship by public opinion.

This brings to mind a fatal flaw in our society, which is that it has become an echo chamber formed of people who are afraid to contravene the public opinion, while they seek to enforce the dominant paradigm in new ways and through that novelty, to rise in social status. As John Faithful Hamer writes:

In Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America (2010), Barbara Ehrenreich maintains that getting rid of all of the “negative people” in your life is a recipe for disaster: “What would it mean in practice to eliminate all the ‘negative people’ from one’s life? It might be a good move to separate from a chronically carping spouse, but it is not so easy to abandon the whiny toddler, the colicky infant, or the sullen teenager. And at the workplace, while it’s probably advisable to detect and terminate those who show signs of becoming mass killers, there are other annoying people who might actually have something useful to say: the financial officer who keeps worrying about the bank’s subprime mortgage exposure or the auto executive who questions the company’s overinvestment in SUVs and trucks. Purge everyone who ‘brings you down,’ and you risk being very lonely or, what is worse, cut off from reality. The challenge of family life, or group life of any kind, is to keep gauging the moods of others, accommodating to their insights, and offering comfort when needed.”

Just as ecosystems become less resilient, and more fragile, when you reduce their biodiversity (by eradicating species), epistemic communities become less resilient, and more fragile, when you reduce their intellectual and ideological diversity (by eradicating radical ideas). Numerous studies have demonstrated that the only thing worse than thinking through important political matters alone, is thinking through important political matters amongst people who share all of your assumptions.

We are cruising to disaster because egalitarianism has made it impossible to express anything but an egalitarian opinion, and it rewards those who become more egalitarian than others. In addition, by its nature of being based in public opinion, the society dedicated toward equality shifts from a moral framework (internally-directed) to a appearance standard based in public opinion. This means that we have created a method of censorship more effective than those of the NSDAP and USSR; we have made ourselves into a howling mob that destroys any who deviate from the Official Story. If you wonder why our society cannot understand or address its own visibly evident but commonly denied problems, it is this shift toward externally-directed guilt, shame and dignity as a means of replacing their internal variants, which protected disagreement but were less convenient for purposes of social control.

Clarity about our task


For those who oppose the current civilization in the West, it becomes clear that we must backtrack to our original error and reverse it. Our greatest fear should be that we will not backtrack enough, and will instead legitimize the same path as we are on at an earlier stage, while convincing people the threat is over. While we have the attention of our people, it makes sense to fix this once and for all.

As an alert reader will have guessed, this presents a difficulty because getting to the root of this problem requires attacking some of the sacred cows of our society that most people believe are their only defense against it. Because we live in a democratic time, we see individual rights and equality as well as an extensive system of laws which apply uniformly to all as our firewall against crazy government and even crazier public opinion, with the sinister predatory eyes of raw commerce in the background. And yet, like heroin addiction, our reliance on these protections comes at a cost which perpetuates the need for such protections.

With that in mind… we need a change of direction away from democracy and equality to a society based on both results and creating a higher qualitative level of existence. This corresponds to the conservative ideals of consequentialism and transcendentalism linked by a sense of social order, values, morality, practicality and a sacred nature to life itself. In other words, we are looking past The Enlightenment™ to what existed before it, in part by recognizing that society is not a linear path from “primitive” to “civilized” by a cycle based on what ideals are adopted. The liberal democratic ideal is part of the death-cycle, but the conservative ideal, part of the springtime of a society in which it grows and matures with a zest for life.

This leads to confusion among conservatives, who believe they are supposed to “conserve” a previous state of society. This misreads conservatism: we conserve that which is both realistic and transcendental, wherever it is found, and this conservation includes pushing our society to higher levels of quality. We cannot defend something simply because it once was, nor do we adopt something “new” because it has not been done, as occurs with the novelty fallacy inherent to liberalism. Our goal is to re-make society according to what should be conserved, not defend how things have been going along here before some Other intervened. Inevitably, that Other originates in a scapegoat, and the hope is that by removing the other we end up with what is good. In reality, we will end up with disorder, because what made the past work will have been forgotten and we will have failed to re-connect it to the ideal that originally made it valuable.

Defense of the norms of people who hate you is the ultimate “cuckservative” failing. Most people act by convenience, and what is popular is usually wrong because it appeals to the lowest common denominator, enacts compromise, and consists of the greedy demands of a herd with zero accountability. Conservatives do not defend norms; they strive for ideals which are based in reality. Convenience is our enemy, as is popular opinion, because both of these shift the focus from what is optimal to what involves the least amount of stress on those around us. We must remember that we arrived at our present state by going down the path of public opinion, convenience, popularity and appearance. Our goal is to avoid that path entirely.

This world is incompetent and ruined. Under democracy and equality, our customs have been abolished, our people removed by soft genocide, and our leaders and elites turned into comic book figures who gesture vividly to appeal to the crowd and by thus avoiding real issues, steer us into disaster and then retire to riches.

We are fighting a war of sense versus public opinion. Our nation will be great again when it has a strong identity — formed of culture, AND heritage, AND values, with religion shared between values and aesthetics, a subdivision of culture — and by that nature develops a strong cultural resistance to parasites. The parasites we fight are found among our own people; parasitic ideas like liberalism, guilt, egalitarianism and victimhood form the basis for our internal division and self-destruction. The Other appears as a beneficiary of this, but by the foolishness of our own people, and not as an origin in the Other itself. For this reason, every minute we spend on Jewish conspiracy theories or cruelly denigrating African-Americans is a strong and energetic step away from what we must be doing. We need to fix ourselves.

Most people get confused because they think in terms of categorical logic, which uses broad mental containers to categorize actions by appearance. The simplest form of this is the destruction of morality by making it categorical, creating social constructs called “good” and “bad” which categorize by method and not goal, which measures itself in terms of results; the two are inseparable. Fools and parasites want us to measure our actions by social categories of good and bad, which judge in terms of appearance, which is what regulates method, because appearance is the basis of social interaction in groups. What looks good to the group, and is convenient for them, they approve; goals — which require results for comparison — and principles remain invisible to the herd. They like it that way. Goals, principles, values, heritage, culture and morality of the honest sort strike terror into the herd, because it threatens to divide the group by having a purpose, which means that some will be visibly falling short and thus be bumped down to lower social status. The herd unites itself on acceptance of all based on having no social order and no values system beyond the bare minimum, which enables it to become powerful and take over societies.

Our enemy is public opinion created by social factors instead of logical ones. Look to structure, not appearance; ultimate results, instead of convenience; and most of all, not what people think but what we can show is true. Truth is more important than popularity, and until you get to that point, you are only repeating one other variety of Enlightenment™ jive instead of looking at the root of the problem. We are under assault by this delusion of the Enlightenment™ among our own people, not the third world or The Jews, who are proxies used by our liberals who have been made into zombies by leftism. They use these proxies to destroy us, but they are the symptom, and not the cause. The cause is the neurotic delusion which creates the herd and from it liberalism/Leftism, and it is this we must defeat in whole if we wish to have a healthy enough society to sleep soundly ever again.

The root of white decline


There are times in life when it seems as if “suddenly” everything has gone wrong. Then you go outside, light a cigar, and think it over, and you start being able to pick out the warning signs. Where things were not right. Then, where they were precarious. Finally, when that insanity became accepted as normal.

Many have picked up on obvious warning signs, the most obvious of which is replacement of indigenous European and American populations by imported third-worlders. (The USA, as a society built on a mostly-uninhabited continent, has an indigenous WASP population). But we did not get to this state overnight. First our societies became horrible, ironically because we succeeded at creating an image of the human ideal.

The Enlightenment™ created a new goal for civilization. Where previously people had tried to live within an order of nature and gods, now they strove for a human order. Its quanta and goal was the individual. Society should not restrain the individual, lest it be a genius artist, inventor or humanitarian. In other words, our thinking reversed: instead of adapting to reality, we made it adapt to us as individuals using the power (and threat of guilt) wielded by the group.

As a revolution in intellectual thought, this notion re-made the West. Religion, culture and heritage died; individualism, altruism and ego-drama thrived. Over the next two centuries, this created an ideological competition for attention — sort of like attention whoring — which propelled the Western powers into wars for egalitarian purity. Internal to these societies, the situation worsened. As rules piled up to take the place of culture, they created a citizenry that expected to be told what to do and then to work around it, making themselves slowly into low-grade criminals. Government in turn expanded because of its infinite mission as enshrined in egalitarianism itself, and quickly became a force for squashing non-conformists so it could preserve the increasingly fragile status quo. The individual experienced a new world where life tasks were designed for the lowest common denominator, cultural favorites were chosen by what the herd liked, and daily life consistent of waiting in frustration occasioned by the incompetence of others.

By 1900, Western European nations had become visibly miserable places to live. And yet few would say it, because life there was still so much better than the rest of the world, which being dedicated to individualism and not principle, found itself living in squalor, corruption and conflict. It became fashionable to ignore the decline and instead scapegoat the remaining non-Leftist forces, which made everyone feel better by pushing aside their sense of dread at how badly things were going. Those who could, retreated to the suburbs and tried to keep their heads down, work hard, pay taxes and hope everything would blow over. It has not. Since government by popularity contest chooses actors and liars who deny real problems because they can do nothing about them, and instead pick a series of scapegoats, leadership has gone from generals to people who might be able to manage a Target or Wal-mart store, maybe. Our elites are incompetent flatterers, our voters delusional when not outright fools, and everything official is a lie.

That downfall is the basis of our ethnic downfall. The West commits suicide because for anyone of moderate intelligence, living here is miserable and hypocritical. This misery arises from the lack of social order we have created and the bureaucratic State trying to fill the void. Even the great evil Corporations are creations of the voters, who systematically removed any sensible balances and replaced them with rules enforced by overweight chair-bound people who trust that what is written on paper is true. In addition to the sociopathic and self-destructive Leftists whose goal is always to destroy society so their own egos can be unbound, normal people now quest to destroy the West because it is an ugly, dysfunctional and dystopian thing.

We were warned about democracy, equality and altruism. Probably the gentlest warning comes from Thomas Sowell, who points out the dual individualist/collectivist mentality of the mob:

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

In a mob such as an electorate, people make choices without any personal accountability. If the secret vote goes wrongly and a psychotic moron is elected, the voters can blame each other instead of saying, “Wow, I really dropped the ball this time.” Politicians can blame the other side, and leaders can blame politicians for obstructing them. Even generals can, as happened with the US venture in Vietnam, point out that politicians and leaders sabotaged the war by blocking sensible actions on political grounds. But who is accountable? Public opinion. Like a fickle insane queen, it delights in illusion and punishes realism. When a crisis happens, it crucifies the first likely suspect. A crisis averted goes beyond its notice. In short, it punishes good leadership and rewards flattering, pandering, manipulative, passive-aggressive and corrupt public image exercises.

What, then, is the origin of our decline? Individualism, which gives rise to the dual individualist/collectivist state of mind, which is called “Crowdism” on this site. The individualists band together to use the power of the crowd to force acceptance of everyone at the price of then participating in lynch mobs for anyone who defies (or, as time goes on, simply ignores) the will of the crowd. Hell-bent on illusion, it creates its own problems and scapegoats non-Crowdists for its own failure. This creates a circular, self-referential and self-consuming process that creates a downward spiral in society, leaving behind a paranoid, self-hating ruin in which many groups and most individuals are divided against each other, yet forced into conformity in public. As in the former Soviet Union, theft and sabotage — even if the everyday variety that consists of engaging in self-serving ignorance regarding low performance and failure — become the norm. Riding on the momentum of past wealth and glory, the civilization surges forward while congratulating itself on being “above” the third world, but the gap narrows with every year.

Democracy fails for a number of reasons. The first is what Sowell mentions, which is that a group of dual individualist/collectivist persons will act collectively for the individual and then individually disclaim accountability and responsibility. The second big hole in democracy is the incompetence of the average person; do you honestly think the basement-dwelling guy who smokes weed and plays video games all day long is going to make a good, selfless and informed decision? Maybe in some cases, but not in the majority. The third big problem is to my mind the worst, which is that democracy experiences the committee thinking effect. Problems must be framed in yes/no questions; people pick those by relative merit, which means they vote by fears; voters are afraid to offend, so pick the least effective solutions; each group must be recognized, and they all have conflicting efforts, which leads to a compromise that favors inertia not decision-making. As with a committee or any other bureaucratic exercise, this takes a long time and generates reams of paper which no one reads. It is a failure on every level.

Among us there exists a lucky 2%, to use an approximate number, of people who are both thoughtful and competent. Introspective, they understand their own limitations and seek to discipline them. Contemplative, they explore extensively in history, philosophy, literature and/or science, and derive their opinions not from single instances but fact patterns in which some individual suppositions are canceled out by others, revealing an actual truth. These are the people who should be our elite. Democracy however ensures they are muffled and muted by the very fact of their being few in number, and that the type of things they bring up and their method of discussion is anathema to the group, which will simply proclaim, “You talk like a fag,” and go on to watch sports, movies, and television shows while talking volubly about how smart they are. Democracy is the Dunning-Kruger effect in full swing.

Thus as we approach the issue of immigration and what the intelligent writers at VDARE refer to as The National Question, we should realize that its roots affect the issue as it is today. White people do not want to unite because they hate other white people because of the decline of society itself. We have become uncivilized, selfish and egotistical, with most not deserving of any commendation yet becoming darlings of the voters, public opinion and commerce by being average (a fancy word for “mediocre”) instead of exceptional. Like the Communists, we have destroyed the incentive to excel, and have made of ourselves a bickering herd of self-important little people who now hate each other and wish nothing more than to obliterate each other by any method: war, disorder, immigration and political extermination are historical favorites. For us to fix the immigration question requires we fix a bigger question, which is our self-hating individualism masked as collectivist altruism.


The genetics of ideology


Taylor’s Law of Ecology observes an inverse power law relationship between population size and variance. As the population of a species per area of habitat becomes more numerous, the differences between individuals decreases, as if a form of genetic entropy has appeared. If this law is applicable to human thought, we can conclude that the more prevalent an ideology becomes within a civilization, the less it is capable of producing variations on its ideological genus. This process can be explained by Darwinian reproductive fitness.

Exploring this topic requires analysis of reproductive fitness in terms of ideology. In the context of human society — much to the chagrin of partisans of Rationalism — the human mind is not convinced by logical reasoning alone. It is not even a primary motivator. The Greeks understood this fully and hence extolled the virtues of rhetoric as it includes authority and emotion alongside logic.

Successful ideologies must rely heavily on authority and emotional appeal. In the real world, this takes two forms: convergent philosophies who insist on their own objectivity and appeals to popular sentiment and sensibility. This fitness is not environmental fitness, but rather, what it takes to reproduce. Ideologies, like species, can produce offspring even when maladapted to the external environment. Sickle cell anemia allows for a human to reach reproductive age, yet kills the host in relatively short order thereafter.

Likewise, ideologies also carry genes which are dominant or recessive in the form of mythology and values: historically contingent and flawed presuppositions about the shape of the cosmos and procession of time, humanity’s place therein, and rules to govern its behavior as best not to muck things up.

Communism, as one notable example, spreads by appealing to the rhetoric of progress, displeasure with the inequalities of capitalism and the political failings of extant structures yet in the long term it kills its host for simple reasons: industrial civilization requires the formation of concentrations of wealth and capital to afford the creation of a new factory. Diffuse wealth and capital under egalitarian distributions does not allow for the production and maintenance of factories and thus results in economic stasis.

The expression of “fit” genes over time is flattened to a lowest common denominator with the most broad appeal emotionally and authoritatively. Its logic at this point is taken as common sense: of course things will continue to improve as they always have; we are in a hiccup is all! Of course we can continue to expand the Empire, subduing our barbarian neighbors has always worked and will continue to work! The psychology goes deeper than that however.

The underlying logic of an ideology may correspond highly to the particular social and ecological conditions it finds itself explaining. In accordance with the narratives of contemporary western Progress and late Roman imperial rhetoric/civil religion we can find that both narratives did indeed explain much. The former came at a time when the West found itself sitting on top of millions of years of stored sunlight as well as a few ideological gifts from Bacon and Newton which allowed for quantitative thinking of scientific inquiry to be used alongside these sources of enormous potential energy to produce the largest period of sustained growth the world had yet seen. Betting on that growth reliably produced success whereas those who did not bet on growth failed.

The Roman submission of its warring neighbors allowed it to create stable and productive vassal states in which agriculture could be used to concentrate wealth in Rome. Slave trade allowed for negation of the human costs of production. The success of each strategy drove Roman Imperialism and reinforced the ideology of Empire. Even when the cost of its institutions, expansive military and its bloated intermediary market system became a burden on Roman society, the response had been to implement more extreme measures of the status quo: larger military and more centralization.

The broad consensus and the lack of variation creates an illusion of objectivity which lends to self-policing and group reinforcement amongst the individuals of a society operating on the levels of grassroots action, political organization, and institutional decree. Non-believers and those on the fringe are routinely mocked, shamed and ignored while every cultural and political outlet extol the virtues of the prevailing consensus. The result is the phenomenon this site has termed: Crowdism.

Conservatives rediscover pluralism


Conservatives and libertarians are getting excited about Allum Bokhari’s article over at Breitbar, “Rise of the Cultural Libertarians.” In it, he argues that the rising leftist wave of censorship has awakened a new movement of people who are not really conservative, but want to preserve the ability to criticize any beliefs, which includes — to the shock of our media and enfranchised political establishment — criticism of Leftist viewpoints.

Uh oh.

While this new movement, unified and galvanized by the article, seems to have great momentum, it suffers from not having conducted the approach of a philosopher: analyze things through to their ends and compare to what we know of reality. This method, the parent of its less-rigorous cousin The Scientific Method™, means that we look at not what seems like a sensible counter-argument to the dominant paradigm, but what will be the actual results of our acts as planned. This is the only form of accountability and responsibility that exits, and on this blog, we call it “Realism.”

The rising leftist wave of censorship was born of a social phenomenon known as “Social Justice Warriors,” or SJWs. These people participate in politics as an activity, generally to distract from their personal misery, usually a combination of alcoholism, social ineptitude and obesity. They are strident, angry and gather in swarms to attack all who disagree with them, knowing — like terrorists and guerrillas — that by creating a Public Relations incident, they can force the opposition to apologize, kowtow and change its policies. SJWs are effective mainly because there are always thousands of them on the internet at any given time, ready to mob attack the next target.

The cultural libertarian response is to emphasize independence of thought and resistance to any form of coercive attempt to silence others. In other words, classic American freedom. Here’s the summary from the article:

They’ve also worked out that the people leading the charge in social media mobs have vastly disproportionate influence thanks to their publishing platforms and that not only are they hopelessly out of touch with popular opinion but that their tactics are unpleasant and hectoring, often veering into outright cruelty and persecution.

…Cultural libertarians recognise that efforts to police language and expression are not only counter-productive, but also fragile. The people pushing for greater control are a small segment of the population, whose voice is amplified by media support. To fight them, all you have to do is ignore them – or, better yet, mock them.

This may sound familiar to you, because it re-capitulates what by now is an ancient defense of the right. Faced with the onslaught of the French Revolution, they retreated into “classical liberalism”: do whatever you want, on your own property, so long as I can do the same. It sounds so simple and pleasant! It even feels like a social order at times. And yet, it completely fails because it denies the need of a society to have direction: identity, purpose, values, heritage, customs and some sense of the transcendent.

In fact, the “cultural libertarian” approach can be understood as a variant of a well-known political philosophy, pluralism:

Political pluralism usually starts with the observation that there are different value systems in use in the world, and there are various positions that arise out of that observation. Political pluralism is concerned with the question of what sort of restrictions governments can put on people’s freedom to act according to their value systems. The strongest version of political pluralism claims that all these value systems are equally true (and thus presumably all ought to be tolerated), a weaker view is that these value systems all ought to be tolerated, and probably the most common version of the view is that some of these systems (the reasonable ones) ought to be tolerated.

The idea that all value systems are equally true, or at least equally valid — a social surrogate for true that purports to regulate behavior — requires us to believe we can base a society on disagreement at a fundamental level. This is not, as the Left would have it, similar to different tastes in food, clothing or attire, or even a tolerance of eccentricity (which, oddly, seems to belong to the Right). It refers to sharing the same basic values and outlook on the world, which is preferable to the alternative, which first looks like a coat of many colors and rapidly begins to resemble an unruly mob.

We can argue that pluralism could go farther and for example, demand freedom of association. With this, we would not have to hire, buy from, sell to, rent to, talk to or do business with others for any reason. While most societies view this as somewhat of a right, or at least a convention, our society sees this as troublesome because it introduces inefficiencies. If Person A wants to buy a gay wedding cake at a baker, and the one near them refuses to sell to them, they can always go down the road. But time is lost, and money is thus lost, and we lose the simple certainty of business which says we can go anywhere and do anything if our credit rating is good. A sane society would see values as more important than commerce, but pluralistic societies have nothing in common but commerce and maybe some ideology, so pluralism inevitably leads to the conditions that necessitated its creation.

Some have tried pluralism by community. In particular, the original government of the United States, and later the Confederate States of America, were committed to the idea of “states rights” or the notion that individual states could choose their own rules. This conflicted with the desire of Northern liberals to control the South, so they picked a fight over slavery because it was a polarizing issue. After that war, it became clear that states rights was a dead concept, replaced by the notion of a Single Right Way. While pluralism opposes the notion of a singular correct path, it cannot overcome the tendency of governments to make rules, laws and regulations “in your best interest” which can then compel obedience to ideological objectives. For example, a government might insist that hospitals admit anyone regardless of whether their staff wants to associate with that person or not, or demand that pharmacies sell abortion drugs in case people “need” them. Pluralism fails the more people demand function and efficiency from their society.

In addition, pluralism fails to take into account that there will be at least one privileged viewpoint: that of The Establishment™, which refers to those who work in government, media and the public face of industry. People who join the establishment are those who have a higher commitment to working within the system — and thus gaining personal success — than to any truth, purpose or ideal. When someone wants to succeed at government, he must invent new ways for government to be important so his future resume can show an addition that was uniquely his creation. In a pure pluralism, government would have one of many perspectives, but in reality, some kind of leadership will have a privileged position by the nature of having to make and enforce rules. If that leadership takes the form of a State, it will create an establishment — hereditary aristocracies do not have this problem, having barred entry to all but the truly exceptional, who are rare — as people compete for personal success. There pluralism will also die under the ambitions of individuals.

This leaves us with the perspective of pluralism as prolonged suicide. Since the Right has been demonized in the decades following the Second World War, it has focused mostly on “thought experiments” which take the form of arguments to circumnavigate the logic of the Left. As an argument, pluralism may have some success because it points to the hypocrisy of the Leftist viewpoint — but only to outsiders. Inside the Left, it is tacitly acknowledged that the one goal is egalitarianism (or “equality”) through collective altruism, which throughout history has without exception amounted to taking from the competent to subsidize the rest. For that reason, leftists do not see their jihad against non-egalitarian viewpoints as hypocrisy, since their goal is not “freedom” or even actual equality, but a subset of equality defined by its method of using subsidies. Leftists fear their own insufficiency, and create a barrier through equality which forces society to accept them as part of the in-group regardless of their personal choices. This alone, a malignant form of individualism, represents their only goal and it can never be hypocritical in their eyes.

This returns us to the question, then, of civilization design. How do we design a civilization that is improving in quality, rather than degenerating and hiding that fact behind the facade of “progress”? It starts by recognizing that the real enemy is what undoes the civilization compact, an agreement between people to sacrifice some individualism so that social order can exist. This occurs not so much because social order is efficient, or safe, but because it enables a society to rise above the norm of all but a few human groups, which is poverty and corruption through social disorder. Those who fear insufficiency want the benefits of civilization without the obligation, so they cobble together a set of ideas enabling them to have “anarchy with grocery stores”: egalitarianism, anti-hierarchy, altruism and liberalism/progressivism. This destroys the civilization compact but allows the individual to feel safer because they are included by command, and can never be found in a Darwinistic moment to have failed to live up to the civilization compact.

Cultural libertarianism represents the latest attempt by the non-Left to walk back up that path to social order. It does so by demanding that the anti-order order be weakened, but it can only serve as an intermediate step, and will fail for the reasons above and an even more fundamental one. The enemy operates by lumping together individualists into a mob dedicated to establishing individualism by abolishing standards and order; under pluralism, they will still form this mob, and then conveniently declare pluralism over and take their revenge, as they did in the French and Russian Revolutions. While the pushback against SJW ideological imperialism is a noble fight, the danger of being human is that we rely too much on methods, and then go back to sleep. In that role, cultural libertarianism serves as a proxy for the actual quest we must undertake, which is to build a society once again unified by principle and goal.