Posts Tagged ‘dark enlightenment’

Disaffection With The Enlightenment™

Thursday, December 1st, 2016


Most people, until the recent Brexit and Trump election, had no idea how insane and pathological the Left are. It has spread a wave of shock through the West: these are our leaders?

Like insects, they impulsively repeat motions as if their heads have been removed and all that is left is the twitching reflex. Their ideology says that equality is better than reality, so they enjoy lying, distorting and editing history.

This is why for them, the fact that they lost an election is not particularly important. All that matters is “getting around” that little impediment. Because they are right. 100% morally right and socially right. In their minds.

A bigger story to this election is that the West is finally rejecting The Enlightenment.™ Since we no longer teach anything but post-1945 ideology in our schools, you might ask: what is The Enlightenment™?

The Enlightenment is the idea that the human individual should be the measure of mankind, and each individual should be free to live by intent, not hampered by social hierarchy. In other words: equality.

For every individual to do what they want, even if it is illogical, we must create a theory of equality so that bad results are equal to good results and therefore, it is okay that people are acting illogically. This is the root of Leftism.

From that you can see how collectivism is individualism. Each member of the crowd wants to ensure that he is accepted. He insists, to that end, that everyone be accepted even if they are bad. Now he is guaranteed a position.

Now, many centuries later, we are seeing the fruit of Leftism: broken social order, miserable wimpy people, horrible jobs, endless pollution, the nuclear threat is back again, our leaders are smug idiots, and many more… it is a laundry list of complaints. That is important because it indicates a generalized breakdown of society, not clustered around a single defect but arising from a defective design in general.

Those of us with any sense left are speaking of the only logical response possible: we took a wrong turn, so we need to go back, turn around, and take the path we were on before we went down this road to doom.

What does that look like? Around here, we speak of the four pillars:

  1. Culture. Nationalism (one nation = one ethnic group). Values. Heritage. Traditions. Eject defectives. Praise good examples. A timeless order of life and being.
  2. Aristocracy. Find our best people by inner traits, not single abilities like earning money. Give them the power and wealth. Have a social order: upper, middle and serf classes. Ignore the serfs and limit their breeding. Make the middle classes stay quiet. Ensure that the upper classes are intelligent and moral.
  3. Hierarchy. Social order by caste. Free markets are limited because the audience are the upper classes. Keep proles impoverished. Always promote the excellent, and demote the degenerate and weak. Manners, verbal ability and intelligence always rewarded.
  4. Transcendence. We have goals we cannot achieve, but can constantly approach: excellence. Goodness. Virtue. Strength. Pride. Honor. Aggression. Truthfulness. Piety. Wisdom. Hierarchy. We improve qualitatively by using time-proven methods.

This society would resemble the intersection of England in the 1930s and 1630s. The good people, who are maybe 20% of the population, would be promoted to positions of power. Everyone else would be gently subjugated. Moral and intellectual accuracy and goodness would be the primary concern of society.

There is a paradise outside our doorstep, and we do not need to go anywhere to find it. We just need to re-organize what we are doing, and specifically, stop doing the stupid things that Leftism and The Enlightenment™ induce us to do.

It is time to inherit the future of the past.

As The West Swings Rightward, A Need For Greater Clarity

Friday, November 25th, 2016


In the 1990s, Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington battled for the future theory of Western Civilization. Fukuyama believed that liberal democracy was the ultimate evolution of humanity, but Huntington saw the chaotic formation of groups based on religion, culture, and ethnicity warring against each other for dominance.

As it turned out, Huntington was right and Fukuyama got the “also ran” award. The point is that there is no perfect society, only a clash between approximations. People fight over the possibility of identity, which is an intersectional hybrid between ethnic group, religion, political group and social caste. There are no easy answers.

The “clash of civilizations,” Huntington’s vision in which identifiable groups separated, won out over the “end of history,” in which we all ended up being safe and uncontroversial by joining the trend of liberal democracy. Fukuyama’s vision was safe; Huntington’s, disturbing and as lawless as the American frontier.

As the dust settles, it becomes clear that Huntington won. Fukuyama predicted a future of endless liberal democracy, and bravely revealed the emptiness of this option; Huntington, as if anticipating this, projected a future of endless warfare in which group identity would be more important than individual identity.

Time passed. “The end of history” (sensu Fukuyama) gave way to the Huntingtonian vision of world tribalism with the rise of terrorism and clash between West and Islam. This new tribalism invalidated old concepts, like liberal democracy, equality, diversity and the nation-state.

“The end of history” was, after all, a hopeful vision. Perhaps we could stop struggling and see a certain form factor as the basis for politics forevermore. But that made no sense. Nature abhors a vacuum and it also hates the static. Instead, we have endless conflict, from which clarity emerges, much as it does through Natural Selection.

The world is far from static. Instead, constant conflict allows the sanest among us to suppress the rest so that the minority viewpoint of sanity can prevail above the usual monkey dynamics, drama, neurosis, attention whoring, victimhood pimping, passive aggression and other distractions.

In this new reality, the humans who have some sense of reality are looking toward avoiding the nonsense warfare of those caught in symbolism, and instead are hoping to find a pragmatic balance where even the isolated can have political interests simply by standing up for what they want, outside of the public drama.

This creates not a void, but a momentum which demands that clarity arrive. The Alt Right has triumphed with the election of Donald J. Trump, but where to go from here? Clearly the candidate needs support but the public is at a loss for how to articulate what is needed.

Fellows at Alternative Right give us, as always, a clear direction where the rest of media is fetishing choas. Their outlook sees a the Alt Right as one step toward an ultimate evolution of politics, one in which clarity needs to beat out trends for a sense of direction and purpose:

Also remember this: the Alt-Right can inspire its chosen and future audience—and also trigger its opponents—simply by focusing on moral and mature European identitarianism and Western traditionalism, and by addressing the awkward issues of race and excessive Jewish power in a spirit of honesty and humaneness. Our opponents are so extreme that we can trigger them merely with our common sense and moderation.

The point is this: end the Enlightenment™ notion that good intentions are good policy, and replace it with the core of the Right, which is uncompromising intense Realism that urges us to find transcendental goals above focus on human egos and intent. Speak that in plain language, and apply it in every policy question, and people will find themselves drawn to it.

Realism works. The policy of “good intentions” does not. If we speak this in a neutral and informed way, for example saying “Diversity does not work because it denies each group the ability to set standards and values, creating a constant conflict over that topic,” instead of ranting on about inferior races that we hate like Hollywood Nutzis, then we crush illusions and convert people.

There it gets more complex however. The Alt Right is an ecosystem. This means that instead of all of us doing the same thing, like cogs in a machine or Communists marching in uniform, we all have unique roles and we exist as a “big tent” with much internal variation so that we do not need external critics to keep ourselves consistent.

For that reason, we obey a “no enemies to the Right” motto which means we allow people to be themselves in our big tent, and express whatever extremities they wish, as long as those extremities serve in some what to advance the “transcendental realist” outlook of the Right. Let the left attack them, but we should not be attacking those who are helping us to advance our ideals, whether they are mass murder fetishists or just 400 lb naked basement trolls.

This does not mean we must endorse their viewpoints, or claim that they speak for us. We can criticize those viewpoints, and this is commonly done by pointing out the inconsistencies in those philosophies. It is also fair game where certain beliefs have been tried to bring up the past and infer a connection between philosophical inconsistencies and bad results in reality. This can be done without attacking any person as the Left does, even when quoting them and disagreeing; such behavior is part of informed debate and is how the Right thrives. We need constant inner war to clarify where our values overlap and where we should be advancing in order to keep consistent with those most basic shared values.

This gives at least two fronts. On the facing end there is the responsible Alt Right:

People who come to the Alt-Right (if I’m any indication) are usually a bit uneasy at first with ideas they have been taught to despise their whole life. Months ago, when I first started exploring these new ideas I was still cautious, and seeing Spencer yelling ‘Hail Victory’ back then might have turned me off. While I had been questioning what I had been taught about race for some time before coming to the Alt-Right, it took a while for me to get comfortable with my own thoughtcrimes. Normies have to be eased into this.

On the back end however, we need more of the “bad boy” appeal that made the Alt Right so powerful during this election. In the West, we have a mythos of informed outsiders telling us the plain truth that cannot be spoken in society, so has been forgotten. Whether that truth-teller is Beowulf or Zarathustra, we are accustomed to civilization inserting its head in its posterior and becoming oblivious only to the vital facts it needs to know.


This rowdy and uncivilized behavior — including trolling, provocation, mockery and irreverence — is what allows the Alt Right to keep widening the Overton Window and going beyond it. The goal of this type of behavior, including edgy Hitler references at NPI conferences, is to force acceptance of previously taboo ideas. This aims to throw away the Overton Window entirely, to finally end World War II by terminating the guilt and shame heaped on the losers, and to allow us to once again openly discuss previously censored ideas like eugenics, nationalism, the different IQ levels of different social castes, the failure of liberal democracy and other topics that were commonly discussed before WWII but not after.

What is vitally important is that this second wing not disrupt the first. Many who were advancing the “Alt Right = White Nationalism” trope allowed this symbolism to become a replacement for ideation and direction. This is symbolism, and we need to approach it as being only what it is, which is putting certain previously-taboo topics back on the table so we can finally figure out what we think about them.

Huntington, Nietzsche and Houellebecq should probably be named patron saints of the Alt Right. Huntington told us that nationalism was going to emerge naturally, not through ideology, as the world linked up. Nietzsche told us that a morality of pacifism, equality, tolerance and non-violence would make us weak and existentially miserable. Houellebecq pointed out that Western Civilization is falling apart because we have made life an ugly and overly-sensualized obligation, removing any sense of pleasure found in the natural process of living itself.

This is the direction the Alt Right now needs to push: nationalism from Huntington, a new morality from Nietzsche, and a renovation of joy in life itself from Houellebecq. We must cross another taboo barrier, which is the taboo against Social Conservative ideas because anything which does not encourage constant sex, drugs/drink and media consumption must be un-fun. The problem is that while “fun” might be had in the short term with the constant prole party atmosphere of the dying West, it also crushes us inside, and so makes us weaker and ultimately, self-hating.

We need to turn this society around. Trump/Brexit was just the first step, peeling the outside layer of an onion composed of many layers. At the heart of the onion is this: societies that succeed lose their sense of purpose because they have achieved the goal of creating civilization. Then, they allow too many less-useful people to breed while the wealth empowers people to become special interest groups who do not view their future as bound up with that of the civilization. This produces an alliance between the wealthy and the proles to essentially abolish all laws, standards and morality, replacing them with “anarchy with grocery stores” so that profits can be high and behavior low. The problem with this type of society is that it immediately reverts to third world levels.

The raging egomania of this time was caused by allowing people to have power outside of the hierarchy or in opposition to the goals of that society. This in turn is caused by lack of a purpose outside the reactive, a type of stasis where we assume that everything is basically right except for small problems that then can be fixed with direct action. This has us reacting to material details, instead of noticing patterns, and so decline sneaks up on us.

To escape this pattern, we need to restore the notion of civilization having a purpose again, so that instead of reacting we have inner momentum toward a semi-attainable but ultimately never fully attainable goal, such as the transcendentals (goodness, beauty, excellence, virtue, truth/realism).

This is what Bruce Charlton explains as a struggle to find a will toward goodness in our hearts which is the basis of the revolution against modernity:

To analyse Life (including politics) in terms of power-differentials, economics, nationalism, racialism, or sex-politics is objectively and historically Leftism; hence the Alt-Right are (merely) Leftist heretics – and this can be seen by the clear motivation of the movement to take-over The State Apparatus in order to sort-out the economy, harness and encourage national pride, reverse the racism and sexism of the Left and so on.

It’s not that these objectives are bad, actually or necessarily, but that these are all Leftist objectives which merely tweak the system without reversing its direction – all of them were historical objectives of radical political movements, mostly in the 18th or 19th century, and all flowed-into modern New Leftism (political correctness, SJWs) for the simple reason that they are this-wordly and gratification-orientated and justified (i.e. utilitarian).

…Perhaps/ Probably we cannot at this point and from here, go directly to Christianity (although that is the eventual goal); but at least, and as a first-step, we absolutely-must reject the materialism, scientism, positivist, hedonic focus of modernity; and restore spiritual objectives as the natural and universal focus and motivation of human life.

Another way of phrasing the above: modernity — and this is what we are warring against, the civilization created by The Enlightenment™ after years of decline — consists of purely material reactions because it has negated the ability to have a purpose.

The philosophy written about on this site, parallelism, emphasizes an opposite to rationalism, or the tendency to zero in on a single attribute of a situation and to derive a cause that will create it. Parallelism instead uses cause-effect reasoning in a historical sense as a means of understanding the likely consequences of any given act, and suggests that we pay attention to patterns, especially those that manifest in parallel in multiple areas.

Now this is where it gets interesting.

Wanting a spiritual revival makes sense, but we will achieve it indirectly. We cannot demand the effect we want directly and have it occur because we will not have done the groundwork for it. Instead, we need to awaken the desire to do good in a general sense, and have that manifest in parallel in politics, culture, religion and socializing. That will produce an emergent spiritual revival as we innovate new methods for achieving the changes we desire, including simple ones like Nationalism.

In other words, we cannot have a spiritual revival by working directly toward one. Instead we need a mentality that understands why a spiritual revival would be a good thing, and by implementing that across the board in society by demanding realist programs that achieve good results, instead of merely good intentions, we will awaken that revival.

This comes at a time when the Alt Right is wavering in its purpose because having achieved one big goal, its consensus is now fraying. This can be stopped with a simple prescription: we want to end Modernity because it is an existential horror that has caused our people to stop breeding, and implement a society free from policies designed around anti-realist thinking.

It is fortunate, too, because the Left will retaliate as they usually do. For them, equality is Utopia and any means to that end is a morally good act, even if the method is immoral like guillotines, gulags and concentration camps. This Utopian ideology makes them willing to go to greater extremes, ones that the Right generally cannot comprehend because they are corrupt and destructive. As Matt Briggs writes, the Leftist counterattack will be an attempt to silence us:

The Left has already purged all mainline offline institutions, and so it was natural enough for them to move online.

Yet all their efforts online would if not abetted largely come to naught, because the (Alt) Right adapts as quickly to the tactics of the Left as the Left moves to attack. If unaided by external forces, the Left would at best come to a stalemate, if not endure outright losses, as they have with Brexit, Hungary’s reform, the success of Marie Le Pen, the rise of Trump, and other versions of elite-rejecting “populism” (losers in democracies always call their enemies populists, but democracies by definition are populist).

…The effect will be twofold. Governments themselves silencing critics, and companies using stringent interpretations of government rules and laws to increase banishment. The Internet itself is (more or less) in the hands of the United Nations, and if there is one consistency of the UN since its inception, it is that it uses its powers to stifle dissent.

He makes a good point. Already the Leftist press is beginning the witch hunts. They will not stop at a single event, but keep pushing until they are able to once again destroy lives as a warning to others: conform or be shattered.

In response to this, it seems that there is only one reasonable response: counterattack!

The positive reason is that if we press the attack into real-world arenas, we cannot lose! Let that sink in. If we establish a beachhead in meatspace, then two things happen. One, our various enemies, both organizations and individual ideologues, will be forced to divide their efforts between attempting to squelch an online community and attempting to stop it from growing further into the material plane, which will only become more and more difficult as our numbers increase. The second effect is a reciprocal one; those who join the alt-right as a result of real-world actions will participate in the online community and vice versa. Note that the first and second events here show us an even larger feedback loop.

This process requires a singular step: we must legitimize all political ideas and all methods so that they can be discussed without the willingness to take up the topic being seen as proof of being evil like Hitler. When the Alt Right desensitizes this world to Hitler-like behavior, and if it does not get absorbed by its own symbolism, its victory will be that we can finally talk reasonably about these ideas, and not be forced to swing toward Hitlerism because it is the only zone where such things are acceptable.

Marginalizing the Right has created that type of dichotomy, between mainstream cucks who will not mention anything smacking of these things, and an underground drugged on ideology who talks only of these things. The Alt Right has begun to end the marginalization of the Right, and in its place will come a newly liberated dialogue.

Bruce Charlton again, with perhaps most important advice for the Right, which is to be obstinate in asserting that what we see is real, and what they say is all lies, so we cannot back down. It starts, for him, with accurate perception of Reality, i.e. realism:

Perhaps the most important thing we can do, is not to do – to cease to help, to stop actively assisting the false-reality Matrix in its interaction with the false-selves of the mass of people. Being reasonable helps The System – while being un-reasonable, ceasing to fear, being uncompromising in of personal support of The Good so far as we understand it… all such helps Reality, which is divine, and operates by many, including unknown, pathways.

Also – our main ‘act’ in this world is thinking – I mean conscious thinking that comes from our real selves: that is the primary act; without which no behaviour, words, nothing can possible be of positive value.

The Alt Right needs to clarify its position. We hate Modernity. It is all lies. It starts with Enlightenment™ thought in recent history, but really, anything which reeks of individualism (intentions of the self > reality) is toxic. We aim to defeat these things and restore Western Civilization, and it begins with being able to be introspective enough to know our intuition, despite living in a civilization that is addicted to distraction for the very purpose of crushing any introspection or intuition.

With that in mind, we are fortunate that Richard Spencer and the NPI decided to push harder and invoke the Hitler taboo instead of pretending to be respectable and getting co-opted that way. Much of the Alt Right is now being forced into virtue signaling its disapproval of Spencer, and this has forced upon us the need to figure out what we stand for — and quickly.

The Alt Right

Thursday, October 27th, 2016


The Alt Right rose, then tried to figure out what it was. It knew a general direction, which was that it said the stuff that the mainstream Right wanted to but could not and still keep its jobs, but beyond that, it was confused.

It arose from a mishmash of philosophies. The New Right, Traditionalism, White Nationalism, Paleoconservatives, Neoreaction, Nietzschean conservatives and Dark Enlightenment met in a blender. Some have suggested that the intersection among them is right, but more likely, it is their shared forward ideal: a resurrection of the greatness of Western Civilization, and to that end, the means and methods required to achieve it.

Many have contemplated it. Among the best:

And that is only a small sampling of all that has been written on this topic, although these pieces at least cover all topics and link to all major articles. And still, the definition remains fuzzy… let us look at some recent sources:

“Will The Real Alt-Right Please Stand Up?”:

It seems to me that, if anything, the Alt-Right is a blanket term applied to all non-mainstream conservatives of all stripes that serves more as a negation than a positive claim. In other words, if anything, the Alt-Right brings people together based on what they mutually dislike, not a shared set of ideas.

Mr. Heft makes an essential basic point here: the Alt Right is formed in opposition to modernity, and there are many degrees of this. On the farthest Right, people want a restoration of traditional civilization to provide a new golden age of Pericles, as Arthur Schopenhauer suggested. We know what we do not want: the soul-killing, environment-killing, culture-destroying, pointless and tedious modern age, despite its good shopping and wide variety of ethnic food.

And what distinguishes those views?

“The Rise Of The Radical Right: The Alt Right, Neoreaction And The Trump Campaign”:

Meanwhile, the movement itself is an amalgamation of all ‘alternative’ right wing views that are today considered heterodoxy. This means that the views of one person who considers himself to be part of the ‘Alt-Right’ can be, though do not necessarily have to be, radically different to another.

Summary: these views are socially unacceptable. Taboo, in other words, they are forbidden by informal social rules from being uttered. All of the people who are currently thriving in this wasteland think that these things should not be mentioned. So: speakers of hidden, or dare we say… occult… notions of reality.

A New Right thinker of note expands on this:

“A Talk With Daniel Friberg, Co-Founder Of Arktos and RightOn:

What I mean with the Real Right are those people, organisations and ideologies who do not accept the framework that the Left has set on the public debate.

…The success of the Alt Right illustrates the effectiveness of metapolitical methods. Via cultural means they have changed discourse and the boundaries of the public debate; they have changed the restraints of how we are allowed to think and eroded the shared dogmas of the Left and Old Right.

Two points here: first, this is a cultural revolution, and second, it rejects Leftist vocabulary. This is important because social pressures invert terms or reverse their meanings in order to control a population of faceless equals. Cultural revolution means that instead of fighting over existing political symbols, we decide what we want first and then cause it to rise organically through many avenues.

And then follows an attempt to simplify…

“We Are The Alt-Right”

Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious. This is the Alt-Right.

This expresses the formula that Alex Birch and I worked up for CORRUPT back in 2008:

  • Anti-democracy. Realizing that mob rule and trends do not successfully substitute for leadership by quality people.

  • Human Biodiversity (HBD). Recognizing the differences between groups, and more importantly individuals, and that every ability fits a normal distribution pattern in every population.

  • Ethnic Self-Determination. Every ethnic group needs its own self-rule and its own continent. This is not an argument against any specific ethnic group but a recognition that each group has its own self-interest and that under diversity these clash. Diversity does not work, no matter which groups are the ingredients.

  • Transcendental Purpose. We must find some way to connect to the beauty of this world and understand nature as an order superior to our own intentions, possibly including the metaphysical side of nature which is described by the various religions.

  • Anti-equality. Equality works for arithmetic, not people and not groups, including social castes, races, ethnic groups and families. People are different, with different abilities that are mostly genetic if not all genetic.

In a time when many people want to enter the Alt Right, and control it by redefining it, it is important to remember this bottom line: The Alt Right is against equality.

That dividing line separates the wannabes from the real deal. The wannabes will accept everything else but that; they want to eject certain ethnic groups, but are not against diversity itself; they want to throw out the elites, and then hold more elections to get new rotten elites. They want us to all be Orthodox Medieval Crusader Catholics, but then, equality is the basis of their social order (as long as one prays twice a day whilst facing Mecca, or, perhaps Pennsylvania). All of them get it wrong.

The Alt Right is a revolution against the past millennium. We do not believe in equality. From that, all else flows; equality is the illusion of our time dating back to before the Peasant Revolutions and the Magna Carta. It is the basis of all modernity, all Leftism, and the type of collectivized individualism that creates these things (which in turn arises from civilization success which enables lower orders to outnumber the higher).

This brings us back to the first opinion cited above: the Alt Right is a rejection of Modernity, with modernity not being a span of years or a type of technology, but a type of civilization design based in equality. Modernity is the cold night of the moon to the warm sun of the golden ages of humankind.

The Alt Right formed in order to get away from both mainstream conservatism, which is a hybrid of Leftism called “liberalism” or “neoconservatism,” as well as White Nationalism which essentially wants a classless society in the Leftist model in which all white people are merged together into a grey white race, sometimes called “ethno-Bolshevism.”

White Nationalism is filled with crazies and is at least 50% informants. It failed for a reason. If anything, White Nationalism is a stepping stone to reach the Alt Right. White Nationalism, and its precursor National Socialism, are still stuck in the modern paradigm of equality, “Systems” of rules and regulations, and allowing material orders like demotism — consumerism, democracy and social popularity/peer pressure — to determine what is right. The Alt Right wants us to find what is right, and then have society pursue that, instead of the other way around.

If anything, the Alt Right is more Nationalist than White Nationalism. It recognizes the need for national and regional identity in the identitarian model; it rejects the idea of forming a generic white race and then allowing modernity to exist as it has. It throws down the Constitution and burns the Declaration of Independence. The Alt Right is total rejection of modernity.

Unlike Neoreaction, the Alt Right gives a nod to Radical Traditionalism, the system of thought espoused by Rene Guenon, Aldous Huxley and Julius Evola. It wants a rising civilization against, capable of the greatness of the past.

For this reason, the Alt Right is challenging to define, because first and foremost it requires people to accept an entirely different view of civilization than anything they see around them. Then it leads them through rejection of what exists now, and some basic ideas of what they want instead. Then it shows them the substructure required to support those ideas, and suddenly, we have left modernity far behind, like Peter Pan sailing over London at night.

Those who want to control the Alt Right are trying to boil it down to a single principle, like how the Leftist ideology has “equality” at its core. This takes what is not-modern and places it back within the modern, effectively neutering it. This amounts to entryism by Leftism into the Alt Right and will sabotage it as surely as making it a Justin Bieber fan club.

Instead, the Alt Right suggests we keep going past all boundaries and all expectations. Our societies are doomed if they stay on the current path; this is a good time to dream, and for the first instance, to get it right. We are facing an evolutionary hurdle here: either we surpass modernity, or it buries us.

Perhaps the above will help some intrepid venturers make the journey.

Interview With Roderick Kaine, Author of Smart And SeXy

Monday, September 5th, 2016


Many of you know the work of Atavisionary, who is not only a Neoreaction blogger but runs a lone outpost of sanity on Leftist hivemind Reddit, /r/DarkEnlightenment. He has recently published his first book, Smart and SeXy, which details sex differences in intelligence and other abilities and from that builds a devastating case against feminism and its massive dysgenic effects. He was kind enough to take a few hours to answer some questions on the topics of Neoreaction and related disciplines, as well as his own work.

What drew you to Neoreaction? At what point in your life did you “awaken” from the modern slumber, and what were the pivotal events?

I take this to mean you want to know what history or experiences led up to me joining neoreaction.

I have never been prone to political correctness because I have always had a very independent streak in evaluating what I was told as well as a strong natural curiosity. Anything I decide to have a strong opinion on, I try to research thoroughly and come to conclusions based on the totality of information I accumulate. I don’t take things at face value or believe them just because I am told to.

For example, I remember in high school the class was forced to read this really bad feminist book called “speak” and though this was long before I had much, if any, idea about the cathedral I just instantly and unambiguously found the story repugnant. In short, the story was boring, it didn’t make sense, and it was incredibly gynocentric. You can see my brief review for more details.  “Speak” was and is blatant feminist propaganda. The political goal of this propaganda was to convince everyone that when a girl regrets consensual sex, we should consider it rape. This goal, of course, is the main reason the whole narrative makes no sense from the very beginning. You can’t have the girl’s internal monologue saying she wants this guy, then half way through doing it change her mind and expect a rational human being to believe it was actually rape. I very vividly remember hating this book for this and other reasons, and this hatred was a fairly clear precursor to my moving toward neoreaction. I had it in me from the beginning so to speak. In other words, I was probably always going to get here eventually via one trajectory or another simply because it was in my nature to hate progressive crap before I even knew what it was.

The first time I consciously started to realize the typical narrative was nonsense was probably when, at the suggestion of a college friend, I started listening to a radio show host called Tom Leykis. For those of you not familiar with him, he basically was saying all the things the current red pill/pua culture was saying years before the modern internet community got going. I was a young college guy at the time when I was listening to him regularly, so you can understand my mindset at the time. Obviously I have done a lot of growing up since then, but it was the stories he would present about guys getting screwed with alimony and child support which especially red pilled me on feminism and family law in modern America. This also got me into the habit of looking out for feminist propaganda, and to automatically exercise a lot of healthy skepticism at anything which painted women as victims. Later on I would spend a lot of time on /r/theredpill which had very similar views and had similar discussions. I was active there when it was between 5,000 (when I joined) and 25,000 members. At that point I started moving away from it. I learned a lot during this time period, but after a while new information seemed to be lacking and I sensed I wanted something more. Basically, the red pill gets pretty repetitive after a while because it artificially creates barriers between sexual strategy and the rest of life and really there is only so much to say on sexual strategy. A lot of guys like me in neoreaction and related communities may be guilty of an addiction to what some call “insight porn.” Basically, novel ideas that seem to explain observable patterns, and because it is so limited in scope you can parse everything you need to know about the red pill in a relatively short time. It is good they do what they do because newbies need a constant feed of basics, and they probably aren’t ready to go any further down the rabbit hole before having time to digest the surface level stuff.

At some point after I began listening to leykis but before /r/theredpill was formed, I decided to pick up the bell curve. I can’t recall exactly where I got this notion, but it was probably a natural evolution that resulted from looking at male/female IQ data because many of those sources will at least briefly reference racial differences as well. This book of course had a very similar effect as the manosphere but with respect to race instead of gender. Affirmative action always seemed like a very bad system to me, and one which was obviously going to harm my economic interests (as well as my relatives and children) in the future. You don’t really need any particular background to grasp that. The bell curve went one step further in showing that the primary justification for having affirmative action, so-called discrimination, was almost certainly non-existent. After that, I was pretty firmly in the race realist camp.

These events as well as probably thousands of much more minor ones were enough to slant my opinion in a reactionary direction, but not enough to paint a complete picture. What kept me learning more was my weakness for engaging in arguments on forums and in comment sections on reddit. People would make blatantly wrong claims, and I would argue with them and in the process do a lot of research. Typically I would find some study on racial IQ differences or some stats about who pays most of the child support money and I would use this information in my arguments. I learned a lot of stuff during that time and it shifted me more and more against the narrative. Don’t bother looking up any of these comments because I made them under different accounts which are now deleted.

So I had all this stuff going on in the background, and I was researching my book on sex differences in intelligence at the same time, when someone on /r/theredpill posted a link to moldbug’s “A gentle introduction to unqualified reservations.” This was around the end of 2013 or the beginning of 2014. Obviously I had a great deal of thought-crime already percolating in my head before I got to this point, so those things weren’t my major take-away from it. I held in my mind most of the important modern pieces of information. Specifically evolution, evolutionary psychology, HBD, and group differences which have only been thoroughly cataloged in a rigorous way in the last 115 years or so. It was moldbug’s concept of the cathedral which really tied the room together. It was a narrative which took all these things I already knew about and gave them a philosophical and especially historical structure. It definitely explained my experience with hopelessly ideological progressives. They were pseudo-atheistic religious zealots, not rational actors. Their behavior and stubbornness in the face of all evidence makes a lot more sense from that perspective. Well, I was so inspired by this structure that I decided to take control of the /r/darkenlightenment subreddit on a whim. Between a large amount of commenting, and the work on writing the book, I had a lot of material and thought it would be better to have my own blog to post some of this stuff. About 6 month after taking on the role of head mod at /r/darkenlightenment, I started and began writing articles based on everything I had learned up until that point. I would say I have had reasonable and moderate success as a neoreactionary writer since that point.

Do you have a personal interpretation of neoreaction that differs from the canon?

Not anything major I don’t think. You can see from my background that my trajectory towards neoreaction was heavily focused on the red pill and hbd. Even now those are the topics I am still most interested in. As far as I am aware there is nothing about the information contained in either of those which is contradictory toward neoreaction, moldbug’s original writings, or any of the main work in neoreaction that came after moldbug.

Keep in mind that I make a distinction between non-ideological facts and how those facts are used. The PUA lifestyle clearly isn’t good for civilization, but that doesn’t mean the information they are using (evo psych) is wrong. You can just as easily use the information the PUAs have written about to make a marriage more secure. Moreover, I don’t think anyone is doing themselves or society a favor by getting embroiled in onerous alimony and child support payments. But no one is doing themselves or society a favor but avoiding children either. It is a tough situation with pretty much no good options. Probably the best solution is to try to go the traditional route if you can, and if your wife and the state try to divorce rape you just disappear to deprive both vampires their blood. Of course, do everything you can to avoid that clearly drastic step. However, I don’t think men should willingly enslave themselves to the family court system and depriving it of cash is more valuable in the long run than even your own children. Now that last bit is my own thoughts and likely isn’t the most popular idea in neoreaction generally, but of course it is in the red pill communities. I think it could be considered neoreaction when you consider the long-term goal is to frustrate or cripple the funding of family courts so that traditional family structures have a chance to be re-instated.

I would like to add that asking a (successful) PUA for marriage advise would be a lot better than marxist/feminist marriage “counselors” a lot of guys are dragged to. By that I mean he would be able to explain evolutionary psychology and social dynamics which would be way more helpful than bland “the man is always wrong” stuff you would get from feminists. If nothing else, the PUA community added a lot of useful information to our understanding of socio-sexual dynamics in reality. Many in neoreaction may not agree with the methods, but like western medicine did with the Nazi experiments, we can just forget the source and use what was learned for the greatest possible benefit.

Stepping away from internal neoreaction disagreements to our interactions with outsiders, I think the most heated disagreements people have with the canon typically involve your stereotypical white nationalists. Compared to progressives who focus more on trolling and snide, smug and sarcastic comments, white nationalists tend to get very angry, very quickly. Think of the ones who get rabidly angry and acrimonious when you suggest the problem might not be solely caused by Jews. Sometimes I am not sure if these people are legitimate or just trolling (or shills hired by governments to make any sort of white identity movement seem crazy). Its a Poe’s law scenario. Let’s pretend for a second they aren’t as raving mad as they present themselves and that they aren’t shills.

First, I can understand why they get so mad at Jews. It is a fact that Jews are disproportionately involved in leftism whether it is in creating media or funding NGOs. When there is an article that is egregiously anti-white a lot of times there is a Jewish name attached. A lot of people notice this. I notice it. Most of the writers in neoreaction notice it. It gave the alt right the recent (((echo))) meme. I think there is good reason for European whites to be irritated by this advocacy and that as a group we really shouldn’t be tolerating it.

That said, Jews are still only around 2% of the US population. Money or not, media or not, they couldn’t push the cathedral ahead by themselves. And they didn’t. There are more white, European progressives than there are Jews of any political affiliation. We can also look at examples in history where it was clearly the cathedral in action, but with virtually no influence from Jews. The abolitionist movement and the resulting civil war, for example. The women’s suffrage movement and the resulting prohibition in another. Jews tend to do fairly well at many different intellectual tasks. They are also good at supporting and advancing the contemporary popular ideas, which in our society is progressivism. That is mainly just about fitting in with the culture of the current elites who are overwhelmingly globalist and progressive. This is why I think Moldbug had it right in calling progressivism a non-theological christian sect. You can definitely trace down the history of progressivism and see that in the mid-1800s it was very much tied in with certain denominations of the Christians. You can also contrast modern progressive beliefs with certain aspects of more traditional christian theology and there are some striking similarities. In other words, the ethnic Jews who are progressives are converts from Judaism to crypto-calvinism who happen to be particularly good at sophistry compared to other elites. That doesn’t absolve those other elites of their progressivism or mean that sophistry by 2% of the population is enough to control the culture.

Blaming Jews for our problems is exactly like blacks blaming whites for their problems. It is fairly clear that blacks are largely responsible for their own issues and that the white majority has thrown tons of money, time, and hand-wringing at legitimately attempting to lift them up. It has failed because you can’t change genetics without genetic engineering or eugenics. Having, on average, an 85 IQ prevents widespread success of blacks in the US. In other places there was no admixture with whites, so the average IQ is even lower as is the chance of successfully building a civilization. Blaming whites for black dysfunction is obviously ludicrous for most white nationalists, yet they turn around and blame Jews in the exact same way blacks blame whites for problems with our group.

The major issue with white Europeans, at least from NW Europe, is that of ethnomasochism. Basically, north west Europeans apparently evolved to use guilt (as opposed to shame) in regulating communities for pro-social behavior. NW Europeans avoid certain behaviors because of a feeling of internal guilt from doing them. Most other ethnicities rely on shame for this regulation. In other words, it is more about avoiding everyone knowing you are a jerk than truly worrying about an act being bad. Now this tendency for guilt based regulation has a lot of benefits and is what makes a high-trust society possible. A high trust society functions better because widely distributed cooperation leads to everyone’s enrichment. I would also argue this natural tendency has a lot to do with why the concept of sin became so common and accepted in European society in the past. Sin is a concept which provides an explanation, true or not, for a set of feelings that are ubiquitous among Europeans. Unfortunately, this guilt can be over-tuned and misattributed which is how we get ethnomasochism. I think this is the real heart of white, European weakness. As a heritable trait, it obviously can’t be caused by Jews. And it can also be very difficult to address. It is unlikely we can get rid of this excessive guilt, and even if we could that eliminates one of the most unique characteristics that makes Europeans European. It is probably also a key ingredient in our high trust societies, societies I would argue are worth keeping because of their myriad of advantages over shame regulated societies.

In my opinion, the major goal of any group wanting to ensure the continuation of white races should be eliminating race as an accepted explanation for white guilt. Whatever guilt whites may feel intrinsically is in no way related to the dysfunction of unrelated ethnic groups. The christian concept of sin would probably work well for most of the population, and the evolutionary concept of guilt culture could work for academics. Eliminating ethnomasochism as an accepted meme would go a long way in shifting our cultures back to a sustainable path.

What is Neoreaction, for those who are not familiar with it? How would you summarize it?

I would say look at my sidebar on my subreddit. That is probably the most concise summary you can find anywhere.

The Dark Enlightenment, or neoreaction, focuses on the fundamentally flawed tenets of modern western culture.

Common ideas:

  • Secular progressivism is the memetic descendent of Puritan Calvinism. Blasphemy, inquisition, indoctrination, and brainwashing still occur from the perspective of the progressive religion. Therefore, progressive culture is referred to as “the Cathedral”. The Cathedral consists of influential people in politics, journalism, academia and education acting in an uncoordinated manner to advance progressive principles in society; often deceptively. We do not imply conspiracies.
  • Hierarchies are a natural consequence of innate differences and are necessary for societies to function. Stratified outcomes alone are not enough to prove discrimination or a failure of “social justice”. There is no “social justice,” only traditional justice.
  • The only morality is civilization. Any belief or ideology that works against civilization is evil no matter how well-intentioned.
  • Traditional values are not accidental. They are non-ideological social adaptations that provide good solutions to complex social problems. Cultures separated by vast amounts of time and geography independently converged on similar values. Values converged because cultures that implemented these values had a competitive advantage over their neighbors and became civilizations. Cultures that did not implement them failed and are forgotten.
  • Modern conservatives are last century’s progressives. Many ideas held by “conservatives” today were progressive (sometimes radically so) in the past.
  • Neoreactionaries acknowledge the legitimate flaws inherent to Democracies and are “predisposed, in any case, to perceive the politically awakened masses as a howling irrational mob, it conceives the dynamics of democratization as fundamentally degenerative: systematically consolidating and exacerbating private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption.”
  • A system of No Voice-Free Exit in large hyper-federalist states or small independent city states is the optimal political arrangement. Singapore is an imprecise example with little political voice, but massive economic freedom and high levels of prosperity. City-states would be in constant competition for minds and business and risk losing economically valuable citizens and businesses if poorly run since they can easily relocate. This creates an incentive to remain economically and socially free.
  • Neoreactionaries accept human biological diversity. Individual humans and human groups differ in ability, psychological disposition, intelligence, and other traits for genetic reasons. Genetics can explain 50% or more of the differences in lifetime outcomes within and between human groups. Other factors are minor by comparison.
  • Recognition of HBD necessitates the rejection of the core progressive dogma of egalitarianism. Race and gender are not social constructs and everyone personally experiences that not all men or women are created equal. It is easier to believe in Leprechauns than to believe in egalitarianism.

Is there any overlap with other movements such as paleoconservatism, reaction, new right, alternative right and white nationalism? What is different and valuable to you about the Neoreaction platform?

I would say there probably is an overlap between all of those movements. My preferred way to think about neoreaction is that it is not itself a movement, but a philosophy or even just a series of thought experiments. If neoreaction is not a movement, then it is not competing with any of those things. Rather, it is about putting ideas and concepts into highly explanatory writing. This can then be used help people break away from progressive propaganda. The writings of neoreaction should be usable by any of the groups you mentioned to help support their philosophical and argumentative basis and thus build their attractiveness.

Basically, the goal of neoreaction is to take all or most of the assumptions of modernity and try to analyze them from a perspective that values truth above everything else and very self-consciously tries to avoid modern progressive biases. In practice, avoiding progressive biases largely means disregarding feminine concerns for feelings. It doesn’t matter if group X doesn’t like some inconvenient truth, we are still going to write about it and pursue threads where they take us, no matter how dark or how loudly some cry-bully wants to complain about it.

One good method for doing this is to try to imagine what people in the past, maybe hundreds of years in the past, would think if they were to see the world as it is today. I think Moldbug did this very expertly and in such a way that he was able to by-pass a lot of people’s programmed aversions to wrong-think. This, I think, is Moldbug’s and perhaps neoreaction’s greatest contribution. Dismantling progressive indoctrination in “respectable” high IQ people is no easy task and I think neoreaction does this better than any other far right faction. The most talented and intelligent people are typically the ones you want on your side because they are best able to further alterations to the culture at large. Politics are downstream of culture, so changing the culture should be our first priority. High IQ, former progressives can actually build the sort of intellectual capital needed to start changing the culture back to something sensible. This is why it is so important to wake them up, and why neoreaction specifically tries to cater to that demographic. This is, I would guess, one of the main things distinguishing neoreaction from the other movements. We create content the intellectual elite can tolerate long enough to start changing their minds.

You have just released a book, Smart and SeXY, about gender differences as revealed in research. What would someone take away from reading this book?

You already know some of that history from my description of what led me to neoreaction, but I suppose I can give a bit of history about how the book got started specifically. Around 2010, I was taking a class on genetic causes of mental illnesses as a biology elective in getting my degree (biochemistry) and this is when the idea for my book came to me. Now keep in mind that I already had both the standard education in biology and genetics as part of my degree as well as a lot of self taught information on IQ differences between race and gender as a result of these internet arguments. In other words, I was already very familiar with the differences between the male and female intelligence distributions. I was also familiar, from genetics, of a concept called pseudo-dominance. Pseudo-dominance results from recessive mutations on X chromosomes being directly expressed as a phenotype much more often in males. The stereotypical example is that of the white eye mutation in fruit flies. So when the professor started discussing how mental disorders and retardation are much more common in males all these things just came together and it clicked. I raised my hand to ask if nervous system genes are over-represented on the X chromosome and the professor said that was a long established fact. I decided at the time not to reveal what I had just figured out to the class and it didn’t register with them of their own accord. There was no reason to potentially provoke people right then and there, anyway. What I realized, in short, was that genes expressed in the nervous system were obviously over-represented on the X chromosome. This explains the greater variation in the male intelligence distribution as well as the greater incidence of retardation in males. This is the final nail in the coffin of feminism. If intelligence is X linked, then you don’t need discrimination AT ALL to explain outcome differences even between closely related individuals. Since we know that intelligence differences between gender have a biological cause it means that feminist complaints are frivolous and affirmative action for women is a complete waste of time.

This is easy enough to understand, but as you know the typical leftist would just deny it repeatedly until people stopped talking about it; never bothering to check if it might be true. This was why it was so important to actually compile all the current available evidence for this concept. The plan was to provide so much information and sources that this sort of head in the sand tactic most leftists engage in would be ineffective when used against people who had access to the book. When a leftist tells you to “prove it” you have literally hundreds of citations at your disposal. The book provides a modern, scientific basis for gender differences which can be used to show that current complaints about gender equality are nonsense and also supplement or boost historic arguments for traditional gender roles. Before the book, I think this avenue (modern scientific research) for defending tradition was woefully under-utilized. It is especially effective because while leftists deny most traditions, they claim to support and want to advance science. In order to persist in their delusions about gender equality, they would have to start denying what they claim to be for. I can imagine that is going to cause a lot of cognitive dissonance on their part.

Another thing worth keeping in mind is that during the research I discovered that this explanation for sex differences has been suspected by geneticists since 1972. 1972!!! Yet I had never heard anything about this in any of my biology or genetics classes at a major university. This was not an accident in my opinion. This topic and explanation have been suppressed or ignored by the academic establishment for political convenience. My hope is that my work will make it so that they can’t ignore it anymore, and that it will become a target of more direct research.

How does awareness of genetic differences between the sexes factor into understanding a Neoreaction or right-wing platform?

The over-arching goal of most western right-wing movements is to preserve western civilization for ourselves and especially make it available for all of our descendants. By “our” I am very specifically referring to white Europeans and their descendants throughout the world. Two very major problems are caused by female “emancipation” which are in direct contradiction of that goal. There are of course other things of concern, but I am only referring to gender relations here. The most important is the lowering of the birth-rate of ethnic Europeans. It is well-known that most European populations have a birth-rate under replacement level and that if this continues European ethnicities will eventually cease to exist. Unfortunately, our time to fix this problem is much less than it could be because of our mass importation of swarthy people from around the world. Most of these groups have a higher birthrate than the native populations and won’t hesitate to subjugate them once their numbers reach a critical mass. If we don’t do something in the next couple of generations it is very likely we will start seeing the events that have destroyed South Africa and Rhodesia repeated in most western countries. At that point however, there won’t be a strong US or European countries to suppress white interests from overseas like in those cases so I imagine things would get very bloody indeed. This is something that could and should be avoided.

Female education and employment are directly causal of this low birthrate.  Setting women on paths other than motherhood obviously has a direct negative impact on birth rates. However, it also has an indirect negative impact on birth rate because it interferes with the male ability to signal provider status to the satisfaction of female hypergamy. If you take jobs from men and give them to women artificially through government regulations, you cause a lot of men to not be able to get jobs at a level they are capable of. These men are much poorer than they need to be and thus their ability to attract wives is substantially reduced. Mass immigration policies, affirmative action for swarthies, and free trade agreements do something very similar by increasing labor competition and even giving unfair and unearned advantages to the new-comers. All these policies are extremely bad for working class whites (and blacks descended from the original slave population in the US). Some men may be consciously choosing not to have kids and just play video games, but it shouldn’t be underestimated how much the lack of decent employment opportunities for white men are killing the west.

There is also another problem, not as dire but still important. As is shown in the book, the most capable humans a population is able to produce are going to be almost exclusively male. By setting up quotas for women you introduce massive inefficiencies in the economy which reduces the wealth of the country as a whole and thus its ability to maintain itself and a good standard of living for its people. This is partially the result of putting women into positions they aren’t psychologically or intellectually suited for and also through the creation of make-work jobs which require massive wealth redistribution from taxpayers. Most taxes are paid by men and that is all wealth those men can’t use to have 1 or 2 additional children.

Understanding the biological differences in intelligence, then, are very important in articulating why what we are doing today in these massive wealth redistribution plans are ultimately pointless and actively harmful. Our policies are based on a false premise: gender equality. By knocking out that premise you destroy the justification for some of the worst policies that are causing the collapse of the west. These are all things that traditionalists have all addressed before, but now that have more ammo for their arguments that didn’t exist in such a condensed form before.

You also write regular articles for your own blog. Can you explain the “atavisionary” concept for us?

The word atavisionary is a combination of atavism and visionary.


noun 1. biology
a. The reappearance in an individual of characteristics of some remote ancestor that have been absent in intervening generations.

  1. An individual embodying such a reversion.


a. A person who is given to audacious, highly speculative, or radical ideas

a. marked by vision or foresight

An Atavisionary, then, is a person who looks at ideas, beliefs and philosophies of the past to gain a perspective not available in the present to try to understand where society and culture is heading towards in the future.

Many of the heroes of the dark enlightenment could also be described as Atavisionaries. The majority of the ideas held by the neoreactionary crowd were common place only a few hundred years ago.

Some common examples of neoreactionary ideas:

  • Traditional marriage and gender roles are better for society
  • biological differences between between genders and races are real and have practical consequences
  • distrust of pure democracy and mob rule
  • a belief in hierarchical social structures
  • economic realism

These ideological atavisms from a previous period are largely suppressed in today’s cathedral driven political landscape, and in such a climate it takes a dissident visionary to push against and see past the lies to find truth. One of the advantages of being an atavisionary compared to a regular “visionary” is that many of the ideas have already been exercised in the real world in the past, so we already know that they work in practice.

In today’s progressive world, it is up to the atavisionaries to return civilization to a state of order, realism, and truth seeking.

What do you hope will happen in the future, if things go really well, and what would life in America and Europe look like after that?

Affirmative action would be abolished. Most of the university system would be dismantled leaving only training in demonstrably useful and needed fields. The people who would have previously pursued useless degrees would instead focus on motherhood (women) and technical vocations (men). These people would not be encouraged to take on massive debt. 3-4 White children would be born in wedlock to every family and divorce would not occur at all, or at least not until after all children were raised to adults. Alimony and child support would not exist. Focus on GDP growth would be heavily tempered by concern for the cultural and economic health of native populations. Immigration would be all but halted. New arrivals would be given strong incentives to move back to their country of origin with their children. Anchor babies would not be a legal possibility. Ethnic groups which dislike whites and for whom repatriation is impractical would be given countries of their own where they would be expected to move, and they would have full self-determination. Islam would be banned completely in all western countries. Africa would learn to control their insane population growth. Enforced diversity in housing would be abolished. Freedom of association would be an enshrined right of every person and group. I am sure there is more things I could think of, but I think you get the idea.

Have you had difficulties in everyday life because of your outlook?

I very self-consciously avoid revealing very much about my online activities to others in real life. When I do it is only a small piece of the puzzle and I don’t mention neoreaction directly. As such, it is rarely a problem. However, if I did not do this I could imagine having issues like so many others have had.

You run a channel on Leftist hugbox Reddit called “Dark Enlightenment.” How does this tie in with neoreaction? Is it challenging to have an outpost in the enemy’s camp, so to speak?

I first started running and promoting the sub in the middle of 2014. Soon after that and lasting until the middle or end of 2015 my sub was among the most controversial subs on there. Even though there were only a few thousand subscribers it was infamous across reddit and it attracted a fair number of trolls. During this time I set up a side sub called /r/trollsofde where I would document the more entertaining or ridiculous attempts at trolling. I think my favorite instance was when someone from within neoreaction trolled a patheos writer and all of the progressives thought it was dead serious. I used it a couple of times on reddit to further the leftist circle jerk.

Once 2016 started up, though, most of this died down. Partially it was because I added rules against short comments and new accounts. In the later case there was one specific user he created about 40 new accounts to get around being banned for stupid comments. Those two rules make consistent trolling much more difficult, so there was a big reduction.

I think another part of the reason it died down is because I don’t allow commenting that is done solely for the sake of shock value as is common among most of the alt-right, /pol/, etc. Most commenters come off as fairly rational and let’s face it that can’t hold the attention of people for as long. We have never been about shock value in the way /r/the_donald, /r/coontown, and /r/european have been so most of the attention gets sucked their way. /r/coontown and a number of other subs were deleted or quarantined for this reason. I don’t mind this at all, having to deal with dumb comments from trolls (on the left or right) is annoying and if they self-select away from my sub, or at least refrain from the low-brow commentary while visiting mine, it makes my job much easier.

To your mind, what makes a quality dissident writing? What attributes do you look for in blogs, essays and books?

Well, first it isn’t riddled with slurs or ad hominem. You can make all the same points without that stuff; and far more effectively. Some people might deserve slur heavy ridicule, but you don’t make yourself look better by using it and you don’t make your arguments very convincing to anyone who isn’t frothing at the mouth.

I like articles which are information dense, well cited, and offer the possibility of “insight porn.” In other words, it is not just a list of facts but a list of facts which provide the foundation of something truly explanatory. This was the philosophy I used in my book, and it is the philosophy I try to use in writing articles for my blog. It is also an important part about what articles I decide to post to my sub. You will notice that I have a rule against “click bait” and one off crimes. Click bait is obviously insincere most of the time, and one off crimes are facts without concepts and understanding. I like writers who attempt to understand and make sense of what they know in a deep and well-considered way. Following this is a sure way for anyone to increase the quality of their writing, though that isn’t a guarantee. It is kind of the reason a lot of neoreactionary writers read and enjoy slate star codex even though he is hopelessly progressive at times. Progressive though he may be, he thinks out his writing very well.

What is next for you after this book; are you writing another? If people want to stay in touch with what you are doing, how can they do so?

I plan to keep writing the occasional blog post and moderating my subreddit. However, these are more hobbies than real work and don’t pay the bills. I do plan to make an occupational shift in the near future, but for obvious reasons I don’t want to provide too many details. The left has a nasty habit of going on witch hunts against anyone they deem a thought criminal. You can contact me on one of my reddit accounts or you could email me at atavisionary AT gmail DOT com. [sorry for not spelling it out exactly, but it helps against trawling spam bots.]

Neoreaction Goes Off The Rails Just Like White Nationalism Did

Wednesday, June 29th, 2016


The problem with Leftism is that it has a parent philosophy, and that can appear in any form, especially that which claims to be anti-Leftist. This is what did in white nationalism, and now what will end Neoreaction as any form of actual revolution.

I identified Crowdism, or collectivized individualism, as the root of human decline. It is the challenge of society: how to keep people from placing self-interest above the interests of society as an organic whole, which is different from the interests of society as a collective, whose primary goal is to keep the group together.

A healthy society operates through no universal methods, but several general principles, and these become adapted in many specific ways. One way is culling. Any successful society has internal gatekeepers who drive out the people of lower moral standards, ability and behavior or those who are merely genetically incompatible. The sane form of this is exile; the insane form is either not doing it, or going to the other extreme with The Holocaust™ or some other horrific pogrom.

Crowdism is based in the fear of the individual of this culling and also, of being insufficient according to the social standards needed for society to be cooperative. A cooperative society works toward a goal through its moral principles. Crowdists want a society that is forced to accept everyone, thus forced to validate every behavior, and therefore presents zero risk to the individual but also grants them the benefits of participation. Anarchy with grocery stores.

Over time, the parasites become bolder and demand unions, the welfare state, diversity and other means of camouflaging bad behavior and ensuring that the incompetent are rewarded just as much as the competent. This pathology appeals to the fear in all of us of being incompetent, insufficient, un-cool, etc. Like most human expectations however it backfires horribly and instead benefits the parasitic while driving out the normal.

As I have said many times on this blog, you either have the best rule the rest, or the rest rule over the best, to catastrophic results.

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.

The temptation to make Neoreaction an ideology like Leftism is totally understandable of course. Leftism is powerful. But the most likely form of its failure comes from it being absorbed from within by Leftism, much as I argue that white nationalism became fundamentally Lefty just as National Socialism did. These systems fail because in the guise of getting beyond modernity, they affirm modernity.

As has been said on this blog many times before, the dividing line is equality. If you think all people are morally the same and can be managed by external incentives and rewards, you are a Leftist. If you think we should pick the best people and let them have free reign under a few general principles, then you are an organicist, a realist and most likely a conservative.

I want to clarify that I do not target any specific voices in Neoreaction, but the gestalt here. I do not think this is the doing of one, or some, but a general misinterpretation because it is the most likely interpretation one would take if one is coming from a democratic, egalitarian time. We know only what we have experienced, and it is natural to interpret new data through that filter, but in the case of Neoreaction, it turns it into moderate democrats who want gated communities for whites.

White Nationalism failed because it went the way of Leftist ideology, which — as people never tired of reminding me — made it popular and thus powerful. It was easy to get a group of people together on the idea that Negroes and Jews have destroyed white culture, where the more nebulous concepts of civilization decline, individual moral caliber and Deep Ecology that I pursue tend to confuse and alienate people (much like my personality). But growing popular only to become what you hate and fear is not victory, but self-destruction. Western civilization has been doing too much of that lately for my taste, and by “lately” I mean the past four thousand years or so…

Enough of my curmudgeon ranting. I will add to this post some excerpts of an excellent rant made by Atavisionary:

This work as Atavisionary eventually got the attention of Hestia society. Hestia of course also founded social matter and the future primeval. Though keep in mind that my subreddit, /r/darkenlightenment, is actually older than Hestia. Hestia was formed after the breakdown of the website moreright (which occurred well after I started the sub). You can google this to find out more information, but briefly Mike Anisimov acted with impropriety on twitter and the rest of the blog writers on moreright decided to publicly excommunicate him and branch off. Before they announced hestia, however, I had already created and I tangentially addressed the issue. That was written prior to any direct contact with the writers or ex-writers of moreright. Mike may have instigated the mess and my discussion, but I spent no more than a paragraph discussing internal drama of reaction then moved on to abstractions. You may have noticed a similarity in my modding policy. Attack the argument, not the person. Their decision with respect to Mike was probably warranted in my opinion, but frankly that had nothing to do with me so I won’t comment further. Now I am also suffering a similar ex-communication. However, I am actually the 4th person this has happened to that I am aware of and there may be more. First was Mike of course, then there was NIOreaction who I think now writes under reactionaryfuture, then there was Reed Perry who used to regularly write for social matter, and now me. This is starting to feel like a pattern.

…I won’t go into too many details, save two, but my major problem with “official” neoreaction is that they are far too secretive and far too timid. The main cause of our falling out has a lot to do with their loathing of transparency. Both in the current situation and while I was still on the slack. Prior to recent events, I had already started to distance myself from hestia. It has already been several months since I deleted my slack account but before that the very first major rift between us came when I found this white nationalist hit piece article which attacks moldbug and [redacted]/warg franklin. Warg is one of the head people of hestia, and you can see he was on the email thread linked below. I posted this link in the private slack because, well, it is a bit of a concern if one of the main “leaders” of neoreaction is a literal cuckold. Their response was to remove the link and any comment referring to it. And this wasn’t just my comments, it was a number of people on the slack who were censored. Keep in mind this was a private chat room, not a public forum, so striesanding probably wasn’t going to happen. And wouldn’t have happened now if hestia didn’t continue to make one poor decision after another. Needless to say, I was pretty miffed by this action and it along with a number of other disagreements led to me leaving slack. It is clear from that experience, however, that the allegations against Warg in the above hit piece are absolutely true, and following hestia means following a cuck. It is hard to say what kind of skeletons the other “leaders” of hestia have in their closets. It is also clear that the “leadership” doesn’t have any plan for dealing with this unfortunate history, and prefer censorship to proper strategizing.

…Believe it or not, a large portion of the Hestia society lives and works in New York City. Well they certainly live up to the stereotypes people have about New Yorkers. They have a very inflated sense of self importance.

The short of it is they are far too willing to mislead those who might listen to them, such as the community we have built here on /r/darkenlightenment. Even among those who are sympathetic to them (like me) they take a very high and mighty attitude, which is why you are learning about this today. Worst of all, they have absolutely no respect for the /r/darkenlightenment community. They don’t even want to give you a decent description of their meetup group. They don’t even have any respect for me who has spent two years and a lot of work building and moderating this community. I won’t lie, I am still in awe that they so steadfastly refused to follow such a simple and longstanding rule. I can’t understand why they think they shouldn’t have to follow the rules of my community. No sensible organization with any sort of decent leadership would have pointlessly risked alienating a major ally like hestia so carelessly has in this case. It is clearly a symptom of poor leadership.

From what I understand, part of their reluctance to provide any information whatsoever is that they literally take compartmentalization as a religion there. They aren’t trying to form an organic community, they are trying to recreate a spy agency secrecy state.

The whole thing is worth reading. Obviously I have been deficient in linking to people like Atavisionary and AntiDem in the past, but I am seeing a new wing of intelligent and realistic commentators out there who are concerned with practical leadership. This seems like a good direction toward which NRX and related intellectual movements can orient themselves to avoid the pitfall of Leftist assimilation from within.

Ultimately what afflicts the West is a leadership void, which is what egalitarianism always creates.

In regards to the above, I think it is essential to ask (as always) what is cause and what is effect. In my view, the cause of much of Neoreaction’s internal squabbling is the inevitable tendency of people in democratic times to take democratic interpretations of new ideas, which is why I cluster more with Fred Nietzsche and Michel Houellebecq, who in two books have said more and reached more people than online movements ever will.

As far as what it all means, it is this: the truth is not hidden. Few seek it, and most spend their time trying to hide it further, so that they can act with impunity toward whatever ends they have while enjoying the benefits of civilization. This creates a society of as many directions as people, and it pulls itself apart and then regroups around a lower standard, which is how third-world societies occur. All of human history is basically one great big temper tantrum by the toddler herd while a few sensible people try to restrain them from acting in ways that are ultimately self-destructive.

So it goes.

I wish Neoreaction luck in overcoming this disease. It has slain many in the past. I wonder why so many of us feel the cold shoulder from other bloggers, activists, etc.; is it because they dislike us, or because they want to compete with us instead of doing their own thing? The typical human pattern is that the group standardizes on a mean and excludes the outliers. But here at Amerika, we are forever outliers, because we do not trust the mean.

The Economics of a Coming Dark Age

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015
Reactionaries Should Not Run An Economy Like ISIS

Reactionaries Should Not Run An Economy Like ISIS

I wouldn’t submit articles to this blog if I weren’t very willing to entertain the possibility that Oswald Spengler had a point regarding the coming demise of Western Modernity. It goes almost without saying that I therefore also entertain the possibility that political reaction could be a valid source of direction and truth to get us all through the impending crisis. We will need a good plan for when The West finally busts its gut string and expires in an undignified heap. That proffered upfront, I now propose we examine whether reactionaries can actually take charge once Modernity earns its farewell cart ride to the political science glue factory.

Sadly, the first group of reactionaries to make the big time and no long have to remain the JV is ISIS. Enumerating the current year 1453 in honor of the founding of the Caliphate brings to mind the quaint Roman custom of dating Ab Urbe Condita.   Their efforts to reestablish Sharia Law throughout the world dates them to an era well before Napoleonic Jurisprudence or Post-Saxon English Common Law.   Given that ISIS has actually established one of the most powerful Reactionary States on the planet, we use them as a case study to point out what Reactionaries need to learn in order to make a new start out of the future mounds of rubble.

The initial results are not pretty. One of the first things a ruling state has to figure out is “How do we pay for it?” This is a general as well as a specific question. A new form of government needs to get its hands on resources in order to govern. ISIS is currently no better at this than the failing social democracies that will eventually go bankrupt and collapse in the West. According to the blog Jihadology, approximately ¾ of the revenue this Caliphate brings in consists of either confiscation or resource extraction. Only ¼ consists of productive activity.


This is no more sustainable than the Palo Alto real estate bubble. There is only so much leftover swag from Saddam Hussein or Hafez Assad. The Visigoth Holiday will rapidly run out of beer. Even the 28% or so of their revenue from oil and gas is dependent upon continued supply and an ongoing market. One can only imagine the moral character and reliability of ISIS’ preferred customers. Being the fossil fuel supplier for Saruman’s orc tribes probably isn’t a good long-term business plan. In conclusion, a reactionary state will have to develop the ability to do far more economically than pawn off the remains of what they seek to replace.


From the ISIS expenditure graph above, we discover what may or may not be a more auspicious strategy. Less than ½ of the ISIS annual budget goes to social welfare. These people probably don’t spend a whole lot of their spare time studying The Epistles of Paul. Yet they have taken 2 Thessalonians 3: 10* to heart well enough to not allow welfare zombies to break the back of their social governance.

However, almost 2/3 of the annual budget goes to waging war. Giving peace a chance would give ISIS the same problem Harry Truman had in post-WWII America: a major economic recession. They are literally forced to war by their economic and societal model. Dar al-Islam would go bankrupt if they didn’t have enemies to pillage and raid. In that respect, they have far more in common with the early Christian Monarchies of Post-Roman Europe than they would ever like to admit.

The problems ISIS currently faces are similar to those of Merovingian France as described by Henri Pirenne in Mohammad and Charlemagne. The Merovingian monarchs also raised much of their money by looting. They were more sophisticated, and looted gold and silver by debasing the full-bodied monies of their eras. It was a slower collapse for the Merovingian coin-clippers than it will be for the ISIS wag-halters. The Merovingian kings had far more specie than the ISIS Caliphate has garish leftovers from Hussein-era Iraq to haul to the pawn shop.

What we see from initial efforts of Middle-Eastern, Islamic Reactionaries are the economics of a coming dark age. They have an economy that produces little and lives off the remains of others. Buzzard economics requires a steady supply of carrion to feed the birdies. The carrion has to be provided by ongoing and culturally debilitating war. Peace would be like a car wreck for this badly unbalanced economy and society.

To effectively stage reaction to the ongoing failure theatre of modernity, we will have to answer a legitimate and vital question. What can we produce and do to actually make the world work? It’s a fair question. ISIS has utterly failed to answer it in a constructive or sustainable fashion. Western Reaction will have to answer these questions as the time for massive economic crisis in the social democracies of the West continues to draw ever closer nigh.

*- “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

Neoreaction and nihilism

Friday, March 20th, 2015


As the cluster of new movements dedicated to rejecting 1789 using modern reasoning — new right, neoreaction, the dark enlightenment, the red pill and the like — reach their maturity and begin to decay through the inevitable proliferation of divergent internal directions, their fundamental lessons are absorbed into the general idea-space of conservatism.

Conservatism inherits these ideas because it is consequentialist, or based in the judgment of effects to validate its causes, not seeing causes as things worthy in themselves as in a moral or social view. Its morality is presumed and is not expressed in the philosophy itself, but used to assess the results of various actions (“causes”) throughout history, keeping those that not only avoid immediate bad results but work toward the best eternal results, generally summarized as “the good, the beautiful and the true” in unison with each other.

Nihilism seems inimical to conservatives because it rejects the inherency of morality. Under nihilism, moral standards are a choice we elect to have, and function as a kind of technology or learning, much as evolution is a choice without a clear value. It may be more comfortable to remain simple and wild and there is no objective way to disprove that, only to point out that it forecloses certain opportunities, including the good, beautiful and true. Nihilism takes consequentialism to the next level: nothing is innate, and we must choose what consequences we desire not based on ourselves, for that would be granting an inherent value to humanness, but to the whole picture of existence that those consequences silhouette.

Neoreaction and nihilism share a common ground in this area. Removing human emotion and morality from the equation, they treat philosophy and politics as modes of learning. In the neoreactionary view, government and civilization are types of technology that we must master, and we master those not through moral reasoning in which cause is the only consideration, but by looking at causes and the effects they generate, then choosing which effects are most sensible given the parameters of reality. We are limited and judged by what we choose. There is no inherent wrongness in someone choosing to live in a mud hut, but there is also a lack of potential in it, and neoreactionaries abandon both the traditional conservative view of inherent morality above humanity and the traditional liberal view of inherent morality within humanity. Instead, they see only the question of a species adapting to its environment, and the choices before it.

This works around the liberal idea of “one right way” according to a human model. It instead views humanity from outside of humanity itself. The libertarian roots of neoreaction suggested that government be viewed as if it were a business, questioning how effective it is, and comparing what may be purchased with the same money. In this context, modern liberal democracy looks inefficient in that the end result it produces is miserable for its citizens, where an aristocratic monarchy where culture takes the place of day-to-day government provides a more beautiful, realistic and thus ultimately good experience of life. In this view, civilization must be viewed in unison; acts of individual humans do not exist in a separate context from the group. Civilization is a group effort to achieve a specific way of life that constitutes both an adaptation and enhancement of our natural state.

Humans fear this kind of thinking on an individual level. The individual seeks to extend the morality of self-preservative fear to the group, so that it creates a mentality of protecting every individual on the basis of individuality alone. In this context, the individual feels protected from consequences; thought exists at the level of pure cause, where the cause in and of itself constitutes results if it pleases others. The paradox in this is that by creating an ideology to administer this belief, society creates a goal higher than the individual, and as history shows is willing to sacrifice many individuals in order to preserve that dogma. The lesson of the past two centuries is that ideology is a dead-end path, because it is entrenched in cause alone, and that only cause-effect reasoning produces viable results.

What neoreactionaries, conservatives and nihilists have in common is that all three groups are realists. They do not see politics as a question within the human world, but a question of how humans will adapt to their world. This type of thinking frees us from the negative logic of liberalism, where a moral justification must be defended against reality, and lets us see reality adaptation as a technology for achieving any number of ends, forcing upon us the question that defines us: what do we want? It is easy to complain, criticize and lambast existing systems or details, but more difficult to have a vision of the future. That is where the future of realist thought begins.

“Civil Rights Fatigue” on Alternative Right

Wednesday, July 2nd, 2014


I am fortunate to be able to announce that a piece of mine, “Civil Rights Fatigue” has been accepted at anti-modernist blog Alternative Right.

While the right-wing underground divides itself on many issues, it agrees on more than it does not: mass democracy fails, ecocide is real, nationalism keeps a nation happy, and we do not need liberal ideological government at all.

Since we are in agreement on the big issues, I have been reaching out to notable right-wing blogs in an attempt to draw us all closer to the point of action. Alternative Right, on which I have been gratefully published for several years, has kindly printed me alongside other right-wing, new right, identitarian, neoreactionary, radical traditionalist and dark enlightenment luminaries.

Identity is the basis of a healthy society

Friday, May 30th, 2014


Little kids always ask “why?” whenever you tell them something must be done. They do this because human memories work best when reasoning outward from a core principle or central idea.

In the same way, societies shape themselves around their primal Why. To have a healthy society, make this a strong identity. Identity takes its strongest form not in politics/ideology but in organic identity.

Organic identity comprises three major factors: culture, values and heritage. The three shape each other and depend on each other. Culture arises from a sense of being “a people,” which necessarily involves a sense of some unity and uniformity in heritage, and values arise from the aesthetic determinations made by culture.

A healthy culture loves itself and traces its origins to a founding. That founding produced the ancestors who live on to the present day through a “nation,” or group of similar genetics. These people are shaped by generations of culture that rewards what they find good in their values system, casting out the bad, and so they have similar inclinations.

Identity allows people to have shared values beyond the political. About fair play, honorable conduct and what should be done, in a way that politics and elections with the memory of a gnat cannot.

If you lack this identity, your society will be shaped by commercial forces and government. Media, industry, special interest groups and politics itself will wear you down until you are nothing but a series of compromises, resulting a generic middle-of-the-road approach.

Some people argue for this generic approach because it removes rules and standards from above them. Then, they can do anything they want! It takes them until old age to find out how boring this is. When serving the self, one soon serves the cruelest master, a form of Satan who cannot be exiled to hell. Pleasures age and dissipate. Having a place and doing right makes us feel good, on the other hand.

On this blog, I pay little attention to race-crime stats and human biodiversity. That tendency does not assert that these are wrong, only that they do not communicate the relevant message: we need people like us, formed together and united by culture, heritage and values. If we do not, corporations and government will rule us instead.

When you see crime wracking our society, consider that perhaps that results not from “bad guys” or “bad races,” but diversity itself. Diversity requires a lack of identity. It aims to destroy the majority and its values and replace it with no values, no culture and no heritage. Then only the individual reigns which makes for perfect consumers: neurotic, adrift, desperate and egomaniacal.

The West can solve most of its problems by resuming the practice of having identity which has been taboo since the second world war. Instead of relying on police and politicians, we can rely on ourselves and each other. We can shape our values and eject those who violate our values. In the process, we would lose a massive overhead in government and parasitic commerce.

We can achieve this process by peaceful means. When we signal that identity is our goal, others realize they are in the wrong place and depart. Without the free handouts and political favoritism of government, they have no interests here and will go elsewhere where opportunity is better.

Even more, we can stop the dog and pony show of elections and constant “wars” against social problems. Fix our social problems by fixing our people, and start by giving them a sense of pride and joy in who they are. Encourage them to be better at who they are, not adopt unproven and conjectural “solutions.” Re-take our society from within, and renew it with a sense of purpose.

Casting the first stone

Thursday, May 29th, 2014


Mike Anissimov has been arguing for social conservatism for the neoreactionary movement, and I’m inclined to agree with him on most topics. He shows great aptitude for creating emotional nodal points around political issues, which is why so many find pleasure in reading him.

Here’s the crux of his argument:

Reactionary thought is socially conservative, neoreactionary thought is socially conservative. Both are socially conservative.

Why would I not feel comfortable saying that the average Democrat is surely too liberal to be called a “neoreactionary”? Shouldn’t that be obvious? I am uncomfortable saying such a simple thing because in the last two months there has been an unusual blurring of lines whereby there is the implicit assertion that there should be no line, no line in the sand of social conservatism that strongly disavows certain groups or individuals from labeling themselves “neoreactionary”. Such an assertion (that there should be no line) is unacceptable.

I agree in every way with the above.

What I disagree with is its application for two reasons.


The first reason speaks to our experience. We are all children of a broken world, men among the ruins, the rearguard in the smoke… we are prone to error, mainly because we had to grow up in a time that has shown us nothing but error. Since we were babies, we have seen miles of Hollywood fantasies, listened to buckets of political promises, and heard unchallenged socially popular ideas from our friends that are entirely illusory. When egalitarianism reigns, no one is “wrong” thus no idea is “wrong.” All is acceptable but a personal choice, made without guidance. Thus, mistakes are made.

When we look at our primary goal — fixing this fallen world for those who have the wisdom to shape up — the point is that we want our movement to grow. Neoreaction, Dark Enlightenment, etc. are sub-genres of the New Right and we share the same basic approach: nationalism, traditionalism, royalism. Neoreaction mucks around with “neocameralism” which is basically a royalist proxy for tech nerds. It will be subsumed by royalism in time because it has no fundamental distinction from it. To grow this combined movement, we need to get the smart and able to participate.

Many of these smart and able will tell you up front that they have been through the ringer. Battered by lies and failure, or success and emptiness, they are scarred but still striving for the right thing. I suggest we let them do so, so long as they are actually striving for this right thing. This leads to another point.

We must distinguish between internal standards (policing) and goals (policy). Our policy matters; this is what we strive for, and it represents a competitive option to the current system. If what we endorse will improve life, people will adopt it, much as they adopt better products in a free market or better methods in a cultural one. This is natural selection and it is the only way to replace an existing system; while it can be spoofed, it eventually (slowly) counteracts. Our policy must reflect a better way. Our internal policing does not need to be so strident.


The second reason may be more important. This concerns the workability of our methods. Many of us shied away from the Old Right and even neoconservative right because to us they represented hard, unthinking, blockheaded rules and somewhat cruel moral judgments. Their inflexibility seemed a hallmark of every calcifying and self-obliterating movement, which is hammering on the methods of the past in the present. Most of that analysis was wrong, because some goals are eternal and worth upholding, but the point is that as society starts to unravel, the response by the average person is to bang harder on the table and demand more stringent versions of the old rules. This doesn’t work because it just fulfills the image your enemies have construed of you.

What makes more sense is to be easygoing and keep an eye on the goal. You can’t squeeze blood from a stone, and hammering harder on the table will appeal to people already within the movement but drive away others because you’ve raised the bar to entry. It makes more sense to allow entry by nearly anyone, but grant credibility to only a few who actually understand the material.

As an addendum to this, look to the difference between quality and quantity. Quantity demands “new” methods, and by the same token, hopes to rigorously filter what is into good and bad. Quality looks at what is and figures out how to improve it. People out there have made mistakes, been beaten on by life, and generally ravaged by the ocean of lies in which they drown — I know I have — and thus do not come to us as ideologically-perfect specimens. They need to be given hope, an idea to work toward, and ways to improve themselves.

I am not arguing for leniency or democratic “anything goes” here. I am arguing that we keep our eyes on the goal and constantly strive toward that with whatever we have here. It’s going to take several generations to fully realize and undo most of the damage of the past, at a minimum. For our generation, we need to take the first bold steps toward refuting the dominant paradigm (egalitarianism) and setting up an alternate framework for society. Once that gains momentum, others will join and refine it.

Realism however trumps all else. If you persecute Jews or homosexuals, they will simply find a way to disguise themselves among you and corrupt you from within. In particular, societies that are rabidly intolerant of homosexuals tend to breed them into the broader population, which is troubling from a genetic perspective. Nietzsche’s rule about staring into the abyss applies here.

Instead of trying to jihad against the immediate symbols of decay, let us attack the decay itself, which is in idea not human form. Policing falls to policy. The goal is all.

Recommended Reading