Posts Tagged ‘demotism’

Conservatism Pulling Away From Patriotism And Christianity

Monday, April 24th, 2017

Conservatism inevitably finds itself in conflict with its only real competition, which is the public form of conservatism. The root of conservatism is anti-social; conservatives recognize that most human ideas are pretense and vaingloriousness, and instead point to time-honored methods of achieving the best results.

In America, conservatives are additionally hampered by the fact of the founding of our nation-state in a modified version of Enlightenment™-era thought: individuals are assumed to be equal, which means that we have no social order like caste or hierarchy of aristocrats.

We bemoan our current state of affairs, but it is hard to see how it would turn out differently. When you begin a nation with the mistaken notion that all people are capable of guiding their own destiny, you end up with mob rule, no matter how many little rules — “checks and balances,” “accountability” — you tack on top.

What nihilists know that everyone else denies is that language has no inherent meaning. Only when two people are both using a word to mean the same thing can the word have shared meaning, and otherwise you have two people talking to themselves and hoping the other can intuit what is being gestured.

“There are no truths, only interpretations,” said a wise man, and this is true in that objects in the world are real, and we have only our impressions of them, which by the nature of our cognition are interpretations of fact patterns. This means that laws, like other facts, become adjusted to fit what the audience can understand, not just in a Dunning-Kruger sense but in all ways.

For this reason, checks and balances fail like other laws: instead of bending to the law, people bend the law and justify it however is convenient and popular. It took only a century and a half for the United States to completely invert the original ideal of its nation, which was an ethnically Western European agrarian nation with English-style social strata and a mostly absent government, and this change provoked the Civil War.

Since those who wanted a liberal-style modern government — also in vogue in Europe at the time — won that war, America successfully obliterated its Constitution and replaced it with a Leftist interpretation of the Constitution that emphasized more the emotional language of the Declaration of Independence than the substance of the law.

Americans talk about freedom, liberty, and independence, but these are surrogates for democracy. They represent the raging ego seeking to deny reality by saying “My intent and choices come first, and reality comes second,” because the smallest indivisible unit of society is now the individual. This leads to self-destruction and misery through social chaos, but the ego cares not about that.

People need guidance and hierarchy. A look at The Bell Curve reveals part of the reason why: most are not gifted with the IQs required to make complex decisions, and too many are given just enough intelligence to feel clever and make those decisions incorrectly. There are a few, maybe 5%, who do all the important thinking, and the rest oppose these because the rest will never understand the best.

Among that group, there are only some qualified to lead, which is a trait of moral character and personality as much as anything else. A leader is able to apply cold logic to filter out the normal human insanity, and to recognize that most people are self-deluding and pretentiously self-aggrandizing without falling into hatred for them. This group is at most 1% of any population.

For this reason, any form of demotism — democracy, equality, consumerism, social popularity — will lead to an inversion of the natural hierarchy such that the rest oppress the best, and this has predictably laughable results which we see around us daily: ugly architecture, garbage mass culture, insubstantial food, moronic leaders, tedious jobs, brain-dead moral interpretations.

Conservatism inherently recognizes this failing. We are realists who want the best qualitative degree of civilization and personal existence possible, and realize how those two are linked. Conservatism has never been pro-democracy, and with the collapse of the United States through the election of an outright Socialist charlatan like Barack Obama, we can now no longer be pro-America.

It is time to take the stars and stripes and set it on fire. Smash down all the American institutions. Blow up the Washington Monument, melt down all the statues, and consign the pitiful ruins of the United States to the dustbin of history. This experiment has failed, and from it we have learned that democracy cannot be successfully limited because it grows like a cancer since it appeals to the inherent self-deceptive tendency of human beings.

Patriotism at this point is the opposite of conservatism. If you become a patriot, you are fighting against conservative ideals like hierarchy, nationalism, moral goodness and transcendental purpose. The United States was not designed a Leftist republic, but ideas are measured not by their starting points or intentions, but what they become in the course of their natural life cycle. Any form of democracy quickly becomes something approximating Communism — roughly what we have now — and so there is no point setting even a toe on that path. It is a path to doom.

In the same way that patriotism has failed us, the idea of theocracy has run out on us too. Most conservatives embrace the mentally laziest path of least resistance, which is to insist that we cuck ourselves by following the “work hard, go to church and have a family” approach which enslaves all of us to paying taxes to our enemies and wasting our days in servitude. Obviously anyone advocating this has missed the point, which is to thwart this empire of death by dropping out of it.

As part of their desire to bond us to the failing regime, conservatives tend to say things like “we must follow the Bible first, and this must guide all that we do.” This destroys political activity by limiting its scope to the individual, which conveniently takes that individual out of circulation so that others can rule him. A more idiotic path would be hard to invent.

Unfortunately, this approach is inherent to the idea of a “personal God” as is found in Christianity. The ancients more correctly depicted the gods as uninterested in our affairs, which made it explicit and clear that we are in the driver’s seat and must save ourselves through cooperation. No amount of personal virtue overcomes a dying regime.

In addition, it is time that we mention the Otherness of Christianity. Although it is mostly Greek ideas — combined with the best of Babylonian, Hindu, Jewish, Nordic and Buddhist thought — Christianity consists of those restated in the personal and emotional methods of the Jewish cantors, instead of the more respectable Talmudic esoteric tradition. For this reason, like democracy, Christianity will always decay into a mass movement and adulterate any meaning into what the Crowd desires.

It does not make sense to, like Nietzsche, blame Christianity for the origin of Leftism. The dirty secret is that Leftism is merely the egoism of the herd, and it is an in-built flaw to humanity, especially among the smarter (but not genius) humans. We love to self-delude and this takes the form not of death-denial but solipsism, which is reality-denial, so that we feel like gods on earth. Crowdism took over Christianity just like it took over the West, by subverting and inverting it, but this means that Christianity is insufficiently resistant.

Part of this lack of resistance is its Otherness. We will always feel like a conquered people when our religion comes from lands other than our own, and when the symbols are not ours, but those of another culture. We obliterate our culture with Christianity by admiring its effectiveness in mobilizing others and forgetting that this means the Crowd will soon rule.

Many of us adore the European Christian traditions we know. We love the old churches, the hymns, the strong moral standards and the love of learning. Many good things happened under Christianity, but this does not mean that they are exclusive to Christianity. We need a new Bible, one that implies more than states rules which can be misinterpreted, that comes from our own lands.

Conservatives have faced a hopeless task for centuries. Leftism is always more popular and just as proportionately more wrong. Retreating to core values like purpose/work, religion and love of nation seems like a good idea, but when those things have been replaced by corrupt ersatz substitutes, this means you conservatives will be working for the enemy. Not a good idea.

I have dreaded writing this essay for years, but it needs to be out there. Reject patriotism and theocracy, and instead, let us look toward a future: we need a government by Us and for Us, and a religion that is the same, and we need to let failed institutions like the Church and Constitution slide into the abyss of failure toward which they will drag us, if we do not step off that treadmill.

Jesus, Democracy and Easter

Sunday, April 16th, 2017

Ahh, spring — a time to relish the joys of Direct Democracy in action. Witness the word of The Lord from Matthew 27: 15-17. Read the entirety of Matthew 26 and Matthew 27 from an Alt-Right perspective and you will almost reach the conclusion that Democracy is blasphemy before the eyes of The Lord.

15 Now on the occasion of the feast the governor was accustomed to release to the crowd one prisoner whom they wished.
16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called [Jesus] Barabbas.
17 So when they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Which one do you want me to release to you, [Jesus] Barabbas, or Jesus called Messiah?”

Democracy by its essential functions must tear down and destroy all individual greatness that crosses its path. Nothing bars the way to “Liberté, Eqalité, Fraternité” like the individual who does things the right way and who has their stuff together. Democracy was therefore the ideal tool of corruption by which The Evil One could smite Jesus down and then wash his hands of the deed. Satan, himself only gets one vote. The plausible deniability of a democratic process is the friend of all malefactors from Marius and Sulla to Aaron Burr. The People chose it.

The Gospel of Matthew begins telling us the bad news of Democracy in Chapter 26:47-52.

47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived, accompanied by a large crowd, with swords and clubs, who had come from the chief priests and the elders of the people.
48 His betrayer had arranged a sign with them, saying, “The man I shall kiss is the one; arrest him.”
49 Immediately he went over to Jesus and said, “Hail, Rabbi!” and he kissed him.
50 Jesus answered him, “Friend, do what you have come for.” Then stepping forward they laid hands on Jesus and arrested him.
51 And behold, one of those who accompanied Jesus put his hand to his sword, drew it, and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his ear.
52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

The key verse of this passage is verse 52. All who live by the sword die by it, but those not bound by the law get their way first before death. Jesus, the one who actually asserts that the law should be followed, is led away by the guards under false and unrighteous arrest. Judas, at least for the nonce, has profited immensely from violating laws that his success in his dastardly endeavor required his victim to follow.

A hallmark of Democracy is the restraint of the law upon the just and righteous, while most mendacious, greedy and mendacious amongst us live the maxim of Aleister Crawley and “Do what thou wilt” with short-term tactical dominance as the law ties the hands of condign and righteous anger.

Matthew’s description of what I call “The Paradox of St. Peter” is at the heart of why mob rule and Demotism are disastrous for not just its targets but for those cursed with moral decency. These people realize the fundamental virus sickening the human species when power is actually given to the foolish and unworthy people. In Matthew 26: 69-75, we witness the temporary demolition of St. Peter as a moral human being.

His dilemma and paradox can be stated thus: If he does what is morally decent, he is arrested and nailed to the cross right next to the savior. If he lies to survive, he betrays the man who made him everything that he is. When Demotism destroys greatness, it does not just destroy the great individual. It unleashes a cancer that kills. Read the verses below and see how the mob does not even have to lay a finger on Peter to utterly destroy him as a human being.

69 Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. One of the maids came over to him and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.”
70 But he denied it in front of everyone, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about!”
71 As he went out to the gate, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This man was with Jesus the Nazorean.”
72 Again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man!”
73 A little later the bystanders came over and said to Peter, “Surely you too are one of them; even your speech gives you away.”
74 At that he began to curse and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately a cock crowed.
75 Then Peter remembered the word that Jesus had spoken: “Before the cock crows you will deny me three times.” He went out and began to weep bitterly.

And does the official power of the state work athwart the vile intentions of the unwashed mob? Not when the cowardly, swaddled officialdom learns of what the mob would unleash. The officialdom then tries to duck and evade. The officialdom, like the “military leadership” in the movie A Few Good Men, can’t handle the truth. St. Matthew is enough of a gracious Christian to understate the reaction of Pontius Pilate to Jesus’ refusal to offer him an out on making the hard decision.

11 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and he questioned him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”* Jesus said, “You say so.”
12 And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he made no answer.
13 Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many things they are testifying against you?”
14 But he did not answer him one word, so that the governor was greatly amazed.

If you imagine an angry, hateful mob giving Pilate the deathstare of a pissed off Middle East the entire time he interviews Jesus of Nazareth, you get the context of the interview. Pilate was not amazed. He wanted Jesus to apologize to the nice old men in their Rabbinical robes. Jesus was not having it. The true believers are scary like that. They care about their perceived truths a whole lot more than any of your delusions of adequacy. Imagine Pilate squeezing his cheeks to avoid evacuating his bowels, and you conjure up the situation as I imagine it playing out.

In Matthew 27: 21-26 we get the true measure of both the leadership of Pontius Pilate and the society at large through the gathered mob. The mob howls for the blood of whoever the demagogues tell them to hate. They are entertained. Maybe some enterprising soul sells them goat kabobs as they howl for the carnage.

And Pilate? Wow, does Pilate hate Jesus. He doesn’t hate the evil mob as much. The idiots will always be with us. He hates the man who forces him to look in the mirror and see a pathetic, pseudo-sapient coward of a laughable public official. All leaders in Democracy hate the great man.

It’s not just the religious visionary. They would hold no brief for Richard Feynman if they had to sit next to him in a Real Analysis course. When greatness reveals them to be weasels, they lash out. Jesus was not whipped just to appease the mob. Pilate was smoking with Lucifer’s cheap and sadistic wrath over having to truly learn about the type of guy he sincerely was.

21 The governor said to them in reply, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” They answered, “Barabbas!”
22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus called Messiah?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!”
23 But he said, “Why? What evil has he done?” They only shouted the louder, “Let him be crucified!”
24 When Pilate saw that he was not succeeding at all, but that a riot was breaking out instead, he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.”
25 And the whole people said in reply, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them, but after he had Jesus scourged, he handed him over to be crucified.

They tell us in our civics class Democracy is the best form of government. The best form of government for whom. The Last Men of Nietzsche? The weakest link in the human chain? The vassals of putrid corruption that not only have to take the Gubbermint Handouts but who would genuinely rather?

This is not what Aristotle, Socrates, St Paul, St Thomas Aquinas or even Jean Paul Sartre ultimately told us to aspire towards. Democracy is the best form of government for those who condignly deserve to live under it. Yes, a case can be made that an exercise in Democracy gave us Easter Sunday. But only because the great man being torn down just happened to be Jesus Christ. When it destroys the rest of us, nobody rises again on the third day.

Social Power Is The Enemy

Saturday, January 14th, 2017

The New York post unintentionally — perhaps — defined the Alt Right in a paragraph about the public/private divide in the Republican party:

You might not have noticed but there are really two Republican parties: the gentlemen and the ruffians. It’s not about NAFTA or Russia. It’s about adhering to the rules.

Equality creates the public/private divide because it means that, instead of being judged by the competent, we are judged by how the mob responds to our actions and opinions. Since mobs tend to centralize on personal fear of the people involved, inclusivity is always good and therefore, having standards — including reality itself — which might exclude anyone is bad. This means that in private we admit who we want to exclude, but in public pretend that we like everyone because they are all customers citizens.

Leftism is inherently based around the public/private divide since it acknowledges what works in public and adopts it as an ideology, but then in private, implements an intense hierarchy and militaristic governments everywhere it is tried. This pattern has repeated since the French Revolution and signals an acknowledgement that the public/private split is corrupt or at least corrupting.

This leads us to ask, “What is the Alt Right?” Fortunately, there are plenty of answers right here on this site:

But essentially, the Alt Right is the Right without a desire to censor itself to conform to the public/private split enforced on us by equality. We want to speak the plain truth and appeal to those competent realists out there, instead of trying to make the herd like us as politicians, entertainers, advertisers, prostitutes and celebrities. We recognize that truth is not found in what is popular.

For example, to Leftists, it seems like the goal of the Alt Right was to elect Donald Trump. They are partially correct; it was one of our goals, because the Trump election is a signal and symbol of the rising cultural wave that is opposing the Left. With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the post-war Left achieved its peak, and then everything it did failed, so now we want out of it and related movements.

Alongside that comes a recognition that democracy and other forms of demotism, or measurement of what is right by what is popular, are wrong. Consumerism produces worse products and higher costs. Democracy avoids dealing with real problems and chases scapegoats. Social popularity rewards vapidity and novelty, not clarity and accuracy.

The Right — which we might describe as that which prefers realism and purpose to having a society where our purpose is humanity itself — orients itself toward time-proven activities, and to measure what is good, transcendentals or ongoing goals that constitute qualitative improvement. Our goal is to get intelligent people to “awaken” from the dream of ideology and start looking at reality again.

Trump is a step along this path, but more of a statement of the cultural shift that allowed him to be elected than a goal complete in itself. This election was a stepping stone where the cultural wave, as with Brexit, manifested in a political act that has then spurred on others and empowered voices to speak out what was punishable under the Obama regime.

The next step is for us to realize that social power is the enemy. What is popular, is wrong. This election was not a triumph for democracy but an indicator of how badly democracy got it wrong that has prompted a backlash, and an invalidation of the ideas of Leftism, democracy, equality, tolerance, diversity and gender equality themselves. That is the face of this cultural shift.

Despite that, both the mainstream Right and underground Right (“white nationalists”) remain in the grips of a desire for social power. The mainstream Right cannot shake the desire to play by the rules and be seen as white knights. The underground Right wants to unite people on sheer emotional anger. Both of these lead to the same place, which is targeting the wrong issues and missing the big goal, which is to restore civilization.

Watch this cordycepted cuckery in action as anti-WASP traitor to his generation Paul Ryan heeds the call of the passive:

Host Jake Tapper pointed out that Mr. Trump, during the campaign, promised a “deportation force” to round up the more than 11 million immigrants in the country illegally. Ryan dismissed that idea.

“I’m here to tell you in Congress, it’s not happening.”

Ryan is attempting to speak from a position of re-assuring people that he is friendly, harmless and politically correct so that they can vote for him as a less-bad option rather than someone who might achieve something. This appeals to the inner desire of all human beings to avoid the difficult work of figuring out the world, and to go back to sleep instead, ignoring the ongoing problems.

Trump has two choices here: he can enforce the law, at which point illegals need to be sent home, or he can accept that the law is ineffectual and that political popularity of an action is more important than whether it is illegal. This both weakens the law, and weakens the process of changing the law, because now there is no feedback mechanism to change the law to fit what people think they want.

Republicans however cannot resist the call of popularity. “Everyone is included” is a perennially popular idea. And so, despite having victory handed to them, they choose defeat by endorsing the policies of their enemies that will ultimately lead to demographic victory for the Left in perpetuity:

A group of House Republicans is pushing President-elect Donald Trump to keep in place Obama administration protections for about 750,000 young illegal immigrants, joining with Democrats on legislation to extend a shield on their deportations for another three years.

They have missed the writing on the wall. Americans identify with Trump more than with Republicans. Americans want a wall built. We do not wish to be demographically eliminated for the convenience of the ruling Establishment, which is Leftist but includes cucked Republicans. We want to survive and even more, we know we need more purpose than making money and voting Leftist, so we want to restore the West.

But that goes against the social pressures that have meant political victory for the past seventy years. As a result, we have selected out almost all politicians with the will to be brave, and instead we have these little toady-boys and their dreams of popularity.

Waste Of Time

Friday, January 6th, 2017

The struggle of our time has become clear: realists, who want civilization, stand against ideologues, who want to rationalize the decline by directing our attention with the false metric of “progress,” which is essentially virtue signaling for social status.

Realists face a series of tough realizations. The first is how much recent politics was bungled; after that, the time scale and scope expands. Soon it becomes clear that our society has been afflicted with deep rot for many centuries.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is realizing that the decay runs deeper than politics. It has infested all aspects of life, including the “lifestyle” and daily experience of people, leading to existential misery. Worst of all of these realizations is the knowledge that modern society is a giant waste of time.

Most of what we do is completely unnecessary except that it allows individuals to claim they are important. Most products fail, but their launches allow ambitious little sociopaths to claim they are wizards, at least for long enough to get hired somewhere else. Most tasks at jobs are there to demonstrate the importance of the manager. Most red tape events involve bureaucrats asserting their power over you. Most social events are jockeying for positions in a hierarchy, and art, culture, literature and even friendship get used as means to that end.

In short, competition has created an infinite demand for ways to compete. As has been observed many times, every thing creates more of itself, and so when we make competition in specific areas part of our society, that takes over everything else. That we do it with money makes it mandatory that everyone join in and waste their time.

The average job could be done in a few hours a week, if we subtract out the activities done to demonstrate the importance of managers and employees, the red tape which solves no problems but creates work for everyone, the waiting around for people who are merely posing at being busy elsewhere, the pro forma meetings and emails. Jobs are mental spam for the most part, and they obscure the tasks which actually need doing.

Add to that the other great waste-of-time activities in modernity: returning the constant defective products, researching products to see which of the options are not corner cutting scams designed to get some idiot promoted to management somewhere, spending days or weeks filing paperwork which no one will see, arguing with self-important customer service representatives and waiting in line — endlessly — while someone in front struggles with understanding the simple nuances of the obvious solution to their avoidable problem.

Modern society is a trap. It will kill us off the same way every advanced civilization dies: it tolerates the stupid, who then gang up on the rest, take over and make a society designed for idiots. This exhausts the intelligent, who promptly die out, leaving the stupid in charge for a glorious generation or two before their corruption accrues and society plunges (slowly) into third-world status.

The intelligent are forced into a role by civilization that they feel obligates them to the rest. What this means in reality is that the smarter parts of our civilization are forced to babysit the rest. That group, essentially reckless proles hungry for power and wealth, is the most destructive force in any society, like a stomach that thinks it is a brain.

This exhausts the intelligent, and makes it easier for the proles to take over.

While this happens, those of mental ability are forced to either (1) stand against the ongoing decay and become marginalized, dying childless in small cabins in the woods or (2) rationalize the decline as good, make the right virtue signals and “succeed” despite it wasting all of their time and energy in the process of babysitting the insane and stupid herd.

Rationalization of a clearly sick and moribund society makes them crazy, and from these tormented souls we get our intellectuals and social elites. They tend to be corrupt because their minds are scrambled by having to accept the destruction of their civilization as a good thing, and to assuage their guilt, they tend to endorse ideas like “progress” and Utopia in order to avoid talking about the actual problem, the collapse of civilization, because it is hard to solve where Utopian plans are trivially easy.

The dying civilization of the West has tormented its intelligent people and driven them insane as they try to adapt to a world created for the crass tastes of the herd. They were aliens in their own society long before diversity, and now they are simply ghosts wandering among the others, with everyone waiting for them to die out so the prole party can kick into high gear.

As we come to grips with how utterly insane and corrupt our leaders have been for the past eight years, it is time to reflect on the fact that these acts did not occur in isolation. We The People voted for these idiots; we are the bigger idiots. But who is “we”? Our society has been hijacked by a mob which wants to destroy civilization and replace it with an endless carnival.

Until we start talking about that problem, we are merely putting band-aids on a sucking chest wound. Our civilization is dying. It has been dying for a long time, and its death will be a slow descend into third world chaos, crime, and corruption. The only way to fix it is to take power away from the proles, and restore it to the responsible people, which recent elections have indicated is a popular (enough) idea.

Exceeded By The Alternative Right, “Official” Neoreaction Struggles

Thursday, July 7th, 2016


Last week, I warned that Neoreaction is following the Leftist model because people are attempting to officialize it to capture an audience, as I have warned of before.

The article included the following paragraph as disclaimer, because Atavisionary’s rant attacked Hestia rather directly:

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.

Let us zoom our viewfinders on this part in particular:

I do not think this is the doing of one, or some, but a general misinterpretation

I stand by that paragraph, because I see the tendency to try to make an “official” Neoreaction ideology as coming from more places than not. This makes sense, because that is the Leftist model of ideology. In the conservative model, from which all reactionaries descend, one does not create a universal ideology, but derives principles which are applied in specific situations by localized actors.

Unfortunately, Hestia Society threw a tantrum instead and has decided to stop linking to any activity here on their weekly updates. This is something I anticipated, and hoped they would rise above.

I come from the old school of the Anglo-Saxon world where it is possible for gentlemen to disagree, and not have it become a personal attack. Hestia is from a different culture, apparently. Their removal of content mirrors their general approach to my work, which is to ignore it, with the one exception having been Nick B. Steve’s weekly updates.

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

That Hestia has a tantrum and joins this group is unfortunate, considering that I did not attack them, but offered up a series of general criticisms of Neoreaction as applied. Hestia states in its simplified manifesto that its goal is to “be worthy.” If you cannot handle criticism of your approach, you are behaving like a tyrant, not a leader, and Hestia has unfortunately confirmed this.

Those who cannot tolerate criticism and seek only self-interest are by definition insane and parasitic just like the Leftists they emulate.

This was my email reply to Mr. Steves:

I’m assuming that you’re misinformed here.

> You regularly speak in ignorance of Hestia society and NRx.
> It is hard not to interpret that as hostility.

What is this you are speaking of?

I wrote a fair assessment of a difficult situation, pointing out some
mistakes that NRX is making that I have seen before:

Neoreaction Goes Off The Rails Just Like White Nationalism Did

If I may, let us look at the following lines together:

> 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.

I quote Atavisionary at length for his analysis, not his specific attack.

Regarding Hestia and, however, I do notice that other
than yourself there has been zero support from them for many of us out
here who have two more decades of being active in this area than they
are. It would be hard not to interpret THAT as hostility.

In my view, all right-leaning movements — and by now, I have seen
quite a few — make one of the same cluster of mistakes. When you
think about it, both National Socialism and American Republicans have
tried to make a Leftist hybrid. What I think is “purer” about your
Orthosphere-style approach is that it eschews ideology for realistic
thinking, which in my view includes God (and capitalism, and the other
two of the four pillars).

I contacted what I believe was Atavisionary’s account and have heard
nothing in response.

As always, I appreciate you contacting me directly with comments and concerns.

I suggest a different direction for Neoreaction:

  1. Theory. Recognize that Neoreaction is a thought experiment and series of arguments designed to allow people to see the weakness of egalitarian theory, and turn toward Reaction, the parent of Neoreaction.
  2. Policing. Scene policing should be done on the basis of understanding the ideas of reaction. Those who get it are welcome, those who do not are not.
  3. Demotism. Avoid demotism by avoiding popularity contests which pander to the desires of the individual to be important. This is the opposite message of all reactionary ideals.

If we want to “be worthy,” and be more than an internet trend for disaffected NEETs to blow off steam before going back to Steam for another distraction, Neoreaction must not be a movement, but a cultural shift — this is, again, the opposite of a movement. It is a re-evaluation of values and lifestyles based on a different interpretation of the status and goals of our civilization.

I am sorry to hear that Hestia has chosen this path. I was leery of them before, except for Nick B. Steves who I legitimately enjoy, but now I find myself unable to trust anything that Hestia Society or do. However, as I wrote in the original article, this one incident should not overshadow the rest — Hestia is not the only offender.

The Alternative Right is absorbing Neoreaction much as it has taken over the New Right and pushed White Nationalism to the sidelines. Part of this is because the people who gained popularity in Neoreaction were too often cheerleaders, and only secondarily focused on useful, realistic thought.

The Alternative Right could be stated as not an ideology or movement but a general compilation of topics manifesting in a cultural feeling that we have gone down a wrong path in modernity. Here are some general attributes:

  • Anti-democracy. People vote like sheep, no matter how smart they are. A hierarchy of leaders is needed instead.
  • HBD. This contains both awareness of the uniqueness of each population and the worth of preserving it, and a recognition that equality is nonsense on a biological level among races, castes, ethnies, clades, classes and regions.
  • Civilization. The primary goal of politics is to preserve civilization from destroying itself. Every other goal is secondary to that. The Alternative Right believes in reversing the “right side of history” before it exterminates us.
  • Anti-modernism. Modernity creates — through consumerism, sexual revolution, jobs, politics and everything else it does — a hollow life filled with hollow people who are secretly miserable and empty.

The Alternative Right could be seen as a hybrid between the best aspects of the Left (Deep Ecology and anti-Consumerism) with the Right as it is when it acknowledges its inherent need for Nationalism, or the right to exclude all others but the indigenous group so that the indigenous culture can rule instead of the Nanny State, and for social hierarchy. It is radical common sense.

Unlike the Neoreactionaries who hope to profit by their blogs and parlay Neoreaction into a kind of social identity and lifestyle that inverse justifies their low social status, Alternative Righters are concerned with the salvation of civilization from the inevitable decay that arises when mass populism takes over. The more Neoreaction attempts to be a Leftist-style ideology, the more it falls behind.

In the meantime, some forces within Neoreaction are trying to push the envelope by looking at how technology and markets alter human futures and enable alternatives to Leftism. While this is not a complete answer in itself, it also works as an effective purge of the remaining anti-Capitalism (i.e. on the path to Communism) elements from European Rightists and White Nationalists.

The now-inevitable downfall of Hestia Society shows how Neoreaction has been unable to escape its Libertarian roots and is now on the same path that Libertarians travel, which is social Leftism plus “fiscal conservatism,” a condition approximating that of American Republican neoconservatives for the last century. Like their failure, its failure is written in its hybrid genetics which serve to justify Leftism through Conservative methods.

Opposite Day

Sunday, June 5th, 2016


Let us journey back in time to high school, which was probably when you first noticed the different between surface and structure. Like many observations from childhood, what you noticed was true, but you did not understand the mechanism.

In your classes, you observed that some people could understand the depth of an issue and how its parts interrelated, and others stayed floating on the surface where they could reduce it to easily-comprehended parts existing in a one-dimensional flat hierarchy. For example, to some Moby-Dick was a story about a whale and algebra was a series of equation-forms; to others, the book looked into the human desire for power and algebra was a language for translating discrete quantities to relative ones.

As you ventured into adulthood, you saw this division occurs everywhere, even among smart people. One can always take life at face value, or look at it through the lens of how one communicates to others and justifies one’s own decision as good. Face value creates an understanding of something in purely human terms, with no relation to how it connects to anything other than humans.

Most people think in terms of face value because it is less threatening to them than looking into the depth of structure. In groups, people agree on face value because the goal of a group is that everyone must all get along, and since face value is easily perceived, a group can share that assessment without it being controversial, where looking into depth involves risk and is thus always controversial. This means that in human societies, it is always opposite day:

  • Whatever makes most people feel good or they think is right or profound, is not, and is in fact a scapegoat or distraction from the real issues;
  • Whatever makes most people feel uncomfortable or confused is a gateway to the real issues, and most people spend most of their time in flight from it.

On perpetual opposite day, whatever you are told is “clearly” true is in fact not true, and whatever people get together to insist in false contains some grain of truth. This does not mean that you can simply execute a “180 degree rule” on whatever is popular and do the opposite, but that what is popular is distraction, and the answer can be found by beginning with what is denied and looking into it for depth.

The problem with humans is that their thought process rewards what is comprehensible over what is ambiguous. Truth is ambiguous: it has depth, particularity, internal structure and invokes (many) principles of abstract logic as well as natural law (gravity, Darwinism, etc.). As a result, humans tend to think about what they are thinking, and choose what they can communicate that will make others happy, which is always a subset of actual truth.

As any good leader can tell you, the enemy of getting it right is getting it “right enough” for someone else to sign off on it. People prefer a subset of truth, or something quite short of the whole truth, because they view it as something they can implement, starting with explaining it to their friends, colleagues and neighbors. Thus begins the perennial process of dumbing-down that seems endemic to humanity.

Human thinking is based in self-consciousness, or the perpetual question of “how does this look to others?” with a sub-heading of “we must all get along.” This prioritizes the clearly communicable (infectious) ideas that are mostly wrong over the more ambiguous and thus risky and controversial ideas that are mostly right.

The only solution to opposite day is to embrace the controversy, mystery, ambiguity and difficulty and to find the people who excel at understanding reality and put them in charge. The best must oppress the rest, or the rest will oppress the best, and then in incompetence society will dwell and slowly fade away, like every human civilization in history has eventually done.

But the catch — the difficulty in bootstrapping this — is that this principle itself requires understanding, so is anti-social or at least not infectious. It cannot spread like a disease, but is more like a trophy: those who fight to the top of the heap of ideas applied in reality are able to see it. Usually at that point, they despair, because they realize that this idea will be unpopular.

Perhaps, then, our first target is popularity itself.

Caesar Comes To Fill A Vacuum

Thursday, April 21st, 2016


So guess what life is like once !THE PEOPLE! Are put in charge. We’ll make this easy for you. Bloomberg News is covering the Venezuelan Lifestyle for us.

The tap in her apartment yields water only every two weeks. It comes out yellow. Her 8-month-old granddaughter is ill. And as Yajaira Espinoza, a 55-year-old hairdresser, made her way down the halls of Caracas university hospital on Friday, Zika cases evident in the rooms around her, a dense ash-filled smog enveloped the city.

Verily the Venezuelan Lifestyle is downstream from the Venezuelan Government. The Venezuelan Government is as malignant and petty as the sort of mean thing that high school bullies like to do to the Special Education kids. But that’s unfair! Not all socialists are like that (((NASALT))). I mean the North Korean and Brazilian ones are such nicer human beings. Oh, wait

Brazil’s leftist President Dilma Rousseff suffered a humiliating loss in a crucial impeachment vote in the lower house of Congress on Sunday and is almost certain to be forced from office months before the nation hosts the Olympics. Fireworks lit up the night sky in Brazil’s megacities of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro after the opposition comfortably surpassed the two-thirds majority needed to send Rousseff for trial in the Senate on charges of manipulating budget accounts.

But the impeachment of a dishonest Socialist (sorry for the repetitive syntax) is relatively minor. It doesn’t mar all the wonderful things Brazil has accomplished as an emerging economy. Well, except for one tiny, little problem. President Dilma Rousseff is the rule instead of the exception. She only got in trouble when the entire culture of corruption and Mokita went stale and drowned in the high-crime drainage ditch that is Brazilian politics.

You see, this is the 28th effort that has been made to impeach President Rousseff. The other 27 were all put to bed by the “opposition” lead parliamentarian. The charges simply didn’t rise to the level of such a difficult proceeding. They didn’t until said parliamentarian was put under indictment himself by someone in Rousseff’s nefarious alliance. And these two aren’t the only ones corrupted. An estimated 60% of Brazil’s political leadership is potentially indictable under a variety of scandals and ethical lapses. What The Economist Magazine euphemistically dubs “The Petrobras Affair” offers a typical example of what happens when ethical diversity is your strength.

The key things to note here are that The Petrobras Affair sucks in myriad levels of Brazilian Government and thereby effects regulatory capture across a wide swath of governing and regulatory functions. No institution remains completely uncompromised. Another key thing to note is that all the major parties are involved. Nobody can run on clean government next election because they all have blood and dirt under their fingernails. If one guy squeals, he gets hammered. By his own as well as the opposition.

Well, one idiot didn’t get the Mutually Assured Destruction Memorandum. The Brazilian Federal Police have launched Operation Car Wash. President Rousseff should give it up. She isn’t ever going to come clean. The dirt is out there. Rousseff is going down. Her partisans will take down the opposition leads along with her. Nothing will be left in Brazil except !THE PEOPLE! who were dumb enough to hire this disreputable lot of tossers in the first place.

Then what comes along other than The Zika Virus and environmental collapse? Then we get the Restitutor Orbis. El Guapo. The Big, Shwingin’ Dick. People lose faith in the leadership. They fail to admit that the leadership reflects them. They hang or burn the leaders. They pledge their fealty to any Caesar who will clean up the drinking water, kill the mosquitoes and effectively make the trains run on time.

Napoleon rightfully claims that he found the crown of France lying in the gutter so he bent over and picked it up. The gutter is where the crown winds up if a Democratic Republic is overrun by demotism. The Caesar is the first guy willing to clean up the resulting mess. He is coming in Brazil and Venezuela both. He may not be too far away from our border either. Forget Whig History. Winter is coming.

The problem with individualism

Wednesday, December 9th, 2015


Individualism is both a personal choice to prioritize the desires of the self over all else, including reality, and a political system. That system has three parts:

  1. Democracy. The person who flatters the most people wins. This flattery can occur through pacifism or bullying, jingoistic warfare against weaker opponents. Both are perpetually popular.
  2. Consumerism. Whatever product cultivates a large audience, regardless of who that audience are, wins out over products with smaller audiences, even if better.
  3. Anti-culture. Culture arises from methods that work; anti-culture arises from a small cluster of intellectuals and entertainers manipulating a vast herd of consumers who are bored.

What these have in common is the simple idea that quantity outweighs quality. The best idea, if not the most popular, is denied. This is the root of our downfall here in the West.

Since the arrival of individualism as a political system in the eighteenth century, much effort has been spent trying to design a “System” that regulates it so it makes quality decisions. All have failed, but that failure is not yet evident because of the wealth of these societies.

Individualism gained power because of the wealth of these societies in the first place. Wealth means that incompetents survive; put them in a room and, because they are incompetent, they will agree that they should rule instead of whoever is in power. They will invent tales of their victimhood to “justify” this choice.

As we look toward the future, as one should always do whenever it is clear the present methods have failed, the race is on to decide what core concept will form the basis of the next era. Since our past era was based on individualism, which in turn forms collectivism as individuals group together, I suggest that the next era be based on the idea of exceptional individuals.

Exceptional individuals are not, as your television will tell you, those who are most popular for having the appearance of a lone genius scorned by all. Instead, they are those who find what works and cling to it. They are the people who get out there and discover reality.

That behavior rewards the best in Us: the brave, honorable, moral and competent people who go into the usual human chaos formed of the pretense of individuals and make it work toward higher goals like social order, beauty, goodness and truth.

This standard rewards heroes instead of salesmen.

If we look at the core of our failure, it is our misery. People have no hope that doing a good thing will be rewarded, and see daily how whores and flatterers are given the keys to the kingdom. This is what makes us weak: we have defeated ourselves.

Genocide and murder the intelligent way

Tuesday, December 8th, 2015


When you exit the mainstream path of politics, usually by becoming a realist and recognizing that democracy is a scam, you take on new company who are not vetted by social filters like the people in mainstream politics.

Some of these will impress you with their depth and commitment, and others will strike you as people looking for an excuse to act out antisocial fantasies. Sometimes the line blurs: each one of them is enraged (versus mainstream conservative outrage) at how his society has been ruined and turned into an ersatz version of itself. This rage translates into emotional lashing out, and the result is hilarious one-upmanship:

“I’m going to gas the bankers and then throw their bodies into the compost heap.”

“Oh yeah? I’m going to line up all the Jews facing forward down the line, and drill them all through the forehead with a single bullet.”

“Shooting? That’s so mainstream, brah. I’m going to stuff the Jews and bankers in a giant grinder, like you use for weed, you know, and use the paste to make a wall on the Mexican border.”

“Dream on, shorty; that’s not extreme. It’s an acid bath for the Jews, bankers, homosexuals, gypsies and all journalists. Six inches at first, then the knee, then the groin. They will beg for death before it is done.”

“You guys are too dramatic. We just need a day of the rope where we string up the obvious, then armed troops on every streetcorner with a gallows. The minute someone breaks the law, they do the neckless jig.”

Needles to say, there are two factors at work here: (1) people tend to “act out” their emotions, suspending logical judgment, and (2) those who want change almost always end up emulating those who came before them. History is full of these little pitfalls.

Let me stave off some of this chaos with two observations:

1. Genocide is not necessary, not good and not effective.

Trying to whip some sense into the Dark Enlightenment audience, Jim makes some excellent points about the nature of the Other:

All this inclusiveness and diversity is not being reciprocated, and is not going to be reciprocated. It is cuckoldry. And this has been glaringly obvious since whites were ethnically cleansed out of the inner city. When whites are 43% of the voters, the government just takes their stuff away. That is simply the way things are. Just as when Muslims are ten to thirty percent of the population, you get holy war, when whites are in the minority, democracy will dispossess them.

Altruism is seldom the game theoretic solution. When it is the solution it’s a result of a highly successful culture that is fragile. The Dark Enlightenment talks about high trust equilibrium a lot. High trust equilibria are rare and hard to maintain…the trick is to break out of that natural equilibrium, to get a cooperate cooperate equilibrium.

The above summarizes the Dark Enlightenment well, but it should go further: altruism is salesmanship and nothing more. It is how one seduces societies into self-destruction for personal gain.

If the Dark Enlightenment has one core principle, it is this: all people act in self-interest as do all groups and, perhaps more importantly, this is correct behavior. When all act in self-interest, we do not need endless signaling, because we can simply address their self-interest as a contract proposal. They come to us and we assume everything they do and everything we do will be exclusively in self-interest.

Trust level and signaling are inversely proportional. The more trust you have, the less signaling you have; the less trust you have, the more signaling takes its place. In a high trust environment, like an ethnically-homogenous, religiously unified and culturally-ruled society, you do not signal anything because it is known. Your positions are those that are healthy, and those are agreed on not because they are popular but because they are right and have worked for aeons for that civilization.

Altruism is a form of signaling. Why else would it exist? When you do a good deed for someone, you tend to hide it; if you have to tell them about it, you have introduced new terms to the implied contract between the two of you. “I did this for you, now I want something in return.”

You will notice that all liberals behave this way. Liberals succeed in part because for them the contract is clear: you get equality, and in turn, you support our insane ideology by crushing any who disagree. Liberalism is simply an advanced version of the street gang. Anyone can join if they are willing to fight for the gang and die for the gang. And that fight? Revenge on anyone who is stronger than they, of course.

Which brings me to another point: we tend to see Dark Enlightenment theories as applying directly to the Western European (“white”) people. However, these rules are universal. There are only two parties in the world of leadership, and those are Us and Other. Us is your society; Other is everyone else, regardless of how smart, nice and capable they are.

This is one area where the Dark Enlightenment has gone off the rails. There is too much demonization of the Other, not realizing that we need a stricter rule regarding all Others, which is that if it is not Us, it needs to go away. It must not coexist with us in any form. It needs to go back to its continent of origin.

Which brings me to more of Jim’s essay:

A bunch of white American settlers want to settle on American Indian land. Indians have previously indicated that they are unhappy with this, and there are previous agreements that white people will not settle on this land. You offer them payment, including a lot of barrels of firewater. Indians accept the deal, land for nice stuff, including lots of firewater. They get drunk, stay drunk, while settlers move in and build some forts.

After a while, the whiskey runs out. The Indians wake up with a blazing hangover, no food, and no hunting grounds. “We have been cheated”, they wail.

They demand their land back. The settlers in the fort tell them to go to hell.

Some braves agree to go bravely looking for some undefended or minimally defended white women and children. They catch a woman, and two small children. Whom they rape, then skin, then burn alive. Then they bravely go back to their tribe and tell their tribe. “Well now it is war. So which side are you on. The side of us very brave braves, or the side of the people who took your land and gave you this hangover?”

The tribe declares for the warpath.

And then you kill them all and take their stuff.

Unfortunately, this approach is nonsensical because it is classic passive aggression and appeals because it is political, much in the way democracy only fights wars when it can portray itself as the victim and unify the herd behind war.

A more sensible view is this:

  1. Recognize the Other. Look at them: unless they share very similar genetics, similar abilities and inclinations, similar culture and proximate religious values, they are Other. If you are German and they are Irish, Nigerian, Japanese, Greek, Italian or Russian, they are Other. If they are Finnish, Austrian, northern French, English, Dutch, or Scandinavian, they could be Us; this depends on the situation. In America, all Western Europeans are Us. In Europe, only those of the same nationality are Us.
  2. Deport the Other. Tell them your self-interest: we need a society without Other, and no matter how nice you are, you are Other. So: boats! Big lovely boats with comfortable cabins. Those who resist can be subdued. But put them all on boats and send them away, and I’d make sure the bar is well-stocked with firewater, and never deal with the problem or the misery of murder again.

The angry types will say I’m not being extreme enough. But above I said genocide is “not necessary, not good and not effective.” All are true. Genocide is not necessary because deportation achieves the same result. It is not good because murder and warfare are hard on our people and not interesting for their own sake. It is also not effective because it creates negative goodwill toward themselves in our own people, and gives various Others a flag to take up against us.

My argument is not, by the way, “it is unpopular therefore a bad political move.” Genocide is usually popular if the group committing it thinks they will escape consequences. My argument is that genocide creates bad goodwill, in the form of lower self-esteem, in the group that completes the killing and then realizes they just acted out an emotional outburst and covered themselves in blood for nothing.

Deportation/exile possesses many advantages over genocide: it is not as popular, but it is also easier and easier to forget. It also preserves the order of nature, which is that different tribes separate and mature as they can, working in parallel so that different approaches are taken to the same task ensuring that one will at least work at some point. Other tribes are not a problem when the Other stays in its own continent and your own borders are sealed.

Further, deportation takes the form of a new contract. If your society is prosperous, pay them reparations for future goodwill. The trade is clear: you are displaced so we do not have to murder each other, but we are sending you on your way with gifts so you can set up a new life. This is not our act against you; it is our act against an order which fails each and every time it has tried, namely diversity.

On to our second point…

2. Those who hunger for executions have bought into the reversed logic of democracy.

Realistic people look at nature and reality, see why it works the way it does, and realize that their options are limited to things that work in similar ways. This is true because reality is not a physical thing, so much as an informational/mathematical order; that was the point of Plato’s forms.

Unrealistic people look at themselves, decide on what impulse is strongest, and find a way to justify that according to some universal principle they find that others enjoy as well. The unrealist looks at the Other, realizes that he can gain political power if he calls them rapists or pedophiles or some other unpopular outgroup, and then calls for their execution on the basis that they are bad.

This also occurs at the individual level. People love the thought of killing. They might be surprised to talk to some killers, who rarely will talk about it by the way, and to see that killers view killing as another tool, like we might view a hoe or ratchet wrench. To them, you kill when there is a need and otherwise do not think about it; the wrench stays on the bench. This is both (1) more detached than most people are comfortable with and (2) less “Rambo” emotional than people would expect. It unnerves most people, in fact, which is one reason why killers rarely talk about it.

The problem with unrealist thought is that because it is reversed, it leads to other reversed thought, such as democracy. Our Western mania from equality may have been born long ago when one person decided to act out emotionally, and rallied others to his side to justify the kill. That created a memory in which having a group agree made things easier. That worked for simple problems among honest people, but when manipulators appeared or the problem is complex, the group chooses wrong every time because its unrealistic thought process adapts poorly to reality.

Another article, this time an essay encoded within a story, from Spivonomist, goes awry at a crucial point:

Me: “You might be surprised. Plenty of laws get passed this way. Most of them are pretty standard things: no murder, no theft, no rape, that sort of thing. And nobody’s stupid enough to try to pass a new law if they aren’t very sure they’ll have the support of the crowd.” I paused to consider something. “I’d reckon they don’t have a lot of civic participation on windy days.”

The article is called “Toward a Model of Efficient Self-Governance” and talks about a society based around a gallows. Those who lead, or propose a new idea, do so with their neck in the noose. When the crowd objects, they are hung.

We call that democracy.

Unrealist philosophies are defensive because they are maintaining an illusion, that is, a narrative not based on reality. Instead it is based on preference and political power, or agreement of the group. This reverses focus from “How do we adapt to reality?” to “How do we justify what we desire?” and this reversal is the root of all human error.

You do not want a crowd making judgments. It always makes them in terms of itself alone. A crowd is a replacement reality; in a crowd, your goal is to keep the crowd on your side and not to step over the line, because then the crowd will destroy you. Just like a street gang. I say cut out the middleman and adapt to reality.

Even more, do not be so hasty with your desire to kill. When the penalty is death, only the crazy step up — or the sociopathic, because they know they can manipulate you. They will put their head in the noose, tell lies that most people think are pleasant, and then hijack your civilization just as surely as the West was stolen by democracy.

Tying this in to the first point: beware of the crowd especially when it comes to genocide. They will kill the Other they fear and keep the Other they think they can dominate, and that more innocuous Other will then simply out-reproduce them, miscegenate and assimilate them. Self-destruction in three easy steps.

I acknowledge that the problems facing us are dire. But we do not get to solutions by acting out our emotions, or by pandering to the crowd. We get to the solution by Dark Enlightenment itself — realizing the nature of people, and the nature of crowds, and instead of going with the herd, putting our best in charge and choosing honorable, efficient and effective solutions over emotional outbursts.

Neoreaction hits choppy waters

Sunday, April 5th, 2015


In this world, all good things become destroyed, and they all go out the same way.

Neoreaction, the post-libertarian reactionary conservative movement that has showed so much promise, is in the midst of a stumble. Interest flags, writings have petered out or become circular, and internal divisions have reached an apex.

We do not have to look far for the causes. Neoreaction began as a movement that is like most conservative movements consequentialist, or based in results rather than intent. It arose from the libertarian idea of minimizing government to avoid it adopting an “ideological mandate” by which in the name of protecting its most vulnerable citizens it enforces control on all. Its idea, held in common with some anarchists and transhumanists, was to treat government like a corporation which sold enumerable services to its clients in exchange for a fair market price, and to deprecate all of its other functions.

However, by escaping the mental ghetto which says that Western liberal democracy is the ultimate evolution of human society and the best we can achieve, Neoreaction opened the door to other dangerous and scary ideas. Its members embraced ethnonationalism, patriarchy, hierarchy/royalism and other ideas which have been the norm for most of human evolution but have been denied in the West since The EnlightenmentTM, which held that the individual human’s preferences were more important than social or natural order.

Rejecting consequentialism, the Age of Reason created the idea of “equality” where each human had the absolute right to make any choices he or she desired, with the idea emerging later that society would subsidize these choices. As a form of “Dark Enlightenment,” Neoreaction rejected the Age of Reason as a wrong turn and suggested instead a merging of what has been perennially true in human relations with modern technological know-how and engineering standards.

It is an appealing mix. Many of us warned of the problem with being a conservative movement that does not admit it is conservative, which is that it will quickly turn on itself as it tries to adapt to the status quo of steadily increasing liberalism in the West since the 1700s. Conservatism represents the only alternative to liberal ideology, which is based in equality, and generally consists of two components: (1) consequentialism or results being more important than intent or methods and (2) transcendental goals, such as “the good, the beautiful and the true” or for many a religious purpose to human existence.

The problem is that in human society, things do not die of weakness but of strength. What made Neoreaction strong was that it introduced eternal ideas of human civilization in a new form, separating them from the forms which have become tired in the hands of the GOP and other seemingly misguided and disorganized conservatives. This strength drew people to it and, not having first cleared their minds of liberal programming, they began to treat Neoreaction as if it were another liberal concept.

Liberal concepts value individual participation and self-expression because the individual is more important than the results. Conservative concepts value individual participation where it achieves certain results, and only then. The same writers who gave Neoreaction its early strength pulled it apart as they competed for audience with blogs, books and YouTube videos. To differentiate their product, they had to each invent unique theories and viewpoints. These in turn created confusion about the core of Neoreaction, and drifted farther away, which meant they lost their conservative core and as a result became increasingly liberalized.

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

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

Naturally, there are some who kept the idea strong and you can find their blogs in the list to the left. But in the meantime, for Neoreaction “The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fail to the ruin of all.”