Posts Tagged ‘dissident right’

Dissident Right Reviews Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity

Saturday, January 28th, 2017

Over at Dissident Right, August J. Rush has reviewed Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity by tackling assumptions about the meaning of “nihilism.”

Ultimately, Stevens rejects the Idealism of previous philosophers and instead notes that inherent truth (or meaning) does not exist; all that does is a world external to ourselves which experiences an objective reality, regardless of how we experience it.

…Stevens thus embraces ontological realism, and otherwise argues that while we can never fully be sure that The-World-We-Experience is The-World-As-It-Is, if our mental maps allow us to survive and thrive over a long enough time period, we thus must have an accurate (or at least advantageous) understanding of external reality. Thus, to Stevens, the question of epistemological realism is ultimately answered by the evolutionary fitness of an individual (he also extends this to societal-level phenomenon, with civilizational attainment serving as a stand-in for evolutionary fitness for these phenomena).

…Societies of any scale will have to integrate individual illusions into a cohesive framework that members can reasonably work within. This means that as a society scales, the collective mental map of reality gets further and further from The-World-As-It-Is. This process is inevitable.

This is a great synopsis of the book and of its challenge: how to find a realism that does not betray us. Its answer, presented more at the margins, is elitism and aristocracy, but the main point of the book is what this review captures, which is that we need a force of epistemological destruction like nihilism in order to slow the process of entropy of purpose that happens with civilization.

Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity has been fortunate to have a number of great reviews by talented writers:

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 Henry Dampier

Sunday, July 24th, 2016


The outer right resembles less a fringe than an asteroid belt, safely beyond the gravity of herd conformity and yet not entirely lost to the randomness of the outer space. Many of you are familiar with Henry Dampier, whose writings on Neoreactionary topics are among the clearer and more practical examples out there. Amerika was fortunate to get a chance to sit down over cigars, bourbon and philosophical heresy with Mr. Dampier in order to catch his perspective on life, neoreaction and dissident right writing…

What led you outside of the sheep-pen of the mainstream?

I spent more time reading books and periodicals than is healthy. I think that I started off as a fairly standard boy who was curious and enthusiastic about technology and science. This lead me to read all the great American science fiction novels of the 20th century in my early teens. This included Heinlein, Asimov, Stephenson, and Gibson. My love of novels developed my interest in other cloud-castle construction projects like libertarianism with some fanciful notions borrowed from leftists.

Overall, I think the sheep are happier and healthier for staying in the pen, and I don’t blame them for doing the sensible thing. If you picked ten typical sheeple at from a collection of the middle class and then compared them to ten random ‘woke’ people on the internet, the sheeple would be healthier and better adjusted to their society.

What was your childhood like?

I’m the son of a former investment banker and a former Ivy League academic. My parents both had eclectic first acts in life (my mother was a dancer in one of the leading American modern dance companies, and my father was a college basketball player). My parents’ divorce during my teen years both obliterated the family fortune and drove everyone crazy. Before that divorce, I was an overachieving student and athlete. Afterwards, I became sort of a zany, erratic, and ineffective nihilist-rebel type who was constantly in trouble and coasting on talent.

I had a sort of moral awakening combined with an identity crisis. I realized that the things that I wanted weren’t supported by the ideology that I had been promoting.

Growing up, I lived mostly in New York City, but my family also lived in Europe. My dad often commuted between New York and Europe by plane. I was fairly spoiled. It also introduced me to a range of different people. I started off closer to the top of global society, tumbled as far as I could tumble (mostly because of my own dumb actions), and then have been trying to claw my way back up.

Are you a happy person? Is “happy person” a realistic goal?

My moods go from happy-go-lucky and jokey to brooding without much of a middle ground. Happiness is a consequence of good health, good fortune, and good behavior. Happiness is an effect rather than a cause. Having seen and known very sad people, I do think that pursuing the causes of happiness is a good thing, and even realistic. Expecting to be happy all the time isn’t, in particular because good and bad fortune have a lot to do with it.

How did you encounter Neoreaction?

I was looking to borrow other skeptical arguments about Bitcoin and found Moldbug’s writings by Google search. I then followed the trail to other blogs.

On a more personal level, I had a sort of moral awakening combined with an identity crisis. I realized that the things that I wanted weren’t supported by the ideology that I had been promoting, and that I’d been going about it in a disordered way.

In your words, what is Neoreaction? How does it differ from the Alternative Right, New Right and White Nationalism?

Neoreaction, for me and some others, flows from a bunch of people who were enamored by deontological libertarianism and became disillusioned by some of its more impractical aspects. If Republicans are just Democrats who have been mugged by reality, neoreactionaries tend to be anarcho-capitalists mugged by history.

Neoreaction has three areas of focus: capitalist in economics, traditionalist in its view of religion, and more nationalist/Darwinian in its view of race.

Have there ever been two people who agree on every aspect of every area of focus there? No.

There is a lot of incredibly tiresome whining, whinging, and internet debating about the precise meaning of these terms. I consider almost all of it an enormous waste of time and energy akin to arguing whether or not the melee combat rules in the seventh edition of the dungeon master manual empower a hobbit to grapple an ogre if the hobbit’s strength score is above 18/99 and he has at least half a free hand when using a buckler and still has his move action.

What it is is stringently anti-democratic. It agrees with Hoppe when Hoppe says that in the history of ideas, democracy has always been regarded as a soft variant of communism. Where it parts with the likes of Hoppe is in his deontological approach. I personally regard argumentation ethics as a nice thing but not a thing which is terribly useful for practical politics. People use force because it works and because of innate drives in the human animal. I’ve come to identify more with the conservative perspective as I’ve come to accept that human nature rarely changes much.

If I were to make a neoreactionary slogan, it would be ‘Burning a path to ordered liberty in the 21st century.’ Order is a necessary prerequisite for liberty, properly understood.

There are many key figures in the American ‘outer right’ who are ex-ancaps influenced by Rothbard and Hoppe. There’s obviously tension between these figures and others. Some of the people who are nastiest in their repudiation of their old influences are also some of the same people who were among the most fanatical in the past, but I guess that’s typical.

The Alternative Right really derives from Richard Spencer and his organization. I’ve become a bigger believer in the impact of individuals, so I’m going to focus on the individual there. Spencer wanted to come up with a new brand of right-wing thought that was more connected to the European zeitgeist. I imagine that he had been disheartened by what had happened to the American Conservative, which began as Pat Buchanan’s organ to float an alternative to George W. Bush’s compassionate invade-the-world invite-the-world conservativism.

Spencer attempted to abandon the Alternative Right term when he renamed his website to Radix and redirected his domain. Then, it took a life of its own. He seemed to want to promote a term, ‘identitarianism,’ that has never really caught on all that well. Identitarianism is a higher brow white nationalism that tries to shun Cletus the stereotypical ex-con white nationalist without overtly shunning Cletus and telling them that he is not wanted at the party.

The alternative right has sort of mystical and estoteric roots that isn’t really shared by neoreaction. Nick Land certainly makes allusions to mysticism and numerology, but it’s hard for me to tell how much of that is performance and how much of it is authentic. My private take on it has been to appreciate it the way that I would appreciate a novel, but not to treat it as if it were the real essence of the thing.

The alternative right became increasingly conflated with neoreaction because I think many people are hungrier for popularity and attention than they are for discussing what is true, teaching people, or even just having fun with ideas. Social media is a toxic medium that addicts people to facile quips, bad art, and dumb jokes. Those quips crowd out quality discussion (and I’m guilty of participating in this) in the same way that a good professor can’t give a profound lecture to a noisy room.

The alternative right reminds me a bit of the history of the hippies from the 1960s. They’re focused on freaking out ‘the man,’ doing their own thing, and promoting hedonism. There’s also a strong tendency to appeal to social science as a way to buttress their ideas: robotically citing Jonathan Haidt and Robert Putnam as if it could be persuasive. I don’t think that social science is epistemologically sound, so that puts me apart from a lot of people.

The alternative right is happy to become a democratic activist organization with one chief principle: “race is everything.” By simplifying and compromising, it grows, fueled by the constant provocations of ham-handed diversity-knapsack propaganda at universities. The alt right is well-targeted to the remaining white males at American universities.

The main distinction between it and neoreaction is that the alternative right is gleefully democratic, even if it’s occasionally skeptical of egalitarianism.

It agrees with Hoppe when Hoppe says that in the history of ideas, democracy has always been regarded as a soft variant of communism. Where it parts with the likes of Hoppe is in his deontological approach.

The identitarian tendency leans towards supporting political equality within a single race. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn also pointed out more than half a century ago, it also tends towards a sex homophily that’s overwhelmingly appealing to homosexuals. The reason for this is that ordinary relations between the sexes must involve the bridging of an enormous cognitive and physical gap. Men and women are far more foreign to one another than, say, Slavs and Southern Europeans (there are plenty of Southern European slavs).

It also tends towards socialism in its economics because of the equality principle. The refrain is that everything will be fine if we expel the foreigners, and no more thought is needed. That’s wishful thinking, but it also offers a clear goal and unifying principle.

The New Right is European. I think that when Americans try to understand or import aspects of the New Right, things tend to get garbled, because the European context is totally different. To make matters worse, people are always trying to universalize or think that they understand something because they saw a YouTube video once, read a book, or read a blog post. I don’t pretend to understand stuff or to put on the great show of getting weepy for foreigners who live thousands of miles away.

Pretending to be a pan-European activist for equality within the races is pretentious.

I used up my quota of pretending to care about suffering foreigners during my time as an anti-war person in my early 20s. I barely care about anyone who lives in Washington DC, much less Germany. I could pretend to care more about the fate of Sweden, but as an American, a lot of that is just useless Facebook-optimized pretense. If an African mob burns a parking lot in Malmo and no one tweets about it, I wouldn’t even know that it happened.

Overall, I’m more cynical about ‘political scenes’ now than I even was before. When writers become more interested in cultivating cults than in writing well, I think that the people involved tend to wind up suffering from it. When the creative spark goes out, it becomes an exercise in repeating a private jargon endlessly to an audience of parrots.

Are you able to support yourself with your writing?

My Henry writing? No. But I do support my household as a commercial writer and salesman.

I would love to have more of my income come from my political writing, because I both enjoy it and I’m significantly better at it than most of the other people who do it.

The issue with making money from political rhetoric is that enough people do it badly for free that it oversupplies the market. I also genuinely enjoy the independence of commercial work. If you have to become a celebrity, it means you have to shift your beliefs around constantly to cater to the masses, especially if you’re more of a follower as a writer than you are a leader.

By being more concerned about leading a ‘movement’ than telling the truth, it also draws you into ‘entangling alliances’ in which maintaining your political network becomes more important than revealing truth or elevating your own understanding. This is how these kinds of movements tend to falter. The movement becomes an end in and of itself rather than a means to a set of goals.

Since getting more worthless internet points by having people like me more isn’t all that appealing to me, I would rather spend my time selling tote bags, virtual app currency, proprietary vitamin formulations, and truck loans. One of them really disrupts my ability to have a private life. The other benefits my private life. If I can’t support a public contribution of my time and energy with my own resources at the level of quality that I mandate for myself, I don’t want to do it.

By being more concerned about leading a ‘movement’ than telling the truth, it also draws you into ‘entangling alliances’ in which maintaining your political network becomes more important than revealing truth

The bank who wants me to push truck loans on people isn’t asking me to change my beliefs to what’s fashionable: they just want more warm leads from truckers.

The landscaping company who wants more website traffic just wants to introduce more homeowners to their all-natural lawncare method. Who I am and what I believe doesn’t really need to change with that kind of work. I just sell my time and attention rather than selling myself or altering my fundamental beliefs because of some shift in fashion. Even when I’ve had to write diversity boilerplate, I at least don’t have to believe it or even portray it as what I believe. It’s just me putting up my “Workers of the world, unite!” sign.

While I’m sure that I could eventually earn a good income with political writing, for the meantime I need to pay down debts and go down that path in stages before I feel comfortable with the risk, since I have responsibilities which will only become more extensive with time. You can’t buy diapers with retweets or ‘likes’ on your posts, but you can with dollars. It would be totally pointless for me to play-act as a responsible conservative on the internet while missing bill payments.

I think it’s pathetic when writers have to raise money on crowdfunding sites or beg for donations. The biggest asset an author has is the respect of his readers. I think it’s better to have a fair exchange of a finished product than it is to demand what’s effectively a preorder. By begging rather than exchanging, you lower yourself below the reader. But the reader wants to be brought up rather than to descend.

Also, I think the reason that most people who write for the ‘outer right’ under their real name are some flavor of marginal character is because people are so whiny and entitled to free writing about politics.

Eventually, as the bubble business model of the web dies, this culture-wide sense of entitlement will hopefully begin to die down. An audience of whiny and entitled people can only afford to get marginal and lazy writers and other content-creator types to make things for them. Not all audiences are like that.

So you get a few types of people who write for this kind of fringe audience:

  • Bright and interesting writers who contribute fascinating work until they burn out and move on to other projects, like Moldbug.

  • Attention whores who will do anything for a ‘fav’

  • People who try really, really, really hard to make it a full time job when the audience won’t support it, which makes everything they do seem cloying and grasping as they lurch from personal disaster to disaster. “Please like and subscribe!”

  • A small number of professionals like Vox Day who, through superhuman work ethic, actually make it work

The real goal of a fringe writer should not be to serve the fringe, but to get the fringe to conquer the quality cultural territory. When the fringe belief becomes common sense, that is success. Many people tend to get hung up on trying to be the coolest cool guy in the edgy gang, but that’s a huge waste of time. This also leads to the common crab-bucket behavior of fringe figures: keeping the fringe fringe-y is more important than accomplishing the ostensible goals of the group.

In your view, what is the difference between opposing diversity and hating, say, Negroes?

If you oppose diversity, you can reasonably treat with other groups and come to a settlement. It also gives you something to offer other groups besides the threat of destruction.

When your whole approach to the other groups is to say “hey, we’re going to exterminate you and take all your shit!” — and the other group can resist — they are going to throw everything that they have into resisting you. When your approach is ‘separate nations for separate people,’ there’s a negotiation that can happen there. Whatever resistance might be there can be worked around.

A lot of people in the ‘hatred’ camp are a bit like less effective and less hard-working versions of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi, the founding father of ISIS, understood that the new Iraqi state could be undermined by provoking religious and ethnic conflict. The new Iraq wanted to maintain the old borders of Saddam’s Iraq without using Saddam’s methods for enforcing a polyglot nation-state. The new identity that Iraqis were supposed to adopt was to become, basically, White American Democrats.

Zarqawi saw that the Americans were not going to succeed in making Iraqis into people from Park Slope, Brooklyn. By bombing symbolic shrines and provoking Shiite militias to retaliate, he created a civil war and provoked the Americans to crack down. This crackdown raised the perceived costs of the war even as it temporarily ‘succeeded.’ Because Americans are soft and don’t believe in mass executions, the US would basically go and capture people in terrorist camps and then build new prison camps at taxpayer expense. In these prison camps, the future fighting force of ISIS socialized, exchanged ideas, and made plans. When the US released these guys, they went right back into the fray. This is exactly how Zarqawi got his start in a Jordanian prison much earlier.

When your approach is ‘separate nations for separate people,’ there’s a negotiation that can happen there. Whatever resistance might be there can be worked around.

In the long run, Zarqawi’s vision has wound up creating the conditions for the recreation of the Caliphate. The enforced diversity of the old regimes has been obliterated by force in large swaths of the Middle East now. That is one way of overthrowing the modern nation-state. Ironically, post-modern-internet-nationalism is revolting around the conditions created by the previous generation of nationalism which created states like Iraq in the mold of modern Germany, France, the US, and even the UK.

The reason why I bring this up as it relates to ‘opposing diversity’ is that I think these terms are more relative and fluid than many people like to think that they are. Iraq is not all that racially diverse if you ignore the Kurds, but it is/was religiously fragmented. ISIS is religiously uniform but ethnically diverse. The USSA is ethnically and (nominally) religiously diverse, but demands lockstep ideological conformity.

The old nation-state sought to break down barriers between sub-races, sub-nations, and most importantly religious groups.The new nation-state wants to create a universal government under a single religion: progressivism, which is just another word for Communism.

In contrast to what Zarqawi did to make ISIS possible, American alt-rightists don’t recognize that they really don’t have the popular support nor the zeal to provoke a civil war. Zarqawi was a realistic bandit who was comfortable with ultraviolence. He did not hesitate to do things like trick retards and old maids into suicide bombing weddings. ISIS destroys diverse nation-states on one hand, while proclaiming a global polyglot caliphate that encompasses many races worldwide. Even worse for the prospect of militant alt-rightism, the glue of nu-white-nationalism is a much weaker social glue than that of something like Wahhabism.

There is a difference between opposing the modern conception of ‘diversity,’ which tries to recreate the Tower of Babel, and being a hard-line identitarian. Some measure of diversity is going to be present within any society and any form of government. Even within races there is substantial diversity, both innate and chosen. The question is what a given state and society can manage. Diversity raises coordination costs. There are also some Darwinian reasons to be concerned about excessive ‘human biodiversity.’

Roger Scruton describes diversity as a means by which elites externalize the costs of their actions and reap the profits. So, for example, a big technology firm outsources the real costs of diversity onto the workforce and the government while reaping the profits from their labor. A community that used to be cohesive with a common set of values now needs to deal with the increased costs to their quality of life caused by the mass importation of a foreign population. The company that did the importation does not need to do the security screening of their new employees. The state does that. But the corporation and the state keep the earnings while imposing the costs, both seen and unseen, onto the citizens.

The root causes of our diversity crisis are complex. Many come from fundamental errors in modern conceptions of knowledge: especially the tendency to say that what can’t be arranged in a statistical table doesn’t count as a ‘cost’ that has been shunted off onto someone else who did not create it.

Hatred, being pleasurable to many, can become an end to itself. People just fixate on working themselves up into a hate-lather instead of attempting to come up with solutions. Since they don’t see a solution, they just run themselves into a loop of entertaining rage. Some people play League of Legends, and other people play “let’s post on the internet about how much we despise [race].” The effect of the behavior is the same, because it’s very easy to overestimate the actual reach of what happens in internet discussions.

Do you listen to any death metal? What do you listen to?

Not really. I just listen to classical, bad metal that I don’t know anything about, and some rock stations when I drive.

Do you think the West can save itself, or part of itself, or is all lost?

Part of itself, but not the whole thing. I think people like to get themselves worked up in believing that they need to save the ‘West.’ I think we should give the left what it wants by territorially amputating large sections of the Western world.

I think that by trying to save the whole thing, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. By saving part of it, the rest might be saved later, even if just as land and not the people who live on it.

One of the reasons that the West has gone so far off the rails since World War II has been because of the elimination of competition between states. States are competing again. We should aim to raise that competition without blowing up the whole planet.

What do you hope to express via your writing?

After a long time of being comfortable with my own level of knowledge and cultivation, I started to understand how ignorant that I actually was about history and the nature of things.

When I write, it’s usually me building my own understanding and knowledge by packaging it for other people. Many people suffer a lot from the popular deceptions that have shrouded our culture. I think that puncturing those deceptions helps people to develop a reason why to survive. That’s what causes many people to suffer: they don’t have a good reason to live.

I think we should give the left what it wants by territorially amputating large sections of the Western world.

I also speculate with conviction that the age of the herd is coming to an end because of where we are in the cycle of military competition. A mass army of conscripts is no longer a competitive advantage in war. The army of mass conscripts was the ‘killer app’ of democracy. Since it is obsolete and has been abandoned by all of the advanced democratic countries, a new form of politics which mimics the developing structure of new military forces is going to supplant it.

I don’t share the belief that this new military will be primarily non-human, but it is indisputable that the dominant new military organizations are more similar to the elite-driven armies of our feudal past than they are like the mass armies that conquered the planet after the 18th century.

This speculation, combined with my conviction that the fiscal-monetary systems of the Western countries are headed for doom, tells me that there’s going to be an enormous need for political reorganization on new principles within my lifetime. Writing is a great way of speculatively preparing for that development.

I also wanted to get new correspondents that were worth discussing current events with. I have that now, and don’t need to use social media to talk to them.

In the future, I want to write about important political topics of practical importance to ordinary English-speaking people with good sense at a high level of quality.

Why The Alternative Right Will Absorb Neoreaction

Friday, May 20th, 2016


There seems to be some confusion in the media about Neoreaction and how it differs from the alternative right, as well as confusion by neoreactionaries about this is so.

Let us tackle these in reverse order. First, the media: they are cartoon makers. They make comics and call it news. They do this to fit the cognitive profile of their audience. Most people are not analytical and also, are not inclined to spend time researching and understanding political and social issues. As a result, they want bright simple colors and stories of good versus evil.

That means the media must invent “good” (human interest stories based in pity, irony and bittersweet eucatastrophe) and “evil” (anything which denies the good feelings of the audience, especially by failing to be egalitarian).

You can understand any media story in these terms. Your instinct is to believe the story is about its topic; that is wrong and dangerous to think that. What is actually true: the story is always about the audience, because newspapers are there to sell ads and never have done anything else. That is their profit model. What you pay for a newspaper is tiny compared to the cost of ads, and they mainly keep you paying for it so you do not realize that it is essentially an advertisement cloaked in the altruistic pretense of being fact-based.

As Fred says, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” This doubly applies when it comes to the news. They choose what stories to report on, and then, they choose which facts to mention, and what order to mention them in and how to present them. Hint: any activity, no matter how degenerate, can be made to seem innocent by portraying those involved as victims of some other superior force. People fear superior forces and demonize them.

Next, we move on to the question of Neoreaction and the Alternative Right: one and the same?

Perception of political theories is relative, although the theories themselves are not because they are based in method. Someone who is on the far-left will perceive the moderate left to be far-right, but it is still based in the Leftist theory, which is equality, and not the rightist theory, which is replicable results.

To your average modern citizen, because the West has been growing steadily more Leftist since the Peasant Revolts, anything to the right of a moderate Republican is “far-right,” and that area includes the following philosophies:

  • Neoreaction
  • Reaction
  • Traditionalism
  • White Nationalism
  • Pan-Nationalism
  • Alternative Right
  • New Right
  • Paleoconservative
  • Social Conservative
  • Monarchist
  • Identitarian

You will note that all of these overlap. For example, all favor Nationalism and strong hierarchy. Many favor aristocracy, such as monarchists, reactionaries and traditionalists. Some are nearly indistinguishable from one another, except for a fundamental idea or two, such as reactionaries and traditionalists. And so on. A complete definition of these is beyond this article.

What unites them is that they recognize that the “equality” method does not work and will lead — or has led — our society into ruin.

They then take different responses to this. The dissident right — you might use that as an umbrella term for the above, since “far right” implies the mix of neo-Nazi, paleoconservative, libertarian and liberal that comprises white nationalism — differs in degree and method only. Once we realize that Leftism is a dead evolutionary pathway, we must find (1) another way to take and (2) a method of getting there, which is complicated by the fact that Leftism is popular because it is illusion, especially during Leftist eras and the warm bath of their propaganda.

Within this realm, we might see Neoreaction as a response by the middle classes to the degeneration of their countries. The basic idea of Neoreaction is that we should treat government like a business, expect it to act like a business and limit it, and allow the dual forces of capitalism and free association to fix everything else. This is not far removed from the original American ideas of Thomas Jefferson, or even Jared Taylor’s notion that if we removed anti-discrimination law, this country might have a chance at survival.

These bourgeois roots of Neoreaction place it in the hybrid camp along with libertarians, which is fitting because Neoreaction is a discussion filter for getting to the next step, not the next step defined where it can then be attacked by stronger Leftist forces. I suggest re-reading that paragraph again, as it is essential to understand Neoreaction. It is a salon, not a revolution.

Your average Neoreactionary, like the middle class, wants to escape two things: the icky people who have now infested his society, and the government which has become so parasitic that it is difficult not to notice the daily blood drainage. He believes that a System can work, that the good bourgeois can form gated communities and get away from the icky people, and then the good life will return.

Your average Alt-Righter does not have this illusion. He knows that society has taken a wrong turn and that any steps down this path lead to the same place, which is a third world warlord-cum-socialist society of mixed-race people, low but “exotic” culture, and total dysfunction plus commerce. From this state, nothing important comes again as happened with the fallen Greek, Roman, Maya and Aztec empires.

The reason that Neoreaction will be absorbed into the Alt-Right, and not just by the media, is that Neoreaction is simply a discussion filter. It exists to make people feel justified in actual self-interest and saying, “No, I don’t want to go down the path to ignominious death with the rest of you fools.” Like Donald Trump, it is a pry-bar that separates those still capable of some thought from the rest who are lock-step trope-worshipers fully ensconced in the warm bath of the propaganda from the Left.

If you want a metaphor, imagine a city of utter chaos and dysfunction. On the very edge of the city, at the city wall, is a hotel. Neoreaction is the foyer; it is the reason that one steps inside. This shuts out the noise of the city and the constant propaganda broadcast by petit tyrants over its PA system. Once you are in the silence, you can start to think. Conservatism is the library; national socialism and neo-Nazism the gym; traditionalism the chapel; and paleoconservatism/social conservatism the bar area.

As you go deeper into the hotel, you will notice something: every room leads to a second hallway that connects them all. This leads to the garden beyond, which you can see through ornate glass doors… counting your steps, you realize that the garden is outside of the city. You only head down that path once you have been to all the rooms, taken the part of the puzzle from each, and assembled it in the hallway to realize that escape is the only option.

But the real journey, alas, is not in the feet but in the mind. “Escape” means that you are finally awakened from the Leftist dream. You realize that everything you have been taught since day one of your life has been tinged with a lie, and that lie is human equality. This lie is both a way of feeling better about having a civilization in decline, and a way of making you feel important for having nothing. It assuages your fears. Without it, you feel naked at first.

The basic idea of Neoreaction may be summarized as anti-ideologism. Neoreaction insists that our theory and reality be aligned, so that if some method is more successful than others, it gets the power instead of those others. This terrifies the ideology-minds, who know that their theories are not only unprovable, but not designed to be proven. They are social theories that make people feel good about themselves for believing them.

Beyond that, it is foolishness to take it literally, because it leads to more interesting places…

The Alt-Right is concerned with a singular task, possibly inherited from black metal: how to stop civilization decline and restore Europeans to greatness. Once you have separated from ideology, do you want an OK society or an A+ one?

Tradition shows us that there is a world beyond the physical and pragmatic. We need our spirits filled with transcendental beauty, and to believe in a good universe where the excellent can happen, in order to truly reach greatness. This is another step down the path.

Finally, there is monarchism: the realization that most people are obedient, foolish sheep who always choose whatever option flatters them, and that people in groups — even smart people — make infinitely stupid decisions. You either put the best in charge to rule over the rest, or the rest rule the best, and then social standards collapse to third world levels.

Beyond that, you can rediscover the wisdom that you were born having in your mind. That without someone intelligent and noble in charge, every venture from a lemonade stand to a civilization is prone to failure. That jails are not hospitals and that bad people do not go away, but need to be sent away or they destroy everything they can. That every day should be magic, filled with discovery and joy, not obedience and obsequy to those of lesser smarts.

The roots of Western decline go deep, and to really rip them out, we must go back to the founding assumptions in a cascade of bad decisions that cause us to live in illusion. Leftism is illusion like its parent philosophy Crowdism. That in turn is caused by human individualism, which legitimizes hubris and raises the idiotic above the genuine.

You will note that this decline even touches Neoreaction, the Alt-Right and traditionalism. There are those whose wisdom is authentic and those who are merely participating and attention whoring like everyone else in this society, just in a different field. “No enemies on the Right” is a tempting phrase, but really it means: no quality control. The war begins at home, first in your own mind as you figure all of this out.

This is why the Alternative Right will absorb Neoreaction: it is broader in scope and application. That suggests that something in turn will absorb the Alternative Right, which I suggest is conservatism itself, or the idea of using proven, organic methodology instead of ideology. From that point, all that is left to be decided are questions of degree, and at that point, they are evident.

Join Us… We Are The Future

Tuesday, April 12th, 2016


Two new things happened today: a listing of right-wing and conservative blogs and a new mission statement.

The former came about because blogrolls are too short and too political, since they are related to Google PageRank™ which now controls the internet, making it less of a frontier and more of an obedience test like the rest of our moribund society. Google should know better. I am told some in the company agree.

The latter was formulated to address two issues. One, very few understand what I and others are on about; they either see this blog as too Republican, or too extreme, but never as what it is, which is an unemotional cold logical look at human survival. Now the statement is simpler and maybe they’ll get it.

Second, this blog and its writers are not getting the credit they deserve. Going through the (many) blog links, I was struck by how few of these blogs have struck around, and even more, how few of them express anything but iterations of whatever is the trendy “dissident” view of the moment. The audience runs after the trend, then gets bored because it’s more of the same stuff they find anywhere else, then goes back to anime and video games. It’s time for them to see Amerika as the thought-leader that it is.

I started writing about political topics in the early 1990s, and really got my core philosophy going with a series of anti-democracy and pro-organicism flyers during the years of 1995-1997. Then I published extensively on the American Nihilist Underground Society, CORRUPT, and related blogs and sites at the time. I started Amerika to have a free-form place to talk about practical political and social concerns in commonsense but traditional philosophy.

You may notice a lack of the usual “blog stuff” around here: emotional appeals, discussions of theory unrelated to reality, the “Jewish Question” or anti-minority sentiments, and attempts to corral you into groups. The enemy here is an idea — individualism/egalitarianism — and every problem is a symptom of that. We strike at the neck of the Hydra, not its many heads.

As a result, this blog is a bit difficult. For Republicans, it has none of the usual signals and symbols. For underground people, it has none of the defensiveness or familiar tropes. What it does do is get to the root of those issues and explicate them for those who want to understand what is wrong and what must be done to fix it.

Join us… we are the future!

The fatal flaw of the dissident Right

Monday, February 22nd, 2016


Any change in thought faces an in-built hurdle: escaping the previous thought enough. For all that we on the dissident Right have achieved, we still face the inescapable difficulty of making sure that our thinking is not infected by that of the Left (and its parent philosophy, Crowdism) which is dominant in this age.

Nothing better illustrates this than the recent kerfuffle over sex/realism writer Roosh V, who found himself under attack from some in the altright for not being white. In response, he pens:

If an internet movement is decentralized and based on open admission from outsiders who can steer its direction, particularly women and homosexuals, it will fail. That doesn’t mean it won’t have an effect upon society, but it will fall very rapidly after its peak. The alt right likely peaked with introducing the term cuckservative in terms of mainstream influence. Their initial viral hits concealed problems that may have been there all along, and which I myself missed. The fact that diehard anti-SJW’s and anti-feminists who don’t have the approved Nordic lily whiteness are viciously attacked by the alt right mob with SJW help shows that they’re long gone in terms of strategic effectiveness.

I worry not about women and homosexuals for the same reason I worry not about non-whites joining the dissident Right. Some of our best advocates have always been not white, from Malcolm X through Paul Gottfried and Laurence Auster, not to mention all of the near-whites of Southern, Eastern or Irish European extraction.

The question remains and has always been: do they understand what we are going on about? If they do, let them in, because they have the rarest of abilities which is to see the legitimacy and realism of our point of view. If they do not, even if heterosexual, Nordic and male, letting them in amounts to entryism and will destroy us.

Our challenge on the Right is that of every majority called on to defend itself. We do not have a cause like the Left, which styles itself as the victim of inequality and therefore creates a new religious-style morality based on only equality being good. Like the point of a knife, that is a focused and simply explained belief with an inherent demand.

The majority faces a more complex task: it must defend its way of life and its satisfaction with it. How can we be happy when others are suffering, somewhere? The answer is that we found something that works, and as we have deviated from that, our fortunes have fallen, and that we must assert both (1) self-interest in pursuing what works for us and (2) the supremacy of our method in the long-term, even if we could serve up the seed corn to stop suffering now.

We are not defending what is now; we are arguing for Restoration, or the return of what worked for us. We have been under assault by insane Leftism for a thousand years and it has ruined our society. If anyone has rights, we have a right to break away from the method used by The Rest that will end in misery, and to instead achieve for ourselves a better life. If only to prove it can be done and show how, we should do this; however, those who fear they cannot do the same will always oppose us, because our success makes them look bad, in their view.

What is restoration? A conversation between Auster and Mencius Moldbug reveals a wonderful snippet:

Restoration is an anti-entropic process. A little restoration does not lead to a lot of restoration. It is an intrinsically futile act—a candle that soon goes out. Rather, if order is to be restored, it must be restored entirely in one step. A house can be ruined incrementally. It cannot be renovated incrementally.

We do not defend anything; we fight for a different world. We strive for a world of beauty, justice, honor, excellence, ascendancy, reverence and truth. We want to burn all that exists now and replace it with something far better. Our self-interest takes the form of a desire to exceed what is now and achieve greatness. Nothing else will do.

Right-wing movements have never been able to coordinate like Leftists mostly because of a lack of agreement on what we find wrong and what we desire. We are not ideological zombies like the Left, but this makes us less effective. This is why the Right grows through dissident movements that organically bring ideas to the table and give them symbols so that others can see something new to aspire to.

And that is what the altright needs: aspiration. We need to realize in our heart of hearts that this world is an unforgivable Hell and a sin against all that is good, and that we can have a Restoration. We can do better and we cannot inch toward it. We must leap from the top window of this Tower of Babel and soar. We are the future. As a wise man once said, “the next thousand years are ours.”

I have lived for too long in darkened corridors attempting to pretend that the small amount of leaking light constitutes a hope. I have spent too long restraining my desire to set it all ablaze. I have wasted too many years in an atheistic, materialistic and self-destroying frame of mind. I am ready for war. This is the mindset we need on the dissident Right.

As one writer who has contributed more than anything to the Right wing renewal had to say, modern life is unconscionable and yet everyone is too cucked to speak up and scream:

I hadn’t seen any novel make the statement that entering the workforce was like entering the grave. That from then on, nothing happens and you have to pretend to be interested in your work. And, furthermore, that some people have a sex life and others don’t just because some are more attractive than others. I wanted to acknowledge that if people don’t have a sex life, it’s not for some moral reason, it’s just because they’re ugly. Once you’ve said it, it sounds obvious, but I wanted to say it.

We are all dead men walking so long as we remain on this path. We know how it ends and we cannot respect ourselves if this is what we leave to our descendants. This evokes the Roosh controversy, because it shows us men clawing at an invisible enemy on their backs. The real purge is within: we must purge ourselves of hopelessness and helplessness, admit we have seen the Hell that is coming, and strike out in honesty to Restore goodness.

Anything else is just spitting in the wind, entertaining ourselves by being internet rebels while the battlefield languishes. Anything else puts us below the lowest homosexual Other casual sex participant because we, unlike others, know toward what we march. Victory or death. There is no other way.

Which way, dissident Right?

Monday, February 22nd, 2016


With the Trump campaign, as predicted, convergence occurred between underground and mainstream right, forcing a recognition of underlying issues which are outside of the Leftist scope of concern and so not articulable in the postwar West. The question now sits before us: where to from here?

As I articulate in the theory of Crowdism, most human endeavors fail because they are invisibly infected by individualism weaponized into a collectivist mentality. That is, a group decides that they will become a collective for the defense of individualism, or the lack of accountability of the individual to reality and the natural hierarchy of humans and ideas.

This thought process corresponds to both what the Greeks called hubris and the sin described in the Garden of Eden: desiring to be above one’s place in the natural hierarchy, and using subterfuge in human opinions both internal (self) and external (Crowd) to achieve the simulation of that. Like all illusions, this one ends in tears, but that happens at a distant time, so for those who can shorten the scale of their perception to the immediate, it seems like a win.

Since ability to think long-term correlates highly with intelligence, we might see hubris in groups as a victory for the statistically-prevalent lower 80% of the Bell Curve, who by the Dunning-Kruger effect lack the ability to understand what is above that cognitive level. This is the human problem; all else flows from this, and it is also what ends human civilizations by reducing them to third-world levels of inefficacy.

Crowdism can infiltrate any field, even those which nominally brand themselves as being against it. Any time the truth is adjusted to fit its audience, and not the other way around — adjusting the audience to fit reality, known as “natural selection” — Crowdism enters and through the misplaced self-interest of individuals, takes over. I say “misplaced” because putting oneself and all those similar to you on a path to certain destruction is never wise. It guarantees all that you do will be wasted.

Like all evil outside books that involve orcs and wizards, the evil of Crowdism comes not in a terrifying form but a beautiful, kind, compassionate, loving, gentle and socially inclusive one. It accepts all who are willing to formally adopt a basic outlook, and then in the name of keeping the group together, includes all in its focus even when their ideas begin to erode the fundamental truth.

This is the great ugly secret of humanity: reality is the one truth, and we either obey it or self-destruct. All of our errors consist of adjusting truth to fit what we wish were true, and all of our successes come from accepting reality as it is and then acting to improve it qualitatively, which means not finding a “different” way but taking the obvious way and doing what we can to make it better for those who are better. Crowdism is merely a clever sleight-of-hand around this obvious and time-honored path.

The dissident Right — alternative right, neoreaction, new right, red pill and others who see that the foundational myths of democracy, equality and pluralism are the cause of our civilization’s dysfunction and imminent failure — has come far by rejecting the Leftist-tinged ideals of the compliant cuckservative mainstream Right, but we must make sure we do not fall prey to the same syndrome that took them out. Crowdism lurks for us in doing what is popular, not what is right, and our future legitimacy rests on our ability to beat this cognitive error.

As mentioned early on, the dissident Right struggles with its desire for novelty and thus its tendency toward Crowdism. Its main function has been to widen the Overton window so that we can talk about topics like HBD, nationalism, the inherent failure of socialism and other negations of the Leftist ideal. But in trying to popularize these ideas, it can fall prey to popularization itself, and become a lesser method of what it needs to be.

What has always plagued the Right is lack of ability to state what it wants. We know that Leftism is a stream and once a toe is dipped in it, the current carries us forever further Left. The only solution is to affirm a Right society that does not have any Leftism in it, and that requires facing some unpopular truths. That in turn requires taking a difficult stand that will not be popular, but if our leaders affirm it, the others will fall in line and follow. The dog must wag the tail again, instead of the tail (popularity) wagging the dog (goal).

Currently the dissident Right is caught in a loop of rehashing its criticisms of the Left but it is unable to make the step toward the difficult stage of demanding actual change because this conflicts with Crowdist elements in its audience. We have lots of blogs rehashing ideas that myself and others covered 20 years ago, and while that is great, it has become preaching to the choir. We either take the next step or vanish in irrelevance.