Posts Tagged ‘egalitarianism’
Thursday, February 16th, 2017
Conservatives do not understand Leftists, in part because conservatives do not understand conservatism.
Let us venture back to the French Revolution, after which the modern definitions of Right and Left became known. The Left had won and overthrown the kings, and France tried to reconstitute itself around the new political assumptions. The Right formed of those who realized things had been better before but were willing to compromise with the new idea.
The Left exists for egalitarianism, or the idea that everyone is equal. This arises from The Enlightenment™ idea that all people possess reason, which means equal reason, which means that we no longer require a hierarchy based on who has the most reason, but can instead sort out problems as a mob.
Leftism can be translated then into the idea that we need no hierarchy, and instead, that every person is a god of his own creation. The individual is supreme above the order of nature, a need to strive toward divinity, and even social standards and culture. Egalitarianism is a cult of the ego and it displaces everything else because it is addicting to human minds.
Back in the post French Revolutionary days, however, conservatives made a fatal decision: instead of resisting the Left outright, they would compromise with it, and retain their own methods but adopt the Leftist goal of egalitarianism. In doing so, they invalidated their methods, which were based not on human individuals but results for civilization as a whole.
In other words, conservatives became liberals because they could not reconcile the need for a society of time-proven solutions with the new and infectious viral meme of egalitarianism.
This leads to the type of utter confusion that blights the modern conservative mind:
The Conservative upholds some obvious and self-evident good thing, like equality or property rights. The Progressive, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, promotes an idea that it the diametric opposite of the first idea, such as elitism or communal rights, and then merely calls the first idea by the opposite of its true name.
The argument at that point becomes an argument of metaphysical philosophy, or an argument of worldview. But the worldview of the conservative is the Christian worldview, which is why they believe in things like the equality of man, the rule of reason, and the law of identity.
No conservative should endorse equality. Further, conservatives need to recognize that property rights are a means to an end: the health of the civilization and, through it, the best chance of the individual for leading the best possible life. Anything else is confusing the tool for the goal.
When conservatives endorse equality, freedom, liberty and individualism they are unknowingly becoming servants of the Left. Those are at best intermediates, or steps to the end of a healthy society which enables the individual to live a good life without interference from the insane. The best societies reward the good, and ignore or punish the bad, including the insane, unhealthy, delusional and egotistical.
Conservatives do not understand the Left. It is best to view them as computer programs out of control, with all of their instructions supplanted by a single pathological goal: advance equality. They do not care about consequences, decency, or the future of the nation. They would rather achieve their ideology and immediately perish in flames than postpone it.
When conservatives adopt any part of the Leftist, or egalitarian, ideology, they turn into similarly programmed beings. Reality must be subjugated to the needs of ideology. This makes them essentially insane, or oblivious to inputs from the world around them, satisfied only by their internal sensation at the idea of ideology. In this way conservatives become Leftists without knowing it.
The essence of conservatism is time-proven truth, or consequentialism, which favors a certain type of society that is totally alien to what we have now. But reality it is what it is; we must work for this “impossible” goal or become assimilated by the insanity around us, and while that seems harsh, becoming ideological zombies is far worse.
Friday, February 10th, 2017
The crypto-cuck seeks to program you with the idea of the proposition nation, or internationalism/multiculturalism/diversity, as a working form of society. They do it by appealing to the sense that we are all people and can be treated equally — a Leftist idea — so that we work together toward the goal of ensuring everyone is treated equally (notice the circular reasoning).
Crypto-cucks like to argue that if everyone is treated equally, we can work together toward the economic and political system — democracy, a variant of Communism, because all Leftism varies only in degree and not substance, being essentially egalitarianism which is a collectivized form of individualism — and achieve an implicit Utopia:
Their fascism will be called the traditional American way of punching Nazis, and your freedom of speech will be called fascism.
…Upon waking, you find that your life now belongs, as a property, to your group identity.
…Questioning why, you are told that since bigotry and oppression, and indeed, any ability of a citizen to live his own life, are hindered by the enmity between these group identities, the only way for the individual to protect himself from bigotry, and to hence be free to live his own life, is by allowing his individual identity to be subsumed in his group identity.
Hence, to live his life freely, he must have his freedom to live his life as he wills be abolished.
Freedom, liberty and independence are the false goals of the crypto-cuck.
In reality, we should desire sanity, hierarchy, leadership, purpose and standards of our own, but the crypto-cuck realizes that these contradict equality. So instead, he argues against one degree of Leftism by using another degree of Leftism.
The crypto-cuck, like other Leftists, seeks to manipulate you with pleasant-sounding concepts so that he can indulge his individualist fantasies of having no obligation to principles of unity with reality like culture, family, values, heritage and tradition.
The best and worst thing we can say about crypto-cucks is that they are thinly disguised Leftists, and this is a good reason to throw them out with the rest of the neurotics and parasites who endorse that ideology.
Monday, January 30th, 2017
A recent article notes that we are in the midst of a sea change not between types of politics, but between politics and realism:
It’s time we recognize that the party of Reagan was already dead — and that it died along with the threat of Soviet communism.
Reaganism was…a worldview, in the truest sense of the word. Its broadest ideals were also shared by anti-communist Democrats like historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Universal human rights, limited government, open trade, free elections, multiparty democracy — it was considered in our national interest to defend these values as strongly (and prudently) as possible.
…In his 1998 book The Great Betrayal, Buchanan wrote (foreshadowing Trump) that “while the Soviet Union had paid the ultimate price of imperial overstretch, America had also paid an immense price. We had sacrificed our national interests in the cause of allied solidarity, while Western [Europe] and Japan had made no comparable contributions and had prospered mightily at our expense.”
In other words, ideology has taken a back-seat to tribal self-interest.
This is not entirely surprising, since for 98% (or so) of its history, humanity has relied on tribalism. It rarely fails: group identity excludes outsiders and deviants, and allows for an efficient method of getting people to collaborate without having to be forced to do so.
In contrast, for the last two-and-a-half centuries, we have relied on the idea of the proposition nation, which is a nation formed of political/economic boundaries instead of a single founding ethnic group:
The February 10 issue of the New York Review of Books contains what I think may be the earliest sighting of the “Proposition Nation” chimera now in captivity.
It’s a reprint of the November 22, 1999 address given in Munich by Peter Gay, the historian, on accepting the Geschwister-Scholl Prize for the German translation of his book My German Question, about his childhood in Nazi Germany. Gay says:
In this view, a Bavarian peasant who could look back on generations of settled forebears was no more German than a Jew who did not know in which country his grandparents had lived.
The fascinating thing about this “ideal” is its utter lack of factual justification. The English, the French, the Italians—all have been formed by waves of migration, often Germanic, within recorded history. But the Germans have been stolidly on the Rhine since the time of Christ.
Yet the “Proposition Nation” myth took root and was apparently seriously entertained.
The “proposition nation” is the ultimate extension of the singular and fundamental idea of the Left, individualism, which holds that the individual is the largest unit in a society. Society exists to facilitate the individual in that view, and cannot exclude anyone from participation, which enables individuals to enjoy the benefits of society with assuming its burdens being an optional choice.
In the reasoning of individualists, society must accept the individual even if that person commits a “tragedy of the commons” style exploitation of collective resources or imposes externalized damage. From this comes the moral relativism of the Left, which is a tendency to adjust standards to fit what individuals are doing, instead of observing which standards produce the best results and then demanding that the little egotists conform to those for the betterment of all.
All of the rhetoric of the Left — liberty, equality and fraternity — comes from this simple idea, which is that society cannot exclude individuals merely because they violate its standards unless those violations are against other individuals (murder, rape, theft). Civilization does not have a voice, nor does the future or the past, because all that matters is the individual.
Naturally this makes it wholly accurate to refer to individualism as the philosophy of parasitism, and to recognize that it is illogical and suicidal. The happiness and health of people is mostly contingent upon having a functional civilization, and benefits cascade downward toward the individual by what this stability and facility enables them to do. Individualism sabotages that function in order to focus on the individual, and as a result leaves behind ruined societies where everyone is miserable or oblivious, because they must either notice the dysfunction and downward trend and thus be depressed, or go into denial and rationalize the decline as “progress.”
What this means is that to become Leftist is to enter a spiral: the individual is given power, the tragedy of the common happens, every public figure rationalizes this and those who do not fail to become public figures, which means that society enters a stage where all of its solutions are wrong because anything other than “more Leftism” was filtered out as an answer before the question even came up. The self-referential society confirms its own biases, validates untruth as truth through moral relativism, and makes its assumptions and precepts into its conclusion through this filtering process.
However, people still need to distinguish themselves socially, and so while the disaster spirals down, individuals are busy becoming socially popular and thus powerful — in an individualistic society — by further advancing this ideology. This means that over time they expand the franchise by seeking ways to abolish differences in status and wealth between individuals. This starts with class warfare, expands to sexual liberation and gender equality, and then embarks on the “internationalist” (now: “globalist”) project of abolishing borders, starting with tribes similar to the founding tribe of the society and then accelerating until it demands multiculturalism, or the presence of members of every ethnic group in the world within the society.
Individualism is thus a franchise that it ultimately extends even beyond the borders of the state. We call that the “proposition nation” because it is defined by law, rooted in the Leftist concept of individualism, and economics, which is based on the individual as a self-interested actor in response to existing economic conditions, in turn creating a need for constant growth to continue keeping individuals motivated. This contrasts conservative economics which aim for low-growth and therefore more stable conditions with less internal social conflict caused by social mobility.
At first, the proposition nation seems like a good idea to most citizens. It reduces the demands placed on them by culture, morality and society. It increases their personal chances of social mobility while allowing them to externalize more of their costs to the collective. Finally, it lessens the stress of competition for mates and friends by allowing the inclusion of people from less-developed societies, which makes having a friend or mate from the founding group more desirable. But it also causes brutal problems, namely the loss of culture and standards because these must now be adjusted — moral relativism again — to fit the newcomers. It also savages social trust and creates alienated, rootless people made miserable by the ugly, anti-heroic and valueless utilitarian boot camp in which they live.
The Left has only one gambit for protecting the proposition nation, and that is to equate enemies of Leftism with enemies of the nation, thus appealing to the labrador retriever level patriotism that most people have as a result of wanting to belong firmly to their social group. We never ask whether Hitler was making war on America, or fighting Leftism and therefore had to also fight America because America was a Leftist state at the time. But the Left assembles its enemies for their choice of pre-individualism philosophies that endorse a social unit bigger than the individual — including race, family, nation, ethne, culture, religion — and chooses to paint them all as Hitler, the KKK, King George III and the Confederacy all rolled up into one single hateful scapegoat.
For example, witness this attack on the ability to think anything remotely partial to nationalism:
“Things are getting significantly worse,” Potok says. “We are seeing a very serious rise in right-wing populism.”
The strong upward trend began with President Barack Obama’s election in 2008, Potok says, and it has worsened because of ongoing angst among members of the white middle class, who feel alienated by a society different from the one in which they grew up.
“It’s not simply that there’s a black man in the White House,” Potok says. “It’s what he represents,” which is the fact that whites are losing the demographic majority. “When Obama was elected, most of the country was celebratory … but the next day, the servers of two very major white supremacist organizations” — Stormfront and the Council of Conservative Citizens, which inspired the Charleston church killer Dylann Roof — “crashed because they were getting so much traffic.”
This article is interesting, unique and funny because it extends enemy status to those fighting for a variety of larger-than-individual causes:
The list is a virtual rainbow of hate, showcasing ideologies denouncing blacks, whites, Jews, Muslims, and the LGBT community. The seven Bay Area groups include: the Black Hebrew Israelites and the Christian Guardians, both of San Francisco; the Black Riders Liberation Party, the Nation of Islam, As-Sabiqun, and Masjid al-Islam, all of Oakland; and IslamThreat.com, based in Pleasant Hill.
Truly the ways of Kek and Gnon are wondrous to have gifted us with the supreme comedy of the phrase “a virtual rainbow of hate.” The rich irony of this time, when a rainbow nation can project itself onto an animus composed of multicolored hatred dripping with glitter, delivers the confirmation of a death spiral: this society is so drenched in Leftism that it cannot imagine that someone else would choose another path.
That inflexibility and totalitarian aspect of our contemporary Leftist society shows us the problem with ideology. Like a mental virus, ideology takes over brains, and then weaponizes the crowd as a form of permanent agitation for ever-increasing doses of Leftism, mainly because it never makes people feel contentment, only a momentary sense of superiority.
George Orwell expresses this in his 1940 review of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler:
But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches …. The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. One feels it again when one sees his photographs-and I recommend especially the photograph at the beginning of Hurst and Blackett’s edition, which shows Hitler in his early Brownshirt days. It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can’t win, and yet that he somehow deserves to. The attraction of such a pose is of course enormous; half the films that one sees turn upon some such theme.
Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all “progressive” thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin’s militarised version of Socialism. All three of the great dictators have enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them “I offer you struggle, danger and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.
A society designed purely around material comfort makes people miserable. They long for quests, duties, aspirations and cooperative goals. This is why Hitler always appeals to us: he is the refutation of individualism, and says instead that meaning comes from the union — or intersection — between nature, civilization, race, God and self.
This is the shadow reason for the backlash which hides behind the obvious reason, which is that Leftism has failed. Not only has it failed, but it has failed to inspire. No one wants to live for the Utilitarian, yet egalitarianism/individualism — and they are the same — is the most Utilitarian mode of thought possible. Our souls are stolen by the “pragmatism” of systems dedicated to nonsense.
Worse than that, in this soul-stealing system, we are essentially subjugated by bullies who force us to believe obvious lies in order to affirm their domination over us. Witness this finely-honed lie that was until recently the official state religion, with all who deviated being ostracized and dying impoverished alone:
Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences at Washington University, has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right qualitative type of variation — it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.
Using the latest molecular biology techniques, Templeton has analyzed millions of genetic sequences found in three distinct types of human DNA and concludes that, in the scientific sense, the world is colorblind. That is, it should be.
“Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans — genetic differences,” says Templeton. “Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There’s nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity.”
“The world is colorblind,” repeats the State propaganda on the radio. In this case, it took nearly a decade to undo these lies. We found out that Templeton used too small of a threshold in understanding similarities, and too big of a target in establishing differences. In fact, all of his research is a fraud and a political statement with nothing to do with science, engineered to be propaganda not learning.
The fraud that was perpetrated upon us was designed to manipulate and control us so that the State — an entity disconnected from the organic and amorphous entity that is “a people” — could pacify differences between groups and (hopefully) increase its own wealth. That fraud, like the fraud of globalism, eventually failed. And so now people seek new things.
We also recognize that we were misdirected on race. The question is not whether science officially recognizes race, but that we recognize race: we can discern members of different groups, and we prefer our own group. No measurement can compete with that reality, especially when corrupt scientists like Alan R. Templeton are juggling the figures to portray reality as something other than what it is.
Ideology forced the illusion upon us. Ideology dictates what is correct, socially and politically, and this is by its very nature at odds with what is, namely the underlying mathematics of nature. As a result, ideology is forced to “correct” the error of nature by imposing human intent as reality, and in doing so, displacing actual reality and replacing it with a world of symbols, emotions and political judgments.
This sets up a struggle between realism and ideology, with realism winning because ideology has not only failed, but made us miserable, as one neoconservative writes about his self-engineered fall from grace and consequent rejection of the neoliberal/neoconservative “bipartisan” ideological ideal:
As my doubts grew about neoconservatism, I gave realism another chance. I had generally sympathized with values-based critiques of realism, assuming that balance-of-power diplomacy would inform “a policy of promoting ‘stability’ based on extended authoritarian decay.” I realized, however, that realism is not simply a concession to the world as it is, where religious and ethnic identities retain their stubborn holds, and where human nature resents even the most benevolent efforts to impose societal transformation.
Ideology has run us into bankruptcy. It has shattered our faith in ourselves and in our future. It has made us doubt obvious truths, and filled our heads with lies. The backlash against it is virulent because ideology misled us and destroyed so much in the name of justice, leaving behind a new world order of tedious regularity, fear and neurosis.
How vicious has it been?
Looking at the high consequential cost of ideology, we see that our governments both local and federal have gone broke pursuing the ideological quest of equality, diversity and
All of the programs and incentives put in place by the federal and state governments to induce higher levels of growth by building more infrastructure has made the city of Lafayette functionally insolvent. Lafayette has collectively made more promises than it can keep and it’s not even close. If they operated on accrual accounting — where you account for your long term liabilities — instead of a cash basis — where you don’t — they would have been bankrupt decades ago. This is a pattern we see in every city we’ve examined. It is a byproduct of the American pattern of development we adopted everywhere after World War II.
There are two questions I’m commonly asked when I tell this story. The first is: how did this happen? The second: what do we do now?
The way this happened is pretty simple. At Strong Towns, we call it the Growth Ponzi Scheme. Through a combination of federal incentives, state programs and private capital, cities were able to rapidly grow by expanding horizontally. This provided the local government with the immediate revenues that come from new growth — permit fees, utility fees, property tax increases, sales tax — and, in exchange, the city takes on the long term responsibility of servicing and maintaining all the new infrastructure. The money comes in handy in the present while the future obligation is, well…a long time in the future.
Our society has bankrupted itself in caring for the diverse populations it has adopted. If you look at the map above, you see a functional downtown and some suburbs, and then a vast area of diverse living that essentially absorbs resources. It does so because it cannot compete with the functional parts of society, being geared toward an entirely different way of life.
The entire West will collapse because of this bankruptcy; no nations can stand that owe tons of money for social programs, which generate zero productivity, while sacrificing productivity for that ideological end.
This is the end result of ideology. A few enlightened ones™ rule over a vast mass of proletariat, aided by the sleepwalking bourgeoisie, without ever having formulated a goal of civilization in itself. Instead, the goal is to capitalize on what already is, and to divide it up without producing more. It is a religion of death translated into secular form.
As the West confronts this reality, it must decide its fate: does it continue to pursue the path of the “proposition nation” and ideology, or does it embrace realism — and real biology/genetics — and accept that people are different, and we can still work together, but without the heavy Leftist overtones that require us to be equal? Only time will tell.
Tuesday, December 27th, 2016
Humanity is consistent in one thing: most people are degenerate liars, and in groups, people give in to the lowest common denominator, which is degenerate lying.
We have one real industry, which is the production of excuses, justifications, rationalizations and scapegoats to help us avoid the obvious conclusion that all human problems are caused by the dishonesty of individuals and the panicked impulse control problems of the herd.
People will flock to any explanation other than what is real simply because they do not want to face the really difficult question in human society, which is how we deal with the fact that most of us are essentially “talking monkeys with car keys” who lack impulse control.
This is why we have spent centuries chasing after the perfect political System, through endless war and millions of miles of ink spilled on laws and regulations. We have whole industries trying to explain away our failings. They all use the same mechanism:
“It’s not you, it’s your circumstances.”
In their view, it is not individual humans making bad decisions that causes our problems, but a long list of excuses: we have the wrong System; we need more laws; the Russians did it; the Rich did it; we do not have enough wealth; we were victims of something, so whatever we do is its fault. All of these amount to clever monkeys thinking up excuses that they can use as pretexts for bad behavior.
Here, for example, is stupidity in action from the bigoted legacy academia:
We citizens of a modern democracy claim to believe in equality, but our sense of equality is not even close that of hunter-gatherers. The hunter-gatherer version of equality meant that each person was equally entitled to food, regardless of his or her ability to find or capture it; so food was shared. It meant that nobody had more wealth than anyone else; so all material goods were shared. It meant that nobody had the right to tell others what to do; so each person made his or her own decisions. It meant that even parents didn’t have the right to order their children around; hence the non-directive childrearing methods that I have discussed in previous posts. It meant that group decisions had to be made by consensus; hence no boss, “big man,” or chief.
If just one anthropologist had reported all this, we might assume that he or she was a starry-eyed romantic who was seeing things that weren’t really there, or was a liar. But many anthropologists, of all political stripes, regarding many different hunter-gatherer cultures, have told the same general story. There are some variations from culture to culture, of course, and not all of the cultures are quite as peaceful and fully egalitarian as others, but the generalities are the same. One anthropologist after another has been amazed by the degree of equality, individual autonomy, indulgent treatment of children, cooperation, and sharing in the hunter-gatherer culture that he or she studied. When you read about “warlike primitive tribes,” or about indigenous people who held slaves, or about tribal cultures with gross inequalities between men and women, you are not reading about band hunter-gatherers.
If you were born yesterday, or merely in the mid-1990s, the above might sound convincing. The rest of us have heard this claptrap from the legacy academia since the 1970s. It translates to this:
“The problem is not that you are all lying nitwits, but that you are in a system that is unequal.”
You can note the lies inherent in the above quoted article by a few angles that are so obvious that they are boldly concealed:
- Archaeology. From many digs and fossils, we find that most of the specimens have evidence of wounding. Since we do not have evidence of agriculture at the same time, these were by definition hunter-gatherer societies.
- Contemporary evidence. Hunter-gatherer societies were more violent than even the State societies in recent memory.
- Human consistency. Humans have always been violent and usually for reasons of territory, culture, and suppression of nearby people who act like idiots. Much of this is emotional. The notion that “egalitarian” societies make people peaceful is a fantasy.
- Marxist bias. Academia is biased toward Leftism/Marxism and most of its research is fake, usually for reasons of political bias, which are in fact reasons of capitalism; that which has an audience gets paid for, and that which does not starves.
- Genetic evidence. Peaceful, egalitarian societies would result in populations that accepted members from a wide range of competing tribes and had little internal hierarchy. Instead we see the exact opposite.
The primitivist argument, advanced most convincingly by John Zerzan, is popular because it blames something other than humanity for the problems of humanity. Like blaming The Rich, The Jews, The Elites, etc. it transfers culpability from the everyday behavior of people to a symbolic object and assumes that by banishing that, we are left with only “the good” in ourselves.
In reality, the exact opposite is true. Bad rich people are created by thoughtless idiots buying scammy products. The problem of Judaism is created by proles disabling kings so that immigration could occur. The Elites are formed of our thoughtless voting, buying and social notions as a group.
People have been fooled by this because it allows us to blame external problems for our collapse, which makes it seem that collapse will be external, which is a lot faster and easier to deal with than civilizational collapse, which occurs through cultural, political and genetic forces and is extremely difficult to counteract through any method that can be communicated by convincing others.
As always, politics dooms us. People want easy answers, and reject hard solutions. This means that they race after Marxist daydreams or totalitarian wet-dreams (or both) and miss the point: we are an unpunished herd, and we need our best people with absolute power, cracking the whip, while setting up a social order based on caste so every decision is made by personally-accountable, publicly-shameable intelligent people instead of an anonymous mob of people with zero responsibility or accountability.
This is why Amerika advocates the four pillars. Until we have those, we do not have civilization, and will be ruled by a succession of incompetent demagogues, religious fanatics, profiteer-parasites, lunatic New Agers and racial scapegoat-mongers of various stripes.
Leftism itself may be seen as a rationalization of decline in order to avoid pointing the finger at the failure of Systems, or rules designed to make the mob behave, because of the inherent attributes of a mob. We either have kings and social roles, or a mob, and the last five hundred years of history have shown us conclusively that mob rule does not work.
So, let us look at reality. Hunter-gatherers live miserable lives. Efficiency is found when you have big estates ruled by noble families in which all the people under 130 IQ points are told what to do, and no one cares about what they think outside of their specific domains. That model works and we know it does because it provided many centuries of positive living, and build the basis of our technology and advanced culture and institutions.
Nothing we have done since has been anywhere near as good, but our pretense will not allow us to admit that, because to admit that is to recognize that we, as individuals, are not kings, and that we need to be managed because we are barely in control of ourselves. Jordan Peterson points this out in a telling passage in a recent interview:
Skeptical neutrality is ‘you’re a bucket of snakes, just like me. However, if you’re willing to abide by your word, and I’m willing to abide by my word, then we’re able to engage in mutually beneficial interactions, so that’s what we’re going to do’. The reason I said courageous trust is to distinguish it from naiveté. Naive people think that everybody’s good. That’s false, everybody’s not good. But acting in a manner that’s hostile and sceptical and anti-social is completely counter-productive. So what you do if you’re a mature person is you say ‘well, yeah, you’ve got a dark side, so do I. That doesn’t mean we can’t engage in productive interactions’. We do that by sticking to our damned word. Honesty simplifies us to the point where we can engage in mutually beneficial interactions.
We need to acknowledge the dark side of humanity which is that most people not only do not have “free will” but they are in fact unstable egos trying to ride herd on a bag of raging impulses, many of which are animalistic and primitive in the sense of entirely driven by raw urges. The dark side is not a good thing; it is the reversion of evolution, and yet most people will favor tolerating it because they want socially-derived “freedom” from the risk of being rejected because their dark side traits are out of control.
Primitivism is nonsense because inherent within it is the idea that our human problem is our circumstances and not our behavior. That is scapegoating and the oldest form of rationalization which says that, instead of putting our best in charge and suppressing the insanity in all of us by that mechanism, we should accept the insanity (remember: Leftism means Good = Bad) and celebrate it.
Like all other forms of human nonsense, this one will always be the most popular, especially among middle-intelligence people (120-129) who find it comforting because it assuages their egos, which are both fragile because they are aware of more limitations to knowledge, and arrogant because they move among a herd of people without their intellectual advantages. But like all nonsense, accurately known as reality denial, it is a path to death.
Sunday, December 4th, 2016
In a recent statement, President-Elect Donald J. Trump stated the possibility of exile or deportation for those incompatible with American civilization:
‘Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!’ Trump said Tuesday morning on Twitter.
Essentially what he is saying here is that those who pursue the American way belong among us, but those who do not should endure “loss of citizenship.” He hedges that by offering jail instead for the relatively minor act of burning an American flag, but this still reserves deportation for those who commit more egregious violations.
This policy reverses centuries of egalitarian thought. Under egalitarianism, society is facilitative, or designed to support its citizens in their pursuit of their own interests, whether those end in good results or bad. Under this new idea, people belong among us only so far as they are able to offer something to the cooperative achievement of a collaborative goal.
Exile/deportation would solve many problems. Instead of trying to “reform” criminals, we could simply send them somewhere else and let nature or the gods deal with them as is appropriate. Where now we spend millions in keeping our society together, we could simply admit that not everyone belongs, and let those who belong elsewhere go to some other place.
The old way was based on wealth and entitlement. The new way is based on realism: we need a small group of people pulling in the right direction and those who support them, and those who hate this setup or want to go another direction belong somewhere else.
This is the return of Social Darwinism, not by wealth, but by direction.
Friday, November 25th, 2016
In the 1990s, Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington battled for the future theory of Western Civilization. Fukuyama believed that liberal democracy was the ultimate evolution of humanity, but Huntington saw the chaotic formation of groups based on religion, culture, and ethnicity warring against each other for dominance.
As it turned out, Huntington was right and Fukuyama got the “also ran” award. The point is that there is no perfect society, only a clash between approximations. People fight over the possibility of identity, which is an intersectional hybrid between ethnic group, religion, political group and social caste. There are no easy answers.
The “clash of civilizations,” Huntington’s vision in which identifiable groups separated, won out over the “end of history,” in which we all ended up being safe and uncontroversial by joining the trend of liberal democracy. Fukuyama’s vision was safe; Huntington’s, disturbing and as lawless as the American frontier.
As the dust settles, it becomes clear that Huntington won. Fukuyama predicted a future of endless liberal democracy, and bravely revealed the emptiness of this option; Huntington, as if anticipating this, projected a future of endless warfare in which group identity would be more important than individual identity.
Time passed. “The end of history” (sensu Fukuyama) gave way to the Huntingtonian vision of world tribalism with the rise of terrorism and clash between West and Islam. This new tribalism invalidated old concepts, like liberal democracy, equality, diversity and the nation-state.
“The end of history” was, after all, a hopeful vision. Perhaps we could stop struggling and see a certain form factor as the basis for politics forevermore. But that made no sense. Nature abhors a vacuum and it also hates the static. Instead, we have endless conflict, from which clarity emerges, much as it does through Natural Selection.
The world is far from static. Instead, constant conflict allows the sanest among us to suppress the rest so that the minority viewpoint of sanity can prevail above the usual monkey dynamics, drama, neurosis, attention whoring, victimhood pimping, passive aggression and other distractions.
In this new reality, the humans who have some sense of reality are looking toward avoiding the nonsense warfare of those caught in symbolism, and instead are hoping to find a pragmatic balance where even the isolated can have political interests simply by standing up for what they want, outside of the public drama.
This creates not a void, but a momentum which demands that clarity arrive. The Alt Right has triumphed with the election of Donald J. Trump, but where to go from here? Clearly the candidate needs support but the public is at a loss for how to articulate what is needed.
Fellows at Alternative Right give us, as always, a clear direction where the rest of media is fetishing choas. Their outlook sees a the Alt Right as one step toward an ultimate evolution of politics, one in which clarity needs to beat out trends for a sense of direction and purpose:
Also remember this: the Alt-Right can inspire its chosen and future audience—and also trigger its opponents—simply by focusing on moral and mature European identitarianism and Western traditionalism, and by addressing the awkward issues of race and excessive Jewish power in a spirit of honesty and humaneness. Our opponents are so extreme that we can trigger them merely with our common sense and moderation.
The point is this: end the Enlightenment™ notion that good intentions are good policy, and replace it with the core of the Right, which is uncompromising intense Realism that urges us to find transcendental goals above focus on human egos and intent. Speak that in plain language, and apply it in every policy question, and people will find themselves drawn to it.
Realism works. The policy of “good intentions” does not. If we speak this in a neutral and informed way, for example saying “Diversity does not work because it denies each group the ability to set standards and values, creating a constant conflict over that topic,” instead of ranting on about inferior races that we hate like Hollywood Nutzis, then we crush illusions and convert people.
There it gets more complex however. The Alt Right is an ecosystem. This means that instead of all of us doing the same thing, like cogs in a machine or Communists marching in uniform, we all have unique roles and we exist as a “big tent” with much internal variation so that we do not need external critics to keep ourselves consistent.
For that reason, we obey a “no enemies to the Right” motto which means we allow people to be themselves in our big tent, and express whatever extremities they wish, as long as those extremities serve in some what to advance the “transcendental realist” outlook of the Right. Let the left attack them, but we should not be attacking those who are helping us to advance our ideals, whether they are mass murder fetishists or just 400 lb naked basement trolls.
This does not mean we must endorse their viewpoints, or claim that they speak for us. We can criticize those viewpoints, and this is commonly done by pointing out the inconsistencies in those philosophies. It is also fair game where certain beliefs have been tried to bring up the past and infer a connection between philosophical inconsistencies and bad results in reality. This can be done without attacking any person as the Left does, even when quoting them and disagreeing; such behavior is part of informed debate and is how the Right thrives. We need constant inner war to clarify where our values overlap and where we should be advancing in order to keep consistent with those most basic shared values.
This gives at least two fronts. On the facing end there is the responsible Alt Right:
People who come to the Alt-Right (if I’m any indication) are usually a bit uneasy at first with ideas they have been taught to despise their whole life. Months ago, when I first started exploring these new ideas I was still cautious, and seeing Spencer yelling ‘Hail Victory’ back then might have turned me off. While I had been questioning what I had been taught about race for some time before coming to the Alt-Right, it took a while for me to get comfortable with my own thoughtcrimes. Normies have to be eased into this.
On the back end however, we need more of the “bad boy” appeal that made the Alt Right so powerful during this election. In the West, we have a mythos of informed outsiders telling us the plain truth that cannot be spoken in society, so has been forgotten. Whether that truth-teller is Beowulf or Zarathustra, we are accustomed to civilization inserting its head in its posterior and becoming oblivious only to the vital facts it needs to know.
This rowdy and uncivilized behavior — including trolling, provocation, mockery and irreverence — is what allows the Alt Right to keep widening the Overton Window and going beyond it. The goal of this type of behavior, including edgy Hitler references at NPI conferences, is to force acceptance of previously taboo ideas. This aims to throw away the Overton Window entirely, to finally end World War II by terminating the guilt and shame heaped on the losers, and to allow us to once again openly discuss previously censored ideas like eugenics, nationalism, the different IQ levels of different social castes, the failure of liberal democracy and other topics that were commonly discussed before WWII but not after.
What is vitally important is that this second wing not disrupt the first. Many who were advancing the “Alt Right = White Nationalism” trope allowed this symbolism to become a replacement for ideation and direction. This is symbolism, and we need to approach it as being only what it is, which is putting certain previously-taboo topics back on the table so we can finally figure out what we think about them.
Huntington, Nietzsche and Houellebecq should probably be named patron saints of the Alt Right. Huntington told us that nationalism was going to emerge naturally, not through ideology, as the world linked up. Nietzsche told us that a morality of pacifism, equality, tolerance and non-violence would make us weak and existentially miserable. Houellebecq pointed out that Western Civilization is falling apart because we have made life an ugly and overly-sensualized obligation, removing any sense of pleasure found in the natural process of living itself.
This is the direction the Alt Right now needs to push: nationalism from Huntington, a new morality from Nietzsche, and a renovation of joy in life itself from Houellebecq. We must cross another taboo barrier, which is the taboo against Social Conservative ideas because anything which does not encourage constant sex, drugs/drink and media consumption must be un-fun. The problem is that while “fun” might be had in the short term with the constant prole party atmosphere of the dying West, it also crushes us inside, and so makes us weaker and ultimately, self-hating.
We need to turn this society around. Trump/Brexit was just the first step, peeling the outside layer of an onion composed of many layers. At the heart of the onion is this: societies that succeed lose their sense of purpose because they have achieved the goal of creating civilization. Then, they allow too many less-useful people to breed while the wealth empowers people to become special interest groups who do not view their future as bound up with that of the civilization. This produces an alliance between the wealthy and the proles to essentially abolish all laws, standards and morality, replacing them with “anarchy with grocery stores” so that profits can be high and behavior low. The problem with this type of society is that it immediately reverts to third world levels.
The raging egomania of this time was caused by allowing people to have power outside of the hierarchy or in opposition to the goals of that society. This in turn is caused by lack of a purpose outside the reactive, a type of stasis where we assume that everything is basically right except for small problems that then can be fixed with direct action. This has us reacting to material details, instead of noticing patterns, and so decline sneaks up on us.
To escape this pattern, we need to restore the notion of civilization having a purpose again, so that instead of reacting we have inner momentum toward a semi-attainable but ultimately never fully attainable goal, such as the transcendentals (goodness, beauty, excellence, virtue, truth/realism).
This is what Bruce Charlton explains as a struggle to find a will toward goodness in our hearts which is the basis of the revolution against modernity:
To analyse Life (including politics) in terms of power-differentials, economics, nationalism, racialism, or sex-politics is objectively and historically Leftism; hence the Alt-Right are (merely) Leftist heretics – and this can be seen by the clear motivation of the movement to take-over The State Apparatus in order to sort-out the economy, harness and encourage national pride, reverse the racism and sexism of the Left and so on.
It’s not that these objectives are bad, actually or necessarily, but that these are all Leftist objectives which merely tweak the system without reversing its direction – all of them were historical objectives of radical political movements, mostly in the 18th or 19th century, and all flowed-into modern New Leftism (political correctness, SJWs) for the simple reason that they are this-wordly and gratification-orientated and justified (i.e. utilitarian).
…Perhaps/ Probably we cannot at this point and from here, go directly to Christianity (although that is the eventual goal); but at least, and as a first-step, we absolutely-must reject the materialism, scientism, positivist, hedonic focus of modernity; and restore spiritual objectives as the natural and universal focus and motivation of human life.
Another way of phrasing the above: modernity — and this is what we are warring against, the civilization created by The Enlightenment™ after years of decline — consists of purely material reactions because it has negated the ability to have a purpose.
The philosophy written about on this site, parallelism, emphasizes an opposite to rationalism, or the tendency to zero in on a single attribute of a situation and to derive a cause that will create it. Parallelism instead uses cause-effect reasoning in a historical sense as a means of understanding the likely consequences of any given act, and suggests that we pay attention to patterns, especially those that manifest in parallel in multiple areas.
Now this is where it gets interesting.
Wanting a spiritual revival makes sense, but we will achieve it indirectly. We cannot demand the effect we want directly and have it occur because we will not have done the groundwork for it. Instead, we need to awaken the desire to do good in a general sense, and have that manifest in parallel in politics, culture, religion and socializing. That will produce an emergent spiritual revival as we innovate new methods for achieving the changes we desire, including simple ones like Nationalism.
In other words, we cannot have a spiritual revival by working directly toward one. Instead we need a mentality that understands why a spiritual revival would be a good thing, and by implementing that across the board in society by demanding realist programs that achieve good results, instead of merely good intentions, we will awaken that revival.
This comes at a time when the Alt Right is wavering in its purpose because having achieved one big goal, its consensus is now fraying. This can be stopped with a simple prescription: we want to end Modernity because it is an existential horror that has caused our people to stop breeding, and implement a society free from policies designed around anti-realist thinking.
It is fortunate, too, because the Left will retaliate as they usually do. For them, equality is Utopia and any means to that end is a morally good act, even if the method is immoral like guillotines, gulags and concentration camps. This Utopian ideology makes them willing to go to greater extremes, ones that the Right generally cannot comprehend because they are corrupt and destructive. As Matt Briggs writes, the Leftist counterattack will be an attempt to silence us:
The Left has already purged all mainline offline institutions, and so it was natural enough for them to move online.
Yet all their efforts online would if not abetted largely come to naught, because the (Alt) Right adapts as quickly to the tactics of the Left as the Left moves to attack. If unaided by external forces, the Left would at best come to a stalemate, if not endure outright losses, as they have with Brexit, Hungary’s reform, the success of Marie Le Pen, the rise of Trump, and other versions of elite-rejecting “populism” (losers in democracies always call their enemies populists, but democracies by definition are populist).
…The effect will be twofold. Governments themselves silencing critics, and companies using stringent interpretations of government rules and laws to increase banishment. The Internet itself is (more or less) in the hands of the United Nations, and if there is one consistency of the UN since its inception, it is that it uses its powers to stifle dissent.
He makes a good point. Already the Leftist press is beginning the witch hunts. They will not stop at a single event, but keep pushing until they are able to once again destroy lives as a warning to others: conform or be shattered.
In response to this, it seems that there is only one reasonable response: counterattack!
The positive reason is that if we press the attack into real-world arenas, we cannot lose! Let that sink in. If we establish a beachhead in meatspace, then two things happen. One, our various enemies, both organizations and individual ideologues, will be forced to divide their efforts between attempting to squelch an online community and attempting to stop it from growing further into the material plane, which will only become more and more difficult as our numbers increase. The second effect is a reciprocal one; those who join the alt-right as a result of real-world actions will participate in the online community and vice versa. Note that the first and second events here show us an even larger feedback loop.
This process requires a singular step: we must legitimize all political ideas and all methods so that they can be discussed without the willingness to take up the topic being seen as proof of being evil like Hitler. When the Alt Right desensitizes this world to Hitler-like behavior, and if it does not get absorbed by its own symbolism, its victory will be that we can finally talk reasonably about these ideas, and not be forced to swing toward Hitlerism because it is the only zone where such things are acceptable.
Marginalizing the Right has created that type of dichotomy, between mainstream cucks who will not mention anything smacking of these things, and an underground drugged on ideology who talks only of these things. The Alt Right has begun to end the marginalization of the Right, and in its place will come a newly liberated dialogue.
Bruce Charlton again, with perhaps most important advice for the Right, which is to be obstinate in asserting that what we see is real, and what they say is all lies, so we cannot back down. It starts, for him, with accurate perception of Reality, i.e. realism:
Perhaps the most important thing we can do, is not to do – to cease to help, to stop actively assisting the false-reality Matrix in its interaction with the false-selves of the mass of people. Being reasonable helps The System – while being un-reasonable, ceasing to fear, being uncompromising in of personal support of The Good so far as we understand it… all such helps Reality, which is divine, and operates by many, including unknown, pathways.
Also – our main ‘act’ in this world is thinking – I mean conscious thinking that comes from our real selves: that is the primary act; without which no behaviour, words, nothing can possible be of positive value.
The Alt Right needs to clarify its position. We hate Modernity. It is all lies. It starts with Enlightenment™ thought in recent history, but really, anything which reeks of individualism (intentions of the self > reality) is toxic. We aim to defeat these things and restore Western Civilization, and it begins with being able to be introspective enough to know our intuition, despite living in a civilization that is addicted to distraction for the very purpose of crushing any introspection or intuition.
With that in mind, we are fortunate that Richard Spencer and the NPI decided to push harder and invoke the Hitler taboo instead of pretending to be respectable and getting co-opted that way. Much of the Alt Right is now being forced into virtue signaling its disapproval of Spencer, and this has forced upon us the need to figure out what we stand for — and quickly.
Sunday, November 13th, 2016
Over at The New York Times, the usual gang of idiots make the case for refusal to accept a Donald Trump presidency. They couch this in moral language:
Evil settles into everyday life when people are unable or unwilling to recognize it. It makes its home among us when we are keen to minimize it or describe it as something else. This is not a process that began a week or month or year ago. It did not begin with drone assassinations, or with the war on Iraq. Evil has always been here. But now it has taken on a totalitarian tone.
Evil has settled into the USA, all right, but it happened long ago, and was inherited from the crumbling Western Civilization in Europe.
This evil, like all evil, appears to be good. It sounds pleasant and causes our brains to release squirts of dopamine when we hear it. It is the idea that there are no differences between human beings, therefore we can accept everyone, sparing us the need to be on guard against error and evil, including malevolent human beings.
The Trump election was an act of self-defense by white and other Americans who realize that the ideology of equality will not stop until it destroys our society. By demanding that the unequal be raised, it is inherently bigoted against and will always seek to destroy the successful, normal, healthy, moral and sane.
Only when mediocrity rules will people feel “safe” because their own failings are invisible, camouflaged in the chaos of a lack of social order and acceptance of evils.
With Donald Trump, people voted against Political Correctness and the idea that we need to “correct” our society with equality. Instead, they voted for nature: let those who can succeed rise, and the rest need to go somewhere else, because trying to “fix” this natural Darwinistic condition of life causes us to become a monster managerial state like the Soviet Union.
The Left, which supports one form of this evil, is counter-attacking by telling us that acting in our self-interest is bad, while everyone else acting in their self-interest is good. This is a classic egalitarian position: a double standard disguised as morality, in order to take from the successful to give to the unsuccessful, who will then run society into the ground by repeating the same behavior patterns that made them unsuccessful in the first place.
As The Huffington Post writes:
We elected a racist demagogue who has promised to do serious harm to almost every person who isn’t a straight white male, and whose rhetoric has already stirred up hate crimes nationwide. White people were 70% of the voters in the 2016 election, and we’re the only demographic Trump won. It doesn’t matter why. What matters is there’s a white nationalist moving into the Oval Office, and white people — only white people — put him there.
What they call “white nationalism” is really “white self-defense,” if it is even “white,” given the high number of non-whites who voted for Donald Trump.
We do not want to be forced to give up our society to the same people who occupy most of the globe and are having troubles succeeding with their methods. First, we want to be able to exist, and not be ethnically cleansed through mass immigration and outbreeding; second, we realize that most societies do not succeed and that we need to stick to the methods that made ours succeed, including having a unified culture and heritage, and taking Charles Darwin at his word and promoted the most competent instead of taking politically correct positions.
The Left wants a recurring human dream to become real. This dream appears in pacifism, egalitarianism and other fantasies that we can all “be One” by removing our differences. In nature, as in mathematics, differences propel change and through that, better results displace weaker ones. This is reality; the Left opposes this not for the reasons they state, but because as individualists, Leftists want to avoid having to face the challenges of life itself. They want the intent of their egos to be more important than the results of their actions, and this life-denying philosophy will lead to failure here as it has elsewhere.
Across Western Civilization, notably the United States and Europe, a revolution is brewing against Leftism. We have now seen where it leads and that resembles the Soviet Union plus anti-racism, the philosophy which has given Leftists unlimited power since the second World War, too much for our tastes. We see that it is a path to doom not just for us, but for our civilization and with it, for humanity.
Modernity — outside of technology, which we like — has brought us existential misery and failing societies. We are pushing back. As another article in The New York Times (ironically) tells us, this may require doing away with the illusions of The Enlightenment™ which enshrined individualism as our highest goal:
Indeed, the modern history of Europe has shown that those countries fortunate enough to enjoy a king or queen as head of state tend to be more stable and better governed than most of the Continent’s republican states. By the same token, demagogic dictators have proved unremittingly hostile to monarchy because the institution represents a dangerously venerated alternative to their ambitions.
Reflecting in 1945 on what had led to the rise of Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill wrote: “This war would never have come unless, under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany.”
This election is more than a pivotal American event. It is a huge change in the direction of Western politics, and a watershed moment for humanity. We are realizing that what seems good is often evil, and what seems evil is often good, because appearance is not how we should judge our choices; results are.
Humans are self-destructive by nature. Our big brains tell us what to like, and those brains understand the world through forms that are convenient for our brains to process. This breaks down the complexity, nuance and depth of nature into little identical boxes called categories, and leads us to think those categories are more real than reality. But they are not.
The Left needs to understand that peaceful coexistence with the rest of us is not possible. We have rejected Leftism as a philosophy and will continue to do so. We have resurrected our self-interest through self-defense against people who want to destroy us. If it is fair for others to do that, it is fair for us to do it, and no amount of egalitarian hand-waving can conceal that fact.