Posts Tagged ‘egalitarianism’

Leftists Disturbed By Pluralism, Demand Ideological Uniformity

Friday, May 26th, 2017

Let us revisit the idea of pluralism:

a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization

It comes from the root of the word plural, as in “E Pluribus Unum,” or “out of many, one.” Except that pluralism does not involve that oneness. Instead, there is just the many, at least until we blend them all into a uniform brown with the exact same opinions, habits and preferences, but at that point individuality and culture are deader than Jimmy Hoffa.

In a debate, pluralism means “agree to disagree.” In a society, it means that many different groups coexist. In philosophy, it means among other things that many inconsistent things can be true at the same time. In a social group, it means that not everyone has the same opinion, and this is where the Left is suddenly freaking out about it:

Spencer sought to garner sympathy by arguing that he is a model gym user — he should be allowed to spread hate and stoke racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and other bigoted forms of violence, and organize torchlit nighttime rallies that conjure up images of similar rallies staged by the Klan — all without facing consequences for his actions when off the job, so to speak. Spencer wants us to believe that when he is not publicly exclaiming the superiority of the white, Christian male and asserting that this country belongs to such men, he should be allowed to mingle in polite, ethnically diverse society.

She clearly has no idea what pluralism — an ideal of the Left — means. In a pluralistic society, no opinions are taboo. Communists rub shoulders with Nazis, and Christians talk to atheists while Darwinists talk to Lamarckians. It is a nonsensical ideal because every belief system seeks to have a space for itself, which requires excluding others.

The Left used pluralism as a weapon against the majority in the West. They claimed that we could coexist with their views. Now that they have the upper hand, they want to exclude any views which are not Leftist. It is time that we simply called this farce for what it is, and admitted that both pluralism and egalitarianism (Leftism) are lies, and anyone who supports either has committed themselves to lying.

What Is Civilization?

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2017

In the modern era, every term has been redefined to mean what is comfortable for those in control, namely the herd of individualistic voters who want to believe human individuals do no wrong. In reality, human individuals are usually wrong, and we need to restrain ourselves or face decline. But first, we must learn what terms mean.

We use the term “civilization” in many contexts. Someone who just arrived from a very rural area might see toilets, air conditioning and electricity as civilization. A person fleeing a war zone may arrive in a town with relatively non-corrupt police and think that is civilization. For others, it means a good symphony or excellent restaurants.

At its root, civilization is a simple thing: people learning to cooperate toward a goal that benefits everyone unequally.

If my nephew and his friends run away to the hills, as they have threatened to do, and start growing and hunting their own food and making their own tools and shelter, they will have created a civilization. It may not be a long-lasting one, but nonetheless, they will have learned to work together.

The primary form of civilization involves trade, military-style hierarchy, familial social order, shared customs and cuisine, and a founding myth or philosophy. With that, every group can get started. The founding myth explains the purpose of this civilization. It can be as simple as “we wanted to get away from others, so we are on our own to form the best civilization we can.”

Over the years, people have tampered with the formula for civilization. In most cases, this leads to the same result: a sudden rise in power followed by a slow collapse into irrelevance, leaving behind a third world ruin. Every civilization somehow confuses its internal mechanisms of power with achieving its goals, loses sight of what holds it together, and dissolves in a flurry of special interests and individualism.

Bruce Charlton laments the fact that civilization reaches its apex and after that, becomes a form of mental and physical slavery:

I certainly appreciate the benefits of civilisation (indeed I once wrote a book-length ‘hymn’ to the advantages of the post-industrial revolution); but ultimately the degree of compulsion and distortion of human life (by specialization, partiality, repetition – the need to treat the world as raw material; the need to treat people as ‘human resources'[)]… is probably not possible to justify; and – really – we shouldn’t even try.

Perhaps it was acceptable and spiritually advantageous for Man to have a period of this kind of thinking, knowing, being… but any such advantages were exhausted long before the end of the 19th century. Since then we have just been digging deeper and deeper into error and desolation.

At some point, every tool becomes a quest in itself. Money, which is meant to convey freedom, becomes an obligation; work, which should produce results, is done instead for the sake of itself; power, which means the ability to do good things, becomes a replacement for those good things. Inversion occurs when we replace purpose with our short-term desires and defensive need to feel justified in our choices.

This shows us that civilization — like capitalism, authority, sex, reading, eating or any other powerful human activity — can reverse our thinking. Instead of trying to achieve the goal, we do what is familiar, and then justify whatever goal it achieves as what we intended. The cart comes before the horse, the tail wags the dog, the kingdom is lost for a twopenny nail.

To the reflective mind, this means that we need civilization to a certain degree in order to avoid tipping over to the downward part of a ballistic trajectory. In addition, that civilization needs a purpose which is qualitative, or able to be achieved in relative degrees with an immutable core but never can be realized in full.

If the coming fashwave has any core idea, it is the rejection of equality, which makes us the goal instead of that form of transcendental purpose which allows us to have civilization without being consumed by it. Much as stomach acid enables us to live but would kill us if it escaped the stomach, civilization is essential to human life but must be guarded — and disciplined — carefully.

Feminism And MGTOW: Retarded Twins Separated At Birth

Monday, May 22nd, 2017

feminism is paranoid neurosis

Recently I watched The Golden One, Marcus Follin, on the Virtue of the West Podcast with Brittany Pettibone and Tara McCarthy. The subject of the MGTOWs (Men Going Their Own Way) came up.

I’ve dealt with the MGTOW crowd before on social media. Criticize them and they come out of the woodwork. They also have a problem with traditional marriage, which makes them seem cynical and jaded. I wouldn’t have much of a problem with them if they kept to themselves, but no they are evangelical. They want to make more MGTOWs to justify their choices. Misery loves company.

Many have critiqued feminism as being a philosophy for angry, ugly women. They’re not wrong. Most feminists seem to think the world owes them something, a man who is perfect, a perfect job in the city like Carrie Bradshaw, or a position of power she hasn’t earned. Many feminists also believe the anti-male rhetoric they learn in college or from the media. They are taught men are the enemy, potential rapists and abusers without remorse. Their solution is to become as unattractive to men as possible so they can avoid any of the possible problems that come with dealing with the cis het scum asking to buy them a drink.

That’s when it dawned on me: both MGTOW and feminism are cults based on selfishness and radical individualism. Both put the happiness of the individual before the good of society. Both are based on the notion that there are no responsibilities to society based upon the gender to which you were born. There is no obligation to perpetuate your genes.

Isn’t cult a bit strong? No both are exactly that. Disagree with them and they come after you. Criticize them and you will have your feed full of frustrated men and women who’ve decided to check out of the human race.

To understand the mental state of the MGTOWs and feminists and how closely they actually are, let’s look at each in depth. First, modern day feminism is ostensibly based on notions of egalitarianism. But feminists don’t simply believe that women should have equal political rights to men, they believe it is the role of the state to control any behavior that might indicate that there is a difference between the sexes, biological or psychological

Pronouns and self-labeling have become absurd. There are what, thirty-eight genders at last count? Misgendering someone can get you fired or sued, and if you suggest that transgenderism is a mental disorder you’ll end up on a watch list.

Today feminists promote ideas such as refusal to date trannies makes you transphobic, you have to date butter huffers or you’re fatphobic, and if you have any preference at all (God forbid white women should prefer their own race) you’re basically a bad person. They also seem to think Sharia law is feminist, female genital mutilation can be liberating, and intersectionality won’t end badly for them. Because being forced to cover up or get stoned to death is the essence of equality.

We’ve all heard the jokes about thirty-five year old women with three cats, two abortions, and a bottle of chardonnay crying about how there are no good men left. Their problem is that they blame men for all that is wrong with the world, and by world I mean their personal lives. Feminism has taught women they are victims and there is nothing they can do about it.

Sound selfish? It is. Feminism is largely a philosophy that comes out of the individualism preached by so many libertarians. Which is ironic because libertarians generally oppose third-wave feminism.

Feminism is also a philosophy of revenge. Witness the banging on about “muh wage gap” feminists are so quick to bring up when someone dares say that men and women are equal under the law. Title IIV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination in the workplace based upon gender. So if a woman is being paid less than a man with equal qualifications and experience she can sue her employer. No need for additional virtue signaling legislation.

Feminism has convinced women of my generation, Gen X, that they should be like men. Have indiscriminant sex, buy yourself anything your heart desires, take up jobs that will bring social status, and don’t have children. The “childfree” life is where it’s at! This is all based upon the notion that happiness is rooted in individualism. Do whatever you want today, tomorrow isn’t guaranteed, so if you live for the future, if you live for your children, you’ll miss out on the moment.

That’s dysgenic.

In response to the fact that many women today have abandoned feminine virtue by sleeping around, taking offense to every little act of kindness from men, and obsessing over why women still can’t be Navy SEALs, some men have started checking out too. Some of the Alt-Right came in from the manosphere. This isn’t going to make me popular with them, but so what? They need to hear how selfish their retarded philosophy is.

Now let’s talk about MGTOWs. Go on any MGTOW site, or watch their YouTube videos, and you’ll quickly see two things. First you’ll notice they worship men like Newton and Tesla. That is, men who achieved great things without having ever been married. Next you’ll notice that there is a lot of anger towards women. To be honest, I understand. I’ve had friends go through nasty divorces where their women took them for most of what they had. Most of my friends and I have been cheated on and I’ve also known men who have been in very abusive relationships. Feminism took women away from their natural role and turned them into angry monsters.

The MGTOW analysis of how marital law screws men is not incorrect. Just look at the stories on r/PussyPass to get an idea of what women are allowed to get away with for proof. My problem with the MGTOWs comes in the solution they provide.

MGTWOs want men to go on strike, refusing to marry or have kids. This dysgenic behavior isn’t something a traditionalist member of the Alt-Right can afford to subscribe to. Marriage and family mean sacrifice and hard work on the part of both parties. But the ugly individualism of modernity and the “what’s in it for me” mindset of too many children and grandchildren of the “Me generation” has caused people to use marriage law in ways it was never intended.

Feminism is based in radical individualism. And so too is MGTOW. The solution to men’s problems in the relationship world isn’t to give up and surf the internet for porn every night. One guy on Gab recently told me the new orgasm capable sex dolls would be a good option for men. I bowed out of the discussion. How do you insult a man who admits he would prefer to fuck a piece of rubber?

Both feminism and MGTOW are rooted in a conspiracy theory, namely that the other sex is out to ruin their lives in some way. Whether it’s “the patriarchy” or “thots” this mindset is destructive to us as a group. In the interview with The Golden One, McCarthy mentions r/K selection theory and its relationship to modern relationships. She is right to do so. Unfortunately many of the people who believe in these twin ideas are the people who should be having children, but they’re not. They’re off having girls’ night, or guy’s night, spending money recklessly on ephemeral pleasure, and in general acting as if they never got out of college. All this is done with the assumption that there are no consequences to believing the other sex is out to get you.

If you want true happiness find a woman, and make her want to be a better woman. Simple fact guys is this, you’re not going to find that virgin QT after about the age of twenty-one. The “no hymen, no diamond” crowd will have to learn to accept that most women have known the touch of a man. Really, it’s okay. Just don’t marry a woman with a number higher than the sub-Saharan average IQ and you can forge a lasting, loving relationship.

Men, women are not out to get you. They’re really not. Most women simply want companionship with someone who will treat her with dignity and respect. We are the product of our ancestors, and in the last forty years we’ve not lost the hearts and souls produced by millennia of traditional marriage and childrearing.

Women, men don’t want to see you enslaved to a kitchen living life as nothing but a baby factory. We simply understand that men and women have different natures. The sexual revolution produced one of society’s Big Lies: You can have it all. Women you have within you the ability to create life, and the temperament necessary to build a home for a man.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Men build civilizations for women so women can build homes for  men.

Point out that refusing to have anything to do with relationships is dysgenic and will ultimately leave you unhappy and frustrated and they come back with doublespeak saying men are free to choose to be in a relationship if they want. It’s about going your own way, not being a slave to women. Except when you choose to be a husband or do something they don’t like they jump on you and call you a SIMP.

This is ridiculous and both the feminists and the MGTOWs need to stop, it’s counterproductive and hurts not only women infected by the mind virus of feminism but also the good men and women still fighting for traditional Western values.

Leftism Polarizes Society And Gives Rise To Inevitable Totalitarianism

Sunday, May 21st, 2017

One way you can tell that our society is doomed is that people of the upper half of socioeconomic position are not conversant with the classics, such as Plato’s Republic. It is as if history has literally been deleted because no one is familiar with it, and who has time between work, television and shopping to read some musty old books?

But if the herd had read Plato, and understood it, which most are biologically limited from doing, they would have realized that Crowdism is the father of Leftism, and Crowdism takes on many faces in its mission to wreck civilization. Leftism is just one of those masks, albeit the one closest to the actual idea of Crowdism, which is a human social impulse more than anything else.

As a result, while our current political environment rewards those who point fingers at the obscure, the real developments of our time are entirely linear results of our original decision to “go egalitarian” during The Enlightenment™ and the French Revolution. This includes the rise of the managerial state:

The thesis of this essay is that the theory of the managerial elite explains the present transatlantic social and political crisis. Following World War II, the democracies of the United States and Europe, along with Japan—determined to avoid a return to depression and committed to undercutting communist anti-capitalist propaganda—adopted variants of cross-class settlements, brokered by national governments between national managerial elites and national labor. Following the Cold War, the global business revolution shattered these social compacts. Through the empowerment of multinational corporations and the creation of transnational supply chains, managerial elites disempowered national labor and national governments and transferred political power from national legislatures to executive agencies, transnational bureaucracies, and treaty organizations. Freed from older constraints, the managerial minorities of Western nations have predictably run amok, using their near-monopoly of power and influence in all sectors—private, public, and nonprofit—to enact policies that advantage their members to the detriment of their fellow citizens.

Currently the managerial revolt is de rigueur as a talking point for people who are looking for something to blame for our civilization collapse. Like “late stage capitalism” and other tropes, this is designed to cast the blame away from the real culprit, which is egalitarianism.

Consider the egalitarian society. Every institution must be made egalitarian, but as this happens, they fail. These mini-collapses occur from the outer periphery toward the core of society, much like circulation failing in a dying patient. As the outer institutions fail, the inner institutions — government, education, lobbyists and media — must become more powerful to pick up the slack.

Before the Great Depression, we could count on our markets to be relatively stable because investment was kept within an informal WASP aristocracy who managed to avoid reckless, trend-oriented investing. After the First World War, an America flush with wealth started bumping people from lower castes to higher classes through the magic of “new money.”

At the same time, the company man was born as unions and socialist thought changed the concept of labor itself. The goal was no longer to own your own business, but to have a job that paid the right amount of benefits, and then you were living the good life. It was a prole party! And then it all came crashing down, as it turns out that the new investors were more reckless than the old.

What does egalitarianism do, admit that its grand plans are not working out so well? Not at all — it doubles down — and so instead of blaming itself, it blames capitalism and offers its solution… more Leftism! Coincidentally, this requires stronger inner institutions, and so a whole layer of charities and independent businesses die out.

Good, think those who are in control. This means people have fewer options and so they will have to do what we want them to do. This is the essence of control; it is the ego trying to master the world, and since it has no positive goal but has a negative goal, namely not wanting to feel powerless, it pursues power for its own end.

The government of the 1930s worked well-ish up through the second world war, but then it became clear that wartime mobilization would be required to fight the Cold War, so the inner institutions agreed on a hybrid of classic American individualism with socialist individualism, and from this came the Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism and all the other Communism lite variants we know today as “normal.”

When the Soviet Union fell, the inner organizations wanted a way to achieve even more power, so they created the administrative state, a time of unelected lawmaking, and expanded internationally as a means to create a world economic which would force everyone to obey. The “managerial” side of this is that instead of working through outer institutions, governments and their allies now worked directly through stronger central institutions.

At this point, to an observer entirely free of bias, the United States and Europe resemble a hybrid of the systems of the combatants of the last World War. They retain some of their original informal order, which relied on outer institutions including many entirely free of government influence, but they have adopted socialist subsidy systems and a soft totalitarian order.

They have gone down this path because of the wrecking ball of egalitarianism. First, it waged class warfare, and destroyed social order. Then it attacked the family, and later assaulted the notion of a national identity or ethnic component. After that it assaulted heritage and values. Each of these strengthened inner institutions like government and media at the expense of outer institutions.

What this process resembles is an infection more than anything else. The mental virus of ideology began as something to be tolerated, one option for a philosophy. Then it became a trend, where all the hip kids who were united in their dislike of society believed it. As it became popular, finally it became official dogma, and now anyone who deviates will be punished.

The more popular the mental virus has become, the more it has strengthened its hold over the population, and thus we have transitioned from a semi-libertarian state to one that is wholly ideological, with globalism, diversity, feminism, civil rights and social justice as natural extensions of the egalitarian idea to other races, sexes and social classes.

Ideology is a morality. It gains its power by seeming to be “universal,” or accessible to all people. This gives it its messianic character, in that if the ideology is the moral right, it must be spread through propaganda and social pressure to others, so that everyone is doing right.

Its origin in egalitarianism requires this. The original idea of egalitarianism was a seizure of power from the natural leaders of society and transferring it to the mob, a group composed of both the very poor and the fairly well-off who wanted fewer obstacles to their businesses (obstacles that, in retrospect, were a good idea).

The mental virus demands that everyone be brainwashed and mentally controlled by the ideology so that no competing ideals can exist. To those infected with ideology, it is the one right way, and anything but it is therefore evil and must be smashed so that the good ideology can persist. This leads to a raging mob drugged on moral superiority:

With the aid of the media and the Democratic Party, the institutions of the republic are crippled, the levers of power having been seized not by the elected but by the unelected bureaucratic state — from ideologues at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the partisans and paranoid who inhabit our intelligence community.

…This is not the words of a dutiful civil servant but of a partisan tyrant who would see his own view, his own agenda, and his own lens of politics dominate over that of the elected government of the United States. In their minds they are but a guardian of the people, albeit one that must stand up to and ultimately negate the will of that very same people.

…In all of this, the media has abandoned their role as watchdogs with a healthy dose of skepticism and become the propaganda arm of the unelected administrative state, complicit in and even cheering on the actions that have superseded the will of the people.

This is what ideological takeover looks like. We are dealing with a mental virus, not an “it” as a single actor. Government becomes the method of the mental virus just like peaceful protest was fifty years ago. For this virus, everything is a means to the end of the advancement of the virus and no logical consistency is needed.

Now we have a decentralized ideological state. Why have one Party in Moscow when you can have millions of unofficial KGB officers working at every level of society? They receive their orders from the media, then implement the fad or trend of the week, and they inform on those who do not go along.

This is the essence of Crowdism: whatever pleases the herd to believe must be enforced on everyone else, or it might seem weak. This creates a fanatical audience of zealots who derive meaning in life from advancing the justification for their failures in life. This means they must crush all dissent in order to feel good about themselves.

At the end point of such a virus, and we are at peak egalitarianism now, life in society becomes binary. You either go along with the herd and accept the mental virus, or you resist and become an outsider. People think that there are three options — mental virus, opposition to mental virus, and agnostic tolerance of both of those — but really, there is only compliance or apostasy:

Tron Guy took his concerns to the board of Penguicon and suggested adding conservative panels to balance out the left-wing ones. The board told him they did not want to add any panels that would draw controversy.

…When asked over the phone if he is alt right, Tron Guy laughed, describing his political views as “movement conservative with a hint of libertarianism.”

“I am specifically not alt right,” he said. “I don’t believe in white supremacy or the patriarchy. I have no problems with true equality of opportunity, but social justice is a code word for equality of outcome.”

Tron Guy takes a classic tolerance approach. He thinks that by endorsing acceptance of all views, he can avoid joining the mental virus and simultaneously not be its enemy. But that is not how a mental virus works. You are either in the gang, or you are its enemy. You either join the cult, or you are a heretic. You either pay union dues or you are a scab.

There is no way out of this death spiral. It is clear that in 1968 the mental virus took over, and in the 1990s it gained full power, and we are now seeing the results of that with the election of Barack Obama and the consequent emboldening of a new generation of zealots. We either reject the mental virus by rejecting the idea of equality, or it consumes us.

Diversity Advocates Reveal Their Actual Goal: Remove Whites

Friday, May 19th, 2017

The American Mathematical Society decided to publish this rant which reveals the intent behind diversity programs of removing the white majority entirely from power:

I have this talk that I give and afterwards, I will often get concerned white men asking me what they can do to fight sexism. But they’re not really thinking about ending sexism. They’re thinking about progress. They want to know which benefits the cis male hoarders-of-power can offer to women so that we don’t feel so bad and complain so much and contribute to such dismal numbers. This is natural, reasonable even, but sexist all the same.

…What can universities do? Well, that’s easier. Stop hiring white cis men (except as needed to get/retain people who are not white cis men) until the problem goes away. If you think this is a bad or un-serious idea, your sexism/racism/transphobia is showing.

…If you are on a hiring committee, and you are looking at applicants and you see a stellar white male applicant, think long and hard about whether your department needs another white man. You are not hiring a researching robot who will output papers from a dark closet. You are hiring an educator, a role model, a spokesperson, an advisor, a committee person. When you hire a non-marginalized person, you are not just supporting this one applicant whom you like, you are rewarding a person who has been rewarded his whole life. You are justifying the system that makes his application look so good. You are not innocent. You are perpetuating a system that requires your participation if not your consent. When your female students of color have no role models in your department, that’s not “meritocracy”; that’s on you. Again, if you think the “great mathematicians” are disproportionately male because of meritocracy, then your sexism is showing.

Diversity and feminism are subsets of egalitarianism; if all people are equal, we cannot admit that some are unequal because of race or sex. For this reason, the inequality of results must be fixed by filtering out the whites, which is what affirmative action was designed to do. No matter how often diversity is represented as the following:

They want to know which benefits the cis male hoarders-of-power can offer to women so that we don’t feel so bad and complain so much and contribute to such dismal numbers.

The actual agenda is:

Stop hiring white cis men (except as needed to get/retain people who are not white cis men) until the problem goes away.

Since the problem with never go away because individuals and groups are inherently diverse, or varied in ability most of which is inherited, then this becomes a permanent crusade against white people, much as affirmative action has.

Identifying The Enemy

Wednesday, May 17th, 2017

So you wake up. You look around: everything has failed. Literally everything. The library is full of lies. The government is nothing but parasites. The arts have become attention whoring. Even people are corrupt, filled with ego that turns them into servants of public opinion.

And always, the herd presides, looking for anything that affirms its desire that every person be included so that no individual feels inferior. This is what holds the crowd together: each individual fears being found insufficient, and so they join up to abolish standards.

This society is both permissive and conformist. Anything is permitted… so long as it does not form any aggregate which can compete with central authority. This means that only what is degenerative is acceptable, and anything else is an ideological enemy.

That, of course, makes it nearly impossible to figure out what is going on. An authority which favors degeneracy seems to be advocating degeneracy, until one realizes this is a means-to-an-end, at which point the thought process gains depth and ambiguity. Nothing is certain.

Still, it makes sense to go through our thought process to see what we can learn about the nature of our enemy…

1. The Negro/The Jew is our enemy.

In the first stages of waking up, this makes sense. The individual still assumes that society is basically good, therefore that black crime or Jewish participation in different values systems represents the glitch which is interrupting all that awesomeness of society. It takes a long time to snap out of this stage because no matter how many non-destructive Jews or Negroes that one witnesses, the brain torments us by assuming that the rest are evil. Over time, what debunks this is the realization that there is no coordinating force between different members of these groups.

2. The enemy is immigrants who do not assimilate.

At this point, the enemy becomes a failure to assimilate. In this reason, Leftists are the real racists and people need merely to come from Tragic Dirt to Magic Dirt and join our proposition nation. The illusion here is that other groups can assimilate, which is obviously not the case; in fact, the longer they stay, the more alienated they become. People need identity and the values system that comes with it, but when heritage is removed, they have nothing, and seeing that happen drives others to be even more alienated. This is why diversity never does anything but fail and leave behind genocide.

But, for the fat lazy and sloppy mentality of the modern mainstream conservative, easy answers are better than right answers. This group wants to be right more than they want to fix anything. So they bang on about patriotism, religion and “hard work” and as part of that, insist that magically Mexicans and Vietnamese will be made into WASP conservatives with the right “education.” This is just self-serving on the part of conservatives; it allows them to duck away from the real issue, which is genetic replacement, and instead focus on those crowd-pleasing mentally-easy “values” that supplant what actually needs to be done.

3. The enemy is extremists.

Another clever sleight-of-hand, the “extremist” argument is designed to separate the few third world underclass members who act up from the rest, ignoring the fact that the rest mostly support them because every group acts in self-interest, and under diversity, every group is trying to conquer the rest so its values, genetics and customs can prevail. Blaming extremists is just more obese armchair hand-waving by morally lazy conservatives who are afraid to attack diversity, so instead they focus on a few extreme cases and assume that if we remove those, all will be fine, even if we are genetically replaced.

4. The enemy is Leftists.

Now we are getting somewhere, but good enough is the enemy of good, and partial truths are always good enough and not good. That means that we cling to the easy partial truth and ignore what we really should be doing. No one doubts that Leftism is the enemy, but as commenters here asked years ago, “How did we get to the stage where Leftism took over?” because, obviously, if we do that again, Leftism will simply take over again. Once one gets past conspiracy theories of Masons, Jews, the Rich,™ and Bilderbergers, it becomes clear that Leftism is eternally popular with humans because it validates our illusions, guarantees us inclusion in society, and takes away the need to struggle to do right because individuals can simply offer token acts instead.

5. The enemy is egalitarianism.

With a little more thought, people can see the virus behind Leftism: egalitarianism. Historically, this was what defined Leftists, and their theories to this day derive entirely from it. Egalitarianism means that everyone is equal, which is how individuals say “you cannot exclude me,” and enforce that by making bad equal to good and mediocre equal to excellent. Egalitarianism basically removes the Darwinian, moral and practical need to do right in life and replaces with with warm feelings of pacifism because everyone is validated, included and rewarded without having to contribute. It is the ideology of the parasite. But then we have to ask: where did this come from?

6. The enemy is individualism.

Here we have a strong hit: hubris, or the ancient concept of evil caused by acting outside of one’s place in a natural order, lives on through the combination of individualism and solipsism that is the normal mental state of people in a modern time. This is correct, but it does not quite go far enough.

7. The enemy is herd behavior.

Call it group think, committee mentality, hive-mind, Crowdism, peer pressure, mob mentality, social clumping or just plain old fashioned conformity, people in groups make stupid decisions. Even smart people when put in a herd or around a table in a meeting opt for what is mentally easier because they know the group will approve of it and thus it will get done. Explaining complex and difficult truths to a herd is a formula for personal failure; being a fat lazy armchair conservative and coming up with something simplistic and misleading that sounds good is always a winner. The problem is that this implicates democracy…

8. The enemy is us.

Of all the enemies we have conjured up here, this one comes closest. When people insist that they should be able to do whatever they want to do simply because they want to do it, society fragments into a million directions. Purpose is lost. The same alienating effect that is produced by the presence of diversity comes about as classes war against each other, priests war against kings, and everyone competes to rise above the herd that equality creates. We cannot rule ourselves; we need an aristocracy, a caste system and culture to guide us, which requires the rise of nationalism and death of democracy. Luckily those things seem to be happening.

Waking up in this society is alienating because suddenly everything that one could trust becomes revealed as part of the problem. The rot goes so deep that there is no party to vote for, no corporation to buy from, no team to cheer for and not even a single solid concept one can grasp, except that it is time to restore Western Civilization.

For us to do that, however, we have to identify the enemy. It is not other groups. It is Leftism, in part, but really the psychology behind that, and this pathology is created by our insistence that we are good and can rule ourselves. Until we back down from that illusion, our doom continues.

Means-Over-Ends Versus Ends-Over-Means

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

As the public tries to have a conversation about politics, tropes form. These are ideas that fascinate the public for a few weeks because they expect that, like in a self-help book, a complex process will distill down to a simple binary choice.

Naturally, their problem is this assumption in the first place.

In the meantime, it makes sense to clarify the conflict between means-over-ends versus ends-over-means thinking, as described in a recent article as “content” and “process”:

Computer scientist Curtis Yarvin applies to speak at a technical conference, and his talk is accepted in a blind evaluation process. After Yarvin’s speaking slot is announced, the conference organizers find out that he has an alter-ego as a blogger called Mencius Moldbug. His blog promotes views that much of the conference’s larger community finds abhorrent.

The content approach is to sever ties with Yarvin — because the content of his character has been judged to be objectionable. His work and their personality are deemed toxic or actively harmful. On the other hand, the process approach is to point out that Yarvin’s submission was selected blindly, on its own merits, and affirm that he will be ejected only via the process laid out in the pre-established code of conduct.

To put it in more abstract terms, content people focus on ends over means, and process people focus on means over ends. This is an imperfect way to summarize the principle, because the reason why process people focus on means is that they think this approach leads to better ends.

Let us compare the two: means-over-ends states that methods are more important than goals; ends-over-means states that achieving goals is more important than the methods used. All of us are, at the end of the day, essentially ends-over-means thinkers but we apply some filters to that, as in we are ends-over-means so long as it does not involve certain methods that contradict the goal.

For example, someone who is against crime will be happy with any way of reducing crime except those methods which seem to him to also be crimes.

But let us extend this to politics. The ultimate means-over-ends philosophy is egalitarianism, which states that the method (protecting the individual) is more important than having a goal at all. The individual is both means and ends in this case, which short-circuits the entire process, and this is why Leftists are known as means-over-ends people.

Conservatives on the other hand are more concerned with the maintenance of order and hierarchy because these are necessary for social function, and recognize that sometimes sacrifices by or of individuals are necessary. This is an ends-over-means calculus that avoids contradiction by recognizing that since goals are more important than method, method takes second priority.

Another trope falls before the axe.

Birthright Citizenship

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

The cowbird has a unique survival strategy of both passive and active parasitism. The female cowbird finds nests from other species such as robins and lays her eggs in them, then returns later to make small punctures in the robin eggs, ensuring that the legitimate offspring die and that the interlopers are raised by the victim bird.

Sometimes, robins catch on, and deal with the situation appropriately:

This bird has realized that diversity entails having foreign populations use you as a host. In the case of humans, we are paralyzed by our insistence on the doctrine of equality, which we insist upon for ourselves so we can have a “me first above all else” mentality. That is accelerated by having a failing society that we all secretly hate and want to contribute as little as possible to.

That creates a cycle of death where each person demands from society while sabotaging it, and leaves a small minority of addled people who make themselves slaves to the collective need of the group. They exhaust themselves and fail to reproduce, leaving behind a large void as the newcomers fail to achieve what the founding group could.

Birthright citizenship is the human equivalent of a cowbird. The foreign group, noticing that we are made oblivious, comes in and deposits its offspring for us to raise. We do so at the expense of our own. No one wins in the end, as a once-thriving society declines to third world rates of subsistence living and social disorder.

Diversity creates and accelerates decay. Without a standard in common, there is no behavioral level required of all people. More social breakdown follows from that, and people retreat into apathy because without a common standard, there is no guarantee that their behavior will be rewarded, and it will more likely be attacked. In this apathy, social breakdown can act freely.

To take your mind from this unpleasant imagery, experience the robin nest cam:

Confronting Inequality

Tuesday, May 9th, 2017

Almost no one understands what “equality” means. To the man on the street, it signifies that he can do whatever he wants as long as he can pay for it. In politics, it means subsidizing those who are not thriving. In reality, it has a more significant meaning.

Our nervous minds seek ways to make the world feel safe. They do this by creating symbols that make the world seem simple and easily manipulated. The primal archetype of this is to treat the world as one single thing, with a personality that we can reason with, and which will reward us if we do what is sociable, pacifying that personality.

Every primitive superstition involves appeasing a blood-god, and this might be the most honest form of this widespread human pathology. In modern times, we use “equality” to render the rest of humanity into a single entity that we can control with language and symbol.

The pathology of equality treats other humans as a fungible commodity which can be commanded to do what is necessary. If humans are regulated solely by external forces like incentives and punishments, the individual ego can feel safe that it can manage other people, without having to get into the nitty-gritty of how they are different and what actually motivates them.

One might term this a “consumerist” view of the world because it treats other people like products, machines or objects on a factory assembly line. All of the troublesome detail of life is left out, replaced by the self versus a world of identical people who can be controlled.

If equality has a founding myth, it is the notion of universal human reason, an idea which comes to us from The Enlightenment.™ They are manipulated by their reason, because they rationally respond to incentives and punishments. This requires us to assume that all people think alike and understand exactly the same thing from our words and symbols.

Consider a typical misunderstanding of Fred Nietzsche:

Nietzsche has been blamed for a more silent disaster: the rise of relativism and the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth. Seldom now, especially in academia, do you now read the word ‘truth’ written without those doubting – and even contemptuous – inverted commas. One of the most resilient doctrines of our times is that all knowledge depends on who is saying it and for what motive. This relativism is invariably traced back to Nietzsche.

This is largely to do with French philosopher Michel Foucault’s rehabilitation of Nietzsche. Foucault’s writing on power and knowledge in the 1960s and 1970s, which has been widely disseminated in society ever since, drew upon quotes from Nietzsche that ‘truth’ stems from the desire for power and has no eternal objective foundation. In his landmark lectures, ‘Truth and Juridical Forms’, delivered in 1973, Foucault said of the myth of ‘pure truth’: ‘This great myth needs to be dispelled. It is this myth which Nietzsche began to demolish by showing… that behind all knowledge [savoir], behind all attainment of knowledge [connaissance], what is involved is a struggle for power. Political power is not absent from knowledge, it is woven together with it.’

As the author of a book on nihilism, it behooves me to offer a comparison to the definition of nihilism:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

For convenience, we separate this into three parts:

  1. All values are baseless
  2. Nothing can be known
  3. Nothing can be communicated

How do we reach relativism, or the idea that all truths are relative to the individual, from this? We filter it through equality. Equality demands that we affirm that what each individual sees as true is actually true, so instead of rejecting that, we say that they have truths which are true to them.

A more sensible version would be esotericism, which would say that truth is discovered in degrees according to natural ability and how much of the cumulative underlying truths one has discovered so far. In other words, reality is real, but people are discovering it like a detective uncovering a mystery, with some getting farther than others. But that is anti-egalitarian.

Back to the topic, what Nietzsche affirmed is the end of equality: all “truths” are symbolic manipulation expressed in self-interest, but those of the highest type of human tend toward being as accurate as possible because their intelligence allows them to see the value of accurate information.

This follows from his statement “there are no truths, only interpretations” and his comments in his initial work that defined the scope of what was to come, On Truth And Lies In A Non-Moral Sense (more accurately translated as “On Truth And Lies In A Sense Outside Of Morality”).

So, now we see the modern time as a struggle between relativism and esotericism. In one, everyone is equal and everything is true; in the other, truth is a question of degree that varies with the observer, much as it does with the quality of instrument such as microscopes, which come in varying degrees of magnification and lens acuity.

This means a number of things, including that we cannot have a society without caste, because if we want good results, we have to put those who are more sensitive instruments at the top of the hierarchy. We also cannot have democracy, because the “reason”-ing ability that people use to vote is actually a rationalization of whatever they think makes their lives seem perfect and reasonable, a measurement of appearance and not actuality.

Tom Wolfe described this mentality as the fiction-absolute:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world–so ordained by some almighty force–would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.

Through that lens, we see not reasoning man, but rationalizing man. If you want to know why society is inverted, or that its most fundamental terms seem to mean the opposite of what they should mean if used descriptively, it is that human thinking movies backward from conclusion to reason why. Cause and effect are reversed in order.

Lawrence Auster, one of the bright lights of modern conservatism, described one instance of this pathology as the unprincipled exception:

The unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that liberals use to escape the inconvenient, personally harmful, or suicidal consequences of their own liberalism without questioning liberalism itself.

Alternatively, the unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that conservatives use to slow the advance of liberalism or to challenge some aspect of liberalism without challenging liberalism itself.

Brainwashed by the notion of equality, conservatives see hypocrisy in it. But really, it is another self-interested animal rationalizing its choices by what makes it “feel” comfortable in the life it has chosen. This is a moral challenge; individuals are not just arguing for their own wealth, but that their choices were right by others, by logic, by any gods they believe in.

A Leftist (liberals are one variant of Leftist, or those who endorse egalitarianism, but it a matter of degree, much as Libertarians and Communists both agree on equality) will enact Leftist policies in order to gain wealth and power, but also to justify lifestyle choices made by the Leftists and previous Leftist policy, even if it has turned out poorly.

In turn, conservatives — who are those who accepted the new order, and by doing so were able to sit on the right side of the National Assembly in post-Revolutionary France — by the virtue of having accepted equality, cannot act in any way other than to affirm equality, which forces them to thwart the oncoming decay as much as they can but never attack its core.

Its core is the concept of equality.

With that in mind, we on the Alt Right must look toward the future: the decline of the West, as Plato tells us, began when people became more interested in wealth than in doing what is right by civilization alongside natural and divine order. The philosophy of prioritizing short-term self-interest over the need for logical planning for the future is known as individualism, and it afflicts high-IQ societies through rationalization, or the inverted and backward thinking caused by relativism.

Let us look at how this confusion afflicts even underground conservatives like the Alt Right:

The recent defeat of Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election has predictably triggered yet another tidal wave of haughty pronouncements by Alt Right adherents scornfully rejecting elections as a means of achieving our goals. “We’ll never vote our way out of this!” “Elections are a waste of time!” “Democracy doesn’t work!” The same chorus of noisy negativity broke out into mournful song the instant Trump began to cuck for the establishment last month.

This is a perennial phenomenon among the Alt Right, or I should say within the so-called white nationalist movement. We try to win through elections, we get our hopes up, we work our asses off, we get defeated – and we immediately begin wailing, gnashing our teeth and shaking our fists at the heavens as we swear off elections forever.

Let us first look at where this writer is correct: on the Right, we get our hopes up before elections, and then when the herd follows its usual mix of self-interest and “don’t rock the boat” complacency, we become enraged that we were betrayed again, as we have been by every election in varying degrees since those elections in Athens so long ago.

After that, he loses the train of thought.

His statement divides the questions of goal and method. As far as methods go, he is correct: when one lives in a democracy, it makes sense to do as much as possible with democratic methods. They involve little bloodshed, are relatively civilized, and can be influenced by a cultural wave such as the Alt Right.

However, in terms of goals, we must admit that the core of the Alt Right, which is a desire for Nietzschean traditionalism instead of a modern System that we think will swing our way, rejects egalitarianism. There is no human equality. All people and groups have different degrees of accuracy regarding the perception of reality, act in self-interest, and rationalize the result with abstract theory.

Our goal is to replace democracy with kings, an egalitarian social order with hierarchy, regulated markets with competition limited by culture, and diversity with nationalism. We are anti-egalitarian. If we try to escape that, we become mainstream conservatives and will invert our most sacred values through relativism.

Any deviation from this clear goal will guarantee our defeat. We must, as Bruce Charlton says, first become clear in our minds about what is logically true, and after that, make our way toward it, learning as we go.

Conservatism Failed Because It Refused To Reject Equality

Thursday, May 4th, 2017

All of those of us who reject fanciful notions of ideology in favor of hard realism are conservatives, or at least conservatives in training, but conservatism as a movement failed because it did not hold back Leftism at all. Instead it rolled over and sold out its people for twenty pieces of silver, or a few media appearances and a book deal.

Conservatism failed because conservatives agreed with Leftists on the central tenet of Leftism: equality. They did so through a cunningly disguise that allowed them to appear as an alternative to Leftism, while hiding their egalitarian belief.

This was the notion of personal morality, or a form of moral individualism that separated the individual from the consequences of his actions. In this view, it does not matter what the long term results of an action are, so long as that action adheres to general rules that conservative considers righteous. The rules become a replacement for reality, which is equivalent to the Leftist replacement of reality with ideology.

For a Leftist, the end result of an action is secondary to whether the right method was used. It is always right to equally distribute wealth and defend the individual in his pursuit of whims whether these are real or illusory. While Leftist morality is based in the herd, conservative morality is based in the individual as judged by the herd, and so ends at the same result.

Both are toxic because they replace realism with proxies such as a morality of the individual which is based in how the individual appears to others as fair, kind, generous and accepting. Conservatives have created many such replacements for reality, starting with religion and patriotism, but they can take other forms too.

As the logical consequences of race realism (inevitable in a Diversitopia) are grasped and the ideas emerging from the theory are fully apprehended, along with what that portends for any philosophy which still clings to the penumbra of moral universalism, there will be a panic among Christian tradcons from realizing race realism is at odds with their teachings and professed beliefs.

They wouldn’t be entirely wrong in thinking this. Race realism subverts at least the superficial tenets of the New Testament. (The Old Testament was too genocidal and tribalistic to be anything but comfortable with race realism.) A generous reconciling between racial reality and Christianity/Tradconism (the Bene Gesserit Option) might suggest that post-modern Christianity has a cramped and incomplete understanding of the Bible, and that having lost touch with the more ancient, less New Agey Biblical injunctions the modern Christian is impelled to defend antiracism as a proxy for defending his religion from what he perceives as lethal heresies.

Traditional religious conservatives, like many other conservatives, deny race realism because they are still in love with the idea of equality.

Outside of the world of equality, we recognize that people are biologically different and that this determines their behavior for the largest part. That includes limits on what they can understand and their degree of impulse control. Nietzschean conservatives — extreme realists, grounded in biology more than religion or social feelings — view people as biological creations first and rational, thinking beings second, in varying degrees according to the individual, family, class, caste, ethnic group, personal habits and other limiting factors.

When we say that we reject equality, it means that we also reject the idea that people are little programmable units who can be fed the “right” input and made to behave as we wish. People are different; one of the basic tenets of conservatism is that most issues must be understood on a case-by-case basis instead of blindly through rules and categories. Nothing is equal, and no people are equal. We are individuals.

Ironically, individualism suppresses individuality. Individualism puts the whims of the individual first before reality, other people or an organic entity such as civilization. This causes people to live through their whims, instead of engaging in enough contemplation of the union of self and world to understand themselves. This is why Leftists tend to be robotic and zombie-like.

Recognizing that people are not equal means that we must breach several Leftist taboos. First, it means that people in society are ranked according to genetics, like the hereditary caste systems advocated around here. Second, it means that there is no one rule for everyone and no universal truth, only a need to place our most realistic and forward-thinking people higher in a hierarchy because they literally “see” things that others do not, and that others cannot comprehend.

Equality is the root of our disease, found in the individualism that sprouts once a society is wealthy and powerful enough to have beaten back immediate threats. People fall into introspection, or navel-gazing, but not the kind that wonders about the universe; instead, they become prisoners of their own egos because they have lost purpose that unites them to the world out there.

If conservatism has a statement on humans to counter equality, it is “they are what they are.” Like plants and animals, people are regulated by their genetics. They can improve on this through social capital, or things they learn from the culture around them, but they cannot fundamentally be changed from one thing into another.

On the Right, war is brewing — a civil war. The egalitarian conservatives, who tend to advocate PRWH, are going to war with the realist conservatives. But only the latter group is distinct enough from Leftism to escape being absorbed back into it through a process known as “entryism” which is consistent with Conquest’s Second Law of Politics.