Posts Tagged ‘egalitarianism’

We Live On A Planet Of Liars

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.

Political Correctness: An Extension Of Archetypal Leftist Psychology

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016


The Left rose through a singular power: a simple idea that made people feel comfortable in their social group, binding them together into a band to conquer all so that it would serve this idea.

For that reason, it makes sense not to say that Leftists are individually totalitarian, but that the thinking of Leftism is inherently totalitarian and individual Leftists will not be satisfied until they achieve a state that is both totalitarian and reality-denying.

The nature of ideology, after all, is to replace reality. It is the anti-reality. It tells you not how things work, but how they should according to human social logic. Leftism is at war with reality.

As a variant of Crowdism, Leftism is based in individualism. Every individual in the group wants guaranteed acceptance by the group. For this reason, they form a gang to make this so, but while their method is collectivism, their motivation is individualism.

What gives Crowdism power is the transfer of society from cooperative — where all people work unequally toward a goal that all understand — to control-based structures, where a formal goal is set up and applied equally to all in order to maintain power structures despite the fragmentation of society into many special interest groups, with individualists being one of these.

This gives rise to dark organization or a counter-current within society, formed of the individualist gang, that operates against its goals. Special interest groups do not share the goal of society as a whole, and therefore become parasitic: they take from the whole to support their own agendas.

For these reasons, the gang/cult of the parasite is always in motion. Its agenda never rests because it has hacked the human brain with a simple pleasing concept that short-cuts everything else. “If everyone is accepted, no one is at risk, and there will be no conflict,” is its underlying appeal, and the very fact of this simplification makes the meme powerful. It appeals to fear.

Since its motive is always conquest from within, the Crowd uses a number of hooks to short-circuit the psychology of others, and these in turn shape its own thinking into a pathological (repetitive without regard for results) obsession. This mental state can be recognized by the following internal cycles:

  • Begging the Question. To advance itself, Leftism uses this fallacy to transition political ideas to perceived social morality ideas. As we see with political correctness, the basic form is to assert that certain things are universally good, and therefore that in the converse, anyone who opposes those ideas is bad. The basic form of the fallacy is as follows:

    The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (“begging the question”), occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated (example: “Gregory always votes wisely.” “But how do you know?” “Because he always votes Libertarian.”).

    A special form of this fallacy, called a vicious circle, or circulus in probando (“arguing in a circle”), occurs in a course of reasoning typified by the complex argument in which a premise p1 is used to prove p2; p2 is used to prove p3; and so on, until pn − 1 is used to prove pn; then pn is subsequently used in a proof of p1, and the whole series p1, p2, . . . , pn is taken as established (example: “McKinley College’s baseball team is the best in the association [ pn = p3]; they are the best because of their strong batting potential [ p2]; they have this potential because of the ability of Jones, Crawford, and Randolph at the bat [ p1].” “But how do you know that Jones, Crawford, and Randolph are such good batters?” “Well, after all, these men are the backbone of the best team in the association [ p3 again].”).

    Strictly speaking, petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction, since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise.

    The final line may be the most important: this argument type is a linguistic sleight-of-hand, and the only reason it works is that the premise is associated with universal moral good, a concept that itself is an assumption. But because of its appearance in a social setting, the argument seems convincing because universal acceptance is a necessary basic attribute of socializing in large and thus broad groups. This is how the Crowd forms.

    For example, consider the Leftist argument for diversity: variety is good, therefore we need ethnic variety. The only way to oppose this seems to be to criticize the conclusion of the argument, when the real solution is to attack the assumption and the inexact language that allows it to seem relevant. Variety is good in certain contexts, and only certain types of variety, and these do not analogize to civilizations very well.

    The Left moves into circulus in probando by stacking its assumptions: “Because (we assume that) morality is universal, (we assume that) diversity is good, and since (we assume that) diversity is working so well, we need to expand the program.” In fact, all of Leftism can be seen as a circulus in probando starting with the idea that personal intent is more important than reality — the core of individualism and The Enlightenment™ — and moving to universalism, democratization and finally, to the extension of those principles to other areas. Diversity might be viewed as ethnic democracy, welfare as subsidized universalism, and strong state control as democratization of power.

  • Rationalism. Humans like to think that reason alone will bring them to correct answers, but they forget that our reasoning is shaped by our minds and must correspond to a reality more complex than our minds. Reason is thus not a singular thing, but many grades of an idea, and in addition to that, it varies with the individual.

    For those reasons, saying that reason will guide us to correct answers necessarily overloads our minds with the imposition of the idea that all people are the same, and that reason works like a calculator, when in fact it is more varied. That in turn creates the curse of rationalism which is that it enables people to have tunnel vision by identifying a plausible answer and then finding facts to support it, instead of assessing all facts and finding a model which fits all of the known data.

    Rationalism in this sense is not essentially distinct from rationalization, or developing a way of visualizing an unfortunate event as a positive one. In this case, the unfortunate event is civilization collapse, and so instead of fighting it, the Left rationalizes it and directs its attention away from fixing the problem to finding a way to feel good about the problem. Both rationalism and rationalization start by accepting a perception and then altering facts by filtering out those that do not conform to the thesis so that the perception appears not just true but inevitable.

  • Control. When cooperation can no longer exist because society is pulling itself apart into special interest groups, control appears: force everyone to go through the same procedures, or “means” versus “ends” or goals, equally or in the same way, so that details can be managed from central control or through a centralized narrative, even if independently interpreted as is the case with egalitarianism, the founding idea of the Left.

    The modern method can be seen as Social Control, or use of the threat of ostracism and reward for making people feel good as dual pincers of the control mechanism. Guilt is the primary weapon there: those who are not ideologically conforming become aware that others will be “upset” or “offended” by their acts, and are made to feel bad not about the consequences of their actions in reality, but in the perceptions of others.

    This process of regulating people through public appearance proves deadly effective because humans — like our Simian forebears — are social creatures. Alienation does not require government intervention, and because it causes others to fear for themselves if they are associated with the alienated person, spreads like a disease. It is more effective than any other means of punishment because the consequences are all-pervasive.

    When noticed by humans, social control is referred to as peer pressure with all the implications of collective punishment that this indicates. A small group, like a local community, fears being associated with bad ideas, so it punishes those who have them. In addition, this group will punish a group within it for deviation from the norm. This means that the individual is totally dependent on the group for behavioral cues and must follow whatever is decided, in an inversion of democracy but an extension of democratization. When all people have a voice, conformity results, and then it is made mandatory.

  • Crybullying. To advance a petitio principii fallacy, one must act as if the assumption therein is normal and universally liked. This requires playing the role of an innocent, benevolent and passive party. However, when someone refuses the assumption, this requires the fallacy advocate to act the role of wounded victim, which then justifies (synonyms: rationalizes; excuses) retaliation.

    This produces a type of weaponized passive aggression or indirect bullying. The Leftist needs to appear somewhere, insist on a Leftist method, and then act wounded while summoning the troops — the rest of the gang/cult — to attack. This enables Leftists to infiltrate any area of society and, by using their passive aggressive “victimhood” narrative, force others to conform to what the Leftist desires.

The psychology created by the above cannot be properly viewed as a philosophy, but an inversion of philosophy: instead of finding reasons to act in certain ways, it assumes basic human impulses — which like most undisciplined things, are usually wrong — are correct and then invents explanations for those that make them seem reasonable.

That however implicates a philosophy with two branches:

  • Means Over Ends. Leftism embraces a classic “means over ends” analysis. In that view, the goal does not matter so much as behaving in a correct way, in this case for social approval. That allows necessarily goals to be ignored if the methods needed are upsetting or inconvenient to the group, which “wags the dog” because then instead of thinking toward purpose, people think away from purpose and let methods become a substitute for goals. This rationalizes the lack of purpose inherent to a dying civilization and creates an imitative society where people repeat past successful acts without knowledge of what made them successful, simply by placing trust in the method and being afraid to contemplate goals.
  • Cause And Effect. Normally, we see our actions as the cause of an event which had certain effects, or outcomes. In the inverted world of Leftism, cause is removed by the assumption of moral goodness to methods, which signifies that the methods are both effect and cause. This removes the human ability to see cause, and by declaring the irrelevance of ends or effects, obliterates our ability to formulate independent goals. This creates atomized, infantilized, and domesticated people who depend on strong authority for guidance, as their acts otherwise are goalless and therefore become self-destructive in addition to pointless.

The root of this philosophy is a resistance to life itself: people would prefer to be gods in their own minds than to realize their place in an order — structure, hierarchy, flow of events — that makes life what it is. This is the essence of control within the human mind. It rejects all that is natural and replaces it with a world composed entirely of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. This is comforting to the under-confident and neurotic.

All high-level societies die through some form of Crowdism, which is usually Leftist. When a civilization is forming, its purpose is clear: create civilization, beat back nature and disease, and organize so that the pleasures of life are possible. After that point, civilization is taken for granted because most people cannot see the reason to choose a new purpose, since they have the effects of the work that created that civilization.

Dysgenics factor in here as well, especially in cities large enough to be anonymous. People need only to find a job, rent a place to live, and purchase food from street vendors. Everything else is optional. It is not surprising that modern Leftists are enamored of the job/rent/restaurant lifestyle. This, and the advances in institutionalized hygiene and safety that save people from their own bad choices, create people who are living but have no will to live other than the mechanical and material process of survival itself. With this, purpose and bravery die.

Anti-goals afflict successful civilizations only. One mode of thought, embraced by primitivists and Nietzscheans to varying degrees, is that civilization — if it wishes to survive — needs to back off of “perfecting” everyday life, and should preserve dangers. The idea of social Darwinism that is not in love with jobs and money holds that there should be no externalized costs to individual actions, such that each individual faces the consequences of his actions including potential death. This means strict punishment for any costs incurred to society by the individual, a lack of things like insurance and uniform methods of survival, and daily challenges so that the clueless weed themselves out.

Another possibility for civilization survival is to design it such that every action must have a purpose, and the results are compared to that purpose, with those who achieve parity between intention and reality being promoted in a hierarchy. This creates constant internal evolution and at the very least disenfranchises those who are inept at everything but collecting social approval. In other words, society must be less “social” and more purpose-driven.

Diversity presents a fundamental problem in any society because with the presence of a single person from the Other group, either social standards must be widened to include the standards of both self and Other, or those who are Other will be at a disadvantage and appear to be victims. That in turn jump-starts the begging-the-question fallacy by making it easily observed that the Other is failing, and assuming that this is bad, and therefore that “change” must occur.

Above all else, we must remember what Walt Kelley told us years ago: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Inside of each of us is a monkey. This monkey reacts to life out of fear and lives in a miasma of superstition, projection and denial through filtering out inconvenient and upsetting information. This monkey is driven by impulse, which leads to rationalization of that impulse, and reverts thought. The healthiest civilizations are disciplined more in terms of private thoughts than public behavior, but not through Control; instead, they aim for realism and other methods of refining the spirit to be rigid about its thinking and to push down the monkey impulses.

Our inner monkey resents life for not being equal to our intent as individuals. That choice forces us to either accept reality as it is (nihilism) or to accept only ourselves, then rationalize that denial as good, and in turn blot out reality without a consensual hallucination of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. Since this has its root in the monkey impulse toward self-importance in defiance of a reality structured otherwise, it is also a regression and the source of the dark organization that is Crowdism.

We have come to recognize Typical Leftist Behavior (TLB) with increasing frequency as the achievement of Leftist goals (diversity, equality, democratization, globalism) has made reality totally unknown to most people, resulting in terrible consequences when their ideas are put into practice, as usually happens with reality-denial. TLB takes many forms but all are based in the schema above.

The threats in front of us — Leftism, The Enlightenment,&trade civilization collapse — are themselves effects of this inner transformation of human beings. We no longer intend to achieve good results; we focus instead on making our feelings happy despite the darkness around us, but this deprives us of a sense that life can be a joy and a pleasure. That in turn pushes us toward more dark thoughts and behaviors.

Salvation for Western Civilization begins when we not just reverse this process, but commit ourselves instead toward a purpose which replaces the original purpose of survival that kept our civilization united in its early years. We also must protect ourselves genetically, so that we are not replaced with the Other, even in traces, as those alter what we were and through atavisms of that, what we must be again.

The Left won because it had a simple idea that dominated all other thinking. The solution is not to try to replicate that, but to understand that simple ideas which dominate are in themselves a terrible notion, and that instead, we need a more nuanced, purpose-driven and realistic view of life. As Leftist society crashes in chaos around us, more are turning toward this idea or something like it.

Trump Sets The Stage For Deportation

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.

As The West Swings Rightward, A Need For Greater Clarity

Friday, November 25th, 2016


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now this is where it gets interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Gen X Lament: The Alt Right

Saturday, November 19th, 2016


Two of the questions that have baffled writers in our time: Why do we not fight back? and Why are we failing to reproduce? The same answer addresses both: our people are existentially miserable.

Existential misery refers to concerns related to existence itself. People who are existentially happy believe they have purpose, that the world is basically good or at least not headed toward failure, and that they will have meaningful lives.

These are the questions of purpose and meaning that disturb our sleep in the middle of the night. Those who feel existentially lost sense that their lives have no greater meaning than material consumption and labor, and tend to self-destruct if they are above a certain level of intelligence.

At the core of an existential question lies the troubling idea of hope. Those who have realistic hope, meaning that things will turn out for the best based on the sanity and stability they see in their civilization, tend to thrive and be productive, happy and connected to the world around them.

On the other hand, those who lack hope tend to destroy themselves by failing to reproduce, self-sabotaging, and other behaviors of unhappy animals. This shows us that the central question regarding European-descended people is Why are we so hopeless?

We have no faith that our lives are good or that the future will be good; in fact, even if we are afraid to articulate this, we believe the contrary. This is made difficult by the fact that on the surface, all is shiny and wealthy, happy and content.

People drive by in new cars. They go to jobs with fascinating titles. They always have new gadgets and objects to discuss, if not the 500+ channels of cable and internet. We have progress. We are good. Or are we?

Despite all outward signs of being good, we — the descendants of those who made this civilization — do not like our society. Its wealth is wonderful, but seems to mostly go to the wrong people. Its technology is great, but always glitches and then breaks down after only five years.

We want to escape it, in fact, which is why everyone dreams of getting rich and bailing out. An entire society is a hamster on a wheel, just for the chance to escape that society!

Our people are miserable is this is why they are dying out. Conservatives shut the door on the world, go back to work, pay their taxes and grumble to let off steam, then do nothing. Leftists find their Utopia empty, and redouble their efforts. No one is happy with the situation, but because they are atomized by social isolation, they engage in “compensatory” behaviors or those which make the individual feel better about the world rather than attempting to change it.

Nowhere has this hit harder than with Generation X. Growing up as “latch-key kids” who were the products of divorce and social breakdown, Generation X realized that they were going to be adults in a world without social order. They could rely on nothing, were targets of predatory business and government, and saw that their society was entirely without future. They retaliated with a dropout culture that matured into total rejection of society and a desire to destroy it.

The result is a nation ready to split in half, with one side belonging to the Left and the rest for the realists. The realists will identify the following as the fatal flaws of liberal democracy that have shaped the lives of Generation X and made them detest society:

  • Diversity. People want to grow up in a society where there is a strong social standard of what is correct behavior, and therefore, they know what to do in order to be rewarded. Leftism favors a social standard which changes all the time but reverts to the same core concept, equality or the individual being safe from the consequences of his actions. With even a tiny amount of diversity, the social standard is eroded by different customs and values, creating a hybrid standard that verges on the generic. Our people now have no idea how to participate in society, so withdraw, and this makes them neurotic and lowers their self-esteem.

  • Sexual Liberation. In theory, sexual liberation sounds like it removes the pressures of sexual selection. In reality, it ensures that no strong bonds form between people for whom each partner is merely another sexual experience. This ruins families by creating faithless marriages, and gives children no hope of the type of eternal, pure love that they crave. To the “liberated” person, marriage is an extended form of dating, and as in dating, the relationship is terminated when it becomes too inconvenient for the individual, ending any hope of strong love or long-term pairing.

  • Equality. When first described to us, equality sounded like pacifism applied to class struggles: everyone is accepted, and all are included. In practice it always means taking from the successful to give to the unsuccessful, which breaks the spirit of those who have achieved anything by watching the fruits of their work drain into the pool for support of those who do nothing and become destructive as a result. It punishes those who rise above, making it inefficient to be anything but mediocre, and then everyone suffers from the resulting wave of ineptitude and lack of comprehension.

  • Political Correctness. In order to accept the Other among us, we require Soviet speech codes in order to prevent the clash of values systems being noticed. Each group has its own self-interest, and that includes dominating the others so its own value system prevails, so political correctness is used as a weapon to silence the majority or even simply realists so that the conflict can continue.

  • Sexual Equality. As a result of egalitarianism, women entered the workforce, effectively doubling it and installing into it people who were masters of endless detail but prone to miss the big point. The result has been that all business initiatives converge on the same laundry-list of important details and miss what makes those products and services distinctive, lowering quality and making jobs mind-numbingly boring, while simultaneous decreasing real salaries and forcing everyone to work later hours to outpace the “class president” women of the Hillary Clinton archetype.

  • Disorder. Without values, social classes and a culture we can share in common, there is no social order outside of Leftist ideology and what police, public shame, lawsuits and fines enforce on us all. This makes people despair of ever being rewarded for doing good, and instead they focus on tangential personal hobbies that do not fulfill them and instead make them more alienated and less likely to relate to one another.

  • Make-Work. Beyond women in the workforce, the onslaught of unions and affirmative action resulted in all jobs being subdivided into detachable parts, like the “cogs” of industrial revolution lore made even more isolated and boring. People attend jobs more than work to an end, and spend most of their time cleaning up after other people, which penalizes the intelligent and makes them angry, vengeful and controlling.

This is the nightmare into which our Leftist regime launched Generation X starting in the 1980s. Back then, the disaster was just beginning to gain momentum, but none of us thought there was any future in this world. This created zombie citizens who wander alone through the world, finding nothing of importance and like a star before becoming a black hole, imploding on themselves.

Generation X is a group born without hope. Their parents, the 1968er “Me Generation” Baby Boomers, climbed up the ladder and then pulled it after them, leaving people stranded without a civilization that gave them any hope. In this hopelessness, they have begun to die off, having known since their early teens that this disordered, insane world offered nothing but death.

Along with millennials, Generation X propelled the Alt Right to prominence because they realized that the collapse was upon us. Society was dead when they were born. We are now just carving up the remnants. The only fix is to radically remove the insanity foisted upon us by tearing it down to its roots, and excising those. Extremity is no longer extreme; it is the bare minimum for survival, and this is why the Alt Right arose among Generation X.

Any solution will begin with peeling back the above policies. Remove affirmative action, sexual equality, diversity, unions and equality from the law, and leave it up to people — not government or ideology — to organize their lives. Only in this way can we back away from the abyss, and then run in another, more constructive direction.

Trumpism Is Not An Attack, But A Defense

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.

Quick Study Guide For The Alt Right

Friday, November 11th, 2016


After Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton mentioned the “alt right” as part of her “basket of deplorables,” interest surged in the political movement named the “alternative Right” or “Alt Right.” Unfortunately, it proves difficult to define, especially for those emerging from the haze of modern liberalism.

The Alt Right is the realist Right-wing that, unlike the public right-wing, speaks taboo truths. We cannot talk about differences between social classes, races, ethnic groups, genders and individuals. That offends our egalitarian pretense that we adopted with The Enlightenment.™

In addition, there is an “underground right” which has been dominated by a single issue, racial nationalism, which both ignores ethnic nationalism which is the traditional domain of nationalism, and sidesteps all the other issues necessary to address in order to have a functional civilization.

The best way to understand the alt right is to see that our society has gone insane following a pretense, egalitarianism, and that this has made it socially unacceptable to notice certain truths as well as the failures of egalitarian society. “Noticing” is the sin of our time.

The alt right has risen to speak the plain realist truth: our civilization is declining, and egalitarianism is both a partial cause and the opposite of a solution, so we need to shatter the taboo line and start talking realistically about things again as we were able to before the World Wars.

Leftism has been steadily taking over Western civilization since the French Revolution, and during that time, our technology has increased, but everything else has declined. The cause is not capitalism, climate change or inequality, but that Leftist does not work.

For this reason, the alt right has risen up to speak the plain truth and avoid the political pretense. The alt right has several general tenets which can be summarized as:

  • Ethnic nationalism

  • Distrust of egalitarianism and socialism

  • Hierarchy

  • Culture enforcing standards instead of government

  • Gender differences and complementary roles

  • Need for some transcendental goal beyond materialism

These are concepts so foreign to the modern citizen that these people react as if they had seen a UFO when these concepts are mentioned. This gives us a clue that these are not forgotten ideas, but denied ideas, and the only way to shatter denial is to break the taboo line as the alt right attempts to.

Inner Self As The Opposite Of Individualism

Thursday, October 27th, 2016


We live in an individualistic time, which means that people think of their personal desires before considering how realistic they are. Our concept of equality is designed to sever needs from wants because no one can say “no” to someone who pursues the unrealistic because that person is “equal.”

As the notion of equality settles into a society, all acts become “symbolic” or gestures designed to communicate intent. The essence of equality is that there can be no purpose for the society except to facilitate the desires of its citizens. This means there is no hierarchy except socializing, and one socializes by convincing other people to like oneself based on these benevolent, empathic gestures.

This quickly converts the value of every act into symbolism. Politicians kiss babies because it is easier and more effective than ensuring that those babies have a healthy civilization in which to grow up. Salesmen always take your side. Actors follow whatever trend is popular. All of these signal a desire for acceptance.

Domination By Symbolic Thinking

The problem with the external symbolism that is native to human consciousness is that it ignores the inner self. The inner self is the part of us that cannot be defined: the intuition, the instinct and the moral core. This does not fit into tidy boxes and visual symbols for others to appreciate.

External symbolism replaces the inner self. As people use symbolism to communicate with others, the tokens in their minds are adjusted to fit what the group demands. This introduces internal inconsistency and by nature of the social force being stronger, replaces inner knowledge with external demands.

This creates a dictatorship of the ego distributed among all people in the civilization. The inner self is suppressed because it cannot be controlled and is replaced by the external self, or what the group thinks by consensus. This can be carefully manipulated.

In effect, this means that the inner self is squeezed out of people. It represents a risk; that which conflicts with what the herd believes can cause loss of friends, jobs, homes, mates and professional contacts. The inner self represents nothing but risk because it addresses the ambiguous and that which is outside human control.

Crushing The Intuition

This causes us to ask: “What is the inner self?” It is that which is real, whether derived from intuition or reality. To understand intuition, the mind must be clear enough to see it; to understand the external world, the inner self must be clearly understood, and open to more than the individual because it is confident.

The inner self is uniquely satisfying because unlike fantasies of controlling the outside world, it consists of desires which can be achieved. The intuition understands the world, and for that reason, selects options which are not just pleasing but also within the realm of everyday possibility.

On the other hand, it is terrifying. Intuition knows no boundaries, and does not fall into the safe categories of social logic. The ego generally blocks the inner self because it is formless and terrifying. This explains the default human behavior of preferring destructive and chaotic decisions to sane ones.

For this reason, people prefer individualism. This forms an isolated container for the self where it is measured entirely by appearance to the social group, which is easier to achieve than inner satisfaction. Individualism is tangible and can be controlled, where the intuition remains an unknown land in twilight.

Individualism presents an opposite to the inner self. The ego knows itself only through its external reflection, like someone preening in a mirror, and this must exclude inner measurement. By the same token, knowledge of the inner self deprives the external ego of its shine and renders the social world useless.

As an exchange for this convenience, individualism puts the individual into a terrible position. All questions are transferred to the external, which means that failure is attributable to someone else, but so is success. This creates an individual unaware of itself, feeling constantly controlled because of its externalized nexus.

This individual finds no comfort. No successes belong to the self, only to the herd; similarly, no comfort can be found in the self, only in the group. This in turn creates a situation where the individual can find no happiness, but must forever seek affirmation from the group.

The Modern Psychology

In that psychology we see the ultimate evolution of the modern person. When they are displeased, they blame the world around them because they have assigned the choice of happiness to this world. When they are not displeased, they assume it is the world around them, sacrificing the inner self at the altar of conformity.

This creates a situation where the existential discomfort of the individual is transferred to the external. The rage of someone who cannot connect to the inner self becomes a cause for action to change the external so that it comforts the individual.

The glitch there is that the problem does not lie in the external, and scapegoating it does not revive the inner self and make the individual feel complete, possibly even discovering a soul. The loss of inner self creates a classic pathology, or behavior repeated despite achieving bad results, because the self-concept of the individual and its self-esteem rest on the fiction that the behavior is important.

Pervasive Loneliness and Alienation

Individualism replaces the core of a person with a deference to the external in order to create external forces to bolster the ego. At first, this seems like a good idea, as it avoids the hard questions of life including morality, purpose and the genre of aesthetics that lets us appreciate transcendental beauty and excellence.

Over time, it becomes a corrupting force, much like in the book The Portrait of Dorian Grey where the selfish deeds of the protagonist distort his image and turn it into a decayed vision. The more we pursue the nonsense out of a desire for spiritual convenience, the more twisted we become within.

We currently live in a society that has been in the grips of this pathology for a century. People work more, notice less, and spend their time dealing with the incompetence and threat of the herd, rather than enjoying life. Intellectual and cultural life has descended into the trash-heap. Existential misery is widespread.

Any movement which hopes to conquer our future will need to address the fundamental cultural shift in the West: “progress” has made us miserable by denying our inner selves through its need to enforce universalism and egalitarianism. We can do better, and if we do not, we will die out from broken hearts.

Unpunished Herd

Sunday, October 16th, 2016


By the time democracy arrives, things are well and truly dead for a civilization and the only formalities remaining are the toe tag and the estate sale. Our ancestors knew that if you indulge the pretense of humans, or the defensive assumption that they are good, it will give them license to run amok, and that they have done.

What we have left of “civilization” is essentially an economy with cops, lawyers, judges and nagging nanny journalists riding herd on the chaos. This is predictable, because we can see that people without strong leadership behave like herd animals.

You can see the proof of my point if you work with any volunteer organization. Sit people down in a committee and they start making the same type of bad decisions that our nations are making. The cause is this bad decision-making, and the result is our terrible elites.

In cause-effect terms, the elites are the effect and our choices are the cause. They did not impose this on us; we imposed them on ourselves by selecting an unrealistic type of government, namely herd-based leadership which was inevitably capitalized on by a corrupt media, political class and lobbyist layer.

You can also see the same thing at a job, or even in personal lives. People in groups make terrible decisions. People are pretentious and selfish, generally. It is entirely logical that the end result of this process is awful government and its handmaidens, who will be massively corrupt.

The point is that, regarding leadership, we have a binary option:

  • The best oppress the rest. Some claw their way to the top, demonstrating exceptional ability. They then restrain the rest of the group because this restraint is needed for civilization. End result: more effective leadership, no runaway herd acting selfishly. — or:

  • The rest oppress the best. Strong leadership is feared, so society adopts weak leadership, which results in a slow but constant growth of many small problems which converge in a loss of social order and suicidal policies like endless war, immigration and quasi-legal corruption.

At the most abstract level, these are the choices we have in “government,” and every single possible type of leadership structure fits into one or the other of these categories. Either we put the best on top, or we have mob rule.

The Americans tried a middle ground. Their Constitution is as complicated as an Italian race car, and yet, it was dismantled in as few as a dozen years, depending on who you talk to. After a disastrous civil war, two world wars, and now endless war in the middle east as the American Leftist regime goes the way of the Soviets, the Constitution is effectively dead.

And so, like people lost in a maze, here we are again, back at the same crossroads we have been at before. Best, or rest? The last two hundred years have showed us what the rest can do, and it is ugly: horrible jobs based on attendance more than performance, cities that are wastelands, corrupt leaders, gross mass culture, and what seems to be a decline in genetic ability to think among even the upper echelons of our society.

We are not just in trouble because of our system of government, but because it is making us incompetent. First, it redirects our attention from actual issues to symbolic ones, like how popular something is or whether it plays the politics or law game well. Second, the system promotes only those who think this way.

The Brexit/Trump Revolution (BTR) has much going for it. The weak point in its armor is that it scapegoats our elites for the mess we are in. We are in a mess, but the elites are an effect of that mess, not its cause. The cause is our reliance on herd voting and buying to make decisions, instead of having actual leadership.

Francis Fukuyama told us that we have reached the end of history, which depressed everyone because while the West is wealthy, it is dead in its soul. People hate their daily existence because it is humiliating, menial and incompetent, even at the highest levels of career and social life.

What he meant to write, perhaps, was that liberal democracy had beaten down all of its competition. That does not mean it is the best system; it was fortunate in its choice of allies, and often what works in the short-term is the opposite of what is needed in the long-term.

The thought of resurrecting society from the degeneracy of the unpunished herd is daunting in itself. We are not, however, rescuing everyone. There will be a new civilization and only those who “get it” and are useful will be welcome. The rest can be cast aside. This is always how it is.

Once we wrap our minds around the enormity of this task, it becomes clear that we should not be afraid to make the decision to go all the way toward what we need, instead of taking halfway measures. We are at one of those nexus points in history where all that was considered established is now fluid. Vast change is upon us, like it or not.

As modern citizens, we have grown up listening to constant voices — television, teachers, politicians, parents, friends — telling us that certain things are cast in stone, and that as far as changing them, the ship has sailed. But now, all of these stonecast pillars are in the process of collapse. We can finally move on.

Potentially what we are seeing is the beginning of a great time to be alive. The twentieth century was mostly carnage and stupidity, and so far the twenty-first has been worst, but that means that the trend of the eighteenth century has finally peaked and is falling. We can cease repeating the mistakes of the past.

For now, the herd runs free. Its low standards, enforced through utilitarian policies, harm those who can tell the difference between mediocre and good. Its indecision has attracted all manner of manipulators and parasites. Its policies have produced horror and evil as handmaidens in everyday life, making us all complicit.

The rise of the Alt Right has shown a challenge to business as usual, which means a continuing slide into decay. People across the West are tired of living in failed states and a failed system. It is time to think the unthinkable, and move on from liberal democracy a.k.a. oppression by the rest.

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

Saturday, October 8th, 2016


When your society gets to the point of collapse, it means that the assumptions on which it was built were lies. Almost all of your fellow citizens will be looking for a scapegoat — the Rich,™ Russia, corporations, the Jews,™ and maybe the Illuminati — but what you need to look for is structural failures. Bad design. Unrealistic ideas.

Western Civilization has since The Renaissance™ been built on the idea of the individual as interpreter of fate, since The Enlightenment™ on the ideal of equality, and since the post-war period, on the notion of diversity and the abolition of social caste. These are all lies. Something is a lie if it purports to describe reality but does so inaccurately enough that it misleads those who rely on it.

Knowing that these are lies presents a problem because they sound good in a social context. Suzy homemaker will make her book club feel good by telling them that they are all included no matter how bad they are at understanding books (equality), that they can read whatever they want or however much they want (liberty), and that they represent a unified group with the same interests regardless of background (fraternity). Dave the middle manager uses the same techniques. So does the local pastor, the mayor, the soccer coach and the neighborhood gang leader.

But a lie is like an infection. It starts in a specific area, and then spreads as the initial lie forces other lies to be told. Then, it changes the meaning of common terms so they do not conflict with the lie. Finally, it takes over purpose entirely, since in order to avoid collapse, all things must support and reinforce the lie. It has dominated like a fatal disease.

When reading the following, you may recall that this blog embraces unpopular and difficult truths instead of temporary lies. This does not mean we have to like these truths, or that we have to take them to a bad place. It is entirely possible to recognize differences between sexes, races, ethnic groups, and castes without succumbing to a ¡KILL THEM! mentality, or giving in to simian cruelty.

Liberté / Liberty

Liberty is an anti-goal, and those only arise when there is no cultural consensus about what is positive activity. Instead, out of fear of other special interest groups, people demand no oversight of their action, otherwise known as “liberty” or “freedom.” They believe this will keep them safe. They are wrong.

We do not need freedom. We need an ability to do the things which are healthy and necessary for life, and to express analytical opinions about social and political issues without censorship. This has nothing to do with permitting pornography, degenerate art, graffiti and other forms of “self-expression” which are common in the West today. Free speech means protecting political speech. Everything else — what else do we actually need to do?

All of us need the ability to conduct normal life roles without interference. But freedom goes beyond that to demand that everything which is not explicitly criminalized be accepted. This makes no sense, since we know roughly what should be done, and allowing massive deviation just creates entropy by encouraging people to take as many divergent paths as possible. Freedom is a false target, a proxy for non-interference by incompetent busybodies.

In a healthy civilization, people do not seek freedom because they know that they will always be doing something not merely inoffensive but positive, including their own leisure time. They recognize that many evils take decades to understand as evil, and so they are banned to avoid requiring people to waste many years of their lives discovering they are addicted to yet another false promise. Healthy, happy people do not want legal drugs, promiscuity and misbehavior; they want a standard of behavior that guides them toward successes in personal, social and professional life.

When we demand freedom, we legitimize deviant and purposeless behavior, which produces zombie people without a clue as to what they should actually be doing, which in turn encourages them to engage in extreme pleasure-seeking as a means of rediscovering simpler pleasures whose wisdom is long lost to them. This creates a self-consuming social order.

Égalité / Equality

When people say “equality,” it sounds good because it implies that everyone is included without bias against their choices. In reality, what equality means is that society will be based upon appearance because nothing else can be considered. “Equality” means that all are included equally, which replaces any sort of purpose, which means that social determinations replace realistic ones.

As a result, the equal group has no direction and becomes becalmed unless it finds violators. For this reason, equal groups are the most judgmental, but they tend to be attentive to things like appearance instead of actually important areas like character and ability. As a result, a witchy little crowd is created which sits in judgment on others and tends to nit-pick over small issues.

Equality means that all are accepted, except those who deviate from the crowd opinion and whatever is in vogue at the time. This creates a need to be constantly connected to what the herd is doing, and to pay attention to its whims, on pain of exile. Equality means that because all are equal, no one is sufficient, except those who flatter others and their pretense by taking the herd very seriously.

Equality is Casey Anthony. Equality is every crazy person you have ever known. Equality is hoarders, fetishists, prostitutes and drug addicts. By themselves, they do no harm, but to society, they do great harm by lowering standards. A sane society would exile them. But under equality, it cannot.

Social control prevails with equality. Since everyone starts on an equal footing, the only way to stand out is to distinguish oneself with outlandish behavior. This means playing to the crowd, like an entertainer or someone trying to impress the group at his local pub. Reality fades far away as monkey behavior dominates.

On paper, equality looks good: we eliminate conflicts by accepting everyone. In reality, equality means an incentive to behave like an idiot in order to draw attention to oneself so that one can rise above “equal,” which means nothing now that everyone has it.

Equality is degeneracy.

Fraternité / Fraternity

Fraternity (“brotherhood”) means acceptance of all people despite their differences in ability, caste, class and honor. It means that society has abandoned the thought of having a goal, and instead has pointed us toward the anti-goal of “we all must get along.”

If getting along is the primary goal, all other goals are secondary, including reality. This is “we agree to disagree” enshrined as policy, and by doing so, excluding all hope of finding answers. This is the refuge of a society that is dying. It is not progress, it is regression to the state of being unable to make decisions. When keeping the herd together becomes more important than finding answers, those answers become means to the end of forcing the group to keep unified.

It sounds really good to say “we are all brothers,” but what it means in actuality is that none can be criticized or exiled from the group for their acts or opinions. What that means in turn is that all acts and opinions are accepted, even if they are totally delusional. When the goal is brotherhood, everything must be accepted, and so truth becomes unrelated to the question.

In addition, brotherhood is an imposed order. We may not all be brothers… we can work together toward a goal, however. But putting brotherhood first means that that goal is not what unifies us. In effect, it becomes an affectation or an accessory, and is forgotten in the shadow of the goal of unity among the disunified.

…and this means…

What you have been taught are lies. These falsehoods are substitutes for what you actually need to know, which is that civilizations die when they follow illusions. The cause of this deception is the herd: people, when voting in groups, reward illusions that are socially rewarding. They displace realistic thinking with these fantasies because in the short-term, they achieve greater reward with pretense than with realism.

It is tempting to blame other sources. But at the end of the day, the voters chose this. The shareholders demand value from corporations, and those businesses do what they must to increase profits as a result. The rich make money by selling what the rest of us buy. There is no one else to blame; the problem is us, or at least our behavior as a mass culture.

Our mysteriously slanted media exists because someone is buying all these magazines, website clicks, newspapers and television shows. Our cities ruined by vandalism are not the product of government, but of civilians acting on their own free choice. Even government itself has been endorsed by citizens demanding “answers” and “solutions” to problems, seemingly content to swell the beast among them.

The problem is us. The Christian idea of original sin says that people are basically venal little monkeys until improved by self-discipline and focus on reality, including its transcendent aspect in God. Even more, it says that we are born to different roles. Some can only follow; others can lead; some will do only evil, and some mostly good. This is inescapable reality and all of our humanistic rhetoric remains unconvincing.

Illusions like “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” exist to distract from this hardline reality. They are there to make us feel better, to distract from the actual task and hand, and like all salesjobs, serve to transfer wealth and power to those who promise us lies in exchange for warm fuzzy pretentious feelings about ourselves. They are the enemy within: an intangible evil that cannot be fought directly, but must be purged from within our souls.

Until we stop accepting the System on its face value, and fighting over which of its external mechanisms like liberty-equality-fraternity that we want to be our chosen scapegoat, it will always defeat us, because we have not confronted the problem. Humans make bad decisions; humans in groups make worse decisions; only some individual humans have the ability and discipline to make sort of right decisions most of the time.

We are a species of bumblers. We stumble around and only sometimes wander into a field of reality. This is not bad; it is just what it is. The point is that know this is true, and so can plan for it. Sane societies — especially Golden Age societies — focus within, and encourage emergent order through orienting all people in the same direction. This begins with the most fundamental task of orienting individuals toward good wherever possible.

All of modernity is based on the idea that we do not need inner orientation or inner qualities. Instead, as equal mechanical parts, we can be stamped with the dogma of the age and made into good people. But dogma does not translate into goodness; instead, it replaces it with proxies. This leaves us fighting over different systems to try to force it to do so, without those ever functioning.

The nature of these societies is to trap people in an illusion that they will refuse to recognize as illusion because they depend on its concealment of reality for their own mental self-esteem. The illusion is that we are good, and can be controlled by benevolent forces to produce even more good. In reality, we are not good, with few exceptions, and the forces of control unleash an existential hell in which none thrive but almost all deny it.