Posts Tagged ‘entryism’

Extremism Can Serve As A Cover Story For Disinformation

Wednesday, January 25th, 2017

When on the Right, it helps to remember that everyone else wants to steal your legitimacy, assimilate your ideas, and then use you as a cordycepted zombie to serve their own goals. As a result, you will see many people pretending to be “more Right than thou,” usually by adopting extremist ideas tinged with racial sadism, and these will then serve as an entry point for others who will subvert, co-opt and redirect the movement.

William S. Burroughs — a writer every conservative (realist/physical consequentialist + transcendentalist/Germanic idealist) should read, despite the disturbing amounts of drug use, sex and murder — shows us exactly how these false flag entryists operate through the parable of Clem and Jody:

Clem and Jody, two oldtime vaudeville hoofers, cope out as Russian agents whose sole function is to represent the U.S. in an unpopular light. When arrested for sodomy in Indonesia, Clem said to the examining magistrate:

“‘Tain’t as if it was being queer. After all they’s only Gooks.”

They appeared in Liberia dressed in black Stetsons and red galluses:

“So I shoot that old nigger and he flop on his side one leg up in the air just akicking.”

“Yeah, but you ever burn a nigger?”

They are always pacing round Bidonvilles smoking huge cigars:

“Haveta get some bulldozers in here Jody. Clean out all this crap.”

Morbid crowds follow them about hoping to witness some superlative American outrage.

“Thirty years in show business and I never handle such a routine like this. I gotta dispossess a Bidonville, give myself a bang of H, piss on the Black Stone, make with the Prayer Call whilst dressed in my hog suit, cancel Lend Lease and get fucked up the ass simultaneous…. What, am I an octopus already?” Clem complains.

They are conspiring to kidnap the Black Stone with a helicopter and substitute a hog pen, the hogs trained to give the Bronx cheer when the pilgrims show. “We try to train them squealing bastards to sing: ‘Three cheers for the Red White and Blue,’ but it can’t be done….”

…They unload a shipment of condemned parachutes on the Ecuadorian Air Force. Manoeuvres: Boys plummet streaming ‘chutes like broken condoms splash young blood over pot-bellied generals… shattering wake of sound as Clem and Jody disappear over the Andes in jet getaway…

These guys are hired by the Soviets to discredit Americans, so instead of presenting themselves as Russians and attacking Americans directly, they dress up as Americans and behave like utter horrible boors as a means of getting the herd to hate Americans.

In the same way, there are some on the alt right — of both cuck and sperg varieties — who are sheep in wolves’ clothing: they want to appear to the world as the alt right, and then use their resulting ridiculous behavior to discredit the alt right.

On that level, it is impossible to mention the “1488” types without mentioning the “alt lite,” since they are both the same thing. They are parasitic opportunists who hope to use the alt right to advance their own agenda, consuming the alt right in the process.

How Cultures Are Destroyed: The Black Metal Experience

Sunday, October 16th, 2016


Black metal died the same way civilizations die: it replaced those who could understand it with those who could imitate it. That however was the end result of an earlier process, which was the displacement of the good with the mediocre.

It is instructive to any movement, for example the Alt Right, to see how quickly a thriving genre was eliminated.

First, like a virus moving close to its prey, the attackers made themselves seem to be part of the genre. The clones came out from the people who wanted to take part but would have had no idea how to invent the music in the first place. These were at first faithful, and then started edging toward the mediocre default of all music, the rock/pop styles.

Next, it was time for “progress.” People who could not have either invented the genre, or cloned it, began making spacey rock music that used some black metal technique. This seduced most of the audience because it was similar to what they already listened to and what their friends listened to. Boundaries eroded.

Then, the media assault began. Sites like Wikipedia and Metal Archives started publishing articles about the music that were wrong from the original perspective of the genre, but certainly fit the new rock hybrids that were the result of the “progress.” Original ideas were forgotten, replaced by convenient fictions.

Finally, the invading army arrived. At first hipsters, and then SJWs, began adopting the imagery and personal appearance styles of the genre. They bought some of the classic albums, but then switched to the new rock hybrids and talked those up on popular music sites.

At this point, the genre lost integrity. The original bands saw they had a chance to make some money and retire and so started pumping out the rock hybrids, giving perceived legitimacy to the new style. New bands cropped up, one every month, who made “great, revolutionary” albums that no one kept for more than a few years.

And throughout it all, the older music was ignored by the press, but enjoyed by the fans, many of whom found themselves casting aside the newer imitations once they discovered the roots. This caused consternation among the invaders, who began advancing the narrative that the old was bad, “racist” and outdated.

What can a movement that does not wish to be assimilated, or converted into the same average gunk it was trying to escape from, do to avoid this? A few points:

  • Your strongest supporters may be entryists.

    When the clones of the original ideas appear and seem to be faithfully repeating those ideas like dogma, stop and think. Entryism never announces itself. It camouflages itself instead, appearing to be the real deal, and slowly chips away from the inside.

  • The enemy is decentralized.

    The problem is not shadowy powers manipulating you, but the weakness of individual humans. People want to be popular, and so they follow trends, but in the process make whatever they are doing into the same old thing because their mentality has not changed.

  • Avoiding the mainstream does not help.

    The same behavior and thought process that exists in the mainstream exists everywhere, because people are weak and follow social cues more than, say, the ideals and concepts of a genre. They seek out niches to be different, then make them into the same.

  • Beware of those who simplify and make “authoritative” statements.

    Attackers attempt to assert strong borders around the genre, but these only make it easier to be ironic and rebellious and violate them. The die-hards and the “progressives” are in cahoots, unintentionally perhaps.

  • As popularity increases, quality decreases.

    The short-term good is the opposite of the long-term good. What you tolerate, you get more of. Without strong spokespeople to assert the original ideas, these ideas become adulterated as the franchise expands.

In a realistic view of life, success is downfall because that which rises must fall. The only way to stay in flight is to avoid formalizing the genre or movement, and to keep internal dialogue high with clearly recognized leaders who keep the original principles alive and are not swayed by popularity. Ideally, these people need to be independently wealthy so they do not alter their ideas to fit the audience, instead of selecting the audience by who understands the ideas.

To celebrate the years of underground metal, we present The Meek Shall Inherit Death Compilation (117mb). This memorializes many of the best (lost) ideas of a genre that informed the Alt Right and the modern counter-revolution which desires a better future through understanding the past.

Milo Yiannopoulos Revitalizes The Alt Right

Tuesday, September 20th, 2016


Apropos of recent calls for the Alt Right to wage war on Breitbart editor and troll auteur Milo Yiannopoulos, the man himself came to a nearby bloated city to give one of his more important speeches. Attendees like myself were rewarded with a vision of the Alt Right not as a singular thing, but as layers of a vital truth.

Yiannopoulos was compelling, and came across as nervous and even shy but earnest, which won the audience over completely. The pacing of his delivery was more like that of a comedian than a political speaker, but that worked very well, separating out the density of the material.

While the presentation was humorous, including some truly comic-tragic slides, some of the most compelling moments came from the Q&A with Yiannopolous and fellow Breitbart writer Allum Bokhari. In these moments, more of the personalities behind the writing came out, and what was revealed were earnest people who fear for the direction that society has taken under Leftism.

During his speech, Yiannopoulos inveighed against the censorship of the Left and its tendency to state its goals, and define anything else as some kind of bigotry. He spoke of a chaotic, libertarian society, but it was clear that his own sympathies favor a traditional, even highly structured civilization.

These guys are trying to beat down the presumed legitimacy of the Left by pointing out the standard misbehavior of liberals, while hinting at a strong yearning for a traditional lifestyle. Milo is depending on the rest of the alt right to rush through the door that he has opened, and finish the job.

In this time, the things that succeed are very simple and spiced up with humor and irony. This is what Yiannopoulos does quite well. His mission is not to establish a final goal for the Alt Right, but to sabotage that which holds it back. As he said (quoted here):

Leftists will insist that racism underpins national pride, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Most members of the alt-right, even the serious ones, will agree that they want everyone to have national pride, not just western countries.

And they’re right — the instinct for belonging, for a sense of common identity, is universal. The global elite’s foolish quest to suppress this instinct is one of the reasons why the alt right, as well as the populist nationalist right, have gained so much ground so quickly.

The point here is the the Alt Right has quite a task ahead of it. Often these types of tasks are compared to peeling an onion: start with the outer layers, and then successively remove additional layers until you reach the core. The center is the long-term goal of reversing Western decline, but the outermost layers consist of the speech taboos and universal assumptions created by Leftism.

Yiannopoulos and his comrades, like Mencius Moldbug, serve a vital role in peeling the outer layers. They give us mental tools we can use to think around the inertia of Leftist assumptions, and to deconstruct those assumptions and contrast them to possible alternatives. It may not be meant literally, or as anything other than a metaphor, but this type of critique serves to remove the presumption of universal validity that gives Leftism its power of manipulative guilt.

If the Alt Right wants to wage war, it should do so against the Left, and against Leftist incursion into the Alt Right. These Leftist incursions will almost certainly be of the false flag nature, because that is how White Nationalism and other far-right movements were compromised:


Extremist movements find it hard to resist people who take extreme positions, and those extreme positions make everyone else look weak. The guy who comes into the room and says, “We need to exterminate all who oppose us,” will quickly dominate the conversation. This quickly redirects discussion from how to solve problems to how to punish scapegoats.

The ideal Leftist entryist — who is almost certainly not aware of what he is doing — will dominate discussion in such a way, ensuring that focus is lost on anything but extreme methods, leaving the assumption that society (including the broken systems of democracy, equality, pluralism and utilitarianism) is just fine other than those few token issues.

This produces a neutered movement. It has strong opinions on its special interest issue, but no other plan, which drives away the audience it needs in order to grow, while directing its energies away from effective action toward self-marginalizing action. This is why extremist movements accomplish very little, and if the Alt Right self-destructs, it will be through this mechanism.

The Alt Right Needs To Double Down

Wednesday, August 31st, 2016


Within minutes of globalist candidate Hillary Clinton opening up both bores of her nagging grandma guilt shotgun on the alt right, dissent broke out like a rash as the alt right began the difficult task of finally formalizing itself.

Self-policing becomes inevitable in artistic movements, musical scenes, cults, gangs, religious sects and political shockwaves like the alt right. Any distinctive ideal which does not police its supporters will be taken over by those who want to use it for their own ends.

This “entryism” explains why so many once-promising movements become the opposite of what they started as. For example, most Leftist movements start as well-intentioned programs to help people. This can be seen most clearly with the Greens and Anarchists, who started out with unique ideas and ended up as wings of the Leftist parties.

In the case of the alt right, there are numerous people who are now trying to re-define the alt right as one of the following:

  1. A less PC version of the mainstream right.

  2. A more PC version of White Nationalism.

Those attempts ignores the fact that the alt right rose up in the first place because neither of those options — Republican or White Nationalist — fit the needs of the generations who grew up after the Leftists took over in 1968. In particular, the alt right attacks two trends:

  1. The current leftist takeover of our society through political correctness.

  2. The need to get Western Civilization out of a death spiral and back on a path toward greatness.

Conventional conservative movements have utterly failed to arrest either one of these trends. In fact, by pledging to be “bipartisan” and work within the System, conservatives have co-opted themselves by adopting the assumptions of Leftism within a conservative context, thus obliterating any “conservative” ideas.

On the other hand, White Nationalism has also failed, mainly because it is an outrage and not a plan. White Nationalists want a variety of things, usually centered around the idea of all white people hanging out together and being equal. This kind of “ethno-bolshevism” does not appeal to Europeans, who defend their specific national identities, nor Americans, who identify with various strata of whiteness (Western European, class, region).

That alt right does include something simpler: white self-interest. This is inherent in the term “nationalism,” which in its historical and correct use refers to ethnic nationalism, or the definition of a nation by its founding ethnic group and not political or economic systems.

White self-interest includes a desire to disconnect ourselves from political correctness by rejecting the stigma of the term “racist,” to cut ourselves free from immigration and the liberal welfare state, and to be able to freely associate — which requires abolishing anti-discrimination and civil rights laws — with our own without some Leftist politician shipping us inner city people, foreign refugees or deranged homeless people.

But on a broader scale, and in consideration of the second concern of the alt right, how did we get to this state?

Some blame individualism. This seems plausible, except when one wonders what the cause of individualism (placing concerns of the individual before nature, civilization and God) might be. There must be some root for this dysfunction.

One might plausibly blame diversity. Northern Europe encountered its own Siberian and Mongol immigrants early on, and the same people who populate Northern Europe once also wandered through China and India. When diversity is introduced, it destroys social trust, and so people become individualistic: the self against the world, including civilization.

Another view is that individualism arises when a society becomes fatalistic. This can come from several sources. First, by succeeding, it loses any inherent sense of purpose, which in early civilizations is to defeat threats in nature and establish consistent nutrition and safety. It could also be, as I argue in my book Parallelism (yet unpublished), that success as a society causes a ballooning of the population of people who could not survive without civilization, leading to the “idiots rule” situation of today because what is popular shifts from what is realistic to what is unrealistic.

Still another view comes to us from the writer Thomas Pynchon, building on what William S. Burroughs wrote: entropy. Over time, things decline. The more centralized they are, the more catastrophic that decline is. And so, when a society becomes efficient and orderly, it creates the seeds of its own destruction.

Knowing life, or the way things work out at a level of pattern and not material, it seems likely that a combination of these introduced a crisis. Against all odds, Western Europeans thrived; in turn, this brought parasites and attackers, and then created a society so focused on stability that it forgot to be Darwinistic and periodically clean house and re-order itself.

This could be the core dilemma that the alt right addresses, and the reason for the seemingly savage and chaotic nature of its activity. We do not need new policy, but a house-cleaning, where we send away the Other and then turn to the bad amongst us, which can no longer hide in the chaos of diversity, and exile it. Under this calculus, both Hillary Clinton and the fourth-generation welfare families would be headed to Brazil via cargo plane.

In this perspective, the alt right can fail only one way: by not being extreme enough.

Already it is under assault from special interest groups. Some want it to go National Socialist, and blame the Jews for the downfall of Western Civilization; others want “civic nationalism,” which is essentially the liberal State, instead of ethno-nationalism; still others want a religious basis to it. And then there are the many who want it be simply a restored form of GOP conservatism. All have missed the point.

In this way, they will reproduce the exact same thing that made Republicans and the White Nationalists both fail: they will destroy a comprehensive message and replace it with a special interest group that will leave the status quo mostly intact.

Mainstream conservatism and White Nationalism both failed. They attracted those who were fanatical about certain issues, which created groups which could not find agreement on the big issue: what type of society do we desire, and how do we get there?

White Nationalism for example tells us that we want the existing System but only for whites, ignoring the problems that groups of mixed-whites have had merging in the past. Look to Northern Ireland, or even Poles in the UK, or perhaps the fate of Sudeten Germans or even the veiled conflict between the mixed-white North and the WASP Confederate States of America.

Even more, it leaves the same system that produced this bad result — democracy, rule of law, individualism and personal liberation from social standards — intact. White Nationalism, like most revolutions, will reproduce the conditions before it, just in a worse form (a type of decay). Republicans will leave the decay intact in order to pursue symbolic issues and rake in money.

This leaves us with a problem in the West: we have been taken over by parasites, and nothing will drive those parasites away except to cut off their source of nutrition. That happens for the lower through the welfare state, and for the higher through the state itself, which hires them as politicians and bureaucrats.

For the alt right to succeed it must then oppose the root of the problem, so that people are guaranteed actual change to avoid the conditions they see today — and to obliterate the decay which has chased Western Civilization for centuries, eroding our faith in ourselves and our sense of our future having meaning and something good coming out of it.

This requires that we identify the actual enemy, which is both intangible and invisible. It is popularity. Put together a group of people, and they react socially, which means that they avoid difficult truths and instead focus on what keeps the group together. This leads to compromise on all important issues.

To tackle this, we must be both moderates and extremists. We must be moderates in that we do not scapegoat partially culpable groups (minorities, the rich, the elites) but focus on the policies that bring us into conflict. Diversity, for example, is a policy: the idea that a state can be comprised of people of different backgrounds.

It is not extremist to note that culture arises from genetic similarity, and that politics arises from that. Nor is it extreme to say that voting removes responsibility from both voters and leaders, and that it leads to bad decisions. Where we must be extremists is to say that enough is enough, and we need these dysfunctional policies — which produce parasites both high and low — removed.

Us extremist moderates have a difficult task. We must be cool-headed and realistic, but then knowing the nature of the human tendency toward entropy, must push hard for long-term solutions applied evenly and completely. This redefines the term “moderate” from meaning “bipartisan” to meaning “common sense,” and then gives it a strong authoritative push toward full implementation.

The grim truth of humanity is that we destroy ourselves. We try to find a theory that fits all the people in a group, instead of looking for a theory that fits all the data in the external world and history. In so doing, we end up choosing a crowd-pleaser that is a loser, every time.

With popularity, entryism occurs into every idea. It is watered down to what flatters individuals by making them think themselves magnanimous, and it makes the group have warm fuzzies because it feels that it is unified and cannot be divided, therefore each individual is safe in the protection of the crowd.

Most movements self-police the wrong way. They set boundaries, and look for those who overlap beyond that edge, and then declare the problem solved. This misses those who are subverting the definitions at the center of the movement, and cuts out people who are providing necessary challenges.

The only way to police is to look at the center. Is this person basically heading in the same direction toward solving the problem? If so, let them in. If they deny or subvert a central part of the argument, such as being pro-democracy or thinking that solving one aspect of the problem magically fixes the whole, you have an entryist: a zombie of the dominant paradigm who has found your movement and will, deliberately or not, subvert it.

The alt right needs to double down on its core appeal: modern society is insane. It is illogical, destructive and cannibalizes its best people to keep its worst voting for the Leftist ideals that it has endorsed. This is the end result of leadership by committee, or vote by popularity.

With that in mind, it makes sense to look at how the alt right can defend itself.

Entry Thresholds

These are minimum requirements for someone to participate in the alt right. They focus on goals, not boundaries, and serve to draw focus to what is actually being worked towards.

  1. Strong ethnic nationalism.

  2. Irreverent, extreme and nearly sadistically offensive humor.

  3. Resistance to centralization.

The average liberal convert will want to find a version of the alt right that avoids the great liberal no-no of ethnic nationalism. This person will start by saying that maybe all of those who can assimilate to our culture can be included, or that what we need is focus on a political and economic system.

Saying “Western European countries are for Western Europeans only,” and pointing out that France should be for the French, will alienate this person and drive them back into liberalism to see the contradictions in their own thinking for awhile.

Similarly, those who fear realistic humor are opposed to realism itself. If something is true, it forms the basis for humor, especially if it is absurd. The convert from liberalism will try to neuter this into a crowd-pleasing “we can all get along” sense of mild humor.

Finally, one must beware of those working within the liberal paradigm, which is that a universal value is established, everyone is forced to obey it, and then government enforces it. If you argue for free markets, localism or any other form of decentralization, this person will experience a freakout.

Acceptance Thresholds

These apply to those you are willing to give voice to, by repeating their memes or ideas or by advocating their inclusion in anything more exclusive than the general group. Here you are trying to filter out people who have understood the basics, but are unwilling to be moderate extremist in application.

  1. Rejection of democracy.

  2. Rejection of equality.

  3. Assertion of biological imperative.

We are in a democratic system. Therefore, most people will be coached in finding a democratic implementation of any solution they find attractive. The problem with this is that even limited democracy quickly leads to mob rule, and the mob always chooses flattering illusions over reality, just like committees always pick the solution that rocks the boat the least. Individuals fear for themselves and choose compromise over solutions.

Equality is the basis of democracy and the Left. Those who want to set up a white ethnostate and then implement equality have missed the point. We need hierarchy, or each person acting in a capacity suited to their abilities, which are innate and biologically determined and cannot be implemented by education or obedience.

Finally, the biological imperative will scare them senseless. This says that culture is not universal, and that its root can be found in the genetics of specific populations. Those populations create their culture wherever they go, as fits their abilities and inclinations, which they share as these are genetic traits.

Anyone who does not grasp the above has adopted only the surface of alt right theory and does not understand the alt right as something distinct from a slightly more extreme version of mainstream politics.

Inner Goals

When choosing leaders, it is important to look for those who share the ideals of a movement on the basis of goals. That is: what type of society do they want to create? What is their definition of civilization? Those who do not understand these are entryists who will, by compromise, re-create that which they claim to dislike.

  1. Restoration.

  2. Repatriation.

  3. Physical Removal.

Restoration means a removal of democracy and materialism and their replacement with a society in which inner values determine outcomes. This means an end to “systems” and an organic society where all institutions are in unison, collaborating on a spirit toward transcendentals, or the intersection of what is excellent, true and good.

Very few are willing to publicly endorse Repatration, and they usually hide behind the pragmatic argument that it is difficult. So what? — most change is difficult, but if it ends in a better condition, then it is worth doing. Even carrying on with the present ruin of a civilization is difficult.

As a side note, those who oppose repatriation with reparations may be reacting emotionally. The right way to heal a historical wound is with generosity and benevolence, but also an unwavering commitment to setting the problem aright. Diversity fails, so those who are diverse to the founding group must exit the host nation. No compromise.

Finally, we reach the controversial idea of Physical Removal. This states that a healthy society is not Leftist, and for that reason, those who are Leftist must be viewed as a fifth column and sent elsewhere. It does not (necessarily) mean killing them, but in its gentlest form, means exiling them to a Leftist wonderland like Brazil, where vibrant diversity, rampant sexuality, and few social rules means they will be at home.

At all times ask yourself: what is our goal? It is not measured in the issues of today, or of tomorrow, but those things which for 6,000 years of human history have separated the thriving and rising civilizations from those which are headed to third world status.

The alt right is not another wing of the failed ideological movements of the GOP and White Nationalism. It is the antidote to those: a historical shift where people are willing to undertake the difficult and do the unthinkable, and remove the layers of our current system as if we were peeling an onion, creating a functional and ascendant civilization instead.

At the end of analysis, there are two ways to create human civilizations. Either we develop a spirit toward the good in ourselves and promote those who exhibit the best of it, or we accept everyone and try to bribe and threaten them into being good. We have tried the latter, and it has failed, so no vestige of it can remain.

This is why the alt right must double down. All of the entryists will serve to dilute its message and appeal to those of us who recognize that not only is diversity Hell, but so are all aspects of modernity, including sacred cows like democracy, pluralism, government and equality. They must all burn or we end up in the same condition.

To a person from the present year, this will seem like ludicrous extremism. And yet it avoids what defines extremism, which is a special interest group which takes to violence for one issue. We want civilization change. We want it now. Our current path is a path to death, and the only solution is to get entirely off of that path.

The rise of Nietzschean conservatives

Thursday, April 30th, 2015


As democracy winds down in the West, many of us are facing an ugly truth that first reared its head in the 1800s: that democracy itself impedes conservatism.

Mainstream conservatives will not publicly approach this realization, but the core tenet of democracy is leadership by desire, not by reality. People vote for what they wish were true.

While the ashes cool in Baltimore and the latest news frenzy keeps us distracted so we can avoid noticing the systemic problems of Western civilization, many are wondering how the situation got so bad without anyone figuring it out.

The answer is simple: we voted for it.

By “we” I mean the largest plurality which could work itself into a frenzy over an issue. This is how democracy works: the simplest and most emotional concept unites a mob, they rage and expound and demand it, and then it gets passed. Everyone assumes the situation is decided and moves on.

In any sane democracy, every single law would be voted on every year with a simple question: Is this law achieving its aims?

When you speak to the average voter, it becomes clear that they focus on anything but this question. They talk about moral categories, such as how well-intentioned the law is, or how essential it is, or how it cannot be changed because people depend on it. Never do they look at it as a cause-effect principle that intends to achieve a goal.

The conservatives you see on the television earned the name “the stupid party” because their ideas are fundamentally paradoxical. They want a reality/accountability/responsibility-based (consequentialist) society with a transcendent focus, since if you understand reality, you have no need for the emotional distractions of ideology and go right to the need for meaning. The voters do not want this because distraction is always simpler and more emotionally comforting.

The situation can be revealed in this comical law of politics from Robert Conquest:

2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

This law succumbs to an easy attack, called (sensibly) “entryism” by neoreactionaries, which is that it is easy to dress up a liberal idea as a conservative one and declare it explicitly right-wing, then use it to subvert the rest of a right-wing movement.

The left wing will forever be more popular because it offers ideas that are easier to understand, since they require no knowledge of reality and its workings, and more emotionally satisfying, since they are both distraction and “social,” or consist of gift-giving to those who identify with victimhood. Every person in their under-confident, weak and uncontrolled moments succumbs to self-pity and in remembering those, they yield to this force.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote about this process because he saw it first-hand. In the 1800s, he drove an ambulance in one of the early wars of the forces of democracy versus the rest of us. In it, he saw the process: liberalism appeals to the best of us first because they are reacting emotionally to problems in our society, and only later do they recognize it for what it is, which is a cynical power grab by those least competent to rule.

Conservatives have balked at this dividing line so far. They hope to ride the train of liberal popularity by endorsing the great illusion that desire can decide our problems. They also fear alienating the Christian segment of the right which sees Nietzsche as an atheist and blasphemer, since they have confused the name of what is holy with what is actually holy.

Like other dividing lines — nationalism, rejection of all socialism and need for social hierarchy — this decision separates the men from the boys. Boys still want to please their mother and their friends, maybe hope one of the girls in the class will let them kiss her if they do what she wants. Men realize that original sin was correct, and that without the intervention of discipline and focus the human being is nothing more than a monkey which can talk.

As mainstream conservatism is forced to confront issues like the ongoing failure of diversity, the corruption rising from the liberal state and its institutions, and the accelerating decline of Western Civilization, more conservatives will join the “underground” fringe of conservatism and take the path that Nietzsche did. Until that point, nothing said by conservatives in public will make any sense.

Recommended Reading