Imagine if you will, an ensemble of old friends meeting after dinner in a nightclub. Imagine the delight of recognition, the exchange of humorous stories and the subsequent re-affirmation of that friendship, by engaging in a team-building exercise provided by the club.
Most of us have had such events such as with friends who graduated from the same school. Now imagine that it is people who have never been friends. Then you get closer to the after dinner club where “established” ex-politicians and expats from around the globe regularly meet.
Meet the “anglicized,” politically correct Establishment.
At this point you may ask how it is possible that “friends” can happily meet each other and engage in serious subversive activities without knowing each other. It is quite simple really: you use humor and you greet diplomatically in English. After all, English is the lingua franca in the West.
It will not be apparent immediately, but using humor is problematic. According to Geert Hofstede’s seminal book Culture’s Consequences:
What is considered funny is highly culture specific, and many jokes are untranslatable. Germans are often considered humorless by foreigners who don’t recognize that senses of humor differ. Experienced travelers know that it is unwise to attempt to use jokes and irony abroad until one is absolutely sure of the other culture’s conception of humor.
What this means is that the language of “diplomacy” used at these after dinner parties can be viewed as a discourse in trade because over time it has become apparent that these “parties” lead to an exchange of “favors” culminating in the build-up of funds in “foundations.”
This is what Hofstede wrote on “trade languages”;
Throughout history, trade languages have played an important role in intercultural encounters. Contemporary examples, aside from the various derivations of English, are Bahasa (Malay) and Swahili. Trade languages are “pidgin” forms of natural languages, and the world trade language consist of pidgin forms of business English.
It is quite understandable that only a few words are necessary to communicate a smile because diplomats will laugh at anything. And then to indicate how much money is required is also quite easy. But what few will understand is that by simplifying their language, they themselves become simpletons. In other words, pidgin language turns its users into pidgins.
It is clear that over time English has been over-simplified. Here is Hofstede’s take on it;
Discourse in trade languages limits communication to those issues for which these simplified languages have words; it misses the idiosyncrasies of local languages, which are the very essence of culture.
Then Hofstede delivers the English kill-shot:
Paradoxically, having English, the world trade language (lingua franca), as one’s mother tongue is a liability, not an asset, for truly communicating with other cultures.
Now again, imagine that a couple a broad-shouldered men mansplain to each other in good humored fashion while not getting a single word about what’s going on. To do that requires real acting skill.
But it goes much deeper than that unfortunately. In a study by Serge Ntamack in Cameroon called “Rebellion as a Lifestyle” he found that no rebellion actually takes place (just protests during 2008), but that the “street culture” exhibited the unusual trait of language inversion. This means they use the same words that elitists use, but mean the opposite in an act of continuous rebellion IMO.
When Cameroonian elitists crack a joke, everybody laughs, but for different reasons. It became quite obvious that global elites are speaking a pidgin English because common people don’t “get” them anymore. In fact Trump was admonished for speaking such a “populist” language – something “real” elites are not supposed to do.
Clearly it is actually the other way round – the Elites are actually speaking the simplified English. This means (simple) working people has a choice of using pidgin language themselves or to develop a “counter” or “real” language as happened in Cameroon.
That people choose the language they use in pidgin style or otherwise, is intuitive. Therefore it will come as a surprise that language, on its own, can affect people in a reverse sort of way. This happens, as described above, when language is simplified to enable trade thereby miss-understanding the idiosyncrasies and humor “without knowing it happens” to a large degree.
What happens to the user of this pidgin language is that he/she loses the ability to “conceptualize” anything in a meaningful way i.e. everything becomes whatever politically correctness determines it to be at that point in time.
It is almost binary in a sense, where you either become “converted” to the elitist “faith”, or you simply remain “based” in a traditional sense. It is therefore interesting to know that one thread of philosophy explored this particular problem:
Jacques Derrida (1930 – 2004) was a French philosopher (working at Yale) who introduced “deconstruction” as a method to break with Western metaphysical thinking based on binaries. Derrida demonstrated how all assumptions on human life and behavior are grounded in our use of language.
One possible deduction from this is that normal people engaging in the use of pidgin English for extended periods are likely to end up assuming that everybody else thinks the same and does the same. The essence of the pidgin comes in the confusion of universally used language with universal understanding, because the super-simplified corporate pidgin reduces misunderstanding by being primitive and without nuance.
The impact of the dumbing down of our minds through dumbed down language is enormous. Other examples of English simplification have been explored notably by Dan Roodt in his book Raiders of the Lost Empire. But one positive in all of this is that working people are better at languages than the elite.
In fact the elite have become robotic blockheads, incapable of depth or complexity, in their quest for pidgin popularity, and this is why they seemingly pathologically enact failure-prone policies while feeling they are powerless to do anything but the same. We dumbed down language to be more accessible and universal, and like democracy, then language became a tool for making us stupid. This is how empires perish.
As the realization sets in that the functional side of humanity in the West has rejected Leftism and liberal democracy, the usual neurotics and unhappy people who make up the Left are campaigning to hide the dissent, as they always do.
Twitter is brimming with active Nazis who use your platform as a tool to recruit members, spread hate, and harass other users.
In the past several years, this problem has turned from a disturbing joke into a more disturbing reality. Racists and neonazis have consciously used issue coalitions to spread hate, recruit new members, undermine basic values of decency and honesty, and actively hound folks who would counter their message.
…It’s not subtle. When someone uses a #1488 hashtag or expresses their violent thoughts on the JQ, they’re clearly engaging in hate speech.
This is classic Leftist dogma, which takes the form of circular reasoning: “Assuming that our perspective is right, anything opposing us is wrong, and therefore is blasphemy against what we think is truth, and must be removed lest it make the gods angry.”
Dylan sang of a change so profound that the older generation would not even understand it. Now, we do understand. Dylan was announcing a worldview invasion of the West by Eastern pagan thinking. In much of our culture, that invasion has become a triumph, overturning the Western Christian view of existence. We have moved from a Twoist presupposition of a Creator God who made the structures of existence and revealed his moral will, to a Oneist presupposition that rejects any Creator or pre-existing structures and believes that humanity creates its own reality and will make a better world. This is why the Left showed utter disbelief at having lost the election; traditional politics does not even enter into its worldview.
The Eastern pagan nature of Leftism, descended perhaps from the Mongol invasions of Genghis Khan, is the idea of human individualism taking precedence over natural order and an organization to existence that extends into the metaphysical. Where the West pursued transcendentals like excellence and realism, the East pursued humanity, and as a result fell into an impassive solipsism. Now we follow them through liberal democracy and Leftism.
Those who oppose this change get called whatever nasty terms the Left can dig up. At first it was “royalists,” then “elitists,” then later “classists,” until finally with Hitler they found their Emmanuel Goldstein and started calling all of us “racists” and “Nazis.” These terms now have no meaning because they designate only that the offender has disagreed with a Leftist somewhere.
Amerika will never be popular because it offers a complex, nuanced and realist vision of human existence, but also does not reject the metaphysical. It is Nietzschean conservatism at its fullest, except that it is warm to sane interpretations of religious faith and sees them as beneficial, making it closer to Plato in the end calculus than Fred Nietzsche. It does not distill intricate political issues into slogans, emotions, or other forms of manipulation. As a result, it is difficult and unpopular.
It is only thanks to those who have made an effort to seek it out that this site thrives. It endures despite Twitter censorship including mysterious mutings, the rage of the Left, and the deliberate slighting of Amerika by those on the Right who fear it as competition because its worldview is more comprehensive than ours. It thrives only because of you, our readers.
So thank you, from the bottom of my heart and those of our other writers. It is thanks to you that we are reaching the world. Today, #184… tomorrow, the world! As we push back against the Arschpresse — that is a “Nazi-era term,” journalists — and shout ZIEGE HEIL! at the top of our lungs, remember, world: reality is dangerous, and realists are pushing back for a more interesting dangerous world than the clear path to civilization collapse that Leftism (spit) offers.
Our modern time is full of depression. We know our society has failed, and it makes us grim. We are surrounded by “invisible” examples of this, where we see how stupid the design of our society is, and how it makes people miserable, but others merely rationalize this in order to make themselves seem more successful.
Let us look instead toward a different interpretation of history.
In this, we are going through a great filter to weed out the weak. Some will be seduced by the modern time and its lies, and they will fade away, whether by miscegenation or death through one of the many trendy modern methods like opiate addiction or alcoholism.
What will remain are those who see the numinous light
Thousands of years ago, or thousands of years in the future, a primitive man crouches on a hillside. He is surrounded by the radiant light reflected from the ice and snow. Life is hard: he struggles to find food through hunting and gathering roots and berries, and often, the cold takes members of his tribe in the night.
He sees the darkness enclosing the earth, and the likelihood of his early death, but still he keeps on. Against what seems obviously true, against all signs, against what others think… he keeps on. Past the darkness, he sees light, an abstract light. He sees what may become, and the goodness that is there, as well as the threats against that. But always, he pushes himself toward a greater degree of organization, like the patterns in the forest he observes around him.
The numinous light is what we see in sensible mental patterns and understanding of the ways of nature. It is a supreme logic, both practical and always pointed toward increasing degrees of beauty and excellence. It is intangible, which excludes it from the grasp of most. And yet in the darkest hours of night, it is the only clarity as life seems misbegotten and hopeless.
We live in an age of error. Following the herd is death. All those who give in to its weakness will be destroyed. This leaves a much smaller group to rebuild, and when it regains its strength, it will exile the other of all forms: ethnic Other, and among itself, the perverts, criminals, parasites, weaklings, idiots, fools and sycophants of the modern time.
Imagine a long line of stockbrockers, lawyers, shop owners, union bosses, thugs and journalists in chains, marched to the sea where boats await to take them to Brazil. The great exodus of that which does not fit into the society of the future, but thrived in the degenerate society of the past (our present).
In past times, when society failed, the sane ones fled to the north. They took on the rocky and inhospitable territory that everyone else feared, and forged a life for themselves there. In this new world, they died, and those that were able to survive created the next iteration of the human species. They evolved.
When the era of failure was over, and the ice receded, they stormed back over the mountains to conquer those that a thousand generations before had displaced them. Those fell, and were replaced by a stronger race. Those in turn were refined by the long years struggling against the wilderness. Only those who saw the numinous light, and had something to strive for beyond the immediate, survived the long winters and dark nights.
The point is that we suffer a bad time. We cannot merely break away to the north, but must reconquer our civilization, and then must act like those dark nights and long winters: the weak among us, who gave in to the seductions of modernity, must go elsewhere.
We do not need many. A few hundred thousand stalwarts of good character, intellect and health can rebuild a civilization. They must have autonomy to do so; they cannot do it among the rest. But as they rise, they will gain confidence, and then when it is time, storm over the mountains to remake civilization — where the real rises above the human — once again.
When Jews abandoned Judaism, many of them did not abandon Judaism’s messianic impulse. From Karl Marx – the grandson of two Orthodox rabbis – and onwards, they simply secularized it and created secular substitutes, such as Marxism, humanism, socialism, feminism and environmentalism.
If left-wing Jews want to sit shiva, they should do so for their religion, which, like much of Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism, has been so deeply and negatively influenced by leftism.
Herein is an explanation for both the role of Jews in Left-leaning politics and the answer to Nietzsche’s riddle about the role of Christianity in birthing the Enlightenment.™
As Nietzsche guessed, Leftism is a zombie philosophy carrying on from where the religion originally regulated, but the goals had been forgotten as had the essential religious aspect of desiring excellence by a standard outside of humans, and this removal left only the Crowd-friendly individualistic idea which holds that doing good to individuals is the only good.
Whenever a historical shift occurs, zombie philosophies are created as people try to carry on what worked in the past despite lacking a central part of its concept. This could apply to the brain-dead conservatives of the 1980s who blindly applied religion and censorship to try to hold on to an order that gave up in 1968.
This shows us that the answer to our dilemma is not anti-Christianity nor anti-Semitism, but in combining forces to smash egalitarianism through its essential individualism as enforced by a group. Focus on realistic and transcendental goals causes the mind to bypass this zombie philosophy stage.
Every now and then, you might run into a real person, even now. Unlike the usual people, real people have not entirely externalized their minds to money, social opinion and power.
For such people, power is found within. They have the ability to do things, or to find out or discover how. They derive their self-esteem from moral and personality traits. They know what they like, and can sit alone in a silent room thinking for hours.
These were once relatively common in the upper half of the population in Western nations. Now they are rare, hunted like dogs for being total non-conformists, which is why they disguise themselves. You will find them reading television guides for synopses of shows, so they do not have to watch them in order to make conversation. Same with sports scores.
You may run into one of the remnant, perhaps at your local grocery store. They will be exiting an aisle, looking thoughtful as usual. You will be crossing their path. They notice you, look you in the eye, and step back, because it is polite and more efficient for you — the faster moving object — to go ahead. You thank them, and they look as shocked as you do.
You have encountered another real person in the wild.
It is too easy to think that the world is a total wasteland where you will meet “good people” only online. But be wary: many of those online have simply learned to game the system and appear real, when in fact they are manipulators, which means they have given their soul over to the external and now serve control.
This is not to say that our modern world is not a wasteland; it is, and the proof can be found in how it marginalizes real people by systematically destroying the things they find important. The plastic people who have externalized their souls wish to destroy the good people, because the presence of good people makes plastic people look weak, irrelevant, selfish and conceited, and they hate that, mostly because it is accurate.
Modernity is a wasteland because of this process, which is like a chain reaction out of control. Neurotics and fools form a gang to defend themselves against better judgment. They insist that stupidity and insanity be “equal” to intelligence and sanity, and they use this egalitarianism to lower standards and destroy values wherever they go.
This is why they are pathological and obsessive in their acts: to them, anything better than them is a personal insult. They reject evolution, but more importantly, they reject improvement. Lower standards conceal their ineptitude or moral and intellectual laziness. Lower standards also produce a miserable Hell which alienates real people such that most of them self-destruct, and the herd loves nothing more than a revenge fantasy.
From 1983-1994, an artistic movement known as “underground metal” swept the West. This music, a hybrid of hardcore punk and epic heavy metal, came from musicians who took the viewpoint that the world as it was, was unbearable. They saw modernity as a diseased beast rotting from within, a wasteland where masses chased trends away from realistic thoughts, and all public statements or institutions were lies designed to conceal the underlying rottenness.
To them, the end had already occurred. Nothing was what it should be, and people were vampiric and parasitic in their need to defend and pursue their own corrupt goals, or at least compulsive distraction. They viewed modern society as a psychological dysfunction, itself a mass trend which had caught most people in its grasp, so that any which became popular was a lie, and anything good was made into a popular version so it could be a lie.
In their view, we are a fallen race. This society has failed. Idiots rule and everything is broken. The end has happened, but we are just catching up, carried forward by our momentum and constant neurotic fear and anxiety. As a result, our problems are all intractable, because the assumptions we carry with us prevent us from seeing actual solutions, and poison every idea with the same blockheaded illusions.
Most of us find it hard to claim they were wrong, especially now that 25 years later the disaster has almost fully flowered. Their solutions were Nietzschean — natural selection, the smart/strong oppressing the weak, intolerance of illusion, rejection of equality — but arose from a Romanticist inspiration in nature and the ways of the ancients, especially Vikings, Pagans and Satanists. They found themselves describing industrial horizons, zombie outbreaks, genocide, war, and cruelty as both metaphor and ideal. Most if not all were nationalistic and rejected the rising tide of globalization.
Their outbreaks of fury and intensity called to mind an older slogan as used by the German National Socialists: Erwache!, or “Awaken!” — to them, modernity was the dream, and the ancient ways and nature the reality. The inner world of the moral soul and the desire for greatness and beauty was real, where the outer world of convenience and utilitarian duty, including school and jobs, was a cancerous spirit-crusher. They saw disease in the psychology of the modern West, and identified its religion — part-Christian, part-consumerist, unified in the belief in human equality — as a corrosive weakness.
Their unofficial slogans, from “Only death is real” to “The past is alive,” emphasized the solipsistic unreality of modernity and the need for a re-introduction of the type of realism and focus that war, plague and disaster force upon us. At the same time, the music had a mournful quality, as if signifying a funeral for the past and the entrance into an uncertain and atavistic future.
In this world we have inherited, it is difficult to want to awaken at all. It seems much easier to go with the flow, rationalize the decline, and compensate with whatever personal pleasures can be taken. But that kills the soul by making it subservient to the external, instead of enable to act its will upon it, mainly because the ability to tell reality from fantasy is obliterated.
And yet the only feeling of well-being comes from knowing that we have a future and can contribute to it. For this reason, our first task is always to awaken.
The Alt Right has drawn attention for its heroic mixture of libertarian laissez-faire with hard Right views that Europe and America have excluded from public mention in the year since WWII. This outlook reveals the two quests of the Alt Right:
Get the Leftists off our backs and out of power in the near term.
In the long term, restore the greatness of European civilization.
Unlike the mainstream Right, the Alt Right is not about extremely short term measures and winning the “game” of politics through compromise and oversimplification. Its goal is to end the decline that has made Western Civilization into an existential hell where the intelligent are troubled and idiocy is the norm.
Following the Donald Trump slogan (borrowed from the Reagan/Bush candidacy) “Make America Great Again,” the Alt Right might propose one of its own: “Make Europeans Great Again” (MEGA). Dislodging Leftism as the single party ruler of the West is a means to this end. We do not oppose it for ideological reasons, but because it is destructive.
With the removal of the Leftist stranglehold on the West, and the consequent ability to discuss non-Leftist ideas as well as Leftist ones, we as citizens of these countries face a choice: we can build an ascendant civilization, or one that aspires to excellence and mastery of itself, or we can keep kicking along with half measures until we fade out of history.
The brilliance of this approach is that it speaks to the deep need of the fifth of our population that does all of the thinking, which is a need to have purpose, to believe in something worth sacrificing for, and through that, to find personal meaning. As Fred writes:
Let us face ourselves. We are Hyperboreans; we know very well how far off we live. ‘Neither by land nor by sea will you find the way to the Hyperboreans’—Pindar already knew this about us. Beyond the north, ice, and death—our life, our happiness. We have discovered happiness, we know the way, we have found the exit out of the labyrinth of thousands of years.
Who else has found it? Modern man perhaps? ‘I have got lost; I am everything that has got lost,’ sighs modern man. This modernity was our sickness: lazy peace, cowardly compromise, the whole virtuous uncleanliness of the modern Yes and No. … Rather live in the ice than among modern virtues and other south winds! We were intrepid enough, we spared neither ourselves nor others; but for a long time we did not know where to turn with our intrepidity. We became gloomy, we were called fatalists. Our fatum—abundance, tension, the damming of strength.
We thirsted for lightning and deeds and were most remote from the happiness of the weakling, ‘resignation.’ In our atmosphere was a thunderstorm; the nature we are became dark—for we saw no way.
Formula for our happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal.
We have become soft because egalitarianism creates a facilitative society in which the only objective is to secure for individuals the ability to pursue their individualistic dreams. This is why we admit immigrants recklessly: if not our dreams, which are soft and weak, why not the simpler and more powerful dreams of these people who come to conquer?
Under individualism, there are as many goals are there are citizens, and these concern individual pursuits, which almost always distill to personal comfort, convenience and wealth/power. We are divided by this approach and it makes us soft and weak because we have no higher aspiration than to live well and bloat out as the end inches toward us, hoping — like for our personal mortality — for a painless end.
This individualism occurred because long ago we went off the path of sanity by choosing to give leadership to those with wealth and power, instead of giving wealth and power to those who showed leadership ability. The older principle rewarded caretakers; the newer principle benefits opportunists, and since then our fortunes have declined. Our rulers are cynics and our people are so miserable they have stopped reproducing.
When individualism takes over, thoughts which do not affirm the universality of all humankind — “we are all equal” and “we are all one,” which are both statements of universal inclusion — are excluded from dialogue. This reverses the meaning of all useful terms and turns them into symbols of dogma, with those who fail to laud them becoming excluded if not demonized and destroyed.
This means that it is time for us to “reboot” our society by removing its government, media and financial elites, and replacing them instead with our people with the best potential for leadership. As Mencius Moldbug wrote, a society must be rebooted once it becomes deceptive:
This is why I prefer a different test for triggering a reboot: the level of systematic deception that a regime inflicts on its subjects. From a strictly military perspective, my belief is that any government of any modern state can maintain its own security without subjecting its population to any sort of a reality distortion field. Therefore, deceptive governments are not necessary. And therefore, they can be rebooted and replaced with honest ones.
…Therefore, my reboot test is that a government should be rebooted if it systematically and successfully promotes essential pseudoscience or pseudohistory. I simply see no reason at all to tolerate this kind of crap. If there are only one or two examples, perhaps they can be corrected individually. Otherwise, it’s time to hit Control-Alt-Delete.
Again, rebooting doesn’t just mean replacing a few politicians. It means completely uninstalling the present government, and installing a new one from scratch. All laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and personnel from the old regime should be replaced.
Once we consider the necessity of reboot however, it makes sense to do so in such a way that we do not repeat the same pattern. History has already changed; in 2016, liberal democracy died in a cloud of its own failures. Instead of choosing other variants of modernity, we should look to an approach that has worked in every age, and always will, because it recognizes eternal truths of the struggle between individuality, morality/realism and civilization.
Unless we make such a change, the people around will in the time-honored way of herds simply choose to remove the most immediate problems and then continue down the same path, like a pair of pants that has been patched so many times it has lost internal integrity. With that, we may delay the end, but will have affirmed its certainty.
In this way, we follow the ancient Greeks in the pursuit of self-destruction: instead of maintaining civilization, once it reached a peak it declined because it could not discover another purpose. Perhaps in these dark times we have found a purpose, finally, and can begin to resurrect and then improve our civilization.
The hierarchy of knowledge…From highest to lowest…
Imagination — attained by Intuition
Rationality — attained by Reasoning, including Logic ( ‘Philosophy’)
Empirical Evidence (‘facts’) — attained by Observation, including Experiment (‘Science’)
…What, then, validates ‘Imagination/ Intuition’? The further assumption of divine revelation – which needs to be both internal and external – we need to have something divine within in order to respond to divine revelations from without.
Some time ago, your author (writing under the pseudonym Vijay Prozak) crafted a an essay titled “Philosophical Essence of the Northern Traditions” for the first volume of Norther Traditions (now re-booted as Mimir: Journal Of North European Traditions) in which the concept of mythic imagination features heavily.
The essential idea of mythic imagination comes from Immanuel Kant, who wrote of the root of knowledge as being intuition; combined with other notions of the “acausal” or “synchronous” nature of metaphysical structure, this suggests a situation in which object and subject influence one another under certain conditions, possibly reifying the object through a convergence of both entities. In this way, the ancients were able to awaken a metaphorical style of imagination which connected them to intuition, and in doing so, brought about a world which came alive with the supernatural.
That disturbs our modern notion of material causes. For the modern person, gods must exist in some tangible form in order to be real, instead of being observed through a combination of insight and creativity. If we need to know why God has died and we have killed him, it is that our method of understanding precludes any possibility of the supernatural which rests on an informational“lattice of coincidence” perceived in the patterns found in objects more than their material order itself. This view is consistent with Germanic idealism, which holds that all of existence is information-based or thought-like, and therefore, that hermetic principles of attraction can render things incarnate — even those removed from us by time and space.
When we say that the universe is “infinite,” this applies to more than material dimensions; it is also informationally infinite, suggesting that possibilities which exist may not be directly present but can be induced to manifest. In this sense, the patterns of thoughts which match up to patterns of information can attract those, and bring them from non-existence into daily presence. This makes the ancient focus on honor and clarity of thought come to life as what it was: a method of maintaining connection to a metaphysical world which did not exist removed from our world, but immanent within it, like another dimension discovered through a qualitative improvement in thinking.
This concept was described in some detail as a leap of faith but also, an evolution in cognition:
When we get past the modern mindset of linear logic, called rationality, we can begin to think clearly again. The energy spent forcing complex data into simple data structures is over. Instead, we join it all at once. The process called “mythic imagination,” by which we use our imagination to construct metaphorical narratives around the whole of reality, comes from this.
Mythic imagination beats scientific analysis for anything but materials science. It allows us to see patterns, and not just in isolation, but across time and beyond even the material world. At this point, we see how linear causality is only part of the story, and a complex causal system must underlie all that we see and feel.
Joseph Campbell wrote most convincingly about mythic imagination and the possibilities it exposed, explaining both why those are inaccessible to us today and why the ancient experienced a world with more balance and purpose than modern people hope to experience. Fred Nietzsche describes this condition as being dreamlike and inspiring the greatness of ancient civilization more than need:
Pascal is right in maintaining that if the same dream came to us every night we would be just as occupied with it as we are with the things that we see every day. “If a workman were sure to dream for twelve straight hours every night that he was king,” said Pascal, “I believe that he would be just as happy as a king who dreamt for twelve hours every night that he was a workman. In fact, because of the way that myth takes it for granted that miracles are always happening, the waking life of a mythically inspired people — the ancient Greeks, for instance — more closely resembles a dream than it does the waking world of a scientifically disenchanted thinker. When every tree can suddenly speak as a nymph, when a god in the shape of a bull can drag away maidens, when even the goddess Athena herself is suddenly seen in the company of Peisastratus driving through the market place of Athens with a beautiful team of horses — and this is what the honest Athenian believed — then, as in a dream, anything is possible at each moment, and all of nature swarms around man as if it were nothing but a masquerade of the gods, who were merely amusing themselves by deceiving men in all these shapes.
Under this view reality becomes sychronous, or composed of manifestations which have not a single cause but a similarity of structure which makes them manifest independent of which is subject and which is object. This finds compatibility in another Kantian vision, in which he described our knowledge of reality as the product of a mental filter which reduces vast formless chaos to recognizable objects. Somewhere in that blaze of intensity are things we have overlooked, and with mythic imagination, we can give them metaphorical form and render them into existence as we know it.
While the modern world is based on reducing reality to symbols that make subsets of the whole stand for the whole (synecdoche), the ancient world is based on an integrative ideal where all parts of reality work in parallel and the patterns between them are the actuality, as opposed to the material substrate in which they are expressed. It is no surprise that this worldview leads to the discovery of forces beyond our “control,” or ability to force our intent on the world by reducing it to equal bite-size portions, and that these threaten the empire of the Ego which currently controls the West.
Philosophy enables us to see life not as objects bumping into one another, but the concepts that cause us to act in certain ways as resembling a Matryoshka doll: one inside of the other, until you get to the smallest one, which is the original assumption that set off the chain.
When we look at modernity, at first we see technology. But then it becomes clear that technology is only as good as how it is implemented, and that our present implementation reflects mass tastes through purchasing (consumerism) and popularity (democracy). On to the next layer by removing the outer doll layer with a floop sound.
When we look at consumerism and democracy, we see that both are unified by a belief in the equality of the individual. Floop! goes another layer.
When we look at equality, we see that it is based in the idea of equal consequences for unequal actions, or that the person who achieves good results by his actions, and the person who achieves poor results, both being rewarded for that. In other words, people want insulation from consequences. Floop!
When we look at insulation from consequences, we see that this benefits the individual and not the group. In fact, the “collectivism” of equality is based in individualism, or the idea that the choices of the individual are more important than anything else — including, and starting with, the results and consequences of those choices. Floop!
When we look at individualism, we see that the motivating force behind it is an Ego which wishes to be free of consequences and their potential Darwinian effects, which in civilization means exclusion from the group. Individualism therefore uses universal inclusion as its primary goal. Floop!
When we look at universal inclusion, we see a desire to make understanding the world optional. That is: people cannot be judged as good or bad based on how well they understand the world, which is what determines the actions they take and thus their results. They want their own thoughts to be accepted whether real or not. Floop!
And finally, we are at the smallest doll. People want their thoughts to be accepted so that what they intend, wish, desire, feel or judge is real, not reality itself. “What I perceive or want must be real,” stands revealed as the core psychology behind this whole mess.
That mentally unstable state is the origin of modernity. Or rather: it is a perpetual pitfall of human thinking, but it won out. Why? Probably because society succeeded, which caused a proliferation of people who could not exist except for society, who were able to reproduce because the institutions and social order of civilization protected them.
Perhaps there is a final Floop! here, if only in our minds. Civilization replaces nature as the arbiter of who lives and who dies; we need a replacement for Darwinism, or the process which filters out the insane, unfit, deranged, retarded, criminal and pathological.
Modernity arises from an echo chamber produced by the social collaboration of those who are individualists. They demand equality, and filter out any ideas which contradict that emotional vision, which rises from individual fear of insufficiency.
Where the Alt Right nods to Nietzsche and Plato is in its recognition of the Jack London style quest for adaptation that needs to be at the heart of our societies. Our hearts are too big and our methods too good; our intelligence and morality is what produces a surplus of those who will destroy civilization.
Naturally, none of this is politically correct, but — Floop! — it is more fundamentally not socially correct. It upsets people. And yet, it is the only path to survival for an advanced civilization.
Nihilism–the belief that there is no Absolute Truth, that all truth is relative–is, Eugene affirmed, the basic philosophy of the 20th century: “It has become, in our time, so widespread and pervasive, has entered so thoroughly and so deeply into the minds and hearts of all men living today, that there is no longer any ‘front’ on which it may be fought.” The heart of this philosophy, he said, was “expressed most clearly by Nietzsche and by a character of Dostoyevsky in the phrase: ‘God is dead, therefore man becomes God and everything is possible.”‘
In this view, there is an Absolute Truth in which all humans can share; we call this idea “universalism,” and it is the basis for the notion of equality, which is that instead of selecting those who understand and assigning them by degrees to a hierarchy, we can accept all people and simply educate them with this absolute truth. That method is sometimes called exotericism.
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.
So what is the difference, sort through all of these abstractions?
Nihilism is the anti-universalism. It says that we do not all see the world the same way, but that the world alone is consistent. Therefore, there is no truth: truth is a human assessment, and it is not shared because it cannot be communicated, because any truth passed between people is re-interpreted. As a result of this, there is no universal morality either. There is only reality and our interpretations of it, which are not equal (universal) but vary with our ability, inclination, discipline, genetics, bias, and even energy level.
Insisting that there is some absolute truth which is shared between all people only creates a false target, which is the endless debate over interpreting this truth. Not all people can see it, and those that do see it will perceive it in different degrees. As a result, we must discard the universalist model, and focus on how to find the people who perceive the most and put them at the top of the stack.
In politics, this is aristocracy. In art and culture, it is elitism. In social order and the military, it is hierarchy. All of it implies an order defined by nature, not by human thought, in which those who perceive more should be given more power, and contra equality, most are assumed to perceive very little and accept as true even less.
Nihilism is anti-humanism. It is extreme realism. It is skepticism of the idea that human intentions can take the place of reality and solve our problems. It is a destroyer of the ego, and of the social worlds we create when we project our egos onto one another.
In my first book, Nihilism: A Philosophy Based in Nothingness and Eternity, addresses many of these confusions in the context of politics. It serves to liberate us from our fear of a false target (nihilism) and points us instead toward the actual threat to our existence, solipsism.
Many in the popular press associate Nietzsche with nihilism, but he was not an advocate of what he called nihilism, which more properly resembles fatalism or individualism: a concern with no values higher than individual comfort and convenience, rationalized from an acceptance of the failure of all human endeavors because of a lack of goodness in the world. A nihilist as described above would not speak of a lack of goodness, but of how things were bungled or ruined because they were unrealistic. Nietzsche is more akin to that outlook than to moral relativism or other escapes from realism.
Old-World nihilism belongs to a handful of intellectuals persuaded by philosophical arguments that human knowledge, on the whole, is worthless as a reliable guide for living. Consider Heinrich von Kleist, the nineteenth century dramatist and short-story writer, who became intellectually unglued when he read Immanuel Kant’s The Critique of Pure Reason. In a letter to his fiancée, Wilhelmine von Zenge, Kleist describes how he was crushed by Kant’s philosophical argument that the senses do not report the world as it truly is: “If everyone wore green glasses instead of eyes, they would have to judge that the things they saw through them were green—and they could never decide whether their eyes showed them things as they are or whether something had been added that belonged not to the thing but to the eyes.” Kleist goes on to draw the obvious parallel with knowing. “We cannot decide whether what we call truth is truly the truth, or whether it only seems so to us.
…Kant claimed to effect a Copernican Revolution in the foundation for all the sciences. Copernicus shifted the viewpoint of astronomers from the Earth to the Sun. Similarly, Kant changed the viewpoint of philosophers from the objective, external laws of nature to the internal, fixed laws of how the human species perceives and understands the universe. Kleist despaired that after Kant science was no longer about the truth of things, for things-in-themselves were unknowable, but about the operations of the human mind.
…In the Sixties, the American academy embraced Old-World nihilism; as a result, the life of the mind for many academicians did not focus on the universality of human experience; and consequently, intellectual discourse eventually degenerated into an endless labyrinth of opinion. In an essay published by the American Council of Learned Societies, six eminent professors of literature proclaimed, “All thought inevitably derives from particular standpoints, perspectives, and interests.”
This argument is contrived to the point of nonsense. The truth of relativism is not that it says “anything goes,” but that it creates universalism out of the unequal perceptions of individuals adjusted to a mean, which is a sneaky way of establishing an absolute standard of “truth” and coordinating others toward it. That was the contribution of the 1960s, and by the end of it people agreed they could agree on nothing but the idea of universal equality taken farther than ever before.
On the contrary, nihilism states that the truth of a statement depends on the speaker, and is known only by that speaker, because others are interpreting the tokens used in language and do not receive an exact duplicate of the meaning. Not only that, but people are not autonomous agents, at least until they apply the self-discipline so that they make choices instead of acting on impulse. Generally, people act according to what they know and their emotions or desires. Logic and reality have very little to do with it, although they are often invoked as reasons for the behavior.
Taking a sensible view, the nihilists are not our problem; the individualists are. Individualists will type #yolo onto their phones, go to their jobs and flatter everyone with power, then go on shopping sprees before retiring home to hours of exciting television. They care about nothing and create nothing. Their sole utility is their obedience, and by being obedient to what the social group wants, they consider themselves entitled to all that society offers, even with no affirmative acts on their part to improve anything.
What Kant did was to orient humanity back to reality: we cannot know in a universal sense what is true, so we must rely on our intuition; Nietzsche grasped this and pointed out that with this in mind, we must find the people who are best — with the strongest intuition and tendency toward excellence — and put them in charge of interpretation, since we will never find an absolute and universal truth that all can agree on.
To contemporary Christians, few of whom understand much about their religion, this seems like blasphemy. They want an Absolute Truth that is written in a holy book that they can use like an ideology, and force all people to be equal in obedience to it. This represents Christianity as filtered through liberalism, and not any realistic assessment of the highly hierarchical and unequal world. Like all other human failings, it is us projecting our intentions and desires as if they were truth, when in actuality we are running from truth toward more ego and social illusion.
Rosen understands the root of nihilism as the separation of “the conception of ‘reason’…from its traditional affiliation with the concept of ‘good'” (p. xiv) — of which the famous distinction between facts and values is one symptom — as a result of which, such a thing as “rational preference” is no longer supportable, and in Nietzsche’s words, “everything is permitted.”
Nietzsche strove to be somewhat of an ultimate realist, believing not only in material reality but in the possibilities offered by its structure, and how changing this structure could align more objects than the immediate material being manipulated. As a result, he saw human reason as human rationalization, or a determination to rely on materialism for the root of logic, and therefore, to see only that which can be manipulated as within our influence. That form of “materialism” arises from individualism, where the individual gives up on abstract and structural thinking, and focuses on physical safety and comfort instead of striving to implement the ideas that make a thriving civilization.
For this reason, a nihilist focuses not on enforcing a universal truth — determining what is permitted — but on a preference that is non-rational, i.e. forward-looking toward what is uncreated or dormant. In the Nietzschean world, aesthetics inform our intent, and cause-to-effect logic determines how serious we are about our intent, since answers can be found. A nihilist would agree with this general approach, since it is not truth-based but choice-based, and it is measured by results and not the soup of intentions, emotions, desires, social feelings and group compromise that normally informs human collective action.
Conservatives have refused to accept nihilism and, in doing so, have rejected realism and chosen a type of human projection instead. They write down their Absolute Truths and then depend on the herd to come together and enforce them equally, forgetting that in the process all meaning has been lost not so much by the machinations of language, but by the nature of humans themselves. People interpret reality as they can, and few can do it well, thus we require hierarchy. This is the realistic outlook that Leftists and most conservatives alike are fleeing from.
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.