Posts Tagged ‘friedrich w. nietzsche’

Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism by James Theodore Stillwell III

Thursday, May 18th, 2017

Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism
by James Theodore Stillwell III
88 pages, Bookemon, $30

Nihilism attracts much confusion because it is an entirely different way of viewing the world. It is the direct opposite of the universalism of this time, which states that there are universal truths which can be discovered and spread to other human beings. Instead, nihilism advocates a hard realism in which aspects of reality are discovered, but not preserved or communicated.

James Theodore Stillwell III enters the fray with Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism, a short book which affirms a Nietzsche-Redbeard view of nihilism as the need for the individual to not be ruled by the herd, and find meaning where it is relevant to the individual. This “might is right” expression of nihilism conveys many benefits, but also might need further development.

The book affirms the basic idea of nihilism through a study of morality which it rightly views as conditional. That is, if someone wants to survive, they must eat; however, there is no universal commandment that all must want to survive. With that in mind, Stillwell dispenses with the idea of objective and subjective morality, and focuses instead on the morality of survival and self-expression.

Morality doesn’t state ‘If you want to achieve X you ought to do Y.’ Rather, it says ‘Thou shalt not commit murder!’ regardless of whether you are concerned about facing the death penalty or not! It is this kind of imperative the moral skeptic rejects because outside of the context of punishment and reward there can be no motivating force to propel one to act in a certain manner. After all, if I want to perform X and am immune to penalty why ought I not do X? Because it’s ‘wrong’? What does that mean? Hence the nihilist contends that only hypothetical imperatives are tenable. Every prescription not based upon a value premise (a goal) raises questions such as a ‘According to whom?’ and ‘Why not?’ because every imperative logically implies a subjective aim. Therefore the Categorical Imperative is nothing but moral mysticism dreamed up by moralizing sophists! (32)

His vision is to restate morality not as a normative commandment, or that which tells people what they should do, but as an gesture of will: people are different, and some who wish to break from the herd find a morality in asserting their will upon reality and need no reason to do so. This instinctual morality fits within a naturalistic analysis, where humans are Darwinian creatures struggling for survival.

Onto that, Stillwell grafts a bit of Nietzsche — “Nietzsche defines a healthy society as not existing for its own sake, but for the sake of a higher type, that is the ‘value creators'” — and argues essentially that these cannot sensibly obey herd morality and must do what they must, in full barbarian bloodlust, because like the natural selection in nature this produces higher proficiency and therefore, better results for humanity.

This combines with his individualist theme, and ultimately masters it, somewhat to the surprise of the writer. Stillwell correctly intuits that higher men cannot live by the rules of the herd, but then posits that they should live for their own instincts, when really his writing verges on the idea of instead having them act toward the value creation process, i.e. a transcendental outlook that values supremacy, proficiency, excellence and creativity above the usual rote labor-by-the-pound of the herd.

The slavish herd animal lives a pessimistic and fearful existence. He is timid and uncertain of himself. This type of man lacks courage, he attempts to make virtues out of his weakness and cowardice and ‘to make the best of a bad situation.’ He elevates those virtues which serve to alleviate his suffering. He honors virtues such as pity, empathy, compassion, patience, humility, and equality, for to him these are the most useful qualities. Slave morality is essentially that of utility. Such ones tend to demonize and resent the powerful, the virile, the egoistic, and self-assertive. Such lowly specimens are often pessimistic concerning the human condition, and some even find themselves gazing into the abyss of anti natalism. (73)

In this, Stillwell also reveals a flaw in Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, philosophy resolved into a type of artistic idealism whereby the individual struggled for beauty in a fusion of the Romantic and ancient ideals. The nihilistic perspective on this, however, is twofold: first, it is esoteric and most people cannot visualize it, so teaching them individualism works against it, as individualism re-invents the values of the herd. Second, it is a goal higher than the individual which requires subsuming the individual to its direction. A nihilist must be nihilistic about all things, including the self.

Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism does an expert job of introducing all these ideas efficiently and compactly within a small package, and opens more questions than it offers answers. Mainly it demystifies and debunks most modern illusions and introduces readers to a world where reality is only known by some humans in varying degrees, and there is no “us” or universal right way of doing things.

Stillwell writes in an open style, merging contemporary idiom with philosophical language, that allows the book to introduce a dense concept and then breathe as it explores its depth at a more leisurely pace. Citing extensively from philosophers including Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism provides a doorway from kiddie nihilism of the anarchistic revolutionary type into the full moral ambiguity of the real deal.

SJWs Disavowed As Heads Of The Hydra Attempt To Work In Parallel

Sunday, May 14th, 2017

Watch for this trope to expand on the Left: they will disavow SJWs so that they can work in parallel with SJWs, advancing the same ideas but at different levels of extremity.

A fairly clear example of this is making the rounds with Keri Smith’s “On Leaving the SJW Cult and Finding Myself,” an essay in which she simultaneously distances herself from Social Justice and re-affirms her hardline Leftist beliefs:

I know a lot of my liberal friends are blessedly NOT privy to this part of the left. I was talking with a friend who is also liberal and she does not see this kind of stuff regularly, like I do. In the venn diagram that is Facebook, I hope you don’t find yourself overlapping with this circle, or maybe I do, because my vantage point may shed some light on why my beliefs are changing, and on where I see things possibly headed.

I see increasing numbers of so-called liberals cheering censorship and defending violence as a response to speech. I see seemingly reasonable people wishing death on others and laughing at escalating suicide and addiction rates of the white working class. I see liberal think pieces written in opposition to expressing empathy or civility in interactions with those with whom we disagree. I see 63 million Trump voters written off as “nazis” who are okay to target with physical violence. I see concepts like equality and justice being used as a mask for resentful, murderous rage.

The most pernicious aspect of this evolution of the left, is how it seems to be changing people, and how rapidly since the election. I have been dwelling on this Nietzsche quote for almost six months now, “He who fights with monsters, should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.”

Did you catch the sleight of hand? She simultaneously accuses the SJWs of being too extreme, and refers to the Right as “monsters” and an “abyss,” misusing the classic Nietzsche quote about directly fighting certain mentalities and adopting their outlook (not necessarily their methods, as Smith alleges).

Her statement allows her to both rise to an egalitarian position by pitying the poor Rightists, and simultaneously affirming her commitment to the same Leftist dogma that propels the SJWs. This allows her to fight in parallel with them while pretending to take the moral high ground:

I believe taking on the task of honestly assessing and trying to improve my character, and speaking up for principles of equality, justice, free speech, liberty, peace and love in a WAY that supports those principles rather than increasing resentment, hatred, and murderous rage, is the way to change the world. If that makes me a moron, a naive peacenik, a privileged bigot -a heretic- in your ideology, so be it.

In other words, she has the same value as SJWs. Perhaps we should revisit Stevens’ First Law Of Leftism, which states:

Leftists take on many names — liberal, Socialist, Libertarian, progressive, Communist — but they differ only in degree, because they are working toward egalitarianism which cannot tolerate any dissent because contrary examples prove its theory to be non-absolute.

Remember the birth of the Left in the French Revolution: they killed off ten percent of the country, including whole families, and lowered the average IQ of their nation by ten points before embarking on a suicidal world war to bring Leftism to the rest of Europe. The same pattern appears wherever Leftists gain power: Red Guards, killing fields, Jacobins, secret police, gulags, show trials, torture and guillotines.

They are all the same, no matter what words and symbols they use to dazzle and confuse your mind.

Confronting Inequality

Tuesday, May 9th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider a typical misunderstanding of Fred Nietzsche:

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

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

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

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

For convenience, we separate this into three parts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Wolfe described this mentality as the fiction-absolute:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its core is the concept of equality.

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

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

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

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

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

After that, he loses the train of thought.

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

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

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

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

Socializing And Socialism: Not Really Different

Tuesday, April 18th, 2017

When confronted with a truly penetrating analysis, most people run away. Any thought that looks deeply into the human condition will be inherently offensive to most because it will reveal their fears and failings. This creates a comedy of error where whatever is prized in society, is a lie, and whatever is not mentioned, leads to the truth.

The primary case in which this symptom appears is the question of socializing. Being around people is fun; we are “social animals” who depend on others for feedback, like intelligent mirrors; we seek other people to work with us, mate with us, spend free time with us and provide things to us. Human individuals are cells in the body known as civilization.

Socializing creates a problem however: to socialize well, one must approach the situation with a minimum threshold, meaning that all communications are tailored so that all or most people can understand them. Similarly, one cannot appear to be elitist, so everything must be communicated.

The opposite of this would be a maximum threshold, or exclusive group that requires people to meet certain standards and tailors the communication to those instead of a lowest common denominator. Maximum threshold groups are inherently anti-social, yet sit at the top of all social systems, because people need something to struggle toward and herds need some kind of shepherds.

Nick Land talks about how Northern Europeans are afflicted with a desire to be “nice,” and he is not wrong. Fred Nietzsche writes that Europeans were infested with a virus of altruism. Both of those things are perverted however; the root is socializing, as demonstrating that minimum threshold through being nice, altruistic or otherwise inclusive of everyone.

This inverts the original hunter-gatherer rule. What all the Leftists who are lying when they write that hunter-gatherers were pleasant socialists forget is that hunter-gatherers were mobile, and the rule of a mobile group is that anyone who holds back the group gets left behind. Sure, they were “socialists” in regard to giving food to their own families, but when it comes time to move to a new patch of forest or escape a forest fire, grandma in the wheelchair and the retarded kids get left behind.

For that reason, socializing in intelligent populations arose as an inversion of the general rule. Friendship was signified by the intent not to leave someone behind, and for each of the friends to view themselves as in the debt of the other and therefore prone to save them even when manifestly inconvenient.

This brings up the “prisoner’s dilemma,” however, which we see is the same as the “free rider” problem. If a friend is tested, will he stick to the arrangement, or make short-term profit by escaping that burden, after already receiving the benefits in advance? In another way of putting this, if you are crossing a chasm by rope, make sure that the person who goes across first will actually toss the rope back!

If taken to its extreme, the free rider problem becomes a condition like socialism, where people are automatically included in the wealth of society and therefore, have no incentive to do much; the work then falls entirely on the backs of the 5% or so who struggle to be effective because they are “nice.” We are in that situation in America today because our social feelings led to universal inclusion.

All human populations suffer this dilemma but it only afflicts the intelligent ones. Simpler populations default to an all-or-nothing rule; they never help anyone unless it is to their advantage. Intelligent mixed-race populations demonstrate a more discriminating and effective version of this, and when they are dropped into more social populations, quickly dominate them. This is why some people hate Jews and Asians in the West: they win fair and square by playing by their rules, not ours, and this makes us realize we need to rethink our rules because they are nonsensical.

However, intelligent populations like their niceness and socializing. The only solution here is to have a strong morality not of inclusion, as Christianity does, but of exclusion, as the hunter-gatherers and warriors do, and to recognize it as “nice” because it works best in the face of constant threats. Our ancestors did this, but then conquered the threats for the time being, and all fell apart.

Modernity As Swarm Production

Saturday, March 18th, 2017

The chicken-and-egg question of civilization decline dogs us repeatedly. Which came first, democracy or breakdown? The answer may be shocking: the tendency of humans toward individualism, manifested in both bourgeois oblivion and prole present-tense me-firsting, overcomes societies once they succeed.

From Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs:

The Divisionists occupy a mid-way position, could in fact be termed moderates…. They are called Divisionists because they literally divide. They cut off tiny bits of their flesh and grow exact replicas of themselves in embryo jelly. It seems probable, unless the process of division is halted, that eventually there will be only one replica of one sex on the planet: that is one person in the world with millions of separate bodies…. Are these bodies actually independent, and could they in time develop varied characteristics? I doubt it. Replicas must periodically recharge with the Mother Cell. This is an article of faith with the Divisionists, who live in fear of a replica revolution…. Some Divisionists think that the process can be halted short of the eventual monopoly of one replica. They say: “Just let me plant a few more replicas all over so I won’t be lonely when I travel…. And we must strictly control the division of Undesirables….” Every replica but your own is eventually an “Undesirable.” Of course if someone starts inundating an area with Identical Replicas, everyone knows what is going on. The other citizens are subject to declare a “Schluppit” (wholesale massacre of all identifiable replicas). To avoid extermination of their replicas, citizens dye, distort, and alter them with face and body molds. Only the most abandoned and shameless characters venture to manufacture I.R.s — Identical Replicas. (81)

The more important question with this in mind is how to resist it. So far the best resistance has come from aristocracy, but aristocrats tend to sacrifice themselves in battle, lessening the ratio of intelligent leaders to unpunished herd. And worse, when the intelligent are made into babysitters, they tend to self-destruct.

Compounding this is the tendency for human beings, even intelligent ones, to create a false social reality in which human intentions and feelings matter more than reality. Socializing reprograms our brains to defer to other people, not reality. On top of that, symbolic reality is more powerful to us, including the approval of others, because it creates a stronger signal in our brains.

If any human society survives in the future, it will do so through a dogmatic elitism and strict attention to morality of thriving in all areas. Ugliness will be banished, and the one-fifth of every generation that are born neurotic, resentful and oblivious will be dispatched to other lands. This seems harsh, but like nature, its harshness will result in better outcomes.

For those who imagine golden fields surrounded by happy people, this may be the price necessary to pay. Good to the good, and bad to the bad, in all things with an eye toward biology, namely that allowing the bad to persist endangers not just other people, but the shared effort toward which we give our lives in cooperation that takes up our irreplaceable time.

Fred Nietzsche is probably right in that currently, humanity is in the saddle between ape and greatness, and what holds us back is our fear for ourselves that has us resisting commitment to greater things than our own desires. And yet as the last century has shown us, a society dedicated to human desires becomes ugly and corrupting for all.

Meryl Streep’s Pidgin English

Wednesday, January 11th, 2017

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.

One stellar example of this is the actress Meryl Streep expressing herself to the Golden Globe audience using pidgin language, assuming that Mel Gibson actually understood her conceptualization of politics in America. She demonstrates not just Derrida’s point, but the philosophical thread which initiated his thinking, which was Fred Nietzsche’s critique of assumptions of truth and universalism in language.

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.


Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

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.

To that end, the little totalitarians have set up a list of Twitter accounts they want censored for the crime of deviating from the Leftist narrative. We have a phrase for this: Typical Leftist Behavior (#TLB).

We — the account used to promote Amerika — made it to #184 on the list for an account that has already been shadowbanned by Twitter for several months, if not longer.

Here is the rant from the Reds:

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.”

As some have pointed out, this religious view leads toward a type of intolerance of dissent so total that it has divided our society into two groups, realists who oppose it and individualists who support it:

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.

Welcome to a new Dark Age.

Entering The Great Filter

Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

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

Imagine this:

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.

Secularization Is A Disaster

Thursday, November 17th, 2016

From the often-correct Dennis Prager, an analysis of the effect of secularization on followers of religions with binary morality:

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.


Wednesday, October 5th, 2016


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.