Posts Tagged ‘individualism’

Why The Right Always Loses

Friday, June 16th, 2017

For the past millennium, being conservative-minded — valuing realism over human notions — has been a losing proposition.

Even more, it feels like supporting the idea of the good itself is also a path to constantly being disappointed. It has even become a cultural icon: we refer to people who rationalize losing as “being philosophical about it” and acknowledge the trope of the conservative, fists tightly clutched around whatever truth they were trying to save, going down with the ship. Or the lonely intellectual retreating from society.

Evil always wins, or at least mediocrity. Everything always gets worse and when a chance to fix it comes along, someone snaps up that opportunity, seizes the attention and redirects it to something profitable. No wonder people are exhausted. Modernity is hell to which we are sentenced to live out our terms as Cassandras howling into the wind.

Rightists have lost any expectation of winning and so, naturally, they do not win. Instead they make prosperous homes for their families, retreat into work and religion, but can be counted on to come out of the woodwork any time that their nation-state needs saving. They have entered into an unhealthy symbiotic codependency with the Left. This shatters them inside and makes them unstable.

The Left, of course, will insist on something like “the arc of history” or another fiction that supports their founding myth. In the Leftist view, nature is bad and egalitarianism is good, so any movement away from natural order and toward an order based on egalitarianism, in which human preference is more important than its results when applied, is good. To them, decay is good and so they insist on celebrating it.

But on more practical terms, it becomes clear that the Right has failed because it is unprepared to deal with the new reality of civilization during times of decay. All of its failings come back to that misunderstanding. Let us look at three key areas where the Right simply cannot grasp the task before it:

1. Entryism and Assimilation

Bruce Charlton gives us the clearest picture of how the Right inevitably gives way to the Left:

Because even when a genuinely non-Left (i.e. religious) group speaks in the public sphere, that aspect is filtered; such that what appears has moved the debate onto the core secular Left ground of ‘utilitarianism’ – the calculus of human pleasure or suffering in this mortal life.

…Therefore all supposed ‘victories’ of the ‘Right’ are merely reinforcing the deep-Left agenda.

The point here is that if you get faked out into using the language of your opposition, you will program yourself with their assumptions, and will then re-interpret your own political outlook as if it were a variant of theirs. At that point, you defeat yourself not by losing but by winning, and only later finding out that you carried the virus of the enemy with you.

In its most virulent form, this process can be seen through conservatives who endorse equality in any form. Conservatism does not support individualism, equality, freedom, liberty, feminism or anti-racism; it is an entirely different thought process than Leftism, based in recognizing an order bigger than the individual human rather than wanting the whims and wishful thinking of that individual to take precedence over reality.

The only way to understand the Left is to understand the Right, which is based in the idea of order, form, principle and purpose in unity with the world instead of as a human counterpoint to it:

The view of politics which the average person has come to possess, delineates things primarily according to economic policies – with communists and socialists on ‘the Left’; and laissez-faire capitalists or economic liberals on ‘the Right.’ This would leave the true – historical – Right out of it altogether, or leave it with a false position vaguely off the centre. Some modern Rightists helpfully compound this problem by terming themselves ‘Third Position’, and claiming to be ‘neither Left nor Right.’

A far more accurate way of understanding the above would be to put The True Right on one side (representing as it does; hierarchy, spirituality, organic unity…) and position both communism and laissez-faire capitalism on the other side as two different forms of the Left (valuing: equality, materialism, individualism – socialism is still essentially individualism; it is the banding together of individual egos for mutual benefit. Laissez-faire capitalism / economic liberalism literally arose out of the historical Left against the Right.)

This is what is being referred to by the schizoid nature of the Left. The Left arises out of an inversion of the Right, but it has at its disposal many different means of negating the ideals of the Right. These often appear to be the complete opposite of one another. Consequently many of the ideological oppositions of our time are in reality different versions of the Left squaring off against one another.

For those wanting to understand the Right, which most Rightists do not, it is worth looking into some writings on conservative theory and application.

The goal of the Right is to have an order based around the best that life has to offer, instead of what the Leftists want, which is an exclusively human order. The Right recognizes the importance of history, customs, heritage, beliefs, values, future, hierarchy, social order, organization, culture, philosophy, nature and other qualitative intangibles. The Left recognizes on the tangible, which is the individual and those it socializes with that make it feel more important than the natural world around it.

Whenever the Right gets sidetracked to intermediates — patriotism, equality, liberty, freedom, diversity — that may be important on their own but are not a whole plan for achieving the goal of the Right, it becomes weak. Each of these things is inherently Leftist because they are the assumptions that trigger an egalitarian viewpoint. If you accept that our goal is freedom, your next thought will be that then we need to abolish all things that stand in the way of freedom, including heritage and values. Next thought: culture must die, and wealth must be redistributed, so that everyone has “freedom.”

Rightists continually fail on this front because they get trolled into doing the footwork of the Left. “Well, we both agree that we want freedom, right?” says the Leftist. “Well, then, the best way to have freedom is to make everyone equal.” The conservative, outgunned because he never thinks along these lines, agrees, and only figures out that he was conned twenty years later.

2. It is Not Enough to be Correct.

Many a Rightist has consoled himself, after watching the herd boot away another chance to do good and rush headlong into the embrace of evil which dangled tantalizing illusions before their noses, with the idea, “Oh well, I’m right anyway and they’re just big poopyheads out there for not getting it.”

However, being right is not enough; you have to be both right in the correct context, and then put your plans into action instead of (like 99% of conservatives) staying home and working on your own stuff.

First let us examine a statement by a cynical writer. He knows what his audience wants to hear. He tells them that they are victims, and that someone else has ruined their future, so the obvious conclusion is to go smash down that Other. Like most good writers who are bad thinkers, he is doing it for the popularity points and not because he believes he is right.

His statement is correct in isolation, but off-the-mark when interpreted in the context of the broader question to which it points:

Of course one might ask why blacks would have any interest in most of what has been taught in American schools. Europeans trace their intellectual lineage from the invention of writing in Sumeria in the mid-Fourth Millennium BC through Greece, Rome, the Renaissance, their literary heritage from the Gilgamesh Epic through Tolkien. Blacks had no connection with this and did none of these things. It isn’t of their culture.

Cities have been the heart of the intellectual and artistic in all civilizations, as for example Athens, Rome, Florence, Vienna, New York. By contrast, blacks have destroyed city after American city after American city. Trenton, Camden, Newark, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Gary, Flint, St. Louis, New Orleans, Milwaukee. At one time in all of these one could live, walk at will, send one’s children to the schools. Now, no. Violence, crime, racial attacks, and illiteracy drive the civilized to remote suburbs. This is not my culture and I see no reason to apologize for it.

Massive popularity blast. White people are tired of being told how bad they are because they oppressed Africans. At the same time, Africans seem to be present in a whole lot of cases where pointless violent crimes occurred. On top of that, white America has felt that it was held hostage to black America during race riots, Ferguson effects and constant payouts for affirmative action and civil rights guilt.

White America wants to hear about how black people are not good, and how they should probably be sent far away, because they are a threat and have humiliated white America.

At the same time, this misses the broader point. No two ethnic groups can live in the same nation without absorbing one another. That means no more white Americans, only white-Asian hybrids, assuming you sent the Africans away of course. And what will the future of that nation be? It will not recapture the past.

Of course, that writer has already taken the first step because he has a Mexican wife. For him, diversity is not a problem; Africans are. However, as history shows us, it is diversity itself that is a problem even among groups from within the same race, as in Northern Ireland. So he is both correct, and not correct, because he offers a false solution.

Even if he were to upgrade his solution, the question then becomes, what are you going to do about it? As one writer opines, the Right is not ready for action:

Righties who like to build churches will build a church and worship in it. Lefties who like to build churches will build a church, write a book telling people how to build churches, go out and convince people church-building is the thing to do, run workshops on how to finance, build, and register churches, and then they’ll offer to arrange church guest speakers who’ll come preach the Lefty line.

Righties like hierarchy, so often think of the Lefties as taking marching orders from George Soros or whoever in a very hierarchical fashion. Not so much. A lot of left-wing organization is very decentralized, and they negotiate with other lefty groups as to exactly how they’ll do things and time things to not hurt each others’ work, so the labor movement’s march is not derailed by black-bloc window-smashing.

While this article has some dodgy data in it — the problem with the Confederates, for example, was resource and industry shortage, not disorganization — the truth of it is this: Leftists are fanatics and they are committed 24-7 to making things happen. Conservatives are not individualists, nor are they group-directed like the Left, but this makes them weak.

Conservatives engage in the perpetual fiction that, because if each person did the right thing, civilization would work out better, they will do the right thing in their personal lives and hope everyone else does the same. This is why people call the conservatives “the stupid party,” because there is no other word for this than stupid.

People do not do what they are not forced to do. Conservatives do not want to be forced to do anything, and because they have already accepted certain forces as sunk costs, do not notice that they are already being forced to do most of what they do. And so, doing “the right thing” at home amounts to nothing.

The Left understands force. They realize that unless people are scared to do otherwise than join the protests and work like fiends to make it all happen, they will sit at home and commit petty crimes. When the Left wins, it has no problem wielding totalitarian threats of violence, public shaming, destroying of lives and friendships, and even mobilizing the masses into a human wave that takes 50% casualties and has the machine guns mounted at the rear of the army, not the front like armies that are actually fighting for something.

Conservatives are broken in their outlook. They know that they live under a Leftist myth, equality, and with a Leftist system of government, democracy, at some level. They have shattered their own consistency of thought in order to accept defeat and declare it victory, and since they have accepted that they cannot control the future of their society, they naturally give up on everything except themselves.

Leftists are individualists, but they sacrifice greatly for the ability to be individualistic. What do conservatives sacrifice for, except wasting their time at jobs, paying taxes and dying for democracy in foreign wars? Conservatives are more competent than the Left but never put it into action because people volunteer, do what is convenient, and then go home, leaving the task to fail.

I have seen it time and again. Every now and then you get an issue that fires up conservatives. But nothing makes them as fanatical as ideology makes Leftists, and for this reason conservatives lose because they are not committed enough nor disciplined enough. While the Left organizes to take over cities, the Right are out there lifting weighs, filing taxes, buying stocks and mowing their lawns.

This is why it is not enough to be right. You have to address the actual issue and come up with a working plan, not just an emotional judgment. And then, you have to put it into action not as a hobby but as a full-time obsession. If you are not willing to do that, you are just posing at being a conservative because it makes you feel good to blame someone else for your life failures.

3. We need an agenda outside of modernity.

Modernity began with The Enlightement™ and has steadily won victory after victory since that time. It is the religion of progress, or making humanity more powerful even when this is a bad idea, and of the individual. It will not end until every tree is dead and converted into a fast food joint so the sons of housemaids can be rich men for a generation.

The only way to escape modernity is to reverse the changes made to our philosophy with The Enlightenment,™ which means discarding ideas like equality, democracy and diversity. Until we get rid of the ideas themselves, we will lead ourselves back into repeating them because our fundamental assumptions will be the same as they are now.

It also helps to recognize what Leftists are: a spectrum from Anarchist through Communist, believing in the same ideology of equality, who differ only in degree. That is important: all Leftists are the same, just with varying degrees of boldness. The “normal” Democrat, given enough power, is a Communist; the teenage anarchist, facing challenges in his Utopia, will also go to full Communism.

Their ideas — which they insist are radically different, deep, complex and difficult — are in fact all variations of the same idea, egalitarianism. This philosophy insists that all people must be included in society and that society must thus dedicate itself to them and their whims and desires, instead of having a social order, values and purpose of its own.

Leftism is a mental virus which produces fanatics. To the bored, neurotic or failed person Leftism gives a sense of meaning to life and an excuse for all that has gone wrong. It is addictive, and creates a pathology in these people because it only makes them feel good for a short while, requiring them to engage in more of it to feel good again.

Leftists and conservatives desire different types of societies and are incompatible with one another. Leftists are concerned with equality; conservatives like order and context. This fits with the idea of conservation, or keeping what works, instead of a focus on human desires.

Until we escape the Leftist mentality, we will forever repeat the last two centuries of Western history. Even if we create a pro-white dictatorship, it will still be formed of the basic idea of modernity, which is accepting everyone and turning them into a mass to use to impose ideas externally onto others. Maybe they accept fewer people, but the idea remains the same.

People type their fingers bloody wondering how all of this happened. The answer is simple: it was entropy brought on by our success. A society that succeeds suddenly loses its purpose, which previously was to succeed. Now it must answer the existential questions, such as what it can do to make life meaningful and good. That is heady territory, fit for philosophers perhaps but not democracies.

Expanding on that, human masses are entropy and they always follow evil, unless they give power to someone intelligent and generous who will work against the flow of nature, which is an inertia that leads to breakdown. Nature destroys everything except that which actively resists by reaching toward a positive future distinct to itself.

Humans are evil because they are aware only of themselves. Many grow out of this as part of the maturation process, but others — probably about 40% of our people at this point — do not, and so they become de facto low grade sociopaths who act for their own whims at the expense of everyone else and the mission they share in common, which is having a civilization which thrives.

Conservatives recognize this evil in humanity which is why they emphasize context, reality, order, hierarchy, values, principles and purpose over what people wish were true or want to be accepted just because they want to do it. This is why conservatism is so compatible with religion: to both, the primary question is avoiding evil by establishing a good order/organization instead.

Unfortunately conservatives suffer from a lack of unity. They are too individualistic, mainly because they see the herd conformity of the Left and attempt to rebel against it by going the opposite direction, not recognizing that the Leftist collective is powered by individualists who want to mandate their own inclusion despite whatever unproductive or degenerate behavior they engage in.

Instead of reacting, conservatives could analyze Leftism itself and understand its psychology. At that point they would see that the only defense is not retreating into individualism, but reforming the line and counter-attacking by pointing out that Leftism is wholly illegitimate, its practitioners are sociopaths, and its end result is deceit and destruction. Every time.

When conservatives overcome their infection with individualism, they will see the importance of order and become fanatical like Leftists. That day will also bring ultra-intolerance, meaning that anyone who wants any form of equality will become suddenly not welcome.

As liberal democracy winds down and craters, and the ruling Leftist parties on two continents steer their countries into polymorphic disaster, the light on the horizon appears. This light is the end of the dark era of Enlightenment,™ and a return to raw realism and a search for meaning in the world instead of navel-gazing within our social selves.

There Is Nothing Wrong With Hating The Metric System

Wednesday, May 31st, 2017

During my early years, the “English system” of measurement annoyed me. What was the sense in knowing that there were three teaspoons to a tablespoon, sixteen ounces to a pound, eight pints to a gallon and four dashes to a teaspoon? It seemed arcane, arbitrary, alien and taxing.

Years later, after having spent many of my most pleasurable hours in the kitchen, it became clear that like many things, the English system only makes sense once one has some experience of the domain of knowledge. A teaspoon is frequently the most useful measurement for spices, oils and vinegars, and the other measurements make sense when one considers the types of amounts that are used in cooking for a normal family.

In contrast, the metric system (spit)* requires that one remember a series of random numbers in amounts that are divisible by ten or fifty for convenience, but somehow never seem to be convenient. Exactly why would one want to put 350 grams of flour into a recipe, when a cup and a third would be easier to remember? The measurement of a “cup” fits the task; the metric does not.

And yet, all of our “educated” and “enlightened” citizens seem to love the metric system. The reason is simple: it is a human projection onto the world. The more one gets used to these curiously intelligent monkeys, the more it becomes clear that projection — seeing oneself in the world — and transference — finding someone else to take the blame for failure — are the de facto norm of human behavior, which is not deliberate but ad hoc, or in response to what came before it and rationalized afterwards as deliberate.

The metric system represents the darkest part of humanity, which is a desire to assuage our fear of the world by consuming it. We divide it into little bits and measure it, then dole it out. We break its ecosystems. We interrupt its cycles. All of this serves merely to address our fear of a natural selection event (NSE) in which we are the skeleton found at the edge of the woods.

We, with our big brains, live constantly in fear of having read wrong the world, and then revealed our stupidity by charging forward with a notion in our heads that is not found in reality. The only ways to avoid this problem involve declaring all humanity equal, so that screwups are forgiven, and smashing reality into little digestible bits so its threats, snakes and uncertainties are removed.

Look at our arrogance. We pave the place with concrete just to avoid the unevenness of nature. We erect Science as a new god, then use it as an excuse to proclaim the methods of nature invalid, inefficient or primitive. We build skyscrapers to the sky because the sky being above us offends us. What arrogant, pretentious, domineering apes we are!

The metric system is just part of this arrogance. We deny the significance of mating for life in nature because it offends us that we might make a wrong choice, so instead we suspend the need to make a choice at all; just fornicate with whomever, whenever and all will be good. We deny the cycles of nature, or even the day, so we can assert our egos through “work” and other ways to affirm our self-importance.

When you consider that most of our gods involve projecting a human form onto the origins of the universe, and that most of our laws involve defending the human form via the individual against the forces of nature, it becomes clear that we are pretentious monkeys out of control. Our goal is not adaptation, but domination, so that our self-image remains unchallenged.

For that reason, cooks like myself will stick with the English system. It is not human, but realistic; it reflects our tasks, and not our own desire for control. It shows us the inherent mathematical order of the universe which does not break down into convenient decimals but a messy, chaotic and wonderfully complex density of numbers related to one another instead of an absolute scale like decimal.

From this, we can take a lesson: we know nothing until we get outside ourselves and explore the task, which is formed of the intersection of world, self, need and optimum, or the way to do things that is both most convenient and produces the best results. This is more complex than most people can stand, however, and in a herd they will shout it down every time and switch to metric for their own self-image.

* — For this coinage, I am indebted to Dr. Dmitri Vulis, a campaigner with John Grubor and his merry band of trolls from pgh.general. See here for more on this trolling organization, which along with the Meowers from were some of the earliest creative trolls of public media.

Anti-Darwinism Is The Basis Of Leftism

Sunday, May 28th, 2017

The links between Leftism, individualism, collectivism and hubris are simple but require a complex understanding of context to make sense of them.

Every creature has four basic behaviors known as the “four Fs” — fighting, fleeing, feeding and reproduction — which serve a singular goal, which since Charles Darwin wrote about it, we have described as “adaptation,” or finding a niche within its ecosystem where it can find regular nutrition at minimal risk of combat or predation.

For an animal, every action it takes is a risk. If it ventures out from safe hiding, it is exposed to predators. If it wanders into the territory of another animal of its species, it may get in a fight, and those contain at least a large component of rolling the dice. Its best guess about how an action will turn out determines its survival.

Those guesses in turn reflect how well the organism knows its world. If it is delusional or misinformed, it becomes prey. Consequently, every organism secretly wishes for independence from this state of constant stress. A mouse might imagine the ideal life as a giant field where there are no eagles and snakes, and there is enough grain to always be content.

Humans have an equivalent of this in Leftism. Leftism is a defensive ideology based on preventing others from becoming predators to the individual. It does this by removing social standards; this is what “equal” means: there are no standards, so whatever an individual does is acceptable, and no one can criticize those who are obeying the minimums of civilization (yes: job, shopping; no: murder, intolerance).

In this way, Leftism is a fundamentally anti-Darwinistic philosophy. It wants no social classes, because that way some have more power than others and can victimize them. It wants to make as many actions as possible acceptable, so that someone cannot be lowered in social status for their actions. It prioritizes the weak, broken and clueless so that everyone feels accepted.

When we recognize this basic psychology, it becomes clear why individualism leads to collectivism. Individuals band together in a gang that offers protection from those in the rest of society who might know better. This cult in turn demands allegiance, and so those individuals become slaves to forcing that ideology on others. It justifies itself by being universal, or agreed upon by all as a good thing.

At the root of this is hubris, or the desire of the human individual to be the most important thing in the world. The individual wants itself and its desires, judgments and feelings to come before social order, natural order and logical order. This means that there cannot be recognition that some people are better than others.

For this reason, Leftists idealize criminals, prostitutes, drug addicts, and the dysfunctional. They hate the good, powerful, strong, loving, beautiful and realistic people because those establish a de facto hierarchy. Their ideal is a vast grey lumpenproletariat in which everyone is equal and can do whatever they want, and society subsidizes them.

In thermodynamics, we might refer to this condition as “heat death,” because under it, people would have no reason to strive. Their efforts would be focused on the individual and would therefore not lead to anything that benefits civilization or the soul, except in the rare case of the genius artist, musician or thinker (which is why Leftists pretend to be all three).

Leftism — a subset of Crowdism — is a weaponized form of individualism that demands the individual be free from the burden of having to take realistic actions in the external world. It is a retreat from life, a fatalism, in which we create a new religion and ideology based on human individuals, not actions which adapt to reality.

It is the death of individuality, civilizations and species. This is why it is so addictive: it both promises freedom from death, and a certain path to death which seems easier than toughing it out and trying to survive as long as possible. In its wake, it leaves behind a domesticated, incurious species who exist at the subsistence level found throughout the third world.

r-Strategy Living Arises From Society Assuming Responsibility For Individuals

Thursday, May 25th, 2017

We have been writing about K and r strategies and their influence on politics for many years now, but recently, thanks mostly to The Anonymous Conservative blog, this idea has gained momentum.

Over at VDARE, Lance Welton attempts to deconstruct European pathological altruism using K/r strategy theory:

Race differences in ethnocentrism are almost certainly (partly) a matter of historical evolution to a different kind of environment.

…We all sit somewhere on this spectrum, relatively closer to r or K, and this is true of nations and races. In a highly unstable but plentiful environment, such as pathogen-rich Africa, more people adopt an r-strategy. They must live fast because they will die young and unpredictably. As such, they are evolved to invest their resources in sex and have as much sex with as many people as possible. They create weak social bonds, only develop small and unstable social groups, and are highly aggressive and impulsive. All of this is designed to be able to deal with sudden, violent problems.

As the environment becomes more stable, it reaches its carrying capacity for the species. This makes it harsher and more competitive. This results in a move towards a K-strategy. You live slowly because you can better predict the future, making investments in it worthwhile.

While undoubtedly there is a genetic basis for populations choosing an r-strategy, another possibility comes to mind: the nature of civilization itself converts groups from K-strategy to r-strategy by adopting a policy of universal exclusion, thus subsidizing those who would not naturally be welcome that society.

The primary challenge to civilization comes from externalization. This takes two forms; first, the habit of people to pass along the costs of their activity to the group, in the form of socialized cost; and second, the tendency of individuals to externalize their thinking process to ideology, economics, rules, laws, popular social notions and bureaucracy.

When a civilization decides to assume responsibility for subsidizing those who are not naturally included, it shifts from rewarding a K-strategy to encouraging an r-strategy. No longer does it matter whether or not you get anything right; what matters is that you get along with others, which means deference to whatever the herd is fascinated by or fears at that moment.

Equality is the forerunner of this mindset. Equality correlates to the demands of a rogue cell in a body. This cell wants to be able to act against the interests of the body as a whole organic entity, but still be able to participate in the wealth and power of that body. Individualists form groups, known as collectivists, who demand equality for all.

At the heart of the problem is socialization itself. When people make decisions socially, they are thinking in an r-strategy mindset instead of being focused on reality, purpose and meaning, which are K-strategy decisions. For this reason, civilizations die because they become individualistic, and through doing that, remove their K-strategy focus and revert to third world social order.

Armed Revolution Is Like A Cattle Drive

Wednesday, May 24th, 2017

An old hand explained it to me roughly like this (paraphrased):

At some point, you’ll have to overthrow those who have the power. For them it’s a meal ticket. All they have to do is keep showing up to work, going through the motions, and they get wealth and prestige like no one else. But they are actually sort of weak, because like cowboys, there’s just a few of them working a big old herd, and they are afraid to death of it turning into a stampede.

But when you talk about armed revolution, you have to realize that they won’t give up so easy. It’s like a cattle drive: the whole way, those cows are going to be pushing back against you, trying to get the power. Everybody wants the power. It’s addictive, you see, even if it destroys us, because if those cows had the power, they would just tear off in some direction or another and end up dead at the bottom of a cliff, or running each other over because some steer saw a rattlesnake, even if it was just a dead end of rope.

The good thing is that once you get the power, it’s easy to control the herd. You see how we do it. We ride along outside them, then slowly close the gap until we have them all gathered, then we push them all in the same direction. Inertia takes over. A cow in motion wants to stay in motion. Same is true of people, except more so, because we can talk about it, so we go to our friends and we talk about how good things are, which is our way of hiding our fears. This way, we validate each other’s fears.

To get control of a herd, you have to seize the points of power. For cattle this means the areas they want to run to. In revolutions you notice they go first to grab the hospitals, radio stations, newspapers, police substations, grocery stores and gas stations. People need these things on a daily basis, so if they go to them and you control them, they will start accepting your version of events. If they turn on the radio and hear the same thing they see in the newspaper, they assume it is true or “close enough.”

They are looking for an excuse to obey because that is easiest for them. You are trying to channel the herd away from where it wants to go and where you want to go, so you have to surround them on all sides. When you make it more difficult for them to go that direction than to go the way you want them to, they fall into line. They are just looking for a reason to feel good about whatever they are doing and they don’t really care too much what that is. But keep caution, just like a cow while randomly try to make a break for it, people will always challenge you, just to see if they can get away with it. This is how herd animals think.

Armed revolution is most likely inevitable at this point. We can and should try working through democracy as much as possible, but the herd always votes wrong, and then when enough of them wake up for a protest vote like with Trump or Brexit, they face a whole lot of individualistic cattle out there who are going to sabotage, delay and subvert the process. That means war.

In the West, we could very quickly employ a pincer strategy: both seize things that people need (groceries, gasoline, police, radio, hospitals, coffee) and destroy things they rely on for their daily dose of propaganda (government, Leftist media, welfare offices, degenerate culture). This way, the herd could be channeled into moving in our direction, seizing control.

Feminism And MGTOW: Retarded Twins Separated At Birth

Monday, May 22nd, 2017

feminism is paranoid neurosis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s dysgenic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identifying The Enemy

Wednesday, May 17th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Negro/The Jew is our enemy.

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

2. The enemy is immigrants who do not assimilate.

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

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

3. The enemy is extremists.

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

4. The enemy is Leftists.

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

5. The enemy is egalitarianism.

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

6. The enemy is individualism.

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

7. The enemy is herd behavior.

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

8. The enemy is us.

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

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

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

Robert Conquest’s Three Laws Of Politics

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2017

Back when John Derbyshire worked at the National Review, he wrote some great stuff, including this summary of Robert Conquest’s Laws of Politics:

As best I can remember, they are:

  1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
  2. Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.
  3. The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.

The second law is the most discussed because it essentially says that any organization which does not design itself to be Right-wing only will find itself drifting Leftward. This points to a broader principle: there is pressure on all organizations to turn Leftward because human beings, in general, favor Leftism, much like they like cheeseburgers and donuts more than broccoli.

Leftist ideas are appealing because they are a form of pacifism. Instead of conflict and risk, they promise peaceful coexistence by simply sharing the wealth. The problem with this is that it makes it more efficient to be a free rider than a contributor, so civilizations that go down this path devour themselves.

For those hoping to have their civilizations survive, this means that there must be constant negative pressure against pacifism and related ideas like equality, pluralism, tolerance and individual liberty. People must do what is right, not what they decide they want to do, because the natural tendency of people is toward entropy.

That adds a wrinkle to Conquest’s Second Law. Unless an organization commits itself to purpose over individual choice, it becomes degenerative.

Even further, certain systems such as democracy, which validate the principle of individual choice as being more important than the consequences of that choice in relation to purpose, will always drift Leftward, even in the presence of the most extreme Rightist ideas. Rightism cannot coexist with egalitarianism; the two are opposites.

What Conquest hints at is what we all know, deep down, which is that moderates are our downfall. There is no such thing as a moderate because any moderate position simply allows more Leftward drift.

As a political system designed around compromise and mediating extreme choices, democracy propels the Leftward drift. Democracy is the political arm of Leftism, which is the philosophical arm of collectivism, which is the social arm of individualism. Individuals who do not want to face possible risk and consequences for their actions desire egalitarianism to escape accountability.

This leads us to the ultimate distillation of Conquest’s Second Law. Any organization which does not explicitly dedicate itself toward some outward purpose will fall into an inward purpose, which consists of human preferences, and these tend toward individualism and thus toward Leftism.

Like everything else in life, the science of organizations consists of resisting decay not so much by pushing down on something — although, like weeds, bad things must be removed — but in having clarity of purpose and motivating people toward that, lest they recede into their own minds, whims, emotions, fears and other degrading forces.

Ann Coulter Speech Cancelation Reveals The Problem With Conservatism

Wednesday, April 26th, 2017

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter has withdrawn from a planned speech at The University Of California At Berkeley, citing the failure of Young Americans for Freedom to support her:

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter has canceled her speech planned for this week at the University of California’s Berkeley campus after a dispute with university officials, who feared violent protests, over whether a safe venue could be found.

“There will be no speech,” she wrote in an email to Reuters on Wednesday, saying two conservative groups sponsoring her speech were no longer supporting her. “I looked over my shoulder and my allies had joined the other team,” she wrote.

As she wrote poignantly in a tweet a few hours later, “If we had continued to fight we would have won.”

Coulter was originally denied permission to speak by school authorities but vowed to press on. With the defection of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) however she lost her sponsor at the school, and had no case against Berkeley to defend her First Amendment right to speak in a public forum.

This shows us the problem with conservatives: they are willing to “take a stand,” but not when it endangers them personally, because they are enwrapped in the mythos of personal morality that emphasizes religion, hard work and patriotism but not changing the system as a whole. By approaching the issue as a moral question, and not one of civilization survival, they reduce all issues to questions of personal freedom and therefore, cede the battlefield as to the future of society as a whole.

As fans of history know, the modern Right was formalized after the French Revolution and was formed of, well, cucks. They knew that the old order was better, but decided to accept the assumptions of the winning Leftist side — namely equality — and to try to use those to work toward conservative goals. But when one accepts equality, the only change possible is at a personal level and from a defensive perspective. The idea of re-conquering our civilization and pulling it out of its tailspin is beyond what the browbeaten conservative mentality will accept.

This is why the Alt Right has arisen: we have a mission, which is to restore Western Civilization, which is not limited to the individual. We realize that civilization is an organic entity formed of the intersection between individuals, the group, heritage, principles and future. We cannot fight its decline by demanding the ability to co-exist with the decline; we must go to war against the decline itself.

At this point, even the slowest conservatives are starting to get the message that the Left will not relent until it turns the US/EU into Venezuela, a mixed-race socialist third world society like most of the failed societies on earth.

The question is whether conservatives can get over their individualism, or the desire for personal power that precludes acting toward the renovation of civilization as a whole. This entails risk. But in a do-or-die struggle, risk is upon us, and certain doom awaits on the other path.

What Went Wrong In The West During WWII?

Friday, April 21st, 2017

Something went wrong in the West during WWII. Perhaps it was that after fighting “the war to end all wars,” people lost faith in the system but cashed in anyway. Perhaps it was the population boom, or the sheer misery of modern society, but something caused an explosion of bad behavior:

Before the baby boomers came around, the so-called Greatest Generation came of age in a time of war and depression and learned firsthand the benefits of social solidarity and so they continued to invest in society throughout their lives, Gibney said.

…He points to a general election where both candidates were hesitant to discuss entitlement reform or tax increases as one of the reasons why climate change, high levels of student debt and a last minute, backstop approach to infrastructure may continue indefinitely.

“My assertion isn’t that all boomers are sociopaths, but that a sufficiently large percentage of them behave in ways that appear to be sociopathic and because they’re such a large generation … any personality defects could easily translate into political dysfunction. I think that is what happened.”

Sociopaths, or individualists? As one esteemed Neoreactionary is fond of saying, there are only two paths in life: the path of service to others, and service to self. When one serves the self, that comes before anything else, and other people and objects are means to that end. Humanity certainly has been behaving that way of late.

In my view, it may not be so simple, in that there is a third path, which is service to transcendentals, like principle, aesthetics and quality. But this would probably qualify under “service to others” for most people, if we include ancestors, nature, the future and optimal human existence as others.

Looking at this in a historical context, we see that the 1920s offered one of the first real “Me generation” vibes. That group became the parents of the kids who were born in the 1940s and comprised the most virulent wing of the Boomer generation. Their psychology was created in part by the utter futility of the First World War, and what most saw as clear signs of civilization decline.

Then, as if by magic, they were saved. After a horrible war, the Americans came out on top by virtue of having lost the least to bombing and invasion. This however created an epic entitlement mentality, and this showed in how the “Greatest Generation” treated their kids. This created a nasty dynamic of resentment between children and parents.

As a result, the Baby Boomers took revenge. They used the Leftist views of their parents against them, and in doing so, seized the moral high ground and took over their civilization. Unfortunately, their ideas were nonsense, and so they created disaster, to which their response was to fall back onto the ideas of their parents… entitlement.

Millennials get quite a bit of blame for being essentially The Me Generation II, but having grown up and been indoctrinated in an educational system re-designed by Boomers, it is not surprising that the clay bears the impression of the mold. Those who come after them have seen the disaster being repeated, and have less of an individualist mentality.

Was this sociopathy, or institutionalized sociopathy? The latter seems likely, since Leftism by virtue of having its roots in egalitarianism tends to individualism, as did The Enlightenment™ before it. We programmed ourselves to be selfish and as a result, produced a desperate mentality which led to this sociopathic result.

Recommended Reading