Posts Tagged ‘individualism’
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Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter has withdrawn from a planned speech at The University Of California At Berkeley, citing the failure of Young Americans for Freedom to support her: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.
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.
Wednesday, April 19th, 2017
The Left invented memes, but for them meming took the form of whispers through a crowd. These were little fragments that made people feel witty for repeating and gave them reason to keep on keeping on with the glorious People’s Revolution in whatever form it was taking that week.
One meme the Left loves to sling around is “late stage capitalism” because, having won on social welfare and entitlements, the Left has created a vast audience of dependents who want a full ride from cradle-to-grave just for being precious snowflakes. This is the crisis every society faces; if you include everyone, you legitimize free rider abuse and turn society parasitic.
Europeans like to brag for example about their excellent social benefits states, but none of them are solvent, necessitating importation of third-world labor to pay for those pensions when they come due, and they make people miserable, which is why Europeans are not reproducing at a replacement rate.
Bureaucracy, democracy, and jobs ensure that life is shaped by control for every minute of every day. People can no longer “just live”; they have to deal with the fact that they are born in debt to pay for the social system, then have to work a job which is basically nonsense activity to keep the proles occupied, and must deal with endless rules, red tape and petty authority figures.
This parasitic society makes everyone miserable, but the Left consists of people who are already miserable as part of their character, and so they do not mind going into full misery. For them, it is better to win and “be (proven) right” than to create a pleasant experience of civilization, or a healthy one, for civilization as an organic whole, the group or the individual.
And so we hear a lot about “late stage capitalism.” The simple point of this meme is to blame the failures of our existing Leftist government on capitalism so that we can go full Socialist without our consciences bothering us: if something is already failing, it is illogical to pursue more of it, unless one has a scapegoat.
This strategy is not new. The Left blamed upper classes for the reckless breeding of the lower; it blamed “racism” for the failure of diversity; it blamed nationalism for the instability of the modern nation-state, itself a creation of liberalism. It blamed the kings for its social failings, and promptly elected governments so incompetent that the kings could never be worse.
Capitalism is the latest scapegoat, and it has become more visible of late. Over the past seventy years is that the Left has stripped away everything except the economy and Leftist ideology, and as a result, the economic system takes center stage. If we were thinking clearly, we would blame the ideology, but the Left always styles its beliefs as “normal.”
They get away with it, those wacky Leftists, since the pathology behind Leftist beliefs consists of eternal human failings. Envy, resentment, irresponsibility, lust for power and greed are all part of the Leftist pantheon, but because these are familiar human behaviors, Leftism is less of an advocacy position that acceptance of those failings; this is the idea of equality: we accept people despite their bad behavior, and give them an equal footing to those who behave well. It is a form of “social pacifism” or a cessation of the fight for doing what is right by having all participants “agree to disagree” instead of aiming for finding an answer and improving our own behavior.
Capitalism has always been in their crosshairs because it is not equal. If ten guys set up stalls selling apples, one is going to do better than the others. Those of us who are pro-capitalist are so not because we love commerce, but because we want to minimize it. Having better apple seller stalls means that we do not need to spend time and effort “managing” all of the stalls to ensure there is equality.
One would be hard pressed to find a fan of capitalism who desires to have capitalism alone. All of us on the Right favor capitalism because everything else fails, and we view it as part of a complex structure to civilization. The Left has one idea, equality, where the Right has a pocketful of random bits, like hierarchy, culture, capitalism, nationalism and conservation.
But the Left wants to blame capitalism. This is after they effectively removed it in the 1800s by regulating the banks, then enfranchised a new crop of idiots who invested like fools, and when that detonated in the Great Depression, they used that moment as a chance to bring Leftist-style social welfare programs to America and when those failed, to double down with the Great Society programs.
The funny thing is that all postwar Leftist nations are following the same structure that National Socialism had, just without the nationalism. There is a strong state presence, and it guides us toward race-mixing instead of racial preservation, but it integrates itself with business and depends on capitalism to fuel its fires (and then, on taxes to pay for those fat social entitlement benefits.)
At this point, what we think of as “capitalism” is unrecognizable. When you have millions of lines of regulations and laws, including treaties and international standards, and use a circular Ponzi scheme to both fund welfare and “prime the pump” of consumerism, capitalism is dead.
Some would say it was replaced by consumerism. Capitalism rises from the way life has always been: people do things for one another and are paid for them, and some are paid more than others to encourage a rise in standards. Consumerism is the Soviet version: instead of focusing our economy on the difficult task of producing value, we make cheap schlock and sell it to plebes for low prices (but with high margins).
In other words, we democratized capitalism. Instead of having people at the top driving the economy based on actual productivity, we are selling stuff to ourselves, and claiming that this is productive. This is why we make very little of what we see, from clothing to electronics, even if we manufacture a lot of stuff here.
Consumerism drove immigration because people wanted cheap food, not good food. In the past, we realized that doing things the right way was expensive, and since this was a cultural recognition, stores were able to sell good food at relatively high prices, which kept agriculture healthy. But we democratized that, and so now you can barely find any good food, just more of the same industrial farmed tasteless tomatoes, nutritionless meat grown on inferior feed, bread and more bread made without yeast or real eggs, and an endless supply of food infused with sugar, salt and cheap oils. It is all “prole food.” You will not build a nation on this.
Similarly, consumerism smashed down the quality of goods and services. Fifty years ago, you could get a shovel that had a solid wood handle and a thick blade. Now, you might be able to find one, if you go to a boutique store, but if you are just down at your local hardware store, you find plastic and thin blades. Craftsmanship has mostly fled these lands.
The same is true of construction. Houses and offices are basically pre-fab and designed to last for three decades at most. The pipes are plastic; the walls and furnishings are all off-the-wall parts designed for easy and simple installation. You no longer need a brain to be a construction guy; you are another office worker, not a calling like “carpenter” or “plumber” or “electrician.”
Of course, you can still find those job titles, but they are ersatz too. There is a course of study and a few basic types of procedures one must learn, but the creativity is dead for the most part, since you are hooking up gadgets made in factories far away. Now, there are some who carry on being craftsmen, but they are outside the mainstream, and nearly forgotten.
When all of your workers are craftsmen, construction is more expensive but it is also of better quality, not this IKEA-style paint-by-numbers stuff. Your buildings can last for hundreds of years. But consumerism, with its mantra “quantity over quality,” is a form of democratization. It wants more buildings and more buyers, not discerning buyers or buildings that last for centuries.
We could retaliate against the left by referring to this time as “late stage consumerism.” That oughta piss them off… but it is not accurate, either. Consumerism is a symptom of democracy. Democracy is a symptom of the me-firsters winning out, because it demands that we include everyone equally, instead of having a marketplace for human beings where the best are prized. Equality is a symptom of an angry mob of people, each of whom wanting to be included despite his failings, which is itself a “me first” attitude: individualism.
We should however simply counter their “late stage capitalism” meme with “late empire” or “your civilization has collapsed.” Every effect has a cause, and that cause has a cause, all the way back to someone making some bad decisions in our past, and now we are so far down the rabbit-trail that we can no longer see the light. Until we wake up and make an effort to restore civilization, that is.
Wednesday, April 12th, 2017
For years, Amerika has identified the root of downfall in the West as individualism, or the idea that the intentions and desires of the individual take precedence over understanding and adaptation to natural order, logical fact and metaphysical reality. This form of hubris dooms societies to dissolution through lack of common purpose.
As the collectivized form of individualism rages on without noticing how destructive it is, others are starting to recognize how lack of internal solidarity destroys cooperation:
There’s no way the individually competitive white community would identify someone brainy and eloquent, then allow them sometimes to putter around into their 30s before there’s a payoff. That’s pretty much the life story of Bernie Sanders. He probably wouldn’t have become a US senator if he had to focus his energies on a 9-5 job instead.
…Extreme apex ventures like professional acting, writing, art, politics, academics, journalism are too risky and too expensive for atomized individuals to participate in. That just leaves an open field for a group that backs each other up and makes investments in developing their own human capital.
…The community support that Hamilton benefited from would be unthinkable in modern white culture. In fact, with jobs that pay even the simplest living now scarce, workers take perverse joy in someone like Hamilton falling through the cracks.
They love to waggle their fingers patronizingly and say “Look how I pulled myself up while that smart guy turned out to be a loser.”
Individualism engenders all of our worst behaviors, including the notion of linear history or “progress.” It is what happens when people no longer share ideals, and instead, each person uses the now-decaying civilization as a means to their own wealth, power and status alone, instead of making that objective consistent with the goals of the civilization.
When Western Civilization adopted individualism, probably as an artifact of a fragmented ruling caste, it took the path away from working toward an ideal, and instead went down the path of rationalizing human desires as the goal of the civilization. This facilitative and mercantile outlook removed the ability to do what is right and replaced it with an impulse toward convenience.
As we enter the final phase of collapse, we must dig deep to get to the root of our decay so that we can identify it and remove it. Otherwise, we will merely push it back a few steps, and it — being like all evils more fanatical than good — will inexorably advance until we arrive as the same state where we currently are, exhausting ourselves through repetition.
Friday, March 24th, 2017
When we engage in conflict, the immediate impulse is to try to find a vital stronghold of the enemy that can be seized or destroyed, giving our group the upper hand. This leads us to pursue mentally tangible objectives instead of realizing that we are in a war of ideas, and ideas are only supplanted, not dissolved.
For those on the Right, this means that we will not find a stronghold of the Left to conquer or obliterate. Instead, we must build up what we know to be true and head in that direction, making the Leftist direction obsolete. War is a bad metaphor here; we are more like people designing a city, rejecting one paradigm because we found a better one.
However, because it is tempting to find a target that we can visualize ourselves conquering, we look for some origin of Leftism that can be rooted out and eliminated. This leads to a mistaken conjecture about the nature and genesis of Leftism:
In order correctly to understand the modern Left, it’s important to recognize it as a secularized religion. Tracing the development of this religion, from its origins in Protestantism, then Puritanism, then through its many transmutations in America — from sixteenth-century Massachusetts, through its northern and western Protestant expansion, through the “Awakenings” of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, through the secularizing influence of Univer[s]alism and Unitarianism, through the sequential attachments of its “mission into the wilderness” to various sacred causes such as abolition, Prohibition, women’s suffrage, global government, desegregation, feminism, environmentalism, Blank-Slate biological universalism, open borders, LBGT-etc. activism, and global warming, to name some salient examples — has been a major project of the dissident and reactionary Right over the past couple of decades.
…The leftmost edge of the Left has accelerated sharply leftward in recent years. This has exerted tidal stresses on what was never a monolithic cultural bloc to begin with, and the laminae are starting to pull apart — with the result that many old-fashioned and relatively moderate liberals are beginning to see for themselves the unmistakable features of a fundamentalist and authoritarian religion beneath the contours of what they had previously imagined to be nothing more than a compassionate and humanistic political attitude. Given that many of these sorts pride themselves on their atheism, to see that they have been associated with a religion is immediately to declare apostasy.
The second part of this statement bears inspection and enjoyment. As revealed here before, the ecosystem of Leftism includes a few manipulative leaders, some true believers and a huge horde of people following along for social reasons, mainly that they think being Leftist increases their social status through iconoclasm or altruism.
As it becomes clear that Leftism is a singular idea — egalitarianism — that varies in degree from classical liberal to Communist, more are seeing the grim truth of Leftism: it gains intensity as its power concentrates such that it will inevitably and invariably arrive at Communism, or what Plato would consider a form of tyranny, if its power is not checked.
This shows us the Leftist cycle, as revealed in Revolutionary France and the Soviet Union: oppose the dominant, sabotage it, then point to the sabotaged ruin as a pure example of the opposite of Leftism, then gain popularity and take over, becoming unstable as Leftism ideals fail, resulting in a military dictatorship that must wage war against ideological enemies to keep itself together.
But the origins of Leftism go farther back than that. In particular, as Plato documents, Leftism assailed ancient Athens as part of its collapse cycle. Even more, we have new world examples of caste and class revolt, such as the ancient Maya, Aztec and Inca. For this reason, it seems that Leftism does not have a modern or Western origin.
For this reason alone, it makes no sense to attribute modern Leftism to modernity, but to assign the reverse: modernity is the result of Leftism, having arisen from The Enlightenment™ thinking of egalitarianism, which is the core of Leftist ideals. But that is in the near term, because clearly there was a cause of The Enlightenment™ that made egalitarianism seem like a good idea.
While it makes sense to say that Christianity has often aided in Leftism, and modern Leftism resembles a religion as Mr. Pollack carefully notes, most of this comes from the fact that Christianity has a focus on the individual, much as Leftism does. For this reason, most people who are Christian are susceptible to the message of egalitarianism as a demonstration of individual moral goodness through altruism.
This leads us to the root of Leftism. Humans fall prey to the same problems they did at the dawn of the species, and sometimes problems which predated it among our Simian forebears. Leftism arises after a civilization becomes successful and as a result, loses focus on a shared purpose and system of values. It is thus not a forward direction, but an inward-focused one.
Leftism for this reason is a form of rationalization that serves to explain the decline as a positive thing, and through its inward focus, to concentrate on redistribution of what remains instead of the creation of new. It is a product of the lack of direction of a civilization that gives perceived social validity to certain human impulses that previously would have been seen as destructive.
What form of ancient human weakness exists to which Leftism can give a voice? It would have to be something fundamental to humans, a mental pitfall as old as time. Civilization is a contract between individuals and the civilization itself to sacrifice some liberties in exchange for participation in the feed of resources. However, this is measured in terms of social approval by the group, or “appearance.”
This creates the problem of formalization. Appearance creates a proxy or intermediate. This is then manipulated by the individualistic, turning the organization known as civilization against its purpose, which is an “inversion” or thematic reversal of its original purpose.
Over time, this destroys every civilization through the same method: individualism, which when expressed by a group is collectivized individualism, or Crowdism. When we face this, we see the monster we are actually struggling with, instead of intermediaries. Leftism is a weakness as old as time, and this is why the ancients called it, simply, “evil.”
Tuesday, March 14th, 2017
The American Scholar takes a stab at diagnostic dissection of the bizarre confluence of religion, ideology and social status that is Political Correctness:
What does it mean to say that these institutions are religious schools? First, that they possess a dogma, unwritten but understood by all: a set of “correct” opinions and beliefs, or at best, a narrow range within which disagreement is permitted. There is a right way to think and a right way to talk, and also a right set of things to think and talk about. Secularism is taken for granted. Environmentalism is a sacred cause. Issues of identity—principally the holy trinity of race, gender, and sexuality—occupy the center of concern. The presiding presence is Michel Foucault, with his theories of power, discourse, and the social construction of the self, who plays the same role on the left as Marx once did. The fundamental questions that a college education ought to raise—questions of individual and collective virtue, of what it means to be a good person and a good community—are understood to have been settled. The assumption, on elite college campuses, is that we are already in full possession of the moral truth. This is a religious attitude. It is certainly not a scholarly or intellectual attitude.
…Elite private colleges are ideologically homogenous because they are socially homogeneous, or close to it. Their student populations largely come from the liberal upper and upper-middle classes, multiracial but predominantly white, with an admixture of students from poor communities of color—two demographics with broadly similar political beliefs, as evidenced by the fact that they together constitute a large proportion of the Democratic Party base. As for faculty and managerial staff, they are even more homogenous than their students, both in their social origins and in their present milieu, which tends to be composed exclusively of other liberal professionals—if not, indeed, of other liberal academics. Unlike the campus protesters of the 1960s, today’s student activists are not expressing countercultural views. They are expressing the exact views of the culture in which they find themselves (a reason that administrators prove so ready to accede to their demands). If you want to find the counterculture on today’s elite college campuses, you need to look for the conservative students.
Which brings us to another thing that comes with dogma: heresy. Heresy means those beliefs that undermine the orthodox consensus, so it must be eradicated: by education, by reeducation—if necessary, by censorship. It makes a perfect, dreary sense that there are speech codes, or the desire for speech codes, at selective private colleges. The irony is that conservatives don’t actually care if progressives disapprove of them, with the result that political correctness generally amounts to internecine warfare on the left: radical feminists excoriating other radical feminists for saying “vagina” instead of “front hole,” students denouncing the director of Boys Don’t Cry as a transphobic “cis white bitch” (as recently happened at Reed College), and so forth.
Political Correctness is a form of Control: an attempt to make all people obey the centralized authority by responding equally to its commands. This stands in opposition to the organic way of life, and cooperation, which point people in roughly the same direction by principle and encourage them to develop their own paths toward the same end.
Leftism is a demand that you obey the herd. They are individualists, and individualists in groups want to hear that you accept everyone no matter how broken they are, even if it means the sacrifice of your civilization. Each individual thinks of nothing bigger than himself, and wants the world to affirm his role as the center of it, at least in his mind.
In this way, we see Political Correctness not as an attempt at altruism, but an attempt to use altruism as a pretense for furthering the social status of the individual, as Tom Wolfe noted. Like most viral ideas, it spreads by the weakness of others, and erodes the basis of civilization, but cannot be criticized because it is “popular” for (temporarily) removing the fear of the meek.
Saturday, March 11th, 2017
From The Financial Times, an intriguing article entitled “White self-interest is not the same thing as racism: Accepting that all groups have legitimate interests fosters mutual understanding”:
Modern liberals tend to believe that preference for your own ethnic group or even your own nation is a form of racism. Conservatives regard it as common sense and resent being labelled as racist.
…The question of legitimate ethnic interest is complex. Multiculturalism is premised on the rights of minorities to maintain certain traditions and ways of life. But liberals have usually been reluctant to extend such group rights to majorities.
…As Eric Kaufmann argues in a new Policy Exchange paper, accepting that all groups, including whites, have legitimate cultural interests is the first step toward mutual understanding.
The barrier wall constructed of the illusion that racism is the ultimate bad, that any majority self-interest is racism, and that nationalism is unacceptable has now permanently fractured. The concept of “racism” has died, just as the notion that diversity can work has disintegrated. There is no longer any faith in these ideological concepts.
The “we are all one” attitude of Leftism led to a tragic norming where any outliers beyond the average were smashed down in order to create “equality.” This included mashing races together into a “beige horizon” which was cultureless, vapid and pathologically ideological, as the example of Bush/Obama-era America shows us.
Instead, people are realizing that patriotism will kill you but nationalism will give you what you really want: to live around people like you, ending the constant neurotic internal dialogue of a society with divided power and a divided population. People are seceding from the “melting pot” and withdrawing into tribal enclaves.
None of this shows anything except a return to historical norms. The W.E.I.R.D. industrialized world got wealthy, gave proles power and by that motion vaulted itself into Leftism and now something resembling Full Soviet living, and its occupants — like those who lived under Communism in the past — are now rebelling against this sure path to self-destruction.
Our future then consists of one of Balkanization into tribes (“patchwork” as the Neoreactionaries call it) followed by reformation of nations based on ethnic interests. There will then be some short, furious wars as the West re-asserts its own order, and then the rest of the world jockeys for place, culminating in an epic conflict like West versus East Part II.
If anyone asks, they should be reminded that this is the high, high price one pays for individualism, which is presumed (without honesty) to be a victimless crime if not a really good thing by the credulous bourgeois. Individualism means social breakdown through divided power and factionalized population, and from it comes the decay in which the West finds itself.
Starting in 2016, the sleeping West has roused itself and demands now that it not be obligated to commit suicide just because it was acting suicidally oblivious for the past ten centuries or more. Instead of a demand for more rules and proxies like the racism/egalitarianism binary, people are striving for logical fact and commonsense health, and realizing that they will never find that in Leftism, individualism, narcissism or any of the other associated wishful thinking of the innately neurotic human mind.
Monday, March 6th, 2017
by Carey Henderson
God didn’t give us a cowardly spirit but a spirit of power, love, and good judgment. 2 Timothy 1:7
Let us all here at Amerika walk away from the noise for a time. Walk away from churches. Away from TVs. Step lively from the cacophony of our miserable, repetitive, make-work American lives. Where are we going? On a short trip to remember something about ourselves.
Far too many Americans underestimated the efficacy of Leftist thinking. After all, the politics of Envy, what Leftism boils down to at the plasma level, has been around since the Dawn. Which Dawn? The Biblical Dawn, an more Eastern timeframe? The Big Bang? Does it matter? Reams of data exist. Stories, fairy tales, folk tales, and religious lore passed down over generations, lost, rediscovered, and studied anew, give us as much data as we can stomach about the nature of envy, of Hubris, entitlement, and Pride. Thus, the Left conquered America (slowly to us, over decades, but lightning-fast in terms of history) by playing itself off as the compassionate, concerned, and Holy Warrior for All Things Modernity. The Left played fiddles and violins as virtuosos, luring Americans with relative ease into a trap. While castigating every single one of our American principles – principles not hammered down our throats by useless, “old white men,” tyrants, or leftist dictators but astute, often damn well inspired thinking and planning men — the Left programmed America through slicker and better TV, film, and literary works as time progressed. Americans thought this all new. Americans couldn’t have been more incorrect.
While many of us on the Right slept like comfortable babies, the Left continued to improve its ground game, because much of humanity truly loves to be entertained and lied to on a regular basis. This is human nature. Under the auspices of “love” and “tolerance,” the Left exploited every base desire and instinct humanity has in order to program Americans to pledge fealty to their cause tacitly, but with more and more of everyone’s bank account and time the immediate cost.
The Right often (correctly) purports its principles and ideas as perennial, time-tested, and provably useful. But as this site has noted more than once, the Right does not often understand the Left, and one thing that it does not grasp is that the Left, too, is working within a framework that has existed since time immemorial. There is, as a wise man once noted, nothing new under the sun. The Right underestimates the passion of a Leftist at his own loss. If he, much like the Leftist, cannot fathom anyone espousing an ideology so inherently different from his own, then there is no way to defeat the Left in most situations. The man on the Right, in order to defeat the Left beyond name-calling and schadenfreude, must look back. There are many paths, often intertwined within historical works and religious works, not to forget astute fiction, that one can take to embark on this journey, but the end result is more than worth the effort.
Yet even more important than this is that the Right leaning man needs to understand himself more than anyone else.
While research into the narratives and tactics that the Left uses takes time and dedication, it pales in comparison to knowing oneself. Few in America, including those on the Right, have mental clarity. How could they? This American Modernity is a cacophony of bored people doing whatever is necessary to dull that boredom. While it is easy to sit back and criticize John and Jane Q. Public for sitting in front of the TV for hours on end and then wondering why they have no peace of mind and their neuroses become like clay sent through a kiln, the truth is that to achieve mental clarity in this Modernity requires a strange but heavy sacrifice.
Strange because this sacrifice actually loses us nothing but gains us amazing results and yet it does affect every familial and peer situation we have. So few can compute the notion of two, maybe three hours of utter silence in a night. Fewer can compute a home without a TV. Most Americans see meditation as a light form of self-affirmation and, indeed, meditation is affirming to life itself, but it is not a quick placebo thrown into the mix between Facebook sessions and Dancing with the Stars.
Though there are myriad pieces on the internet about what the Right is (pick a subset), and though this piece has no interest in disparaging or arguing with these works, no amount of pounding out blog posts about what the Right is will settle the issue internally for those who have the heart for the mission, as those at Amerika here possess. Most simply do not have the heart for this mission. Most are what wartime historians and photographers understand as supporters. They’re not “shooters,” so it is important to neither disparage or undermine their role. You’ve likely heard the stories of men going through the aftermath of battle and finding certain men — shooters — who were supplied under fire with guns and ammo because the supporters were not cowards, and in their way they furthered victory.
The Right and places like Amerika are where the people with a heart for the mission are trying to gather. And the Right needs to reflect, to meditate, and take the necessary steps to know itself beyond what it has known of itself for the past several decades. It rises, then falls, the inevitability of the pattern visible so often in its own tone and defensive nature. The Right has so often appeased rather than conquered, because the Right lost sight, in many ways understandable, of what it represents:
The compassionate conqueror.
The Right does not come to steal, kill, and destroy. The Right, however, does arrive with a sword, in many ways like a surgeon, to split the Truth from the narrative. That is the crux of all of its principles. That is the apex of the Right, and the goal of those who have the heart for the mission at hand. This process hurts. Oftentimes, it will alienate. There is no process in existence, in our universe, that does not. And yet it is good, for the end result is the reduction of entropy toward order. The Right can and does tolerate many ideological and religious differences, unlike the Left, which merely mimics toleration in order to infect, much like cancer cells “talking” to healthy human cells, in order to make its way through the security systems in our bodies. But the Right, like the compassionate conqueror that its principles exemplify, requires order and stability, because it tries to deal with reality and not wishes or Utopian desires.
Above all, the Right in America today should take heart in its own identity, rather than listening to anyone else’s ideas about its identity. It is the compassionate conqueror who, as the opening verse noted, has a spirit of Power, not defeat. The Right need not usurp anything. The Left are the usurpers, easily witnessed daily in our world. Theirs is not a spirit of power but of envy, spite, and trickery. As old as time. Witness the anger of the Left when confronted with Truth and reality to see this further. The man on the Right should cast off any ideas rooted in Leftism, and in our world of mix and match ideologies, many have crept in. The compassionate conqueror knows that he is correct, because he is in line with a larger universe, one seeking to decrease entropy, thus he is reserved, but not timid. This is the meaning of the word “meek,” in that it is a strength of body and mind that is kept under observation and reserved. It is not weakness. Nor is it arrogance. Finally, it is not petty nor given to addiction to schadenfreude. It is reserved but powerful, more or less, the adult in the room, to simplify.
America and the West will endure much misery along with good fortune in the coming years. The Left has no coping mechanism. It will continue to do as it has done for eons. Those on the Right with the heart for the mission and its supporters have hope, and a heap of it, as so many wake up and know that what they believed was as right as Right can be, and has been for as many eons. While the Left usurps, the Right can seek, find itself, and conquer.
Devoted people cast off attachment and perform action to attain purity of self, with the body, the mind, the understanding, or even the senses — all free from individualistic notions. — Bhagavad Gita, Chapter VI
As the Right continues to work through this renewed energy it has been given, it needn’t look anywhere but within in order to find its spirit of Power, for as cliché as it sounds, it was always there, merely waiting to be rediscovered.