Posts Tagged ‘individualism’

Conservatives, Conserve Heritage; Miscegenation Is Death

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017

Conservatives are those who conserve, and because not all actions turn out as well, they conserve the best of what is offered. This is the opposite of a utilitarian standard: instead of whatever is “okay” by the lowest common denominator in a large herd, they choose what is best, even if most people are not clear in their understanding of that.

As part of this, conservatives are natural environmentalists, despite mainstream conservatives doing little along these lines. They are also defenders of culture, although mainstream conservatives have done nothing there. But even more, they conserve genetics, which means keeping the best of the past and bearing it forward into the future.

This is why miscegenation is death, as Jared Taylor notes:

There is one argument for anti-miscegenation laws that is stronger now than ever. Whites used to have eight or ten children, but now they are not even replacing themselves, and every out-marriage is a tiny step towards extinction.

…But why preserve a white majority? Is it not because whites have a legitimate yearning for societies that reflect their own nature and culture, and that only whites can build such societies? If, in every generation, 9 percent of whites are contributing to their own demographic dispossession, that alone will ensure that they eventually disappear.

And what about the victims of miscegenation whom Derbyshire himself writes about: the Chinese men who wanted to attack him when they saw him with a Chinese woman, and the black women who hate it when black men chase white women? (Derbyshire leaves out other combinations but they can produce resentments that are just as strong.)

Racial-sexual loyalty is a powerful emotion. Should we just ignore it?

Racial, and more importantly ethnic, loyalty is powerful because it protects something powerful: traits are not just heritable, but genes cluster together in groups to produce those traits, and so when miscegenation — mixing of races and ethnic groups — occurs, not only are some traits lost, but the overall makeup of the ethnic group, like a network of traits, is lost too.

When Germans are 1/4 Korean, they are no longer Germans. They are something new. In the same way, if Germany because 1/4 Polish or Irish, Germans would no longer be Germans, with the same habits and abilities of Germans, but something new that has through a process of genocide replaced the Germans.

Seen through sane eyes, avoiding miscegenation is how a population maintains its health, along with other breeding habits that we have denied because the individualists among us want to believe that what matters is what they intend, not who they are. As Billy Roper writes, ethnic preservation cannot be separated from other healthy breeding practices:

People understood that eugenics, or purposeful, conscious and selective breeding, is just as real for two legged animals as it is for any other variety. They strove for quality in their offspring, which meant that they strove for quality in their mates, whether they were selecting breeding partners for themselves, or as was often the case traditionally, for their children. Not any more, of course. People drag around their accidents of birth like proud badges of martyrdom, forcing them on everyone else, eliciting painfully awkward, nervous grins and tolerance. Or else. Hell, most of you probably think I’m the world’s biggest jerk already, for not wanting to group slobber hug the cast from ‘The Ringer’, which is a funny movie, by the way. Hold on, I get worse.

When people no longer care about the genetic quality of their offspring, when they actively deny that genetic inheritance plays a significant role in intelligence, personality, temperament, and jump shots, they get just what they deserve. When they fail to see that inherited psychological and cognitive characteristics cluster in racial groups, and pretend that “love” is blind to color and really all that matters is a person’s heart, Kumbaya, then they get what they pay for.

Not only did America’s Founding Fathers make it illegal for nonWhites to become citizens of the United States, they also made it illegal for different races to intermarry. A lot of people don’t know that until very recently, those laws were still on the books, too. Anti-miscegenation laws were a part of American law in some States since before the United States was established and remained so until ruled unConstitutional in 1967.

Why would someone care about the genetic health of their offspring, the level of pollution in their rivers, the future of their civilization, or the presence of great art, symphonies and novels? After all, we will all be dead relatively soon, and what happens after that is not directly relevant to us. However, that is not quite the full story either.

We find meaning in life through connection to things larger than us. These can be material things or spiritual things, but either way, by connecting to the world beyond ourselves, we have discovered beauty and importance to life. We cannot make life important on the basis of ourselves as individuals, because we are pursuing tiny pleasures, miniscule powers and transient wealth. We can however discover what is great in life and, through it, find what we value in ourselves.

That drive to virtue is the basis of dislike of miscegenation. It is beautiful that our people have existed for millennia, upholding their values and unique abilities, and conquering many obstacles in order to create great civilizations. It is amazing that all of us, no matter how small, can have a role in that if we choose to do so.

But, in order to do that, we must overcome our egos. This is what is meant by the idea from Toynbee that great civilizations are not killed, but commit suicide, when we pair that idea with another from Plato, which is that in order to know what is true, we must first want to be virtuous and take our place in a complex order where we each have a unique role, but we are not all the same, either as equal individuals or one mass hive-mind.

The ancient Greeks knew that hubris was the death of a civilization. Once people see themselves as more important than any external order — nature, logic, civilization, morality, or religion — they begin to act like squabbling monkeys, fighting over personal importance and temporary issues. The goal is forgotten, and the possibility of anything great is foreclosed.

You can see this individualistic outlook in some recent entertaining Communist propaganda from The New York Times:

Having lived her first 43 years under Communism, she often complained that the new free market hindered Bulgarians’ ability to develop healthy amorous relationships.

“Sure, some things were bad during that time, but my life was full of romance,” she said. “After my divorce, I had my job and my salary, and I didn’t need a man to support me. I could do as I pleased.”

Ms. Durcheva was a single mother for many years, but she insisted that her life before 1989 was more gratifying than the stressful existence of her daughter, who was born in the late 1970s.

“All she does is work and work,” Ms. Durcheva told me in 2013, “and when she comes home at night she is too tired to be with her husband. But it doesn’t matter, because he is tired, too. They sit together in front of the television like zombies. When I was her age, we had much more fun.”

Nevermind that the actual topic of this article is that people in “free” societies work too much. You can also ignore the fact that Communism failed to produce much of anything consistently, where the West built a great industry. The answer is somewhere in the middle, perhaps a capitalist state without any government entitlements or benefits, so that people could work less and have enough. But the real point is that Ms. Durcheva was proud of her days when she did not need a man to support her and could do whatever she wanted.

Whatever she wanted. That is the face of individualism: do not do what is right, or what is meaningful, but what you, the raging ego, decide that you want. Notice that there is no discussion of whether this activity was productive or filled her soul with joy. She was a king in her own little sphere, with her job where she was important and a personal life where she could be free from commitment. Life became not an activity with purpose, but a series of sensations, all dedicated to the individual. That is why we call hubris “individualism” now.

The New York Times only wants to draw more women to Leftism with the promise of being able to do whatever they want. It is the call of manipulation because every human responds to it: the idea that they do not need to struggle for meaning or sanity in life, but can become entirely self-sufficient, separate from nature and the logical results of their actions. They are in control, and no one can make them live up to standards, be good, or even be useful. It is all about the ego, which is both a warm feeling and an infinite abyss.

We face the same problem in explaining why miscegenation is destructive. Why care about anything but the self, my beautiful self? Even if that portends the death of meaning, people do not seek meaning because they do not understand it. When it is there, they appreciate it, but when it is not, they settle for egomania and hollow, simple pleasures.

Avoiding miscegenation is part of a path to meaning. Some of us naturally connect to something larger than ourselves; we are the producers and the civilization-builders. Others do not, and will pretend they are not miserable by rationalizing how much of “muh freedom” and independence they have. But in the end, that is a path to emptiness and death, even if the body lives on.

Individualism and Nature

Saturday, July 29th, 2017

The courtroom filled with vultures and snakes, and each one wanted me dead. As an outsider to this group — coming from one of the outer belt moons instead of a nice, middle-class planet — I was already not one of them, and the fact that I had made their clique look bad was the clincher. This was through no fault of my own.

“All rise…” intoned a bailiff, hand on his stun weapon, eyes on me.

There was the usual boilerplate, introductions, disclaimers, miscellany, and other formalities before I found myself on the stand. The whole trick in court is that when you are on the stand, you see an entirely different room than you did before. Before, you saw the judge. Now, you see a group of people and know that whatever herd instinct they fall into relying upon will decide your fate.

“Describe for us the events of the date in question,” said my lawyer. As far as I could tell, his job was to make a bargain — a compromise, a pragmatic quid-pro-quo — with the other team, and deliver me into an appropriate sentence. On the other hand, in my view, I had done nothing wrong, which is why I was surprised to be arrested hours after the event, where they found me in an unlicensed church. I have no idea how they found me, but fifteen guys in combat gear came in and bodily removed me, and ever since I have been spending time in a locked cell with only a single window to view the world as the finite hours of my life passed by.

The judge nodded, and so I began. “We were a combat scout team deployed to a new and promising world. It had Earth-like temperatures, slightly on the warm side, and dense vegetation resembling that of the Triassic Era of our planet of origin. As scientific advisor, I was sent along to assess feasibility and to serve as second rifleman, which has always been my technical rank in our unit, since I lack the ambition to be formally recognized by military rank.”

“Objection, irrelevant,” said the prosecution.

“Overruled. Irrelevance itself is not against the rules of this Court; he is simply rambling. Witness, keep your attention on the narrative. Go on,” the judge rustled in a bloom of black silk.

“Where was I? Right, so we landed at about 0400 hours. Myself and my fellows — Dak, Zak, Mak, Vak and Hak — went north to the foothills of a mountain range, covering a half-dozen kilometers of jungle and prairie. I took numerous samples which are listed on the evidence table over there. Most of what we sampled were small invertebrates of two varieties. One had webbed wings like an insect, but soft bodies like butterflies, and the other were blind worms that thrashed along the surface of the dirt, eating vegetable matter like a cross between slugs and roundworms.”

I continued, since no one had objected. “Life was bountiful here. We spotted thousands of these little creatures. I kept sampling the air for microbes but found nothing threatening, similar perhaps to the ‘crobes of our own Jurassic period. My impression was that this world had a lot of potential, but that the hotter a world tends to be, the higher the presence of parasitism is because nutrition is easier for organisms in a hot climate, so there is excess which is exploited.”

Sort of like this courtroom, I thought, but did not add.

“Dak, who was ranking as a corporal, said we should acquire a vantage point to see if we could observe any large animals, as we had not seen any for some time. We climbed a small mountain or large hill, depending on how you look at it, and found ourselves on a jungle plateau. I took additional samples here which were lost somehow after my arrest, although they were in the custody of the military-scientific liaison group. My defense team has petitioned for these but received no answer.”

“Objection, hearsay,” said the prosecution.


I sighed. “These activities took us until mid-day, at which point it was decided to break for rations. Having covered quite a bit of ground, we were famished. We broke out rations, heated them, and started to eat, then Hak found a tea bag — ”

“Objection, witness is trying to deflect,” said the prosecution.

I waved them off and continued. “A teabag was found. It was decided that water was needed. One member of the team was either dispatched or dispatched himself to find water, over my objections, since we had not sample any aquatic life and so had zero verification of its safety. However, it was decided by ranking leadership that water itself, if properly boiled, could not harm us. But through this act, our doom was decided.”

As it turned out, Hak had found quite a beautiful little pool. Surrounded by gentle trees, with a soft breeze rushing over it, it was the loveliest and most inviting pool I had ever seen. These guys would not care about that, so I continued: “We found a small pond. At this point, it was blazingly hot — the notes are in my after-action report, if you can find it — and so Zak asked permission to strip down and go for a swim. Morale was sort of low at this point, since we had quarreled over whether there could be water for tea, and so over my objections, leadership decided that we should have a swim.”

“At that point, the events in question began. The others got into the water, but I refused to go, even when told by a commanding officer to do so. In my view, his order was illegal because we had not yet sampled the water to see what kind of life, if any, was in it. This is detailed in my report, which I do not see on the evidence table, where I felt strong objections to going into the water.”

The prosecution flexed his fingers below his chin. “And so, at this point, you began to resent your colleagues?”

I thought. “No, I would not call it resentment. I was determined not to follow them in their folly, mainly for the risk of bringing an unknown organism with multiple life-stages — think of a liver fluke — back onto our craft. It was bad procedure and there was no way I could ever agree to it. I would do the same today, honestly.”

A murmur went up from the crowd, earning a hawk-eye of disapproval from the judge.

I went on. “At this point, the group was fairly agitated. They were having fun splashing around, and were finally free from the heat. I wished for the same, but not through their methods. They started to call to me where I was seated on the bank of the pond.

‘Don’t be such a fag, get in here!’

‘Always a spoilsport. Quit being such a bitch.’

‘We’re all doing it, why are you such a nerd?’

‘Whatsamatter, what’s good for us isn’t good enough for you? Such a little prince, nose in the air.’

‘He thinks he’s too good for us! What a bigot!’

And so on. I have to say here that I did not particularly take heed of this, as I am told that such ribbing is in the tradition of our unit, so I had mentally filed it under camaraderie instead of antagonism. But after they had been in the pool for just, well, about two or three minutes, something changed.”

The silence in the courtroom made other sounds loud. I could hear the electricity arcing through the lights above, and the fan on the computer the court reporter was using. Even through the thick insulated doors, the mutterings of the crowd outside reached me. My stepfather and surrogate mother were out there somewhere, probably disappointed with me as they had been my whole life, except when I finally got appointed to this team which I had, in their view, screwed up.

All eyes were on me. “I noticed it first with Mak. He had been swimming in little circles, but then he started wriggling.”

“Wriggling — ?” the prosecution asked me.

“Yes, shaking, squirming, moving uncomfortably, like a weird dance or an uncomfortable child. It was an odd motion, now that you mention it, and that must be why it caught my eye. I called out to him and he turned to me. Dak told me to shut up. But as Mak turned, I saw that he was writhing in pain, and that there were… creatures in the water around him. There may or may not have been samples taken, and if they were, they were filed along with my after-action report, alive, but I do not see the chit on the table either. I will describe these creatures.”

The court remained silent. If I were on a power trip, or just an egomaniac like most people, I would have relished this moment. “They were about ten centimeters long, and were segmented worms with an outer carapace, like Earth millipedes or centipedes, but instead they had mouths like a lamprey inside a little armored head, like a tiny placoderm. And in place of legs, they had little flippers that were like the bodies of tiny flat snakes, so not bony like ordinary fish fins or flippers, which are usually a mammalian or bird adaptation. Any samples that I may have taken were extracted very carefully from the surrounding water using medical tweezers and a solid glass, kevlar-topped sample container.”

“But I am getting ahead of myself. Before I took the samples, I was talking to Mak. The others had stopped swimming at that point. Mak was in the deepest water, and he was doing this writhing dance, but was clearly not drowning. Then he turned to us, and opened his mouth, and inside of it I saw all of these creatures thrashing as they dove into his flesh. He looked at me with tense eyes, clearly in pain, and then the creatures thrust upward and all the life went out of those eyes as they ate the brain. He was dead before he sank into the water.”

A ripple of emotion cross the courtroom, bounced off the far wall, and lapsed into the middle in an entropy caused by lack of actual caring.

“At this point, I yelled to Dak to get the others out of the water. Zak started slashing at the water, and said, ‘They’re coming in through my penis!’ at which point the others started heading toward shore. But it was too late. They each started to do the death-dance, the little creatures having drilled into them and then attached their limbs to one another so that they formed a big rope, which then was sucked into the body where they began to feast. Piranhas and candiru have nothing on these little guys.”

The judge waved for me to go on.

“Before they died, Dak and Vak called for me to save them. They wanted me to pull them out of the water, or use my shock rifle to help. The problem is that the shock rifle would have killed them as well, and that going into the water would have put me in danger.”

Aha! The prosecution leaned in and said, “Isn’t it your job to go into danger in service of your comrades?”

The entire audience sat back. This was the moment they were waiting for, when the person who violated the sanctity of the herd would be punished.

I thought, and then said slowly, “There is no part of the rule book that says I am obligated to destroy myself to rescue a doomed comrade. You will see in my defense brief a listing of military cases where soldiers refused to aid those who had made bad decisions and doomed themselves. As it stated in our military book of law, there is no general obligation to render aid to another where rendering such aid would not change the outcome. And in my view, there was no hope in this case.”

“And on what authority did you make that determination?” sneered the prosecution, angry that his guillotine moment was over.

“The timing. Mak died in a matter of minutes, but even before that, he was beyond saving because his internal organs had been consumed. They eat the brain, heart and lungs last, probably to keep the meat as fresh as possible during their feasting. From the fact that these organisms had already entered their bodies, I knew that my comrades were doomed, and by their own choice, against my advice.”

The prosecution swept toward me, his robe forming dark wings behind him with the sudden movement. “But you were not the ranking officer here, so it was not your decision to make,” he said.

“No, I was not. However, I was the only scientific officer, and this was a scientific and not military question. There was no military objective in the pond. Nor was there any part of our mission that covered the pond, or I would have objected until we brought equipment that would allow us to safely sample the creatures within. None of the others had scientific training or background with biology, as I did. And so I had to make the determination on that basis.”

The courtroom fell into a complete lack of energy. The moment was defused. The excitement was gone. I had stood up to the crowd and, whatever they did to me, they would have to lie about it in order to make it seem like my defense had no basis. Then again, with so much of my evidence missing, I had zero expectation of fairness. But I went on.

“Seconds later, all four of the survivors were doing the writhing dance with increasingly frequency, like Mak had done in the moments before his brain was consumed and he lost consciousness, leading to animal death. In sequence, they each turned toward me, opening their mouths so I could see the swarming mass, and then the eyes went out as the creatures dove in and ate the brain. Then they fell back into the water, and the mass of creatures converged upon them, eating everything. They were even able to consume bone, which is why I was careful to use the bite-resistant sample container. They ate everything — eyes, sinews, hair, bone, and teeth — and left only the contents of the intestines. Three minutes, maybe, after the event began, all that remained of my comrades were five heaps of dung on the bottom of the pond, which I could see through the clear water.”

“In my opinion, we encountered a world that stayed in its Triassic-like state but for some reason, kept earlier creatures around from the Devonian era. These evolved, but instead of becoming new creatures, became more effective versions of themselves. The planet may have simply been too rich with life to squeeze creatures into new forms. Needless to say, this explained why we saw few larger creatures. These nasty little attack-worms normally feasted on the blind and idiotic invertebrates who moved randomly and so, inevitably, ended up in the pools where they were eaten. But any larger creature that came to drink water would have been destroyed immediately, so the parasites blocked further evolutionary potential.”

The prosecution fulminated in a corner. Seeing this, the judge asked, “In your mind, did you do anything wrong?”

I pursed my lips. This smelled like a trap. “The question is not in my mind, your honor. Human reasoning comes in three varieties: deference to the individual, or individualism; deference to the group, or collectivism; and deference to principle, logic, knowledge of nature, science and other abstractions that reflect an understanding of how the world works. Ironically, while the first two are purely social determinations, religion and philosophy belong to the latter, because they too are based on principles of how our world is composed and how acts in it tend to resolve, and from that, how to make the most of what we have. I defer only to science, somewhat, but even more, logic.”

“There was no way to save those men once they went into the pond. At that point, they had to be considered infected because of the presence of a parasitic species in the pond which our science does not yet know how to counter. For me to touch them was to risk exposing myself to the parasite, and it was more important for the safety of those to follow that this information be passed along. Their loss was a result of their choices.”

At this point, the courtroom returned to an uproar. Blaming the victim! Desecrating the dead! The energy returned back to the lifeless room. The bailiff hustled me out because he was afraid that the crowd might attack. But I knew this was theater. The real attack would come through the judge who, apologetically shrugging, would explain that from the necessity of keeping the group together, I, too, had to be sacrificed. And that is what happened. As it turned out, the ship taking me to an off-world penal colony suffered a fire, and had to crash-land on a distant moon, putting me right back to where I started. But that is a story for another time.

How Political Correctness Paired With “The Customer Is Always Right” To Make the New Totalitarianism

Wednesday, July 26th, 2017

As the Alt Right struggles to find its new direction while other Right-wing movements fade away, some of us offer a radical piece of advice: it should face the grim fact that our downfall has come through our own bad decisions, which arose from a selfishness and desire for power that led us to deny the natural order of life, and so our solution lies in undoing these bad decisions by replacing them with healthier goals.

For us to do this, it makes sense to inspect in depth the mistakes of the past so that we can recognize in each a fundamental principle, and through that, avoid repeating that principle in a new form. Principles are invisible; they can only be found by understanding the structure of an idea. They repeat in entirely different-looking forms, and when we do not recognize them, they cause us to repeat the same mistakes.

What rankles the Alt Right begins with a typical Leftist behavior, namely the tendency to change thought by making certain methods or ideas taboo. When you cannot use the appropriate method or idea, any given task or issue becomes “inverted,” or comes to mean the exact opposite of its original meaning because the thought process required to understand it is prohibited but its inverse is not. Language shifts and soon, everything in society is upside-down, and nothing means what it should.

One of the prime methods for this in our present time is the issue against which the Alt Right stacks “free speech”: political correctness, or the habit of making certain topics, notions and words off-limits in order to invert the meaning of the issues to which they refer. One explanation of why this is destructive comes from a striking critique based in utility, not morality:

[I] agree with Peter Thiel that political correctness is important in sustaining the stagnation of the West. It’s not even the particular topics that can’t be discussed. It’s the cowardice and the getting in the habit of constantly watching what you are saying that leads to a suppression of intellectual daring and genuinely creative thought.

Early on here I was named by a man who made a living from wind energy as one of the top 10 climate deniers on Quora. A strange honour, I suppose, but also just a little sinister. One had the sense that there was a gunning for such people because one by one they were banned and suspended. Baiting people into saying something that could be considered a violation of the cult of nice, something easy to achieve when you are close to a moderator. Probably it would have happened to me too, except I mostly write about other topics and some people liked what I wrote. If I worked for a big company with a bureaucratic social media policy, possibly it would have been much more effective.

The context is people have proposed criminal sanctions against those with differing views about causation of fluctuations in climate and what if anything we should do about it. Combined with the social ganging up I described above, do you not think this is likely to have a chilling effect on peoples’ expressions of ideas in this domain, and perhaps also in others.

Most people are smart enough not to disagree with the consensus of the group. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down. Group think isn’t some esoteric mildly interesting phenomenon but is at work every day in human groups, large and small. If there had been more people like Michael Burry, the financial crisis wouldn’t have happened. But, as Peter Thiel says, what does it say about us as a society that it’s the mildly autistic and more that are able to go against group norms and those who are more neurorypical don’t do that. It wasn’t always like this, and it probably won’t be in future.

A healthy society needs to be able to tolerate dissent, even about painful or controversial topics. The way to regulate conversation is to replace bureaucracy with good manners, because those can be much more adapted to changing and heterogeneous situations and are less susceptible to being exploited by opportunistic players that game the system. See also Scott Welch’s response below, about which I make no further comment. Except to say that the language used in his answer and in the comments is a pretty nice illustration that Quora does not appear to be serious about creating a forum where people are expected to exhibit nice and respectful behaviour (let alone good manners). BNBR is used as a weapon to shut out dissenting views (see Solzhenitsyn below) – but there’s a lack of seriousness about it. It’s one instrument but one that’s wielded according to the belief systems – and, more problematically, values – of the people running Quora.

Solzhenitsyn at Harvard: Harvard Commencement Address (A World Split Apart):

Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to flock together and shut off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of a petrified armor around people’s minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.

Ultimately it doesn’t really matter if the most pro-PC people accept these arguments or not, because the world is already changing. People increasingly value an unpolished authenticity, and I don’t think anything is going to stop this new trend from developing now it has gotten started.

This is a basic utility argument: when some ideas are taboo, it prevents them from being discussed at all, and this is enforced by decentralized totalitarianism where the majority of people refuse to engage with these ideas from fear of ostracism and retribution, so they simply fall into a memory hole and disappear entirely from public consciousness.

Equality itself gives rise to this phenomenon. When all people are equal, all viewpoints must be tolerated, but this quickly comes into conflict with the noticing of natural inequalities — mostly between social classes, but also including sex, ethnic group, race and sexual preference — which means that some of the equal people will feel marginalized.

Compound this with the fundamental method of equality, which is to “make” people equal by Robin Hood style actions involving taking from the more-successful and giving to the less-successful, or in other words, defending the underdog as a categorical practice. Whenever someone more-successful is in conflict with someone less-successful, the more-successful person is attacked.

Aha. This gives us the root of political correctness, which is that if one of the equal citizens finds himself being observed to be unequal, the right way to fix this is to penalize the person who notices the inequality. Given the power of the Dunning-Kruger effect, this means that only those with the brains to observe reality semi-correctly are censored, and idiocy is given center stage in the ultimate inversion.

Naturally, this leads to domination of the less-successful — who are most likely lower in caste, intelligence, wealth, power, class and competence — over the success. The weak eat the strong because the Crowd enables the weak. Witness this in action in an otherwise advanced legal system where noticing caste differences is a crime:

Calling a Dalit by his caste with a view to insulting him or her is an offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), the Supreme Court has ruled, upholding the conviction of two persons in Tamil Nadu.

…”The word ‘pallan’ no doubt denotes a specific caste, but it is also a word used in a derogatory sense to insult someone (just as in North India the word chamar denotes a specific caste but it is also used in a derogatory sense to insult someone).

…”In our opinion, uses of the words ‘pallan’, ‘pallapayal’ ‘parayan’ or ‘paraparayan’ with intent to insult is highly objectionable and is also an offence under the Scheduled Cast/ Scheduled Tribe Act. It is just unacceptable in the modern age, just as the words ‘Nigger’ or ‘Negro’ are unacceptable for African-Americans today ,” the bench said.

Equality always goes this way. Diversity just makes it easy because it enables the herd to analogize caste to race, and in our modern egalitarian agenda, racial discrimination is the worst sin ever. This may go back to the days when Americans allied with China and had non-whites serving in its military, and so had to ban discrimination as it threatened loyalty to the State.

Egalitarianism itself mandates diversity. If all people are equal, all races are equal. And nothing seems more discriminatory and inegalitarian than singling someone out for something he cannot control, namely a condition he was born with such as race or caste. Equality must be achieved, and to do that, all differences between people must be eliminated or hidden, in this case by social taboo.

What this means is that in our minds, the idea of equality becomes a runaway train that rolls right over every aspect of life. This egalitarian outlook leads to a type of inward focus that becomes a paralyzing narcissism:

The cause of our narcissism is equality. Not equality before the law, where everyone is bound by the same legal code. That is a fundamental right and necessary for justice, freedom, and happiness in a democracy. I’m referring to equality of conditions—our economic well-being and social status, the material aspects of equality Europeans experienced when they broke from the caste system of their homeland, shedding aristocracy and an impenetrable class structure that denied them access to material wealth and limitless possibilities.

…But equality, like freedom, has its dark side. Just as too much freedom leads to libertinism, anarchy, and destruction, equality (or the expectation of equality) leads to entitlement, self-centeredness, isolation, idealism of human perfectibility and progress, autonomous individualism, materialism, and ultimately despotism.

As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “One must recognize that equality, which introduces great goods into the world, nevertheless suggests to men very dangerous instincts…it tends to isolate them from one another and to bring each of them to be occupied with himself alone. It opens their souls excessively to the love of material enjoyments.” It makes him a narcissist.

Who is de Tocqueville restating here? He is channeling Plato, who famously said:

The State demands the strong wine of freedom, and unless her rulers give her a plentiful draught, punishes and insults them; equality and fraternity of governors and governed is the approved principle. Anarchy is the law, not of the State only, but of private houses, and extends even to the animals.

Father and son, citizen and foreigner, teacher and pupil, old and young, are all on a level; fathers and teachers fear their sons and pupils, and the wisdom of the young man is a match for the elder, and the old imitate the jaunty manners of the young because they are afraid of being thought morose. Slaves are on a level with their masters and mistresses, and there is no difference between men and women.

At last the citizens become so sensitive that they cannot endure the yoke of laws, written or unwritten; they would have no man call himself their master.

With these two views of the same thing, we see the problem with equality: without focus on something outside of the self, people become obsessed by the self like a golden calf or the One True Ring, and pursue it with a mania like addiction, because like all good dependencies it provides brief relief from noticing drab reality, and then as the situation settles back into normalcy, requires more of the drug.

Diversity serves this pressure for inward focus by enacting a pincer strategy on civilization: one claw of the pincer is increased alienation and atomization, and the other is a need for self-validation in order to keep the addiction going. People simultaneously flee the public sphere and cling zombie-like to ideology.

All of this arises from the need to “create” equality through banning negative but true observations about the lower castes. Diversity happens in parallel with the maniacal, Soviet need to enforce equality for other groups — women, homosexuals, transgenders, odd religions, the retarded — because both originate from the same root in egalitarianism, and naturally and inevitably develop into these special interest “identity” politics.

This identity in turn reflects a lack of actual identity, because egalitarianism has eaten that right up, and instead a need to find some reason why one is special and hopefully a victim, because that way the individual deserves to be made more-equal through wealth and power transfer from the more successful. This is the crisis of identity:

But the truly notable thing about today is not so much the obsession with identity – it’s the instability of identity. Humans have been hunting for identity for centuries. The instinct to define ourselves, to project ourselves into the world, is strong. And there’s nothing wrong with it. What’s new today is that identity has become an incredibly subjective phenomenon. ‘I identify as…’ Where once an individual’s identity was informed, or shaped, by experience and belief, through an engagement in the public sphere or with a party or association, today identities are self-consciously and often defensively constructed. The NYT, in its description of 2015 as the year of identity, asked: ‘How do you identify? [W]hat trait or aspect of your being is central to your idea of yourself, and your relationship to the world?’ The keyword here is your. The NYT doesn’t ask ‘What are you?’ or ‘Who are you?’, which would speak to a strong sense of being something; it asks what ‘aspect of your being’ is most important to ‘your idea of yourself’. ‘Being’ is treated almost as something external to the individual, a thing to be mined for ‘traits’ we might identify with. Identity is not something we are or we experience; it is a technically cultivated category, built from ‘traits’ and ‘aspects’ to give ‘an idea of yourself’.

What the NYT and many others describe as new era of identity politics is in fact an era in which the historical, traditional underpinnings of identity have been ruptured, or even destroyed, unleashing an often desperate search for new identities, a rush for self-identification, for shallow identity construction. The subjectivity of human identity in the 21st century is striking, and alarming. Today, to feel something is to be something.

Arising from the nature of equality itself, identity politics speaks to a need for self-validation, which is the second claw of the pincer. There is no identity outside of the self, so people look for a group to join, but since this is not related to any actual membership, it becomes entirely symbolic. The individual wants a position from which they are able to justify their narcissism.

Not only that, but any existing identity that is actual threatens their ability to choose any identity they want, which in turn limits them to being what they are, which violates equality. The manic, all-devouring instinct of Leftism toward culture, religion, heritage, race, ethnic group, customs, calendar, cuisine and even symbols comes from this need to be the determiner of their own identity.

Equality makes people into crazed individuals, gazing inward and finding nothing, thus trying on different identities as a means of being special enough and marginalized enough to have power in a society that is constantly pushing people downward in order to enforce equality. The root of this churn lies in the nature of Leftism itself:

It is Liberalism that believes in the Autonomous Individual, it is Liberalism that always hides its real beliefs, it is Liberalism that has turned us from Nations into mere economies.

…Lying is the only way they can gain support so they do. They never talk about the Autonomous Individual instead they talk about freedom, about freedom of choice and other such nonsense. Why?

Because the Autonomous Individual has no need of a country, or a family, or a God, or anything. It is a life of hopelessness and pointlessness and they know it. They don’t talk about it because they see a perfect world and the Autonomous Individual lives in that perfect world. But if they went to the next election talking about people getting to live in a perfect world people would reject them and they know that. They never talk about where their philosophy leads because to any sane person it holds absolutely no appeal. Who wants to live a life were they have no family, no roots, no history and no future, only today repeated endlessly until death?

Political correctness is the vanguard of Leftism. Like the outer shell of a virus, it merges with the wall of a cell, making it think that the virus is part of itself. Then, the virus enters and reprograms that cell with its own DNA, so that the cell propagates the virus, sacrificing itself in the effort.

Pair that with “Keeping Up With The Joneses,” which in this case is symbolic, and people begin excluding dangerous ideas while repeating obvious lies, just so that they stay relevant and are part of the in-group that gets all the wealth and power. They will eventually adopt a victimhood pose through the identity Olympics, and act out increasingly extreme versions of egalitarian idealism.

Enter another cliché: “The Customer is Always Right.” This is the basis of mercantile middle class ethics and explains how societies are taken over by bad ideas. Bad ideas are always popular because they are simpler, and therefore make the person considering the idea feel more powerful for having this simple, clear and absolute bottom line. No merchant will refuse a customer the right to purchase an illusion. For this reason, business and law follow public opinion, and when enough people are keeping up with the Joneses by being politically correct, the governments and corporations follow suit.

From this, all of the evils of civilization decline flow, and the society goes out like Rome, anesthetized to its own decline because the way that individuals succeed is by jumping on the bandwagon. What is right, is wrong. All values have been inverted. And so the people of that society play follow the leader all the way to their eventual doom.

Our only hope of avoiding this is not to fight political correctness, but to orient our civilization toward a different direction entirely, one in which what is true, right, sensible, logical and leads to the good is more important than our selves and our individualism. This requires a breakaway group who will rise above the rest, who seek authenticity so thoroughly that they aspire to a society of virtue:

In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us.

The primary idea of virtue is that we, as individuals, are less important than the patterns of reality that show us how to adapt to our world. The inversion of this idea, individualism, arises from the Renaissance™ and Enlightenment™ and holds that the human individual is the new order that replaces nature, and therefore we can ignore both the physical aspects of nature that our wealth and technology have conquered, as well as the pattern-order of nature that determines what thrives and what dies in the long term.

Virtue commands that we eschew individualism in favor of purpose, and that this purpose must be like that of nature, which is an aristocratic and relentlessly aggressive drive toward constant improvement. Our society beat back the wolves and starvation, but it cannot beat the cycles of time and the logical way in which nature works. Virtue is the ultimate realism.

Right now, our civilization has fallen, which was formalized in the World Wars. All of our decisions leading up to those were based on individualism. If we want to rise again, and at the core of the Alt Right is a desire that we do, we will need to rediscover our virtue and discard the individualism that leads to political correctness and eventually, downfall.

Hubris, Odysseus, Captain Ahab And Saruman

Thursday, July 20th, 2017

Perhaps you are tired of hearing about hubris, a concept which like all good ones is easy to grasp but has many nuances. Who wants to hear that there is an order to nature, and human order imitates it, so we have a hierarchy based on intelligence and moral character? This means that most of us are Indians and there are only a few Chiefs.


The point of avoiding hubris, however, is that then each person finds themselves in a place where they are both not threatened by excessive competition, and able to excel in what they do. A peasant acting as a king would fail; a peasant as a peasant is within his element. Balance, order and sanity are restored.

Human history resembles a cycle by which people come along, ignore the natural order, rise above their place in the hierarchy, and then destroy not only themselves but the work of others. Great tragedies come from this, including the eradication of entire civilizations. This is why the ancients identified hubris as the core problem of humanity.

Perhaps the most famous tale of hubris is The Odyssey. In it, Odysseus is praised for being a crafty, wily, cagey and sometimes deceptive man. But before he can be at peace with his powerful intellect, he has to get over the arrogance which he displays as a kind of “tee hee I’m so clever” hipster-style behavior. The whole point of the book is his voyage to conquer himself.

The Bible references hubris as well, carrying that ancient idea into modernity. In the Garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, they are attempting to gain the knowledge of God, which would be rising above their place in the hierarchy. Their hubris gets them exiled from the garden.

In another story, King Ahab — one of the “bad” Jewish kings that coincide with a rise in pretense in the nation — made himself notorious by marrying a pagan woman, Jezebel, and turning toward worship of idols, which are physical objects pretending to be gods. Idolatry is important because it confuses method or symbol with purpose or goal.

When the purpose of an act is to worship the divine, and the method of worship, which is fashioning a symbol or a symbolic object for the divine, becomes confused with that purpose when people worship the idol instead of the divine, religion has been inverted. In ancient cultures, they were well aware of the risk of finding facts to fit a theory instead of a theory to fit the facts, and that is exactly what inversion is.

Ahab gave his name to one of the most distinctive characters in Western literature. Captain Ahab, who destroys himself and others in pursuit of a white whale, provides the archetype of modern fiction: people caught by the lure of hubris, pursuing some object that gives them power so that no one can tell them what they cannot do. It is the quest for freedom, revealed as the lust for power that it is.

To realists, freedom is kind of a bad joke. We recognize that most people need only a small amount of leeway to be happy, that they need a goal, and that some acts are destructive and must be minimized if not outright prevented, and so “freedom” is a substitute for doing what is right, which is to encourage the good and discourage the bad. But humans perpetually seek freedom, a kind of hubris in that they are no longer restrained to act exclusively within their part of the hierarchy.

Moby-Dick was probably the inspiration behind The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien’s study of the pursuit of an object that grants unlimited power to its wearer. This ring represents the human lust for hubris and having no one who can tell you what not to do. And yet, having people who can tell others what not to do is the basis of not just value systems but hierarchy itself.

The ring reveals the nature of our desire for power, which is really a form of hubris:

In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien writes about a mysterious ring that essentially dominates the minds of those who possess it. Many theories have been written about the ring and what it symbolizes, including that it is a metaphor for technology or even language itself. I suggest that Tolkien told us exactly what the ring meant: it is referred to as “the ring of power,” and power is what it wields. We might describe power as meaning the ability to control without a natural parallel, or power for its own sake. This separates the type of power the ring wields, which is a freedom from natural consequences, from the might of a king which involves nurturing what exists and improving its prospects. The ring allows a person to detach from the rules of nature and in secret — because its power hides them from view — doing what they wish for themselves alone.

The irony of the ring — based loosely on the tale of the ring of the Lydian Gyges in Plato and the ring in the Nibelungenlied — is that it changes its wearer. They gain power, invisibility and immortality but in turn, they become servants of the ring because it replaces their motivation toward life with a will for power alone. Hubris destroys civilizations and makes us all slaves to the false hierarchy of power, in which there are a few in control and a vast mass of equals who are used as a mass.

The one consistent attribute of power is that it requires turning the rest of the world into a means-to-the-end of the perpetuation of that power. It is an addiction. We can all imagine a king in this position, but more commonly, each individual desires power, and if they take the path of hubris, they are then forced to fight to maintain their status, like a gang member in prison.

Nowhere is this made clearer than in the parable of Saruman in Lord of the Rings. Born a wizard, he sought to rule Middle Earth along with arch-nemesis Sauron. This quickly led him out of his depth, and Sauron — who had even less of anything in his soul besides a lust for power — quickly manipulated Saruman to his doom. Thus it always goes, when hubris is the agenda.

Understanding Individualism

Sunday, July 9th, 2017

It is good to see that the Alt Right is catching on to the problem of individualism in the dead West. Individualism means what the ancient Greeks called hubris, or making oneself more important than the order of nature.

That order of nature is a tricky thing. Most people cannot physically comprehend it; that is, their brains lack the circuits to wrap around all of what it entails. It means not just natural order as it is in material terms, but its logical principles, and more subtly, the directions like evolution, quality and supremacy toward which nature subtly moves. It includes the realm of the gods as well as that of men, plants and animals, and is more of a pattern of patterns than a tangible thing. It is above all else, a system of organization.

Each of us have some place in that order. We are born to our places: some will be farmers, some plumbers, some clerks and some kings. Individualism, on the other hand, states that the natural order is not important, and that the individual should come first before all else. The whims, desires, judgments, feelings and impulses of the individual are more important than any other order, including civilization, nature or the divine. Individualism became the dogma of the West with The Enlightenment,™ the Renaissance,™ and the rise of egalitarian thought (ideologies dedicated to humanity equality, which means “no one can be sent away”) centuries ago.

You can either live for yourself, for the group, or for some intangible third entity which includes both, like “race” or “ethnic group” or “civilization” or even “tribe.” In fact, sane people live for all of those; a German wants to live according to the customs of his people so that his people and their values and ideals continuity in perpetuity. Anything else is not motivation, but rationalization of a failure to have some goal so inspiring that it animates a person over a lifetime. Individualism and collectivism, in this view, are two sides of the same coin: instead of living for the eternal, we are living for the material, in the form of our own comfort and safety or that of the group. Heroes, geniuses, inventors and philosophers are not made from such paltry stuff!

Even more, collectivism is individualism. No individual wants to be told “No” or sent away from the group, so the individual demands a rule that all must be included, based on the theory of pacifism, which is that it is more important for everyone to get along than for the group to find realistic answers, since that process involves conflict. Individuals band together into mobs to enforce this individualism. They seem like collectives, but each individual is participating because he thinks he will get something out of the effort he invests. People are self-interested actors. They do not join collectives out of altruism, but selfishness: here is guaranteed participation in not just the social life, but the wealth of the group, and an expectation that like a placental fetus, the individual can offload the costs of its survival onto the group through a process known as externalization or socialization.

This is the secret history of individualism in the West. It has steadily infested us for over a thousand years, and in its triumph, has decided to destroy culture and heritage, so that nothing comes before the individual and its protector, the State. How well we can see this depends on how we define individualism:

No, my problem with America is how dog eat dog it is. How “fellow Whites” will go out of their way to pull you down, just so that they can scramble up over you. They’ll side with minorities to do it to you as well. It’s not right, and it’s not healthy. This lack of solidarity steadily chips away at the fabric of society.

…There is this belief that we are perfect the way that we are, and that all our problems can be blamed on external forces and external tribes. While there is more than enough evidence to prove that there are indeed hostile groups within our societies that blend in and want to corrupt us, do us harm and eventually destroy us, that’s not all that’s at work here.

…I believe part of this stems from the American experience compared to the European experience. Europe was racked by many absolutely devastating wars. Everyone was hurt, and from mutual suffering, a shared consciousness grew. People understood that bad things could happen in life that could hurt everyone. You could die one day from a bombing raid through no fault of their own. You weren’t a loser because you died in a war. You weren’t a loser if you wanted socialized medicine to take care of you in case of misfortune.

He has a great point, but misunderstands individualism. Individualism is not people trying to escape from the herd; it is the herd. The collective is formed of individualists. The Communists were the most selfish people ever, and thought that they should get free support from the rest of society whether they did anything or not. What he calls individualism is in fact the reaction to individualism, which is people trying to cut free from the demands of the herd.

We do not want to be socialists. We do not want to be Leftists, or egalitarians, or individualists. These are effectively the same thing.

Our current situation where white people refuse to help one another is the result of egalitarianism. In a society of equals, every other person is a threat. They want to take your money from you in taxes; they may report you for having non-egalitarian opinions, as happened in France and Russia and was usually a death threat for the person reported. Most of all, we have a “crab bucket” where, because everyone starts out equal, we are all trying to beat down everyone else so that we can rise to a point of comfort and escape the horrors of the system.

In other words, the above article gets it exactly wrong when it defines individualism: socialized medicine is individualism, just like any other government benefit. Tolerating people just because they are white is individualism. No one can be thrown out from the group, in that way, which means that individuals can behave however they want and the rest of us are still forced to tolerate them and eventually, subsidize them.

It makes sense that the Alt Right is experimenting with socialism. They are looking for some philosophy that is very popular, and “no one can be thrown out” plus “free stuff for everyone” is very popular because it addresses a deep fear in each of us. We are all afraid of a Darwinian event where we run out of money, screw up badly enough to be thrown out of the group, or otherwise end up falling short. We like the idea of rules that say that society must keep us around and has to pay for us.

But this is not the path to greatness. It is the path to mediocrity, as has been shown in every society that has embraced it. If social welfare were good for Europeans, they would be breeding at replacement rates. If it made them happy, they would not be so self-destructive. If it actually ended poverty, we would have fewer poor people instead of the growing bloom of them that we have now.

Another article correctly identifies that egalitarianism is the root of inequality and social status games:

Thanks to egalitarianism, the new elite is liable to see the lower orders, not as a Third Estate that, while socially subordinate, is an indispensable member of the social body (the “backbone of society”) with rights all its own that the elite must respect and protect (noblesse oblige), but rather as the losers in an egalitarian contest fought inter pares, and thus deserving nothing but contempt, degradation, and humiliation. For the so-called “Conservatives”, Blacks and Aboriginals have earned the world of poverty, family breakdown, addiction, and criminality in which the rank-and-file must live; for the so-called “Left”, the White middle and working-classes deserve all that and much more. The Left’s attitude towards Blacks and Aboriginals is tempered by a sort of paternalism, and moreover by a more purely cynical appreciation of the political uses to which those groups can be put; but their attitudes towards non-elite Whites are those of a conquering army towards soldiers of the army it has just defeated, or dreams of defeating.

When Leftists brought out class revolt in the US, they guaranteed that those who could rise above the herd would try to destroy all of those below them, because the lower echelons are inherently trying to do the same to them. How do we know this? Lower castes innately attempt to destroy higher castes because higher castes limit the destructive behavior of lower castes by enforcing behavior norms that lower castes lack the biological ability (wiring) to understand; for more information, see the Dunning-Kruger effect, which basically states that none of us can understand anything that requires more intelligence than we have in order to understand. Lower castes have lower g, or general intelligence, as well as lower moral character. There is a reason for the hierarchy, which is that when the most moral and intelligent are in charge, we all thrive; when the lower castes, including the most dangerous of all who are in the middle and thus smart enough to make things work in the short term at the expense of the long term, are in charge, our civilization collapses.

The dirty secret of humanity is that all civilizations die the same way: through caste revolt. The upper castes, who are the more intelligent and capable, are unable to prevent the lower castes from running into problems, as the lower castes naturally reproduce at a higher rate, and therefore make themselves starving. Instead of accepting that they have made an error, which requires a biological intelligence they do not have, they scapegoat those in power and overthrow them, creating a dying civilization which lives off the wealth and power of the past without creating replacements, and over time fades into obscurity as a dead civilization that is now yet another third world ruin of once-great human potential.

In pro-white activism, one question has remained so bedeviling that it has taken on mythical significance, and it is, “Why did whites not unite in order to preserve themselves?”

The answer is as obvious as it is profound: they were already divided. Once class warfare has hit, and the herd has demanded that the higher lower itself for the mental convenience of all, those who are most capable are fleeing civilization. They are no longer pro-white; they are in favor of their own escape from a society which is drugged on the illusion of equality, and so will destroy anything it touches. Your average intelligent white now is a drop-out, and he or she wants nothing to do with the angry rabble, who think they have escaped culpability for mass revolt but in fact are associated with it.

We know how this situation will work out because we have seen it before. Maybe 10% of our society will escape the coming cataclysm and go somewhere else to rebirth Western Civilization; the rest will be bred into the third world. The poor will simply become brown, but the rich will be a mostly-Caucasian group hybridized with Asians and Africans, much like today’s Jews, who demonstrate acute mercantile power but unfamiliarity with literature, philosophy, religion and heroism. The capable people among us aim to be part of that 10%, and they will not spend any time trying to “save” those who have tried to destroy them. In fact, they will welcome their demise, since without the lower echelons, society could move on as it does in nature, through evolution.

This sounds brutally cruel, but it is how the world works.

There is an alternative, of course, but it involves strict hierarchy. If you are born a butler, you stay a butler, and similarly for those plumbers and clerks. Some are born to rule, mainly because this acknowledges what Charles Darwin learned namely that all traits are heritable, and preserves the traits necessary for leadership — found in fewer than 1% of the population — so that all of us can benefit from them in future generations.

Naturally this presents a problem: hierarchies are the opposite of democracy and equality, and those are the founding myths of our time. If you tell the average modern person that no one is equal, he will consider you Hitler or worse. Or at least, he used to. As we see the end results of liberal democracy, it becomes clear that the worst dictators and kings could never do this much damage. Democracy is a pathology which leads people to chase after the illusion of equality like Ahab, heedless of whether or not it destroys them and their cohorts, so long as it is achieved.

Those before us knew this; consider the approach of the founders of the USA:

Their main bulwark against tyranny was civil liberty, or maintaining the right of the people to participate in government. The people who did so, however, had to demonstrate virtue. To eighteenth century republicans, virtuous citizens were those who were focused not on their private interests but rather on what was good for the public as a whole.

They were necessarily property holders, since only those individuals could exercise an independence of judgment impossible for those dependent upon employers, landlords, masters, or (in the case of women and children) husbands and fathers.

Our founders recognized at some level that equality was nonsense, and so intended a hierarchy. In their view, those who worked the land and made greatness of it should rule above those in the city, who only attended jobs and ran their lives on credit. Their ideal of democracy was that the productive and sane members of society should vote, while the herd had no say, much like the European feudal system.

The problem they encountered is that the vote is seductive. It is gambling; you go to the table, cast your vote, and see how the cards reward you. As a result, there is no sense of accountability or responsibility, only a feeling that one chooses the right option like betting on horses or cards, and hopes for the best.

Because of this, even the most reasonable republican government quickly gives way to mob rule, as happened in our past. Despite knowing better as individuals, when grouped into a herd of individualists, even the most sensible people went along with the herd. This shows us the lesson of America: no matter how much you limit mob rule, it returns to mob rule.

As long as we have democracy, there is no future for our civilization. Democracy is the political form of individualism, which really is the individual turning against the goals of civilization in favor of short-term personal reward. Those who demand socialized medicine and other benefits are at the forefront of this movement, and pull everyone else down to their level through passive aggression. There is no survival for civilization when this takes over.

We should — if we want to rebirth Western Civilization, which formally died in 1945 — instead look toward the following stages:

  1. Look toward a vision of what is desired. I suggest Lord of the Rings plus space ships, achievable through a few basic methods.
  2. Unite the 2-5% of our people who do all the important work, at every level of society. Much like the Pareto Principle states that 20% do 80% of the work, it is clear that 5% or fewer do most of the decision making.
  3. Most important: take over our governments, probably by infiltrating our institutions while advancing a cultural wave that rejects Leftist thought, beginning with the notion of “equality” itself.
  4. Change government to favor the type of society we want, transitioning from liberal democracy to monarchy and choosing our best people to rule and own pretty much all of everything, thus restraining the herd.
  5. The purge: all who are not of the founding ethnic group must be repatriated, ideally with reparations, and all who are of the founding group but not in line with its ideals must be exiled.

After that, life finally has a chance. Society will have a hierarchy, where higher caste people make all the important decisions, and lower caste people are ignored. The herd will be cut back to size. Instead, the most competent will rule, which is our only alternative to how things are now, when the least competent rule.

What holds us back is recognizing that there is no “white = right” rule to life. White people are highly varied. America functions best with Western Europeans, and even those are divided by caste, and when the lower classes initiate class warfare as they are prone to do, everything falls apart.

We must remember the two options before us:

  • Left = equality
  • Right = order

Order requires a pattern to life larger than the individual. This is offensive to lower-caste individuals, but is accepted as normal by higher-caste people. Our recent history consists of turning against this truth, which has revealed to us that most white people are foolish when it comes to leadership decisions.

We know democracy has failed. Even more, we know we did it to ourselves, through the thinking of The Renaissance™ onward. No other group has the power to do this to us. We did it to ourselves, by following what seemed right, but it was wrong. Time to change direction, and in doing so, give our civilization the chance to rise from its ashes yet again.

Libertarianism Is A Variety Of Leftism And Should Be Avoided

Sunday, June 25th, 2017

What are libertarians? Libertarians (sometimes called “lolberts”) are classical liberals: people who believe that everyone is competent, and therefore that what the market chooses will be the best solution. They tend to be rugged individualists who want as few rules as possible regulating their conduct, including use of drugs and gun ownership.

Naturally, realists find this kind of comical. What use is liberty, when most of the people on your planet will behave simply like selfish fools? We are back to the problem with utilitarianism and democracy, which is that there is no wisdom of crowds; the crowd is a plague of locusts who will devour everything, give nothing back, and leave a ruin which cannot regenerate.

Utilitarianism, after all, sounds good on paper. You do what brings happiness to the most. Well, how do you find out what makes them happy? Simple: you ask them. But then… but then we are into the realm of what humans think, not what they do, and this is an inherently superficial realm because we barely know ourselves.

The same is true of democracy. People vote in self-interest. How the heck do they know? They guess, or “estimate,” if we are being polite, but most of these people run out of money a week before the next paycheck. And they are supposed to understand financial policy, foreign affairs, domestic tranquility, human genetics and long-term survival?

People have an inner dimension and an outer one. The outer one is easily influenced; it is where socialization rests, their reactions and fears, desires and whims, and the narrative they tell themselves about their lives, why those are good, and what they are intending to do. The outer layer is inherently after-the-fact; we observe our world and make up stories about it that make it make sense.

The inner dimension is less easily influenced. This consists mostly of urges, like a primal will to assert oneself as independent and worthwhile, a desire to do good — in some — and any intuition, concept of spirit or soul, and basic instinct to a person. This is the part of us that is both extremely “animal” and most cerebral, not as material- and event-driven as the outer layer.

Ironically, an inversion occurs here, as it usually does when we cross layers. From the outside, the inner dimension looks like the outer dimension and the outer dimension looks like the inner. That is: the part of other people that is accessible to us — their outer dimension — appears to be their actual self. We re-order reality to be convenient for our minds.

For this reason, individualism deceives us. We think we are living for our true selves, but in fact, we are living through the outer dimension of ourselves and others. This means the most malleable, least personal and most conformist parts of ourselves. Individualism inverts individuality by making us justify our “me-first” attitude in the language of others, which then destroys that individuality.

As always with human “good intentions”: it’s a trap!

Now this requires us to revisit our ideas of equality and individualism. These things, instead of liberating us, create utilitarianism, or a society devoted to minimums shared by the largest group, which is in effect a suppression of individuality. While egalitarian ideas sound good to us at first, they really reduce us to our most trivial parts, ignoring who we are.

That allows us to have some fun laughing at lolberts virtue signaling about how individualistic they are:

Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy that considers all people deserving of equal rights. In contrast, Spencer is a tribalist and collectivist whose personal commitment to identity politics vastly exceeds the left’s.

No, you are not individuals; you are conformists hiding behind “individualism” as a way of disguising the fact that you have no inner purpose or plan for civilization. You have retreated from the notion that humanity can succeed, and now all you want is your condominium and grocery store, and to hope the rest just goes away.

As people in horror movies inevitably find out, wishing the monster would go away never works. The monster here is our lack of purpose, as a species and as communities within that species; our lack of purpose arose from our dedication to mercantile matters, thanks to the rising middle class, instead of virtue or moral behavior that leads to the best results in the longest term.

We need a non-modern society. Modernity is the era of egalitarianism, which as shown above, is not about individuality but forming a superficial mass of people to mobilize toward one fascination or another. You can dress up egalitarianism in different costumes, like libertarians pretend to be frontier woodsmen, but in reality, all of it is the same.

And the term “collectivist” should cue you in that you are about to be subjected to utter stupidity. Collectivists are individuals because a mob is formed of selfish people each acting so that he gets what he wants, with the mob enforcing his right to do it. This is why mobs are known for lynchings, looting and turnstile jumping. They are formed of selfish individuals who want to avoid accountability.

On the other hand, tribalism offers us something that is not entrenched in our sick modern individualism. Tribes have an identity, which means a purpose and goal, and they have principles. Each person serves an unequal role in the tribe but so long as they help achieve this cooperative goal, they are accepted and respected as part of the community.

Tribalism requires us to reach down into those inner traits. What would we sacrifice for? What is worth dying for? At the end of the day, we rely on our intuition. Life is good, therefore something good created it. Other people can be good, so we care for them. We do not want to be placeless, identityless, and purposeless just so we can claim to be individualists. We want a place and purpose to bond us to life and make it worth living.

Why Are People Prone To Destructive Behavior?

Saturday, June 24th, 2017

Throughout human history, the cycle repeats: a few innovators create something good, then the herd arrives, then the good thing becomes the same old thing, and then it becomes a ruin and “no one” knows why.

Like most cycles, this one repeats because the behavior that causes it is the same, sort of like how one might regularly trip over the shoes left outside the door the night before because that was a convenient place to take them off. Humans exhibit the same behavior time and again.

What is important about this is that the behavior is unintentional, meaning that its results were not intended or even considered by the participants. They did what made sense, and ended up at bad results nonetheless, but for some reason, cannot learn from the experience so repeat it pathologically.

If we dig down a bit, we can see that the problem is individualism, or the tendency to put self first before concerns for the right type of order and social structure in an organization. To defend this choice, individuals glom together into collectives to force the group to tolerate each of them or face their collective wrath.

In ancient times, individualism was seen as hubris. The ancients saw the world as having an intangible order of rightness, balance, beauty and truth. This was not truth in our modern sense of isolated facts, but truth in that it was an accurate representation of intuition and order of nature united through a type of creative imagination that “saw” the world in metaphorical terms.

Hubris was the violation of this order, which was not categorical in our modern sense of giving every object a single category identity and then filtering with a yes/no type of thought process. To the ancients, everything had its place, and when all was in balance, life itself could not be altered as in Utopian fantasies, but it could be gradually qualitatively improved.

For this reason, the ancients never changed the fundamental form of human civilization, which involves an aristocracy, caste system, ritual customs, strong symbolism, and a type of vision of reality that we might describe as “hallucinogenic” and “mystical” today. For the ancients, the world was alive, and we humans were just actors in a bigger drama that we could not possibly understand.

Individualism inverted all of that, by saying (per The Enlightenment™) that the order of the universe was the human being, and that what mattered was the material safety and comfort of the individual, and not having any things above the individual — heritage, culture, kings, gods — for which the individual must sacrifice. The ego won out in the battle of parts of our personalities.

But now, others are speaking out about the corrupting and destroying role of individualism in human affairs:

I see the curse of extreme individualism in so many areas. There is the fact that so many people who have been converted to our ideas prefer to remain anonymous, disorganized and inactive. There is the fact that the overwhelming majority of our people are so sunk in extreme individualism that they don’t care about our heritage or the fate of future generations – the most extreme example being the millions of women who have aborted their own children…More broadly, the American family and civic organizations in general have crumbled as a result of the triumph of expressive individualism in our culture since the 1960s.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the author of Democracy in America, once observed that the extreme individualism fostered by liberal democracy leads to extreme conformity. In liberal democracies, the common man doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of Public Opinion, which is his Almighty God.

And others have incorporated it into the anti-individualism position of the Alt Right:

The alt-right is against the free market and cares little for the constitution. Spencer opposes individualism and supports a version of the European Union, but has also expressed admiration towards the Soviet Union for protecting Russians against Western liberal democracy.

They are correct. The individual is the only God that modernity will accept. From the idea of equality, which states that all must be included and treated the same despite the wide variation in their contributions and sanity, to the notion from The Renaissance™ and The Enlightenment™ which states that man is the measure of all things and the human form — not content — is idealized, this era was defined by its worship of the individual. It has ended, as selfish things always do, in a cloud of debt, failure, corruption, insanity, selfishness and neurosis.

How to escape individualism? One can only escape a bad goal by finding another goal, because the state of having no goal always results in default human behaviors. One must desire something else, such as the desire to become good:

The mainstream modern assumptions are that the aim of life is hedonic: enhancing happiness, diminishing suffering – the main moral imperative is unselfishness, sharing.

…So perhaps the most valuable thing that could be done nowadays is to strive for sanctity, in oneself I mean.

…The world does not really need more people to ‘do good’, but for some people to become good.

This is consistent with the vision of the ancients, namely the observation that humans during a Golden Age were motivated by virtue instead of materiality, as chronicled by Plato:

When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.

Individualism is materialism. By training our minds on what we are now, and fearing its loss, we become defensive toward the world and thus try to control it, which in turn controls us because it makes us beholden and obedient to certain illusions. A better perspective is to fit the individual into a natural order, and to take delight in that role, because when we are where we belong, we not only do no harm but have our only chance for real excellence. Better to be an excellent janitor than an inept stockbroker or general!

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.

Recommended Reading