Posts Tagged ‘interview’
Friday, March 31st, 2017
From some years ago, an interview with Jim Goad that never really seemed complete, but nonetheless is an interesting view into this intriguing thinker, activist and troll. We are fortunate to present his words here on Amerika as a way of understanding the complex philosophy from which he comes. Without further ado…
You are known for taking what seems to me a deliberately “antisocial” viewpoint toward society, in which you shy away from the politeness, flattery and conflict avoidance/inoffensiveness that seems to be a modern behavioral code. Are there any social values to being antisocial? Can a civilization be “too social”?
I’m glad you at least qualified it with the word “seems,” because I’m absolutely and sincerely antisocial. It’s entirely effortless for me to be antisocial, and the idea that I’d “deliberately” write that way sort of insultingly implies the audience is important enough to me that I’d alter my style for them, even if in an antagonistic way. If I was polite, that would be the result of effort and deliberation.
And I don’t feel as if I “shy away” from anything; rather, it’s those who mince words in order to please their own chosen herd who are shying away. I’ve never heard of “shying away” from politeness, only from confrontation, so that’s a new concept for me. I simply value and respect myself more than I do any aggregation of humans I’ve ever encountered.
I agree with Nietzsche’s dictum about how madness is rare in individuals but the rule in society. And I don’t care if there are “social values” in being antisocial or not. That’s why I’ve always rejected the idea that literature should have “socially redeeming value,” or else it’s obscene and illegal. What if the crux of your writing is that societies are inherently loathsome?
I’m entirely suspect of herd psychology. All civilizations are too social, at least for my tastes. I think crowds are mostly for mental weaklings and the fundamentally unexceptional. If that makes me autistic or the enemy of some dimwitted conformist “movement,” them’s the breaks.
If you had to identify the most formative influences on your writing and more importantly, your outlook on the world, what would they be?
Parents. Nuns. Politicians. Social engineers. Anyone who barked out a transparent line of authoritarian bullshit that, under scrutiny, proved to be entirely implausible.
When I was a kid, it was the myth of Santa Claus. As a teen, it was the myth that Jesus rose from the dead. Around age 30, it was the myth that with a little nurturing and nudging, we’d all be equal. And whether or not I agree with them, I’m also fond of people who have the bravery to go against the grain because they sincerely believe they’re right.
The philosopher Plato and historians Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee write about a cycle of history, in which civilizations are born, age and die. They point out how this death-process begins from within and is a natural consequence of civilization aging, unless counteracted by the cultural and political leaders of those civilizations. Do you think such a thing could happen to our civilization here in comfy North America? What about Europe?
I tend to agree with the idea that civilizations are like super-organisms. Not too sure there’s much of a remedy once they start aging and dying. I think America and Europe are both obviously declining. And I agree with Toynbee that civilizations die from suicide, not by murder. People of European stock are the only ones on Earth who feel good about feeling bad about themselves. That’s not exactly a recipe for success.
Some would say we live in a time when our elites have decided on a political dogma that replaces reality. Others, more cynical, might say that the citizens spaced out. Either way, it seems there’s a schizoid division between what my television tells me, and what I observe. Do you find this to be true and, if so, how do you use your famously irascible personality and mocking humor to break down the dichotomy?
When in history did elites preach a dogma that was realistic? When they lied that Jesus rose from the dead? That all men are created equal? That they had our best interests in mind? As far as I know, all they ever did was preach things that would divide, confuse, and placate the masses.
A couple generations ago they were preaching something else, but I don’t think it was necessarily any more realistic. You know those comparative picture games where you’re supposed to circle everything in Picture “B” that’s different from Picture “A”? That’s what I try to do in my writing — I try to circle everything depicted as “reality” in the mainstream media that doesn’t jibe with the world as I see it.
But I’m skeptical enough about human nature that I don’t think it will result in any grand, sweeping changes and usher in some New Dawn that makes any more sense. At best, it might enable to find me a few kindred spirits whose very existence doesn’t annoy the living shit out of me, but anything beyond that would constitute self-deluded wishful thinking.
Did you observe any parallels between the types of political interaction and control found in prisons between inmates, and the types of political manipulation used in international politics?
I’m not sure I understand the question, but I’ll give it a stab—in prison, everyone seemed to get along because ethnic divisions were acknowledged and respected, whereas in international politics, no one gets along because these divisions are denied and demonized.
If you could live in an ideal society, what would it be? Is there any way for us to get closer to there?
Asking the wrong guy. To me, the term “ideal society” is an oxymoron. To me, what would be ideal is a place where there’s as little society as possible.
The term “intellectual” has been ruined by ivory tower academics and pretenders who spout complex-sounding verbiage that is contentless and self-aggrandizing. Is there room in our society for rugged thinkers who are not poncy academics, like the Ernest Hemingways and Jack Londons of old?
Again, what is “our society”? If you’re referring to the tightly controlled media-created modern hive mind, no, there’s definitely no place for white males who don’t feel bad about being white males. Modern society has defined the white male as Satan, and I’ve never seen any simplistic angels/devils theological construct that makes room for Satan.
Saturday, March 18th, 2017
Kahanism is a realist Israeli/Jewish nationalist position. It asserts the need for the Jewish people to live by their own standards, acting toward self-determination, preserving their own methods and values against the norming and entropy that is the default of the world. We were fortunate to get in an interview with Jonathan Stern, a Kahanist thinker and political force who has spoken in the past in defense of pan-nationalism.
What is Kahanism, and how does it differ from other Zionist, pro-Jewish or pro-Israel movements?
Kahanism is a right wing Jewish nationalist movement founded by the late Rabbi Meir Kahane. The ideology of Kahanism is known as the “Jewish Idea” and teaches that the Jewish people must form a Jewish-only ethno-national state in the Land of Israel which would be governed by Torah Law, not democracy. One obstacle to forming such a state is the presence of millions of Arab Muslim occupiers, who migrated into the land of Israel over the centuries since the Roman Dispersion in 70 AD, so Rabbi Kahane was extremely active in advocating for their deportation en masse from Israel and this is what he is most famous for.
However Kahanism isn’t just about Israel. Kahanism also espouses a global worldview which promotes nationalism in across the world and opposes multiculturalism. Kahanism is a traditionalist ideology which opposes liberalism, drug use, rap music, tattoos, promiscuity, homosexuality and other sexual perversions, and opposes intermarriage and the cultural assimilation of Jews into gentile society. One of the core tenets of Kahanism is “every Jew a .22”, and Kahanists believe that in order to be strong and free, Jews must arm themselves.
Hence Kahanism is extremely pro-2nd amendment and you will be hard pressed to find a Kahanist that doesn’t carry (or at least own) a firearm. Rabbi Kahane fiercely supported the war in Vietnam, (even writing a book about it called The Jewish Stake in Vietnam) and was a ferocious enemy of Communism, notoriously leading a violent campaign of terror against the USSR in the 1970s and 80s. Kahane also supported Apartheid in South Africa.
In regards to the United States: we believe that America was built as a White, Judeo-Christian country and that this is what has led it to be great. We do not hate Blacks for being black, nor do we hold animosity towards members of any other race simply because of their being born into that race. However we realize that multiculturalism and “diversity” are destroying the fabric of this country, and see that this experiment of a giant ethnic melting pot made up of people sharing no ethnic identity, cultural commonality or history is a disaster and is ultimately unsustainable. Hence we feel a natural kinship with White, Christian Americans who have allowed us to flourish in this country, and to whom we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.
While Kahanism is a branch of Zionism, most Zionists consider us to be racists, bigots and right-wing extremists since we oppose western democracy, and reject the idea of a secular, socialist, multicultural Israel where Arabs are given full rights as citizens. There are several different factions within Zionism, [which are] Labor Zionism (Socialist/Communist), Revisionist Zionism (Capitalist/democratic), and Religious Zionism (Religious/Statist). While Kahanism is a form of Religious Zionism, it is much less tolerant and politically correct than mainstream Religious Zionism which believes in peace with Arabs and promotes “religious and ethnic tolerance.”
Would you say it was “right wing,” as the media does, and if so, do you consider nationalism to be a right-wing view?
I would say that at least according to today’s concepts of left and right, Kahanism certainly falls well within the right-wing camp. Accordingly, nationalism in and of itself also falls within the category of “right wing” under those same notions.
What drew you to this viewpoint, and how has it changed your life since?
I became involved in Kahanism at a very early age, as a result of the Crown Heights Riots in 1991, where blood-thirsty black mobs rampaged through the streets of that New York City Orthodox Jewish neighborhood, murdering and pillaging at will; while the NYPD (under the order of Black leftist mayor Dinkins) stood by watching and allowed it to happen.
This event taught me several things: that no matter what the liberal Jewish establishment tells us, blacks and other minorities are not our friends, and liberal politicians will allow Jews to get killed in order to pander to their votes. I understood that we can never rely on others to protect ourselves, and that Jews must arm themselves and train hard for communal defense. And it made me understand that even though we are ethnically unique and a nation unto ourselves, Jews are White and that Jews in America must live among Whites and unite with our fellow Whites in order to defend ourselves against these savages.
I became very close with Rabbi Binyamin Ze’ev Kahane, the son and heir of Rabbi Meir Kahane, (Binyamin [was] later murdered by Islamic Terrorists in the West Bank in 2000) and I have been active ever since. Kahanism has empowered me to be a strong, proud Jew, brought me to serve in the Israel Defense Forces and fight for the land of Israel, and has inspired me to advocate and pass on my ideology to others.
How much has Kahanism been revived by the victories of Trump and other right-leaning events, like Brexit and Hungary shifting right, and possible quasi-nationalist victories in the Netherlands and France?
It is impossible to even begin to quantify the degree to which Kahanism has been revived by Brexit, the victory of Trump, and the rise of the National Front in France and other populist movements in Europe. What we have in common with all these movements is that we are all Nationalists. The Torah teaches us that there are 70 nations, each with its own language, identity and culture, and that this is the way G-d intended the world to be.
Artificial and unnatural globalist entities such as the European Union destroy the boundaries between one nation and the other, and these boundaries exist in order to maintain balance in our world. People across the western world today are waking to up to how destructive multiculturalism has been to all but the globalist elite and third world savages, and are revolting against this globalist tyranny which has already caused so much damage and mayhem. These nationalist victories have given us a shot of energy not seen in decades.
Each day, more and more people are flocking to our cause and joining the ranks of our movement. After almost two decade of being practically inactive, we are now having large events and rallies where hundreds of excited young people attend and bring their friends. Our online presence has also elicited a tremendous response from supporters (both Jewish and Gentile) from across the globe, wishing to lend us support.
Theodor Herzl wrote that the only way to escape persecution by national populations was to become a national population, effectively ending the diaspora. Do you think this is possible and, if so, what form would it take?
Herzl was correct in his assessment that the Jewish people will eventually need to become a national population, all residing in our own homeland in the land of Israel, and that this will be the only practical solution to defeat antisemitism. Now, mind you, I didn’t say, end antisemitism; I said defeat it, because antisemites will always hate the Jewish people no matter where we are, and will always attempt to annihilate us, even as a national population in our own land. However if we create a powerful ethno-national Jewish state with the right ideology, we will be able to fend off these attacks and no enemy will ever succeed in defeating us.
The problem with this is the practical aspect. First of all we have the current state of Israel, which is frankly a disaster. It was established as a secular, socialist state, built on the Soviet model by avowed communists. Instead of adopting Torah Law as its basis, it adopted western values and a tailor-suited version of “democracy” in order to run things. The result has been where you have a state that on the one hand claims to be Jewish, yet on the other allows millions of homicidal Arabs to reside and vote there, even though they are murdering Jewish citizens every day.
The state also prides itself on its gun control, Socialism, embracing “gay rights,” and promoting every disgusting Cultural Marxist perversion under the sun. There is a large population of right-wing religious Jews there who would gladly put the state on the right course, but the Globalist leaders stymie them and go so far as to employ draconian measures such as arbitrary arrests and administrative detention (open-ended jail terms without trial or access to legal council) in order to silence them. Rabbi Kahane’s political party, Kach, was banned in Israel by left-wing socialist Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin in 1994, and so Jewish Nationalists like us are essentially unable to advance our cause there for the time being.
We hope that eventually we will be able to replace this disgraceful entity with a true Jewish State, a State of Judea, and that at that point all the Jews of the world (left wing multiculturalists excluded) will be able to return there and fulfill this dream. We are fighting hard each and every day for that to occur. But for the time being, it seems that right wing Nationalist Jews can accomplish much more to advance our goals while living in the United States. We may have to wait a long time to all return to our homeland, but we have unbreakable faith that one day it will happen.
How must Israel deal with the problems of hostile populations within its borders, such as Palestinians, and hostile populations elsewhere in the middle east, such as many of the more fundamentalist Muslim states?
If Israel was a true Jewish state, it would round up all Muslims within its borders and expel them to any other Muslim country as Rabbi Kahane proposed. Once they are expelled, the problem of an internal security threat will cease to exist. In regards to fundamentalist Muslim States in the Middle East, there must be a policy of an iron fist. If any one of them so much as dares to lift a finger against the Jews, they must be attacked brutally and punished to the point where they will never again consider belligerence.
If that means random carpet bombing of their cities and killing large amounts of civilians (such as what the US and Britain did to Dresden and Tokyo in WWII), so be it. Aside from this iron fist policy, there is no reason for us to intervene to overthrow secular Arab dictators (such as Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad, Moamar Ghaddafi, and Hosni Mubarak) so long as those dictators keep to themselves and do not bother us in our own land. What happens between them and their people is their own business and none of our concern. We do not need to be in the business of “promoting democracy” in the Middle East.
Do you think it is reasonable, realistic and logical for the United States to ban some Muslim immigration?
I think it is reasonable, realistic and logical to ban all Muslim immigration into the US. The question is only one of if there is a will by the people. I believe a majority of Americans support banning Muslims from coming here. The only thing standing in our way is a handful of radical left wing activist judges. Just like a majority of this country rejected homosexual “marriage” yet these activist judges ignored the popular will and forced it down the everybody’s throat, and more recently with the activist San Francisco Federal Judges overturning Trumps lawful executive order banning Muslims, these judges are the real obstacle standing in our way. And the truth is that there is a very simple solution to this problem: just ignore their rulings.
There is actually precedent for this in our history. In the 1830s the Supreme Court refused to allow the removal of Indians from their lands in the South, but the President just ignored them and did it anyway. These judges only have as much power as we are willing to give them. If Trump were to completely ignore their rulings and force policy, what power would they really have to stop him? Of course this again comes down to the question of if there is a will by the American people to do this. Because if there is, nothing can stop us. But there is another elephant in the room here staring us in the face which we can not afford to ignore.
What about all the Muslims already here? Even if you banned every Muslim in the world from setting foot in America, you’d still have several million “Muslim Americans” who are already established here AND have been committing ALL of the Islamic terror attacks we have faced in recent years. Why is everyone ignoring them? Why should their piece of paper stating that they are US citizens differentiate them from a Muslim fresh off the Boat from Syria or Afghanistan? In fact, they are much likelier to commit an attack than a new comer from the Middle East. So the only answer in regards to effectively solving this problem is for all Muslims to be actively removed from the United States, including those who are American Citizens. Of course the ACLU will cry “racism!”, but at the end of the day, this is the only way to make America safe and no other proposal will ever actually work.
What do you think is the future of the “melting pot” model of the United States? If Herzl was correct, would this not lead to an internal clash of civilizations between different minority groups?
I believe that the “melting pot” model of the United States is an unworkable disaster and is bound to lead to a horrific end result. Without a doubt, this will lead to a massive clash of civilizations among different populations which is likely to descend into a full-out civil war. I am sure if Herzl were alive today, he would tell you exactly that.
You have told Haaretz newspaper that Richard Spencer is “a white nationalist who stands up for white people and there is nothing wrong with that.” Does this mean you believe in pan-nationalism, or nationalism for all ethnic groups?
I am a Jewish Nationalist first and foremost, but Jews are White, so naturally I recognize the logic behind White Nationalism. One should promote his own ethnicity first and foremost before he promotes the interests of others. Blacks do this, Muslims do this, Hispanics do this, so should Whites. So I respect Spencer for his level-headed advocacy in defense of the White Race. I definitely believe in nationalism for all ethnic groups.
How do you reconcile the need for the principle of nationalism with the fact that this will involve supporting others who are hostile to Jews, or even derive some inspiration from National Socialism or Islam? Can nationalists “work together separately”?
Being a nationalist means putting the interests of one’s own nation above all else. If working with people who are somewhat antisemitic would advance our national goals, I would have no problem doing this. I would even work with Muslims if it helped our cause. I will give you one example where we actually did this to great effect. In 2005 an international (George Soros funded) homosexual coalition planned a massive gay festival in Jerusalem called “Inter-pride,” which was supposed to include gay parades, marches, film festivals, concerts, conferences, and numerous parties which always descend into sickening drugged-out gay orgies.
I was in Israel at the time, and we realized that in order to stop this abomination from taking place, we would need to join forces with other groups which we are unfriendly with, but share our anti-gay agenda. We reached out to the Catholic Church, Protestant denominations, Orthodox Christians, and even the Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. As a result of the contacts we made, all of these leaders joined forces with the Ashkenazi and Sefardic Chief Rabbis of Israel and held a massive press conference to denounce and reject this disgusting event. In the end, the Israeli government caved under pressure and cancelled the Sodomite festival. I have never worked with Muslims (or other enemies) ever since, and I hope I never have to again. But If I have to in order to achieve an important goal, I will.
However there are limits. There is no way at any point in time and for any reason that I (or any other Kahanist for that matter) would ever work with or join forces with Nazis or anyone who believes in or promotes any form of Nazism. That would make us sell-outs to our own people. However unlike many other Jews, I do recognize that most White Nationalists are not Nazis, and I hope to build strong working relations with various WN groups and leaders.
Do you think that “Leftist Jews” create enmity that is then attributed to Jews in general, and that perhaps the problem with certain high-profile Jewish people is their Leftism, not their Jewishness?
I absolutely agree that leftist Jews cause a tremendous amount of antisemitism. For instance, several high-profile leftist Jews were very active with the ANC fighting to undermine the White Government in South Africa during the 70s and 80s. The White South Africans welcomed them into their country, gave them freedom and enabled them to become wealthy and successful, and in return they stabbed South Africa in the back in favor of a bunch of bongo-beating, machete-wielding savages who deeply hate Jews and consider us useful idiots.
I am solidly convinced that the antisemitism of Eugene Terreblanche and the AWB was a direct result of this stab in the back by these few, vocal Marxist Jews, because in general the Boers are very pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist. And to be honest with you, I can totally understand them if that was the experience they had with Jews. Same goes for the liberal Jews in America who marched to end segregation in the South in the 60’s, end the Vietnam War and those that are promoting open borders, multiculturalism, diversity, homosexuality, transsexuals, abortion, debauchery, and every perversion under the sun today. If I was a hard-working, red blooded White American and constantly saw Jews promoting this garbage which undermines the nation that my ancestors fought so hard to build and maintain, I’d probably hate Jews too!
However what these folks don’t realize is that those outspoken, liberal Jews do not represent Judaism in any way and do not speak for all Jews. They only represent the spineless, Reform and Conservative, multi-culturalist SJW Jews, whose loyalty is not to G-d or Judaism, but rather to globalism and their own perverted selves. These pathetic Ghetto-Jews make Jews like me absolutely sick, and we commit ourselves to countering them at every opportunity possible.
Despite this, there will always be a segment of the population that no matter what, would and will always hate Jews. If every Jew in the world voted republican, supported Nationalism, heterosexuality, gun rights, etc, etc, they would still want to exterminate us, because they are Amalekites and that is their nature. These types of antisemites only understand a Jewish fist, and that is exactly what we intend to give them.
Do you think that Jewish people are more prone to Leftism than other groups, and if so, why? Do you see this as an inherent tendency, or an adaptive one related to being outsiders among national populations, or having some kind of internal conflict about being part of a religious/cultural/ethnic minority in a time when all of those things are somewhat taboo?
I think that proportionally, secular Jews in America are more likely to be liberals than members of other populations. I think the reason for this is that almost 2000 years of exile from their homeland, and living under a variety of oppressive foreign rulers has not only broken their fighting spirit, but caused them to adopt a perpetual victim identity and to always identify with the perceived underdog. Whereas, I see the Inquisition, the pogroms, and the Holocaust, and say that never again will my people be helpless victims of persecution.
I have learned to be strong in body and spirit and, to own firearms and prep for the day when I may have to defend my family and community. These libtard Jews on the other hand saw these same events and came to a diametrically different conclusion. They see that since this was done to us, we need to make sure that this will never again be done to any other people. So they start out by feeling compassion for poor, persecuted minority groups all across the world, and then they end up deluding themselves into believing that by advancing a “progressive” agenda, helping all the poor suffering illegal immigrants, Syrian refugees, “persecuted” homosexuals and transvestites, they are actually fulfilling a divine mission to make the world a better place. It’s delusional, but they seriously believe this, and their reform and conservative quack “Rabbis” egg them on with this garbage.
This “social justice” insanity can be broken, but it will take for these confused Jews to return to Torah and adopt an Orthodox lifestyle for their years of brainwashing to be broken and reversed. I know many people like this who grew up in convoluted Reform and Conservative leftist households, eventually saw that it was empty and fake and turned to Orthodoxy. Once they became religious and broke their ties with their former communities, they were able to see the farce that these liberal Jews believe in as what it is.
One thing to consider is that while these secular leftist Jews are quickly dying out due to a low birth rate and intermarriage with gentiles, the Orthodox Jewish population is growing rapidly due to a high birth rate and almost no intermarriage. Orthodox Jews are generally much more politically right wing, and solidly vote republican. In fact, most would be considered very far to the right, especially in regards to social issues. Demographics can not be ignored, and the Judaism of America’s future is Orthodox, not Reform or Conservative, so keep in mind that the politics are already changing now and will continue to change in the future.
If people want to support Kahanism, or follow your work, how can they do so and is there a way that they can donate or support you?
If people would like to follow us or get involved, we are active on Facebook. Just search for “the Kahanist Movement.” We get shut down regularly by Facebook for “promoting racism,” so don’t be surprised if that happens again. But as fast as they shut us down, we always start up again. We’re also getting active on Twitter. If anyone wants to contact or donate to the Kahanist movement, you can call us at (718) 395-7405, or email Gennadiy: firstname.lastname@example.org.
This was an amazing interview that gives all of us quite a bit to think about. Thank you, and best of luck plus our support in your quest!
Thursday, February 23rd, 2017
Many of our readers are familiar with Wrath of Gnon, the cerebral meme-master who pairs classic art with insightful quotations from writers and thinkers. Although he exists only on social media, his elegant images spread across the web and, interestingly for social media, re-appear years later. We were lucky to get some time to chat with the elusive Wrath of Gnon.
When did you first know that you would pursue a different path than that of the majority? Is there any way for someone who aspires to sanity to feel good about this modern world?
I was not exceptional in that I was born reactionary. I believe most people are for the simple reason that all the hollow slogans of the progressives — Equality, Brotherhood, Liberty, etc. — are so obviously untrue to even the most socially isolated child (and I was not in the least isolate, I grew up in a large loving family).
To maintain the progressive mindset it is vital that people remain detached from reality (from their roots, families, friends, communities), and plugged in or attached to the propaganda machine. Take a man away from media for a fortnight and you will see emerge a more sensible, realistic human being. My own reactionary thinking has only strengthened the more I remove myself from modern media and groupthink.
It is not difficult: stop looking at mass media, distance yourself from all writing that “feels” modern; keep going backwards in times until you find what you are comfortable with. There are even some recent writers with an old fashioned mind set, you don’t have to read Chaucer, as certain works of Kerouac will do just as well. Immerse yourself in reality: aspire to experience and perform all the functions of life, as far as it is humanly possibly for you.
This can include growing your own crops to taking your friends for extended hiking trips in the wilderness. There are no excuses and I believe it is possible for everyone to cultivate a timeless mindset. The important thing is to, in some way, manner or form, reach backwards. This is the meaning of the slogan “Revolt Against the Modern World”: to turn your back on modernity.
What, in your view, went wrong with the West, and how do we fix it? How deeply does the rot go?
As for when (even though you did not ask), there is the famous quip — “For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution.” (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn) — but the Traditionalist-Catholic wing of reactionary thinkers go further, blaming the reformation. And so on. This is a fun but ultimately pointless game.
Personally I would not even call it a rot, as I subscribe to the Evolian idea that we are already “men standing in the ruins.” Rome has fallen all around us, it is just that we have not noticed yet (or as Adam Smith mirrored it “There is a great deal of ruin in a nation”). This question brings to mind the two famous portrayals of two different Roman nobles in the fifth century A.D., one who leaves the Imperial Capital to return to his family lands in Gaul, to “weather out the temporary unrest”, while the other quietly slips away to eventually found his own Holy Order, the Benedictines. The first thinking that order will soon be restored, the other with his mind already set on eternity. Both accounts make for fantastic reading.
The good thing is that everything we need to turn things around is already here. All the material, all the plans, all the accumulated wealth and knowledge of millennia of human thought and creativity is scattered all around us. We even have a time table for how to do it (and this was suggested by someone on Twitter three or four years ago), we just start turning the clock back, step by step, reversing history as we go along, keeping only the reality compliant, Gnon friendly parts.
And we might unwittingly have started this already: education, housing, vacation homes, etc., it is all becoming too expensive very fast. We are losing the means of production to more ruthless countries in the Far East, and we are running out of natural resources. Unrest in far away countries have started cramping our wanderlust—quick now, 2017 might be your last chance to see the Louvre, the Pyramids and the beaches of Pattaya! And speaking of Pattaya, sexually transmitted diseases are quickly becoming immune to treatment, thus limiting us even in our choices of partners, and in their numbers, automatically unwinding the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s.
Mark Stein said “The future belongs to those who show up,” and as Evola noted, what we have to do now is to hold out, to “ride the tiger,” to “remain standing in the ruins,” to (as Rod Dreher posited) take the Benedict Option and become neo-monastics. And have children, of course. Lots and lots of children.
You publish a series of intellectual memes — striking images overlaid with notable quotations and cutting insights — which reveal much about what is wrong, and where we might go. What appealed to you about this format? How do you choose images and quotations?
I had been skimming the outer fringes of the “reacto-sphere,” but I think I was influenced in taking the step to participate more actively by a few people, and a few memes. The first was an anonymous image showing a leafy green, beautifully airy urban street from the turn of the last century, overlaid with the words: “NEVER AGAIN.” That one hit me like a brick in the forehead.
At the same time, I happened to find @shaunwesleywyrd and E.H. Looney on Twitter. S. Wes shared a photo of an old book by Oswald Mosley he was reading, photographed with whiskey and a pipe, and Looney shared (and I still think this is a most fantastic meme) an image of a young woman in medieval garb with the text: “The First Reich was the Best Reich.”
I saw a way to present (to the general public) very “politically incorrect,” almost caustic ideas, in a fun setting. It took me a few weeks of experimenting to realize that I needed two more vital ingredients: a pinch of gravitas (which I got from relying mostly on very old literature) and beauty. Beauty is the beginning of all things good, and goodness is the beginning of all beautiful things. At the very same time I was reading NRx, I read Bryce, MM, Sailer, Jim, Nick Land etc., and the rest is (well documented) history.
I have a decent image memory, so I remember a lot of images I have seen, and when I find a good quote in my readings (I read a lot, and almost only autobiographies these days) or online or suggested by helpful people on Twitter or Tumblr, that fit an image, I add it. And of course, the other way around. I think my best work is actually when I see an image and the text just comes to me naturally, whether it is my own or a quote from someone else (I do realize that there are almost no original thoughts out there, so as far as possible I try to give credit where credit is due).
Unlike many within modernist movements, including the Alt Right, you are an out-of-the-closet monarchist. What led you to have faith in monarchy? How do we get there from here?
Humankind has at the very least thirty-five centuries of monarchy under its belt by now (at least Europeans, much longer if you include the other great historical cultures), and this has taken us from roving bands of hunters to the outer reaches of the solar system. Furthermore the amount of beauty in the world is diminishing at the same rate that Modernity is growing.
I noticed that globalism is erasing differences both geographically as well as culturally while increasing meaningless ugliness! It is the differences that are important, the distinctions that make everything on this planet so interesting! I even have a love for borders (and walls and fences, demarcations, ditches, hedgerows, etc.): strange and wonderful things happen in borders regions: the starkest contrast, the strangest amalgmations and syntheses, the most interesting crossovers. Borders are great things — we need more of them!
I hate the leveling leviathan of globalization and commercialism. I do not trust systems — is there any system that has not achieved a long history of atrocities by now? All systems are inherently unsustainable, as they are founded in ideas rather than in observable reality, and once the people holding these ideas change, so do the ideas (witness social democrats in Europe or social justice warriors in American campuses).
By contrast, I find Monarchy the most robust, sustainable (and ecological if you will) form of societal organization. It mirrors only those structures that already exist in reality and in nature, it is so simple that even a child can understand it, even participate in it. When ever a group of pre-schoolers gather to play without adult interference, a natural hierarchy will establish itself within seconds. Between the two genders, between the members of the group, between the group (the culture) and reality (nature). The Monarch is to the nation what the Father is to the family.
Humans are the only animals that will actively invent problems in order to provide solutions for them. But monarchy is one of those things that just will not be improved upon, it is one of the eternal truths about mankind and of the reality of things. If mankind ever stops needing a King, well then I posit to say that we have already evolved (or devolved, more likely) into something post-human. But as long as the idea of the King survives, it will live on, ready to spring back into reality.
As Georges Bernanos asked of a four-year-old Lorrainer boy: “What is a king?”, “A king is man on horseback who is not afraid!” As fine a definition as ever I heard, and far more correct than a whole indoctrination camp of university professors.
How have you found ways to adapt to modern life? What is it like, living in a world where basically everyone is not just wrong but insane, and every institution is subtly corrupted?
Humor helps. And the knowledge that all institutions are merely guided by corrupt men and women, and that we are all more or less brainwashed from birth by Modernity. As a culture, we have always had ways to deal with people whose grip on reality is less than robust, only these days they seems to end up Chancellors, Chairmen of the Committee or with Tenure. As we were all once brainwashed, so we can all find our ways out of the modern labyrinth.
Here is where the allegory of the Red Pill comes in handy. I have, by now, a pocket full of them, and the more I give out, the more I seem to carry around. It is a self-feeding fire: every conversion is the seed of a dozen more, and the anecdotes of these “red-pillings” are moralizing tinctures indeed. On a more personal level, I am helped by reading, and finding that I am not alone. Everything I think and feel has been felt or thought before. As Evola put it:
My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.
I have tons of allies. Mind you, most of them (as of now at least) dead, but still. Tons.
If people want to break out of the mental virus of modernity, how should they do so? Is there a universal path, and do all people need to come to in-depth realizations, or can they rely on gut instinct?
Most of us are in it too deep. Every time we reach towards the light of the surface, modernism is there again, Chthulu dragging us downstream and into the murky darkness. Sometimes we can be helped by friends, someone reliable to help us climb back up. Find sanity again. Sometimes it happens in flashes of revelations (everyone knows these and Twitter is a great place to share), but like any idea whose time has come, we are slowly building towards a critical mass. Our ideas are sustainable, confirms to reality: when nature, long in tooth and red in claw sneers at us form the dark thicket, we are ready to sneer back, and soon there will be more of us. We will reach, sooner or later, the necessary critical mass.
There are of course savants out there, people who are so remarkably grounded that they are immune to modernity: you probably know many. Your uncle the air force mechanic. That aunt who is a nurse and never opened a book in her life but has started and ended more lives than Sitting Bull. That cousin who can build an engine from spare parts but has never heard of Affirmative Action in his life. Surround yourself with them. Go to them. Bask in their clearheaded glory. And then come back to the fray to pick up a few more lost souls. As Tolkien stated so well: “It is no bad thing to celebrate a simple life.”
We hear a lot about environmental problems these days. In your mind, what is the relationship between modernity and ecocide, and is it purely industrial, or related to underlying political or social problems?
The simplest way I can put it, is that the environment has stopped being something wonderful from which to draw resources and strength to start being a problem that we have to “deal with”. Just listen to yourself, the phrase, “environmental problems”! It is amazing when you think about it. How did we get here? It is a combination of many things (let me name a few):
- Individualism: I have needs, so screw the rest.
- The Tragedy of the commons: No one owns anything any more. Everything is up for grabs. This ties in to nationalism, which is a natural defense mechanism and reaction to weak states. Environmental concern is the left wing shadow of this reaction.
- Receding horizons: We are so used to there not being any more fish in the ocean that we forgot what it was like just two generations ago. We are so used to worrying about our kids walking two blocks to school by themselves we think it is normal, even though we ourselves would happily bicycle ten miles or more to go skinny dipping in ponds and lakes when we were twelve.
- Rootlessness: Why should I bother about this place that I have never seen before and that I will never see again? I have no idea what it was like ten years ago, never mind a generation or more!
- Unqualified Optimism (in Eternal Progress): Things will only get better. Progress leads to better things and evolution always climbs higher. Well, I have news for you buddy: nature does not care if it produces Beethoven’s Ninth or a superbly infectious tape worm. Whatever remains standing at the end of the day is what will remain. Nature is a blind God and you can never ever outrun or outsmart it. Moloch is not going to protect you either, despite how many babies you roast at its fires.
These all combine to create the situation we have today: Holidays in Cambodia and 120 channels on your TV, meanwhile the Springs keep growing more and more Silent for every year. But it is my firm opinion, that the environment (its uses and abuses, including the whole “environmental problem” subject) is fundamentally and unquestionably a right wing issue.
The left is the side of the favelas and locusts, the factories and the mercury spills, the estrogen in our drinking waters and the loneliness of the last rhino on the savannah. The right is about stewardship, firm action, boundaries, and responsibility. Green is a reactionary color. Just as in this neighborhood we shoot dealers, in this forest we also shoot poachers.
What activities do you find fulfilling outside of politics and philosophy? How do these help you and others live normal lives in the midst of the maelstrom of insanity?
Oh, I hate politics. With a passion. I will only talk politics with actual politicians and even then it is just a ruse to get them so close that I can kick them. Politics divides friends and splits families. Politics starts out with a discussion on the fair way to handle lay offs in industry and ends in one side digging mass graves for the other side. If politics does not get you mad and fuming you are doing it wrong.
I yell at people starting a conversation with the words “So what about that election uh?” Politics is of the enemy. I mine it sometimes, for ammunition, or for making more Red Pills. But that is it. Nothing more. As for philosophy I hardly ever read it. I have always been an “Oh yeah? Show me!” kind of guy. I want to see why monarchy works. I want to taste why democracy doesn’t (Anyone care for Soup? Our chef is legion).
Roger Scruton’s is the only philosophy I ever read, and even then I only read his most down to earth passages and grounded texts. I had enough abstract philosophy at university (and boy was that ever the biggest mistake of my life!), overdosing on Kant and Derrida at twenty.
But as for normal activities, I take an interest in drafting classical architecture, rural crafts, etc. It all helps me refocus, or retune myself to reality.
Right now, what is one thing that a normal person can do to resist modernity and encourage a shift toward a saner, healthier form of civilization?
I touched on this subject in an earlier answer, but if I would have to say one thing, it is to Stop consuming: media, stuff. Once that is done, start by gathering your friends and allies: “Form a Gang.”
I am no fan of rock stars, but they had the right idea when they started defenestrating TV sets. Everyone should try it sometime. The fresh air will do us good! As moms everywhere and in all times have pointed out: “It is a nice day outside, go out and play.”
How can people stay on top of your writings and creations, and what can they do to support your work?
I post most creations on Tumblr, and a lot of my readings and opinions on Twitter. I am not in this for money, I borrow quite freely from the dead and the living, I require no fame. I take up little space and need little nourishment. Kind words help though. If you find the mass of my messages too much, feel free to edit out my name from the images (lots of people do). Use whatever you need.
If you feel like helping, I would love to receive more suggestions from non-English speaking reaction, as long I can double check the sources independently, I am usually happy. If something strikes my fancy I will use it. I sometimes suggest titles that are in need of translating into English. Feel free to get started. Donoso Cortes, Barras, Bernanos, etc. there is so much out there that deserves a bigger audience. Quality is important, but so is quantity. The sheer weight, the volume of thought we can point to—it all adds up.
Saturday, December 10th, 2016
I am fortunate to be interviewed at Divine Truth Ministries on the topics of race, religion, and civilization collapse. That should cover pretty much every area of interest for Alt Right readers. Thanks to Divine Truth Ministries for a to-the-point interview!
Sunday, December 4th, 2016
On December 22, 2016 at 8 PM EST, I will be answering questions and expounding on life in general at Reddit’s /r/altright, a community for those on the Right outside the mainstream. If you do not have an account, sign up for one here and fire away with the questions.
Many thanks to the /r/altright moderation team for making this possible. I look forward to interacting with all of you.
Friday, November 18th, 2016
When trawling the internet, one is frequently reminded that 90% of the content there is ego-driven, like self-expression, self-adornment or simply pitching pleasant mental images to others in exchange for popularity points. While it would be nice to say that the underground right is different, the same normal distribution (“Bell Curve”) seems to apply there as well. On the far-right of that Bell Curve are some thinkers who demonstrate exceptional clarity, and the persona known as Reactionary Ian is one of them. Fortunately, he had a few moments to write an interview with us.
You identify as a reactionary; from what schools of thought do you come, and why did you choose these?
I guess you could call me a Christian Reactionary. I think of myself as a skeptic of modernity who would like to see a more hierarchical, unified order rooted in Christianity. Being a Christian has always been a part of my identity, and I don’t want a vision for the future that minimizes or omits it. I’m also an opponent of democracy who favors monarchy as the system of rule.
When did you first realize you were heading in a different direction from most of the population? Was it hard to break out?
To be honest, I’ve always been a little different than most people. Even when I was a kid I was a quirky misfit. In some ways it’s made me an interesting specimen, and in others it’s made it difficult for me to find my way in life, since I have trouble relating to the average person. Even today, I’m still trying to figure a lot of stuff out.
In sane times, the views of those who call themselves “reactionaries” would be taken for granted.
As far as embracing my reactionary tendencies, yes, it was hard. It’s difficult to think outside the Overton Window (either because aren’t exposed to other ideas, or our cultural narrative tells us they’ve been discredited), so for a long time I had a nagging feeling that something was wrong with our civilization, but couldn’t offer a coherent alternative. When I started becoming active on Twitter, I was at a point where I was starting to turn to the dissident side, but still afraid to talk about it openly. I tweeted as a Tea Party type for about a year or two before I finally started saying what I really thought. A part of it was the desire to fit in, and a part of it was the hope that the system I had always known was still salvageable.
Has your activity caused you problems with family, friends or the so-called “real world”?
Nothing major. I’ve talked to my parents extensively about my views, and I think that while they don’t completely agree with them, they at least know I’ve thought them through and there are good intentions behind them. As far as friends and other relatives, I’m more guarded. Some of them know a little about my views, but generally prefer to keep the peace by not bringing it up. I’m not sure what they’d think if they knew about my Twitter or YouTube activities.
Your Christian hangout attracts a core audience. What do you think appeals to them, and where do you plan to take it from here?
I think that a lot of Christians with more Traditionalist and racially aware leanings are looking for a place where they can discuss their thoughts without having to water down their views due to the presence of irreligious or anti-Christian types in the Alt-Right. In fact, the initial idea for the hangouts came from one of Millennial Woes’ Christmas hangouts I participated in last December, where I felt outnumbered by critics of Christianity. Christians need fellowship with other Christians, and that’s what I’m trying to provide.
As far as where I plan to take it, I don’t have any specific plans right now. Perhaps it could develop into a more focused podcast, or perhaps it’ll continue as a biweekly get-together. We’ll see where it goes. I’m certainly interested in taking it to a new level if it’s feasible.
This topic is so huge that it is hard to even figure out how to ask, but: what is wrong with the modern world? What should be better?
As a Christian, I would say that a loss of faith plays a big role in our current state of affairs. People are lacking a sense of transcendent purpose, and it leads to a nihilistic existence where the only unifying goal is to be good little believers in Progressivism. The things that are held up as virtues, such as tolerance, inclusion, etc. are in fact anti-virtues, because adhering to them requires passivity, not moral strength. We’ve come to a point where the highest good is not to exercise any sort of discernment.
Even among people who consider themselves Christians, there are many who think they can adopt the prog worldview and not be at odds with their faith. They’ve essentially thrown out centuries of Christian tradition, practice, and scholarship in order to assert that here in the 21st Century, we’ve finally discovered the true doctrine, and it just so happens to be the one pushed by Christianity’s ideological enemies. The last several years of being awakened have made me realize how true the words of Christ are: “Many are called, but few are chosen.” Few truly wish to remain faithful when it goes against the grain of their degenerate civilization.
As a race realist, I also know our ever-increasing diversity is a big problem. I’m not a race totalist, but the ill effects of diversity are well known to all of us in the dissident sphere. We know that people who live among their own kind are usually happier, more functional, and even more engaged in religious activities. If anyone is to find a place in this world, it has to be with people they can consider their own.
If you can tell us, how are you riding out the decline, and are you preparing to take that to another level if events get worse?
My only plan is to keep on keeping on. I’ll keep trying to improve myself to the extent I can, and hopefully it will lead me to where I need to be. And of course, I put my faith in God.
What writers, thinkers and artists inform your worldview, and are there any contemporary sources that you read?
I must confess I’m not nearly as well-read as so many others in these circles. Much of my philosophical worldview has been formed from pondering the things I observed in the world around me and trying to understand what they say about human nature. From there, the Alt-Right/Reactosphere has helped me flesh out these views and develop a more well-rounded perspective.
As I remember it, this very blog was my first discovery into this world. I was going through a rough time trying to reconcile my mainstream conservatism with the contradictions I saw within it, and was trying to figure out what it all really meant. I found the post “Why Conservatism is Important,” and I remember it being a breath of fresh air, because it articulated the problems with liberalism better than any mainstream conservative I knew ever had. I read some of the surrounding posts on Amerika, and it was a lot to digest, but it got the ball rolling.
People are lacking a sense of transcendent purpose, and it leads to a nihilistic existence where the only unifying goal is to be good little believers in Progressivism.
Also, while he’s more of a paleoconservative, Theodore Dalrymple was another early influence, which is why I’ve used him as my avatar for so long. He was sort of my go-to guy for about a year, when I needed a voice of comfort in an intellectually uncertain time. The beauty of so many of his essays gave me a lot of hope and encouraged me to start thinking differently. I’m probably farther to the right than he is, but he helped me cultivate a higher appreciation for aesthetics and an understanding of how they shape the world we live in.
As far as what I currently read, it’s mostly Alt-Right, NRx, and some dissident Christian blogs.
This is a bit personal, but usually fascinating: What is the source of your faith? In other words, what leads you to believe in God and reject the rampant atheism and materialism of this time?
To put it plainly, I’ve made a conscious decision to have faith. I’ve struggled with faith at different times in my life, but my personal experiences have long suggested to me that God is real. You can talk yourself out of anything if you question it long enough, but when you decide to let yourself believe, things become much simpler. And as a person who constantly struggles to stay focused, I definitely need that.
For those who enjoy what you do, how can they stay on top of your latest doings and/or writings?
My stuff is mainly on Twitter at @ReactionaryIan, and there’s my YouTube channel too, where I host the hangouts.
Do you consider yourself a type of “conservative”? Do you think there can be unity between social and fiscal conservatives?
That’s an interesting question, since I’ve recently been pondering the word “conservative.” I’ve grown to dislike it, because it’s taken on the connotation of a fairly narrow and unsatisfactory set of positions held by the “conservative movement,” and I don’t feel completely comfortable lumping myself in with them anymore. Thanks to our cuckservative political parties, it also carries the implication of weak liberals who have a slight distaste for change but will passively accept it when it’s imposed on them.
On the other hand, terms like “alt-right” and “reactionary” imply an opposition to the current state of affairs, and in my ideal world, my views would be considered normal and mainstream. The word “conservative” is a good one, because it ideally would indicate that you approach potential changes with a view of the larger picture and a knowledge of what has historically worked. You strive to conserve what needs to be conserved and change what needs to be changed, nothing more. I’d love to see the word “conservative” reclaimed with such a meaning, but that’s probably not going to happen any time soon.
As for fiscal and social conservatives (as those terms are understood currently), I think both have lost their way already. Social conservatives won’t touch certain issues like race, and even traditional family values have to have some concessions made to modern-day feminist thinking (You can read Dalrock’s blog to see many examples of this). Fiscal conservatives seem to have decided that the rightmost point on the axis is a completely unfettered free market, which really isn’t “conservative” in any meaningful sense other than that it places itself in opposition to the extreme Leftism of Communism (To give another link, AntiDem has a great piece on this subject called “Dump Capitalism”).
Few truly wish to remain faithful when it goes against the grain of their degenerate civilization.
I think to be a true social or fiscal conservative, one must be oriented toward the long-term growth and health of family and tribe. The Christian faith provides the best framework on the social end, and on the fiscal end, there should be room for entrepreneurship and innovation, but not when it comes at the expense of society as a whole. Any approach that takes into account only numbers, and not the people behind them, is missing a key component. To use a cinematic analogy, we should take the George Bailey approach rather than the Mr. Potter approach.
In your view, what does it mean to be a reactionary?
In sane times, the views of those who call themselves “reactionaries” would be taken for granted. In these times we live in, it means we are reacting against a modern world that worships the self and its own capacity for knowledge and wisdom. We reject the tenets of the false religion of Progressivism: democracy in favor of aristocracy, diversity in favor of nation, and equality in favor of hierarchy. We look at the world as having a natural order, which we upset at our own peril, and we aspire to higher ideals and values that are in line with it.
Monday, November 14th, 2016
At the fringes of what the herd accepts as discourse, there are some who are chipping away at the modern myth. They imply that at some fundamental level, our assumptions are wrong, and this has infected every subsequent decision with illusion. This is happening simultaneously in many fields, and W.M. Briggs is doing so in the field of statistics. Read on for a Q&A with this creative, inventive thinker who has a finger in many disciplines, informing his primary study to push it toward broader vision.
You are, for lack of a better term, a professional statistician. What led you to this field, and how did you find your way to your present position as professor and writer?
From the Air Force doing cryptography, to meteorology and climatology, to statistics. I was interested in how good forecasts were, and what “good” meant. And from statistics to epistemology, which is the proper branch of probability. I used to be in Cornell’s Medical School, but it was eighty-percent writing grants. There’s too much government in science, so I’m now on my own, though I have an Adjunct position at Cornell. About writing, more people read one of my articles, or even blog posts, that would read a scientific paper.
Is there any truth to the statement “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” How do we tell the difference between true statistics and lies? How do statistics become misrepresentative?
Primarily through The Deadly Sin of Reification. This is when a researcher’s model of uncertainty, a matter of epistemology, becomes reality itself, or it is thought to be so close to reality as to make no difference. But probability models are not causal: probability and statistics have nothing to say about cause. Yet everybody thinks they do.
Beginning philosophy with Descartes is an enormous mistake.
Probability is only a measure of uncertainty, but that uncertainty is not fixed. It is not real or tangible. It only measures a state of mind, not the state of reality. More damage in science is caused by assuming statistical models verify “hypotheses” than anything else.
Your book Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics seems to make the case that human cognitive approaches are basically wrong because we treat probability as a kind of absolute. How would you change the human perceptual outlook?
We have to let it sink in that probability is conditional on whatever assumptions we make. Change the assumptions, change the probability. Probability is epistemology, and only epistemology. Since probability doesn’t have physical existence, nothing has a probability.
Question: What’s the probability of being struck by lightning? Answer: there isn’t one. You have to supply premises or assumptions to form the probability, like, “You live in Oklahoma.” But even that premise is not enough to guarantee a numerical answer. The Cult of Measurement insists, wrongly, that all probabilities, be numerical. This is why you see asininities like “On a scale of -17.2 to 42 2/3 in increments of pi, how taciturn are you?” And then we treat those numbers as if they are real!
You also write about how scientific research is heavily skewed by who is funding it or “purchasing” it as an end product, for example mainstream science articles. How prevalent is this? How can it be avoided or ameliorated?
The government sets the agenda for nearly all science. In the cases of ideological bureaucracies like the EPA ‘the’ science is largely settled in advance, and then farmed out to compliant, money-universities for ‘validation’. The mark of a good scientists now is how much money he can bring in. That money not only pays his salary, and that of his assistants, but of his bosses, too, in the form of overhead, largess grabbed by Deans and spent on various initiatives, like Diversity. And you can’t get the money unless you want to play in the system the government dictates. Eisenhower, in this famous military-industry speech, also warned about government intrusion in science. Key quote, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”
Is it possible to state anything as truth without conditionals? How much does the interpretation of the individual receiving this truth limit what can be conveyed?
No. The conditions can be very basic, though, like sense impression, and our very occasional interactions of our intellects with the infinite. Simple example. Here’s a proposition, “For all natural numbers x, y and z, if x = y and y = z, then x = z.”
Part of the conditions are the understanding of the words used to convey them, so we have to know “natural numbers” are everyday numbers “0, 1, 2, …,” and where the infinite lurks in that “…” Now this proposition is a standard mathematical axiom, believed to be true by everybody who has ever given it thought. I think it’s true.
But since we cannot count to infinity, we must condition on our finite experience to believe something about the infinite. I don’t want to say that this works only in mathematics. It works for everything we believe true about universals; all arguments.
You say that the field of data science lacks a “firm philosophical grounding.” What kind of philosophy can serve as the basis for mathematics, statistics and other highly abstract disciplines?
You can graduate with a PhD in the hard sciences from the top universities in the land without having to have studied any philosophy formally. Of course, any set of thinking, including the thinking scientists do, is a philosophy. But since the thinking isn’t rigorous, neither is the philosophy, which leads otherwise decent scientists to say stupid things.
We cannot reach, with our finite minds, infinite precision in language.
The biggest embarrassments are statements of metaphysics. There are respected physicists who, for instance, define ‘nothing’ as quantum fluctuations, or whatever. Somehow they are unable to grasp that the something which is a quantum fluctuation is not nothing. Our understanding of cause is particularly benighted, and that’s largely because of the fallacy of progress. Only recent philosophy is thought worthy of study, the fallacy insists, because progress.
Beginning philosophy with Descartes is an enormous mistake. Some philosophers, those not suffering from science envy, like Ed Feser and David Oderberg, are rectifying the situation.
Would you say that you have encountered a fracture between the notions of assessing truth by coherence (internal logicality of form) versus correspondence (reliable representation of external objects and events)?
Yes, sure. Given “Alice is a green unicorn,” it is conditionally true that “Alice is a unicorn.” But there are no unicorns, green or otherwise. There is coherence. Coherence can give you castles built in the air, but there has to be a real foundation if you want to live in the structure.
You cannot go far wrong with Aristotle. “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.” That’s a form of correspondence, and the best definition of truth there is.
How much do you assess cycles in your work, such as the viewing a change in our world as having a life-cycle versus a categorical truth, much as it would be in a computer? Do you see yourself as introducing organic or biological principles to the field of mathematics?
No; no way. You might have a sociology of math that has these sorts of principles, something which says why mathematicians are working on these problems now, and might work on those later. But the organic principle itself would have nothing to say about the truth of the mathematics. Mathematics gives us truth, and philosophy aims to, as does physics. Now I said that all truth was conditional, but that does not mean that there are no capital-T Truths. And that leads to your next question.
You say, “Truth resides in the mind and not in objects except in the sense that objects exist or not.” How does this connect with the Nietzschean saying that there are no truths, only interpretations?
Nietzsche was wrong. If we agree on the premises, then we must agree on the truth the premises imply. It is always the case that if there is disagreement, it is in the premises and not on the proposition. And don’t forget the tacit premises, like word definitions. A universal truth, a capital-T Truth, is founded on a chain of reasoning backward to indubitable axioms or intellectual impressions.
So Nietzsche can say, “There are no truths,” which is, of course, contradictory. If he’s right, he’s wrong. If he’s wrong, he’s wrong. Now we all know the truth that Nietzsche’s statement is contradictory based on conditions including the meaning of the words in the proposition, the rules of logic, and so on, but most importantly on our intellects. There is no way for us to think it true that “There are no truths.” And so, conditional on this intellectual impression, we know the Truth that Nietzsche was wrong.
What is reification, and why is it misleading?
Reification shows up everywhere, and not just statistics. People confuse deterministic with causal models. A deterministic model can be a highly complex set of mathematical equations that say, in effect, “When X = x, Y = y.” Now even in this deterministic model works, in the sense of making skillful predictions, it is not necessarily the case X causes Y.
Understanding cause is something above. Scientists who study consciousness and free will are the biggest sinners here. They posit a deterministic model for the workings of the brain and confuse that model (which is anyway partial; another point oft forgotten) with a causal model, which leads them to say there is no such thing as free will. Yet obviously there is. Their models become more important than reality, which is tossed out and said not to exist.
In your view, is language a type of modeling? How can we make language more specific, or less likely to mislead?
In the sense that words imply universals, and our knowledge of universals, like knowledge of everything, is like a model. Words matter, because universals matter. We are not Humpty Dumpty. Communication is not possible with a shared, i.e. mutually believed, set of premises on what universals are true. But the infinite, the realm of universals, is a big place.
We cannot reach, with our finite minds, infinite precision in language. Recall Flaubert “Human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars.” The more difficult the concept, i.e. the more it involves the infinite, the less precise our language. And it will always be that way.
Can the type of confusion that arises over statistics and probability influence the choices that a society makes? How can this error be limited?
Yes, especially in a culture that views science with such awe. How to limit? Everything is supposed to be scientific. Hence the Cult of Measurement and endless questionnaires with pseudo-quantified answers, and “nudging,” and on and on. Scientism pervades.
Science is silent on every important question. Why is murder wrong? Science has no answer. But when we think it does, we invent some statistical model that preposterously gives answers on the degree of wrongness of murder. The solution there, not to be too much hoped for, is again a return to philosophy.
Science is silent on every important question.
And then the confusion about cause. For example, statistics supposedly prove “racism” by showing discrepancies in math questions. If we can eliminate causal language which accompany statistical models, we can fix much.
For those who would like to know more about your writing and research, how would someone stay on top of your latest news and doings?
My blog, primarily, at http://wmbriggs.com/, and at Twitter @mattstat, though I have to cut back on the latter. What a time sink!
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016
Those who have read this journal for some time will be aware that it embraces all who are realists, or those that combine the results-oriented consequentialist perspective with a forward-looking transcendental view to fill in the prescriptive aesthetic dimension to human life. As such, we reach out to a wide variety of people above and below the social taboo line who contribute a vision of society other than modernity, based in those realist principles. We were fortunate enough to interview Billy Roper, a writer, organizer and advocate for ethnic politics whose career spans decades of intelligent and sensible promotion of the nationalist cause.
You have been involved in pro-white politics for many years. What started you down this direction? Do you have any regrets?
Hi, Brett, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to some new people who may have not heard of my activism, or had an opportunity to read any of my books, yet.
Looking back, I was very fortunate to be born to parents who were racially conscious. My father and both grandfathers were Klansmen, and my parents moved to an overwhelmingly White area shortly after I was born, purposefully. As a teenager, I was a Neo-Nazi skinhead, then as an undergrad I worked my way rightwards through a series of progressively more Nationalist groups until I found my way to the National Alliance. After grad school and being a high school History teacher for a while, I was asked by Dr. Pierce to organize and oversee his membership recruitment, and did so for the last two and a half years of his life. Following that, I grew my own teeth and claws as an activist, organizer, and leader in the movement.
We all have regrets personally, of course. Cue Frank Sinatra, right? If I have any regrets politically, it might be that I didn’t pursue a career which would have made me more independent from employers and supervisors, to become more financially able to carry out some of the projects which our people could have benefited from. Of course it’s not too late, and we all do as much as we can with what we have.
You have published a series of books that are quite successful and have delighted a new generation of readers. When did you decide to go this path, and what are your influences as a writer?
Like yourself and other educators and leaders, I’d been writing articles and essays aimed at awakening our people for years. I still do, in fact. However, I came to believe, through a study of how successful fictional books such as Dr. Pierce’s The Turner Diaries had been in reaching new people, that it was an underutilized genre. Especially since I wished to spread the idea of the inevitable balkanization of America, and post-collapse, dystopian, and zombie apocalypse type books were and still are very popular.
We need to cease placing unnecessarily, nonessential hurdles between ourselves and our largest potential recruiting pools, without abandoning or compromising our core ideals and principles.
So, I wrote Hasten The Day, which was my first foray into lengthy writing since “PaleoAmerican Ethnic Diversity,” my Master’s Thesis positing that Whites, Solutreans, were in North America prior to the AmerIndians. Hasten The Day eventually turned into a trilogy, following a cast of characters through the first years after the breakup of the United States into several racially-based states. What’s funny is that now, a dozen more books later, both fiction and nonfiction, the titular first book of the trilogy is still my best-selling and most popular work. I think that’s because it really resonates with people who see what’s coming.
When I met you, years ago now, you were a membership coordinator with the National Alliance. What, in your view, was effective about that group, and what have “we” — the real Right, reactionaries and race realists — learned since that time?
Brett, as you recall, because you were a part of it, we did a lot of good work, and what I think was most effective about the National Alliance was that it amassed the personnel and capital potential to create truly effective outreach: internet, literary, radio and video media representations of our ideas, presented by a first-rate and uncompromising intellect in Dr. Pierce, who could not be accused by our enemies of “ignorance” or unsophistication.
Since that time, what I hope some of us have learned, at least, what I have learned, is that tactics, messages, and strategies which make it easier for the largest number of our people, our target audience, to have their personal Overton Windows of acceptable political thought and discourse nudged further in our directions is a net positive. Contrarily, whatever makes us seem different, cultish, or alien to them, is a net negative.
We need to cease placing unnecessarily, nonessential hurdles between ourselves and our largest potential recruiting pools, without abandoning or compromising our core ideals and principles. As America continues to polarize and balkanize, millions of our people are going to be turning to us and saying, “Okay, so you were right. Now what?”. We have to have our stuff together enough to be ready to say, “Okay, here is what”.
Can diversity function in any form, or does it destroy societies through lack of social trust as Robert Putnam mentioned or other factors? What, for you, are the risks of diversity?
For me, the primary risks of diversity are genetic. Any country, any society, and any civilization, even, can be destroyed and rebuilt over and over again, so long as the people who created that civilization survive. But, once they are irretrievably mixed and interbred with people who never could have created civilization to begin with, and in point of fact never did, that ability, those genes, are muted forever.
I think that diversity is an inherently unstable and temporary crisis stage of group natural selection competition, just subsequent to the latest stage of the differentiation and specialization process, and just prior to one of the competing groups being ‘selected’ as better adapted, and the other(s) becoming either extinct, or assimilated. So, Putnam is correct, but social distrust is a psychosocial result of our still extant instinctive recognition of the “other,” and our biological acknowledgement that our primary loyalty lies with our own.
You once said, although I cannot find it now, that you were fighting to ensure that Nordic children would not disappear from the earth. Do you view yourself as a race-nationalist, or ethno-nationalist, or both?
I don’t see the two designations as being mutually exclusive. Race, genetically speaking, is a spectrum, with say, an Australian aborigine on one end of that spectrum, and a blue-eyed blonde Nordic on the other. You, and I, and most people, are somewhere in between on that scale. Our eugenic duty is to work to slide the fulcrum of that spectrum for the entire species away from one end, and towards the other.
Rather than seeking to have everyone look like ourselves, we should all acknowledge that the improvement of our race and the species to something better than any of us is the ultimate goal. Now, that having been said, I do believe that the different ethnicities within our race are the product of differentiation and specialization based on climactic and other environmental adaptations, just as differences between the races largely are.
However, nature cannot and should not judge, nor should we, between them, until all of the external competitors have been eliminated, and our race has become the new de facto species through the elimination of the others.
The usual suspects (SPLC et al) seem to have taken a dislike to you. How has this affected your ability to earn a livelihood and interact with society in general?
Like a lot of activists, I’ve been fired from good jobs simply for my beliefs. That happened in 2010 when I was running for Governor. In other jobs I’ve been harassed and threatened and blackballed, and of course I realized long ago that I could never teach again, either on the college or the High School level. My name is simply too well known, and all people have to do is Google me.
I don’t feel like a martyr because of it, though; many, many people have given up a lot more, and even made the ultimate sacrifice, for our people. Of course, being a publicly known racial activist is very much like taking a vow of poverty, or at least, that’s the net financial effect. But you know, Brett, I had a specific point in time, when I had just finished grad school and gotten the invitation from the current Chairman of the National Alliance, in fact, who called me and told me that Dr. Pierce wanted me to come out to West Virginia, when I made that conscious decision, and crossed the Rubicon with my eyes wide open. No matter what, I’d do it all again.
I do believe that the different ethnicities within our race are the product of differentiation and specialization based on climactic and other environmental adaptations, just as differences between the races largely are.
I’m sure that I’m not telling your readers anything which they don’t already know when I say that being who we are does shrink the available dating pool, too: not so much because some women reject us, but because our principles and values require us to reject them. Still, I’m happily married, and have never been alone for very long at the time, except by choice. There has been nothing that has happened or not happened which has ever made me wish I’d chosen a different life.
If your ideal society came about, what would it look like? Would it be a democracy, how would technology be handled, what would the demographics be like?
My ideal society would be 100% White, except for temporary visitors or limited diplomatic representatives. I’m a National Socialist, so even in that hypothetical White society, I believe that democracy would only cater to the lowest common denominator.
We all recognize that just as there are inherent inequalities between the races, there also are inherent inequalities within our race. Not every White person is good, noble, wholesome, or productive, let alone sane. There are many whom I’d not trust alone with my wife, my daughter, or my checkbook, sadly.
Not trusting, either, in the mortal wisdom of a philosopher-king as much as Plato did, I prefer that government be established with the power to be the vessel which holds and carries the race, and bases every foreign and domestic policy decision on the simple criteria that what is good for the race is good, and what is bad for the race, is bad. Technology should be advanced without regard to individual rights or personal freedom, but rather, again, solely for the best interests of the common good.
We should use our knowledge of the mapped human genome to eliminate genetically inherited diseases through gene manipulation, for example, if that is more efficient than simple positive and negative eugenics. We should attempt to colonize other habitable planets, terraforming when necessary, and genetically diversify new human subspecies which could better survive there, also, if necessary, so that we don’t continually have all of our genetic eggs in one basket, the Earth, in case of a stray solar flare or asteroid strike.
Furthermore, I’m very interesting in the technological potential of genetically targeted viruses, as possible eugenic tools in the future. The list of the racial applications of science are endless, and I wrote about some of them in Remnants, a science fiction novel I penned last year, as a way of exploring different possibilities with an open mind.
Currently you are hosting “The Roper Report” for Divine Truth Ministries. Can you tell us a little about Divine Truth, and what you do on your show?
Yes, certainly, I’m glad that you asked. Divine Truth Ministries is a Dual Seedline Christian Identity outreach which combines a belief that White Europeans, rather than Jews, are the actual descendants of the Israelites of the Bible, and are therefore God’s chosen people, with National Socialism. Christian Identity is the best and most effective bridge to White Nationalism for the millions of conservative White Americans who are at least nominally Christian, and on The Roper Report radio show, as well as in my articles on The Divine Truth Ministries website, I like to think that I serve as a two way bridge, myself; in one direction, for White Nationalists who are unfamiliar with it to better understand Christian Identity, but more importantly, potentially, in the other direction, for mainstream, conservative White Christians to be unshackled from the anti-White, pro-Jewish dogma they’ve been fed by “Judeo” Christianity. I focus more on news and political commentary, while Pastor Paul Mullet focuses more on the theological aspect, but there’s a significant overlap, from both ends, of course. It’s a very symbiotic relationship.
In your view, why have white Americans and Europeans been so slow in awakening to their gradual ethnic replacement and ultimate extinction? What is the cause of our problem within ourselves that makes us unwilling to defend ourselves?
It may be cliche, but it’s in our genes, Brett. Our people adapted to and progressed in a cold, northern European climate where in order to survive you had to become creative and inventive and develop abstract thinking skills, but the harsh environment also required the development of a greater sense of altruism.
It’s more strongly expressed in our women, of course, but females of both genders are especially driven by an overrriding sympathy for those who are perceived as helpless, oppressed, downtrodden, persecuted, in need, et cetera. In a racially healthy society, that was great, it kept crying babies from being tossed out of the longhouse into the snow at three a.m., but in a society where the homogeneity has been purposefully stripped away by Jews acting on their own learned group adaptive survival traits to gain camouflage, well, it’s suicidal, as we’ve seen. Our enemies turned what was a racial strength into a vulnerability, which they then took advantage of.
Do we have the ability to restore Western Civilization and, if so, how?
I think that we do. We’ve faced darker times before, times when from a third to half of our population fell to the plague and the Muslim armies were knocking on Europe’s southern door, for example. Times when the Mongol hordes looked unstoppable, as they swept in from the East. The further back in history one looks, in absolute numbers, there were fewer of us, and less technology available to serve as a great numerical equalizer, lacking only the will to use it. Now, the question is, how will we regain that will?
I prefer that government…bases every foreign and domestic policy decision on the simple criteria that what is good for the race is good, and what is bad for the race, is bad.
I think that things will get worse before they get better. The whole artificial edifice of multiracial democracy has to come crashing down, first. It may be that the lights will have to go out, that many people will have to be unhooked from the matrix violently, before they will be red-pilled. But you know, Brett, it’s never taken a majority to lead our people, or to change history. As Samuel Adams wrote, the ones who will always make the difference will be that tireless, irate minority continually lighting brushfires in people’s minds. That time around, it only took 3%. This time, it might take a crisis event to kick things off, a economic collapse such as the credit bubble popping, a war, or maybe the Hispanics going first, declaring La Reconquista a done deal… we’ll see.
None of us have a crystal ball, but I can tell you than multiracial democracy can’t fly. Nietzsche told us that what cannot fly must fall, and what is falling, we should still push, and say, “fall faster”! Balkanization is happening, right now. People are voluntarily migrating and re-segregating racially. Hispanics are taking over the southwest, blacks are moving back to the southeast, and in response, White flight from both corners is coming back to the heartland, to the red states, the flyover states, to what I, in my nonfiction demographic study of this phenomenon, The Balk, call, “New America”.
It’s coming, and it’s a huge, organic, inevitable process that our enemies can’t stop or even slow down. Nor, can we do much to speed it up, but our job, as I see it, is to make people aware of the coming breakup of America, and try to encourage them to be on the right side of the front lines, when SHTF and we regain control over our destiny as a people.
Can you tell our readers where they can learn about the latest you are doing and how to find your books?
Sure, I’d be happy to. All of my books are available on Amazon, as well as on the websites of Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, Smashwords, and most other online retailers. As I mentioned, they vary in subject from alternate history to science fiction to adventure to nonfiction, but all of them have a racially positive message, of course.
My latest project, which I hope to have published by the end of the year, is a nonfiction philosophical treatise called The Big Picture. I intend that it’ll be kind of like Imperium, except with testicles. No offense, “Francis”.
Books by Billy Roper
The Fifth Horseman
The Hasten The Day Trilogy
The Balk: What it means, and what it means for America’s future.
Look Away: an alternate history of the Civil War
The Ice Path: A Way Forward
PaleoAmerican Ethnic Diversity
Hasten The Day
Waiting For The Sun: Hasten The Day, Part II
Wasting The Dawn: Hasten The Day, Part III
Saturday, October 29th, 2016
As the Alt Right grows, it depends more on the voices who can insert clarity and purpose into what otherwise becomes an emotionally-charged, symbol-driven conversation that inevitably drifts from its meaning. Paul Warkin is one of those writers who always gets a firm grip on the original meaning and then translates it into more detailed interpretations. You can find some of his work on Amerika. He was kind enough to take a few moments with us to speak about his worldview and interpretation of the Alt Right.
When did you become aware of being different than others? How did this disturb or complement your upbringing?
From as young as I can remember, I was repeatedly told how strange I was for rarely speaking. It seemed natural that upon entering an unfamiliar environment (being born and becoming aware), the first action would be to observe and learn. Others were content to repeat or state the obvious as a means of socializing. This was an early hint to me that I may be less socially influenced than the average.
What, in your view, is your primary issue or direction? What problems does this solve?
In the abstract: the defense, nurturing and creation of the beautiful, the true, and the virtuous, achieved primarily, in the long term, by evolutionarily improving humans. More concretely: defending, nurturing, and creating the people I love, and those I know who are of excellent character, talent, and beauty.
You seem to approach your thinking from a philosophical viewpoint more than a political one. What is the relationship between politics and philosophy? How do the two converge in your mind?
I have a preference for fundamentals, and philosophy is more fundamental than politics. Understanding a concept requires understanding its predicates. Philosophy explains politics. Politics helps us understand what to fight for and why, politics shows us how.
The Alt Right seems to be getting “large” at this point in time. Do you see this as the culmination of the past, or something entirely new?
Prior to 2015 the Alt Right was a combination of existing schools of thought and intellectual right wing movements like the European New Right, paleoconservatism, Fascism, Radical Traditionalism, Libertarianism, Neoreaction, and so on. Since then it has been joined by an increasing influx of people “red pilled by life” as Richard Spencer says. People who, for example, due to being born into diversity, always knew about racial differences but were explicitly commanded not say anything about it, and were forbidden from even noticing.
2015 saw the unopposed mass invasion of Europe and an American presidential candidate openly condemning illegal immigrant rapists. One white corner of the world saw a sharp spike in the arrival of their replacements, and another saw the first real political opposition to this. These events likely shook many Westerners around the world into an awareness of present conditions: we’re losing our nations, and that means our culture, our art, our order, and our unique view of the universe — our civilization — is going with them. 2015 made these problems that much more difficult to ignore.
At the same time, with the start of campaigning for the 2016 election, 2015 marked the terminal phase of the reign of the left’s race messiah, the one who was destined to unify the races. Undoubtedly many felt as though if there truly was a path to intra-national racial harmony, then Obama should have shown the way. A lack of progress in this direction, a failure to ease racial tensions, could hypothetically be excused or explained as being due to the presence of strong opposition, but he didn’t even point to a pathway. After one instance of a whitish man killing a black man, but before the judicially relevant details emerged, Obama revealed his true motivation and allegiance by announcing that if he had a son, he would look like the killed black man. This means that to Obama — the man who was hoped would bring racial harmony due in large part to the strong symbolism of his half-white, half-black ancestry — a person’s race was of primary importance when choosing sides. Obama’s legacy will be remembered as the culmination and conclusion of the civil rights era.
This is the type of naked leftism that forces a choice. The corresponding phenomenon on the lower level, on the scale of the useful idiot, is the rise of the social justice warrior to the point that any random man on the street likely knows what “SJW” means, and likely has some experience with them, either through their attacks on video games, their takeover of a science fiction award, or their forcing the cancellation of a band’s performance. The SJW’s imperative to out-virtue signal their peers has laid bare the logical conclusions of leftism, and has done so in a way that has personally impacted a significant segment of the population who would otherwise be uninterested in politics. The SJW phenomenon has demonstrated that anything that is good must actively be fought for or it will rot, decay, and die.
When people see this and recognize leftism for what it is, they look for alternatives. From here, there’s no going back, and it’s difficult to say what specific form the effects will take, but there is a real possibility for a new renaissance.
What influence did underground metal music have on your thinking? Were there other artistic influences, including literary? What are your favorite artists and works from underground metal?
The ethos manifest in underground metal of ruthless, vigorous, uncompromising pursuit of some cosmic end despite the onslaught of bitter tribulations imposed by a casually cruel or uncaring universe is beautiful and inspiring. These are some albums that stand out in my mind:
Incantation – Onward to Golgotha
Adramelech – Pure Blood Doom
Morbid Angel – Altars of Madness
Enslaved – Vikingligr Veldi
Tolkien’s works are a continual influence.
What, in your view, are the benefits and pitfalls of an engineering-based approach to civilization design?
easy to understand, which can allow rapid buy-in
easy to administer due to explicit rules which don’t require deep insight to apply and enforce
obvious junk is tossed, including superstitions and degeneracy
loss of good that is not understood, can’t be described, or is not readily quantifiable
successful to the degree that it is founded on true and practical knowledge of how humans work on the individual and group level — more limited or delusional knowledge results more readily in failure
subtlety is lost: rigid rules steamroll exceptions
must be manually tuned, which blocks the opportunity for automatic organic adjustments and refinements
Will you be voting for Donald J. Trump, or are you joining the accelerationists and voting Clinton to hasten the end? What do you think Brexit and Trump mean for Western politics, and will any good come of it?
I’m with the Trump accelerationists. Democracy is a terrible joke, this election makes that abundantly clear. Every form of government is rule by some type of elite. With monarchy or dictatorship, power comes from the top and flows fairly directly: it’s clear who’s in power and who’s enforcing the power. Democracy too has elites, but they are not as visible and there is an awkward intermediary in that power must be routed through the masses. So oligarchs who wish to rule use mass media to manipulate the people into voting for their puppet, that is, the candidate over whom they can exert influence in their favor. Ideally, for them, they wield influence over both candidates, and constrain the opinions of the masses into the range represented by the approved candidates. That was the norm until now.
This election appears to be different. Either choice is a threat. Clinton would threaten the current governing system by using and twisting it to maximize and maintain her wealth and power, and this would likely strain it to the breaking point. We can see this in action as the news outlets burn off their remaining reserves of public trust in an effort to desperately push Clinton to victory. Since the system is evil, that would be good. That is Clinton accelerationism. But though we would like to destroy evil, we also would like to look past its destruction and aim for favorable conditions in its fall.
Assuming Trump is sincere, and he does seems to be, he would be a threat to the current governing system because his determined efforts to fix the system would provoke strong backlash from the forces that have corrupted it. If both sides refuse to back down, this could very possibly lead to a civil war. That sounds alarmist and perhaps outlandish, and certainly the majority will choose whatever comfortable option they have in order to avoid violence, but we must remember that over the scale of centuries, far from being an unlikely aberration, war is in fact the norm.
Bush or Rubio would not have provoked this response.
So a vote for Trump is in that sense accelerationist. Conflict is coming; with a Trump victory, the ones holding the reigns of power, the official source of power to whom the middle may defer to by default, are more sympathetic with us, and have the possibility of becoming more closely aligned with us.
What do you think defines the boundaries of modernity?
Modernism means believing the primary determinant of the success of a society is the formal system used rather than the quality of humans (as individuals and in aggregate). This boundary lies somewhere between monarchism and democracy. The rationalization, or flawed assumption, that allows modernism to “make sense” is equality: when working with a set of identical components, how they’re put together is most important. Knowing that the components of society are unequal in important ways makes rejecting modernism easy.
How did you end up writing for Amerika? Was it a risky decision, trusting this hacked together site full of reprobates?
I’ve never revealed information that could lead to Hilary Clinton’s arrest, so for me putting disembodied words on the Internet is relatively low-risk. I honestly can’t remember whether I found the American Nihilist Underground Society by seeking metal recommendations or nihilist philosophy, but I’m fairly sure it wasn’t by searching the acronym. Either way, my interest was piqued by a philosophy that seemed to emanate from the ethos I described above, and eventually I responded to a request for submissions for Amerika, partly out of a desire to help the site grow if I could, and partly as a means of further exploring its ideas. Writing forces one to explicate vague thoughts and opens them to potentially useful criticism. It can also be more fun than the passive entertainment and empty pleasures the modern world offers. Becoming a thought criminal reprobate in the process is a small price to pay.
If all went exactly according to your desires, what would the future of Western Civilization look like, both globally and locally?
Western nations would embrace their heritage and return to ethnic homogeneity
a significant proportion of the geography of these nations, ideally the majority, would become technology-free zones to which individuals could be exiled, voluntarily or otherwise, when they are poor fits in their communities
art would be appreciated locally and idealized globally: it would be more common to personally know great performers nearby than for the few greatest performers to monopolize attention through mass media, and artists look toward replicating and improving works of the highest excellence across the history of the globe
automation would replace slavery and other similar arrangements, rendering an underclass obsolete
human reproduction would be natural (which ensures species and racial survival by preventing reproductive dependence on technology that may fail) but augmented with knowledge of phenotype made possible from reputation that can exist only in strong communities, and with knowledge made possible with genetic advancements indicating the likely phenotype (intelligence, height, ailments, etc.) of a given pairing
castes would be mostly downwardly mobile, with those falling off the lowest caste allowed to live out their child-free lives in peace to enjoy as they like if they cause no problems
extraterrestrial colonization succeeds and prevents the only source of life we know of from being snuffed out
Thank you for taking the time to communicate with our readers yet again. There is a lot to think about and be inspired by in what you have said.