Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘interview’

Brett Stevens Q&A On Reddit, December 22, 8 PM EST

Sunday, December 4th, 2016

frog_accepting_reality

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.

Interview With Reactionary Ian

Friday, November 18th, 2016

reactionary_ian

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.

Interview With W.M. Briggs

Monday, November 14th, 2016

briggs_william

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!

Interview With Billy Roper

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016

billy_roper

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.

billy_roper_-_action_photo

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

General Population
Deja Vu
Remnants
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
Glome’s Saga
PaleoAmerican Ethnic Diversity
Hasten The Day
Waiting For The Sun: Hasten The Day, Part II
Wasting The Dawn: Hasten The Day, Part III

Interview With Alt Right Writer Paul Warkin

Saturday, October 29th, 2016

paul_warkin_-_alt-right_writer

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?

Benefits:

  • 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

Pitfalls:

  • 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.

woods_in_darkness

“An Introduction To Nihilism” And An Interview With Brett Stevens

Friday, October 21st, 2016

brett_stevens

Over at Manticore Press, a short writing entitled “An Introduction To Nihilism” which explains in straightforward terms the philosophy applied in Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity.

Perhaps its most biting moment:

By facing the darkness of life directly and allowing the cold wind of the abyss to lick our faces, nihilism creates acceptance of the world as it is, and then embarks on a search for meaning that is not “social meaning” because it is interpreted according to the individual based on the capacity of that individual. Nihilism is esoteric in that it rejects the idea of a truth that can be communicated to everyone, but by freeing us from the idea that whatever truths we encounter must include everyone, allows for lone explorers to delve deeper and climb higher, if they have the biological requirements for the mental ability involved.

For this reason, nihilism is transformative. We go into it as equal members of the modern zombie automaton cult, convinced that there is objective truth and we have subjective preferences. We come out realizing that our preferences are entirely a function of our abilities and biology, and that “objective” truth is as much an idol as the Golden Calf of Moses’ time: a fiction and consensual reality created to keep a troupe of slightly smarter than average monkeys working together.

Its most interesting part however may be its clarity on the idea of nihilism as a different method of finding reality than the intermediaries and symbolic realities normally chosen by humans:

Nihilism rejects the ideas of universalism, rationalism and empiricism which have ruled the West for centuries. These ideas arise from our social impulses, or the desire to include others as a group and motivate them with what is perceived as objective truth.

Universalism holds that all people are essentially the same, and therefore that values are a matter of respecting the choices of each person, truth is what can be verified in a way a group can understand, and communication relies on words which have immutable meaning. Rationalism supposes that the workings our minds can tell us what is true in the world without testing, and implies universalism, or that the workings of our minds are all the same. Empiricism, now linked to its cousin logical positivism, states that truth is only found in observable and testable, replicable observations.

In addition, for your reading pleasure, Everritt over at A Natural Reaction has published “An Interview with Author and Philosopher Brett Stevens” in which he asks the big questions and some subtler ones that reinforce them. This was a well-executed interview.

Apparently this section has generated the most reaction:

Do you have hope for the future? If so why?

There is always hope. Humans can change themselves, or at least some can, and they tend to influence others by their natural leadership abilities. Right now, every Leftist policy is failing at once, and so history will force us to make a change. In my view, it will shift toward the vision of futurism and not the old, tired, and failed system of liberal democracy.

You may also notice that we have a new site design. This arose from practical concerns — how to make the text more readable, work around some technical glitches and support mobile devices — but also as an upgrade to our aging three-year-old site design. There will be minor corrections over the next few weeks as there always are, but if you spot something that has gone wrong, please mention it.

Interview With Nathan Damigo Of Identity Evropa

Thursday, September 1st, 2016

nathan_damigo_-_identity_evropa

Recently a new group called Identity Evropa has been making waves through the alternative Right underground through its formalized fusion of identitarian and alternative Right beliefs. We are fortunate to have interview responses from Nathan Damigo, leader of this group, for your reading pleasure today.

What does “European” mean to you? Does this mean people who reside in Europe, or those descended from the indigenous people of Europe? What about mixes?

Every day when I wake up I look in the mirror and see Europe. I see it in the face of my mother and that of my father. I see it in my nieces and nephews, as well as random passers-by when I traverse the country.

To me, European is both racial and spiritual. It transcends geographical location and informs us of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going. Wherever I am, Europe is with me.

Only we can be us. There are many people in this world with partial European heritage. Our ancestors conquered the world, leaving their mark wherever they arrived to a greater or lesser extent. Some of the peoples who were conquered still bear that mark, they can see hints of it when they look in the mirror, however they also see that of their own indigenous people. They are not us, nor we them.

When did Identity Evropa form, and what was its purpose? Who was involved, and how did all of you arrive at this perspective on politics and society?

Identity Evropa was founded in March of 2016. It was born through the remnants of a previous attempt to create a network of people interested in fighting for our future. A small collective remained together after our decision to scuttle the project, which we felt lacked the “it” factor and was in need of rebranding with a new vision.

Those involved with the project were already a collective of Eurocentric individuals with a shared understanding of the world. They came to their understanding of race through different avenues, but all through intellectual honesty. They are unfortunately unable to receive the proper recognition for their work at this time, but their contributions have been tremendous, and we could not have accomplished what we have so far without them.

What do members of Identity Evropa do? What do you hope to achieve as an organization and as individuals?

At this stage, Identity Europa members attend meet-ups and build relationships with other members. This is a lifelong project. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast. Most everyone coming into this are meeting others with their views for the first time. We want everyone to feel comfortable in the emerging communities in which they are now a part of.

We are however gearing up to promote our organization as well as our ideas on college campuses across the country. Members will be able to participate in this, and other future projects that will gradually become more direct as we continue to make gains and progress in our capabilities.

What would your ideal society look like? What would everyday life for normal people be like?

An ideal society would be one that places human nature central in its premises and builds institutions around that, not in contradiction with it as we have today. It would be progressive, advancing the interests of its people (not individuals) through policies that increase the level of functionality within its systems. Its structural planning would not be myopic and given to the base impulses of the masses for short-term and selfish gains, but on that of eternity.

How do you think we can get to that state, and (approximately) how long do you think it will take?

It could be a matter of decades if we chose to utilize our collective agency. Already the West is stirring. We are more numerous than most people at this stage realize; change is always brought about by a small but determined minority. The longer people take to get involved, the longer this will be strung out.

How did you become “awakened” and leave behind the mainstream political, social and economic illusion?

I was raised as a minority in the most technologically advanced place on the planet, Silicon Valley. It was not some horrendous experience being a minority among mostly Asian children of parents who worked for tech companies and Latinos. They were for the most part friendly.

However, even as a child I noticed double standards. I found my friends shaped their political ideologies based on what was best for their racial and ethnic communities. I attempted in vain to instill in them a civic national pride and identity, only to be met with rejection. They were not interested in what was best for America, but only that of themselves. While this was never explicitly vocalized, it was the hidden lesson I learn.

I came to a point in my mid twenties where I realized that no matter how hard I signaled how non-racist I was, the majority of non-whites would never do anything but advocate their own racial interests. They did not care about my interests or that of the nation my ancestors created. When I finally acknowledged that this was the norm and nothing could be done to change it, everything else began to fall into place.

What do you think this illusion consists of?

Abstract fetishism coupled with cognitive dissonance with institutional antidialogic holding it in place.

What is your relationship to the National Policy Institute (NPI)?

National Policy Institute and Identity Evropa have a great working relationship. Richard Spencer has been very supportive of what we are doing, and our visions for the future of the identitarian movement. Our close work has lead many to ask if Identity Evropa was part of the National Policy Institute, but I can proudly say that we are an independent, grass-roots organization.

What is the alternative right? Do you consider your identitarian approach to alt-right in nature?

The alt-right is a loose, and in many ways disparate, coalition of dissidents who meet in their opposition of globalization, unregulated capitalism, multiracialism, and abstraction fetishism. As a coalition there are many different political ideologies, religious theologies, and strategies for achieving long-term goals, however the central theme of the alt-right revolves around race and identity. At this point it is primarily a cultural movement without political representation.

Identity Evropa’s approach is alt-right in nature and a natural extension of the counter-culture that has fomented and expanded for the last several years on the internet. We are meta political, with our primary focus at this point on fraternity and network building, creating a new community composed of those whose interests meet at the intersection of race and culture.

How can people keep track of what you are doing and support you?

Following us on social media is the best way to keep track of what we are doing, while joining our fraternity or investing financially in us are the best ways to support our growth. We have a lot planned for the future and hope that everyone would find a way to get involved. The future is ours, but only if we make it.

Brett Stevens interview at The Right Stuff

Friday, April 17th, 2015

microphone

Recently I conducted an interview with Meow Blitz of The Right Stuff. This summarizes many positions and connects past and present ideals written about on this and other sites. It also answers dicey areas such as the need for interracial collaboration by nationalists, the rejection of the so-called “Jewish Question,” and why I endorse active nihilism instead of a religious basis to right-wing beliefs.

As of last night, the interview was removed for undisclosed reasons. In the spirit of getting the information out there, it is republished here in part, leaving off some of the cultural questions that are less relevant to readers of this site:

Your output would fill a book with several thousand pages. Despite this, many people are completely unaware of your existence due to your low-key approach. Can you briefly explain how you first became involved as an internet writer and what your initial impetus was?

I started writing about heavy metal because there was a scarcity of information. As time went on, I needed to write about what made some metal good and inevitably, as a means of explaining what metal is, what its ideas are. This led to a look at “outsider” ideas that are not tolerated by society. My outlook has always been a form of intense realism that is sometimes called “active nihilism,” and it took me away from socially-accepted answers toward those that our society denies but which might potentially represent actual solutions.

The “low-key approach” you mention keeps me on the fringes because it de-emphasizes emotion and other individualist sensations. This makes less exciting reading for those who want an outlet for their frustrations, but that group is the segment of my audience who are least prone to act on what they read. I aim to describe reality, which places me in the minority because most writers intend to cater to an audience. This produces circular writing, which consists of human reactions to a topic, failing to ever penetrate the issue and find reasoning, solutions or personal growth.

Tell us about how you became involved with Corrupt.org, what kind of things you tried to do with the site, and what made you ultimately abandon it.

I was fortunate at Corrupt.org to work with some of the finest thinkers in the emerging alternative right arena. Our editor Alex Birch is a man of many talents and great depth of perception, although like all sensitives in the modern time he suffers greatly for what he notices, and I worked with him in addition to many talented writers.

Corrupt.org was an attempt to take the raw id that the writings on nihilism expressed and apply it to sober and sensible policy which could avert the twin tragedies of ecocide and civilization decay in the West. At its core, the site was about transcendence, or seeing the underlying order to nature and learning to appreciate its beauty, then applying the lessons learned to our material world, since the organization of matter and thought share a common principle. It was abandoned when Alex Birch moved on from it at a time when I lacked the time and energy to keep it going.

Let’s talk about your homepage, Amerika.org. It has been running strong for over a decade and your output has been constant and seemingly inexhaustible. I know other talented writers have been involved in the site but you have been the most consistent and dedicated writer. One of the most recurring themes of your site is the concept of Crowdism. Can you explain this theory and how it relates to the political left?

Crowdism can be compared to the process of life. A person is born and moves to an unsettled patch of land. He sets up a house, tills the fields, raises animals, and sets up a family. He then succumbs slowly to a process of calcification. He no longer thinks about conquest, but of maintaining and improving what he already has. He seeks to avoid risk and, as socializing with others and trade enter the picture, becomes more concerned for appearances than realities. As a result, he slowly drifts away from knowledge of the world into an entirely human sphere composed of his own thoughts and how he can transfer those thoughts to others. He becomes focused on control and management, which euphemisms for projection and manipulation, and tends to think in terms of the types of simple structures that support those and forgets the more complex designs of both nature and his own imaginative thought. The result is stagnation from within, and while he may identify scapegoats outside of himself, the cause and solution both lie within how he disciplines his thinking.

In the same way, Crowdism emerges from the human individual in a civilization. He already has grocery stores and hospitals, schools and roads, and other benefits of civilization, and he takes those for granted. What he wants is to avoid being seen as insufficient or inferior by the standards of the civilization. In other words, he fears not being included because he either falls short or people in society notice his motivations and find them dubious. To avoid the possibility of being excluded, he goes to war against the idea of standards itself. His main weapon is to play the victim: he claims that he has been oppressed, or otherwise injured, and demands a subsidy to raise him to the base level that others enjoy. We call this idea egalitarianism, but those who uphold it do not do so for others, but for themselves. They want zero social oversight so their behavior can never be wrong and they will always be included in the wealth and power of the civilization.

Crowdism manifests psychologically through passive-aggression expressed through altruism, which is a form of advertising by the individual. Public acts of charity are a pre-emptive defense against criticism because the person attacked can point all the good that he has done as a selfless benefactor. From that unassailable position, he can then construe any criticism of himself as oppression, play the victim and get sympathy from the group. This is where the “Crowd” in Crowdism comes in: the individual, who fears social oversight, finds others in the same predicament and bands together to form a swarm. This swarm has one rule: attack anyone from outside who attacks any one of us. This is the same psychology behind street gangs and cliques in elementary school. They swarm as a group and so people join so that they can be defended. This group offers one thing which is the promise of universal inclusion without regard to behavior, which means that all individuals escape oversight. Its natural enemies are morality, common sense, history, logic and knowledge of beauty. It wages war on these things so that it can force society to include those who are otherwise insufficient, which gives it a numerical advantage over any sane system of government or leadership. All societies are destroyed by Crowdism, which weakens them and divides them internally to the point where they cannot respond to external threats and cannot make realistic decisions, leading them into a cycle of endless foreign wars, internal crises, and faddish self-rule.

Leftism is one form of Crowdism. Leftism is the ideology emerging from The EnlightenmentTM — or as I call it, “The Age of Emo” — and it can be summarized as egalitarianism. It has two stages, the first of which resembles modern libertarianism, and the second of which resembles modern socialism, distinguished by its introduction of subsidies. The founding idea of socialism is that workers own the means of production which in practical terms means that they are shareholders to the wealth of the society and receive dividends simply for being alive. It is a subsidy and nothing more. Socialism arises from classical liberalism because once you have said that all people are equal, you rapidly start to see that results do not end up being equal; some end up wealthier than others. To avoid the appearance of inequality, societies adopt subsidies which enable them to take from the wealthy and give to the less wealthy, which avoids this “disparate impact” in end results. Leftists use equality as their goal to mask their actual intention, which is to seize power and wealth, and as a method they argue for altruism because it is a binary that is impossible to criticize.

When leftists say “we want equality for everyone,” the only inversion of that which is recognized by the average person is that someone wants inequality for everyone, and that sounds bad in the social logic of human beings which says you should be inclusive and share with others. In reality, there is a third option which is neither equality nor inequality, but as Plato said, “good to the good and bad to the bad,” in varying degrees. People should get what they give, based not just on effort but competence. However, competence is mostly biological, starting with IQ, and this makes it unpopular because it is not under the control of our intentions. We cannot will ourselves to be smarter than we are; we are what we are, and no amount of pretending or engineering can change that. For this reason, altruism wins out socially and becomes a form of social control. Those who oppose it are presumed to be enemies, and the Crowd attacks them, without government having to do anything. This is why Crowdism is a more advanced system than totalitarianism, but achieves the same ends.

Amerika documents Crowdism and the ongoing collapse of the West and counters the leftist notion with a few ideas. The first is self-interest, which is that no person should be obligated to take care of another. The second is social hierarchy, in both caste system and aristocracy. The third is purpose, which requires identity, which requires nationalism. This complex chain of notions holds that social standards are not the enemy at all but the only thing capable of saving us from our callowness as individuals, and that to have social standards society must have a moral standard, which requires a goal so that we can compare our actions to that goal and see what results we have achieved in reality. This is a complex form of the conservative notions of consequentialism, or measuring our acts by results not methods, and responsibility, meaning that we are assessed by whether or not we achieved the goal or purpose of our society if even in a small part. This philosophy is called Futurist Traditionalism for lack of a better term and it is the subject of several ongoing writings.

At many points you have described yourself as a pan-nationalist. Do you still consider yourself to be one?

Absolutely. The news media and academics have hidden a secret from us all:

white power = black power

Nationalism for any group leads to nationalism for all because the idea of nationalism demands a world order where each nation is composed of people who are more related to each other than to anyone else. To want nationalism for Germans is to also want it for Zulus, Basques and Jews. Our current civilization is based on the idea of internationalism, or one type of utopian ideology for every society on earth and every type of person in each of them. This order ensures that there is never any actual culture in any place, which means that people have no reason to obey social standards except fear of getting caught, which in turn necessitates governments with increasing amounts of power over their citizens.

Identitarianism holds that we cannot police individuals. Policing is a negative goal, the threat of punishment. We can however use positive goals, like collaboration, to establish social standards and exclude those who violate them. Social standards require culture, and culture requires identity, which is a sense of history and an immutable notion of belonging to a specific land. That sense of “belonging” makes people personally invested in its well-being — including that of nature — even involving acts that do not directly impact the individual. Nationalism confers self-determination and self-rule to each group through the use of culture instead of force alone. Leftism hates social standards, which is why it opposes nationalism and imports third world peoples to destroy it.

Unlike others on the right who want to forcefully eliminate or at least suppress certain decadent behaviors (drug abuse, homosexuality, pornography, etc) you have recommended creating sectioned-off communities, like little Amsterdams, where people can participate in those activities without bothering the rest of the population. In some instances you have recommended this solution but in others you have stated that you want such lifestyles to be driven underground for the sake of modesty (the quiet gay relative, if you will). What is your current position and what are the limits of permissible behavior?

These two positions are the same. Homosexuals, for example, should have communities for themselves where they can practice as they want. This however requires them to localize the behavior to that community. This means that their homosexuality no longer becomes public, except in the community where it is the norm. Conservatives tend to say “what happens in the bedroom remains private,” which has two elements to it: first, we do not run around trying to find deviants for their sexual behavior, but second, they also keep their sexual tendencies private. In that outlook, there would not be such a thing as gay marriage because homosexuality is an exclusively sexual behavior, not a reproductive one, and is thus unrelated to family and needs to remain a private choice of the individual.

Allowing gay communities extends the bedroom further for the simple reason that it allows gay people to search for mates. Homosexuality has occurred in every society known to humanity, and persecuting it only drives gay people into cover as heterosexuals, at which point they have children and introduce possible deleterious behaviors and genetics — homosexuality is often a signal from nature that particular genetic combinations should not be reproduced — into the gene pool to the weakness of all. While it seems paradoxical, this policy of tolerance in exchange for invisibility offers both homosexuals and heterosexuals a chance to not just co-exist but not loathe each other when doing so. No one likes to mention this, but homosexual behavior is something heterosexuals are biologically inclined to find repellent, and vice-versa. We will never like what the other group does, so it is better that each has its own locality.

What would you say your current political and philosophical views are? You had once mentioned an ideal world of small kingdoms connected by trains.

My current political view is: get rid of liberalism, government and ideology. Replace it with what has worked for most of human history, which is aristocracy and a caste system, monarchy, strong national culture which produces a binding between individuals, society and nature through identity. The real questions are not being asked. Those are how we get leaders of quality at every level, how we establish working social roles, how we limit growth, and how we enforce rewarding the good people and exiling the bad without having to rely on a strong centralized government or decentralized mob.

In my ideal, people would associate with those like them. This would lead to a world of smaller kingdoms which would be aware of one another, but also so virulently xenophobic that they did not mix. This would enable each ethnic group to refine itself and improve qualitatively, instead of obliterating its refinements through mixing, but also allow co-existence and a trade in ideas. In addition — and this is what the left fears — it would allow some societies to be visibly more successful and/or more civilized than others.

Which figures have had the biggest impact on your philosophical views?

The most important thinkers in my world are Plato, Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich W. Nietzsche. The biggest influence on my thought however is nature. I walk in the woods and think, using equal parts analytical thinking and synthetic thinking (cf. Vikernes’ “syncretic eclecticism”). The result is a greater clarity than can come through the filter of language (in philosophy) and character drama (in fiction).

In addition, I gratefully acknowledge the following influences: Julius Evola, Ted Kaczynski, Aldous Huxley, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, Guillaume Faye, Alain de Benoist, Joseph Conrad, William S. Burroughs, H.P. Lovecraft, Immanuel Kant, Paul Woodruff, Guillaume Faye, Alain de Benoist, Ralph W. Emerson, Paul Gottfried, Michel Houellebecq, Pentti Linkola, Theodor Herzl, Colin Flaherty, Garrett Hardin, Dr. William Pierce, Michael Crichton, Samuel Huntington, Steve Sailer, Gwendolyn Taunton, Johannes Eckhart, G.K. Chesterton, Bruce Charlton, C.S. Lewis, Nigel Farage, Graham Greene, Jane Austen, Christopher Alexander, Mary Shelley, David Brooks, Knut Hamsun, Thomas Sowell, Jared Taylor, Tom Wolfe, William Faulkner, Arne Naess, Bill White, the Prince of Wales, William Blake, Chinua Achebe, Peter Brimelow, Lawrence Auster, Junichiro Tanazaki, Richard M. Weaver, Anders Breivik, and many others including essentially all of the classics of Western literature. Most of my heroes are philosophers or fiction writers. There are many others as well, too many to count, including a number of conservative, traditionalist, New Right, Neoreaction and far-right blogs.

A lot of people on the dissident and mainstream right have come down hard on Michael Brown and mocked him not only as a symbol of modern black American degeneracy but as a symbol of a failed and increasingly idiotic liberal narrative about black victimhood and white evil. It was very surprising when I opened your page and saw that unusual article in which you basically defended Michael Brown, not as some innocent victim, but as the product of the failure of multiculturalism. I understand this concept but what would you say to a rightist who is completely cynical about the abilities of blacks to successfully govern themselves due to genetic shortcomings? Should we simply respect that blacks will never be on our level or is there hope for making them some kind of superior race?

“Superior” and “inferior” both require an object. Superior or inferior for what purpose? Africans have been happy in Africa since the dawn of time and see no reason to change. I do not either. The root of the problem in America is diversity, which forces different groups to either give up their culture and be assimilated or be perpetual outsiders living in relative poverty. This destroys the good people, who will want to hang on to culture, while rewarding those with no sense of pride in who they are except at the most trivial level of “personal accomplishment,” which is financial success through obedience in the workplace and to government.

I wrote an article once called “Creating the African Superman.” In it I described what would happen if eugenic principles were applied to African-Americans, namely keeping the best and removing the rest. This would have the same effect as the bottlenecks enforced on societies by nature that select for morality in order to get along with others and higher intelligence and a willingness to work collaboratively. Were I African-American, I would look toward this solution, and also read the writings of Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X and Osiris Akkebala who champion a strong African nationalism and repatriation to Africa, which if it does not thrive under African rule will quickly be re-colonized by China, India, the Middle East or some combination thereof. Africans risk being dispossessed of their homeland within the next century if strong indigenous leadership is not found.

Through my upbringing in the South, I have been fortunate to know good people of every ethnic group. It shocks and disturbs some white nationalists when I say that I know good, moral and loving black people that I would not mind having as neighbors if it were not for the long-term social consequences of diversity itself. While Asia appalls me, I know some wonderful Asian people. It seems to me that in every race that are castes, and in the highest caste among each are good people who both intelligent and able to apply that intelligence on a practical level. That combination is rare and denotes the people who should be in leadership positions but under democracy they never are. These people tend to oppose diversity, although if they are from third-world populations less so, mainly because they are humiliated by the low quality level of the society around them.

Diversity on the other hand can never work. The Robert Putnam study on diversity, which found that higher levels of diversity reduced trust both among different ethnic groups and within those groups, was one of the first cracks in the wall of zombie-like assumption that “diversity = good.” Diversity is a weapon of the left which hopes to destroy majority culture and remove social standards so that we can all be equal; it is a successful weapon because it is a binary, where you either support diversity or you are assumed to be Adolf Hitler II who wants to kill all who are not white. In reality, no race likes diversity. Under integration, all races will be replaced by a mixed-race group — a form of passive genocide — as has occurred to notorious failure in Brazil, Mexico, parts of the Middle East and many other of the formerly-great but now ruined civilizations worlwide. Somehow, every civilization that extinguishes itself manages to go the mixed-race route right before the end. The problem is diversity, no matter what groups are involved. Even where hybrids have been attempted between supposedly superior variants of Asian and European, the result has been an average of the two that loses the exceptional traits of both.

Mike Brown never had a chance. He grew up in a culture destroyed by diversity. He could either be the lapdog of liberals and assimilate, or stick with a “black culture” mostly managed by Hollywood. Absolutely no one gave him a positive direction he could follow because to do so would be to refute diversity and say, “Forget integrating into mixed-race America — be good by the standards of your community alone.” He was thrown into a social world that embraced victim culture and took on its trappings through gangsta rap and racial resentment, all of which primed him for the events which ended his life. Stoned, probably paranoid, angry and confused, he went on a crime spree and then panicked and assaulted a police officer. These actions ended as one might expect and ultimately, while he was not a positive actor in the situation, he was very much someone who never was given any realistic option to his fate. We all know about the black kids who are good at school, go on to Harvard and make lots of money, but Mike Brown was not that. He was probably an individual of 90-95 IQ points who could have been a perfectly normal contributor in an African identitarian society, but in a mixed-race and racial pity infused society, he became a pawn for the political struggle of leftists to destroy majority culture, and it destroyed him.

You caused a bit of controversy over your views on Neoreaction. I know you are friends with many in the NRx crowd but you look like you may have burned a few bridges with your statements. What specifically do you find wrong with NRx?

Neoreaction has many positive attributes. It inherits the idea that ideological government is a parasite from its post-libertarian origins, and instead wants to take social engineering to its logical extreme: run government like a corporation, where it bills citizens for services and delivers limited and functional services only, doing away entirely with the ideological State which is the basis of liberalism. This is the starting point of Neoreaction, which then branches out into other areas including monarchism, theocracy and nationalism.

My critique of Neoreaction is based in two areas. The first is that, in an effort to attract a popular audience, it reduced itself to a form of individualism. This happens to all internet movements as people want to join so they can appear “edgy,” but fear getting too far from socially acceptable ideas. Second, Neoreaction refuses to accept its conservative heritage and to endorse organic civilization. Liberalism operates through “systems” which are designed to avoid strong culture and leaders, relying instead on “invisible hand” methods like market forces and popular votes. Conservatism desires almost no government and self-rule by culture. Culture requires a racial basis and race requires nationalism, and those three are necessary together to create identity, without which social standards — other than the nominal prohibitions on murder, rape, pedophilia and the like — are impossible. Neoreaction without strong nationalism simply becomes libertarianism, which then quickly degenerates into liberalism.

I read a good many Neoreactionary authors, including but not limited to Nick Land, Justine Tunney and Henry Dampier. I have in the past read Mencius Moldbug but previously found most of his ideas elsewhere, notably Huxley, Houellebecq, Plato and Nietzsche. Neoreaction also denies many of its invisible influences, like Houellebecq, Charlton and Kaczynski, and its Nietzschean basis. But Moldbug was significant in that he said that while he was not a white nationalist, he had sympathy for them; that broke the invisible barrier that kept people from accepting ethno-nationalism as an objectively better method of social organization than the nation-state.

On the topic of NRx you recently suggested that it was becoming a spent force or dividing into bickering camps. Can you elaborate a little more on this?

Conservatism will inevitably absorb Neoreaction because the philosophy behind Neoreaction is a type of Conservatism. It is hard to realize how almost all political movements are variants of leftism, and how leftism infects all political movements because it introduces the individual as a reference point. People think that unless everyone in a room recognizes something as truth, it cannot be true, and this leads to making decisions by consensus or popularity instead of simply picking which point of view is most accurate. Neoreaction struggles with this because it is an internet movement, a young movement, and its members are undertaking the tremendous psychic weight of defying taboos and looking toward a direction that is not a variation of mainstream ideas.

In addition, they fear conservatives because most who publicly identify with being on the right are in fact “cuckservatives” or those who value compromise with the left over taking a stand. The problem is that Neoreactionaries take the term “public conservative” and focus on “conservative” when they should look at public. Anything which is designed to curry favor among a large number of people is by definition driven by compromise and appearance instead of actual reasoning. This clashes with the nature of conservatism, which is consequentialism (results in real world) and transcendence (a focus on the best results, i.e. “the good, the beautiful and the true” and “the perennial things” per Huxley or “tradition” per Evola). The idea of a popular conservative movement is nonsense and that is a hard pill to swallow. Liberalism and other forms of populism exist only as denial, apologism and distraction from this truth and the awareness that our society is in decline.

Neoreaction had the greatest power when it said that our society took a wrong turn with The EnlightenmentTM and that now we must fix that by moving away from the notion of equality entirely and embrace social hierarchy and consequentialism. This was too extreme for most of its audience. They want to make little fixes and then go on with life as normal. The result is a loss of focus and a gradual entryism of populism. People are looking for reasons to avoid the obvious task ahead of us. As a result they — like generations before them — distract themselves with what are on the surface innovations, but essentially justifications for remaining with the status quo.

Another point of controversy involves your views on Zionism. Yes, here comes the inevitable and obligatory Jewish Question. I find your approach to be strikingly contrarian. Can you explain why you hold this position?

If I wanted to destroy white people, I would create a false target for them. They would then exhaust themselves in that pursuit, as they did in the great wars against nationalism from the Napoleonic Wars through WWII, and be left weakened. The “Jewish Question” (JQ) is such a false target.

Theodor Herzl — the writer who inspired the founding of modern Israel — wrote that Jews would be safest and happiest in Israel because the cause of anti-Semitism was Jews standing out among other groups who were trying to preserve their own national identities. He recognized that strong nationalism is inherent to any population which wishes to save itself. The modern West fears nationalism because it clashes with the fundamental idea of liberalism, which is equality. The decay of the West came from The EnlightenmentTM when we decided that the individual was more important than social order or natural law. Our society will be in decline until we identify egalitarianism as the actual target, and the JQ distracts from this.

The JQ is tempting because it is an excuse for our failure and enables us to avoid taking responsibility for our actions. We did not do this to ourselves, we say, it was those evil Jews. They somehow came in here as a tiny population and took over. Then all evil came from them. If we just remove the Jews, the thinking goes, the good times will return again. The ugly truth is that the cause of our decay is within us and we can blame no one else. Our people chose the degenerate products, illusory ideologies and venal behaviors that JQ-ites attribute to Jews. Even if we assume Jews promoted these behaviors, we cannot blame the salesman for the popularity of his goods.

This leaves us with the hard recognition that we must reject the flattering idea of individualism and the guaranteed inclusion in the group that it provides to the individual. That type of thinking rejects the parallel roles of natural selection and morality which exile people who will do harm to social order. This offends the ego, but throughout history, we see this kind of “group individualism” manifesting before empires collapse. Originally it was called decadence and it comes from within. Until we accept responsibility for our decadence, we remain in a “victimhood narrative” that makes us passive and whiny.

Where were the Jews when the Maya collapsed internally, long before the Spanish arrived? What about the collapse of ancient Angkor Wat or the Tocharians? No Jews there, nor did they play a sizeable role in the collapse of Greece. Using the Jews as a scapegoat will lead us to attack a false target. By doing that, we will miss fixing what we must to survive and guarantee our doom. In the process, we will commit atrocities that make us hate ourselves. While The Holocaust began as a slave labor program, it became mass extermination. No person of noble European heritage wants to murder men, women and children.

Further, we have much to learn from the Jews. While they have their own struggles, most notably neurosis and venality, they also have a rich tradition of scholarship and a practical outlook that has every Jewish kid studying to be a doctor or lawyer while his white cohorts are busily fixating on football, video games, masturbation and Big Macs. If white Europeans emulated this and the strong nationalism of Judaism, they would be a healthy society again. The JQ is just a distraction from that necessary goal.

Amerika has had a love and hate relationship with the GOP. What role do you think the Tea Party still plays in the GOP today or at least conservatism at large?

The Tea Party represents a desire to reverse leftist drift. Since every journey begins with a single step, the Tea Party redirects mainstream conservatism toward conservative goals. I have zero faith in democracy but while it is available to us, we are fools not to use it. It is easily subverted by even small groups who are organized and motivated. It also avoids the sheer chaos of armed revolution and the unsavory possibility of having to murder our fellow citizens for following the orders of a decadent regime.

As far as the Baby Boomers go, the Tea Partiers are the best of them. They either never believed the 68er hippie quest or have repudiated it and are pushing hard in the opposite direction. The original name for the Baby Boomers was as you probably recall “the Me Generation.” There has never been a more self-focused group of people, and their modus operandi was to take all they could and then sabotage the means by which they got it so no one else could. They know nothing but themselves and want the world to be consumed by fire when they die.

The rest of us have inherited a world the Baby Boomers ruined. We should confiscate their assets and exile them to Mexico, then burn their garbage music, neurotic films and vapid literature in vast heaps. But the kicker of it is that Baby Boomers themselves were victims of decay. Their parent generation were the same people who embraced jazz and speakeasies in the 1920s and became flappers. The parents of that generation were the Bohemians, following the same regimen that the hippies did of free love and peasant living, much like self-styled iconoclasts for the previous two centuries. It is a perennial sham. These are first-world people adopting third-world lifestyles, much like anti-racists today, because they want to make a name for themselves as being egalitarians.

You have mentioned Hinduism as an important influence on your thought. What role, if any, do you think Hinduism has in reviving the West?

Hinduism resembles the other pagan religions I admire, mainly those from Northern Europe and ancient Greece. Several really important ideas come from Hinduism. The biggest is esotericism: there is one reality, thus one truth, and all religions try to approximate that truth, but religions learn like people do, which is that at each stage of revelation a new level becomes apparent and those with more ability and drive make it farther than others. I find great inspiration in the Bhagava-Gita and other writings of classical Hinduism.

It does not make sense to treat religions as discrete ideologies; as a wise man said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” I would view any religion as a fact and most of those practicing it as interpretations. At that point, it becomes clear that some are farther along than others. This knowledge, and the Hindu monist cosmology, could go far in revitalizing Western Christianity to be not only coherent, but relevant in a scientific age.

You’ve had a dramatic shift in your views on Christianity, from hostility to some kind of acceptance. What is your view on Christianity?

When I started out, I wanted to murder every Christian in existence, burn down their churches and tear up their holy books. Over time, I came to see how “Christianity” has become infected by liberal logic and not the other way around. The herd does this to every idea it gets its paws on, so there is no advantage to choosing another religion, but our interpretation of Christianity can be improved.

No religious principle can exist which contradicts that which is apparent from reality. The herd Christianity, like liberalism, promises reward in another world for doing moral good. That in itself is the problem, not Christianity, which can be re-interpreted to de-liberalize it and remove its populist elements and replace them with warlike and realist tenets, creating what Adolf Hitler called “positive Christianity” as inspired by the thought from Schopenhauer that Christianity had positive attributes which could be brought forth by a Hindu influence.

Some years ago a fan archived all of Amerika’s articles into a PDF file. Is there a possibility that you’ll put out a collected works of Brett Stevens?

I remember someone archiving the ANUS articles, the 2009 articles from Amerika.org and the 2010 articles from Amerika.org. These are great resources to have. I can say that there is something similar planned for the future, but cannot elaborate at this time.

I recall your writing starting out very bleak and edgy. Later, the site adopted a pan-nationalist and even a Zionist and Christian-friendly view. Can you tell us a bit more about the bizarre political history of the site and how it changed?

The basic opinions offered on the site have never changed, but over time, they have evolved to get closer to the root of the diagnosis of the human problem, and as a result have removed some intermediary targets from their radar. The philosophies of Pentti Linkola, Julius Evola and Varg Vikernes still have an influence, along with Nietzsche and the Western canon of literature and philosophy. My contribution to this heap of historically unprecedented mental clarity is to recognize the causes of social decline in the individual, and the importance of identitarian culture and realism together in counteracting those.

Conservation is a conservative ideal. Environmentalism makes sense with the liberal ideas that make it unworkable removed. Most humans not only contribute nothing but actively sabotage civilization through carelessness or selfishness. They go to jobs, sure, and buy stuff, sure, but they are fundamentally not active in maintaining and advancing society. They are aware of this, and it makes them underconfident, so they adopt a surrogate belief system in liberalism which lets them claim to be anything but the self-absorbed and parasitic little monkeys they are. I couple these green outlooks with active nihilism, which is widely misunderstood. Nihilism denies all human thoughts and sensations which do not correspond to reality on a structural level. It prefers to know how things actually work, as opposed to their appearance and the (endless) “reactions” through human response in the form of desires, judgments and “feelings.” This vein of thought rejects all human illusions, including democracy and the basic goodness of human beings, culminating in a viewpoint that advocates a less formalized and less inclusive society where natural selection and hierarchy prevails.

As far as extreme environmentalism goes, my philosophical writing began in order to solve a single issue: ecocide. Over the past century, humanity has gone from co-existing with nature to consuming it. The problem is that solutions cannot be found at the level of method. We need entirely different leadership and values. Any society which, as the West has since The EnlightenmentTM, sacralizes individual choice will make reality optional. When reality becomes optional, people — most of them being as selfish, venal and manipulative as monkeys — do what is convenient for them and as a result, consume all resources and crowd out nature.

We cannot stop ecocide with “green” or “environmental” solutions; the only solution is to change our leadership and our culture so that we regard our environment as necessary, as the Deep Ecology movement pointed out. That in turn requires us to subordinate the individual to both natural law and social hierarchy, which requires putting the smarter and better people in leadership above the rest. This is perennially unpopular because it contradicts our view of our individual selves as uniquely important and valuable just for being alive, and incompatible with democracy, equality, inclusion and other modern Western sacred cows, but it is also a better representation of reality. If we choose it, we succeed; if we do not, we fail and destroy the ecosystems around us, eliminating the diversity of species and leaving only the “adaptive generalists” of fast-growing small trees, rapidly-seeding ground cover and generic critters like raccoons, squirrels, rats, sparrows and crows.

If any readers have questions inspired by the above, feel free to drop them in the comments here.

Interview with Brett Stevens on Fanghorn Forest

Thursday, October 9th, 2014

fanghorn_forest

Neoreactionary blog Fanghorn Forest published an interview with Brett Stevens today on the topics of conservatism, global collapse of civilization, and the necessity for clarity in philosophy as a pre-requisite to political thought.

Interview with John Morgan of Arktos

Monday, January 9th, 2012

This is a continuation of our interview with John Morgan, Editor-in-Chief of Arktos. This innovative firm publishes books about alternatives to modernity, including traditionalist, new right and ecofuturist literature. John was kind enough to take the time answer a lengthy interview, of which the final part is presented here.


In The Problem of Democracy, Alain de Benoist re-states many of the criticisms Plato had of Greek democracy. Is this a recurring problem? What’s your assessment of de Benoist’s thesis?

The New Right authors frequently refer to the Greeks when analyzing modern civilization, since in those ideas we get a sense of what civilization was back then, before all the accretions of our time. While I found much food for thought in that book, I must admit that de Benoist’s ultimate point remains muddled to me. At points he seems on the verge of advocating a return to rule by an aristocratic elite, but then pulls back and calls for direct democracy and frequent referendums. I don’t see what that would achieve apart from making society even more chaotic than it already is. While I think de Benoist’s achievement is unparalleled by any other living philosopher, I do think that he’s worked too hard to try to escape the (inaccurate) “neo-fascist” label with which he’s always been burdened.


Do you think the division between Left and Right is accurate? This question exists on two levels: first, the concepts themselves – do Left and Right exist separately as concepts? The second level is political parties. Do we have any true Leftist or Rightist parties today?

I assume we’re talking about the United States? As I mentioned earlier, if we apply the traditional, European concepts of Left and Right, there has never been a true Right in America, since the true Right is anti-democratic, hierarchical, and anti-secular. The Constitution itself is based on liberal principles, which is what the American Revolution was about in the first place. That’s why I’ve never understood why some people in our circles are so obsessed with Ron Paul. Yes, he seems marginally better than the other candidates, but ultimately, there’s not much in his thought that corresponds to the true Right. That being said, I do draw distinctions between different schools of American politics. The paleoconservatives, and voices such as Pat Buchanan’s, are much closer to the ideals of the true Right than anything we see in mainstream politics today. I see very little of interest in any of the political parties. The Republicans may make an occasional ideological gesture, but it’s always done to placate their base and never amounts to any lasting change in American society. And these days, the neoconservatives have come to play such a prominent role in Republican discourse, which, as many writers have shown, has its roots in Trotskyism!


Do you think the New Right and the more ideologically consistent elements of the American Right, like the paleoconservatives, can be reconciled? It seems the New Right is not fond of Americanization, but they are less clear about America itself.

I’m not certain. While there is definitely common ground between the two, there are also very big differences. One of the most important is the New Right’s identification, following Nietzsche, of Christianity as the root of the West’s ills. The paleoconservatives are very concerned with the preservation of America’s Christian identity. While I am sympathetic to the New Right intellectually speaking, I think it’s definitely true that it won’t be possible to build any effective political ideology around the idea of rejecting Christianity.

As for the issue of Americanization, the issue there is the exportation of the worst of American culture into all the corners of the globe, not so much an issue with America in itself. I don’t have any problem with that. Popular culture in America has been detrimental to the nature of our own society, so it’s hard to imagine how it could have a positive effect in other countries. But it’s certainly not the case that the New Right rejects America and its people as a whole.


As an American, do you think American hegemony has brought anything positive to the world? What would you prefer that your birth-country would do with its time?

I don’t embrace knee-jerk anti-Americanism. To say that everything in America or that America does is bad is incredibly simplistic. I’ve come to appreciate that most acutely after living in India. At the same time, I think America was at its best in its early decades, when America (mostly) kept to itself and the government didn’t intrude into its citizens’ lives. Things started to go wrong with the Civil War, when the government placed itself at the disposal of northern bankers and industrialists and declared war on a segment of its own population. In the twentieth century, America has convinced itself that it has a God-given obligation to convert the rest of the world into a facsimile of itself, through bombing campaigns if necessary, while enriching itself by peddling the most degenerate cultural products known in all of history. Meanwhile, the government has been continually eroding the rights of its own citizens. As the economy slides further into the toilet, I really do think they are preparing for the day when we are all serfs on an enormous, Third World plantation. I think America needs to be reorganized along communitarian lines, as the New Right advocates. Even the New Right authors themselves acknowledge that many of the ideas they discuss actually have their origins in some of the more radical American social thinkers, such as the Southern Agrarians. America has the unique distinction of being the only country that was founded on abstract principles rather than on tribal necessity. In one sense, it’s a weakness, since we lack the traditions and rootedness that other nations possess by their very nature, but it can also be a strength, since we have a long tradition of living in communities that try to retain their unique identity while living in harmony with the others (provided that they are not under threat). So, in one sense, America is inherently a “New Right” country!

In the twentieth century, America has convinced itself that it has a God-given obligation to convert the rest of the world into a facsimile of itself, through bombing campaigns if necessary, while enriching itself by peddling the most degenerate cultural products known in all of history.


What is “liberalism”? Is it a philosophy, or aggregate of negative opinions toward other philosophies?

I have recently been reading a book by the recently-deceased American Catholic conservative scholar, Thomas Molnar, entitled The Counter-Revolution. In it, he identifies the common aspect of all liberal movements dating from the French Revolution, whether we are talking about the Soviet Union or present-day Democrats in America, as atheism. I think that’s ultimately what it is at its root. Without God, we can only think in terms of workers, productivity, comfort, “human rights” (whatever that means), and so on – all the things that liberals advocate, and all of which are based upon a reduction of humanity to utilitarianism. All that is best in any culture is that which strives for the ineffable and the transcendent.


If you could publish new works through Arktos, what would they be? Are you looking forward to any original works that are being written now? If so, how do budding authors submit their works, and what would be required for those works to be considered?

Oh, there are literally hundreds of books we’d like to do! Plus we keep getting new submissions all the time. It’s just a question of resources and what we can acquire the rights to do. Personally, I would love to publish some of Ernst Jünger’s works in English, as well as some of the works of other Conservative Revolutionary authors. I would also like to do more Evola, and branch out into the wider world of traditionalism. There’s always been a sharp divide between Guénonians, Schuonians and Evolians. I don’t know if it’s possible, but I would love to have Arktos be the first publisher to bridge those chasms. We’ve already done so in a small way with our journal, The Initiate, which has published both Evolian and Guénonian/Schuonian articles side-by-side. I’d also like to see us get into more American material, especially paleoconservatism.

As for original works, we do have several coming up. There’s the Tito Perdue novel I already mentioned. We will also be publishing The Clash of History by Dominique Venner, a French author who has been quite influential in France for decades but who is virtually untranslated. This is a book he wrote specifically with Arktos in mind, and features Socratic dialogues between himself and various figures from European history. We also plan to publish a translation of a book of Alain de Benoist’s essays on the current global financial crisis. There will likely be another book by Kerry Bolton on the horizon as well.

If someone has a manuscript to submit to us, we’re more than happy to consider it. You can send it directly to me (john-at-arktos.com) or to info-at-arktos.com (replace -at- with @). Just please be certain that your work is a serious one that says something original and that will continue to have relevancy for some time into the future – overly topical works which will go out-of-date quickly aren’t worth the effort involved in publishing them in book form.

Parts I II III IV.

Recommended Reading