The salient fact of modernity is that without a natural hierarchy in society, all actions must be accomplished through mass popularity. In order to gain approval of the herd, called consensus, leaders or commercial actors must mobilize a large army of warm bodies who claim to be excited about the idea.
Understanding hierarchy requires understanding the concept of order, or the idea that many unequal parts can work together in balance toward a purpose, guided by principles which ensure the evolution of that work. The opposite of this is mass culture, in which all are equal and are controlled by a force which manipulates them through images, bribes, terrors and guilt.
Mass culture therefore removes all meaning to terms by using them flexibly to argue for whatever is needed or desired. Any term like “Left” or “Right” will be abused, but that does not change the underlying meaning any more than an apple becomes a banana when referred to by the wrong term.
As written about before on this site, the nature of the Right is twofold and emerges from its primary goal, which is to conserve. This outlook recognizes that entropy and selfishness are the eternal enemies of humankind and also the pitfalls that are with us constantly in everything we do or fail to do, and so our goal becomes conservation of what works best.
While this is positive, it is also too backward-looking, and so we dig further into the historical and linguistic roots of conservatism, and find that it is conservation of order, arising from Plato’s “good to the good, and bad to the bad” statement, along the same lines as morality and Darwinism. It sorts people into a hierarchy from good to bad, and promotes the good while beating back the bad.
In this sense, conservatism is a folkway, or a time-honored tradition of choosing not just what works, but what produces the best possible results so that life is inspiring to our fellow citizens. It is the opposite of an ideology, which is a commandment about what “should” be true according human mass desires, instead of a revelation of what is true and how to maximize it.
When it manifests in politics, this way of life becomes the Right:
Historically, however, the famous terms “left” and “right” are around 300 years old. They have their roots in the “Assemblée des États”, the assemblies of the estates. Because of the belief of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God (the hand in which a man usually holds his sword in), the places right to the ruler were considered to be the more honorable seats. Therefore, aristocracy and clergy were sitting to the right hand of the king, the “lower” representatives of the free cities, the citizens, to his left.
This polarity carried on after the king was overthrown because those on the Right fundamentally wanted to restore the ancient order because they knew that aristocracy provided for greater stability than mob rule, and that while mob rule will always be popular with humans, so are many destructive things.
Naturally this created tension. It is impossible to work within a system you oppose without either compromising your principles, or being outright hostile to it and therefore unable to get anything done. The system selected for people who were willing to compromise, which explains why the West has steadily shifted Leftward since 1789 no matter what the Right seems to do.
Even worse, the fundamental conservative idea does not emphasize a change in direction because of its backward-looking desire to “conserve.” In this sense, backward-looking is not looking backward in time, but as a sense of retreat, where the conservatives try to defend a few vital institutions and ideals against a constant onslaught of Leftism. This strategy has not worked well either.
Most conservatives seem to accept society as a lost cause. To them, a society is born in a new state, rises to power, then becomes bloated with fools and parasites like every other human endeavor, and then lapses into a fallen state where conservatives just have to grin and bear it, keep paying taxes and supporting the military, and hope to silently pass into history, one presumes.
They rationalize their behavior with “work hard, pray hard” or The Benedict Option, but both are postures more than attempts to achieve anything. The modern conservative accepts defeat and, with his head held down low, trudges on through life, becoming bitter and passing that on to his family.
Launching a forward-looking conservative movement proves difficult because conservatives generally rationalize their way out of radical change. They also have no way to explain to people who are living the easy life why they should sacrifice and work hard in order to achieve a new system that looks like something from centuries before.
Any conservative party thus becomes a target for opportunists who are willing to cast aside the actual values of conservatism and replace them with pragmatic ones. They realize they can be the opposition party and still have power without having to do much of anything because they know and expect. To them, it is just another job, and they focus on the financial side of it.
Having given up on actually maintaining society, conservatives then treat politics as a business and try to compete, which dooms them because they are up against people who specialize in bribing voters with promises of free stuff. This is how conservatism ends up doing the work of the Left for them; by competing, it adopts Leftist methods, and soon becomes effectively Leftist:
The Progressive era of the West arrived by way of Bismarck and Germany. Otto, being a conservative, was, by that characteristic alone, a natural born progressive. He sought to stay the power and the rise of the Socialists in Germany. He did so thinking like a socialist, calculating as a socialist, and preempting socialist aims by providing what Socialists had not yet the wherewithal/power to dole out.
In the above, we see the classic pattern of conservatives “competing” by achieving socialism before the socialists. This way, the conservatives stay in power, but they also defeat themselves, much as American conservatives have by defending Leftist ideals and programs despite recognizing that these are anathema to their actual values.
This makes it clear as to why people are confused on “Right” and “Left.” When the Right acts like the Left, and the Left depends on the Right to keep the financial side of government operational, the dual parties seem like two heads of the same Hydra. In truth, the Hydra is the Left, and it maintains a public party as a means of forcing others to act out its agenda.
When considering this Hydra, it is worth realizing that it can take on many forms. The fundamental and only idea of the Left is egalitarianism, which means that bad and good alike can participate in society. This is their means of overthrowing any natural hierarchy and replacing it with a popularity contest so that the bad can seize power and profit from it.
In this way, the Left is an instance of both entropy and Crowdism, which is how all human endeavors fail by allowing everyone to participate, thus erasing hierarchy, at which point the Crowd demands the endeavor be made to fit its new audience, which inverts its meaning and adulterates its potency. That is what happened to conservatism as well: assimilation from within by people dedicated to nothing greater than themselves.
Humanity stands at a crossroads. We either find a way to beat this form of simian entropy, or we give on having advanced civilizations that can produce great art, literature and space travel. At that point, we will be assimilated from within by genetics, slowly introducing enough trace admixture to effect a soft genocide of our people, without whom civilization cannot be reborn.
The Alt Right shows promise by being willing to affirm the need to restore Western Civilization, which requires seizing power and driving out the parasites. In this way, it takes the ideals of the Right and the methods of the Left, uniting them toward a temporary force which can put civilization back on track, at which point it can develop naturally to its full potential.
Few will find it surprising that therefore the most intense appeal of the Alt Right comes from those who are existentially stranded in a boring modern existence and dreaming of exploring the stars.
We are held hostage by idiots. Most people are not particularly useful. Some of these are not useful at all, and they know it, and so they demand that we swear upon the graves of our grandmothers that we will pay for their survival, forever and ever, amen. These people reek of detestable entitlement.
What these people want is life without any responsibility. This is not restricted to lower class minorities. Everyone who can think of a new gimmedat thinks they are entitled. If you ask them what their contributions are, they will point to a successful career of inventing new free stuff from government and claim that they “gave” you what you were “owed.”
This stems from the fundamental goal of Marxism. Karl Marx’s bumpersticker quote is “From each according to their abilities. To each according to their needs.” This is getting played out in the West via demotism. It doesn’t take the individual long to figure out what gets rewarded and what gets taxed. Soon these individuals form the crowd and press their needs upon the producers in synonymy. This overwhelms the ability of the state to function in a rational and strategic manner. We can thus get the following surreal results.
Venezuelan resident and Twitter user @KalebPrime first made the discovery July 14 and tweeted at the time that on the Venezuela’s black market — now the most-used method of currency exchange within Venezuela according to NPR — you can get $1 for 8493.97 bolivars. Meanwhile, a “WoW” token, which can be bought for $20 from the in-game auction house, is worth 8385 gold per dollar.
This is what socialism gets you in the end. It only leads to death. President Maduro has all but admitted Venezuelan Socialism has miserably failed. He has held a sham referendum to claim a democratic mandate to rewrite his country’s constitution. Technically, it still exists, but Maduro’s party picks all the members of the body set up to rewrite the document. Constitution Fetishists take note: whether the document is a Magna Carta or a Masta Charga, it only just says what the strong people with guns tells it to. The biggest gang with the guns in Venezuela are the people demanding gimmedats that Venezuela will never be able to deliver.
But this is just Venezuela. Any good Alt Righter will disparage the genetic stock in question and therefore doubt that it’s really socialism at work here. To which I ask them, how about the genetic stock of Connecticut? Here’s what 24/7 Wall Street tells us about Connecticut.
A typical Connecticut household earns $71,346 in a year, considerably higher than the national median income of $55,775. With such high incomes, residents are better able to afford more expensive homes. Connecticut’s median home value of $270,900 is among the highest nationwide. A portion of every state’s population is extremely wealthy, and the share of such high earners is especially large in Connecticut. More than one in 10 households earn $200,000 or more a year. Connecticut’s relatively high education attainment rate partially accounts for the high incomes in the area. More than 38.3% of adults have at least a bachelor’s degree compared to 30.6% nationally.
Connecticut, the richest state in the nation, has racked up $74 billion in debt. Its finances have more in common with Puerto Rico than Massachusetts, as the home of America’s financial wizards struggles to pay off its massive obligations big as the bills come due on decades of mismanagement.
While ballooning payments for public employees’ guaranteed pension and health benefits for public employees and teachers are the main cause of Connecticut’s fiscal misery, the state continued borrowing with the abandon of a teenager let loose in a Forever 21 with her parent’s credit card. Jobs lost during the recession have not returned. Its youth and future tax base is fleeing for New York and Boston. Fortune 500 companies are following them out of town.
A belief in Marxism’s fundamental tenet will kill any economy. You cannot tax productive innovation and hard work at the expense of privileged helplessness. People learn how to become more and more helpless. People with higher g-loading will just figure this scam out faster. The shaved monkeys are depraved when it comes to doing whatever gets them more bananas and an occasional gold star on the tips of their noses.
It doesn’t matter what people start out as. You can tell me that Connecticutters are way smarter, better and whiter than Venezuelans all day. None of it matters; none of it will make Marxism work. In the end, we are all going where Connecticut and Illinois already are. Connecticut and Illinois will probably go where Venezuela currently is. The real privilege in Amerika is helplessness. This leads to socialism. Socialism leads to death. We all know where it will take us after we are gone.
The wires of the internet are alive with bloviation about a “horseshoe theory” and “false Left-Right paradigm.” As with anything popular and trending, these too are stupid and illusory, but they refer to something else we should pay attention to which the herd has poorly articulated.
For in casting one’s vote for or otherwise throwing one’s weight behind one side—be it the yin or the yang—of a binary, duopolic, Manichean paradigm, one is in fact not only selling one’s soul (which is to say, serving a master who is not God), or supporting evil in order to oppose what one takes to be a greater evil… no, one is not merely guilty of these betrayals ; one is also in a sense propping up the other side, the side one recognizes as being the worse of the two factions.
For in a world ruled by a duopoly, each side of the yin-yang spectrum parasitically feeds off the other for its own sustenance. One side could not be what it is without the active contrivance of its supposed opposite, and vice versa. Both yin and yang are fortified by the other’s scorn, contempt, and hostility; each digs in all the more when it perceives itself being threatened, and by digging in, thereby causes the other side to feel threatened, which in turn enhances the other side’s sense of righteous hysteria, leading to a never-ending cycle of rationalized provocations and self-justified aggressions.
What he describes is a feedback loop, or what occurs when there are two or more entities in a system interacting with one another. The first does something, the second reacts to it, and then the first reacts to that, perpetuating a cycle. The classic feedback loop as described by William Gibson is a child playing a video game, with computer and human both responding to the other and then triggering the next iteration of responses.
When we support one side of a duality, it strengthens the other by making it necessary, since the first is based on its relationship to the other. The two are defined relatively. This even applies to multiple parties, in that if all participants in a system adjust their behavior based on what others do, to support one is to cause interaction with the others.
However, this model fails when we step outside the democratic paradigm and as a result, stop treating politics like a conflict between football teams. The goal of politics is not to fight the other guy, but to assert what is the right type of society to have. This is why Leftists and Rightists are incompatible: we want entirely different types of civilizations.
The very idea of a political spectrum fosters the illusion that if two schools of thought are both on the Right, they must be just two versions of the same thing, differing only in matters of degree. But of course Right and Left are on the same political spectrum as well, and we do not think they differ only in degree. Political philosophies differ fundamentally in terms of their basic principles and their political goals. This is true of Left vs. Right, and it is true of one Right vs. another. The only thing that really unites the different camps of the Right is a negative belief, namely rejecting the idea that equality is the highest political value. (The camps of the Left are more unified because they all affirm a positive, namely that equality is the highest political value.)
…ultimately White Nationalists believe and want very different things than the civic nationalists, classical liberals, neoconservatives, and Christian conservatives who oppose us. They have different philosophies and goals. They don’t want to be like us. They have nothing to gain from us — except looking more moderate and reasonable to centrist eyes, which is really the only reason they mention us at all.
…We will be a lot more effective if we stop being threatened by principled intellectual disagreement and start taking ideas a bit more seriously.
The basic argument above — that this is a war of ideas, and we must discuss ideas to clarify them, even through argument and debate — is a healthy and sensible one. There are a few points upon which elaboration is necessary.
First, most people do not understand that in a war of ideas, each idea is a sub-archetype of some fundamental philosophy that represents more of a direction/purpose in life and an explanation of how life works than a distinct and new direction in itself. Even if we accept that Rightism is not a spectrum, we can see how all Rightist beliefs are unified by some ancestor in thought.
On Amerika, we have identified the Right as consequentialists who also strive for transcendental goodness. To be an extreme realist like a consequentialist is to believe that we get anywhere only by understanding our world in detail, but that tells us method, and we then must know toward what we should strive.
The answer comes from reality itself: like Darwinian evolution, or even self-discipline, we strive for qualitative improvement based on our lot in life “as it is” according to realism. To do that, we must seek that which is good and beautiful in life, exploring our own capacity for virtue, so that we know what to do with what we know of how reality works.
It is not as simple as saying that the Right opposes equality. We do oppose it, but mainly because it is unrealistic. It is also moral sabotage, but that is minor compared to the fact that equality clashes with the mathematics underlying our universe and, as a result, leads to accelerated entropy and decrepitude.
More importantly, the Right desires a society that is based on an order higher than the individual; this is part of consequentialism, or measuring our actions in terms of their results and not how humans judge them. The other extreme, egalitarianism, figures that whatever is popular is right, simply because it is what the individual wants. This is the secret meaning behind equality: no one can rise above the herd, and whatever the herd desires, is presumed to be right, especially if it contradicts what more intelligent, honorable or wiser people know.
So while the “official” Leftist and Rightist parties — or even a host of parties including Greens, Communitarians, and other permutations, all of which boil down to one ideological ancestor of the other — are engaged in a football game of Red Team versus Blue Team, the battle between Rightist (realism) and Leftism (individualism) is real.
Those official parties are allegorically similar to the difference between a McDonald’s cheeseburger and the abstract notion of cooked meat. The Right-wing parties sometimes do something vaguely Right-wing, true, but most of the time they are buying votes just like the Left-wing party. The difference is that buying votes and other attributes of democracy push further toward the Left, because democracy itself as the political wing of egalitarianism tends toward the Left. Whether this is done through elections, judges, shifts in meaning to common terms or all of the above is irrelevant at that point. Any participation in democracy strengthens the Left.
In addition, democracy is doomed because it always favors what is not real. In a democracy, those who offer the words that make most people feel warm and happy inside become the winners. There is no obligation to follow up. That means that we are choosing actors, not leaders, and that they will do as little as possible to change the course of history because doing so would endanger their personal place within the hierarchy. In addition, there is no accountability for the people making the decisions in question, because the voters cast their lot like throwing dice and then blame everyone else for whatever they get.
Now let us return to the horseshoe theory which states that at their extremes, Rightism and Leftism resemble each other because both become authoritarian. Looking at this more sagely, it is clear that “government” — as opposed to leadership as in a monarchy — itself is a creation of modernity, which is the time period that arose after the individualism of the Renaissance™ became the egalitarianism of the Enlightement™ and finally, mutated into a collectivism and conformist version of those.
Equality is the root of modernity and government. However, government does not work; it is a self-serving corporation that becomes parasitic to the nations in which it holds power. As a result, it becomes unstable over time and must become authoritarian in order to remain in power by retaining control. The “horseshoe theory” applies to government, not political inclinations.
Rightism, as you no doubt recall, was the name given to those who liked the way things were before the French Revolution. All conservatives have this in common, and the use of time-honored methods represented a variant of the Rightist idea of extreme realism plus existential well-being through qualitative improvement. Kings are the only stable method of leadership; this can be improved qualitatively, but not changed.
If you are not an egalitarian, you are most likely a Rightist, but this is because of a lack of other options. You either believe in an order above human intentions, or an order of human intentions. You can avoid the question entirely, but there is no “third front” or “third way.” The Egalitarianism Question (EQ) divides all theories into these two camps.
We know that government is doom; how would a rightist pick something… better? One answer comes to us from civic engagement and social capital, which are both not-government and not-anarchy:
Especially with regard to the postcommunist countries, scholars and democratic activists alike have lamented the absence or obliteration of traditions of independent civic engagement and a widespread tendency toward passive reliance on the state.
…When Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, it was the Americans’ propensity for civic association that most impressed him as the key to their unprecedented ability to make democracy work. “Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition,” he observed, “are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types–religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. . . . Nothing, in my view, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America.”
Recently, American social scientists of a neo-Tocquevillean bent have unearthed a wide range of empirical evidence that the quality of public life and the performance of social institutions (and not only in America) are indeed powerfully influenced by norms and networks of civic engagement. Researchers in such fields as education, urban poverty, unemployment, the control of crime and drug abuse, and even health have discovered that successful outcomes are more likely in civically engaged communities.
These civic engagements only exist for so long as they are protected by a conservative social order, however, because the “me first” individualist order of egalitarianism erodes them by demanding attention to the individual, and not the shared social space. In effect, when each individual can take power, a “tragedy of the commons” results where each person seizes power for themselves, and none is allowed to remain shared between the citizens; the paradox of this is that for power to remain shared, it must be owned by someone so that there is actual accountability, because otherwise people take what they want and then blame others or the group for the collective tragedy.
This tragedy of the commons takes effect anywhere humans go, and constitutes part of The Human Problem, which is how every human organization decays. The goal of the group is eroded under waves of individual need. As individuals exploit their own need, they see no reason to be limited in doing so, because if they do, others will win out. Only when a factor like a shared goal or higher order intervenes can people be induced to stop competing with one another and cooperate, but at that point, those who do not cooperate — “free riders” — gain power.
Ironically, success brings about this condition. A society that is thriving has extra wealth that it can squander on various forms of non-productive or even destructive behavior. In societies where every moment and morsel count, there is less tolerance for getting it wrong, and so the individuals in those societies develop social codes based on long-term thinking, honor, fidelity and shared goals. Where there is tolerance for getting it wrong, The Human Problem accelerates. This may be why the original Western Civilization originated in people who emerged from the Arctic Circle, where sloppiness or parasitism resulted in death, and were punished accordingly.
Egalitarianism, on the other hand, says that sloppiness and parasitism are just fine because everyone is equal and therefore, should be accepted even if they are unproductive, screw up a lot or have bad faith participation. Leftism is the philosophy of egalitarianism, much as democracy is its political arm. For that reason, the West cannot be Leftist:
The Alt-Right certainly doesn’t believe the West is “liberal values.” Western civilization existed for centuries before the Enlightenment. It was the product of a particular people, their religion, history and culture. It used to be a very illiberal place in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era. The Left admits this by saying we should be ashamed to be Westerners because we weren’t always so liberal.
We believe that liberalism is destroying Western civilization. It has led to this crippling sense of racial guilt and cultural malaise. It has opened our borders to the ongoing Third World invasion. It has unraveled and debauched our culture. We’ve degenerated to the point where we celebrate the death of our own children as “freedom.” We can’t even reproduce ourselves anymore or assert our own identity and interests. It will suffice to say that liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.
In other words, the West is its people, and those people only thrive when subjected to natural selection, such that those who are productive, intelligent and morally good are advanced above the rest and keep that herd under control, because otherwise the herd discovers egalitarianism and promptly exploits civilization in a tragedy of the commons.
So now we come full-circle. The horseshoe theory is nonsense if applied to Left and Right, but describes exactly what happens as government decays. The Left-Right paradigm is not false at all, but taking sides based on the parties and not the philosophies that they in theory espouse, is in fact nonsensical and merely strengthens the Left-leaning system. And Leftism, like all forms of herd morality, is our death.
Last weekend, organizers of a gay pride parade in Chicago ejected three people carrying pride flags emblazoned with a Jewish Star of David. Subsequent bizarre statements attempting to rationalize their action, claiming that Zionism is “an inherently white supremacist ideology” only exacerbated the sense that the organizers were deaf to the concerns of the Jewish community and engaged in anti-Semitism — denying Jews the same rights that were extended to other participants, basically to celebrate their identities as Jewish queer women.
…Last summer, a plank in the platform of the Movement for Black Lives bizarrely accused Israel of genocide.
Linda Sarsour, a leader of the women’s rights movement, has lambasted Zionism as incompatible with feminism and advocates for the exclusion of pro-Israel Jews from activist groups. And some in the anti-Israel movement have accused Israel of “pink-washing,” claiming that Israel and its supporters celebrate freedoms enjoyed by the LGBTQ community in Israel to divert attention from Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.
Amerika has noticed this for years, and has differentiated between Leftist opposition to Jews and Rightist opposition to Jews. In the Leftist version, Jews are wealthy, therefore elite and privileged and the Leftist theory of classwarfare justifies attacking them. On the Right, Jews are viewed as outsiders who act in self-interest, which clashes with the self-interest of the national population.
The Left is comprised of people in the grips of an ancient human tendency to scapegoat others for their problems. These, when emboldened by finding other individualists and forming a collective together, then enforce their vision on the rest of us. It consists of one idea, “equality,” which means taking from the thriving to give to the failing as a way of ostensibly ending class warfare through class pacifism, when in fact is is merely another weapon of those who wage class warfare, who are always on the bottom attempting to remove those above them.
In the 1980s, someone came up with the concept of “cheese food,” essentially a legal fiction that enabled them to mark flavored vegetable fats as cheese. Most of us saw this on packages in the grocery store and immediately knew that we were in a bad time because no one sane would attempt to make more money by causing food to be fake.
And yet, fakery is an old American tradition. When the Founding Fathers were setting up America 2.0 in 1789, coincidentally the same year that the French Revolution began its murderfest, democracy was the de rigueur theory of government. The kings had to go, because the rising middle class demanded it. Oligarchy was passé. Timarchy was terrifying. So that left… democracy.
Those founders were clever however. “Democracy? Heck, no. This is here’s a Republic. It means that we keep mob rule contained, like the fire in a boiler under a steam engine, by all these rules and laws and procedures, and stuff.” Two hundred years later, the same rationale would be used with cheese food, which otherwise would have been waste product for the compōst heap.
And so liberal democracy took over the world. The American version was generally regarded as being more conservative than the European version, which quickly undertook social benefits as a way to replicate the cradle-to-grave system experienced by serfs there, but not by Americans, whose equivalent system “sharecropping” presented itself a financial relationship and not an in loco parentis stewardship.
228 years after the French Revolution, however, liberal democracy has entered its endgame. The problems which have piled up over the years are too big to be solved; the citizens lack anything in common, and care nothing for anything; everything is ridden with crass commercialism and legal corruption; environmental destruction has reached peak insanity; terms and institutions have become inverted; daily life is existentially miserable and morally bleak; and as world population explodes out of control, it is clear that soon this will all detonate in our faces.
In other words, we are the doomed.
Liberal democracy has already died in the hearts and minds of the citizens of Earth. It promised a Utopia and delivered a dystopia, so it not only failed but did worse than other means of governing ourselves. Perhaps even less forgivably, it also expanded humanity to the point of crisis for nature and humankind alike. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Worst of all is its tendency to make dark organizations within every human institution by setting up a “meritocracy” based on external traits, instead of looking at who people are, because recognizing differences between people is taboo since it contradicts the notion of equality. Everywhere democracy goes, it sets up games, and those who win the games take the prize.
The blame doesn’t lie entirely with digital technology. How we educate young people could also be behind the dwindling priority placed on life skills.
Teaching students how to pass exams and standardised tests is favoured more and more.
“As a result, we’ve created a generation of doctors, lawyers and accountants who don’t know how to cook dinner. The disconnect is stark — minds capable of advanced calculus that are unfamiliar with creating a monthly budget,” the Huffington Post noted.
This process has been going on for some time. Instead of having good leaders, who want someone who can get the most votes, we get charming liars who give us what we want without letting us know that, like most humans, we are mildly delusional as individuals and ravingly delusional as groups. Instead of geniuses, we get expert test-takers. Instead of real human beings, we get people who specialize in obedience, not breaking laws, and socializing with each other.
School is just one aspect of this. It is ironic that our solipsism has manifested itself in such an evident form, because solipsism is the root of democracy. Individuals do not want to have to adapt to the world, because they might end up getting it wrong; therefore, they become individualists, and demand that what they want or feel be more important than its consequences in external reality, which puts them into a solipsistic state of mind; to avoid being penalized for this unrealistic perspective, they form cultlike gangs or “collectives” of other individualists, who gain power and then make unreality into official reality, making society solipsistic; these cause the specifically human form of entropy, a “me too” type of behavior, where anything good gets mobbed by people who use it for their own purposes and not its natural purpose, effectively destroying it from within as it adapts to this new need.
As the consequences of this individualism manifest themselves, liberal democracy is disintegrating around us. Individualism causes unrealistic decisions, and under democracy, we have been engaging in a centuries-long prole party which has culminated in such unrealistic actions that our governments are now going broke, a crisis which will precipitate the end of liberal democracy.
Government workers marched outside the State House here chanting, “Do your job!” on Monday as Maine kept children’s caseworkers at home and shut down other offices deemed nonessential, and lawmakers worked on a deal late into the night.
A standoff over a tax increase left Illinois teetering on the edge of a potentially devastating credit downgrade. And a deadlock over a raid on the funds of New Jersey’s largest health insurer kept the state’s parks and beaches closed for a third straight day, though lawmakers reached a settlement late Monday.
Stalled negotiations have left at least eight states without budgets several days into a new fiscal year.
Even more, the entrenched industry which is government has become parasitic, leading to a mass of entitlement debt to pay for pensions for public servants, mainly because society could never afford these insanely high costs and as a result, politicians refused to fund them because doing so would have shut down every other activity of government. The voters however seem not to care.
Police pensions are among the worst-funded in the nation. Retirement systems for police and firefighters have just a median 71 cents for every dollar needed to cover future liabilities, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data provided by Merritt Research Services for cities of 30,000 or more.
The combined shortfall in the plans, which are the responsibility of municipal governments, is more than $80 billion, nearly equal to New York City’s annual budget.
Broader municipal pension plans have a median 78 cents of every dollar needed to cover future liabilities, according to data from Merritt.
Some will say we could have funded these plans adequately before the Recession, or otherwise could have made it all work. But there is a pattern here. The federal government is deep in debt. The consumers are deep in debt. The states and localities are all deep in debt. Clearly, we vote for more than we can pay for.
On to another aspect: there is no longer any sense of national unity. Under liberal democracy, we have lost the sense of what defines a nation:
In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes of them as “one united people … descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…”
If such are the elements of nationhood and peoplehood, can we still speak of Americans as one nation and one people?
A multicultural mishmash of people is not a nation; it is at best a financial arrangement, sort of like Homeowners Associations (HOAs) make lots of really annoying rules for homeowners but do not actually lead them toward any direction. We coexist because we have jobs and own property, but other than an overblown patriotism from the useless mainstream Right, there is no sense of unity.
This is what happens when democracy takes over. But democracy itself is an agent of decline, just like Leftism, the Renaissance™ and The Enlightenment.™ All of these prioritize the individual over the order of civilization, nature or the divine. They are the takeover of reality by the crowd of individualists, and they form a permanent dark organization within civilization that consumes it voraciously.
At the root of it is the idea that the individual human being deserves to be more important than the order of nature, and should be protected against anyone else telling him that his actions, ideas or desires are bad, even if their consequences are bad. It is the human ego rising above the world, like a new bizarre moon, exerting the sway of its gravity on the tides of history, covering the world in human-ness.
It is good to see that the Alt Right is catching on to the problem of individualism in the dead West. Individualism means what the ancient Greeks called hubris, or making oneself more important than the order of nature.
That order of nature is a tricky thing. Most people cannot physically comprehend it; that is, their brains lack the circuits to wrap around all of what it entails. It means not just natural order as it is in material terms, but its logical principles, and more subtly, the directions like evolution, quality and supremacy toward which nature subtly moves. It includes the realm of the gods as well as that of men, plants and animals, and is more of a pattern of patterns than a tangible thing. It is above all else, a system of organization.
Each of us have some place in that order. We are born to our places: some will be farmers, some plumbers, some clerks and some kings. Individualism, on the other hand, states that the natural order is not important, and that the individual should come first before all else. The whims, desires, judgments, feelings and impulses of the individual are more important than any other order, including civilization, nature or the divine. Individualism became the dogma of the West with The Enlightenment,™ the Renaissance,™ and the rise of egalitarian thought (ideologies dedicated to humanity equality, which means “no one can be sent away”) centuries ago.
You can either live for yourself, for the group, or for some intangible third entity which includes both, like “race” or “ethnic group” or “civilization” or even “tribe.” In fact, sane people live for all of those; a German wants to live according to the customs of his people so that his people and their values and ideals continuity in perpetuity. Anything else is not motivation, but rationalization of a failure to have some goal so inspiring that it animates a person over a lifetime. Individualism and collectivism, in this view, are two sides of the same coin: instead of living for the eternal, we are living for the material, in the form of our own comfort and safety or that of the group. Heroes, geniuses, inventors and philosophers are not made from such paltry stuff!
Even more, collectivism is individualism. No individual wants to be told “No” or sent away from the group, so the individual demands a rule that all must be included, based on the theory of pacifism, which is that it is more important for everyone to get along than for the group to find realistic answers, since that process involves conflict. Individuals band together into mobs to enforce this individualism. They seem like collectives, but each individual is participating because he thinks he will get something out of the effort he invests. People are self-interested actors. They do not join collectives out of altruism, but selfishness: here is guaranteed participation in not just the social life, but the wealth of the group, and an expectation that like a placental fetus, the individual can offload the costs of its survival onto the group through a process known as externalization or socialization.
This is the secret history of individualism in the West. It has steadily infested us for over a thousand years, and in its triumph, has decided to destroy culture and heritage, so that nothing comes before the individual and its protector, the State. How well we can see this depends on how we define individualism:
No, my problem with America is how dog eat dog it is. How “fellow Whites” will go out of their way to pull you down, just so that they can scramble up over you. They’ll side with minorities to do it to you as well. It’s not right, and it’s not healthy. This lack of solidarity steadily chips away at the fabric of society.
…There is this belief that we are perfect the way that we are, and that all our problems can be blamed on external forces and external tribes. While there is more than enough evidence to prove that there are indeed hostile groups within our societies that blend in and want to corrupt us, do us harm and eventually destroy us, that’s not all that’s at work here.
…I believe part of this stems from the American experience compared to the European experience. Europe was racked by many absolutely devastating wars. Everyone was hurt, and from mutual suffering, a shared consciousness grew. People understood that bad things could happen in life that could hurt everyone. You could die one day from a bombing raid through no fault of their own. You weren’t a loser because you died in a war. You weren’t a loser if you wanted socialized medicine to take care of you in case of misfortune.
He has a great point, but misunderstands individualism. Individualism is not people trying to escape from the herd; it is the herd. The collective is formed of individualists. The Communists were the most selfish people ever, and thought that they should get free support from the rest of society whether they did anything or not. What he calls individualism is in fact the reaction to individualism, which is people trying to cut free from the demands of the herd.
We do not want to be socialists. We do not want to be Leftists, or egalitarians, or individualists. These are effectively the same thing.
Our current situation where white people refuse to help one another is the result of egalitarianism. In a society of equals, every other person is a threat. They want to take your money from you in taxes; they may report you for having non-egalitarian opinions, as happened in France and Russia and was usually a death threat for the person reported. Most of all, we have a “crab bucket” where, because everyone starts out equal, we are all trying to beat down everyone else so that we can rise to a point of comfort and escape the horrors of the system.
In other words, the above article gets it exactly wrong when it defines individualism: socialized medicine is individualism, just like any other government benefit. Tolerating people just because they are white is individualism. No one can be thrown out from the group, in that way, which means that individuals can behave however they want and the rest of us are still forced to tolerate them and eventually, subsidize them.
It makes sense that the Alt Right is experimenting with socialism. They are looking for some philosophy that is very popular, and “no one can be thrown out” plus “free stuff for everyone” is very popular because it addresses a deep fear in each of us. We are all afraid of a Darwinian event where we run out of money, screw up badly enough to be thrown out of the group, or otherwise end up falling short. We like the idea of rules that say that society must keep us around and has to pay for us.
But this is not the path to greatness. It is the path to mediocrity, as has been shown in every society that has embraced it. If social welfare were good for Europeans, they would be breeding at replacement rates. If it made them happy, they would not be so self-destructive. If it actually ended poverty, we would have fewer poor people instead of the growing bloom of them that we have now.
Thanks to egalitarianism, the new elite is liable to see the lower orders, not as a Third Estate that, while socially subordinate, is an indispensable member of the social body (the “backbone of society”) with rights all its own that the elite must respect and protect (noblesse oblige), but rather as the losers in an egalitarian contest fought inter pares, and thus deserving nothing but contempt, degradation, and humiliation. For the so-called “Conservatives”, Blacks and Aboriginals have earned the world of poverty, family breakdown, addiction, and criminality in which the rank-and-file must live; for the so-called “Left”, the White middle and working-classes deserve all that and much more. The Left’s attitude towards Blacks and Aboriginals is tempered by a sort of paternalism, and moreover by a more purely cynical appreciation of the political uses to which those groups can be put; but their attitudes towards non-elite Whites are those of a conquering army towards soldiers of the army it has just defeated, or dreams of defeating.
When Leftists brought out class revolt in the US, they guaranteed that those who could rise above the herd would try to destroy all of those below them, because the lower echelons are inherently trying to do the same to them. How do we know this? Lower castes innately attempt to destroy higher castes because higher castes limit the destructive behavior of lower castes by enforcing behavior norms that lower castes lack the biological ability (wiring) to understand; for more information, see the Dunning-Kruger effect, which basically states that none of us can understand anything that requires more intelligence than we have in order to understand. Lower castes have lower g, or general intelligence, as well as lower moral character. There is a reason for the hierarchy, which is that when the most moral and intelligent are in charge, we all thrive; when the lower castes, including the most dangerous of all who are in the middle and thus smart enough to make things work in the short term at the expense of the long term, are in charge, our civilization collapses.
The dirty secret of humanity is that all civilizations die the same way: through caste revolt. The upper castes, who are the more intelligent and capable, are unable to prevent the lower castes from running into problems, as the lower castes naturally reproduce at a higher rate, and therefore make themselves starving. Instead of accepting that they have made an error, which requires a biological intelligence they do not have, they scapegoat those in power and overthrow them, creating a dying civilization which lives off the wealth and power of the past without creating replacements, and over time fades into obscurity as a dead civilization that is now yet another third world ruin of once-great human potential.
In pro-white activism, one question has remained so bedeviling that it has taken on mythical significance, and it is, “Why did whites not unite in order to preserve themselves?”
The answer is as obvious as it is profound: they were already divided. Once class warfare has hit, and the herd has demanded that the higher lower itself for the mental convenience of all, those who are most capable are fleeing civilization. They are no longer pro-white; they are in favor of their own escape from a society which is drugged on the illusion of equality, and so will destroy anything it touches. Your average intelligent white now is a drop-out, and he or she wants nothing to do with the angry rabble, who think they have escaped culpability for mass revolt but in fact are associated with it.
We know how this situation will work out because we have seen it before. Maybe 10% of our society will escape the coming cataclysm and go somewhere else to rebirth Western Civilization; the rest will be bred into the third world. The poor will simply become brown, but the rich will be a mostly-Caucasian group hybridized with Asians and Africans, much like today’s Jews, who demonstrate acute mercantile power but unfamiliarity with literature, philosophy, religion and heroism. The capable people among us aim to be part of that 10%, and they will not spend any time trying to “save” those who have tried to destroy them. In fact, they will welcome their demise, since without the lower echelons, society could move on as it does in nature, through evolution.
This sounds brutally cruel, but it is how the world works.
There is an alternative, of course, but it involves strict hierarchy. If you are born a butler, you stay a butler, and similarly for those plumbers and clerks. Some are born to rule, mainly because this acknowledges what Charles Darwin learned namely that all traits are heritable, and preserves the traits necessary for leadership — found in fewer than 1% of the population — so that all of us can benefit from them in future generations.
Naturally this presents a problem: hierarchies are the opposite of democracy and equality, and those are the founding myths of our time. If you tell the average modern person that no one is equal, he will consider you Hitler or worse. Or at least, he used to. As we see the end results of liberal democracy, it becomes clear that the worst dictators and kings could never do this much damage. Democracy is a pathology which leads people to chase after the illusion of equality like Ahab, heedless of whether or not it destroys them and their cohorts, so long as it is achieved.
Their main bulwark against tyranny was civil liberty, or maintaining the right of the people to participate in government. The people who did so, however, had to demonstrate virtue. To eighteenth century republicans, virtuous citizens were those who were focused not on their private interests but rather on what was good for the public as a whole.
They were necessarily property holders, since only those individuals could exercise an independence of judgment impossible for those dependent upon employers, landlords, masters, or (in the case of women and children) husbands and fathers.
Our founders recognized at some level that equality was nonsense, and so intended a hierarchy. In their view, those who worked the land and made greatness of it should rule above those in the city, who only attended jobs and ran their lives on credit. Their ideal of democracy was that the productive and sane members of society should vote, while the herd had no say, much like the European feudal system.
The problem they encountered is that the vote is seductive. It is gambling; you go to the table, cast your vote, and see how the cards reward you. As a result, there is no sense of accountability or responsibility, only a feeling that one chooses the right option like betting on horses or cards, and hopes for the best.
Because of this, even the most reasonable republican government quickly gives way to mob rule, as happened in our past. Despite knowing better as individuals, when grouped into a herd of individualists, even the most sensible people went along with the herd. This shows us the lesson of America: no matter how much you limit mob rule, it returns to mob rule.
As long as we have democracy, there is no future for our civilization. Democracy is the political form of individualism, which really is the individual turning against the goals of civilization in favor of short-term personal reward. Those who demand socialized medicine and other benefits are at the forefront of this movement, and pull everyone else down to their level through passive aggression. There is no survival for civilization when this takes over.
We should — if we want to rebirth Western Civilization, which formally died in 1945 — instead look toward the following stages:
Look toward a vision of what is desired. I suggest Lord of the Rings plus space ships, achievable through a few basic methods.
Unite the 2-5% of our people who do all the important work, at every level of society. Much like the Pareto Principle states that 20% do 80% of the work, it is clear that 5% or fewer do most of the decision making.
Most important: take over our governments, probably by infiltrating our institutions while advancing a cultural wave that rejects Leftist thought, beginning with the notion of “equality” itself.
Change government to favor the type of society we want, transitioning from liberal democracy to monarchy and choosing our best people to rule and own pretty much all of everything, thus restraining the herd.
The purge: all who are not of the founding ethnic group must be repatriated, ideally with reparations, and all who are of the founding group but not in line with its ideals must be exiled.
After that, life finally has a chance. Society will have a hierarchy, where higher caste people make all the important decisions, and lower caste people are ignored. The herd will be cut back to size. Instead, the most competent will rule, which is our only alternative to how things are now, when the least competent rule.
What holds us back is recognizing that there is no “white = right” rule to life. White people are highly varied. America functions best with Western Europeans, and even those are divided by caste, and when the lower classes initiate class warfare as they are prone to do, everything falls apart.
We must remember the two options before us:
Left = equality
Right = order
Order requires a pattern to life larger than the individual. This is offensive to lower-caste individuals, but is accepted as normal by higher-caste people. Our recent history consists of turning against this truth, which has revealed to us that most white people are foolish when it comes to leadership decisions.
We know democracy has failed. Even more, we know we did it to ourselves, through the thinking of The Renaissance™ onward. No other group has the power to do this to us. We did it to ourselves, by following what seemed right, but it was wrong. Time to change direction, and in doing so, give our civilization the chance to rise from its ashes yet again.
The advantage of capitalism v. central planning, is that information is sent through prices, supply and demand. This information feedback, however, is still gameable by power blocs. The exact strategies are different than in a command economy, but the end result is the same. The West and America are currently undergoing this exact problem. The entire financial crisis was about inaccurate feedback, and broken feedback loops: it was about the financial and housing industries deliberately damaging the feedback system.
…In a hundred years, when historians and whoever deals with economic issues look back (hopefully not economists as we understand them), they aren’t going to be that impressed that Western Capitalism outlasted Soviet Communism by forty or fifty years. Instead they are going to look back and say that both were doomed, in large part, by inability to manage the exact same problem. In both cases the feedback systems which controlled economic production were so perverted by various internal power blocs that the societies were unable to reproduce the material circumstances necessary for their continuance.
This is why many of us oppose formal organization, because it creates rules which are de facto centralized power, as opposed to what conservatism favors, which is informal, particularized, localized and case-by-case basis decisions.
Leftism is the religion of the rule, and the rule involves the word “all,” which leads to control as it naturally creates a centralized power structure. All people must drive 35 MPH; all applications must be filed in triplicate; all people must go through the door on the right. This forces obedience by making people equal in the rule of the law.
The natural opposite to the religion of the rule is cooperation, which requires inequality, because not everyone can do the same thing. Instead of a rule saying that all people must do the same thing, which means they have equal obligation to the centralized control, cooperation says that each has different importance, we do not all do the same thing, and thus we have unequal obligations and rewards.
Feedback is a vital part of the cooperative system. In it, power resembles a cascading hierarchy, which means that each level delegates to the level below and does not intervene on the basis of method. Instead, they assign tasks and say, “Use best judgment always” or “by any means necessary,” both of which are ends-over-means analyses.
Control on the other hand is means-over-ends. It requires that each person use the same method so that it can filter out methods that it believes weaken its power. The classic example is demanding that each person repeat back dogma on a regular basis, effectively programming their thoughts. Think of someone saying, “Diversity is our strength.” You either accept it and pass the test, or are identified as an enemy.
Feedback loops happen when something is wrong at the level above the one to which it has been delegated; you see this in the form of jury nullification, for example. The person to whom the task is delegated needs to report back that the task is wrongly framed, unintended consequences have arisen, or that a new type of problem has occurred.
The classic feedback loop is what William Gibson observed when he saw a young boy playing a video game. The boy moved the cursor, the computer responded, and the boy responded to that and then the cycle repeated. His inspiration William S. Burroughs saw feedback loops using naturalistic metaphors: monkeys attack the weakest participant in any altercation, so some monkeys play fey, which is a covert form of attack.
You can see feedback in your hand. You intend to grasp something, so you pick it up, and the hand radiates back that it is hot, so you do something else with it. A feedback loop might be a man adjusting a sluice: he fiddles with it, the water goes in a different direction, so he responds to that and the cycle repeats.
The importance of feedback loops is that they recognize what most humans deny: time, and the cyclic nature of history. Our moments are not unique, because they exhibit patterns that others can experience. And, the changes we want to make to the world must be interpreted not in the instant they are performed, but how the world will react, like thinking ten moves ahead in chess.
Classic human informal order recognizes the need for feedback with lattices of power, and for feedback loops with informal power. Lattices of power are hierarchies that are both vertical and horizontal, like the classic aristocratic model, and informal power avoids the rule as much as possible, relying on a case-by-case basis that avoids precedent and therefore can be negotiated not only unequally but specifically.
You can see conservative-style informal power anywhere leadership employs localized, particularized and case-by-case decisions made by culture, wise elders, a caste system where higher castes have social power, religious leaders, local respected voices, and the like. All of these systems are more flexible and resilient that rules, resolutions, laws, regulations, treaties, and command economies.
These articles are hilarious: equal parts apology, excuse and attempt to rally the troops. From the LA Review Of Books, a postmortem and call to battle:
It was all going so well just a moment ago. History was over. The technocratic order was globalizing the world; people were becoming accustomed to the permanent triumph of a slightly kinder exploitation. What happened? All they can recall is a loud thump in the undercarriage, an abrupt loss of control. Was it Brexit? Trump?
…The most significant development in the past 30 years of liberal self-conception was the replacement of politics understood as an ideological conflict with politics understood as a struggle against idiots unwilling to recognize liberalism’s monopoly on empirical reason.
…For 60 years, liberal managers believed that their political authority was derived from their intellectual authority. When their political authority was suddenly and violently ripped away, they tried to reestablish it by reminding the world that they still knew better than the rest of us. But they got the order of their power backward: without political power, there is no power to assert the boundaries of the normal.
In other words, Leftist like everything has a life cycle. It is a different animal when it is trying to take control than it is when it has control. And since the 1990s, Leftism has had control in the West, a combination of the 1968ers growing old enough to take the reins and the failure of the Soviet Union, removing our last warning that Leftist is an insane mental virus that causes mental health disorders.
Nonetheless, as the cordycepted stagger on, the Left is playing a new game which involves trying to mentally separate the concepts of “neoliberalism” from the rest of the Left. They do not want to own the disaster they created, so they came up with a scapegoat: capitalism. In Leftist symbolic reality, capitalism took over the Left and created “neoliberalism,” where True Leftists resisted.
Perhaps the bigger story is that they do not want to point out that they created a managerial society, applying the tactics of business and the military toward ordering people around. This is what the Left do, because they are oriented toward control, or everyone doing the same things all the time so that those in power are secure.
This is typical of the one-dimensional categorical order in which Leftists think. To them, there are the True Believers who know what is right and must be done, and then the masses who must be ordered around. Instead of a hierarchy with multiple levels, for them there are only the controllers and the controlled.
Their strategy is utilitarianism, which is the opposite of having purpose. Utilitarians ask people what will make them happy, and people respond with short-term answers, scapegoats, justifications and the other products of the usual flow of neurotic insanity. They never connect the dots and see that having a thriving, stable civilization is what they need, and everything else are personal problems that they as individuals need to fix. Government cannot do that.
We live at an interesting time in history. Leftism and liberal democracy are falling together: when “business as usual” that “everyone agrees” is true fails utterly and provokes a populist revolt, the system has lost legitimacy and can no longer lecture to us like expert managers.
The bigger collapse is that the ideas of Leftism have failed. When those ideas were new to us, we accepted them, but now that we see that no matter how we try to insist that it stay within the bounds of sanity, Leftism breaks free and heads toward fully insanity like the Soviet Union, we want out. The theory is wrong and the ideas are deceptive. This the world has learned.
As a popular television series uses for its tagline, “Winter is coming.” Indeed. The illusions of the past 228 years since the French Revolution have cratered, and with them, we see the death of ideas that never worked but that we were forced — by the popularity of those ideas — to accept anyway. Now the counteraction begins.
It is a popular thing to say that one is neither Left nor Right, because the public parties of both have done nothing to save us from the fate that has been obvious and inevitable for so long.
Few know what these terms mean, so it makes sense to revisit them through history. The Left arose when people in France, inspired by The Enlightenment™ and its predecessor The Renaissance,™ overthrew the monarchy in France and established a new system. Those who supported it sat on the left side of the French senate.
On the right sat those who opposed the “new” — only if one had missed what happened in Athens and Rome were these new — order, but were concerned enough for the future of their country that they wanted to work with it. They wanted to preserve as much of the old way as possible, but were hampered by the need to compromise with the democratic regime.
It is not a stretch to call it a “regime,” either, since the time after the Revolution brought changes we might associate today with Stalin-era Communism. Whole families were executed for being aristocrats; secret police were established, and people sentenced to death for hearsay evidence that they had denied the regime or supported the aristocracy. The new nation quickly impoverished itself with egalitarian social roles, since people no longer had to be productive in order to be supported, and quickly launched on a disastrous series of wars to conquer Europe so that it, too, could be democratic. Some of us refer to this process as “the Napoleonic Arc,” referencing how revolts by the people quickly produce tyrants who launch impossible ideological wars in order to keep the disintegrating society together.
All of those Left wing ideas had a single root: egalitarianism, or the idea that everyone is equal. Equal how? However they want to interpret it. They start by asking for legal equality, which means that an intelligent contributor to society for fifty years has the same rights and treatment as a criminal who has never given anything. From that the demands expand to equal participation and subsidies, or “socialism,” in which every citizen is a stockholder of the industry owned by the state, and receives dividends in the form of social benefits or entitlements paid directly to them.
The Right, on the other hand, did not have a single idea except for the notion of classical civilization, which was more a spirit and moral code than a method. Ideology like the Left has is much simpler and easier to understand. The Right wanted to preserve a society that can only be described as “Tolkienesque”: kings, lords, a feudal caste system, code of honor instead of laws, a clear ethnic identity for each group and benevolent xenophobia toward all others, customs, folkways, calendar, cuisine, and an intense reverence for nature and the gods they saw within it. This put the Rightists at a disadvantage, in addition to the “first mover” advantage the Left already had by acting first and changing the dialogue to follow their actions. We can summarize the Right as a perception that there is a kind of natural order to humanity, found in parallel in nature and the divine, where each person has an unequal place that allows them to cooperate toward the goal of civilization by contributing what they can, and being limited in contribution where their abilities are not appropriate to the task.
In our contemporary era, these terms have lost most meaning because of the political parties that represent them. Most conservatives today are a variety of Leftist, a consequence of both their necessary compromise with the Leftist regime, and the fact of democracy, which requires them to say things which appeal to the broadest section of the population. This mass culture has no awareness of history, future or the principles of civilization. It cares about tangible things, like checks in the mail from the government or displays of patriotic fervor. As a result, both parties have been made simplistic relative to their original beliefs.
No sane person can support Leftist, which resembles a fanatical cult or a mental health disorder. It is a pathology that serves individualism, or the idea of “me first” that is supported by discarding the need to maintain civilization, and spending that effort on the individual instead. This institutionalized selfishness naturally leads to the kind of social breakdown that causes the Napoleonic Arc to run its course. The era of modernity is defined by its support of individualism, naturally arising from the ideas of The Enlightenment™ and The Renaissance.™
During the early twentieth century, after the disastrous and fratricidal first world war, several movements arose to try to stop the Napoleonic Arc. Two of these, fascism and National Socialism, are commonly identified as Right-wing. However, these movements were both fundamentally modernist, in that they did not want the Old Order, but to make out of the Leftist regime something with Right-wing values. However, as history shows us, the form of the civilization outweighs its stated values, and so even those extreme forms of government led back to the same problems experienced by Leftism. Both supported some degree of socialism, a lack of caste system, suppression of the aristocracy, and the replacement of culture by ideology, even when they did not intend it according to their public statements.
Some argue that National Socialism was a different type of socialism, but the problem remains that it is a state instead of an organic civilization comprised of aristocratic leaders and different castes, and as such it is still stuck within the modern framework of egalitarianism. Any attempt to distribute wealth makes the focus of the nation the state instead of the culture, and while it is within the realm of good leadership to remove threats — relocating Others and exiling defectives — any step into socialism makes the state the replacement for the nation. This is why such arguments are unconvincing:
In our time the traditional left wing is predominantly Marxist — even to such a degree that the very term “left wing” is thought to be synonymous with the word “Marxist.” This, of course, has no basis in reality. Any revolutionary is a left-winger — it is just that the Marxists have had so little competition that they have been able to appropriate the term.
On the other side of the political spectrum we have the right wing, consisting of reactionaries who want to preserve the present society and the so-called Christian civilization of the West with its materialism and capitalism. The rightwingers stand up for traditional patriotic values: they are good Christians and good citizens who defend the Constitution and are loyal to their country and their monarch, if they have one.
…National Socialism seeks to build an entirely New Order based on idealism and a profound respect for the laws of Nature in all aspects of life. This, definitely, is the most revolutionary idea of this century — and thus very much left-wing! — and it certainly is not Marxist! Compared to National Socialism, Marxism is nothing but a pseudo-revolutionary idea, invented by Christianity and upheld by Liberal Democracy: If all people are created equal, why should not all wealth be distributed equally among all people? Seen in this light, Marxism is simply part of the Old Order we want to destroy.
The mistake here is not going far back enough. The Old Order to which he refers is in fact the “New Order” which was formalized with the French Revolution. To be Rightist is to want not just nationalism — the definition of nation by its founding stock and exclusion of all Others — but an entire civilization built around eternal principles. Some compare it to Tolkien, others look to the middle ages, and still others of us look at the “golden age” described by Plato, which was contra-materialist. Those early idealist times involved acting toward consequences which fit within an order of nature and the divine, an ends-over-means analysis, in contrast to materialism, which is a means-over-ends analysis designed to protect the participants from having to face consequences or exert themselves, contra their own individualism, toward goals higher than themselves. When we say we live in materialist times, it is to this distinction that we refer.
European Aristocracy guided the core of our civilization, which is the genetic strata of Indo-European people, through many tragedies and challenges. They eventually succumbed after being weakened by Mongol invasions, plagues, Muslim conflicts and inter-national conflict but what really took them out was the rise of the middle class. The middle class make their living not with their hands but their ledgers and calculators, and while they may be more natively intelligent than the lower classes, they are not intelligent enough to rule for anything but the type of sphere in which they interact. And so they like laws, rules, fines, taxes, punishments and other short-term solutions that cause long-term chaos. They overthrew the monarchy by pooling their money and dividing the power structure of Europe against itself, essentially allowing their short-sighted greed to predominate over more complex thinking and benevolent visions for the qualitative improvement of Western Civilization.
A middle class person, essentially a glorified clerk, distinguishes himself by his literacy. He knows words and texts. He then remakes the world in his image, thinking “if this, then that,” and reasoning deductively from physical facts. His interpretations of those facts go no further than the sphere in which he operates, and so he thinks exclusively in terms of money, safety, gaining customers and flattering others. “Middle class” or “bourgeois” values are the values of the advancement of the individual in the middle class, and run contrary to what civilization needs, which is for the smartest and most morally excellent people to be in command, thinking about the long term. In the centuries of middle class rule, the West has gone from greatness to mediocrity.
Leftism and National Socialism both come from the middle class tradition. They are short-sighted and focused on people, and convincing others to act in a mass like customers flocking to a new product, and so they miss both the natural and eternal in their thought process. For this reason, they are both things to be avoided. We must be extreme — so extreme that we avoid modernist thinking entirely — and escape this system of ideologies, rules and formal control. Instead, we desire unity through culture, with its roots in race and caste, which requires a denial of egalitarianism in all of its forms, no matter how surfactively nationalist they are.
“He’s hungry, and I have food,” said the man being devoured by a rabid dog. “I have no more right to my flesh than he does.”
“We must not give in to fear,” said the man calmly being pummeled by a drunk. “Fighting back is exactly what the he wants.”
“All men are potential rapists,” said the woman to the men who would die to defend her.
“It is a grave injustice to be ruled over with no voice in governance; we demand a share of the power,” cried the gonads to the brain.
“We simply want to live, grow, and reproduce, just like every other cell,” said the bacterium. “It’s xenophobic to create supremacist definitions such as ‘host’ and ‘infection’.”
“I feel like a bird,” said the rabbit as he jumped off a cliff.
“Look at all these beautiful, vibrantly colored paints,” said the artist. “I will mix them all together uniformly and spread the mixture evenly across my canvas.”
“Love is love,” said the man to the boy as he opened a bottle of lubricant.
“Your appetites are unsustainable,” said the cat lady to her multiplying clowder. “You’re just going to have to learn to live together with less.”
“Violence never solved anything,” said the man as he watched raiders take his harvest again. “We simply need to educate them and open a dialog.”
“I’m not an extremist, don’t lump me in in together with them,” said the new leader installed by the occupying force. “I didn’t participate in the invasion, and I denounce violence in all its forms.”
They call it an “awakening” because in a relatively short span of time, you come to realize that everything you have been told is not only wrong but designed to conceal the real problem: our civilization is in decline and just about everyone is lying, crazy or otherwise delusional. Nothing can be trusted.
Our society fell years ago, and those of us who still believe in the idea of civilization are under assault. What remains of a once-great civilization is being steered into oblivion by the dizzyingly insane and malicious. If not stopped, they will continue to recklessly destroy, disintegrate, and grind up into meaningless shreds anything of value.
The longer this continues, the uglier our options for survival become. We are not yet at the end. We are far from the end. The end is not even an end, just a greater slow slide into irrelevance and third world style subsistence living. Those of us who are fighting are struggling for the ability to exist on a better level than the majority of humanity who live in poverty, corruption, disorder and filth.
Destroyers of civilization have disordered minds ruled by their appetites. They know only their own desires, and are constantly stewing with reality-denying nonsense. Those with clear minds who glare back unfazed at realty, those with an innate desire to know and understand truth, will reject this nonsense and join our ranks. But they are an eternal minority, not just here but in all of humanity.
Those who do not quietly shrink back when danger approaches but stand erect with feet firmly planted in the ground, eager for glory — these will fight with us. Those who have enough love in their hearts to imagine a civilization that is not constantly in decline, and to look instead toward the possibilities of greatness and beauty which this abundant life offers us, they will come to understand us.
Be patient. This crisis has taken centuries to become visible to the normal above-average intelligence person. Most are afraid of what is required and so will make excuses, rationalize and bow out. They will go back to their televisions, political platitudes, jobs and shopping as a way to silence the fears in their minds. This is a miserable way to live, but it is morally and intellectually easier than facing the problem head on.
Humanity has survived many bottlenecks, or events where most of us died or faded away, in the past. Ultimately, this horrific era of modernity may become a great filter through which our people will pass, leaving only the most honest, most courageous, strongest, and noblest. The future is dark but through it shines a luminosity that tells us that beyond this layer, greatness awaits.