Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘libertarianism’

Libertarianism Is A Variety Of Leftism And Should Be Avoided

Sunday, June 25th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Modernity Is Not An Option”

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

On Red Ice TV, philosopher Nick Land expands Neoreaction into an Alt Right critique of modernity, making for a highly interesting interview.

Land has packed every essential concept in the cluster of dissident anti-modern thought — postmodernism, aristocracy, post-democracy, religion, identitarianism and extreme libertarian anarcho-capitalist viewpoints — into a series of statements which explore the depths of each of these through their interconnections.

While this requires more time and patience than many interviews, being more of a graduate-level seminar than a pop media product, his breadth of understanding and analysis of the intersection of these different ideas makes Mr. Land’s interview an informative listen. Great to see the Red Ice crew bringing this influential thinker on-air!

El Autismo d e l u x e

Saturday, April 29th, 2017

Emil Cartwright scanned the horizon for clouds. He had been working from his home in Mexico as a computer programmer for about six months now, and he had learned that the locals had an indifferent attitude toward planning, so if he wanted not to get stranded in a storm, he had better predict it himself.

Satisfied, he climbed into his dune buggy and raced off into the sands that surrounded the mid-size city he had chosen as a retreat. Every day, he got up and fixed web sites and point of sale systems for his clients, working remotely for up to four hours. Then he had the rest of the day for himself and, like today, he often explored the surrounding land, similar to that of his native Arizona.

It was nice to get outside of the disorder of the city. Unlike the city he grew up in, this one was marked by disorganized and apathetic activity. Construction work happened while people still occupied the building being altered. Some buildings were simply abandoned, rotting away. Theft was common. Open sewage streamed through the street.

Being a libertarian, Emil saw the situation differently. Everyone had to go to work anyway, so they should set up society based on transactions. People could pay more to live in nice places and the disorder would not exist there. Since people are rational, he reasoned, they would work harder and earn more to have a nice place to live, and soon the disorder would disappear.

The free market fixed things. He knew that soon technology would make so much suffering obsolete the way it had removed buggy whips, whale oil lanterns and rotary phones from our lives. He had faith in the rationality of people, and looked forward to the day that humanity woke up and stepped into the glowing world of progress.

Today he felt good about his situation. He ventured far beyond the city, relishing the full tank of gas and moderate cruising speed of his vehicle. As the day warmed up, he wanted to get out of the sun, so pulled into one of the antiques shops that dotted the countryside, flypaper for tourists. But today it felt right to stop here.

“Desk, sewing machine, desk, sewing machine,” he muttered under his breath. This particular store was less interesting than he had hoped it would be. Most of this stuff was junk, old furniture that had never seen maintenance and so was falling apart at the touch, or recycled technology from the past decade. But something caught his eye in the corner.

1950s styling distinguished the red metal case. At first he thought it was a refrigerator, but then looked inside and realized it was some kind of radio or computer. He tried tracking circuits, but could make no sense of it. The bottom was badly corroded but the circuit boards intact.

“$25,” he said to the man behind the counter.

“The price esays $50,” said the fellow, a middle class Mexican mix of Spanish and Asians who had been here since before the formation of Europe.

“I want to pay $25,” said Emil.

“Whatever you like,” said the man. “It seems like it has always been yours anyway.”

As he roared back into the city that night, the heavy machine strapped between the seats of his spare parts dune buggy, Emil reflected that this might have been his first impulse purchase ever. With the help of the night porter, he struggled to get the thing into his apartment. There it sat for the next two days as he answered calls and fussed bits into place to make machines far away work.

When he did turn to it, he first vacuumed it out, then disconnected the rusty base and corroded power supply. He did not recognize this old style of parts despite it being only six decades old, but he was able to remove the rust and oil the base, then went hunting for a power supply. He found one at the end of the day, dusty in a corner of a typewriter shop.

“$5,” said the owner. “It hasa been here for years. Just take it away, please.”

When Emil got home, he made himself a light risotto with Chianti for dinner and watched the sun set. Then by the flicker of old incandescent bulbs, he got to work bolting the base back into place and then screwing the new power supply into place. He cleaned the face, watching the logo gleam back at him: El Autismo d e l u x e.

He searched for some way to interface with the device but found only two RCA ports like he would use to connect it to an old television. These were made of cardboard, wax and lucite and looked old fashioned in their handmade, slightly off-center way. It took some calling around but he was able to hire a personal assistant for $5 an hour to find him a converter to hook the thing up to his monitor.

All plugs attached, he flipped the switch on the front of the device and watched as his screen flickered to life. The circuitry looked advanced; surely it must be some kind of radar, or a really fancy television? His spirits fell as he saw the picture on screen which was barely as good as the three-dimensional viewers of his childhood. But he soon relaxed and found himself simply watching.

It seemed he was receiving a television broadcast, but not from any time he recalled. A hand-lettered 1950s style sign proclaimed THE SINGULARITY above a building of a strange modern architecture, based on curves and not cubes, that he did not recognize. People filed in wearing the attire of earlier ages that always struck people from his time as oddly formal, but they carried cell phones.

He saw a woman wearing an elegant summer dress that came down to below her knees, talking on what looked like a thinner iPhone, resting her arm on a Packard in the parking lot as another pulled in. People filed into the lecture hall and the camera followed without a single shake, revealing a gleaming glass tower of octagonal shape rising above the audience. It pulsed with a grey-violet light.

There was no sound, but a balding man in a suit was speaking, gesturing toward the machine. Emil could see more of the strange hand-lettered signs around, talking about processing capability (“one trillion UNIVACs”) and memory (“seven billion LOCs”). Then from the way the man gestured, Emil could tell that he was talking about joining these units together… many of them.

More 1950s hybrid 2020s imagery passed: nuclear tests, wars he did not recognize, space flight from a strange glider plane, telepathic imaging. Then, soldiers in the awkward old uniforms and carrying old-fashioned looking guns jumped into some of those tiny Jeeps to go up a winding mountain road. They went deep inside the rock, and through the darkness ahead he could see light.

A city, he thought. No — some kind of crystalline nexus. As the lead Jeep rounded the final bend, he saw that it was neither. Instead what lay before him was a city block or more worth of these octagonal towers. The cave pulsed with their light. Then the Jeep drove down a tunnel carved through rock, past nuclear reactors, bomb shelters, small factories, hospitals, schools, control centers filled with flashing lights and what looked like streamlined, more powerful versions of 1950s computers…

He dozed off. He awakened to images of flying through clouds. The plane landed outside Los Angeles, or what he imagined was a city like it, and then white-coated scientists hopped onto ten-ton military trucks to drive into the mountains. There, he saw another crystalline city of supercomputers, but this time the film emphasized the thick cable running off through the mountains.

New Year’s Eve. Champagne was poured; chorus girls in red, white and blue danced to what he imagined was the national anthem. At the stroke of midnight, a portly boffin strode purposefully to the center of the stage and threw a lever. The lights dimmed and flickered. Then on the wall, a screen came to life. It showed nodes across the United States coming online.

Next came a news report showing the outside of a brick building that was both ornate and stately, suggesting a university or a church. The video cut to a huge immaculate room in which young men in lab coats were feeding books into ports the size of a microwave oven. The books went in, and a light flashed, producing the shadows of moving pages. Then the book slid out the other side.

On the screen, a hand-drawn illustration popped up, showing stacks of books increasing by the millions. Then another room: photographs were offered on one side, and on another, video and audio were being screened. Intermittent shots of giant memory units, apparently using a solid-state technology, showed how much information went into the machine.

Finally it seemed over. Some years had gone by; the narrator looked slightly older. As he spoke, the camera moved to five scientists in oily lab coats smoking pipes over coffee in a kitchen somewhere. The lights dimmed and flickered again. They looked up, with joyful expressions. The next scene showed more military activity.

Emil lost track of the progression here. The phone rang; he checked email on his laptop; later, he ordered some food. But he caught the scenes of electronic equipment being installed in planes and tanks, submarines taking on new computer units, and then a completely automated factory churning out a car every thirty-eight minutes by the stopwatch of the narrator.

Munching down Chinese food, he lit a cigarette and watched more. The first scene showed the distinctive architecture of St. Basil’s Cathedral against a grey Moscow night. A brightness formed on a nearby building, which then vanished in billowing smoke as multiple additional bright spots struck. As twilight deepened he could see laser beams striking targets across the landscape.

The next news report covered first a charred city somewhere in America, with bodies carried from homes. Since he had no allegiance to America, Emil paid little attention. But other shots showed tanks, more like futuristic versions of present tanks, cruising through snow and mud to attack a clearly panicked enemy. He slowly realized that the computer — whatever it was — had made them, or thought them up. They moved faster and more lightly than other tanks, and fired missiles and shots too quickly for a human.

In the next clip, Soviet flags were dragged across the pavement in Washington, D.C. The film cut to an open ditch dug in frozen snow by what looked like a radio-controlled bulldozer. Soldiers herded several hundred civilians to the edge. Tanks moved from outside the woods, and fired a rapid valley of machine gun fire, puffs of smoke cresting the ice and snow. Bodies fell into the grave, and another group were led out to the same fate.

Other images flashed across the screen. The Eiffel Tower, collapsed. The Brandenburg gate dynamited. Bombers with graceful lines dropping scattershot bombs that erased buildings from the landscape. They looked like traditional Chinese architecture. Again with the mass graves and tanks firing impassively, never missing. The scene repeated in multiple countries.

The camera switched to a university classroom. The narrator stepped up and pointed to a population chart. It showed a prior year list of billions, then a present year number in the low tens of millions. The camera panned to the class, and he saw a sea of white faces, attentive. There were no blacks, Mexicans or Asians present.

Another shot showed these same students studying, quickly marking answers down a page in a physics class, or building complex electronic devices in shop class. In the corner a short octagonal computer stack hummed, pulsing as it assessed answers. The children with the good answers went to meet the principal. The others went to another mass grave scene.

“It worships intelligence,” said Emil. He stared deep into the pulsing machine as the camera zoomed in on it, but just as he seemed to feel a sense of its personality, the scene cut to another setting. It showed people out the in fields, cultivating crops. Then a bell rang and they all ran inside to study. Then another bell, and they were practicing martial arts.

His breath slackened as he watched the incredible vitality of these people. A machine checked test scores; the narrator, quite an old man now, nodded approvingly. Emil saw the new master race emerge from the tutelage of the machine: dark-haired, rigid-featured, a mixture of European ethnicities. From the charts he saw, each one crushed him in educational, athletic and martial abilities.

“Way to make a guy feel inferior,” he said, and started giving the movie half of his attention. He snapped to however when the war films resumed. Tanks surged into foreign lands, their guns seeming to fire indiscriminately, but then enemies — civilian and military — fell in heaps, like reaped wheat. Emil realized that a powerful post human intelligence was at play here.

The Singularity, he thought. The moment when humanity finally got its act together, fed all of its knowledge into a supercomputer, and found some ultimate answers. The charts flashed on screen showed even fewer survivors this time. The computer was saving those who had intellectual possibilities and worked hard, and filtering out the rest.

A new video came on. The narrator was very old and looked barely conscious. The new generation of geniuses was about to enter university. The camera panned over the group, and Emil noticed how similar they looked. Not Nordic, but a generic round face and dark hair and eyes, almost Asiatic.

The videos after that showed the expansion of society. Everyone worked in the fields, then worked at a desk, then exercises and practiced fighting. Society was rigorous, orderly and scientific. Standards prevailed: now any one part of the world started looking about like any other, with the same safety rules, signs, roads, houses, shops and cars.

Emil nodded off again. When he awoke, he saw a new video. It described the glorious merger of East and West, since both were high IQ societies who engaged in the same behavior. Now the parents of college students were all mixed partnerships between Asians and Caucasians. The students looked Eurasian, smooth square faces with narrow eyes.

The camera hovered over the machine. Now it took up dozens of caverns, each pulsing with the same glow, and every aspect of life was managed by the machine. Literature, philosophy and music had vanished; instead, only STEM fields were pursued, and every person lived this regimented life, ruled by the Constitution, the philosophy of Karl Popper, and the inerrant machine.

As the video faded out, Emil saw what society had become. Apartment blocks, each distinctive in architecture, and private plots of land. These covered almost the entire globe. Every person was intelligent, studious, hard-working and rigid in focus. All extraneous activity had been lost. In fact, life had become… mechanical.

The screen quirked and then faded out with the pulse of blue light that happens when analog machines lose power.

“No,” said Emil, pounding on the cold metal face. “No, it can’t be!” He had spent his entire post-teenage life hoping for the Singularity, but now that he saw it, he was unsure. Rather, he felt ill.

As it turned out, his cries had alerted some nearby criminals. The doorframe exploded apart near the lock. Two men, squat and Asiatic in the style of the region, burst in. When they saw Emil’s meagre possessions, they cursed. One of them raised the shotgun and Emil had just enough time to register the burst and think that it must be buckshot. Then his body stopped working, became immensely cold, and he fell to the group.

His eyes unfocused and then came back again. He could feel something leaving him, an event like the shattering of hope. From where he was on the floor, he could hear people arguing in a foreign language. His last vision was of the metal frame before him and the cryptic words which now he understood:

El Autismo d e l u x e

Brexit Signals The Coming Wave Of Government Obsolescence

Thursday, March 30th, 2017

Liberal democracy won — during the past era of history — because of fear. People feared being excluded, or rejected for their bad decisions, or even being persecuted for political trends. Instead of option for cooperation, they attempted to control compulsion by making it “good” or universally accepting.

That created a cascade of other bad decisions culminating in, as Francis Fukuyama noted, an end-stage of liberal democracy paired with the welfare state and capitalism, basically a compilation of all of the previous attempts to make a working modern society. It borrowed as much from Communism and Fascism as it did classical liberalism.

With Brexit, we are seeing the cresting of a wave against not just the EU, but the idea of government itself. The average normal functional person does not need government; we are happiest during government shutdowns. In fact, our lives are mostly centered around local events, and we want national government to just run itself moderately well without our interference.

The libertarian boom of the 90s and 00s was doomed but also prescient. It wanted to use the law to defend against the herd taking whatever its members had accumulated; while this was doomed, it also introduced a new idea, which was that for ordinary life, government is irrelevant and in fact nothing more than a bother. People need stability not “progress.”

Libertarianism by itself means nothing other than a defense of the ability to retain what one has worked for. Throughout history, this has been a failing position, because the parasites merely vote themselves a “right” to whatever you have. But, through its criticism, libertarianism introduced the idea that government is a proxy of the parasitic crowd.

We want no government. We need leaders — like kings — and we need a social hierarchy such as occurs through a caste system, and some kind of guidance through culture. Beyond that, all of what government does is unnecessary and merely a pretext for taking what we have. We would rather it just went away. Government shutdown? Forever, if possible.

The future belongs to a new type of society. It will be organic, informal and decentralized. And yet, unlike our failure of a society, it will have order: strong hierarchy and caste. Brexit and Trump are the first steps toward the recognition of what we actually want, and they start with removing the idea of government as necessary and a good guy, because it is neither. It is merely another parasite.

What Prompted The Rise Of The Alt Right?

Tuesday, March 28th, 2017

We know a movement not so much by its statements but by its aspirations. These are difficult to articulate, and group dynamics do not reward exact specificity so much as generating interest and emotional connection. As a movement groups, however — whether artistic, political, social or religious — it finds a need to clarify itself in order to avoid assimilation by entryists.

Such is the case as the Alt Right attempts to explain itself:

As the alt-right has grown, though, mainstream conservatives have loudly shot down suggestions that its rise has anything to do with them. “They are anti-Semites, they are racists, they are sexists, they hate the Constitution, they hate free markets, they hate pluralism, they despise everything we believe in,” American Conservative Union executive director Dan Schneider told Conservative Political Action Conference attendees last month. “They are not an extension of conservatism. …”

If memory serves, the Alt-Right emerged in the 2000s and defined itself against George W. Bush and “mainstream conservatism.” National Review was our foil at the time. In our eyes, it represented everything we were not: pro-immigration, pro-war, pro-free trade, politically correct, indifferent to White interests and submissive to the mainstream media.

We know the fundamental idea of the Alt Right was to serve as an alternative to existing Right-wing movements. While it is clear that it rebelled against mainstream conservatism, it also implicitly rebelled against the capture of the underground Right by National Socialist and other Leftist hybrids. This does not mean it rejected all of their ideas, only the totality of their ideas.

The Alt Right emerged from several strains of anti-egalitarian thought — social Darwinism through libertarianism, nationalism through human biodiversity, anti-democracy through Neoreaction, and a smattering of influences from the Old Right and underground Right — which came together into a simple framework: oppose equality and diversity, and strive for a society more like the West before the fall.

In this way, it unknowingly rejected modernity itself. The idea of equality gives rise to the notion of democracy and the idea of legitimized class warfare that is the basis of modern politics, as well as to the ideation behind diversity and feminism. While most Alt Righters recognize those movements as opposition, it has not yet dug deeply enough to see its anti-modern tendencies.

The Alt Right is beginning to recognize its actual mission which is to restore Western Civilization. We are starting to see that we live in a totally fallen time, and that to get back on track, we will have to reverse course and start over.

In this way, the only contribution that mainstream conservatism made was to turn itself into an ideological movement like Leftism, and thus unconsciously adopt Leftist assumptions. Conservatism is a means to an end, and that end is having a thriving and not simply utilitarian society so that we can achieve greatness again. Without that, all movements fail among the ruins.

Deranged Twitter Suspends Philosopher Nick Land For Unknown Reasons

Thursday, February 23rd, 2017

The crisis over social media is reaching epic proportions: these sites, which are the new public spaces of globally connected world, are technically owned by those who paid for the servers, code, electricity, bandwidth and staff to run them; however, they are needed for the free exchange of information by people worldwide.

As of today, Twitter has suspended the account of Nick Land, a paleolibertarian philosopher who writes on topics including Neoreaction and Anarcho-Capitalism or things very much like them. Many of his posts concern seasteading, economics, the downfall of liberal democracy and the rise of tribalism.

However, the glitch is that Land is not an extremist — in fact, he is the opposite, in that he approaches questions from an analytical viewpoint from a historical and economic perspective, instead of the kind of personal or ethnic focus that many have adopted. In this way, Twitter is shooting itself in the foot by removing sensible voices and allowing the emotional to crowd the discourse.

Perhaps this is a first step toward justifying further attacks on the non-Left by removing the intellectual forces that keep non-Leftist dialogue anchored, giving the more radical fringe power, so that it can then be targeted and banned. Either way, this is a great loss for all on Twitter who value thinking about the next stage of history instead of cheerleading for the recently past one.

Why The Alt Lite Must Die

Saturday, January 14th, 2017

While abiding by the idea of “no punching to the right,” the Alt Right can and should evict the Alt Lite from its position because the Alt Lite represents entryism into the Alt Right which will eventually turn it as cucked as mainstream conservatives, again driving realists into underground extremist groups because their views cannot be publicly aired.

The Alt Lite consists of those who, responding to the incursion of the new Red Guard (SJWs) have spoken up in favor of free speech and freedom of association, served a highly useful purpose at first. It beat back the Leftist assault by appealing to neutral grounds, namely defense of liberty and freedom of thought. However, in doing so, it became popular with fence-sitters.

Fence-sitters understand the failure of Leftism but are unwilling to commit themselves to actions which would move us away from Leftism, preferring to patch up the leaky ship by creating more laws, rules and standards to try to avoid the normal situation, which is where the mob destroys any who deviate from its dogma. This will not work because the mob will only grow more powerful unless directly opposed.

In doing so, the Alt Lite have made themselves into a mirror image of mainstream conservatives, the so-called “RINOs” and “cucks.” The Alt Lite thinks it can work within the current system despite that system always rewarding what is popular, and what is popular always reflecting the combined fear of the herd instead of the best possible solutions for the long-term.

This causes civilization to die by internal toxicity, essentially piling up dysfunction until it reaches a crucial threshold and the resulting herd tantrum changes authority, almost always shifting toward more extreme and less responsible parties.

As astute readers may recall, the Alt Right has — forgive this — mixed heritage. It combines elements of the French New Right, anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism, paleoconservatism and social conservatism, Neoreaction, Traditionalism, National Socialism and Nietzschean conservatism. As a result, members tend to come in on one of these themes, and shape their further thinking according to that framework.

Libertarianism — originally called “classical liberalism” — is the notion that despite the advent of the Leftist state, the productive citizens can defend themselves with laws and so hold on to their wealth despite the clamor of a mob that demands what they have. As Plato tells us, this is a failing gambit:

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

…Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people; at the same time taking care to reserve the larger part for themselves?

Why, yes, he said, to that extent the people do share.
And the persons whose property is taken from them are compelled to defend themselves before the people as they best can?

As he reveals in this short passage, society begins its decline when it reverses its thought: instead of focusing itself on doing what is right and excellent, it becomes oriented toward whatever is popular and profitable, and from within that narrow range chooses an ersatz right upon which it bases its new direction. This might be analogous to Republicans.

At that point, the civilization begins a descent into democracy. When the herd has gained enough power, they demand the wealth of others, who defend themselves through an attempt at oligarchy, but in doing so, create the groundwork for tyranny, which occurs when the tyrants realize they can unite the drones against the productive. This describes libertarians in the age of Obama and Merkel.

The Alt Righters who descend from libertarians tend to be like this. They want to avoid Leftism by refusing to fund the Leftist state and asserting their own right to “liberty” and “freedom.” They forget that this was the default condition of America, but that in less than a century, this principle was replaced by obligation to the herd.

Libertarianism likes to think that markets regulate society. While this is more accurate than the idea that political questions are the sum total of what regulates society, it misses the point: a civilization is an ecosystem with several paths to power, of which economics is one, and therefore as soon as the productive retreat into libertarianism, the other paths become more important and are used to take down the productive.

This is how we got to our present state from our libertarian origins, both in Europe and America, which were themselves a response to the collapse of feudalism as rising populations overwhelmed the old order. The West succeeded and, by doing so, it failed, which happened a crucial time when it was recording from plagues and invasions and trying to find a new purpose, its old one being exhausted with having achieved success.

While libertarianism may slow the decline in the short term, it will be eventually overwhelmed, and it does not attempt the most important role of the Alt Right, which is pushing Western Civilization toward renewal by choosing a direction other than our current moribund path. Revisiting Plato:

When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things.

The only path out of decline is to choose another path, and this will fit the pattern of the gold and silver races. Instead of thinking backward, namely justifying our decisions by what we think will make us wealthy and popular, we must strive for what is right and ensure that doing that makes people wealthy enough or at least comfortable. Only then do we escape decline.

For this reason, the Alt Lite must die. They impede the actual path of the Alt Right and replace it, much as the other cucks do, with a temporary path that is popular because it is easy. The only ideas that become popular are those which flatter the individuals in the herd. Those individuals are driven by personal fear, but by forming a group, they hide this selfish motivation behind grand-sounding ideologies.

Because of this intent toward destruction of the actual goal of the Alt Right, and its replacement with an easy and popular answer that avoids the vital question of Western resurrection, the Alt Lite constitutes entryism into the Alt Right. It subverts the idea which makes the Alt Right unique, which is a willingness to say the truth about the fall of Western Civilization and how to resurrect it, and replaces it with a scapegoat and an excuse to do little. The Alt Lite, if unchecked, will assimilate and destroy the Alt Right.

The only solution to this is for the Alt Right to leave the Alt Lite behind. They served a useful role in getting us started, but now our paths diverge. The Alt Lite wants to go live with the neckbeards, cucks and RINOs, and the Alt Right wants to forge ahead into brave new uncharted waters where there is a potential for actually ending these problems and creating a great civilization anew.

For us to do this, we must demonstrate competence in some way as a means of showing that we are not another ideological party — those with strong opinions based on human intent, but no real-world utility, and by that nature, a tendency to exclude realism in favor of ideological goals — and that we offer something to the average Western citizen on the path to Western restoration.

We cannot achieve this competence with the Alt Lite in tow. The instant we create something, they will dumb it down much as the Republicans did to conservatism, and then on a wave of popularity carrying it away. They will thus steal our victory but retain our brand, and so when the project fails, will then let us take the blame.

Instead, it is time for the Alt Right to come into its own. It needs its own organizations, publishers, radio, magazines, businesses and if possible, communities. It needs to show that its ideas work by implementing them in the simplest and least disruptive ways, and then showing that those work, before it moves on past the Alt Lite and all others who wish to stay marooned in this time of collapse and decay.

How The Left Misunderstands Conservatism

Thursday, November 10th, 2016

leftists_are_unhappy_people

The Left has never understood conservatism because the Left has never wanted to. To them, their ideology of egalitarianism leads directly to Utopia, at which point there will no longer be conflict between humans and everyone will be accepted. Any deviation from this is a moral sin punishable by death, in their view.

That explains why the Left does not want to understand conservatism: they have zero room for it in their pantheon of ideologically-tinted symbolic representations of reality. This is because while conservatism is voiced as an ideology, fundamentally it is anti-ideological because it bases its perceptions on reality.

Conservatism comes from the term “to conserve,” which means that we preserve successful means of achieving excellence. In human terms, nothing can be preserved in a static sense, but must be regenerated anew in each generation, so “conservation” means not physical things but principles, methods and ideas.

As written here before, that means that conservatism has two attributes:

  1. Consequentialism. We judge success by end results and side-effects, not by human intent, feelings, judgments, universal symbols and emotions. Reality is external to us; internal focus is solipsistic.

  2. Transcendence. There must be some goal higher than material reaction, like excellence, beauty, goodness and truth, and we discover it through intuition, which is within but not personal.

This contrasts with Leftism, which has only one attribute: egalitarianism, or the equality of people, which is presumed to lead to pacifism and universal acceptance, and from there to Utopia. Leftism works through negative actions, or things it wishes to remove; conservatism requires restructuring society around positive goals, or things we want to achieve.

For this reason, in our Leftist time, our Leftist media has trouble understanding why conservatism does not translate into Leftist terms. First they want to make it an ideology; then, they try to import egalitarianism — the core and principle of Leftism — into it, despite for conservatism, egalitarianism being at most a means to an end and not an end in itself.

As a recent article demonstrate, our society is now struggling to understand conservatism which is as distant as a foreign land to a society brainwashed in two centuries of Leftism:

Nash presented an influential portrait of conservatism as a river fed by three tributaries of thought: Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism). Although each could be rendered as a popular impulse or unthinking reflex of the mass mind, Nash insisted that all three were fundamentally intellectual traditions, nourished by a cast of characters who deserved both respect and extended study, among them James Burnham, the former socialist turned anti-Communist; Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian classical economist; and Russell Kirk, America’s answer to Edmund Burke. In Nash’s telling, these were the men (and they were almost all men) who created conservatism in the postwar years.

This article is patent nonsense. Conservatism is not a material ideology, but a timeless principle. It can be found in “Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism)” but they are not its constituent components. Rather, as a principle, it is found many places, and those are the ones we recognize — “observer bias” — because of their recent relevance.

A conservative is someone who likes what works. Because the question then arises “How well does it have to work?” he has to pick either bare minimums (utilitarianism) or best case scenarios, and that latter leads him to the goal of excellence. That in turn picks out the principle of nature: all works to produce a hierarchy that advances the best over the rest, and this extends to metaphysical principle.

For all that modern people know of conservatism, the above passage might as well be in ancient Greek. However, as we enter into a conservative area with Brexit rippling across the USA and Europe, we might want to understand the path out of the Leftist mental ghetto and how we can use it to save ourselves from the moribund inertia of liberalism.

Neoreaction Conference To Be Held In London

Friday, July 29th, 2016

neoreaction_conference

We do not live in tolerant times. As in the former Soviet Union or today’s Cuba, there is an official Correct Way to think and those who fail to think this way, even if they do not explicitly disagree with it, find themselves excluded from opportunities and social groups.

Despite that, a brave group of arts community members are trying to bridge the divide. Later this year, they will launch an exhibit named Neoreaction, which is ‘an open [conference for] open minded progressives’ that explores Neoreactionary and Reactionary thought. This will be a short conference of talks and screenings on the subject of neoreactionary philosophy and politics, which the presenters view as one of the most interesting discursive spaces online in current times.

Hosted at a gallery in East London, the conference will be metaphorically playing with (ideological) fire, since Neoreaction and Reactionary thought are in opposition to modernity, liberalism and in fact every political assumption widely held in Western societies today. Already two members of the team, fearing for the loss of social and economic opportunities, have had to drop out, but the rest are soldiering on.

If you wish to attend, or are from the media and wish a press pass, please email conference@amerika.org which forwards to the organizers, who will remain anonymous until they are able to verify your good faith participation.

Why Neoreaction Did Not Fail

Wednesday, June 8th, 2016

neoreaction_a_method_of_seeing_outside_the_leftist_walled_garden

Amerika.org is fundamentally a New Right blog, with the reservation of ideas from paleoconservatism and the Old Right: we like capitalism and we are staunch nationalists who realize that monarchism is our only viable solution for leadership. But the basis of its theory lies in the New Right and the Traditionalists who inspired them.

This builds on what I have been writing for some time, which is a raging realist (what I call “nihilist”) viewpoint on life. We are organisms; we must adapt. One of our (necessary) methods is civilization including technology. For that reason, these things must be pointed in the right direction or they become our individual downfall.

None of this is widely accepted. That is because herds run away from anything like the truth, so it must be introduced to them with subtle tools that subvert the assumptions that prohibit them from seeing reality. One might see all of art and literature as a means to that end: helping us find sanity in our minds through metaphor. But it also applies to politics.

I have written a fair amount about Neoreaction because I like its solid theoretical basis. However, our greatest strengths are our greatest weaknesses, and now, a lively debate is forming about whether Neoreaction has failed. Let us look into this claim and assess it not in yes/no, but in questions of degree, time and qualitative impact:

Neoreaction failed as a philosophical/political movement because it failed to engage the real world, or even the online political world. Even moreso than libertarians, neoreactionaries turned out to be a sheltered circle of nerds who were largely uncomfortable with interfacing with the rough and tumble of online political discourse or addressing current events; even just on the Internet! By failing to engage anyone outside of neoreactionary circles, many of the core participants lost interest and retreated to private mailing lists or went silent. The few neoreactionaries who maintained relevance were absorbed into the alt right.

Let me say that the above makes some good points which are worth considering, and then offer another viewpoint to stack onto the above.

When nature creates a species, she does not do so equally. Instead, the species is at first many varieties which compete with their environment to see which survive. Those form the base of the species, like a statistical floor. For example, an early mammal takes to the trees and becomes a squirrel, which is known by its bushy tail, well-developed arms, small size and flavor of chicken.

Then, new variants appear which are built onto the base. One squirrel develops flaps between its arms, and finds it can leap a little farther; another develops the ability to swim long distances; a third learns to chew long tunnels into trees. These now face another test: do these abilities complement the base animal, or do they lead in a new direction that requires a separate species?

If the abilities complement the base animal, they have a tendency to be re-incorporated into the group because the two types of animal can breed. If they do not, a separate species branches off and goes its own way through the twisting paths of evolution.

And so we return to Neoreaction. Neoreaction is a variant of the right, specifically a hybrid of neoconservatism (“classical liberalism”/libertarianism) and Mussolinian fascism (corporatism). In his dialogues, Mencius Moldbug like Plato before him argued through allegory by taking accepted arguments to their logical extremes. In this case, he developed libertarianism into a free-standing theory by arguing for the formalization of power.

As said around here before, this is more of a thought-experiment that one might bring up in an intellectual salon than a concrete proposal. Similarly, Plato took the dominant liberal ideas of his time and extended them to their logical conclusions through the thought-experiments in The Republic, showing his audience that in order to make a System — communism, capitalism, democracy — work, society would have to take total control and manage society in a way that was both unrealistic and stifling to the human spirit.

Therefore, he implied, we need something simpler: an organic state of few rules but with strong values and leadership by the best, instead of allowing those with the most votes, money or popularity to take control and act out their petty whims of power.

Since Moldbug, Neoreactionaries have developed his inner thoughts — that perhaps nationalism is not a bad thing, that strong leadership is needed, and that egalitarianism is mental goo that corrupts all other thought — into a complex series of positions. These ended up overlapping with Traditionalists/New Right, Alternative Right, dissident Right, Southern Agrarian and Old Right positions.

What this achieved was to take the extreme Right out of the ghetto of neo-Nazism and allow itself to expand on a theoretical level, instead of simply relying on us-versus-them and fear of The Eternal Jew™ to define the limits of its thought. This in turn upgraded its audience, driving out the true boneheads and letting the more intellectual wing shine.

As a result, I view Neoreaction as a booster engine to a larger ship; perhaps a JATO pack, if you will. Its goal is to push a set of eternal truths past the resistance caused by those who claim to agree with them but instead idolize simplified and ersatz versions of them, and to allow those ideas to then build momentum by being similar in theory but not conclusions to what thinkers worldwide recognize as a dialogue of politics.

Like libertarianism, Neoreaction does not stand on its own. You cannot create a Neoreactionary society; even Singapore exists only as a nexus point of international capital. But its economic and political theories are sound, and show us that not only are there alternatives to Leftism, but that Leftism and liberalism (neoconservatism) are entirely illogical. That opens the door to looking for where we took a wrong turn, and how to get back on the path.

The alternative Right is assimilating Neoreaction much like a squirrel species welcoming back a variety of smarter, stronger or faster squirrel. These theories are all variants of the same idea, which is how to get back to classical society and extend it into the technological world in which we find ourselves. Neoreaction’s contribution is a series of thought-experiments and in that, it has succeeded in re-intellectualizing the right, even if its final form will not be neoreaction but more like reaction itself, or the old Right that the alternative Right desires.

Recommended Reading