Posts Tagged ‘mencius moldbug’

Modernity Has Ended, And The Battle For What Comes Next Has Begun

Wednesday, July 19th, 2017

Reading about the ancient empires — Inca, Maya, Angkor Wat, Minoans, Cahokia, Aztec — always fills me with a sense of sadness. Who were these intensely vital people, so committed to living the heck out of life, and why are they not still with us? It is a putrescent shadow of mortality: nothing gold can stay, it seems, and death takes all good things.

That might swell your heart with lightless emptiness. To think that the good is doomed, and that life is merely a mechanical process by which the coarser always wins out over the finer, is to depress yourself thoroughly. Another way to view it is that life contains certain traps or pitfalls which are invisible to our minds, and until we discover their mechanism, they will keep dooming us.

We are now in the midst of one of those periods. Against the advice of the ancients, our society took an individualistic path, which is where people care more about their personal power than doing what is right in order to maintain the order of tribe, civilization, nature and the gods. Abstract order is invisible to all but a few, and the perpetually angry and voracious mob wants to hearing nothing of it!

Because we accepted a bad decision as fact, and have since that time been corralled by that assumption into its inexorable endgame of a third-world style civilization ruled by corrupt politicians, postwar Western Civilization has ended. No one credible has faith in “the system” anymore; we know that we made a fatal choice, and now our only thought is to escape.

This means that we are no longer fighting to save democracy, the West, America, Europe, or even our retirement funds. We are fighting to escape the mental conditioning toward doom — that is the biggest fight — and then to escape from or take control of the dying society so that we can enact The Purge on its failed parts, and nurture The Remnant of good people back to health in a new civilization.

But what will this new struggle look like? Mencius Moldbug gives us the basic topography of this question:

There are two basic ways of executing this divorce. We’ll call one a soft reset and the other a hard reset. Basically, a hard reset works and a soft reset doesn’t. However, a soft reset is more attractive in many ways, and we need to work through it just to see why it can’t work.

In a soft reset, we leave the current structure of government the same, except that we apply the 20th-century First Amendment to all forms of instruction, theistic or “secular.” In other words, our policy is separation of education and state. In a free country, the government should not be programming its citizens. It should not care at all what people think. It only needs to care what they do. The issue has nothing to do with theism. It is a basic matter of personal freedom.

…In a hard reset, all organizations dedicated to forming public opinion, making or implementing public policy, or working in the public interest, are nationalized. This includes not only the press and the universities, but also the foundations, NGOs, and other nonprofits. It is a bit rich, after all, for any of these outfits to appeal to the sanctity of property rights. They believe in the sanctity of property rights about as much as they believe in the goddess Kali.

He essentially advocates two forms of libertarianism: one which relies on rule of law (soft reset) and one which converts all law into civil law (hard reset) by destroying current organizational culture — the Establishment and “deep state” — and replacing it with people who admit their self-interest and in return, obligate themselves to deliver a service.

This fits within one of the more pertinent criticisms of Moldbug, namely that he is not really an innovator so much as a marketer:

Anyway, there are two possible explanations for the end of Moldbugism. One is that his arguments were not original, just stated in a new way. His assertion that Progressivism has its roots in Puritanism, for example, is not new. I was making that point 25 years ago in Usenet debates and I know I’m not the first guy to notice it. His criticisms of democracy have been around since the Enlightenment. Old ideas restated in modern terms eventually just fade into the tapestry of the intellectual movement that spawned them.

The other possibility is that the people attracted to Moldbug’s ideas, including Moldbug, came from the Left ideologically. Young people raised on Progressivism were attracted by the subversiveness of these old ideas. They moved right into Left-libertarianism, then Right-libertarianism and then eventually dissident politics of various flavors. Put another way, the Dark Enlightenment guys were merely going through a phase as they first experienced the outlawed ideas from the outlawed past. Now, they are onto other things.

For those of us who remember the Old Internet, Moldbug represents the type of writer like Pietro Scaruffi or Justin Hall who essentially brought a new style of writing and scholarship to the nerdly internet. They had read broadly in the humanities, and so could discuss concepts that were somewhat alien to the mostly-techie audience of the internet of pre-iPhone era.

His core idea, couched in an imitation of nineteenth century writing that befits his Victorian fascination, is that government acts like a corporation, and markets are the only “objective” way to measure success or failure thus “rightness,” so it makes sense to hire a government instead of the other way around. Citizens would subscribe to a government service and in exchange, receive smaller government.

His “soft reset” describes what the Alt Lite desires, which is equality with freedom of association and speech. These are tempting ideas until one realizes that civilizations have structures, and someone must decide what that is, and government action or inaction will damage or promote such structures. There is no escape from the question of what kind of civilization we want to have.

Even more, as the past two decades show us, pluralism or the idea that people can have their own cultures within a larger culture, does not work. Each culture seeks to dominate because otherwise, it is under attack from competing visions of reality, and people are mostly foolish and will wander off to whatever seems cool that week. With pluralism, no one gets culture, values or civilization.

Most people like the Alt Lite/Libertarian vision because if asked, in a utilitarian sense, most people think they want anarchy with grocery stores. Then they realize that this means that the most vicious and brutal will dominate them, and they go running to government and make it totalitarian to banish their fear of loss in a Darwinian conflict. This is the history of democracy and how it leads to tyranny.

As a writer who came before Moldbug, and encountered these issues before, libertarianism was dead to me as a concept from an early age. Socialism was even more dead, which is why people like me support capitalism, but do not believe it to be a substitute for culture or leadership. Then again, people like me are Edwardians, not Victorians, at heart.

But if you take that nascent Anarcho-Capitalism viewpoint, merge it with nationalism, and add some Anarcho-Monarchism, you have a relatively complete idea: a society ruled by culture, with a caste hierarchy of leadership, in which people are able to market their skills and products within a range appropriate to their caste. This is a complete idea. Moldbug and Rothbard offer nothing that can compete.

However, in praise of Moldbug, what he did was something every computer geek since the dawn of time knows well: he made a compendium of code fragments, a type of ur-stylesheet from which people could draw ideas to use in argument. In that, he was not a mere marketer, but a marketer who defined the frame of the market. This was no small achievement, in that it allowed former Leftists to participate in the Right.

That is a nice way of saying that the answer to civilization decline is not found in Moldbug, although he brings up the word that most of us should be using: restorationist. This means one who wants to bring back civilization after it has failed:

If I had to choose one word and stick with it, I’d pick “restorationist.” If I have to concede one pejorative which fair writers can fairly apply, I’ll go with “reactionary.” I’ll even answer to any compound of the latter – “neoreactionary,” “postreactionary,” “ultrareactionary,” etc.

The term formerly referred to those who wanted restoration of the monarchy, which also applies, since without democracy, our only options are military junta or oligarchy, that is, if we refuse to see the wisdom of monarchism.

However, one cannot restore civilization from within modernity, which is the political form of individualism. Nor can one resurrect virtue from an outside-in or materialist method. Not only that, there is no method which works except, as Michel Houellebecq reminds us, the resurrection of our desire to be good and thus, to have a functional civilization. Without that, there is nothing!

For this reason, many think that our future will be of the “patchwork” that Moldbug envisions, but a more organic type, and here they are more likely right, if we follow the hard reset path. This “balkanized” future involves a restoration of tribalism, where each group separates to its own geographical communities, based not just on race but ethnic group, caste, religion and most likely politics.

The foremost writer on balkanization, Billy Roper, expresses an idea found in Old White Nationalism, namely that nothing will change until the system crashes and dissolves. He gives us a vital insight in his description of the transition to this state:

The crisis trigger scenario which will cause massive riots, ethnic conflict, and systemic collapse is inevitable, now. In ninety days’ time, at noon, the power grid will go down and not return. The United States will begin Civil War II and balkanization. Millions of people will die of starvation, disease, and violence. Millions more will become refugees from ethnic cleansing. Whites will have a shot at an ethnostate, but there will be a chaotic period of struggle which could last years, in the meantime.

The thing to remember about modernity is that it is a bully. Hiding behind rules, it hits people where they are weak to provoke them, and then cries victim when attacked. This is why all Communists seem to point to their stays in jail as proof of having been “oppressed” when usually they were engaged in collusion toward crimes and terrorist activity. It is also why modernity defends perpetrators as much as actual victims.

Bullies tend to make their victims furious, and most people who have finally awakened to the fact that the modern West is falling just like Tenochtitlan are now enraged. They are mad that they were deceived, which requires the partial participation of the person misled, and mad that while they were trying to have normal lives, the herd has been working fanatically and pathologically to destroy everything that it can.

Since the bullying has made people enraged, the vision of blood, fire and death that Roper writes of seems quite pleasing. We all want The Purge on some level, and would be glad to see all of those who are guilty die in writhing pain. But looking at the patterns of history, we see that this vision is not quite likely as stated.

For starters, we have abundant data about how civilizations collapse because we are surrounded by their remnants. In each case, caste revolt did them in, with lower castes overthrowing the upper and then proving unfit to rule as the society plunged into chaos. But that chaos was not of the Hollywood apocalypse variety, but more like modern-day Brazil: a slow descent into crime, corruption, stupidity and filth.

Some always survive those. If you want to look at patchwork in action, see southern Brazil. There, the remnants of German communities — many now hybridized with native Brazilians or Spanish imports — stay in isolation and spend most of their time earning money to pay for the taxes that keep the rest of the country afloat.

There is also the problem that the Confederate States of America encountered, which is that if you set up a patchwork, and there is a larger group nearby, they will invade you and take your stuff. In the age of international travel, this could be China, either buying up or outright invading America. Disunited, self-interesting tribes will not unite in time to repel an invasion, recapitulating the experience of the Amerind tribes who could have resisted European conquest but failed to do so.

Another problem occurs with genetic assimilation. Small groups in the country seem fine for awhile until a girl or boy goes into the city and finds a new partner, or comes back with a half-and-half baby. Over the generations, trace admixture infiltrates the group, much as it did with the remnants of Greece and Rome. The original tribe is genocided by outbreeding, which is inevitable because young people select partners from those that are around them, and are oblivious to the threat of someone who is one-eighth something else.

Already we are seeing signs of the slow decay which will lead to division and eventually, genetic absorption of our people by the far more numerous Other:

An extraordinary new Pentagon study has concluded that the US-backed international order established after World War 2 is “fraying” and may even be “collapsing”, leading the United States to lose its position of “primacy” in world affairs.

…Observing that US officials “naturally feel an obligation to preserve the US global position within a favorable international order,” the report concludes that this “rules-based global order that the United States built and sustained for 7 decades is under enormous stress.”

…The document is particularly candid in setting out why the US sees these countries as threats — not so much because of tangible military or security issues, but mainly because their pursuit of their own legitimate national interests is, in itself, seen as undermining American dominance.

In other words, “rule-based” systems have failed, and clash of civilizations style tribalism and self-interest are rising. Although this report was written about lands outside of American borders, there is no reason to think it does not apply within the US as well, which means a de facto ethnic segregation with the most numerous group (Asians, a root race which includes Amerinds and Hispanics) absorbing the others.

That leaves us with an uncomfortable realization: the transition to tiny libertarian states is not going to work, and the balkanization that occurs will happen slowly, resulting in gradual biological assimilation. This leaves us with one option, which the realist will embrace: we either master our out-of-control countries and send away the Other and those who would thwart us, or we die out.

Unfortunately, this requires a greater plan than simply “nationalism.” Hunter Wallace shows us what form such a plan would have to take:

We do need to do a better job though of articulating our greater overarching vision of a new social order to replace the one that is failing. We have to vanquish this beast though before political change will become possible.

This is the challenge before us. Challenges of this nature are more fun than most will admit because they are hard problems which reward bold solutions and clear thinking. But no matter how we slice it, the old order is dead and we are entering uncharted territory, which means that we will be fighting for our lives — and the ability to restore our civilization.

They Have Made The Internet Into Daytime Television

Thursday, June 1st, 2017

Donald Trump shows another role for himself: ringmaster. He knows that as long as the goes on, the audience will cheer, and while they are cheering, they support him.

To that end he stands at the front of the three rings and gestures with his baton. Sometimes, he summons the daredevil, sometimes the clown. And sometimes he just trolls the media by typing “covfefe” into a microblog, possibly merely as a joke on the need for coffee before one can be coherent in the morning, a staple of family-friendly comedy for the past three decades at least.

He knows that business opportunities appear to those who recognize the actual state of things versus the hype, or the hive buzz created by the intersection of media, academia and social chatter. In his understanding, media is an overvalued industry about to fall, and it is to his advantage to both use them and destroy them with non-news that fascinates them.

But then, for the rest of us, there remains the unpleasant task of avoiding seeing the term “covfefe” for the next forty-eight hours. Every carny and barista out there who wants to show how clever he is will be riffing on it, the media will be full of it, and soon even academia will offer papers showing how in a postmodern context nonsense language is used to accelerate totalitarianism.

This society as a whole is entirely devoid of ideas, but the worst of all may be the internet. It is presumed to be a space of ideas, where symbols are more important than the time, space, money and status differentials dividing them. In reality, it has become daytime television, or entertainment for those who are stuck in a path that leads to nowhere but its own repetition.

By itself, this would not be a problem, but the internet has taken over public discourse — you can do it without leaving your home and waddling through this diversity-blighted, corporate-owned, broken and dysfunctional wasteland — and in order to be heard, voices must be competitive, which means descending to the level of simplicity and “spicy” clickbaity text as the rest.

If the Alt Right has a weak point…

Most of the blogs now focus on, in emulation of Mencius Moldbug, making a very simple concept look as complex as possible. They invent matrices, theories, metrics and indices. The reason for this is that it makes the audience feel like geniuses for grasping a detail as if it were the whole. That is a modern theme, found in self-help books and science: tiny traits being amplified to world-controlling theories.

And we know Moldbug was just taking a college-educated view of Maddox, whose satirical-fanatical egotism was an obvious trope at the start and wore thin over time. Neither really managed what Jorn Barger saw in the blog, which was a real-time means of responding to events.

Of course, my original writings were from before those. They actually had some academic grit to them, and focused on the philosophy behind events rather than tangible and exciting use of metaphors as if they were reality. From the early 1990s onward, I have been writing against democracy, in favor of culture and race, against materialism, and in favor of transcendental and naturalistic deep ecology outlooks. My sites offered academic writing, informed by philosophy, long before Maddox or Moldbug. In fact, most of you are making a name for yourselves by rediscovering or ripping off ideas I wrote about two decades ago.

But professional analysis and sober diagnosis does not compete with “X theory is the source of everything bad, and LARPing is the solution” as seems to dominate the blogs. Like self-help books or modern science, blogs specialize on finding a new detail every week to hype into an apocalypse and a solution. This is why, over time, they fade away: one can only keep promising doom and salvation for so long.

People do not realize that whatever defines a medium migrates to every corner of it, including those that think they are underground. The Alt Right is not immune to the daytime television conversion of the internet. Instead, it absorbs it and takes it into its own unique form, so that now we get esoteric complex Rightist writings that have become clickbait and self-help.

The only solution to this is to demand more from the internet. Is it a library, a newsstand, or a television? The fools say it is all three, but the wise realize that only one form will predominate, and it will subjugate the others, as is the rule of nature. I say we go for the library, actually learn something, and then act instead of distracting ourselves with dramatic but empty theory.

Steve Bannon Reveals The Core Of The Alt Right: Traditionalism Plus Nationalism

Wednesday, February 8th, 2017

The mainstream media calls him a “white supremacist,” which originally meant someone who wanted Caucasians to rule the world and subjugate the lesser races, but now apparently means a white person who resists diversity.

Diversity, as a derivation of the idea of equality, works the same way that equality does: whoever is perceived to be on top is penalized and that power and wealth is redistributed to those on the bottom. It might be called anti-Darwinian supremacism.

However, Steve Bannon reveals a far more nuanced view of the world:

Bannon’s readings tend to have one thing in common: the view that technocrats have put Western civilization on a downward trajectory and that only a shock to the system can reverse its decline. And they tend to have a dark, apocalyptic tone that at times echoes Bannon’s own public remarks over the years—a sense that humanity is at a hinge point in history. His ascendant presence in the West Wing is giving once-obscure intellectuals unexpected influence over the highest echelons of government.

…“The West is in trouble. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that, and Trump’s election was a sign of health,” said a White House aide who was not authorized to speak publicly. “It was a revolt against managerialism, a revolt against expert rule, a revolt against the administrative state. It opens the door to possibilities.”

…Curtis Yarvin, the self-proclaimed “neoreactionary” who blogs under the name “Mencius Moldbug,” attracted a following in 2008 when he published a wordy treatise asserting, among other things, that “nonsense is a more effective organizing tool than the truth.” When the organizer of a computer science conference canceled Yarvin’s appearance following an outcry over his blogging under his nom de web, Bannon took note: Breitbart News decried the act of censorship in an article about the programmer-blogger’s dismissal.

Neoreaction, like its parent philosophy found among the reactionaries, starts with this cyclic view of history: there are right ways to run a civilization, and less-right ones, and when civilization deviates from the right ways, it enters a decay cycle. At that point, it has become corrupt and must be partially destroyed in order to rebirth itself.

Like many philosophies derived from the libertarian fringe, Neoreaction is based on the idea of offering options in the freedom of association vein. Its primary concepts, “patchwork” and “formalism,” state that the world is breaking apart into many little corporate states where government is no longer viewed as anything but a self-interest, profit-oriented actor, and therefore must compete for citizens according to free market principles.

While in itself this seems dodgy, as we know that the world will shift to Coca-Cola and Big Macs instead of Beethoven and Aristotle, the point is made that currently, under the aegis of a moral imperative, government appears to be a benevolent moral actor but in actuality is acting to increase its own power and share of the wealth of the citizenry.

As the Founding Fathers alleged, then, government is a parasite once given enough power, because like all things on earth, it acts in self-interest. It is better — in the Neoreaction view — to formalize that self-interest by making government competitive, thus giving it an incentive to reduce its own power in order to increase its own wealth.

This misses the point in many areas, notably what aristocracy addressed, which is a recognition that those who are good at making profit are not good leaders because they are specialized in a different area than leadership. A for-profit system will reward lowest common denominator thinking and shape its people into a commercial culture which is incapable of greatness.

Instead, aristocracy chooses the best people and entrusts them with wealth and power which they have an incentive to keep consistent or slightly increase, but because they already have all they need and are not judged by acquisition, have no motivation to keep the kind of growth-oriented Ponzi scheme to which free markets devolve in the hands of the Crowd.

As Plato said in The Republic, Libertarianism is an intermediate stage whereby those with wealth attempt to defend it by arguing for a benevolent “every man for himself” type order, forgetting that the more numerous drones will simply form a big gang or cult called a Crowd and then take over power. Libertarianism is a march to death, but as Moldbug demonstrated, Libertarian theory is a way out from Leftism.

Bannon reputedly reaches a similar state by pairing Neoreaction with transcendental idealism, which he derives from its oldest source, the Bhagavad-Gita:

According to a former friend of Bannon’s, he “used to talk a lot about dharma — he felt very strongly about dharma … one of the strongest principles throughout the Bhagavad Gita.” Dharma, a difficult term to translate from Sanskrit, can mean righteousness, but also duty. Every human must follow his or her own dharma (duty, calling) in accordance with his or her nature and social duties in order for society as a whole to be following the path of dharma (righteousness, order) and be in line with the cosmic order of things:

It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. (Bhagavad Gita 18:47)

…Given Bannon’s worldview, which sees the world, and especially the West as being in a state of moral and economic crisis resulting from the lack of mooring in traditional values (in other words, adharma, or lack of dharma or alignment with a sacred worldview), his interest in dharma is not surprising.

Dharma is (in part) a defense of inequality: each person has a different role, and they contribute unequally toward a cooperative purpose, which is not found in material — like economics, politics and social factors — but in principle, or upholding the ideals and structures which make for a life which is closest to the divine.

With this inclusion, Bannon’s Neoreactionary influences seem more methodological and his goals more like those of the Alt Right, which combines nationalism and traditionalism with a futurism that acknowledges hard truths about humanity.

This pairing of Neoreaction and Hinduism shows a chief strategist who is aware of the trends of history and how we break out of them. We move from materially-derived ideas such as demotism, the Neoreactionary term for popularity contests like consumerism and democracy, toward ideal-based movement toward a stable and qualitatively improving world order.

In itself, that does not seem significant until one realizes what it rejects. Ideals are not fixed but are continuous, meaning that their core principles never change, but adapt and improve qualitatively while remaining essentially the same thing. The notion of Progress has died, including the liberal democratic version which holds that improving the material situation of individuals is the highest good.

Instead, in a Bannonian/Trumpian world, the goal is to establish a civilization that rewards the good and punishes the bad so that all may benefit from the power of inequality, which is a gradual force toward upward qualitative improvement. In this, Bannon echoes not just his recent influences, but the ideals of conservatism and human wisdom since time immemorial, rejecting the Enlightenment and the nightmare it produced.

What Once Was: A (Brief) Opinion From (Allegedly) Mencius Moldbug

Sunday, February 5th, 2017

A commenter who seems to be the reincarnation of Mencius Moldbug has made an appearance:

I like the modern world too, but maybe you can see why I think it’s a withered shadow of the world that would have existed if the Victorian world had survived and the wars of 1914 and 1939 had never happened. Just for starters, you’d have a lot more fifth cousins. So would I.

I also notice that Marx, Mao and Stalin don’t make your short list; you seem to blame the cataclysm on the side that was trying to preserve or restore the old world, not the side that wanted to set it on fire. Hm. Coincidentally, the latter is the side whose Jedi mind tricks are so strong, they almost persuaded someone with a 160 IQ to castrate himself.

And the Enlightenment? You mean the Enlightenment that guillotined Lavoisier? “The Republic has no need of savants.” Add 1789 and even 1641 to that list. Why would a savant pick Praisegod Barebones over Prince Rupert?

You might notice that in our dear modern world, whose quantum cryptography and seedless watermelons are so excellent, “the Republic has no need of savants” is out there still. Know anyone working on human genetics?

And the modern world you so love is the First World. The First World is a piece of the past, lovingly restored, like SF with its Victorian homes. We can’t build new Victorian cities or even new Victorian buildings, but gosh we love our old ones.

But the future is the Third World. Try a test on the scientists you know — ask them to find a principled, ethical reason why your rights as a human being depend on the GPS coordinates of your birth. Everyone will fail this test, because no one knows the ethical language of nationalism.

Then, ask them what Boston looks like when it contains the entire population of Maiduguri, Nigeria. Ask them who Boston elects! You’ll see some better angels then! Have you been to the Third World? There are some tiny, well-fenced places where some of your grad students probably came from. Then there’s the rest, which makes Hobbes look like John Lennon.

(As for Athens, a little more history is in order. Periclean Athens is at the end of the Greek golden age, not the start. It wasn’t Thales of Athens, it was Thales of Miletus. And the Athenian lust to dominate the polycentric Greek world is the cause of its downfall. The wars of centralization end in a far bleaker global era, the Roman Empire, which turns into a totalitarian superstate under which all thought ends.)

And yet you claim the benefits of nationalism for your own two tribes — the tribe of science, and the tribe of Zion. Just not for the nation that happens to fund your research.

While many of us would prefer the Edwardian or even earlier eras, such as Plato’s “golden age,” he makes a good point: society has lost something in its mad dash for equality. The Victorian Era preserved the caste system, for the most part, and so society was guided by its best instead of whatever intersection of the masses presented enough warm bodies to justify a cost-benefit analysis.

George Soros: A Walking Case Study For Formalism

Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

When a smart person thinks of a really new and cutting-edge idea that person can be described as brilliant or deranged. The person is brilliant if a lot of people can actually understand and genuinely like the idea. If either or both forks of the and conditional above go unmet, the smart person gets tagged as eccentric if the mob is in a good mood. So naturally, the smart person will do some lobbying on behalf of the new and cutting-edge idea.

One way to lawyer on behalf of the brilliant idea in a manner that seems detached and scholarly is the case study. The case study is designed to look fact-based, impartial, erudite and a whole bunch of other things it isn’t. A clear and well-written case study is typically a masterpiece of card-stacking propaganda. It should be long enough so that nobody is willing to out-lawyer you and blunt enough so that average readers get the point like a 2×4 squarely across their balding pates.

The truly smart person we’ll discuss today is none other than Good Old Moldbug. The new idea, formalism, is almost a decade old. Thanks to recent events, it’s worth dusting off and oiling like a loyal, old shotgun. And we’ll even cut him some slack on the case study. He could write the heck out of one, and you won’t be any younger chronologically by the time you get done reading it. Plus, he doesn’t need to write one. Pointing to George Soros and his Orwellian Open Society makes the case in favor of formalism for him.

I won’t point to George. It’s impolite and George is evil. If I pointed to him, he’d find out who I was. It would then probably suck to be me. So I’ll just remind folks of what Moldbugian Formalism was exactly and then demonstrate why George Soros makes it a commendable idea.

Formalism is a way of unifying power, authority and responsibility. Owners are in charge of their property, enjoy all the gains and losses thereunto accruing and every Tom, Dick and Harriet knows exactly who the boss is. Think of it as a giant industrial-standard burn-barrel in which to fry all the subversive political bull feces that currently lends pungency to our political and social order. It would shine a giant light on to all the K Street, Wall Street and any other cabal of wire pullers controlling the puppets holding office in your typical corrupted Democracy.

To a formalist, the way to fix the US is to dispense with the ancient mystical horseradish, the corporate prayers and war chants, figure out who owns this monstrosity, and let them decide what in the heck they are going to do with it. I don’t think it’s too crazy to say that all options – including restructuring and liquidation – should be on the table. Whether we’re talking about the US, Baltimore, or your wallet, a formalist is only happy when ownership and control are one and the same. To reformalize, therefore, we need to figure out who has actual power in the US, and assign shares in such a way as to reproduce this distribution as closely as possible.

Thus sayeth Moldbug. Anyone worth a monkey’s buttwipe gets a few stock certificates with which to wipe his hind parts if he so chooses to endeavor. Do that, the theory goes, and you get an Open Society. George Soros should throw a party and spring for all the Singapore Slings. But he wouldn’t, because he is a corrupt offspring of Belial who would fare about as well in the sunlight as any other typical Nosferatu. He recently pinged the progressosphere with a whinge-a-thon worthy of Grima Wormtongue the day Gandalf and Aragorn paid Rohan a visit. He gets straight into the lying below.

I distinguished between two kinds of political regimes: those in which people elected their leaders, who were then supposed to look after the interests of the electorate, and others where the rulers sought to manipulate their subjects to serve the rulers’ interests. Under Popper’s influence, I called the first kind of society open, the second, closed.

So far, so good. You could just openly designate Occupy Wall Street and BLM as your corporate holdings and Warren Buffett could just openly oppose The Keystone Pipeline in order to boost his railroad monopoly. And while we are at it, Twitter could just openly ban all points of view that give Jack Dorsey ideological heartburn. Stalin and Beria would be fine; poor, old Trotsky would still get it with a meat axe. But that would be too simple and honest for a guy who made his killing arbitraging the Thai Bhat.

I find the current moment in history very painful. Open societies are in crisis, and various forms of closed societies – from fascist dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise. How could this happen? …. Quite simply, many people felt that the elites had stolen their democracy.

Well yes, George. Elites had stolen their Democracy. Turned loose mobs on it in Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago,…But that didn’t just happen at random. It had to be directed by very powerful people from behind more than a few veils of secrecy. It was a job for either the Evil League of Evil or The Tides Foundation. Essentially, elites arbitraged these democracies the way you used to turn on currencies.

They arbitraged them via information monopolies known as Dark Organizations. Dark Organizations, whether they are the KKK at the height of its powers, the MSM before Wikileaks, or just a dishonest cabal of real estate and banking swindlers all make their money and instill terror in others through information asymmetry. They all flourish in closed societies. Like the current university campus for example.

In an open society, every bum on the Soros plush would be known. BLM would bear the Soros corporate logo. Exxon would have its banner flying proudly over anti-frakking environmentalist propaganda. The game powerful corporatists like Soros play in such an oleaginous fashion would crash and burn. Dark Organizations would have a hard time existing under formalism the way The Mafia, The Hells Angels and The KKK all have trouble doing business in a legal code with RICO statutes.

In a society violently pried open via the imposition of formalism throughout its legal and social institutions, Soros would be defanged. In the absence of an information asymmetry, the man is useless and unable to produce anything. He is thus the perfect case study for why methods of instituting greater formalism in modern Amerika should be seriously studied and pursued.

Elites Inverted

Thursday, October 27th, 2016

In the early days, Mencius Moldbug attempted to adapt the Indian caste system to the United States, describing the different castes — or genetic ranking — of Americans through the following schema:

Early in UR I suggested a five-caste taxonomy of American society, and described the conflict of American politics as a struggle of three of these castes (Brahmins, Dalits, Helots) against the other two (Optimates, Vaisyas). For those whose time is short, Brahmins are intellectuals, Dalits are what Marx called the lumpenproletariat, and Helots are unskilled laborers. Optimates are the old “upper-crust” aristocracy, and Vaisyas are the petty bourgeoisie.

Naturally, to someone from the Traditionalist camp, this listing seems skewed. We are familiar with the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra castes, and those make more sense when one looks at the Bell Curve and realizes the breakdown of intelligence.

These castes are generally expressed as follows: Brahmins are leaders and thinkers; Kshatriya are warriors and artisans; Vaisya are shopkeepers and bankers; Sudras are manual labor.

But now, we get some data on American castes from a news story about political alignment:

For decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been making steady gains among upper income whites and whites with college and postgraduate degrees. This year, however, is the first time in at least six decades that the Democratic nominee is positioned to win a majority of these upscale voters.

According to the Oct. 20 Reuters-IPSOS tracking survey, Hillary Clinton now leads Donald Trump by 5.6 points among all whites earning $75,000 or more. This is a substantial improvement on the previous Democratic record of support among upscalee white voters, set in 2008 when Barack Obama lost to John McCain among such voters by 11 points.

This tells us who are now in the Brahmin role: Vaisyas, or those who make their income in keeping shops. Kshatriyas and Brahmins have been displaced by the voting capacity of the Sudras, who breed more rapidly and thus gain a majority in any successful society, displacing the power of their betters (yes, I said it) and thus causing the society to fail.

Our “intellectuals” want us to believe they are Brahmins, but in reality, they are experts at making products out of ideas, which places them in the Vaisya camp. Vaisya dominance of thought has brought us to a binary state, where one is either with the Party or little people, much as in the Soviet Union and Revolutionary France.

Our “leaders” are similarly inclined to make appearance and emotional-symbolic resonance products, and these are similarly Vaisya.

Commerce has dominated the West because of equality, which puts the Sudras on top as buyers, voters and regulators of social importance. All three of those vectors — consumerism, democracy and socializing — are demotist, or that which favors quantity over quality.

The West will begin a restoration of health when it re-inverts this inversion of social order.

The Struggle Of Our Time Is Not Race War, But Labor Revolt

Saturday, October 22nd, 2016


The Alt Right was formed of many things, mainly a Nietzschean and Traditionalist influence on New Right ideas, but it absorbed many other disciplines as it grew.

One of these was Neoreaction, a set of talking points much like the thought-experiments of Plato’s The Republic, suggesting that government had separated its incentives from it ideology and thus become corrupt. Neoreaction rest on the ideas of Mencius Moldbug who admit an influence from white nationalism which helped him frame his understanding of the modern power struggle:

In Fjordman’s model, we see two groups: White and Swarthy. White people, or at least some of them, are gripped by some mysterious masochistic urge to self-destruction. If Whites unite, accept even just the slightest touch of White nationalism, and act collectively, they can defeat the anti-White neo-Communist Swarthy jihad that otherwise threatens to devour them all.

In my model, there are not two sides but five. Three of these sides are white, two are swarthy. And we see no mysterious masochism at all, just the usual hominid struggle for factional dominance. One of the white parties (Brahmin) is ganging up with the two swarthy parties (Dalit, Helot) to apply a good old-fashioned whupping to the other two white parties (Vaisya, Optimate). Just another afternoon of nasty on the History Channel.

Moldbug got a lot right, but when he is wrong, he is strikingly wrong, starting with his complete misunderstanding of caste.

The people on top are in fact the Vaisya, or the merchant and bourgeois classes, whom Moldbug seeks to exonerate. There are probably no Brahmins left, as democracy tends to exterminate these through direct action or fading away due to misery.

Even more importantly however, he misunderstands history. Every civilization is undone by a revolt of its labor classes. This is how civilizations go out, because as they prosper they become bottom-heavy because the labor classes breed faster, which then causes smarter people to basically abandon civilization because it involves too much time-wasting care for idiots.

To survive, a civilization must ditch its bottom-heavy extraneous population. However, this becomes difficult one caste systems fall. This is why idiots persist at all levels of American and European culture: we no longer keep them isolated as serfs, and despite being fools — having unrealistic and crass judgment — they are capable of jumping through the intellectual hoops required to have power.

In a sane age, would George Soros be anything but a turnip-picker? What about our celebrities, would they be anything above prostitutes? Or our politicians, who would be running small shops instead. We have pushed the mediocre above the excellent.

This is the actual critique of white nationalism: it does not get to the core death of western civilization, which is mass revolt by lower castes.

Yes, the Other need to be removed from among us, preferably by as gentle a method as possible. Yes, we need Leftism to die. But before that, even, there is the trap that every society falls into: as it grows wealthy, it tolerates too many useless people who then overwhelm its power structure by infesting it and making it so tedious that no one with a bran will go near it.

When mass revolt happens, it does so through solipsism, or the refusal to consider the world anything but part of the self. That in turn reveals that the essence of liberalism is individualism, which is expressed in “Lockean” collectivized individualism which demands the desires of the individual coming first, as is the definition of individualism.

Every other word in his article then operates on clear, overt, Lockean conceptions of the individual being prior to society.

There are three options for the priorities of the individual:

  1. Individual-first.

  2. Society-first.

  3. Principle-first.

The first two fail because they argue from a finite thing and miss the point: society is about doing what is best for the organic whole, in which disparate parts work together without parity of power, as in a natural ecosystem. Prioritizing from principle, or idea, allows the individual to stay consistent with past and future of that society instead of arguing from a specific point of time as an ideal.

This also avoids the error of absolutely placing self or society first. The goal is civilization itself, which is an idea that appears in parallel between leadership, religion, culture and biology. This ideal can be applied to the status quo at any time, improving it.

Nationalism is a rejection of individualism, or the idea that the individual comes first before anything else. This in turn rejects the foggy mental state of solipsism in which most humans, especially those in the bottom-heavy mass revolt group that normally serves as labor, exist by their nature. It is our simian heritage to be oblivious of anything except ourselves and how adorably clever we are.

By rejecting individualism, nationalism allows “bootstrapping”: political order protects the positive in culture, nurturing it upward. Through that mechanism, society improves on a qualitative level, which then allows culture to take over its role as modifying government and not the other way around.

With this in mind, it is clear that achieving political nationalism is the first step in undoing the decay wrought by individualistic leftism:

[Brexit] would be a reversal and overturning of decades of ‘progress’ towards an Establishment-controlled materialist nihilist totalitarian world government; and that would really be a catastrophe, which might not end there but might be the first and crucial strand to break in that vast web of lies in which – the elite recognise – they have made, sustain and in which we all dwell.

One broken thread – and the UK is a very thick and structural thread – strains all the other threads; snapping the UK thread may lead to a chain reaction.

…the sheer ‘mental’ terror of the Establishment lackeys and minions reveals that if Brexit happened fully and soon, it really would strike a blow against the culture of death which is deliberately driving us towards willed spiritual suicide.

The organization created by wealthy special interests is always liberal. It is Leftist because the only way to manage a mass revolt is to turn it into mass culture, and people of that nature only respond to the positive social feelings they get from ideas of equality and social unity.

Asserting any value higher than the human individual and material practicality — this includes society-first reasoning — breaks the back of this corrupt parasitic invader. Since liberal democracy is essentially a dead letter, we are now in the process of turning toward nationalism to bootstrap ourselves to a principle-first outlook.

#MEGA: Make Europeans Great Again

Saturday, October 1st, 2016


The Alt Right has drawn attention for its heroic mixture of libertarian laissez-faire with hard Right views that Europe and America have excluded from public mention in the year since WWII. This outlook reveals the two quests of the Alt Right:

  1. Get the Leftists off our backs and out of power in the near term.

  2. In the long term, restore the greatness of European civilization.

Unlike the mainstream Right, the Alt Right is not about extremely short term measures and winning the “game” of politics through compromise and oversimplification. Its goal is to end the decline that has made Western Civilization into an existential hell where the intelligent are troubled and idiocy is the norm.

Following the Donald Trump slogan (borrowed from the Reagan/Bush candidacy) “Make America Great Again,” the Alt Right might propose one of its own: “Make Europeans Great Again” (MEGA). Dislodging Leftism as the single party ruler of the West is a means to this end. We do not oppose it for ideological reasons, but because it is destructive.

With the removal of the Leftist stranglehold on the West, and the consequent ability to discuss non-Leftist ideas as well as Leftist ones, we as citizens of these countries face a choice: we can build an ascendant civilization, or one that aspires to excellence and mastery of itself, or we can keep kicking along with half measures until we fade out of history.

The brilliance of this approach is that it speaks to the deep need of the fifth of our population that does all of the thinking, which is a need to have purpose, to believe in something worth sacrificing for, and through that, to find personal meaning. As Fred writes:

Let us face ourselves. We are Hyperboreans; we know very well how far off we live. ‘Neither by land nor by sea will you find the way to the Hyperboreans’—Pindar already knew this about us. Beyond the north, ice, and death—our life, our happiness. We have discovered happiness, we know the way, we have found the exit out of the labyrinth of thousands of years.

Who else has found it? Modern man perhaps? ‘I have got lost; I am everything that has got lost,’ sighs modern man. This modernity was our sickness: lazy peace, cowardly compromise, the whole virtuous uncleanliness of the modern Yes and No. … Rather live in the ice than among modern virtues and other south winds! We were intrepid enough, we spared neither ourselves nor others; but for a long time we did not know where to turn with our intrepidity. We became gloomy, we were called fatalists. Our fatum—abundance, tension, the damming of strength.

We thirsted for lightning and deeds and were most remote from the happiness of the weakling, ‘resignation.’ In our atmosphere was a thunderstorm; the nature we are became dark—for we saw no way.

Formula for our happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal.

We have become soft because egalitarianism creates a facilitative society in which the only objective is to secure for individuals the ability to pursue their individualistic dreams. This is why we admit immigrants recklessly: if not our dreams, which are soft and weak, why not the simpler and more powerful dreams of these people who come to conquer?

Under individualism, there are as many goals are there are citizens, and these concern individual pursuits, which almost always distill to personal comfort, convenience and wealth/power. We are divided by this approach and it makes us soft and weak because we have no higher aspiration than to live well and bloat out as the end inches toward us, hoping — like for our personal mortality — for a painless end.

This individualism occurred because long ago we went off the path of sanity by choosing to give leadership to those with wealth and power, instead of giving wealth and power to those who showed leadership ability. The older principle rewarded caretakers; the newer principle benefits opportunists, and since then our fortunes have declined. Our rulers are cynics and our people are so miserable they have stopped reproducing.

When individualism takes over, thoughts which do not affirm the universality of all humankind — “we are all equal” and “we are all one,” which are both statements of universal inclusion — are excluded from dialogue. This reverses the meaning of all useful terms and turns them into symbols of dogma, with those who fail to laud them becoming excluded if not demonized and destroyed.

This means that it is time for us to “reboot” our society by removing its government, media and financial elites, and replacing them instead with our people with the best potential for leadership. As Mencius Moldbug wrote, a society must be rebooted once it becomes deceptive:

This is why I prefer a different test for triggering a reboot: the level of systematic deception that a regime inflicts on its subjects. From a strictly military perspective, my belief is that any government of any modern state can maintain its own security without subjecting its population to any sort of a reality distortion field. Therefore, deceptive governments are not necessary. And therefore, they can be rebooted and replaced with honest ones.

…Therefore, my reboot test is that a government should be rebooted if it systematically and successfully promotes essential pseudoscience or pseudohistory. I simply see no reason at all to tolerate this kind of crap. If there are only one or two examples, perhaps they can be corrected individually. Otherwise, it’s time to hit Control-Alt-Delete.

Again, rebooting doesn’t just mean replacing a few politicians. It means completely uninstalling the present government, and installing a new one from scratch. All laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and personnel from the old regime should be replaced.

Once we consider the necessity of reboot however, it makes sense to do so in such a way that we do not repeat the same pattern. History has already changed; in 2016, liberal democracy died in a cloud of its own failures. Instead of choosing other variants of modernity, we should look to an approach that has worked in every age, and always will, because it recognizes eternal truths of the struggle between individuality, morality/realism and civilization.

Unless we make such a change, the people around will in the time-honored way of herds simply choose to remove the most immediate problems and then continue down the same path, like a pair of pants that has been patched so many times it has lost internal integrity. With that, we may delay the end, but will have affirmed its certainty.

In this way, we follow the ancient Greeks in the pursuit of self-destruction: instead of maintaining civilization, once it reached a peak it declined because it could not discover another purpose. Perhaps in these dark times we have found a purpose, finally, and can begin to resurrect and then improve our civilization.

Interview With Henry Dampier

Sunday, July 24th, 2016


The outer right resembles less a fringe than an asteroid belt, safely beyond the gravity of herd conformity and yet not entirely lost to the randomness of the outer space. Many of you are familiar with Henry Dampier, whose writings on Neoreactionary topics are among the clearer and more practical examples out there. Amerika was fortunate to get a chance to sit down over cigars, bourbon and philosophical heresy with Mr. Dampier in order to catch his perspective on life, neoreaction and dissident right writing…

What led you outside of the sheep-pen of the mainstream?

I spent more time reading books and periodicals than is healthy. I think that I started off as a fairly standard boy who was curious and enthusiastic about technology and science. This lead me to read all the great American science fiction novels of the 20th century in my early teens. This included Heinlein, Asimov, Stephenson, and Gibson. My love of novels developed my interest in other cloud-castle construction projects like libertarianism with some fanciful notions borrowed from leftists.

Overall, I think the sheep are happier and healthier for staying in the pen, and I don’t blame them for doing the sensible thing. If you picked ten typical sheeple at from a collection of the middle class and then compared them to ten random ‘woke’ people on the internet, the sheeple would be healthier and better adjusted to their society.

What was your childhood like?

I’m the son of a former investment banker and a former Ivy League academic. My parents both had eclectic first acts in life (my mother was a dancer in one of the leading American modern dance companies, and my father was a college basketball player). My parents’ divorce during my teen years both obliterated the family fortune and drove everyone crazy. Before that divorce, I was an overachieving student and athlete. Afterwards, I became sort of a zany, erratic, and ineffective nihilist-rebel type who was constantly in trouble and coasting on talent.

I had a sort of moral awakening combined with an identity crisis. I realized that the things that I wanted weren’t supported by the ideology that I had been promoting.

Growing up, I lived mostly in New York City, but my family also lived in Europe. My dad often commuted between New York and Europe by plane. I was fairly spoiled. It also introduced me to a range of different people. I started off closer to the top of global society, tumbled as far as I could tumble (mostly because of my own dumb actions), and then have been trying to claw my way back up.

Are you a happy person? Is “happy person” a realistic goal?

My moods go from happy-go-lucky and jokey to brooding without much of a middle ground. Happiness is a consequence of good health, good fortune, and good behavior. Happiness is an effect rather than a cause. Having seen and known very sad people, I do think that pursuing the causes of happiness is a good thing, and even realistic. Expecting to be happy all the time isn’t, in particular because good and bad fortune have a lot to do with it.

How did you encounter Neoreaction?

I was looking to borrow other skeptical arguments about Bitcoin and found Moldbug’s writings by Google search. I then followed the trail to other blogs.

On a more personal level, I had a sort of moral awakening combined with an identity crisis. I realized that the things that I wanted weren’t supported by the ideology that I had been promoting, and that I’d been going about it in a disordered way.

In your words, what is Neoreaction? How does it differ from the Alternative Right, New Right and White Nationalism?

Neoreaction, for me and some others, flows from a bunch of people who were enamored by deontological libertarianism and became disillusioned by some of its more impractical aspects. If Republicans are just Democrats who have been mugged by reality, neoreactionaries tend to be anarcho-capitalists mugged by history.

Neoreaction has three areas of focus: capitalist in economics, traditionalist in its view of religion, and more nationalist/Darwinian in its view of race.

Have there ever been two people who agree on every aspect of every area of focus there? No.

There is a lot of incredibly tiresome whining, whinging, and internet debating about the precise meaning of these terms. I consider almost all of it an enormous waste of time and energy akin to arguing whether or not the melee combat rules in the seventh edition of the dungeon master manual empower a hobbit to grapple an ogre if the hobbit’s strength score is above 18/99 and he has at least half a free hand when using a buckler and still has his move action.

What it is is stringently anti-democratic. It agrees with Hoppe when Hoppe says that in the history of ideas, democracy has always been regarded as a soft variant of communism. Where it parts with the likes of Hoppe is in his deontological approach. I personally regard argumentation ethics as a nice thing but not a thing which is terribly useful for practical politics. People use force because it works and because of innate drives in the human animal. I’ve come to identify more with the conservative perspective as I’ve come to accept that human nature rarely changes much.

If I were to make a neoreactionary slogan, it would be ‘Burning a path to ordered liberty in the 21st century.’ Order is a necessary prerequisite for liberty, properly understood.

There are many key figures in the American ‘outer right’ who are ex-ancaps influenced by Rothbard and Hoppe. There’s obviously tension between these figures and others. Some of the people who are nastiest in their repudiation of their old influences are also some of the same people who were among the most fanatical in the past, but I guess that’s typical.

The Alternative Right really derives from Richard Spencer and his organization. I’ve become a bigger believer in the impact of individuals, so I’m going to focus on the individual there. Spencer wanted to come up with a new brand of right-wing thought that was more connected to the European zeitgeist. I imagine that he had been disheartened by what had happened to the American Conservative, which began as Pat Buchanan’s organ to float an alternative to George W. Bush’s compassionate invade-the-world invite-the-world conservativism.

Spencer attempted to abandon the Alternative Right term when he renamed his website to Radix and redirected his domain. Then, it took a life of its own. He seemed to want to promote a term, ‘identitarianism,’ that has never really caught on all that well. Identitarianism is a higher brow white nationalism that tries to shun Cletus the stereotypical ex-con white nationalist without overtly shunning Cletus and telling them that he is not wanted at the party.

The alternative right has sort of mystical and estoteric roots that isn’t really shared by neoreaction. Nick Land certainly makes allusions to mysticism and numerology, but it’s hard for me to tell how much of that is performance and how much of it is authentic. My private take on it has been to appreciate it the way that I would appreciate a novel, but not to treat it as if it were the real essence of the thing.

The alternative right became increasingly conflated with neoreaction because I think many people are hungrier for popularity and attention than they are for discussing what is true, teaching people, or even just having fun with ideas. Social media is a toxic medium that addicts people to facile quips, bad art, and dumb jokes. Those quips crowd out quality discussion (and I’m guilty of participating in this) in the same way that a good professor can’t give a profound lecture to a noisy room.

The alternative right reminds me a bit of the history of the hippies from the 1960s. They’re focused on freaking out ‘the man,’ doing their own thing, and promoting hedonism. There’s also a strong tendency to appeal to social science as a way to buttress their ideas: robotically citing Jonathan Haidt and Robert Putnam as if it could be persuasive. I don’t think that social science is epistemologically sound, so that puts me apart from a lot of people.

The alternative right is happy to become a democratic activist organization with one chief principle: “race is everything.” By simplifying and compromising, it grows, fueled by the constant provocations of ham-handed diversity-knapsack propaganda at universities. The alt right is well-targeted to the remaining white males at American universities.

The main distinction between it and neoreaction is that the alternative right is gleefully democratic, even if it’s occasionally skeptical of egalitarianism.

It agrees with Hoppe when Hoppe says that in the history of ideas, democracy has always been regarded as a soft variant of communism. Where it parts with the likes of Hoppe is in his deontological approach.

The identitarian tendency leans towards supporting political equality within a single race. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn also pointed out more than half a century ago, it also tends towards a sex homophily that’s overwhelmingly appealing to homosexuals. The reason for this is that ordinary relations between the sexes must involve the bridging of an enormous cognitive and physical gap. Men and women are far more foreign to one another than, say, Slavs and Southern Europeans (there are plenty of Southern European slavs).

It also tends towards socialism in its economics because of the equality principle. The refrain is that everything will be fine if we expel the foreigners, and no more thought is needed. That’s wishful thinking, but it also offers a clear goal and unifying principle.

The New Right is European. I think that when Americans try to understand or import aspects of the New Right, things tend to get garbled, because the European context is totally different. To make matters worse, people are always trying to universalize or think that they understand something because they saw a YouTube video once, read a book, or read a blog post. I don’t pretend to understand stuff or to put on the great show of getting weepy for foreigners who live thousands of miles away.

Pretending to be a pan-European activist for equality within the races is pretentious.

I used up my quota of pretending to care about suffering foreigners during my time as an anti-war person in my early 20s. I barely care about anyone who lives in Washington DC, much less Germany. I could pretend to care more about the fate of Sweden, but as an American, a lot of that is just useless Facebook-optimized pretense. If an African mob burns a parking lot in Malmo and no one tweets about it, I wouldn’t even know that it happened.

Overall, I’m more cynical about ‘political scenes’ now than I even was before. When writers become more interested in cultivating cults than in writing well, I think that the people involved tend to wind up suffering from it. When the creative spark goes out, it becomes an exercise in repeating a private jargon endlessly to an audience of parrots.

Are you able to support yourself with your writing?

My Henry writing? No. But I do support my household as a commercial writer and salesman.

I would love to have more of my income come from my political writing, because I both enjoy it and I’m significantly better at it than most of the other people who do it.

The issue with making money from political rhetoric is that enough people do it badly for free that it oversupplies the market. I also genuinely enjoy the independence of commercial work. If you have to become a celebrity, it means you have to shift your beliefs around constantly to cater to the masses, especially if you’re more of a follower as a writer than you are a leader.

By being more concerned about leading a ‘movement’ than telling the truth, it also draws you into ‘entangling alliances’ in which maintaining your political network becomes more important than revealing truth or elevating your own understanding. This is how these kinds of movements tend to falter. The movement becomes an end in and of itself rather than a means to a set of goals.

Since getting more worthless internet points by having people like me more isn’t all that appealing to me, I would rather spend my time selling tote bags, virtual app currency, proprietary vitamin formulations, and truck loans. One of them really disrupts my ability to have a private life. The other benefits my private life. If I can’t support a public contribution of my time and energy with my own resources at the level of quality that I mandate for myself, I don’t want to do it.

By being more concerned about leading a ‘movement’ than telling the truth, it also draws you into ‘entangling alliances’ in which maintaining your political network becomes more important than revealing truth

The bank who wants me to push truck loans on people isn’t asking me to change my beliefs to what’s fashionable: they just want more warm leads from truckers.

The landscaping company who wants more website traffic just wants to introduce more homeowners to their all-natural lawncare method. Who I am and what I believe doesn’t really need to change with that kind of work. I just sell my time and attention rather than selling myself or altering my fundamental beliefs because of some shift in fashion. Even when I’ve had to write diversity boilerplate, I at least don’t have to believe it or even portray it as what I believe. It’s just me putting up my “Workers of the world, unite!” sign.

While I’m sure that I could eventually earn a good income with political writing, for the meantime I need to pay down debts and go down that path in stages before I feel comfortable with the risk, since I have responsibilities which will only become more extensive with time. You can’t buy diapers with retweets or ‘likes’ on your posts, but you can with dollars. It would be totally pointless for me to play-act as a responsible conservative on the internet while missing bill payments.

I think it’s pathetic when writers have to raise money on crowdfunding sites or beg for donations. The biggest asset an author has is the respect of his readers. I think it’s better to have a fair exchange of a finished product than it is to demand what’s effectively a preorder. By begging rather than exchanging, you lower yourself below the reader. But the reader wants to be brought up rather than to descend.

Also, I think the reason that most people who write for the ‘outer right’ under their real name are some flavor of marginal character is because people are so whiny and entitled to free writing about politics.

Eventually, as the bubble business model of the web dies, this culture-wide sense of entitlement will hopefully begin to die down. An audience of whiny and entitled people can only afford to get marginal and lazy writers and other content-creator types to make things for them. Not all audiences are like that.

So you get a few types of people who write for this kind of fringe audience:

  • Bright and interesting writers who contribute fascinating work until they burn out and move on to other projects, like Moldbug.

  • Attention whores who will do anything for a ‘fav’

  • People who try really, really, really hard to make it a full time job when the audience won’t support it, which makes everything they do seem cloying and grasping as they lurch from personal disaster to disaster. “Please like and subscribe!”

  • A small number of professionals like Vox Day who, through superhuman work ethic, actually make it work

The real goal of a fringe writer should not be to serve the fringe, but to get the fringe to conquer the quality cultural territory. When the fringe belief becomes common sense, that is success. Many people tend to get hung up on trying to be the coolest cool guy in the edgy gang, but that’s a huge waste of time. This also leads to the common crab-bucket behavior of fringe figures: keeping the fringe fringe-y is more important than accomplishing the ostensible goals of the group.

In your view, what is the difference between opposing diversity and hating, say, Negroes?

If you oppose diversity, you can reasonably treat with other groups and come to a settlement. It also gives you something to offer other groups besides the threat of destruction.

When your whole approach to the other groups is to say “hey, we’re going to exterminate you and take all your shit!” — and the other group can resist — they are going to throw everything that they have into resisting you. When your approach is ‘separate nations for separate people,’ there’s a negotiation that can happen there. Whatever resistance might be there can be worked around.

A lot of people in the ‘hatred’ camp are a bit like less effective and less hard-working versions of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi, the founding father of ISIS, understood that the new Iraqi state could be undermined by provoking religious and ethnic conflict. The new Iraq wanted to maintain the old borders of Saddam’s Iraq without using Saddam’s methods for enforcing a polyglot nation-state. The new identity that Iraqis were supposed to adopt was to become, basically, White American Democrats.

Zarqawi saw that the Americans were not going to succeed in making Iraqis into people from Park Slope, Brooklyn. By bombing symbolic shrines and provoking Shiite militias to retaliate, he created a civil war and provoked the Americans to crack down. This crackdown raised the perceived costs of the war even as it temporarily ‘succeeded.’ Because Americans are soft and don’t believe in mass executions, the US would basically go and capture people in terrorist camps and then build new prison camps at taxpayer expense. In these prison camps, the future fighting force of ISIS socialized, exchanged ideas, and made plans. When the US released these guys, they went right back into the fray. This is exactly how Zarqawi got his start in a Jordanian prison much earlier.

When your approach is ‘separate nations for separate people,’ there’s a negotiation that can happen there. Whatever resistance might be there can be worked around.

In the long run, Zarqawi’s vision has wound up creating the conditions for the recreation of the Caliphate. The enforced diversity of the old regimes has been obliterated by force in large swaths of the Middle East now. That is one way of overthrowing the modern nation-state. Ironically, post-modern-internet-nationalism is revolting around the conditions created by the previous generation of nationalism which created states like Iraq in the mold of modern Germany, France, the US, and even the UK.

The reason why I bring this up as it relates to ‘opposing diversity’ is that I think these terms are more relative and fluid than many people like to think that they are. Iraq is not all that racially diverse if you ignore the Kurds, but it is/was religiously fragmented. ISIS is religiously uniform but ethnically diverse. The USSA is ethnically and (nominally) religiously diverse, but demands lockstep ideological conformity.

The old nation-state sought to break down barriers between sub-races, sub-nations, and most importantly religious groups.The new nation-state wants to create a universal government under a single religion: progressivism, which is just another word for Communism.

In contrast to what Zarqawi did to make ISIS possible, American alt-rightists don’t recognize that they really don’t have the popular support nor the zeal to provoke a civil war. Zarqawi was a realistic bandit who was comfortable with ultraviolence. He did not hesitate to do things like trick retards and old maids into suicide bombing weddings. ISIS destroys diverse nation-states on one hand, while proclaiming a global polyglot caliphate that encompasses many races worldwide. Even worse for the prospect of militant alt-rightism, the glue of nu-white-nationalism is a much weaker social glue than that of something like Wahhabism.

There is a difference between opposing the modern conception of ‘diversity,’ which tries to recreate the Tower of Babel, and being a hard-line identitarian. Some measure of diversity is going to be present within any society and any form of government. Even within races there is substantial diversity, both innate and chosen. The question is what a given state and society can manage. Diversity raises coordination costs. There are also some Darwinian reasons to be concerned about excessive ‘human biodiversity.’

Roger Scruton describes diversity as a means by which elites externalize the costs of their actions and reap the profits. So, for example, a big technology firm outsources the real costs of diversity onto the workforce and the government while reaping the profits from their labor. A community that used to be cohesive with a common set of values now needs to deal with the increased costs to their quality of life caused by the mass importation of a foreign population. The company that did the importation does not need to do the security screening of their new employees. The state does that. But the corporation and the state keep the earnings while imposing the costs, both seen and unseen, onto the citizens.

The root causes of our diversity crisis are complex. Many come from fundamental errors in modern conceptions of knowledge: especially the tendency to say that what can’t be arranged in a statistical table doesn’t count as a ‘cost’ that has been shunted off onto someone else who did not create it.

Hatred, being pleasurable to many, can become an end to itself. People just fixate on working themselves up into a hate-lather instead of attempting to come up with solutions. Since they don’t see a solution, they just run themselves into a loop of entertaining rage. Some people play League of Legends, and other people play “let’s post on the internet about how much we despise [race].” The effect of the behavior is the same, because it’s very easy to overestimate the actual reach of what happens in internet discussions.

Do you listen to any death metal? What do you listen to?

Not really. I just listen to classical, bad metal that I don’t know anything about, and some rock stations when I drive.

Do you think the West can save itself, or part of itself, or is all lost?

Part of itself, but not the whole thing. I think people like to get themselves worked up in believing that they need to save the ‘West.’ I think we should give the left what it wants by territorially amputating large sections of the Western world.

I think that by trying to save the whole thing, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. By saving part of it, the rest might be saved later, even if just as land and not the people who live on it.

One of the reasons that the West has gone so far off the rails since World War II has been because of the elimination of competition between states. States are competing again. We should aim to raise that competition without blowing up the whole planet.

What do you hope to express via your writing?

After a long time of being comfortable with my own level of knowledge and cultivation, I started to understand how ignorant that I actually was about history and the nature of things.

When I write, it’s usually me building my own understanding and knowledge by packaging it for other people. Many people suffer a lot from the popular deceptions that have shrouded our culture. I think that puncturing those deceptions helps people to develop a reason why to survive. That’s what causes many people to suffer: they don’t have a good reason to live.

I think we should give the left what it wants by territorially amputating large sections of the Western world.

I also speculate with conviction that the age of the herd is coming to an end because of where we are in the cycle of military competition. A mass army of conscripts is no longer a competitive advantage in war. The army of mass conscripts was the ‘killer app’ of democracy. Since it is obsolete and has been abandoned by all of the advanced democratic countries, a new form of politics which mimics the developing structure of new military forces is going to supplant it.

I don’t share the belief that this new military will be primarily non-human, but it is indisputable that the dominant new military organizations are more similar to the elite-driven armies of our feudal past than they are like the mass armies that conquered the planet after the 18th century.

This speculation, combined with my conviction that the fiscal-monetary systems of the Western countries are headed for doom, tells me that there’s going to be an enormous need for political reorganization on new principles within my lifetime. Writing is a great way of speculatively preparing for that development.

I also wanted to get new correspondents that were worth discussing current events with. I have that now, and don’t need to use social media to talk to them.

In the future, I want to write about important political topics of practical importance to ordinary English-speaking people with good sense at a high level of quality.

The Pocket And The Punch

Saturday, April 2nd, 2016


I have not come up with a better formula for the modern time than “confusion.” People have no idea what to do, or what they should want, so they fall back on simple animal methods and cover them up with social lies.

Coincidentally, that same approach got us into this mess, mainly because as societies grow, they become surrounded by people without purpose. They are just there for the jobs, food and company. This is why at its root what did the West in was individualism. But that is still a controversial thesis, so it should be left off for now.

Reactionary Future contributes a few points about Mencius Moldbug and Fred Nietzsche:

Brett Steven’s post very helpfully highlights how the alt-right is indeed Nietzschean, meaning it is basically still liberal and still sophist. It doesn’t, and can’t offer any structure or insight which is not arbitrary. It is (if you still want to use the Moldbug cladistics metaphor) a variant of liberalism that has developed from conservatism due to a shift in communication methods (the internet) so will be subject to selection pressure as brought to bear by the unsecure power of current political structures. It will therefore be ground down into (even more) mush.

He tackles two ideas here: first, the political future of alt-right as a political group, and second, the question as to what Nietzsche and Moldbug were trying to achieve.

As far as the first goes, it should follow the pattern of everything else in a modern time: leftward drift as people rise in the movement who bring with them certain assumptions. In politics, the assumptions are everything, because they are the step right before the conclusion that the individual draws — thinking it is his own thought — that propels him into full-blown Leftism, which has its root in egalitarianism.

It was these assumptions that doomed white nationalism. Since America and the UK did not have single ethnic groups, they went back to their roots and dug up the old Nativist, Know-Nothing and England First movements. These movements essentially affirmed the Western European identity of the USA and UK, and cast out those who did not fit this mold, usually the Southern/Irish and Eastern Europeans but also all non-Europeans.

The Nativists were the people who wanted to repatriate slaves and send all immigrants home with foreign aid for their countries of origin. They are so racist they are not racist — you might call it “meta-racist” — because their thinking is so practical. Homogeneity works; diversity requires a police state to temporarily work before the nation collapses and tyrants take over.

This leads to the second point: Moldbug and Nietzsche aim for two different things in the same vein. They are trying to change our assumptions, to program us to be ready to make the leap from the familiar Leftist programming to seeing the sanity on the other side of the abyss. Leftism is based in fear of nature; when we embrace the parts of nature that will work for us, we can overcome this fear and restore all the things we need: nationalism, aristocracy, capitalism and a transcendental goal, including un-deading God.

Moldbug is basically the operator of an intellectual salon. He offers a new vocabulary mainly to force us to admit the actual role of the state and egalitarianism as a control method. Then he gives us some ideas about what we might want to do to respond, which launches us down a path toward thinking those ideas through and realizing what would be required.

Nietzsche hoped to jump-start our spirits. Like the Traditionalists, he realized that our problems originate within. People do not have a spirit toward goodness, hope, excellence or beauty. They are conditioned toward the individual and its fears that make up the justification for the Leftist worldview. He is pointing us to the stage before some realizations, not the realizations themselves, for the most part.

Both of these are offering us the “pocket”: the state right before the punch. The punch itself is up to us, and not all can make this choice. This is natural selection. Civilization belongs to those who can upkeep civilization and everyone else belongs in the third world, which occurs in some form for all races on all continents. In the pocket, Nietzsche rewrites our assumptions and lets the best rise above the rest by their response to that knowledge, which in itself constitutes a choice to act or not.

It doesn’t, and can’t offer any structure or insight which is not arbitrary.

This however I disagree with. You cannot beat fatalism by running from nihilism. All of our choices are arbitrary and none are subjective. Even if there is an all-powerful God and His purpose to the cosmos, it is our choice to accept that like any other fact of Reality. Trying to make these things inherent is to deprive us of choice, and like liberalism, to standardize all people in order to save them, instead of allowing natural selection to do its work, which is much as that of religion, “good to the good, and bad to the bad.”

Leftism, Socialism and individualism are based on the opposite principle, which is “good to everyone” because this assuages individual fears by making everyone feel included and accepted. However, like a union or Communism, this means that the good get the same reward as the bad, which makes being good inefficient and consequently indirectly rewards the bad. No surprise such societies self-exterminate.

Recommended Reading