Posts Tagged ‘monarchism’

Trumpism Is Not An Attack, But A Defense

Sunday, November 13th, 2016

Over at The New York Times, the usual gang of idiots make the case for refusal to accept a Donald Trump presidency. They couch this in moral language:

Evil settles into everyday life when people are unable or unwilling to recognize it. It makes its home among us when we are keen to minimize it or describe it as something else. This is not a process that began a week or month or year ago. It did not begin with drone assassinations, or with the war on Iraq. Evil has always been here. But now it has taken on a totalitarian tone.

Evil has settled into the USA, all right, but it happened long ago, and was inherited from the crumbling Western Civilization in Europe.

This evil, like all evil, appears to be good. It sounds pleasant and causes our brains to release squirts of dopamine when we hear it. It is the idea that there are no differences between human beings, therefore we can accept everyone, sparing us the need to be on guard against error and evil, including malevolent human beings.

The Trump election was an act of self-defense by white and other Americans who realize that the ideology of equality will not stop until it destroys our society. By demanding that the unequal be raised, it is inherently bigoted against and will always seek to destroy the successful, normal, healthy, moral and sane.

Only when mediocrity rules will people feel “safe” because their own failings are invisible, camouflaged in the chaos of a lack of social order and acceptance of evils.

With Donald Trump, people voted against Political Correctness and the idea that we need to “correct” our society with equality. Instead, they voted for nature: let those who can succeed rise, and the rest need to go somewhere else, because trying to “fix” this natural Darwinistic condition of life causes us to become a monster managerial state like the Soviet Union.

The Left, which supports one form of this evil, is counter-attacking by telling us that acting in our self-interest is bad, while everyone else acting in their self-interest is good. This is a classic egalitarian position: a double standard disguised as morality, in order to take from the successful to give to the unsuccessful, who will then run society into the ground by repeating the same behavior patterns that made them unsuccessful in the first place.

As The Huffington Post writes:

We elected a racist demagogue who has promised to do serious harm to almost every person who isn’t a straight white male, and whose rhetoric has already stirred up hate crimes nationwide. White people were 70% of the voters in the 2016 election, and we’re the only demographic Trump won. It doesn’t matter why. What matters is there’s a white nationalist moving into the Oval Office, and white people — only white people — put him there.

What they call “white nationalism” is really “white self-defense,” if it is even “white,” given the high number of non-whites who voted for Donald Trump.

We do not want to be forced to give up our society to the same people who occupy most of the globe and are having troubles succeeding with their methods. First, we want to be able to exist, and not be ethnically cleansed through mass immigration and outbreeding; second, we realize that most societies do not succeed and that we need to stick to the methods that made ours succeed, including having a unified culture and heritage, and taking Charles Darwin at his word and promoted the most competent instead of taking politically correct positions.

The Left wants a recurring human dream to become real. This dream appears in pacifism, egalitarianism and other fantasies that we can all “be One” by removing our differences. In nature, as in mathematics, differences propel change and through that, better results displace weaker ones. This is reality; the Left opposes this not for the reasons they state, but because as individualists, Leftists want to avoid having to face the challenges of life itself. They want the intent of their egos to be more important than the results of their actions, and this life-denying philosophy will lead to failure here as it has elsewhere.

Across Western Civilization, notably the United States and Europe, a revolution is brewing against Leftism. We have now seen where it leads and that resembles the Soviet Union plus anti-racism, the philosophy which has given Leftists unlimited power since the second World War, too much for our tastes. We see that it is a path to doom not just for us, but for our civilization and with it, for humanity.

Modernity — outside of technology, which we like — has brought us existential misery and failing societies. We are pushing back. As another article in The New York Times (ironically) tells us, this may require doing away with the illusions of The Enlightenment™ which enshrined individualism as our highest goal:

Indeed, the modern history of Europe has shown that those countries fortunate enough to enjoy a king or queen as head of state tend to be more stable and better governed than most of the Continent’s republican states. By the same token, demagogic dictators have proved unremittingly hostile to monarchy because the institution represents a dangerously venerated alternative to their ambitions.

Reflecting in 1945 on what had led to the rise of Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill wrote: “This war would never have come unless, under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany.”

This election is more than a pivotal American event. It is a huge change in the direction of Western politics, and a watershed moment for humanity. We are realizing that what seems good is often evil, and what seems evil is often good, because appearance is not how we should judge our choices; results are.

Humans are self-destructive by nature. Our big brains tell us what to like, and those brains understand the world through forms that are convenient for our brains to process. This breaks down the complexity, nuance and depth of nature into little identical boxes called categories, and leads us to think those categories are more real than reality. But they are not.

The Left needs to understand that peaceful coexistence with the rest of us is not possible. We have rejected Leftism as a philosophy and will continue to do so. We have resurrected our self-interest through self-defense against people who want to destroy us. If it is fair for others to do that, it is fair for us to do it, and no amount of egalitarian hand-waving can conceal that fact.

Benefits of Monarchism

Sunday, October 30th, 2016


Reactionary Future weighs in on the topic of compromise and tradition:

The closest analogy would in effect be monarchism, and it must be noted that it was under monarchism that Christianity arose. A fully secure and competent monarchical organisation, and not a mere bourgeois insecure power sham monarchy as in the case of constitutional monarchy would indeed be able to embrace the virtues and end capitalism as well as the rest of your demands, precisely because capitalism is a matter of anarchist based conceptions of property as mere possession. A true neoabsolutist monarchy would acknowledge that primarily all within the sovereign’s territory is their possession, and subsequent ownership by those in society is property, and that ownership of property would need to be in accordance with the greater good which is now aligned with the sovereigns good.

To expand: monarchism is an artifact of aristocracy, which provides a forward-facing society by choosing its best people and entrusting them with power, instead of seeing who has the power and trying to limit them or force them do what is perceived to be “right” by a large committee with no actual accountability.

The Alt Right Needs To Double Down

Wednesday, August 31st, 2016


Within minutes of globalist candidate Hillary Clinton opening up both bores of her nagging grandma guilt shotgun on the alt right, dissent broke out like a rash as the alt right began the difficult task of finally formalizing itself.

Self-policing becomes inevitable in artistic movements, musical scenes, cults, gangs, religious sects and political shockwaves like the alt right. Any distinctive ideal which does not police its supporters will be taken over by those who want to use it for their own ends.

This “entryism” explains why so many once-promising movements become the opposite of what they started as. For example, most Leftist movements start as well-intentioned programs to help people. This can be seen most clearly with the Greens and Anarchists, who started out with unique ideas and ended up as wings of the Leftist parties.

In the case of the alt right, there are numerous people who are now trying to re-define the alt right as one of the following:

  1. A less PC version of the mainstream right.

  2. A more PC version of White Nationalism.

Those attempts ignores the fact that the alt right rose up in the first place because neither of those options — Republican or White Nationalist — fit the needs of the generations who grew up after the Leftists took over in 1968. In particular, the alt right attacks two trends:

  1. The current leftist takeover of our society through political correctness.

  2. The need to get Western Civilization out of a death spiral and back on a path toward greatness.

Conventional conservative movements have utterly failed to arrest either one of these trends. In fact, by pledging to be “bipartisan” and work within the System, conservatives have co-opted themselves by adopting the assumptions of Leftism within a conservative context, thus obliterating any “conservative” ideas.

On the other hand, White Nationalism has also failed, mainly because it is an outrage and not a plan. White Nationalists want a variety of things, usually centered around the idea of all white people hanging out together and being equal. This kind of “ethno-bolshevism” does not appeal to Europeans, who defend their specific national identities, nor Americans, who identify with various strata of whiteness (Western European, class, region).

That alt right does include something simpler: white self-interest. This is inherent in the term “nationalism,” which in its historical and correct use refers to ethnic nationalism, or the definition of a nation by its founding ethnic group and not political or economic systems.

White self-interest includes a desire to disconnect ourselves from political correctness by rejecting the stigma of the term “racist,” to cut ourselves free from immigration and the liberal welfare state, and to be able to freely associate — which requires abolishing anti-discrimination and civil rights laws — with our own without some Leftist politician shipping us inner city people, foreign refugees or deranged homeless people.

But on a broader scale, and in consideration of the second concern of the alt right, how did we get to this state?

Some blame individualism. This seems plausible, except when one wonders what the cause of individualism (placing concerns of the individual before nature, civilization and God) might be. There must be some root for this dysfunction.

One might plausibly blame diversity. Northern Europe encountered its own Siberian and Mongol immigrants early on, and the same people who populate Northern Europe once also wandered through China and India. When diversity is introduced, it destroys social trust, and so people become individualistic: the self against the world, including civilization.

Another view is that individualism arises when a society becomes fatalistic. This can come from several sources. First, by succeeding, it loses any inherent sense of purpose, which in early civilizations is to defeat threats in nature and establish consistent nutrition and safety. It could also be, as I argue in my book Parallelism (yet unpublished), that success as a society causes a ballooning of the population of people who could not survive without civilization, leading to the “idiots rule” situation of today because what is popular shifts from what is realistic to what is unrealistic.

Still another view comes to us from the writer Thomas Pynchon, building on what William S. Burroughs wrote: entropy. Over time, things decline. The more centralized they are, the more catastrophic that decline is. And so, when a society becomes efficient and orderly, it creates the seeds of its own destruction.

Knowing life, or the way things work out at a level of pattern and not material, it seems likely that a combination of these introduced a crisis. Against all odds, Western Europeans thrived; in turn, this brought parasites and attackers, and then created a society so focused on stability that it forgot to be Darwinistic and periodically clean house and re-order itself.

This could be the core dilemma that the alt right addresses, and the reason for the seemingly savage and chaotic nature of its activity. We do not need new policy, but a house-cleaning, where we send away the Other and then turn to the bad amongst us, which can no longer hide in the chaos of diversity, and exile it. Under this calculus, both Hillary Clinton and the fourth-generation welfare families would be headed to Brazil via cargo plane.

In this perspective, the alt right can fail only one way: by not being extreme enough.

Already it is under assault from special interest groups. Some want it to go National Socialist, and blame the Jews for the downfall of Western Civilization; others want “civic nationalism,” which is essentially the liberal State, instead of ethno-nationalism; still others want a religious basis to it. And then there are the many who want it be simply a restored form of GOP conservatism. All have missed the point.

In this way, they will reproduce the exact same thing that made Republicans and the White Nationalists both fail: they will destroy a comprehensive message and replace it with a special interest group that will leave the status quo mostly intact.

Mainstream conservatism and White Nationalism both failed. They attracted those who were fanatical about certain issues, which created groups which could not find agreement on the big issue: what type of society do we desire, and how do we get there?

White Nationalism for example tells us that we want the existing System but only for whites, ignoring the problems that groups of mixed-whites have had merging in the past. Look to Northern Ireland, or even Poles in the UK, or perhaps the fate of Sudeten Germans or even the veiled conflict between the mixed-white North and the WASP Confederate States of America.

Even more, it leaves the same system that produced this bad result — democracy, rule of law, individualism and personal liberation from social standards — intact. White Nationalism, like most revolutions, will reproduce the conditions before it, just in a worse form (a type of decay). Republicans will leave the decay intact in order to pursue symbolic issues and rake in money.

This leaves us with a problem in the West: we have been taken over by parasites, and nothing will drive those parasites away except to cut off their source of nutrition. That happens for the lower through the welfare state, and for the higher through the state itself, which hires them as politicians and bureaucrats.

For the alt right to succeed it must then oppose the root of the problem, so that people are guaranteed actual change to avoid the conditions they see today — and to obliterate the decay which has chased Western Civilization for centuries, eroding our faith in ourselves and our sense of our future having meaning and something good coming out of it.

This requires that we identify the actual enemy, which is both intangible and invisible. It is popularity. Put together a group of people, and they react socially, which means that they avoid difficult truths and instead focus on what keeps the group together. This leads to compromise on all important issues.

To tackle this, we must be both moderates and extremists. We must be moderates in that we do not scapegoat partially culpable groups (minorities, the rich, the elites) but focus on the policies that bring us into conflict. Diversity, for example, is a policy: the idea that a state can be comprised of people of different backgrounds.

It is not extremist to note that culture arises from genetic similarity, and that politics arises from that. Nor is it extreme to say that voting removes responsibility from both voters and leaders, and that it leads to bad decisions. Where we must be extremists is to say that enough is enough, and we need these dysfunctional policies — which produce parasites both high and low — removed.

Us extremist moderates have a difficult task. We must be cool-headed and realistic, but then knowing the nature of the human tendency toward entropy, must push hard for long-term solutions applied evenly and completely. This redefines the term “moderate” from meaning “bipartisan” to meaning “common sense,” and then gives it a strong authoritative push toward full implementation.

The grim truth of humanity is that we destroy ourselves. We try to find a theory that fits all the people in a group, instead of looking for a theory that fits all the data in the external world and history. In so doing, we end up choosing a crowd-pleaser that is a loser, every time.

With popularity, entryism occurs into every idea. It is watered down to what flatters individuals by making them think themselves magnanimous, and it makes the group have warm fuzzies because it feels that it is unified and cannot be divided, therefore each individual is safe in the protection of the crowd.

Most movements self-police the wrong way. They set boundaries, and look for those who overlap beyond that edge, and then declare the problem solved. This misses those who are subverting the definitions at the center of the movement, and cuts out people who are providing necessary challenges.

The only way to police is to look at the center. Is this person basically heading in the same direction toward solving the problem? If so, let them in. If they deny or subvert a central part of the argument, such as being pro-democracy or thinking that solving one aspect of the problem magically fixes the whole, you have an entryist: a zombie of the dominant paradigm who has found your movement and will, deliberately or not, subvert it.

The alt right needs to double down on its core appeal: modern society is insane. It is illogical, destructive and cannibalizes its best people to keep its worst voting for the Leftist ideals that it has endorsed. This is the end result of leadership by committee, or vote by popularity.

With that in mind, it makes sense to look at how the alt right can defend itself.

Entry Thresholds

These are minimum requirements for someone to participate in the alt right. They focus on goals, not boundaries, and serve to draw focus to what is actually being worked towards.

  1. Strong ethnic nationalism.

  2. Irreverent, extreme and nearly sadistically offensive humor.

  3. Resistance to centralization.

The average liberal convert will want to find a version of the alt right that avoids the great liberal no-no of ethnic nationalism. This person will start by saying that maybe all of those who can assimilate to our culture can be included, or that what we need is focus on a political and economic system.

Saying “Western European countries are for Western Europeans only,” and pointing out that France should be for the French, will alienate this person and drive them back into liberalism to see the contradictions in their own thinking for awhile.

Similarly, those who fear realistic humor are opposed to realism itself. If something is true, it forms the basis for humor, especially if it is absurd. The convert from liberalism will try to neuter this into a crowd-pleasing “we can all get along” sense of mild humor.

Finally, one must beware of those working within the liberal paradigm, which is that a universal value is established, everyone is forced to obey it, and then government enforces it. If you argue for free markets, localism or any other form of decentralization, this person will experience a freakout.

Acceptance Thresholds

These apply to those you are willing to give voice to, by repeating their memes or ideas or by advocating their inclusion in anything more exclusive than the general group. Here you are trying to filter out people who have understood the basics, but are unwilling to be moderate extremist in application.

  1. Rejection of democracy.

  2. Rejection of equality.

  3. Assertion of biological imperative.

We are in a democratic system. Therefore, most people will be coached in finding a democratic implementation of any solution they find attractive. The problem with this is that even limited democracy quickly leads to mob rule, and the mob always chooses flattering illusions over reality, just like committees always pick the solution that rocks the boat the least. Individuals fear for themselves and choose compromise over solutions.

Equality is the basis of democracy and the Left. Those who want to set up a white ethnostate and then implement equality have missed the point. We need hierarchy, or each person acting in a capacity suited to their abilities, which are innate and biologically determined and cannot be implemented by education or obedience.

Finally, the biological imperative will scare them senseless. This says that culture is not universal, and that its root can be found in the genetics of specific populations. Those populations create their culture wherever they go, as fits their abilities and inclinations, which they share as these are genetic traits.

Anyone who does not grasp the above has adopted only the surface of alt right theory and does not understand the alt right as something distinct from a slightly more extreme version of mainstream politics.

Inner Goals

When choosing leaders, it is important to look for those who share the ideals of a movement on the basis of goals. That is: what type of society do they want to create? What is their definition of civilization? Those who do not understand these are entryists who will, by compromise, re-create that which they claim to dislike.

  1. Restoration.

  2. Repatriation.

  3. Physical Removal.

Restoration means a removal of democracy and materialism and their replacement with a society in which inner values determine outcomes. This means an end to “systems” and an organic society where all institutions are in unison, collaborating on a spirit toward transcendentals, or the intersection of what is excellent, true and good.

Very few are willing to publicly endorse Repatration, and they usually hide behind the pragmatic argument that it is difficult. So what? — most change is difficult, but if it ends in a better condition, then it is worth doing. Even carrying on with the present ruin of a civilization is difficult.

As a side note, those who oppose repatriation with reparations may be reacting emotionally. The right way to heal a historical wound is with generosity and benevolence, but also an unwavering commitment to setting the problem aright. Diversity fails, so those who are diverse to the founding group must exit the host nation. No compromise.

Finally, we reach the controversial idea of Physical Removal. This states that a healthy society is not Leftist, and for that reason, those who are Leftist must be viewed as a fifth column and sent elsewhere. It does not (necessarily) mean killing them, but in its gentlest form, means exiling them to a Leftist wonderland like Brazil, where vibrant diversity, rampant sexuality, and few social rules means they will be at home.

At all times ask yourself: what is our goal? It is not measured in the issues of today, or of tomorrow, but those things which for 6,000 years of human history have separated the thriving and rising civilizations from those which are headed to third world status.

The alt right is not another wing of the failed ideological movements of the GOP and White Nationalism. It is the antidote to those: a historical shift where people are willing to undertake the difficult and do the unthinkable, and remove the layers of our current system as if we were peeling an onion, creating a functional and ascendant civilization instead.

At the end of analysis, there are two ways to create human civilizations. Either we develop a spirit toward the good in ourselves and promote those who exhibit the best of it, or we accept everyone and try to bribe and threaten them into being good. We have tried the latter, and it has failed, so no vestige of it can remain.

This is why the alt right must double down. All of the entryists will serve to dilute its message and appeal to those of us who recognize that not only is diversity Hell, but so are all aspects of modernity, including sacred cows like democracy, pluralism, government and equality. They must all burn or we end up in the same condition.

To a person from the present year, this will seem like ludicrous extremism. And yet it avoids what defines extremism, which is a special interest group which takes to violence for one issue. We want civilization change. We want it now. Our current path is a path to death, and the only solution is to get entirely off of that path.

The Post-Reactionary Society

Thursday, July 28th, 2016


What made Neuromancer, the 1984 sci-fi book by William Gibson, stand out was its ability to visualize what a network-enabled world might look like. Despite some anachronisms, the book showed us how it would look if people were cruising around cyberspace, and launched a whole flotilla of imitators.

In the same way, it is important that we are able to visualize what a Reactionary — for the sake of clarity, let us put together philosophies that are more similar than they are different: Reaction, Alternative Right, Neoreaction, New Right, Paleoconservative — society might look like.

A good start can be found in my distillation of the Right, or at least of the non-Leftists out there who tend toward realism, with the four pillars:

  1. Rule by culture. Government and police are inferior methods compared to citizens who view society as a cooperative endeavor toward a goal, according to principles held in common. These are a product of culture. To defend culture, all who are not of the ethnic group must be excluded; this is a principle called Nationalism. With nationalism, government is deprecated and day-to-day order is kept through use of shame, ostracism and exclusion to keep outsiders and saboteurs at bay.
  2. Hierarchy and excellence. Society can either take its rich and powerful and assume they are good, or find those among its people who are excellent — superior in ability, leadership, intelligence and moral insight — and give them the wealth and power to use well. 99% of humanity will make these decisions wrong, and all people in groups will choose to avoid facing real issues. We need those who do the opposite to have power and wealth to ensure that it is used well, much as (in theory) we entrust nuclear weapons only to those of excellent character.
  3. Positive reward systems. Again we face a primary division: we either force everyone to conform and look for anomalies to punish, or we diligently reward those who do well so that they ascend to positions of leadership. A heroic culture does some of this, but on a more practical level, so does capitalism: it rewards those who find opportunity and meet needs, as kept in check by culture and hierarchy.
  4. A transcendental goal. No healthy society has merely material goals. It aims to achieve the impossible so that it can constantly improve, such as the motives of ancient societies to achieve balance, harmony, equilibrium and excellence. Religion is part of this, but not the whole. We must collaborate toward a goal again and have it be more than tangible, but eternal.

But what would this look like to an average person? In my upcoming book, Parallelism, I describe more, but here is a basic illustration:

America has become a nation again; all those who were not Western European in blood, or who could not pass for that and demonstrate a majority of Western heritage, were repatriated with reparations to their home continents. Ireland in particular was thankful for the reverse in its population crash and new blood of the many German-Irish hybrids sent back.

The big cities suffered crashes as a result. This provided a convenient excuse to gut them and relocate their populations to a network of smaller cities, each under fifty thousand people. These are separated by extensive farmland and wild land, with the proviso that 50% of all land must be kept in a natural state, unvisited by humans except for maintenance purposes.

A network of aristocrats has cropped up, with most serving as local lords. These positions go to lower aristocrats, and the young of higher aristocrats, so that they may learn how to lead. These local lords serve as judge and jury, leader and advisor in their communities, both telling people what to do and making helpful suggestions.

They are aided by, in each town, a team of wise elders. These men have survived into old age and also are valued for their judgment, so now, they convene every afternoon to advise their local neighborhoods, villages and quadrants of cities. They have the ability to dispense payment of some funds, and to exile people.

Beyond that, there is not much law enforcement. Those who transgress are exiled instead of being jailed. This means that some people lose their citizenship for something as simple as smoking a joint or getting drunk and beating on a wife. The wise elders and lords know that Darwin is still with us, and in a healthy Darwinian cycle, much of each new generation is pared off because it does not meet quality control standards.

In this society, “Good is the enemy of perfect,” and the leaders fear most of all that they will unwittingly enact a half-solution and let problems ferment under cover of time. As a result, despite their merciful nature, they tend to be free with their demands for exile, sending away the foolish, retarded, criminal, incontinent, unchaste, corrupt and parasitic. Perhaps a fifth of each generation is sent to the lands to the South, for nature to remix their DNA into the third world brew and stabilize it.

Unlike previous societies, this society idealizes laziness and pleasure. Its goal is to get through its required tasks with as little fuss as possible and to then spend most of the day in enjoying life. This way, people do not live for false goals such as ideologies and trends, but see life itself as timeless and participate as a means of being excellent versions of what they were born to be.

Jobs have been scaled down. Each person has a social rank based on what roles their ancestors serve, and they serve those same roles. Apprenticeships take care of most education except for the upper castes, who hire private tutors, as do small groups of people who want their children to have formal education. This provides essentially unlimited labor for any college graduate. There is no public education; apprenticeships, journeymen, homeschooling, and private education have taken over. Similarly, there are no “rules” about jobs. People are offered work and can take it or not. The rest is up to them.

Laws are almost nonexistent. The courts and lawyers cost too much for any normal person to get justice, inverting their own function. Now all cases are heard in front of a lord and, if a local lord fails too many times, his fellow lords may intervene. Sometimes they do not, recognizing that all but a few complaints are individuals projecting their failure onto whoever is in power at the time.

As a result however life is more relaxed. With countless legal costs and expenses from government regulation cleared aside, living is far cheaper, as is food. Most people work a few hours a day, then come home to spend their time with family, books, games, loafing and playing instruments. There is no desire for novelty or uniqueness because these things failed with the collapse of the last regime.

Lords can order executions. A murderer is normally ordered to pay restitution to the family of his victim, and will spend the rest of his life doing so; if he fails, a posse is summoned and they take him to a place of execution and kill him in the traditional way with a spear through the eye. No one much cares, because to get to that stage you have to really screw-up, and this society is more focused on defense of the healthy normal than the screw-ups.

Local business exists in pretty much the same form as now. Grocery stores and other vital suppliers maintain the techniques that made them highly efficient but, in the absence of regulation, are able to lower costs. They also fear less for the ability to hire and fire at will because the employees have no recourse, but in a cheaper society, have a few months to cruise if they just save a little money. Charities exist in a private sense only, and churches routinely help those who encounter life’s little speed bumps.

The Lords tend to divide people into three groups: contributors, destroyers and grey people. Contributors are those who have since an early age shown a pattern of doing good, or at least attempting it, in the mundane sense that gets no reward but is noticed by others. When another contributor testifies for an individual, he is seen as a contributor as well, and if he fails, the one who testified for him will experience doubt regarding his contributor status.

Contributors will find their interests defended. A grocer whose store is vandalized will be attended to. Other types of business have disappeared because none will defend them. For example, a strip club that burns to the ground will find no contributors willing to vouch for it, and so no one opens strip clubs. Similarly hair salons and manicure shops find themselves without defenders, and quickly fade away.

At the edges of the civilization are anarchy zones, where there are no rules and decent people refuse to set foot if they can help it. Many exiles end up here, but generally, these communities are unstable and frequently break out in violence and disorder. As a result, they are not permitted near the rest of civilization, nor is backflow allowed. What happens in anarchy zone stays in anarchy zone, as does everyone involved.

America has its first monarchs, and they tend to be descended from the Anglo-Saxon tribes. At the top of the pyramid of aristocrats are those who could be in line for the monarchy, and they choose among themselves who will attain that role. Most of them hope to heck they never have to do it, because it is a job with zero vacation, zero hours that are truly off, and a term for life plus penalty of death if the nation fails.

Technology persists and its results are everywhere, but on a slower scale, because people realize that greater efficiency leads to greater control, and that it is usually better to be slightly less-efficient and to have more relaxed lives. A cultural revolution has occurred where people no longer look to external social factors for guidance, but have turned within, to look to what they can know so that they may understand the world in a transcendental method. This is a more religious society, without an official religion.

This has changed what people value. Where in the past, they thought of themselves, now they think of where they fit in an order, including that above material and beyond our world. People seek to improve themselves, and this is seen as the activity of life, in addition to just mucking around and having a good time. Life moves slowly and people find themselves, against what they thought would be the case, more fulfilled and less neurotic.

Critics of the Reactionary society said that it would never work, but what they really meant was that it would not work for them, and so many of them have voluntarily relocated to “free” societies in the third world. The rest are focused on the activities of humanity for time immemorial: learning, growing, enjoying, appreciating family and knowledge, and being active outside. As a result, a great relaxation has set in where people are content to simply be themselves.

Perhaps at the end of all of this experience what humans have learned is that humanity itself is a prison. Our drive to control, perfect, make uniform and refine leads us to self-destruct, and it did in every society on earth but ours. Instead, we stopped doing what “everyone” agreed was right, and struck out for what we could verify in reality was good for us. It has made all the difference.

I Do Not Aspire To Be Your King

Wednesday, June 29th, 2016

To answer a question that floated around in our comments —

When I speak of the aristocracy being restored, I think of people better than myself.

I would not volunteer for that job. No time off, ever. No plausible deniability. In fact, no one to blame. Yourself versus the hardest problems in the world, day after day. Endless public appearances. No holidays.


My ideal is a small cottage in the countryside. People show up and bring me hard problems at the behest of the aristocrats. I do my best, and give it my all, and through the acts of others improve my nation.

But aristocrat or monarch? That is much more difficult, and belongs to better men than I.

Flag Day

Tuesday, June 14th, 2016


Today is Flag Day in the United States of America, where we honor the American flag.

But I cannot.

The United States was built on a single principle: that by limiting democracy, we might be able to ensure that the competent rule over the rest. Instead, over time and erosion by entropy, what we have is mob rule — a state to which all democracies occur — as this country heads into third-world status through the importation of third-world people and the dumbing-down of its citizens, marginalizing the intelligent and burdening them with excess labor.

Western civilization is not its governments. These governments have failed, and the US and EU are both obsolete and problematic.

We need a different way. Perhaps instead of trying to shape mediocre people into good ones through endless rules which are quickly circumvented, we should choose our best people to rule over the rest.

No one is equal.

The Paradox of Neoreaction

Wednesday, May 25th, 2016


Reactionary Future has a response to “Why The Alternative Right Will Absorb Neoreaction”. It raises some questions worth poking into:

Monarchism is non-nationalist, so how you can have monarchical nationalism is beyond me.

We are on the Right now, or at least, we have left Leftist-land. In Leftist-land, all is thought about the System: a labyrinth of rules and institutions designed to enforce order so that equality can tenuously exist.

On the Right, we think about choices.

Monarchism is more than a method or institution; it is a philosophy: “let the best rule the rest, so the rest do not oppress the best.” It recognizes the primacy of individuals — in moral quality, intelligence and character — over any kind of System.

It is the anti-System.

Therefore, monarchism and Nationalism are not competing Systems, but philosophies. Nationalism says that the healthiest nations are comprised of a single ethnic group united by language, culture, customs and values. This can co-exist with Monarchism, and in fact, is compatible with it in that Nationalism is the type of anti-individualist philosophy that only the best are going to implement.

I remind us all that all of our human problems originate in human choices. You can take the human out of the jungle, but you cannot take the jungle out of the human (I am speaking of my own race here). Most people spend most of their time chasing after illusions, distractions and pleasant fictions. It is not that reality is so bad or awful, but that most people are delusional because they are fascinated by themselves and their power over others. There is no Satan; evil comes from within us and our poor choices which we make because we pick what we want to believe instead of what we have realistic reason to believe is true. This is why evil, decay, democracy, promiscuity, vandalism, civilization collapse, crime, filth, etc. are recurring problems that spring up wherever there are humans: we have a bad nature within us, both animal and neurotic, that we must beat down through discipline or it wins out and civilization collapses.

Systems are denial of this fact because Systems are inherently predicated on equality.

One is based on authority flowing down, the other is based on imperium in imperio.

Imperium in imperio usually refers to an unofficial source of power within an official one, such as an unofficial institution within a state. We might look at the Cathedral, the Ku Klux Klan, the Masons and so on as examples of this. In theory, culture (derived from nationalism) could apply here, which is his point. But again: we have left Leftist-land. Our vision is that culture, not government, is what makes the nation.

This is made even more strange in the second of the quotes in which it is claimed that government should be like a business, but limited.

If we must have government at all, or some analogue of it, it makes sense to understand that it will behave like a business. It will act in self-interest. No matter how many “checks and balances” we put into the equation, government will always act for its own increase in power, growth and wealth. Unless its goals are strictly necessary, then, it becomes a parasite.

For this reason, government (and analogues thereof) should be limited. It is difficult to imagine a modern state without a professional military or some entity for making roads. There will be something like a government even in private enterprise, when it must hold territory and administer it. As the Open Source movement found out, government-like behavior even occurs among volunteers when they must hold a virtual territory and manage it. So there is not a clear dividing line between government, business and any other power structure…

The point of this is that much as humans have a vast tendency toward dark organization as our writer Johann Theron describes, groups also have a tendency toward dark organization in the form of self-interested power. Individualism is self-interest, and it becomes easily parasitic when disconnected from reality and goals limited to the strictly necessary; government is group self-interest, not unlike Crowdism, and in order to advance the careers of all the people in government, it expands not through a grand plan but through the failure to make concrete decisions.

Well, by who is it limited? And if they can limit it, then they are the government are they not? Or is this the shareholders? in which case why the “we should”? There is an evasiveness here that is typical, and I have mentioned that the concept of a constitutional sov corp is inherently retarded before.

If we are proposing a monarchy, by the aristocrats, one would think.

As you can see above, my faith is not in Systems — such as the Constitution — but in quality of individuals.

The final paragraph is the icing on the cake, in that it is clearly outlining anti-government libertarianism, which is impossible to square with monarchism except in the overall spirit of obtaining liberty.

This seems to assume that monarchism creates a government. It does not; it creates a hierarchy and power structure, within which there are some functions like that of government.

I find zero value in liberty, freedom, equality and other popular terms because they are clearly manipulative. Like the term “free will,” they create an unbounded (and thus attractive) definition out of a simple thing.

Do you want liberty and freedom? No: you want non-interference when you are engaged in activities that are not destructive. We can put activities in three camps: helping the goals of civilization, working against those goals, or not helping or hurting (the widest category, which includes both innocuous activity and useless activity, which technically is closer to hurting than helping). An intelligent civilization encourages the first category, exiles anyone engaged in the second, and ignores — neither rewards nor censures — the third. That is what we unconsciously desire when we say “liberty,” but the term liberty is a begging-the-question argument in itself. It demands we address a question — that of liberty — without any necessity of doing so, and by that mechanism, imports itself into the political discourse. But if it is unnecessary? Then it, too, is parasitic.

It is fairly simple, either you support imperium in imperio, or you don’t. Neoreaction as it stands supports it, which places the likes of Moldbug out of the fold, which is something that should really be discussed, and something I have been pointing out for a while.

There is a third category: reject Systems entirely. Moldbug’s primary contribution to this part of the debate was insisting that we recognize government for what it is. “Exit” is a thought experiment, not literal. These are ways of getting people to see that formalized systems do not work well for human governance.

As with any theoretical school, the founder is the person who introduces a new vocabulary which generally consists of a series of arguments that open up possibilities. After that, others take this further. You will find that in any non-Leftist thought movement, “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” or: thought develops much as human history did, from primitive to present, which takes on a circular form because human history is circular, or the rising and falling of empires as they discovered realism and then forgot it.

This is why all non-Leftist movements have some different types of people in them:

  • Burkeans/Nietzscheans: want strictly organically-occurring things, focus most on spirit.
  • God will save us types: want an informal theocracy and reject all other questions.
  • Central power aficionados: want a streamlined force to impose sanity, order and sorting good from bad.
  • Monarchists: we are basically anarchists who recognize that a power hierarchy is needed.
  • Anti-Industrialists: believe that humanity’s technology and Progress have led it astray.
  • Libertarians: basically anarchists who want to let culture shape itself through capitalism.
  • Race is all types: give us 130 IQ Nords and we can make any system work.

Each of these viewpoints has something to offer, although when taken outside the scope where its ideas are successful, it becomes parasitic. My libertarian-style pro-capitalism stance is not popular on much of the internet, but everything other than capitalism fails, so we should stick with it. However there are no Systems which magically make things work, so capitalism needs balance from (say) monarchism, rule by culture created by Nationalism, and a society with purpose or a transcendental goal.

When you see debate within Neoreaction, you are watching these different perspectives war it out much as they did in history.

Land, the neoreaction blogsphere, the alt-right, WN, identarians etc. etc. all veer into imperium in imperio, whilst Moldbug and about half a dozen people (myself included) veer away from it.

I think this merits more focus. Land makes a good point that this society is heading into the toilet and cannot be as a whole saved. For him, the point of exit is twofold: escape the madness, and put pressure on it that induces collapse — “what is falling, push” — by demonstrating an alternative that is superior, much as Moldbug did in thought form.

The Alternative Right is more traditional conservative than libertarian. They recognize that without civilization, man is nothing, and without a group of the same ethnicity having sovereignty over some territory, the race dies out and the prospect of civilization coming back in any meaningful form goes away. In their view, we are not looking for personal solutions but trying to escape self-extermination as a race and possibly species.

The stakes are high these days because humanity occupies most of the world, and there are more impoverished angry people with AK-47s than good people.

In his book The Possibility of an Island, French writer Michel Houellebecq offers a thought experiment about exit: a cult-like group invests in technology and finds a way to achieve total exit. Its members live on autonomous islands, defended by massively powerful computers and weapons, and clone themselves to achieve a type of limited immortality. The book illustrates how this future may be just as miserable as our present time.

The point a conservative might make is that civilization is a product of evolution like anything else. Humans need groups. Groups need standards. You can either do that through all-powerful government, or organically — the best “imperium in imperio” — through culture, which requires nationalism and monarchism.

This leads us to what we might call “The Stevens Assertion”: our problem is bad leadership. We have chosen poor options because most people usually choose illusions, which are always poor options. If we stop doing the wrong and stupid things we are currently doing, we can restore ourselves to health. That will require getting rid of leadership by mob rule, which requires dethroning the idea of equality, another poisonous and illusory notion like “freedom” and “liberty” that gives us brain-freeze with its wide scope, which makes it seem powerful, when really it has substituted for more precise expression with a generic category.

It is why articles that cover the whole Alt-right/ neoreaction fiasco have such a hard time making sense of it all.

Is it really hard? Neoreaction is a variant of Reaction, which means that it is Conservative. The Alt-Right is realist Nietzschean and Darwinistic conservatism.

Much of the confusion in Neoreaction consists in not separating thought-experiments from realistic plans. (People reading The Republic frequently have the same confusion).

What unites us is that we recognize our society is failing, that Leftism is at least the proximate cause, and that making war on Leftism (“equality”) is necessary if we wish to survive.

Like Neoreaction, the Alt-Right is a big tent. If you go halfway to the right, you become a white nationalist; if you go all the way, you end up as a monarchist and nationalist. Libertarianism is closer to the white nationalist idea in that it relies on Systems every bit as much as a Constitutional Republic, and so it is still fundamentally Leftist. As Neoreaction grows out of the Libertarian illusion, it will keep its best attributes (capitalism) and pick up some others from the Alt-Right.

Where the Alt-Right has taken the lead, replacing the New Right, is that it is not in favor of European socialism. Realists recognizes that to have bennies, you must have big government, and big government will always act in self-interest to increase its power by adopting an ideological outlook. Not everyone has gotten that message, and some are still caught up in class warfare fantasies, as well as the usual “blame the Negroes and Jews for everything” types.

When you look at convergence on the Right, it is these various disparate tributaries of Realist thought merging and converging on something like a set of new ideas:

  • We must act together to save civilization, although we should not try to save all of its members and in fact should send a fair number of them away.
  • We want neither Systems nor Governments; these lead to tyranny and ineptitude. We need strong leaders of quality and rule by organic culture, which requires strict nationalism.
  • Leftism is incompatible with Realism and those who are Leftist must not be compromised with, but defeated and sent away.
  • The West is worth saving, but to do that we must stop engaging in illusions, destroy the current ruling institutions and people within them, and then remove the failures and reboot with the healthy people.

In another few months, this will probably be more formalized, I think.

What Is A “1788 Conservative”?

Saturday, April 30th, 2016


This question came up recently in a discussion of conservatism where the phrase “1788 conservative” was used. This one floats around at the periphery, but I have heard it in real life as well as on the internet, and think it deserves elucidation.

The name “1788 conservative” refers to this:

“My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.” ― Julius Evola

The French Revolution began in 1789, and so “1788 conservatives” are those who see this as a horrible error and want to go back to the point before the error, and try again.

We tend to see the French Revolution as formalizing the decay of the West. The decay existed long before that, but picked up when political and military pressures weakened our aristocracy and our society did not support them. Rules made on paper are never good, but having enlightened and intelligent people in charge always works.

The aristocracy made this happen at every level: kings, dukes, and lords. These served as a mediating force on growth and finance, kept most of the land intact as hunting preserves, conserved culture and religion, and avoided the unbroken string of idiotic decisions and pointless wars that democracy has embarked upon.

The term “Right-wing” came about after the French Revolution to describe those who thought the ancient order before the Revolution was a better idea than the revolution; after that, “conservatives” — or those who accept the new government of the post-Revolution years, but want to conserve as much as possible of what went before — and “liberals” who accept the ideals of the Revolution but want it applied through conservative methods, became the only options.

1788 conservatives merely take conservatism to its root: we conserve that which has worked best in the past as proven by history, which is a society with heavy cultural influence regulating liberty, aristocracy in the lead, no government and no safety net, and a tendency toward excellence, divinity and other transcendental goals. We are the most honest form of conservative and the least politically correct and socially acceptable in a democratic regime.

What makes 1788 conservatives unique is that we recognize the inter-connected nature of aspects of civilization. We cannot deconstruct and separate ideas, as the democrats do, from their effect and the existential experience of life in that civilization. Leadership is connected to values and all is vested in the organic nation, or the people born of a similar root with similar abilities and inclinations which form the basis of culture and values.

In our degenerated time, where most of the people who should be able to think exist in a one-dimensional cartoon of ideological thinking, these ideas are mostly lost and forgotten. However, as liberal democracy continues to fail despite our patching it up more than Windows 10, the brightest lights among our people are reconsidering the era of kings as a future and not the distant past.

What Is Intelligence?

Wednesday, April 20th, 2016


The Harvard-trained theorist who can write a dissertation but not boil an egg, we are told, is “intelligent”; similarly, we are told, a mass of people acting in self-interest to buy products or cast votes will achieve a type of “intelligence.”

I offer an alternate theory: intelligence occurs in degrees, and is as logical as a computer, which means that “Garbage In, Garbage Out” (GIGO) applies. If you feed a computer paradox and nonsense, you will get more of the same. If you feed it sensible principles, you get logical results. This is a parallel to Plato’s “good to the good, and bad to the bad.”

But what is intelligence, this gradient which cannot be seen but whose effects (or lack thereof) can be painfully felt? It seems to be both brain activity, and an ability to correlate that to activity in the real world. We call that “creativity” in some areas because actual creativity requires not making up fantastical stuff, but making up fantastical stuff that is plausible enough as a type of reality, or addresses real-world issues enough to be appealing. Creativity is not arbitrary; it is as logical as science, but uses another approach.

Thus intelligence has two aspects: thinking power, and application power.

Bruce Charlton writes about “creative genius” as the synthesis of the balance of creativity and genius through a personality type (also relevant):

Creativity is associated with a style of thinking that is relatively loose in its associations, inclusive in its linking of disparate elements – a style of thinking akin to that of dreaming sleep, psychotic illness, and intoxication.

Creativity is not positively associated with intelligence – or if so at a very modest level. Some societies with high average IQ have low creativity, and vice versa. European societies had (in the past) high average IQ and also reasonably high creativity.

However, creativity is moderately associated with mental illness, psychopathy and addiction – and also with impulsiveness and ‘fecklessness’ – with a lack of perseverance.

This leads us closer to the idea of a genius: someone possessed by genius is literally possessed, in that this power directs the person toward an entirely different view of life which re-organizes it to be far from the normal. In particular, the creative genius resembles the apex predator: lazy, erratic at times, resistant to discipline and aloof.

Scott Adams calls these people “wizards,” and reveals a list of traits they seem to share:

Look for these clues:

1. The wizard succeeds in a high-profile field without the benefit of as much talent as you would expect should be necessary. (This is the biggest tell.)

2. People seem to have an irrational hate for the wizard that is not entirely explained by the wizard’s actions. Regular readers already know these unusual reactions are signs of cognitive dissonance. Wizards induce cognitive dissonance often, without trying.

3. Look for an inflated ego combined with an unusually strong ability to withstand withering criticism. (Wizards get a lot of criticism.) The common view is that wizards are egomaniacs. In reality, the wizard works hard to remain ego-free, and hence can handle criticism well.

4. Wizards are often more ambitious, and often more aggressive, than you think is normal.

5. One or more major PR disasters define the wizard’s history.

6. The wizard has a gift for simplification.

7. Observers detect a reality distortion field.

8. Wizards have an ability to succeed where other fail by changing the entire game as opposed to winning at the existing one.

9. Wizards use words to create images and emotions in people’s minds.

10. Wizards seek public attention.

The wizard filter on the world isn’t necessarily true in some objective sense. The fun is seeing if the data and predictions fit the filter.

I submit that much as Adams writes, creative genius cannot be tested for; it appears and can be identified later because it fit the filter, but beyond that, it is something that emerges in the real world through results and not through human selection.

That shows us the basis of the aristocratic system: find those who have done great things, breed them with the noblest and smartest women, and create a permanent group of high-intelligence and high-creativity people. This was the reason for Europe’s success and is the method by which it can be restored.

Today, on April 20th, I think often of Hitler: a man who knew so much, yet did so much wrong. Perhaps the division between Hitler and what we need as a civilization is this aristocratic division. We do not need a better modern, or “predictive” system, but an absence of systems entirely and a reliance instead on proven wizardry/creative genius.

That alone demonstrates a working model of intelligence. You can separate the men from the boys with SATs and IQ tests, but to find the gold among the silver and copper, we must rely on nature and instead of trying to control her, channel her natural bounty of genius and creativity into a new elite.

The Problem With Conservative Humans Is Not Conservatism, It’s Humans

Saturday, April 9th, 2016


The post Eternal September internet revealed its true purpose as memetic churn: it funnels the antagonism of our world’s basement NEETs, daytime TV watchers, retirees, apartment-bound disability recipients, bored cubicle slaves and welfare nodules into an emotional amplifier. People post concerns in simple catchy forms and the crowd rages with a new fire.

Everything has a weakness and a strength, and the two are usually the converse of one another. The internet echo chamber does a good job of putting its finger on the fears of modern people, and a terrible job at coming up with solutions, since what matters above and beyond all else is that its “solutions” be memetic. That means: simple, engaging, and emotionally satisfying.

Real life is different from how most people experience emotions: emotional satisfaction comes at the end of accomplishment. The farmer lighting his pipe, looking over the freshly-plowed fields, and thinking how proud and pleased he is; the artist looking over his creations, having finally spoken his muse. But on the internet, emotional satisfaction is what makes the crowd buzz, and it comes from the untested thoughts that seem to beat back those fears.

On Amerika the blog, I and other writers have taken a radical perspective: that conservatism is the root of all sane thinking about how to make society, and that our retreat from it has created “Amerika” the society: a Soviet-style system where a single path to success exists, and that is through using the ideology of the Crowd to please others and thus be selected as the most capable. All of our incompetent elites got ahead this way.

Conservatism takes another perspective. For method it chooses consequentialism, or results mattering more than methods, which includes the idea that performance comes after reward, which is the inversion of socialism. For goals it chooses a transcendental outlook, or the notion that we should aim for the best in all things, using consequentialism to figure out what works but then choosing what achieves excellence over the merely adequate.

Already this blog post is too complex for at least ninety-nine out of one hundred people on the internet. It will never achieve memetic status because it is both too complex and not emotionally satisfying. Over the wires, or in a crowd, it will be shouted down and replaced with an ikon of a cute bunny screaming SIEG HEIL.

But what people need to know is this: conservatism is the most extreme “ideology” of them all, mainly because it is not an ideology — a way around reality, based in what we wish were true instead of what is — but a look at Reality as our guiding force. Conservatism is extremist common sense. We are a species like any other; we must adapt to our environment; if giving choices between a good, better and best option, choose the best!

What has happened (as usual) is that humans cannot distinguish between essence and instance. The essence of conservatism is an idea; the instance is any person, group or product (books, movies, blogs) that claims to be conservative. The instance does not change the essence. It is the other way around: the essence determines what the instance should be.

And yet… our “conservatives” seem very far from any meaningful definition of conservative. “Conservatism has failed!” wails the internet hype machine. Or is it that our conservatives are simply not conservative, which means by definition that they are liberal, and that their failure is part of the vast decay of society through liberalism?

By Occam’s Razor and any other meaningful analysis, that explanation makes a lot more sense.

Most people do not realize that conservatism exists only because liberalism exists. Before liberalism, all was shades of conservatism, which has plenty of internal texture and variation. After the French Revolution, conservatives were those who arose to preserve the best of what had come before, in anticipation that — as de Tocqueville and others analyzed — the Great Liberal Experiment would collapse.

As lore has it, the conservatives sat on the Right and the revolutionaries on the Left in the French National Assembly. Thus Leftists and Rightists were born, with Rightists including both socially-acceptable conservatives and what I call “primal conservatives” who hung on to their aristocratic, manorial and tribal traditions. “Liberals” were the conservatives who believed in a slow retreat through libertarianism.

In the current day, a steady leftward shift has left us with a social outlook that demonizes most true conservative positions. Remember, to find a conservative position, you look at (1) results and (2) what produces the best results.

This gives us the four pillars of any sensible conservatism:

  1. Nationalism. Internationalism produces cosmopolitan port cities that seem endearing at first until one realizes that they are filthy, venal, corrupt places with no culture and no purpose in life except mercantile exchange with consumers. Nationalism works and makes happy nations because they rule themselves with culture and not government, police and propaganda (media). Conservatives are more extreme than Hitler on this, but refuse to endorse his violent solutions for other reasons, namely that injustice and cruelty beget more of the same and thus produce bad results without need.
  2. Aristocracy. Most people are stupid monkeys who have no idea of what they need versus what they want. The only solution is to put our smartest people — who are one in a hundred — in charge, because otherwise, we have oppression by the stupidest. If we are going to have oppression, let it at least be competent! Aristocracy includes monarchism, a network of lesser aristocrats who are more like a Greek college than a social club, manorialism and a caste system, and a total abolishment of the State and its nit-picking rules.
  3. Capitalism. Sometimes you get a good, better and best choice, and sometimes you merely get a choice between bad and worse. Is capitalism bad? It depends how it is implemented; when balanced by the forces above capitalism works out well, but in the hand of low-caste merchants it turns into a third world style bazaar (the USA is merely a highly organized, corporate version of this). But every alternative to capitalism is a straight plunge into pure dysfunction, and socialism, government-protected unions and welfare states are proven parasite magnets.
  4. A transcendental goal. In addition to the general ideal of transcendentalism in conservatism, every civilization needs a transcendental goal, or some aspiration to the purest things — the good, the beautiful and the true; excellence; divinity — in life, which means they are never tangible but can be attributes of things. You cannot hold an excellent in your hand, and no accomplishment is ever a definition of excellence, but the best choices can be said to be excellent, and those are the ones worth fighting for.

Our civilization is in decline. A thousand years ago, the above were recognized as common sense on the level of “do not defecate in your soup before eating.” Then again, the people who had to understand them were the top 1% of society by inner excellence, meaning intelligence and moral character. The herd has never understood anything and never will because it is biologically incapable of doing so.

Are the above fascist or Soviet? No: they are more extreme than fascism, and are honest methods unlike the Soviet approach which is to demand unrealistic ideals so that everyone must fall in line to obey the parasite State, which derives its power from having bought off the proles and thus harnessed The Revolution as a means to permanent tyranny. Fascism and National Socialism are degraded conservatism — hybridized with liberalism — just like libertarianism, neoconservatism and tankinis.

The common tropes of the nu-internet are that conservatism is dead and nationalism has taken over, or that conservatism is inferior to traditionalism. These are just posing. Nationalism and traditionalsm are subsets of the conservative idea. The point we must focus on is that if we remove the Leftist ideology, we are left with common sense, and from that flow all of the possibilities for good. Without it, we are left (heh heh) on the path to decline and fall.