Posts Tagged ‘national socialism’

Happy HitLARP Holiday!

Thursday, April 20th, 2017

April 20th brings with it many memories, including Columbine, teenage potheads, and of course, Adolf Hitler. This brings out the HitLARPers who want us to believe that if we just adopted National Socialism, everything would be fine, and they are going to act the part as defined by Hollywood to show us how.

My own opinion has long been that Hitler, like every other leader, was a mix of good and bad. The bad in his case seems traumatic because it invokes genocide and tyranny, but in reality, this pales in comparison to what, say, Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao did. The Left just LARPs on the anti-Hitler trip in order to conceal how much more their people have been committing murder, torture and oppression since the French Revolution at least, having become known for secret police, gulags, executions at dawn and guillotining whole families.

But Hitler had a few good points. He recognized that diversity cannot work. He wanted to restore an organic state based in the ethnic group. He knew that modernity was a failure and its aesthetics needed reversal. Unfortunately, he tried to do these from within a modern context, and so ended up with modern results, namely catastrophe. Not that he could have escaped it; the world was poised for downfall, and most people were suicidal after “the war to end all wars,” so it demanded a fratricidal and pointless war and got it. Did anyone win WWII?

We also have to wonder how much of The Official History™ is actually fake. After all, they’ve been lying to us for centuries.

The Left always lies, and the Left is the party of modernity, and modernity has turned out to be kind of boring, where we all live in bubble worlds and work in cubicles and no one is really happy but the money is OK so we carry on. Maybe we can finally escape the Left. It will require going farther Right than Hitler and rejecting modernity entirely. We need to restore Western Civilization, and since the dawn of time, there has been only one structure of civilization that has worked. It is not that we want to go back to that; we want to go forward to it, like moving from winter to spring even though spring was only six months ago.

In the meantime, the Alt Right needs to get over its HitLARPing. We are not White Nationalists; we are nationalists, but only as a part of a general program that wants a traditional society. That means rejecting modernity entirely, starting with the sacred cow (and mental crack for white people, apparently) of “equality.” If you want to celebrate Hitler, celebrate what he tried but could not do, which is abolish the idea of equality and with it, the State. We need nations, not nation-States. We want a traditional society because it works and everything else does not.

Hitler had his day, but he was more symbolic — resistance against modernity and racial erasure — than literal. To the (possibly inevitable) sadness of the Germans, they followed him literally and encountered a great defeat. This was not from their lack of prowess, but from the vast forces they faced, since illusion is always more popular than realism. And yet, we would be ultra-morons to make the same mistake twice.

To avoid making that mistake, we must revisit the core of modernity, individualism. Individualism makes people demand equality, so that all individuals are included, no matter what they have done in the past. But to an independent person, individualism is a crutch, a thing to be overcome. If you want to be more Hitler than Hitler, accept the nihilism of literal reality, and that you are a small part of a vast civilization, not a god-like consciousness to which civilization should be dedicated.

It is fascinating and lugubrious that we face the same challenges as we did during the First World War and the French Revolution. Nothing, really, has changed; we are still trying to advance the same dying ideas and they are failing as they always have. This Hitler Day, let us reject those ancient and moldy failures and move on to something more sustaining and cheerful!

Division Of Power Produces Instability

Saturday, January 28th, 2017

The Los Angeles Review Of Books has, in a roundabout way, discovered Neoreaction:

The supermanager is neoliberalism’s governance mechanism, a way to negotiate and smooth over differences between sectors of power in society, just as the supermanager avant la lettre did so in Nazi Germany.

…The most plausible explanation is that supermanagers are paid for governance where the state has been redeployed elsewhere or, even, effectively dissolved…One could think of this in a rather perverse way as real marginal added value, compensation for the difficult work of governance without a Rechtsstaat — without a rational, sovereign state, or with a receding or redistributed one.

…Before Margaret Thatcher began the privatization of council housing and long before welfare reform was a twinkle in Bill Clinton’s eye, the Nazis were turning heavy industries, nearly the entirety of the financial and banking sector, and even some social services over to private hands and to new, innovative public/private hybrids.

Naturally this is tied to National Socialism because in Leftist behavioral patterns, anything which contradicts Leftism must be “fascism,” which is their shorthand for any non-hybridized Right-wing society.

Reprivatization recognized a fundamental truth: formalized authority subdivides power, attempting to separate those who produce from those who rule. Informal authority closes this gap and eliminates layers of politics.

If the Right has a fundamental principle, it is the combination of realism and transcendentalism that recognizes that the order of nature is not only the most efficient but the most moral. For this reason, it prefers to create a social hierarchy and choose its leaders not by appearance, but by what they are able to achieve.

When liberal states separate power from results, they create an intermediary which serves as a chronic parasite that attempts to redirect productivity toward the collective in the name of achieving equality. This in turn produces worse results.

The ultimate extension of Rightism can be found in the aristocracy, which takes wealth and power and distributes it among the best leaders the society has produced, entrusting them with it because it is in their interest to advance it. By doing so, it eliminates the conflict of interest between government and productivity.

As the Leftist era of the postwar world and centuries after the French Revolution comes to an end, interest arises in getting rid of these middlemen, marketers and manipulators. The quest for equality destroyed our ability to be productive and with that, our ability to apportion some of that productivity toward activities that are not strictly wealth-generating, but make life better by improving civilizational and cultural health.

Those who can improve productivity of all sorts, including the non-commercial kind, are the original supermanagers. These people know not only how to react to opportunity but how to expand it by increasing function outside of what immediately returns profit so that future health, stability and sanity increase the output and existential wellbeing of the society and the people within it.

That tendency creates the patterns we see in Leftist societies: equality is achieved by reversion to a mean, where everyone lives at the level of the lowest, except those who rise through the ideological hierarchy. This leaves behind ruined societies ruled by incompetent super-elites who “make money” at the expense of productivity.


Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

As the realization sets in that the functional side of humanity in the West has rejected Leftism and liberal democracy, the usual neurotics and unhappy people who make up the Left are campaigning to hide the dissent, as they always do.

To that end, the little totalitarians have set up a list of Twitter accounts they want censored for the crime of deviating from the Leftist narrative. We have a phrase for this: Typical Leftist Behavior (#TLB).

We — the account used to promote Amerika — made it to #184 on the list for an account that has already been shadowbanned by Twitter for several months, if not longer.

Here is the rant from the Reds:

Twitter is brimming with active Nazis who use your platform as a tool to recruit members, spread hate, and harass other users.

In the past several years, this problem has turned from a disturbing joke into a more disturbing reality. Racists and neonazis have consciously used issue coalitions to spread hate, recruit new members, undermine basic values of decency and honesty, and actively hound folks who would counter their message.

…It’s not subtle. When someone uses a #1488 hashtag or expresses their violent thoughts on the JQ, they’re clearly engaging in hate speech.

This is classic Leftist dogma, which takes the form of circular reasoning: “Assuming that our perspective is right, anything opposing us is wrong, and therefore is blasphemy against what we think is truth, and must be removed lest it make the gods angry.”

As some have pointed out, this religious view leads toward a type of intolerance of dissent so total that it has divided our society into two groups, realists who oppose it and individualists who support it:

Dylan sang of a change so profound that the older generation would not even understand it. Now, we do understand. Dylan was announcing a worldview invasion of the West by Eastern pagan thinking. In much of our culture, that invasion has become a triumph, overturning the Western Christian view of existence. We have moved from a Twoist presupposition of a Creator God who made the structures of existence and revealed his moral will, to a Oneist presupposition that rejects any Creator or pre-existing structures and believes that humanity creates its own reality and will make a better world. This is why the Left showed utter disbelief at having lost the election; traditional politics does not even enter into its worldview.

The Eastern pagan nature of Leftism, descended perhaps from the Mongol invasions of Genghis Khan, is the idea of human individualism taking precedence over natural order and an organization to existence that extends into the metaphysical. Where the West pursued transcendentals like excellence and realism, the East pursued humanity, and as a result fell into an impassive solipsism. Now we follow them through liberal democracy and Leftism.

Those who oppose this change get called whatever nasty terms the Left can dig up. At first it was “royalists,” then “elitists,” then later “classists,” until finally with Hitler they found their Emmanuel Goldstein and started calling all of us “racists” and “Nazis.” These terms now have no meaning because they designate only that the offender has disagreed with a Leftist somewhere.

Amerika will never be popular because it offers a complex, nuanced and realist vision of human existence, but also does not reject the metaphysical. It is Nietzschean conservatism at its fullest, except that it is warm to sane interpretations of religious faith and sees them as beneficial, making it closer to Plato in the end calculus than Fred Nietzsche. It does not distill intricate political issues into slogans, emotions, or other forms of manipulation. As a result, it is difficult and unpopular.

It is only thanks to those who have made an effort to seek it out that this site thrives. It endures despite Twitter censorship including mysterious mutings, the rage of the Left, and the deliberate slighting of Amerika by those on the Right who fear it as competition because its worldview is more comprehensive than ours. It thrives only because of you, our readers.

So thank you, from the bottom of my heart and those of our other writers. It is thanks to you that we are reaching the world. Today, #184… tomorrow, the world! As we push back against the Arschpresse — that is a “Nazi-era term,” journalists — and shout ZIEGE HEIL! at the top of our lungs, remember, world: reality is dangerous, and realists are pushing back for a more interesting dangerous world than the clear path to civilization collapse that Leftism (spit) offers.

Welcome to a new Dark Age.

Let Us Finally End World War II

Friday, December 2nd, 2016


Why is Hitler, and by extension the Nazis, still a prime obsession in our society?  One obvious answer is that the post-WWII world, and the legitimacy of American hegemony, is tied up in it. 

America, we are told, can never go back to minding its own business because of The Holocaust™ and Isolationism.  And that’s just coming from the garden variety cuckservative that will always bind together the US military with Leftist foreign policy, providing us the true fasces of our time. Today’s iteration of the Roman Empire is once again a double headed eagle, one head Spartan red state militarism with its brain gnawed out by its blue counterpart from Foggy Bottom.

The Cult of Hitler, and make no mistake, his cult of personality is still going strong, is a remarkable thing made up of worshipers from every walk of life.  It isn’t just his ironic fanboys on /pol/ that worship the long dead dictator, but all the “right thinking” goodwhites who never pass up the opportunity to curse his name to this day.  Just because they’ve made Hitler the patron deity of evil, doesn’t change the fact that they still give him the honors of a deity.  In fact, most of his worshipers belong to the latter camp, making Hitler’s status as the G_d that Holocaustianity worships the precise definition of irony.

Breaking free of this cult is a great, unfulfilled challenge for the Alt Right, but let me be clear of what we need to break free from.  I do not mean we fall in line with the frame set by the Cathedral in regards to Hitler.  Anyone of sufficient intelligence understands that pop history, and especially the politically relevant pop history of WWII is nonsense.  We just don’t know how it’s nonsense.

Opinions on the Alt Right vary widely from condemning Hitler as just as bad the Cathedral claims, to those that claim he was, “The Greatest Person Ever!!!!” — no, for reals.  I read that on a Hollywood Nazi site once.

In fact, the failure to sit down and have a definitive, honest redpill on Hitler and Nazism is essential to any political movement coming out of the Alt Right to succeed.  It was a major oversight on the part of Mencius Moldbug to just assume, after having deconstructed liberal democracy and its Cathedral, that he hadn’t just inadvertently rehabilitated Nazism and even Soviet-style Communism. 

If you demonstrate that everyone has been in a false reality, there’s no reason to assume that any of the foundational assumptions of that false reality hold true once you break free from it.  Naturally, no one on the Alt Right was inclined to meme Stalin back to greatness, but /pol/ had been drawn to the natural Schelling point of Hitler for years.

History is all about interpretation.  It’s about constructing a plausible narrative based upon available evidence.  But the interpretation is the key part to this, because unlike mathematics or physics, the human actor is the key to history.  2 + 2 will still be 4 and the laws of thermodynamics are set, but why the War of Northern Aggression happened is a human construction.

And adding to all of this is the fact that the Cult of Hitler is the law of the land in many parts of Europe, and the de facto law of the land in the US and the UK.  Questioning Hitler’s status as the King of All That is Evil is heresy, punishable by loss of your job, friends, family and good name.

The trap that is far too easy to fall into is to yell “black” when the enemy says “white” and by so doing to engage in the assumption that Hitler was just Jesus except not dressed like a hippie.  Jim Goad published an image of German soldiers crucifying Hitler on the back of Answer Me! No. 3, an arresting image that exemplifies the 1488-er cult of Hitler.  (“He killed for your sins….” to borrow a line from Adult Swim’s Sea Lab 2021.)

Hitler is dead.  He’s been dead for 71 years.  He’s going to continue to be dead until the heat death of the universe.  He is not divine, and no, you cannot meme someone into godhood.  It didn’t work for Kek or Gnon either.  Learn about allegory lads.

The challenge before us is that the keystone of the Cathedral that towers over us is the Hitler Meme.  To remove it, and bring down Babel 2.0, the Alt Right is going to need some honest, genuine scholarship, showing who Hitler was, what National Socialism was, and to give those of us who care about reality an honest assessment of both.

Zionism = Nationalism

Saturday, April 16th, 2016


At this blog, I advance a number of controversial ideas. First and foremost is that Leftism is a form of Crowdism, which is individualism run amok that in groups, creates collectives hell-bent on “equality,” or the idea that all individuals are acceptable regardless of the consequences of their actions. Like Socialism, or “reward before performance,” this is a form of conflict-avoidance that results in lowered quality.

Perhaps more strikingly upsetting to some readers is my stand against anti-Semitism, which I criticize as failing to identify the real villains (Crowdism, diversity, Leftism, equality) and as a result, creating a scapegoat which will exhaust us and strengthen the actual problem. But even fewer like the statement that Zionism is a variation of Nationalism, just as German National Socialism was.

From an unlikely source — the article loses the narrative some time after this, but makes this point with great clarity:

The founder of the modern Zionist movement was a Jewish writer named Theodor Herzl…Fifty one years later, when the “State of Israel” was solemnly proclaimed at a meeting in Tel Aviv, above the speakers’ podium at the conference was, appropriately, a large portrait of Herzl.

In his book Herzl explained that regardless of where they live, or their citizenship, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people. He used the German word, Volk. Wherever large numbers of Jews live among non-Jews, he said, conflict is not only likely, it’s inevitable. He wrote: “The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers. Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews … I believe I understand anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear.”

In his public and private writings, Herzl explained that anti-Semitism is not an aberration, but rather a natural response by non-Jews to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes. Anti-Jewish sentiment, he said, is not due to ignorance or bigotry, as so many have claimed. Instead, he concluded, the ancient and seemingly intractable conflict between Jews and non-Jews is entirely understandable, because Jews are a distinct and separate people, with interests that are different from, and which often conflict with, the interests of the people among whom they live.

Theodor Herzl possessed a wisdom that modern nationalists lack: diversity does not work because each group must self-define so that it can rule itself according to its own standards, and the presence of other groups interrupts that and causes conflict. Racism, genocide and bigotry originate in that tension.

People may wonder why I write in support of Zionists, but it is not from neoconservative reasons, but rather the opposition. The proposition nation cannot work. What works is Nationalism, or each nation being defined by a Volk or ethnic group.

This has many tangible advantages. With a strong culture, less government is needed, and so life can be simpler and less formal. The formalization central to modern life creates high overhead and increases entropy by applying inflexible, universal rules to many particular situations, causing conflict and loss of energy.

One great irony — a lugubrious one — of WWII and the current neo-Nazi movements is that the Jews and Germans ultimately agreed on the correct solution, which was dissolution of the multiracial state and its replacement with ethnostates. Identitarian politics works; democratic equality and its ethnic counterpart, diversity, do not.

The article goes on:

On the basis of their shared views, Germans and Jews worked together for what each community believed was in its own best national interest. The Hitler government vigorously supported Zionism and Jewish emigration to Palestine from 1933 until 1940-41, when the Second World War prevented further extensive collaboration. / 9

(During the war years attitudes hardened, and policy shifted drastically. The German policy of collaboration with Zionists and support for Jewish emigration to Palestine gave way to a harsh “final solution” policy.)

During the 1930s, the central SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, repeatedly proclaimed its support for Zionism. An article published in 1935, for example, told readers: / 10

“The recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood and not on religion leads the German government to guarantee without reservation the racial separateness of this community. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry, the so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry around the world, and its rejection of all assimilationist notions. On this basis, Germany undertakes measures that will surely play a significant role in the future in the handling of the Jewish problem around the world.”

Today, Leftists attack Israel for the same reason they attacked Germany: Israel is a successful ethnostate, and this serves as an affront to the Leftist principle of equality. If anyone succeeds outside the mental ghetto of Leftism, the veracity of all of Leftism will be in doubt, and it must be smashed.

In that way, the ongoing terrorist war between Palestinians and Israelis is re-styled as cruel Jewish rednecks beating up on the sainted, innocent Palestinians for no reason other than “racism” and an inner cruelty. Current Leftist propaganda is more extreme than anything Der Sturmer was able to publish during the Third Reich.

As time goes on, we see that the Nationalists — even if their methods were in crucial cases, deplorable — were correct: diversity cannot work. It will exterminate the Jewish people as surely as it exterminates European populations. The mature response is to cast aside the nonsense idea of diversity, and to pursue instead what works.

Why Jews should abandon The Holocaust

Saturday, February 27th, 2016


We should never forget The Holocaust. Not only was it a tragedy, but it is an example of where right-wing movements should rein in their emotions and look toward fairness and practicality. However, it is currently killing the world’s Jews, even if the reasons why are invisible.

The Holocaust is a huge industry. It brings in hundreds of millions of dollars for survivors organizations and civil rights groups. But it also carries with it a weight which is that of being victims, and this is dooming Jews to a role they do not need to fulfill. In the name of the few who make a living, the many are confined.

When you style yourself as a victim, this infects all of your thinking. You no longer think, “What should I do?” but think about what a victim would do, namely revenge himself on his victimizer and only long after that, worry about what else he should do in life.

It also makes you sensitive to not victimizing others, even if their “victimhood” is nonsense. For example, Middle Eastern immigrants — errr, Palestinians — in your native land will claim they are being victimized. In reality, they are a population of lower IQ that belongs in nearby lands like Egypt, Syria and Jordan. But you can’t say that if you style yourself as a victim.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see The Holocaust was bad news. But many ethnic groups overcome near annihilation. What does it say about you, when you are stranded on this one event? It proclaims weakness and inability to act in self-interest.

Much as Europeans should get over perceived slights of the past, and they really should, Jews should not imprison themselves in the category of victim. The past is past; Hitler is buried or at least gone. We need to think about the future, all of us. This requires leaving grievance behind and looking toward the horizon.

A Provocative Email On The Holocaust

Monday, February 8th, 2016

As longtime readers may note, I oppose anti-Semitism and genocide because they are surrogates for the activities we must do that will displace those activities, in addition to moral misgivings about mass killing and attempting to eradicate any of the forms of human or natural biodiversity.

While many of the Holocaust-related memes are funny — but not as funny as the FREE HELICOPTER RIDES! memes — any time you find yourself wanting to wholesale slaughter people, you have given up your soul and lost sight of the fact that better methods of achieving your aims exist, including ones which do not lead you to spiritual hardening that will obliterate all that is good about your people.

Recently an email came across my desk which outlined some interesting theories on The Holocaust, and an excerpt from it is reproduced below, edited for clarity and completeness:

I made myself familiar with all of the available data in the 1990s, which then was entirely new, since previously one had to know of a group and order books through them (via a check in the mail, no less). If I were to attack the Holocaust [in order to rehabilitate Germans and/or Nationalism] I would do it this way:

  1. The important fact is that Jews were under German jurisdiction, and therefore Germans are responsible for their fate. However, the British refused to allow Germany to relocate the Jews, many other countries would not take them, and Allied bombing made other options impossible. Further, the Jews in these camps mounted a resistance effort during wartime which was bound to result in collective punishment. For this reason, German jurisdiction and responsibility were “imperfect.”
  2. We must look closely at the language of the Wannsee decision and interpret what was meant by it; this is, in my view, the crux of what proves the Holocaust in the historical literature. Was it correctly translated? If so, what was this decision in response to?
  3. At the time, concentration camps — as invented by the British in the Boer War — were used to house political prisoners in conditions that were known to eliminate many of them by disease. This was accepted by the international community before the Second World War, which may have been interpreted by the Germans as meaning that their actions were not controversial.
  4. Disease killed most of the victims of WWII; this seems to be also true in the camps, since all of the bodies were emaciated, showing signs of malnutrition and (probably) [diarrhea, which worldwide is the second-biggest killer of children to this day].
  5. Most of the Holocaust deaths occurred in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, where people rounded up either Communists (who were up to 40% Jewish) or Jews and executed them. How widely known was the Katyn Forest massacre, and how much of this was anti-Communist activity that inspired anti-Semitism and not the other way around?

[The Holocaust in this context is] a dead issue: the world has retroactively demonized many activities like slavery and genocide in order to strengthen the posture of the winners, so the Holocaust — in which the British and Americans were as complicit, though not as directly so, as the Germans — cannot be used to invalidate any political beliefs because of the context in which it existed. However, the events that set it into play occurred under German jurisdiction and were possibly avoidable. We must ask what options were open to the Germans for avoiding those events, and how complicit the British and Americans were in precluding them. This is the actual political significance of the Holocaust.

It also makes sense to point out the seemingly unthinkable: the Holocaust benefited Jews by enforcing a population bottleneck that saved the wealthier and more intelligent and killed off the less successful and less intelligent, and that right now, the Holocaust as a mythos is destructive to Jewish people by encouraging them into a victimhood mentality which creates defensive thinking. Understanding these things is crucial to avoiding future genocides and understanding the context of the Holocaust, which is a mixed bag. I will never support it, nor will I support the American nuclear attack on Japan or the firebombing that preceded it, among many other atrocities of that war and the Cold War to follow. But when put in context, and this is the crux, the Holocaust was not exceptional and therefore as a mythos, it is destructive to Jewry leading to the death-by-outbreeding we see in Jewish populations now.

Perhaps that gives you a broader view of my thinking on this. We have a lot of White Nationalists [in the writer’s country of origin] who endorse the Holocaust, and I find their thinking dangerous. Purging the Jews will not rid us of the spiritual disease of the West, but it will act as a substitute for taking necessary actions and destroy us us.

I am increasingly in favor of the Madagascar solution for the Jewish people as it would give them a highly defensible, stable homeland to which we could move all of the sacred relics of Judeo-Christianity in the world. This would give the Jewish people the end of the diaspora and the independence necessary to continue their own evolution, which the ancient sages of Judaism outlined, and is contrary to any form of passivity as is currently endorsed by mainstream Jewish leaders that is killing their people from within.

Nature is uncompromising in principle but not deliberately cruel in method; in fact, its methods may be engineered to avoid greater cruelties through more sudden and dramatic turns of events. Nature operates by constantly refining animals, plants and ecosystems to be more efficient and — for lack of a better term — more beautiful.

There is no beauty in The Holocaust. Nor is there any goodness. No matter how it happened, it occurred under the command of the National Socialists and this is why we hold them accountable for it. However, that does not invalidate other acts or beliefs of theirs which do lead to beauty and goodness, like nationalism, deep ecology and a family-oriented, culture-driven society.

Israel leads the way to revival of nationalism

Sunday, July 13th, 2014


Conservatives tend to support the idea of Israel because conservatives believe in upholding tradition and the practicality of nationalism. When everyone in a state is of the same type, government is less needed, and society grows from within instead of through carrot-and-stick manipulation by a controlling force.

One of the larger Israeli newspapers, Haaretz, has unwittingly put its finger on the wisdom of nationalism:

The mob was the first to internalize its true significance: a Jewish state is one in which there is room only for Jews. The fate of Africans is to be sent to the Holot detention center in the Negev, while that of Palestinians is to suffer from pogroms. That’s how it works in a Jewish state: only this way can it be Jewish.

…In a Jewish state, the High Court of Justice approves the demolition of a murder suspect’s family home even before his conviction. A Jewish state legislates racist and nationalist laws.

Haaretz in effect calls these Jewish nationalists Nazis, which is ironic in its mildest form and grossly offensive in its fullest. But they recognize the underlying truth: a Jewish state is for Jews only, because anyone else by virtue of being non-Jewish alone will pose a threat to this state and to the people it protects.

Thus, kick them out. Every one. Send them to be with their people. Do not open your doors to the poor of the world; there are always impoverished people by the billion. Instead, focus on what you can do, which is to make your own people succeed, thrive and be happy.

Everything else is just posturing. Every charlatan justifies himself by protecting the poor. Every lying tyrant works his way into power by making you “think of the children” or the minorities, the women, the rainbow people, whatever. Every corrupt advertiser sells you an image of pacifism and plenty where everyone just gives each other stuff because they live nearby. These are lies.

Reality presents a different question: can human beings overcome their solipsism? Solipsism makes us think that this human world we create, where it matters who knows who and who wore what, is somehow a replacement for reality. Solipsism is the human mind seeking to control reality by pretending it is something other than what it is. Most human individuals are blighted by solipsism and it makes them deceptive, selfish/individualistic, and unable to see reality. They do what they want to do and they ignore the consequences. They also refuse to preserve anything larger than themselves. That is the condition of most of humanity and not surprisingly, it creates societies that are corrupt, dishonest, filthy, selfish and bratty.

Only a few people out of hundreds will actually understand what needs to be done. We must focus on reality itself. Reality itself is not comprised of warm feelings, universal symbols, and moral judgments. It has one judgment: what works. From looking at history, we see diversity as a factor in every civilization collapse and as a positive factor in none. Israel recognizes this and thus is pushing itself toward nationalism so that its people are not destroyed by hard means (war) or soft (outbreeding).

Naturally the crowd of nervous nellies and chattering neurotics feel that “racism” — a word without meaning or definition — is the worst thing ever. It interrupts their dream, which is that we can all be pacifistic and wealth-sharing together. That dream comprises their fears and doubts which they have allowed to dominate their common sense. They fear conflict, so they try to outlaw conflict with social rules and warm fuzzies. It never works. These people are insane.

WWII showed us the defeat of nationalism and the world pulling away from it in favor of liberal democracy. As the USA self-destructs under its first black president, recognition spreads that democracy, liberalism and consumerism create an unholy triad that place human wishful thinking before reality and create solipsism. If we have a future, it is in escaping this mental disorder and getting back to reality and tradition.


Tuesday, January 4th, 2005


“Fascism” is the name that moderns use to describe the style of organized, leadership-oriented government that predominated in ancient times, and to which all healthy societies return, knowing that of the ways of handling human frailty, the best is a system which selects the least frail and pushes it forward; the alternative, seen in modern liberal democracy, is a system which accepts human failings but then tries to impose upon them a “good” way of life.

When we gather together and form an agrarian or other immobile civilization, we know that some form of leadership will have to occur to compel us to complete the myriad tasks of maintaining an organized, large-scale human colony. At first, this is the warrior-chief, who tells people face to face what must be done and patrols the walls himself, sword in hand, but as the civilization grows in size, layers of intermediaries become needed, and thus the questions addressed by political theory become very real.

At this point, general types of society emerge: the state with a single leader; the state with a junta; the state with a leader and parliament of intermediaries; and finally, the disorganized options: the state run locally by intermediaries, and the democratic state. The democratic state takes two forms; republican democracy allows the people to delegate their allegiances to politicians who then decide how to apply those preferences, and direct democracy allows the citizenry to vote directly on proposed ideas. (There are also democracies of the elite, but these are of the fundamental type of a state run locally by intermediaries, with democracy being the method those leaders use to come to agreement on collective issues.)

The type of government selected shapes the people, because it defines what is expected of them and what they can expect, and the latter is used as incentive because it can be allotted in degrees according to, for example, a citizen’s status or his vote. In leadership-oriented states, this tends to be determined by how a citizen rises in the hierarchy of specialized hierarchies according to ability; in democratic states, this is granted to all citizens, a minimal competitive aspect (e.g. money or doctrine) is provided so a single hierarchy can exist. This split occurs because leadership states have a collective goal, where democracies exist for the citizenry and assume that their individual decisions, even when collectivized by a vote, are equivalent to the work of a leader.

Another way to look at this is that leadership states embrace specialization, while democratic states are centered around the individual personality. When strong leadership exists, government plans shape the elites among the citizenry, and therefore naturally tend toward finding differentiated elites for specialized tasks. Democracies have more internal dialogue, and therefore government becomes the focus of activity, including debate about how government should be applied. It is for this reason that democracies react more slowly, and more simply, than a leader who has specialized in familiarity with the issues of her civilization and the unique tasks of command.

Citizens shaped by these governments react differently, and consequently, develop themselves and eventually breed differently. A “fascist” state has a clear goal and ongoing process of achieving it, and therefore provides minimal governmental interaction in the lives of its citizens, but in a democracy, everyone must become involved and fight for their own “interests,” which inevitably occur on that gradient of reward such as monetary wealth which is the democracy’s equivalent of natural competition. While in a “fascist” state citizens excel in their specialized hierarchies (for example, craftsmen or artists or farmers) and leave government to another specialized structure, leadership, in democracies all are assumed to have earned the right to leadership by right of birth, and from this arises the fatal flaw of democracies.

In individual life, things go wrong; this is how learning occurs, and change. When the conjecture of the individual about how an idea might work out in reality occurs in a far different way than planned, it is recognized as a failure and is re-assessed. Similarly, in governments,large errors require some form of change. In a leadership state, it may result in the head of state recognizing the error and changing his policy, or being replaced if this is another incident of failure in a string of them. Democracies, being constantly active in decision-making and debate and theory and other somewhat neurotic pursuits, have already assumed that the citizens are all capable of making the right decisions — and for that reason, must find someone to blame.

This tendency is why democracies, more than any other form of government, are moral: they have a need for internal evils to blame for the failings of a schizophrenic, self-referential worldview. Since no single person leads, and “everyone” makes each decision such that “no one” is ever responsible for the axis of decision (“leaders” in democracies are delegates of the people, thus are responsible for finding popular opinion and implementing it, or they are not re-elected), in democracies, when something goes wrong, someone or something must be blamed. These states rarely choose to blame “the system” of democracy as whole, because it is hard to find fault with any “good” method of government that is in theory empowering its citizens, thus they look internally for those who take controversial or seemingly “bad” viewpoints, especially those that go against the fundamental idea of democracy, namely that every citizen is as fit to rule as a leader.

The essence of fascism is positive: we are governed to promote what we love among our people and wish to nurture and make stronger. It is in this mindset only that one can recognize threats for what they are, because one has something one values and wishes to make grow (“consensus” in the longest-lasting sense). Democracies on the other hand are based on fear of strength and challenge that might puncture the political viability of the individual, and for this reason their primary mode of thought is avoiding threat and seeking out evils to overcome and normalize. People in democracies aren’t “bad” people, but they are in the grips of a dysfunctional philosophy.

The democratic philosophy is based in fear and denial of what could be; they are not “seize the day,” in the dynamic leadership style of”fascist” civilizations, as much as “preserve the individual.” This causes them to isolate individuals from any form of large-scale change,and promotes the increasing fascination with the government itself and its workings. Such beliefs deny that pain and uncertainty are the currency of change, and will always occur; the only choice incumbent upon us is whether they occur for something meaningful, or not. And for there to be meaning there must be consensus, a state which groups of individuals whose highest goal is preserving those individuals from challenge will not achieve.

It is this reason that made our ancestors in ancient times choose “fascist” states when their empires were at their healthiest and not already in decay: they wanted to form consensus, remove government as a question, and move on to creation of great empires and cultures through constant change, selecting the good and letting the less opportune pass by. Contrary to popular debate, “fascist” states were not an extension of the warrior-chieftain but probably occurred as a natural response to failures in democracies (anyone who has ever sat through a committee trying to make decisions recognizes the value of strong leadership, even in error, as at least achoice is made that can then be criticized and modified, while committees are incapable of making choices far from the default “but that’s how it’s done around here”).

Typically, as noted by Plato most strongly among the Greeks, who among the Westerns first recorded their experiments and debate over the nature of government, democracies have a tendency to hunt evils until they descend to a linear, binary mindset of “good” versus “evil,” at which point they murder all nonconformists and elect the biggest conformist as emperor. From this one eventually gets hybrid systems such as Soviet Russia, where “the people” under goading from well-funded decadent academics, rise up and murder the higher castes,then implement a society where everyone is equal and ruled by a strong, unquestioned tyrant.

Interestingly, a population of healthy, strong-minded people given the vote will usually elect a strong leader; they understand specialization, and realize that bringing government into the life of each individual will compel that individual to spend more time on government, without necessarily having the time or ability to develop aptitude for it. This is a healthy response. To those who have grown up in a modern time, it’s like life in the old neighborhood. Few people move in or out, and families live among it for generations, passing down houses and roles. There are butchers, bakers, grocers, repair workers, and many other specialized roles, including that of leader. This allows each to get the day’s work done, which although it might not be perfect is a workable model which can then be perfected, and then go home to their families and friends, free of concern for government; after all, those are the things that define our lives as individuals.

The neighborhood is both harsh and forgiving. You are the individual are known for your actions, and since everyone knows you, there are few secrets that last long. On the flip side, however, your positive attributes are also remembered and praised, and will be used as the summary of your character, not a single negative incident, or evil. Human frailty is accepted and those who do basically constructive things are moved up, and there’s no real need to look for evils because threats are obvious, the neighborhood having achieved a basic consensus of its operation. While some neighborhoods, particularly those in which families live for less than a generation, are notoriously corrupt, the healthy ones tend to have strong leaders who bypass bureaucratic paper-filings in order to take care of their people. And is that not what government is for?