Posts Tagged ‘neoconservatism’

Classical Liberalism Has Died

Tuesday, November 28th, 2017

The United States founded itself on a simple proposition: by endorsing democracy, but limiting that democracy, it could avoid the extremes of both democracy and the crisis of European aristocracy, which was under assault from the rising middle class and its desire for “progress” that seemed to mostly involve selling people more stuff that they did not need.

Americans adopted a view that had emerged in France after the revolution known as “classical liberalism,” where those who thought the Left was insane (still is) decided that personal liberty was the only solution to a powerful Leftist state. By arguing not for the Right, but for the ability to be personally conservative, they hoped that natural selection would favor them and over time the civilization would shift Rightward again.

Plato wrote of this attempt by those who are still mentally organized to resist the onslaught of the “drones,” or the plebs/proles who demand free stuff from government and equality so that they can take over with their champions, who invariably turn out to be tyrants. These classical liberals — today we call them “libertarians” — hope to withstand the crisis without facing it directly. Not surprisingly, since they do not target the root of the decline, they tend to always fail.

With the Constitution, the Americans designed an elaborate series of gates and sluices that they hoped would keep the inevitable from happening. These men had read the Greeks and knew history, and so were aware that democracy by itself was unstable, but had no option for a formal aristocracy, so created instead a massive contraption to limit democracy from following its usual path of accelerating power in the name of protecting the herd, ending in tyranny, which is not so much a type of government as any government which

On top of this, they grafted a classical liberal model: government would serve as a facilitator for commerce, people would handle social problems by concentrating wealth in the hands of the able, and then social problems would be addressed through informal, business-like means. In other words: everyone gets freedom so that the good people can buy their way out of the abyss that most people naturally pursue.

This forgot that when you give people the vote, you will change them. They stop thinking about the goal, and start thinking about the compromise, or how to get enough people on their side to win whatever issue is most important to them. As a side-effect, they will create a group dedicated to being clever about political intrigue, and it will forget to worry about the effects of its actions, instead focusing on how popular those actions and therefore, how powerful it is.

Over time, every group given the vote moves into conjectural navel-gazing and over-emotionality because these tendencies manipulate groups. Whoever masters them becomes the most popular and gets the power. Democracy thus distorts us mentally and morally as well as politically. Since classical liberals depend on democracy, or at least economic democracy, they create a trap for themselves: if they prosper, they will drift away from reality, and then self-destruct, just like every other democracy in history.

During the 1990s, it looked like libertarianism — the modern “classical liberalism” — was going to be the next big thing. People liked the idea of paying less in taxes, not being responsible for social welfare to care for everyone who could not care for themselves, and removing government from the business of social engineering. Like most people, they existed in a very narrow sphere where they assumed that if they just did what was beneficial to themselves, they would succeed, and all that was required of government was to stay out of the way.

It is a tempting fantasy, but it will never succeed, because classical liberalism is entirely negative in focus and forgets what it needs to do, which is create a civilization which has purpose and standards, where the best are rewarded not just for their financial performance, but for doing the right thing. Without this constant upward pressure that over time creates a font of genius as occurred in classical Western Civilization and gave it an edge in technology and learning, societies become like their citizens, bloated and fat on a couch, addicted to distraction and entertainment, oblivious to the world outside of the apartment.

Classical liberalism proves to be as unstable as dictatorship. It enables the insane, destructive, parasitic, and morally weak to accumulate money and power by selling products to fools. They then pair up with the vast majority of people, who are fools and at lower echelons in the natural hierarchy of the group, and form a coalition designed to take from the thriving to give to the coalition. You either join or lose out, and so this gang grows like a tumor within society.

Thanks to its greatest numbers, it wins the vote, and only rare actions like the 2016 election give us a chance to hold it back, and then, usually fail because so many layers of bad policy and so many bad players have already become part of the system. Democracy self-destructs because it teaches people not to aim for honest solutions, but to specialize in manipulation, and eventually, this outlook takes over their own brains and they con themselves into a path to oblivion.

Taking the mile-high view, classical liberalism belongs with other varieties of Leftism, or the idea that we can set up a system which rules equal citizens as a mass and have good results. Rejecting that requires rejecting the mass, and demanding both purpose and hierarchy, which in turn requires something to bond together the group that is more powerful than ideology.

For this reason, classical liberalism — the notion that we can all go our own way, and the markets will reward the good — has been replaced by roots conservatism, which holds that there is a right way for any specific society to live. Nigel Farage gives us an insight into this outlook through the contrast of centuries that reveals our decline:

Mr. Farage noted that “the values that people had back then in many ways made them better people than they are today.”

“They had quite a strong fundamental Christian belief that went right through society. They believed in country, they believed in family, and they were prepared to make sacrifices to defend the nation and to defend their people. And I’m not quite sure, 100 years on, that we’re the same society, sadly.”

…“If you believe in a nation, then you believe in belonging to something; I do think we are headed back in the right direction.”

Instead of believing in the individual, we believe in our civilizations, and through that, see the hopes of the individual having a chance of becoming manifest. That not only rejects the last two centuries and change of Leftism, but the vein of thought going back to The Renaissance™ and even The Reformation™ which insists that individuals in groups can be corralled to do the right thing.

The new wisdom might be described as organic. Individuals are cells belonging to a body, or species within an ecosystem, and so they do not have equal roles but unequal ones, which is what allows the individual to be appreciated for its inner qualities and sacrifices. This stands in stark contrast to the egalitarianism that is the center of all forms of Leftist thought.

We have spent those past two centuries trying to find some way of making democracy stable, but over time, it has become clear that it is too anarchic, and any classical liberal approach will result in the inmates taking over the asylum while the “nice people” stand by helplessly, mumbling concerns that the crowd happily ignores.

If humanity has a future, it consists of recognizing that individualism is dysfunction; none of us can go it alone and if we do, we become as self-serving as a large corporation and thus, easily manipulated. Even more, for mass culture to work, all ideas must be simplified, sweetened and made “interesting” to the point that they lose their original character.

We are coming out of an age filled with gruesome hacks like libertarianism, which attempt to both have our modern formation of society and get it to perform like a functional civilization at the same time. The last seventy years have shown us that this cannot work, and so it is time for something new.

Marine Le Pen Aftermath

Monday, May 8th, 2017

It was a bit much to hope for, that idea that Marine Le Pen would win the French presidency. It appealed because many of us want the populist (anti-System) wave that is sweeping the world to chalk up more victories.

The concept also appalled in that, if the populist wave is captured by any elected official or movement, it will quickly be corrupted, as many allege has happened to Donald J. Trump, and seems to be happening at least partially to Brexit in the hands of the professionals.

The professionals learn how to survive. If not before election, after election. To survive, one must keep all the special interest groups in balance, or at least off-guard. The result is that policy does not occur directly, but through many tiny maneuvers.

With 34% of the vote going to an inexperienced politician, Le Pen demonstrates that many of the French people are willing to roll the dice on anything but the continuity of the status quo. However, these tend to be those who have personally experienced the disaster:

Ms. Le Pen was strongest in areas with high unemployment and low wages, where she campaigned on pledges to stop immigration and renegotiate France’s relationship with the European Union.

But Mr. Macron, a political newcomer who campaigned on a centrist, pro-Europe platform, gained widespread support from voters who rejected him in the first round. The vote preserved a French political tradition of mainstream parties working together to bar candidates from the far right, known as the Republican Front. Many voters said they saw him as the lesser of two evils.

The problem with dying systems is that their strength remains, which makes it easy to just adapt instead of risking change, which especially as people get older and look forward to their pensions, becomes a huge problem. The European welfare state took money from people and gave it to the state, and now they are dependent on the state for their later years survival.

In addition, for most people, the problems of the modern state are not yet visible. Sure, some hicks somewhere are starving because the industrial jobs went away. So what? In the cities, one can still stagger through education and slump into a job, and make enough money for a decent way of life, especially since they can rely on social benefits to lower costs during their early years.

The Leftist strategy of robbing tomorrow to pay for today works out as long as there is a tomorrow, which has been defined in solely economic terms because people rely on those pensions and benefits. This is why most of Europe still approves of immigration: they are hoping to bring these people in, brainwash them into working for a living, and then retire on their taxes.

Le Pen tapped into those who realized that at some point in the future this system will fail. This however is a small group, sort of like those who buy classical music or can run a top-notch small business. Democracy weights the bottom and opposes the top.

She might have broadened her appeal if, like Trump, she had run on a broader plan of cutting taxes and revitalizing the economy. Everyone shares in that. But only some are victims of terror or unemployment, and that alone was not enough of an audience.

It will probably take time for Central Europe to accept the new Right-wing shift, even if it was born in part of New Right thinkers in France. Europe is addicted to its social welfare and terrified of change, mainly because people are living in terror because of the instability of society as it is, and they will vote for whoever will continue the status quo plus donate new benefits.

Her loss is fortunate for the underground Right because it must stay underground. Right now, its candidates are too easily co-opted by the System. In the future, a cultural wave will start in localities and begin the rebellion against the center, and not through political means only.

Boycotts in America have shown to be effective when practiced even by one in twenty customers of a business. If the French start turning off their sports televisions, buying less from big companies, and focusing on local living, those nice easy city jobs that Macron voters have will start going away.

At that point, they can bring the pain home to the enemy.

The Alt Right faces a choice between being a political wave or a cultural wave, and smart money favors the cultural wave. Attitudes need to change at a lower level or those energized by resentment will elect a dissident candidate only to insist that this candidate do what every other candidate has done, except this time favoring their special interest group. That happens simultaneously with the attack by the System itself, and guarantees the candidate will see his or her support demanding unrealistic things at the same time colleagues demand compromise with “the way things are always done around here.”

In the United States, it has become clear that a president cannot do much with a Congress that opposes him, even if his intent is good. The result is a death of a thousand cuts for any bill, slowly adjusting it from what it once was into a version of what is normally done, through a process called “inversion.”

Inversion happens any time an idea is handed to the herd. You may have experienced this with The Secret Game as a child: at one end of the room, a child whispers a phrase to another, and this is then passed person-to-person to the other end. It always arrives in mangled form, in part because people forget bits of the phrase, and in part because they project into it what they want to hear.

It is the same way in the System. Any idea must go through room after room full of people who represent special interests. Each one represents his own special interest group, and takes a bit off here and there. When it reaches the other side, it tends to mean the exact opposite of what it originally did.

Voters amplify this process by “demanding” results on very specific topics, not realizing that policy must be general and not act directly in most cases, but let a generally sane rule (or absence thereof) result in specific implementations that work out the details later. The more clear the voters are about what they want, the more they distort any possibilities for getting it.

We might say that this is because voters see the surface, or effects of, hidden causes. For example, cutting taxes ends up in economic success, or lowered regulation makes housing cheaper. Directly demanding cheaper housing causes politicians to run off and write rules enabling subsidies, knowing that more money will be taken in than paid out, so the politicians win.

For some time in the West, our best people have been in hiding. They take simple jobs out of the way and try to go unnoticed. They do this because they know that the System will destroy them, and in addition, they will not be able to make positive changes. It will turn them into monsters.

We need a cultural revolution because we need to start rewarding our best people again instead of our worst. This can only come through policy change at the highest levels, including dismantling of the System. The same institutions that once saved us are now working against us, sort of like government intervention at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Our problem stands revealed as not the elites themselves, but those who are the cause of these elites. The group to blame are the voters. They want more benefits, make-work jobs and legal protections for their own dubious practices. Like the Baby Boomers, their goal is to take as much from the system, retire and die without witnessing the downfall they have created.

The System rewards itself and gives us no choice not because it deliberately does so, but because it can do no differently. Our cultural revolt is against the System itself, but that tells only part of the story. The System, like in the Soviet Union, is the result of Leftist policies which because they favor the individual, divide societies against themselves.

Alexander Dugin writes of the nature of this struggle as global insurgency against globalist supremacy:

Life – including political life, and political life in the first place – is a war. The battle is lost, but the war is not. Everything is ahead. The world’s scum will not give up and try to drag the whole of humanity into the abyss. But we do not lose our hands. Now it is clear that Resistance with necessity must be global. After all, the enemy is global.

The old parties are virtually destroyed. There are neither right nor left. There are the People and Elites, Europeans and the global financial oligarchy.

The only modifier that must be inserted here is that the parties are not “neither right nor left,” but Leftist to the core, because our society has shifted in a Leftist direction. Very few know this, but historically and philosophically, the Left consists of one idea, egalitarianism, which has one commandment: equality.

Everything the Left does is designed to break down social order — heritage, caste, religion, customs — and replace it with a strong central government which takes much of the money in exchange for administering Leftism. It does this through wealth transfer programs like welfare and social benefits, as well as through immigration, which helps break down each nation for digestion by government.

We have been fighting this Establishment for years. It seemed conservative in the 1950s because it used an early form of neoconservatism as its guide, arguing for economic equality of opportunity — classical liberalism — instead of outright Leftism. But it was merely biding its time. It knew that if it reduced humanity to a selfish herd, the bickering would start and culture would die.

Cultural revolution addresses this by mocking not just the visible Left, but the invisible Left in the form of the assumptions of the System. Every time people speak up against equality and social welfare, the way things are done changes, just a little bit. While candidates are important, the real war is won in the hearts and minds of our people, and it carries on.

No, Conservatives, “Return To God” Is Not The Answer

Wednesday, June 15th, 2016

One of my favorite commenters speaks on the topic of religion as a means of salvaging dying civilizations:

Latin/Asian/African cultures cannot assimilate because culture is a result of the genetics/race of a people. We are a nation founded by Western and Northern European/Scandinavian peoples. Our culture reflects that. When we demand that other races assimilate to our culture, we are essentially asking them to be what they can never genetically be. It is no wonder they are angry and hate us; we are in essence saying that they are not us, which is true.

I used to believe that religion was independent of race but now I realize that is not true. Cultures adopt religion because it reflects the values and understanding of the people. That is why when Christianity is taken to Africa or Latin countries it becomes laden with superstition and is not Christianity at all. Different races will experience God in different ways because each is only capable of understanding God within the limits of their intelligence, which is a product of their genetics. Is it any wonder that the Middle East is Islamic? Their religion fits who they are as a people, genetically speaking.

This is a fundamental split among those who are not-Left. Among our population, most are hard in denial about the fact that our civilization is imploding. Of those who do recognize the decline, most have panicked and are looking for an easy answer; this is more denialism. Of this type of post-denial denialism, most choose a visually distinctive method: God fanatics, race fanatics, economic fanatics and eugenics fanatics. Each group is looking for a single principle to act like Leftist ideology and apply in all circumstances.

  • God fanatics. These are exemplified by this comment from the thread:

    There is nothing left to preserve. We have abandoned the God of our fathers and are rightly judged for our sins. When we return to the Lord Jesus Christ in our families and local communities, we can then begin to see restoration of some form.

    God fanatics argue for this because it lets them off the hook to do anything. They cannot force others to come to God, so they’ll go to church twice as hard and lament how no one follows God, then watch their society further crumble away while they do nothing. This is a typical conservative behavior: put your head down, work hard, pay those taxes, and lament the impossibility of something impossible instead of fixing the obvious problem.

  • Race fanatics. These people recognize a problem — that diversity is paradoxical in design and so will produce collapse — but instead of accepting that difficult thought, settle in for scapegoating one or more minority groups. By implication, after the great racial purge, everything else can continue as before, so the highest number of pro-democracy pro-socialist liberals can be found in this group. They deny that diversity did not happen in a vacuum, and it started 200 years ago or more, so we have to find the cause of that or all the sadistic racial holocausts in the world cannot save us from diversity, much less all the other problems.
  • Economic fanatics. These come in two types: socialist and capitalist. The New Right in Europe makes a lot of excellent observations but then comes out in support of European socialism, which creates a society that is insufferable because it is regimented and forces everyone to keep doing repetitive make-work in order to pay for the welfare state in classic “We Are The Robots” style jerky motions and cancelled eyes attire. Europe is miserable and has been for centuries because of the growing state and its inevitable tendency to enslave people to boring, pointless jobs and ugly, tedious cities. We are breeding ourselves into robotic zombie morons in order to pay for all those bennies, but your average European would rather die by rape than give up the welfare state. On the other hand, there are many American conservatives who believe that all of our problems could be solved by pure capitalism. Like the race fanatics, they take part of the solution and make it into the whole, which ignores all the other problems and their solutions.
  • Eugenics fanatics. Like most of the above, these have a partially correct response but miss the point by making it into an ideology like Leftism. Yes, Idiocracy is upon us but it has always been upon us. 90% of humanity by the ancient reckoning were of the thrall-nature and required telling what to do or they would screw it up and destroy good things for their own idiocy. The point of eugenics is to allow as many of the fools as possible to perish, but that by itself would not solve our problem, since even smart people make stupid decisions when assembled into herds.

All of the above are trying to make conservatism into Leftism. They want an ideology, or one simple principle that is applied universally to all people equally. The core of this belief is the socially-pleasing notion that all people are equal, when in fact since the dawn of time most people have been idiots who if not oppressed, destroy a civilization as surely as a leak in your intestine kills you with E. Coli poisoning.

“Return to God” is not the answer. Nor is “work hard and get ahead,” nor is “kill the Negroes/Jews.” These are all scapegoats and surrogates for the actual answer, which is to rebuild civilization. That requires four elements of a platform that I have identified elsewhere, which are (briefly): aristocracy, nationalism, positive incentives (incl. capitalism) and transcendental goals. Nationalism enables rule by culture, not Government; aristocracy gives us the best chance of good leadership; positive incentives reward competence instead of trying to protect the foolish from themselves, and a transcendental goal keeps us improving in quality.

Conservatives have failed for 200 years by relying on stupid fictions like “Return to God” that are basically a way of avoiding personal responsibility for fixing the problem. When you give up on an actual solution, you need to find a surrogate, and this is why “Return to God” — like racial fanaticism, socialist lunacy and raving eugenicism — is immensely popular.

Hint for the wise: avoid anything which is broadly popular, as that inevitably means that it is a form of denial of reality, and instead, a pleasant human fiction that causes warm fuzzy feelings as your society and future slide downward into a third-world abyss.

Here is another guy who gets it almost right:

I break with the alt-right crowd on a number of issues, abortion, might makes right morality, religion and aesthetic, but I feel that their specific argument in regard to racial/ethnic differences as they effect social order are valid. I, for my part, would add foundational religion to that list as I find credence in Carl Schmitt’s observation, “Political concepts are just secularized theological concepts.” Religion is not part of culture, but Culture a function of religion. The importance of Foundational Religion > Culture per say.

No, ten thousand times no: culture creates religion. All religions are interpretations of a naturalistic truth, or in other words, are descriptions by individual people of a symbolic representation of a truth that not all can detect and even those who can detect can only perceive in varying degrees. All implementations of religion are in turn interpretations of that religion. It is nonsense to say that there is “Christianity,” unless one is treating it as an ideology and assuming that the words in the book control people, which is nonsense as they will interpret those words as convenient for them, and to the degree that they are capable.

It is not accidental that Christianity in Mexico becomes a type of idol-worship and mysticism, or that in Haiti, Christianity becomes hybridized with Vodou. Third world populations choose third world levels of religion, just as they choose third-world style governments, personal behavior, and levels of social order. The people make the interpretation and no matter what you write down, they will convert it into what fits their own agenda, because — per Dunning-Kruger — this is what they understand and where their understanding stops.

As I have said before, you either put the best people in charge or watch as we are all oppressed by the incompetence of the rest. People in groups, even smart people, enact lunacy and stupidity.

Culture in turn arises from genetics (and also shapes genetics; like many things in nature, the two bootstrap one another). It is not as simple as IQ, but also involves the amount of vision and transcendental thinking among the group. An original culture like that of Europe aspires to something above the merely tangible, and this is why it rose above even those cultures which seemed ahead in intelligence, wealth and power like Asia.

Religion then arises out of culture and genetics alike. For that reason, any “return to God” will become a weapon of the enemy unless it is preceded by a restoration of health in culture, genetics, leadership, opportunity and transcendental goals.

Jonathan Haidt hits on a similar illusion, which he gets about half-right:

Human beings are incredibly irrational, biased, imperfect creatures. We are really, really bad at following the truth wherever it leads.

His second sentence is as accurate as anything that can be said, except for the implied equality of “we” — human beings vary greatly, and some are good at following the truth where it leads.

His first sentence is where he goes wrong. Our “rationality” is what leads us astray every time. It enables us to make symbolic conclusions based on gritty, complex data. This eliminates all consideration except the immediate and human in a utilitarian context. This is where we go wrong.

He then proceeds to make what I am calling “the STEM illusion”:

The brilliance of some of our classical liberal institutions, especially science at the university, is that it institutionalized disconfirmation. […] “We in science, we don’t really see the truth unbiasedly. We each put out our models, our theories, we try our hardest to prove we are right. And other scientists say ‘no, you didn’t see, this is wrong’ and then we have to defend it. That’s the way it works, institutionalized disconfirmation. It has made us as a species as a culture vastly smarter than we could be if we were just individuals deciding things for ourselves,” he continued.

And we are back to Leftism: he believes that a System can save us, instead of pointing out that this system worked when it was in the hands of 130+ IQ aristocrats but now, in the hands of the proles, it is nothing but multiple fumbles in an attempt to advance the career of each researcher.

No, Mr. Haidt, for all the good that you write, the above is wrong, although in service of a good thing (the idea of open debate on any topic). We are not all equal. And no System can compensate for that failing, just as merely sending everyone to church or killing off other races will not solve our problems, either.

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.

Snapshot: Neoconservatism

Tuesday, February 16th, 2016

Vox brings us an insightful view of what Neoconservatism is:

Neoconservatism, which had been around for decades, mixed humanitarian impulses with an almost messianic faith in the transformative virtue of American military force, as well as a deep fear of an outside world seen as threatening and morally compromised.

This ideology stated that authoritarian states were inherently destabilizing and dangerous; that it was both a moral good and a strategic necessity for America to replace those dictatorships with democracy — and to dominate the world as the unquestioned moral and military leader.

Translating this: Neoconservatism is liberalism enforced by conservative principles, much like liberal democracy is Leftism enforced through conservative institutions. Echoing American stated (but not actual) motivations during the Vietnam war, Neoconservatism is the fight by liberalism against those who believe in any system other than liberal democracy, which in turn echoes our justifications (but not motivations) in the first and second World Wars.

Experienced observers counter this illusion with the idea from Spengler and Plato that every population gets the leadership it deserves. In the third world, people are chaotic enough and so little dedicated to social order that the only power they will respect is a dictator; “near third world” countries like Russia and Italy prefer strong leaders for foreign policy and oligarchs or local warlords for day-to-day concerns.

In many ways, this distinction reveals the consumerism behind the spread of liberal democracy: having a democracy, especially a social democracy, signifies being from a wealthy nation. When this system shows its cracks as it did in the 1990s and early 2000s, the best solution is to affirm its status above those other systems, namely by defeating them with a combination of military and technological might.

From that perspective, the Iraq war was not about Iraq at all, but the fears of Americans and Europeans that their economic and social structure was failing. Much as the falling Roman empire went to war to unify its people, the modern empire launches its crusades in order to enforce solidarity among its people against an enemy, and the only way it knows how to designate that enemy is through Leftist ideology.

Neoreaction hits choppy waters

Sunday, April 5th, 2015


In this world, all good things become destroyed, and they all go out the same way.

Neoreaction, the post-libertarian reactionary conservative movement that has showed so much promise, is in the midst of a stumble. Interest flags, writings have petered out or become circular, and internal divisions have reached an apex.

We do not have to look far for the causes. Neoreaction began as a movement that is like most conservative movements consequentialist, or based in results rather than intent. It arose from the libertarian idea of minimizing government to avoid it adopting an “ideological mandate” by which in the name of protecting its most vulnerable citizens it enforces control on all. Its idea, held in common with some anarchists and transhumanists, was to treat government like a corporation which sold enumerable services to its clients in exchange for a fair market price, and to deprecate all of its other functions.

However, by escaping the mental ghetto which says that Western liberal democracy is the ultimate evolution of human society and the best we can achieve, Neoreaction opened the door to other dangerous and scary ideas. Its members embraced ethnonationalism, patriarchy, hierarchy/royalism and other ideas which have been the norm for most of human evolution but have been denied in the West since The EnlightenmentTM, which held that the individual human’s preferences were more important than social or natural order.

Rejecting consequentialism, the Age of Reason created the idea of “equality” where each human had the absolute right to make any choices he or she desired, with the idea emerging later that society would subsidize these choices. As a form of “Dark Enlightenment,” Neoreaction rejected the Age of Reason as a wrong turn and suggested instead a merging of what has been perennially true in human relations with modern technological know-how and engineering standards.

It is an appealing mix. Many of us warned of the problem with being a conservative movement that does not admit it is conservative, which is that it will quickly turn on itself as it tries to adapt to the status quo of steadily increasing liberalism in the West since the 1700s. Conservatism represents the only alternative to liberal ideology, which is based in equality, and generally consists of two components: (1) consequentialism or results being more important than intent or methods and (2) transcendental goals, such as “the good, the beautiful and the true” or for many a religious purpose to human existence.

The problem is that in human society, things do not die of weakness but of strength. What made Neoreaction strong was that it introduced eternal ideas of human civilization in a new form, separating them from the forms which have become tired in the hands of the GOP and other seemingly misguided and disorganized conservatives. This strength drew people to it and, not having first cleared their minds of liberal programming, they began to treat Neoreaction as if it were another liberal concept.

Liberal concepts value individual participation and self-expression because the individual is more important than the results. Conservative concepts value individual participation where it achieves certain results, and only then. The same writers who gave Neoreaction its early strength pulled it apart as they competed for audience with blogs, books and YouTube videos. To differentiate their product, they had to each invent unique theories and viewpoints. These in turn created confusion about the core of Neoreaction, and drifted farther away, which meant they lost their conservative core and as a result became increasingly liberalized.

If we listened to the liberals at the outset, Neoreaction was doomed because it was not liberal enough. As it turns out, it was too liberal, but not by ideology but rather by the behavior of human individuals seeking to profit from it. All those blog hits, video watches, and book sales became a goal in and of themselves, and the idea of Neoreaction got lost in the muddle.

Thus the movement became moribund in the same way a civilization does: it becomes a vehicle for individuals to express their own self-importance, not a cooperation toward a qualitative end. Neoreaction became assimilated by liberalism because it adopted the methods of commerce and popularity, part of the demotism that makes up modernism.

Naturally, there are some who kept the idea strong and you can find their blogs in the list to the left. But in the meantime, for Neoreaction “The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fail to the ruin of all.”

The fake extremists

Thursday, September 19th, 2013

jewish_troll_to_torment_white_nationalists_lol_herzl_rulesThe most tenacious enemies are the deceptive ones. These do not walk straight up to you and slug you; they work behind the scenes, invisibly, and not only subvert you, but corrupt the image of what you are doing. They taint and destroy your work’s effectiveness before the work is even done.

The best of them will even pretend to be your friend and ally.

Although the behavior is complex, the strategy is simple. They are able to both distract you, and by misrepresenting your message, corrupt it. To you, they may appear to be only incompetent, but to others, they have become the public face of what you hope to popularize.

For example, if you run a fast food restaurant that competes with my family’s restaurant, I might take a job at your restaurant. Then I might wear my uniform out in the world, and demonstrate incompetence. Or hauling away roadkill. Or just be rude. Either way, I damage you with no real risk to myself.

In politics, your worst enemies are often your closest allies. Frenemies abound. They want to be part of what you’re doing, but use it for their own ends, or sabotage it so that you don’t succeed. This may be innocent, or incompetent, or the result of ambivalence on their part. It doesn’t require conscious intent.

As a conservative, you are sandwiched between two such groups. One group are the mainstream conservatives who think “freedom” and economics will solve all our problems. The other extreme are the underground groups who think that blaming Jewish people and black people for the problems of diversity will solve something.

The former group is what occurs when social acceptance becomes more important than reality. They have not picked a solution, but by limiting what they look at to what is socially acceptable, have found a talking point that they can pitch around in polite society, on TV and so on.

The latter group however is where the real poison is. They are almost entirely run by the opposition, that is people who want to see leftism triumph, or by people who don’t realize that they are leftists. For example, blaming external groups for an internal problem — white liberalism — is a liberal trait.

In addition, you’ll find that both of these groups are based on a singular principle: equality and freedom. These are related concepts because equality demands “freedom” from oversight, judgment, common sense, logic, higher principles and so on.

Neither group is willing to accept what we must see:

Liberalism is a natural tendency of humankind.

Like other natural tendencies, such as alcoholism and procrastination, it will destroy us if it grows enough.

Diversity is a side-effect of liberalism. Liberals want diversity so that there is no majority. Without a majority, there is no standard. Then, the individual is free to do whatever they want without oversight.

If some group of demonic parasites invades your society — and this is not to agree with the characterization of Jewish people along these lines — then the problem is not the parasite, but the lack of underlying health. Why is your society so receptive to parasites?

The solution is not to crusade after proximate causes, like intruding foreigners, but to target the ideas. Diversity itself is a paradoxical and non-functional idea. So is liberalism. So, interestingly, is the ego-mania behind freedom, equality and racial hatred.

We lose when we crusade for emotionally-satisfying but incorrect objectives. Such as targeting the wrong cause.

We win when we target the right cause, and fix it.

Time to ask yourself: whose side are you on? You either want to fix the problem, or you’re part of the problem.

You can trick yourself up in the ornamentation of pretense, and call us “neocons” for not talking about The Jewish Question or The Negro Question. You can get huffy and righteous that we dare intrude on the individualism of freedom and the Ron Paul economy that magically solves all problems.

But the fact is, you’re just putting layers of irrelevant stuff on top of the real question. We need to fix our errors, and restore health. Everything else is just chatter that benefits our opposition.


Sunday, December 11th, 2011

When you are discussing a touchy subject with libertarians or hard-line conservatives, and express a strong opinion they feel violates a conservative mantra, they retaliate with the dreaded N-word: neoconservative.

At the moment that dire word enters the discussion, your opponent will assume he has won the argument. Trying to explain why you are not one will get finger-waggling condescension. If you ask for a definition, you’ll get a short speech about George W. Bush and the military industrial complex.

Therein lies the problem: no consistent definition for the term exists.

The only people who attempt to define “neoconservative” are its self-styled opponents and their definitions diverge wildly. Many who apply the term to themselves are not sure what it means, and while they cannot tell why it is bad, they know they are called that an awful lot by bad people and it has something to do with liking America.

When someone uses the term “neoconservative,” he is alluding to the split within conservatism that occurs every generation. Some embrace the new and the others hold on to the old, or at least as much of it as they can envision could return some day.

As a result, when France was split after its revolution, a “right-wing” and “left-wing” were created. Among the right wing, there were the hardline monarchists and then the “new” right-wing, who accepted some of the liberal ideas that has just thrown the country into turmoil.

In the United States, with each conservative idea that becomes a focus of the liberal-friendly media and mass culture, another layer of conservatism is demonized. Each of these quickly becomes a point of division that will define what the next generation sees as conservative, versus what it defines as “neoconservative.”

The prefix neo after all means only “new.” The implication of it is that while there may be a more ideologically pure movement somewhere, there’s a new movement now, and that’s where the action is. Not surprising in that it is closer to the mainstream norm. Neoconservatives are conservatives who accept that liberalism is more popular, and thus speak in liberal terms, with liberal goals, and try to use those to justify conservative policies. As in, “We’re invading Iraq for democracy… and it just so happens to fulfill our foreign-policy objectives too. How about that.”

All anti-neocons seem to disagree on what exactly happened and what change took place. As a result, I have been called a neoconservative for, among other things, opposing the war of 1812, denying that the Israeli right controls American foreign policy, saying 9/11 may have been executed by Muhammadans, supporting sodomy laws, supporting tariffs (back when I did), opposing tariffs (now that I do) or denying that the federal reserve is some sort of private company.

Here are some of the more common definitions I deduced for “neoconservative” and the groups of people who spout them, though never offer a direct definition:

  • Paleoconservatives: This is a very incoherent group with a lot of different factions but for our purposes, we can divide them into Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. Neither represents the relevant founder.

    They share in common a belief in conspiracies, that wealth is too concentrated, that the state is too big, America is too adventurous abroad, and that conservatives once understood this but now do not because something happened to the movement.

    They tend to be religious and see Christianity as declining and that as bad. They also tend to be pro-white or race-neutral but blame all problems on a specific white ethnic group. It is easy to get them confused because both are silly.

    • Hamiltonians. The Hamiltonian sees the story like this: During and before the war between the states, both sides in all debates were good. After that war, the Republicans were the good guys.

      They understood a nation needs a small state but interventions to ensure industrialization (railroads, tariffs ext) and our foreign policy was designed to pursue the national interest although, some times, we would bungle it.Democrats in those days did not understand these things.

      In the 1960s, this group believes, the GOP became corrupted by special interests. It remains that way. They see no hope of compromise.

      They see neoconservatism not as an ideology to be combated but as a secret plot to be exposed. Exempt from the charge of “neocon” are only leftists and libertarians.

    • Jeffersonians. The Jeffersonian is even sillier. He sees the story as beginning in the American revolution. The embryo of the Neocon movement are the Torries then the federalists, then the Lincoln republicans, and now just about everyone but especially Republicans (the Democrats having long since been taken over by Communism).

      The idea is that there is a tiny elite of Anglo plutocrats. They manifest themselves in Victorian England. In anything English, in the high church, in Calvinism, in monarchy and most of all in greed and pretensions. Our revolution in 76 was both libertarian, equality and for suffrage and the three always go together somehow. White nationalists and Left-distributists are often extreme variants of this.

  • Democrats. To a Democrat, anyone further right than Che Guevara is probably a neoconservative, unless they’re helping out the Democratic party, at which point they are bipartisan liberals. Democrats come in two types.
    • Pragmatists. Your pragmatist Democrat is basically a moderate who is more interested in the political process than in political dogma. They are wily, of course, and still have their ideological roots, but they are willing to see these as open to compromise in favor of slow, steady change which over the course of generations helps people. These are well-intentioned, but most of them were abused as children.

      To them, the term “neoconservative” means a fellow moderate who has strong opinions on defense, social conservatism or economic conservatism. They love neoconservatives because when they run into these it’s let’s-make-a-deal time. Since both are moderates, it’s a matter of quid pro quo and suddenly a deal is made. Neither group believes in radical change, and both agree on the essentials of liberal democracy.

    • True believers. A true believer is someone whose allegiance to liberal dogma is greater than all other considerations. They are not interested in making deals; they are interested in sabotaging current political process until they can take control and make a liberal wonderland. To them, anyone to the right of Michael Moore is “far-right” or “extreme right,” and all Republicans are not only racists but closet monarchists.

      To a true believer, neoconservative is more of an insult than it is to paleoconservatives. To the true believer, a neoconservative is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a conservative fascist pretending to have common ground with the liberals. A chekist. They look forward to meeting neoconservatives so they can bash them with pro-Communist protest signs.

  • The Media.To our media, anyone to the right of Karl Marx is a Republican unless they are officially a Democrat, and anyone to the right of Jimmy Carter is a far-right extremist. Our media likes to use neconservative to label anyone who is of any political stripe and believes in a strong foreign policy or defense; the media sneer likes to imply that “war hawk”,”sociopath” and neoconservative overlap by no small margin.

You can see, perhaps, why we do not get far in American politics. No one agrees on what a neoconservative is, or even what a liberal or conservative is. Because politics is a spectrum, from wherever you are the definitions change. If you’re an anarchist, liberal Democrats are conservatives just like Republicans or The John Birch Society. If you’re a paleoconservative, everyone else is a liberal.

I have a suggestion or two for the people who want to use the term “neoconservative.” First, agree on a definition. Second, stop calling me one because I’m not left or right enough for you. If you do that, we might even be able to have a whole conversation without realizing we have no idea what the other is trying to communicate.


Thursday, December 8th, 2005


Vijay Prozak
PO Box 1004
Alief, TX 77411

The German Consulate General
1330 Post Oak Blvd. Suite 1850
Houston TX 77056

Dear Germany,

I am applying for political asylum to your country as a refugee from the United States of America. Ever since the malls invaded my country, I have been persecuted both politically and economically because my beliefs conflict radically with the idea that everything on earth should be for sale. America, as you know, has no native culture joined by language and ethnicity and values, and therefore, everything is for sale, and this is why the malls came: misguided fellow citizens invited them in by majority, because the idea of gaining wealth is so simple and persuasive it manipulates even good people. Once the malls came to power, first by popular election and then by sheer might, this reached a fever pitch.

As you know, people who have values outside of earning a living are the forgotten minority in America. Those who would do something because it is a good idea, for not only humans but earth and the sanity that comes with logical order, are persecuted through denial of positions in our economic system and of course. Truth is not marketable; popularity is. To be popular in the mall-society, you have to offend no one and promise gigantic absolute results for very simple and selfish actions. This is how the malls get to power, and if your values conflict with this idea, you’re not going to get the good jobs, the beautiful wives, or even a life free from people scorning you and trying to blacklist you.

The malls have an infinite number of collaborators who carefully note the names and addresses of dissidents and pass them along, warning others not to work with people who have such dangerous ideas. We who appreciate experience – like seeing a waterfall at twilight, or deer chasing each other through snowy peaks, or even the joy of great literature and music – are at odds with popular culture and its underlying idea, which is that we should all be “equal” in a sense of economic opportunity and thus free to pursue whatever selfishness we want, even if it’s destructive in the longer term and broader view. This kind of linear logic creates the kind of problems you see in America, like the sprawling cities and constant need for greater wealth to get the expedited services that are necessary, unless you want to rely on incompetent state services and the bureaucrats who act out their personal biases in their application. If you’re not with the malls, you’re no one, and dissidents like me have nowhere else to go.

While we’re chasing giant mountains of material possession we miss out on the experience of life, which is happening every moment that we still breathe. Can you sell an experience? You cannot, so you have to sell goods, and this requires being inoffensive, primarily by refusing to tell anyone that they can’t have it Their Way all the time. Who is going to give up a shot at stock options just because it will result in the clear-cutting of a forest, the dumping of toxic waste or destroying of culture? In fact, by standing for something other than popular culture and the idea of gaining “equality” by working nonstop for wealth, you’re already out of step. The malls and their allies whip themselves into a frenzy of being offended and persecute such dangerous revolutionaries, even if there was no revolutionary intent. In fact, those of us who value experiences and intangible things over material wealth see our belief as ancient and modern at once, something that will always be true, but the malls don’t see it that way.

America was once a verdant place where fairness, or at least as close as we could get, was the rule. The problem was that the malls put a fifth column amongst us, and did not tell us that their plan was to dominate our society, kill our best people and cover almost everything in concrete. They did not tell us they would take all of our land, put up roads and fences, and kill off all of our creatures and almost all of our forest. They didn’t say we would drive an hour to work every morning, eat food out of plastic, and think of Britney Spears and Cannibal Corpse as acceptable “culture.” The invasion crept right up on us, and now you cannot go anywhere without passing rows of colored lighted signs, parking lots, gas stations, fast food and convenience stores. The malls have utterly triumphed.

What is really scary is that the malls are pushing up toward an apocalypse, even if a slow one. They recruit from the lowest among us, promising them riches and wide-screen wall-size televisions, and so the poor misguided and misinformed join up and help tear down our world. Because their numbers grow daily, and each of them wants a car and a house and a fast food drive-thru (see, they’ve even changed our language) of their very own, the malls are pushing us to a point where there won’t be any wilderness, just endless miles of streets named after the trees that were once there. There is no stopping point, because to be fair to everyone, you have to let each one take as much wealth as he or she can, and the malls never criticize people for cutting down trees or dumping toxic waste in rivers because it’s cheaper than dealing with it.

I can’t go on anymore. Everywhere I turn, there is a mall guard watching over me from its lighted windows with slogans promising heaven in exchange for hell on earth. I cannot find a place to walk where there are no concrete paths, waterfountains and pay phones. Everything is either a mall or a “park,” which is like a captive wilderness Disneyland to remind us of what once was, so we can refresh ourselves before going shopping again. The malls have domesticated us, and now we live in cages called “cars” or “apartments,” awaiting the end that our common sense tells us will eventually come but of which we cannot speak in public, because people will become offended and turn on us.

Please help me by granting me asylum in your fair country. I estimate your country has another fifty years before the malls take over, thus asylum would give me liberty for most of my natural life. I would be indebted to you and promise not to breed with your women, as if I introduce mutt American blood into your heritage, I will be contributing to the adulteration of what is it to be German and thus giving the malls a chance to replace your culture. Furthermore, I promise to never eat fast food while in Germany. I hope you can consider my application fairly and deliver me from a state of persecution, for which I will be forever in your debt.

Vijay Prozak

In 2008, we have an election forthcoming which could determine a difference in our future. If we keep our partisan identities, the you-Democrat me-Republican egofest that prohibits us from ever seeing the actual issues much less finding anything other than a mutually dissatisfying compromise, we will determine nothing. However, when one realizes that the people in politics are not as brick-stupid as they appear, and that there are some natural needs and impulses behind their desires which cannot be compromised, it’s possible to look toward a new beginning.

We can take our values, but not the form in which they’ve lain dormant, and start a new chapter in American politics. Our old allegiances are rotted, because when we have only two “sides” and even they have become so similar as to be irrelevant, the choices are almost purely aesthetic. Democrats don’t know how to end the war in Iraq; Republicans had trouble figuring out how to start it. Neither side is going to implement any aggressive pro-environmental policy. Both sides want to naturalize more immigrants. Neither side has said anything about lessening the time spent commuting or dealing with bureaucracy so we can get back to family, friends, and spiritual growth.

In short, they’re actors, playing up to the largely ignorant audience which democracy creates by putting zero challenge into getting the vote. You sign up, show ’em you’re over 18 and live around the polling place, and you’re as equal as anyone else to the vote counters. They tell you what pleasant things can be had for minimal effort, and then rapidly spin the conversation into big ideals like “freedom” and “opportunity” that ultimately have zero effect on you and usually take away a little of both. They will divide you up into token special-interest groups – Christians, gays, video gamers, minorities – and then play you off one another. Their speeches say they want lots of good things for little of our effort; the reality is that they want power, with a lot of our effort, and they don’t give a damn at all how things turn out.

The good thing about this sickening process is that like most scams, its enemy is time. Fool me once, the saying goes, shame on you. But fool me again? Shame on me. The subtlest scams take years to be recognized, but like a virus, that recognition spreads as rapidly as it took long for initial notice to be taken. Such is the case in America, where increasingly our voters are realizing:

  • Our politicians are actors who speak essentially the same message, with zero intent of fixing our actual problems, as the truth of how to fix those problems is politically unpopular.
  • There is no longer any real agreement about values or future in our country, thus we are doomed to an endless series of compromises that will tie us up in infighting until the Chinese destroy us. There are no answers, any more.

This coming election season – and you’ve got three (3/tres) years to prepare – think about undoing the situation we’re in, instead of trying to carve up power between two sides who really don’t have any interest or profit in changing the way things work around here. Thanks to our democracy, you’ll be voting against millions of morons, but they tend to back down whenever a clear idea presents itself or, conveniently, try to make it taboo. If the smart people put their weight behind a better idea, they can stand out from the horde and present an actual solution, which even many morons will find hard to resist. The rest of this article details how some of our political parties could change themselves to get ready for the future.


The problem with environmentalists is that there are two types: ecoterrorists, who understand the problem accurately but have ineffective methods, and ecoliberals, who fail to understand the problem and have ineffective but politically acceptable methods. The former want to blow up SUVs, and the latter think that if we all purchase hybrid cars, use low-power toasters and blow our noses on recyclable muslin somehow it’ll all work out just fine. Clearly the former are the more realistic of the group, in terms of action, while the latter are mostly there to hear themselves talk. Yet neither has grasped the duality of the problem.

The crisis of environmentalism is that (1) it must recognize the actual factor of our environmental disaster, instead of pointing to dripping faucets and luxury sedans; and (2) that it must find a solution that incorporates the whole of our socioeconomic system, instead of suggesting extremist revolution or ineffective strategies like unplugging appliances at night, as the ecoterrorists and ecoliberals do, respectively. (1) requires that it face a truth that neither division wants to talk about, and (2) requires that it cease being a political flavor and instead becomes a comprehensive political platform.

Ecoliberals are the biggest impediment here, because they will not want to recognize the truth. These are ineffective people who want to make some token changes, buy organic free trade coffee and otherwise do nothing to address the problem; their solutions are ludicrous, from hunting down drippy faucets to using low-energy bulbs, and if everyone on earth did exactly as they suggest, the overall impact would be negligible. I call these people ecoliberals because they are basically Democrats with an environmentalist flavor, and by occupying the position of “environmentalist,” they block out any significant discussion of it. Ecoterrorists are more developed but by their extremist nature are essentially a protest movement that will not gain large numbers among the general population.

What ecoliberals are afraid to face, and even ecoterrorists shirk from discussing, is that to mention the real issue behind our environmental problem is a taboo, because it says that all of us cannot have it all, cannot have it our way, and in fact, some will have to make large sacrifices. What is at stake here is ecocide, or a smashing of the delicate balance of species and weather conditions and nutrients and transfer of energy gleaned from sunlight that is our global ecosystem. Destroy it, and lots of things we come to see as just part of the scenery suddenly will not be there, or will be in such weakened forms as to be useless. Global warming is a smokescreen, in that some degree of it was natural, and that its consequences are far secondary to those of land overuse, depletion of natural populations, and of course pollution. Global warming will change our climate, and we’re not sure we can blame industry for it, so let’s set that aside – ecocide will destroy life as we know it, and it is a clear end result of all of us going out and having houses and cars and kids who each do the same.

Humanity grows exponentially, even if some populations (Europe, American Europeans) have stabilized their populations at roughly 1.8 children per family, below replacement rate. Overpopulation is our great enemy. It does not make sense to back away from the innovations that modern society offers us, but we cannot give that lifestyle to anyone, nor can we continue to give it to future generations. A few hundred million people living first-world lifestyles will not present a problem, but seven billion, soon to be nine billion, will deplete our land and leave our earth a polluted wreck. Why do we keep breeding recklessly? Our manufacturers and services need new markets, and new labor to work old scams, so any time someone speaks up about overpopulation, a chorus screams about human rights, but what they’re really talking about is stock prices, specifically for stock they own.

Greens have to get over this taboo. People respect honesty. Say up front that we have to limit our population, in part by allowing AIDS and H5N1 to do their work, and in part by not giving foreign aid to anyone no matter how cute their starving kids are. Is it inhumane? — maybe. More inhumane than dooming all of us to death along with our ecosystem? — definitely not. For that reason it should be supported, yet Greens refuse to mention it, fearing they’ll be seen as extremists. Instead they’re seen as people ducking the real problem, who in lieu of an actual plan come up with unrealistic “solutions,” just like the other groups of politicized liars we’re all learning to distrust.

By emphasizing green solutions that complement business, Greens can demonstrate how there will not be a loss of jobs or of lifestyle so long as we take care of the essentials, namely preventing further development, population growth, or unfiltered pollution. Even if the only statement the Green party has is that it will tax businesses 50% with wide deductions for environmental spending, they stand a better chance of election than they do now, because most people see them as both ineffective and poised toward radicalism. In the 2004 election, the Greens committed suicide because they were afraid that John Kerry would not win if the Greens ran a successful candidate. They not only lost that election, but would have done so for a man with zero interest in effective green legislation. Perhaps the ecoliberals have taken over, since the ecoterrorists are already hiding in tents outside SUV dealerships and new suburbs?


A party with even less of a clue is the GOP and its conservative allies. Still in shock from the effect the counterculture had on Baby Boomer voting patterns, the conservatives have relied on finding whole voting blocs they can transform into allies. In 2004, it was the radical evangelist Christians and big business, whereas in 2008 they’re planning to seduce minorities and gun owners. This is a mistake as instead they could have the largest section of voters in America.

Most people, even if of fairly liberal views, are generally open to conservative politicians because they recognize the stability of conservatism, and the importance of traditional values. Both are attributes needed for a smoothly functioning society. The average hard-working, sensible person will vote conservative unless driven away from it by conservative parties doing the exact opposite – such as appealing to religious nutcases, Israel, illegal aliens and the like. The GOP and Republicans are about to cut their own throats through a series of ill-advised ventures into trying to capture bizarro voting blocs when they would be best served by simply capturing the biggest bloc of all, which is the sensible average people who make up the middle class and small business owners in America.

Your average person might be a gun owner, but also might not be; they may or may not be Christian, but are too pragmatic to get all wishy-washy about some evangelical mission to save the world by hastening the final apocalypse and thus shortening the time until we’re all in the arms of Jesus (note to Europeans: apparently, many Americans including most of our new Hispanic population believe this). The motto of a sensible conservative party would be: do not cater to special interests; provide for traditional values! There is no way to group into a handy package the average hardworking sensible folk out there, because they don’t go in for special interests. They go in for stability that gives a nudge to traditional values because this is how people raise their kids if they want their kids to go far. Traditional values like hard work, respecting your culture and elders, heroism and thinking for the long term (chastity, respect for nature, sobriety) are how you live if you want to be successful in any genre.

Conservatives have almost entirely abandoned these people in their pursuit of the special voting blocs. This is a dire mistake, and explains in part why liberals triumph over the beady-eyed nutcases like Bob Dole. Average people want stability, not power hungry and not mystically included toward group suicide. They’ve waken up having seen George W. run into Washington, slot his cronies into power and then start a series of disastrous long-term wars. They want people who put the citizens first, before spacy issues that are done for symbolic allegiance to voting blocks, but in fact endanger, impede and marginalize the responsible, hard-working people of traditional values among us. The conservatives are no longer a traditional values party. Either they change that, or they will perish, because they will not be able to out-populist the liberals.


A trend that would worry the Democrats, were they savvy enough to have a consciousness between elections, is a worldwide slippage of Democratic parties that has been going on for many years. The reason is simple: if you promise better societies through the revolutionary logic of liberalism, you’d better deliver. Clinton was popular in the USA mainly because his civil rights program promised to reduce ethnic tensions. It didn’t, and many believe, especially after Hurricane Katrina, that nothing will (they’re right). FDR was popular because his liberal programs promised jobs for those destroyed by rampant speculation and the inevitable recession that followed. Liberals who address a real need and have a real plan can be quite successful; however, Democratic parties worldwide have been coasting on the same rhetoric of empowerment, subsidy and pluralism for a long time, and the results are increasingly not impressive. In fact, liberal parties have not only failed to change many of the problems they identify, but have made them worse.

Part of this is the fundamental schizophrenia of Democratic parties. As liberals preaching revolutionary rhetoric dolled up as common sense, they have to either deliver a revolution or dilute their message to fit into the normal transactions of everyday life. Most people fear the revolutions, remembering how in France and in Russia leftist revolt led to a slaughter of, among the privileged, many of the nation’s smartest and best people, effectively ending its long-term prospects as a world power. America’s revolution was fortunate because, although liberal in appearance, it was in fact conservative, being a land-grab by local landowners who recognized that living as a colony was not only bad for business but would prevent the development of traditional values in their new nation. Ever since that time, the phrase “leftist revolution” (or class war, or race war) conjures up images of intellectuals bending over trenches, waiting for proletarian bullets. Veering away from that extreme, Democrats become milktoast conservatives who believe in pacification while preaching grand ideals, and the increasing visibility of the failure of those grand ideals to either manifest themselves or fix problems has voters wary.

If liberals want to really triumph in 2008, they should grab ahold of one of the best ideas that came out of liberal think tanks: localization. Instead of advocating, like their conservative brethren, that we all join together and do things about the big issues, they should encourage a fragmentation of government so different localities can have different standards and manage themselves. After all, not everyone is going to be a liberal, and liberals either have to dominate those people and reveal themselves as revolutionaries, or compromise with them and raise suggestions that Democrats are Republicans on estrogen. If Democrats were to come to the election promising that communities like Alief, TX would be freed from levels of red tape so it could rule itself, they’d gain the vote of many conservatives.

The grand secret of conservatives, and most successful liberals, is that people are not the same. Please don’t turn this into a racial issue – whether or not that applies, it’s not what I’m speaking of here. I refer simply to the difference between communities and people within them. If Alief, TX wants to remain a semi-rural community, and put into place its own conservative rules, no harm is really done to those surrounding, and it can become a magnet for people who think the same way. This leaves other communities to do as they will, even if it is radically incompatible with Alief; local communities have to collaborate on a handful of issues and otherwise can be fully independent of one another. Did we really expect that the same rules that apply in Brooklyn, NY would apply in Alief, TX? Of course not. Agree to disagree, and move on.

Liberals have spent too long behind their class-war, racial-equality, women’s empowerment type of issue. Such things are, with the exception of a vocal few who almost never have succeeded in anything or even held day jobs recently, entirely inconsequential to most people, even though you can brainwash them into thinking such things are important for their younger years. Most normal, non-neurotic people want a fair shot at a decent working wage and safe places to raise their families. They don’t necessarily care if they are universally “empowered” or “equal” so long as they can have a job and a place within a community. Not everyone wants to live in New York or Dallas, and if they have a decent life, they care more about that then political equality or other token symbols that ultimately have little effect on their fortunes. Most of the people in the ghetto are there because they don’t have their act together at all – more rules and subsidies won’t change that. Change must come from within.

Finally, Democrats should do more than lip service for the environmental issue. Kyoto is great, but wider change is needed. Just as with the greens, Democrats should not be apologetic about this stance so long as they provide for a smooth transition to this state; radical change without a backing plan for keeping people in jobs results in failure every time. More people than ever before are aware of this issue and will support those who have practical means for implementing it, including a foreign policy that for the first time since WWII does not encourage growth in developing nations or anywhere else in the world. Just as Republicans should back down from some of their nutty foreign policy ideas, Democrats must too, if they want want to survive as a political entity.


For the first time in a long time, in 2008 America will most probably have either a Nationalist or extreme Conservative candidate running for office. Why? — well, while the Democrats and Republicans have been duking it out for many years, out of sight of the figures we maintain on such topics our quality of life has been slipping. Crime may be down, incrementally, but most of us still live in constant fear of our violent cities. Racial antagonism may be tempered, this year, but it’s still high with no sign of abaiting or sensible solution offered. Further, traditional values have never earned anyone a vast profit, so there is a constant assault from industry and entertainment on the values by which conservatives live and which they want to teach their kids. This results in more good stable families getting the call that their offspring, being taught that open-mindedness is the path to heaven, tried drugs and lost that battle of roulette or got murdered in a city alley. They’re sick of it. They want a 1920s America back, a place that knows its own culture and isn’t afraid to tell some people NO so that the rest of us can live according to what traditionalists see as sensible values.

(Nationalists should note: while part of nationalism is the knowledge that each organic nation is a group joined by heritage, culture and language, it is imperative that you not translate this into bigotry, because bigotry removes the onus from yourselves to fix your own nation. The nations I know of at this point have rotted from within, glutted on fiscal luxury and technological opulence and drama of the individual, and that must be fixed, or all the separation in the world cannot save you. I can tell which nationalist groups are going to succeed by how quickly I cannot find racial data, crime stats, etc. on their web sites! Loving your own race doesn’t translate into hating others; it translates into separating from them, which precludes a lot of hateful, bigoted, linear, one-dimensional politics.)

Nationalists are also, among the major political persuasions, the only ones to adopt a sensible attitude toward ethnicity, which is that if each ethnicity wants to keep itself healthy it will separate from all others and agitate for autonomy including self-rule. Your standard neo-Nazi is saying nothing different from what your average Rabbi or Nation of Islam bootboy says: we need to rule ourselves so we don’t get assimilated. As America invites in people from all over the world, often under the guise of helping them out, those who make up the traditional backbone of America are agitating for the defense of their own way of life, and Nationalists provide the only workable plan, which is separation and self-rule. Is this unpopular? Well, everyone’s been taught to call them “racists,” but it’s not really racism. It’s more like… Nationalism. Ethnic-cultural self rule. And in countries of European descent worldwide, it’s gaining in popularity, especially with those who now that they’re past 30 are forced to consider practical solutions instead of emotionally goodfeeling ones.


We have a chance in this election. The Bush conservatives, or neo-conservatives, have shot their wad. The public is equally sick of mincing liars like John Kerry and his rich man condescension to the poor and minorities. This dissatisfaction isn’t unreasonable; in the fifty years since WWII, conservatives have lobbied for more enforcement and war and liberals have lobbied for more internal dissent and class war, and together, they’ve taken a prosperous nation and turned it into a conflicted, neurotic, pointless existence. The solution to this dilemma is to divide up, rather than try to find a single rule for disparate folks, and let nature judge the outcome of each possible way of approaching the question of survival. Conservatives and liberals cannot be reconciled. However, if each group drifts more closely toward its core principles, we can see where the nation must separate and thus let each group enjoy its own preferred mode of existence. Not only is that the only true form of tolerance we will find, but it’s the only possible future for a nation that no longer agrees on even the most basic values.

Recommended Reading