Posts Tagged ‘populism’

Virginia Elections Prove That Populism Is The Future

Wednesday, November 8th, 2017

A Republican lost an election in Virginia and already the media, essentially the propaganda arm of the Left, is telling us how Democrats are “back” and Republicans are doomed.

As usual, it is best to ignore the neurotics.

The real lesson that we can take from this election and others around it is that Republicans who fail to embrace the Trump/Farage/Petry style populist agenda are doomed because their base will come out and vote for a cuck. They realize that the Left is doom for this country, Western Civilization and themselves, so they will not keep electing do-nothings, as the Republicans proved to be — with a slight exception for Ronald Reagan — for the past century.

Looking into the supposed carnage, we see the message that Republican and moderate voters are sending to the GOP, who still hopes to retain its job as house Negro for the Democrats. The GOP bureaucrats just want to keep the bucks flowing without having to tackle difficult issues, which are never popular because when you take on difficult issues, you can actually lose, where with do-nothing issues, the result is the same whether you fail or succeed, and you have better job security.

In the Virginia gubernatorial race, Republican Ed Gillespie tried to have it both ways — with disastrous consequences. Gillespie, who privately agonized about the degree to which Trump should be involved in the contest, refused to campaign with the president. But at the same time, he trumpeted Trump’s culture war issues in ads.

White House advisers spent Wednesday combing through the election results and fuming about Gillespie’s have-it-both-ways approach. By keeping Trump at arm’s length, they said, Gillespie squandered an opportunity to motivate conservatives whose support he needed.

“He wouldn’t embrace the president, so the base that came out to vote for the president and that voted for me, didn’t come out,” said Prince William County Board of Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart, a Trump campaign official who nearly defeated Gillespie in the June GOP primary.

Instead of a victory for the Left, this shows their future defeat, but we will have to wait a little while: the cucks and bureaucrats are being replaced by action candidates like Trump, Farage or Petry. More accurately, if the GOP fails to run a populist candidate, it will be replaced, and so natural selection is going to weed out the cucks.

You can tell that this is true because the GOP “experts” — the ones who make their money on nothing getting changed — are telling us exactly the same thing that the Leftist press is. Hint: if it agrees with Pravda, it is probably KGB. We are at that level of civilization decline in America now, in that our “deep state” is really a vast Communist gang that has taken over government from within with the help of its fellow travelers in academia, media and (mostly dot-com) industry.

For us, the best thing to do now is the exact opposite of what the “experts” and media shills tell us to do. The Right needs to double down on its core ideas because those ideas reflect the changes in the world that have occurred with the failure of globalism, which is taking down the Left, liberal democracy and ideology-as-an-alternative-to-realism across the world.

Gillespie made his bed by waffling like Mitt Romney or John McCain, and voters rejected him, which let the Left take the lead. Future elections will either by lost by the Right in going with the old “deep state friendly” GOP agenda, or won by their replacements, who will take the Republican platform to where it should have been for the past century.

Judge Roy Moore Shatters The Cuck Line in Alabama

Thursday, September 28th, 2017

Steve Bannon tells us what was won last night when Judge Roy Moore mounted up and rode to victory.

“You’re going to see in state, after state, after state, people that follow the model of Judge Moore – that do not need to raise money from the elites, from the crony capitalists, from the fat cats in Washington, DC.,” said Bannon at Moore’s victory party. The race, he said, centered on the question of “who was sovereign — the people or the money — and Alabama answered today, the people.”

What made Bannon so happy? Big Luther getting cut down to size in the Alabama GOP Senate Primary.

Republican challenger Roy Moore defeated Sen. Luther Strange in Alabama’s Senate primary Tuesday night, riding a wave of rural support over the incumbent backed by President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Moore, a former state Supreme Court justice, had 55 percent of the vote to Strange’s 45 percent with 95 percent of precincts reporting. Strange, who was appointed to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ old seat earlier this year, is the first senator to lose a primary since Indiana Republican Richard Lugar was defeated in 2012.

“So what?” Asks the skeptic. Politician A beats Politician B and we get the empty suits that we get told to vote for. Well, not so much here. We in Alabama are getting the guy literally everyone from Donald Trump on down to Donald Duck told us was too radical, too scary, too Rightist to win.

But Strange never led a single public poll against Moore since finishing behind Moore in the August primary and qualifying for the runoff. Moore had been elected statewide twice and built up a committed conservative following during stints on the state Supreme Court, where he defied federal orders on same-sex marriage and the display of a statue of the Ten Commandments and racked up a history of controversial comments on race and religion. Strange leaned on Trump’s endorsement to try and overcome Moore’s popularity among Republicans. While the McConnell-aligned super PAC Senate Leadership Fund slashed at Moore, Strange cited Trump at every chance, especially in a debate the week before the primary runoff. Trump touted Strange on Twitter in addition to appearing with him in Huntsville on Friday.

A Right-wing wave is rising over the “whatever is popular is true” notion that has ruled America since the 1930s. Now all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put the Cuckwads together again. In Missisippi, Chris McDaniel straps on the armor to take on Roger Wicker. In Tennessee, Senator Bob Corker has decided that the Cuck-Jib is up. He can safely pocket his loot from selling nuclear weapons to Iran and go home unconcerned about his failure to honor his promise to repeal ObamaCare. In Arizona, Kelly Ward plans to take out Globalist Republican Jeff Flake. In Nevada, Danny Tarkanian plans to take down incumbant Senator Dean Heller. That’s six seperate incumbent Republican Senators who support Mitch McConnell and who frequently attempt to knife President Trump in the back.

These Republican Senators who tremble in fear are creatures of the swamp Donald Trump promised to drain. Obamacare would no longer exist if these Senators cared why the people voted them into office. Judge Roy Moore has put the fear of God into the GOP. The GOP wing of the Moldbuggian Cathedral can no longer claim to be “the right side of history.” Mitch McConnell’s money cannot buy them immunity from voter rejection. They are out of excuses. They are running out of time. The populist Right-wing wave is coming.

Should The Real Right Remain Underground?

Thursday, June 29th, 2017

Nick Land over at Outside In cited a tweet by Pax Dickinson about the nature of anonymity in reality-based movements like the Alt Right. He says:

Being non-anonymous in the Right counterculture in 2017 selects for lunatics and charlatans. Our best potential leaders are still anonymous.

Like all broad statements, this one takes some time to think over, especially in the wake of the current drama of Counter-Currents versus AltRight.

In my experience, being an outsider movement invites lunatics and charlatans as leaders, no doubt, but more importantly, as supporters. The audience selects its leader in any system where the leader depends on popularity to survive, and since politics is both a social popularity contest and a type of marketing/advertising adventure that sells a product, those who succeed will be those who find the largest audience, not those who are the most accurate in describing the situation and how to respond to it.

That is the fundamental tension on the Alt Right, as everywhere else in humanity: what is right (or more right) versus what is popular.

If we were to diagram Western Culture over the past thousand years, we would see a steady loss of what is right to what is popular. It started with the mercantile bourgeois middle class, undoubtedly, but then expanded into full-on prole revolt as the carnies, baristas and housemaids took up the same ideology that the educated college students did.

Dickinson has a point in that honesty is still taboo. You cannot expect people to publicly tolerate you if you say, for example, that we need to deport everyone who is not a Western European, and then thoroughly purge the remaining group to avoid degeneracy. It is not sociable to tell black people and Asians you want to ship them home, or to point out that the Irish, Italians and Slavs wrecked American politics by being diversity of a white kind.

Nope, what wins is what sells, and what sells is what people already want to believe. They want to believe that everyone can be included, and if they go “racialist,” this means they want to include anyone with a semi-plausible claim on being “white,” which they interpret as skin color and not heritage (so Derek Jeter, Martin Gore and Pete Wentz are welcome).

Humanity is a closed-circuit self-confirming bias machine. We get a notion in our heads, and then see tunnel vision until we can select enough data to fit the theory (instead of selecting a theory to fit the data) at which point we project our notions back onto the world and assume that we are correct because other people agree with us.

The Alt Lite is entirely comprised of people in the grips of this process. They want to believe that “normal” life can carry on, if we — as the clickbait headlines have it — just do this One Thing! For the Alt Lite, the one thing is cultural libertarianism. For the white nationalists, it is racism. For the Communists, it is wealth redistribution. For the Christians, it is come to Jesus and work even harder at your pointless job.

All of these are wrong.

All are obviously wrong, but you should be suspicious when you see how popular they are.

All are wrong both at the broadest level, mainstream politics, and the narrowest, underground politics.

People are the same in both groups. They pursue what is convenient for their minds, even if inconvenient for their bodies. Whatever makes them feel mentally comfortable about the world and their place in it, they turn into a religion, which is really what an ideology is. Ideology is the idea that “we should” do something a certain way, and then everything will turn out Just Fine in the best of the bourgeois reality-denial tradition.

In this way, we can see that the problem is people pandering to the audience, in addition to the question of anonymity. (Some of) the best writers choose to stay anonymous because they do not have to please any audience. That way, they can write what they see as true and not care if it is popular or not. They also do not face having their lives destroyed by a vengeful Crowd triggered by their words.

But on a larger level, the Alt Right is dividing. On one side are the mass culture people who rely on stuff like 4chan and for their opinions. They want something that is emotionally satisfying. On the other side are the people concerned with real-world solutions. They are more likely to read The Wall Street Journal and RealClearPolitics than 4chan or Reddit, and they want ideas that are consistent with history which offer solutions to us.

This is the group I have pioneered since the early 1990s. My idea was to apply realistic theory, like de Tocqueville, Huntington, Nietzsche and Wolfe to the ideas of the Right. This has continually been thwarted by people who offer non-solutions that seem interesting to a large group of people who are merely projecting. My previous sites like American Nihilist, CORRUPT and the LNSG took these positions.

Now it seems the Right is catching up, both mainstream and underground. Ann Coulter is talking about ethnic homogeneity; the Alt Right is discussing the possibilities of monarchy. These are interesting times we live in!

The actual movement that we are part of is bigger than the Alt Right or mainstream Right. We are part of the worldwide cultural wave that wants to replace the Enlightenment™-derived order with a realistic or consequentialist one. We realize that in the hands of the herd, every human endeavor gets dumbed down and destroyed, so we want “out” of the herd game.

This joins together many people. The teenage goths at the mall. The disaffected academics and writers. The everyday Joe who realizes that Amerika ain’t America anymore. Benjamin Netanyahu realizes that he better kicks the Palestinians out, or they’ll outbreed the Israeli Jews and take over. Dave and Susan in the cul-de-sac who just want to live in a nice place with nice people like them. We all see the fail.

Hunter Wallace shows us the nature of this organic cultural wave against the philosophy behind modernity:

I think our online counter-culture will grow to a critical mass and it will start spilling out into the real world. As we are already seeing, the ability of Antifas to engage in “no-platforming” through violent confrontations is rapidly being neutralized. Once the threat of physical force is eliminated, we will be able to “platform” and start organizing our disaffected supporters in any region we want, even in bastions of the Left like Berkeley, CA and Washington, DC. The inherent weaknesses of online culture will be washed away by more natural bonds as this scene shifts into the real world.

The “mainstream” political system is unresponsive to our needs. It doesn’t matter who we vote for these days. We seem to get the same policies. That doesn’t mean it is completely useless. Every troll has the power to vote and can wreck “mainstream” primaries and general elections. We can vote for outlandish candidates in order to disrupt “mainstream” culture and weaken the dominant taboos. This is what we did with Trump who in spite of all his failings still managed to inflict great damage on our enemies.

I think the most enjoyable activity is creating families through this alternative culture – matching men with women who share the same ideas, watching them get married and have children. I’ve seen it happen many times now. I’m already watching our children get older. I enjoy building our network across the South and connecting people who share our values and ideas in their local area. In doing so, I am consciously weakening their ties the “mainstream” and reorienting their lives toward our culture.

For those of us in the West, our version of the order is Western European, and with the fall of Europe there is no stronger signal of this than the American South, a WASP-driven, highly Nordic-Germanic style of hierarchical society which had a caste system, its own aristocracy, and a strong culture with distinctive language, customs, values, cuisine and practices of worship.

What will never protect and nurture this — as all culture needs — is democracy, consumerism, and other forms of rule-by-popularity (“demotism”). People in groups make terrible decisions, even if the group is intelligent. Mass culture will only produce horrors. Whatever is popular, is wrong.

The Alt Right, despite being called “populism,” is a revolt against this. We want an end to modernity. We want to go back to natural living, with a natural order and an organic society — arising from people born together, with similar values and abilities — with a natural order that makes consistency of both our spirits and the biological, material world around us.

The risk to us is that we will become assimilated by Leftism through backdoor entry, namely that what is popular today will lead to the idea that “we are all equal” tomorrow, and then we are right back where we started. The Alt Lite is Leftist entryism, but so are elements of the underground Right that insist we are all equal just because we are white-skinned.

If we are going to save ourselves from that fate, it will occur by creating a hierarchy where we have the best and brightest — the opposite of “most popular” — making the decisions and the rest joining in support of them.

Right now, some of our best leaders are anonymous because they realize that public spectacle will always be corrupted by the public and made into the same thing, which starts out looking libertarian but ends up being like the Soviet Union. With Leftism, as with immigration, zero is the number. Any intrusion of the Other leads to our corruption.

And so we see a future for the Alt Right. We are the people who are disconnecting from the herd, and setting up an order which is against the idea of the herd being right at all. We realize that 1789-2016 was the era of liberal democracy and Leftism, and that is has now ended. We see that our people are balkanized. And yet, we are the people building tomorrow from the ashes of today.

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.

Democracy Always Converges On The Same Mediocrity

Saturday, May 6th, 2017

With any luck and bravery by the French people, we will be celebrating a different victory than predicted by polls — which do not reflect the socially unacceptable opinions of voters who cannot openly speak what they think — and Marine Le Pen will become the next president of France, continuing the “populist” wave of reactionary nationalist/traditionalist thought into the home of modern democracy.

The talking heads predict otherwise:

The National Front’s Le Pen would close borders and quit the euro currency, while independent Macron, who has never held elected office, wants closer European cooperation and an open economy. The candidates of France’s two mainstream parties were both eliminated in the first round on April 23.

Four new polls showed Macron on track to win 62 percent of the votes in the second round compared to 38 percent for Le Pen, his best score in a voting survey by a major polling organisation since nine other candidates were eliminated in the first round on April 23. A fifth poll showed him on 61.5 percent.

Certainly, conventional wisdom is on their side because of two forces: the Establishment, and the tendency by voters to enact compromise in order to avoid risk. Voters and institutions both suffer from an inertial fallacy, which holds that if what has been working badly has not yet exploded like Communism or National Socialism, the safest bet is to keep voting for it and try to fix the details later.

Of course, like the conservative pacifier of “patriotism, religion and working hard,” the bovine complacency of an inertial vote has not worked at any time in history. Since the Establishment is not rebuked, it takes that as a mandate to double-down on its power and further marginalize its opposition while locking people further into a web of laws, rules, debts, obligations and ideological dogmas.

In fact, we can see how the Establishment controls the outcome of elections in advance through controlling the narrative, relying on the fear of the average person to “step out of line” to keep them voting in an inertial arc:

The French media and public have been warned not to spread details about a hacking attack on presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron.

Strict election rules are now in place and breaching them could bring criminal charges, the election commission said.

A trove of documents – said to mix genuine files with fake ones – was released online shortly before campaigning ended on Friday.

Notice the anonymous assertion that there are “fake files” in with the “genuine ones,” which seems like it affirms the validity of the leak but by asserting that some files are fake without identifying them, casts doubt as to the veracity of any given item.

We can tell that the modern West has been dominated by the stupefactive for many centuries because it replicates fundamental aspects of the failed democracies in ancient Athens and Rome. All democracies end the same way: government becomes the target of all actions, instead of results in reality, so the society simultaneously spaces out and works itself to death for nonsense objectives.

The failure of the French Revolution, which ended in Napoleon, and the Soviet Union, which produced Stalin, follow an identical arc. We might call this “the Napoleonic Arc” because it starts with a revolution against perceived oppression, escalates to actual oppression of a far greater degree, and then ends with fanatical ideological warfare in order to keep the failing nation together.

As part of this arc, government perpetually consolidates its power so that it can keep society together despite the increasing chaos of its population caused by policies of that government. Leftism is popular, but it does not work, even if it takes centuries to see just how bad the problem will become.

Any time humans create a false target like ideology, an elite is produced. These succeed not just in politics, but in the consumer market, because they have adapted to creating products for those who think according to the ideology. Fast food starves in a healthy society, but in one afflicted by ideology, it succeeds because it is more efficient for those living according to that ideology.

This political-financial elite then takes over control of society, aided by government, and dispossesses those who are sane enough to want a normal life instead of craving power and wealth for their own sake. This divides the society into its nu-elites and its remnant of realists:

At the same time, Fukuyama argues that class divisions are primary and come before all other sources of identity. To be sure, Fukuyama is not Marxist. In an essay last year in the Financial Times, Fukuyama writes,” Social class, defined today by one’s level of education, appears to have become the single most important social fracture in countless industrialized and emerging market countries.”

Class, which is the education level, determines the way people think about politics, according to Fukuyama. He imagines that it is the poorly educated who have not done well economically who have become passionately anti-elitist. He recognizes that they do not see themselves in economic terms, but rather racial, ethnicity or nationality terms.

The people in the cities define themselves in economic terms and see themselves as an upper class, even though most of them have come from lower castes. Everyone else defines themselves in terms outside of the terms of this new elite, and focuses on things that have maintained civilization for time immemorial: identity, spirituality, culture, nature and position in community.

In other words, it is the artificial versus the real. The nu-elites are the product of government and ideology; the remnant are the functional people who do not need the nu-elites.

This leads to a radical backlash called “reaction”:

Reactionary thought begins, usually, with acute despair at the present moment and a memory of a previous golden age. It then posits a moment in the past when everything went to hell and proposes to turn things back to what they once were. It is not simply a conservative preference for things as they are, with a few nudges back, but a passionate loathing of the status quo and a desire to return to the past in one emotionally cathartic revolt. If conservatives are pessimistic, reactionaries are apocalyptic. If conservatives value elites, reactionaries seethe with contempt for them. If conservatives believe in institutions, reactionaries want to blow them up. If conservatives tend to resist too radical a change, reactionaries want a revolution.

It is simpler than this journalist makes it out to be: reactionaries are conservatives who refuse to constrain their desires to what “seems possible” in the status quo. They realize there is one ideal state for humanity, and it more resembles something out of The Lord Of The Rings than Brave New World. The $current_year does not matter; one order works, and everything else decays.

This is the environment in which we find ourselves now. Democracy is the political capture of society by ideology; the remnant are realists who want no part of ideology, and focus instead on what has worked through history to produce the best human society, or a Golden Age.

Now that more people have seen what Leftism looks like in practice, since Barack Obama and Angela Merkel took it to its logical extreme, the reactionary movement is gaining force. We realize we do not need our nu-elites, and that we are better off without the political system that put them in power, because it is a crooked game that will produce the same results every time.

Populism Needs To Find A Platform

Tuesday, April 25th, 2017

The National Review has disgraced itself over the past decade, most notably by firing John Derbyshire and recently by endorsing Emmanuel Macron over Marine Le Pen, but sometimes it touches on interesting issues.

Peter Spiliakos explores the lack of an identifiable platform for populism and how this makes the Right weak and disunified:

It is a little different on the right. One economics, you have what might be called “degenerate Kempism.” It is a combination of tax cuts for high-earners, cuts to entitlements spending, and increased low-skill immigration. On the other side, you have people who think of themselves as being on the right but who reject some or all of that.

The great advantage of degenerate Kempism is that most of the political talent, social capital, and money is on the side of this agenda – the money being the least important of the three factors. It is the default of the GOP lobbyists, donors, and most of the center-right politicians who came up through business or the professions.

It is difficult to see the common ground between the more elite degenerate Kempists (and I’m not helping with the labeling) and the populists. The degenerate Kempists want what they want. They are willing to make temporary retreats but will push on any door to cut any tax on the job creators, to cut domestic spending, and to answer the call of the affluent for cheaper low-skill labor. The populists have only the vaguest idea of what they want, and some of that is contradictory.

The Right has always been a “big tent” that includes all of those who resist the creeping infiltration of Leftism into every area of our society. The most honest Right are the monarchists, who think equality is insane and modernity is a horror. But now the big tent is working against the Right.

Populism is best defined as defense of the organic nation — the people, the culture, the ideas, the religion — against the formalized structures of egalitarian, bureaucratic government and its collusion with industry.

This idea overlaps somewhat with the notion of ending entitlement spending and cutting taxes to shrink government, but is incompatible with one issue that the Kempists endorse: immigration. Populists realize that immigration is ethnic replacement of the founding population, a form of soft totalitarian genocide.

If the Right has a future, it is in giving the “fiscal conservatives” some of what they want through sabotaging the tax base and entitlement programs, but also recognizing that diversity has failed because diversity can never work. Paradoxical policies always collapse.

Even more, the Right has a new lease on life through its anti-Establishment position. People dislike incompetent and manipulative authority, and they are seeing that the Left prefers strong authority in order to gain complete control so that it can advance its ideology as the One Way for our future. The Old Establishment tried to resist that and was destroyed, and the New Establishment is far worse than they were.

We do not have to live as slaves to a runaway ideological death spiral. Instead, we can simply speak up and oppose it: Leftism does not work, and government inevitably drifts Leftward, so it is time to physically remove government as much as possible, and replace it with culture, charity, private industry and the good people among us who have always done the best thing without needing ideology to instruct them.

What Is The Trump / Brexit / LePen Wave Of “Populism”?

Sunday, April 23rd, 2017

The Left uses the term “populism” to refer to political sentiments which arises outside the control of the Establishment. This leads to confusion, because to populists, their attitude seems to be an unpopular complex truth beset by pleasant illusions.

Foreign Affairs takes a stab at a definition of “populism” and comes up with a reasonable summary:

It can be hard to pin down the meaning of “populism,” but its crucial identifying mark is the belief that each country has an authentic “people” who are held back by the collusion of foreign forces and self-serving elites at home. A populist leader claims to represent the people and seeks to weaken or destroy institutions such as legislatures, judiciaries, and the press and to cast off external restraints in defense of national sovereignty. Populism comes in a range of ideological flavors. Left-wing populists want to “soak the rich” in the name of equality; right-wing populists want to remove constraints on wealth in the name of growth. Populism is therefore defined not by a particular view of economic distribution but by a faith in strong leaders and a dislike of limits on sovereignty and of powerful institutions.

In other words, populism recognizes the nature of power, which is to use institutions to limit the organic nation and parasitize it for the benefit of international elites and home-grown toadies.

It is “populist” only in that it is meta-democracy, or a popular sentiment created outside the controlled confines of courts, voting and public discourse. It is a cultural wave pushing back against how politics frames the narrative and artificially limits choices based on the pretense of people in groups.

Donald J. Trump may have been elected by the Tea Party, which did not die, but went underground and infiltrated other groups. In the same way, the Alt Right arose when those who were disgusted by both mainstream conservatism and narrow minded HitLARPing nationalist groups came up with a more comprehensive platform that rejected Leftism instead of merely rejecting certain types of diversity.

Where conservatives think we can import people from the third world, “educate” them in our ways and have them live among us, the Alt Right realizes that diversity as a whole fails. Where Nazis single out African-Americans and Jews, the Alt Right points out that every group acts in its own self-interest alone, and in the Machiavellian realpolitik and so ideas like “we are all one” and diversity can never work no matter what groups are involved.

Populists also recognize the nation as an organic entity, or a people. This means that it only lasts so long as its founding group remains unmixed and with its traditions intact. To a populist, social standards must be enforced by culture, and having government step in the way makes government into a parasitic and corrupting force.

Since the adoption of liberalism in the West, a process that took over a thousand years, we have become materialistic or focused on material goals instead of doing what is right. That includes deference to institutions like law and politics, a facilitative society that aims at empowering individual choice over commonality of purpose, and the mentality that whatever is profitable, popular or socially trending is more important that doing what is good, beautiful and true according to the order of nature.

The pushback began once it became clear that Leftists had buried our society in so many rules and precedents that any action except moar Leftism was demonized, ostracized and made politically incorrect. As a result, people have realized that we are now inverted as a society: all of our institutions are corrupt and cannot be saved, and anything done to “improve” society strengthens the evil. Instead, we turn back to the organic nation, and focus on saving that instead.

White People Are Their Own Worst Enemy

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

As usual, white people demonstrate that cleverness is the enemy of intelligence just as “good enough” is the enemy of lasting good.

In The Netherlands, which by any sane estimation is one of the loveliest places on planet earth, the voters decided to avoid electing Geert Wilders and to choose an Establishment candidate instead. This is typical of voters: avoid risk by sticking with what fails slowly and inevitably, basically postponing the issue until it gets worse.

Wilders may not have been perfect but he offered a hope for avoiding the fate of Germany and Sweden for the Dutch, who may consider themselves so unique and special that the problems which repeat elsewhere do not apply to them. This is also a typical human failure of reasoning by which people assume that the rules do not apply to them because they intend for other results than usually happen.

Glitches in his platform were few but vital. Among other things, Wilders took an approach recommended against on Amerika: he targeted a specific group instead of pointing out that diversity will erase the national population and, as a form of suicide, is psychologically destructive.

In addition, he could have broached the broader topic that diversity does not work because every group possesses its own direction of self-interest, including strong identity, and these cannot avoid conflicting when the groups are put together. Nationalism, or separating each group into its own nation, works, but diversity guarantees perpetual conflict followed by erasure through outbreeding.

White people however are too clever to accept that. For them, voting and politics are questions of what makes them look cool to their friends. People who deny obvious problems are cool. So white people pose and posture, swimming in pretense and denial, and project their intention onto the world to obscure the cause-effect relationships that are scary.

Through this process, inversion occurs. The sane becomes the insane, and the formerly insane becomes the norm. Every word comes to mean the opposite of what it once did, and every institution acts against its goals. As a result, society becomes pathological and dedicated to its own destruction. People either rationalize that to feel good and succeed, or fight it and are marginalized.

In this way, the very process of socializing destroys human societies. In the name of “getting along with others,” truth is destroyed, and yet this is the most common human event. When having everyone feel good is more important than getting to the truth, every meaning gets inverted and all goals become suicidal, just at a slow enough level for each individual to profit and look cool.

Wilders and others are fighting upstream against the tendency of humans to go straight into denial. The United States got a break because Barack Obama, by creating his program of wealth transfer to Baby Boomers and illegal Amerind aliens known as Obamacare, crashed the economy so soundly that people actually snapped to attention from their pretense for a few moments and voted against him.

If the West wants to survive, as it looks toward its future, it will realize that the decision-making of humans in large groups is not just poor but suicidal, and so democracy must go:

Americans use the word “democracy” as a shorthand to define their system. Yet democracy as Americans know it only functions when an independent judiciary monitors the executive and legislative branches. The relationship among the branches certainly changes over time, but an open attack by the executive upon the judiciary is something new – at least in the contemporary US.

The president’s tweet recalls how authoritarianism has triumphed in other places. Modern tyrants grasp that their real target are rival institutions and legality, not voting as such. They often attack the judiciary first, assuming that the legislature will go along.

Anyone sane will agree on abolishing democracy, but not on tyranny, which is a word referring to any rule where the rulers prioritize their own interests over those of the citizens. We have tyranny right now through the permanent Establishment which has figured out that the voters are pretentious and how to manipulate them so that this “Cathedral” stays in power indefinitely.

Instead of tyranny, we need leadership not by the people — people in groups quickly revert to pretense and mob rule — but for the people, by the best among us. We need the best to oppress the rest, because our current condition of the rest oppressing the best has led to collapse from within.

Wilders, Le Pen, Orban, Farage and Trump are part of the movement against the inevitable entropy of democracy. They have stood up for difficult truths and framed them in such a way that the remaining functional people can grasp the simple core of the issue, which is that any civilization must assert its self-interest through identity or become dedicated to self destruction.

In the meantime, it is time for binary thinking: whatever the herd likes is wrong, and whatever the herd fears is where we can find actual realistic assessments of our situation. Otherwise, as if by gravity or the passage of time, the Establishment always chooses suicidal policies and the herd, afraid to look uncool, support them:

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party proposed using the €6.2 billion surplus to pay off debts, while the Social Democrats (SPD) wanted to spend it on digital infrastructure projects. As a compromise the money has gone solely to migrant projects instead, Der Spiegel reports.

The present funds allocated toward migrant programmes is already €12 billion, which is thought to be more than enough to handle the needs of the over one million migrants in Germany. The budget surplus would take the money up to over 18 billion – far more than required.

Any time there is a “surplus,” it means money is taken away from vital long-term needs and dedicated to short-term needs that make the headlines. This allows people a chance to virtue signal and pose and otherwise demonstrate how cool they are for ignoring real problems and focusing on symbolic problems instead.

Despite the Wilders loss, the writing is on the wall: liberal democracy, once given enough power, becomes the same kind of insanity that the Soviet Union was. The Left blames this on “capitalism,” but in reality, it was bad leadership through the tendency of people — especially white people — to make cleverly stupid decisions.

For those of us on the Right, the necessary agenda of our future is to push back against the tide of liberalization that has swept the West since The Enlightenment.™ We must recognize that Samuel Huntington was right, and that the liberal democratic age has ended, replaced by one in which tribalism is again the norm, as it is outside of the W.E.I.R.D. countries today.

For this, we must go further than what Wilders did. Our problem is not Islam, nor is it illegal Amerind aliens. It is diversity itself and, since accepting diversity requires reality-denial, the reality-denying system of democracy that allows our people to demonstrate how clever they are by adopting stupid viewpoints. Until we rip out this evil by the roots, it will continue to destroy us.

“The Leftist Cries Out As He Strikes You.”

Wednesday, January 25th, 2017

The Leftist always accuses his opposition of what the Leftist is, in fact, doing. The recent rise of “populism” — which may be understood as political thought from outside the ordained Establishment/Cathedral blessed by academia and the political industry — has caught the internation Left (a.k.a. globalists) off guard, and so they have retaliated by calling populism corrupt:

But anti-establishment parties generally failed to address corruption once in office, the group said.

…TI said the report showed pervasive public-sector corruption around the world. Sixty-nine percent of 176 countries scored below 50 on the index scale of 0 to 100, with 0 perceived to be highly corrupt and 100 considered “very clean.” More countries declined in the index than improved in 2016, it noted.

Once in place, populist leaders appeared almost “immune to challenges about corrupt behavior,” Heinrich wrote. The scores of Hungary and Turkey – countries with autocratic leaders – fell in recent years, for example. Argentina, which ousted a populist government, saw its score improve.

Notice that we are referring to a rating of corruption that has been released by Leftists. In other words, we are not referring to actual corruption, but a measure of it filtered through an ideological source. This enables the Leftists to claim that the report is reality, while the actual reality is more complex.

For example, the actual changes implemented by a change in leadership take years or decades to see. In an intermediate state, there will be more chaos as things get sorted out because of the disruption caused by the change. Even more, Leftists are notorious for ignoring Leftist corruption entirely, at which point they can point to a single corrupt Rightist and claim the Right is corrupt.

A more accurate assessment, and this is what they are really hiding, is this: Leftists states are institutionally corrupt, which means they have created laws to transfer money away from the population and toward Leftist leaders. Their corruption is technically legal as a result, so they do not measure it on their surveys, and instead focus on one guy who got caught taking a bribe.

Under Leftist rule, wealth transfer and autocratic power create opportunities for Leftist politicians to receive money for a variety of non-essential and often entirely irrelevant tasks, and through the third parties they use as proxies — NGOs, not-for-profit organizations like the Clinton Foundation, and compliant businesses — they are able to receive bribes as favors and salaries and thus conceal the pervasive corruption.

Remember that the Leftist always accuses you of what he is guilty of, so when populists get accused of corruption, the real question is what Leftist globalists are hiding. The answer is that they formulated a system of institutional corruption so vast and all-intrusive that we can no longer recognize it for what it is, which is legalized deep state parasitism far worse than any surface corruption their studies measure.

Dr. Peter Turchin Misses The Point

Friday, January 6th, 2017

As liberal democracy winds down to a crash, people are looking for excuses to blame anything but the obvious, which is our bad choices based on the illusions inherent to our intent. Dr. Peter Turchin, for example, writes about an illusory collapse which is external and thus can be scapegoated, instead of facing our own culpability:

“Elite overproduction generally leads to more intra-elite competition that gradually undermines the spirit of co-operation, which is followed by ideological polarisation and fragmentation of the political class,” he wrote.

“This happens because the more contenders there are, the more of them end up on the losing side. A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions.”

And once we parse it, we see the truth: he is repeating the same ideas that were popular from the Peasant Revolts onward, that our problem is the differences between people, and not the obvious truth, which is the incompetence of most people and all people in committee-style groups.

The spirit of co-operation died with class warfare, and then was resurrected and killed again with the rise of diversity.

Guilty parties can be found not among the natural elites, but among the proles. We The People is the problem. They pursued an illusion and it destroyed society, so now they are blaming the elites.

As always, there is partial truth here. Thanks to the Leftist war on competence, we have chosen new elites, and they are incompetent because they were selected for political reasons, not actual competence.

From this we get a new form of “inequality.” Those who join the Party become wealthy but have to spend their days on unimaginable tedium; those who resists are condemned to poverty, but often have more time to discover life itself.

In the meantime, society collapses, because neither voters nor elites really care at all about the outcomes of their actions.

Recommended Reading