Posts Tagged ‘reactionary’

Neoreaction Conference To Be Held In London

Friday, July 29th, 2016


We do not live in tolerant times. As in the former Soviet Union or today’s Cuba, there is an official Correct Way to think and those who fail to think this way, even if they do not explicitly disagree with it, find themselves excluded from opportunities and social groups.

Despite that, a brave group of arts community members are trying to bridge the divide. Later this year, they will launch an exhibit named Neoreaction, which is ‘an open [conference for] open minded progressives’ that explores Neoreactionary and Reactionary thought. This will be a short conference of talks and screenings on the subject of neoreactionary philosophy and politics, which the presenters view as one of the most interesting discursive spaces online in current times.

Hosted at a gallery in East London, the conference will be metaphorically playing with (ideological) fire, since Neoreaction and Reactionary thought are in opposition to modernity, liberalism and in fact every political assumption widely held in Western societies today. Already two members of the team, fearing for the loss of social and economic opportunities, have had to drop out, but the rest are soldiering on.

If you wish to attend, or are from the media and wish a press pass, please email which forwards to the organizers, who will remain anonymous until they are able to verify your good faith participation.

The Economics of a Coming Dark Age

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015
Reactionaries Should Not Run An Economy Like ISIS

Reactionaries Should Not Run An Economy Like ISIS

I wouldn’t submit articles to this blog if I weren’t very willing to entertain the possibility that Oswald Spengler had a point regarding the coming demise of Western Modernity. It goes almost without saying that I therefore also entertain the possibility that political reaction could be a valid source of direction and truth to get us all through the impending crisis. We will need a good plan for when The West finally busts its gut string and expires in an undignified heap. That proffered upfront, I now propose we examine whether reactionaries can actually take charge once Modernity earns its farewell cart ride to the political science glue factory.

Sadly, the first group of reactionaries to make the big time and no long have to remain the JV is ISIS. Enumerating the current year 1453 in honor of the founding of the Caliphate brings to mind the quaint Roman custom of dating Ab Urbe Condita.   Their efforts to reestablish Sharia Law throughout the world dates them to an era well before Napoleonic Jurisprudence or Post-Saxon English Common Law.   Given that ISIS has actually established one of the most powerful Reactionary States on the planet, we use them as a case study to point out what Reactionaries need to learn in order to make a new start out of the future mounds of rubble.

The initial results are not pretty. One of the first things a ruling state has to figure out is “How do we pay for it?” This is a general as well as a specific question. A new form of government needs to get its hands on resources in order to govern. ISIS is currently no better at this than the failing social democracies that will eventually go bankrupt and collapse in the West. According to the blog Jihadology, approximately ¾ of the revenue this Caliphate brings in consists of either confiscation or resource extraction. Only ¼ consists of productive activity.


This is no more sustainable than the Palo Alto real estate bubble. There is only so much leftover swag from Saddam Hussein or Hafez Assad. The Visigoth Holiday will rapidly run out of beer. Even the 28% or so of their revenue from oil and gas is dependent upon continued supply and an ongoing market. One can only imagine the moral character and reliability of ISIS’ preferred customers. Being the fossil fuel supplier for Saruman’s orc tribes probably isn’t a good long-term business plan. In conclusion, a reactionary state will have to develop the ability to do far more economically than pawn off the remains of what they seek to replace.


From the ISIS expenditure graph above, we discover what may or may not be a more auspicious strategy. Less than ½ of the ISIS annual budget goes to social welfare. These people probably don’t spend a whole lot of their spare time studying The Epistles of Paul. Yet they have taken 2 Thessalonians 3: 10* to heart well enough to not allow welfare zombies to break the back of their social governance.

However, almost 2/3 of the annual budget goes to waging war. Giving peace a chance would give ISIS the same problem Harry Truman had in post-WWII America: a major economic recession. They are literally forced to war by their economic and societal model. Dar al-Islam would go bankrupt if they didn’t have enemies to pillage and raid. In that respect, they have far more in common with the early Christian Monarchies of Post-Roman Europe than they would ever like to admit.

The problems ISIS currently faces are similar to those of Merovingian France as described by Henri Pirenne in Mohammad and Charlemagne. The Merovingian monarchs also raised much of their money by looting. They were more sophisticated, and looted gold and silver by debasing the full-bodied monies of their eras. It was a slower collapse for the Merovingian coin-clippers than it will be for the ISIS wag-halters. The Merovingian kings had far more specie than the ISIS Caliphate has garish leftovers from Hussein-era Iraq to haul to the pawn shop.

What we see from initial efforts of Middle-Eastern, Islamic Reactionaries are the economics of a coming dark age. They have an economy that produces little and lives off the remains of others. Buzzard economics requires a steady supply of carrion to feed the birdies. The carrion has to be provided by ongoing and culturally debilitating war. Peace would be like a car wreck for this badly unbalanced economy and society.

To effectively stage reaction to the ongoing failure theatre of modernity, we will have to answer a legitimate and vital question. What can we produce and do to actually make the world work? It’s a fair question. ISIS has utterly failed to answer it in a constructive or sustainable fashion. Western Reaction will have to answer these questions as the time for massive economic crisis in the social democracies of the West continues to draw ever closer nigh.

*- “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

Populism = evil = solipsism

Sunday, July 19th, 2015


I had a dream once that combined a number of notions from American movies. In it, I was one of the few remaining people uninfected on earth. The others had been struck like a disease that made them zombies, but unrecognizably so. As in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, they appeared normal, and unlike the aliens in They Live they were 100% human. Like Night of the Living Dead, they suffered a compulsion to attack the uninfected, but unlike it, they had their full faculties and could not be detected. But more like in They Live, they endorsed an ideology that was equal parts complacency and elimination of non-compliance. Then I awoke and realized I had not been dreaming at all.

What I call Crowdism is the union of individuals for an individualist end: the suspension of social standards and order so that the individual can act without responsibility for consequences. They want freedom, from judgment, sense, aesthetic taste, evolution and higher standards. It is the rabble demanding its right to be as degenerative as it wishes to be, as measured by the individual and not the group. In fact, the Crowd is united by the fact that it acts like a group in defense of the individual, which is why it fits into none of the usual slots. A certain mentality both creates Crowdism and is created by it, and that is solipsism, or the tendency to think the world should adapt to the individual instead of the other way around, which implicates a mental process in which the world which is normally perceived through the individual is perceived as being within that individual. In other words, the individual becomes the world and the world something that resists the individual, much like we have conflicting impulses within us that resist each other.

This concept of what we might unfashionably call evil — undeniably a subset of Kant’s notion of “radical evil” — suggests that evil is not a discrete and isolated thing, but a constant tendency in human beings which we beat down like our desire to eat one more slice of cheesecake. There is no Satan needed because humans invent their own evil, and its root is not in a desire to do evil, but in an error by which humans substitute self for world. In fact, as Plato suggested, without guidance human emotions and desires turn toward this very destructiveness, which is why most humans live in misery and most societies fail. Humanity is self-destructive, much like individual humans drink too much or eat too much cheesecake, or vandalize the things that make them happiest. When we deny responsibility for our actions, happiness is no longer our own task, but something we view as happening like a lottery. This enables us to pursue the unfulfilling objects of our desire and then engage in “sour grapes” type rationalization where we come to the point of seeing that nothing would have made us happy anyway. Unhappiness becomes a weapon against striving for anything better, or to rise above. This evil pathology explains both the victimhood mentality of modern people and the seemingly unerring capacity of democracies to select the worst possible plans in any situation. But what makes this evil so pervasive is that it exists within us and cannot be purged, but it can also be spread between people, like the hybrid zombie/body-snatcher infection described above.

Most of us will refuse to recognize this evil. That is because solipsism feels good; we sense in it that we can never die, and that we are always good and right no matter to what degree we are not. It saves us from self-criticism, and criticism by others. It makes us feel justified in selfish behavior because the world has made us its victim, and in self-pity we have a cause for resentment and thus a systematic revenge on the world. When we do bad things, and create socialized costs for others, that is not a personal loss but victory because we harmed the force that oppresses us. This evil recognizes no boundaries: it crops up in good people as well as bad, in smart as well as stupid, and in smart it may take on a greater life because they have the ability to make it interesting. Even when we argue against it, we are not immune; like a fire dares us to stick our hand into it, evil dares us and seduces us. And of all frustrating things, it has no home. There is no Hell to destroy, Mordor to invade or Berlin to reduce to rubble. Evil simply takes a new form, spreading by contact between people who (in an effort to disguise their own weakness) re-style it as good, or cropping up again anywhere a mind thinks. It is the enemy without form, an invisible aggressor who almost never appears in a guise of bad but always appears good, or at least convenient.

Recently I launched a corrective attack on Neoreaction, the system of post-libertarian thought launched by post-libertarian bloggers during the early 2000s. Neoreaction has a number of good things going for it: it recognizes the failure of The EnlightenmentTM and consequently, rejects equality, democracy, and populism or the tendency to motivate people by pandering to the lowest common denominator already accepted by them. It is more of a virtual salon or symposium in that, like Plato’s Republic, it offers a series of thought experiments to stimulate awareness outside of the confines of the accepted and to thus open channels to thought beyond the status quo. In this attack, which is designed to expand the field of Neoreactionary theory to include the conservatism from which it has come and to clarify both, I identified a number of problems:

  • Neoreaction fails because it is reaction; that is, it reacts to what is instead of plotting another course. Reactionary thought is not bad at all, but limits itself by trying to look backward, instead of realizing that it does not need to justify itself, and can merely pick high-level common sense solutions as a philosopher would.
  • Neoreaction suffers because it is inherently social. The original spark for this discussion arose from one person taking a blog offline, which usually happens when personal conflicts make it undesirable to continue with a group. When I say Neoreaction is “social,” that means that it reflects what groups of people want to talk about and think about, which quickly becomes a form of populism. It has confused the desire to attract audience with the desire for truth because of the nature of its appeal: it makes STEM majors and assorted internet critics feel that, by engaging in the act of academic-style criticism, they have become a new vanguard of truth. We have seen this phenomenon before, you and I, in the burst of “traditionalists” who came about in the early 00s as well. If a movement of thought does not have a purpose, it becomes a purpose in itself, and that inevitably falls prey to the evil mentioned above and becomes a form of Crowdism. In Neoreaction, the Crowdist impulse has taken form through endless play-acting at being theorists with a nasty in-group enforcement, driving away the truth-oriented instead of those who want to live out the image of being neoreactionary. This is both an inherent tendency of humanity and an evil particular to discussion groups, in that the act of discussing becomes the power those people desire, instead of having a desired end effect.
  • Neoreaction loves the idea of “exit,” both as theory-object and reality. Exit is departure from a society, whether by literally moving or having some other way of existing outside of its power. What originally was a way of subjecting societies to market forces by showing how individuals would leave for greener pastures, and thus a post-libertarian society (free markets + a lack of liberalism, essentially) could out-compete other societies. This model fails because any such society becomes a threat and gets eliminated. Those of us who have run through this mental simulation for some time realize that the only solution is to re-capture the West, which becomes easier as it gets weaker, and create a new civilization. This is the antithesis of chatter and yet is less satisfying than chatter, because discussing it does not make the above average thinker feel like a profound genius. “Insight porn,” some call it, and it is aptly applied here.
  • Neoreaction still believes in “systems.” Free markets, democracy, laws and regulations all belong to the world of systems, or the idea that we can set down some kind of rules and have everything work out fine because of the results of those rules. A Gödel might have observed, no system will cover every case, and so systems inevitably end up being hijacked and turned on themselves, with the unfortunate attribute of now being concentrated power which is hard to resist. That is what happened in the West, ancient Greece and Rome, and virtually every other society that has become destroyed: the leadership became corrupt and, since they wielded centralized power, were able to suppress dissent. With postmodern civilizations, the power is no longer centralized but is just as strong, and it is this — called “the Cathedral” by neoreactionaries — that must be overthrown and replaced with actual leadership, throwing out all the laws that served as intermediaries and failed.

If we are going to attack The EnlightenmentTM, nothing remains but to do it. Democracy, equality, liberty, freedom, “rights,” populism and the idea of systems itself are all wrong. They go to the dustbin of history, but so also should other thought that promotes socialization as a substitute for actuality.

In contrast, history and common sense show what works. Aristocracy, nationalism, social conservatism, heroism and transcendentalism work together as a system that is both traditional and fits within Neoreactionary thought. The social community however rejects this because it breaks what makes Neoreaction accessible, which is that any STEM graduate or internet typist who memorizes a few ideas can participate in the theory, and that in itself is the goal. The goal lies outside the social group, which like a force of entropy becomes populist, and without that to unify the group, it relapses into being a social event instead of an actual one.

Any movement can become social. Where the index of selection, or how it chooses what becomes part of its library of ideas, is social in any way, it is a social movement. Cliques of intellectuals succumb to this as well. This is why Crowdism is said to be pervasive: it is a human monkey tendency that corrupts truth with the pragmatic convenience of getting along in a group and motivating them toward a goal, albeit at the expense of the clarity of the goal. Understanding this is crucial to the anti-equality idea, as it displaces our faith in “systems” and voting and returns to the idea that a decision must be made by those capable to make it.

My goal with any kind of new movement is to have less chatter and more solid expression of motion toward these ends. Neoreaction served its purpose well as an introduction to these ideas, but then got caught up in its tendency to be talking points instead of practicality. We see the results now in the constant drama across the Neoreactionary blogs and the writing of much theory, little of which expands any substantive issue, as people jockey for position in the salon. As the years pass, the goal emerges more clearly, and it is time to discard intermediates and — emerging from our comfort zones — go for the goal.

Identity is the basis of a healthy society

Friday, May 30th, 2014


Little kids always ask “why?” whenever you tell them something must be done. They do this because human memories work best when reasoning outward from a core principle or central idea.

In the same way, societies shape themselves around their primal Why. To have a healthy society, make this a strong identity. Identity takes its strongest form not in politics/ideology but in organic identity.

Organic identity comprises three major factors: culture, values and heritage. The three shape each other and depend on each other. Culture arises from a sense of being “a people,” which necessarily involves a sense of some unity and uniformity in heritage, and values arise from the aesthetic determinations made by culture.

A healthy culture loves itself and traces its origins to a founding. That founding produced the ancestors who live on to the present day through a “nation,” or group of similar genetics. These people are shaped by generations of culture that rewards what they find good in their values system, casting out the bad, and so they have similar inclinations.

Identity allows people to have shared values beyond the political. About fair play, honorable conduct and what should be done, in a way that politics and elections with the memory of a gnat cannot.

If you lack this identity, your society will be shaped by commercial forces and government. Media, industry, special interest groups and politics itself will wear you down until you are nothing but a series of compromises, resulting a generic middle-of-the-road approach.

Some people argue for this generic approach because it removes rules and standards from above them. Then, they can do anything they want! It takes them until old age to find out how boring this is. When serving the self, one soon serves the cruelest master, a form of Satan who cannot be exiled to hell. Pleasures age and dissipate. Having a place and doing right makes us feel good, on the other hand.

On this blog, I pay little attention to race-crime stats and human biodiversity. That tendency does not assert that these are wrong, only that they do not communicate the relevant message: we need people like us, formed together and united by culture, heritage and values. If we do not, corporations and government will rule us instead.

When you see crime wracking our society, consider that perhaps that results not from “bad guys” or “bad races,” but diversity itself. Diversity requires a lack of identity. It aims to destroy the majority and its values and replace it with no values, no culture and no heritage. Then only the individual reigns which makes for perfect consumers: neurotic, adrift, desperate and egomaniacal.

The West can solve most of its problems by resuming the practice of having identity which has been taboo since the second world war. Instead of relying on police and politicians, we can rely on ourselves and each other. We can shape our values and eject those who violate our values. In the process, we would lose a massive overhead in government and parasitic commerce.

We can achieve this process by peaceful means. When we signal that identity is our goal, others realize they are in the wrong place and depart. Without the free handouts and political favoritism of government, they have no interests here and will go elsewhere where opportunity is better.

Even more, we can stop the dog and pony show of elections and constant “wars” against social problems. Fix our social problems by fixing our people, and start by giving them a sense of pride and joy in who they are. Encourage them to be better at who they are, not adopt unproven and conjectural “solutions.” Re-take our society from within, and renew it with a sense of purpose.

“Reactionaries” — against what?

Wednesday, March 26th, 2014


They tell us we are reactionaries. Against what are we reacting?

The obvious answer is liberalism, since its mental lock on the population of the West is used to exclude any common sense that might limit the license of the mob.

I think it goes farther. We are reactionaries against hubris.

The modern definition for hubris is “excessive pride,” but the original definition — the one that sent thousands of editors with liberal sympathies scurrying to erase, obliterate, destroy — is more complex.

As the Greeks saw it, hubris was a type of improper arrogance, or arrogance against the gods and nature (which were seen as one and the same in that old animistic religion).

Arrogance against the gods and nature means placing one’s individual sense of what reality is above what reality actually is. It is denial of life, and denial of common sense, so that the individual can believe pleasant fictions.

Usually those pleasant fictions consist of self-aggrandizement of the sort we see in urban clusters like San Francisco and New York: ‘I have made it to the top, I’m earning lots of money, obviously there’s nothing wrong with the world as it’s working for me.’ — if you wonder why elites never see the downfall coming, it is because this form of hubris blinds them to what’s happening outside of themselves.

Hubris interestingly itself clusters in two places: in collapsed civilizations and in those about to collapse. In the middle, rising civilizations or healthy civilizations actively crusade against hubris (often under different names) because they realize it is death to the civilization. When you want to succeed, you want a reality-based narrative or you will fail.

Bloated, obese, luxurious, and decadent civilizations on the other hand have a need for hubris. They desperately need to go into denial rather than face the fight for their lives that they need to embark upon, and yesterday. It takes a lot of effort, introspection, honesty and courage to realize that your society is falling apart and, while you could easily profit from it, you will leave behind a ruin and this reflects on who you were inside.

Societies that deny reality quickly approximate third-world levels of dysfunction, disorder, corruption, filth and decay. When reality is denied, every person acts self-important, which means no one focuses on infrastructure and institutions that keep society functional. Thus society is constantly in a state of confusion and into that void step the warlords, thief-kings and terrorists who for whatever faults they have tend to enforce a “bottom line” of order.

In fact, all of human history might be written correctly as a struggle against hubris. Societies start off with nothing, or in a de facto third world state, in other words. In order to rise, they must suppress their hubris and become focused on order and moral right. Even if this is informal and allows dubious methods like paying weregild for the murder of another, it enforces a simple idea: do right, thrive; do ill, be punished; do nothing, get nothing.

Once started, civilization is a fragile machine. Once it goes down the path of hubris, it will be shattered and replaced with non-civilization, although this occurs over centuries and happens a detail at a time and not at once. People in the grips of hubris will refuse to see this and will accept only a direct immediate collapse, like all the buildings falling down and everyone dying, as a sign that society is in error. Thus it sleepwalks into oblivion and what is left is a third-world shell.

As Spengler noted, earth is covered in such shells. They are in fact the norm. Most species die, most people become moral cowards, most societies fail. It is the rare society that rises above even for a few centuries and does something creative that endures. And most of the people we see who are criminal in mind, perverse, etc. are artifacts of one failed society or another, where such behavior was so normal that it got bred into them because it was a socially-rewarded “good.”

Liberals are contrarians who pick that viewpoint because they think it distinguishes them socially, at first. Later they adopt it as a means of staying oblivious so that their personal lives are unthreatened. It enables them to contravene the obvious negative with an illusion of positivity so that they can continue to think highly of themselves. Like junkies to the needle, they come crawling to this ideal.

Western peoples have suffered long enough under hubris. While it “feels good,” it leads to decay and long-term feeling bad about oneself for being such a failure, much like any time one steps down the path of evil. Counteracting it is hard because most people are dependent on it, if for nothing else to conceal how badly battered they are by this time. In a house of glass, no one wants to throw the first stone. But at the same time, we all have that “sinking feeling” in our gut that things just aren’t going right, and it’s not in an easily definable way.

Reaction is good, but not enough. Counter-action is difficult and bound to the fate of the doomed. I propose a simpler strategy, which is imagination. Imagine better things and do them, but with one little catch: make them exclusive to those who have, in the medical parlance of our time, “beat hubris.” We don’t need to tune in, turn on and drop out; we need to exit the lock-step march to oblivion and go our own way. If the herd is heading toward hubris, our way is a U-turn and all-night march straight back to sanity, with the ugly feeling of guilt and doom flaking off of us with every step.

About these columns

Monday, January 3rd, 2005

These columns are written for strong people. By that I don’t mean physically strong. I mean that, if I wanted to write for the undifferentiated mass who think newspapers are a source of what’s actually happening of interest in the world, I’d write like Ann Coulter: demonize a clear enemy, make some jokes at their expense, and then assert the ego of the individual as being supreme for having a certain set of widely-publicized beliefs. I write these instead for those who create, whether civilizations or art, depending on your specialization.

In past times I’d say these columns are for strong men, but I don’t feel it fair to give slight to women, given the expectations of feminism instilled in them: there are strong women too, and on the frontier these were expected to be defenders and rulers of the house, and not too feminine to pick up a bow and arrow or rifle and do away with raiders, fighting in concert with men. However, men – the male, assertive, action-oriented mindset that is instilled in a human during fetal development by hormones – are a different creature than women, and I say long live the difference, as it makes for a system of checks and balances which is necessary for civilization. Men err toward the active; women err toward the passive. Together there’s a future. But those must both be strong, which does not mean a dissolution of the feminine or adulteration of the masculine.

Because I write for strong people, I’m given the trivial grace of saying things you can’t yap about in public, and the much more potent one of being able to take on difficult topics without having to put them in linear terms for the crowd, thus losing subtlety. Since this is mine to dispose, today I write about racial loathing: the impulse of strong people to draw swords and slaughter those of other cultures and ethnicities, recognizing these as alien to their own and thus an inherent struggle between their own culture and the cultural invaders. My advice regarding racial loathing is simple.

First, recognize that there are many weak people you loathe, many among your own race and tribe. While your response on seeing these may not be as visceral as that of seeing a true alien in our midst, when they are recognized – through their political actions, or social actions, or other activities revealing of character – it should be stronger, because these are as close as you’re going to get to a true enemy: they’re the Trojan horse inside your gates, and they walk among you freely because they look just like you. Be ready to draw swords and do what is necessary.

While alien people, bearing with them DNA specialized in ways optimized for their foreign cultures, and attitudes bearing the ideas of foreign cultures, many of them which have already failed and thus preach only disease to strong people, are indeed a symptom of the decline, they’re not the cause. Furthermore, the cause is far more widespread than the cure, and it is borne by many who are crypto-enemies because their beliefs are basically destructive to all that strong people hold dear; however, they also far outnumber you. For this reason, it doesn’t make sense to draw swords against the symptoms, but to recognize the cause — and then things get complex.

One doesn’t defeat a cause by preaching against it alone; there is a certain amount of railing and doctrinizing that must occur for it to be widely recognized among the strong, who are otherwise interested in their “real world” lives apart from politics and the futures of masses of people (this is, in fact, healthy, as you will see later in this article). But to react too clearly to something is to set yourself apart in a specialized camp of “not-cause,” and thus to be only able to preach against it; it’s more important to counteract it, and one does that as one creates a civilization: by forming something better and promoting it at the expense of all things of a weaker will.

Clearly our current society is in deep doo-doo. Its overpopulation and endless consumption and waste alone will doom it, but even further, it lacks heroic and creative spirit, and thus is given to endless internal debate which obscures any real meaning and any real chance at change. When ten thousand people fill a hall, each screaming his or her own theory of what is right and wrong, what ends up occurring is noise, not signal, and not reason. Therefore it is better that a select group move outside the hall of discourse, and through action establish a civilization-value-system and worldview that is not only contrary to that of the screaming crowd, but demonstrates through its existence a healthier life.

This amounts to a change not on the political or social or academic levels, but on the most practical level there is: values. Most people will spend their lives focused on themselves and their families, but will apply their values to what they teach their children, and, more importantly, how they choose to live, setting an example not only for children but for neighbors and friends. This is how influence actually spreads; we all look toward those who have what we would like to have, and if we’re not parasites, we seek to emulate it on our own terms instead of taking it from them via subterfuge or violence and claiming it as our own. This is important because unless we have some understanding of it, stealing it will make it last a generation, but it will then be lost, since the object or basic behavior will not translate across times and individuals.

It is fortunate that most people are thus fixated on individual lives, because values are the only way to spread meaningful change. Politics in a democracy is option A or option B, but rarely a chance to define your own; the closest it gets is analogous to a buffet or salad bar, where you have a finite number of ingredients but you — in your fortunate “freedom” and “liberty” — get to choose which percentages of each you put on your plate. From this we get Communism (egalitarian totalitarianism), libertarianism (conservative anarchism), conservatism (liberal tradition-oriented reactionarism), and so on. None of these will do anything but reshuffle the cards in the deck already dealt to us, and thus no meaningful change will come of them. Values, on the other hand, permeate the daily lives of individuals who make things happen, not the stuffy boardrooms of government or the spacy, distant halls of academia.

When you see alien culture invading your own, or alien people in charge of (for example) your media and government, it’s important to recognize that this could not have occurred without significant internal rot in the values of your society. Parasites fail attacking the strong, but when something with wealth shows signs of weakness, they’re at the door with carpet-bags in hand. If there’s aliens among you, it’s because cultural values didn’t exist to prevent that, or more likely, values became so degenerate that people began doing things for individual gratification alone, having nothing of a higher nature for which to live. This is the enemy, not the symptom: the alien you see walking past, or the people of your tribe with alien values, although the latter should be snuffed for being failures of good breeding.

If I could say one thing to the strong, and one only, it would be this — attacking the rot is a failing strategy, so instead, assert that which is strong and never give assent to the weakness. There are enough of us still left, despite centuries of genocidal breeding and passive middle eastern religions (Christianity, and to a smaller degree, Judaism), that we can by doing what is right avoid what is wrong. When enough people have achieved consensus of what is right, the basis of a new civilization exists, and this can be asserted purely through will: This is what I choose. From that point, the trivial tasks including clearing from among us those of alien values will be a corollary, and a natural inclination arising from the values already achieved.