Posts Tagged ‘rightism’

The Alt Right

Thursday, October 27th, 2016


The Alt Right rose, then tried to figure out what it was. It knew a general direction, which was that it said the stuff that the mainstream Right wanted to but could not and still keep its jobs, but beyond that, it was confused.

It arose from a mishmash of philosophies. The New Right, Traditionalism, White Nationalism, Paleoconservatives, Neoreaction, Nietzschean conservatives and Dark Enlightenment met in a blender. Some have suggested that the intersection among them is right, but more likely, it is their shared forward ideal: a resurrection of the greatness of Western Civilization, and to that end, the means and methods required to achieve it.

Many have contemplated it. Among the best:

And that is only a small sampling of all that has been written on this topic, although these pieces at least cover all topics and link to all major articles. And still, the definition remains fuzzy… let us look at some recent sources:

“Will The Real Alt-Right Please Stand Up?”:

It seems to me that, if anything, the Alt-Right is a blanket term applied to all non-mainstream conservatives of all stripes that serves more as a negation than a positive claim. In other words, if anything, the Alt-Right brings people together based on what they mutually dislike, not a shared set of ideas.

Mr. Heft makes an essential basic point here: the Alt Right is formed in opposition to modernity, and there are many degrees of this. On the farthest Right, people want a restoration of traditional civilization to provide a new golden age of Pericles, as Arthur Schopenhauer suggested. We know what we do not want: the soul-killing, environment-killing, culture-destroying, pointless and tedious modern age, despite its good shopping and wide variety of ethnic food.

And what distinguishes those views?

“The Rise Of The Radical Right: The Alt Right, Neoreaction And The Trump Campaign”:

Meanwhile, the movement itself is an amalgamation of all ‘alternative’ right wing views that are today considered heterodoxy. This means that the views of one person who considers himself to be part of the ‘Alt-Right’ can be, though do not necessarily have to be, radically different to another.

Summary: these views are socially unacceptable. Taboo, in other words, they are forbidden by informal social rules from being uttered. All of the people who are currently thriving in this wasteland think that these things should not be mentioned. So: speakers of hidden, or dare we say… occult… notions of reality.

A New Right thinker of note expands on this:

“A Talk With Daniel Friberg, Co-Founder Of Arktos and RightOn:

What I mean with the Real Right are those people, organisations and ideologies who do not accept the framework that the Left has set on the public debate.

…The success of the Alt Right illustrates the effectiveness of metapolitical methods. Via cultural means they have changed discourse and the boundaries of the public debate; they have changed the restraints of how we are allowed to think and eroded the shared dogmas of the Left and Old Right.

Two points here: first, this is a cultural revolution, and second, it rejects Leftist vocabulary. This is important because social pressures invert terms or reverse their meanings in order to control a population of faceless equals. Cultural revolution means that instead of fighting over existing political symbols, we decide what we want first and then cause it to rise organically through many avenues.

And then follows an attempt to simplify…

“We Are The Alt-Right”

Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious. This is the Alt-Right.

This expresses the formula that Alex Birch and I worked up for CORRUPT back in 2008:

  • Anti-democracy. Realizing that mob rule and trends do not successfully substitute for leadership by quality people.

  • Human Biodiversity (HBD). Recognizing the differences between groups, and more importantly individuals, and that every ability fits a normal distribution pattern in every population.

  • Ethnic Self-Determination. Every ethnic group needs its own self-rule and its own continent. This is not an argument against any specific ethnic group but a recognition that each group has its own self-interest and that under diversity these clash. Diversity does not work, no matter which groups are the ingredients.

  • Transcendental Purpose. We must find some way to connect to the beauty of this world and understand nature as an order superior to our own intentions, possibly including the metaphysical side of nature which is described by the various religions.

  • Anti-equality. Equality works for arithmetic, not people and not groups, including social castes, races, ethnic groups and families. People are different, with different abilities that are mostly genetic if not all genetic.

In a time when many people want to enter the Alt Right, and control it by redefining it, it is important to remember this bottom line: The Alt Right is against equality.

That dividing line separates the wannabes from the real deal. The wannabes will accept everything else but that; they want to eject certain ethnic groups, but are not against diversity itself; they want to throw out the elites, and then hold more elections to get new rotten elites. They want us to all be Orthodox Medieval Crusader Catholics, but then, equality is the basis of their social order (as long as one prays twice a day whilst facing Mecca, or, perhaps Pennsylvania). All of them get it wrong.

The Alt Right is a revolution against the past millennium. We do not believe in equality. From that, all else flows; equality is the illusion of our time dating back to before the Peasant Revolutions and the Magna Carta. It is the basis of all modernity, all Leftism, and the type of collectivized individualism that creates these things (which in turn arises from civilization success which enables lower orders to outnumber the higher).

This brings us back to the first opinion cited above: the Alt Right is a rejection of Modernity, with modernity not being a span of years or a type of technology, but a type of civilization design based in equality. Modernity is the cold night of the moon to the warm sun of the golden ages of humankind.

The Alt Right formed in order to get away from both mainstream conservatism, which is a hybrid of Leftism called “liberalism” or “neoconservatism,” as well as White Nationalism which essentially wants a classless society in the Leftist model in which all white people are merged together into a grey white race, sometimes called “ethno-Bolshevism.”

White Nationalism is filled with crazies and is at least 50% informants. It failed for a reason. If anything, White Nationalism is a stepping stone to reach the Alt Right. White Nationalism, and its precursor National Socialism, are still stuck in the modern paradigm of equality, “Systems” of rules and regulations, and allowing material orders like demotism — consumerism, democracy and social popularity/peer pressure — to determine what is right. The Alt Right wants us to find what is right, and then have society pursue that, instead of the other way around.

If anything, the Alt Right is more Nationalist than White Nationalism. It recognizes the need for national and regional identity in the identitarian model; it rejects the idea of forming a generic white race and then allowing modernity to exist as it has. It throws down the Constitution and burns the Declaration of Independence. The Alt Right is total rejection of modernity.

Unlike Neoreaction, the Alt Right gives a nod to Radical Traditionalism, the system of thought espoused by Rene Guenon, Aldous Huxley and Julius Evola. It wants a rising civilization against, capable of the greatness of the past.

For this reason, the Alt Right is challenging to define, because first and foremost it requires people to accept an entirely different view of civilization than anything they see around them. Then it leads them through rejection of what exists now, and some basic ideas of what they want instead. Then it shows them the substructure required to support those ideas, and suddenly, we have left modernity far behind, like Peter Pan sailing over London at night.

Those who want to control the Alt Right are trying to boil it down to a single principle, like how the Leftist ideology has “equality” at its core. This takes what is not-modern and places it back within the modern, effectively neutering it. This amounts to entryism by Leftism into the Alt Right and will sabotage it as surely as making it a Justin Bieber fan club.

Instead, the Alt Right suggests we keep going past all boundaries and all expectations. Our societies are doomed if they stay on the current path; this is a good time to dream, and for the first instance, to get it right. We are facing an evolutionary hurdle here: either we surpass modernity, or it buries us.

Perhaps the above will help some intrepid venturers make the journey.


Thursday, October 6th, 2016


Western Civilization has reached a fork in the road. Our system has failed with an interweaving of dysfunctions — ecological, financial, political, demographic — brought about by its pathological quest for equality. Its people live in existential misery and fear but are afraid to leave behind the system they know.

While the global Leftist press blames capitalism for our current financial collapse, sage observers note that we have not had “capitalism” for some time, only a hybrid system with heavy regulation that nonetheless permits oddities like the selling of debts as assets.

That realization leads us to see that we cannot blame our economic system alone, and that something is wrong at a lower level in our civilization. The design of civilization we have chosen has failed which is what always happens when a society constructs itself around an illusion.

In our society, that illusion is the equality of all people, or its ancestor, the idea that a central authority should test people and award power based on those tests, instead of choosing the people who are all-around the best and entrusting them with money and power.

That reversal changed our society from inward-directed, or focused on internal traits, to outward-directed, or zeroed in on attributes of people created by social interaction and interaction with institutions and other proxies for inner traits.

The division between inner traits and ego traits has occupied Western Civilization for the past thousand years, as is explored in this analysis of the division between inner love and external love:

And this, in turn, raises the most important question: Why should you trust a relative more than a stranger? This is the eccentric core of our problem. It is the question of the love of one’s own. It is a matter that stands at the heart of any understanding of how humans behave and whether that behavior can be predicted. It also contrasts sharply with a competing vision of love — the love of acquired things, a tension that defines the last 500 years of European and world history.

The idea that this acquired love, which includes romantic love, should pre-empt the love of one’s own introduces a radical new dynamic to history, in which the individual and choice supersede community and obligation.

Let’s begin in an odd place — Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. The subject of the play is the relationship between these two kinds of love. Romeo and Juliet are born to different families, different clans. These clans are at war with one another. Romeo and Juliet fall in love. The question of the play is this: Which love is pre-eminent? Is it the love to which you are born — your family, your religion and your tradition — the love of one’s own? Or is it the acquired love, the one you have chosen because it pleases you as an individual?

In this passage, “acquired things” are external traits, no matter how internal they seem. These are brought on by what Tom Wolfe calls homo loquax, or speaking man, who has the ability to influence other people with mental visions transmitted through linguistic tokens. Acquired things (then) are a product of socialization, or the luxury of advanced societies to allow social interaction to become the primary activity.

This forces a division upon the individual. Acquired things and inner things overlap, often, forcing the user to choose between one or the other as the means of expression of a certain type of need. One case of this type involves the nature of patriotism:

Patriotism means no more and no less than love of one’s country. This includes its landscape, its people, its culture and its history but also something more, an indefinable spirit that nevertheless is clearly intuited by any real patriot. It is a natural and good human feeling. The man that does not love his country is not to be trusted because it is highly unlikely he can love anything. You may recognise certain things are wrong with the country but you do not fundamentally want to change it. It’s the same as with a person. If you want to completely change a person you purport to love then you don’t actually love that person at all. The patriot may hope for certain things to change but a root and branch transformation is the last thing he wants. When the left now claim to love England or America or wherever but want to radically transform them, or show no sign of concern that they are being radically transformed, you can bet your last dollar that they don’t love those countries at all.

Inner traits are not deceptive because they are inherent to the individual. External traits are where the individual can put on a show, use symbols or language to deceive, or otherwise disguise pathologies or manipulate others through behavior tropes that have emotional value to them. A good politician, actor, con man or psychologist will know how to execute deception regarding inner traits by using outer traits.

This gives us a split between inner and outer patriotism. Outer patriotism is allegiance to ideology and to the political form it has taken in a specific nation-state; inner patriotism is love of nation as an organic whole, meaning at a level lower than the political state, such as traits — landscape, culture, heritage, history, customs — which signify a place and its identity.

In turn, that realization leads us to the core of Alt Right thinking: genetics is the root of the nation. A nation is defined by its people, or rather that it is comprised of a people, and this inner trait is the precursor to all outer traits, not the other way around. We cannot enforce outer traits in order to produce the inner. We can only use outer traits to protect and nurture the inner.

This idea shows up in popular fiction, including the recent adaptation of the works of J.R.R. Tolkien:

They will break upon this fortress like
water on rock. Saruman’s hordes will
pillage and burn, we’ve seen it before.
Crops can be resown; homes rebuilt.
Within these walls, we will outlast

They do not come to destroy Rohan’s
crops or villages. They come to destroy
its people. Down to the last child.

Meta-patriotism states that a nation consists of its inner traits, and those arise from its people. Meta-patriots must avoid being deceived by the idea that external patriotism, such as allegiance to a flag, political system or economic system, can replace the inner traits that actually define the nation because they are hard-wired into its people.

As the West recognizes what a disaster the past thousand years have been, one change that lurks on the horizon is a rejection of outward traits. The most advanced societies encounter the most advanced problems — some reward! — and the question of language, ideology and symbol has bewitched the West for some time not just because of its high average IQ, but its general seriousness and goodwill.

Symbols are universal. Under them, all thought becomes universalized, or focused on a shared consensual hallucination based on the presumed values of tokens. These are presumed to be equally understood by all people, because otherwise this order would be nonsense, and so these symbolic regimes tend toward the universalist, or insistence that all people are the same as far as inner traits go, or “equal.”

With the restoration of inner traits, which may be a first and last line of defense for civilization, the power of language and appearance is deprecated in favor of looking at the lifetime history of individuals as a kind of curved graph where observers can discern an overall motion. No single event can demonstrate inner traits, but over time, a pattern emerges.

This is what the civilization-destroyers fear. This subtype of human being which occurs in every civilization is defined by its need to make its own ego come before civilization and reality. It uses symbols to manipulate appearance because it is compensating for a lack of its power in reality. But with symbols, it has power, and if it mobilizes a collective group based on the same symbolic idea, it can force society to obey its self-important demands.

Civilization-destroyers depend on the primacy of external traits, or at least their competition with internal traits, in order to achieve their power. At first, this seemed like a good idea because in the short-term, it made society more efficient; people were told directly what to do instead of bumbling bovine-like toward the conclusion eventually. But the high cost was that once this power was achieved, it could be manipulated by others, where inner traits cannot be.

As time goes on, our meta-patriotism will be further brought into conflict with our outer-patriotism. Meta-patriotism is nationalistic, or loyal to the founding group, and it is like human affection not based on perfection or ideology but acceptance of imperfection as the cost of identity, in that our internal dialogue over the acceptance of that imperfection drives us to love our native lands.

Outer-patriotism on the other hand is symbolic. One must obey the right flags, newspapers, issues, pundits, and social trends, panics or manias. This is quickly hijacked, in a de facto “false flag” approach, by those who wish to use the power of the nation against it.

At that point, we enter the realm of palliative care. The patient is dying; anything that makes the patient healthier also makes the disease stronger, and the death worse. And so most people do nothing, instead of realizing that biological metaphors are just metaphors and civilization can be restarted by removing the bad and improving the good.

That, however, is why you will not find this blog in the top ten on the right. People like emotional gestures, especially hopeless ones, because then they can shake their fists at the sky and go back to doing exactly what they were doing before. Perhaps that is the first stumbling block on our journey back toward meta-patriotism.

Is Life A “Zero-Sum” Game?

Monday, September 26th, 2016


In Pravda-on-the-Hudson today, a lament for the collapse of globalism contained this interesting signaling:

Mr. Clinton spoke of the globalist vision of a “nonzero-sum” world in which everyone wins together and of how that idea was under attack by “zero-sum” tribal politics.

Translation: start advocating a “nonzero-sum” world as a proxy for globalism, which is the triumph of Leftism by eliminating its adversaries through the mechanism of extending membership in the great money chain of global commerce only to those nations with the “right” ideas.

But what is a nonzero-sum game? A zero-sum game means that there are finite resources, like ten apples for fifteen people, and some must take the apples, leaving others with none. A nonzero-sum game then is that there are infinite apples and everyone can have one, or that we cut up the apples so that each person gets some.

Libertarians say that life is a nonzero-sum game because if we follow sensible economic principles, more wealth can be created, and “a rising tide lifts all boats.” This is true, but applies to economics alone. The consequences of producing more apples may include cutting down all the forests to make room for orchards.

However, this entire question is false when it centers on resources. The real reason that the world is a zero-sum game has to do with decisions. That is: the choice to vest a certain system in power drives out other methods, and also, the fact of making the decision influences history, pushing other ideas out of the way.

It is a zero-sum game in that if your nation chooses one system over others, they are marginalized and must work within their opposite, which changes their definitions — or “inverts” them — and effectively excludes them.

The real zero-sum game here is that we are choosing our future, and to make one choice excludes the others. This is why the Left focuses on zero-sum games as a question of resources, not choices. Choices are by their nature a zero-sum game.

Economists speak of “opportunity cost,” or the foreclosure of possibilities created by a choice that by its very nature excludes all others. This is what we are speaking of when we look at the world: we either choose the best, or the rest, and each choice destroys the other as a potential option.

Our choices include only two real options. On the Left, there is a relaxation of concentration of wealth and power; this creates a quantity-oriented society where whatever is most popular wins. The Right, by contrast, emphasizes quality and hierarchy, attempting to promote the best above the rest for the benefits of their greater competence.

One is natural: the Right. The other, the Left, emphasizes human fears and the desire to make human intent superior to nature. This generally ends badly, as with a few exceptions, human intent focuses on desires, which rationalize a choice between available options based on the impulses of the individual.

The Right, on the other hand, suppresses our desires in favor of making logical choices.

Rightists tend to look at life as a question of quality, which can be improved gradually with increases in excellence. This does not achieve what the Left promises, which is one bold stroke that ends a problem forever without understanding its causes. Instead, the Right looks into causes, and accepts them, but maximizes realistic options.

This is the choice before our people today. We can chase the dream of absolute solutions, or we can take life as it is, and working by inches and not miles, improve our lot and aim ourselves toward an unattainable and ongoing goal, like excellence. That is the path to a great civilization.

With the Left, we get an eternal pursuit of an ideal that exists only in the human mind, and when results differ from intent, a redoubling of efforts toward the pathological failed strategy. This is why globalism has died. Our people have tired of chasing an illusory goal, and prefer the hard path to excellence instead.

The Rejection Of World Leftism

Tuesday, September 6th, 2016


As the media machine struggles to make sense of what is happening, it repeats the old tropes. Conservative and liberal writers have taken to their keyboards to write about how leftism is good, and anything else is bad. They claim the opposite, that they are attacking specific movements, but only non-Leftist movements are attacked.

That leads to the kind of schoolyard name calling that we see in this article from Leftist voicebox The New York Times:

The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the alt-right “a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.” Most Americans hadn’t heard about the alt-right until this election, and some not until last month, when Hillary Clinton gave a speech in Reno, Nev., linking Donald Trump to it.

The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute says it is “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.” Through his online writings and YouTube channel, Mr. Spencer is a key player in the social-media universe where this core group of Trump supporters get their “news,” from sources with which most people aren’t familiar. A quick scan shows that immigration is not only their most important issue, it’s pretty much their only issue.

“Immigration is a kind of proxy war — and maybe a last stand — for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile,” Mr. Spencer wrote in a National Policy Institute column.

The Left bemoans this as identity politics, which means voting according to your tribe’s self-interest. It is acceptable for homosexuals, Jews, African-Americans, Mexicans, Japenese, Muslims, etc. to act in their own self-interest, but not Europeans. Why? Because the goal of Leftism is to destroy the majority culture and replace it with an ideology.

We know this because history shows it to us. The Soviet Union bragged about how diversity was its strength. Rome became increasingly diverse in its final years, as did Athens, by the account of Plato. In each case, the rulers imported new people to shatter the culture, heritage and traditions of the society so that the people could be made a means to the end of that ruler’s power.

That is the decision before us at this time: be not racist, so that our leaders can replace enough of us to have permanent control, or be called racists and say out loud that diversity does not and cannot function as a positive policy, therefore it should be replaced. That means America for its founding group, the Western Europeans.

Across all continents settled by Western Europeans, the elites have had one super-weapon which they use liberally (no pun intended) and that is the epithet ¡RACIST!. Starting even before the Civil War, the elites decided they wanted to replace our people with others, first Southern and Eastern Europeans, and later, other racial groups. This made the job of being an elite leader easier, because no cultural consensus conflicted with the power of the State.

Since WWII, it has been easy — too easy — for the elites, since Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini were all nationalists, or those who believe a nation should be defined by its founding ethnic group only. This opposed the agenda of the ever-expanding Leftist State, and thwarted its power, so it needed to be destroyed.

This agenda was enforced by the social perception that “everybody knows” and “everybody agrees” what is true, and therefore, those who think differently are not just wrong, but wrong because they are bad or stupid and ignorant. This is a fundamentally social method of controlling the thinking of the masses, a type of hive-mind imposed by an appeal to the weakness and pretense of individuals.

Except that now, people are willing to be called ¡RACIST! and ignorant because they realize that this is it: this is our last shot and preventing the takeover of our civilization by the Left.

Next stop, Venezuela. Or Brazil. But it will not be the future we have been told that we have. Nope, all the wealth and technology is slowly going away as social order further disintegrates, and then we have nothing but the type of third-world strongmen we are familiar with from the news, ruling over a banana republic where everyone is corrupt, that never produces anything important ever again.

This is why events like the Donald Trump candidacy, and Brexit, have shaken the establishment to its core, but more importantly, have shocked its supporters, who are counting on riding the coattails of the “right side of history” to personal success, and being thoughtless like people who litter in national parks, care not for the consequences of their actions. Witness history being made:

The first was an almost universal surprise, since it was a truism that Leavers were a tiny handful of fruitcakes. A defeat for Remain was thus unthinkable. In fact there had always been widespread opposition to the EU among voters at all social levels, even though political parties, the media, and most national institutions had treated the idea with contempt and its adherents as eccentric at best. Suddenly the referendum rules meant that Leavers were on television making the case for Brexit nightly and, contrary to their caricature, they seemed quite reasonable. They persuaded some voters to switch to Leave, and Leave voters to be more confident of their own opinions. As the campaign developed, the polls swung towards Leave and many late polls showed the two sides as neck-and-neck. A Leave victory, though by no means inevitable, should have been seen as pretty likely.

In fact the reaction that followed surprise was a set of variations on horror, outrage, indignation, anguish and a desire for revenge. That was on the Remain side; the Leave side was pleased but not extravagantly so. For a while it simply pocketed its unexpected success and watched, bemused, from the wings while Remainers rioted angrily stage-centre. They plainly wanted the referendum result annulled but they were never quite able to explain why. Obviously they couldn’t say simply that they wanted a different result. So they had to invent a series of specious reasons that in their eyes cast doubt on its validity—that the Leave campaign was xenophobic and racist, that its voters (though not Remain voters) had not understood what they were voting for, that it had “told lies” (uniquely so in political campaigns, apparently), and so on and so forth. But the argument advanced with most passion by Remainers and repeated most often in the left-wing press ran as follows: because old uneducated people supporting Leave had outvoted young people with degrees voting Remain, these miserable old geezers had “robbed the young of their future” and, well, it wasn’t right.

We are on a precipice. The past seventy years of conservatism, 227 years of democracy, and thousand years of steadily marching toward egalitarianism have betrayed us; every year, more problems occur and our society is less the beautiful, hopeful, ambitious and excellent place it once was. Instead, we accept inferior substitutes, and are forced by social pressure into denying that oblivion threatens us.

And yet, slowly it dawns on people. This is not just another election, after which things continue as normal. Normal is terrible: our governments are broke, our jobs are slavery, our cities are cesspools and our future is worse. It will be a long, slow, painful slide down to third-world levels of oblivion. And what can we do?

The first step — the most difficult, they say — is admitting that we have a problem:

One of the paradoxes—there are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate it.

Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?

What is the future of post-Enlightenment Western Civilization? If we search our hearts, we know the answer: going out like Rome or Athens, leaving behind a civilization which is thoroughly dysfunctional and produces nothing. We are not choosing which of these relatively inconsequential platforms to adopt, but fighting for survival, starting by reserving the ability to choose to beat down our potential tyrants in the future.

In the EU and the USA, the governments are basically the same: heavy regulations, social welfare programs, Leftist agenda, and a desire to replace their citizens with third-world people or “minority” groups, who always vote Leftist. They never vote right-wing, because it is against their instinct, since it would require admitting that their homelands did it wrong and that is why they are third-world, not because of colonialism or sunspots or whatever they’re claiming this week. And so, with a few statistically-insignificant exceptions, they will never do it.

That is what globalism means, when you distill down the meaning: worldwide trade because the Leftist empire has worldwide control, at least of the first world. Globalism = Leftism. Multiculturalism/diversity is the inevitable result of Leftism as it seeks to gain this global control. All else is noise and fantasy; we either destroy this, or it destroys us.

The Self-Inventing Totalitarian State

Sunday, May 8th, 2016


Watching mainstream Neoreaction and outside-Right sources walk the same path as cuckservatives evokes visceral pain in the experienced observer, but it is our fate, because the same power that subverted mainstream conservatism has triumphed in the underground Right. You can tell where the divide is whenever people speak of “the Cathedral.”

To those who are still trapped in the Leftist paradigm, the Cathedral is a group of shady people who magically seized control of the West, and if we just dethroned these bad people, the good times would resume. This fantasy resembles the storyline of a 1980s film where the outcasts unify and beat back the arrogant popular kids!

And yet, if we dig deeper, that fantasy can be found elsewhere, such as in West Side Story or even earlier, in a relatively unbroken line going back to the dawn of time. Stories which invert reality — telling us what is plainly true is not true, and that there is an easier way to success, glory and moral good than what is evidently necessary — are always popular because they play to the fears of insufficiency that individuals have.

Reality-inversion may be the oldest successful non-essential product. Once there is food, and the plague and famine are not raging immediately nearby, humans turn to distractions: over-indulgence of wine, prostitutes, and fantasies about how they are succeeding by failing. In fact, they are failing by succeeding; their society has beaten back nature enough that Darwinian rules no longer seem to apply, and humanity has failed to adopt a corresponding quality control standard.

What is ironic is that the Cathedral gains its power by offering reality-inversion fantasies (RIFs), much as mainstream outside-Right movements gain their audience by doing the same. The RIF for the Cathedral is pacifism, isolationism and freedom; for the mainstream underground Right, it is gated communities without minorities and feminists so that everyone can easily commute to their entry level tech jobs. Both are the same fantasy retold in different forms.

The audience defines the product; whoever offers that product will be rewarded, unless held back by those with more mental power. This means that like weeds and parasites in nature, a new Cathedral springs up wherever human society is established — unless it is suppressed. Other self-organizing forms of parasitic human behavior like gangs, prostitutes/pimps, beggar colonies and hobo camps create themselves the same way. People want these things, or at least, some people do.

Self-organizing power structures and “dark organizations” — anti-patterns for success that come about as a result of organizing humans in groups — are little studied compared to the patterns which reflect how we like to think of ourselves, which involve formal organization and bureaucratic success. But these are the key to the human species: wherever we go, the civilization pattern goes, and it eventually kills civilization. This tells us that there is an inherent pitfall to the civilization process that must be counteracted to make it work, much like rhubarb needs to be cooked thoroughly or it is poisonous.

If conservatism has a virtue it is that it understands civilization beyond the face value formal definitions issued by civilization itself, because conservatism distrusts civilization. Is the rhubarb cooked enough? a cautious cook might ask; similarly, the conservative asks whether civilization has been suppressed, oppressed, beaten down, trimmed back and subjugated enough for its payload — a human group — to survive. Civilization invents pretense, which is the form these “face value” (i.e. deceptive) notions take, but all face value notions are like the speech of a salesman: designed to obscure faults, and induce the buyer to succumb to the various pitfalls of human mentation that allow us to see what is not there, and ignore what is.

If conservatism has a vice, it is that often conservatives confuse the beating-down of tangible objects with having beaten the intangible disease within; this process — like scapegoating, talismans, devil dolls, neurosis, superstition and other Vodoun-style symbolic projection — allows the human group to “cast out” its own disease and project them onto something else which can be defeated. But the real defeat must occur within our souls, which is what Nietzsche and Evola chide us with each time someone comes up with an easy externally-based solution for human ills.

The paradox of this human illness is that it infects individuals, but takes effect in groups, a process called Crowdism which is a form of collectivized individualism. Individuals want the right to deny reality, but that right can only be granted by the group, so those individuals organize a breakaway group. This group becomes more popular that the over-group because it has lower standards for membership, namely “demand the same thing we do and you’re in the gang.” This cult or gang-like dark organization then pervades and dominates the host over-group.

Where my own writing is unique is that I join this Darwinian/Nietzschean view with a classic Homeric/Christian view of evil, namely that human hubris or pretense leads to self-delusion through the Burroughsian method of “control,” and I tie it into a Pynchonian idea, which is that we can see this process as part of entropy. This sounds like a lot of buzzwords, but in fact it unites a number of themes we have seen time and again in human society: many options presented, society pulls itself apart, and our response is to impose more stern standards and punishments, at which point the opposite of what we intended occurs, like pouring water on an oil fire.

Entropy occurs as a process of life. The more possibilities exist, the less predictable activity is… to a point. When too many options exist, the differences between them are erased in a process called heat-death where any option produces about the same result as any other. This explains the arc-like or circular pattern of most things in nature; at first, they expand; then, their growth flowers in every direction; then, they die or at least most of them dies; finally, they are reborn in a reduced form consisting of those which flowered in a realistic way. There is a Path after all… it is not obvious to all.

Naturally this provokes in our minds the thought that to limit entropy, we need to limit the number of options available. Very true, but also wrong, because limiting options alone will not work in the same way stern authority does not. Unintended consequences arise, which is that people work around strong authority. This is why Darwinian natural selection works: centralized order based on before-the-fact censorship fails, but order united by principle and applied in after-the-fact selection always works. Conservatives hate socialism and tyranny alike for this reason because they are before-the-fact selection, which means that they are as easily gamed as any other form of face value order.

The only solution that remains is internal order. This is much like the self-discipline that athletes use to reach Olympic status, or the self-control of a sniper, the deliberate forceful thinking of (good) writer, or the contemplated movements of a craftsman that allow him to achieve immense precision, even timing the motions of his tools between breaths to avoid jarring. Self-discipline allows us to see reality and then to act toward the best possible options that present themselves to us, which generally consist of that which has been tried and observed before and the best results conserved.

Here however we encounter a bootstrapping problem. Unlike the self-organizing chaos of Crowdism/the Cathedral, making civilization arise — or return, in our case! — requires both inner and outer force. That is, some with inner force must gain control of the rest, beat back the individualism and its collective, and then implement standards which make people rise to their best possible level of performance. All good leadership and management consists of this process, and yet it is not popular among humans because it tells each of us that we do not know what is best for us in all cases, and therefore, “freedom” and “liberty” are not solutions but distractions. That rankles the Ego.

To solve our bootstrapping problem, we need strong leadership that can nurture the excellence within us. This shows us that in civilization there are only two options: either the best oppress the rest (Rightism), or the rest oppress the best (Leftism). Leftism is a method of the latter, which is actually Crowdism, much as Neoreaction is a method of the former; both are intellectualizations designed to explain the core principle behind each direction. Like most symbolic realities, they do not translate literally; this is why Leftism always changes when in power, and why Neoreaction is mostly talking points to get us to compare possible other options to the present monolithic Leftism ruling the West.

I write this down in a handy form in case I get squashed by a bus or die of the Zika virus or some other inglorious and yet all too normal end. It is here as a precursor to a forthcoming book which explains these ideas in more detail, and serves as a warning against the Crowdism within, especially in Right-wing movements. There is a reason it has subverted every institution it has attacked, and Right-leaning ones are especially vulnerable. The Cathedral is us, like the enemy is us, until we apply discipline to our inner choices and head toward the light instead.

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.

The Raging Realist

Sunday, March 20th, 2016


In contentious times, people want an option outside of the major choices. In some cases, the choices are made simple: accept the obvious, or run away from it. When those are your options, finding a third way is near impossible.

But, if it will make you “feel” better, let us consider my perspective a third way. There is Leftism/Liberalism, Rightism/Conservatism and my way, Raging Realism. A Ragin’ Realist is someone who denies all but what exists out there in the world, which humans normally suppress in exchange for the social world of emotions, desires and judgments (moralizations: “it shouldn’t be that way”).

As a result, Ragin’ Realism is not for the ordinary, which is why it is raging. It must achieve incredible momentum to reach escape velocity from the sickly treacle of the “feelings” of people around it. But at its core, it is very simple: our thoughts must correspond to reality.

Naturally this makes reality a target. The favorite human game is to redefine key terms, or to sample only part of the data necessary and draw broad conclusions for it, or even our “rationalistic” thought process, which is to think of a convenient hypothesis and filter out any data but what supports it. All of these are pretty bad but pretty normal.

In fact, that is what makes Ragin’ Realism so controversial. It says that what most people are thinking most of the time is not just nonsense, but concealment, deliberate deception designed to hide reality so that the monkey party can continue. The first step in realism is realism about what humans are.

By most, it does not mean fifty-one out of a hundred; it means ninety-nine out of a hundred. That is the grim fact that intelligent, aware and moral people have always refused to hear. You are alone, very alone. The rest are clueless and if not beaten back, will do their best to destroy you so that their cluelessness is not revealed. They call that “equality.”

These people love chaos as well. Why? In chaos they can hide. If there are no standards, they are never wrong. If everyone is screwing up all of the time, their screwups are invisible. Their desires to transgress — which fetishize something that is less interesting in reality than in their vision, which is usually based on illusion spread by the raving commentary of their friends anyway — can be hidden behind a wall of confusion.

You might find something similar in American folklore:

“Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please,” said Brer Rabbit. “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”

“The briar patch, eh?” said Brer Fox. “What a wonderful idea! You’ll be torn into little pieces!”

Grabbing up the tar-covered rabbit, Brer Fox swung him around and around and then flung him head over heels into the briar patch…Brer Fox cocked the other ear toward the briar patch, listening for Brer Rabbit’s death rattle…He turned around and looked up the hill. Brer Rabbit was sitting on a log combing the tar out of his fur with a wood chip and looking smug.

“I was bred and born in the briar patch, Brer Fox,” he called. “Born and bred in the briar patch.”

The briar patch for your average person is chaos. They were born in chaos, to chaotic parents who lived in disorder and squalor, even if modern conveniences helped obscure that. Their minds operate by chaos, which is to say that they have no hierarchical capacity, only the ability to understand lots of little things with specific details, like comic books and movies. Their lives are currently chaos.

If you catch them doing something low-level insane (a.k.a. their modus operandi) they will immediately create a false target: “Oh, don’t throw me in that briar patch!” Their point is always to get you to do something which increases the chaos, so they can hide in the chaos.

Now, conservatism, that is tempting. It introduces the question of degree to Ragin’ Realism. A Ragin’ Realist loves what works, but like the term “reality,” this is under assault by human reason itself. If you need to house a million people, you could just build giant Soviet-style apartment blocks full of 8×10 rooms with combination sink/toilet/shower holes in the corner. Technically this solves the problem.

Conservatism modifies this with degree. What is the best solution in human history? That is what conservatism conserves: best solutions, highest achievements, most intense greatness, awesomest pleasures. Most sources note a “zest for life” in conservatism, and I think that is the core of it: it is the philosophy of pleasure-seekers who have taken a moment to understand their own pleasures.

Maybe Ragin’ Realism can learn that from Conservatives. Can it learn anything from the Left? Since most of the Left is based purely in moralization, or a statement about what “should be” without understanding why it is not what is, i.e. why it is not as effective and efficient as what nature produced, most of Leftism should be discarded.

There is one thing however… perhaps it’s a trifle. Or maybe it should be mentioned. Leftists are self-destruction junkies, but they are also willing to admit when something sucks. They look too hard for that, because Leftism is really a way for lonely and miserable people to socialize with each other through commiseration, but they can point out obvious truths where Conservatives will tell you to suck it up and stop being such a pussy.

For example, that society sucks. That other people are mostly poisonous little dwarfs who get their only excitement in life from provoking others into failing or flailing. That on the whole, a housecat is better company than most of the human race. And so on. The Leftist “culture of critique” is what shapes intelligent post-collapse populations and becomes their raison d’etre. But right now, someone should mention that this society sucks. That is Realism too.

The real attribute of Ragin’ Realism that scares people is its utter nihilism. A realist cannot obscure a historical or factual truth with platitudes. We recognize that the universe is mostly emptiness and that which does not struggle against this emptiness perishes, and no one cares. There is no eternal glory in the sky for a species that dies out because it became mentally disorganized.

In life, only that which persists, matters. Everything else is swept backward into time. Maybe it lives on in the metaphysical afterlife, or not, but that matters less than what survives in reality. Most people are always looking for an excuse to self-destruct because they are tired of the burden of survival, which is like an endless series of Post-It™ notes reminding you that you can have better results if you just fix this one more thing one more time…

You get tired of it. It is tiring to beat back demons, to fiddle with fixes, to struggle against the crushing wave of entropy (and the bigger wave of the insanity of others) that always wants to drive you to the lowest common denominator or, preferably, chaos so that that happy monkey party time can continue in the trees. Free fruit for all! And we fermented it too, and there’s Bonobo sex parties. Fascinating.

A Ragin’ Realist recognizes all of this, and takes these two principles from conservatives and liberals. First, that we need not just the minimum functionality, but an experience that nourishes us. And second, that because life sucks, our first agenda should be to sweep aside all the tedious, exhausting, ugly and blockheaded experiences we can in order to conserve our limited energy so we can apply it to the good stuff.

But with that in mind, you can see the paradox of realism. There is an answer to life; it is not easy; without it life sucks. Therefore, we should choose that, and with this obvious fact in the room, two choices arise. Deny it or accept it. And most people will go for the former, of course, because their big brains tell them it might be like the lottery, where one in three hundred million people gets into money Heaven for being at the right place at the right time.

To be right is to be rustled

Thursday, November 12th, 2015


Dearest readers, have you ever been rustled? You know, you see something on the internet, on television, or on the street that triggers some sort of rage in you? Something that you know is wrong, that you can feel a deep, terrible disgust about, though in the moment you are almost non-verbal? Later, perhaps, you can sit down and articulate exactly why what you experienced bothered you so. But it’s all a bit of justification, post hoc. If we are being honest with ourselves, we admit that our reaction was purely primal, and emotional- and there is not a thing wrong with that.

The reality is, to be right wing is to be rustled.

Let me explain.

“Rustling” is just the internet slang for when someone in a forum gets overly bothered by something, and rages or otherwise acts upset. In an anonymous forum, displays of out of control emotion lose you points, because sarcasm and snarkiness are the coin of the realm. More plainly stated, getting rustled is when you become disgusted or angry about something- something that everyone else is blissfully calm about.

I’ve written about Jonathan Haidt before, who has studied the differences in conservative and non-conservative minds. Haidt outlines six moral axis- care/harm, fairness (equality)/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. His conclusion was that liberals cared only about the first two categories- harm and inequality bothers them, but degradation does not.

This plays out rather observably in the real world. A description of a degenerate sex act is met by an indifferent shrug by your average Hillary Clinton supporter, while nearly causing you to vomit.

So why are you so much more rustled than she?

Because we live in a left-wing society, which apart from its present (temporary) foray into semi-free market, is completely and utterly dominated by fantasies about preventing harm and enforcing equality.

It is almost guaranteed that should you tune into television, read a newspaper, watch a standard-fare movie, or speak to someone on any topic not related to weather or sports, that you will encounter some version of the head-poundingly stupid proverbs bounded about by leftists as wisdom. These nasty poison pills invariably idealize equality, diversity, fairness and existentialism.

And this will bother you. And you will be bothered much more by this kind of filth than someone who has absorbed modernist poison into their souls, or the many more who have simply shut down their responses to these stimuli, preferring to ignore them and self medicate with drugs or alcohol. This is where the stereotype of “angry conservative” comes from, because stereotypes tend to have their basis in truth. Once you have shed the blinders of ideology and realized the truth about human inequality and democracy, almost everything produced for the masses in the last 50 years will begin to bother you, even if only in subtle ways.

Now should the reactionary seek to cram down his disgust reaction, numb himself, and live with these feelings, so that he can live in society?

Yes and no. My recommendation is to use these emotions. Every time you see something disgusting being accepted, remember that feeling. Every time you hear demonic nonsense masquerading as political discourse, remember the anger. Channel it into contempt. Contempt for the wretched state of our society- feel it in your bones that you are better than this, and should live in a better spiritual place than this.

And use that feeling to separate yourself. You have no loyalty to anything which embodies the worse urges of man. You owe nothing to a state which is determined to destroy anything good, or true, or beautiful.

Instead, you should channel your frustration and disgust into building something- a mannerbund, a gang, someplace to belong. Create your own society. Avoid the poz. Your soul is trying to tell you something every time you get rustled.

Listen to it.

Correcting confusion about the alternative right

Thursday, August 13th, 2015


Most of us know what a tree is: a large plant with woody branches. A tree is also an abstract form of data that resembles the outlines you did for papers in high school. There is a topic, and off of it, branches that support a thesis or interpretation of that topic.

Over at Alternative Right, the gang found some guy trying to explain the alternative right. He did an admirable job, but for the clarification mostly of right-wingers, I offer the following elucidation, using the form of the tree.

The ideologies espoused by “alt right” types can vary greatly, but broadly speaking includes certain sorts of extreme libertarians, immigration critics and “race realists” (basically intellectual racists and anti-semites), “neo-reactionaries” (who argue against democracy, human rights, and other manefestations of modernist philosophy), and anti-feminists, including some of the “Men’s Rights” crowd.

Stop: ask yourself: what is the topic? The answer is: people who think the modern world is screwed. What defines the modern world? Its egalitarian basis. Therefore, people who dislike the modern world are not egalitarians, or in other words do not believe people are equal, but valuable in proportion to what they contribute or their innate qualities.

All of those other definitions are branches off that topic. Race realists look at the differences between ethnic groups. “Racists” — the word “racist” is made up by leftists and has no meaning — are those who dislike other ethnic groups, or as liberals define it, simply notice ethnic differences and/or wish to live among their own. Nationalists are those who, like me, believe in self-rule and respect for every ethnic group and race (races get continents, ethnic groups get nations). Neoreactionaries get the best definition above, but he might add that modernist philosophy is defined by its egalitarian, utilitarian basis. Anti-feminists are opposed to a form of egalitarianism called feminism that focuses on equalizing the gap between males and females. When you view the above as branches of anti-egalitarian thought, the associations become clearer.

But there is also a more generic or moderate flavor of alt right thought that may not fully embrace any of the above agendas, but still be sympathic to their contrarian messages of skepticism towards prevailing conventional wisdom on matters like race, gender, and electoral politics.

Alternative right in my mind means two things: (1) right-wing (2) in ways that the mainstream will not acknowledge. This means actual conservatives, since mainstream conservatives have always been liberal apologists at least in part, and so have failed to achieve anything over their 200 year long slow retreat. Alternative right as a term is used like the phrase “alternative music” once was, meaning that which the mainstream is not yet ready for but will mine for ideas once its own get too stale.

Its main subjects of scorn tend to be out-of-touch, left-wing elites in politics, business, academia, and the mainstream media who they believe to be actively ruining society through their aggressive embrace of feminist, multicultural, and post-modernist ideas.

Not really. Our main source of scorn is mob rule, which is enabled by democracy, equality and altruism.

Our response to it is hierarchy, or having a social order where we put the most competent on top and exclude trends, fads and manias from dictating our policy.

The elites — who are not natural elites, or the most competent, but meritocratic elites or the most obedient to education, government and industry — are in power because of mob rule. People in committees or bigger groups always make bad decisions. What is popular is generally bad.

I would say the alt right is primarily about cultural issues, and less interested in economic policy or public policy in general.

We are primarily about change through culture, since change through government tends to be corrupted by the franchise that is government. Government has the aegis of public interest to protect it as it goes about activities that resemble those of profit-making corporations, except for government the profit is distributed in salaries to the elites and benefits to business entities. This includes regulation, which essentially provides a liability shield for companies that conform to the paperwork, which enables them to hide bigger transgressions that are not formally defined. Law is always “by the letter of the law” and not by intent, which enables regulated entities to get away with near-murder.

The alt right is an interesting, creative, growing intellectual movement within broader American conservatism. It appears to be led, and most enthusiastically supported by young white men, who could rise to become an important force within Republican politics and Republican-aligned media. Already we are seeing some “mainstream” conservative publications and institutions — particularly Brietbart and the American Enterprise Institute — coming under greater sway of the alt right, as a new generation of young, web-savvy conservatives begin to rise to prominance within them. Alt right fans are passionate and energized, and represent an attractive demographic of readers, activists, contributors, consumers, and voters for any savvy conservative leader to harness.

No disagreement. But it makes more sense to style it as a movement than his earlier comment:

The “alt right” exists mostly in the form of an archipelago of blogs, podcasts, and social media accounts, many of which center around a single pseudonymous commentator.

It exists as a group of people who agree on roughly the same thing: democracy and equality are lies; we chose a bad path at a fork in the road two centuries ago, and we need to go back and pick another route.

We are pseudonymous because opposing democracy and equality will get you fired from your job, have your business confiscated, your family taken, your friends abandoning you and your rental or owned home removed from your control. They will destroy you for failing to affirm the dominant illusion.

He makes a point for alt-righters that is very much worth attending to:

A lot of alt-right commentary tends to be more easily defined in terms of what it opposes than what it supports.

It is also a cheap shot. We are the resistance movement to liberalism; we want non-liberalism. In my mind, that means going back to the root and through cultural change, removing individualism and replacing it with self-interest in context of social role. It means nationalism, or one ethnic group per country (send all non Western Europeans back to their homelands). It means having an aristocracy, or people chosen by ability and character rather than obedience to industry, academia and popularity, instead of mob rule. It means a removal of millions of lines of law and their replacement with a few informal principles.

But, it is not a terrible thing to contemplate what our world would look like. We tend to do a fair amount of it here, but it is hard to visualize from abstractions. Nevertheless, that is too wide of a scope for this article.

No solutions

Thursday, February 19th, 2015


“There is no solution!” This answer pleases everyone. That is because what we call “modern” is just one of many. Every civilization goes through a life cycle where suddenly, at the peak of its technological and social power, it collapses as if everyone just up and left. What remains are shattered third-world mixed-race shells like Brazil, Mexico, or what remains of Angkor Wat. That is collapse: a long slow process of apathy grinding against material self-interest, leaving only mud huts and a bazaar patrolled by local warlords.

People wish there to be no solution because it enables them to keep on living as “normal,” by which they mean the new normal of every generation being worse off than the last. The reason is not a discrete “issue,” like whether we legalize abortion or weed, but the issue of whether our civilization has a healthy design or not. A healthy design promotes constant renewal not through novelty and irony, as our current society does, but through constant improvement in all areas. If you have a bad king, you need a better king, not democracy.

Their instinct to live normally comes from our oldest biological urge, which is to fight and predominate. For them, the question becomes how they can beat out everyone else and smash them down, because peak empires tend to be packed with people most of whom are utterly useless. This enrages people but they cannot articulate it, both because their brains are not disciplined enough to notice, and because they are in denial. Denial allows them to continue thinking they are successes, winners, exceptional people with fascinating lives, even though they are simply more profiteers on the carcass of greatness invented long ago.

Bravely they recite what they were told at schools: that all other methods of government have failed, that anything but our mixture of commerce and subsidies is tyranny, and that the best future for us is to keep repeating the same acts that have gotten us into this position, just take them to new extremes. This dovetails with the ultimate self-interest in a place where society is overgrown, which is the need to get noticed. If they can capture attention for a few moments by being radical, that makes them stand out above the crowd.

No one wants a solution. A solution would require we discipline our own behavior, change our ways, and apply social standards to everyone including ourselves. Anarchy with grocery stores provides what each undisciplined heart wants, which is the ability to act as selfishly as possible without consequences. It is no wonder we talk of dying societies imploding; they collapse into the dark void of individual human need.

You will meet two types of people in a collapsing society. Both of these are compensating, or justifying failure with the thought that they get a reward in some other area, by insisting that we ignore the problem — that our civilization is a long, slow collapse to nothing but a polluted third-world wasteland — and wanting us to agree with them that there are no solutions but to keep doing things as we are, but with a few details changed, like illegal abortion or higher minimum wage. Then we’ll be in paradise, finally. Misery loves company.

These types are:

  1. The Republican
    Comfortable with the idea of social Darwinism, the Republican believes that you should work hard and get ahead, and by that he means get wealthier. He is basically correct, since that is how in a biological sense you beat out other animals and rise to a position of power. He forgets two things: (1) working like a dog will make you act like a bear, and your family will suffer, thus your line ends soon after you and (2) as society decays around you, it has a nasty habit of taking you down with it.
  2. The Democrat
    The Democrat deals with decay by outright ignoring it and rationalizing it. In his view, society has always been bad and there has never been any hope, so all we can do is make ourselves comfortable and wait for the end. Comfortable means no rules and hopefully a state subsidy, so no one has to do anything but sit around and be social, which is where the Democrat excels over his Republican counterparts: they are good at business, he is good at socializing. As a result, he wants to make a civilization of socializing only.

These caricatures are cut of whole cloth and almost as transparent as Ayn Rand or Barbara Kingsolver characters, but they exemplify the two basic responses to civilization decay, which are biological and social respectively. They are created this way because they by definition refuse to see the problem and its solutions, so are left with compensatory behaviors that enhance their own powers at the expense of others.

No one wants a solution. Solutions mean changing ourselves and limiting our freedom, 99% of which we do not need, but which gratifies our narcissistic egos. Nature gives us such egos because in the wilds, failure is frequent and the healthiest creatures shrug it off with an innate sense of self-worth. When channeled into a social sense however this confidence becomes a sociopathic greed and tendency toward manipulation. Including, of course, insisting that there are no solutions.