Posts Tagged ‘the enlightenment’


Saturday, February 25th, 2017

Human brains are notoriously complex and so we attempt to diagnose them with complex methods, but recently a much simpler analysis revealed more of the workings of the mind than the complex approach. This in turn revealed the presence of self-deception or more accurately “self-trickery” as the basis of human mental operations.

According to author Michael Lewis, we are biologically wired to trick ourselves:

But we are also endlessly irrational, delusional, overconfident and often just plain wrong. They unearthed any number of different ways in which our minds trick us into believing things that simply aren’t true.

For example, if we enjoy the last day of a holiday, then we tend significantly to overrate how fun the entire experience was. They labelled this the “peak end rule”. Similarly, if we are given a list of female names and a longer list of male names, we will think the female list is longer if there are famous and recognisable names on it. They called this “availability bias”.

Kahneman and Tversky showed again and again that our decisions, memory and understanding of the world are often wildly distorted by self-deception. We seek to turn huge and unpredictable events into manageable stories, cutting endless corners in the process. “The world is so much more uncertain than our minds can tolerate,” says Lewis. “It drives you crazy if you really think about it. So we have these mechanisms that make it seem more knowable than it really is.”

Reading this together with Dilbert creator Scott Adams reveals an unsettling picture. Adams predicted that Trump would win the 2016 Presidential election not based on statistical predictions, but simply based on persuasion.

“If you see voters as rational you’ll be a terrible politician,” Adams writes on his blog. “People are not wired to be rational. Our brains simply evolved to keep us alive. Brains did not evolve to give us truth. Brains merely give us movies in our minds that keeps us sane and motivated. But none of it is rational or true, except maybe sometimes by coincidence.”

…(Among the persuasive techniques that Trump uses to help bend reality, Adams says, are repetition of phrases; “thinking past the sale” so the initial part of his premise is stated as a given; and knowing the appeal of the simplest answer, which relates to the concept of Occam’s razor.)

…Writes Adams: “Identity is always the strongest level of persuasion. The only way to beat it is with dirty tricks or a stronger identity play. … [And] Trump is well on his way to owning the identities of American, Alpha Males, and Women Who Like Alpha Males. Clinton is well on her way to owning the identities of angry women, beta males, immigrants, and disenfranchised minorities.”

The academic angle on these revelations is based on research and writings of two Israeli psychologists Danny Kahneman and Amos Tversky. These two psychologists overturned the economic idea (in the 70s) of the rational consumer or voter who thinks rationally — in The Enlightenment™ style — when making decisions.  They find that civilizations have made some excellent rational decisions, but that it does not deter from the fact that humans and consequently their organizations are fundamentally irrational.

This irrationality in turn makes humans natural bluffers, with organizations commonly based in illusion that they utilize to demand power and wealth. The need to justify this bluff makes humans over confident, prone to rationalization or ex post facto justification, and thus simply wrong for the most part. Jim Collins supports this with his research by noting that only eleven of 20000 companies were found to be “great,” with most merely going through the motions based on their bluffs and sacred illusions.

Danny Kahneman — presumably influenced by Plato’s metaphor of the cave and Kant’s notion of the perceptual filter — wrote:

We are blind for our own blindness and we have very little understanding of how little we know.

Several interesting points arise from Lewis analyzing Kahneman and Tversky, specifically regarding how humans asses risk. For example, we rarely prepare for disaster because we irrationally do not anticipate it, and instead wait for disaster to happen before doing something about it (politically: Hurricane Katrina, bursting dams and immigration).

Even with day-to-day risks, we ignore the actual chances of events in preference for addressing our own emotional reactions to events, even exceptionally rare ones. Lewis makes the point that insurance statistics are a waste of time, but, because we cannot handle the emotional pain associated with remorse, or having regret after a crisis, we will pay whatever premium they ask. Insurance plays into our fear of feeling bad after an event, and not practical concerns with the event itself.

The anticipated emotional pain caused by remorse is able to distract us from real life around us. Because of this, it is possible that we normally make illogical decisions and later rationalize them — or backwards justify them — as being logical. This creates industries like insurance which serve emotional rather than realistic needs.

Our irrationality makes it hard to believe in human civilization itself if we assume that rationality is necessary and good. Organizations are made of people, and in utilitarian times, the preferences of the individuals determine the needs of the group, which leads us to wonder how we can trust a large-scale organization like civilization based on preferences which will eventually be revealed as illusion.

Tversky addresses this point more generally:

It is terrifying to think that we don’t know something, but it is even more terrifying to think that the world is mostly controlled by people that “believe” they know “exactly” what’s going on.

Lewis’ last comment in the article — presumably influenced by the Christian notion of original sin — on the issue of how little the “experts” know was:

Failure is part of being human. We should not be afraid of it, because it is what we are.

Lately there have been too many blatant and obvious failures of human reason exhibited by organizations like government, media and academia. This means that we require re-assessment of human decision-making, since because our irrationality is fact, this must be taken as a parameter of the human input into organizations, and limited or channeled so that individual illogicality does not cause organizations to become viral self-perpetuators of the illusions upon which they depend, making the broader society delusional.

Organizational pathology in fact amplifies individual illogicality, creating results that are far worse. Obama’s remorse led him to act against the interests of his host country, although his ideology of Leftism — itself a rationalization of civilization decay — pointed him in that direction in the first place.

Scott Adams identified fear as the single worst factor in persuasion. The psychologists above identified “the anticipated pain of remorse” as the biggest factor towards being fake or delusional. This applies to the media, which specialize in selling us justifications for our behavior so that we may avoid remorse and the perception that we will lose social status because we did not anticipate the actual threats. For this reason, ideology specializes in creating scapegoats that allow us to distract ourselves from the real risks, and by focusing on the pretend risk, imagining that we are acting on a “higher” level than those who respond to actual risks.

As President Trump said: “(fake) Mainstream Media is the enemy of the American people.” Media, like insurance, operates by selling products to allay remorse instead of dealing with actual problems. This means that media has a financial incentive to never address the actual issues, just like insurance has an incentive to never reveal how rare problems actually are, and instead of selling comprehensive risk policies, to sell many little policies addressing specific fears instead of potential realities.

Clinton, McCain and the media use a different persuasion strategy called the “politics of fear.” This, too, exploits remorse by inventing new non-threats and selling them as risks, so that people want a strong powerful government to intervene between them and the threat. Like insurance, instead of coming up with a comprehensive policy — strength of the nation — these lesser persuaders produce a cornucopia of terrors to keep the population nervous and desiring strong assurances, such as benefits, subsidies and more laws.

Now that this strategy has failed, the resulting remorse for Leftists has become extremely painful. This produces the source of their recent aggression, which focuses on false risks as a means of disguising unarticulated (because humans are illogical) fear of the actual problem, which is a civilization in decline. While this seems extreme, it is merely a method of avoiding the greater remorse of admitting to having wasted time, energy and money on non-issues, and this propels the Left forward to further resistance to recognition of actual problems.

In turn, that mechanism reveals the failings of The Enlightenment.™ When we proclaim universal human rationality as the basis of our civilization, we are projecting the notion that we are in fact rational, which obscures the irrationality and allows it to lead the discourse from behind. That in turn gives power to those who preach fear, instead of those who persuade by identifying real issues, and causes the spiral of delusion that pushes social assumptions into direct contradiction of the actual problems, precipitating the collapse of the civilization.

Roots Of Leftism: The Enlightenment — And Before That?

Monday, January 23rd, 2017

We moderns face dual problems: the immediate political collapse of the West and the long term decline and collapse of Western civilization. To defeat these fatal pitfalls, we must understand where they come from so we can choose a different direction and not merely opposition to them.

The origins of our downfall in the immediate political collapse of the West prove easy to find: post-war Leftism, itself an outgrowth of the trendy 1930s socialism that occurred in response to the instability of society brought on by 1920s moral laxity and financial herd behavior.

But where did that come from? A blithe writer in American Pravda a.k.a. The New York Times reveals the roots of Leftism in The Enlightenment™ and hints at its derivation in turn:

The Enlightenment must never bow to the Inquisition.

Recognizing and even celebrating individual identity groups doesn’t make America weaker; it makes America stronger.

There you have it: The Enlightenment™ is the ultimate goal, and Leftists see it as both their inspiration and goal. And so what is this “enlightening” philosophy? Skipping over group graffiti blog Wikipedia and its derivates, we can find an answer through an established and vetted source, The Encyclopedia Britannica, which tells us that The Enlightenment™ very much resembles eternal Leftism:

Central to Enlightenment thought were the use and celebration of reason, the power by which humans understand the universe and improve their own condition. The goals of rational humanity were considered to be knowledge, freedom, and happiness.

This requires a bit of distillation to see what is actually intended, since all humans express a dichotomy between public (social) and private (self-interested) views. In the above we have five assumptions:

  1. Reason. It is assumed that reason, in itself is good, forgetting that despite some areas of life being understandable a priori, many require experience or repeated contact over time to understand their complexity, and that people learn unequally because of different biological capacities for perceiving, remembering and understanding these correlated details. Reason without a parallel referent in reality itself is solipsism, or at least can be, and theory often does not correlate to reality because the theory is based on human assumptions which can be rationalized or forced to be understood through reason, and thus assumed to be reasonable, and does not have a referent in external reality.
  2. Equality. This derives from the idea that all humans have (equal) reason, which is required to consider reason a universal good. Implicit in this is pacifism, or the idea that other people are reasonable, or respond to reason instead of bodily impulses, personality-supporting pathologies, over-intellectualized neurosis and a desire for personal wealth and power.
  3. Knowledge Knowledge, and not wisdom or intellectual ability, is presumed to be what makes people smart. Take anyone, “give” that person enough education, and then he has knowledge, which replaces a need to have the innate biological and genetic ability to understand that knowledge, and more importantly, to apply it in such a way that it advances principle, civilization and individual.
  4. Freedom Instead of having goals, we should have an anti-goal of having no goals whatsoever. That way, these equal people can use their reason and knowledge to do… well, probably the same stuff their ancestors did, which for 99% of them means the “four Fs” — foraging, fighting, fleeing and reproduction — with complete blithe oblivion to any consequences of their actions beyond immediate inconvenience or convenience to self.
  5. Happiness Where previous societies looked toward sanity and realistic adaptation as their goals, we will instead pick an easier target: being happy. What makes someone happy? No one knows: it varies between individuals, and we do not want to admit this, but seems to rely heavily on the group, because people need context for the feeling that the way they are living is the best possible way they could live, and need a stable, functional and upward-driven society in order to live in pleasant surroundings, which have much more to do with their happiness than any navel-gazing or politics.

From these, the basis of our modern society is formed. We know how well that turns out, and we have seen similar types of mental structure in the past, such as in ancient Athens and Rome. But where did the impetus for The Enlightenment,™ which looks like a formalization of a long-building social/cultural shift or civilization decline, come from?

The original article gives us a clue:

If my difference frightens you, you have a problem, not me.

Ah, yes: forced acceptance. Equal inclusion is the motivation behind The Enlightenment™ and Leftism/liberalism alike. Its root is in a pathology of people who fear they do not belong in a group, namely that they want to force themselves to be included, at which point they can continue their non-contributory or parasitic behaviors and other people are forced to accept those as normal whilst paying for them through contributions to the collective, or socialized cost matrix to which expenses of dysfunction are externalized.

The origin of the paradox can be found here. Individualists, who want to force others to accept them but not to change their own behaviors, demand equal inclusion on the basis of collectivism, or the idea that everyone is important, solely for the reason that they want personal inclusion. The whole thing is a con job, from start to finish. Never trust a Leftist; they always lie.

After Modernity, A Clash Between Nationalist And “Post-National” Countries

Tuesday, January 10th, 2017

As predicted here some time ago, nationalists worldwide are finding commonality over their mutual desire to be able to exclude ethnically foreign people from their lands:

The article, which the magazine published this week, documents the week spent up close with Holocaust-denying, racist and Islamophobic Germans. They describe themselves as Israel supporters, who came to see how “the only democracy in the Middle East” deals with “the Muslim problem” that has gripped Germany recently.

…One of the participants tells Maurer he doesn’t believe the “six million” number is correct, and that the real number of Jews murdered by Germany is 500,000. “The rest died and were murdered by others,” he says.

…The group included a 40-year-old supporter of Alternative for Germany, who said he came to Israel to learn “what we can do against the invasion of our homeland.” Group members also called Muslim immigrants “barbarians.” It is no coincidence that they chose Israel for their tour. “They see Israel as an example, because it is in a long conflict with its Muslim neighbors,” says Maurer.

The Holocaust issue aside, these two groups have found common ground in the idea of excluding others so that they may preserve their own societies. Future generations will likely regard The Holocaust as a consequence of frustrated nationalism, and while wrong in method, reflective of a strong desire of Europeans to preserve themselves, just as Jews are preserving themselves by warring against Palestinians and assorted Muslims.

On the other side, those who cannot abandon the idea of the ultimate evolution of liberal democracy — a beige race of mixed-heritage people united by belief in Leftist ideology worldwide — are gathering under the banner of post-nationalism, or the idea of a mixed-race society as morally, politically and economically expedient:

Alongside the rise of nativism has emerged a new nationalism that can scarcely be bothered to deny its roots in racial identities and exclusionary narratives.

Compared to such hard stances, Canada’s almost cheerful commitment to inclusion might at first appear almost naive. It isn’t. There are practical reasons for keeping the doors open. Starting in the 1990s, low fertility and an aging population began slowing Canada’s natural growth rate. Ten years ago, two-thirds of population increase was courtesy of immigration. By 2030, it is projected to be 100%.

The economic benefits are also self-evident, especially if full citizenship is the agreed goal. All that “settlers” – ie, Canadians who are not indigenous to the land – need do is look in the mirror to recognize the generally happy ending of an immigrant saga. Our government repeats it, our statistics confirm it, our own eyes and ears register it: diversity fuels, not undermines, prosperity.

…The prime minister, Justin Trudeau, articulated this when he told the New York Times Magazine that Canada could be the “first postnational state”. He added: “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.”

As nationalists note, this replaces a nation with a giant shopping mall, which is what business thinks it wants and what government desires in order to keep its grip on power. After WWII, Western governments realized that the threat to liberal democracy from nationalism would undermine them, and so they demonized nationalism, instead of recognizing that it was the only bulwark against Leftism.

Leftism displays the inevitable tendency for democracy to go full Leftist and emerge as something similar to the Soviet Union: a society where government replaces culture, religion, heritage and individual differences for the ease of controlling the resulting population. Starting with The Enlightenment™ idea of “equality,” Leftism advances until it can enforce equality by destroying natural variations among people.

The post-nationalists are throwbacks to that postwar era. Business is slowly realizing that replacing workers and consumers of European heritage leads to a lack of loyalty to products and a permanent underclass who purchase little, as the coming dot-com 3.0 crash will demonstrate. Government is finding that its goal of ultimate power will destroy it through constant upheaval over Soviet-style dysfunction, as seen in Venezuela.

However, the dream remains alive because the idea of “equality” is soothing to individuals who fear their own exclusion from society. This means that any who wield the One True Ring of equality become powerful, and people who are not naturally morally good desire power as a means of filling the void in their souls. And so, the conflict of the next age is born.

Fixing The Trabant

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016


A decade ago, the new car was purchased. It was a triumph of scientific engineering, using all the principles that people knew to be good and well.

“It uses Ironic Prediction,” the salesman said. “Whatever you think is normal and right, it does the opposite, because life is just not how it appears.”

The family took it home. It was an odd car, with multiple engines in strange compartments, odd utilitarian seating, and styling that was a cross between art deco and a concrete box. But no mind: it was new, and the envy of all the neighbors, and besides, there might be something to this scientific ironism thing.

As days went by, the family praised the car. Unlike their past car which was fast and dangerous, the new vehicle never made hasty moves. In fact, it was difficult to steer at all, so generally the best path was to find a simple route to wherever you needed to go. They spent more time walking to and from parking lots far from their objective, but the family rationalized this as good exercise producing good health.

Glitches arrived with age. After the first six months, the father noticed that the car was making a knocking sound. He took it in to the repair shop. The mechanic called him a few hours later.

“The exhaust system had troubles, so we re-routed it through the cabin. No more knocking noise.”

Now the family drove everywhere, even in the depth of winter, with windows open as exhaust spewed out from the vents under their seats. It got to the point that the car went in again to the shop.

“Well — I can make the exhaust go elsewhere, but it is a little bit expensive…”

So they paid. They needed a car, and it was the pride of the neighborhood, so they shelled out almost the cost of the car again to have a new radiant exhaust system put in. Now wherever they want, the car blasted exhaust in all directions, so that they arrived in a cloud of smoke.

This kept the peace for almost four more years. Then one day the knocking was back, as if there were a prisoner in a cellar under the car. The mechanic lifted the hood.

“Eeeyugh,” he said. “A tough problem. I have a workaround.”

When the car came back, it was wrapped in rubber tubing. The new cooling system worked by chilling alcohol and pumping it through the engine, then up to a radiator on the roof. They could not open two of the doors and the car had lost all aerodynamic properties, but that was fine as it did not go fast anyway, which was what they liked about it.

“Finally fixed, so we have more time for work and play,” said the father gaily.

Barely another year had passed before the wheels fell off. As the tow truck pulled away, the father viewed the mechanic — the only one around for hours — warily.

“I can fix this, but it is not expensive.”

When the car came back, the children burst out laughing. The rear wheels had been replaced by several dozen roller skates. The front wheels on the other hand were made out of cast iron.

“It certainly looks like the latest scientific enhancements,” said the mother hopefully. They had moved from their nice suburban home to an apartment so that they could keep up the payments on the car fixes.

Finally normal life could return! The car, in a cloud of smoke and the grating noise of iron wheels, never arrived anywhere fast and was impossible to park because the steering was erratic, since they had replaced the wheel and brakes with a theremin six months previous.

Most of what brought the normalcy back was that they had worked around the car. Since they had no money, they no longer went out to restaurants. The children rode their bikes everywhere so that they did not have to be in the smoky, unstable car. The father found that walking to work, an hour each way, was much easier than struggling with the temperamental steering system.

But some places required a car. So they all got in what had once been their pride, and hustled off in a shuddering wall of noise and the grinding sound of roller skate wheels. One day, just as they had purchased their groceries for the month, the car simply failed to start.

And so they paid. Paid for the taxi ride home with all their groceries, melting in the heat. Paid for the tow truck. Paid for the repair shop to take a look.

Then: “The drivetrain needs an overhaul. It is still designed with too much conventional wisdom. We need something unexpected, a flair of the human…”

When the car came back from the shop, the family was too tired of the process to even laugh. Now it had a giant contraption like a salad shooter mounted on the hood. It rotated as they drove, casting brightly colored lights over the walls of nearby buildings. The only difficulty was that to see around it, the father had to lean his head out the window, which caused him to constantly have an aching neck and back, in addition to being barely able to steer the car.

At this point, they used the car only on official holidays. Otherwise, it was just too troublesome, and it always ended up costing them money. “Stay away from the verdammt horseless carriage!” the father said. “Too much modern progress can kill you.”

Unfortunately, they still needed to use it on some occasions. When the eldest son got married, they drove up to the church in a cloud of smoke, grinding wheel noise and carnival aura of multicolored lights. But when it was time for the couple to leave, the car refused to start.

“No problem, we can walk. It is only a few dozen miles,” said the son, his bride enthusiastically agreeing. No one wanted to be the first to criticize the car which had been the pride of the neighborhood now for some years.

The father went back to the shop, feeling much older than he was. “What now?” he said simply.

The mechanic poked around inside the engine compartment, then looked under the car, checking fluids and fiddling with bolts. “The problem is that its design is still too much, begging your pardon sir, natural. We must re-align every part of the car on a grid, and give each one equal importance.”

The father looked down at his old shoes, patched pants, and thin wallet. “No,” he said simply.

“You must,” said the mechanic. “You have put so much money and years into this already, and everyone knows, it is the only right way.”

“No,” said the father again.

When he got home to his wife, he said, “We are not the pride of the neighborhood anymore. I sold the car. Maybe we can just have a normal life.”

“Good,” she said. “That Enlightenment™ thing never worked for us anyway, no matter how many times we patched it up.”


The history of modern humanity can be summarized thus: an Idea was introduced that seemed profound because it was not real. No matter how many modifications we made to it, it did not work, even though it flattered us.

In the process, we found that those who spoke against the Idea — despite their lack of being 100% good heroes much of the time — were right, and we denied them. The American Nativists, Anders Breivik, Adolf Hitler, The Ku Klux Klan, Ted Kaczynski, Varg Vikernes, the John Birch Society, Enoch Powell: they were right all along, even if they did some bad things as well.

Equality does not work. The Enlightenment™ is dead. Long live the naturalistic future.

Disaffection With The Enlightenment™

Thursday, December 1st, 2016


Most people, until the recent Brexit and Trump election, had no idea how insane and pathological the Left are. It has spread a wave of shock through the West: these are our leaders?

Like insects, they impulsively repeat motions as if their heads have been removed and all that is left is the twitching reflex. Their ideology says that equality is better than reality, so they enjoy lying, distorting and editing history.

This is why for them, the fact that they lost an election is not particularly important. All that matters is “getting around” that little impediment. Because they are right. 100% morally right and socially right. In their minds.

A bigger story to this election is that the West is finally rejecting The Enlightenment.™ Since we no longer teach anything but post-1945 ideology in our schools, you might ask: what is The Enlightenment™?

The Enlightenment is the idea that the human individual should be the measure of mankind, and each individual should be free to live by intent, not hampered by social hierarchy. In other words: equality.

For every individual to do what they want, even if it is illogical, we must create a theory of equality so that bad results are equal to good results and therefore, it is okay that people are acting illogically. This is the root of Leftism.

From that you can see how collectivism is individualism. Each member of the crowd wants to ensure that he is accepted. He insists, to that end, that everyone be accepted even if they are bad. Now he is guaranteed a position.

Now, many centuries later, we are seeing the fruit of Leftism: broken social order, miserable wimpy people, horrible jobs, endless pollution, the nuclear threat is back again, our leaders are smug idiots, and many more… it is a laundry list of complaints. That is important because it indicates a generalized breakdown of society, not clustered around a single defect but arising from a defective design in general.

Those of us with any sense left are speaking of the only logical response possible: we took a wrong turn, so we need to go back, turn around, and take the path we were on before we went down this road to doom.

What does that look like? Around here, we speak of the four pillars:

  1. Culture. Nationalism (one nation = one ethnic group). Values. Heritage. Traditions. Eject defectives. Praise good examples. A timeless order of life and being.
  2. Aristocracy. Find our best people by inner traits, not single abilities like earning money. Give them the power and wealth. Have a social order: upper, middle and serf classes. Ignore the serfs and limit their breeding. Make the middle classes stay quiet. Ensure that the upper classes are intelligent and moral.
  3. Hierarchy. Social order by caste. Free markets are limited because the audience are the upper classes. Keep proles impoverished. Always promote the excellent, and demote the degenerate and weak. Manners, verbal ability and intelligence always rewarded.
  4. Transcendence. We have goals we cannot achieve, but can constantly approach: excellence. Goodness. Virtue. Strength. Pride. Honor. Aggression. Truthfulness. Piety. Wisdom. Hierarchy. We improve qualitatively by using time-proven methods.

This society would resemble the intersection of England in the 1930s and 1630s. The good people, who are maybe 20% of the population, would be promoted to positions of power. Everyone else would be gently subjugated. Moral and intellectual accuracy and goodness would be the primary concern of society.

There is a paradise outside our doorstep, and we do not need to go anywhere to find it. We just need to re-organize what we are doing, and specifically, stop doing the stupid things that Leftism and The Enlightenment™ induce us to do.

It is time to inherit the future of the past.

As The West Swings Rightward, A Need For Greater Clarity

Friday, November 25th, 2016


In the 1990s, Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington battled for the future theory of Western Civilization. Fukuyama believed that liberal democracy was the ultimate evolution of humanity, but Huntington saw the chaotic formation of groups based on religion, culture, and ethnicity warring against each other for dominance.

As it turned out, Huntington was right and Fukuyama got the “also ran” award. The point is that there is no perfect society, only a clash between approximations. People fight over the possibility of identity, which is an intersectional hybrid between ethnic group, religion, political group and social caste. There are no easy answers.

The “clash of civilizations,” Huntington’s vision in which identifiable groups separated, won out over the “end of history,” in which we all ended up being safe and uncontroversial by joining the trend of liberal democracy. Fukuyama’s vision was safe; Huntington’s, disturbing and as lawless as the American frontier.

As the dust settles, it becomes clear that Huntington won. Fukuyama predicted a future of endless liberal democracy, and bravely revealed the emptiness of this option; Huntington, as if anticipating this, projected a future of endless warfare in which group identity would be more important than individual identity.

Time passed. “The end of history” (sensu Fukuyama) gave way to the Huntingtonian vision of world tribalism with the rise of terrorism and clash between West and Islam. This new tribalism invalidated old concepts, like liberal democracy, equality, diversity and the nation-state.

“The end of history” was, after all, a hopeful vision. Perhaps we could stop struggling and see a certain form factor as the basis for politics forevermore. But that made no sense. Nature abhors a vacuum and it also hates the static. Instead, we have endless conflict, from which clarity emerges, much as it does through Natural Selection.

The world is far from static. Instead, constant conflict allows the sanest among us to suppress the rest so that the minority viewpoint of sanity can prevail above the usual monkey dynamics, drama, neurosis, attention whoring, victimhood pimping, passive aggression and other distractions.

In this new reality, the humans who have some sense of reality are looking toward avoiding the nonsense warfare of those caught in symbolism, and instead are hoping to find a pragmatic balance where even the isolated can have political interests simply by standing up for what they want, outside of the public drama.

This creates not a void, but a momentum which demands that clarity arrive. The Alt Right has triumphed with the election of Donald J. Trump, but where to go from here? Clearly the candidate needs support but the public is at a loss for how to articulate what is needed.

Fellows at Alternative Right give us, as always, a clear direction where the rest of media is fetishing choas. Their outlook sees a the Alt Right as one step toward an ultimate evolution of politics, one in which clarity needs to beat out trends for a sense of direction and purpose:

Also remember this: the Alt-Right can inspire its chosen and future audience—and also trigger its opponents—simply by focusing on moral and mature European identitarianism and Western traditionalism, and by addressing the awkward issues of race and excessive Jewish power in a spirit of honesty and humaneness. Our opponents are so extreme that we can trigger them merely with our common sense and moderation.

The point is this: end the Enlightenment™ notion that good intentions are good policy, and replace it with the core of the Right, which is uncompromising intense Realism that urges us to find transcendental goals above focus on human egos and intent. Speak that in plain language, and apply it in every policy question, and people will find themselves drawn to it.

Realism works. The policy of “good intentions” does not. If we speak this in a neutral and informed way, for example saying “Diversity does not work because it denies each group the ability to set standards and values, creating a constant conflict over that topic,” instead of ranting on about inferior races that we hate like Hollywood Nutzis, then we crush illusions and convert people.

There it gets more complex however. The Alt Right is an ecosystem. This means that instead of all of us doing the same thing, like cogs in a machine or Communists marching in uniform, we all have unique roles and we exist as a “big tent” with much internal variation so that we do not need external critics to keep ourselves consistent.

For that reason, we obey a “no enemies to the Right” motto which means we allow people to be themselves in our big tent, and express whatever extremities they wish, as long as those extremities serve in some what to advance the “transcendental realist” outlook of the Right. Let the left attack them, but we should not be attacking those who are helping us to advance our ideals, whether they are mass murder fetishists or just 400 lb naked basement trolls.

This does not mean we must endorse their viewpoints, or claim that they speak for us. We can criticize those viewpoints, and this is commonly done by pointing out the inconsistencies in those philosophies. It is also fair game where certain beliefs have been tried to bring up the past and infer a connection between philosophical inconsistencies and bad results in reality. This can be done without attacking any person as the Left does, even when quoting them and disagreeing; such behavior is part of informed debate and is how the Right thrives. We need constant inner war to clarify where our values overlap and where we should be advancing in order to keep consistent with those most basic shared values.

This gives at least two fronts. On the facing end there is the responsible Alt Right:

People who come to the Alt-Right (if I’m any indication) are usually a bit uneasy at first with ideas they have been taught to despise their whole life. Months ago, when I first started exploring these new ideas I was still cautious, and seeing Spencer yelling ‘Hail Victory’ back then might have turned me off. While I had been questioning what I had been taught about race for some time before coming to the Alt-Right, it took a while for me to get comfortable with my own thoughtcrimes. Normies have to be eased into this.

On the back end however, we need more of the “bad boy” appeal that made the Alt Right so powerful during this election. In the West, we have a mythos of informed outsiders telling us the plain truth that cannot be spoken in society, so has been forgotten. Whether that truth-teller is Beowulf or Zarathustra, we are accustomed to civilization inserting its head in its posterior and becoming oblivious only to the vital facts it needs to know.


This rowdy and uncivilized behavior — including trolling, provocation, mockery and irreverence — is what allows the Alt Right to keep widening the Overton Window and going beyond it. The goal of this type of behavior, including edgy Hitler references at NPI conferences, is to force acceptance of previously taboo ideas. This aims to throw away the Overton Window entirely, to finally end World War II by terminating the guilt and shame heaped on the losers, and to allow us to once again openly discuss previously censored ideas like eugenics, nationalism, the different IQ levels of different social castes, the failure of liberal democracy and other topics that were commonly discussed before WWII but not after.

What is vitally important is that this second wing not disrupt the first. Many who were advancing the “Alt Right = White Nationalism” trope allowed this symbolism to become a replacement for ideation and direction. This is symbolism, and we need to approach it as being only what it is, which is putting certain previously-taboo topics back on the table so we can finally figure out what we think about them.

Huntington, Nietzsche and Houellebecq should probably be named patron saints of the Alt Right. Huntington told us that nationalism was going to emerge naturally, not through ideology, as the world linked up. Nietzsche told us that a morality of pacifism, equality, tolerance and non-violence would make us weak and existentially miserable. Houellebecq pointed out that Western Civilization is falling apart because we have made life an ugly and overly-sensualized obligation, removing any sense of pleasure found in the natural process of living itself.

This is the direction the Alt Right now needs to push: nationalism from Huntington, a new morality from Nietzsche, and a renovation of joy in life itself from Houellebecq. We must cross another taboo barrier, which is the taboo against Social Conservative ideas because anything which does not encourage constant sex, drugs/drink and media consumption must be un-fun. The problem is that while “fun” might be had in the short term with the constant prole party atmosphere of the dying West, it also crushes us inside, and so makes us weaker and ultimately, self-hating.

We need to turn this society around. Trump/Brexit was just the first step, peeling the outside layer of an onion composed of many layers. At the heart of the onion is this: societies that succeed lose their sense of purpose because they have achieved the goal of creating civilization. Then, they allow too many less-useful people to breed while the wealth empowers people to become special interest groups who do not view their future as bound up with that of the civilization. This produces an alliance between the wealthy and the proles to essentially abolish all laws, standards and morality, replacing them with “anarchy with grocery stores” so that profits can be high and behavior low. The problem with this type of society is that it immediately reverts to third world levels.

The raging egomania of this time was caused by allowing people to have power outside of the hierarchy or in opposition to the goals of that society. This in turn is caused by lack of a purpose outside the reactive, a type of stasis where we assume that everything is basically right except for small problems that then can be fixed with direct action. This has us reacting to material details, instead of noticing patterns, and so decline sneaks up on us.

To escape this pattern, we need to restore the notion of civilization having a purpose again, so that instead of reacting we have inner momentum toward a semi-attainable but ultimately never fully attainable goal, such as the transcendentals (goodness, beauty, excellence, virtue, truth/realism).

This is what Bruce Charlton explains as a struggle to find a will toward goodness in our hearts which is the basis of the revolution against modernity:

To analyse Life (including politics) in terms of power-differentials, economics, nationalism, racialism, or sex-politics is objectively and historically Leftism; hence the Alt-Right are (merely) Leftist heretics – and this can be seen by the clear motivation of the movement to take-over The State Apparatus in order to sort-out the economy, harness and encourage national pride, reverse the racism and sexism of the Left and so on.

It’s not that these objectives are bad, actually or necessarily, but that these are all Leftist objectives which merely tweak the system without reversing its direction – all of them were historical objectives of radical political movements, mostly in the 18th or 19th century, and all flowed-into modern New Leftism (political correctness, SJWs) for the simple reason that they are this-wordly and gratification-orientated and justified (i.e. utilitarian).

…Perhaps/ Probably we cannot at this point and from here, go directly to Christianity (although that is the eventual goal); but at least, and as a first-step, we absolutely-must reject the materialism, scientism, positivist, hedonic focus of modernity; and restore spiritual objectives as the natural and universal focus and motivation of human life.

Another way of phrasing the above: modernity — and this is what we are warring against, the civilization created by The Enlightenment™ after years of decline — consists of purely material reactions because it has negated the ability to have a purpose.

The philosophy written about on this site, parallelism, emphasizes an opposite to rationalism, or the tendency to zero in on a single attribute of a situation and to derive a cause that will create it. Parallelism instead uses cause-effect reasoning in a historical sense as a means of understanding the likely consequences of any given act, and suggests that we pay attention to patterns, especially those that manifest in parallel in multiple areas.

Now this is where it gets interesting.

Wanting a spiritual revival makes sense, but we will achieve it indirectly. We cannot demand the effect we want directly and have it occur because we will not have done the groundwork for it. Instead, we need to awaken the desire to do good in a general sense, and have that manifest in parallel in politics, culture, religion and socializing. That will produce an emergent spiritual revival as we innovate new methods for achieving the changes we desire, including simple ones like Nationalism.

In other words, we cannot have a spiritual revival by working directly toward one. Instead we need a mentality that understands why a spiritual revival would be a good thing, and by implementing that across the board in society by demanding realist programs that achieve good results, instead of merely good intentions, we will awaken that revival.

This comes at a time when the Alt Right is wavering in its purpose because having achieved one big goal, its consensus is now fraying. This can be stopped with a simple prescription: we want to end Modernity because it is an existential horror that has caused our people to stop breeding, and implement a society free from policies designed around anti-realist thinking.

It is fortunate, too, because the Left will retaliate as they usually do. For them, equality is Utopia and any means to that end is a morally good act, even if the method is immoral like guillotines, gulags and concentration camps. This Utopian ideology makes them willing to go to greater extremes, ones that the Right generally cannot comprehend because they are corrupt and destructive. As Matt Briggs writes, the Leftist counterattack will be an attempt to silence us:

The Left has already purged all mainline offline institutions, and so it was natural enough for them to move online.

Yet all their efforts online would if not abetted largely come to naught, because the (Alt) Right adapts as quickly to the tactics of the Left as the Left moves to attack. If unaided by external forces, the Left would at best come to a stalemate, if not endure outright losses, as they have with Brexit, Hungary’s reform, the success of Marie Le Pen, the rise of Trump, and other versions of elite-rejecting “populism” (losers in democracies always call their enemies populists, but democracies by definition are populist).

…The effect will be twofold. Governments themselves silencing critics, and companies using stringent interpretations of government rules and laws to increase banishment. The Internet itself is (more or less) in the hands of the United Nations, and if there is one consistency of the UN since its inception, it is that it uses its powers to stifle dissent.

He makes a good point. Already the Leftist press is beginning the witch hunts. They will not stop at a single event, but keep pushing until they are able to once again destroy lives as a warning to others: conform or be shattered.

In response to this, it seems that there is only one reasonable response: counterattack!

The positive reason is that if we press the attack into real-world arenas, we cannot lose! Let that sink in. If we establish a beachhead in meatspace, then two things happen. One, our various enemies, both organizations and individual ideologues, will be forced to divide their efforts between attempting to squelch an online community and attempting to stop it from growing further into the material plane, which will only become more and more difficult as our numbers increase. The second effect is a reciprocal one; those who join the alt-right as a result of real-world actions will participate in the online community and vice versa. Note that the first and second events here show us an even larger feedback loop.

This process requires a singular step: we must legitimize all political ideas and all methods so that they can be discussed without the willingness to take up the topic being seen as proof of being evil like Hitler. When the Alt Right desensitizes this world to Hitler-like behavior, and if it does not get absorbed by its own symbolism, its victory will be that we can finally talk reasonably about these ideas, and not be forced to swing toward Hitlerism because it is the only zone where such things are acceptable.

Marginalizing the Right has created that type of dichotomy, between mainstream cucks who will not mention anything smacking of these things, and an underground drugged on ideology who talks only of these things. The Alt Right has begun to end the marginalization of the Right, and in its place will come a newly liberated dialogue.

Bruce Charlton again, with perhaps most important advice for the Right, which is to be obstinate in asserting that what we see is real, and what they say is all lies, so we cannot back down. It starts, for him, with accurate perception of Reality, i.e. realism:

Perhaps the most important thing we can do, is not to do – to cease to help, to stop actively assisting the false-reality Matrix in its interaction with the false-selves of the mass of people. Being reasonable helps The System – while being un-reasonable, ceasing to fear, being uncompromising in of personal support of The Good so far as we understand it… all such helps Reality, which is divine, and operates by many, including unknown, pathways.

Also – our main ‘act’ in this world is thinking – I mean conscious thinking that comes from our real selves: that is the primary act; without which no behaviour, words, nothing can possible be of positive value.

The Alt Right needs to clarify its position. We hate Modernity. It is all lies. It starts with Enlightenment™ thought in recent history, but really, anything which reeks of individualism (intentions of the self > reality) is toxic. We aim to defeat these things and restore Western Civilization, and it begins with being able to be introspective enough to know our intuition, despite living in a civilization that is addicted to distraction for the very purpose of crushing any introspection or intuition.

With that in mind, we are fortunate that Richard Spencer and the NPI decided to push harder and invoke the Hitler taboo instead of pretending to be respectable and getting co-opted that way. Much of the Alt Right is now being forced into virtue signaling its disapproval of Spencer, and this has forced upon us the need to figure out what we stand for — and quickly.

Generation X Wisdom: Modern Life Is Modern Lifestyles, Which Are Killing You

Thursday, November 24th, 2016


Politics is Leftism: the idea that every person is able to make leadership decisions, which in reality translates into the need to manipulate, control and manage them to make them reach the right conclusions — or any conclusions at all.

When we view our time this way, we see that the root of modernity is The Enlightenment.™ With the rise of the notion that every person should manage his own fate according to nothing but whim, social order began to die and was replaced with mass manipulation.

Every aspect of modernity is shot through with this. The constant advertising that seems to cover every available surface. The droning syncopated music that places the audience at its center. The religious cults which emphasize the ego. And of course, slogans and laws and regulations everywhere, all the time.

We have lost control.

Modernity manifests for most people as a lifestyle, and this is also its Achilles Heel. We are trained from an early age to go somewhere away from home where we spend our time obeying rules and conducting exercises unrelated to end results. This makes us instructable, so that we respond in Pavlovian sympathy to symbols.

The “good” symbols make us drool, and the “bad” symbols make us bark. This, more than Christianity, is the root of our binary morality. To control people, you need to create a good/bad pair so that when you want them to do something affirmatively, you call it good, and when you want something away from consideration, you tag it as bad and destroy those who pursue it.

Control — using categorical limits to create mass compliance — works in this fashion. Its opposite is hierarchy, where people find their own means of achieving goals which are invariant, and the best rise. With Control, there is no invariant purpose; there is only the whim of those in Control, who pride themselves on being the most powerful monkeys in the troop.

Your life has been managed by Control, which means that you are directed toward specific methods of behavior without regard for goal. These behaviors are mostly designed to fill time and keep you instructed in the ways of compliance, and so you may find that your irreplaceable seconds are being flooded with irrelevant gunk for purposes unrelated and contrary to your benefit.

The modern person goes to work or school, waiting through stoplights and traffic jams as his fellow incompetents struggle with simple tasks. This instructs him in passivity, or that he must always defer to what the group is doing.

At work or school, he works on details that are unrelated to an end result. If he is an architect, he bases his designs on what has sold well in the past. If he is a doctor, he follows what the literature of his profession says are the right procedures. If he is a lawyer, he uses statements by others to argue a case for his client. In no case does he wonder what a good result would be; his entire being is invested in playing the game.

When he votes, he plays the game, trying to choose the candidate whose actions will lead to his own personal wealth or power increasing. When he shops, he tries to outwit the pricing algorithms at the stores. When he drives, he chooses his route based on what others are doing, and tries to avoid them.

His mindset is entirely conditioned to react to the group and choose some things he assumes are “good” over the norm, which is mostly negative in outcome. He values money, convenience, comfort, sex and power. He has no concept of purpose, meaning or any higher significance than his own sensual experience.

This is how Control works. Like rats in lab cages, we pull one lever to get food or an electric buzz in the pleasure and sexual centers of our brains. Pull the other lever, and we get a nasty shock to the nose. Soon we know exactly which lever to pull every time.

90% of our work is not necessary and very little of it is fun. But our society does not run on results, but perceptions, because every man is a little king. Those nano-kings must believe the same things so they operate on the same assumptions, or control will fail, and who knows what comes after that.

In the meantime, the controllers are not tyrannical ideologues like Hitler but super salesman like Dale Carnegie. They know how to manipulate people. They instinctively flatter and then enrage the group, creating moral binaries: diversity is good, racism is bad, so we all go broke if you do not support diversity and smash down racism!

The needs of Control have ruined your life. You get only one, at least in this form, and your time is mostly spent on useless and degrading labor so that you remain malleable to Control. In order to justify this, your mind chooses to exist in a bubble world of its own ego, rationalizing that although life is horrible, at least the ego is in control and that makes the self important.

When you get home from work or school, there are only self-directed hobbies. You can watch porn or television. You can experiment with woodworking or music. But these are dead ends; they connect to nothing, and serve no purpose except — like work and school — to expend your time in a mixture of compliance and self-fascination, rendering you inert.

Our modern time is baffling because the entire thing resembles a religious experience of the ego. All day long there are choices and chances to feel a sense of personal power, but while these have consequences, none exist at a level greater than personal comfort. You are sealed in yourself and distracted by yourself.

This lifestyle is the root of modernity. When we went down the egalitarian path, which is what happens when a society succeeds enough to breed idiots and parasites in moderate numbers, we severed ourselves from meaning, and became atomized little cogs which require controllers, and so those showed up to control us.

Generation X recognized that the futility of modern life begins in the lifestyle. Jobs, divorces, television and shopping are meaningless and yet they are all there is, outside of open rebellion. Maybe it is time we tried that latter option instead.

Origins Of Leftism And Liberalism

Friday, September 23rd, 2016


Vox Solis offers up an analysis of the philosophical origins of Leftism and liberalism:

The Left is described as ‘politics that supports social equality and egalitarianism, thus often rejects social hierarchy and social inequality.’ This could be summarised that they often place more importance on people and individual rights than institutions or traditions. The historical merit to this is that the terms “Left and Right” goes back to the Pre-Revolution system in France, referring to the seating in the Estates General. Those who sat on the left opposed the monarchy, supported the revolution and secularization of the State while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions.

…Many state that the Revolution was caused by a mixture of economic factors such as the inequality between the aristocrats and the commoners which were then further expiated by environmental disasters and the failings of King Louis XVI. I agree with another school of thought in that it was primarily the ideas of Humanism and the “Death of Divinity” that occurred during the Enlightenment that was the real fuel for this Revolt. After all if the King above you has no divine mandate for the reason he has more than you, why should you go without? This “Death of God” as Nietzsche calls it is also the reason for many of the problems not only in society, but within ourselves today.

…This Death of God meant for many thinkers that an equality of soul did exist and it is only the material factors that put some human above others, which is why many of the European monarchies began to fall after the period dubbed the Enlightenment. The most famous ideals from this are encapsulated with Karl Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Communism as a whole. Marxism, as you should know, is a socio-economic theory which is wholly materialist: it claims that all the human animals are the same but people are still split between the Proletariat, the workers, and the Bourgeoisie, the owners of the means of productions, in Society.

It is worth looking even deeper. The above analysis identifies the core of the Lefts its egalitarianism derived from Renaissance thought, but what was that but a revolt against classicism? This came within the centuries after a rash of peasant revolts in which the aristocracy, realizing how disastrous mob rule would be, put down the mini-revolutions quickly and decisively.

Those revolts have happened in every advanced society. When life is good, but then — as is inevitable — a downturn occurs, people who have never known want will rise up in anger. For them, it is easier to blame someone else than to recognize that they took good fortune for granted and because of that, insufficiently prepared for lean years. These are the same fools who eat the seed corn during lean winters.

Contrary to the normal human perception, this is not a historical event; it is a perpetual human failing, like obesity, drug addiction or the seven sins (pretense, envy, resentment, gluttony, lust, laziness and greed). We might even tie it to cognitive perceptual issues like parallax distortion and time displacement. It is a weakness in what we are, and any society that fails to combat it will find itself heading down the path to liberalism.

This force begins to win when it changes from an inside-out order to an outside-in one; inside-our orders look to inner traits, like moral character and intelligence, instead of outer adornments like educational degrees, net worth and social popularity. The other aspect, which enables peasants to pretend to be kings, uses those outer adornments as arguments for proof of inner traits, and thus inverts the meanings of those inner traits.

Plato suggested a cycle of civilizations in which they first lost sight of this distinction, and then went through a series of outward-in manipulations in order to try to hold back order. This culminates in democracy, which leads to tyranny eventually. As Leftism changes to its modern form, where censorship and corruption are the norm, we are seeing this transition.

Exit cuck

Monday, August 3rd, 2015


Few people understand the enemy when it is intangible. When one fights an idea, it is essential to learn to recognize the enemy, but most people do not do it.

I write here often about Crowdism, which is the combination of personal solipsism/individualism which in social groups becomes advocacy of egalitarianism/altruism and then, when politicized, becomes liberalism or a near variant. We live in liberal regimes in the West, and if we wish to survive, we must change that.

The problem is that most recognize liberalism only by its methods, and not by its intent. In response liberals change methods and vocabulary frequently, which baffles conservatives for whom methods are dependent on effect in reality and not merely on manipulating a large group of people socially. This allows liberal methods to infiltrate conservatism as people fail to recognize them as toxic.

The most fundamental idea, egalitarianism, is in fact a form of individualism. When an individual says “I want to do whatever I want and no one can tell me I am wrong or stupid,” this is individualism, but when applied to a population — for example the idea of universal validity of lifestyle approaches and values, or pluralism — it keeps the same form but is argued from the group instead of from the individual. This disguises its fundamentally parasitic nature. Civilization involves a trade-off between individual needs and responsibilities involved in keeping civilization afloat; the individualists only see the first part. This means that they use civilization for their own ends, partaking of its benefits and externalizing — or making into obligations for others — the results of their behavior.

When Crowdism takes over, it infects every ideology, religion, institution and values system. Individualists see the system and make it a vehicle for their own desires, changing whatever ideas it has to serve their own desires. Then they use the appearance of those values to justify their desires. The classic example is the new preacher who shows up at church talking about God rewarding the deserving, and two months later has a new Ferrari and a syndicated cable TV show.

This pattern of people projecting themselves into a belief system and then using the corrupted form to justify their own desires is quintessentially modern. It exhibits all of The EnlightenmentTM arrogance of humanity, in placing our form and our choices before the order of nature and the cosmos, and does so with the simple social subterfuge of pretending to agree with something and then using it as a disguise for the basest of motives. These do not need to be outright sociopathic, or controlling, for them to utterly corrupt what has been infected.

In many different types of belief system, I have seen this process repeated. People take it and use it as a support structure for their social explanation of what they were doing anyway. The preacher always wanted a Ferrari, but did not want to appear ostentatious, so he cloaked himself in piety. In conservative politics, we refer to this as “cuck” because we see politicians who — like hipsters, scenesters, and other imitators — use conservatism to hide their real motives, and to justify their real desire, which is to succeed in the system. A cuckservative cares more about succeeding in the system as it is than succeeding at achieving conservative goals. The cuck phenomenon is not limited to mainstream conservatism; it infests White Nationalism, Traditionalism, the New Right and Neoreaction as well.

Perhaps the greatest form of cuck is the individualist delusion which is usually justified with libertarian free market principles or religious ideas. In this, the person conjures up a philosophy that says that all is lost, and what they must do is focus on their own success, family, career and participation in small marginalized groups. This is a vastly comforting vision, because when translated through a filter of realism, it says do not change what you are doing. The belief system becomes a justification for doing whatever pleases the individual, with some modifications that they use to justify this choice and explain away what they lack. Not a billionaire like Trump? It is because you chose truth.

These beliefs are immensely popular because they do not require people to change themselves. Instead, they must adopt a certain jargon and dogma, and loudly agitate among others who essentially agree with them, while doing what they would do anyway: enrich themselves and set up a comfortable life. When challenged, they will claim to have been “activists” or some other synonym. The religious side has this as well; for centuries conservatives and Christians have been ceding ground and retreating into their own little groups with the rationalization that society is a blown fuse, a dead letter and a burnt ruin. This enables them to ignore all the larger problems and focus on themselves. The belief justifies this, at least as they style it, and enables them to be exactly like everyone else — self-interested, atomized and inconsequential — while loudly proclaiming the meaning and importance of their activity. This is no different than ex-hippies volunteering at homeless shelters, people who collect GreenSM appliances, and bohemians who justify their excesses by giving the profits to Take Back the Night.

Among this group, the most common form of cuck is exit. This is the idea that they have somehow mystically separated themselves from society and will go live elsewhere by their own rules, usually guaranteed by a corporation or small community. This lets the disaster go on, and will rapidly be absorbed if the community or corporation does not fail by itself, but most importantly, it allows them to keep doing exactly what they were doing. For them, this transition is no more than moving to a nicer suburb like their grandparents did when fleeing the city. White flight takes on a new form as ideological white flight and achieves the same results as the anarchists, hippies and naturalists who did the same: utter marginalization, followed by failure from lack of infrastructure and, as if silently acknowledging the intellectual fraud, a lack of impulse to stick together with their cohorts.

A truth of this world discovered late in life dictates that almost all people follow the same pattern, which is to take whatever they can for themselves and invent some reason to (1) justify what they have and have not and (2) cease involvement in changing the direction of society. When writers say that the West is dead, they mean the State and all ideas associated with it descended from The EnlightenmentTM, not “give up the ship.” If we do not recapture our society, it will destroy all who exit as its needs for wealth to re-distribute expand. But first, we must recapture our own minds. Individualism is a The EnlightenmentTM trap even if it disguises itself as the most radical neo-Nazism or Neoreaction, and it leads to the same place: many people abandoning society to pursue their own interests while externalizing costs to society itself.

Any sane philosophy of this time realizes that the populace of the West will not survive unless they recapture their leadership, depose the liars and filter out the bad so the good can shine again. Dropping out and marginalizing ourselves not only does not work, but is a convenient excuse for cucking out and refusing to face the actual task. People want an excuse to keep doing exactly what they would have been doing anyway but to explain it not as selfishness but heroism; from the bohemians to the hippies to the hipsters, this is a classic post-EnlightenmentTM trope. And yet, it is cowardice and foretold failure, and none who intend what they say should be fooled by it.

Brett Stevens interview at The Right Stuff

Friday, April 17th, 2015


Recently I conducted an interview with Meow Blitz of The Right Stuff. This summarizes many positions and connects past and present ideals written about on this and other sites. It also answers dicey areas such as the need for interracial collaboration by nationalists, the rejection of the so-called “Jewish Question,” and why I endorse active nihilism instead of a religious basis to right-wing beliefs.

As of last night, the interview was removed for undisclosed reasons. In the spirit of getting the information out there, it is republished here in part, leaving off some of the cultural questions that are less relevant to readers of this site:

Your output would fill a book with several thousand pages. Despite this, many people are completely unaware of your existence due to your low-key approach. Can you briefly explain how you first became involved as an internet writer and what your initial impetus was?

I started writing about heavy metal because there was a scarcity of information. As time went on, I needed to write about what made some metal good and inevitably, as a means of explaining what metal is, what its ideas are. This led to a look at “outsider” ideas that are not tolerated by society. My outlook has always been a form of intense realism that is sometimes called “active nihilism,” and it took me away from socially-accepted answers toward those that our society denies but which might potentially represent actual solutions.

The “low-key approach” you mention keeps me on the fringes because it de-emphasizes emotion and other individualist sensations. This makes less exciting reading for those who want an outlet for their frustrations, but that group is the segment of my audience who are least prone to act on what they read. I aim to describe reality, which places me in the minority because most writers intend to cater to an audience. This produces circular writing, which consists of human reactions to a topic, failing to ever penetrate the issue and find reasoning, solutions or personal growth.

Tell us about how you became involved with, what kind of things you tried to do with the site, and what made you ultimately abandon it.

I was fortunate at to work with some of the finest thinkers in the emerging alternative right arena. Our editor Alex Birch is a man of many talents and great depth of perception, although like all sensitives in the modern time he suffers greatly for what he notices, and I worked with him in addition to many talented writers. was an attempt to take the raw id that the writings on nihilism expressed and apply it to sober and sensible policy which could avert the twin tragedies of ecocide and civilization decay in the West. At its core, the site was about transcendence, or seeing the underlying order to nature and learning to appreciate its beauty, then applying the lessons learned to our material world, since the organization of matter and thought share a common principle. It was abandoned when Alex Birch moved on from it at a time when I lacked the time and energy to keep it going.

Let’s talk about your homepage, It has been running strong for over a decade and your output has been constant and seemingly inexhaustible. I know other talented writers have been involved in the site but you have been the most consistent and dedicated writer. One of the most recurring themes of your site is the concept of Crowdism. Can you explain this theory and how it relates to the political left?

Crowdism can be compared to the process of life. A person is born and moves to an unsettled patch of land. He sets up a house, tills the fields, raises animals, and sets up a family. He then succumbs slowly to a process of calcification. He no longer thinks about conquest, but of maintaining and improving what he already has. He seeks to avoid risk and, as socializing with others and trade enter the picture, becomes more concerned for appearances than realities. As a result, he slowly drifts away from knowledge of the world into an entirely human sphere composed of his own thoughts and how he can transfer those thoughts to others. He becomes focused on control and management, which euphemisms for projection and manipulation, and tends to think in terms of the types of simple structures that support those and forgets the more complex designs of both nature and his own imaginative thought. The result is stagnation from within, and while he may identify scapegoats outside of himself, the cause and solution both lie within how he disciplines his thinking.

In the same way, Crowdism emerges from the human individual in a civilization. He already has grocery stores and hospitals, schools and roads, and other benefits of civilization, and he takes those for granted. What he wants is to avoid being seen as insufficient or inferior by the standards of the civilization. In other words, he fears not being included because he either falls short or people in society notice his motivations and find them dubious. To avoid the possibility of being excluded, he goes to war against the idea of standards itself. His main weapon is to play the victim: he claims that he has been oppressed, or otherwise injured, and demands a subsidy to raise him to the base level that others enjoy. We call this idea egalitarianism, but those who uphold it do not do so for others, but for themselves. They want zero social oversight so their behavior can never be wrong and they will always be included in the wealth and power of the civilization.

Crowdism manifests psychologically through passive-aggression expressed through altruism, which is a form of advertising by the individual. Public acts of charity are a pre-emptive defense against criticism because the person attacked can point all the good that he has done as a selfless benefactor. From that unassailable position, he can then construe any criticism of himself as oppression, play the victim and get sympathy from the group. This is where the “Crowd” in Crowdism comes in: the individual, who fears social oversight, finds others in the same predicament and bands together to form a swarm. This swarm has one rule: attack anyone from outside who attacks any one of us. This is the same psychology behind street gangs and cliques in elementary school. They swarm as a group and so people join so that they can be defended. This group offers one thing which is the promise of universal inclusion without regard to behavior, which means that all individuals escape oversight. Its natural enemies are morality, common sense, history, logic and knowledge of beauty. It wages war on these things so that it can force society to include those who are otherwise insufficient, which gives it a numerical advantage over any sane system of government or leadership. All societies are destroyed by Crowdism, which weakens them and divides them internally to the point where they cannot respond to external threats and cannot make realistic decisions, leading them into a cycle of endless foreign wars, internal crises, and faddish self-rule.

Leftism is one form of Crowdism. Leftism is the ideology emerging from The EnlightenmentTM — or as I call it, “The Age of Emo” — and it can be summarized as egalitarianism. It has two stages, the first of which resembles modern libertarianism, and the second of which resembles modern socialism, distinguished by its introduction of subsidies. The founding idea of socialism is that workers own the means of production which in practical terms means that they are shareholders to the wealth of the society and receive dividends simply for being alive. It is a subsidy and nothing more. Socialism arises from classical liberalism because once you have said that all people are equal, you rapidly start to see that results do not end up being equal; some end up wealthier than others. To avoid the appearance of inequality, societies adopt subsidies which enable them to take from the wealthy and give to the less wealthy, which avoids this “disparate impact” in end results. Leftists use equality as their goal to mask their actual intention, which is to seize power and wealth, and as a method they argue for altruism because it is a binary that is impossible to criticize.

When leftists say “we want equality for everyone,” the only inversion of that which is recognized by the average person is that someone wants inequality for everyone, and that sounds bad in the social logic of human beings which says you should be inclusive and share with others. In reality, there is a third option which is neither equality nor inequality, but as Plato said, “good to the good and bad to the bad,” in varying degrees. People should get what they give, based not just on effort but competence. However, competence is mostly biological, starting with IQ, and this makes it unpopular because it is not under the control of our intentions. We cannot will ourselves to be smarter than we are; we are what we are, and no amount of pretending or engineering can change that. For this reason, altruism wins out socially and becomes a form of social control. Those who oppose it are presumed to be enemies, and the Crowd attacks them, without government having to do anything. This is why Crowdism is a more advanced system than totalitarianism, but achieves the same ends.

Amerika documents Crowdism and the ongoing collapse of the West and counters the leftist notion with a few ideas. The first is self-interest, which is that no person should be obligated to take care of another. The second is social hierarchy, in both caste system and aristocracy. The third is purpose, which requires identity, which requires nationalism. This complex chain of notions holds that social standards are not the enemy at all but the only thing capable of saving us from our callowness as individuals, and that to have social standards society must have a moral standard, which requires a goal so that we can compare our actions to that goal and see what results we have achieved in reality. This is a complex form of the conservative notions of consequentialism, or measuring our acts by results not methods, and responsibility, meaning that we are assessed by whether or not we achieved the goal or purpose of our society if even in a small part. This philosophy is called Futurist Traditionalism for lack of a better term and it is the subject of several ongoing writings.

At many points you have described yourself as a pan-nationalist. Do you still consider yourself to be one?

Absolutely. The news media and academics have hidden a secret from us all:

white power = black power

Nationalism for any group leads to nationalism for all because the idea of nationalism demands a world order where each nation is composed of people who are more related to each other than to anyone else. To want nationalism for Germans is to also want it for Zulus, Basques and Jews. Our current civilization is based on the idea of internationalism, or one type of utopian ideology for every society on earth and every type of person in each of them. This order ensures that there is never any actual culture in any place, which means that people have no reason to obey social standards except fear of getting caught, which in turn necessitates governments with increasing amounts of power over their citizens.

Identitarianism holds that we cannot police individuals. Policing is a negative goal, the threat of punishment. We can however use positive goals, like collaboration, to establish social standards and exclude those who violate them. Social standards require culture, and culture requires identity, which is a sense of history and an immutable notion of belonging to a specific land. That sense of “belonging” makes people personally invested in its well-being — including that of nature — even involving acts that do not directly impact the individual. Nationalism confers self-determination and self-rule to each group through the use of culture instead of force alone. Leftism hates social standards, which is why it opposes nationalism and imports third world peoples to destroy it.

Unlike others on the right who want to forcefully eliminate or at least suppress certain decadent behaviors (drug abuse, homosexuality, pornography, etc) you have recommended creating sectioned-off communities, like little Amsterdams, where people can participate in those activities without bothering the rest of the population. In some instances you have recommended this solution but in others you have stated that you want such lifestyles to be driven underground for the sake of modesty (the quiet gay relative, if you will). What is your current position and what are the limits of permissible behavior?

These two positions are the same. Homosexuals, for example, should have communities for themselves where they can practice as they want. This however requires them to localize the behavior to that community. This means that their homosexuality no longer becomes public, except in the community where it is the norm. Conservatives tend to say “what happens in the bedroom remains private,” which has two elements to it: first, we do not run around trying to find deviants for their sexual behavior, but second, they also keep their sexual tendencies private. In that outlook, there would not be such a thing as gay marriage because homosexuality is an exclusively sexual behavior, not a reproductive one, and is thus unrelated to family and needs to remain a private choice of the individual.

Allowing gay communities extends the bedroom further for the simple reason that it allows gay people to search for mates. Homosexuality has occurred in every society known to humanity, and persecuting it only drives gay people into cover as heterosexuals, at which point they have children and introduce possible deleterious behaviors and genetics — homosexuality is often a signal from nature that particular genetic combinations should not be reproduced — into the gene pool to the weakness of all. While it seems paradoxical, this policy of tolerance in exchange for invisibility offers both homosexuals and heterosexuals a chance to not just co-exist but not loathe each other when doing so. No one likes to mention this, but homosexual behavior is something heterosexuals are biologically inclined to find repellent, and vice-versa. We will never like what the other group does, so it is better that each has its own locality.

What would you say your current political and philosophical views are? You had once mentioned an ideal world of small kingdoms connected by trains.

My current political view is: get rid of liberalism, government and ideology. Replace it with what has worked for most of human history, which is aristocracy and a caste system, monarchy, strong national culture which produces a binding between individuals, society and nature through identity. The real questions are not being asked. Those are how we get leaders of quality at every level, how we establish working social roles, how we limit growth, and how we enforce rewarding the good people and exiling the bad without having to rely on a strong centralized government or decentralized mob.

In my ideal, people would associate with those like them. This would lead to a world of smaller kingdoms which would be aware of one another, but also so virulently xenophobic that they did not mix. This would enable each ethnic group to refine itself and improve qualitatively, instead of obliterating its refinements through mixing, but also allow co-existence and a trade in ideas. In addition — and this is what the left fears — it would allow some societies to be visibly more successful and/or more civilized than others.

Which figures have had the biggest impact on your philosophical views?

The most important thinkers in my world are Plato, Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich W. Nietzsche. The biggest influence on my thought however is nature. I walk in the woods and think, using equal parts analytical thinking and synthetic thinking (cf. Vikernes’ “syncretic eclecticism”). The result is a greater clarity than can come through the filter of language (in philosophy) and character drama (in fiction).

In addition, I gratefully acknowledge the following influences: Julius Evola, Ted Kaczynski, Aldous Huxley, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, Guillaume Faye, Alain de Benoist, Joseph Conrad, William S. Burroughs, H.P. Lovecraft, Immanuel Kant, Paul Woodruff, Guillaume Faye, Alain de Benoist, Ralph W. Emerson, Paul Gottfried, Michel Houellebecq, Pentti Linkola, Theodor Herzl, Colin Flaherty, Garrett Hardin, Dr. William Pierce, Michael Crichton, Samuel Huntington, Steve Sailer, Gwendolyn Taunton, Johannes Eckhart, G.K. Chesterton, Bruce Charlton, C.S. Lewis, Nigel Farage, Graham Greene, Jane Austen, Christopher Alexander, Mary Shelley, David Brooks, Knut Hamsun, Thomas Sowell, Jared Taylor, Tom Wolfe, William Faulkner, Arne Naess, Bill White, the Prince of Wales, William Blake, Chinua Achebe, Peter Brimelow, Lawrence Auster, Junichiro Tanazaki, Richard M. Weaver, Anders Breivik, and many others including essentially all of the classics of Western literature. Most of my heroes are philosophers or fiction writers. There are many others as well, too many to count, including a number of conservative, traditionalist, New Right, Neoreaction and far-right blogs.

A lot of people on the dissident and mainstream right have come down hard on Michael Brown and mocked him not only as a symbol of modern black American degeneracy but as a symbol of a failed and increasingly idiotic liberal narrative about black victimhood and white evil. It was very surprising when I opened your page and saw that unusual article in which you basically defended Michael Brown, not as some innocent victim, but as the product of the failure of multiculturalism. I understand this concept but what would you say to a rightist who is completely cynical about the abilities of blacks to successfully govern themselves due to genetic shortcomings? Should we simply respect that blacks will never be on our level or is there hope for making them some kind of superior race?

“Superior” and “inferior” both require an object. Superior or inferior for what purpose? Africans have been happy in Africa since the dawn of time and see no reason to change. I do not either. The root of the problem in America is diversity, which forces different groups to either give up their culture and be assimilated or be perpetual outsiders living in relative poverty. This destroys the good people, who will want to hang on to culture, while rewarding those with no sense of pride in who they are except at the most trivial level of “personal accomplishment,” which is financial success through obedience in the workplace and to government.

I wrote an article once called “Creating the African Superman.” In it I described what would happen if eugenic principles were applied to African-Americans, namely keeping the best and removing the rest. This would have the same effect as the bottlenecks enforced on societies by nature that select for morality in order to get along with others and higher intelligence and a willingness to work collaboratively. Were I African-American, I would look toward this solution, and also read the writings of Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X and Osiris Akkebala who champion a strong African nationalism and repatriation to Africa, which if it does not thrive under African rule will quickly be re-colonized by China, India, the Middle East or some combination thereof. Africans risk being dispossessed of their homeland within the next century if strong indigenous leadership is not found.

Through my upbringing in the South, I have been fortunate to know good people of every ethnic group. It shocks and disturbs some white nationalists when I say that I know good, moral and loving black people that I would not mind having as neighbors if it were not for the long-term social consequences of diversity itself. While Asia appalls me, I know some wonderful Asian people. It seems to me that in every race that are castes, and in the highest caste among each are good people who both intelligent and able to apply that intelligence on a practical level. That combination is rare and denotes the people who should be in leadership positions but under democracy they never are. These people tend to oppose diversity, although if they are from third-world populations less so, mainly because they are humiliated by the low quality level of the society around them.

Diversity on the other hand can never work. The Robert Putnam study on diversity, which found that higher levels of diversity reduced trust both among different ethnic groups and within those groups, was one of the first cracks in the wall of zombie-like assumption that “diversity = good.” Diversity is a weapon of the left which hopes to destroy majority culture and remove social standards so that we can all be equal; it is a successful weapon because it is a binary, where you either support diversity or you are assumed to be Adolf Hitler II who wants to kill all who are not white. In reality, no race likes diversity. Under integration, all races will be replaced by a mixed-race group — a form of passive genocide — as has occurred to notorious failure in Brazil, Mexico, parts of the Middle East and many other of the formerly-great but now ruined civilizations worlwide. Somehow, every civilization that extinguishes itself manages to go the mixed-race route right before the end. The problem is diversity, no matter what groups are involved. Even where hybrids have been attempted between supposedly superior variants of Asian and European, the result has been an average of the two that loses the exceptional traits of both.

Mike Brown never had a chance. He grew up in a culture destroyed by diversity. He could either be the lapdog of liberals and assimilate, or stick with a “black culture” mostly managed by Hollywood. Absolutely no one gave him a positive direction he could follow because to do so would be to refute diversity and say, “Forget integrating into mixed-race America — be good by the standards of your community alone.” He was thrown into a social world that embraced victim culture and took on its trappings through gangsta rap and racial resentment, all of which primed him for the events which ended his life. Stoned, probably paranoid, angry and confused, he went on a crime spree and then panicked and assaulted a police officer. These actions ended as one might expect and ultimately, while he was not a positive actor in the situation, he was very much someone who never was given any realistic option to his fate. We all know about the black kids who are good at school, go on to Harvard and make lots of money, but Mike Brown was not that. He was probably an individual of 90-95 IQ points who could have been a perfectly normal contributor in an African identitarian society, but in a mixed-race and racial pity infused society, he became a pawn for the political struggle of leftists to destroy majority culture, and it destroyed him.

You caused a bit of controversy over your views on Neoreaction. I know you are friends with many in the NRx crowd but you look like you may have burned a few bridges with your statements. What specifically do you find wrong with NRx?

Neoreaction has many positive attributes. It inherits the idea that ideological government is a parasite from its post-libertarian origins, and instead wants to take social engineering to its logical extreme: run government like a corporation, where it bills citizens for services and delivers limited and functional services only, doing away entirely with the ideological State which is the basis of liberalism. This is the starting point of Neoreaction, which then branches out into other areas including monarchism, theocracy and nationalism.

My critique of Neoreaction is based in two areas. The first is that, in an effort to attract a popular audience, it reduced itself to a form of individualism. This happens to all internet movements as people want to join so they can appear “edgy,” but fear getting too far from socially acceptable ideas. Second, Neoreaction refuses to accept its conservative heritage and to endorse organic civilization. Liberalism operates through “systems” which are designed to avoid strong culture and leaders, relying instead on “invisible hand” methods like market forces and popular votes. Conservatism desires almost no government and self-rule by culture. Culture requires a racial basis and race requires nationalism, and those three are necessary together to create identity, without which social standards — other than the nominal prohibitions on murder, rape, pedophilia and the like — are impossible. Neoreaction without strong nationalism simply becomes libertarianism, which then quickly degenerates into liberalism.

I read a good many Neoreactionary authors, including but not limited to Nick Land, Justine Tunney and Henry Dampier. I have in the past read Mencius Moldbug but previously found most of his ideas elsewhere, notably Huxley, Houellebecq, Plato and Nietzsche. Neoreaction also denies many of its invisible influences, like Houellebecq, Charlton and Kaczynski, and its Nietzschean basis. But Moldbug was significant in that he said that while he was not a white nationalist, he had sympathy for them; that broke the invisible barrier that kept people from accepting ethno-nationalism as an objectively better method of social organization than the nation-state.

On the topic of NRx you recently suggested that it was becoming a spent force or dividing into bickering camps. Can you elaborate a little more on this?

Conservatism will inevitably absorb Neoreaction because the philosophy behind Neoreaction is a type of Conservatism. It is hard to realize how almost all political movements are variants of leftism, and how leftism infects all political movements because it introduces the individual as a reference point. People think that unless everyone in a room recognizes something as truth, it cannot be true, and this leads to making decisions by consensus or popularity instead of simply picking which point of view is most accurate. Neoreaction struggles with this because it is an internet movement, a young movement, and its members are undertaking the tremendous psychic weight of defying taboos and looking toward a direction that is not a variation of mainstream ideas.

In addition, they fear conservatives because most who publicly identify with being on the right are in fact “cuckservatives” or those who value compromise with the left over taking a stand. The problem is that Neoreactionaries take the term “public conservative” and focus on “conservative” when they should look at public. Anything which is designed to curry favor among a large number of people is by definition driven by compromise and appearance instead of actual reasoning. This clashes with the nature of conservatism, which is consequentialism (results in real world) and transcendence (a focus on the best results, i.e. “the good, the beautiful and the true” and “the perennial things” per Huxley or “tradition” per Evola). The idea of a popular conservative movement is nonsense and that is a hard pill to swallow. Liberalism and other forms of populism exist only as denial, apologism and distraction from this truth and the awareness that our society is in decline.

Neoreaction had the greatest power when it said that our society took a wrong turn with The EnlightenmentTM and that now we must fix that by moving away from the notion of equality entirely and embrace social hierarchy and consequentialism. This was too extreme for most of its audience. They want to make little fixes and then go on with life as normal. The result is a loss of focus and a gradual entryism of populism. People are looking for reasons to avoid the obvious task ahead of us. As a result they — like generations before them — distract themselves with what are on the surface innovations, but essentially justifications for remaining with the status quo.

Another point of controversy involves your views on Zionism. Yes, here comes the inevitable and obligatory Jewish Question. I find your approach to be strikingly contrarian. Can you explain why you hold this position?

If I wanted to destroy white people, I would create a false target for them. They would then exhaust themselves in that pursuit, as they did in the great wars against nationalism from the Napoleonic Wars through WWII, and be left weakened. The “Jewish Question” (JQ) is such a false target.

Theodor Herzl — the writer who inspired the founding of modern Israel — wrote that Jews would be safest and happiest in Israel because the cause of anti-Semitism was Jews standing out among other groups who were trying to preserve their own national identities. He recognized that strong nationalism is inherent to any population which wishes to save itself. The modern West fears nationalism because it clashes with the fundamental idea of liberalism, which is equality. The decay of the West came from The EnlightenmentTM when we decided that the individual was more important than social order or natural law. Our society will be in decline until we identify egalitarianism as the actual target, and the JQ distracts from this.

The JQ is tempting because it is an excuse for our failure and enables us to avoid taking responsibility for our actions. We did not do this to ourselves, we say, it was those evil Jews. They somehow came in here as a tiny population and took over. Then all evil came from them. If we just remove the Jews, the thinking goes, the good times will return again. The ugly truth is that the cause of our decay is within us and we can blame no one else. Our people chose the degenerate products, illusory ideologies and venal behaviors that JQ-ites attribute to Jews. Even if we assume Jews promoted these behaviors, we cannot blame the salesman for the popularity of his goods.

This leaves us with the hard recognition that we must reject the flattering idea of individualism and the guaranteed inclusion in the group that it provides to the individual. That type of thinking rejects the parallel roles of natural selection and morality which exile people who will do harm to social order. This offends the ego, but throughout history, we see this kind of “group individualism” manifesting before empires collapse. Originally it was called decadence and it comes from within. Until we accept responsibility for our decadence, we remain in a “victimhood narrative” that makes us passive and whiny.

Where were the Jews when the Maya collapsed internally, long before the Spanish arrived? What about the collapse of ancient Angkor Wat or the Tocharians? No Jews there, nor did they play a sizeable role in the collapse of Greece. Using the Jews as a scapegoat will lead us to attack a false target. By doing that, we will miss fixing what we must to survive and guarantee our doom. In the process, we will commit atrocities that make us hate ourselves. While The Holocaust began as a slave labor program, it became mass extermination. No person of noble European heritage wants to murder men, women and children.

Further, we have much to learn from the Jews. While they have their own struggles, most notably neurosis and venality, they also have a rich tradition of scholarship and a practical outlook that has every Jewish kid studying to be a doctor or lawyer while his white cohorts are busily fixating on football, video games, masturbation and Big Macs. If white Europeans emulated this and the strong nationalism of Judaism, they would be a healthy society again. The JQ is just a distraction from that necessary goal.

Amerika has had a love and hate relationship with the GOP. What role do you think the Tea Party still plays in the GOP today or at least conservatism at large?

The Tea Party represents a desire to reverse leftist drift. Since every journey begins with a single step, the Tea Party redirects mainstream conservatism toward conservative goals. I have zero faith in democracy but while it is available to us, we are fools not to use it. It is easily subverted by even small groups who are organized and motivated. It also avoids the sheer chaos of armed revolution and the unsavory possibility of having to murder our fellow citizens for following the orders of a decadent regime.

As far as the Baby Boomers go, the Tea Partiers are the best of them. They either never believed the 68er hippie quest or have repudiated it and are pushing hard in the opposite direction. The original name for the Baby Boomers was as you probably recall “the Me Generation.” There has never been a more self-focused group of people, and their modus operandi was to take all they could and then sabotage the means by which they got it so no one else could. They know nothing but themselves and want the world to be consumed by fire when they die.

The rest of us have inherited a world the Baby Boomers ruined. We should confiscate their assets and exile them to Mexico, then burn their garbage music, neurotic films and vapid literature in vast heaps. But the kicker of it is that Baby Boomers themselves were victims of decay. Their parent generation were the same people who embraced jazz and speakeasies in the 1920s and became flappers. The parents of that generation were the Bohemians, following the same regimen that the hippies did of free love and peasant living, much like self-styled iconoclasts for the previous two centuries. It is a perennial sham. These are first-world people adopting third-world lifestyles, much like anti-racists today, because they want to make a name for themselves as being egalitarians.

You have mentioned Hinduism as an important influence on your thought. What role, if any, do you think Hinduism has in reviving the West?

Hinduism resembles the other pagan religions I admire, mainly those from Northern Europe and ancient Greece. Several really important ideas come from Hinduism. The biggest is esotericism: there is one reality, thus one truth, and all religions try to approximate that truth, but religions learn like people do, which is that at each stage of revelation a new level becomes apparent and those with more ability and drive make it farther than others. I find great inspiration in the Bhagava-Gita and other writings of classical Hinduism.

It does not make sense to treat religions as discrete ideologies; as a wise man said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” I would view any religion as a fact and most of those practicing it as interpretations. At that point, it becomes clear that some are farther along than others. This knowledge, and the Hindu monist cosmology, could go far in revitalizing Western Christianity to be not only coherent, but relevant in a scientific age.

You’ve had a dramatic shift in your views on Christianity, from hostility to some kind of acceptance. What is your view on Christianity?

When I started out, I wanted to murder every Christian in existence, burn down their churches and tear up their holy books. Over time, I came to see how “Christianity” has become infected by liberal logic and not the other way around. The herd does this to every idea it gets its paws on, so there is no advantage to choosing another religion, but our interpretation of Christianity can be improved.

No religious principle can exist which contradicts that which is apparent from reality. The herd Christianity, like liberalism, promises reward in another world for doing moral good. That in itself is the problem, not Christianity, which can be re-interpreted to de-liberalize it and remove its populist elements and replace them with warlike and realist tenets, creating what Adolf Hitler called “positive Christianity” as inspired by the thought from Schopenhauer that Christianity had positive attributes which could be brought forth by a Hindu influence.

Some years ago a fan archived all of Amerika’s articles into a PDF file. Is there a possibility that you’ll put out a collected works of Brett Stevens?

I remember someone archiving the ANUS articles, the 2009 articles from and the 2010 articles from These are great resources to have. I can say that there is something similar planned for the future, but cannot elaborate at this time.

I recall your writing starting out very bleak and edgy. Later, the site adopted a pan-nationalist and even a Zionist and Christian-friendly view. Can you tell us a bit more about the bizarre political history of the site and how it changed?

The basic opinions offered on the site have never changed, but over time, they have evolved to get closer to the root of the diagnosis of the human problem, and as a result have removed some intermediary targets from their radar. The philosophies of Pentti Linkola, Julius Evola and Varg Vikernes still have an influence, along with Nietzsche and the Western canon of literature and philosophy. My contribution to this heap of historically unprecedented mental clarity is to recognize the causes of social decline in the individual, and the importance of identitarian culture and realism together in counteracting those.

Conservation is a conservative ideal. Environmentalism makes sense with the liberal ideas that make it unworkable removed. Most humans not only contribute nothing but actively sabotage civilization through carelessness or selfishness. They go to jobs, sure, and buy stuff, sure, but they are fundamentally not active in maintaining and advancing society. They are aware of this, and it makes them underconfident, so they adopt a surrogate belief system in liberalism which lets them claim to be anything but the self-absorbed and parasitic little monkeys they are. I couple these green outlooks with active nihilism, which is widely misunderstood. Nihilism denies all human thoughts and sensations which do not correspond to reality on a structural level. It prefers to know how things actually work, as opposed to their appearance and the (endless) “reactions” through human response in the form of desires, judgments and “feelings.” This vein of thought rejects all human illusions, including democracy and the basic goodness of human beings, culminating in a viewpoint that advocates a less formalized and less inclusive society where natural selection and hierarchy prevails.

As far as extreme environmentalism goes, my philosophical writing began in order to solve a single issue: ecocide. Over the past century, humanity has gone from co-existing with nature to consuming it. The problem is that solutions cannot be found at the level of method. We need entirely different leadership and values. Any society which, as the West has since The EnlightenmentTM, sacralizes individual choice will make reality optional. When reality becomes optional, people — most of them being as selfish, venal and manipulative as monkeys — do what is convenient for them and as a result, consume all resources and crowd out nature.

We cannot stop ecocide with “green” or “environmental” solutions; the only solution is to change our leadership and our culture so that we regard our environment as necessary, as the Deep Ecology movement pointed out. That in turn requires us to subordinate the individual to both natural law and social hierarchy, which requires putting the smarter and better people in leadership above the rest. This is perennially unpopular because it contradicts our view of our individual selves as uniquely important and valuable just for being alive, and incompatible with democracy, equality, inclusion and other modern Western sacred cows, but it is also a better representation of reality. If we choose it, we succeed; if we do not, we fail and destroy the ecosystems around us, eliminating the diversity of species and leaving only the “adaptive generalists” of fast-growing small trees, rapidly-seeding ground cover and generic critters like raccoons, squirrels, rats, sparrows and crows.

If any readers have questions inspired by the above, feel free to drop them in the comments here.