Posts Tagged ‘traditionalism’
Monday, February 27th, 2017
Several weeks ago, Upon Hope blog appeared on our radar here. It seems a mixture of traditional conservatism and Christian reactionary philosophy with an eye toward the practical, real-world and applied solutions versions of those ideas. I was fortunate to catch a few words with the proprietor, Mark Moncrieff, who has been writing at this blog for several years and tackling the “big topics” of being a conservative in the postmodern, post-collapse era…
You describe yourself and your writing as “Traditional Conservative.” What does this mean?
Let me split this question up into Conservative and then Traditional Conservative.
A Conservative believes in:
Tradition does not mean we believe in things that are old and stale because a Tradition is not something that we do in the past, even though it comes from the past, but something we do now and hope to continue in the future. Tradition is the thing that connects, that seeks to reconcile, the past, the present and the future. We do not live at the start of history nor at the end, instead we live somewhere in the middle. The people of the past are not dead and gone and unimportant, anymore than the people of the present are unimportant, but neither are the people of the future, those generations still unborn unimportant. Tradition says remember the trinity of the past, the present and the future because if you lose sight of one then you have lost your way.
The theme of my blog is to try to explain Liberalism and Conservatism.
Order means that we do not believe in chaos, we believe that everything has both a rightful and a wrongful place. For example there are not eighty genders, there isn’t even one gender; there are two sexes, exactly two, male and female. That it is normal and natural for each sex to have its own unique attributes and failings. And that that continues for race, ethnicity and for individuals. We do not believe in equality because that is chaos not order, because there is nothing normal or natural in everything being the same
Family, Liberalism believes that the individual is the basic building block of society. But Conservatives know that is wrong [with that]: individuals have Mothers and Fathers; in short they have a Family. It is the Family that is the basic building block of society. We support blood, not water.
Conservatives come in two varieties, Paleos and Traditionalists, I am a Traditionalists. When it comes to social and economic issues we normally have very little to disagree about. It is foreign policy that divides us. Paleos believe that if we leave the world alone then the world will leave us alone. Traditionalists believe that we are part of the world and we cannot leave it alone anymore than it can leave us alone.
How did you come to this viewpoint, and what other ideologies or folkways — conservatism more resembles this than an ideology — failed to meet your standards?
I first became aware of politics in my teens and even then I called myself a Conservative. But nearly everyone who calls themselves a Conservative is in reality a Liberal and when I look back I realise that I was a Classical Liberal. I believed in equality, in civic nationalism and I was prepared to give free trade a go. Of course I reject all of those things now but it has been a slow but steady transformation, so slow that most of the time you couldn’t even notice. But there were some things I never accepted about Liberalism, Feminism never made any sense to me, why would a women be happier as an accountant than as a Mother?
I have never been a Leftist. I never even flirted with Communism or Socialism, nor with Nazism or Fascism, although I was interested in the latter two. Simply because even then Conservatives were called Nazis and Fascists, but it was very clear to me that I was neither of those things. When I heard of Anarchism I thought it was the stupidest political philosophy, but that place has been taken by Libertarianism which is basically right wing Anarchy.
They say that the best trick the devil did was to convince the world he didn’t exist. Liberalism has pulled the same trick, pretending that instead of being the most radical political philosophy that has ever existed it is [in] the sane middle ground. For far too long I believed them.
You have been blogging at Upon Hope for four years now, with an impressive ability to address questions that normal people might have about conservatism and the “why” of it. What would you say the theme of the blog is, and what kind of feedback do you get from your audience?
My intention has always been to use my blog as a way of doing things in real life. I never intended to go so deep into political philosophy, but I realised quite early on that while Liberalism needed to be picked apart and criticized it was also important to look deeper into Conservatism. I got a lot of support from other sites when I started and in my first two months I had over 500 visitors a month, but when I decided that I wanted to look more at Conservatism I lost around 2/3 of my visitors. It took a long time to get those numbers back up, I might add. I guess the theme of my blog is to try to explain Liberalism and Conservatism. The evils of Liberalism that is and the advantages of conservatism.
In the past few months I have had a bit of feedback but for a long time I hardly ever got any. Normally it is supportive and the very few angry emails are normally still intelligent. I have only ever deleted one email which was simply name calling. Although I have had some emails from married women telling me that I had influenced them not to reenter the workforce, which I was surprised but pleased to receive.
Why is Leftism so popular?
Leftism is so easy to understand and it has a logic of its own. Everyone is equal; that’s easy to understand, even though it’s completely nonsensical. The same goes for nearly any topic the Left pushes: they reduce it to a slogan and present that as policy. To the average person it can sound like all they are asking is for everyone to be nice to each other. It is only when you dig down that you find out the meat is riddled with maggots. Because Leftism is full of lies, instead of chanting “”Illegal immigrants are welcome,” they instead chant “Refugees are Welcome”. Here we have a clear lie with a clear slogan, but what it is not is complicated.
Can you tell us about yourself through a brief biography, and explain how you came to blogging.
I am a White working class Australian, 46, unmarried with no children and currently unemployed. So when I write about Liberalism, Feminism and Mass Immigration they are not academic subjects. I also served seven years in the Australian Army Reserves and I have a worthless University degree. My last job which finished last year was in the Operations room of a security company before they decided that my job could be done for a fraction of the price in the Philippines.
In early December 2010 I was about to finish a casual job and I was pretty angry with how things were going. I thought to myself I cannot be the only one in Australia who feels like this and I went online to see if I could find an Australian Conservative site and I found Oz Conservative. Here was a guy who really was Conservative and I sent him an email and it turned out we lived only a few suburbs away from each other so we met up. Over time I wanted to do more than just think and in March 2013 I started by blog. I got a lot of support from Mr. Richardson at Oz Conservative, he really encouraged me and has been a great supporter of mine which I very much appreciate. Blogging can be hard, thinking can be hard, writing can be hard and then feeling that you’re running on the spot can be hard, so it was good to have someone in real life who was more experienced to talk to.
Do you think there is a “dividing line” that separates people who are actually conservative from those attempting to use conservatism as a means-to-an-end, such as self-promotion?
Yes I do, as I said earlier Conservatives believe in Tradition, Order and Family. But most people who call themselves Conservatives are in fact Liberals. Liberalism has some advantages, it is extremely patient and logical, just to give an example it has been pushing equality since the 1830s and if you accept equality then why can’t two men marry each other? From the outside that might not seen logical but from the inside it absolutely is. But when Liberalism wins it also fouls its own nest. Because Liberalism is not about building a new world where two men can live in happily married bliss, it’s about destroying the old world were marriage exists. It is about breaking society down until there is only Autonomous Individuals and the Government and nothing else. But such a world will be unable to sustain itself.
So how can you tell the difference between an actual Conservative and a Liberal masquerading as a Conservative?
An actual Conservative will never say that an immigrant is better, or that we need more immigration, or immigration built this country. He will never support the idea that we are only an economy, he will not support equality and he will be conservative when it comes to society.
You argue for Constitutional Monarchy. What are the strengths of this system over democracy and absolute monarchy, and what is its Achilles heel or backdoor, a.k.a. how it can be subverted?
Constitutional Monarchy has already been subverted, that’s what Liberalism does; it subverts organisations and uses them to further their aims. I support a Constitutional Monarchy because it exists, Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy and I want it to continue to be. It helps maintain our relationship to Britain, the country that gave life to mine; it reminds us that we are part of a bigger and older world then the one our politicians and media want us to remember. It is a connection to our language, law, political system and social order. It is a reminder that we are not alone in this world but that there are other countries that are our kith and kin. The elites want Australia to be a republic and while the Constitutional Monarchy continues it stops them from getting it’s prestige and it is a reminder that we were once part of an Empire instead of the being the proto-republic they want us to be.
In the past the Constitutional Monarchy had power as well as prestige, today it only has prestige. but how the politicians want that prestige. The problem is Liberalism, it is an acid and it destroys everything it touches. Until it is destroyed nothing will work, not Democracy, not Absolute Monarchy, not Constitutional Monarchy.
In an absolute monarchy, can a king be replaced, and is it necessary to have a formal process for this?
If a formal process exists to remove a reigning Monarch then it isn’t an Absolute Monarchy.
Traditionally if a Monarch was unfit to rule a regent was appointed to rule in his place, but he was not replaced. To replace a Monarchy is to betray the very idea of Monarchy.
Your approach is somewhat unique in that you defend traditional practices both from a health/existential viewpoint and an economic one, for example in the article where you argue that having housewives instead of female cube slaves is good for society and the economy. Do you think many conservative ways are beneficial in parallel like this, and why do you think that is so, if so?
I do think that Conservatism is not just a bunch of social concerns, of course social issues are important but we also have economic issues we must address. Not free trade and other Liberal ideas, which are often called Conservative. But a genuinely Conservative approach to economics. Free market economics that support as much as is practical small business over big business. Big business is the
natural friend of Liberalism, I think small business can be ours.
So how can you tell the difference between an actual Conservative and a Liberal masquerading as a Conservative?
Conservative thinking is often single issue thinking, Liberalism is much better than us here, it is always mutually supporting. We need to do that as well and I don’t think it’s that hard. The problem is that we do not dig deep into issues and cover as many bases as possible. To use housewives as an example, I thought about the larger economic effect, the effects on a families economics, the wider effects upon society, the effects it has on future generations as well as the personal effects. So often we only approach a topic from one direction, but when we come at an issue from more than one angle we find that it is often naturally mutually supporting.
Conservatism seems to be on a bit of a rebound. What caused the “crash” in Leftism worldwide? How can conservatism rise? What pitfalls does it need to avoid? And how does this relate to the split between traditionalist and modernist varieties of conservative?
What caused the “crash” in Leftism worldwide?
Liberalism went full retard and as we all know, you never go full retard. In the past you could come home from work and sit down in front of the TV and watch Matlock solve a crime and the ads would try to sell you a refrigerator. Today you come home from work where you had to listen to a lecture on diversity, Matlock is a woman who investigates the murder of a transgender by a White man and the refrigerator is sold to you by an immigrant and the ideal family is apparently two people of different races with their multiracial children. In the past you could escape Liberalism, but today there is no where you can escape.
How can conservatism rise?
So much is failing and so man y people can see it is failing. The old slogans are no longer working. We need to show people the heel and to remind them that it doesn’t need to be invented. Things once did work and while we cannot go back to the past we can use it to build the future. But to do that we need more than blogs, we need real world Conservative groups.
What pitfalls does it need to avoid? And how does this relate to the split between traditionalist and modernist varieties of conservative?
The most obvious is to not think that Classical Liberalism or Right Liberalism is Conservative. They call themselves Conservatives but they are not, we must be on the lookout for them as they will try to infiltrate us and take over our organisations. And if we don’t have organisations then we are not going to get anywhere. It will be the gatekeepers who will decide if we can continue because if they are good at keeping out the Liberals we will do find but if they are not then we will fail.
Thank you, Mark, for being with us today. Interested readers can visit him at Upon Hope blog for interesting CRX and trad perspectives.
Friday, February 24th, 2017
Smithsonian Magazine writes about how one can play the civilization game, do everything mostly right, and still be eliminated by the shifting sands of time:
Yet it appears the Norse were careful: They limited their hunting of the local harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, a species that raises its young on beaches, making it easy prey. (The harbor seal is critically endangered in Greenland today due to overhunting.) “They could have wiped them out, and they didn’t,” Smiarowski says. Instead, they pursued the more abundant—and more difficult to catch—harp seal, Phoca groenlandica, which migrates up the west coast of Greenland every spring on the way from Canada. Those hunts, he says, must have been well-organized communal affairs, with the meat distributed to the entire settlement—seal bones have been found at homestead sites even far inland.
…“People came from different farms; some provided labor, some provided boats,” Smiarowski says, speculating. “Maybe there were several centers organizing things along the coast of the Eastern Settlement. Then the catch was divided among the farms, I would assume according to how much each farm contributed to the hunt.” The annual spring seal hunt might have resembled communal whale hunts practiced to this day by the Faroe Islanders, who are the descendants of Vikings.
The growing season was short, and the land vulnerable to overgrazing. Ian Simpson has spent many seasons in Greenland studying soil layers where the Vikings farmed. The strata, he says, clearly show the impact of their arrival: The earliest layers are thinner, with less organic material, but within a generation or two the layers stabilized and the organic matter built up as the Norse farmwomen manured and improved their fields while the men were out hunting. “You can interpret that as being a sign of adaptation, of them getting used to the landscape and being able to read it a little better,” Simpson says.
This shows a society that lived according to both deep ecology and traditionalist principles. It found balance with nature in its food source, yet also changed the land with the use of manure to fertilize it. It engaged in group activities that distributed rewards according to contribution and not equally. And other evidence mentioned in the article reveals a highly orderly, caste-organized, and religious civilization. These are goals to strive for.
Of course, history brings twists of its own, and one is that settlement on Greenland was doomed because of a volcano eruption and loss of important resources for trading, and so the settlement gradually packed up and moved out, family by family. These periodic historical crises happen, such as the Black Plague in Europe or even the Mongol invasions, and they can destroy civilizations that otherwise did everything right. Nature is random but hopes to, on a statistical level, ensure prevalence of the most well-adapted.
“It’s a very different story from my dissertation,” says McGovern. “It’s scarier. You can do a lot of things right—you can be highly adaptive; you can be very flexible; you can be resilient—and you go extinct anyway.”
Nonetheless, this shows us some basic principles that our future Western Civilization can use: it can exist in balance with nature. It can suppress the weak behavior of humans with strong social order and a devotion to transcendental and qualitative ideas like religion. It can have traditional values without becoming too human to exist in its surroundings. But there are no guarantees and no Utopias; all we can do, by doing the above, is to maximize our chances.
Thursday, February 23rd, 2017
Many of our readers are familiar with Wrath of Gnon, the cerebral meme-master who pairs classic art with insightful quotations from writers and thinkers. Although he exists only on social media, his elegant images spread across the web and, interestingly for social media, re-appear years later. We were lucky to get some time to chat with the elusive Wrath of Gnon.
When did you first know that you would pursue a different path than that of the majority? Is there any way for someone who aspires to sanity to feel good about this modern world?
I was not exceptional in that I was born reactionary. I believe most people are for the simple reason that all the hollow slogans of the progressives — Equality, Brotherhood, Liberty, etc. — are so obviously untrue to even the most socially isolated child (and I was not in the least isolate, I grew up in a large loving family).
To maintain the progressive mindset it is vital that people remain detached from reality (from their roots, families, friends, communities), and plugged in or attached to the propaganda machine. Take a man away from media for a fortnight and you will see emerge a more sensible, realistic human being. My own reactionary thinking has only strengthened the more I remove myself from modern media and groupthink.
It is not difficult: stop looking at mass media, distance yourself from all writing that “feels” modern; keep going backwards in times until you find what you are comfortable with. There are even some recent writers with an old fashioned mind set, you don’t have to read Chaucer, as certain works of Kerouac will do just as well. Immerse yourself in reality: aspire to experience and perform all the functions of life, as far as it is humanly possibly for you.
This can include growing your own crops to taking your friends for extended hiking trips in the wilderness. There are no excuses and I believe it is possible for everyone to cultivate a timeless mindset. The important thing is to, in some way, manner or form, reach backwards. This is the meaning of the slogan “Revolt Against the Modern World”: to turn your back on modernity.
What, in your view, went wrong with the West, and how do we fix it? How deeply does the rot go?
As for when (even though you did not ask), there is the famous quip — “For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution.” (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn) — but the Traditionalist-Catholic wing of reactionary thinkers go further, blaming the reformation. And so on. This is a fun but ultimately pointless game.
Personally I would not even call it a rot, as I subscribe to the Evolian idea that we are already “men standing in the ruins.” Rome has fallen all around us, it is just that we have not noticed yet (or as Adam Smith mirrored it “There is a great deal of ruin in a nation”). This question brings to mind the two famous portrayals of two different Roman nobles in the fifth century A.D., one who leaves the Imperial Capital to return to his family lands in Gaul, to “weather out the temporary unrest”, while the other quietly slips away to eventually found his own Holy Order, the Benedictines. The first thinking that order will soon be restored, the other with his mind already set on eternity. Both accounts make for fantastic reading.
The good thing is that everything we need to turn things around is already here. All the material, all the plans, all the accumulated wealth and knowledge of millennia of human thought and creativity is scattered all around us. We even have a time table for how to do it (and this was suggested by someone on Twitter three or four years ago), we just start turning the clock back, step by step, reversing history as we go along, keeping only the reality compliant, Gnon friendly parts.
And we might unwittingly have started this already: education, housing, vacation homes, etc., it is all becoming too expensive very fast. We are losing the means of production to more ruthless countries in the Far East, and we are running out of natural resources. Unrest in far away countries have started cramping our wanderlust—quick now, 2017 might be your last chance to see the Louvre, the Pyramids and the beaches of Pattaya! And speaking of Pattaya, sexually transmitted diseases are quickly becoming immune to treatment, thus limiting us even in our choices of partners, and in their numbers, automatically unwinding the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s.
Mark Stein said “The future belongs to those who show up,” and as Evola noted, what we have to do now is to hold out, to “ride the tiger,” to “remain standing in the ruins,” to (as Rod Dreher posited) take the Benedict Option and become neo-monastics. And have children, of course. Lots and lots of children.
You publish a series of intellectual memes — striking images overlaid with notable quotations and cutting insights — which reveal much about what is wrong, and where we might go. What appealed to you about this format? How do you choose images and quotations?
I had been skimming the outer fringes of the “reacto-sphere,” but I think I was influenced in taking the step to participate more actively by a few people, and a few memes. The first was an anonymous image showing a leafy green, beautifully airy urban street from the turn of the last century, overlaid with the words: “NEVER AGAIN.” That one hit me like a brick in the forehead.
At the same time, I happened to find @shaunwesleywyrd and E.H. Looney on Twitter. S. Wes shared a photo of an old book by Oswald Mosley he was reading, photographed with whiskey and a pipe, and Looney shared (and I still think this is a most fantastic meme) an image of a young woman in medieval garb with the text: “The First Reich was the Best Reich.”
I saw a way to present (to the general public) very “politically incorrect,” almost caustic ideas, in a fun setting. It took me a few weeks of experimenting to realize that I needed two more vital ingredients: a pinch of gravitas (which I got from relying mostly on very old literature) and beauty. Beauty is the beginning of all things good, and goodness is the beginning of all beautiful things. At the very same time I was reading NRx, I read Bryce, MM, Sailer, Jim, Nick Land etc., and the rest is (well documented) history.
I have a decent image memory, so I remember a lot of images I have seen, and when I find a good quote in my readings (I read a lot, and almost only autobiographies these days) or online or suggested by helpful people on Twitter or Tumblr, that fit an image, I add it. And of course, the other way around. I think my best work is actually when I see an image and the text just comes to me naturally, whether it is my own or a quote from someone else (I do realize that there are almost no original thoughts out there, so as far as possible I try to give credit where credit is due).
Unlike many within modernist movements, including the Alt Right, you are an out-of-the-closet monarchist. What led you to have faith in monarchy? How do we get there from here?
Humankind has at the very least thirty-five centuries of monarchy under its belt by now (at least Europeans, much longer if you include the other great historical cultures), and this has taken us from roving bands of hunters to the outer reaches of the solar system. Furthermore the amount of beauty in the world is diminishing at the same rate that Modernity is growing.
I noticed that globalism is erasing differences both geographically as well as culturally while increasing meaningless ugliness! It is the differences that are important, the distinctions that make everything on this planet so interesting! I even have a love for borders (and walls and fences, demarcations, ditches, hedgerows, etc.): strange and wonderful things happen in borders regions: the starkest contrast, the strangest amalgmations and syntheses, the most interesting crossovers. Borders are great things — we need more of them!
I hate the leveling leviathan of globalization and commercialism. I do not trust systems — is there any system that has not achieved a long history of atrocities by now? All systems are inherently unsustainable, as they are founded in ideas rather than in observable reality, and once the people holding these ideas change, so do the ideas (witness social democrats in Europe or social justice warriors in American campuses).
By contrast, I find Monarchy the most robust, sustainable (and ecological if you will) form of societal organization. It mirrors only those structures that already exist in reality and in nature, it is so simple that even a child can understand it, even participate in it. When ever a group of pre-schoolers gather to play without adult interference, a natural hierarchy will establish itself within seconds. Between the two genders, between the members of the group, between the group (the culture) and reality (nature). The Monarch is to the nation what the Father is to the family.
Humans are the only animals that will actively invent problems in order to provide solutions for them. But monarchy is one of those things that just will not be improved upon, it is one of the eternal truths about mankind and of the reality of things. If mankind ever stops needing a King, well then I posit to say that we have already evolved (or devolved, more likely) into something post-human. But as long as the idea of the King survives, it will live on, ready to spring back into reality.
As Georges Bernanos asked of a four-year-old Lorrainer boy: “What is a king?”, “A king is man on horseback who is not afraid!” As fine a definition as ever I heard, and far more correct than a whole indoctrination camp of university professors.
How have you found ways to adapt to modern life? What is it like, living in a world where basically everyone is not just wrong but insane, and every institution is subtly corrupted?
Humor helps. And the knowledge that all institutions are merely guided by corrupt men and women, and that we are all more or less brainwashed from birth by Modernity. As a culture, we have always had ways to deal with people whose grip on reality is less than robust, only these days they seems to end up Chancellors, Chairmen of the Committee or with Tenure. As we were all once brainwashed, so we can all find our ways out of the modern labyrinth.
Here is where the allegory of the Red Pill comes in handy. I have, by now, a pocket full of them, and the more I give out, the more I seem to carry around. It is a self-feeding fire: every conversion is the seed of a dozen more, and the anecdotes of these “red-pillings” are moralizing tinctures indeed. On a more personal level, I am helped by reading, and finding that I am not alone. Everything I think and feel has been felt or thought before. As Evola put it:
My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.
I have tons of allies. Mind you, most of them (as of now at least) dead, but still. Tons.
If people want to break out of the mental virus of modernity, how should they do so? Is there a universal path, and do all people need to come to in-depth realizations, or can they rely on gut instinct?
Most of us are in it too deep. Every time we reach towards the light of the surface, modernism is there again, Chthulu dragging us downstream and into the murky darkness. Sometimes we can be helped by friends, someone reliable to help us climb back up. Find sanity again. Sometimes it happens in flashes of revelations (everyone knows these and Twitter is a great place to share), but like any idea whose time has come, we are slowly building towards a critical mass. Our ideas are sustainable, confirms to reality: when nature, long in tooth and red in claw sneers at us form the dark thicket, we are ready to sneer back, and soon there will be more of us. We will reach, sooner or later, the necessary critical mass.
There are of course savants out there, people who are so remarkably grounded that they are immune to modernity: you probably know many. Your uncle the air force mechanic. That aunt who is a nurse and never opened a book in her life but has started and ended more lives than Sitting Bull. That cousin who can build an engine from spare parts but has never heard of Affirmative Action in his life. Surround yourself with them. Go to them. Bask in their clearheaded glory. And then come back to the fray to pick up a few more lost souls. As Tolkien stated so well: “It is no bad thing to celebrate a simple life.”
We hear a lot about environmental problems these days. In your mind, what is the relationship between modernity and ecocide, and is it purely industrial, or related to underlying political or social problems?
The simplest way I can put it, is that the environment has stopped being something wonderful from which to draw resources and strength to start being a problem that we have to “deal with”. Just listen to yourself, the phrase, “environmental problems”! It is amazing when you think about it. How did we get here? It is a combination of many things (let me name a few):
- Individualism: I have needs, so screw the rest.
- The Tragedy of the commons: No one owns anything any more. Everything is up for grabs. This ties in to nationalism, which is a natural defense mechanism and reaction to weak states. Environmental concern is the left wing shadow of this reaction.
- Receding horizons: We are so used to there not being any more fish in the ocean that we forgot what it was like just two generations ago. We are so used to worrying about our kids walking two blocks to school by themselves we think it is normal, even though we ourselves would happily bicycle ten miles or more to go skinny dipping in ponds and lakes when we were twelve.
- Rootlessness: Why should I bother about this place that I have never seen before and that I will never see again? I have no idea what it was like ten years ago, never mind a generation or more!
- Unqualified Optimism (in Eternal Progress): Things will only get better. Progress leads to better things and evolution always climbs higher. Well, I have news for you buddy: nature does not care if it produces Beethoven’s Ninth or a superbly infectious tape worm. Whatever remains standing at the end of the day is what will remain. Nature is a blind God and you can never ever outrun or outsmart it. Moloch is not going to protect you either, despite how many babies you roast at its fires.
These all combine to create the situation we have today: Holidays in Cambodia and 120 channels on your TV, meanwhile the Springs keep growing more and more Silent for every year. But it is my firm opinion, that the environment (its uses and abuses, including the whole “environmental problem” subject) is fundamentally and unquestionably a right wing issue.
The left is the side of the favelas and locusts, the factories and the mercury spills, the estrogen in our drinking waters and the loneliness of the last rhino on the savannah. The right is about stewardship, firm action, boundaries, and responsibility. Green is a reactionary color. Just as in this neighborhood we shoot dealers, in this forest we also shoot poachers.
What activities do you find fulfilling outside of politics and philosophy? How do these help you and others live normal lives in the midst of the maelstrom of insanity?
Oh, I hate politics. With a passion. I will only talk politics with actual politicians and even then it is just a ruse to get them so close that I can kick them. Politics divides friends and splits families. Politics starts out with a discussion on the fair way to handle lay offs in industry and ends in one side digging mass graves for the other side. If politics does not get you mad and fuming you are doing it wrong.
I yell at people starting a conversation with the words “So what about that election uh?” Politics is of the enemy. I mine it sometimes, for ammunition, or for making more Red Pills. But that is it. Nothing more. As for philosophy I hardly ever read it. I have always been an “Oh yeah? Show me!” kind of guy. I want to see why monarchy works. I want to taste why democracy doesn’t (Anyone care for Soup? Our chef is legion).
Roger Scruton’s is the only philosophy I ever read, and even then I only read his most down to earth passages and grounded texts. I had enough abstract philosophy at university (and boy was that ever the biggest mistake of my life!), overdosing on Kant and Derrida at twenty.
But as for normal activities, I take an interest in drafting classical architecture, rural crafts, etc. It all helps me refocus, or retune myself to reality.
Right now, what is one thing that a normal person can do to resist modernity and encourage a shift toward a saner, healthier form of civilization?
I touched on this subject in an earlier answer, but if I would have to say one thing, it is to Stop consuming: media, stuff. Once that is done, start by gathering your friends and allies: “Form a Gang.”
I am no fan of rock stars, but they had the right idea when they started defenestrating TV sets. Everyone should try it sometime. The fresh air will do us good! As moms everywhere and in all times have pointed out: “It is a nice day outside, go out and play.”
How can people stay on top of your writings and creations, and what can they do to support your work?
I post most creations on Tumblr, and a lot of my readings and opinions on Twitter. I am not in this for money, I borrow quite freely from the dead and the living, I require no fame. I take up little space and need little nourishment. Kind words help though. If you find the mass of my messages too much, feel free to edit out my name from the images (lots of people do). Use whatever you need.
If you feel like helping, I would love to receive more suggestions from non-English speaking reaction, as long I can double check the sources independently, I am usually happy. If something strikes my fancy I will use it. I sometimes suggest titles that are in need of translating into English. Feel free to get started. Donoso Cortes, Barras, Bernanos, etc. there is so much out there that deserves a bigger audience. Quality is important, but so is quantity. The sheer weight, the volume of thought we can point to—it all adds up.
Tuesday, January 31st, 2017
As part of the Platonist vision of conservatism, articles on this site frequently speak of the vision unleashed by the intersection of Platonic forms and Germanic Idealism, namely that recognition that the underlying substance of the universe is thought or thought-like. This is why idea, structure, pattern and logic that corresponds to the outside world are more important than immediate material obstacles.
This ancient philosophy lives on through hermeticism, but also in Christianity through transcendentalist thinkers like Johannes Eckhart. Hermeticism finds its roots in Hindu idealism which, as expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita, roughly mirrored the Greek and German versions. All expressed the idea of an order of nature based not in material position, but logical order.
Plato even took this far enough to speak of healthy civilizations, which recognized this order, as contrasted to unhealthy ones, which were in the grip of hubris or the brew of individualism, narcissism, solipsism and socially-empowered boldness — in which the approval of the social group matters more than reality, and makes us feel safe in denying traditions — which modern people exhibit, especially with their smug and prim attention whoring at political events. Plato wrote:
In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us.
…When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.
…Undoubtedly, he said, the form of government which you describe is a mixture of good and evil.
Why, there is a mixture, I said; but one thing, and one thing only, is predominantly seen, –the spirit of contention and ambition; and these are due to the prevalence of the passionate or spirited element.
The most important line can be found here, in plain sight because very few people can understand it: “the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things.”
To be virtuous is to live in a perpetual state of contentment, and to be free from “contention and ambition…the passionate or spirited element.” The ego is the root of the passions; the nature of being “spirited” is to be rebellious against what the evident order. Plato is pointing out that greed and rebellion are one and the same force.
Even more, he is showing how there is an esoteric path to wisdom, namely that only those with gold and silver natures are going to understand the value of “virtue and the ancient order of things.”
From this comes the root of traditionalist thinking: worldwide, there are many religions, and they all describe the same world, so they converge — unequally, idiosyncratically — on the same “truths” or accurate observations about the world, both physical and metaphysical. When we recognize this, we see that history is indeed cyclic, or the story of humanity in an optimal state, its fall, and its attempt to return.
In order to effect our return to this saner state of human being, and to force our evolution into silver and gold again, we must begin with an evolution of consciousness toward extreme accuracy:
When Owen Barfield described the evolution of consciousness, he used ‘evolution’ in a pre-Darwinian sense of a developmental change analogous to the fertilised egg ‘unfolding’ to become a mature, adult organism.
…If the evolution of consciousness has a unified purpose and aim (isn’t just a different purpose and aim for each entity), then this implies that there is a deity – as the source of purpose. Therefore, the evolution of consciousness is a consequence of some divine plan.
What could this divine plan be? For many Christians it will be ‘theosis’ – or the process of Men becoming more and more like God; aiming at becoming Sons and Daughters of God.
Realism demands that we understand our world as it is and adapt to it, which first requires that we make our minds more like the world, a process that in turn leads to transcendental wisdom, or appreciation for the logicality and sanity of our world in presenting us with the best possible existence. Normally humans do not understand their world and so view it as crude, threatening and disorganized.
Theosis is a subset of realism. If God exists, He is part of this world, in idea or at least as a cause of the effect that is this world. If we study the patterns of this world and come to understand its (realist + transcendental) wisdom, we can then grow closer to God by achieving greater mastery of adaptation to the physical world around us.
What this means, interestingly, is that the “religion-first” approach to traditionalism is not going to work. What works is to enforce self-discipline on ourselves so that we accurately understand and adapt to reality, and religion will emerge from within that process instead of the other way around.
Thursday, November 10th, 2016
The Left has never understood conservatism because the Left has never wanted to. To them, their ideology of egalitarianism leads directly to Utopia, at which point there will no longer be conflict between humans and everyone will be accepted. Any deviation from this is a moral sin punishable by death, in their view.
That explains why the Left does not want to understand conservatism: they have zero room for it in their pantheon of ideologically-tinted symbolic representations of reality. This is because while conservatism is voiced as an ideology, fundamentally it is anti-ideological because it bases its perceptions on reality.
Conservatism comes from the term “to conserve,” which means that we preserve successful means of achieving excellence. In human terms, nothing can be preserved in a static sense, but must be regenerated anew in each generation, so “conservation” means not physical things but principles, methods and ideas.
As written here before, that means that conservatism has two attributes:
Consequentialism. We judge success by end results and side-effects, not by human intent, feelings, judgments, universal symbols and emotions. Reality is external to us; internal focus is solipsistic.
Transcendence. There must be some goal higher than material reaction, like excellence, beauty, goodness and truth, and we discover it through intuition, which is within but not personal.
This contrasts with Leftism, which has only one attribute: egalitarianism, or the equality of people, which is presumed to lead to pacifism and universal acceptance, and from there to Utopia. Leftism works through negative actions, or things it wishes to remove; conservatism requires restructuring society around positive goals, or things we want to achieve.
For this reason, in our Leftist time, our Leftist media has trouble understanding why conservatism does not translate into Leftist terms. First they want to make it an ideology; then, they try to import egalitarianism — the core and principle of Leftism — into it, despite for conservatism, egalitarianism being at most a means to an end and not an end in itself.
As a recent article demonstrate, our society is now struggling to understand conservatism which is as distant as a foreign land to a society brainwashed in two centuries of Leftism:
Nash presented an influential portrait of conservatism as a river fed by three tributaries of thought: Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism). Although each could be rendered as a popular impulse or unthinking reflex of the mass mind, Nash insisted that all three were fundamentally intellectual traditions, nourished by a cast of characters who deserved both respect and extended study, among them James Burnham, the former socialist turned anti-Communist; Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian classical economist; and Russell Kirk, America’s answer to Edmund Burke. In Nash’s telling, these were the men (and they were almost all men) who created conservatism in the postwar years.
This article is patent nonsense. Conservatism is not a material ideology, but a timeless principle. It can be found in “Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism)” but they are not its constituent components. Rather, as a principle, it is found many places, and those are the ones we recognize — “observer bias” — because of their recent relevance.
A conservative is someone who likes what works. Because the question then arises “How well does it have to work?” he has to pick either bare minimums (utilitarianism) or best case scenarios, and that latter leads him to the goal of excellence. That in turn picks out the principle of nature: all works to produce a hierarchy that advances the best over the rest, and this extends to metaphysical principle.
For all that modern people know of conservatism, the above passage might as well be in ancient Greek. However, as we enter into a conservative area with Brexit rippling across the USA and Europe, we might want to understand the path out of the Leftist mental ghetto and how we can use it to save ourselves from the moribund inertia of liberalism.
Thursday, October 27th, 2016
The Alt Right rose, then tried to figure out what it was. It knew a general direction, which was that it said the stuff that the mainstream Right wanted to but could not and still keep its jobs, but beyond that, it was confused.
It arose from a mishmash of philosophies. The New Right, Traditionalism, White Nationalism, Paleoconservatives, Neoreaction, Nietzschean conservatives and Dark Enlightenment met in a blender. Some have suggested that the intersection among them is right, but more likely, it is their shared forward ideal: a resurrection of the greatness of Western Civilization, and to that end, the means and methods required to achieve it.
Many have contemplated it. Among the best:
And that is only a small sampling of all that has been written on this topic, although these pieces at least cover all topics and link to all major articles. And still, the definition remains fuzzy… let us look at some recent sources:
“Will The Real Alt-Right Please Stand Up?”:
It seems to me that, if anything, the Alt-Right is a blanket term applied to all non-mainstream conservatives of all stripes that serves more as a negation than a positive claim. In other words, if anything, the Alt-Right brings people together based on what they mutually dislike, not a shared set of ideas.
Mr. Heft makes an essential basic point here: the Alt Right is formed in opposition to modernity, and there are many degrees of this. On the farthest Right, people want a restoration of traditional civilization to provide a new golden age of Pericles, as Arthur Schopenhauer suggested. We know what we do not want: the soul-killing, environment-killing, culture-destroying, pointless and tedious modern age, despite its good shopping and wide variety of ethnic food.
And what distinguishes those views?
“The Rise Of The Radical Right: The Alt Right, Neoreaction And The Trump Campaign”:
Meanwhile, the movement itself is an amalgamation of all ‘alternative’ right wing views that are today considered heterodoxy. This means that the views of one person who considers himself to be part of the ‘Alt-Right’ can be, though do not necessarily have to be, radically different to another.
Summary: these views are socially unacceptable. Taboo, in other words, they are forbidden by informal social rules from being uttered. All of the people who are currently thriving in this wasteland think that these things should not be mentioned. So: speakers of hidden, or dare we say… occult… notions of reality.
A New Right thinker of note expands on this:
“A Talk With Daniel Friberg, Co-Founder Of Arktos and RightOn“:
What I mean with the Real Right are those people, organisations and ideologies who do not accept the framework that the Left has set on the public debate.
…The success of the Alt Right illustrates the effectiveness of metapolitical methods. Via cultural means they have changed discourse and the boundaries of the public debate; they have changed the restraints of how we are allowed to think and eroded the shared dogmas of the Left and Old Right.
Two points here: first, this is a cultural revolution, and second, it rejects Leftist vocabulary. This is important because social pressures invert terms or reverse their meanings in order to control a population of faceless equals. Cultural revolution means that instead of fighting over existing political symbols, we decide what we want first and then cause it to rise organically through many avenues.
And then follows an attempt to simplify…
“We Are The Alt-Right”
Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious. This is the Alt-Right.
This expresses the formula that Alex Birch and I worked up for CORRUPT back in 2008:
Anti-democracy. Realizing that mob rule and trends do not successfully substitute for leadership by quality people.
Human Biodiversity (HBD). Recognizing the differences between groups, and more importantly individuals, and that every ability fits a normal distribution pattern in every population.
Ethnic Self-Determination. Every ethnic group needs its own self-rule and its own continent. This is not an argument against any specific ethnic group but a recognition that each group has its own self-interest and that under diversity these clash. Diversity does not work, no matter which groups are the ingredients.
Transcendental Purpose. We must find some way to connect to the beauty of this world and understand nature as an order superior to our own intentions, possibly including the metaphysical side of nature which is described by the various religions.
Anti-equality. Equality works for arithmetic, not people and not groups, including social castes, races, ethnic groups and families. People are different, with different abilities that are mostly genetic if not all genetic.
In a time when many people want to enter the Alt Right, and control it by redefining it, it is important to remember this bottom line: The Alt Right is against equality.
That dividing line separates the wannabes from the real deal. The wannabes will accept everything else but that; they want to eject certain ethnic groups, but are not against diversity itself; they want to throw out the elites, and then hold more elections to get new rotten elites. They want us to all be Orthodox Medieval Crusader Catholics, but then, equality is the basis of their social order (as long as one prays twice a day whilst facing Mecca, or, perhaps Pennsylvania). All of them get it wrong.
The Alt Right is a revolution against the past millennium. We do not believe in equality. From that, all else flows; equality is the illusion of our time dating back to before the Peasant Revolutions and the Magna Carta. It is the basis of all modernity, all Leftism, and the type of collectivized individualism that creates these things (which in turn arises from civilization success which enables lower orders to outnumber the higher).
This brings us back to the first opinion cited above: the Alt Right is a rejection of Modernity, with modernity not being a span of years or a type of technology, but a type of civilization design based in equality. Modernity is the cold night of the moon to the warm sun of the golden ages of humankind.
The Alt Right formed in order to get away from both mainstream conservatism, which is a hybrid of Leftism called “liberalism” or “neoconservatism,” as well as White Nationalism which essentially wants a classless society in the Leftist model in which all white people are merged together into a grey white race, sometimes called “ethno-Bolshevism.”
White Nationalism is filled with crazies and is at least 50% informants. It failed for a reason. If anything, White Nationalism is a stepping stone to reach the Alt Right. White Nationalism, and its precursor National Socialism, are still stuck in the modern paradigm of equality, “Systems” of rules and regulations, and allowing material orders like demotism — consumerism, democracy and social popularity/peer pressure — to determine what is right. The Alt Right wants us to find what is right, and then have society pursue that, instead of the other way around.
If anything, the Alt Right is more Nationalist than White Nationalism. It recognizes the need for national and regional identity in the identitarian model; it rejects the idea of forming a generic white race and then allowing modernity to exist as it has. It throws down the Constitution and burns the Declaration of Independence. The Alt Right is total rejection of modernity.
Unlike Neoreaction, the Alt Right gives a nod to Radical Traditionalism, the system of thought espoused by Rene Guenon, Aldous Huxley and Julius Evola. It wants a rising civilization against, capable of the greatness of the past.
For this reason, the Alt Right is challenging to define, because first and foremost it requires people to accept an entirely different view of civilization than anything they see around them. Then it leads them through rejection of what exists now, and some basic ideas of what they want instead. Then it shows them the substructure required to support those ideas, and suddenly, we have left modernity far behind, like Peter Pan sailing over London at night.
Those who want to control the Alt Right are trying to boil it down to a single principle, like how the Leftist ideology has “equality” at its core. This takes what is not-modern and places it back within the modern, effectively neutering it. This amounts to entryism by Leftism into the Alt Right and will sabotage it as surely as making it a Justin Bieber fan club.
Instead, the Alt Right suggests we keep going past all boundaries and all expectations. Our societies are doomed if they stay on the current path; this is a good time to dream, and for the first instance, to get it right. We are facing an evolutionary hurdle here: either we surpass modernity, or it buries us.
Perhaps the above will help some intrepid venturers make the journey.
Thursday, October 20th, 2016
VDARE always cuts to the chase, which is why it makes good daily reading. A recent article looked into the question the Alt Right has raised: the possible that “the end of history” has ended and liberal democracy has been debunked just as thoroughly as Communism. This in turn brings startling implications:
Codevilla’s basic idea: the cultural revolution of the last 50 years has destroyed America as a constitutional republic. As many on the Alt Right have noted, there is nothing left to conserve.
Growing up in a Leftist-dominated time, most of us on the Alt Right have never known any vocabulary for theory except what is drilled into us by the Left. This leads to the illusory thought that conservatives are here to conserve a previous age such as the 1950s or 1980s, either of which would be far superior to what we have now.
Conservatives aim to “conserve” not a specific time, but timeless principles and ways of life. The basis of the philosophy is consequentialism, or the idea of measuring our proposed acts by their likely consequences instead of the emotional feelings or sense of shared social communion that they give us. Conservatism upholds the triumph of reality over intent.
This way of life leads to a natural tendency to prefer optimums, or those principles and ways of life which lead consistently to the best outcomes, not merely acceptable (utilitarian) ones. This requires rejecting the idea of equality, because most people are naturally prone to think in the short term and groups always choose “committee think” style compromises instead of taking decisive action.
In this light, conservatives never approved of America and its Constitution. They like the founders saw the Constitution as a method of restraining democracy by limiting it to the upper echelons of society, mainly because democracy of some form was inevitable given the collapse of monarchies across Europe under the assault of The Enlightenment™ style thought.
Original conservatives recognized that sanity is a fleeting thing that is available to only a few exceptional individuals, and not to groups. For this reason, they opposed mass culture and its ideological arm, “Progress,” in every form. Progress means clear-cutting forests and displacing towns to make cities and industry producing pointless products for a clueless electorate oblivious to anything but its immediate personal impulses.
This explains the fundamental division of America into two states, the raw producers and those who make their money from reselling, cosmopolitanism and entertainment. This split has exploded in 2016 because with the lawlessness of the Obama-Clinton left, the conflict can no longer be masked.
This reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American economies. One, the “Ephemeral Zone” concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut.
The other America constitutes, as economic historian Michael Lind notes in a forthcoming paper for the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, the “New Heartland.” Extending from the Appalachians to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the Southeast and the Intermountain West.
In conservative lexicon, this conflict is one of the oldest in humanity: cities versus countryside. Cities are anonymous and people make their living in them by convincing each other to do things; they are naturally prone to salesmanship, advertising, marketing, peer pressure and other anthropocentric vehicles which are inimicable to the localized, normal and healthy lifestyle of a network of villages, towns and small cities.
It is not surprising that America has divided this way; in fact, it is a verification of conservative ideas yet again. The two sides have become incompatible because they want different ways of life entirely. The cities are increasingly in trouble as their liberal policies become more expensive, and are choking the heartland with taxes.
We have seen this situation before. In the years before the Civil War, the Northern Cities relied heavily on Southern agricultural products. Taxes began rising, but not enough. To fix this situation, the cities provoked a war and invaded the South so that they could incorporate it into the federal system and have more control over the raw product, which is where all the profit — and future tax bonanza — was.
Civil War 2.0 is now on the table. As VDARE states:
The fundamental reason for this fear among the elites: their guilty conscience. They understand that in the last 50 years they have completely upended the old order in America. They have created a revolution that opposes the most fundamental interests of the historic white American nation. They understand that this election could confirm their revolution—but only if Hillary Clinton wins.
The question for conservatives is then what there is left to conserve, and the answer is that we conserve the way of living that has eternally nourished heartlands in all Indo-European civilizations. Heartlands like social order:
Communities where everyone knows each other.
Caste or its less formal cousin social class to put the most capable in charge as social and consumer decision-makers.
Leadership based not on popularity but competence.
Customs, calendars, cuisine, language, values, philosophy and religion which are in unison in understanding of the world and the purpose of the civilization.
Civil penalties or exile of those who transgress against the civilization instead of stewardship through prisons.
Homogeneity of the group in heritage, identity and worldview/culture.
Economies based not on growth but perpetuity, in service to culture.
Personal codes of honor, moral attention and maintenance of the good, beautiful and true.
A shared goal both specific to the group, and a driving force toward excellence through elitism.
Conservatives today have mostly forgotten these in their desire to “remain relevant” by appealing to mass culture and mass tastes, but this is a suicide mission because mass culture rewards the instant gratification life of the city and not the more contemplative, long-term joys of the heartland. This is why “original sin” appealed so much to our ancestors: it explained that people are limited by their abilities, and most tend toward the monkeylike, and among the intelligent, without self-discipline they become agents of evil.
In a long-term view, conservatism is experiencing a revival worldwide as liberal democracy collapses in a stinking cloud of problems created by its own pursuit of the illusion of equality. The Alt Right, Neoreaction, New Right and Traditionalist movements are inheritors of conservatism not so much in details, but in spirit and inclination. With these, we can reclaim and rebuild a world ruined by human pretense.
Monday, October 10th, 2016
The Alternative Right or “Alt Right” consists of lone writers who bang out missives in the odd hours of the day and after work, expending their sparse free time on a vision of a better future. They do so knowing that their ideas are incomprehensible to most, and would be disturbing if understood.
Coming from the re-grouping of the right after the Leftward shift that followed the Second World War, the Alt Right combines elements of other anti-liberal movements — the New Right, Neoreaction, black metal music, White Nationalism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Human Biodiversity and Traditionalism — and finds the elements they have in common.
Its fundamental idea rejects centuries of thought from The Renaissance™ and The Enlightenment™ onward, namely the equality of human beings. The Alt Right sees that as a construct of human intention and social reasoning, and suggests instead that biology must be the basis of our understanding of humanity.
Where the contemporary dialogue supports the idea of universalism, or the notion that people are the same and so can be shaped into an ideal society with rules and “education,” the Alt Right sees that people and peoples are highly varied. People have different abilities, inclinations and moral characters, and this also varies in a broader frame with ethnicity and race.
Once we accept this realization, the quest against “inequality” no longer makes sense; inequality is the default state of the universe and also a necessity for change, evolution, conflict and growth. This allows us to discard the past centuries where countries have shattered themselves trying to achieve equality.
Instead it makes sense to look toward a social order where the abilities of each person are matched to a role in which that person can excel and yet be limited from doing damage by acting on questions above his level of ability. This type of internal hierarchy, which is both vertical (ability) and horizontal (specialization), creates a social order unlike the flat single dimension of equality.
As part of this realization, the Alt Right understands that different populations are not arbitrary but specific to things only they can do. For this reason, the Alt Right is strongly Nationalistic, or believes that each ethnic group thrives through self-determination, or homogeneity and command of itself according to its own standards.
Another way to view this is through the principle of self-interest: each group is different and has its own direction, and these self-interests do not combine but conflict. Diversity cannot succeed because it violates this principle and will cause only enmity between the groups involved, whoever they are.
This represents a departure from the conventional view of assessing “good” and “bad” or “inferior” and “superior” groups. In the Alt Right view, every group is superior for its own purposes and if left in isolation. When groups are combined, the unique traits of each are lost and the result is a cultureless “grey race.”
Accepting that equality is nonsense raises another question. If people are unequal, it no longer makes sense to make decisions by mass “consensus” achieved through political promises. Instead, choosing those who are most competent to lead becomes evidently sensible, and this leads away from democratic systems.
The Alt Right is divided on many questions, including what comes next, but royalism/monarchism/aristocracy have significant support because they alone allow us to step outside of the cycle of politics itself where the winning idea is that which flatters the broadest segment of the audience.
That in turn leads to some realizations about humans. Not only are we unequal, but we are not all one. Instead, we are an organic structure where different roles and abilities work together, sometimes through opposition, to achieve an ultimately positive result. Humans are not universally anything, but saying we are all “good” is clearly wrong.
From this comes the idea of hierarchy, or that society must like nature always advance the more competent in every role above others so that all may benefit from the greater competence. In this view, leadership becomes a question of ability and not mass agreement, recognizing that people in groups make “committee-like” decisions and that most people will misjudge complex issues.
With that idea arises one of the fundamental ideas of the Alt Right, which is consequentalism, or the idea that leadership acts are assessed by their effects in reality and not the human intentions, feeling and judgments which fill our heads with idle mental chatter. Reality matters; intent does not.
From this point, the Alt Right belief system transitions to Traditionalism, or the idea that there is an eternal order of human civilizations and interaction with nature and the metaphysical, and that healthy civilizations restore this constantly. Dying civilizations deviate from it and rationalize, or justify, their choices as being more “moral” when in fact they are merely compensatory.
Currently, because we live in a 70-year Leftist acceleration within a society that has been drifting toward egalitarianism for a millennium, these ideas seem incomprehensible to modern people. They have been raised in a series of dichotomies which amount to thinking the current system is good and anything else is bad.
However, as the contemporary order not only fails to achieve its objectives but leaves shattered lives and broken countries in its wake, people are thinking the unthinkable: that perhaps our comfortable order of equality, liberal democracy, diversity and sexual liberation is not just bad policy but a path to doom.
For this reason, the Alt Right invokes Nietzschean ideas and expresses questions about the collapse of Western Civilization. It not only opposes the delusional Left, but wants to remake Western Civilization into the type of eternal order that produced its days of glory, genius and excellence.
In its view, society succeeds when it has a clear purpose and measures that by results. All political systems and static moral measurements are proxies, or symbolic measurements, of this, and they are easily misdirected by the relentless changing of history and meaning that is the hallmark of the Left and other destroyers.
For the Alt Right, diversity and immigration are means the Left uses to destroy any sense of shared purpose, values, culture and heritage. This idea is borne out by historical evidence:
The era of Republican dominance in California was finally broken in the 1990s and has since disappeared into the background at a breathtaking pace. Democrats, who now command a supermajority in both of the state’s legislative houses, along with the governor’s mansion, have been forging ahead with an assertively progressive agenda on all fronts, from the environment to taxes to the culture wars.
The single most visible cause of this shift was mass immigration—or, alternatively, the failure of California Republicans to adapt to immigration—which produced a demographic transformation of the Golden State without parallel in the rest of the country. The California that elected Reagan its Governor was about 80 percent white and 12 percent Hispanic; today, those figures are 38 percent and 39 percent, respectively. In other words, California squeezed into forty years a transformation that is expected to take at least a century for America as a whole (if it takes place at all, given rates of assimilation and ethnic attrition) and which many Trump supporters clearly resent and fear.
In the Alt Right view, civilization success begins with homogeneity not just of race but of ethnicity, such that those who are from an ethnic group like Western Europeans can form a society together, but a society cannot be forged from mixed-race and mixed-ethnic populations. The California experience shows that diversity benefits only Leftism, which seems to speak endlessly of equality but always tend toward controlling, centralized authority.
With the rise of civilization comes the tendency to have purpose beyond the merely physical. With this comes an appreciation for the complexity of our world and its tendency toward positive results, even through its darkest moments. For this reason, many on the Alt Right reject atheism and tend toward a religious viewpoint.
Through that filter, life remains inexplicable when seen through the purely material, or physical, mindset. Instead, life has a purpose, although not an inherent one. We can choose any level of existence we want, but those who wish to go the farthest toward excellence and beauty strive to understand the metaphysical realm and apply its wisdom in the physical world.
As part of that drive, the Alt Right leaves behind the modern mentality of dividing methods into good and bad, and instead focuses on how those are directed. For that reason, the eternal civilization desired by Alt Rightists is entirely compatible with advanced technology, including that pushing far beyond our consumer-oriented gadgets of the present time.
This pairing seems unbelievable but fits within the futurist spirit of the Alt Right: we wish to advance civilization beyond its current stagnant stage to future greatness that marries the wisdom of the ancient past with the abilities of the distant future. As a lone standout in the Leftist The New York Times writes:
Reactionary ideas have made modest inroads in the mainstream right: The intellectuals’ case for Trump that I wrote about last week includes a thin but striking “regime change at home” thread. And they have appeal in areas like the tech industry where mainstream conservatism presently has little influence, because (like fascism in its heyday) the new reaction blends nostalgia with a hyper-modernism — monarchy in the service of transhumanism, doubts about human equality alongside dreams of space travel or A.I.
The Alt Right sees life as excellent, and not an unjust condition to be corrected as the Left does, and wants to extend this excellence into new domains. In this view, humanity is a species competing with many others among the stars to see who can produce a stable civilization that can explore the stars without self-destructing from internal conflict.
Like most things Alt Right, this breaks down conventional dichotomies. We are not struggling between oppression/non-oppression, but for competence over incompetence, and if the competence is oppressive yet geared toward our purpose, it serves our goals and is beneficial. In fact, suppression of the human tendency toward chaos may be necessary.
This runs up against the human pretense that everyone is good, and that all individuals deserve to do whatever they want. In the Alt Right world, the goal of humans is something more than themselves; we wish to achieve self-mastery through self-discipline and through that, make a civilization of excellence more than mere adequacy.
For this reason, the Alt Right remains an outsider to the politics and values of today. It accepts that condition with pride because it sees our values now as a byproduct of rationalizing decay, and instead wants to combat that decay by overcoming it through the process of aiming toward something grander, more majestic, more epic.
In the Alt Right world, only two options exist for the future. Either there will be more advanced humans who look back on this time and laugh at it, or there will be a vast cultureless grey mass who cannot comprehend any of these ideas. The choice is ours, and the future will judge us by our decision.