Posts Tagged ‘traditionalism’

Discovering Nihilism

Wednesday, December 7th, 2016

Reader-submitted photo.

Writing about nihilism presents a problem in that most people equate nihilism with fatalism, or the giving up on any chance to make life saner, better, more pleasurable, or even excellent. Fatalism is in fact the most common human response to life, and consists of both a grudging acceptance of the failures of life because it is more convenient than fighting them, and a resentment which allows the individual to consider themselves a victim, pity themselves, and then use that feeling as a justification for indulging their self-centered urges as compensation for their suffering.

Nihilism as espoused in Nihilism: A Philosophy Based in Nothingness and Eternity, on the other hand, is a radical skepticism toward the means of perception that are convenient for humans. The large Simian brain tends to fit perception into what is convenient for its own modes of thinking, which means that it projects its own order onto reality, and tends to create a tunnel vision by making a first impression and then filtering out data that does not conform with that thesis.

In addition, nihilism rejects false dualities like “subjectivity” and “objectivity” based in universalism, or the idea that all human minds work alike, which is a projection by the individual that makes them feel as if they control their world. There is no truth, communications or standard value system; rather, each of us acts according to what we are as genetic organisms, and that determines what we can understand and thus what truths we perceive, how we interpret language and thus how we translate communications from others into our own meaning, and a values system specific to the degree of excellence and realism we can analyze and interpret.

The doctrine of nihilism wages war against proxies, or intermediate human measurements which can be gamed and therefore create dark organization within human groups. Proxies create conditions for their own satisfaction which do not achieve satisfaction of their ostensible goal, creating perverse incentives for deception by adhering to the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit. Instead, nihilism argues for a morality of cause and effect, such that we measure our acts by their results and consequences and not our intent.

This “black pill” reverses every idea of The Enlightenment,™ which posited that human reason was universal and therefore, we could understand things in groups instead of relying upon the exceptional among us to comprehend them. Nihilism is a war-cry for the competent to rise in a hierarchy and oppress the rest, even if merely by dominance of opinion, because humans are not equal and accuracy of perception is more important than ideological conformity and the social good feelings it produces.

Over at Praefuscus Ferrum, occult writer D.A.R.G. has conducted a three-part examination of the book, culminating in an inspection of its esoteric and traditionalist aspects:

Brett Stevens advocates nihilism as a gateway to realism and idealism which, hand in hand and dealt with higher intellect, take the mentality of the individual towards transcendentalism. In a summarised manner, it is an extreme acknowledgement of what is without trying to impose human illusion over the tangible and measurable universe, only to then head towards the highest ideals that we can think of in an ever-ascending path. The beneficent effect of this outlook is twofold: first, it bypasses any impulse towards compromise and mediocrity, and second, it forces us to consider the permanent first of all, and the temporal in view of it.

Furthermore, to achieve such a vision, humans are required to put aside their egos, and so any illusions of socially-imposed egalitarianism in favour of a holistic vision of what is good as per ultimate consequences. Unfortunately, some divide this into two black-and-white categories in the common means versus ends dilemma, which is only so for those afflicted with narrow minds and short sightedness. Each question should be evaluated in its own context, not dealt with in prescribed absolutes such as “this is bad/good”, and rather as “what will the effect of this course of action be in this condition?”.

To follow up on these ideas, readers might also seek out the general introduction to nihilism offered by the publisher.

This follows an in-depth analysis of the underpinnings of Germanic Idealism present in the philosophy of nihilism

However, according to Brett Stevens, reality must be perceived or understood as having an underlying logic. But like the ancients and their esoteric holistic fusion of science, philosophy and religion, and unlike most post-Descartes and Aristotelian philosophy, it recognises that reality is ineffable.

This recognition may explain why so many different coherent explanations have cropped up in modern philosophy, without one or another possessing an objective superiority. This ineffability of reality leads to the esoteric method and the recognition of occult properties: those which we may never perceive directly; not even through scientific instruments, for physical science can only study effects. The apparent incoherence of esotericism, including the way Brett Stevens approaches nihilism, can only be resolved through direct experience in what is termed as a ‘coincidence of opposites’.”

The author also explains the roots of nihilism in heuristic realism:

By destroying all illusion of human-given value one comes to a direct and plain experiencing of reality. Thereby the plain, consistent workings of an immanent reality become apparent, or the emanations and manifestations thereof. This is the Godhead of the semi-esoteric Western Christian, which in the Tree of Life consists of the Supernal Triangle containing the higher Trinity (the “Father”, for all intents and purposes) that defines the abstract ‘mechanics’, relations and polarities of reality at every level.

Be that as it may, such conceptualisations may serve a further conscious study, but an attentive and self-directed mind will perceive and attain these notions unaided by theoretical systems, mystical or otherwise. The individual may thus be led, in his search for value, to consciously selected methods and systems by the way they address reality itself rather than by external imposition. This attainment of power is exciting and decisive in the future of the individual.

Any writer would be fortunate to attract the readers who have written in on this book — alert, introspective, analytical and rigorous — and it is its triumph that, regardless of ultimate popularity, it has found the group who are forging the future of humanity in hearts and minds. With any luck, it will be a popular Christmas gift this year, spreading perplexity and terror to humanity.

How The Left Misunderstands Conservatism

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

The Alt Right

Thursday, October 27th, 2016


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

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

Many have contemplated it. Among the best:

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

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

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

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

And what distinguishes those views?

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

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

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

A New Right thinker of note expands on this:

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

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

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

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

And then follows an attempt to simplify…

“We Are The Alt-Right”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Do Conservatives “Conserve”?

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.

Introduction To The Alt Right

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.

Radical Traditionalism

Wednesday, September 28th, 2016


Sometime around the year 2000, the work of Julius Evola reached public consciousness, and thanks to writers like Bill White, Radical Traditionalism entered the right-wing lexicon. This is a philosophy more than a political view, but fits neatly into the New Right idea that culture must be the generative actor for change which will manifest in politics and other areas.

Radical Traditionalism is based on the work of Réné Guénon and Aldous Huxley, and describes the eternal practice of humankind that creates an awareness of the metaphysical world around us in parallel with the physical, and from that, produces a type of civilization that is conducive to Golden Ages.

Those who have read this blog for some time know that it is concerned with two fronts: first, arresting the decline of the West by crushing the Left by any means necessary, and second, a zeal for restoring the greatness of Western Civilization at its height and surpassing it. Radical Traditionalism addresses the second more than the first, but serves as a useful target for those seeking a reason to undertake the first despite the near-suicidal risk.

One of the more compelling summaries of Radical Traditionalist thought comes to us from Tyr journal:

  1. Resacralization of the world versus materialism.
  2. Natural social hierarchy versus an artificial hierarchy based on wealth.
  3. The tribal community versus the nation-state.
  4. Stewardship of the earth versus the “maximization of resources.”
  5. A harmonious relationship between men and women versus the “war between the sexes.”
  6. Handicraft and artisanship versus industrial mass-production.

This corresponds to a definition of Tradition from Huxley:

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

  1. The phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness–the world of things and animals and men and even gods–is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
  2. Human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
  3. Man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
  4. Man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

How is it that a raging realist and nihilist can come to embrace the immanent? The basics are found in rejection of solely material existence, including social control, to discover that reality has qualitative dimension:

When we look at nihilism and radical traditionalism, what jumps out at us is that both are ways of negating the values we have in a modern time and returning to a cosmic order based on the actual function of our reality. There is no morality in either that places the individual higher than a noble task; the opposite is true, since a nihilist recognizes that morality is not inherent and basically wishful thinking by those who fear they might succumb to violence. Radical Traditionalism, like nihilism, emphasizes a quieting of the internal dialogue over how to value life, and takes life at face value: things are simply what they are.

The solution to modernity espoused here, used in abbreviated reference as the four pillars, incorporates Radical Traditionalism as it does the intersection of ideas found in the New Right, Alt Right, Reaction and Neoreaction. Its goal is to create the type of society that — independent of $current_year — creates a Golden Age for my people, the Western Europeans.

As with most things in life, there is no single theory which addresses all problems uniformly such that it can be applied at any level as if a universal truth. The only universal is reality, and its structures are known only to those who can pursue them. But what Radical Tradition suggests is that instead of reacting to material reality, and letting its immediate demands guide us, we strive for what is inconvenient but beautiful, eternal and excellent.

Through that mechanism, we gain access to the many different and visually dissimilar methods required to have a civilization which rises above the rest of history. There is no single ideology or system that can save us. But through discovery of Tradition, we can discover a wider reality and in that, find our answers.

Is Europe Christianity, Or Is Christianity “Europeanized”?

Wednesday, September 21st, 2016


The Alt Right contains multitudes — Traditionalism, Nationalism, Identitarianism, Theocracy, National Socialism/neo-Nazism, Libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Social Conservatism, Neoreaction and the New Right coexist within it — all of which contribute to its character, but each Alt Righter finds one dominant over the others in his own thinking.

On the Theocratic side, the Orthosphere and others borrow much from the Traditionalist perspective, and essentially desire a civilization renewal through mass devotion. This causes clashes with other aspects of the Alt Right cluster of beliefs, as can be seen in this erudite article about the new Alt Right logo:

However, the penultimate sin of this artistic foray by Spencer et al. is its imposition of a wholly non-historical, secular, and privately-conceived image upon a decentralized movement designed to defend hundreds of millions of souls descended from millennia of historically and religiously-rooted European history.

In other words, this Alt Right logo does artistically what the European Union’s constitution does legally – it erases European history and replaces it with an abstract, de novo interpretation of who we are to become. It is wholly utopian and idealistic. But that is no surprise considering whence it came.

This illustrates why the Alt Right is composed of an intersection of those many impulses above: any “one right way” approach to restoring Western Civilization tends to become a special interest that eclipses all other needs, resulting in a single change to the status quo that leaves the bulk of the decay intact.

One Right Way philosophies include White Nationalism, which wants to eject or destroy some Other groups but not all, and then merge all white people into a vanilla milkshake under the current democratic regime. This fails because it leaves the conditions which will re-create our present state intact, and by focusing on a scapegoat (Others) instead of actual problems like Western Decline, democracy and individualism, strengthens those forces.

Theocracy/Orthosphere in its purest form is a One Right Way philosophy — ironically, one that is endorsed by many American Republicans. In their view, we need everyone to convert to Christianity, and everything else will work itself out. For most, this is simply an excuse for inaction. With a respected source such as Faith and Heritage, more is at work, but the problem still remains.

For the F&H guys, European = Christian. For them Christianity came first, the people and their culture second. This quixotic miscomprehension is their perpetual downfall. The understanding that Christianity took hold in Europe because it was compatible with the European mindset is incomprehensible to them.

In other words, they have it backward: Christianity did not make Europe, but when Europeans “Europeanized” Christianity, they made it into a religion that could unite Europe. It did not not through Christianity itself, but through the expression of the European mindset through Christianity.

This clashes with the modern view of Christianity, which is that Christianity is the tool of producing civilization. In that view, everyone is capable of becoming Christian and being saved, and this “system” in turn saves the society around it. Not only history but common sense suggests that is not so.

Repeat after me: people are not equal. (It almost rhymes.)

People are not equal. They have different capacities for understanding. If you follow Human Biodiversity (HBD), you know that intelligence fits into a Standard Distribution where only the far-right side is capable of in-depth understanding of the complex history of a people and its relationship to God found in the Bible. This is why we have clergy; they are learned, elite interpreters of the holy Book.

Rejecting equality means that not everyone is capable of being Christian, of being saved, and that doesn’t jive with the feel-good understanding of God that modern Christians pursue. It just does not compute that God would create people who cannot be saved (even though this is Biblical).

Let us look at the scripture:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. – John 6:44 (ESV)

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. – John 15:16 (ESV)

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. – Romans 9:16 (ESV)

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. – Romans 8:29 (ESV)

The above passages are traditionally used to support Calvinism, or the notion that human beings are born good or bad and cannot be molded from one into the other. This is highly controversial in our egalitarian times, since it implies that human intention is less powerful than the world of nature and God, which contradicts the individualism incipient behind our modern democratic beliefs.

Romans 8:29 makes this clear: God makes people who are receptive to Him, and by the reflexive principle, not all people are receptive, and the ones who are not are hostile to God. Those who are receptive to Him are so because of the way God made them.

Much like the question of Christianizing Europe versus Europeanizing Christianity, this question hinges on causality. The ability to receive God must exist before a person can receive God, as in the esoteric “Traditionalist” view; this rejects the idea that receiving God creates the ability to receiving god, in the exoteric and democratic convention.

That ability to perceive and receive is the essential component and must come first. Without it, there is no belief in God, only superstitious peoples like in the third world and Western New Age cults. The other verses support this view: God installs in some of us the ability to perceive God.

From an Alt Right view, this means that we must have a hierarchy, and raise those who understand God/nature/logic above the rest so that the best can rule the rest. It may also imply that those who oppose God, because they cannot be “fixed” or “educated,” must be sent elsewhere so they do not threaten the society of those who receive God.

Europeans have a tendency toward ability to receive God, but not all of them can do it. In the past, whether in pagan societies or Christianity, Europeans have sought a transcendental worldview and a metaphysical understanding of their world. This separates them from other groups, and shows why it was Europeanizing Christianity and not Christianizing Europe that is responsible for the positive contributions of Christianity in Europe.

The Alt Right Fights For Its Own Soul

Tuesday, September 20th, 2016


This week, the Alt Right fights for its own soul. It worries about how to keep itself from being assimilated like the mainstream conservatives on one hand, and on the other, if it has gone too far.

It should instead worry whether it has chosen the right method of going too far.

The Alt Right has a unique mandate in historical terms: the existing order of Leftism and globalism has spectacularly failed, and people are just barely catching on. The smart ones among us want an end to the immediate Leftist crisis, and to the conditions that have enabled it, namely the collapse of Western Civilization.

For the Alt Right, there are two missions as a result:

  1. Stop the Leftist insanity.

  2. Reverse the decline and fall of Western Civilization.

To achieve this, the Alt Right has to adopt a radical course that rejects the illusions of our time — equality, pluralism, utilitarianism, individualism — and replace them with a goal that rises above mere material and social convenience. That is not an easy task, but looking at those in the Alt Right, it is clear that we are up to it.

We can achieve that goal through the four pillars, which are actually more radical than anything suggested in the Alt Right so far. They combine Alt Right, Identitarian, New Right, Neoreaction and Traditionalist thought:

  1. Nationalism. Exclude all Others; rule by culture. Zero diversity, not even a drop.

  2. Aristocracy. Remove democracy and popularity. Give power and wealth to our best people.

  3. Hierarchy. Reward for performance. No subsidies, welfare, unions or socialism.

  4. Purpose. We find a goal that is not material or humanistic, like “excellence.” Good to the good, and bad to the bad.

These pillars have been mostly ignored by the underground Right because they are simply too extreme.

The White Nationalists want to combine all white ethnic groups and social classes into a single vanilla milkshake with no culture, origins or distinctions. This is just another form of Leftism.

The “civic nationalists” — fools using a term re-defined by the Left — want to make rules and obedience tests in order to make us all obey the right economic and political system. This and “culturism” are the same thing.

The theocrats want us all to simultaneously convert to Jesus or Odin, and forget about the other dimensions of our problem, some of which are in fact material, but can only be fixed by applicable of principle, which is not.

All of them have missed the point: we are trying to restore a golden age in which our civilization is the best because it seeks qualitative improvement in all areas.

We cannot do that with any vestiges of equality, modernity, politics, or other manipulations. We need to break free from all of this nonsense.

Most of these groups who are competing for control of the Alt Right make the same error: they are special interest groups who will achieve one change, but leave the system of modernity in place. Modernity is what got us to this stage. It must depart.

The real problem is egalitarian/individualistic thinking. This consists of individuals demanding their equal share, and in order to achieve that, forming mobs or “Crowds” who use their numbers to demand equality, in the name of the group but with the purpose of the individual. It is selfishness, collectivized.

The Alt Right has made great strides by denying the official narrative and instead pointing to the genetic and biological origins of culture, which refutes the egalitarian theory that a random group of people can be instructed in the same political and economic system and be as great as those who invented it. This is the magic dirt theory.

Against the magic dirt theory, the Alt Right suggests Nationalism: that each nation be defined by its founding ethnic group, and that all others be excluded.

Most people have forgotten what Nationalism means, but they can refresh their memories by recalling that World War Two was a war against Nationalism, or the nations that wanted “Germany for Germans,” and excluded all Others.

Nationalism remains controversial because it denies the modern conception of what civilization is:

Nationalism is the belief that political groups should be constructed around the idea of “nation,” or population group unified by culture, heritage and language.

As such, Nationalist is “rule by culture” where cultural values come before profit motive or popularity, which enables forward-thinking leadership instead. With profit motive, every object and idea and person is for sale, and society leads itself in circles. With leadership, society determines its goals and moves toward them.

The term “nationalism” comes from the term “nation,” which has a different meaning in current politics. Currently, the nations of the world are political constructions made of borders, legal systems and economies, called “nation-states.”

Nationalism is the core of the Alt Right. The “proposition nation,” a creation of liberal democracy — equality plus democracy — has failed, and Nationalists are pointing toward a better order.

The twentieth century consisted mostly of war against Nationalism in the name of liberalism or Leftism, which is the idea of the equality of all people, independent of race, ethnicity and caste/class.

This alone constitutes the line in the sand which separates those who are Modernist zombies from those who will make the next great civilization.

Normies cannot accept Nationalism, because it offends them because it violates equality.

Join us on the dark side. We reject The Enlightenment™ and other ideas of human equality. This is the Rubicon which must be crossed. It is also what defines the Alt Right, and why it is thriving while mainstream conservatism and liberalism die the same death.

Understanding The Traditional, Or Eternal, Civilization

Friday, September 16th, 2016


Bruce Charlton proves worth reading for anyone who is not onboard with the mainstream-sanctified descent into social breakdown. Even if his words do not resonate as true, his centering of the issue will, in a time when almost all news sources, including underground blogs, distract from the actual issue.

He takes on the Alt Right by proclaiming all material politics to be Leftist, and suggesting an Orthosphere-style root of society as religion:

A nation is either run with a religion as the bottom line, and politics, economics, law, the military and police, education, science, health the media etc – all other human activities are ideally and ultimately subordinated to that goal. Religion is the organising principle…

Or else there a nation is run on Leftist lines with ‘mortal utility’ as the bottom line – that is the utilitarianism of mortal life under the assumption that nothing else exists, or matters.

A nation can be run on Religious lines (as all nations were in the past, and many still are); or else it can be Leftist – which means it pursues mortal utility

Another way to view this problem is through the transcendental lens that has been applied in this blog: there are not separate dualistic worlds, but one world spanning the natural and the supernatural, and therefore, both metaphysical and physical concerns are parallel in importance.

That concept of parallelism, about which I have written a hopefully-forthcoming book, applies to many areas. Parallel castes, working toward the same goal. Parallel nations, each with its own standards. Parallel measurement of truth, so it is consistent across all factors and not a cherry-picked few as in rationalism.

In the transcendental view, societies exist in through parallel implementation of the same truths. That is, a union of race, culture, religion, values, philosophy, economics and leadership; this occurs instead of the modern method of linearity, or choosing one to lead the rest: a democratic society, a capitalist society, or a theocracy as we see in the Middle East.

This is not to say that Charlton is wrong, because his statement as translated into parallelism states that civilizations must have a goal above the material; in the philosophical lexicon, we call this idealism, which refers to the idea as being more important than the matter in which it is found as a pattern, and therefore, that civilizations thrive by organizing themselves using better ideas (quality) not more material (quantity).

However, that transcendental goal is not limited to religion, but must be found in all areas. The natural and supernatural are parallel; so must our approach be. The idea of a mass religious revival alone is impracticable, but “bootstrapping,” or using political power to strengthen culture and religion alike so they can then grow in parallel, is realistic and desirable.

Only through this bootstrapping process can we rise to end the decline and fall of Western Civilization. We must address politics and the supernatural together, but as Charlton suggests, do so in the name of a transcendental goal, or looking toward a long-term improvement by arranging ourselves according to patterns that are eternal, or have worked since the dawn of time and will work in any age of humankind or other intelligent species.

Around here, we call the plan for bootstrapping the four pillars and show how it will nurture the type of society in which religious thought can shine. First we must awaken our will to survive and thrive by achieving excellence; next, we must remove obstacles; and finally, we can march into an ideal state where all institutions march in parallel to the same eternal truths.

This parallels the fundamental idea of Traditionalism, which is that history is not linear but circular, because some methods are eternal and any society that uses them will rise to greatness. In the Traditional view, all religions and philosophies describe the same Reality with varying degrees of accuracy, and so improving the quality of our perception leads us to these eternal truths.

Charlton brings up an important point: that we cannot solve problems of idea with material. The rejoinder to that is that in our existence, ideas are expressed in material, and we need that expression to parallel our metaphysical understanding so that all works in unison, harmony and balance as classical civilizations did.

Natural Mathematics Produces Greater Intelligence Than Humans Can

Monday, August 22nd, 2016


Over at Outside In, Nick Land makes some great points and some that are harder to support. But the core of his philosophy takes some effort to spot. For example, a cryptic post about the dominance of the Qwerty layout keyboard reveals a Landian theme:

In such circumstances ‘historical accidents’ can neither be ignored, nor neatly quarantined for the purpose of economic analysis; the dynamic process itself takes on an essentially historical character.

He quotes this source for a reason, which is that it reveals how markets and natural selection work on a mathematical level that is more advanced than human design. Nature is smarter than us.

This does not mean we should go back to living in mud huts, but the contrary: nature has built into itself a series of thresholds and tests so that only those who merit it can achieve high technology.

While Land relies on a technological progress timeline to show the defeat of liberal society, in an inversion of Kaczynski’s dour take on the same, history suggests that the pattern of a civilization and not its technological level determines its level of success.

That is to say, as Traditionalists have explained for decades, we do not wish to “back” in time; we wish to create the design-type of society that has always worked instead of pursuing alternatives such as the modern civilization design.

This is no different than management theory. Certain arrangements of roles and activities in groups of humans always produce success, no matter what $current_year is; others always fail, independent of the age.

What is interesting about Land’s theory is that it supports this idea. In his analysis, natural evolution — gradualism, selection, arbitrary modification — produce an end result that reflects the composition of the group choosing. When idiots are numerous, idiocy results; when intelligence is given precedence, one gets a society with the four pillars or some approximation.

This brings us back to Nietzsche. The four pillars evolved just like the eagles: we took early birds (pre-civilization humans) and applied intense selection pressure plus strong positive rewards for seizing opportunity, and the result was an apex predator (hierarchical civilization). This in turn modified the participants to be more able to fulfill that role.

Kaczynski and Land seem to agree that technology has created a “bubble” wherein humans have been separated from the consequences of their decisions by an inclusive civilization, and for that reason, idiocy rules. A more thoroughly analytical take reveals that this process occurred even in low-technology civilizations, and is the product of a wealth boom brought on merely by social organization, which is inherently exponentially efficient compared to individual subsistence farming and hunter-gatherer activities.

When this wealth boom happens, most societies begin dying just like yeast dumped into a jar of syrup: they breed until they consume the available resources, then die out. This is how nature regulates species that cannot regulate themselves; they self-destruct. We could see the failure of our civilization as just one step in the attempt by nature to produce a human genotype that does not lead to civilization self-destruction.

As those of us who will form the next civilization, which is only possibly by military/political displacement of the current occupants, look toward the future, it becomes clear that our enemy is unrealistic thought. Land’s praise of the underlying structure of nature is at its heart conservative, and a clarity we should all heed.