Posts Tagged ‘transcendentalism’
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.
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.
Saturday, April 9th, 2016
The post Eternal September internet revealed its true purpose as memetic churn: it funnels the antagonism of our world’s basement NEETs, daytime TV watchers, retirees, apartment-bound disability recipients, bored cubicle slaves and welfare nodules into an emotional amplifier. People post concerns in simple catchy forms and the crowd rages with a new fire.
Everything has a weakness and a strength, and the two are usually the converse of one another. The internet echo chamber does a good job of putting its finger on the fears of modern people, and a terrible job at coming up with solutions, since what matters above and beyond all else is that its “solutions” be memetic. That means: simple, engaging, and emotionally satisfying.
Real life is different from how most people experience emotions: emotional satisfaction comes at the end of accomplishment. The farmer lighting his pipe, looking over the freshly-plowed fields, and thinking how proud and pleased he is; the artist looking over his creations, having finally spoken his muse. But on the internet, emotional satisfaction is what makes the crowd buzz, and it comes from the untested thoughts that seem to beat back those fears.
On Amerika the blog, I and other writers have taken a radical perspective: that conservatism is the root of all sane thinking about how to make society, and that our retreat from it has created “Amerika” the society: a Soviet-style system where a single path to success exists, and that is through using the ideology of the Crowd to please others and thus be selected as the most capable. All of our incompetent elites got ahead this way.
Conservatism takes another perspective. For method it chooses consequentialism, or results mattering more than methods, which includes the idea that performance comes after reward, which is the inversion of socialism. For goals it chooses a transcendental outlook, or the notion that we should aim for the best in all things, using consequentialism to figure out what works but then choosing what achieves excellence over the merely adequate.
Already this blog post is too complex for at least ninety-nine out of one hundred people on the internet. It will never achieve memetic status because it is both too complex and not emotionally satisfying. Over the wires, or in a crowd, it will be shouted down and replaced with an ikon of a cute bunny screaming SIEG HEIL.
But what people need to know is this: conservatism is the most extreme “ideology” of them all, mainly because it is not an ideology — a way around reality, based in what we wish were true instead of what is — but a look at Reality as our guiding force. Conservatism is extremist common sense. We are a species like any other; we must adapt to our environment; if giving choices between a good, better and best option, choose the best!
What has happened (as usual) is that humans cannot distinguish between essence and instance. The essence of conservatism is an idea; the instance is any person, group or product (books, movies, blogs) that claims to be conservative. The instance does not change the essence. It is the other way around: the essence determines what the instance should be.
And yet… our “conservatives” seem very far from any meaningful definition of conservative. “Conservatism has failed!” wails the internet hype machine. Or is it that our conservatives are simply not conservative, which means by definition that they are liberal, and that their failure is part of the vast decay of society through liberalism?
By Occam’s Razor and any other meaningful analysis, that explanation makes a lot more sense.
Most people do not realize that conservatism exists only because liberalism exists. Before liberalism, all was shades of conservatism, which has plenty of internal texture and variation. After the French Revolution, conservatives were those who arose to preserve the best of what had come before, in anticipation that — as de Tocqueville and others analyzed — the Great Liberal Experiment would collapse.
As lore has it, the conservatives sat on the Right and the revolutionaries on the Left in the French National Assembly. Thus Leftists and Rightists were born, with Rightists including both socially-acceptable conservatives and what I call “primal conservatives” who hung on to their aristocratic, manorial and tribal traditions. “Liberals” were the conservatives who believed in a slow retreat through libertarianism.
In the current day, a steady leftward shift has left us with a social outlook that demonizes most true conservative positions. Remember, to find a conservative position, you look at (1) results and (2) what produces the best results.
This gives us the four pillars of any sensible conservatism:
- Nationalism. Internationalism produces cosmopolitan port cities that seem endearing at first until one realizes that they are filthy, venal, corrupt places with no culture and no purpose in life except mercantile exchange with consumers. Nationalism works and makes happy nations because they rule themselves with culture and not government, police and propaganda (media). Conservatives are more extreme than Hitler on this, but refuse to endorse his violent solutions for other reasons, namely that injustice and cruelty beget more of the same and thus produce bad results without need.
- Aristocracy. Most people are stupid monkeys who have no idea of what they need versus what they want. The only solution is to put our smartest people — who are one in a hundred — in charge, because otherwise, we have oppression by the stupidest. If we are going to have oppression, let it at least be competent! Aristocracy includes monarchism, a network of lesser aristocrats who are more like a Greek college than a social club, manorialism and a caste system, and a total abolishment of the State and its nit-picking rules.
- Capitalism. Sometimes you get a good, better and best choice, and sometimes you merely get a choice between bad and worse. Is capitalism bad? It depends how it is implemented; when balanced by the forces above capitalism works out well, but in the hand of low-caste merchants it turns into a third world style bazaar (the USA is merely a highly organized, corporate version of this). But every alternative to capitalism is a straight plunge into pure dysfunction, and socialism, government-protected unions and welfare states are proven parasite magnets.
- A transcendental goal. In addition to the general ideal of transcendentalism in conservatism, every civilization needs a transcendental goal, or some aspiration to the purest things — the good, the beautiful and the true; excellence; divinity — in life, which means they are never tangible but can be attributes of things. You cannot hold an excellent in your hand, and no accomplishment is ever a definition of excellence, but the best choices can be said to be excellent, and those are the ones worth fighting for.
Our civilization is in decline. A thousand years ago, the above were recognized as common sense on the level of “do not defecate in your soup before eating.” Then again, the people who had to understand them were the top 1% of society by inner excellence, meaning intelligence and moral character. The herd has never understood anything and never will because it is biologically incapable of doing so.
Are the above fascist or Soviet? No: they are more extreme than fascism, and are honest methods unlike the Soviet approach which is to demand unrealistic ideals so that everyone must fall in line to obey the parasite State, which derives its power from having bought off the proles and thus harnessed The Revolution as a means to permanent tyranny. Fascism and National Socialism are degraded conservatism — hybridized with liberalism — just like libertarianism, neoconservatism and tankinis.
The common tropes of the nu-internet are that conservatism is dead and nationalism has taken over, or that conservatism is inferior to traditionalism. These are just posing. Nationalism and traditionalsm are subsets of the conservative idea. The point we must focus on is that if we remove the Leftist ideology, we are left with common sense, and from that flow all of the possibilities for good. Without it, we are left (heh heh) on the path to decline and fall.
Wednesday, January 27th, 2016
The alternative Right, referred to by mainstream politicians with derision for not working the system like a good little rent-seeker, has seeped into mainstream consciousness. But what greets those who investigate is a complex maze of theories and references, and this leads to confusion about what the alternative Right is.
Let us clarify this quickly: the alternative Right is that which speaks right-wing truths the mainstream conservatives are afraid to articulate. Its goal is to change the internal orientation of Western Europeans so that they feel comfortable standing up for their self-interest as a group, and even more, so they feel pride in that identity once again — and can turn that into a pursuit of creative self-interest.
Creative self-interest distinguishes itself from garden variety self-interest by aiming toward the future instead of known options. Where self-interest says to choose the best option on the shelf like a good shopper, creative self-interest says that we should create our own shelf based not on reaction to what is but by pointing ourselves toward what is not yet extant and can never fully be extant.
When someone says for example that they want to make their society dedicated to excellence, heroism and glory in the vein of ancient Greece, they have both a goal they can visualize, and an intangible and forever ongoing quest to improve themselves successively toward an ideal, not fully attainable state. This is like the athlete who forever wants to beat her best time, improve her form and intensify her mental discipline.
The alternative Right is an internal revolution aimed at the core of Western civilization. We have forgotten our appetite for excellence because we replaced it with anti-excellence, or egalitarianism, which says “good enough is the same as good.” Its goal is to remake our thinking so that we see nothing wrong with acting in self-interest but even more so that we discard the egalitarian sentiments which divide us, and instead focus on working together toward something greater than the individual.
As part of this, the alternative Right advances two important ideas: the death of modernity and the whole society.
By acknowledging the death of modernity, the alternative Right tells us that modernity has completed its arc. There were new ideas; we tried them; now, centuries later, we are seeing how those ideas end and we realize it is failure, misery and suicide. Like any sane person, when we recognize an error we correct it, and in the case of our present situation, that means reversing away from equality, democracy, atheism, promiscuity and the welfare state.
All of those ideas are related, by the way, in that they are all individualistic. Equality means that each individual is included no matter how crazy or wrong; democracy gives those individuals power to protect themselves from those who might know better. Atheism is a comforting affirmation of the individual as the highest power, while hedonism and promiscuity celebrate the appetites of the individual as more important than achievement. The welfare state subsidizes democracy and allows individuals to demand sustenance for non-contribution, which makes them equal in survival as well as in theory.
The whole society, on the other hand, is the idea that we cannot use one method of unifying ourselves and moving toward health. Many argue that we should use religion, race or an economic system alone to motivate ourselves; thi will not work. People need a whole society, or a balance of institutions and purposes, which addresses all of the needs of the individual and civilization.
I summarize the alternative Right whole civilization as having four parts:
- Aristocracy: We are either led by our best, or by the rest, and the rest have failed. End democracy and pick people of quality, not a maze of laws, to lead us.
- Nationalism: Homogeneous societies are healthiest and happiest. We need our countries to be for us alone by both race and ethnicity, which is American Nativist in the USA.
- Capitalism: Socialism does not work both because it drains the wealth of a society and because it drives good people mad. Let people bring products to market and thrive.
- Transcendentalism: As individuals and as a civilization, we need transcendent goals — ideals that guide us in all situations toward a healthy purpose — and not concrete goals, because those are methods alone.
We exist right now in a cage. That cage is formed of the individual and the collective mentality that enforces individualism as our goal in the form of egalitarianism, altruism, pluralism, liberalism and democracy. This cage narrows our focus through its definitions and moral restrictions, reducing all of our actions to variations of itself, so that perpetual compromise toward its logical extreme is the only path open to us. That way leads to death.
Our societies are clearly in deep trouble. Across the developing world, every country is deep in debt and its citizens are not reproducing at replacement levels. This suggests they are miserable and see no future in what society offers us. This is suicide caused by following illusory goals starting with egalitarianism, which flatters the individual but also destroys it.
The alternative Right is a political movement that encloses a cultural revolution. Our goal is to restore a sense of purpose to our people by removing their guilt over their need to stop saving the rest of the world from itself. We are unique and must follow our own path; the rest of the world will continue on its path, and they are not our responsibility.
With that realization we will breathe the air of the only freedom that really exists, which is the ability to rise to the greatest heights possible without being constrained by the failure of others. Most of humanity will always exist in filth, disease, superstition, corruption and stupidity. We can rise above to fulfill our destiny alone, instead of trying to bring them with us.
Friday, January 22nd, 2016
You see the alternative right in the news lately because with the rise of Donald Trump, we have seen that the “mainstream right” has become dominated by those who are good at compromise, not winning.
Such things should be expected in any political system because when you set down rigid rules, the strategy required to win according to the rules replaces actual winning. This creates a selection matrix for those who are good at playing the System, not those who are going to push hard for goals outside of the system itself. From this condition arose the modern cuckservative who essentially embraces left-wing goals in order to get along with the other politicians who are, in effect, his coworkers.
In response to this, the alternative right began as a cultural movement toward certain ideas and developed into an organ of truth-telling in a time of universal deceit. On the surface, it is a dissident movement against the conclusions of a corrupted system; underneath, it is an attack on the methods and values that allow such systems to perpetuate themselves when all sense and logic suggests their conclusions are wrong. The alternative right is a correction to our current political process as much as to its contemporary policies.
As might be expected, “alternative right” is an umbrella term. It includes those who would otherwise identify as white nationalists, paleoconservatives, New Right, orthosphere, monarchist and anarcho-capitalist (including National Anarchist). There is no resolution as to the outcome of its ideas in the alternative right because it is a think tank for cultural change which wants to build momentum and clarity of vision before it selects specific proposals. You can see this in action over at Alternative Right or its spinoff, Radix Journal.
The one thing the alternative right is sure about: classical liberalism of the equality plus free markets idea is not welcome. In fact, across the alternative right, the sense seems to be that “invisible hand” systems of this nature always produce what we currently have, which is mob rule with cynical low-quality corporations at the top. This outlook synthesizes right wing and left wing ideas, but more importantly, accurately describes the situation of our civilization as a human problem and not a political one. The bigger the mass, the lower the quality.
That leads to conflicts such as the following analysis from Outside In:
This blog, I’m guessing predictably, takes a count me out position. Neoreaction, as I understand it, predicted the emergence of the Alt-Right as an inevitable outcome of Cathedral over-reach, and didn’t remotely like what it saw. Kick a dog enough and you end up with a bad-tempered dog. Acknowledging the fact doesn’t mean you support kicking dogs — or bad-tempered dogs. Maybe you’d be happy to see the dog-kicker get bitten (me too). That, however, is as far as it goes.
A short definition, that seems to me uncontroversial: The Alt-Right is the populist dissident right. Set theoretically, NRx is therefore grouped with it, but as a quite different thing. Another obvious conclusion from the definition: the Alt-Right is almost inevitably going to be far larger than NRx is, or should ever aim to be. If you think people power is basically great, but the Left have just been doing it wrong, the Alt-Right is most probably what you’re looking for (and NRx definitely isn’t).
For the Alt-Right, generally speaking, fascism is (1) basically a great idea, and (2) a meaningless slur concocted by (((Cultural Marxists))) to be laughed at. For NRx (XS version) fascism is a late-stage leftist aberration made peculiarly toxic by its comparative practicality. There’s no real room for a meeting of minds on this point.
As a consequence of its essential populism, the Alt-Right is inclined to anti-capitalism, ethno-socialism, grievance politics, and progressive statism. Its interest in geopolitical fragmentation (or Patchwork production) is somewhere between hopelessly distracted and positively hostile. Beside its — admittedly highly entertaining — potential for collapse catalysis, there’s no reason at all for the techno-commercial wing of NRx to have the slightest sympathy for it. Space for tactical cooperation, within the strategic framework of pan-secessionism, certainly exists, but that could equally be said of full-on Maoists with a willingness to break things up.
He brings up two specific points of interest centered on the same point:
- “If you think people power is basically great, but the Left have just been doing it wrong, the Alt-Right is most probably what you’re looking for (and NRx definitely isn’t).”
- “For NRx (XS version) fascism is a late-stage leftist aberration made peculiarly toxic by its comparative practicality.”
For right-wingers here it is important to translate from libertarianism, which inherited a mostly leftist vocabulary. Statism means having a modern government as opposed to strong power, which can take several forms; “fascism” is a generic container for all authoritarian rule. With that out of the way, you can see his point: the alternative right has not yet escaped the framework of government designed by liberalism. That means that it both supports authoritarian rule, and the type of socialist or other managed state desired by mass political movements.
I think he is correct in these critiques. However, to understand the issue in depth, one must look into the history of the alternative right. The alternative right is a cultural revolution which wanted to escape the taboo on a series of related ideas like monarchy, nationalism, eugenics, human biological diversity (hbd), and anti-democratic thought. It does not come from a libertarian view, but more of an atavistic one. The alternative right is Oswald Spengler meeting Colonel Kurtz at a Nietzsche book club.
As a result of this “cultural” approach, the alternative right is not a political agenda but an attempt to change values. During the late 1990s, I wrote about what were then considered “extremist right-wing” notions on an underground philosophy/culture website, which then expanded into CORRUPT.org during the early 2000s, and now continues on here. Influential also during this time were writers like Michel Houellebecq, bloggers like Bill White and Bruce Charlton, artistic movements like black metal, and the rising libertarian wing that people like Eric S. Raymond chronicled as a means of criticizing the present order. All of these influences flowed together for a number of writers who saw this civilization as a dying, falling empire.
Looking into the future, we can see where alternative right, Neoreaction and the oldest threads of conservatism overlap — and that this is an agenda we can agree on, and which the mainstream right is increasingly supportive of:
- Strong power. We must have arbitrary leaders chosen for their ability to lead, not popular appeal. These both give us direction and keep the insanity of the herd at bay.
- Free markets. Capitalism works; it requires guidance from strong leaders and culture however. Socialism does not work and destroys societies.
- Nationalism. Diversity does not work and destroys societies; homogeneity works very well and should be enforced, exiling all Other.
- Transcendentalism. There must be a higher goal than reacting to the situation as is; we need a way to plan for a future that makes us rise to the excellent, good, beautiful and true.
Right now, no movement expresses these ideas in their raw form. But much as the alternative right used the method of cultural change to accelerate right-wing thinking, and Neoreaction builds from the libertarian wing, future right-wing movements will return to the crucial moment called “the Enlightenment™” when the West broke away from organizing our society according to an order larger than the individual. Those movements will insist we break away from Enlightenment-style thinking entirely.
That much is certain. The question upon us now is how to include the changes since that time in a society which, while greater in every intangible way, did not possess the convenience of the present which we enjoy. My suggestion, a type of thought called Futurist Traditionalism, is that we focus on the fourth point, a transcendental order to existence, and use it to guide our adoption of technology. In other words, we must look to our goals and not our methods and, if our goals are good, use any methods appropriate for achieving them.
With that in mind, what would our right-wing post-Enlightenment future look like? My guess is a lot like now, except that instead of layers of government, you will have a local lord and his staff to solve all problems, and kings at the national level to lead you. There will not be any regulation to speak of, but the local lord will have arbitrary power, so if you pollute a stream he will show up, investigate and make you fix it. Taxes will be low and most of the land will be owned by the aristocracy, who will keep it in near-natural condition. There will be a caste system to keep competition low and stabilize society, but among those who are of the higher castes, free market thinking will be natural and happen with low intrusion from the lords or kings. Life will not be “managed” as by a state, but anarchic, with the dark side of anarchy present: no one will be obligated to accept you, let you live among them, or to sustain you, so your behavior has to fit with that of your neighbors. Culture will be more important than government, and with that, media and entertainment will recede in importance. As with all successful societies, nations will be homogeneous, with a few smart people on top keeping the rest in check because most people and all large groups are unrealistic and destructive in their urges.
After the disaster that was the French Revolution, however, I think the new aristocrats will add one major change to the past and the status quo they will integrate: exile of the lower echelons. The French Revolution happened because under the good leadership of the aristocracy, the lower echelons — who practice r-strategy reproduction and fornicate frequently to produce as many offspring as possible — expanded in population to beyond the carrying capacity of their environment, and then blamed their leaders for not having been so fascist as to curtail the reckless fornication. In the future, leaders will selectively exile the least useful members of the lower echelons, gradually improving the quality of the population and avoiding the bottom-heavy form of overpopulation that brought us liberalism.
The point of the alternative right is to cast doubt on the idea of the diverse, liberal state with lots of regulations as our best possible future. Instead, we need to finally tackle some grim realities: that most people are literally insane, but at a low level, and their decision-making is bad. That in groups humans always pick the wrong answer. That equality is nonsense, and democracy is suicide, and diversity is merely population replacement for the convenience of our Leftist leaders. And in crossing a taboo line, we must acknowledge that our survival depends on us reversing the pathology of equality, which everyone seems to follow because parroting the dominant idea leads to success.
With liberalism, we have now seen the truth: it behaves like an infectious pathology, spreading between minds, forming a giant mass of zombie ideologues who refuse to acknowledge the failing of their ideas. These take over society, displace the nativist population with imported third-world labor, and destroy that civilization as thoroughly as Athens and Rome exterminated themselves biologically and culturally. To avoid that, we must give up on the fond ideas of liberalism, and return to realism, which is what all non-Leftist movements including neoreaction and the alternative right share.
Tuesday, April 21st, 2015
On the right, it is popular to disclaim “ideology” and “politics.” There is truth to this, since the right is consequentialist and thus not based in should-be thinking like the left, and neoreaction is not populist, so it does not fall under politics which is itself a creation of democracy.
However, there is also a fallacy here. Ideology can mean any doctrine or philosophy with an end result of changing the world. Politics means any thought or thought process which addresses political change. Trying to step out of these things that way, and claim to be a theory above it all as some in Tradition and Neoreaction do, despite being well-intentioned, leads to confusion because it is not wholly true.
Any belief, even if a reality-based one as all consequentialist ones are, becomes both ideology and politics because it competes with ideology and intends a change in politics. To play a categorical game of denying this seems clever at first, until one realizes that by doing so, the belief system has stated itself as personal preference alone, and thus, has no application beyond how you order your lawn and 401(k).
While the corporatist line of Neoreaction is tempting, in which people sign on to managed communities where a corporation returns value and is accountable for its services, in reality these places show the downside of capitalism unchecked by culture: crass commerce, mixed-race social chaos, and a need — as time goes on — for increasing internal security as in the style of leftist states.
New Right introduced new “thought methods” just as Neoreaction and Tradition did. All of these beliefs fall under rightism not because right-wingers claim them, but because their ideals fit into the basic rubric of the right: consequentialist, or results-based, with a transcendental aim for “the good, the beautiful and the true” or “the perennial things” (Huxley) or “Tradition” (Evola).
While these new intellectual methods give us better ways to discuss the need for a society based on the above, they do not escape us from their intent: to change politics and counter ideology. It is best that all be honest about this, as otherwise we fall into the traps that allow leftist entryism, namely making our philosophy solely a “personal preference” or series of choices made while shopping for goods and services, and allowing entryism by making the method more important than the aim.
Wednesday, January 11th, 2012
Blog posts are most pleasing when they give us simple answers, even if negative answers. Even if we disagree with a blog post, having it come out with a simple solution gives us a sense of control, even as we mock the proposed solution.
It’s disturbingly similar to sporting events. As soon as the other team is on the field, we all know where we stand. We have strong group identities and the resulting comforting position among the group’s members. We know what we want and for a few moments, we can forget about the larger questions of life and focus on the simpler task before us.
This blog post will gratify none of those desires. An excellent discussion of religion popped up in the comments to the fourth segment of our interview with John Morgan, Editor-in-Chief of Arktos. The question we stumbled into was one of religion.
Among those who study history and can speak honestly about it without trying to win brownie points from others by repeating political orthodoxy, it is well-known that diversity of any kind makes for a failing civilization while relative homogeneity makes a stable one. This includes religion.
On the other hand, many of us have issues with Christianity because it seems to be a spiritualist form of liberalism. “The meek shall inherit the earth” and other charitable notions translate into a false altruism based on pity for those beyond help, and using that public charity to prove higher moral status.
One poster kicked the whole debate off by cautiously opining that, although a Nietzschean, he believed religion was necessary and that Christianity might be the religion of the West and thus worth supporting. Others mentioned the positive role Christianity has had in shaping the modern West.
Zooming out from our immediate experience, it is clear that Christianity is thriving. Christians reproduce faster than atheists and disaffected urban intellectuals, which guarantees us that the next generation will speak more Bible than Foucault. Even more, Christianity seems to emphasize many positive values, such as family, chastity, traditional gender roles, moral behavior and loyalty to culture.
To get really heretical, we can take this a step further. “Christianity” is a label for a set of beliefs, customs, rituals and symbols. It arose from an amalgam of Greek, Jewish, Hindu, Middle Eastern and European pagan beliefs. After it rose, it was extensively modified. Like all things, it is a work in progress.
It is not unheard of for nations or generations to modify Christianity to suit their own needs. After all the Bible is like a vast index, and depending on which talking points and examples you pick, you can use it to support many interpretations.
Since Christianity is part of the West, unlikely to go away, and a strong advocate of conservative values, it would be unthinkable to cast these people aside because of our reservations about the current interpretation of Christianity. Even more, we can see the failings ascribed to Christianity showing up in pre-Christian societies like ancient Greece.
The ancient Hindus viewed all religions as sects of Hinduism. Their explanation was that since there is only one world, and thus one divine source, all religions are different languages attempting to describe that reality, and should be accepted much like academics accept contemporaries and their arguments.
Religions are more similar than we may think. The difference between Christianity and an idealized conservative warrior pagan faith may be small — perhaps 10% difference — and so the path of least resistance would be to accept Christianity, but in exchange for that, demand a few changes in interpretation.
The main difference between modern Christianity and its pagan forbears is that Christianity presents a moral absolute based on method, while paganism asserts a morality of social order based on the results of our actions. An evil act with a good result is a good act in paganism, and possibly in future modified Christian sects.
True, that is playing with fire. Religion and factionalism have destroyed more societies than they have saved. However, as those who would rebuild a dying civilization, it is our job to make dangerous decisions, and take great risks, in order to claim the greatness that sleeps within us.