Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘western civilization’

Predictions Proven Right About the Alt Right

Monday, August 14th, 2017

In the late 1980s, I started writing about discontent with modern society and its alienating influence on the spirit. A few years later, I turned toward what would become the far-Right simply by insisting on the core principles of conservatism, namely realism and qualitative improvement, that made sense where equality, democracy and diversity did not.

At that time, there was a backlash building against Clinton, emboldened by the collapse of the Soviet Union. This, it seemed, was our time for Generation X: we had finally seen the mental virus that was equality tumble down, we had an obviously corrupt president who was spending tomorrow to pay for today, and race riots in LA showed us the failure of diversity.

And yet, it went nowhere.

Part of the reason for this was what Hunter Wallace calls white nationalism 1.0, which failed because instead of acquiring an audience from within normal Americans, it pushed itself to further extremes and by doing so, limited itself to a fanatical but ineffectual audience.

Given that fully half of it consisted of people who seemed to be either paid government informants or acting like them, and many of the rest who were interested in their own fame and profits more than doing what was right, it became a niche audience of entertainment. People who felt bad about life went to White Nationalism for a little pick me up, a reason why their lives were important, a commiseration.

Like every other support group on Earth, this one was toxic.

Wallace identifies a series of problems with White Nationalism — individualism, extremism, negativity, low quality leaders, impracticality, a narrow message, and an attempt to be a political force — that persist today in the Alt Right, or at least parts of it. These problems make a group appear to succeed, and then go nowhere, finally fading away.

Remember when the media used to cite Stormfront.org? They do not do that much anymore because the word got out that the bulk of the posters there did nothing and had no influence. They are the opposite of newsmakers; they are people looking to be told that the black man or the Jews is holding them down, so languishing in obscurity is OK.

My experience even before Stormfront made me leery of the far-Right. There was too much dysfunction, emotionality, and endless ego. It did not resemble a political movement so much as a barroom brawl, and any time someone suggested that we focus, they got shouted down chants of “muh freedom” and “we want action.” Twenty years later, no action has happened except a few hate crimes.

During those days, I wrote a series of editorials that eventually became writings critical of neo-Nazism and white nationalism as forms of ethno-Bolshevism, or movements where nobodies got to pretend to be somebodies while advocating ideas that most of us rejected because those ideas were unstable, unrealistic and would turn out badly. We, the functional people of the West, do not want to re-live National Socialism or the French Revolution just for bragging rights, and these movements incorporated both of those.

At the same time, it seemed to me that we needed to broaden our focus to existential misery, the death of spirit, our environmental/overpopulation crisis, and the need for nationalism for all ethnic groups. These were pushing the edge in two ways: first, they affirmed taboo truths, and second, they pushed back against the tendency to use the fact of those truths being taboo as carte blanche to act out emotionally and with an impulse to destroy.

This in turn took me toward looking at The Human Problem, which is that all of our organizations fail once they become popular and adjust themselves to their audience, instead of keeping a focus on abstract goals. Called Crowdism, this behavior originates in human individualism, or desire to be important that leads to denial of hierarchy and the patterns of nature, and destroys all good things, requiring us to reject a human-centric view of the world and instead focus on extreme realism plus moderate solutions.

Over the next two decades, I watched others take similar ideas, strip them of whatever was interesting, and turn them into self-pity narratives that portrayed whites as victims of an unjust world, and called for horrific solutions. I have no problem criticizing diversity and materialism, but when we make someone else a scapegoat, we make them our master. I predicted that if we became monsters, we would lose all of the goodwill and interest extended to us by our fellow citizens.

My predictions all turned out to be correct, but this was not widely understood because people were busy chasing the “next big theme” that would make them personally famous, wealthy or powerful. Given a little bit of power, the Right thought itself invincible — the good days had returned, or this was the great apocalyptic race war finally — and so they listened to the popular voices instead.

The people writing these simplified things got famous and I did not, mainly because the time was not right for these ideas. The time is now: again we have seen the problems of modern society, again people are ready for a solution, and again the people who tell the Crowd what it wants to hear become popular and run away with the herd, only to marginalize it and make it impotent.

To my mind, the Alt Right has more potential, so long as it avoids the conditions that make these circular, airless groups. Inherent in this outlook is the idea that we can rebuild the collapsed Western Civilization, and aim higher toward new levels of greatness. As it became clear that popularity was leaning toward White Nationalism 2.0, I proposed that the Alt Right go even further and become 1788 conservatives dedicated to an uncompromising form of conservatism on the Ultra-Right.

More recently, Everitt Foster and I wrote about how the Alt Right needs a comprehensive platform, not recycled ideas from the past, to which I added a warning about letting the audience define the message. Charles Watson added an analysis of how the Alt Right could defeat itself by repeating old behaviors that are popular with this audience, but not the upper half of the middle class in Europe and America which the Alt Right needs to reach.

Again these predictions have been proven correct.

With events in Charlottesville, the Alt Right has entered a new level: it is now playing with the big boys. It is not playing as a political force, but a social one, changing cultural attitudes toward many of the ideas that the West has held sacred since The Enlightenment.™ This means that the Alt Right needs to become the type of entity that people can rely on to do the right thing and take the lead.

I do not write to criticize the leaders of the current Alt Right. They are stuck between a hostile media establishment and an audience that, not knowing the past of white nationalism, wants White Nationalism 2.0, and many of them want swastikas, Roman salutes and the type of authoritarian outlook that seems at first as if it would salve the heart broken by realizing that it has witnessed a civilization die. These leaders are trying to balance the extremes.

They cannot do this alone. We, the people who make up the audience for the Alt Right, need to press toward a responsible direction. We do not want experiments that failed in now-distant history, nor do we want to make another modern hell, except this time working in our favor. We cannot use the methods of our enemies to make this right. We have to go back to basics, focus on what is real, and make greatness from it.

For the the Alt Right to not just survive but thrive and influence American politics, it needs a plan that will both address long-term concerns like civilization collapse and racial erasure, and also address the everyday needs of our people. People need money, jobs, communities, activities, purpose, and reasons to get up in the morning. Can we deliver that to them?

If the answer is not a yes, it is time to go back to the drawing board. We do not have to throw out everything we have done so far, but we need to make it mature. We need to refine the details and get rid of the unnecessary, illogical and emotional. We need to offer this rising anti-democratic and anti-diversity cultural wave a new future which brings hope and a sense of belonging.

This is not easy. The people who are inclined to understand the Right, which is more complex than the Left, tend not to be the type of people who become salesmen, actors, carnival barkers, televangelists, politicians and other deceivers. We cannot play the game that the Left does so well of offering mentally convenient excuses, justifications and scapegoats. We need to mobilize people toward something, not solely against things.

Growing pains are a beast. It is hard to make decisions, knowing that you may be wrong or through no fault of your own, lose or lose out. But if we are serious about saving our civilization by saving its genetic root, we must cast aside all of these failings and focus on the destination. We are here to restore Western Civilization and, at the end of the day, that is all that matters.

The Alt Right Needs To Create A Comprehensive Platform For The Future

Wednesday, August 2nd, 2017


by Everitt Foster and Brett Stevens

One of the simplest observations that can be made about the AltRight in mid-2017 is that it has to develop more depth to avoid the fate of the libertarians. As I write this there is a bit of a crisis going on regarding the next step for the movement. Simply put, outrage culture isn’t really enough to keep anything in motion for long. The AltRight has since its inception been about explicitly white identity. In terms of policy this has translated into opposition to immigration, legal or illegal, that threatens historically white countries, including the United States.

In the last twelve months we’ve seen success in helping to get Trump elected, but we’ve also failed on the European continent three times. Over the past year we’ve lost Hofer in Austria, Wilders in the Netherlands, and most recently Le Pen in France. What these three loses have in common with our greatest victory is important. Trump was successful primarily because he tied immigration, the most important issue of our time, to jobs and the economy. In all three cases where the right was defeated at the polls we can see that all three candidates favored by the real right were defined as almost cartoon characters. Every time I heard Le Pen speak it was about immigration or her father’s comments and stances from the 1980s. Similar criticism can be and should be understood to be a reason behind the losses of Hofer and Wilders as well.

We are right now running the risk of being defined as a single issue movement, not unlike those who vote based exclusively on a candidate’s position on abortion. In an upcoming article I will address the importance of learning from the American “Know Nothing” party of the 1850s that was defined by opposition to German immigration. Short story version is that they eventually broke as slavery came to the forefront of American consciousness on the eve of the Civil War and were eventually absorbed into the Republican and Democratic parties. To avoid a similar conclusion to the AltRight we must develop a more comprehensive platform that includes tangible, winnable, short term political strategies. In other words, like Trump, the AltRight in America and the Identitarians in Europe must become three dimensional.

***

The opposite of single-issue groups are those with a complete plan for the future, meaning that they tie economy and jobs to more transcendent issues like identity and purpose. In addition, they are able to articulate a vision of the future they desire, the changes necessary to achieve it, and both tangible and intangible benefits for the functional and productive members of society.

Focusing on those functional and productive members of society is essential. These are the people that everyone else tries to emulate because these functional people, by virtue of being functional, tend to be productive and successful. They may not be rich, mainly because most of them want normal jobs and homes so that they can have normal lives, and they value this more than giving their souls to a quest to become wealthy. This is an existential and practical choice; those who do not become entrepreneurs or go into the professions have more time to spend with their families, and this is what most people indicate as more important than excessive financial success. This group of normal but realistic people is the target audience for anyone hoping to achieve political change in the West because this group has always been the backbone of our society, providing the competence that allows our engineering and social feats to be accomplished.

This group is most concerned about having the ability to be prosperous with the least amount of time required. If they want to spend time with their families, they need to have that time free of not just excessive hours at the job, but time spent on red tape or running around looking for new jobs as the economy implodes. This group is sensitive to transcendent issues like “I wish our society had more of an identity and a culture,” but only when these are necessary to and paired with a plan for an efficient economy that will give them more time. If your only plan is to “save the white race,” they are going to look at you cross-eyed unless there is something else in there about making us prosperous and strong.

American and European voters are skeptical of single-issue parties because these tend to be fanatics like the greens, communists or neo-Nazis. To the average voter, this fanaticism means that the person elected will follow the Napoleonic pattern, starting ideological wars and bankrupting the nation. If Hitler or Stalin came back today, they would start by talking about healthcare, jobs, growth and retirement funds.

***

People are frustrated and angered by the immigration crisis in Europe. I don’t have the strength to be outraged anymore. I’ve been outraged by it for years. Reading about the population problems of Europe, and the white race in general, are depressing but I just can’t bring myself to feel anything, anything at all, when I hear of the latest terror attack in Europe. I’m not saying I support “migration” from third world shit-holes to Europe, but rather that I don’t have the energy to feel anger towards the story anymore. I’ve been desensitized.

The salvation of Europe was looking rather impossible. After all, you must participate in your own rescue. The first world must begin to reevaluate their positions on Enlightenment era thinking. We must begin to reevaluate what we believe about democracy, “western values” such as liberalism, universal suffrage, teleological historiography and other ideological factors contributing to the desire of Europeans to not have children.

Then a light bulb went off as I was researching my latest book. Europe from 1300-1350 saw an absolute population decline from the Black Death, and all we got was the Renaissance. I began looking into medieval demographics with a sharper eye. Case in point, Italy in 1300 had a population of around ten million people, by 1350 the population had dipped to its lowest point in over two hundred years with just over seven million inhabitants of the peninsula. By the end of the Renaissance the population of Italy had bounced back to nearly eleven million, and despite the dysgenic effect of brother wars in the modern era, the country has seen a steady increase in population, though with a birth rate of 1.5 this will not be the case much longer. Indeed even with Italy taking in approximately 100,000 “migrants” (Can we just call them invaders now? Please?) the population will continue to shrink.

The gambit that bringing in non-whites to support the collapsing social safety nets established by western European nations in the twentieth century has failed. The incredible lack of productivity on the part of the low IQ Africans arriving daily indicates that they are simply in it for the gibs and not only will they not contribute to the retirement of the baby boomers, but they cannot do it, even if they wanted to.

Thus we can conclude that reduction in the absolute number of individuals in a society is not in and of itself harmful. It only becomes harmful when there is a deliberate attempt to replace the population of Europe through migration. The notion that the boomers will be able to retire in their sixties and live comfortably for thirty years is a farce. There is no salvation for the social welfare systems inspired by the teleological Whig and Marxist historiographies. There will be no “end of history” culminating in a society where each may have according to his need. Socialism is a failed ideology just as was mercantilism.

Immigration is a concern, but it really cannot be our only position. We must learn that the population decline can lead to great things if we are ready to scrap the failed and bloody ideologies of modernity. The AltRight has so much potential to lead the way it is really a white pill. However, this will not come unless we develop depth to our movement. We cannot afford to surround ourselves in the failed “western values” of Voltaire and Madame Guillotine. My greatest concern for us right now is that we will lose momentum, the young kids energized by the AltRight will feel jaded if we do nothing but complain. That’s all I did as a libertarian because that’s what libertarians do. Thirty five years of complaining and acting morally superior to the horseshoe theory of politics got them exactly nowhere, much like White Nationalism 1.0. What I’m saying is that we must become three dimensional if we are to retain these kids before they laps into cuckservatism or liberalism out of frustration with the AltRight.

***

One other thing to keep in mind is that most functional people hate modern society and want an alternative, but they have no idea what “modernity” is. They are accustomed to primitivists who conclude that our problem comes from technology. Your average normal functional person does not want to give up warm showers, modern medicine, or high-efficiency food and goods distribution platforms like large farms and Wal-marts. They may complain about these things, but these things also give them a higher standard of living, so they would never do anything to remove them. The functional people want technology without the disadvantages of the modern time.

What might these disadvantages be? Our first clue is the white people are not reproducing, with many choosing not to have children. This implies both that dealing with society is taking up too much of their time, and that they are existentially depressed. A cynical look at our cities reveals why this is so: the architecture is ugly, every open surface is covered by advertising, and people trudge to jobs with no hope of really being recognized for what they do well. Too much time is spent waiting in lines, filling out forms, shopping around for options to the inept and corrupt, working extra hours to show that you are obedient so you don’t get replaced by an H-1B visa candidate, and paying off the debt for the house that is really too big for you but it’s in a nicer neighborhood and you don’t want your kids to get raped or murdered. We have made a society that punishes its best people in order to pay for its worst, and the functional people are feeling the strain of being slaves to a tax base. Modern society has removed the joy from life.

This leads us to wonder what modern society actually is. If we take technology out of the equation, since technology seems to develop over time in the presence of intelligent people and did so even before the modern era, we see that modernity is a political construct. Relying on The Enlightenment,™ we redesigned our society around the human individual through the doctrine of “equality,” which says that every individual must be part of the group no matter how little they contribute. If you read that critically, it means that everyone shares in the wealth despite having done nothing to increase it, and that the functional people cannot eject the non-functional or assign them a lower social rank so that the bad judgment of these non-functional people does not infect society and make mediocrity and incompetence into “normal” events. When we make people equal and remove social hierarchy, there is nothing left but money to distinguish the sheep from the goats, and so people become money-crazed. This puts normal functional people into the position of defending themselves against the constant onslaught of other people who want what they have, and society works against them by taxing them and redistributing this money to those who are incapable or unwilling to contribute. If we all contribute, we have more time for our families, friends and the important things in life; if only some contribute, they get worked to death to pay for the rest, and stop having many kids because they realize these kids will have the same terrible life that their parents currently do.

If we are going to appeal to people to support radical change, our change must actually make changes that benefit the healthy and normal. One way to do that is to escape modernity entirely by denying the mental virus of equality. This requires us to really think outside of the box because everything we read, see and hear is designed to support the idea of equality as good. However, if we fail to think differently and reject equality, our philosophy becomes a variant of the status quo, and will inevitably return to the same state we are in now. This is why libertarianism and national socialism do not catch on among the normal and functional people. Despite seeming extreme, these ideologies are too close to what we already have, and so no matter how “racist” they are, they will revert back to the same mental befuddlement in which we find ourselves today.

Right now there are a lot of new participants in the Alt Right who like to think they are “edgy.” To them, the point is to be as extreme as possible, not just to open the Overton Window but to push toward a far-right solution like National Socialism. The problems with this are manifold: first, it embraces a system that has failed; second, this system has some attributes that alienate our people, like cruelty and repression; third, it is too much like contemporary European Socialism or the American hybrid system, just with racial exclusivity added. In addition, it assumes that white people want to unite under the banner of generic white, and not to maintain their own complex social structures which include different white ethnic groups, caste and class. But its real fatal flaw is that in preaching to the choir, it picks a smaller group than the audience of functional people to which it needs to appeal. People get this wrong. Twitter just fumbled this one by choosing to appeal to SJWs by censoring right-wing users as “trolls,” and it resulted in an exodus of normal people from Twitter.

With Twitter, we see the age-old truism that conventional wisdom is usually wrong. Whatever most people think is true is probably mostly a lie. The industry analysts told them that it was more important to avoid fears than it was to achieve positive goals like having interesting content. The same is true of the Alt Right. Our fear is of becoming irrelevant, so we tend to support the audience that we already have instead of the audience that we need to have. We need the normies who are also functional and leaders in their community, the type of people that others follow and imitate. Instead, we are appealing to the single-issue National Socialist types who offer no solutions for anyone experienced with European history or even common sense. Just like Twitter, who limited its audience to SJWs by driving everyone else away, the Alt Right will lose audience as it focuses on one group and ignores the bigger picture.

What the Alt Right offers is a chance to escape the entirety of modernity. Our fear with modernity is that it will never change, just churn on and on, getting slightly worse every year but never really crashing because it appeals to the lowest common denominator in all of us, buying us off with entertainment, sex, gadgets and easy jobs. A system like that seems stable, but really is parasitic. The civilization to which it is attached grows weaker by the day while its false elites grow wealthier and its people grow miserable and eventually fade away by not reproducing, then are replaced by the foreigners imported by their leaders to work, be taxed and pay for all those unaffordable social welfare programs.

***

Other than being based on something other than equality, what would a system that escapes modernity look like? We know that it would involve zero socialized medicine and other government benefits because these destroy our people. As Helmut Nyborg expressed recently, socialism is dysgenic and destroying our people:

Two forces could destroy Western Civilization. One is a social system that taxes the competent to subsidize the proliferation of the incompetent. As Prof. Nyborg noted, “The welfare-state debases what created high civilization in the first place. This is the first time in history that the less fit are reproducing more than the more fit.”

The question begins to make sense when we look at modernity as a deviation from what works into an experimental type of society which, because it is emotionally satisfying to most people, crops up again and again throughout history. All great civilizations die by caste revolt, in which the lower castes overthrow the natural elites above them and replace them with fake elites as we have now, and these caste revolts always take the form of people besotted with the mental virus of equality. Our doom is not atypical but tediously typical, and the solution is getting back to the type of civilization that thrives.

A civilization of this nature is motivated by virtue and is strongly nationalistic, meaning that it defines itself in ethnic terms and excludes all others. It also rejects any institutions which turn its citizens against one another such as democracy and equality. As occurs naturally in all populations, it has a caste system where those who are more intelligent and morally competent are given the money and power, and it beats back its own merchants this way. These societies tend to have strong cultural practices and faith, being naturally reverent toward nature and their own history. Right now, this seems impossible, but that is only because we are accepting modernity as necessary.

We can reach our goal in stages, which follow roughly this pattern:

Step 1: Stop the Bleeding

Western Civilization has already fallen.

We are the people who are going to recreate it.

But the first step is to stop the bleeding, which requires swinging culture and politics to the Right. The Alt Right has already done a fantastic job of this, and if it makes itself appealing to the functional people out there, can go much further. We have to recognize however that we face an enemy in the Leftist who will do everything he can to replace us with foreigners so that Leftists remain in power from that point onward. These foreigners will always vote against us.

This means that our first task, above all else, is to execute a “pincer strategy” on those of foreign blood who are among us: one claw of the pincer involves removing the opportunities they find here, and the other requires raising the cost of them being here. Removing opportunities is as simple as revoking the laws — civil rights, affirmative action, and anti-discrimination types — that protect the foreign among us and ensure that they are forced into our economies. Next, it makes sense to remove all of those free government welfare benefits, healthcare, education, housing and legal help. A fever burns out infection by bringing the body into an artificial state of agitation; removing all of the comforts of modern society will drive away opportunists.

In this way, we can build the Great Wall of Trump without laying a brick. The incentives to come here will be gone, and the costs to do so will also have risen, which will cause repatriation of the largest group of foreigners. In addition, without laws that force us to hire, sell homes to, rent to and work with foreign people, society will naturally re-segregate, which means that life for immigrants here will not be markedly better than what they have back home.

Step 2: Right the Ship

Once we are no longer facing a hostile voting population from afar, our task is to starve the beast: Leftists, and the easy employment that they require.

The first step to this is to attack education and media. Education is easily mastered by removing government money from the equation; end the loans, public education, and any roles created by regulation such as “diversity officers” and watch the number of Leftists decrease. Even before we remove public education entirely, which given its utter failure is an excellent idea, we can implement school vouchers and the group that keeps public schools afloat — middle class white kids — will vanish from those schools, causing them to implode into chaos and low test scores. Media requires a more nuanced approach, but the Trump administration has made a good start: restrict access to information, treat them as a hostile power, and encourage them to face the same boycotts that have wrecked the NFL and CNN.

In addition, it is time to start removing laws. Almost all government employees outside of the military are Leftists. Their jobs are created through regulation and other laws which mandate large bureaucracies. When those bureaucracies are no longer needed, all of those Leftists go elsewhere, mainly to working in retail again. Any law we write creates bureaucrats and lawyers in both public sector, to enforce it, and private sector, to avoid that enforcement. Removing both of these dumps Leftists into the jobs market and removes all the abundant free time they use to cause trouble.

A further step might involve the return of freedom of association. If country clubs are no longer forced to accept Leftists, and the nicer neighborhoods can toss them out, then suddenly being a Leftist will not be a zero-risk proposition, but an impediment. Normal people who go along with Leftism will shy away from it. This type of accelerating cultural wave ends in Leftists being marginalized, as a precursor to relocating them to the third world.

Step 3: Long Term Goals

If we want not just to be men in suits with slightly better ideas, but aspire to the Templars, Vikings, Spartans and maybe the vast cultural and philosophical knowledge of ancient times, it requires that we have a long-term goal that involves getting away from the little-man psychology created by systems of government and rights-based law.

When we achieve a Right-leaning culture and through that, political realm, it can be time for more ambitious action: restoring Western Civilization by abolishing democracy and replacing it with an aristocracy.

Our first step would be a Constitutional Amendment that abolishes every amendment since the Bill of Rights and creates a new branch of pseudo-government, the aristocracy, which will be defined as the genetics of its founding members as appointed by a committee of our wisest people. Those can be selected by our military and other noted and respected thinkers, recognizing that these will not come from the current group of false elites.

After that, it becomes time to abolish most if not all of our written laws such as those based on rights, benefits and other “automatic” procedures. From now on, all decisions are made by hand, with someone of intelligence accountable, not a bureaucrat shrugging and pointing to a line in a rulebook.

With that, we can return to the question of culture, now that it is no longer under assault by government, media and academia. The Alt Right fundamentally desires a Nietzschean warrior culture where people have a sense of honor, integrity and principle and are motivated by a deep inner purpose, if nothing else a striving for those goals that can never be fully achieved but the striving toward which improves everything around us: excellence, greatness, goodness, wisdom, virtue.

This type of change of civilization is the only goal that will motivate our people. Democracy with racism will not, and dictatorship will not; people are done with Communism and National Socialism, and with good cause, considering the wreckage they left. We need a future vision that promises prosperity and greatness, not just ideological greatness followed by wreckage.

Naturally the powers that be fear this more than anything else, which is why they scrupulously avoid ever discussing it. We made a wrong turn in 1789 when the West shifted toward democracy, but even before that, we lost a sense of purpose and substituted mercantile concerns for it. Our future consists of peeling back the mistakes, starting over and then aiming for the stars.

Escaping The Two-Party Paradigm Requires Realizing That The Left-Right Division Is Real

Tuesday, July 18th, 2017

The wires of the internet are alive with bloviation about a “horseshoe theory” and “false Left-Right paradigm.” As with anything popular and trending, these too are stupid and illusory, but they refer to something else we should pay attention to which the herd has poorly articulated.

So what are we missing?

Andy Nowicki gives us part of the vision with a look into the futility of mass politics:

For in casting one’s vote for or otherwise throwing one’s weight behind one side—be it the yin or the yang—of a binary, duopolic, Manichean paradigm, one is in fact not only selling one’s soul (which is to say, serving a master who is not God), or supporting evil in order to oppose what one takes to be a greater evil… no, one is not merely guilty of these betrayals ; one is also in a sense propping up the other side, the side one recognizes as being the worse of the two factions.

For in a world ruled by a duopoly, each side of the yin-yang spectrum parasitically feeds off the other for its own sustenance. One side could not be what it is without the active contrivance of its supposed opposite, and vice versa. Both yin and yang are fortified by the other’s scorn, contempt, and hostility; each digs in all the more when it perceives itself being threatened, and by digging in, thereby causes the other side to feel threatened, which in turn enhances the other side’s sense of righteous hysteria, leading to a never-ending cycle of rationalized provocations and self-justified aggressions.

What he describes is a feedback loop, or what occurs when there are two or more entities in a system interacting with one another. The first does something, the second reacts to it, and then the first reacts to that, perpetuating a cycle. The classic feedback loop as described by William Gibson is a child playing a video game, with computer and human both responding to the other and then triggering the next iteration of responses.

When we support one side of a duality, it strengthens the other by making it necessary, since the first is based on its relationship to the other. The two are defined relatively. This even applies to multiple parties, in that if all participants in a system adjust their behavior based on what others do, to support one is to cause interaction with the others.

However, this model fails when we step outside the democratic paradigm and as a result, stop treating politics like a conflict between football teams. The goal of politics is not to fight the other guy, but to assert what is the right type of society to have. This is why Leftists and Rightists are incompatible: we want entirely different types of civilizations.

The difference between Left and Right comes down to a war of ideas:

The very idea of a political spectrum fosters the illusion that if two schools of thought are both on the Right, they must be just two versions of the same thing, differing only in matters of degree. But of course Right and Left are on the same political spectrum as well, and we do not think they differ only in degree. Political philosophies differ fundamentally in terms of their basic principles and their political goals. This is true of Left vs. Right, and it is true of one Right vs. another. The only thing that really unites the different camps of the Right is a negative belief, namely rejecting the idea that equality is the highest political value. (The camps of the Left are more unified because they all affirm a positive, namely that equality is the highest political value.)

…ultimately White Nationalists believe and want very different things than the civic nationalists, classical liberals, neoconservatives, and Christian conservatives who oppose us. They have different philosophies and goals. They don’t want to be like us. They have nothing to gain from us — except looking more moderate and reasonable to centrist eyes, which is really the only reason they mention us at all.

…We will be a lot more effective if we stop being threatened by principled intellectual disagreement and start taking ideas a bit more seriously.

The basic argument above — that this is a war of ideas, and we must discuss ideas to clarify them, even through argument and debate — is a healthy and sensible one. There are a few points upon which elaboration is necessary.

First, most people do not understand that in a war of ideas, each idea is a sub-archetype of some fundamental philosophy that represents more of a direction/purpose in life and an explanation of how life works than a distinct and new direction in itself. Even if we accept that Rightism is not a spectrum, we can see how all Rightist beliefs are unified by some ancestor in thought.

On Amerika, we have identified the Right as consequentialists who also strive for transcendental goodness. To be an extreme realist like a consequentialist is to believe that we get anywhere only by understanding our world in detail, but that tells us method, and we then must know toward what we should strive.

The answer comes from reality itself: like Darwinian evolution, or even self-discipline, we strive for qualitative improvement based on our lot in life “as it is” according to realism. To do that, we must seek that which is good and beautiful in life, exploring our own capacity for virtue, so that we know what to do with what we know of how reality works.

It is not as simple as saying that the Right opposes equality. We do oppose it, but mainly because it is unrealistic. It is also moral sabotage, but that is minor compared to the fact that equality clashes with the mathematics underlying our universe and, as a result, leads to accelerated entropy and decrepitude.

More importantly, the Right desires a society that is based on an order higher than the individual; this is part of consequentialism, or measuring our actions in terms of their results and not how humans judge them. The other extreme, egalitarianism, figures that whatever is popular is right, simply because it is what the individual wants. This is the secret meaning behind equality: no one can rise above the herd, and whatever the herd desires, is presumed to be right, especially if it contradicts what more intelligent, honorable or wiser people know.

So while the “official” Leftist and Rightist parties — or even a host of parties including Greens, Communitarians, and other permutations, all of which boil down to one ideological ancestor of the other — are engaged in a football game of Red Team versus Blue Team, the battle between Rightist (realism) and Leftism (individualism) is real.

Those official parties are allegorically similar to the difference between a McDonald’s cheeseburger and the abstract notion of cooked meat. The Right-wing parties sometimes do something vaguely Right-wing, true, but most of the time they are buying votes just like the Left-wing party. The difference is that buying votes and other attributes of democracy push further toward the Left, because democracy itself as the political wing of egalitarianism tends toward the Left. Whether this is done through elections, judges, shifts in meaning to common terms or all of the above is irrelevant at that point. Any participation in democracy strengthens the Left.

In addition, democracy is doomed because it always favors what is not real. In a democracy, those who offer the words that make most people feel warm and happy inside become the winners. There is no obligation to follow up. That means that we are choosing actors, not leaders, and that they will do as little as possible to change the course of history because doing so would endanger their personal place within the hierarchy. In addition, there is no accountability for the people making the decisions in question, because the voters cast their lot like throwing dice and then blame everyone else for whatever they get.

Now let us return to the horseshoe theory which states that at their extremes, Rightism and Leftism resemble each other because both become authoritarian. Looking at this more sagely, it is clear that “government” — as opposed to leadership as in a monarchy — itself is a creation of modernity, which is the time period that arose after the individualism of the Renaissance™ became the egalitarianism of the Enlightement™ and finally, mutated into a collectivism and conformist version of those.

Equality is the root of modernity and government. However, government does not work; it is a self-serving corporation that becomes parasitic to the nations in which it holds power. As a result, it becomes unstable over time and must become authoritarian in order to remain in power by retaining control. The “horseshoe theory” applies to government, not political inclinations.

Rightism, as you no doubt recall, was the name given to those who liked the way things were before the French Revolution. All conservatives have this in common, and the use of time-honored methods represented a variant of the Rightist idea of extreme realism plus existential well-being through qualitative improvement. Kings are the only stable method of leadership; this can be improved qualitatively, but not changed.

If you are not an egalitarian, you are most likely a Rightist, but this is because of a lack of other options. You either believe in an order above human intentions, or an order of human intentions. You can avoid the question entirely, but there is no “third front” or “third way.” The Egalitarianism Question (EQ) divides all theories into these two camps.

We know that government is doom; how would a rightist pick something… better? One answer comes to us from civic engagement and social capital, which are both not-government and not-anarchy:

Especially with regard to the postcommunist countries, scholars and democratic activists alike have lamented the absence or obliteration of traditions of independent civic engagement and a widespread tendency toward passive reliance on the state.

…When Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, it was the Americans’ propensity for civic association that most impressed him as the key to their unprecedented ability to make democracy work. “Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition,” he observed, “are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types–religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. . . . Nothing, in my view, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America.”

Recently, American social scientists of a neo-Tocquevillean bent have unearthed a wide range of empirical evidence that the quality of public life and the performance of social institutions (and not only in America) are indeed powerfully influenced by norms and networks of civic engagement. Researchers in such fields as education, urban poverty, unemployment, the control of crime and drug abuse, and even health have discovered that successful outcomes are more likely in civically engaged communities.

These civic engagements only exist for so long as they are protected by a conservative social order, however, because the “me first” individualist order of egalitarianism erodes them by demanding attention to the individual, and not the shared social space. In effect, when each individual can take power, a “tragedy of the commons” results where each person seizes power for themselves, and none is allowed to remain shared between the citizens; the paradox of this is that for power to remain shared, it must be owned by someone so that there is actual accountability, because otherwise people take what they want and then blame others or the group for the collective tragedy.

This tragedy of the commons takes effect anywhere humans go, and constitutes part of The Human Problem, which is how every human organization decays. The goal of the group is eroded under waves of individual need. As individuals exploit their own need, they see no reason to be limited in doing so, because if they do, others will win out. Only when a factor like a shared goal or higher order intervenes can people be induced to stop competing with one another and cooperate, but at that point, those who do not cooperate — “free riders” — gain power.

Ironically, success brings about this condition. A society that is thriving has extra wealth that it can squander on various forms of non-productive or even destructive behavior. In societies where every moment and morsel count, there is less tolerance for getting it wrong, and so the individuals in those societies develop social codes based on long-term thinking, honor, fidelity and shared goals. Where there is tolerance for getting it wrong, The Human Problem accelerates. This may be why the original Western Civilization originated in people who emerged from the Arctic Circle, where sloppiness or parasitism resulted in death, and were punished accordingly.

Egalitarianism, on the other hand, says that sloppiness and parasitism are just fine because everyone is equal and therefore, should be accepted even if they are unproductive, screw up a lot or have bad faith participation. Leftism is the philosophy of egalitarianism, much as democracy is its political arm. For that reason, the West cannot be Leftist:

The Alt-Right certainly doesn’t believe the West is “liberal values.” Western civilization existed for centuries before the Enlightenment. It was the product of a particular people, their religion, history and culture. It used to be a very illiberal place in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era. The Left admits this by saying we should be ashamed to be Westerners because we weren’t always so liberal.

We believe that liberalism is destroying Western civilization. It has led to this crippling sense of racial guilt and cultural malaise. It has opened our borders to the ongoing Third World invasion. It has unraveled and debauched our culture. We’ve degenerated to the point where we celebrate the death of our own children as “freedom.” We can’t even reproduce ourselves anymore or assert our own identity and interests. It will suffice to say that liberalism is the philosophy of Western suicide.

In other words, the West is its people, and those people only thrive when subjected to natural selection, such that those who are productive, intelligent and morally good are advanced above the rest and keep that herd under control, because otherwise the herd discovers egalitarianism and promptly exploits civilization in a tragedy of the commons.

So now we come full-circle. The horseshoe theory is nonsense if applied to Left and Right, but describes exactly what happens as government decays. The Left-Right paradigm is not false at all, but taking sides based on the parties and not the philosophies that they in theory espouse, is in fact nonsensical and merely strengthens the Left-leaning system. And Leftism, like all forms of herd morality, is our death.

Western Heritage

Monday, July 10th, 2017

It has now become clear that modern society has just about entirely wrecked the population of the West. Other than a few who have held on to time-honored ways, our cities and towns are now clogged with solipsistic people propelled by a victimhood complex that allows them to justify theft and parasitism in their own minds and those of the gang or cult of herd people like them.

As this settles in to the mind of the average person, who drugged by middle class values essentially turned off his brain and assumed that civilization would always be the way it was when he was young, and therefore that he needed do nothing to maintain it or even affirmatively stop the rot, a cultural wave is rising for a massive U-turn away from the narcissistic notions of equality and democracy.

Some of the first signs of health have come from Donald Trump, who delivered a speech in Poland indicating a new direction for the West that looks more like the distant past than the present:

Trump offered a concise, powerful statement of western achievements and why they are worth defending. “We write symphonies,” he said. “We pursue innovation. We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers. . . . We cherish inspiring works of art that honor God. We treasure the rule of law and protect the right to free speech and free expression. We empower women as pillars of our society and of our success. We put faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, at the center of our lives. And we debate everything.”

No speech of this nature has been given for a half-century. This is bolder than Reagan or JFK. It is a call not to Americanism, but to our Western Heritage, toward the group of nomadic people who spread through Asia and Europe, probably rejoining their cousins in those lands. This group has been consistent for thousands of years, and forms the basis of Western Culture.

You cannot have Western Heritage without Western European people, which is a genetic and not a political distinction. We are a tribe. This tribe has many branches — English, Dutch, German, Swedish, French, Norwegian, Scots, Danish — but it is the continuation of that ancient tribe, and from its abilities and inbuilt tendencies come all of the greatness of the West.

Although many have forgotten it, this ancient race is not just the root of Western History, but its perpetuation, because the same people keep showing up in new civilizations after old ones fail, recreating the greatness as much as possible:

A hundred years ago, however, Europeans took it for granted that many Greeks and Romans were the same race as themselves. The famed 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, published in 1911, noted that “survival of fair hair and complexion and light eyes among the upper classes in Thebes and some other localities shows that the blond type of mankind which is characteristic of north-western Europe had already penetrated into Greek lands before classical times.” It added that the early Greeks, or Hellenes, were Nordic, one of “the fair-haired tribes of upper Europe known to the ancients as Keltoi.” Sixty years ago even Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher and socialist, believed that the Hellenes “were fair-haired invaders from the North, who brought the Greek language with them” (History of Western Philosophy, 1946).

We see the reason that these people were originally nomadic. Any time society becomes anchored to one spot, imitators and sycophants show up and become passively parasitic, using the same methods as those who came before them, but without the same drive for results. When society becomes wealthy, it can have more of these people, and soon overburdens itself and more than collapses, fades into irrelevance through incompetence, inefficiency, disorder, confusion, narcissism and internal conflict.

As the ruins fall, a small group of people who stuck with the time-honored ways of thinking and thus could organize their methods so that imitation did not overwhelm their ability to think, dusts itself off, heads to a new place, and starts a civilization again. They know they will be impoverished and struggling for a long time, but then, their birthright will assert itself through their abilities, and they will create a new great civilization and maybe get a few centuries of use out of it before it, too, succumbs to human entropy.

Did Irish Immigration Shift America To The Left?

Thursday, June 15th, 2017

A consistent theme on Amerika has been the notion that diversity itself, and not the groups contained within, creates a loss of social order because standards in common are adulterated and social paranoia results. The resulting pervasive social distrust causes people to become atomized, alienated and to “hunker down” in their homes and adopt an apathetic attitude toward politics and society, which they view as lost causes.

If diversity is the problem, then diversity even among the same race is also a problem. American history shows us this is the case through the example of Irish immigration. We can observe this by watching through history for the process of Irish-American numbers rising as the integrity of the country fell:

35,523,082 Irish

Another group who joined the great story of the United States were the Irish and the great famine of the 1840s sparked mass migration from Ireland.

It is estimated that between 1820 and 1920, 4.5 million Irish moved to the United States and settled in the large cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco.

Currently, almost 12 percent of the total population of the United States claim Irish ancestry – compared with a total population of six and a half million for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland today.

Irish residents of note include John F. Kennedy, Derek Jeter and Neil Armstrong and 35,523,082 people call themselves Irish.

Irish immigration accelerated as the country liberalized in the years leading up to the Civil War:

Between 1820 and 1860, the Irish constituted over one third of all immigrants to the United States. In the 1840s, they comprised nearly half of all immigrants to this nation.

These Irish people were instrumental in sponsoring the Civil War, mainly because they disliked hierarchical Anglo-Saxon societies like the South and identified with “oppressed minorities,” with whom they shared a bond in slavery dating back to pre-colonial times, and also were distinctive because of Semitic and Asiatic trace admixture in the Irish bloodline. From The Daily Mail again:

Since laws already on the books prohibited people of any Asian origin from becoming citizens, they were barred entry. The law was revised in 1952, but kept the quota system based on country of origin in the U.S. population and only allowed low quotas to Asian nations.

The American children of Italian and other European immigrants saw that law “as a slur against their own status” and fought for the system to be changed, said Mae Ngai, professor of history and Asian American studies at Columbia University. In fighting for change, they looked to the civil rights movement.

…Speaking to the American Committee on Italian Migration in June 1963, President John F. Kennedy cited the “nearly intolerable” plight of those who had family members in other countries who wanted to come to the U.S. and could be useful citizens, but were being blocked by “the inequity and maldistribution of the quota numbers.”

In fact, the Irish had a long history of agitation against the Western European ruling classes who had made the country that Irish immigrants, whose fortunes at home had been grim long before the English intervened, now enjoyed:

Irish and Africans Americans had lots in common and lots of contact during this period; they lived side by side and shared work spaces. In the early years of immigration the poor Irish and blacks were thrown together, very much part of the same class competing for the same jobs. In the census of 1850, the term mulatto appears for the first time due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African Americans. The Irish were often referred to as “Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish.” A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: “My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman.” Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, somehow similar, performing the same tasks in society. It was felt that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would happen between Irish and blacks. But, ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks. Although it contradicted their experience back home, it meant freedom here since blackness meant slavery.

An article by a black writer in an 1860 edition of the Liberator explained how the Irish ultimately attained their objectives: “Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Catholic priest in Philadelphia said to the Irish people in that city, ‘You are all poor, and chiefly laborers, the blacks are poor laborers; many of the native whites are laborers; now, if you wish to succeed, you must do everything that they do, no matter how degrading, and do it for less than they can afford to do it for.’ The Irish adopted this plan; they lived on less than the Americans could live upon, and worked for less, and the result is, that nearly all the menial employments are monopolized by the Irish, who now get as good prices as anybody. There were other avenues open to American white men, and though they have suffered much, the chief support of the Irish has come from the places from which we have been crowded.”

This caused them to identify with the Other, even fighting against the Southern United States twelve years before the Civil War:

A little-known chapter in U.S.-Mexican history is that of El Batallón de los San Patricios or “St. Patrick’s Battalion.” In a nutshell, St. Patrick’s Battalion was a group of immigrants, mostly of Irish descent, who fought alongside the Mexican Army during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). To provide further context: this took place during the height of Manifest Destiny.

The Civil War itself may have only been possible because of the shift in political attitudes brought by the Irish to the North, where they were a larger percentage of the population than in the South, which was more Anglo-Saxon and thus despised by the Irish. The political agenda of the North shifted as the Irish gained political power:

By this time, attitudes towards the Irish had begun to change. The Civil War was probably the turning point; so many thousands of Irish whole-heartedly participated in the war (they made up the majority of no less than 40 Union regiments), and gained a certain respect and acceptance from Americans as a result. And second or third generation Irish-Americans had moved up the social and managerial ladder from their early labouring work. Some were even entering the professions.

Of course, this was not the lot of the majority. In the 1900 census there were still hundreds of thousands of Irish immigrants living in poverty, mostly in urban slums. But economic circumstances were improving for a significant proportion, and the Irish, as a group, were gaining footholds in the workplace, especially in the labour or trade union movement, the police and the fire service.

Their numbers helped. The large Irish populations of cities such as Boston, Chicago and New York were able to get their candidates elected to power, so launching the Irish American political class.

This political landslide created a new form of politics based in opposition to the Western European majority. These new political entities emphasized strong government which handed out entitlements to its constituents, effectively buying votes, as had been the norm in places like Ireland and Italy.

In addition to the Civil War, Irish-American political leanings dominated the East Coast, which became a powerhouse for Leftist politics:

New York has the most concentrated Irish population; 12.9 percent of its residents claim Irish ancestry, which compares to a rate of 11.1 percent of the country overall. Boston, meanwhile, claims the most-concentrated Irish population for a city: 20.4 percent.

Trulia’s chief economist Jed Kulko put all this data on a map, which shows the heaviest concentration of Irish-American zip codes. He notes that “Irish-Americans are at least 5 percent of the population in most counties across the U.S., and 10 percent or more in most of New England, New York state, New Jersey, eastern Pennsylvania, and other smaller counties across the country.”

The Irish influence — along with fellow trace admixed groups such as Italians, Slavs and Jews — was so great that it created a backlash against the new Southern/Eastern/Irish European immigrants:

In 1845, a potato famine in Ireland, caused by a fungus that destroyed the country’s most important food source, killed a million people and left millions more hungry. Within a decade, nearly 2 million Irish had emigrated to the U.S.

Italians followed, beginning in the 1860s, in response to economic and political turmoil at home. Many were long-term migrants. Like many Mexicans today, they went home when they had made enough money and came back to the U.S. when they needed to make more.

Jews also began to arrive in significant numbers in the 1860s, first from Germany and then later from Eastern Europe, including Russia, fleeing anti-Semitism and deadly pogroms (government-sponsored attacks on Jewish towns). Between 1880 and 1924, a third of Eastern Europe’s Jews left for the U.S., with most settling in overcrowded tenement neighborhoods like New York’s Lower East Side.

As usual, the barn door was slammed only after the horse was long gone:

In the 1920s, Congress imposed quotas that sharply reduced the number of immigrants allowed in, and gave preference to Northern Europeans in an attempt to re-create the ethnic profile of 19th-century America.

Perhaps the greatest victory of the Irish, however, was in the 1960s with the election of John F. Kennedy, the first president of humble Irish origins as opposed to Scots-Irish or English aristocracy living in Ireland, who embarked upon a liberalization program that culminated after his death in the Hart-Celler Act which reversed the previous trend toward favoring Northern/Western European immigration.

This shows us a direct line between Irish immigration and the increasing liberalization of America. This makes sense because diversity causes an expansion in Leftism, mainly because minority groups must either accept that their origins were less fortunate, or blame the new majority and scapegoat them for the problems of the minority group. The latter is infinitely more popular.

Already balkanization is occurring, where individual groups retreat to small enclaves for their own ethnic and religious cohort, and like diversity, it starts within the white race as WASPs secede from the mixed-European herd as well as the mixed-race mass.

The lesson we can learn from all of this is that white diversity is as fatal as inter-racial diversity (sometimes also called multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, internationalism or the “melting pot,” an extension of the “magic dirt” notion that we can make people into “Americans” through laws, economics and propaganda) and that as diversity fails, so will white nationalism as different European groups go their own way and separate from the others.

How Religion Shattered The Leadership Of The West And Let Leftism In

Monday, June 5th, 2017

It does not make sense to blame Christianity for the downfall of the West; the real story is more nuanced.

Christianity was taken up by the rising Left as a means of spreading individualism. Any religion where the choice of the individual to partake is considered a complete introduction to the depth of the faith will naturally become a vehicle for projection, which is why the Catholic church continued the Rabbinical tradition of isolating scholarship to those who had already demonstrated prowess.

This elitist viewpoint is called esotericism, meaning that it is based on mysteries and not memorization. Topics are seen through a qualitative lens that views them as having depth, such that their initial summary in language is a gateway to a series of cause-effect relationships and their implications. The more one learns, the more there is to learn.

Esotericism also relies on logical collisions to determine boundaries, instead of categories. The opposite of esotericism, exotericism, teaches through categories, where a single detail stands for the whole and is presumed to impart that characteristic uniformly to all objects within the category. This provides an easier method of thinking, thus a more popular one.

Logical boundaries on the other hand occur when the thinker looks into the depth of an idea through its extension to a logical extreme and the implications of that, in infinite cycle. This resembles the thinking of a chess player, looking ahead as many moves as possible by accounting for every potential move by the other player. In this view, objects have many details, and it is important to take the interaction of objects with other objects on a case-by-case basis, seeing how the details collide and coincide to determine the nature of those objects. This gives humans less perceived power through an easy method of thinking, but is more accurate.

Christianity suffered weakness because it was based on the Word. The Word first appears in the creation of the world, and then extends as a theme in the Bible through people accepting word tokens as literal truth, without having depth to work through, implying an equality of all people in understanding. This approach lends itself to propaganda.

At first this was an advantage to Christianity. It could induct and unite huge groups of people quickly, which is why the pagan faiths faded away; they simply could not compete. As a theology derived mostly from the Greeks, early Christianity conveyed a strong Indo-European philosophy. But its strengths were also its weaknesses, making it easy to take over from within.

Some claim the rise of Protestantism was part of this process, but it may have been resistance to the effect that having the Bible widely available in lay languages was having within Catholicism.

This upheaval resurrected an old conflict that had lain dormant throughout the middle ages. Before the preceding millennial turn, Throne and Alter had been in conflict as the monarchies of Europe found themselves needing allies during war, and in addition to domestic splintered politics, having to placate special interest groups. The Church too often played as a self-interested party.

With the middle ages, this condition was suspended as some parity was reached and Church and monarchy could work together. However, this was short-lived, as Christianity proliferated into different cults with the rise of mass distribution of the Bible, in part pre-dating the printing press as the supply of hand-copied Bibles accumulated over the years.

At that point, a new internal religious conflict began, one that would eventually give rise to the nascent Leftism of The Enlightenment™ and the Romantic period:

In Cavanaugh’s The Myth of Religious Violence, Cavanaugh presents a thesis which is radically at odds with received wisdom concerning the origin of the secular state. Citing the examples of Baruch Spinoza,Thomas Hobbes and John Locke who presented religious division[ii] as the cause of the conflicts of the period, he notes that this narrative provided:

…the backdrop for much of the Enlightenment’s critique of religion. There developed a grand narrative in Enlightenment historiography — typified by Edward Gibbon and Voltaire — that saw the wars of religion as the last gasp of medieval barbarism and fanaticism before the darkness was dispelled.

More modern liberal thinkers have subsequently traced the birth of liberalism to the so-called religious conflicts of this period, with Cavanaugh citing Quintin Skinner, Jeffrey Stout, Judith Shklar and John Rawls as exemplifying this narrative.

When a conflict of this sort arises, more likely what happens is that one party was neutralized, allowing some event to take place. The “fanaticism” of the medieval era was an attempt to retain balance between different power structures within civilization, because they remembered what happened to Athens, Rome and pre-medieval Europe.

If instead of viewing the religious wars as a conflict between religion and anti-religion, but a struggle for power within civilization, we see that an unnamed third force won: egalitarianism.

As Cavanaugh takes pains to point out, the institutional changes which were supposed to have been ushered in as a result of the religious conflicts actually presaged them. To bolster his argument he provides ample examples of conflict occurring between states with the same denominations, as well as collaboration between differing denominations. The most trenchant observation is provided by the example of Martin Luther:

As Richard Dunn points out, “Charles V’s soldiers sacked Rome, not Wittenberg, in 1527, and when the papacy belatedly sponsored a reform program, both the Habsburgs and the Valois refused to endorse much of it, rejecting especially those Trentine decrees which encroached on their sovereign authority.” The wars of the 1520s were part of the ongoing struggle between the pope and the emperor for control over Italy and over the church in German territories.

In other words, while the Church struggled against the kings, someone else took power. This became The Enlightenment,™ which had fortunate timing in that it caught the early years of the industrial revolution within a century and, because it perfectly justified unlimited growth and tragedy of the commons, replaced religion with the new mythos of the individual.

For this reason, “Christianity caused Leftism” is too simple of an analysis, just like “Christianity is the root of Western Civilization.” The root of Western Civilization is its people, but they depend on quality leadership from the aristocracy in order to be effective. We removed that, and now we are removing our own people so that it can never be reborn.

Remaking The West

Saturday, June 3rd, 2017

Born of a frontier, the West needs one yet again.

Europe was formed when the wandering northern tribes met up with their cousins who had been inhabiting central Europe and the Mediterranean, and since that time has continued with the northern tribes forming our elites. The seed of the northern tribes lives on in the Western European people.

They confronted a frontier in the founding of Europe: dark forests, wild animals, and predatory enemies all around. They survived not one but two great empires, numerous conflicts between religious forces and their kings, and invasions from hostile Mongols in addition to great epidemics that killed as many as a quarter of them.

In the New World, they faced a restless continent filled with threats large and small, as well as hostile tribes of Siberian-descended peoples with whom war, once hoped to be avoidable, soon become a necessity.

But with success comes failure, or at least, trouble. When the frontiers went away, society became complacent and focused inward on its citizens instead of directing its people toward purpose, and soon infighting erupted.

To quell that, societies adopted a policy of control, or political and social systems which effectively neutered its citizens and made them compliant and obedient. This weakened the stock.

Over the centuries, cruft built up in the form of assumptions, obligations, procedures and pretenses that were not in any way real but — because the most blatant nonsense is the hardest to argue against — were more enforced than demands of reality. Dead rules filled every book of law. Society took on many parasites, internal and external.

We need a frontier again, something to challenge ourselves with, and a purpose, or an ongoing but immutable goal. Now that we have hit rock bottom, it is time to dust ourselves off and rise again.

Civilization rebirth provides a frontier. It is rife with dangers, opposition and enemies. It stretches our minds beyond the relatively rote ways in which we live now, and gives us something to struggle for. It makes that struggle not frustrating and humiliating, like jobs or paying taxes, but inspiring and challenging.

It will make us better than we are now, and help us become to be again what we have always been.

How Donald Trump Is Emerging Victorious With An Alt Right Agenda

Wednesday, May 10th, 2017

Recently the controlled press foamed over the “leak” of an image of Steve Bannon standing in front of his “war board,” which contained a list of objectives for the Trump administration. As some commentators mention, it would be ludicrous to imagine that with his background in the military and business, Bannon would accidentally leak this material.

Then we consider that some months ago, the Leftist press was chump-championing the removal of Bannon from the National Security Council or possibly the White House, neither of which turned out to be actually true.

Trump is playing the media as he always has, by creating a non-event that they cannot resist, and then acting silently elsewhere. The media drones, realizing they have been played, save face as best they can by then under-reporting the real activity. This combination of trolling and action gives Trump the initiative with media and the Left — including most Republicans — playing catch-up.

Few people realize how extreme the Trump platform, which is like a Reaganite version of the Alt Right, actually is. He was elected on a combination of reverse identity politics, fiscal conservatism, and what most people are afraid to mention, social conservatism. While Trump is only nominally a conservative, he is a consequentialist, and respects results more than happy feelings and ideology.

As a result, it makes sense to place Trump as a moderate, meaning that he is not committed purely to one side or the other, but his realism controls the pragmatism of “compromise” and “bipartisanship,” which makes the goal to work with the System itself instead of focusing on objectives outside of the System, such as effects on citizens, civilization and the future of the nation.

He has found, however, that a deeply entrenched Establishment controls Washington, D.C., by forcing all participants to work first within the system, and secondarily only toward any kind of purpose. This is how government becomes, as our founding fathers and Plato both noted, a self-serving corporate parasite to the organic civilization beneath it in the power structure.

Populism, if it has any core idea, is based on real-world results for the purpose of strengthening the organic civilization instead of doing what works with the elaborate labyrinth of rules and influences set up by power structures themselves. In other words, power should have purpose, instead of serving itself.

This follows from the shift that Samuel Huntington noted, which is that civilization is moving away from formal orders based on the universality of human individualism, and instead is shifting to informal orders motivated toward organic goals like identity. Liberal democracy is fading away in a cloud of its bad decisions and failures to rectify the perceived problem of previous orders.

While he fascinates the fools in the entrenched politics and media industry with bafflement, Trump is working from the ground up, removing obstacles and establishing policy that will then be challenged, requiring its clarification at a higher level. Instead of trying to chip away at the top of the Obama house of cards, he is undermining its foundations.

In the meantime, he is generating headlines that are either misdirection of our attention like many of his Twitter messages, or show the US pushing back against bad guys who were emboldened by the weak Obama foreign policy. In doing so, Trump recognizes the truth of superpower politics: value of currency comes from strength not just in industry, but in international relations.

As his cover, he is using the Alt Lite style “cultural libertarianism” to provide defensive freedoms to the core of this country, which has always been its Western European descended stock, by enabling them to sidestep demands for more diversity, affirmative action and special interests like baking gay cakes.

Although the pundits both above and underground are shocked and appalled by some of his actions, like the cruise missile strike on Syria, it is slowly settling in that that act was a pushback against the imperial aspirations of other powers, and not an American policy of custodial intervention like the previous war.

Internally, he is focusing on the power he has to make lasting change. This will require not just administrative orders and firing people, but getting his policies set into law through the courts and eventually, legislative change. He knows this will be a long road.

So does the Left, which is why they are dusting off the Reagan-era script and embarking on a policy of sabotage and subversion at every turn. The captive Republicans are joining with them, because both Official Right and Official Left have much to lose if the goal becomes results in reality instead of “working with the System.”

Behind all of these actions lurks the motivation that the Alt Right shares: a sense, from Julius Evola, that the West has collapsed and we need to rebuild by defending both our people and the moral, intellectual and spiritual state of wanting to do first what works best, and to push aside those formal orders like Systems and ideologies that aim to thwart that goal.

While the hoped for wave of populist revolts seems stalled in Europe, this is mostly the result of central European addiction to social benefits states, and is caving as the many policies of the Left simultaneously groan into full failure across Europe. The Trump method, while slower and subtler, sets the stage for the next generation of renovation.

For this reason, the mission of the Alt Right — which currently seems to be languishing in political fatigue — becomes doubly important. The cultural wave must continue to clarify and simplify its message of removing formal and universal order, and replacing it with the organic nation and a focus on consequentialism.

Through these high level principles we can communicate a few general heuristics that people can apply at local and regional levels, seizing control of the ground more than the power structure, and creating upward pressure on that power structure while destabilizing it. In Europe as in the USA, many local and regional offices have gone to those who understand this imperative.

Our ultimate goal remains the same: restoration of Western Civilization through its people, the “remnant” who are not yet wrecked by our downfall. We will have to remove the bad while nurturing the good, and realize that all of the institutions we made have turned against us, and need to be reconquered and redirected.

With this in mind, we finally have the tangible path that most have craved for so long: a pincer attack, removing political obstacles while applying pressure — and incentive, to those who can work toward our goals — from below through a wave of cultural demand for a different type of society than the one in which we currently live.

Contrary to the negativity floating around out there, we live in great and dangerous times, and opportunity is all around us.

Conservatives Need To End Confusion About The Roots Of Western Civilization

Friday, April 28th, 2017

The big problem with living in a collapsing civilization is that by defending parts of that dying empire, you further its survival instead of allowing it to pass peacefully along and be restarted. This has been the flaw of conservatism all along.

For example, if your government has become corrupt, defending it in wars and paying taxes merely helps it achieve its evil aims. The more you try to fix it without scrapping it, the more it gains power to do more bad.

It becomes tempting to defend other things that, in a functional civilization, would be good. By doing that, you end up protecting parts of the decline simply because they are better than other parts.

In addition, people find inverse scapegoats, or “proxies,” that they cling to. These seem like good things, but by distracting from what actually must be done and absorbing the resources that need to go toward that, they become methods of self-defeat.

To clarify: it is not that these things are bad per se, but they are not the solution we need, and therefore are both a distraction and a fatal mistake.

For example, Fred Reed writes about the place of Christianity in the West:

Renegade Jews founded Christianity (most Jews soon wished they had not), as a sort of heresy that got out of control, lost all resemblance to Judaism, and eventually stretched across Europe, Russia, North and South America, Australia, and the Byzantine Empire. In all of these it shaped the culture, art, philosophy, literature, the very framework of mind. Much of this was superb and remains unsurpassed.

And what a magnificent thing it was! The traveler of today may have seen the gorgeous churches of Cuzco in the Peruvian Andes, Norman churches in Sicily, and Notre Dame, Salisbury, the wonderful cathedral of Barcelona, the Hagia Sophia, the ceremony of the Russian Orthodox. The artistry, the engineering needed to build many of them in times without structural steel are astonishing. Today in Mexico, in town after town one finds the churches on the central plaza, all different, many splendid, places of quiet and meditation. In any of these them, before Protestantism cast its drab cloak of half of the faith, a traveler could enter and understand everything he saw.

This is a typical conservative attitude — remember, they are the people of “patriotism, religion and working hard” (PRWH) — that ignores the fact that Western civilization was constructing great architecture and developing great art and philosophy for many years before Christ. Even if we ignore the Greeks and pre-Christian Romans, there are the Indo-Europeans who wandered through Asia and left behind many great civilizations, all of which display the things he writes about above, although most are lost to time.

Please do not mistake this for an anti-Christian rant. I love old churches, many of the Christian rituals, and the Christian sexual morality which was probably appropriated from the pagans but which modern-day pagans have not retained. Chastity and virginity are forces upon which one can build a great civilization by creating honest people and loving families. All those who want to destroy civilizations — I am thinking of Leftists here, and big business — oppose this type of self-discipline and honor.

As a traditionalist of the perennialist school, I view religion as literature. We live in one world, and reality has one truth, but it is described in many forms, most metaphorical because the metaphysical and eternal does not translate well into specific language. There are insights to be found in all of the great faiths.

However, Christianity has two big stumbling blocks. The first is that by being a religion of the Word, it makes itself accessible and exploitable in a way that esoteric faiths do not. The second is that, no matter how much of it was borrowed from European sources, Christianity ultimately has a foreign origin. This is not an anti-Semitic charge; it does not matter which foreign group did it, and we can even like and respect them as I do, but they remain foreign and so does Christianity despite centuries of Europeanization.

Instead this essay encourages those on the Right (realists who see a need for a qualitative approach to existence) to look at the Europeanization, and not Christianity. Everywhere our people have gone, we have made things that are both great and specific to us, capable of appreciation but not duplication elsewhere in the world, because they are an outpouring of our souls and genetics, two things that are linked because — like it or not — genetics determines much if not all of how we see the world.

Reed goes on to typical conservative “woe is all” thinking:

The future? Christianity seems to be dying out. A resurgence is hard to imagine. It simply isn’t suited to the modern world. The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind.

You might call this a victory for paganism. The pagans, believers in mystical events and an underlying order to all existence, have the same contemplative outlook that Schopenhauer praised in Christianity. This fits with how I define Western people, which is that we are reflective or prone to analysis not just of material but of meaning and pattern to existence.

Keep in mind that I write this as someone who finds great inspiration in many Christian writers and thinkers. In my view, they are speaking a different dialect of the same language we see in Greco-Roman, Nordic and Hindu paganism. However, paganism unlike Christianity is monistic, informal and idealistic or based in the idea of the world being composed of something that acts like thought or idea.

By targeting proxies instead of our actual goal, conservatives doom us to repetition. Christianity rode along with the West for some time, but its focus on personal morality caused people to turn their gaze from the future of civilization, and instead to focus on being moral for the sake of appearances. We cannot fix that; we need a more warlike, comprehensive, forward-looking faith.

Like the other parts of PRWH, religion is a proxy. We cannot save the West through religion. We need to simply restore Western Civilization, and while for now Christianity is a strong signal perceived to be Western-ness, focus on it obscures both our roots and the moral need to fix civilization at the same time we behave morally on a personal level.

Patriotism, the P of PRWH, also misleads us. It has us defending government and democracy with their inherent assumption of equality, which is contrary to the founding method of the West in hierarchy based on what is correct and good, not what avoids violating moral commandments. If you need a holy book to tell you not to murder, rape or steal, your civilization is already in freefall.

Working hard (WH) also misleads us by focusing on equality instead of results. Someone can utterly fail, but because he “worked hard,” he is praised. In addition, this retasks our brains away from the important question of what we should be doing toward the method of work itself, which quickly invents infinite avenues to distract us from reality.

What made the West great was its sense of social order plus our people. Our genetics are our roots. Our heritage is what makes us different from the rest of the world, and makes us alone capable of restoring the West. Any target other than saving our people, genetically, and restoring social order is a false target and thus, an enemy.

Individualism Destroyed Western Civilization

Wednesday, April 12th, 2017

For years, Amerika has identified the root of downfall in the West as individualism, or the idea that the intentions and desires of the individual take precedence over understanding and adaptation to natural order, logical fact and metaphysical reality. This form of hubris dooms societies to dissolution through lack of common purpose.

As the collectivized form of individualism rages on without noticing how destructive it is, others are starting to recognize how lack of internal solidarity destroys cooperation:

There’s no way the individually competitive white community would identify someone brainy and eloquent, then allow them sometimes to putter around into their 30s before there’s a payoff. That’s pretty much the life story of Bernie Sanders. He probably wouldn’t have become a US senator if he had to focus his energies on a 9-5 job instead.

…Extreme apex ventures like professional acting, writing, art, politics, academics, journalism are too risky and too expensive for atomized individuals to participate in. That just leaves an open field for a group that backs each other up and makes investments in developing their own human capital.

…The community support that Hamilton benefited from would be unthinkable in modern white culture. In fact, with jobs that pay even the simplest living now scarce, workers take perverse joy in someone like Hamilton falling through the cracks.

They love to waggle their fingers patronizingly and say “Look how I pulled myself up while that smart guy turned out to be a loser.”

Individualism engenders all of our worst behaviors, including the notion of linear history or “progress.” It is what happens when people no longer share ideals, and instead, each person uses the now-decaying civilization as a means to their own wealth, power and status alone, instead of making that objective consistent with the goals of the civilization.

When Western Civilization adopted individualism, probably as an artifact of a fragmented ruling caste, it took the path away from working toward an ideal, and instead went down the path of rationalizing human desires as the goal of the civilization. This facilitative and mercantile outlook removed the ability to do what is right and replaced it with an impulse toward convenience.

As we enter the final phase of collapse, we must dig deep to get to the root of our decay so that we can identify it and remove it. Otherwise, we will merely push it back a few steps, and it — being like all evils more fanatical than good — will inexorably advance until we arrive as the same state where we currently are, exhausting ourselves through repetition.

Recommended Reading