Conservatives do not understand Leftists, in part because conservatives do not understand conservatism.
Let us venture back to the French Revolution, after which the modern definitions of Right and Left became known. The Left had won and overthrown the kings, and France tried to reconstitute itself around the new political assumptions. The Right formed of those who realized things had been better before but were willing to compromise with the new idea.
The Left exists for egalitarianism, or the idea that everyone is equal. This arises from The Enlightenment™ idea that all people possess reason, which means equal reason, which means that we no longer require a hierarchy based on who has the most reason, but can instead sort out problems as a mob.
Leftism can be translated then into the idea that we need no hierarchy, and instead, that every person is a god of his own creation. The individual is supreme above the order of nature, a need to strive toward divinity, and even social standards and culture. Egalitarianism is a cult of the ego and it displaces everything else because it is addicting to human minds.
Back in the post French Revolutionary days, however, conservatives made a fatal decision: instead of resisting the Left outright, they would compromise with it, and retain their own methods but adopt the Leftist goal of egalitarianism. In doing so, they invalidated their methods, which were based not on human individuals but results for civilization as a whole.
In other words, conservatives became liberals because they could not reconcile the need for a society of time-proven solutions with the new and infectious viral meme of egalitarianism.
The Conservative upholds some obvious and self-evident good thing, like equality or property rights. The Progressive, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, promotes an idea that it the diametric opposite of the first idea, such as elitism or communal rights, and then merely calls the first idea by the opposite of its true name.
The argument at that point becomes an argument of metaphysical philosophy, or an argument of worldview. But the worldview of the conservative is the Christian worldview, which is why they believe in things like the equality of man, the rule of reason, and the law of identity.
No conservative should endorse equality. Further, conservatives need to recognize that property rights are a means to an end: the health of the civilization and, through it, the best chance of the individual for leading the best possible life. Anything else is confusing the tool for the goal.
When conservatives endorse equality, freedom, liberty and individualism they are unknowingly becoming servants of the Left. Those are at best intermediates, or steps to the end of a healthy society which enables the individual to live a good life without interference from the insane. The best societies reward the good, and ignore or punish the bad, including the insane, unhealthy, delusional and egotistical.
Conservatives do not understand the Left. It is best to view them as computer programs out of control, with all of their instructions supplanted by a single pathological goal: advance equality. They do not care about consequences, decency, or the future of the nation. They would rather achieve their ideology and immediately perish in flames than postpone it.
When conservatives adopt any part of the Leftist, or egalitarian, ideology, they turn into similarly programmed beings. Reality must be subjugated to the needs of ideology. This makes them essentially insane, or oblivious to inputs from the world around them, satisfied only by their internal sensation at the idea of ideology. In this way conservatives become Leftists without knowing it.
The essence of conservatism is time-proven truth, or consequentialism, which favors a certain type of society that is totally alien to what we have now. But reality it is what it is; we must work for this “impossible” goal or become assimilated by the insanity around us, and while that seems harsh, becoming ideological zombies is far worse.
There is a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.” On Monday, Taylor asserted on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” that racialism — not religion, economics, etc. — is the one issue that unites alt-righters.
They seem to have missed the point that for the last 70 years, bashing white people — and using that as an excuse to demand subsidies from them — has been the modus operandi of the dominant left-wing parties. The putative conservative parties have done nothing to arrest this, but instead in an attempt to be popular by following bandwagon trends, have endorsed it.
The alt right is the pushback. But not just against anti-whiteness; against the decline of Western Civilization at large. For Western Civilization to survive, and reverse its collapse, however, its people must survive: those who are genetically Western European, which is what most of the world means when it says “white.”
The alternative right, commonly known as the alt-right, is defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center (an organization that tracks hate groups), as a “set of far-right ideologies at the core of which is a belief that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.”
In other words: This is not conservatism or the Republican Party. This is a movement that fosters anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-multiculturalism, and anti-women rhetoric. This is a white supremacist movement, and one that Trump has not only refused to denounce—it’s one he actively courts.
If you oppose multiculturalism, you are a racist, in the view of both mainstream right and left. What does this tell us? The only permissible view is to accept the importation of many foreign people, eventually obliterating the native population. No leader who cares about the wellbeing of his people does this, and yet we have voices from both sides of the imaginary aisle demanding it.
This outlook follows the pathology of Leftism: it is not reflective of reality, but of humanity. It wants what humans wish were true. This leads to illusion, and is how every human society self-destructs, but because popular things produce immediate rewards, the illusion — what our ancestors called “evil” — is always chosen, like dogs drinking antifreeze and becoming poisoned. This is the challenge of civilization.
The alt right constructs itself around a simple ideal. It suggests that we do what is real, not what is popular. This launches us into a reality-first assessment that sees biology as more important than intentions, education or politics. From that, we find ourselves arriving at ethno-nationalism, or the idea that a nation is its people, specifically the genetically founding group.
The advantage of nationalism, in addition to the fact that homogeneous societies are the most stable and happiest, is that it does away with the need for government, and with it politics and “systems” of elaborate rules designed to make evil (illusion-dependent) people equivalent to good ones. People rule themselves by cultural standards, and that way, when they ostracize someone, it is for an actual transgression.
An eternally popular human illusion might be stated as “we are all one.” In this illusion, all people are the same everywhere, and so with the right rules, we can make them do good even if they are not good. This way, no one needs to be looked into to see if they are evil, and if they do an evil thing, they are automatically forgiven and still part of the group. This anti-Darwinian and pro-evil stance results in civilization decay.
But while it is generally known that these factors are interconnected, there is still no cohesive explanation for the almost simultaneous adoption of immigrant multiculturalism across the Western world.
He explores a number of theories, and invents a few terms, but ultimately, finds no answer. Here is the answer: multiculturalism spread because it is a variant of the “we are all one” idea, which is popular because it enforces the idea of equality, which is in turn popular because with equality, the individual is accepted regardless of his abilities or evil acts. Equality is created by individuals through the group, but it protects the group only as a way of protecting the individual; its actual goal is to weaken the group, so that the group cannot ejecting low-performing or evil members. Equality is the anti-Darwin. Equality is also the eternally popular illusion.
All of Leftism — class warfare, diversity, sexual liberation, socialism, big government, etc. — arises from the idea of equality. Since equality is not-real (evil) it must be enforced. The best way to do that is to destroy everything but equality in the minds of the people, which requires deconstructing (destroying) culture, heritage, the family, personal integrity, history, art and love.
Diversity is an arrow in this quiver. With diversity, the heritage and culture of the host nation are destroyed, and it is unable to state any standards but those presumed to be universal, which are something like this: “All people like to eat and drink, and be safe, and have jobs, and not be interfered with unless they are committing grand theft, murder, rape or assault.”
This is why it spread like wildfire: it is a version of the ideology which had already spread like wildfire, Leftism, and so people adopted it as the latest means of making Leftism more powerful, thus protecting the individual from judgment.
Civic nationalism is magic dirt nationalism. It’s the idea that anyone anywhere can be shoved into the blast furnace of America and made into an American. There’s just something about being here that makes you belong here. I mean after all, we’re a nation of immigrants right (no reference as to where most of them came from before the last few decades)? Please invade us, just make sure you adopt our language and love of voting and mindless consumption. Race and religion don’t real; it’s being a good citizen that matters!
Name the theory above: it is a system. Instead of choosing the right people, you choose universal equal people, and have the right rules to shape them into perfect replicas of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Harriet Tubman or Martin Luther King, Jr.
This is why the dirt must be magic. When you get them here, into our system, they are transformed like raw materials in a factory. That universal human set of desires — eat, drink, safety, no oversight — becomes a series of incentives through which these people are manipulated. Then, they see the wisdom of our ways, and become Us, or at least something that carries on Our ideology.
If you are thinking that ideology behaves like a virus here, you are correct. Much like fungi of the genus Ophiocordyceps, the ideology of equality hijacks human brains and turns them into zombies, destroying them to propagate itself. This may be one of the few universal rules of the universe: all ideas seek to replicate themselves. (This also makes a handy theological argument: if the basis of the universe is ideas replicating, all life is a replication of the essential idea of life, which fits the profile of God.)
Systems arise from equality. Without equality, there is no need for systems, because people are known as they are by their acts. When we cannot hold people responsible for their actions because they are equal, we need a nanny state to guide them every step of the way, and because it uses a utilitarian approach, it begins its activity by assuming that all people are equally screwed up and so they have to be treated like retarded children.
But recent evidence suggests that, in reality, social mobility rates are extremely low. Seven to ten generations are required before the descendants of high and low status families achieve average status. Thus in modern Sweden the descendants of the eighteenth-century nobility are still heavily overrepresented — 300 years later — among higher social status groups: doctors, attorneys, the wealthy, members of the Swedish Royal Academies. In the United Kingdom, the descendants of families who sent a son to Oxford or Cambridge around 1800 are still four times as likely to attend these universities as the average person. Social mobility rates have also been relatively impervious to government policy. They are no higher in societies like Sweden, with generous interventions in favor of the children of disadvantaged families, than in the more laissez-faire United States. For that matter, they are no higher in modern Sweden than in eighteenth-century Sweden, or medieval England.
This reverses the magic cult of equality.
Equality requires that we presuppose that human intent is more important than who those humans are, inside, including innate traits like those passed on by genetics, which is — no giant surprise here — nearly all of them, or by a conservative estimate, 80% of all of them. (I point interested readers to The Blank Slate or the works of Arthur Schopenhauer, in which twin studies feature prominently.)
With human intent, we can design systems. We can break out the carrot-and-stick and manipulate people by appealing to their reason. This denies the fact that reason, like everything else, is unequally distributed among every population. If it was evenly distributed, the group would have only two states: unison or complete disorder. Unequal distribution allows the group to move in waves rather than binary states.
When we turn to genetics as the basis for human behavior, we are suddenly looking at a situation where human intent is almost all nonsense, cover stories, justifications, rationalizations and manipulative lies; people do what they do because they are wired to do those things, and if we demand an appeal to their reason, they just do what they were going to do anyway and then make up ad hoc excuses for why it was important, contributing the mental equivalent of spam to the discussion.
However, this is an antisocial truth. To be social, people must trust one another through the symbols they use to communicate. The biology-first anti-equality view of life says that not only is that not necessarily true, but that relying on it encourages lying and deception. Oops.
This brings us back to “racism,” which is a Left-word for people wanting to associate with those like themselves.
Like other natural instincts, which are acted upon but cannot be articulated, our desire to associate with those like ourselves is a force multiplier. Having a group that does not require an expensive committee of oversight, otherwise known as government/police, achieves a great efficiency: all the effort that would have previously been spent disciplining (white) human monkeys can now be devoted to other things, like art, learning, architecture, etc.
Originally our societies had almost no government. There were committees of old men to judge matters brought before them at the local level, and kings who were more war and religious leaders than those who “preside” or attempt to shape society toward ideological goals, and then helpful people like local pastors and philosophers who could make sense of complex things and give advice to both individuals and the aforementioned leaders and judges.
In order to uphold equality, we need government, police, psychologists, lawyers, bureaucrats and others who essentially take wealth from the group and use it for their own purposes. Society goes further into breakdown.
Of course, here we hit an iron line: equality is social, and anti-equality biology-first thinking (one facet of realism) is antisocial for the reasons mentioned above. People want to think they can control the world through symbols, image/appearance and manipulation. In reality, that only works in the short term.
This is another reason why the alt right endorses racism: it is imperative that we shatter the illusion that only that which is social is good. Thus, we embrace “social evil” — or that which is antisocial but true — so that we may fight actual evil, or that which in reality has bad consequences but in the human mind seems appealing.
In this view, every human effort fails not because it makes uniquely wrong choices, but because it makes the same wrong choice, which is to be social. When it becomes social, it gets sold out, and then whatever it had that was unique is destroyed and replaced by the same illusions that fail every other time.
For this reason, establishment conservatives and global Leftist elites are doing our work for us. They are calling us evil, in social terms, and by doing so, are signaling that we are right in reality because we have denied social taboo with nothing personal to gain from doing so.
Your daughters love this kind of masculine, violent and realistic approach because it makes them know they are safe, instead of temporarily feeling safe when swayed by the words of hipster manchildren or feminist studies professors. It creates a knowing deep within them. The alt right are the 2010s equivalent of leather jacketed bad boys on motorcycles except that this time, it is not hype. They are here to destroy illusions, and that is why they are feared.
For your reading pleasure, an alternate vision of recent history:
Societies are primarily biological, consisting of human ecosystems. This becomes complicated when societies implement anything other than a naturalistic — markets, ethnically-contiguous populations, apprenticeships, social classes, culture, religion, aristocrats — type of social order; these alternative orders are called “Systems.”
Where natural order aims at a goal in itself, mainly the success of civilization, Systems aim at a goal of themselves. This means that the System, not reality itself, determines who succeeds, and therefore who thrives. Choosing the wrong System can re-make society in the image of that System not just politically, but genetically.
During the post-Civil War years, the American states adopted a System based on Federalism, or the idea that a central government would control its population in the name of their best interests. Those who did not go along with this change found themselves cut out of power and wealth.
After World War I, the power of the System accelerated not just through government, but through an economy which had become increasingly inter-dependent. Those who opted for traditional methods of earning a living found themselves cut out of many prospects as well.
The watershed however was the Second World War. Where the first war had seemed like a quest for stability in Europe, the second round was clearly about democracy versus any other option. Even more, it showed Leftist powers in the West and Russia aligning themselves against non-Leftist powers.
After that war, the real selection occurred. People who were not good with Leftism found themselves being excluded from positions of official power in the 1950s. The result was a conservative backlash, and while it produced some successes, it could not protect the average person from exclusion from opportunity because of having the wrong politics.
The Right adapted by creating the neoconservative wing which made “socially acceptable” versions of conservative ideas, but these then neutered the Right to also be aligned against such ideologically-incorrect notions. This in turn legitimized the strategy of filtering out people who had the wrong opinions.
This led in turn to the immigration law changes of 1965, with (apparently) the consent of both parties, and except for a few flare-ups here and there, the train to Leftism has moved smoothly. The way to success is through socially popular opinions, and in the postwar West, those are exclusively Leftist, even when “conservative.”
What this means is that for nearly the past two centuries, our society has been filtering out those who do not agree with the direction upon which it embarked and which it decided was correct. This filtering means that those who do not get with the Party line and start repeating it find themselves impoverished and driven out of the cities.
It seems odd that no one questioned this rather Soviet mechanism, but it was borne of ideological warfare. The Civil War was a clash of civilizations — the Anglo-Saxon South versus the mixed-European North — disguised as an ideological disagreement. The world wars followed this pattern as well, and when people see an idea as the only path to victory, they tend to adopt it stubbornly.
At this point, the tide is turning because the ideas on which we relied for safety and success are delivering neither. The back is broken on the ideologically correct media train, our politicians and economies have failed, and people want out of a System which filters out people who do not follow the Leftist zombie-robot dogma.
If the System is abolished or otherwise reversed, the index of selection will change again to reward those who are good at achieving results, unlike the talking heads of the Barack Obama and Angela Merkel nature who are good at affirming the narrative that makes the bourgeois mind comfortable. At that point, evolution will begin to work in our favor again, instead of by removing the sane so the insane are conveniently mentally comfortable.
In everyday life, as I go through the world from post office to grocery store and work, I frequently experience moments of frisson when I feel I have peeked a secret of the universe. Often this comes when I step back from my everyday perspective of trying to work with what is available, and I realize that the people I encounter are behaving like jerks.
They are selfish, pushy, deliberately oblivious to the consequences of their actions, petty and thoughtless. It doesn’t matter if they are liberal or conservative; everyone seems to be acting up and being hateful. Like so many actions exhibited by the masses, this is a result of realizations that they can neither allow themselves to be aware of nor comprehend. No one can let themselves see the truth that stares them in the face every day: there’s nothing to look forward to.
We occupy a society that isn’t just dying, it’s already dead. We are living in a corpse world that is filled with jobs that have no point, which result in income we never see that goes to complete strangers that have nothing to do with us, so that we can live in neighborhoods that are full of people that we would normally never associate with. We come home to spouses and children who are alien to us because we are caught in a self-perpetuating cycle that kills our drive to change and our will to live.
With the impending election, the futility of our lives becomes even clearer with one salient point inescapable: It doesn’t matter who wins. The underlying issues destroying our society will never be dealt with under our current democratic system. Voting is pointless. The only possible utility voting possesses is the potential to vote for the worst possible candidate in order to hasten the demise of this broken society. There is nothing to preserve, conserve or improve. The only way forward is to destroy the corpse so something better can take its place.
As the world chortles along, seemingly unchanging, the futility and frustration of our current situation chokes the life from the sane. Those who benefit from the current regime are making more noise than ever in an attempt to keep the life-giving (read: tax-paying) native population guilted into continuing acquiescence lest we be seen as “bad” people. Most of them go along with it for the same reason we all do, which like my day-to-day struggles consists of trying to work with what is out there and make the best of what is.
Our greatest fear is not that it will all end in fire and horror, but that nothing will ever change, and that we will continue our slow descent into third world conditions, kill off all that remains of Western culture and genetics, slowly becoming a perpetual Mexico or Brazil. For those who can see clearly, it’s apparent we’re already basically there.
The protests at Trump rallies reveal the tension between keeping things the way they are to the benefit of the parasite, and the knowledge that the West not only doesn’t want the Other in its midst, but that we’d be better off without them. Our current society was taken over by a parasite that reprogrammed our brains to think that democracy, pluralism, diversity, tolerance of moral deviance and compassion for the stupid are positive values. Instead, they are death, and as long as we try to make them work, we will be like the living dead, walking zombie-like among the ruins and trying to pretend we don’t notice.
If we do not triumph in the war against our own tendency toward self-annihilation, we will never have anything to look forward to. We simply cease to exist, dead inside of ourselves, but go through the motions like the zombies we have become. Already the burden of denial has become nearly impossible. It will never get better until we escape this system and find something worth living for instead.
The interesting thing about civilization decay is that societies die by succeeding. Like the city neurotic who quests for the perfect career, apartment, arugula and futon, those societies which do everything that they are supposed to promptly self-destruct.
The reason for this is the Achilles heel of humanity, which is that what we want is rarely what we need, but we are afraid in social situations to change our desires lest we be seen as inferior. Social competition means that people are always trying to prove superiority to others.
Essentially, this situation is no different than a troupe of monkeys. A few have fought to the top, and the rest try to sabotage those in order to feel important and receive esteem from their friends. Very few do much other than feed themselves, and so the ones on top are often there because they do stuff like notice predators in advance of a fatality. To an outsider, monkey civilization resembles a great beast fighting with itself.
The problem with such a system is that most people in it will be zombies. That is, they rely on external measurements like what other people do or what you are supposed to do as a means of figuring out what to do, and since they trust in that they never question it until it fails. Sadly for them, certain ideas will seem to succeed for a long time until suddenly they fail catastrophically. Many people drank toxic water for years, experiencing no symptoms until the toxins built up enough in their tissues to kill them without warning. The same is true of unstable architecture: it works just fine, until it falls down in a handful of seconds. A plane can have a crack in its fuselage or wing for years until it finally is put under stress and an explosion results. The worst threats in life are traps like these.
Zombies surround us. They repeat the dogma that their television says is right, and use it as an excuse to beat down people smarter than them. They do exactly what everyone else does, even if it is abundantly clear that it is stupid, and they will break and panic with the herd if anything goes wrong. It is not so much that they are stupid, although most of them are not very bright, but that they are inattentive and morally not alert. Like zombies, they stagger onward seeking sustenance that never will make them full, and so they are constantly on the march, pathologically so. This makes them both terrifying and tedious.
They city Michael Emerson’s conclusion in Divided by Faith that, far from being a solution to racial segregation, the American creed of individualism is part of the problem. They summarize the “fundamental creed of the United States of America” as the belief that “individuals are endowed with rights and freedoms and that there should be liberty and justice for all,” and add: “At least in its current interpretation, it simply declares that within limits, people should be free to do as they wish and not restrict other people from doing the same. Divided by Faith showed the ways and reasons that this creed has led to numerous religious affiliations in the United States, resulting in about 90 percent of worshipers attending racially homogeneous congregations. When religious people make choices based on their individual rights, they largely end up in homogeneous congregations” (4).
First a criticism, and then, with Niebuhr lurking in the background, two observations. The criticism: The authors make use of a questionable understanding of “race,” one with a specifically American origin (for background, see C. Loring Brace, “Race” Is A Four-Letter Word, valuable and detailed though not convincing in some of its central claims). If a congregation includes people of German, Polish, Irish, and English origin, it is an “inter-racial” church by some definitions. It certainly is inter-racial by comparison to 19th-century churches. Their book would have been strengthened if they had probed the meaning of the central concept of “race.”
Second, individualism is the cause of wanting to obliterate ethnic boundaries. Ethnic groups arose, by nature or God or both, for a reason. But this seems to be a boundary or limit on the individual and he wants to “break free,” so he smashes his way out by declaring race invalid and race-mixing to be a positive value, not a sign of failure as all sane people consider it.
Third, someone might want to point out the difference between ethnicity — German, Polish, Irish, and English — and race, with the knowledge that multiple groupings exist within a race. For example, Germans and English are enclosed in the Western European group, which is what we traditionally think of as “white.” Polish people are often hybridized with Asiatics, and Irish are hybrids with North Africans. Race is more complex than a single level of division, but all levels are important.
Finally, if the author of this article were honest, he would admit that the reason churches are mono-ethnic for the most part is that “birds of a feather flock together.” People like being with people like them who understand the world the way they do and share their values. There is no crime in that. Only leftist ideologues complain about such a thing, and this makes us wonder why a church would advocate leftism in any form. Not only because leftism destroys the things that serve as the basis for religion, such as transcendental logic and reverence, but also because leftism is destructive and forms a substitute for God.
Churches have followed the zombie train for many years. They see some people getting popular for being left-leaning, so in order to succeed, they do the “right thing” and turn left as well. Each year more people leave and the churches must scrape for parishioners they would have rejected in healthier times, and somehow put on smiles for the cameras as they announce their new, improved liberal ideas and also, ah that little thing, the increasingly falling rates of attendance. Liberalism is a dead end for churches. But they have begun the zombie ritual, and they just cannot stop themselves.
Movies like this clarify the “golden age” of movies: things were simpler, audiences less demanding and, thanks to common cultural guideposts, it was easy to write a script that fulfilled audience expectations without having to be unduly saccharine. At the same time, movies like Invisible Invaders feature boxy plots, vague mechanics and sometimes, gaping plot holes. For a low-budget sci-fi flick however it seems entertaining enough.
The reason this review pops up here on Amerika involves the setting of this movie. Earth is under attack by invisible invaders who wander around and re-animate the recently dead, using those as avatars through which they attack humanity. This trope appears in other films, as recently as Surrogates (2009) which explores how modern humans live through their avatars, but here it takes on a paranoid dimension. The invaders want earth to surrender so it can be ruled by a galactic dictatorship. Humans resist, but must overcome their own weakness in order to discover a scientific solution to the threat.
That combination of tropes — zombies plus unseen overlords — ranks this film high on the paranoid scale, and also suggests a primitive metaphorical consciousness. Crowdism seems to animate the bodies of the recently dead, or at least hopeless, and turn them into unstoppable weapons of human destruction. The rest of humanity fails at opposing it because it simply wants to give in, hand over some of its money in exchange for peace, and get back to television, beer, donuts and shopping. As in this simple little film, the answer is found in banishing doubt and tackling the problem head-on.
Perhaps this film was more influential than realized, and lived on in Star Wars or another movie using modern editing and detailed plot structure. Maybe it was forgotten except by hipsters who tromp in groups down to basements to watch this between PBR burps. Yet for someone at the height of the early Cold War, with a Communist fifth column at home and shadowy espionage abroad, it may have struck a note. The relentless sociopathy of leftists resembles the zombies in this film, and the invisible enemy — a seductive but illogical notion of equality and the method of prioritizing popularity over truth — wanting to take over the earth resembles the leftist agenda quite closely. Without adding a spoiler, perhaps the method of ultimately solving the problem is metaphorical as well as we struggle in a later time with the same dilemma in new camouflage.
It is almost impossible to screw up a documentary about one of the most iconic movies in history, but this team managed to bungle it by appealing to audience feelings instead of telling the story. For some background, Night of the Living Dead (1968) achieved many movie industry firsts: a low-budget film from Pittsburgh, focused on the yet-untrendy topic of zombies, with an African-American actor, and no particularly positive message.
In theory, Birth of the Living Dead tells the story of the creation of this film, but it runs into trouble when it reaches beyond that. The thirty minutes of this film that consists of interviews with director George Romero and others associated with the film, often as voice-overs on scenes from the movie, tell a very compelling story and are well-done. On top of that the movie-makers heap numerous experts, both black and white, who tell a politically correct version of the story… over and over again, without adding anything substantial. The documentarians are reduced to filming one local cinema expert during his day job as a teacher as he instructs some not very bright kids from Philadelphia in the ways of horror films, and then allows them to be interviewed for lengthy answers consisting of reuse of the same nine words in different orders. Most sensible viewers will shut off their brains halfway through this documentary because of this fluff content, but owing to its political safety (and the risk of being seen as disliking it), will just keep churning through despite the bulk of the documentary being less interesting than a washing machine commercial.
One interesting aspect came from the discussion with Romero about the thesis of this documentary, which is that Night of the Living Dead reflected the political and social upheaval of the late 1960s. Romero chose his words carefully, and then apparently never spoke of it again, forcing the documentarians to incorporate the following text:
I think mostly that the 60s didn’t work.
We thought we had changed the world or were part of some sort of a reform that was going to make things better.
And all of a sudden it wasn’t any better. It wasn’t any different.
In liberal SJW hipster land, it is still rebellious to talk about how you do not notice race, despite plenty of evidence that this is a social conceit and nothing more, and that people of all races prefer honest noticing. In the land of brain-dead Baby Boomers, saying the same thing over and over again is acceptable if you have the right thing to say, and the audience is expected to pay attention to you because it is the right thing to do. But the point these people have missed is what Romero was subtly attempting to tell them: our world has been taken over by zombies, who have given their brains to whatever socially-acceptable trend is in power, and they are coming to destroy the brains of those who are not infected. In particular, zombies resemble the revolutionaries and leftists of the world who claim their ideas are “liberated” and “enlightened” but then swarm and destroy anyone who does not surrender to agreement. In this way, whether he knew it or not, Romero rose above his time and revealed the actual essence of the 1960s which was mass conformity in the name of non-conformity and destruction of social order as a means of avoiding confronting the real problems of society and the unpopular (and thus invisible) solutions to them.
Night of the Living Dead remains a cinematic classic; the documentary about it from 45 years later will be remembered for a few great lines from George Romero, some interesting trivia about the film, and then lots of bathroom and smoke breaks while the politically correct propaganda wound down. Otherwise, this documentary is a waste. Most of the screen time consists of entirely irrelevant material, and the interviews that were conducted were either sparse or erratic and produced a lack of really good material beyond the obvious stuff that supports the thesis of the documentarians. While the internet raved over this film and rated it highly, the reality is that the documentarians and the fans of this documentary are the zombies and Romero rather wisely did not let them far into his confidence, making for a boring and relatively uninformative documentary.
In the USA, we have three silos of political reasoning: Liberal, Conservative and conservative. Note the lowercase “c.”
The main party of lowercase-conservatives is the GOP, which many refer to as being part of “Conservatism, Inc.” or those who profit from offering conservative opinions, stirring conservative rage, selling conservative products, and then losing elections or otherwise fumbling it so that the politics of outrage can continue. They are a parasitic thing, industries, and making conservatism into an industry was no exception.
What defines the lowercase-conservatives is that they have accepted liberalism as bedrock. They are inclined toward compromise and working within the system. You will recognize them by statements such as this:
The idiots are running amok in Washington again, so we’ve got to double-down on the fundamentals and hold that line. We need a strong economy and strong defense. Free market capitalism and American military power will save the day. We need to be inclusive and reach out to the common man, the minorities, women and homosexuals. It’s a different world than the one my grandfather grew up in, but like any good business, we need to adapt and move forward. The liberals get these people in to vote, so we can do the same. Just give them what they want. If we can compromise with the liberals on the big issues, we can hold that line on the economy and military. We can all get along.
If you think you recognize a zombie in those words, you are right: this is someone beginning the zombie ritual. The zombie ritual is the modern march to the end that is best exemplified by World War I: “This sounds insane, but everyone else is doing it, so I guess I’ll follow along in the assumption that someone somewhere thought about this and not just their own prestige, power and wealth.”
Several types of zombies populate the American countryside. The most dangerous are the infectious ones who actively patrol around looking for brains to eat. These are generally of the type that want nothing to come before their egos, so they invent a crowd-based philosophy which boils down to everyone doing whatever they want, and enforcing this “right” via group retribution. When they bite into your brain, you see a glimpse of heaven you will keep chasing for the rest of your undead life. But really, you’ll just be stumbling about looking for some brains to replace the ones you lost. Nasty business, those.
Then there’s the helper zombies. These are like enablers in quit-drinking programs. They help hold others down for the bite, and feast on the leavings. These are the ones you see standing in the shadows of the doorways of places they used to know, vacant-eyed and drooling, often holding the half-eaten forearm of a loved one. Conservatism, Inc. fits into this group. They can’t stop the infection, so they’ve “learned to live with it,” but as a result they have no direction. Thus they keep going through the motions, taking in the money and dishing out the product, with no endgame in sight. They do not believe they can ever escape zombie status, and so they do not act boldly, cleanly and decisively. Their best hope is for coexistence and that the inevitable nightly beatings, gulags, mass executions, etc. are “kinder and gentler” thanks to their bipartisan approach.
The zombie ritual encloses us all. Every day, we walk past its destruction and have to endorse it because it is what we have for a society. We have to shop in the same stores that sell products for zombies, whether big blockbuster films about the bittersweet lust for human flesh, or the more extreme variants that populate convenience stores across the country. We have to use government institutions, and comply with their regulations, even though we know they’re insane and in that intention, totally destructive. Even more, we see zombies among us and we’re not allowed to lock them up and administer medication to cure them of their lust for human flesh.
Conservatism, Inc. went wrong because it settles for compromise. There is no longer any active principle in it; it exists to defend, and to coexist, but never to remove the unseeing eye of the zombie from the land. It doesn’t even strive to actually better life in America. It has rejected everything radical about the conservative tradition, which is actually the only radical tradition there is. Conservatism starts from the principle that a society is the sum total of its people, not the product of institutions. Thus high moral caliber must be maintained on every level. Liberals try to replace this with institutions, rules and equality, but that translates to license to behave badly for most of society and so unleashes social decay so profound it crumbles once-thriving societies into third-world ruins.
Remember when France was the world leader in military and economic power? Remember when Russia was the cultural capital of both Europe and Asia? Something went wrong, and kept going wrong. Remember when Athens was the pride of Greece? The victim-states of zombie attacks never even get a chance to scream. A zombie arrives, and they tolerate him out of good intentions, but then zombies start appearing everywhere. The inspector who licenses your shop is a zombie; the local car mechanic is a zombie; your maid is a zombie, and your local rich man has a daughter who’s a zombie too. Soon to be anti-zombie is to be anti-patriotic and you’ll end up in jail. The ritual begins yet again, with unseeing eyes and the insatiable thirst for blood.
Conservatism, Inc. went wrong when it stopped the conservative tradition of order and moral basis to government. No one can be both moral and a zombie; zombies are allies of Death and Evil, not growth and health. They are a cancer within the civilization in which we are each cells. What held the zombies back was strong culture rooted in the idea of a constant moral duty toward every task we do, and this is the essence of conservatism. Conservatism, Inc. forgot this, and it’s why they hate themselves and drink alone in the dark.
Our new future involves replacing this self-pitying and empty emotion with a resurgence: neither you, nor I, nor anyone else needs to be a zombie. It’s just part of the ritual, following others to our doom, trusting in the system. Conservative renewal begins when we attack this notion and show its empty core to the world.