Furthest Right

Where To, From Here?

We find ourselves at a crossroads yet again because for centuries we — Western Civilization — have left some fundamental issues unresolved. Those who are not in denial want to reclaim our civilization and fix it so that we can go back to being productive in other ways.

The denialists however are strong because they offer the simplest solution: keep doing what you are doing, ignore the problems, and repeat the dogma so that you blot from your mind the recognition that you live in a horrible, idiotic dystopia.

Realists find themselves in a quandary. The only party that supposedly speaks for us, conservatives, have been captured by the dominant paradigm of equality. Most conservatives think that they should be defending equality.

The problem of equality is that it is not real. It is symbolic and conjectural, therefore like a messianic religion. It requires people to adopt it and treats outsiders as enemies. Consequently, it always justifies a strong self-interested government which eradicates dissent.

This means that we have lost control of our society because of our reliance on systems, since bureaucratic systems always operate by the principle of equality, or treating everyone the same for efficiency while punishing those who make things harder for the system by not being identical to everyone else.

Despite this being clear to the fifth of the population on the far right side of the Bell Curve, nothing has happened, from either the mainstream conservatives (Republicans) or underground Right (alt-right, National Socialists, White Nationalists) despite years of trying.

This leads some to ask what went wrong with White Nationalism:

At the peak of the Alt-Right, this threefold division was viewed as follows. The high-church cons were cuckservatives – generally identified by the stench of neocon grease and corporate swill mixed with the cold sweat of cowardice. The low-church cons were in the Alt-Lite, which was mainly a libertarian and civic nationalist movement. And the dissidents were in the Alt-Right, which was (by 2016 at least) an essentially white nationalist movement with some internal disagreements over strategy and relations with the Alt-Lite.

As far as I know (and admittedly, I stopped following most of it some time ago), the Movement’s activists are now divided into conservative-signalling ‘amnats’ and fascist-signalling ‘wignats’. Neither side, it seems, can ever appear reasonable except in comparison with the other. The wignats destroyed the original Alt-Right by adopting the failed strategy of Rockwell, and are now engaged in pointless third-position electioneering. The amnats are tainted by the fraudulence of Trump and QAnon, which must spell certain death for people who think that all things rotten can be polished clean by ‘good optics’.

It’s high time we made a distinction between white racial feeling and white nationalist ideology. The feeling, on its own, is a powerful motive force that naturally impels us towards dissidence. The ideology, as I’ll show, is an framework of democratic delusions that compels us instead to support conservatism. The only thing that conservatism conserves is democracy – and democracy, with all due respect to those who say that its true benign form has never been tried, is both the theoretical basis and the practical mechanism for the state-sponsored displacement of whites.

To expand on what Lawrence writes, it is important to separate a belief in a nationalist state — one ethnic group per nation — from a specific ideology, since you cannot create an ideology around the nationalist state alone.

This allows the nationalist belief to ascend into conservatism, which as non-egalitarian thought, presents the one alternative to democracy, equality, diversity, and socialism. Our mainstream conservatives are probably 40% Communist to fit in with “the times” and compete for the audience, but conservatism at its core rejects all forms of equality except perhaps equal treatment in courtrooms (itself an illusion, since the wealthy will always have better lawyers).

The problem with White Nationalism, as once was widely observed, is that it is a fragment of a political philosophy, not a whole one. What is the White Nationalist view on socialism? Some say socialism for our people, others say that socialism makes our people weak. The White Nationalist view on international politics? Whatever benefits Whites: some say that is world domination, others isolation.

Conservatism serves as a parent philosophy to nationalism. The idea of conservatism — a realism based in history, plus a desire for qualitative excellence within that realism — comports well with the notion of preserving genetics, history, culture, and values.

However, this requires modern people to give up what they have been programmed by propaganda to rely on: ideas like civil rights, individualism, government subsidies, and ideology itself, or one big simple idea that solves all problems.

White Nationalism, if we attempt to understand it as a philosophy, looks a lot like modern Leftism with racial preservation grafted onto it. This resembles the last attempt at a far-Right empire, the Third Reich, and because of the instability of Leftism, will inevitably become as repressive.

This means that we need a new path. Repeating the past is not an option.

Obviously, any sensible approach will involve nationalism, or having one ethnic group per nation and no foreigners present within those borders. However, we need more; we need a design for a civilization, a system which is not a system, a way of life that works for who we are and does not try to make everyone happy at the expense of what is real.

White people need to hear the following simple truths:

  • Gassing the Jews will not solve our problems. Most Leftists and cucks are not Jewish at all, nor are they particularly influenced by Jews. After all, the insane doctrines of democracy and diversity were known to the ancient Greeks through what they saw as ancient history. These are things that universally appeal to humans, and may appeal more to groups which by the nature of their mixed-race heritage are more neurotic and in need of a sense of shared goodwill. If you knew what the Jews have suffered through their quest to become themselves, only to abolish themselves by taking wives from foreign tribes, you would not scorn them, but see them as the future will experience if you do not end diversity and eject the miscegenated. A Jew is nothing more than a White man who took a Chinese wife who may have had a North African grandfather. They are simply the most successful mixed-race group in history because they have sensibly and bravely stayed true to their faith, culture, and genetics, and have done their best to improve their lot through selectively breeding for intelligence and strength of character. Hitler confused two things: the destructiveness of diversity, and the implements of diversity. You cannot destroy diversity by murdering people; all you do, then, is drive the diversity underground. You have to tackle it directly and instead of demonizing a group, point out that any ethnic group but the heritage group is a threat if allowed inside the country, no matter how nice, smart, kind, ethical, gentle, and wise they are. The problem is diversity, not the groups caught up in it.
  • Killing the Negroes will not solve our problem. Every day that we behave like the third world and scapegoat other groups for our problems, the weaker we become. If we cannot look at diversity and see how it is a terrible idea from the simple logic that we need to preserve ourselves and the presence of any other group will obliterate us, we dodge the real mental state to which we must bring ourselves, which is an awareness that nature is not equal, there are no objective truths, and that we must break away to live our own truth which we do not need to justify or explain to anyone else. What works for us is what matters, and that means that everyone else must go away. Tantrums that harm these others however dodge the question, since if we realize that diversity is nonsense, we quickly realize that equality is nonsense too, since equality is the parent idea of diversity, and then that this applies to us too. We are not all kings; most of us are peasants, and should serve. Until we wrap our egos and minds around this distinction, we will simply be committing atrocities against groups that are caught up like us in diversity and deserve our sympathy. Do you think it is fun being part of a group subject to a foreign majority, knowing that you were once slaves, and that at any moment this group may turn on you and eradicate you?

White people need to wrap their heads around this:

  • Stagnation is death. We are either moving forward or we are falling apart. To keep moving forward, we need a forward goal. To have one of those, we need strong leaders, not committee-rule, which inevitably looks more toward fears from the past than opportunities in the future. We are our own worst problem. We are stagnant now, since we have stopped looking forward and instead have devoted ourselves to divvying up the spoils of the past.
  • No one is equal. The concept of equality appeals to us because it implies an absence of conflict and risk. When everyone is equal, no one will rise above the rest, therefore there needs to be no struggle between individuals, we think. This forgets that to eliminate struggle is also to eliminate reaching answers to our problems; we remain mired in pluralism, or “we agree to disagree,” and therefore nothing gets done about the most crucial problems we face. In nature, we have hierarchy, where in both general abilities and niche abilities people have rank; some are recognized as having more intelligence, wisdom, and character that others, so they occupy the top, and in the middle we have people who are almost there, with the vast majority being at the bottom since they have no particular abilities. Within each band, people have niche abilities, such as being warriors and not scholars, artisans and not freehold farmers, or among the peasants, farmers and not house servants. This framework encourages everyone to improve themselves both in having specific abilities and in developing their general intellectual, moral, and spiritual state to the best that it can be, so that the next generation rises even farther.
  • Each group needs to go its own way. Human history shows us that every time a society gets established, most people lapse into complacency and stagnation. We advance because a group breaks away, settles on its own semi-arbitrary standards and behaviors, and then goes off and finds some place where it can work on becoming better. Over time, those standards and behaviors become refined to be highly effective, and the group thrives on its own by doing things differently from everyone else. This led to a globe where each ethnic group had its own culture, religion, mores, customs, calendar, cuisine, and aesthetics. Only with the rise of bureaucracy and universalist ideology, including religions, did we attempt to change this; people blame the Jews for the rise of universalist Christianity, but it was only one of several movements at the time with the same direction. We work best as a species when there is not one standard for everyone, no one-size-fits-all method that we apply to everyone equally, and no illusion of shared direction or global unity. We each go our own way and can collaborate on things of interest to all, like not having a polluted and lifeless planet.
  • Democracy is death. When humans make decisions by consensus, committee, or social pressures, we avoid tackling the real issues and instead pursue symbolic or “vivid” ones like our phantom fears, neuroses, and endless desire for more personal power. In groups, we make decisions based on what seems logical based on the precedent of previous decisions, and we justify our choices in terms of that precedent and the ideology which inspired it. This means that democracies never change course; they keep doing what is popular — demotism: votes, purchases, and social approval — and applying more equality to the situation, but never re-assess and consider other methods, especially when those are called for, because at that point, any change seems like a rebuke to democracy and therefore to equality, which people take personally as if it is calling them inferior. We do better when we admit that some are superior to others for the purpose of making decisions, and we need them making decisions because they can actually change, adapt, and be flexible, where democracy has no flexibility except when it comes to liberalizing standards and practices so that the individual has fewer constraints.
  • Socialism destroys. No society can exist by an economic system alone; however, among economic systems, only those based on reward-after-performance like capitalism can function. In addition, capitalism may not function well after the injection of government-supported systems like usury and market socialism. However, socialism itself destroys every economic system by increasing the cost of each decision, since factored into each choice is the need to support a massive overhead of government and wealth redistribution. Unions and affirmative action do the same thing. Socialism furthers the decay process of society by which people rely on government or social influences for their guidance, instead of looking at each situation as a problem which they must solve by choosing an appropriate method to gain the results that they need. Blaming the rich for our problems is another form of scapegoating, and redistributing wealth through socialism merely takes it from the competent and gives it to the most vicious. If people become rich by contributing things of value to society, it benefits everyone to have competent people spending money, since the rest then receive some share of this as the wealthy spend more on supplies, tools, and salaries.
  • Diversity destroys culture. Even if the diverse groups are nice, friendly, intelligent, clean, non-violent, and moral, incorporating them in your society replaces your culture (standards, aesthetics, customs, values) with an anti-culture which serves as an “envelope” to enclose other cultures, like a committee forcing compromise in the process. This obliterates the role of culture, which is to reward a narrow set of behaviors and to condemn others; instead, your culture becomes pluralism and consequently, liberalization of standards and permissiveness follow. Eventually ethnic conflict breaks out on the local level much as it usually does on the international. This leads to a series of hurt feelings and retaliations, after which point the groups merge, destroying each other in a final irony and leaving behind only mixed-race people, who because they lack the complete genetic makeup of any of the participant groups, lose the unique skills that each group has produced. Any group that succeeds will attract all other groups to it because people seek that which is successful, but in the process, the audience reduces the product to a reflection of themselves, at which point it becomes mediocre and fails.

We — White people — need to get rid of our addiction to democracy, equality, diversity, and socialism. All of these rely on the same idea, which is that all people are equal, or all people should be, and that in a primal state of humanity, we were all equal until some awful rich people came in and stopped that.

This denies the fact that the rich do not need the poor. They have no need to exploit the impoverished, if the rich are already rich; the people who exploit the impoverished are other poor who want to rise above the group. Whether these are shareholders investing in a large corporation that pays the lowest salaries possible, or the average criminals stealing from homes around them, the “crab bucket” tendency of people to pull each other down in order to rise is caused by the absence of wealthy people instilling order, not by the presence of the wealthy. With the rise of space travel, we are about to see proof of this as the wealthy jet off to other planets, leaving behind those who achieved less, since they do not need these people, and assume that eventually, others will figure out that technology and wealth required to travel the stars.

Everything we see being done to us has occurred because of our fixation on equality. Diversity was selected as a way to prove equality and to force it on the rest of us by obliterating culture, and thus removing any goals to the civilization, since when you have goals a hierarchy naturally arises based on who is able to achieve those goals.

Under democracy, everything is up for sale. Whatever the herd believes is right, and it rewards that with its dollars, votes, and popular culture. Consequently, whoever convincingly tells the crowd that its illusions are real and actual threats are not will win the vote or become rich and popular, and for this reason, only liars get ahead, and only fake issues are discussed. Real threats like civilization collapse and ecocide slide under the radar, but fantasy concerns like worries about inequality and mystical evil obsess the population. In reality, evil never intends to be evil; it occurs through selfishness, incompetence, an inability to resist desires, and a lack of awareness of reality. Evil is human solipsism. Evil almost always occurs through people who think they are doing good, but are incompetent; evil that intends to be evil, and revels in evil, occurs only in comic books and popular religion.

The grim fact of humanity is that no one is in charge. It is a market for influence, power, and popularity out there, and that rewards people who are incompetent enough to believe that this will help them, but competent enough to lie, cheat, steal, deceive, and gaslight their way to success. Many different special interest groups are warring it out through lobbying, media buying, using shills on the internet, scheming, organized crime, and other methods of arrogating power. They know that they must convince a certain group that what is on offer leads to a good result, but hidden in the shadows a revenge against those who are above them, and they can unite the angry monkeys to destroy those they hate and thrust the manipulators into power. Most people suffer mostly from a lack of agency, and because they cannot make decisions or motivate themselves to do anything constructive, spend their days in a state of “woe is me” and looking for others to blame, and therefore, take from. In non-egalitarian societies, these people are suppressed; in egalitarian societies, they suppress those who are naturally more talented than they are.

What rules our world, then? Ideas: democracy, market socialism, individualism, and civil rights. These make up the face of modernity, or the time based on a society after it rejects natural hierarchy for unnatural hive mind, mob rule, collective consensus, and domination by committee (this is the heart of Bureaucracy, which creates democracy and equality in order to justify forcing everyone to fill out triplicate forms so that a central agency can control them). When we reject these ideas, we break free from our self-oppression, and can rediscover reality, in which case we will want a different order. Our goal is not freedom, but competence, and competence begins by saying: democracy is over, diversity is over, socialism is over, equality is over, and we need an order now.

Already we see signs of regime change on the horizon. Democracy is broke, ugly, dysfunctional, ruled by Chinese influences, and its citizens are not breeding at replacement rates. This is the kiss of death for any regime. No amount of importing people to cover up the decay will work; that was always a stop-gap, by which our leaders hoped to maintain the power of the vote and subsidize the entitlements already “owed” to their voters. Worse, our democratic states are so wracked by political infighting that almost no one can make decisions, which has led to a rise of strong leadership — that which is willing to make large decisions on its own authority instead of deferring to legislatures, media, and popularity — across the board, both Left and Right and in Europe and the USA.

We are also seeing a social revolution. People are moving to the countryside and trying to work jobs where they spend a couple hours a day at a desk, and the rest of the time running homestead, or an autonomous and resilient household which has crops, animals, and some kind of real-world production (artisanal, agricultural, technological, weapons, and even writing) which will subsidize the household in case the day job goes away or goes awry. The twentieth century of idea of “trusting in the system” and doing what is popular in order to get voted up, promoted, and befriended has gone away, replaced by a trust in confidence and actual production instead of the shuffling of papers that occurs at most jobs.

Future historians looking at society will see the job as a type of total decay. Instead of having to achieve results, like a small business does, the people working for a corporation or agency merely have to please their bosses, who are in turn trying to please their bosses, and this means appearances matter more than reality. Jobs reject reality in favor of satisfying the process of the office itself. Such historians will also note that jobs in the twenty-first century reflect a desire by angry office slaves to want to equally enslave everyone else, so that no one escapes the mutual misery. Envy, resentment, and fear rule us in our state of “freedom”; we must ask, “freedom — from what?” We are born in debt, must pay absurd sums just to live and have housing, and this requires utter obedience. Feudalism was gentler in comparison; the modern job is not driven by corporations, but by the mutual resentment of each other that makes us insist that everyone suffer equally. Corporations, a favorite target of the Left, are its own creation. When costs rise due to unions, regulations, affirmative action, and taxes, only the big companies can survive because only they can resist the higher costs; for a large company, those costs represent a smaller slice of the profits than they would be in a small company. The small are replaced, the large take over, and monopolies occur because of government, not capitalism. The Leftist State is a corporate State; the right-wing society emphasizes competence and realism, therefore consists of people constantly rising on the basis of their abilities and efforts, and all benefit from having the more competent, sensitive, intelligent, wise, and far-seeing in power.

We can undo modernity with a simple formula: culture + hierarchy + faith + reward. That is, we want culture-rule instead of government rule, so our leadership gets bucked back to an almost exclusively military and police role. We want hierarchy so that we are competent, so egalitarianism gets kicked to the curb. We want faith not just in a religious sense, but in life itself being good, so we need to guide ourselves toward good things instead of away from fears, most of which are illusions and manipulations anyway. We need one ethnic group per nation, so that we may practice our culture, of which religion is a subset. We cannot have “organized religion” which spans the borders of societies; each culture needs its own religion, and even if these cultures start with the same holy book, eventually doctrinal differences will emerge to suit the needs of each culture.

If we had to summarize this time as a statement, it might be “it’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine” (apologies to R.E.M., who probably deserve better). Everything we have now — equality, democracy, market socialism, diversity, bureaucracy, individualism, utilitarianism — is death, and we want it all to collapse. This is not accelerationism; this is natural selection. These things have failed and we need to move on. All of us fear the future, and none of us want to end up under a dictatorship, which leaves us with only one system of leadership that will work, even if we fear it and hate it because it rejects equality so thoroughly that it will make clear just how much of our time, energy, and money we wasted on a moronic but popular illusion.

As Donald Trump continues his audits, he seems to be releasing the information slowly. We might ask why. He figured out pretty clearly on in his first term that he lacked power because his party was not backing him, and his party was not backing him because the people who have power in a democracy, the voters, were not putting any pressure on the party. They kept voting for the same cucks who bleated the usual litany of defeats disguised as victories; they kept racing after symbolic victories like abortion and religion instead of focusing on the basic need to reclaim our society from the insanity of the Left. Trump has weaponized them by making them fanatical in response to the massive outrage of a stolen election, Chinese collaboration with the Left, and corruption by the “Deep State” — an entrenched bureaucracy deriving its money from globalist trade with China, its power from Homeland Security and other intelligence services, and its legitimacy from a popular movement united around 1960s ideas propagated by popular culture and journalism — that clearly hates them and wants to subjugate them with constant panics about a weaponized flu and potential “Russian hacks” that seemingly were actually done by the Chinese or even American intelligence agencies working for the Deep State. This group no longer wants to win an election and criminalize abortion for Jesus and Israel so that big industry and defense can thrive, it wants to take over its country and remove most of those in power. This is the type of shift that we are going to see in the future.

Already cracks appear in the wall, with people speaking out openly against sacred cows like socialism:

Instead of trying to turn citizens into permanent wards of the state, policymakers should focus on solving the root cause of our current labor problems. We should reduce the burdens on finding meaningful work and alleviate poverty by increasing productivity, spurring entrepreneurship and innovation to birth new products and new industries. We should adopt technology that helps us get more done with less work and protect American industries and intellectual property.

And socialized medicine:

Today, third-party payers lay taxes and mandatory premiums on the public totaling 72.5 percent of all health care spending (up from 42.4 percent in 1970). These gatekeepers justify themselves, saying hospitals would gouge patients more. Meanwhile, they drown independent physicians with paperwork, forcing doctors into the hands of those monopolistic hospitals gobbling up the industry. From 2012 to 2016, independent medical practices in America declined by 48.5 percent.

As well as the notion of herd consensus itself:

“Conformity,” Mr. Ridley says, “is the enemy of scientific progress, which depends on disagreement and challenge. Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, as [the physicist Richard] Feynman put it.” Mr. Ridley reserves his bluntest criticism for “science as a profession,” which he says has become “rather off-puttingly arrogant and political, permeated by motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.” Increasing numbers of scientists “seem to fall prey to groupthink, and the process of peer-reviewing and publishing allows dogmatic gate-keeping to get in the way of new ideas and open-minded challenge.”

“I’ve noticed for years,” he says, “that scientists take a somewhat top-down view of the political world, which is odd if you think about how beautifully bottom-up the evolutionary view of the natural world is.”

He asks: “If you think biological complexity can come about through unplanned emergence and not need an intelligent designer, then why would you think human society needs an ‘intelligent government’?”

This means that public opinion has slowly shifted to be against “scientific management,” the twentieth-century concept criticized by writers such as Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, toward the notion of biological archetypes, or letting society follow the process of natural selection and evolution, wherein the competent get rewarded and the incompetent are allowed to fail.

That anti-revolution begins slowly, but picks up speed as popular opinion turns against wealth redistribution and other egalitarian schemes, prefering production, creativity, and autonomy instead:

When polled, more than half of Americans chose economic growth as the higher priority for the country, while a quarter picked income redistribution.

Even though this is seen as a partisan issue, it is interesting to note that more than half of those polled from both sides of the aisle favor economic growth over income redistribution. Only the magnitude of support varies.

Most likely, this means that we are headed toward a hybrid state, where an absolute and hereditary monarchy rules over the bureaucracy, but preserves a cascade of local and state authorities to make decisions independently of federal authority. We have seen this type of tiered hierarchy suggested before:

Maurras opposed republicanism with an audaciously different ideal: monarchy. “Without a King, no national strength and no guarantee for national independence.” This was not a vision of absolute monarchy. (Absolute monarchy was, to a large extent, a republican fiction; the last of the Bourbon monarchs flailed against the powers of the local parliaments.) Instead, Maurras’s theory of the state was federalist. The national government would be the strong executive of a hereditary monarchy. Yet the state’s powers would be limited in kind and reach, not touching upon the rights and liberties of the regions. Unlike in the Republic, the towns, provinces, and corporate bodies would be “completely free.”

As modernity fades, people will seek the simplest changes possible in order to escape it. That means not completely leaving it behind, but mediating it with strong authority in order to get past the gridlock, confusion, corruption, and infighting when people is truly given to “the people,” who vote like idiots and then go promptly to sleep, allowing a Deep State kleptocracy to take over.

Right now, tensions are high out there. People feel doubt, fear, and most of all, existential stress. How can they claim their lives are good when they are enslaved to moronic jobs and ruled by so much chaos? This is about to change. Fear not the reaper, because he’s coming for the stupid stuff humanity has done in the past three centuries, and we have a chance at something better.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn