CHAOS erupts when cops disappear during illegal Antifa/BLM march (Faith Goldy excerpts)
(FIRST MINUTE GIVES YOU THE GIST) Excerpts from Faith Goldy’s Periscope video shot Aug. 12, 2017, in Charlottesville, VA
Charlottesville Demonstrates The Spirit of Mordor
Karl Marx was big on social engineering. It should surprise nobody that American Leftist Mini-mes are attempting to take a page out his windbag Critique of The Gotha Program by replacing the core of America with new obedient Leftists, as Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe describes what he wants to see replace sic semper tyrannis on the proud flag of The Old Dominion.
The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt. For five centuries his ever more destructive weaponry has become far too common. His widespread and better systems of exploiting other humans and nature dominate the globe. The time for replacing white supremacy with new values is now. And just as some whites played a part in ending slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow segregation, and South African apartheid, there is surely a role whites can play in restraining other whites in this era.
The American Left has assumed the mission of eradicating the Western European genetics and culture brought to the United States by settlers who came from Europe and braved a harsh new land to establish a European-style society. Their official organ to effect national policy is the Left. Any White Male who even thinks of thinking about supporting a Democratic Party politician is a race-traitor. Every White politician that runs as a Democrat might as well run as Grima Wormtongue. After everything the Democrats in power in Virginia did to ensure a riot at Charlottesville, we can no longer doubt the hideously obvious evil that American Leftists represent in full.
Yet these detestable members of the Anti-American Hate Group known as the Democrat Party are just the easily identifiable malefactors. Cuckservatives are quickly lining up to condemn anything White People do to defend themselves from what is obviously an othering to be followed by a banishment to be capped off with a serious attempt at White Genocide. (((John Podhertz))), whose nickname at a BLM riot would undoubtedly be “Honkey Pinata,” was there to make sure no unified opposition would be allowed to emerge and remain credible. What a sick and dishonest weasel this man truly is.
I couldn’t live with myself if I supported a president who can’t bring himself to denounce Nazis and white supremacists unqualifiedly and by name.
So just what would forestall the horrible tragedy to humanity of (((John Podhertz))) rolling himself under a moving municipal bus? If Trump were to make the Alt Right wear Auschwitz pyjamas with cute little yellow stars, perhaps then St. John of Butthurt Cuckservatism could at long last put down the overbrimming chalice of Jim Jones’ Finest Bug Juice. I mean the alternative would be more White People. More stuff like this that would flunk most two-bong-hit Patrice Lumumbas out of Oberlin or Evergreen State.
Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Calculus: Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Skyscrapers. The piano. The harpsichord. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that’s nerve gas, and maybe we didn’t really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera at great length.
The miserable, gibbering pseudo-primates of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, SJWLU, $PLC et al., proudly proclaim they own the streets. George Soros, Governor McAuliffe and numerous others have paid a young fortune to give them this miserable stretch of pavement. As soon as Black Lives Matter owns your streets, the property values go the way of Birmingham, Baltimore or Detroit. There is no greater force towards devolution or barbarism than the current Leftist attempt to destroy White Culture.
Speaking of Evil White Albanoids that write confusing words and stuff, Robert Heinlein gives us a foretaste of what we can expect should The American Left succeed in their ethnic cleansing as well as the ANC has in Pretoria:
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded—here and there, now and then—are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck’.
That tiny minority in Amerika is almost exclusively White. Banish that remnant that escapes cranial-rectal inversion and you live in Brazil. The root of civilization is the unity of an ethnic population and its abilities. When you remove that population, you kill the goose that laid golden eggs, and all that is left is for the Left to divide up the spoils and hop on private planes to Switzerland.
In closing, I believe primarily in choice, not “Bad Luck.” One man with courage is the true majority. In life and in Newtonian Physics (damn honkey mofos again) accidents do not just happen. It acquires momentum from a righteous kick in the ass. Get off your sofa and visit your local gun range. Connect with the brothers who can stand in your Viking Circle and legitimately guard your back. Do not look for trouble or initiate violence against Antifa. In the New Amerika, it will notice your lack of melanin and find you. Let it find you ready. Your family depends on you to make that fight completely unfair.
Predictions Proven Right About the Alt Right
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.
Of all of humanity, very few act as decision-makers because few have wisdom. Like everything else in this universe, wisdom occurs in degrees. Some have only enough wisdom to master method, and this makes them oblivious to goal, where others contemplate goal and the reasons for choosing one goal over another, and this takes them to a fuller wisdom.
There are two types of wisdom, but there are also other non-wise types.
- Negative/dark wisdom primarily deals with self service and advancing one’s own power, wealth, and prestige with no regard to the harm caused to others and/or actively harming others in pursuit of ones own desires and goals. Many high level politicians, and other “social climbers,” suffer from this.
- Positive wisdom also looks to most competently achieve ones goals, but with the caveat that others should not be harmed in that process and helping them may even be a necessary step towards spiritual advancement/contentment.
- Then you have repeaters who posses no wisdom. They are called repeaters because without any wisdom they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. They just can’t learn, or learn extremely slowly and inefficiently. Joe Six-pack who only thinks about immediate and small-minded concerns and trivialities like the latest sportsball match is likely a repeater.
- Then you also have a group who are interested in more high-minded concerns, especially with great empathy, but generally lack the wisdom to manifest their desires in realistic ways. Useful idiot leftists often fall in this category. They see that the world is not perfect, and could potentially be better, but their lack of wisdom grounded in reality continually and consistently foils all of their efforts at meaningful positive change.
The greatest difficulty in the positive wisdom path is likely accepting realities that aren’t nice, and probably can’t be changed (ethnic and sex differences leading to disparate outcomes in life, for example). The best that could ever be hoped for is mitigation. Those on the positive path do avoid harming others whenever possible, but are wise enough to know not all things are fixable.
Someone pursuing the left-hand path, or dark wisdom, is forced to block their understanding of others in order to proceed along that path. They must specifically and consciously block their ability to feel empathy towards the suffering of others. For if they did not, how could they live with the great evil and suffering they intentionally unleash into the world? However, the knowledge of others’ states is as much an aspect of reality as any physical form or biological determination and blocking that knowledge from your understanding creates a large blind spot. Dark wisdom is thus by necessity incomplete. The darkly wise also risk another possible, but not guaranteed, shortcoming: an inability or unwillingness to see and accept personal deficiencies or failures. Acknowledging personal issues does not seem to them to serve their interest in elevating themselves to the status of godhood.
The person with positive wisdom seeks out what is real, and having found that, sees patterns in that reality and deduces from them a gentleness to life, a desire to always produce the best of everything, and to make golden states of supreme beauty and excellence wherever it can. In this full understanding of natural order, they see that the universe has tendencies toward goodness, and thus, that goodness is a supreme form of wisdom.
The person adopting dark wisdom does not make it so far in their studies as to reach this transcendental point. When we describe something as transcendental, we are referring to the tendency to understand the patterns of nature and their wisdom, making them easier to accept and, as they are more sensible than our own brain-mutterings, easy to adopt and to allow them to shape us toward the good. Because the darkly wise do not seek this state, they have wisdom only as a method, and the goal they find in themselves.
Virtue is thus the root and final stage of wisdom. Like many things in life, the first 95% is learned relatively quickly, but the last five percent instead of being linear takes on the form of something like another dimension, where each incremental step requires greater prowess and there is more to learn, only at the level of coordinating many details at once instead of taking big, adventurous steps.
Perhaps the darkly wise miss a quarter of what is there in reality, and do not know they miss it, because to discover it, they would have to seek virtue, and that would require overcoming their treatment of wisdom as a means-to-an-end, and for them to see it as an end in itself, which by converse makes the human individual into a means to the end of wisdom. In that moment of self-sacrifice, the individual sees virtue as a higher value than themselves, and escape the confines of the ego.
Some, such as Nietzsche, argue that competence alone will make people effective and through that, they will create virtuous change. Perhaps he is right; to a point he is correct, in that competence is needed for wisdom, and those who reach competence will look for new mountains to climb and new objectives to strive for. However, not all of them do, and so it seems that Blake is correct in that “Some are Born to sweet delight / Some are Born to Endless Night.”
The darkly wise become the most competent people they know, but their focus is still on comparing themselves to others. They never come to the stage of seeing value in life outside the veil upon which the movie of everyday life, with its relative measurements of people and money, is projected. And so they foreclose to themselves the final steps that, had they virtue in their hearts, they would have undertaken, and then understood that virtue and its value, and thus pursued it.
I have had this article on the back-burner for some time, but the recent furor at google about gender disparities has forced me to dredge it back up and actually get it completed. It is, I would argue, extremely relevant while also advocating a somewhat novel approach to the insufferable faith and religiosity of leftist progressivism. For background, you can see the original memo written by a google employee tired of diversity commissars here. I recommend this non-cucked, for once, national review article which highlights the religiosity of the progressives so incensed by differing opinions. Michael Dougherty does a good job presenting several evidence-immune leftists in all their faithfully irrational glory. I also recommend this post at slate star codex which goes over evidence that gender disparities may be largely explained by differences in work preferences. This exists and it definitely can explain some differences when you restrict occupations to those with middling intellectual demands. However, I think this explanation is limited when there is also substantial evidence about intellectual differences directly and when you consider the occupational roles with the most stringent intellectual requirements. Anyway, that difference isn’t important for this article so I am going to drop it here and simply refer you to “Smart and Sexy” if you want to know more.
Scott Alexander and I, in that book, have both taken the approach that the best way to persuade people that they have gotten things wrong is to present the contrary evidence. For many praisable souls, this is exactly what they need and it works. For many others, it isn’t enough, and with them I think we need a new approach. “If at first you don’t succeed, try again several hundred thousand times before deciding to maybe try something new” is a good summary of how many on the side of realistic understanding have actually acted towards irrational leftism in the past, myself included. I’m not saying that the resulting work wasn’t good or worthwhile, I am just saying that perhaps something radically different needs to be done for those who this will never reach no matter what. In other words, keep an open mind with an emphasis on “ends justify the means” if you find yourself feeling incredulous later on down the page.
If the cathedral and progressivism really IS mostly a problem of misapprehended religiosity, like we advocate in neoreaction, then whatever the workable solution for progressivism ends up being must by necessity require some form of corrected or proper spirituality as the only effective countermeasure. You don’t want to remove the parasite just to leave a void that lets something even nastier in. In my opinion, this can be done without necessarily resorting to any extant religious framework, but rather with a more generalized approach to personal (spiritual) advancement. Anyway, I started this stab at addressing this problem some months ago and this event seems like the optimum opportunity to finally get it out there. Enjoy.
I originally started writing this article because I wanted to take the time to explain something I talked about in my red ice interview about“Smart and SeXy” which was only tangentially related to the hard evidence presented in the book. Some of the statements in the interview and in this article are an indirect follow-up to my previous post on stripping charity of virtue, and also vaguely prompted by a (no longer) recent article on kindness being domain restricted. In other words, kindness is an act one person does for another who is actually right in front of and likely known to the kindness giver. I said something very similar in my post on charity. According to our particular definitions, kindness and charity seem almost like imperfect synonyms, though of course they aren’t due to some subtle differences. However, I think the overlap here is obvious. As mentioned in the kindness article, the word “kindness” has an advantage against leftist word manipulation in that it starts from an implied position of particular close inter-personal interaction. How do you express kindness to a person half-way around the world? In addition, unlike charity, kindness is possible without material exchange. Pleasantness and acceptance is sufficient for kindness. Charity, on the other hand, implies some form of material exchange which allows for the distortion from reality that it could or should be done impersonally. I was therefore required to explain why this distortion is on very shaky ground.
Charity, in its true good form, happens when one individual takes pity on and helps another who they can see, hear, touch, and (if unfortunate) smell. A real person right in front of their eyes that they directly interact with.
The main relation between the current topic and the previous ones is that all three could be classified as a discussion of metaphysics and/or spiritual virtuousness. I don’t talk about this often, and even when I do, I don’t feel much need to appeal to any sort of non-natural workings. Even though the kindness article is explicitly stated to be coming from a Christian perspective, I think much of it is merely self-evident in discussing a proper way in interacting with your local human beings in a proper and civilized way. In other words, in a way that is pro-civilizational. With proper discernment charity can indeed advance civilization.
Quoting myself once more:
At the heart of the matter is the question of what is the True good and the True evil. Why do I use the adjective “true” in the previous sentence? I have come to believe that there is present in our society a deep confusion about what is good and what is evil. Things that are evil are very often dressed up as good. Pigs with oceans of lipstick. While good things are maligned as horrible evils.
In other words, positive and negative polarities exist on an axis which is most often extremely poorly perceived. The common or worldly axis of “good” and “evil” does not match the true axis very well, yet it is not fully disassociated with the original either. The deception must be plausible. The most common type of distortion is to take an act or belief which is ostensibly of the true good, then warp it in such a way as it loses its virtue from the perspective of spiritual evolution.
In the case of charity, it is warped from a personal interaction subject to proper discernment to socialistic impersonal interactions mandated and orchestrated by a government bureaucracy without any possibility of proper discernment. Since these two social processes seem so superficially similar, the unwise can confuse the true good with the worldly good (evil). I have not made an exhaustive review of all possible issues amenable to this form of analysis and understanding, but my suspicion is that a very large number of social justice and other leftist issues could be viewed in the same light. The pattern being a distortion from the true good to create worldly good which is actually evil.
The question is, then, why are so many people susceptible to this sort of confusion? Clearly they have a desire to do the right thing, but seem not to possess the knowledge, wisdom, and/or intelligence to suss out the subtleties of what is actually good, which by necessity must be based on deep understanding of truth, or how to actually bring that understanding of good into reality in a pragmatic way. I don’t think the problem is strictly a matter of intelligence, at least not in all cases. Some people aren’t smart enough to grasp it regardless, but we can set them aside as a separate class for the purposes of this article. There are plenty of genuinely intelligent people [i.e. google employees] who adhere religiously to the most obviously counter-factual beliefs, such as absolute physical and mental parity between the sexes. For these people, intelligence isn’t the problem. Knowledge might be a problem, but not one that they couldn’t resolve if they decided proper understanding of the truth was their goal. There is plenty of information available for study.
So why is this widely available information either ignored or rejected immediately by intelligent people without any real consideration and on an emotional basis? In a word, it has to do with acceptance* and acceptance is only tangentially an intellectual trait. Acceptance can seem like a deceptively easy thing to do. In some cases it is, but in many cases it is not. Furthermore, the difficulty of accepting some particular truth can vary substantially between different people and groups of people. For example, it is objectively not a nice thing that IQ differs by race. As a group, blacks aren’t as smart as whites. There aren’t as many super-intelligent women (i.e., at the far right of the bell curve) as men either. As a white male, it is easy for me to accept these truths because it does not reflect negatively on my identity. Accepting a negative, or perceived negative, aspect of another group (the other) is inherently easier than accepting something negative about oneself or one’s group. If you are a black guy, or a woman, these same truths are substantially more difficult to accept. These people don’t want to accept a statement like “you know, maybe I have limitations.” Who does? Accepting things that sound bad or are bad about the self aren’t easy for anyone.
*Acceptance as in acknowledging truth as true, not whatever latest way leftists may have tried to misdefine this word.
More immediately than the examples above, everyone has their own personal foibles that they don’t necessarily want to face. This is what is happening to these leftists. They are coming up against realities and truths which objectively aren’t particularly nice, and they can’t manage to cultivate a state of mind that is able to accept potentially negative qualities of themselves or others in their in-group. They don’t have the mental fortitude for that level of self-acceptance of limitations; group or individual. Instead of acceptance they just go crazy and get angry then lash out. They are lashing out at other people, but what is really happening and is important is that they are rejecting truth. They do not want this truth and use anger as a method to hopefully, but futilely, try to make unfortunate realities not exist. In a very great number of cases, though not all, anger could be defined as a rejection of truth. Or at least it can be stated that the proximal cause of anger is the rejection of truth; especially truths about the self.
Given this diseased state of mind, what does the average leftist try to do? Generally, they try to promote their own degeneracy and disease of mind as if it were normal. As if it was good and true. They are not accepting their own problems, and instead of accepting them and then working to resolve them or make them better, they become angry that other people accurately understand their problems to be dysfunctional. They desire to force people to accept things that should not actually be accepted. At least, things that shouldn’t be accepted as good even if they can be accepted as undesirable but perhaps unfortunately unavoidable. On top of that, they then go on to try to spread their dysfunction such that it actually exists within everyone in society rather than just in small sub-populations. For them, mere tolerance of dysfunction is not good enough. This is why they are so angry: They are directing their own self hatred out at others in an effort not to address their own shortcomings. They want to be drowned in a sea of dysfunction so vast that their own issues seem minor by comparison.
However, leftists and other degenerates do not see their actions or desires in the negative light they deserve. Rather, they delude themselves into seeing the success of their activism as a way to create greater harmony in society. After all, if everyone just accepted everything by ignoring the wisdom that some behaviors and beliefs are indeed dysfunctional, then everyone can be an appreciated contributor to society. Everyone would be wanted and could fit in everywhere and with everyone; even degenerate leftist activists. Well no, this would never be the end result of uncritical acceptance of dysfunction. Uncritical acceptance of dysfunction could only result in massive amounts of dysfunction everywhere and hell on earth. Thus you can see how in this case leftists once again fit into the pattern I explained in the charity article. You take something that could or would be good, like everyone getting along or charity, then use that to deceive gullible and/or vulnerable people that it is moral and just to force others to adhere to certain beliefs or actions in order to bring about that good. In the process, you shift from the axis of true good and respect for free will to that of worldly good and extensive control. This is very similar to what distorts charity from something good to something evil:
Many people have made quite correct arguments on why wealth transfers (I.E., Forced “charity”) don’t work from the pragmatic standpoint that it just isn’t affordable and provides bad incentives, which is true. However, very few have explained why the process is in fact spiritually evil as well. For one thing it is hard to do. How can any decent person believably explain why it is spiritually right and just to let anyone, anywhere starve to death? Well, the main reason is because help is not being offered willingly. An important ingredient to make an act spiritually polarizing is that it must be done voluntarily, of the person’s free will, and with sincere intent. You can not force a person to be true good, they must choose to be that for themselves. Defying the principle of free will is the main way, as far as I can tell, that is used to distort from the axis of true good to that of the axis of worldly “good,” which is actually evil.
Let’s also make a comparison between leftists and those on the right. I would say most of us on the right can see a transsexual and recognize that there is a problem, but don’t feel the need or desire to resort to extreme hatred of them for it as long as they keep themselves and their issues away from us. I know about real medical conditions which in rare cases explain problems like this. However, just because something is an unavoidable result of a genetic defect does not change that fact that it IS a defect and should be recognized as such. Many leftists can’t do that in the reverse. They look at a healthy and intact (biologically complete) Christian family and they perceive a problem. Whether it is a problem or not (its not), leftists perceive it as a problem and they can’t accept it. If they are so accepting and tolerant, why can’t they accept the people that they perceive as having a problem? Because they are not accepting, neither of themselves or of others. They don’t know what acceptance is. Their goal is a world so messed up that problems at the individual level can’t be seen with any significant resolution or clarity.
So the question is, how do you help someone resolve their diseased state of mind? Many people, for many years, have created lists of facts so complete that it has become indisputable that simple presentation of truth is nowhere near sufficient. While this sort of work is obviously a crucial component in helping others accept truth, some vital element is still missing and I would suggest it is this missing element which explains why facts are so ineffectual after a certain point (or percentage of the population). It may be a worthwhile direction of further research and effort to elucidate this missing element in exacting and practical detail in order to help the recalcitrant heal their personal wounds and thus move towards an inner state in which they can accept the truth as it actually exists. Subsequently, this could get them to work towards actual true good rather than worldly good/evil (i.e. socialism and maximizing social dysfunction).
As it turns out, religions like Christianity and Buddhism have already known about and taught the answer to this problem for a very long time. The solution turns out to require a spiritual answer rather than an intellectual or analytical one. Which makes sense if the cathedral is to a large extent a spiritual problem.
A critical step in accepting unkind truths about yourself or your group is self-forgiveness. You have problems, but you forgive yourself and learn to love yourself despite them. In other words, they must recognize their own self-worth long enough to tolerate the critical self-analysis needed for discovering truth. (Note: you don’t have to think a given individual has value in order to recognize that they need to believe as much in order to advance themselves towards greater understanding). This allows the unkind truth to exist in full understanding without destroying the self or the ego or otherwise leading to despair. In fact, no amount of realistic self-understanding can take place without self-forgiveness because the negative truths can’t be held onto long enough without rejection to give them the proper analysis they are due. Without that analysis those truths can’t be understood, and if they are not understood then it is impossible to discern solutions and ultimate transcendence past those issues. In other words, to let those problems go and move on. Once you can recognize and accept the problems in yourself, it is easier to recognize and accept the problems in others. It becomes possible to at least entertain the possibility that negative truths exist about individuals or groups and it should no longer feel so imperative to shut down any evaluation of evidence before it even starts (like they do at google).
While it is a very good and worthwhile thing to keep the lists of facts rolling out and exposing them to as many people as possible, for the incorrigibly fact resistant it is probably a good idea to not even bother with it. Rather, greater attention should be paid to fixing whatever underlying spiritual (or psychological, if you prefer) issues exist. Until these internal issues are cleared away, it is not going to be possible to move on to harder external topics and expect any kind of success. While I think my particular diagnosis and explanation here is indeed correct, I leave open the possibility that I am wrong in the details or even the cause. However, I do think the spending more time on learning how to resolve, and help others resolve, the spiritual configurations that lead to violently angry rejection of unwanted truths to be the more fruitful path towards curing those infected with hopeless progressivism. Metaphysical lessons on the acceptance of truth and how to do that in a spiritual way, even when it’s hard, is almost certainly going to be a lot more valuable in the long run for these people. However, such change and advancement is a deeply personal development and each individual has to make the choice to walk down that path on their own. Guideposts, like this post, can be provided but that is about it.
While I think my particular diagnosis and explanation here is indeed correct, I leave open the possibility that I am wrong in the details or even the cause. However, I do think that spending more time on learning how to resolve, and help others resolve, the spiritual configurations that lead to violently angry rejection of unwanted truths to be the more fruitful path towards curing those infected with hopeless progressivism.
In an instance of synchronicity, it seems that I am not the only one who has come to a similar conclusion recently so maybe there is something to this theme after all. Thanks to /u/freshoutofgeekistan for the timely submission to /r/darkenlightenment. I do recommend you read the whole article this is quoted from, it is quite good.
what you refuse to acknowledge controls you; what you acknowledge, you can learn to control.
Now of course doing this involves challenging some very deep-seated cultural imperatives. It’s one of the basic presuppositions of our culture that we’re supposed to become perfect, and the way to become perfect, we’re told, is to amputate whatever part of ourselves keeps us from being perfect. The last sixteen hundred years or so of moral philosophy in the Western world have been devoted to this theme: find the thing that’s causing us to be evil, find some way to chop it off, and then we’ll all behave like plaster saints. The mere fact that it never works hasn’t yet slowed down the endless profusion of attempts to try it again.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to try something else for a change.
How about this? In place of perfection, wholeness.
Human beings are never going to be perfect, not if perfection means the amputation of some part of human experience, whether the limb that’s being hacked off is our sexual instincts, our aggressive instincts, or any other part of who and what we are. Instead, we can be whole. We can accept our sexuality, whatever that happens to be, and weave it into the pattern of our individual lives and our relationships with other people in ways that uphold the values we cherish and yield as much joy and as little unnecessary pain for as many people as possible. That doesn’t mean always acting out our desires—in some cases, it can mean never acting them out at all. What it means is that we make the choice ourselves, rather than handing it over to some automatism or other mandated by popular culture.
In exactly the same way, we can accept our hatreds, whatever those happens to be, and weave them into the pattern of our individual lives and our relationships with other people so that its potent energy serves to defend the things and people we value. That doesn’t mean that we ought to express our hate on every occasion—here again, it can mean never expressing it at all. It means recognizing that hate is as much as part of being human as love, and finding a place for it in there with all the other emotions that we inevitably feel.
It means, ultimately, giving up on the fantasy that we can become more than human by making ourselves incomplete. By accepting our own nature in all its richness and contradictory complexity, and finding a use for everything that comes with being human, maybe we can stop making the same mistakes over and over again, and do something a little less idiotic with our time on Earth.
The word amputate is used above, but the argument is the same. Wholeness and acceptance is preferable and more healthy than rejection, anger, and incompleteness. If people are more spiritually healthy on an individual level, they most likely will be far more willing and able to understand and accept the unfortunate societal truths like sex and race differences in intelligence. I suspect that this line of effort would end up being far more productive in coaxing out the most smitten of leftists from their unrealities than our previous efforts at fact listing.
It’s Not The Optics
As the dust settles in Charlottesville, the Alt Right finds itself again wondering about its future direction. While the event was clearly a great victory in that it raised awareness of the rising Right and drove people away from the middle, it also brought a mentally disturbed person in a car driving into another vehicle, which then pulped some counter-protesters.
More importantly, it raised questions about what the Alt Right actually is. Is it, to use the words of Hunter Wallace, simply white nationalism 2.0? Or does the Alt Right have a life of its own, as posited here many times before in gory detail, as a rising conservative entity which includes the natural tribalism of conservatives alongside other elements of a more realistic Right?
Some have criticized the display of neo-Nazi symbols, salutes and regalia among the protesters. Some, adopting the rhetoric of mainstream politics, have argued that “the optics” are bad, namely that it is hurting the Alt Right to be seen as accepting neo-Nazis and White Nationalists among its ranks. Others have claimed the opposite, which is that a revitalized and unapologetic far-Right is more effective than hiding behind egalitarian sentiments as our RINO/cuckservative mainstream Right politicians have done for decades.
Another point of view may have more relevance. It is not the optics that make neo-Nazism and White Nationalism 2.0 a bad bet for the Alt Right. It is that taking that direction leads us away from where we want to go, and makes us distill our relatively complex beliefs into something else which is both simplistic and unstable.
In other words, it’s not the optics; it’s the failure. The Alt Right was formed to be an alternative to mainstream conservative politics that abandoned crucial issues like nationalism, anti-socialism, maintenance of social order and avoiding becoming tools of a globalist regime hell-bent on installing liberal democracy and consumerism worldwide.
Naturally, this put the Alt Right in a difficult place, because the only people willing to talk about nationalism and race have been underground sources which are evenly divided between the VDARE/AmRen race realists, and “ethno-Bolshevists” such as the neo-Nazi and white nationalist wing who want to make all whites equal by uniting them against other groups.
Many of us avoid mention of Nazis and the Holocaust because we see them as an attempt to fix modernity by using modern methods. Modernity is mass culture, brought about by the notion of equality, and to try to mobilize people in masses requires telling them partial truths and deceiving them. While this is effective, it also loses control of itself, as the Nazis did before winding down in a chaos of death and destruction.
For those of us who are oriented toward the future, the last thing we want is open violence, warfare and murder. We prefer the idea of reclaiming authority in our lands, repatriating the Other and then soft purging the stupid, weak, criminal and Leftist among us. They can be relocated to Brazil or Dubai and be perfectly happy in countries that are closer to their ideals.
Modernistic philosophies — including Nazism and its modern derivates in neo-Nazism and white nationalism — are utilitarian at their core. To them, people are the means to an end that is an ideology, and this ideology consists of re-shaping our human world around the type of simple concepts that motivate masses of people. That is the tail wagging the dog: instead of doing what is right, we do what is popular, and it is not surprising that this always ends poorly.
While Hitler salutes and swastika flags are highly effective, mainly because the media flocks to them in order to emphasize its agenda that anyone who deviates from diversity is a Nazi, they are also unnecessary. Being a neo-Nazi now is like flying a Vietcong flag in 1968 in that it provokes panic and notoriety, which to someone who wants to manipulate mass politics feels like winning.
The Alt Right does not need that, however. Its basic ideas — nationalism, hierarchy, order, purpose — are anathema to the modern mentality and will trigger people even more when spoken by responsible men wearing suits. We are what happens when the liberal democratic order collapses, and if we are to be the next stage in human history, we must be people who have a better plan and are balanced, sober, sane and realistic enough to put it into motion without kicking off WWIII, genocides or other unnecessary and ugly consequences.
This requires that we get rid of the somewhat adolescent fascination with neo-Nazism and white nationalism. We are nationalists but nationalism is only one facet of a more complex view. In addition, there are reasons to oppose national socialism, white supremacy and white nationalism:
- Too limited. Talking about race alone leaves a giant void. Our society obviously got to this failed point through some kind of internal crisis — civilizations die by suicide rather than murder — and so, it needs to be fixed. Even complete political systems like National Socialism left huge voids where action was needed, and they do not escape the problem of modernity, which is mass culture that requires manipulation to achieve even simple things. Even if these were to fix problems with modernity, those would be temporary patches and not oriented toward providing a better future outside of the nightmare that modernity has been.
- Too scapegoaty. When you assign blame to any group but yourselves, you do not take agency for your own complicity in allowing these events to transpire. Blaming the Jews, the rich, or even international finance misses the point: when people vote, they vote for what is popular, which is as much the opposite of what is true as quality is the opposite of quantity. These simplifications and victimhood narratives are needed to mobilize people around a simple idea, but the notion that mobilizing people around simple ideas is somehow “good” goes against common sense. We need realism, not false symbols. Scapegoating leads to our self-defeat when we fight the wrong problems and enemies, and necessarily leave the real problems intact.
- Too modern. Modernism is based on the idea that people are objects on a factory line. They come in equal, are stamped with knowledge of right and wrong, then give facts to operate on, and after that are interchangeable parts. In this view, they can be “perfected” through outside force, known as control, which limits the methods they can use by making them equal and therefore, putting the onus on them to demonstrate allegiance and thus rise above the herd. Modernism is mental manipulation in order to create the mass culture that allows for mobilization of the herd. It occurs because of a lack of social hierarchy, which allows those who care the least about the consequences of their actions to thrive, because it is always more efficient to not-care than to care.
- Too punitive. Rage, we can understand. Outrage, even. Hurt feelings, certainly. But life is not won through emotions but through their suppression. Perhaps there are many people out there who have done wrong and deserve to die. On the other hand, something went wrong that allowed them to do what they do, because their natures have never changed. The solution is to establish order that rewards the good and penalizes the bad — “good to the good, bad to the bad” as Plato wrote — and thus deprive bad people of their power. Punishing people however makes us slaves to them, in that we need their suffering to feel complete, which makes us essentially reliant upon them.
- Too simplified. Our crisis is that civilization is dying. This means that we need to rediscover our virtue and systematically fix every aspect of civilization and ourselves using this as a guide. Our action must be from inside to out; as in athletics or any other discipline, the mental game is a prerequisite to achievement in the physical world. At that point, we need to restore an organic civilization which does not require authoritarian leadership, secret police, censorship, or any of the other methods that modern societies use to control people. We can sort people, sending away the bad and keeping the good, and we can reward the good and punish the bad, but we cannot force the world to fit our mental model. We can only work with what is there.
- Too emo. Neo-Nazis and sometimes actual Nazis are disturbing for their willingness to be cruel. We want pure hearts, not twisted and darkened ones; as Nietzsche warned, if you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you, and to hate something fanatically is to become in part what you hate, just in a different form. It is like inviting it into you. We need a cold, logical and positive outlook on our world where we see its potential and develop it while beating back its pitfalls. This means that we will exclude others without mercy, but it does not mean we will make ourselves into monsters.
One of my writings from 2004, summarizing my experience during tumultuous 1990s pro-nationalist but not white nationalist activism, summarizes these views in a more informal mode.
We are in the midst of a fashwave. Samuel Huntington noted this years ago, and thinkers from Plato to de Tocqueville have noted what happens when democracy fails, and what we are seeing now is people becoming tired of tolerance, equality, diversity and democracy because these programs have trashed the West. Tolerance means that the people who are doing the right thing see whatever they do undone by social chaos; equality means that the productive become slave labor to provide for the unproductive; diversity means that no social standards or culture can be had, and endless racial, ethnic and religious tensions roil our societies; democracy guarantees that whatever is popular wins out over what is true, accurate, realistic, sensible, intelligent, long term oriented or common sense. All of these things have failed, with the combination of Barack Obama essentially gutting the American economy in a backdrop of race riots while Europe burned from uncontrolled immigration being the coda to faith in liberal democracy and its related philosophy.
This fashwave is cultural, not political. It does not mean that people want fascism or any of the belief systems that, while unfairly maligned, also failed for their own reasons during the middle of the last century. We do not want to participate in genocides, total war, complete mobilization, secret police, censorship, Kristallnacht and other stupidities of a bygone time. Those were emotional and out of control reactions to the symptoms of a deeper problem; we want to target the deeper problem, which is that no one in the West desires virtue anymore, so we are bringing it back through intolerance of lies and demands for a higher standard. That is what a fashwave looks like. It may flirt with fascist or national socialist imagery, but in reality, it has more in common with the founding of the Roman Empire or the rebirth of Germany after both its occupying forces and intermediate imperial overlords failed. We see that our civilization collapsed years if not centuries ago, and we want to rebirth it from their most fascist act that is possible, which is self-discipline and suppression of the ego so that we can be unfettered realists who see the world as it is, and find an order within that in which we can thrive, pushing the best upwards so that we have a hierarchy that administers this because we know that mass culture will not.
Stephen Clay McGehee writes of what our actual task is in all non-centrist Right wing activity through his concept of the Civil Right:
When we speak of “the Right”, we speak of cultural matters rather than strictly political matters. Politics follows culture, and there is much overlap, but culture always precedes politics. Those who try to take a shortcut by changing politics without first changing the culture are certain to fail in the long term. Our focus here is on the traditionalist culture of the Right.
Our objective is to reach “The Middle” – those who do not strongly identify with the Left or the Right. We want to reach those who simply want a better life for their families and their descendants than the degenerate culture that has become the norm.
Where did the terms Left and Right come from?
In the assemblies of pre-Revolution France, those who supported aristocracy, an orderly society, and the king sat on the right, while those who supported the revolution, republicanism, and socialism sat on the left. In general, that still holds true today.
The French Revolution that began in 1789 marked the beginning of a new era that put Western civilization on a steady downward path. Those wanting to conserve what came before then have adopted the label, “1788 Conservative”. The Civil Right is, in part, about being a 1788 Conservative.
Western civilization is broken. It doesn’t just need a little tweaking over here and something patched up over there. It needs to be rebuilt as a complete restoration project. The Right is focused on putting us back on the right path: to re-create the best of Western civilization while learning from the mistakes of the past.
We do not need the swastika; yes, it is an ancient Indo-European symbol and should not be demonized, but that is a task for the future. For now, we need to focus on reality and how to create a stable situation that can end the bad and nurture the development of the good, at the same time we achieve the inner discipline and concentration necessary to mature our fashwave into a sea change of people converting to the desire for virtue, balance, order, harmony, excellence, goodness, truthfulness and beauty.
Flags, symbols and salutes come secondary to our actual strength, which is that our ideas themselves are divisive. People either decide to cling to the decaying ruin that took the place of the West, or they accept that what we offer are timeless ideas that have been the basis of every ascendant society throughout history. If we wanted to summarize the Alt Right, we could present it in this way, knowing that our ideas speak for themselves:
- Nationalism. Nations consist of their founding ethnic group, and not other ethnic groups, races or even hybrids. Germany for Germans. In America, this means the founding Western European group.
- Realism. Politics by feelings, “rights,” altruism, compassion, empathy, herd morality or other emotions mislead us, because all that matters is the results of our actions, not our intentions or our choice of “safe” methods. Everything in life is ends-over-means because it is more important to achieve your goal than to try the right way.
- Hierarchy. This consists of two parts, an aristocracy of our best people who will be entrusted with money and power, and a caste system where those with greater intelligence have more social influence than whatever the prole herd is fascinated by at the moment, such as trends, panics, manias, fads or other human stampedes. This was the real lesson from the Great Depression: if you let the herd invest, they will bring you to ruin. The same is true of politics, culture, consumerism and any other area.
- Social order. We need culture, moral standards, values, customs, habits, calendar, faith, cuisine and heritage. Together with purpose, or a sense of our society having an ongoing and immutable role in the order of nature, these constitute our identity, and this is more important than wealth or power. We must be able to act as an organic whole before we can achieve anything.
Civil War 2.0 is here. There are those who want out of the dying system, and others who do not. By espousing the ideas above — essentially, what is considered normal in a healthy time no matter what $current_year is — we “trigger” those who oppose us because they want decay, chaos, disorder and dysfunction in order to mask their own deviant or pointless behavior. There is no compromise between these extremes. The Left, as the party of egalitarianism, will never give in and allow health to prevail. For them, this is the endgame where they destroy everything and then rule in third world disorganization forevermore.
At this point, the Leftists are already so triggered by the fact that we are dissenters that they are engaging in authoritarian and apocalyptic behavior:
At that point the police had completely lost control of the city. The State of Emergency order means that any public gathering is de facto illegal, but antifa are still allowed to roam freely bearing weapons and attacking people. This chaos ultimately led directly to the vehicular incident that killed a woman and badly injured more than a dozen others.
My conclusions are that police wanted this to happen. It’s clear that VSP had specific orders to drive us out of the park to the south, into the teeth of violent armed antifa counter-protesters.
Police could have easily separated the barricades and removed all rally participants to the north, away from antifa and into empty streets fully controlled by law enforcement. We were driven into a hostile situation intentionally. It’s impossible not to believe that the authorities issuing these orders knew exactly what would happen and that they wanted rally attendees to be harmed and possibly killed.
Even the lefty The New York Times admitted that the violence was the result of police activity, essentially agreeing with Pax Dickinson and Scott Greer of Daily Caller in their assessment that the powers that be wanted this to end as a bloodbath:
And at City Hall, a planned news conference by Jason Kessler, the white nationalist who organized Saturday’s rally, came to an abrupt end when a man wearing a plaid shirt punched him.
…But others, including Mr. Kessler and Ms. Caine-Conley, openly wondered if the violence could have been prevented.
“There was no police presence,” Ms. Caine-Conley said. “We were watching people punch each other; people were bleeding all the while police were inside of barricades at the park, watching. It was essentially just brawling on the street and community members trying to protect each other.”
Right now, our governments are divided. There are a few hopeful figures like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump who are attempting to stop the bleeding and point our nations back toward sanity, but all of those who are profiting from their franchises within a bloated system, including the unionized police, are attempting to prevent the rise of that which ends their happy little Ponzi scheme based on government dollars and being elected by a clueless lumpenproletariat who wants nothing more than additional benefits. This is why Trump condemned all people participating in violence instead of blaming the Alt Right:
Speaking on Saturday from his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey, the president criticized groups on “many sides” for violence that occurred at a planned rally in Charlottesville, Virginia by white supremacists that led to the death of a counter-protester.
Trump’s comments sparked immediate backlash from both sides, as many congressional Republicans called on the president to issue a more forceful response denouncing white supremacy.
Since Antifa initiated the violence, his statement was correct. The police, Antifa and possibly some members of the Alt Right or those who showed up to participate in the chaos like the driver of the death car that plowed into another vehicle and injured or killed twenty people, are all parties that deserve criticism. The vast majority of the Alt Right did nothing of the sort.
As Everitt Foster and I opined some time ago, the Alt Right needs to choose a direction that is future-oriented and provides positive real-world results in parallel with more long-term goals such as nationalism, aristocracy, social order and some kind of transcendental faith.
We are surrounded not so much by enemies, but by sleeping people who are living in a dream and hoping that despite all logic, modern society will turn out to be survivable. Among them, there are some who are infected with the mental virus of egalitarianism, and they are actively toxic, but the rest are simply sleepwalking and need to only be dissuaded from believing in the Left for it to fall.
For us, Charlottesville was a success. It further put us on the map and differentiated us from being merely a pro-Trump group. At the same time, it revealed the cracks in our fragile coalition. Our goal is to restore Western Civilization, not re-live the past out of an emotional response to how bad the present is. When we stay faithful to that goal, we win.