How Not To Rule

I attended a long string of high school graduations this month. I cannot say I particularly enjoy graduation ceremonies. Even out there, beyond the corn fields bordering the urban sprawl, when the principal or superintendent recites the "I confer up on you... that you have faithfully executed your academic duties... that you have met the standards set by..." blah blah blah, I am reminded that the insidious tentacles of the Cathedral truly reach far and wide. Even out here. A man, disgruntled and sweating in the 95 degree heat commented on the quantity of teachers and how he now understood why his property taxes were so high. A few people around him chuckled. The pensions! Ah, the pensions.

---

If I were to say that conservatives were the sort of people who routinely fail to see the forest from the trees, that would be unduly charitable. To take the metaphor and extend it appropriately to describe your average Republican thinker (syndicated or otherwise), it's not just that they don't see the forest. They don't even see a tree, because they're too busy staring at a single leaf. Case in point, the curious tendency of our ruling class to sympathize, if not wholeheartedly subscribe to, the teachings of Karl Marx. Well, it may not be exactly fair to say that they subscribe to Karl Marx, because a cursory reading of the Communist Manifesto should alert the most unserious of students to the decidedly bourgeois nature of academic communists. Then again, most academic communists haven't actually read Marx.

Anyways, conservatives, when their political lethargy and cowardice are not otherwise inhibiting them, will sputter about how communism doesn't work and how communism killed one hundred million people and even, if they happen to be slightly more clever than the rest, will recite Rothbard's explanation on how communism necessitates managerialism, begetting a classed society, and returning communists to the rejected premise of a stratified society.

That's actually the point, dummkopf.

The whole point of the wholehearted subscription to communism isn't to bring about a better world. Perhaps somewhere in the back of their minds these sort of people believe that communism is, indeed, a more just system than whatever you want to call the system we're living under. But justice, true justice or otherwise, is a decidedly ancillary goal for these people. So ancillary in fact, that the rotten consequences of putting communists into power are basically as inconsequential as a bug colliding with a windshield. Why is that? Because goal numero uno is a goal sadly rooted in the solipsistic nature of our bourgeois friends: The acquisition of power, and all of it's benefits, minus the responsibility and obligations. Next thanksgiving when your obnoxious relatives screech about the Trumpenreich, remember not to marvel too hard at the thought of a world run by these sort of people being the sort of world where one hundred million people starve to death, purposefully or otherwise.

Of course, "total communism", a-la the rhetoric of stupid idiots such as this unfortunate young woman, the theory of, the implementation there of, and life under, are the leaf you don't want to get caught staring at, lest we find ourselves to have degenerated into conservatives. So help me God, may I never.

---

The distribution of power has been repeatedly fractured since the dissolution of the European monarchies. Each iteration of power smashing did not reduce the sum total power, as it were, but rather distributed it among a wider, more specific tier of people. To childishly simplify the idea of power distribution, first we had kings, then we had an aristocracy, followed by senators under republicanism, which eventually beget the individualized power of the mob. Each step down has been a disastrous lurch towards anarchy as the new power holders scrambled over one another to consolidate as much power as they could, before they died and the power evaporated as their corpses cooled to room temperature.

In the here and now, power has degenerated so much that the petty squabbling of self-interested parties is almost entirely comprised of the college educated, aspirational urbanite class. Once in a while, the mob contracts violently and vomits out a class of people to shave off a fraction of competitors for those tiny shards of power. Most obviously, since you are probably a dissident right-winger, the whole "white privilege" schtick was less about rectifying social ills and more about removing competition for power, resources, access, social networks, whatever. The Alt-Right mistakes the over-representation of Jews among the power grubbing nascent and real elite for an explicit conspiracy by our coin-clutching guests, rather than the implicit conspiracy of a group of people predisposed to grasp at social authority because they are, ahem, less-than-worthy by any classic metric of "who-should-rule vs. who-should-be-ruled". In a sane world, these sort of people would have been, how shall I say this politely? Put down?

Less obviously, the mob recently experienced - really, is still experiencing - a violent contraction vis-a-vis the #metoo movement. Hilariously, most of the expelled are prominent Jewish males in the media class, with a smattering of Black and White men as well. How exactly this coincides with the explicit conspiracy of Jewish power is, frankly, beyond my interest in attempting to explain. If you get stuck at "the Jews", you are unfortunately staring at that leaf again.

Consequent to the shattering power and the vicious scramble by newly enabled individuals to consolidate said power, the self-interested class of power seekers must constantly climb over one another for said power through the cancerous phenomenon called "virtue signalling". Because virtue signalling necessitates one-upsmanship, what is considered virtuous is subjected to an exponential curve. Forty years ago, 'virtuous' was not calling black people racial epithets. Twenty years ago, virtuous was having a black friend without noticing that your friend was black. Today, virtuous is ceding all moral authority to blacks - no matter how poorly behaved, no matter how ridiculous the circumstances. Again, to avoid leaf-gazing, I should strongly emphasize that mentioning blacks has nothing to do with blacks per-se, but has everything to do with the wildly degenerated condition of White people. Blacks don't do anything to us that we do not allow. Same for Jews, banks, globalists, Muslims, Mexican illegals, etc.

Several iterations of power shattering and the consequent scramble through virtue signalling is a highly degenerate selection pressure on would be leaders. We need not mince words here - the people who lead us are mostly awful. Whether they lead us from a seat in congress or from the media bully pulpit or from the red carpet, they are, almost without exception, awful. It isn't just that they themselves are often physically repugnant or hilariously deformed in some way - David Hogg's pathetic frame is a perfect example of what I mean by deformed - what's even worse is that they are bad at leading. You would be extremely hard pressed to find a subject matter where our ruling class actually made an improvement rather than made a problem worse.

Their ideas in and of themselves are utter garbage. Last post I joked about how these people effectively delude themselves into thinking that it is education that makes a person smart, rather than natural aptitude. They, of course, believe this entirely out of self-interest. They are educated, therefore they should rule! Probably an easier subject matter to illustrate what I'm getting at is the debate over the individual's right to own firearms. Forget, for a moment, that the vitriol aspirational urbanites spew at their gun-toting countrymen is entirely predicated on the (very well advised) fear that one day Cletus and Bubba and all their cousins and relations and neighbors might finally reach their breaking point with the snotty liberal douchebag shtick and lay waste to hipster neighborhoods (if only they would). The proposed mechanism behind gun controls is, at least on paper, hilarious. We'll just tell them to turn in their guns! Or, We'll get the cops or the army to go around and take their guns!

I really shouldn't have to explain to anyone why that's stupid. Besides the prospect of unarmed urbanites starting a war with people who own lots of guns, even more ammo, and who produce food, the idea that cops are going to be really enthusiastic about becoming a bullet sponge for some dipshit hipster's utopian wet dream is, well, only the sort of idea a demented ruling class could come up with.

Here's to hoping that they follow through.

High Score

Today, yet another young man came to school with a gun and opened fire on his classmates. At the time of this writing 10 are dead and 10 more are wounded. The young man is in custody, and preliminary evidence - by which I mean his confession, if I am reading this correctly - suggests that the young man in question wanted to commit suicide, but was too scared to take his own life. So he chose the darker path and, remarkably, went unrewarded in his quest for death by cop.

Somewhere out there, a great and screeching chorus of holier-than-thous are wailing and gnashing their teeth about guns. The fact that this young man used his father's shotgun and a revolver must be putting a slight damper on the frantic efforts to remove AR-15's from the hands of the red empire proletariat.

Never mind all that - being largely unwilling to dabble in conspiracies beyond idle amusement, I'm not going to prod too terribly far into the details of this latest, greatest iteration of the American youth in steep decline. Dimitrios Pagourtzis has the unhappy look of a social bottom feeder. The circumstances of his life probably are not all that different from the last mass shooter, or the one before that, and on and on and on. There really isn't anything more for anyone to say on the matter. We have reached an impasse - no further progress can be made in rectifying the ills that plague our civilization. Nothing that we do now, given the tools at our disposal and the people wielding said tools, will resolve the crisis of Western Civilization.

Supposing for a moment that the solution to gun violence were as simple as removing guns from the general public, we'd be at a dead end anyway. Confiscation would trigger a civil war, and for all the Left's bluster, I somehow doubt that the soft, squishy urbanite core of their demented army is really all that enthusiastic about going down to fight in the trenches. More likely than not, they expect Paco, Jamal and Ahmed to do the dirty work for them, and despite the vast over-representation of our minority castes among the population that commits random acts of violence, and despite the tendency of Muslims in particular to spontaneously combust, minorities are even more bluster prone than the White Left. Fred Reed once asked a jailed Vice Lord why he didn't direct his gang to wage war on whitey. His response? We'd get wiped out. Smart - maybe - although I don't have such a high opinion of most White people I interact with. And furthermore, confiscation is out of the question without even considering civil war. How, logistically speaking, do you plan on rounding up every gun? Who would volunteer for such a task? The police? The military? Unlikely, as survey after survey shows strong support for public firearms ownership by police officers and members of the armed forces. Doubtless, though, they are extremely flattered that the screeching-signalling caste has designs to have them go kicking down doors, and possibly catching a bullet, for the utopian vision dancing through the heads of Brahmin from sea to shining sea.

Of course, solving 'gun violence' isn't as simple as removing access to guns from the general public, and the people who screech about guns after a mass shooting are, frankly, severely retarded by their own need to virtue signal to one another. If they could simply virtue signal in their own containment area, no one would care that much. When I was in high school, the clique I despised the most were the theater nerds. For a host of reasons, every single one of them rubbed me the wrong way. They were annoying, pretentious, boorish, outspoken, overly dramatic, and had a wildly unwarranted sense of self-importance. However, I didn't go out of my way to pick on them because I seldom saw any of them. They had their area and I stayed away from it, and despite by general distaste for them, this formula of you stay over there and I'll stay over here worked out quite well.

This is not the case with the screeching-signalling caste. Unfortunately, at some point, they ended up in charge of the megaphone, and not only do they routinely beat the rest of us over the head with it, but they get to dictate policy too. To add salt to that wound, they engage in what Alexander McNabb called a "sickening pretense of non-power", where they pretend that they are the plucky little guy bravely going to bat for even smaller guys against the indomitable power of Fascist Reactionary badguys. Oh, if only.

Anyways, what is particularly awful about the screeching-signalling caste dictating policy is that their policies are awful: If we send people to college where they are taught to say smart things then we will have a smart population. Brilliant. Truly, staggeringly brilliant. Indeed I say, the sort of people who believe such a thing are the collective crown jewel of the evolutionary chain. We, the little people, are indeed blessed by the beneficence of our academic overlords! All hail the smart people who are smart because they were taught to be smart and let you know that they are indeed smart by saying smart things!

Of course, no one actually says if we send people to college where they are taught to say smart things then we will have a smart population, because if I caught you saying that specific phrase in my vicinity I would drop whatever my task at hand was to bullycide you into hanging yourself. But people ultimately say this when they speak loftily of the virtues of universal education, of the benefit to our population, and when they, wayward and deluded, screech in rage when you dare to challenge their policy pronouncements. To challenge what they say is to challenge the virtues of education, and should the virtue of education suffer a challenge then it suffers a crisis of legitimacy. And when education suffers a crisis of legitimacy, so then does the educated suffer, as his or her (or xir, as the case seems to be more and more) authority is undermined. And if their authority is undermined, then they can no longer maintain the public facade of enlightened, beneficent intelligence, and when no one around them pretends to believe that they are an enlightened, beneficent intelligence, then they must contend with the underlying reality that perhaps they aren't really all that smart, and perhaps they have long labored under the willful delusion that they have somehow bettered themselves by repeating - without challenging - the oh so smart things that oh so smart people taught them to say.

Then, when all is laid bare, the lies come to the fore and reality sets in: By fraudulent means, you have taken power, and what have you done with it? You ruled, poorly. By all rights, you are not worthy. But alas, worthy or no, they rule. This is their world, and they should be reminded at the very least that a world where young men increasingly descend into the fatalist release of an orgy of violence direct at their peers is a world built by the Left. It's theirs, to own and cherish, for what little it is ultimately worth. For today anyways. Tomorrow, or perhaps the next day, or the day after - it doesn't matter - eventually will bring a man to town with a sword in his right hand and a list in his left. What good our delusions of grandeur and self-importance are on that day I cannot say, other than probably not a whole lot.

Every time some kid lights up his classmates, I remember: We put the wrong people in charge.

Foundations

Essentially, what we've found behind this particular Universalist mystery is the assertion that Universalism has triumphed because Universalism is good and good triumphs. Good triumphs because Universalism is successful and Universalism is good. Spot the unsubstantiated assertion!

- Mencius Moldbug

I thoroughly enjoyed Moldbug's multi-part essay on the pwning of Richard Dawkins - enough so that were I a university professor who taught reactionary theory, and were I only allowed to make one selection from a particular author, How Dawkins Got Pwned would easily win the honor. Of course, I am not a university professor, and were I stupid enough to be one (and stupid enough to try) I would likely find myself at the poked and burned end of a pitchfork and torch wielding mob. Anyways, I like to re-read it on occasion, and it was during a recent re-read that I felt a small tingle of inspiration. These little hints come so infrequently nowadays, so absorbed am I in the here and the now that I have little time for the esoteric or political.

Anyways, on a curiously and seemingly unrelated note, I have been dwelling on the Alt-Right's public mishaps recently. The misadventures in Charlottesville, the doxxing of the TRS guys, Matthew Heimbach's affair...

What happened?

If you listen to the voices from on high, it's more or less over, or something. Probably for Heimbach, because live action role playing as a stalwart defender of traditionalist values while banging your buddy's wife is a pretty good way to lose your street cred with people desperate for a stalwart defender of traditionalist values who likewise embodies said values. I don't know, I didn't really keep up with the TWP, and it's too late now anyways.

Enoch and Spencer are still plodding along to my knowledge, not that I listen to TRS much either. It just doesn't move the needle for me anymore. My understanding is that recent attempts by Spencer to speak at universities were, well, lackluster. Or something. My recaps of the Alt-Right's antics are best viewed with the understanding that I've kept much of this at arms length - increasingly longer arms, mind you, since some time after Trump was elected.

That said, the 'death' of the Alt-Right is laughable. Even if all major public figures sympathetic to the Alt-Right spontaneously combusted today, the Alt-Right would not die because the conditions necessary for a White Identity movement to arise still exist. Like a hydra, should a head be cut off another would grow in its place. I'm not puffing the Alt-Right up by giving it nearly mythical qualities - believe me I am far, far more dissatisfied with White Identitarians than I am satisfied - it just is what it is. You can only take so much screeching from dumpy blue-hairs about the plight of the melanin-enhanced being magically your fault before you say "fuck-it". When you aren't going to win anyways, most people would gladly go down swinging.

But specifically, with regard to the string of failures, what happened?

I have a guess, and to get you there I'm going to borrow a little from Moldbug. I'll try not to be as turgid. If you go back to How Dawkins Got Pwned (part 4), Moldbug reiterates his strategy of testing Universalism's circular appraisal of itself by working his way back into the past until he's free from the iron grip of Whig History as told by Whig Historians, and taking a different branch - specifically, the reactionary path, the most logical path as reactionary is the antithesis of progressive. Hence, Moldbug ejects the dead weight of Universalism's survivorship bias in appraising what actually happened and... well, you've either read the rest, or will get to it. I don't really want to reiterate Moldbug, because my inspiration here is more technical than historically specific.

The Alt-Right has tried and repeatedly failed on the Left's own turf; said turf being mass demonstrations and protest culture. I don't blame them for trying though. There is a certain logic to the whole affair: We feel outnumbered and we want others to who feel outnumbered to know that they aren't alone. We want to flex our muscles. Frankly, we want to punch commies in their stupid bourgeois faces. That's all well and fine, but the unfortunate reality is that all of this is on the Left's turf and defined by the Left for the explicit purpose of strengthening the Left. It doesn't matter whether the Charlottesville protester's said "you will not replace us" or "Jews will not replace us". What matters is the Left says it was the latter, and it was so. Because the Left says so, and they have the megaphone.

So what to do?

The answer, more or less, is don't try to beat the Left by using the Left's strategy. It doesn't play to our strengths. We aren't a mass movement. We aren't a mob, or a rabble. Our ideology, such that our disparate gaggles of LARPers can be connected, is an ideology of order and hierarchy. How we exist should reflect that. Browsing through some of the Charlottesville pictures, I saw a lot of good signs. The Chad Nationalists flexing with David Duke were a good sign. The Dodge Charger mowing down that fat chick, not so much. Hilarious, yes, but otherwise bad optics. The thing is, though, that one slip up, one fat dork in a Trump hat, one Roman salute, and Salon dot com will be there like flies on shit to show the world that Nazis are still a threat. Dorky, and perhaps a little dumpy, but a threat none the less.

If I'm allowed to be a bit candid for a moment - of course I am, these pages are mine - the biggest disappointment for me when the TRS guys got doxxed was't that Mike Enoch's wife is part coin-clutcher. It was that he is fat. I mean, I never pictured Enoch as a thin guy or anything, and I am more than well aware that the Left will take your worst frame and plaster it everywhere to give everyone the worst impression of you possible but... come on. And frankly, the same goes (worse actually) for Heimbach. I can, to some degree, look past being sexually promiscuous. I was a frat boy. And while I definitely don't condone marital infidelity, I am a man who has failed before to ignore the temptations of the flesh. But being fat? While being a White Supremacist? And yeah it doesn't matter that you don't call yourself a White Supremacist, because you aren't holding the megaphone, they are. They're going to point at you and sputter and shriek and froth at the mouth about how evil and awful you are, so why give them extra ammunition? To paraphrase Mr. Enoch, they're going to call you a white supremacist anyways, so why the fuck aren't you supreme?

How do we get from there to somewhere better? Unfortunately, the answer is simply forcing people through an entry process and a subsequent hierarchy that requires increasingly difficult hurdles be, well, hurdled. A simple entry test would be something simple like bench press your own body weight. Just once. Success means you're a candidate and failure means you can try again in a month. The next tier would have a more difficult physical test, and an ideological test. And the next tier would increase the difficulty of both and add a third test, and the next and the next and so on down the line.

This is all back-of-my-napkin, but the point is to illustrate a means by which a Right-Wing, White Identity group increases its quality and therefore it's efficacy. The Left's power lies in quantity - being a mob. We will never beat them by being a mob. A side effect of a tiered system is that it also substantially mitigates the likelihood of subversive agents of the Left gaining any real power in this hypothetical iteration of a Right-Wing, White Identity group.

Observations at a Wal-Mart

It's hard not to get angry. I went to Wal-Mart the other day. If ever there was a sentence that packs all the frustration, anger, fear and crushing soullessness of Globalism into a handful of words, it's "I went to Wal-Mart".

Wal-Mart is a crazy place. The lighting is designed in such a way that you are supposed to forget the passage of time. There is no outside reference, absent the front doors, by which you would naturally be able to tell what time of day it is. Supposedly, this is one of Wal-Mart's devious psychological hacks they employ to get you to spend more time shopping. I've also been told displays are moved around randomly to get the same effect, but I grudgingly concede that I've only been told such a thing. The things I just listed about Wal-Mart are the sort of things, heresay really, that gets tossed around a Sociology 101 classroom by matriculated idiots who will still be idiots whether they graduate or fail out.

What's really creepy about Wal-Mart is the people. In the right spot, Wal-Mart is just another department store. The Wal-Mart I frequent most often is far, far out in the boonies, too far out for non-Heritage Americans. As such, this Wal-Mart (and all other out-in-the-country Wal-Marts I have ever visited) is naturally influenced by the people in the same way that a nation does not make a people, but rather the people make a nation. Out in the sticks, Wal-Mart is quiet and orderly and the people are nice enough for being employed by a soul crushing corporation. I usually stop by on the way out to the farm that I plink at to pick up paper targets and a box of 9mm for the landowner as a tip.

I happened to go to a suburban Wal-Mart the other day. The only other time I have ever done this was late at night, when no one was around. In the light of day the difference is... staggering. The particular suburb where this Wal-Mart is located has a large Asian population, and because I am friends with a number of Filipinos from this suburb I tend to forget that "Asian", according to the sort of people who do demographics, includes Arabs and Persians. I am, of course, annoyed by visual reminders that our bourgeois globalist overlords favor dollars over national health, but there is a certain sadness that goes beyond "my people are under threat".

The burkas, of course, are an affront to my people and my culture - they do not belong here and need to go back. Worse, though, are the "Westernized". An older Persian couple (they weren't ugly enough to be fully Arab) passed by with a screaming child. A child throwing a tantrum is the sort of audible annoyance that immediately calls your attention. Maybe its the parenting instinct. But what kept my eye on the couple wasn't their wailing offspring. As far as I could tell, they were handling the screaming toddler as best as I've ever been told you can, by letting him tucker himself out. There was something off about the way they held themselves, their dress and affectations. They didn't quite fit in and I can't put my finger on it but it wasn't necessarily their skin color. The woman's jewelry was garish and her garments slightly clashed, and the man looked like the Persian version of "dad-core". They were "Westernized" and materially minded, status oriented, probably second generation immigrants. If you talked to them I'd be willing to wager that they were embarrassed by their primitive and backwards countrymen, in the same way that the handful of wealthy, suburban Negros I have met detest their feral, ghetto-spawned brethren for "being a bunch of niggers" [actual quote]. I doubt they attended Mosque with any sort of frequency. I've seen these sort of people before, the "lapsed Catholic" version of Muslims. At one point in time I was friends with a young man slightly younger than me who looked and behaved the part, but I cut off contact as his frantic desire to "fit in" with high-status, degenerate White society inculcated poor life choices. I am not particularly forgiving with my White friends who still use drugs, but knowing that many of the craziest Muslims had, at one point, lived the alcohol and drug fueled degenerate lifestyle before radicalizing, I thought it best to eject before this young man, uh, spontaneously exploded.

The thing about globalism isn't just that what is mine is under siege. I am, of course, particularly sensitive to things that concern me in particular, but the same insatiable appetite will, if given enough time, reduce all people to an indistinguishable mass of wallets. Some people say this is what the globalist explicitly want. Some people say this is just late stage capitalism, an incidental and accidental result of run-away prosperity. Whatever the case, the trade of tradition and purpose for deracination and material comforts must be tackled capably by the capable.

Most people do not live meta-ideological lives. Most people reside in the plains between the peaks, so to speak, and are motivated by immediate, material benefits. You can hardly blame the Indians, Persians, Arabs, Africans etc. for wanting to escape the abject poverty of their homelands. Blame, such that it can be reasonably attributed, probably falls the most on us. Not for creating the conditions of poverty within x y or z homeland. "Colonialism" is the Left-wing hand-waving equivalent of the Young Earth Creationist "because the Bible says". The poverty of a particular nation - or the lack thereof - is entirely controlled by the aggregate quality of a particular people. African societies are particularly bottom heavy, therefore it is no surprise that Africa is a perpetual hellhole. Extending an invitation for Africans, Arabs, Persians, Indians etc. to depart their failing states for our prosperous shores is unspeakably evil without even considering that the only reason a certain subset of White people do it just so they can play out the classic "fuck you, dad" on a societal level.

Particularly unintelligent societies are the sort of societies that can least afford to lose the handful of high IQ individuals they occasionally spawn. Believe it or not, there are some Africans with IQs above 120, but depriving their countrymen of the fruits of their intelligence is evil vis-a-vis scarcity, and becomes akin to genocide when you understand that the smartest minorities in the U.S. are ushered into the university system, which encourages miscegenation and degeneracy, and discourages family formation. Progressive immigration policies, taken to it's furthest conclusion, will result in the total obliteration of high-IQ genes in populations that desperately need internal leadership. Africa's coming population boom is a cold and brutal warning of the hell our "good intentions" have spawned through our idolatrous worship of Equality.

This particular fuck-up is one, only one, of the catastrophic mistakes our current elite have made over the past, oh, two hundred or so years, give or take. Certainly within the past sixty years the incompetency (or intended malevolence) has increased exponentially. What this means is that there is room for a new elite. Given the wild reaction the powers that be have had to the relatively small dissident right movement, I'd wager that the elite are particularly aware that they may be dethroned. You might even call them paranoid, given the massive "no platform" entrenchment around most major institutions and corporations. Would be elites, such as the Alt-Right (if they ever get around to realizing what their goals are supposed to be), would do well to catalog the failures of the current elite, make accurate predictions of future failures, and offer convincing solutions to the problems that the elite continue to spawn.

And try not to bitch about the kikes too much when you get around to it.