Cucking the Left

Postmodernist shitbag Richard Rorty thought that there were two versions of the Left that differed in practice but not in principle. There was the reformist Left and the cultural Left. The cultural Left saw America as an empire beyond redemption, and the reformist Left saw it as something that could be used. The plan of action here is clear.

The simple idea is to make a clear separation between the cultural and reformist Left. Then we use the Left’s social intelligence against it by introducing a litmus test for a “respectable liberal” that includes acknowledgement of inequality as an inevitability that will never go away, with which they must work. Once we have that, we can cordon off the radical Left as a bunch of lunatics and drag the “respectable liberals” along with us. We need a better label, of course, one that they can identify with.

The Left’s current tantrum provides a prime breeding ground for this. Take the protests at Berkeley, and other such débâcles, and use them to impose a litmus test on the Left. Do you really think that America is a good idea, lefties? Do you love your conservative friends? Then pick up your cross and follow us. Just as they dragged us left with the introduction of the cuckservative, we can drag them right with the introduction of the respectable liberal.

The key is to make any Leftist who does not agree to this sound stupid. They made us sound immoral, like big meanie-heads. What if we make them sound like clueless college kids? The aim is to convince the best and brightest of the upcoming generation, who will drag the rest with them. Propagate the respectable liberal, and come up with a better term!

And I daresay, if we can take any of the more intelligent ones and turn them to the Right, we have accomplished a great feat. What could be better than redeeming wretched individuals into strong, upright, just and reverent men?


You are the Truth.

We, we Traditionalists, we Radical Right-Wingers, we Alt-Righters – we seek the Truth. We follow the form of the Good, the Beautiful, and the Truth. But the Truth discovers the other two. And all three can be found within you, but you must find the Truth first. You must realize that you are the truth!

  1. You are the truth – and what is true has a natural tendency to prevail over lies. Even if humanity be taken over by liars, then humanity will fail, because lies cannot succeed.
  2. You are the truth – and once you realize this, you have something that cannot be taken from you. Knowing the truth is immortality, because the truth is eternal. In every age of man, people have seen it – “There is one truth, but men describe it differently.”
  3. You are the truth – Nietzsche wrote that this was the oldest and most sensible form of the idea that became Christianity, and that the “true world” must be abolished with the apparent one. But Nietzsche lacked the transcendental viewpoint, so he could not see that this idea did, after all, have something good about it. It had a grain… of truth!

Remember that the truth is bigger than humanity. It’s bigger than the physical universe. That dark mist under your feet is their thundercloud. Once you’ve grasped it, you will laugh the laughter of the heights on their faces. You will confront the hordes of your foes head-on and strike them down. You are the truth!

And then what happens?

I willingly admit to being stuck in rehash, although posting excerpts from larger works may not reveal the structure I’m hoping for. Regardless, there are a few things that need to be worked through. This is going to be quite difficult, but I shall give my best swing.

  1. Technology is getting to the point where we can reverse globalization and re-establish small communities with something resembling high technology without being attached to a larger techno-industrial grid. Don’t ask for a detailed analysis just yet (that takes a book), but suffice to say, we are looking at a likely future where closely-knit communities are possible again. Two things stand in the way: established present institutions and the question of who controls the nukes. Federations may solve the second problem, but the first has to give way before we can do that. Technology that can easily disable nuclear weapons may obviate the need for federations.
  2. The big slow collapse is to be managed by controlled demolition, which mostly consists of getting out of the way and then securing your position. The survivalist stuff has been covered, but don’t fall for the primitivism bullshit. The worst thing you can do is to put technology on the back burner thinking it will all be gone in 150 years. It won’t be – and, if large-scale institutions collapse, individual technical prowess will be priceless. This ties back into the general attitude, which is to be quick and light. A future in which large-scale institutions have collapsed is one in which each individual part must be as effective as possible, because pieces that have been freed from a larger rigid structure have to suddenly have multiple proficiencies instead of just one. This also dovetails with the quality-over-quantity view.
  3. The ultimate goal is to get off this rock, but the governments and companies that we’ve used to leave our atmosphere in the past aren’t gonna help. To replicate that on a smaller scale, you need all of the stuff listed in the first two points. More importantly, though, that has to be an overriding goal. It has to work its way into the culture, to the point of being unspoken and tacitly accepted. Part of the ennui that kills meaning at the current stage of humanity is the absence of frontiers. The promise of a new frontier provides vitality that makes the first two points possible.

Each point here is vital to the other two. The past is 1, the present is 2, and the future is 3, but you need to be able to keep them all in balance to make it work. More importantly, each one conditions the other two, and none of them have primacy. Good luck!

How To See The Truth

The Cartesian method doesn’t work if you just eliminate everything except self-evident axioms. Fortunately, we have access to more than just self-evident axioms. Consider the following short exchange, between two people. It touches on the race/intelligence issue, but it works for many other issues. This is just an instance of a wider phenomenon. You go in with the following assumptions, which provide the important subtext for the discussion:

  1. Person A believes that there are differences in intelligence between races, while Person B does not.
  2. Person A and Person B both believe that intelligence is largely genetic.
  3. Both people each think the other one believes that intelligence is not genetic, and pretend to believe that it is not genetic in public.
  4. Both people know that there are serious social consequences for the view that intelligence is genetic and for the view that there are racial differences in intelligence.

A: “Intelligence is largely genetic.”
B: “But if that’s true, then different races have different levels of intelligence. Are you racist?”
A: “I don’t believe that there are racial differences in intelligence!”
B: “Then you can’t believe that intelligence is largely genetic.”

Notice that Person B has a choice here. He can either decide that intelligence is not largely genetic and slip further into delusion, or he can decide that there are racial differences in intelligence and pretend to believe something that he doesn’t actually believe, as person A does. Guess which one happens more often? That’s right: the former. We more often slip into delusion because we live in a delusional society. What’s the way out?

The way out is to take the things you know are true, and eliminate those things that contradict them, ruthlessly. Don’t take only one issue, or you turn into, for example, a stupid White Nationalist who only cares about race. The answer is to subtract all value added to judgements based on social cache. That will free you.

Is Trump afraid of the affirmative action police?

No, of course he’s not. But getting Trump to repeal affirmative action and disparate impact laws is a priority right now, and we can’t get him to do it by begging. But what if we spread the meme that he’s afraid to do it? Right now, such a meme would not take off. However, if he drags his feet on the issue, we can make a case that he is afraid to touch affirmative action laws. How would Trump, a person who pays attention to social media, react, if he saw that people thought he was afraid to attack affirmative action policies? He’d prove us all “wrong.” He’s a man who responds to challenges.

Remember this one. It’s important.

Imminence and Transcendence

The tension between imminence and transcendence is the irritating grain-of-sand-in-the-oyster-that-makes-the-pearl (hyphens!) that has plagued philosophers from Heraclitus straight up through to the present day. Heraclitus had some mystical stuff about flux being organized by an eternal logos and Parmenides gave the imminent world a giant middle finger and rode off into the unchanging sunset with his arm around transcendence. I would like to go with him.

Fast-forward to the present day, and we have a conundrum. We see that a total focus on imminence tends to send everything down the shitter, while a total focus on transcendence leaves you helpless. It would be great if we could reconcile them, but we can’t, because that’s impossible.

Brett Stevens over at Amerika is a Heraclitus if there ever was one. His nihilism basically takes the bare intuitive notion of “reality” and chucks everything else out the window. This leads to a transcendent pragmatism, if you can imagine such a thing, that might just break through into the next age. But I can see the seed of trouble in it. His notion of transcendence is too small. Don’t get me wrong. Like I said, a true reconciliation between the immanence and transcendence is impossible. Stevens takes the bare notion of reality (which is where he gets his transcendence) and uses “pattern-order” or the ongoing process of nature, as the means by which that bare notion of reality leaks into the phenomenal world.

The trouble is that brilliant little Konigsbergian bastard, Kant. Stevens, I deduce, imbibed a shit-ton of Nietzsche (the most potent psychoactive he tried, no doubt), who brings with him Kant’s dark agnosticism about the noumenal realm. The danger is that the bare notion of reality will drop out of the picture when some one-sigma-above-average smartass decides to bracket it away as a useful heuristic or something. Then the transcendence winks out and we’re left with the same old dialectical materialist me-me-me egocentric circle-jerk that has defined the past few centuries of our decline.

What I see here, and what I suspect Stevens also sees, is that we need a real spirituality. We need an authentic, real, honest-to-God (words not chosen lightly) sense of transcendence apprehended in living experience. More importantly, we need a life path for this. The problem is that you can’t put this stuff together with an abstract rule system (a favorite whipping-boy over at Amerika for the past year or so), but in order for large numbers of people to seek such transcendence, you need a culture in place.

This is the key. The next culture that comes up, the heir to the legacy of the West, will be born at the same time as, intertwined with, and reciprocally defined by, the spirituality discovered by despairing modern man. It starts with us.

Not sure how to close this essay, except to let you all know to buy a nice extensive library of a particular kind of book (Evola, Tao Te Ching, Eckhardt, etc.), read the fuck out of it, and engage in some spiritual practice or the other. Doesn’t matter what kind – sit on a cushion and stare at your nose, pray to rocks and trees, whatever. Just get moving.

The Future

The biggest obstacle for the visionaries of the Right is the difficulty of imagining a radically different future. I like the “four pillars” of reactionary thought currently circulating through the alt-right sphere:

  1. Culture
    We have an identity and a continuity with the past, which acts as a compass.
  2. Discipline
    The human ego, with its weakness and pettiness, is the root of most of the evil in the world. We defeat the dysfunction and entropy in society by defeating it in ourselves.
  3. Aristocracy
    Hierarchy in society, put the best in charge. We don’t do this through a system of rules. We do it as individuals by finding the best people around us and pushing them to take charge.
  4. Transcendence
    There exists a reality outside of us that is inaccessible to the analytical intellect and phenomenal consciousness. Our reverence to the ineffable, and its primary emanations (i.e. the pattern-order of the universe and the laws of nature) is what guides us in the right direction and provides us with a goal.

By themselves, though, these aren’t enough. We need a more concrete vision, guided and defined by the four pillars. Here are some thoughts:

  1. Culture, the first pillar, is to be realized through two prongs. First, reject the trash that modern society has produced, not by censoring or destroying it, but by ignoring it and refusing to engage in it. Amidst all the trash, some isolated men in modern society have created worthwhile art and philosophy. Take what is good and reject everything else. Art is a product of the struggle for self-definition and accomplishment of a civilization. That’s the direction toward which our art tends.
  2. Discipline, the second pillar, means striving for excellence in your individual life. The quality of individuals is what gives rise to the quality of civilizations. Physical and mental strength and health is what we need as individuals, and until we have it, we don’t have a chance.
  3. Aristocracy, the third pillar, cannot be realized by a system of rules. If you know someone who is a natural leader, push them to take charge. If you know someone who is a natural thinker, push them to create. This can’t be accomplished by us all following a checklist; it has to be a case of each of us using their best judgment.
  4. Transcendence, the fourth pillar, is the most difficult, and the culmination of the first three. When the first three are in place, the fourth will arrive on its own, and it becomes evident at that point that the striving for transcendence was at the root of the impulse to put the first three pillars in place.