Whence conspiracy?

Watch a flock of birds sometime, and you will notice something peculiar: the flock seems to move with a certain amount of cohesion that seems to bely the limited cognitive capacity of the creatures involved. The flock tends to move in one overall direction, because the birds in the flock each follow the bird in front of them. Any smartass with some background in philosophy can describe this as an example of emergence– that is, a bunch of little parts follow some simple rules, and you see some complex behavior on a larger scale that isn’t organized by any single part. The birds don’t decide all at once to go in some particular direction, and they don’t get together and come to a decision. It just happens as a result of many birds engaging in similar behavior.

Humans also do this. However, since humans are cognitively much more complex than other animals, and tend to co-operate in huge numbers, the emergent patterns are much more difficult to understand than those of, say, a flock of birds or a school of fish. If you spend some time talking to Dark Enlightenment types about the “Cathedral,” their understanding of it boils down to something like this.We have a group of people who all believe in similar, or at least related, concepts (equality, democracy, etc.). When so many people are focused on propounding this kind of thing, it is a natural consequence that opposing ideas are very promptly snuffed out.

And yet, the Cathedral is typically dismissed as a “conspiracy.” I used to be confused by this, because there are plenty of people who understand things like the feminist concept of patriarchy to a high degree of nuance, and understand why it is not a conspiracy theory. Such people (as you can see by means of a cursory viewing of various feminist websites) will, for example, dismiss research into cognitive differences between men and women as the product of sexist bias (“patriarchy”) on the part of the researchers. But for all that, they can’t understand the idea that the Cathedral doesn’t involve anyone ‘conspiring’ with anyone else. It took a long time for me to understand that there is a deeply rooted (and easily missed) fallacy at work here, in addition to a simple cognitive bias.

The first problem is a recondite case of circular argumentation. The patriarchy is seen as a nuanced and intricate concept based on a lot of hard work done by feminists. But the Cathedral? That’s a conspiracy theory. The idea that the Cathedral may be a similar concept simply does not occur, because the Cathedral is a product of that crazy Dark Enlightenment stuff, and we know the Dark Enlightenment people are crazy because of the crazy things they believe in… like the Cathedral. In other news, I’m the king of tautologies because I’m the king of tautologies. This seems like a very obvious error, but the cognitive bias at work here makes it an easy mistake

The second problem is a comparatively simple case of confirmation bias. Those Dark Enlightenment weirdos are always on about the universities and how leftist they are. So the Dark Enlightenment people clearly believe that the university professors are involved in a conspiracy! The idea that, for example, humanities and social science departments may be echo chambers for people with a particular set of related opinions, does not occur, because the anti-conspiracy types never bother to look deeply enough into DE thinking to get that. Of course, if one does accept the echo chamber nature of universities, then the rest follows naturally; universities are institutions with a great deal of social and intellectual clout, so they play a huge role in shaping culture and public opinion. But understanding all of that takes too much thinking – tossing it in the “conspiracy” bin is easy.

Two Prongs

In the event that Trump is elected, I foresee a two-pronged strategy.

  1. Short-term prong: push Trump as far right as possible. Popularize the “if only white men voted” images, to ensure that Trump enacts policies that secure his re-election the only way he can: by deporting and disenfranchising those who would vote against him. This allows us to gain an initial advantage, and push forward with a strategy that Trump himself has used to great effect; gain an initial advantage through brute force, and then use that initial advantage to eliminate the opponents’ ability to respond.
  2. Long-term prong: infiltrate and begin a take-over of the tech industry. The upper-crust of alt-right intelligentsia ought to do this, for two reasons. One, it cements a financial and socio-cultural stronghold for us that will enable a long-term push toward a Traditionalist society. Two, it creates a wealthy and powerful Brahmin caste whose descendants can slowly seize power over the next century. It can be plausibly argued that our culture is simply too degraded to produce someone worthy of being a monarch; if we want a philosopher-king, we’re going to have to create a “walled garden” in our society where such people can be trained and bred.

A closing note: a certain amount of nepotism in an alt-right network of affiliated tech-industry workers is desirable. We would not include just anyone, of course, but we’d be willing to back up anybody who has a history of doing good work or, even better, succeeding at risky ventures, even if they occasionally fail. In addition to being a better industry model, this would insulate the alt-right tech-sphere from the dangers of being exposed to the economic flux of the tech industry, thus allowing it to gain power and slowly come to dominate that sector of the economy. This would act both as a beachhead from which assaults could be launched on other sectors (e.g. academia), and as a group of people who would become a de facto techno-aristocracy.

This is the way forward. If anyone sees ways of improving it, or has some tactical ideas, let’s hear it. But this is how the next incarnation of the Western soul will be born. Treat this as a prophecy, if that term works for you.

Bum-Rush the Tech Industry

Some characteristics of the technology sector:

  1. It seems to be in constant flux. Huge, established companies wither away into nothing in less than a decade, and new ones crop up.
  2. It is extremely wealthy.
  3. It is relatively easy to access, in terms of careers and company creation.

So why are we on the alt-right not infiltrating it?

Think about it. A large amount of our problems come from the absence of financial backing. A network of tech-minded alt-righters could easily spring up; there are more than enough intelligent people in our movement. As soon as one or a few of us get some traction, we can engage in low-key (and later on, blatant) political nepotism to begin getting a political foothold on the tech sector.

I propose the following outline:

  1. If you’re an intelligent (IQ > 120) alt-righter, learn to code, and begin educating yourself about technology. Don’t worry about “not having a math/science brain.” Anyone with an IQ over that threshold can find a technological field in which he excels.
  2. Join a big company if you have to, and get some experience in the industry.
  3. Either begin freelancing or start your own company.

(note: what follows is a rough-and-ready ballpark estimate. Treat it as such.)

The immensely wealthy technology sector employed under 7 million people in February of this year. I have not been able to find any reliable measures of alt-right sentiment with a quick search, so let’s ballpark the number of alt-right types as roughly one quarter of Trump voters. Hillary seems to think that roughly half of his voters are in the “basket of deplorables,” so this is really a pessimistic estimate for the alt-right, compared to hers. Let’s say that Trump voters are 40% of the population (not necessarily 40% of likely voters). Suppose that a small fraction of those – say, 2 million – went into the tech sector. Hey, what do you know? Now a significant minority of one of the wealthiest segments of the economy is alt-right. The effect on politics and culture would be profound, to say the least.

Invincibility

The following two propositions do not contradict one another on a logical level. They are, however, extremely difficult to balance on a psychological level.

  1. It is best to act without emotional attachment to results.
  2. Every action must be coordinated to achieve the best results.

This is key to success. 2 makes you effective on an act-for-act basis, while 1 keeps you unfazed by failure, thus making you more consistent.

My mindset in my political activism is like this: if this civilization crashes and burns and a newer, better one never arises, then it doesn’t matter. What matters is that I acted as effectively as possible while I lived. That is to say, I achieved the optimal results, regardless of whether they ultimately lead to a better world.

This is how the great civilizations of Europe (and Japan, for that matter) have operated when they were at their best. Stoicism was popular in the Roman Empire for a reason. Don’t worry about how it will all end. Your mindset should be that, even if it all comes to nothing, it doesn’t matter. You must simply keep acting as efficiently as possible. That is all.

Aphorisms

  1. We all bleed red. So do rats.
  2. Nothing strikes fear into the heart of a degenerate like the presence of one who refuses to join the degenerate in their degeneracy. This is why people get so defensive when they find out that you don’t drink or engage in premarital sex.
  3. Real contempt is not concerned with making itself known to its object. If they really had contempt for you, they wouldn’t be so keen on letting you know. Just smirk at the facade with which they hide their fear.
  4. Mind over matter; if you don’t mind, it don’t matter.
  5. Their bluster and sanctimony and threats of social sanction are just hot air. Stand firm until the squall passes, and you will find that it was an empty threat to begin with. Against their will, they will respect you, whether they like it or not.
  6. Go ahead and be mean.
  7. A detailed investigation of contemporary opinion and culture reveals a fetishization of what is lower. Serrano and Mapplethorpe make disgusting art that reflect the spirit of the age, and the Marxist fetish for victimhood reveals a personal weakness of the most despicable kind. We live in an age dominated by people who worship shit.

Fragments

  1. The cliff is high, the chasm deep
    So let the foolish lemmings leap
    Those you cannot teach to fly
    Teach to crash and burn and die
  2. I am strong and this I know
    My intuition tells me so
    My foe’s demise will come ere long
    They are weak, but I am strong
  3. Begging mercy for their sins
    Darwin, laughing, spreads his wings
  4. When clever monkeys say your name
    Do not try to play their game
    There is nothing more to say;
    The winning move is not to play
  5. Hide your light from vermin’s eyes
    Feign ignorance and tell them lies
    Just play dumb and keep your cool
    For rodents are not hard to fool
    This will make them leave you be
    They can’t resent what they don’t see