THE PSYCHOLOGY OF POLITICAL EXTREMISM
By Josh Neal, Perth, Imperium Press 2020
The writing, especially for a book with conservative interests, reads ‘luxuriously’. Cogent, clear, sincere, emotive, deeply informed, rich vocabulary, well edited, insightful, and providing a correct diagnosis – and absolutely free of unfounded, speculative, or hyperbolic claims. So the author rapidly, and justifiably, obtains the reader’s trust.
The premise is stated clearly and directly, and followed by example after example. In fact, after the first chapter, the book is a topic by topic exposition of the crisis of our age, thoroughly defending his theory. And the book is divided into the usual three acts: the problem, examination, and what to do about it. In Act 1, the author lays out his premise. I won’t cover act two of the book – it’s filled with examples that are better read than summarized. Act three is a plea for solutions and virtue – but a solution isn’t provided.
The general thesis is that extremism in defense of the good isn’t extremism, and extremism in the prosecution of the bad isn’t extremism, but extremism in pursuit of the bad is extremism, and therefore conservatives are not extremists and that conservatives are justified in the prosecution of the bad – just not by extremism.
A very minor ‘editorial’ criticism of the title of the book. In my experience as a fellow traveler in this field, that like religiosity in the USA, conservatism in the USA is unlike that of UK and Europe – and is anti-intellectual, bordering on a demand for Christian, germanic, or greek parable – or video game, graphic novel, or comic book for that matter. Perhaps the minority of intellectuals is the publisher and author’s target. And so I would have suggested a title more of a promise of what the reader will get from reading it. (“In Defense of Elitism” by Henry comes to mind by analogy.)
For Traditionalists and Christians, this book will provide reinforcement of priors, ideas and examples, useful framing, and apologetic positioning for arguing with the opposition. For those along the journey of learning this is the state of the art for non-technical understanding. For political activists, this is a thorough critique of the present conditions gently couched in unthreatening language. And it ends on an optimistic if unactionable note. For intellectuals that already know the data I think my commentary on the book will provide more insight especially because instead of literary and psychological language I use economic and legal terms.
And in general, the book is a worthy read. Much more so that almost anything else that comes across my desk from within the anglosphere.
Notes and Comments:
In my understanding, the difference between left extremism by incremental destruction and the only possible means of countering it by faster extremism is not a philosophical but simply practical reality. The left are extremists by increment, and the right are extremists by rapid action. This difference is just that of between the warfare strategies of females by verbal social undermining and males by physical political violence. It’s not complicated, It’s not theoretical, It’s not even necessary to plan. It’s just instinct we have as primates. And we live in the Third Age: the roman road, greek writing, and slow Christian revolt. The printing press and slow protestant counter-revolt against superstition. And the era of industrial production, mass media, and the Jewish pseudoscientific revolt. The first ended in endemic warfare and a dark age. The second in hundreds of years of wars, and this one has already brought on two world wars, and we don’t know at the moment but it certainly looks like it’s bringing on world war three.
Note that the author is relying on psychology and empathy, and I’m relying on group strategy, history, law, and economics. These are two different systems of thought. These are my comments from my skill set.
He begins with the failure of psychology, and psychologists functioning as a vanguard, freeing [individual] man from [tradition, ritual, community] (and psychology as pseudoscience and sophistry).
“An important argument which I will continue to make throughout this work is that no scientific fact or philosophical insight is born in a vacuum, and none of them are without their masters. They are the both the product of the State and the life’s blood by which it might legitimize, nay, realize its own raison d’être.”
I don’t know how it’s the product of the state, or that the state is available b/c of democracy in the absence of monarchy, as a tool of coercion of the people, just as is religion, just as moral norms, just as is science.
“Science is a tool of power, and thus the hard-won knowledge gained through the scientific method inevitably becomes a tool
for State expansion and oppression, in addition to the other benefits it can provide.”
Instead, we seek power, the people in the state seek power, as scale and complexity increase, to prevent competing power, and to maximize extraction of returns that can be converted to commons to justify power, and converted to rents to reward themselves for use of power.
“scientific discipline, just like an individual, can decay, retard its own positive development,”
Science provides decidability (argumentative power), and cognitive, argumentative, and technological advantages, that can be used to influence, coerce and exert power. And the behavioral pseudosciences of the political ‘science’ (philosophy) of democracy and democratic socialism, economics, sociology, psychology, have been used to (a) replace a long history of empirically evolved (adversarial survival) traditions, morals, ethics, and norms, (b) to seek power by the capture of the state, under democracy, by false promises to an unknowing populace of freedom from the formal, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws of the universe, in the form of (i) freedom from physical scarcity by unlimited growth, (ii) freedom from behavioral self-interest, amorality, reciprocity, and kin selection, and (iii) freedom from the evolutionary genetic load, sexual market value, assortative mating, regression to the mean, natural selection, and the necessity of defeating the red queen – by the claim of oppression rather than continuous evolutionary domestication (pacification) of the animal man, as with any other domesticated animal.
“… it is now a fact that knowledge is diluted, hoarded,and weaponized for the purposes of State control. “
Christianity was imposed by the same means in the supernatural age as marxism-neo-marxism-postmodenrism in the present. The Failure of the people to defend against the present pseudoscientific era is nothing more than women in the voting pool, followed by immigrants, none of whom have evolved with the (harsh) European (demanding) tradition of conformity to physical natural and evolutionary laws in politics, government, and war, and in Christian ethics in private and social life. So I sort of agree that science has replaced supernaturalism and that we are going through a repeat of the Christian destruction of the ancient world, using the same methodology, same false promises, but this time a pseudoscientific religion of hate vs supernatural religion of love.
“Differences of opinion are no longer met with cautious optimism and curiosity but scathing hatred.”
This is because (a) the argumentative power of science with near term material advantage, is greater than the argumentative power of supernaturalism with long term advantage. (b) there the only solution to arguing against science is denial, shouting down, and silencing.
And so we come to the author’s mission statement:
I humbly present a new analysis of political extremism. Moreover, I present a radical redefinition of extremism that aims to place the responsibility for our failings where they truly belong. In a way, I am engaging in the same tradition of liberation—not to undermine the psychological stability of the individual, nor to place more power in the hands of reckless and tyrannical institutions and advocacy groups, but to use my words like a crowbar to pry open the American mind and release the demons implanted there by generations of irresponsible scientists, talking heads, and policymakers.
And now we must understand how the author seeks to accomplish this worthy goal.
in Christopher Caldwell’s recent book The Age of Entitlement, where he pointed out that America is presently divided between the founding constitutional document and its mid-twentieth century legal replacement (brought about by the civil rights movement); we are not only contending with dueling legal understandings but dual and incompatible understandings of our own mythical, histori-
cal, and parabolic origins.
Well, this is correct, but it wasn’t brought about by the civil rights movement. Positive Law and the civil rights movement, massive immigration, and anti-male feminism were brought about by Jewish intellectuals taking advantage of our (a) legal common law (market) tradition as they took advantage of (b) the open democratic franchise (c) open access to public speech, universities, and the state (d) high trust and openness to a hostile religion and people (d) mass media and entertainment. Because Jewish legal theorists dominated 20th-century legal theory (Dworkin, Hart et al) just as they had dominated the other behavioral pseudosciences and logical sophistries (Gould, Harari, Boaz, Freud, Marx, Zin, the frankfurt and postmodern schools). And Jewish law is kritarchic (non-evolutionary, justificationary, legal positivism, rule by judges) instead of common law democratic, legislative, and by the jury (forcing the responsibility on the people for their own understanding, adaptation and accountability).
Our legal system is an evolutionary feedback loop, that preserves responsibility. The law is neutral. The natural laws of the universe are sovereign and we are accountable for our success or failure in adapting to them. The fact that the greeks Romans Catholics British and Americans have failed to state this clearly is simply one of doing what works without making up lies rather than making up lies to make society, polity, and economy work. In other words, the secret of western civilization’s rapid evolution in every era but the dark ages, is that we pay the high cost of testimonial truth (truth before face) regardless of the cost to self, competence, or dominance hierarchy – and no other civilization does or even comes close. We normalized military reporting because we began as entrepreneurial warriors and converted our entire polity to a militial army. The only means of governing such a polity is demonstrated by Viking, pirate, and entrepreneurial ethics: there is no authority other than reciprocity, and as such the law is sovereign. This is the most empirical social, political, economic, and military organization humanly possible, and is also the most adaptive.
So the problem is that our LAW wasn’t articulated scientifically by the time of the Warren Court, and that only changed a little bit with the Scalia court. This is in fact, the entirety of the problem. The political and legal institutions of Western civilization are those of craftsmen, engineers, soldiers, and pirates, and our western tradition handed down generation by generation as a practical craft that we DO – not one we debate. It is a purely empirical method of governance and has been for 5000 years.
But we have not devoted equal effort to state it scientifically as we have to the physical sciences. And I have a nagging suspicion that it’s because it’s exhaustively Darwinian and that the postwar Jewish war on western civilization, like the two thousand years of war against western civilization, is because it’s costly, reciprocal, meritocratic, Darwinian, and eugenic. And that the middle-class seizure of the aristocracy in the ancient world – Greece and Rome – as well as in the modern – England, America, and France – was by the false promise of an aristocracy of everyone, and the false promise that all men and women were as driven by middle-class virtues (commercial class imitations of military virtues). And it was false.
“if a people can be ripped from their inherited narratives (which are best understood as a true collective fiction or ideology), or merely have their narratives re-written in a way that is disempowering, then they necessarily become psychologically vulnerable to the slings and arrows of malevolent storytellers and cognitive colonizers.”
Correct as stated, insufficient in defense against implication. Narratives are best understood as a group’s evolutionary strategy in analogical form, – a system of weights and measures providing the group with cognitive, ethical, moral, interpersonal social political and military commensurability – so that the group can organize in large numbers unconsciously to advance that group strategy.
But this says nothing about the goodness or badness – meaning evolutionary fitness or unfitness of the strategy nor whether that strategy is productive, parasitic, or predatory. European group evolutionary strategy is by far, without peer, in its lack of deviation from formal (logical), physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, which is the reason for our high trust, prosperity, and extraordinary rate of evolutionary progress in bronze, iron, steel, and silicon ages.
So the author’s criticism is correct but fails to expose the sheer horror of westerners’ loss of their tradition compared to others. We are the only people that didn’t FAIL to discover, adapt to and apply the laws of the universe. So like many life forms were tried, most failed. Many civilizational strategies were tried, and most failed. Destroying western civilization is not just creating another dark age, but pushing mankind into a great filter. And so how is that for terrifying?
While it is not ideal to describe the resulting psychological deficits using the language of mental illness
We needed a paradigm for discussing psychology that isn’t pseudoscientific, and we have one, (Behavioral economics and natural law). But just as we were advanced in craftsmanly sciences (physical), we were not in behavioral sciences. The reason is a bit hard for the layman to grasp. But the age we are in is the computational age. Computation (algorithms, programming) is a novel kind of logic. Previous logic was ideal (mathematics) or verbal (sets) but only engineering and law were operational (algorithmic) – meaning “bound by realism and naturalism and a sequence of actions in time”. So in 1830, when Babbage built his machine, he didn’t convert it from engineering to logic, theory, or philosophy, and in doing so delayed until Turing’s era, and thereby delayed the logic that was necessary to explain the western tradition. Hayek and Popper came fairly close. But it is only the present generation of neuroscience, artificial intelligence, algorithmic logic combined with the evidence of behavioral economics that has given us the frame for the solution to the behavioral and evolutionary sciences, just as it was the generation of maxwell, Poincare, Hilbert, and einstein that gave us the frame for the solution of time and space.
In short, the subversion of religious, national, and ethnic mythos grants a tremendous capacity for political and social control. Much of contemporary discourse is itself a fight over the rights to our foundational myths so that they may be used to combat the social and political ills of our time—namely racism, anti-Semitism, fascism, inequality, misogyny, colonialism, imperialism, and homophobia (to name a few).
It’s more than that. it’s the second or third conflict of semitic and western civilization. Between western masculine rapid, innovative, adaptive, productive, and eugenic, and semitic feminine slow, stagnating, devolutionary, and dysgenic civilization – the ancient war of the newer steppe people and continuous change by the primacy of man gainst the older south Eurasian people and the primacy of spirits, gods, demons, and continuous stagnation – they cannot compete against creativity. Their first institution is religion (supernaturalism). Our first institution is the law (realism). We were, and are, the new gods that falsify theirs, their religion, their narratives, and their group strategy – and they hate us for it. Yet at the same time desperately come to live among us to gain the benefits of our realism.
“…as an expression of male fragility and terror.”
It is not fear, it is disgust. It is not terror, it is disgust. If there is any fear, it is not fear of them. It is fear of the destruction, devolution, and dysgenia they bring, to reverse five thousand years of our hard-fought transcendence of man – from their state as non-rational beasts, to our state of rational man.
And because myths have no authors, they can be seen as part of the commons—belonging to the public domain—and therefore subject to an unending sequence of reappropriations.
Again, as Hayek explained, but failed to solve, most civilizations defend their informational commons. But Europeans are trifunctional – competition between military, law, philosophy, and faith, and only the Chinese are likewise (sun tzu, confucius, lao-tzu, buddha). And the christian(empathic) – pre-Christian (analytic) made an eternal conflict that the Aristotelian restoration, Darwinian age, sought to solve. It was only postwar jews and their war gainst eugenics by the destruction of every single institution in western civilization that brought about this change.
My point is that we have now ‘scienced’ western civilization. We have explained western conviction as least divergent from the laws of the universe. We have explained that this is the reason for our disproportionate success. And we have explained why the other civilization – and in particular the most failed, devolutionary, and destructive civilization in human history: Semitic Abrahamic supernatural, is the destroyer of civilizations. And that this the second attempt to destroy western civilization by immigration, conversion, undermining, and destruction of our informational commons – and as a consequence our institutions and group strategy. This is a second Semitic dark age. The Chinese and the Indians understand the danger. It is our optimistic European high trust and our excessive sensitivity to altruistic punishment that prohibits us from equal warfare against these hostiles.
So the author’s premise is correct. The problem is it can’t be won argumentatively. We have to obtain the power to restore truthful speech, and if we do, the left literally can’t speak. Because the entire left program is nothing but lies and false promises.
There is no ‘authority’ in western civilization but nature and nature’s laws. That’s the whole point. The purpose of rule of law, of our ancient traditions, is not to produce authority, but to produce accountability from the lowest to the highest, just as in every military organization. The law says “we insure one another’s right to self-determination by self-determined means. This leaves us without authority other than the law. And only reciprocity, truth, duty, and markets to govern ourselves in daily life, and hierarchy in war. So in democratic government like all the rest of life the people may choose – but choose wisely – for you pay the costs of your choice.” This is why the emphasis on Monarchy or aristocracy, senate or nobility, house or commoners (farmers), and manor, church, or temple for those lacking demonstrated ability to meet these requirements.
So the problem isn’t authority. It’s that we lack a monarchy as a judge of last resort – and that our law is insufficiently articulated in the face of undermining by legal positivists, and our information under assault by lies and false promises by sophistry and pseudoscience, and our traditions by historical revisionist propaganda and overwhelming immigration. People are seeking authority because they don’t know how to solve the problem, and they know in their metaphysics that authority is bad. The answer is simple: finish ‘sciencing’ the law.
In the western tradition, we divide responsibility. We don’t delegate authority. We delegate responsibility for decidability. (The need to state this today is evidence of the thoroughness of the destruction of our history). The French destruction of the common law, by the imposition of the continental law, obscured the western tradition. We are all sovereign. Under the common law we are sovereign: equal before the law. Every man his own state and legislature. Americans alone still retain sovereignty in the law, and therefore sovereignty of the individual, and not sovereignty of state or parliament. (So, that’s what ‘outlaw’ means. Outside the protection of the law. Outside of the reciprocal insurance of defense. “Open season”: no longer insured by the people. “Do what you will with him and his assets”.) So Americans, until now, and previously the British and the Germans, before parliament took sovereignty from the common law, and therefore from men.
This is the reason for the set of (Jewish postwar) lies:
(a) The USA is not a country, it is a federation of states (like Europe is trying and failing to create). The USA uses the British form of government but is modeled after the holy roman empire o the german people, which only fell after napoleon’s conquest after having existed for a thousand years: a loose federation of many microstates.
(b) The USA is not a democracy. it is a Republic under rule of law – meaning LIMITED power granted to the executive, legislature and courts, by the people to act on their behalf. A republic is intended to use representatives with demonstrated evidence of skills necessary to make political-economic and military decisions. (We no longer do that.)
(c) The constitution is not a living document. It is a statement of natural law, (reciprocity) and amendments, legislation, and findings of the court (case law) are transactions that modify that law. It’s an accounting system in law.
(d) The law is not open to reinterpretation or judicial discretion – the court interprets the text (textualism) as by original meaning (originalism) so that the transactions against the constitution are performed only by the legislature. (Thanks to Saint Judge Antonin Scalia.)
(d) The purpose of limiting the court to those measurements is to demanding that all changes pass thru the public debate through the legislature and that no ‘specialist, or ‘authority’ exists other than survival of adversarial competition in the legislature on behalf of the people who voted for the representatives.
(e) Rule OF law does not mean rule BY law. Rule of law by natural law means that the law is sovereign and every individual sovereign under it. Rule by law means the laws of the universe (natural law), and the people are not sovereignty – but the legislature is. America is the only country where the law is sovereign. Every other country now has parliamentary sovereignty. And rule of law by natural law is the only method of maintaining human adaptation to changes in circumstances (scientific government).
(f) Some form of Democracy is necessary under rule of law – because there is no authority other than the law, and therefore only the people can decide, only as a jury (congress) and only after adversarial competition (argument, and voting)
(g) Every form of Democracy functions as market. Multiple house government functions as a market between states, and classes. (We Broke that by direct election of the senate).
Markets under rule of law will produce moral consumer capitalism. Markets under rule by law will not. Markets under arbitrary rule will produce black markets. Attempting to circumvent markets will produce black markets, corruption, disincentives, starvation, and decline.
“Conservatism to a great degree is an instinct toward retention”
Not quite. Conservatism is to a great degree, demand for empirical evidence given that western people, or at least northern European western people given the tendency of human ignorance, error, wishful thinking, fraud, and deceit, continue the tradition of personal responsibility for the commons – just as soldiers do their duty on behalf of the army because every link in the chain must remain closed or it will break. There is a reason our ancestors used princes and princesses, warriors and saints, and the catholic church taught us dogma in the mirror image of European law. The higher the trust the lower the conservatism. The lower the trust the higher the conservatism. So as the left destroys trust conservatives double down.
the disposition of the Northwestern peoples who conquered the American continent, in conjunction with the selective pressures which attracted different ethnic groups to this country once it had been settled, established individualism as the American modus operandi.
Not quite true. The history of Europe, and in particular the Holy Roman Empire, the germanic civilization of which England was an integral member, maintains the same legal and operational system from prehistory to the present. (Prior to the spartan example. Sparta is the only group that retained the traditions of the Indo European steppe expansion across Europe into the period of writing. They didn’t innovate in response to the peasant (slave) revolt they returned to the previous tradition. It is one thing to read literature, and it is another thing to read law and economy. While the literature changes the law and economy and group strategy remain the same – for the past five thousand years – with the Jewish Christian invasion, like this invasion of pseudoscience, and the dark age that followed the only interruption.
Americans struggle to think through many social and political questions largely because of the heavily confused moral language we bring to our dialogue.
Again, the British agrarian, commercial, financial, industrial revolutions came so rapidly and in such sequence and under such conditions of western dominance of the world because of these tremendous technical innovations, didn’t require us much introspection into the science of our own functions until we were attacked by the second Jewish conquest of marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, antimale feminism, pc, woke, anti-whiteness, white genocide.
So let me say this a little more directly: westerners conquered the world with our innovations because of our 5000-year tradition of innovation and adaptation, but we didn’t self reflect on the science of WHY we produced our innovations as much as we did the innovations themselves, we just congratulated ourselves on our ethics and morals and virtues without knowing what made them – as if they were a choice when they were just a deterministic outcome of an accident of history, caused by the necessity of organizing steppe raiders into an army that could protect vast herds with bronze, horse, and cart, and increase caloric consumption by 30%+ by doing so, escaping the victimization of nature by doing so, and converting to the primacy of man over nature and gods by doing so, and to conquer everything from Spain to China as a consequence. And in four earas: the bronze, steel, iron and now silicon, drag man out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early eath, the tyranny of men, and the vicissitudes of nature all but hostile to human life.
Along came another people who are innovators in LYING AND DECEIT from a 10,000-year tradition of lying and deceit, with a technology of lying and deceit that is as advanced as our testimonial truth, mathematics, science, technology, law, and politics. And they LEAPFROGGED us in deceptive technology because of unique vulnerabilities in our ancestral unwritten tradition: self-determination, openness to competition, and trust. Just as they leapfrogged us with Jewish Christianity in the ancient world. Why? Because religion is a resistance force against change. And while there are only three institutions available to man masculine army-state, neutral commerce, and law, feminine faith, and religion, the order that we develop them in creates an architecture that is immutable over time. We are materialists as any military must be, and developed law, the state, and then religion, meaning religion was our weak – the last institution As such it was the means of insurrection. The same is true today. Our church failed to reform – even though the seeds were there in our common law, the catholic natural law, and the Jeffersonian bible – and we were out-competed in our weakest institution by the people that failed at law and state: Jews and Muslims. The lesson is that we must reform our ‘religion’ so that it is no longer vulnerable to ‘leapfrogging’ by competing religions predicated on LIES and FALSE PROMISES, rather than truths: that we Europeans by every measure possible, discover, adapt to, and apply the laws of the universe and universe’s god. That Jesus’ teaching was philosophical, not theological, and a provided a means of underclass tolerance of this rapid adaptation and it’s natural eugenics, by exhaustive application of love and charity. That the jews took this man’s teaching and made a mockery of lies out of it as a means of insurrection. That the Muslims took this means of insurrection and weaponized it themselves and destroyed every great civilization of the ancient world, reducing it to ritual ignorance, ritual superstition, dysgenia, despotism, nihilism, irresponsibility, and endemic inescapable poverty.
the politics of misrepresentation (PoM, henceforth) consist of 1) the maligning of intent 2) a demand for hyper-accountability (holding an individual or group responsible for acts that are unreasonable or cannot be justified; or to say this in a simpler way, holding one’s interlocutor to a higher moral standard than would be typically expected), 3) outright libel or slander, 4) projection, and 5) an unwillingness to disclose one’s own true belief or objective.
Yes. Or more globally, Avoidance of a competitive and equally articulated equally criticizable argument in order to obscure their intent, by some combination of false promise by supernatural, sophistic, or pseudoscientific means: Pilpul (sophistry) and undermining the arguer by Critique (undermining), by “GSRRM”: denial, distraction, outraging, shaming, moralizing, psychologizing, ridicule, gossiping, reputation destruction; and by heaping of undue praise on some tangential character that advances their interests. This is because they are engaged in some form of free-riding, parasitism, predation or destruction and would be hung if they stated their intentions openly.
Now the author explains his concept of extremism:
Political extremism is not necessarily about any particular ideology or objective, but rather a set of biopsycho- social predispositions and an overall attitude of hostility toward eusocial practices and conventions. What is political extremism? It is the instantiation of the death principle, of Thanatos, as per Freud. The extremist stands in diametrical opposition to the radical who seeks life, and for whom destruction is a controlled and methodical tool wielded for the purpose of greater creation (a conception of the death instinct that is more in alignment with Sabina Speilrein’s interpretation).
Ok. That’s a bit of postmodern prose right there. Let’s convert it to “Extremism consists of hostility to eusocial (living in a cooperative group) practices and conventions (group strategy, organizational strategy, metaphysical, formal, traditional, normative institutions) in pursuit of imagined creative destruction (revolution) in pursuit of an ideal (utopia).”
Unfortunately, this says nothing about whether the extremist is trying to restore western civilization’s evolutionary arc, or destroy it like the jews and Muslims have so man other civilizations and reduced them to chaos, murder, and ashes.
The extremist says, “either I get exactly what I want or I’ll burn everything to the ground.” Higher-functioning and genetically gifted types will find success in working toward their individual projects, as their natural abilities allow them to more deftly navigate social realities, though they still find themselves unable to restrain their more tyrannical impulses.
True so how is an internal extremist practicing INFORMATIONAL WARFARE different from an internal revolutionary practicing physical warfare, from an external actor practicing Total war (strategic, military, economic, social, religous, informational), or different from an external actor using terrorism (violence)? Internal vs external, and choice of weaponry.
we are caught between two competing understandings of the extremist. The first, a self-serving definition which aids the program of hegemonic power, and the second (more useful understanding) which allows us to recognize, for the first time, who truly threatens our welfare and the future of the American project.
Of course. Extremism isn’t a meaningful criticism without the context of the end goal.
I must be frank and say that we can’t meaningfully defeat extremism, and when we consider the current methodology for doing so, the project appears doubly flawed.
If such a thing is even possible then I will offer my thoughts. A good place to start may be found in attacking (and ultimately replacing) the pathocrat’s vision for the future.
At this point I feel slight embarrassment over the vague description I have provided, so I will try to get to the essential core of my message. Man must be provided an alternative to steer him away from despair, but also to disincline him from taking immediate, thoughtless, and destructive action out of sheer frustration.
The claustrophobia produced by liberalism and its derivatives is not an anxiety over physical spaces so much as it is an anxiety of metaphysical spaces which stifle man’s relation to himself, his fellow man, and to God.
This isn’t quite right. Instead, the promise of personal prosperity, of personal choice of destiny, of personal fulfillment because of that prosperity, of not having to fulfill civic obligations, not having compromise, and develop personal bonds by doing so, of living in a box of one’s own illusion, of television characters as substitutes for friends, of news media and entertainment as preachers from the pulpit, and of sating the anxiety of alienation that results by consumption, fits the temporary needs of the highly self-interested, highly prosocial, and hyper consumptive who find no value in family and the company of families and the transformation of commons for the enjoyment of families.
We did not come together as the left promised and woman intuit – we diverged by genetic interests. Because unless we are common in interest in our families we are uncommon in interest in the self and the self alone – and we rage in various political spheres attempting to shame others into meaningful action that we ourselves will not bear the cost of bringing in to being. This is why the family has been and must be the priority and principal unit of social organization. Because it is the most costly, producing the highest returns. While hyperconsumption of hyper novelty is just another drug of personal consumption that one becomes addicted to at the cost of civilization itself.
Truly visionary anti-extremists—visionaries of every kind—must be willing to offer man a better deal, and not corral him into accepting the unjust one which has been foisted upon him without his consent and without consideration for its effects.
It is all well and good to ask anti-intellectual, zealously supernatural, largely uneducated masses of demasculinated man-boys to eschew political violence and provide an alternative – but the author, despite being a masculine, rational, intellectual, doesn’t provide us with any answer, only a justification for our anger and frustration.
But truly, the most impactful thing anyone who is worried about the state of the world can do is to build for themselves that which has been denied to them: faith, love, family, and honor. Or to say it another way, one should seek a life of virtue.
And here we come to face our disappointment. Conservatives shrug, focus on the local, and give away the political. and continue to die a slow death by the incremental erasure of their civilization and their genes – cowards all. Because there is no morality on the other side of the fence. They are herd animals doing as herd animals do, and thieves doing as thieves do, and they have done nothing in history but more of the same.
So I’ll take on the extremist role because hope isn’t a strategy, and faith isn’t a tactic:
The solution is (a) understanding what made the west successful (b) reforming our institutions to end the war against it (c) taking up arms to defeat, or separate. Because they have no intention of settling on any of our terms. Over time we will rapidly out-compete them as they create favelas and we create heavens on earth – forever barring them and their descendence from entry. To live in the hell of their own creation. As they would do to us.
He’s right. A book isn’t going to change anything.
The thief will never face his crimes, and no criminal organization will tolerate being outlawed.
What’s going to change it is a civil war. A war that I have at least, tried to prevent by providing a solution. And it’s not working.
Jan 24, 2021
I received this preview from the publisher. And I didn’t recognize the author’s name until I did a bit of searching. I think I’ve spoken to, or been interviewed by the author a few times. And while I don’t recall it specifically I remember it as an unpleasant and hostile experience – which is fine, because I’m a disagreeable “bad boy” of philosophy so I attract hostility. That doesn’t color my opinion of the writing – which is excellent. And frankly, I’m glad to see this quality of work out of him – or anyone else on the right.–CD