Amerika

Over the past few months, philosopher Jason Goldberg and myself have been kicking around some ideas in philosophy, politics and culture. Generally, this discussion involves what we want to talk about — what scares us, excites us or things we do not (yet) understand — instead of what we think we should be talking about, and so it is all over the place.

The first of these dialogues was published at the now apparently defunct RightOn and is reproduced below.

Noted Alt Right journalist and philosopher Jason Goldberg sat down virtually with longtime Nietzschean restorationist writer Brett Stevens to hash out the Alt Right and make sense out of the confusion. Visualize a room in Anno Trump -1 with books in oak shelves lining the walls, pints of Sam Smith’s Oatmeal Stout on the table, and a dense fog of pipe smoke, in which the following conversation emerges…

Stevens: The point of the Alt Right is twofold. We tell the hardline realist perspective with the right hand, and troll with the left, and all is good so long as we do not believe the symbolism over the principle, which is realism. Nazism is both good because it kicks open the Overton Window even further, and troubling because like other messianic cults, it can absorb people and it takes them years or decades to emerge, if they do at all.

This leads us to whether the Alt Right seriously intends the various positions associated with Nazism. From my viewpoint, the internet anti-Semites are indirect shills for Leftism. They want the system as is, minus someone they scapegoat, which leads to Western people doing things that are not in their nature, like mass murder, plus leaving the problem intact – and in fact stronger.

Goldberg: That’s an interesting view. I honestly haven’t thought about it that way because despite being part (((chosen))), I’m largely ambivalent to the anti-Semitism I’ve seen (which is, necessarily, on the Internet). I agree that it leads to people doing things that are not in their nature, but I’m not sure it always leaves the system intact. It certainly does if people say “the Jews are the cause of EVERYTHING bad!” but if there is more reflexivity, then it seems like some change can occur. Do you see most internet anti-Semites as being fine with the current system minus the Jews? Because I don’t know if I’ve seen that.

There is criticism of Jews, and then there is anti-Semitism, which to my mind is the scapegoating of Jews for the problems caused by Leftism which is a form of collectivized individualism or Crowdism. There is reason enough to hate anti-Semitism for its results during WWII, which are pretty much the farthest thing from “Aryan” (noble, twice-born) to my mind, but as far as I can tell, it mainly serves as a false target, which in turn deflects focus from the culpability of individualism, equality and other Enlightenment-era ideas. This will – whether it is stated or such, or not – perpetuate modernity which is based on individual autonomy subsidized by social pressure, because while we are questing in the wrong direction, we are doing so by using the same methods that brought us to this bad place, and so the method persists.

As far as I can tell, most internet anti-Semites are like most internet angry racists: they may have other ideas, but they organize them around a core that is feeble because it does not target the actual cause. Even if Jews are 100% evil, they are not the cause – this is where the philosopher in all of us must come out – of our decline, nor are the Negroes. If all people from Other tribes died tomorrow, Europeans would still have to resolve their inner tendency toward illusion and pretense. When people rely on scapegoats, they tend to bend all of their other ideas to fit around that singular ideology, which becomes too “modern” for my tastes. I am a gradualist: start with what is known to produce excellent results, and then improve it slowly in order to avoid the many pitfalls of human cognition.

I think that’s a fair distinction to make and I would agree with that. Would you make the same distinction for ‘Islamophobia’ (i.e. there is criticism of Islam and then there is Islamophobia)?

Naturally. We can criticize Islam all we want, but diversity — not the groups involved — is the problem. The crisis of mass immigration is not that the newcomers are Islamic, or Arab even, but that diversity destroys societies. Even if the people coming in were high-IQ, well-behaved Japanese, that diversity would mean the destruction of social order and eventual genocide through outbreeding.

I would argue that if a significant Muslim population moved to Japan they would be destroyers of Japanese culture in that specific instance.

Exactly. Diversity is the problem; it is not the who but the what. And I would say that any diversity is destructive, even in microscopic traces.

I think you’re correct that a) criticism of Jewish influence can occur and b) the major Leftists are Jews. Does that mean that all Jews are culture destroyers? Do you personally think that a Jewish population (a healthy size that doesn’t outbreed, as you noted, or even individual Jews) can live amongst other peoples in their own enclaves without destroying the dominant culture?

When one looks at the question of Jews in Europe, I think it makes great sense to balance out the narrative. Jews generally kept to themselves, and while they incorporated European DNA, they did so sparingly and by breeding it into their own population more than outside of it. Secularization upset this balance. In the meantime, they made many contributions to science and learning, although less so the arts, in my view. That reflects an Asiatic origin perhaps, and ties into the discussion on Asian creativity or the lack thereof in the article comments today. However, what they were was among other things a refiner of objects of culture. Walter Kaufmann, the translator of Nietzsche, is surely annoying, but he championed a number of important interpretations that others might have lost. And who can forget Disraeli, Herzl or even Einstein? Or Mahler showing up to support Bruckner at a time when most would not even listen to his works?

Interesting. I certainly agree with you on this point, but I doubt others do. I suppose the next logical question is how do you reconcile your seeming lack of anti-Semitism with your Alt-Right beliefs?

The question is complex, and my answer is that the medieval populations probably had it right: set up isolated neighborhoods for Jews, and be gently but vigorously wary of outbreeding, so that those who choose to outbreed are taken into the other community. At this point, however, I consider the question not very relevant. Within another generation, Israel will become the major power in the middle east, at which point Jews worldwide will want to be there. When there is a safe option to a diaspora, people tend to take it.

Following that, are we defining diversity as two groups living together in close proximity? If so, at what point does a community become a group? For example, you noted that individual Jews can be Europeanized, but what of two Jews? Do you think they can become Europeanized or do you think they will maintain their culture and live as a group within a group? (The same line of questioning obviously applies to three, four, five, etc. Jews) I’m inclined to think that you are correct overall about diversity/multiculturalism, but I do find it interesting that a black man in New York can ride on a bus driven by a Mexican to a corner store run by an Arab and buy a pack of cigarettes without necessarily getting shot. What that implies I do not know, but I find it interesting nevertheless. It seems as if, on a smaller, more interpersonal, the ills of diversity can be overcome by rationality. Indeed, our own conversation seems to point to this.

Diversity to my mind means two or more ethnic groups living in the same nation. If those groups are similar, as in WASP — English, German, Scots, Dutch, Scandinavian — America, integration is easy and happens naturally. If they are not, they are thrust into competition arising from competing self-interests. Each group has a self-interest in establishing social standards, and these conflict, resulting in ongoing race warfare or a compromise so broad that society deteriorates to a lowest common denominator. For this reason, it is questionable to advocate diversity at all, in any amounts. Even one drop of diversity is a path to civilization breakdown.

Robert Putnam discovered that diversity destroys social trust, but its problem goes deeper than that: diversity destroys civilizations. Without the knowledge that a society is designed by people like him for people like him, the citizen becomes dispirited and experiences lowered self-esteem. People are more inclined to become perverse as they lose a sense of identity and seek it out in transient ways. Democracy does this enough on its own, but add diversity – which we might just call “ethnic egalitarianism” or “ethnic democratization” – and people become entirely atomized. They have no culture that is real and present and immutable, no values that they can point to as always correct, and no sense of a shared goal. This creates existential terror as well as confusion which drives people to a type of “perversity of self,” in which they are isolated in their own pursuits and reject meaning and purpose entirely. These are the real risks, and they take a long time to manifest, which is why you have snapshots of seeming sanity like the scene from New York that you describe.

That being said, people are individuals. There will always be some from an outside group who find a greater kinship in the host society than among their own people. They will attempt to integrate, but if this happens enough, the host population is changed and loses its own character. In addition, the person who seeks the foreign has in effect repudiated his own origins, which leads to further problems down the line. However, imagine Jews in Germany. Many identified as Germans, but also as Jews. This put them in a perpetual liminal state, never sure of who they were, which was then camouflaged by the social decay around them and encouraged them to further this social decay as a means of protecting themselves from being seen as outsiders. Within that group, there are individuals, and some of those – especially if mixed in heritage – will choose one side over the other. I always think of Bob Marley here, whose paternal line was English and maternal, Jamaican-African. He choose Jamaica; others did not, and drifted toward English-style living and values. In my view, this is more how new populations form, and entails a process of struggle to determine values and standards for themselves.

My gut feeling is that you are correct…to an extent. That being said, I suppose I’m less extreme when it comes to what might be called your “one drop” rule of diversity. Specifically, I’m unsure whether diversity qua diversity is bad. Rather, I think I take a more culturally relative view by stating that diversity of large-magnitude values (e.g. Sharia Law vs. Western Liberalism) can cause problems as opposed to diversity of individuals. I doubt I need to remind anyone of the current ‘clash of civilizations’ going on in Europe. All that being said, I feel like this is a place where we diverge slightly.

Indeed. Diversity is the culture destroyer, and having Jews among us has produced the least amount of destructive results.

Haha, while I agree with you, almost the entire Alt-Right would want your head on a pike for that statement!

What would Europe rather have, Mongols? Chinese? Mexicans? Africans? – Jews understand Europe, and their sadness is that they are as Jung said, a shadow population to the European, outside always wanting to be in but never able to be fully European.

The person who has shared heritages is caught between them, forced to choose a side and still never quite fitting in there, and if he rejects half of his past, he must reject half of himself. The hardest part of this is existential. An ethnic identity provides a sense of purpose, an anchor, a reason for existence and a place to begin all decisions by trying to uphold what one is. Without that, the person is left alone in a world of decisions without roots to core issues, leaving them with aesthetic choices. For some fortunate ones, their inclinations lie in one direction, and it becomes easier to choose, but I wonder if lasting doubts do not remain. Among my generation, I sometimes catch whispers of these doubts: a wistfulness, a sense of loss, or big questions sealed over in permanent mystery.

Do you think that Jews who stay in European lands will inevitably be Europeanized or, if they, unlike me, have some identity attached to their Jewishness, will they stay a diaspora? Further, do you think only Jews could be Europeanized, or could other groups (e.g. Arabs) be assimilated as well? I’m slightly inclined to think that neither can be fully Europeanized for different reasons, but I am curious to hear your view. I think your note about individuals in your generation rejecting half of their identity is interesting; I just wonder if it ever caught up with them.

I am in agreement in thinking that no non-European group can be fully Europeanized. Some individuals, perhaps, but then there is the risk of destroying the European group through outbreeding, as is happening to American Jews when they are surrounded by ethnically similar people like Irish, Slavs and Italians, which are the groups that American Jews seem to intermarry with the most. I do not think diversity works at any level, but it has worked best with Jews, who seem to share many Western values and tendencies. At the same time, it is destroying them through outbreeding; within another few generations, American and European Jews will cease to exist.

As far as Jews in my experience, yes, something is lost with outbreeding. This creates an even greater identity crisis than is now normal in the West because having traded membership in a 3,000+ year old group and culture for generic modern malls and New York Times trends is a loss. For some it works, usually if they are mixed; mixed kids tend toward one parent, although it only becomes fully apparent which in the 30s.

This is one of the things I really respect about you: you recognize that life and it’s questions are not simply black and white, that some nuance is needed in analysis. I see a lack of nuance far too often and it’s rather disheartening.

I agree on nuance; details are important, but they must be understood in context or they become mental spam. One thing I enjoy about the philosophical tradition is its tendency to break down categorical thinking, or language enforced by boundaries not centers. Boundaries are hard divisions, yes/no tests; centers are vague, more like “spirit” or “purpose,” based on the objective or dominant tendency of a thing. People can write ten thousand rules for how to distinguish between Europeans based on collections of traits, but the real determiner is the center, or where their identity, heritage and direction lies.

If I may ask, without compromising you (although since you don’t live outside the US it’s less of an issue), to what extent do you believe the official WWII narrative? I am no expert in WWII history and thus I tend to err to David Cole and others when historical questions arise. That being said, given that it’s 70 years after the fact, I am also rather ambivalent and more worried about what is going on in the present.

Regarding WWII and the Holocaust, we again have some difficult truths. I think Hitler wanted to avoid mass killing, but he had started something at that point which he could not control. This is essential to understanding anti-Semitism: it becomes a scapegoat, and then burns out of control, just like Leftist ideology. It replaces brains. I have lived through this, and experienced it, and I fear it like heroin addiction. It is good for no one, gentile or Jew.

One factor in the Holocaust that is forgotten was how many of the executions occurred without German encouragement. Especially in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Herzl was right in this sense: whenever something goes wrong, those who are different are blamed… right or wrong, or as is likely the case, a mix of the two. Yes, there were too many Jews in the Communist party and yes, this caused people to conflate the two, especially since Marx and Lenin were both Jewish (although basically self-hating at least partially).

Herzl makes the best point, and Richard B. Spencer understands it, if I read his linguistic hints correctly. Herzl figured out that diversity was a scam. He recognized that to be an outsider is always to be the scapegoat, especially if one succeeds, and that national populations were healthiest. This is why he wanted to relocate Jews to Israel, so that he would never see another Dreyfuss incident (dry-run for future pogroms, in France). He was right on a broader level than he knew. Homogeneity works, diversity makes horrors.

In this sense, maybe the Holocaust happened because Jews were in Europe and disproportionately successful, possibly through nepotism which every group except Christians does but no one will talk about it. Maybe. Maybe the 40% membership in the Communist party in Eastern Europe triggered the killings. Maybe. But in the same way that the Civil War was not about slavery, the Holocaust was not about Jews per se, but about Jews as a symbol for the Other which was scapegoated for the decline of German culture. It was a culture under assault by Leftism, attempting to purge that Leftism with Leftist methods, like an addict trying to kick heroin by doing cocaine.

Anti-Semitism is symbolically addictive because it is blazingly convenient as an explanation for everything, just like how the left blames Darwinism (commercial success, mostly) for all the ills of the world. And yet, as I have nagged on for years, symbolism is not reality. The Holocaust is thus parallel to the peasants starving because of overpopulation then killing their kings, the Mayan serfs overthrowing their masters to help the Spanish, the Peasant Revolts in Germany, or even the LA riots of 1992. People live by scapegoats unless restrained by those bloody-minded enough to get analytical without losing a sense of direction, which is why I am a monarchist, and under the monarchy, I do not believe any of these horrors would have happened, had they retained their full powers and been able to prevent them.

We cannot defeat destruction with destruction alone. Some must be destroyed but I am thinking of the Left here. A healthy society might decide to expel the Jews, but it would do so as a powerful king would: sending them on with gifts and wishes for their good fortune. It is chuckleworthy. If the attempt is to destroy Leftism among our own people, I favor exile for Leftists, which is different than repatriation. Exile means they are unwelcome because they cannot live up to what we expect.

Then again, this presents a problem, as we see through the example of eastern Europe, which was populated by peasant cast-offs from Germany who hybridized with various Asiatic groups, and have spent the cycles of history since trying to reconquer Germany. Resentment is a strong motivator for those who do not believe they can improve themselves on their own. And with that, we might see the Holocaust as a spasm of low self-esteem from the National Socialists.

How do you figure WWII lets leftism off the hook? By shifting the debate back towards Nazism, or something else?

WWII let Leftism off the hook by failing to notice how the ideological basis of democracy infected the Right, producing the failures of the Nazis. The Nazis were socialists at heart, and believed in the power of the state to fix culture instead of vice-versa, and it led them to a bad place. Too many people were executed for minor acts, too much brutality occurred, and they lost the war. I do not doubt that the Allies were bad guys — the rape waves across Europe, nuclear attacks on civilians, and firebombing Dresden prove the Allies were horrible — but we need something better than Hitler, specifically something that identifies individualism as the root of both modern society and Leftism, and throws all three out to start again with what we know works, which is the traditional society: aristocracy, tribalism, hierarchy and transcendentalism.

I think that analysis of the Holocaust and WWII is likely correct. I don’t know what happened, but my inclination is to say that there was not an initial plan for extermination but, as you aptly pointed out, scapegoating got out of control. I do fear, given the prevalence of it, that scapegoating is in our nature as humans.

My feeling on Germans is that they are not unkind, but they are harsh. Scapegoating is like a drug, a bad drug, and it makes everything seem to make sense. From what I can tell, their original plan was to scare Jews out of Germany while executing the worst of both German and Jewish populations, but as the war dragged on, it became tempting to use Jews as slave labor. That failed through resistance of the slaves – and who could have seen that coming? lol – and so efforts at extermination occurred, but generally seem to have involved thin bodies not healthy ones.

At this point, Hitler and Company could not escape the ideological snowball they had created, which was exactly parallel to the scapegoating of the aristocrats that created The Terror in France, and played out exactly the same, with Hitler as Robespierre dying by his own hand for having failed by focusing on purges instead of construction. In the meantime, his people were horrified, because the German character does not include cruelty. They would have been fine with a Trail of Tears style march out of Germany into the middle east, or even slave ships to Israel. But outright murder disturbed them, as it disturbs my soul, and I sense the strong pull of the same scapegoating now, and I see in it again the French Revolution, and this is why I hate it. For these reasons: (1) it is a moral wrong that will (2) make us hate ourselves and (3) avoid targeting the real problem, Leftism, while diverting resources from (4) positive contributions.

The one issue I have is with the concept of the “ideological snowball.” When you say “Hitler and Company could not escape the ideological snowball they had created,” in what way could they not escape it? From my reading of that, it would seem like they could not escape it due to a cultural shift that had been created via scapegoating. In other words, the culture in Germany had become so anti-Jew that in order to be ideologically consistent, Hitler and Co. had to engage in genocide. If that is the case, however, then who exactly did the outright murder disturb? If the force behind the ideological snowball was something other than culture, what do you think it was (as I can’t see it being entirely self compelled)?

Did you ever see the movie The Doors? Cheesy film, but it makes one really solid point: Jim Morrison created a larger-than-life persona, and it was like the ideological snowball. It was what people expected from him, and how he was able to interface with them. Without it, he was no one, so he died (essentially). Hitler whipped crowds into a frenzy with his statements about how the Jew was at the root of the problems in Germany; in my view, this was originally a metaphor for materialism, i.e. living for convenience not for purpose. But, then it became the rock star, and Hitler merely its servant. People expected him to do something about the Jew. If he backed down, his power would collapse. The same was true of his underlings. This amounted to a tremendous pressure on him to do something unwise.

I have not seen the film. After your comment it might be worth a watch, but your explanation of the film and analogy to Hitler makes sense I can accept that understanding and think you are likely correct.

We might also use Kurt Cobain. He thought he was going to save the world from apathy with empathy. This was a common 90s trope, like the 60s revisited with a sense that politics had failed. Instead, people wanted to party, see him have tantrums and self-destruct, and repeat his more shocking, titillating and rebellious statements for the sake of personal rebellion, which is a type of adornment and not serious activism. He gave in to the image because of peer pressure. He was constantly surrounded by thousands of people who wanted the image, not the reasoning behind it (the causes, if you will). At some point he realized that he had placed himself into the equivalent of the suit and tie job his father had possessed, being an actor delivering what the audience wanted while knowing they were delusional, and the heart fell out of it for him.

My only worry (because of course it pays to be selfish) is what would happen to half-Jews who don’t identify as Jewish and/or don’t have a solid grasp of their identity (e.g. me). But that is another issue entirely and if I’m still alive when the Middle East falls, then that question will become relevant for me.

Above we talk about the dangers of ideology. I see these dangers also in demanding an absolute policy (“all Jews to Israel”) instead of letting things naturally work out. People forget that the diaspora consisted of an ethnic group being driven out of their homelands, in a region where almost every other place was hostile. With the end of the diaspora, which is not going to happen until Palestinians are gone and Israel expands, both of which I view as inevitable, the situation entirely changes. Some will choose to stay in European lands, and then what? They will likely find others like them and gradually be Europeanized, as Semitic peoples have for some time in small numbers, especially in Southern Europe. The individual makes the choice, and if the culture is strong, the good ones find a home. From plant biology, my assumption is that some who Europeanize are “atavisms,” or reversions to a previous type, which means they identify with the European part of themselves more than the Asiatic and choose to go in that direction as a result.

In a slightly different vein, may I ask, how do you think democracy infected the right and produced Nazism? Nazism seemed to be a reaction to democracy, in some senses. Granted, it worked with a democratic framework, but there were certainly anti-democratic elements.

Entryism always occurs through true believers. They are the ones who carry the virus from outside, but are unaware of it. Hitler had no idea he was a Leftist, but he was in favor of class equalization and socialist-style subsidies, which puts the lie to the idea that the Nazis were socialist in name only. Even more, see above for the French Revolution parallels. He believed people were equal, so they could be indoctrinated with the One Truth, and then he could purge bad and have only good; Savitri Devi wrote about a crucible and gold or some metaphor like that. In reality, his people were highly internally varied and needed a few generations to recover from what came before. Instead, following the egalitarian dream in which all Germans were good as long as they were National Socialists – an exoteric view – he launched a marvelous but disastrous war and left behind other shames. That is a typical Leftist pattern, comparable to Napoleon, who I argue elsewhere was the template for the world wars.

You say, “The Germans needed a few generations to recover sanity and health.” I suppose the followup question is ‘recover from what? Leftism?’ Following that, how do you think sanity would have been restored without a radical change in the system? In other words, I’m slightly confused as to how a few more generations would have fixed the issues. Hitler is definitely an interesting case, however. Honestly, I haven’t read enough about him (from unbiased sources) to comment.

The West has been in decline for a long, long time. We lost our sense of purpose once we became powerful, long ago, but our people have been wandering the Eurasian continent and the middle east for some time, even before we came to the modern West. This means that our civilization collapse is just one of many that we have endured, surviving only by biology, but becoming dimmed by outbreeding and weakness from within over the years. The solution that the Germans needed was a chance to restore sanity, eject the insane, and encourage the sane to breed abundantly so that the biological health of the civilization was restored. Hitler wanted to do it all, but was in the grips of Leftism, which saw a System as the solution. It is not a solution; Systems do nothing but concentrate power through Control.

Instead, what is needed is a revitalization of culture and genetics through bootstrapping, or using a temporary change in power to restore sanity and encourage healing and new growth. Just like in a garden after a hard winter or sudden summer thunderstorm.

A followup question, however, would be thus: do you think that had the German people had a “few generations to recover from what came before,” they would be equal? I can’t imagine that would be your view, but that seems to be the implication of such a claim.

No, because nothing is ever equal. All abilities fall on the normal distribution/Bell Curve, as do most things in reality. There are underlying patterns, “shapes” if you will, and equality is not one of them. Equality is how the human mind works, by dividing problems into equally-sized bites – eating is our primal metaphor, I suppose – and we project it onto the world.

The Germans needed a few generations to recover sanity and health. At that point, they would have been less desperate and more likely to act sanely. Then again, that would be happening in the nuclear age, and a nuclear Germany facing a nuclear Russia – only a few seconds to decide whether to push the button – would have potentially been a far bigger disaster than the Cold War as it shook out. So maybe all worked out for the best, since nothing is worse than a nuclear holocaust, but my view is still that ideology drove Hitler more than realism, and this eternal human mistake was his undoing. Funny that as a young man some of his best friends and defenders were Jews. I imagine he never thought he would end up where he did.

I see… on a different note, I’m in an interesting conversation with another student of philosophy who argued that whiteness is a construct of diversity. Specifically, he argued that “as many different nationalities came here [the United States], identity began to dissolve, from French, German, Italian, etc, into just ‘White’ and ‘Black’.” I’m unsure whether I agree with him, but the view is interesting nevertheless.

He is very close, but there is another wrinkle. “White” originally meant Nordic-descended Western Europeans of light coloring. Whiteness was an opportunity for the Irish, Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, etc. to invite themselves into WASP culture.

Would you thus reject the concept of whiteness?

Yes. I recognize European-ness, but this is also expressed in clines and gradients. Within European-ness, I see the three major groups: Western, Eastern and Southern plus Iberian remnants in Ireland. To try to make these into one will produce mutts through trace admixture and also destroy the unique biological cultures that sustain these groups. Germany for the Germans, I understand; America for the Western Europeans (“WASPs”), I also understand. White Nationalism is ethno-bolshevism or an attempt to make all whites equal by making them uniform, and it is as sure a death as diversity.

Your opposition to White Nationalism finally makes sense to me. I’ve been pondering it a lot recently and have been unable to fully piece together why you, a nationalist who is racially aware, are not a White Nationalist. It makes sense now, however. I’ll have to do more thinking about the gradients of European-ness, as my gut tells me you’re correct, but I fear that this view will lead to infinite divisions a ‘special snowflake’ syndrome among Europeans.

To my mind, nationalism is only one thing: defining the nation by the original meaning of nation, which is a people, and that begins in ethnic similarity if not outright homogeneity. Grouping together dissimilar groups like the three Europes – West, South/Iberian and East – will not only crush Europeans with trace admixture, but also remove any sense of cultural standard and create the internal fighting you describe. We can either remain independent groups who sometimes war against each other, or force ourselves, Control-style, into a single group that then perpetually infights until it settles on a lowest common denominator, to the loss of all.

I think you’re entirely correct regarding internet racists. I’m slightly confused on how they bend their ideas to be modern, but I think we are pretty much on the same page.

The problem for Rightists is that we are trying to achieve a mass movement with ideas that are not mass-friendly. Nuance is lost in order to make a catchy slogan. We cannot be what the Left is, which is a very simple idea (equality) applied in every situation without regard for consequences. We are the branch of politics that cares about consequences, and because of that, we tend toward transcendental goals instead of material ones. Anti-Semitism twists this into a backward-looking negative, formed of material goals, that by denying the damage that Leftism does, allows Leftism to continue even after the mass graves are full.

While there is much more to be said on questions of metaphysics, morality, and humanism, those are best left for another time. This conversation has given us a substantial body of ideas to think about for today. We will return in future installments where we heretical philosophers can discuss the order to come after this present time, what its morality might be, and how we separate that from the humdrum humanism that is seemingly innate to dying civilizations. It’s been good talking with you.

Tags: dialogues, jason goldberg, righton