During the second half of 2017, I wrote multiple articles which incrementally distanced myself from Traditionalism (i.e. the philosophy of Julius Evola et al.). This was partly caused by two altercations with “Traditionalists”: one with Amerika.org, and the other with Christians who advocated a purge of homosexuals. At that time Traditionalism seemed to be the root of all purity spiraling in the Dissident Right. In reaction to this purity spiraling, my philosophy veered towards a rather radical individualism in late 2017, but some could misconstrue what I wrote then as an advocacy of abandoning one’s ancestral nation. Eventually, as I watched and read some content by Greg Johnson, James J. O’Meara, Marcus Follin, and Thomas Rowsell discussing Traditionalism, I saw that this purity spiraling was not a necessary consequence of Traditionalism.
So, in more recent months, I have been able to take a more impartial look at Traditionalism. The most obvious difference between Traditionalism and Propertarianism (which I have recently studied) is a metaphysical one: Propertariainism is deterministic and naturalistic, whereas Traditionalism is non-deterministic and, at least appears to be, supernaturalistic. This affects the manner in which the two systems approach the matter of religion: to the Traditionalists, the polytheism of our ancestors reflects an idea of transcendent divinity which exists independent of our thoughts; monistic conceptions of divinity are also frequent. To the Traditionalists following Evola, even one’s race, or ancestral lineage, has a transcendent and spiritual dimension. However, to the Propertarians and often the neo-polytheists, the deities are either restricted to being highly particular to an ethnic group or are mere abstractions and poetic or paedagogic representations; in many neo-polytheisms it is prohibited to regard gods as manifestations of a monistic or pantheistic Whole as that idea is rejected in favor of hard polytheism. I may further add the philosophy of Cosmotheism, as articulated by William L. Pierce, for comparison: Cosmotheism considers a “Whole” to exist, but it does not explicitly ascribe to the “Whole” a characteristic of being (instead of becoming); rather it seems to describe a Whole which is subject to continuous becoming.
There are certainly metaphysical disagreements that exist among the spiritual trailblazers in the dissident right. I cannot see these being resolved without, at the very least, a great deal of time and research, assuming any resolution is possible at all. Mystics may claim to experience, among many things, the transcendent world of being, but I cannot tell if this is, in fact, the case, or if abnormal neurochemistry is the only cause of these experiences. I may refer to Traditionalism in the future, but I will not claim that I know its assumptions to be true without sufficient reason and evidence (I am still a Molyneuxian in that sense 😉 ).
WARNING: I am writing in “autistic” mode which most people will find counterintuitive.
I agree with JF that “moral” nihilism is a factually true position. But I also consider subjective valuations to be necessary for human life, and I think that societies cannot exist in a state of order when the subjective values of the populace are significantly divided. The claim that there is an objective axiology of good and bad may keep order both in a society and in an individual, even though it is a factually incorrect claim (as far as I can tell). [edited]
The problem with Stefan Molyneux’s argument for objective values of good and bad is the same problem as the consensus-based “traditionalist” argument for objective values of good and bad: the naive idea that all humans and all human groups have the same “moral” intuitions, when in fact they don’t, and this often shows itself in very non-trivial matters; moral intuitions differ with biological parameters such as intelligence, personality and evolutionary strategy — and this is one reason why it is not normatively preferable to force interpersonal association.
However, if we take the point of view provided by Curt Doolittle, then it seems that JF (and Ryan Faulk) miss something: that morality, operationally defined, is not valuations of “good and bad” but simply a fact of non-parasitism present in some behaviors. If Doolittle is correct, some behaviors can be objectively described as moral and others as immoral, but whether they are good or bad is a preferential value judgment. I ultimately side with Doolittle on this particular point, he does manage to maintain Hume’s Law in his concept of moral objectivism, but I would be willing to openly discuss this topic with JF and/or Faulk if I have time.
I should note before finishing that the notion of objective good and bad, as well as the Aristotlean understanding of telos, which inherently implies an ought that is an is,conflates normative and positive., i.e. violates Hume’s Law. [edit: It also seems to be an anthropomorphic mental error, as far as I can tell].
I managed, with some effort, to pass Quantitative Chemical Analysis with an A- and Physical Chemistry (Thermodynamics) lecture with an A, as well as deal with other classes and responsibilities on my plate. That’s why there haven’t been many blog posts in a while (mainly because I do not have time to both study and argue with internet trolls at the same time).
I have respect for all my followers, even the ones I disagree with on big issues. My political views have not shifted much since I began this blog in that I am still a type of ethnic-nationalist, although I have grown less “traditionalist” in the hard, ideological (usually Platonist) sense of the word, and more friendly towards libertarian sentiments. I don’t support neoliberal or neoconservative ideology, however, certain *ahem* transpirings over the last year among ideologues political bloggers and vloggers have increased my appreciation of a great deal of the praxis of classical liberalism. Often times I go back to Stefan Molyneux, whom I have been watching off-and-on since the age of twelve, just to hear someone talking who is not fanatically ideological (I actually became “red pilled” before he did, mainly from HBD chick and Jayman, funny how we ended up with some similar views eventually). I have also begun to appreciate the insights provided by Grey Enlightenment.
I agree with the Propertarians that the defense of the commons is a net positive, but not always on what should be included in the commons.
People can argue all day long about what to defend as commons, therefore I will leave the comments section closed.
Being a determiner of values is difficult and in publishing this post I take a calculated risk. I will probably be kicked out of the reactosphere (de jure, but perhaps not de facto) for what I say here. However, the reward of self-rule is great. I have consulted Machiavelli and Nietzsche before making this decision, and drawn particular inspiration from the quote on the bottom right:
I have decided to reevaluate my views on the application r/K selection theory to humans as done by Rushton and the Anonymous Conservative (whom I will refer to as AC). The blogger RaceRealist made a fairly good case that Rushton’s application (and by extension AC’s) of r/K selection theory to humans is based on false premises.
Race Realist responded to me in the following comment:
Thanks for being objective. That’s rare to find nowadays.
I’ve spent years researching Rushton’s theory and thinking about how it applies to humans. Then I thought ‘Why only read what I agree with here when I don’t do that for other things?’ Then I found Judith Anderson’s ecology critique and then I went back to read the Graves paper that I just handwaved away.
Rushton’s misapplication of r/K theory was based on Pianka’s (1970) r/K continuum. That’s wrong. Describing behaviors as ‘r’ or ‘K’ is stupid. r and K describe agents of selection. Endemic disease is an agent of K while cold winters are an agent of r—which Rushton completely reversed! He literally arbitrarily put r-selection to Africans and K to Eurasians because it ‘fit with the data’. True—it did.
However where he went wrong was 1) treating human races as local populations (he’d need to look at one population in one ecosystem and compare it to another in a different one. These populations can be on the same continent (Africa) or two different ones (say, Africa and Northern Europe). 2) to apply the theory based on behaviors in modern environments makes no sense. Organisms MUST be studied in the environment that the selection was hypothesized to have occurred. Not doing so means it’s fine to disregard what he says about r/K selection in application to humans. Even omitting the racial comparisons doesn’t save it. 3) Evolutionary biologists and ecologists don’t even use the theory anymore.
I’ve brought this up to PumpkinPerson and he won’t take to it. I’ve explained to him that Rushton reversed r and K for humans (if it were applicable to us) and he still spews Rushton’s garbage. I know that it’s tough to change your beliefs and then the backfire effect occurs (which occurs when you’re presented with new information then do anything you can to find information to back what you originally thought after presented with said new information). That’s one cognitive bias I’ve learned to nip in the bud recently. I’ve also found it much easier to change my view by reading new information myself.
Now I’m at the bookstore every week in the biology section buying new books (I did this anyway) that are the opposite of what I believe to see what I think after. Constantly reevaluating your views is the logical—and intellectually honest—thing to do.
So anyone who pushes this theory is pushing a wrong theory, and applying it to other aspects of our lives also makes no sense. Behaviors are not ‘r’ or ‘K’. Behaviors are responses to the selective agent—whether it is r or K. People like Anonymous Conservative, Stephan Molyneaux and the other guys you brought up then—by proxy—push a wrong theory. Read the papers provided and follow the references to read more in depth about how to apply it—and why it’s not in use anymore.
This, then, leaves use with one troubling conclusion: anything based off of Rushton’s r/K selection theory is wrong by proxy. Rushton didn’t understand evolution and life history theory (r/K selection). I saw one critique of Rushton’s theory saying that ‘only a bad person would push a theory like this’. That’s a flawed retort. Ad hominem attacks in scholarly discussion do not work. Theories like Rushton’s must be deconstructed to show how and why they are wrong, lest other people believe something that is horribly flawed and incorrect.
I’ll most definitely be showing others how and why Rushton is wrong as well. Rushton was wrong about a ton from penis size to testosterone. This is just the nail in the coffin.
Rushton didn’t even reply to Graves or Anderson in print, take that for what you will.
… so now you know the gist of the problem I suppose.
Personally speaking, some of AC’s views have rubbed me the wrong way, largely because of his sometimes neoconservative bent. This is not to say he does not have more praiseworthy and transcendent ideas, he does, but this still does not overshadow larger problems: that r/K selection was not applied in the way it theoretically should have been, and that the theory itself is discredited: see RaceRealist’s recent blog post for details.
I previously wrote a post on Tolkien’s Elves and r/K selection theory, in which I described Tolkien’s elves as a K-selected ideal in a universal sense. I now reject this idea. However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the elves have managed to follow an evolutionary strategy which gives them high fitness in their usual habitats. Thier phenotypes are also characteristically Northern European. So I still think of the elf as a biological ideal, but not in a universal sense of being “the measure of all things”. Rather the elves are a particular aristocratic ideal of the Germanic and to a certain degree Insular Celtic peoples who first conceived of them in their mythologies (and yes, just as some elves have dark hair, a minority of Germanic people such as King Halfdan the Black did/do as well).
From a Jungian perspective, the elf is an archetype which is part of the collective unconscious of Northwestern Europeans. It is, in my view, what would normally direct them (or perhaps I should say us given that I am a NW Euro) on a eugenic evolutionary path. This can be completed through selection for biological fitness in one’s environment and through endogamy within a biologically related clade or “subrace” (while excluding 1st – 3rd cousin marriages). The result is a eugenic biological transcendence from the parent race, and species, to form a new aristocratic clade.
As an end note, the current demographic pressures on the NW European gene pool may act as the refining fire from which a new aristocratic clade will emerge. Remember: it is always darkest before the dawn and what does not kill us will only make us stronger.
Japan. Japan. Japan. When will Elfnonationalist stop being such a weeb?
Well, not right now, apparently, but Japan is an interesting country to study because of its ability to preserve its monarchy, indigenous culture, and its ethnic homogeneity up to the present day, in combination with its relative prosperity and status as a first world nation. A good reactionary should be studying Japan just like a scientist would study a species that survived a mass extinction, to figure out what it did right.
First, it should be noted that the Japanese have a clear understanding of what it means to be of the Japanese ethnicity. The term ‘Japanese’ is not understood to mean simply an abstract concept or ideology, but that one is actually of Japanese descent; in fact, those who are only half Japanese descent are referred to as hafu. This is in contrast to the modern Western notion of a nation being only an ideology or culture, which allows people of different ethnicities to ‘assimilate’ and magically become just as ‘Swedish’, for instance, as the indigenous Swedes. This problem is also quite obvious in America, where the “nation” is defined by classical liberal ideology, and the term “American” is allowed to erase all authentic ethnic demonyms. This leads away from ethnic and societal integrity, and into flimsy abstractionism and ideology.
This solid Japanese identity also relies on the very ethnic nature of Japanese culture. While the Japanese have borrowed many things from neighboring Chinese culture, such as their writing system and Confucian philosophy, the Japanese still have an ethnic religion, Shinto, and an ancient ethnic monarchy. Part of the problem with the West, especially with the United States, is that it has been dominated by religions which are non-ethnic in nature. Ethnic Europeans throughout the Western world need religious communities which reinforce notions of ethnic identity and ethnic cohesion in order to prevent ethnic annihilation.
Perhaps this is only a stereotype, or perhaps not, but it also appears that women are less of a problem in East Asian cultures compared to Western ones. Confucianism helps East Asia combat the corrosive nature of feminism by establishing patriarchy as a cultural norm. This is important as history and current events have shown women to be more likely to betray their in-group compared to their male counterparts. For many women, the concept of in-group simply does not compute; it’s not how they’re wired. Unfortunately, the exacerbation of the current demographic crisis which Western feminism has contributed to may be the only way of revealing to the masses the necessity of patriarchy.
It should also be noted that Japan does not possess the same sense of national guilt for its own imperialism which many Western nations do for things such as the Crusades, National Socialism, colonialism, slavery etc. Japan, like other East Asian countries, possesses a shame-honor culture rather than a guilt-innocence culture as Western countries have. A shame culture implies that one only needs to react to a wrong one has committed if society reprimands and punishes you. A guilt culture implies that one must punish one’s self for a wrong even if no one else reprimands or punishes you. Guilt culture makes it possible for Westerners to spontaneously feel guilty and punish themselves even when they are not publicly reprimanded. In contrast, a shame culture would not require this; you would not suffer any punishment unless you yourself were observed to commit a wrong. Thus Japan may feel that its recovery of a positive outward image after WWII expiated its imperialistic shame, but Germany is still wrestling with Holocaust guilt long after it has recovered its positive image to the rest of the world.
As for where guilt culture came from, most sources point to Christianity. The author Ed West, featured in The Spectator news journal, considers guilt culture to be one of the primary reasons for NW Europe’s, particularly Germany’s, openness to accepting migrants from the Middle East. He also considers this expression of guilt culture to be “the silent triumph of Christianity” (link). However, not all Christian cultures are guilt cultures, and thus Christianity alone was probably not sufficient to produce guilt culture. Rather, it was more likely the result of Christianity (collective-moralism) in combination with liberal capitalism (atomization), resulting in atomized-collective-moralism, i.e. self-inflicted punishment for having disobeyed collective morality (guilt-culture). Whether or not the West will return to a shame-honor culture is somewhat unclear, though it may be likely as ethnic Europeans across the globe become more collectivist in the face of mass immigration. A primitive shame-honor culture is already emerging in the Alt-Right with shaming words like ‘cuck’ and ‘traitor’, and terms signifying collective honor such as ‘uncucked’, ‘red-pilled’, ‘fashy’, etc. If this becomes mainstream, the West will likely return to a shame-honor culture.
Last but not least, as with all pathologies proposed on the dissident Right, there must be mention of *drumroll please* da Jooooooooooooz. Jews have had a much larger impact on Western history than East Asian history, and some will be tempted to say that Japan was saved because it had no Jews. This is an oversimplification. The thing about the Jews [the Leftist ones] is that they knew the weaknesses of Western Europeans, particularly inhabitants of the Anglosphere; the guilt culture, the reduction of “nation” to abstract ideology, the lack of ethnic religion, and the weakness of our patriarchy. In the words of Dr. Kevin MacDonald, they knew exactly “which buttons to push”. The leftist Jews were like a spark that ignited a very large and dangerous pool of gasoline. So let this be a lesson to us. Just as a human body must have a healthy immune system to prevent the spread of an infection, we must address the greater vulnerabilities in our own people to become resistant to the forces inimical to our existence.