Smarter than Scalzi

But then, you knew that. It’s not even close. The problem isn’t so much that Scalzi tweets at a sixth-grade level; one can only do so much in 140 characters, after all. It’s that he writes, and behaves, like an unpopular kid in junior high school who confuses attention for popularity.

Anyhow, Beakscore is a just a simple application based on the SMOG index, but it’s interesting to compare various commentators. Here are the scores for some familiar names:

  • 10.3 Nassim Taleb
  • 9.5 Vox Day
  • 9.5 Castalia House
  • 9.4 Ann Coulter
  • 9.2 Roosh
  • 8.9 Steve Keen
  • 8.8 Daniel Dennett
  • 8.5 Richard Dawkins
  • 8.2 Neil Gaiman
  • 8.0 Stefan Molyneux
  • 7.7 Instapundit 
  • 7.7 Patrick Nielsen Hayden
  • 7.5 Larry Correia 
  • 7.5 Paul Krugman
  • 7.4 Tor Books
  • 7.1 Milo Yiannopoulos
  • 7.0 Mike Cernovich
  • 6.4 Wil Wheaton
  • 6.3 John Scalzi 
  • 5.3 George RR Martin

Notice the pattern there? It’s not exactly what one would call surprising if you are familiar with the work of the various parties listed. The only real outlier is Milo, who speaks and writes very differently than he tweets. It’s a little surprising that Martin is so low; I’d have expected him to be in the 7 to 8 range.


SJWAL Spanish edition

Thanks to Emilio and Toni, two longtime readers who also speak Spanish, Los Guerreros de la Justicia Social Siempre Mienten: Derrotando a la Policía del Pensamiento is now available for the Spanish-speaking world. I am told there is a real need for it, as SJWs have been pulling their usual tricks in Spain, Mexico, and in the USA as well.

There is also a Spanish version of the SJW Attack Survival Guide which is available now on the right sidebar. A Portuguese version is available too, and a Portuguese translation of the entire book is in the works.

This blog is now an international community, and it’s good to see that nationalists from around the world can work together in thwarting the globalists and multiculturalists who would erase our differences, and even our nations, under the banner of la justicia social.

If you’re a Spanish speaker, I’d encourage you to review the Spanish edition, particularly on Amazon.es.


Billy Gibbons on a fellow guitar player

I thought this was fascinating, being the perspective of one great guitar player on another:

So much has been said about Prince but I do think it’s important to remember that his guitar playing was, I don’t know, just sensational. Tell me how you’d describe it.

Well, to borrow your word, sensational is about as close a description of Prince’s guitar playing as words might allow. I believe that the feeling one was left with, if afforded the luxury of actually seeing Prince perform … we’d be looking for other superlatives. Because it’s almost got to the point of defying description.

You had an interesting encounter with Prince.

It was following the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 25th anniversary celebration [in 2009]. They had a two night grand hurrah at Madison Square Garden and I was invited to perform with Jeff Beck. And following that appearance, I found myself back at the hotel and I wandered off in search of some late-night grub and my favorite 24-hour joint was shut down for unknown reasons. I tiptoed across the street to the Tiger Bar. I was just standing at the front and I was approached by a rather large gentleman and he said, ‘You’re wanted at the corner table.’ And there was Prince sitting all by his lonesome. And I gave him a brief tip of the hat and sat down and said, ‘Hey man, it’s so good to see you.’ He said, ‘It’s so good to see you. Let’s talk about guitar playing.’ I said, ‘Why not?’ And in the next two hours we really dove into the depth of his intent, interest and focus toward technique and tone. I left that evening even more mesmerized than I’d previously been, just knowing the sincerity that Prince kept toward his playing, his performing and his all-around showmanship.

You’re a little bit older, you come from Texas and I’d imagine you first learned about Prince in the early ’80s, when you were both MTV stars.

As you may remember, he began bubbling up without a lot of advance fanfare. There was just this vague knowledge of this new guy on the scene called Prince. And then, of course, we all got our world rocked when “Purple Rain” showed up at the theaters. Even today, I’m struggling to try and emulate that guitar introduction to “When Doves Cry.” It’s just a testament to his extraordinary technique.

Wait. When you say emulate — you mean you try to play it and you can’t?

I continually come back to attempting to piece together each and every one of those segments. And it’s very short. It’s not an extended solo by any means. But the way it is delivered. There’s certainly no way to write it. You’ve just got to dive in and feel it to see if you could come close.

What I find so interesting about these tributes from famous musicians is that they almost precisely echo what I’d heard from so many less well-known musicians around the Minneapolis scene in the early 1990s. Most of you probably never heard about Power of Seven, which was my short-lived effort to improve the music in the game industry, which ended up in little more than a few soundtracks for SSI and Bungie. But the Seven referred to the seven individuals originally involved, one of whom was Mike Koppelman, who engineered, mixed, and mastered Diamonds and Pearls before going on to found Bitstream Underground.

He, and others like the member of The Revolution who recorded a single with Paul Sebastian before we founded Psykosonik, always spoke about Prince and his attention to detail in awed, almost reverential tones. So, I’m not surprised to hear that even a great guitarist like Billy Gibbons was impressed by his knowledge and technique.

This is why I, and others, find it irritating when people dismiss him as being just a pop star. It’s like calling Mozart just a piano player. There is both talent and skill that goes into both musical performance and composition, and virtuosos of either are extremely rare. An individual who is a true virtuoso of both is practically a unicorn. Then throw in the voice, the multiple instruments, the engineering, the conceptual sensibilities… it’s literally unimaginable to me. I can more easily grasp Julius Caesar or Socrates.

And while one cannot reasonably expect Prince’s music to survive the test of time in the manner that Mozart’s has, one also cannot say that he did not make the most of the incredible talents he was given. Like everyone else who had anything to do with music in Minneapolis, I am absolutely itching to know what is in that vault. It’s been said for literally decades that he was putting his best stuff in there rather than let Warner Bros. have it, and said by some who are known to have actually heard a few of the tracks. And Prince being Prince, the chances are good that quite a lot of it is actually finished work, rather than bits and pieces of various song ideas.

Can you imagine if there is another Purple Rain in there? Or another two or three?


Fighting fire with fire

And doing so in a legitimate manner. Allen Davis considers blockbots and blacklists at Lew Rockwell:

“Are you, or have you ever been, a supporter of Gamergate, NotYourShield, Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies, Men’s Rights Activists, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, White Supremacists, etc, etc etc?”

Blacklists have come a long way since the bygone days of McCarthy…. In a blog post, Vox Day suggested creating a list of confirmed SJWs, and his blog readers set about to create it.  Within a few hours, SJWList.com was being populated by a staff of volunteers.

Being added to SJWList has very specific criteria; the person in question needs to be “…on the record supporting censorship of some kind (no platforming, government censorship, or disemploying people).”  SJWList is structured as a Wiki, so each individual listed has their own page, linked to their statements and actions and thereby justifying their inclusion.

Criticism of SJWList has been vocal, as might be expected. Reddit suspended @TheRalph’s account for simply posting a link to SJWList.com.  Accusations have ranged from “building a list of people to harass” to “”sinking to their level” to “becoming SJW by adopting their own tactics.” 

The crew and supporters of SJWList, however, view it as more of a response to SJW tactics, an entirely acceptable escalation in the “arms race” that is the ongoing culture war.  As Brandon Eich, Tim Hunt, and many others can all attest, the social justice warriors have declared “track what they say or do and get them fired for it” a valid tactic. 

If one side in a war uses poison gas, while the other side refuses to “stoop to that level,” then they will cheerfully be the moral, upright, and dead, losers of the war.  The only way to convince the first side to stop using poison gas is to retaliate in kind.

He’s absolutely right. As Tom Kratman has pointed out, reprisals have usually been considered a legitimate and justified response to both escalations and even war crimes.

Frits Kalshoven writes about reprisals: When a belligerent party is hurt by conduct on the part of its adversary that it regards as a grave breach or systematic encroachment of the laws of armed conflict, one possibility is to retaliate by means of an action that itself violates the same body of law. While recourse to such retaliatory action can be arbitrary and in total disregard of any constraints, rules of customary law have developed in the past that provide the limits within which retaliation could be regarded as a legitimate reprisal. The main elements of this customary “right of reprisal” are: subsidiarity (failure of all other available means), notice (formal warning of the planned action), proportionality (the damage and suffering inflicted on the adverse party not to exceed the level of damage and suffering resulting from its unlawful conduct), temporary character (termination of the reprisal when the adversary stops violating the law).

As can be seen in the Davis article, which notes the difference between the SJW-created blockbot and the SJW List, even if one considers the list to be an expose rather than a hiring guide, the SJW List still fits all four limits of a legitimate reprisal: subsidiarity, notice, proportionality, and temporary character.

I have repeatedly warned SJWs that every tactic they utilize will be utilized against them. And since they have not only declared people’s employment to be fair game, but repeatedly acted in attempts to disemploy everyone from police officers to programmers, from students to scientists, it is entirely legitimate to target their jobs and their careers.

Indeed, the mere fact of being openly sympathetic to any social justice cause should now be sufficient to give serious pause to anyone contemplating any form of a relationship, however fleeting, with an SJW.

When
a belligerent party is hurt by conduct on the part of its adversary
that it regards as a grave breach or systematic encroachment of the laws
of armed conflict, one possibility is to retaliate by means of an
action that itself violates the same body of law. While recourse to such
retaliatory action can be arbitrary and in total disregard of any
constraints, rules of customary law have developed in the past that
provide the limits within which retaliation could be regarded as a
legitimate reprisal. The main elements of this customary “right of
reprisal” are: subsidiarity (failure of all other available means),
notice (formal warning of the planned action), proportionality (the
damage and suffering inflicted on the adverse party not to exceed the
level of damage and suffering resulting from its unlawful conduct),
temporary character (termination of the reprisal when the adversary
stops violating the law). – See more at:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/reprisal/#sthash.Hfd61ZIT.dpuf
When
a belligerent party is hurt by conduct on the part of its adversary
that it regards as a grave breach or systematic encroachment of the laws
of armed conflict, one possibility is to retaliate by means of an
action that itself violates the same body of law. While recourse to such
retaliatory action can be arbitrary and in total disregard of any
constraints, rules of customary law have developed in the past that
provide the limits within which retaliation could be regarded as a
legitimate reprisal. The main elements of this customary “right of
reprisal” are: subsidiarity (failure of all other available means),
notice (formal warning of the planned action), proportionality (the
damage and suffering inflicted on the adverse party not to exceed the
level of damage and suffering resulting from its unlawful conduct),
temporary character (termination of the reprisal when the adversary
stops violating the law). – See more at:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/reprisal/#sthash.Hfd61ZIT.dpuf

Point-and-Shriek, or Why SJWs are SJWs

This is a guest post from a well-respected writer who must remain nameless for the time being.

This started out as an essay on fallacies believed by Social Justice Warriors. Somewhere along the lines, it split into two parts.

One of the problems with Vox Day’s recent, and highly recommended, book SJWs Always Lie, is that it doesn’t really define the average Social Justice Warrior. This is not, in fact, an easy task. Unlike fascists, communists or even radical Islamists, the SJWs are a collection of attitudes, rather than a genuine conspiracy.  The average SJW may appear to be a decent person – he or she may even be a decent person – yet sharing the SJW attitudes or fallacies, as I call them,  makes them a potential danger to human civilisation. These attitudes act as triggers. When pulled, they convert a decent person into an SJW, or, as I think of them, Social Justice Bully.

Some of my readers will say that the above statement is absurd.  Bear with me a little.

The sheer irrationality of the SJWs is hard to comprehend, which works in their favour; it’s hard to get a grip on an opponent who thinks so differently from yourself. Indeed, many people view SJW ‘point-and-shriek’ assaults as being unique, even though we have seen dozens in the past few years alone. They seem to be a brand of craziness that has no explanation.  But it does.

The average human being has what we may as well define as two minds, the rational and the emotional.  When one of these minds is strongly involved, the other goes out the window.  For example, a man might discover that one of his children is not actually his own – his wife cheated on him.  He will often attack the child even though the child is the sole innocent in the affair.  Or, upon discovering that her husband had a previous relationship, a wife will often go mad with rage, even though the relationship started and ended before she and her husband ever met and her husband is guilty of nothing more than keeping the relationship from her.

These are both emotional reactions, governed by the emotional mind.  It matters not that a rational man is perfectly capable of adopting a child and treating him/her as his own child, it matters not that the wife is perfectly capable of understanding that her husband had no obligations towards her before they met.

As long as the emotional mind is engaged, rational thought is impossible.
This explains some of the odder political theories that still remain in the political mindset, even though they have failed spectacularly time and time again.  ‘Tax the rich’ sounds good, particularly to someone who isn’t rich or doesn’t consider themselves to be rich; it does not, however, account for the rich moving away, evading the taxes or simply not producing as much the following year because they have to pay taxes rather than reinvesting in their businesses.  Emotionally, socialism and communism sound good, so good that the emotional brain fails to grasp their flaws.  No politician has ever been elected by warning people that they would have to tighten their belts and do more with less.

We see this on a personal level too.  Everyone wants to be good – and be thought of as good – without giving much thought as to what ‘good’ actually is.  The charge of ‘racism,’ therefore, can be used to silence debate because no one wants to be thought of as a racist, as racists are evil.  Indeed, this is so pervasive in our society that the mere mention of the word ‘racist’ forces the accused to prove his innocence (and you can’t prove a negative) rather than the accusers his guilt.  People, therefore, will bend over backwards to avoid the charge, thus turning a blind eye to anything that remotely smacks of ‘racism’.

Or, on another level, let us suppose you are in line for a promotion.  You know you have all the qualifications for the post, but your pointy-haired idiot of a boss promotes one of your co-workers instead.  Rationally, you may realise that the co-worker had additional qualifications you didn’t have, but emotionally you’ll be looking for a reason the boss favoured your rival over you.  She’s a woman, he’s black, she’s a lesbian … you will cling to these feelings even though they have no basis in reality, because that’s easier than admitting you simply didn’t come up to scratch.

When a SJW is triggered, his/her emotional brain takes over.  Rational consideration and debate – even the ability to accept that someone may honestly disagree without being a bad person – becomes impossible.  Instead, the SJW horde – as Vox Day points out – attacks its victim relentlessly, seeking to completely obliterate the target and wipe him or her out of social existence.  Think of every school story you’ve ever read where someone is singled out as the sole target for the bullies and you get the idea.  No one wants to be associated with a target for fear the horde will turn on them next.

The weird thing about this is that it isn’t entirely an unjustified reaction.  Triggers that push the emotional brain to the fore can cause a wave of strongly negative emotions.  Trying to escape the cause isn’t actually a bad reaction, on the face of it.  But the reaction is so strong that it overwhelms any consideration one might have for the rights or feelings of others.  If someone happens to be so scared of dogs that they have panic attacks every time they see one, they may push for a complete ban on dogs even though hundreds of thousands of their fellows not only love dogs, they have dogs as pets.

However, there’s a nasty catch.  The average individual cannot sustain a blatant emotional reaction for very long.  At some point, the person will stop emoting in panic, which will allow the logical brain to take over once again.  If, however, more than one person is involved, the emotional reaction from one triggers an emotional reaction from the other, which in turn spurs the first person into a bigger reaction.  This leads, eventually, to mob thinking – “a person is smart,” as Tommy Lee Jones told us in Men in Black, “but people are dumb panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”

Imagine that something bad happens to you – you get fired, perhaps.  Your first reaction will be the ‘fight or flight’ response; you’ll want to tell your former boss what you think of him, you’ll want to get down on your knees and beg for mercy or you’ll want to put as much distance between yourself and your former co-workers as possible.  You may not be able to think straight for hours afterwards, but once you do start thinking straight you’ll realise that things are not as bad as they seem.  You are still alive and you can find a new job.

If, however, you go home before you calm down and tell your partner, or your parents, or your children, you’ll only prolong the emotional response because they will be emoting too.  It will take you much longer to calm down and start thinking rationally once again.

The SJW ‘point-and-shriek’ attack pattern is designed to keep that emotional reaction going as long as possible.  Ordinary people, as I noted above, cannot sustain an emotional reaction for long without outside prompting.  The more people who join the attack, the longer the attack lasts; the herd stampedes its victim into the ground before enough of its members manage to assess if the victim truly deserves it.

Vox Day’s three laws of SJWs – SJWs Always Lie, SJWs Always Double Down, SJWs Always Project – fit neatly into place.  SJWs lie – or, in some cases, build a mountain of untruth out of a kernel of truth – in order to galvanise the emotional reaction.  They double down because they cannot risk allowing the emotional reaction to abate before its target has been destroyed (i.e. pushed into resigning, which to them is an admission of guilt.)  And they project because they know, at some level, that they do not regard people as individuals … and fear their enemies feel the same way too.

The only way to handle such an assault is to remain calm, do nothing and understand that it will eventually come to an end.  However, as the target’s emotional brain is also being pushed into a ‘fight or flight’ reaction, this isn’t the easiest of tasks.



Anacyclosis and the problem of productivity

Economics, free trade, the minimum wage, technological advancement, immigration, and the Singularity are all pointing towards the same problem, as Fred Reed notes:

People of IQ 130 and up tend to assume unconsciously–important word: “unconsciously”–that you can do anything just by doing it. If they wanted to learn Sanskrit, they would get a textbook and go for it. It would take time and effort but the outcome would never be in doubt. Yes, of course they understand that some people are smarter than others, but they often seem not to grasp how much smarter, or what the consequences are. A large part of the population can’t learn-much of anything. Not won’t. Can’t. Displaced auto workers cannot be retrained as IT professionals.

Few of the very bright have have ever had to make the unhappy calculation: Forty times a low minimum wage minus bus fare to work, rent, food, medical care, and cable. They have never had to choose between a winter coat and cable, their only entertainment. They don’t really know that many people do. Out of sight, out of mind.

Cognitive stratification has political consequences. It leads liberals to think that their client groups can go to college. It leads conservatives to think that with hard work and determination…..

It ain’t so. An economic system that works reasonably well when there are lots of simple jobs doesn’t when there aren’t. In particular, the large number of people at IQ 90 and below will increasingly be simply unnecessary. If you are, say, a decent, honest young woman of IQ 85, you probably read poorly, learn slowly and only simple things,. Being promoted, or even hired, requires abilities that you do not have. This, plus high (and federally concealed) unemployment allows employers to pay you barely enough to stay alive. Here is the wondrous working of the market.

The Polybian system of anacyclosis proceeds in the following order:
1. Monarchy, 2. Kingship, 3. Tyranny, 4. Aristocracy, 5. Oligarchy, 6. Democracy, and 7. Ochlocracy.

Some would say that we are living under a democracy, but this is observably not true. Rather, it appears we are somewhere between (4) and (5), even though the Aristocracy is not readily apparent. In reality, the theory probably needs to be updated, but regardless, the observable fact is that the transnational cognitive elite has no regard for the common masses, and more importantly, no longer requires them in order to maintain its standard of living. The logical conclusion is that the increased irrelevance of the competent white middle and working classes is why the former is entirely willing to replace them with an even more irrelevant, and less intelligent population who can be much more easily subdued and eliminated in time.

That sounds diabolical, but logic suggests that it is the purpose and the intended consequence of Cultural Marxism. It seems woefully short-sighted to me, but if one thinks only in terms of one’s own lifetime, I suppose it might be of some appeal.

The feudalism of the Middle Ages required peasants for agriculture. But the technofeudalism of the future doesn’t appear likely to require peasants for anything. So what will be done with them? What will be done with us? The long and bloody history of Man does not suggest an optimistic answer.


Bleeding purple

It’s not often I miss being in Minnesota. But I would have liked to have been back at First Avenue last night for the party celebrating Prince’s life and music. I can’t think of a better place for it.

I talked to several of my friends from Minnesota over the last day, some of whom are still there and some of whom are not. And it’s been bittersweet to see how all of them, at least to this extent, still bleed purple. It’s a little hard to explain the sense of loss to non-Minnesotans, because it’s simply not about celebrity worship or the death of a popstar, as so many people understandably, but mistakenly, think.

It feels more like losing a cousin of whom you were inordinately proud, in part because he was so proud to bear your name and be a part of your family. Practically everyone I know had some casual connection with Prince, be it a chance encounter somewhere, a friend who worked for him, or a mutual acquaintance. It’s not a very big city, after all.

Minnesota, and Minneapolis in particular, has always had an irrelevancy complex. And not without reason; everyone at my East Coast-populated university seemed to be astonished that Big Chilly and I were not some sort of lumberjacks or farmers, while we were surprised at how… backwards they were, especially with regards to music.

But Prince not only put Minneapolis on the map, he genuinely loved the city, the state, and the people. And in that place, at that time, with that particular demographic mix, people really did genuinely transcend the usual racial issues; it took me several years away from Minnesota and six months in Tokyo to understand that certain differences actually were relevant, and just as importantly, mattered greatly to nearly everyone of any color. Perhaps only in Minnesota would a black man describing someone not liking “his kind” be referring to work habits and not race.

Prince was a part of that, both cause and effect. It was interesting to hear both his manager and some of his black bandmates talk about how growing up in a 95 percent white community affected the development of his music; they listened to KQ92 and all the classic rock just like we did because there simply wasn’t anything else on the radio besides news, classical, and terrible 70s pop on KS95. In Minneapolis, we didn’t even understand the concept of “crossover” music because it was considered normal to have a black bassist in a white band or a white guitarist in a black one; in fact, one of the members of the larval form of Psykosonik was black.

Don’t think I’m saying this as some form of virtue-signaling; you know I
don’t believe in that. I’m simply trying to describe the innocent, and
fundamentally naive, mindset of the time, which is probably not
unrelated today to disastrous things like the settlement of Somalis on the West Bank or Liberians in Coon Rapids. (I know, I know,
oh, the irony.) There is probably an interesting historical study to be done there regarding the optimal level of a minority group in a population.

As for Prince, there was a sort of etiquette everyone understood concerning him. You did NOT make a big deal about him. You didn’t tell him you were a fan, you didn’t tell him you loved his music, and you didn’t take pictures of him, you simply said “hi, Prince”. He would usually smile, accept the homage implicit in the recognition, and go about his business. If he wanted to talk to you, he’d send his bodyguard over to let you know. On more than one occasion, I had to warn out-of-town guests not to react to him being around, but everyone in Minneapolis just seemed to understand that Prince was not to be bothered. Maybe it has to do with the Scandinavian ethic, I don’t know. It’s just how it was.

It is sad that such a beloved son of the city died alone in his incredible studio-mansion. But I have no doubt that he knew his hometown loved him, as the photo above shows. I know many, perhaps even most of you, won’t grasp what Prince meant to his fellow Minnesotans, but even if you don’t, try to understand that we are mourning one of our own.


April Brainstorm tonight

Just a reminder for Brainstorm members that there is a closed event tonight. Check your email for details. Tonight will feature a guest speaker, William S. Lind, who will address the divergence between the events depicted in his novel Victoria and the massive demographic changes that we’ve seen in the last decade.

We will also be discussing recent developments in Project Big Fork and a few other issues. I’ve completed the review of the recent debate transcript and sent it off to Dr. Miller for approval; it should go out to members by Tuesday at the latest. It’s better than I remembered; if Dr. Miller is amenable, we may publish it as a $2.99 epamphlet.

UPDATE: I’m pleased to be able to say that Dr. Miller is, indeed, amenable. So it should be out reasonably soon.

As for those who are not Brainstorm members, you are invited to the Rabid Puppies Hugo Nomination Party, which will start at 12:30 PM Eastern on Tuesday, April 26th. If you can make it, you can register for it here. Thanks to the new member signups, I was able to bump up the seats to 1,000, so there should be room for almost everyone; at the last Rabid Puppies Party, 750 more people tried to register than were able to attend.

So register and keep the prosecco cold and handy in case the Puppies do well.


A message for the conservative establishment

Milo thunders like the prophets of yore:

I have a message for the conservative establishment: you fucked up big time… The assorted, well-fed, burbling lunatics, idiots and losers of the conservative media establishment and in conservative circles in general… These useless, fat blubbering losers!

“You conservatives made all the right noises but you have no appetite whatsoever to fix anything. You allowed the Left to continue to gain ground and gain ground and gain ground until a point at which — and I don’t think this is an exaggeration to say — the fabric of western culture is now at risk. From immigration, from multiculturalism, from the lies the Left tells.

Trump and I represent something that scares the Left — the utter, wholesale rejection of political correctness. Total defiance. The idea you don’t back down, you double down. When somebody comes to my event and says they’re offended by a joke, I rack my brain for a more offensive one… Trump does the same thing.

He has shown the one thing that no conservative politician or pundit or anybody really on the political Right in American public life has done for some 30 years. He has shown fearlessness, he’s not afraid of the Left. And that inspires terror in their hearts and I’m the same, I like to think.

Regardless of what you think of Milo, he is absolutely and utterly correct to condemn the craven conservative establishment in this manner. Their spirit of fear is not God-given, and their vaunted ideological principles have proven to be entirely nonexistent.

As my co-author, Red Eagle, conclusively demonstrated in Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America, conservatism is not even an ideology per se, but rather, an attitude, or to be less kind, a pose.

The early new rightists were interested in discerning the deeper roots of historical American political thought, and in turning its various strains into a viable, coherent political tradition. Some of them looked so deeply that they found inspiration from decidedly non-American sources, such as British conservative political thought. The latter was a generally elitist tradition, openly contemptuous of American-style independent citizenry and the freewheeling style of American political discourse. Among the leaders of this Anglophile camp was Russell Kirk, who is generally credited with coining the American use of the term conservative as a distinct political label. His most famous work, The Conservative Mind, proved to be quickly and profoundly influential soon after its publication in 1953. Kirk’s book synthesized various ideas from diverse 18th- and 19th-century thinkers, most prominently Edmund Burke, into six canons, or principles, of this new conservatism:

  1. Belief in a transcendent order, or body, of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience.
  2. Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.
  3. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a “classless society.”
  4. Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked.
  5. Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man’s anarchic impulse and upon the innovator’s lust for power.
  6. Recognition that change may not be salutory reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a statesman must take Providence into his calculations.

Whatever the left may say about them, Kirk’s principles are hardly the stuff of SS rallies. As a set of ideas, they’re not particularly systematic, particularly when compared with more radical philosophies like Marxism and its innumerable offshoots, or at the other extreme, the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. They are arguably more a set of generalized assertions and attitudes rather than principles per se. Even so, they do represent a particular worldview, though it is not the worldview of the Founding Fathers or of the early American political generations. Notice as well that several of these principles are primarily defined by that which they opposed: the dominant left-liberal worldview of the mid-20th century. From their very beginning the principles of conservatism were subordinate and defensive in nature, or less charitably, they were submissive and passive-aggressive in their relation to the left.

Conservatism cannot win. It cannot even conserve. If the West is to survive, it needs to abandon its consistent failures of the past and confidently embrace the pillars of its foundation: Christianity, the European nations, science, and capitalism. Any other strategy will fail. Any man who considers himself a Man of the West would do well to abandon the conservative establishment; it has already abandoned you.