In the world of the internet, people get famous for having strong and simple opinions. On the Right, this causes failure because what seems like the furthest extreme — the point one needs to reach to fully have solved the problem — gets confused with emotional and simplistic reasoning simply because that reasoning is more popular.

The writers on Amerika take the opposite approach: as Radical Realists, we aim for the clearest possible realistic thinking. This avoids having the audience shape the dialogue, and instead offers analytical solutions, with the idea of understanding each problem enough to reach a full solution.

This leads to a place that is more extreme than anything offered elsewhere without appearing so, which is why so many of them go out of their way to ignore Amerika, its writers and its influence.

The most extreme position is the one that produces the highest degree of quality in reality. The sane aim is quality: existential quality, civilizational quality, economic quality and artistic quality. We want life to be turned up to eleven as well, meaning that it should be pleasurable, stimulating, intense and beautiful in the most deeply soul-nourishing ways.

This leads to the notion of conservatism, or the idea that we should conserve that which reflects the best qualitative civilization we have achieved in our history as a species. Conservatism or Rightism has two planks: first, an uncompromising and anti-humanist realism; second, a search for transcendental purpose and meaning, an outlook called reflective in the lexicon of this site.

There is much interest in denying this simple but effective definition.

Conservatism has from the start been plagued by entryists of two types: those who want to convert it into Leftism, and those who want to use it as a vehicle for their personal social status and profit. These two groups fervently oppose any simple and clear definition of conservatism because it is best for them to obscure its meaning and twist it to benefit them.

What this means for conservatives is that the most radical act we can engage in is also the most moderate: express conservatism clearly in ways that cannot be co-opted for the profit of individuals, including Leftists. This means that we must be extremist moderates, or those who take a middle path but then take its interpretation to its logical extremes and zealously defend those.

Most do not understand how this viewpoint translates into reality. It avoids surface extremism, but underneath, focuses on core issues like the following:

Equality is a lie. Equality originally meant “equality under the law,” which was intended to mean that if a nobleman and a serf were both injured, they got the same treatment in court. This in itself is a terrible idea since we know that most people are prone to be irresponsible, and so if a serf is run over, it is more likely than not that it is in part or in whole, the fault of the serf. Modern people begin their neurotic wailing at this point. The grim fact of reality is that people have different levels of intelligence and moral character. Every sane society ever created spent a good deal of effort ensuring that the higher levels were given special power, wealth and privilege so that they could keep the rest from destroying society through class revolt. We see the effects of class warfare in our current society, which is the skeletal carcass of a once-great empire. In those societies, the primary focus is to make sure that rank is correct. This way, if a nobleman runs over a serf, you have a reasonable assumption that the serf was mostly at fault. For example, the nobleman was racing off to stop a disaster somewhere and the serf got in his way. In that case, stopping the disaster is more important than the drama of the serf. Over time, “equality under the law” becomes the assumption that people are equal, or roughly the same in moral character. For this reason, if a serf and a nobleman crash their cars together, it is assumed that the nobleman is guilty because he and the serf were equally likely to avoid the collision because they were equally reasonable, but the nobleman having more wealth and power chose not to. That assumption — equivalent to the American legal doctrine of “disparate impact” — assumes that because all parties are equal, whoever comes out ahead is guilty. This in turn quickly morphs into the idea of equality of outcome, or that if someone gets ahead of the others, a wrong was done. This is a pervasive idea because it gives people an excuse for their failings; they can scapegoat the guy who won! A better procedure is fairness. No one except an infant comes to court innocent; all of us are balance sheets, adding up good and bad. If someone who has a record of mostly good collides with someone with a record of mostly-bad or indifferent, it is a reasonable assumption that the person who is mostly-good is more innocent. At that point, we recognize that much of humanity has a balance sheet of indifferent or mostly-bad, and that they are this way not because of poverty or lack of education, but for the same reason that we impute behavior to any animal: it is how they are wired, or a result of their genetics.

Democracy always fails. With herd animals, herd behavior presents a challenge. When panicked, they stampede; when not panicked, they remain oblivious to slowly advancing threats. Democracy legitimizes herd behavior by asking groups of people to make decisions together. They throw in their vote and have no responsibility for the outcome, so soon voting becomes a sense of futility except on massively polarizing issues. At that point, it becomes easily manipulated by symbols and drives people to extremes. In addition, most do not understand the economics of democracy. Politicians are elected by saying things that people want to hear; they are image salespeople in this sense because they have no necessary obligation to carry out the promises they make, and are given a plausible excuse not to because “the other side” always opposes them. This creates a comfortable arrangement of “play fighting” where both sides pretend to war it out, then agree on whatever they are comfortable with. Elected officials are given a property to sell, which is power, and without accountability, they quickly become corrupt. When this corruption reaches a peak, candidates rise to oppose it, but they are then faced with the necessity of disassembling decades of bad law in only a term or two. Further, democracy encourages a toxic mentality of “it’s not my fault.” When the votes are tallied, voters can blame politicians or even “the voters,” but there is never a sense of each person being accountable for their choice. The consequences of that choice are distributed among the others, or “externalized” or “socialized” (this is the same idea behind Socialism). In addition, many who do not pay substantial or any taxes vote, which amounts to them being able to make the wealth and thus time (time = money) of others into a means-to-the-end of their own single issue desires. This causes a permanent schism in the population except during military threat from abroad. Over time, a society given to democracy can expect itself to become dominated by moneyed interests while the population fights over symbolic issues. At this point, the power structure is too divided to make any real changes in its direction, and the population will not abandon its symbols, so the politicians and people fall into infighting and cannot reverse direction even as it leads to collapse. Another problem is inherent in groups of people themselves. People tend to behave by “the committee effect” in groups, and as individuals, prefer pleasant illusions to complex truths. This means that every decision becomes what is easiest to achieve consensus on, instead of what is true, and so the society comes to pathologically prefer lies to realistic and accurate assessments of reality.

Diversity destroys societies. The impulse to diversity arises from class warfare. People at the bottom of the hierarchy take civilization for granted, and want more power despite their inability to wield it. They form a herd within the herd, called a Crowd, which then advocates for collectivized individualism: equal rights for all people without equal responsibilities, especially without having to face the consequences of their choices. This Crowd then dissolves the power structure by making war on excellence, intelligence, the family, religion, culture, heritage and caste differences. As part of this, the new rulers — empowered by the angry Crowd — aim to destroy culture by destroying the genetics behind it. They decide on a path of slow genocide. First, they import foreigners (the more ethnically different, the better) to serve as a permanent political bloc; these always vote against majority interests, because their own interest in ethnic self-determination requires they crush and push aside the majority. Nature is conquest. Next, this foreign group is given special privileges such that the majority is disadvantaged. The purpose of this is to break the power of the majority and encourage inter-breeding, which destroys the ethnic group that is the majority and replaces it with a mixed-race grey or beige people who have no culture, and therefore depend on government, ideology, media and social factors for their values. They are much more easily manipulated than a group with a culture. This puts the leaders into permanent power as tyrants, or those who rule by their will alone, and not toward a goal larger than themselves such as the health of the civilization. What this means is that diversity can never work. Each distinct group has its own self-interest including self-determination and setting its own behavioral, moral and social standards. This means that groups compete to see who will dominate and then enforce those rules on the rest, making other ethnic and religious groups subjects of their rule. Acknowledging the failure of diversity in totality tells us a few other things that all nationalists know in their heart and gut even if they cannot articulate them: any diversity is toxic, and the only solution is to send them all back. This does not mean we have to hunt down people, as there will always be some visitors among us who keep to their own group. But it does mean zero diversity. This seems less extreme than declaring war on other ethnic groups and calling them names, but it gets to the root of the problem. We adopted a bad policy called diversity and it will destroy us unless we end it. So we end it, not other groups, and repatriate everyone to a place where it would be more appropriate for them to live.

Hierarchy and decentralization are the same. Jobs are jails, so we should replace them with feudalism. People resent the fact that they are compelled to work, instead of having roles that reflect their natural abilities.

When we converted roles into jobs, we essentially created a totalitarian state based on competition for money, and the result has naturally caused disorder. Instead of tackling that directly, people — remember the bell curve here — have chosen an easy illusion, which is that we can squeeze money from this magical thing called “the rich” and hand it out to make everyone happy. They will still have their terrible jobs, but it is their way of emotionally acting out against the misery of jobs and a society where every aspect of life is a financial transaction.

So, while many of us are sympathetic to their position, their solution is suicidal and insane. This reflects the general neurotic outlook of the Left.

Modernity has failed. Few know that modernity began with The Enlightenment,™ or the idea that the human form — body, mind, desires, ideals — came before any order of nature or the divine (monists such as myself include the divine in nature). From this emerged the notion of equality, or that if an individual desired to do something, they should not be limited by objections such as “that is unrealistic” or “that violates our social, moral or philosophical order.” Human individuals came first. This follows the ancient idea of evil, seen in the Greek description of hubris or the desire of man to be God in the garden of Eden, and legitimizes it as beneficial in a process of rationalizing or justifying decay rather than opposing it. Since that time, this idea has gained size and momentum because of its innate popularity among human individuals and human groups. Everyone in a group feels good if they are promised equal inclusion, which is what equality means. It does not matter whether they are deluded or insane, or even sociopathic or antisocial; so long as they are individuals, they are then included. Like most ideas, this took centuries to manifest and then more centuries for its downsides to be revealed. Its upside was that it was popular and like peer pressure could be used to make others obey our demands, rather than principles or actual needs in common; its downside was that it destroyed Western Civilization. “Oops.” The current rebellion against Leftism, which is one manifestation of this idea of individualism, represents the start of peeling back the layers of illusion upon which our present time is built. After this we will come to distrust Crowdism, or collectivized individualism by which individuals enforce their solipsism upon others as “reality” by using social pressures, and eventually, we will rediscover evil and how it erupts as individualism. We are in a new age. The well-intentioned and pro-human rules of the past have failed us; we now recognize that there is an order bigger than us in reality itself, and that any action must begin by understanding cause and effect in reality. The individual is no longer king.

Overpopulation is the environmental problem. Leftists have consolidated their concerns about the environment into a single issue, climate change. This misses the point by targeting one aspect of a complex problem with a single origin. When we have a reasonable number of people, most of the land on earth remains natural or mostly natural. This enables Earth’s ecosystems to absorb the pollution we produce. When we have too many people, the pollution produced — of various kinds — exceeds the capacity of the surrounding land to absorb it. We can see this in microcosm in cities where smog hangs in the air because the trees have been mostly replaced with concrete. As we add more people, even if we reduce the burden each imposes, we generate too much pollution for our environment and by reducing the amount of undivided land, endanger species by limiting their territory, which causes inbreeding in those populations and eventually, population crash and inability to recover owing to too many recessive genes. No matter how much we try to limit ourselves, space on Earth is finite, and by expanding recklessly we cause not only environmental problems, but ecocide.

Herd morality is dysgenics. Herd morality can be summarized as any belief system which defends the weakest against the strongest, assuming that people are equal and therefore, the stronger do not have greater competence or abilities. Rights are an inherent form of this: since all people are equal, each one is given certain absolute rights which prevents others from contradicting their intent. The problem with this is that the absolute nature of these rights creates an inflexibility and slowdown which reduces society to infighting over rights. A saner view recognizes that the more competent, morally more advanced and those of greater talent deserve more of a “right” than those who are beneath them. In addition, it asserts that no right comes without responsibilities, which means that those who contribute are given more of a voice than those who do not. At an even more basic level, this type of morality is evolutionary. It says, as Plato suggests, “good to the good, and bad to the bad.” It perpetually rewards those who do good as a result, instead of making them “equal” to those who do bad. In this way, natural selection and religious morality join and converge. Any civilization which desires to thrive will want to create upward pressure toward the good, instead of downward pressure away from fears of victimization. Not only is this more effective, but it provides greater clarity. Each person has a role. While all are treated fairly, it is recognized that some should be above others because of their greater ability, and that this translates into a more competent society and thus benefits for all.

All we need to do is to stop doing certain things. Of all the things written in this document, the following may be the most radical: almost all of our problems are caused by doing the wrong things, which both sends us down a wrong track and uses up the energy and time required to do the right things. Scammers and other canny but unscrupulous types use this method of distraction as a means of occupying our focus so that we do not notice their parasitism. Nature provides a sensible framework in which we live. All produce, all share in the benefits of social order, and each accrues what he can within reason. Disputes, like trade, are often settled with money, which allows us to avoid a punitive justice system as well as overblown concepts of “rights.” Within our population, castes — divisions by ability — naturally form, and people move upward by emulating the best. Families are the basic building block of civilization. Leaders lead, and leave concerns of daily survival to the local area, which is where most people spend most of their focus anyway, which is why asking them to vote on national elections becomes comedy. Most of our laws exist because a politician needed to make a name for himself. Most of our social conventions are designed to avoid noticing plain but unsociable truths. Much of our activity is designed around self-importance. Almost all of our writing and cultural objects are there to aggrandize the individual. A sane society applies a rigid standard, excluding what is not useful, because it knows that people are at heart Simian and will preen, draw attention to themselves and otherwise introduce destabilizing chaos through too many alternatives where what we need is knowledge of what is real, actual and beneficial. To fix this problem, sane societies simply stop doing much of what people “think” is needed.

Living a “good life” is not enough. Among contemporary conservatives, the illusion persists that in times of civilization downfall, the best thing to do is to get a good job, work hard, buy a house, have kids, and pay taxes to the parasitic government that is crushing you. While the above are important, they are also an excuse for doing nothing. The “Benedict option” amounts to making oneself a political non-entity, and always results in the insane taking over your civilization. Instead, the individual must affirmatively act not for the group but for the principle of civilization, which is usually unstable unless founded on conservative ideas. Most people are looking for an excuse to do nothing to stop the decline. Leftists rationalize it; Rightists engage in pretend activities like the Benedict option or voting vigorously on token issues like abortion. You have to tackle the whole of the problem, energize others to work on it, and submit a clear demand to the civilization around you. This will never be popular.

{{{ They }}} hate you. Some Alt Righters use the ((( echo ))) to denote that Jewish people are speaking. On this site, we eschew that and instead use the [[[ echo ]]] for non Western but European-descended people, and more importantly, the {{{ echo }}} for people from our own tribe who are collaborators, traitors, betrayers or parasites. There is a group out there which occurs by mathematics in every organization or social group. We might call them the resentful, the parasitic, or even the criminal, but their behavior remains the same. They wish to subvert all good things and replace them with bad so that their personal bad behavior goes unnoticed. This herd will never admit what they are and, like any form of evil, will cloak themselves in whatever they think makes them look altruistic, kind and good instead of parasitic, selfish and bad. After all, it is easier to make a public donation once a month than to try to do right in all that one does. They hate you, this herd. They hate you for being better than them, or even for trying for a social order above chaos and self-centeredness. They will always hate you and anyone like you because you are a threat to their agenda, which is to withdraw power and wealth from society and heap it upon themselves, or at least, to escape censure for their non-contribution. Of all the ways to fight this group, only one works: a social hierarchy which rewards good behavior and punishes bad. This in turn requires a leadership hierarchy so that the social hierarchy has a purpose and responsibilities. That in turn requires having a homogeneous culture. While this is more complex than Leftist egalitarian society, it is also internally balanced and provides what ideology cannot. It confers peace of mind and a naturalistic existence upon a group, and by preventing parasitism, encourages people to give of themselves to improve anything they can without expecting excessive reward in return.

The goal is parasitism. Every creature on earth acts to secure a living for itself. Humans are no exception, and those who appear fanatically ideological are in fact most focused on themselves. They want to steal away wealth and power, create a social group where they are important, and give themselves a surrogate for meaning through having an ideology that justifies their actions. In this context, the tyrants are dupes. These are figureheads who represent the interests of parasites within your society who are both homegrown and pernicious because of their knowledge of the inner workings of your society; outsiders do not have this vision, at least until diversity hits. The parasites profit while the tyrants obsess over power and renown. For the parasites, power is a means to an end, but not the end that they sell in public. The text or public “truth” for them is that they want power to do good; the subtext or private truth is that they want power so that they can stop anyone from stopping them from doing bad. Equality is a means to this end. Equality is required for centralization, because that way there is no tiered or cascading social structure. Instead there are military style leaders commanding a sea of equals. Centralization allows this high command to remove “inefficiencies” unrelated to its goal, and profit by absconding with the wealth that otherwise would go to necessary social functions. This is why Leftism and other Crowdist philosophies wage war against the good, natural, normal, healthy and beautiful. They want to destroy the need for those things and transfer the effort put into them into methods that reward the parasites instead. In a society of equal conformist droids, they can easily do this, and steal the best of that society for themselves.