Beatnik Fascism (Advertisement)

beatnik_fascism_book_cover

Available in paperback and ebook here

Beatnik Fascism is a book of poems by Brandon Adamson that incorporates white identity, futurism and transhumanism. The theme of the book is that the race realists, identitarians and other assorted thought criminals are the curious and creative non-conformists of the post cold war, globalized era. It conveys through poetry the alienating experience we face in daily lives (even within pro-white movements) and throws around ideas about dealing with the challenges we face for the future.”

Advertisements

Looking a High Horse Rider in the Mouth

I hadn’t planned on writing anything about the Harvey Weinstein story, because: A. Tabloid celeb scandals and showbiz gossip don’t really interest me that much, and B. It’s obvious just by looking at Weinstein that he’s a rather archetype sleazy producer / pervitronic executive type (though admittedly weirder in his fetishes. I mean what kind of guy gets off on having a girl watch him masturbate.) The guy apparently must get turned on by seeing women sit there with confused looks on their faces, as he prevents them from leaving and insists they stay and watch him do things in his bathrobe or whatever:

“Look babe, don’t move. Don’t leave. Just sit there and watch me eat this croissandwich. Yeah that’s it, please don’t leave, or you’ll never work in this town again.”

Anyway, the guy is obviously the scum of the Earth. Still, typical of the times we live in, a lot of people can’t help but overreach. Some of these actresses need to get off their high horses. How convenient that twenty years later after they’ve become big stars and made their millions, these actresses come out of the woodwork to lecture everyone else that ever worked with Weinstein (or worse, they will blame “men” in general.) Many of these women, once aspiring young starlets seeking fame and fortune, were perfectly willing to put up with Weinstein’s sleaziness if it meant furthering their careers and getting breaks in the industry. Some of them accepted settlements and payoffs, which ultimately did nothing to prevent other young girls from being victimized. Now, suddenly they are shaming other actors and directors that have worked with Weinstein for continuing to work with him, associate with him or simply for not condemning him in strong enough terms. Perhaps these actors and directors simply saw it as a matter for the legal system and didn’t wish to become busybodies in everyone else’s affairs that didn’t concern them. I used to live in West Hollywood and have known tons of sleazy and sketchy guys over the years. At the end of the day, there isn’t a whole lot you can do except teach young people how not to be naive in these situations, and hope they notice the red flags and are smart enough to recognize these predators and call them out when they see them. You can warn girls a hundred times about how scuzzy some guy is, and some of them will still go along with his slimy program, either because there is something to be gained, or they trust their own intuition over your advice. If a producer attempts to engage in non-consensual acts with you, simply call your attorney and call the police. Anything less than that, and other people privy to the gossip are likely to assume whatever happened must not have been that big of a deal to you. Even if the cops ultimately won’t do anything due to lack of evidence, it sends a message to the perp that you mean business, and you’re not someone he wants to fuck with.

The “overreach” aspect in the Weinstein scandal is like what we see in other areas of public outrage overreach, like politics and free speech. It is not enough to simply disagree with someone’s political beliefs. You must disavow the person, condemn them and formally disassociate yourself with them, even if it is a member of your own family. You’re considered a “nazi” or “white supremacist,” even if you just support the right for controversial opinions to be expressed and debated non-violently. “So and so made this offensive statement or joke. Will you call on him to apologize? DO YOU DISAVOW?!”

I have a genuine respect for women like Ambra Battilana, and found myself rooting for her while I listened to the recording of her rejecting Weinstein’s crude advances and his attempts to manipulate her. She acted the way you wish every person would act in these scenarios. She stood firm and held her ground, willing to pay the price and absorb whatever negative impact it would on her career. Many of these other women though, are hypocrites…because they essentially took the “deal,” went along with it, kept quiet and are now complaining long after they have reaped the rewards. Now that it is good for their careers to speak out on the matter, they have become more vocal, self-righteous and sanctimonious than ever.

“It’s time for straight talk, Kim. It’s not my fault you posed for Harmon. It’s not my fault you posed for Larry in the nude. You did it. It’s your problem. It’s pretty late to act prissy and prim. All you kids make me sick! You act like little Miss Muffet, and down inside you’re dirty. Do you hear me? Dirty! You’re greedy and self centered and think you can get away with anything. You’re no better than the girl who sells herself to a man. You’re worse, because you’re a hypocrite. And now little Miss Muffet is in trouble, and she’s all outraged virtue. Well you listen and you listen well, you’re damaged merchandise and this is a fire sale. You walk outta here and your reputation won’t be worth fifteen cents. You’ll do as I tell you! Do you hear me? You’ll do as I tell you!” -Lawrence Aberwood ((Aberman,))

Scum of the Earth, 1963.

Brandon Adamson is the author of Beatnik Fascism

Interview With Anthony Hamilton on The Stark Truth

I first heard about Anthony Hamilton when I stumbled onto one of his videos a couple years ago called, “Secret to Time Travel: Your Mind as a Time Machine.” I’ve been intrigued by the idea of mental time travel ever since seeing the film, “Somewhere in Time” back on TNT’s Monstervision (which included some memorably hilarious, biting commentary from host, Joe Bob Briggs about the film) back in 1999.

Anyway, while on the surface Anthony Hamilton seems like another self-help marketing guru and motivational seminar speaker type, he actually incorporates a rather bizarre and interesting theory on time travel into his advice. He posits the idea that when you think about events in the past and the future, your mind actually connects to that place and time, much like computers connecting to websites on the internet.

“The new model of the mind that neuro-scientists are using now to understand consciousness, is that the mind is really a kind of time machine, that has the ability to gather information from the past, gather information from the future and to use this information, and this is in fact what thinking is, now traditionally we have this view of time that says that there is the past, present and the future and Newton in his writings talked about a river; a time like a river that flows from the past into the future, but Einstein in 1904 with his theory of relativity was written described time as the field.
Now the difference between a river and the field, a river carries things along with it , with the field you can move around in it like a field of gravity.”

I’m of course somewhat skeptical of this theory, as I think the mind acts as a kind of computer simulator that attempts to create simulations and recreate scenarios, attempting to calculate how they could possibly or potentially play out. Hamilton does make a great point about memories though, and how they’re much more complex than the mere “recordings” most people think of them as being.

..if you remember some situation that happened to you for example maybe you are attending a party sometime in the past you can remember that party as though you were remembering it from your own perspective or you can remember it as though you’re looking down on it from 10 to 15 feet above where you can remember, so you’re fifty feet away from it watching it like a movie, so the fact that you’re memory is flexible like this indicates what’s going on something different that simply playing a recording,

I would be curious to know more about his sources or the studies he references for these ideas on “future memory” and the mind as a sort of time machine, which he discusses briefly in the interview with Stark. You can also check out Hamilton’s book, Mind, Time and Power.

Click here to listen.

Topics include:

Background in linguistics; linguistics as a cognitive science
The unconscious thought process and how to better utilize it
The Functional MRI
Neuroplasticity; the science of changing the mind
The Law of Attraction
Mental Time Travel
Future Memory
Quantum Consciousness
Dealing with past traumas, fears, and negative thoughts
Goal setting and successfully utilizing future memory
Visualization
Meditation and mindfulness

A Case For Catalan Independence

I generally support independence and self-determination for any geographic area when the majority of people who live there want to separate. Not for sentimentalist, Ramzpaulesque feel good reasons of “I support nationalism for all people,” but for other reasons which I will explain later.

There are two types who oppose Catalan independence from Spain:

The first are globalists who simply reject any form of nationalism and scoff at the very concept of countries with defined borders. There is no reason to address this group because the difference of opinion is irreconcilable on its premise. There is nothing really to discuss.

The second type includes both people who are right wing reactionary nationalists as well as their Pan-European imperialist counterparts. The Pan-European imperialists oppose local independence movements because they wish to create a European superstate (a “new Roman Empire”) and they view ethnonationalism as petty tribalism that prevents a united European continent which could challenge other world powers for global supremacy. The biggest problem with this dream is that almost no one is interested. There is no viable electoral roadmap to taking over the EU and making it into a pro-Europe institution. The votes do not even remotely exist in any of the Western European countries to make it conceivable. Perhaps an Eastern European bloc of some kind could be possible in the not to distant future, but only because those nations seem to agree to collectively respect each other’s mutual expressions of ethnonationalism and sovereignty.

The right wing reactionary nationalists are opposed to independence movements when they are leftist in nature and/or the group seeking independence itself largely promotes open borders. This argument was used against supporting Scotland independence and (to a lesser degree) Brexit. It is now being used against Catalonia. Right wing nationalists point to supporters of Catalan independence as being “commies,” radical leftists or as being for open borders (I’m not even sure to what extent this assertion is actually accurate.) Therefore they must not be allowed to secede and must be crushed. They must be forced to remain part of Spain even if they don’t want to.

However, in this scenario it would make more sense to allow them to secede. As such they would no longer be able to influence Spanish elections. Granting independence to Catalonia would thus remove a large voting bloc that is currently serving as an obstacle to Spanish nationalist success in elections and potential Spanish withdrawal from the EU. To put it another way, if California and a couple of other states were to secede from the United States, just imagine the electoral impact it would have for the remaining US. The rest of the country would suddenly be able to implement policies that would never have passed a vote otherwise, and that is to say nothing of the impact on courts and judges. When you allow people to secede whose votes are currently preventing you from creating the kind of nation you wish to live in, their exit means they can no longer vote in your elections. If they support open borders, at least they no longer have a say on whether or not to keep yours open. Catalan independence should be seen as an opportunity for Spanish nationalism rather than a threat to it.

Think of it like a roommate situation where one of your roommates invites all sorts of riff raff into the apartment every night. Now this roommate (whom you can’t stand) wants to get out of the lease. He wants to move out. Maybe you could force him to stay. After all, it’s your apartment. But if you can get by without the money he’s contributing, you could finally have the place to yourself. You’ll never have to come home and see his scummy friends raiding your fridge or eating all of your Goldfish crackers. Just think of what you could do with the living room once all your roommate’s tacky furniture is gone. Imagine how you could redecorate Spain if you didn’t have to consider Catalan’s input as to what it should look like.

Brandon Adamson is the author of Beatnik Fascism

Postcards From New Suburbia

Sipping a glass of cheap moscato and in between watching episodes of Vega$ on dvd, I thought I would take a break from my “new suburban man of leisure” lifestyle to give a few updates…

I’ve been busy editing Robert Stark’s novel, which can only be described as an insane masterpiece, written in such a way that it will offend just about every type of person. Having seen my fair share of depraved 70’s and 80’s porn and spent several years hanging out in fringe political circles, I’m somewhat desensitized to offensive content at this point. However, what I have found problematic is the atrocious grammar and spelling in the book, for no other reason than I’m lazy, and it ultimately takes longer for me to edit the project. That’s just the trade-off though for a book that runs on pure imagination I suppose. In my own books, I would agonize for ages over a single typo, ready to swallow a bottle of pills over a misplaced apostrophe or improper usage of an idiom. In that sense, I envy Stark… who clearly does not give a fuck about anything but the characters and the storyline.

Some people who have followed my blogs for a long time, may wonder why I don’t write about racial issues as much as I used to. To be honest, I just don’t have a lot to say on it. I’ve written probably close to 70 essays about race, and at a certain point you just become a crank if that’s all you write about. The exception of course is if you’re one of those HBD type bloggers that treats the subject as an academic area of study. I’m not. Admittedly I don’t care that much about “hbd.” I find it to be more of an academic question at this stage. My interest in the topic of race has always been purely for practical purposes. Most non-whites openly say they have no interest in living in a color-blind western society, much less the kind of transhumanist, retro futuristic mini-empire of the sort I advocate… so it’s kind of moot whether or not they theoretically could flourish equally and sustain such civilizations adequately. They don’t even want to, so who cares? It’s like two people arguing whether I’m biologically capable of being a top-tier professional golfer when I don’t even have a slight interest in playing golf, (except perhaps miniature golf…which I’ve been having a bit of nostalgia for having not played since the summer of 1998.) Academic questions are still worthwhile to pursue, but in this case plenty of others are already on it. Anyway, by now most people know where I stand. I have no interest in getting involved in the drama and feuds between various factions and personalities. I don’t care about winning over the masses (who there aren’t even mathematically enough of to make a difference in an electoral system) or appealing to “the eternal normie.” I don’t care about global empires and geopolitics. I’m interested in small-scale tribalism and radical escapism.

Anyway, what else is new? Well, Trump continues to screw the pooch and at this point has almost fully completed his retrogression into a neoconservative republican. He’s essentially useless to anyone who cares about consumer advocacy, workers rights, and staying out of pointless foreign conflicts. His strategy appears to be to talk shit to reporters and celebrities on social media, in an attempt to distract his supporters from the fact that he isn’t implementing any substantive policies that would benefit them. 4D chess? Yeah right. If Trump is playing anything it’s Electric Football…that old tabletop game where the metal football field vibrates and the players move around semi-randomly, occasionally going in the direction you want them to.

Brandon Adamson is the author of Beatnik Fascism

Musings of a Biopunk

Pontificating upon the etymology or usage history of a word to bolster an argument about the concept contained therein is a tired and wankerish rhetorical strategy that demands of one no more wisdom than that needed to search Wiktionary and can, reductio ad absurdum, lead one to such revelatory insights on the human condition as equating maternality with paedophilia (from the Greek paidóphilos, literally “loving children”). The page on that site for “monarchy” does make a good starting point, though, for simply introducing the topic and for me to crystallise some thoughts on the matter. Again, from Greek, “[the] only power/authority”.

This has both theological and physical ramifications. Monarchy died with Christianity, and the two are not incidental to each other. The divine right of kings was, indeed, a given for much of history in the Occident. Yet, one struggles these days to find a single person who believes in “divine” anything. Most of the people bemoaning the loss of religion as a social force – do not. This is curious. Religion is one of those peculiar avenues of human behaviour, perhaps the most peculiar, in which the faithless will speak of wanting to believe things almost as fervently as the faithful will speak of believing them in actu. Why should it be like this?

Black Pigeon Speaks, among many, would have you believe that religion (and I think he means orthodoxical religion, which I shall touch on later) is coming back in force and that atheism is in decline. He refers to disparities in the fertility rate and “worldwide” population trends. The “worldwide” part immediately puts one in mind of Africa’s population explosion, though. Yes, that will produce lots of religious people. Does anyone really care though, honestly? If you live in Britain, or any other developed country, the triteness of this is stark. In almost twenty years, I have yet to meet a person under seventy who takes religious belief seriously. If genetics, childhood indoctrination, or both were really the decisive causative factor(s) in the prevalence of religious belief in society, how does he imagine religion began to decline in the first place? He apparently does not think it was because of atheists’ outbreeding theists. If he knows anyone who is now irreligious but began as a Christian, and had theist ancestors, he also cannot believe that childhood exposure to religion exerts some insuperable force that prevents one from leaving the faith. To the extent that religiosity is genetically inherited, it will be many genes – not an on-off switch but a bell curve of different behavioural phenotypes begotten by the different relative frequencies of the genes. There will always be a “hard core” of people far to the right of curve, but it is no more certain that their children will be thus than it is that two people with IQs of 160 will have a child with an IQ of 160, owing to regression towards the mean. So people will continue to leave the faith. This will continue for as long as we live in technologically developed societies. Religion, at least in the orthodoxical, supernaturalistic way most Westerners think of it, is a response to humans’ consciousness of their mortality. You do not need to pray for your next meal to find you – you can just go to Aldi.

The relationships between biology, culture, ideologies, and technologies are complex and not completely understood. It is best to make an analogy. Take the Industrial Revolution as your starting point. We watered the seed-laden soil of human ideation with our technology. Out of it grew many, many ideas that could not exist without the technology. Some were odious. Others were not – and that last is why I cannot get behind the NRx tendency of treating every innovation after [insert date here] as some incalculable evil. Then the plants decompose back into the earth, replenish it, and the cycle begins anew as the ideologies reinforce the technologically mediated behaviours ingrained in our biology.

Some notions were lost, too. Among them was religion, as outlined above. So, as to monarchy; I do not see how you could have a secular monarchy. Even if you could, the internet now provides a brilliantly accessible tool for political critique and subversion, as people in these circles know well, so that would have to go, too. I suppose if you wanted to be really imaginative about it, you could envision a kind of archaeofuturist society where the masses sacralise monarchs for what they perceive as magic, any sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic and so on. But I do not think archaeofuturism, as cool as I happen to find the steampunk aesthetic, is actually possible, practical, or desirable. It would basically be a reduplicate of the conditions Russia was in just before communism, but with an even more glaring disparity, which did not end well.

Leftwing economists are not wrong when they say inequality was a contributing factor to the development of communism. It was one of many factors, and inequality per se is an inevitability of existence (neither good nor bad) – it is just a matter of degree. But if economic Marxism were invented today, would it catch on, even granting the nonexistence of the internet? Most people’s (exceptions duly noted) interest in such things cannot be stirred into being without massive social strife.

So for true neo-monarchists, the only option seems to be a straight-up returning to mediaevalism – going back not just one but many, many centuries. If that is inevitable, as some claim, we will either end up in exactly the same position we are in now given another few centuries, or if not we will remain in that state until God gets so bored with us that he just blows us the fuck away. Hell, it is probably what I would do. I am concerned with the continuation of Europeans and the European world order as a civilisational force (it is why I have chosen to study the classics), as well as all the SWPL amenities and aesthetic preferences I delight in. But I am also concerned with the long term – millions of years hence, even if it requires phenomenal optimism (which I lack) to imagine our lasting that long. Some will wonder why I do not simply jettison racialism. I do not, because racialism is not even an idea. It is not nearly as ephemeral as that. It is much older even than monarchy. Even at peak brainwashing it persists, and there are few things it does not inform in some manner – consciously and subconsciously.

But, backing up a bit, some will object to my characterisation of religion as simplistic. After all, there is abundant evidence, anecdotal and scientific, that there is more to religion than giving one a framework by means of which to avoid facing up to the Great Oblivion. For instance, it presents the society or community with a moral paradigm. It is not true that people need the threat of hell to be good; many religions do not have a concept of eternal damnation. Indeed, some of them do not even have gods. I think ignorance of this fact stems from not recognising a distinction between (broadly) most occidental religions in contrast to oriental ones. The latter tend to be orthopraxic – strictly speaking, one does not “believe” in Buddhism; one practises it. This is also why secular Buddhism sounds quite reasonable to many but “Christian atheism” sounds risible to everyone except the tiny number of people who actually call themselves that. That is the other component to religion: narratives of action. I can attest from experience that the vast majority of people (not I, but I admit to being a freak) really do need a kind of narrative to avert existential crisis. It is for precisely that reason that people have developed what some are calling “secular religions” – the religions of politics, consumption, and Evenliftingbreaux. This is why now I think I can understand what Mouthy Buddha and others were saying when they described the project of white nationalism as a kind of religious narrative or cult. The principal differences between a religion and a cult are the number of adherents and the time it has existed; the principal difference between a cult and an ideology is subject matter. Namely, the former, a cult, tends to be preoccupied with matters of the self and various stupid ways of “transcending” it (see scientology), whereas the latter is concerned with matters of the world and how to appropriately shepherd the world’s misfits and mid-wits into its standard of rectitude (see neo-progressivism, communism, and house-on-the-prairieactionaries). Some political movements really are able to incorporate all these characteristics that people find appealing, and for some white nationalism is so essential to their being that they really would not know what to do with themselves if the project were ever completed. And this is what most atheists get wrong. People do not reject religion because of its illogic. Human beings do not and never will understand logic.

Indeed, as Maria Vladimirovna observed, “A nation without a monarchy is like a body without a soul.” But the concept of the nation state is at most about three hundred and seventy years old anyway, and it has just about run its course. Some will call me a nihilist, and in a sense I am. I accept the existence of truth, beauty, and so on, but I believe their existence is predicated on the cognitions of humans, or at least the cognitions of sensate life. (I cannot say just humans. Hell, we know that some border collies can understand two-dimensional representations of real-world objects. Maybe with the intervention of some CRISPR or iterative embryo selection they will come to appreciate the Sistine Chapel as much as I.) But I do not hold these things to be God-given, and I have no confidence that people with radically different existential/philosophical opinions will ever reach compromise let alone agreement. What are the policy implications of this? I say we form the Borean Alliance or something similar to it, and allow the religification of politics to reach its conclusion: a geopolitical superblock unified by a handful of agreed-on principles, consisting of regional autonomous or partially autonomous “zones” largely free to have their own local policies. These will be the new borders: ideological, and perhaps experimental. It would also be a great opportunity to implement some Kirkegaardian evidence-based politics – scientifically testing the outcomes of policy in the field.

Ultimately, my take is biopunk rather than steampunk. Any interested community should make the effort to implement top-down eugenics programmes, thereby enhancing human potential and pushing human cognitive capacity to its limits – for a start. The trillion steps between now and then could be a subject for another essay (such as new or theoretical systems of government). As Nietzsche said, man must be overcome – we may as well do it ourselves before something else does.