The Internet is a brain disease

What happened to the Internet blew me away, not because it was swift and new, but because it was
subtle and so familiar. First AOL got online and suddenly one had to justify bandwidth in terms of money;
then political candidates and the news got online, and started "civilizing" the place; then fractiousness
emerged between nerd culture and normals, and now entertainment culture has just about dominated the
net.

People who come to this site expect a personality, some guy who is making this his personal ad or his
online persona. That's not the case. This site is here to express some opinions, and the people behind them
choose NOT to make themselves the focus of the site. We get dates in the real world, thanks, and make
our friends there too. The Internet is for communicating abstract data, and people who socialize through it
are broken.

This recently hit me like a ton of bricks because outside of trolling, I haven't done much with the net for a
long time. It lost its magic back in 1997, about the same time all metal music in the world decided to fall
into groupthink, and I didn't bother to keep up. But, because I periodically have these silly impulses to
preserve and nurture what I find meaningful in life so that others can also enjoy it, I recently attempted to
start a publication online.

Rather, I tried to transfer Heidenlarm, a metal ezine (not webzine) to a new generation. I don't have as
much time for it anymore, and people seem to like reading it, so what makes best sense is to pass it on to
the best of the new generation. But was I in for a disappointment.

First, among the alienated, as well as among the docile sheep who I refer to as "normals," there is a lack of
ability to do anything outside of self-image. People who wanted to work with me on this zine, as a group,
wanted me to be the babysitter/leader and to give them titles and tell them why they were important. That
was crazy, but even crazier was that they couldn't self-start and refused to take on any labor that wasn't
"fun" to them. There was no sense of collective effort for the good of the task itself; the question had
become what was convenient for their own entertainment.

I'd say I'm disappointed, but I should have known this would be the case. People are locked into their own
transitory selves and needs, and they don't know anything else. It isn't the fault of the individuals, but it is
the disease of the time. All in all, this experience explains two threads from the 1990s: first, why I always
work alone, and second, why the few innovators in metal music abandoned it about 1996.

The people with whom I was working represented the brightest of the people one encounters online, and
while they couldn't contribute to anything that wasn't a credit to their shining self-images, they were
perfectly okay to keep pumping out tiny blogs, websites, etc. that hardly anyone reads. Thus instead of
unifying our efforts and making something that's effective, each individual gets to keep his public self-
image station intact. A more apt metaphor for humanity cannot be found.
Why You Need Experience to Realize that Macs
Suck
It takes about three years after they introduce a new marketing campaign for reality to intrude, which is
why without 5-7 years experience, most people can't see why Apple's Macintosh machines are computers
for untermenschen. They see the pretty cases, hear the disproportionate amount of self-promotional
material from the Mac community, and see how their favorite neurotic celebrities (and other people who
use their computer for three tasks, max) gab up about them. It's like peer pressure in high school... after
three years, you stop giving a damn, and then you graduate.

The latest hilarious embarrassment for Apple is that even with a far smaller userbase (2.8% versus over
90%) the Mac's vaunted OS X is full of security holes, on par with Windows XP. But of course, we have to
ask, if that many holes were found in an operating system that almost no one uses, imagine what would
happen if Apple were in Microsoft's place - even more of a disaster. Like most things promising hope and
change with a vague plan, Apple is a marketing success, not a technological one.

The Apple happy camp has been bragging about OS X security and stability for some time now, but the
results haven't been as great as they had hoped. Once again, after the hype, we see the truth starting to
emerge. In the 1990s they were claiming "greater productivity," but after Windows 95 proved to be more
stable and adaptable than their OS at the time, they abandoned that. Then the hype was all about how
much "faster" than Intel the Mac's CPUs were. Remember the "velocity engine"? The G5 didn't live up to
the hype, so now a new slogan is needed. OS X is the latest Jesus Christ the Savior for the Macintosh line,
but here we see the facade beginning to crack.

In reality, Apple will continue to sell machines to the same 2.8% of the market, which are the people who
are both insecure about their computer knowledge and pretentious enough to be fooled by a good-looking,
expensive machine. It reminds me of what IBM was offering in the late 1980s with the PS/2. Both will hang
on, but neither will actually conquer the market or move it ahead, which is now exclusively the province of
Windows and Linux (though I'm still planning to get an Itanium so I can run OpenVMS, the world's most
stable operating system). Nothing left to do but laugh at the people still inexperienced enough to believe
the Apple propaganda, and thus to shell out five times the cost of a good machine for a mediocre one with
"art deco" styling.
Schizophrenia
The world of computing reminds me of the fracture that splits our society down the middle. On one side
are the individualists who want to fall backward into a utopic society based on self-gratification, and on the
other side are the pragmatists who view life as a process of labor, advocating a semi-collectivism based on
cooperative morality. Is either right, or wrong? That these divisions exist is for the long-term view, wrong.

The left side view is that of people such as, say, those who support Open Source Software as a religious
mantra. They would like a world that does not obstruct their social and personal desires, such as sexual
freedom or drug use freedom or the ability to live outside conventional time management. They believe
that if we achieve these things, society will automatically function in a utopic state. It sounds almost silly,
but it has a vital strength: it believes in changing things toward something better. As the nerd community
becomes further pinched by offshoring, contrivances of self-image will compensate. Apple users are a small
but vocal and morally self-righteous section of this group (who seem to have forgotten that a "machine for
the people" needs to stop hiding information and function from them).

On the right, of course, is the typical corporate employee. "We run Windows XP because it's the best option
with a major company behind it," he says to your face, and you wonder why he's not embarrassed. Then
you realize that he's right. His job's in the slinger if he purchases a new machine, and finds that in order to
get a device driver he has to either (1) write it himself or (2) beg some guy with an identity complex to
write it for him, usually in public on a newsgroup or mailing list. He doesn't want to put himself at the
mercy of some of the total nutcases in the Open Source movement, and he surely won't use Apple. He is
correct because Windows, with superior hardware management and very fast access to basic end user
function, is what most people need and should have. They don't care of Linux has better multitasking; they
don't have to beg for drivers, and someone is always answerable (and askable about) any particular
function.

What crushes us is this division, as it blinds these people to their common interest. Both would like a
superior tool. The nerds won't do anything for the prags, and vice versa, since the prags don't want to rely
on the legendarily less-than-stable mentality of the nerds. Thus no excellent hardware management for the
nerds, and no free software for the prags. I doubt software will ever be truly free, as nothing is ever "free"
(except HIV), but I think the future of software is corporate support contracts and probably, a $20 service
added onto your cable bill which can get you a WindowsUpdate-style system which will fix your computer
and add software as needed. This doesn't require it be written exclusively in committees, or that it be
closed-source, but it does require that it work pragmatically. It will be interesting to see if either group can
look beyond the 1-year prediction to make something collectively useful (one might point to Sun's
OpenOffice as a possible start, except that like most open source software, it's got lots of whizbang
features, no organization and is higly unreliable).
Isolation
When one is single, one must overcome one's own intellectual and moral and spiritual isolation to branch
toward the ultimate compassion: to see the world of another as "the" world for them, and thus to accept it
and to wish for its success comingled with one's own (to whatever varying degree the relationship or
coupling or moment dictates).

What is scary about relationships is that they create a new world, an "our world." You can see it in older
couples who recreationally shop or engage in public activity on the weekends; the world is defined for
them, and they seek something external confirming it, but basically its ways and their ways are defined by
the relationship itself. You can see it in teenage lovers who - may it work for them, as the first love is the
least cluttered - exist in a world by themselves and have no desire to relate to anything else. Finally, you
can see it in embittered 27-35 year olds who having formed a relationship nervously consult it as a basis to
a lifestyle; in their case (the most pathetic) the concept of relationship in age of life is more important than
the tangible relationship itself, as most of them have settled into a 2nd marriage and/or 11th lover,
therefore are both bored and afraid of the concept of relationship, thus seek to make a non-threatening
one through legalistic contract. The worst are the "empowered" ones, where the contract is almost put into
legal terms. There is no actual contact with the process of world-making, and all of the fear and adventure
required.

Let me clarify: I'm all for love, and where needed, marriage. Marriage is the commitment to make a lifetime
of a love, as one will most probably be creating new life forms merged of the parents. Love is what
happens when one finds someone else one respects enough to wish literally union in the form of one's
irreplaceable time and possibly spawn. If you look at the process of breeding, it's quite romantic: We work,
so let Another be made of Us. My warmth and heartspirit goes out to you teenage lovers; may your
idealism never die. It goes out to the older couples who've lived through everything and made it work,
should they still have tenderness for each other. And most of all, it goes out to my generation, you intrepid
27-35s, who think you know what you should have and are trying to copy the image from TV screen to life.

But one must acknowledge love's instabilities. First, the choices involved depend on the people involved and
more importantly, their knowledge and experience (one doesn't need many lovers for life experience: one
needs life experience). You are every experience you've had, and every lover you've had. Over time, the
process can become rote and you can cease to be able to tell the difference between lovers. Also, the
concept of love depends on what one sees. Your beloved may be hiding a murder, or a betrayal; it's hard to
think of ultimate union with something diseased. Finally, love itself may become a prison, when one tries
too hard for love and not enough for the literal situation of two people coming together (no pun intended).
When I see love held up as a signum imperium in this way, I shudder and think of Christianity.

August 15, 2004

 Mailing list:
Search anus.com:

Lying and Sweden

When I'm out in society, I often lie to people. I don't do it to build myself up, or for any material gain, but
mainly because it's funny and it gets them off my back. "Why do you order only vegetables?" is much
easier answered by "I have AIDS and it doesn't cause conflict with my AZT-based regimen" than an
explanation of a mostly vegetarian, pragmatic-ideologically-motivated foodstyle.

Sometimes I forget this and answer honestly, and that actually is when I get into deep shit. Like the other
day I was at one of our HIV+ grocery stores here, all sparkling aisles and discount cards which if you add it
all up means you still get the shaft, and I ended up talking to this Swede. It all started because he asked
which brand of salsa I liked, and I pointed out that although the cheap options are very popular, the quality
version would probably match the food quality to which he was accustomed.

He was startled. "So you know something of Sweden?" Hmm, I know some people there, I've read a bit
about it and I've seen pictures and video. Like Swedish television? No, homemade stuff of people goofing
around in normal parts of the cities. I don't trust anything I see on TV. It looks like a really nice place.

Typically self-effacing, these Swedes. "Well it's about like anywhere else," he says. I told him I agree, but
that the basic attitude of the society is highly developed. Not its governmental system - that's a trend, as
are economic systems - but its basic values, balance with nature and lack of fear of mortality. (You
shouldn't say shit like this in a grocery store, unless you're Marilyn Manson. Then people can nod knowingly
and say, "It's the cocaine," and feel as if they pulled one over on you, which is all anyone wants to do in an
individualistic society anyway. Personal profit. It's what's for dinner, lunch, breakfast, brunch and any meal
you invent.)

Tell me more, he says. So I break out the controversial point of my thesis: that in a degraded society, we
have lost the ability to appreciate what makes a finer society. How do you explain to phillistines that they
should like classical music, or understand why the Swedish attitude toward having clean streets and logical
efficient design is superior? What they see is prices in the big discount stores, which are cheaper here. He
granted that.

I said that for me, I'd prefer to pay higher prices and throw more of the money back into society at large,
not just social services, but things like well-maintained streets and endless acres of unbroken forest.
However, I said, for that to happen I'd have to know it's my kind who benefit and not that I'm running a
welfare society for anyone who comes along.

So you're a racist? his eyes narrowed. "No, not really. At least, not in any sense that I've ever heard anyone
use the word. I believe in my people for myself. I acknowledge differences between the races, and a
different place in the natural order, but this isn't important to me - I don't care about feeling better about
myself than someone else because I'm of a certain race. I do know that any society which opens its borders
without discernment will drown in immigrants and be destroyed.

I do know that I prefer my own kind. Northern Europeans, with an emphasis on that kind of values. I can't
explain to everyone why a city with straight streets, no waste and prompt recycling pickup is preferrable to
someplace that's a disorganized fecal mess but has great prices on the trendy electronics of that week. I
can explain it to some, and those are people who are from a similar background to me, and think like me.
But I don't place some religious emphasis on that.

For me, I'm a dreamer and a long-term thinker. You ask me what type of fixture to use in an installation,
and I'll pick one that lasts for as close to the thousand-year mark as I can get. When I build computers,
everything is anchored securely and parts quality is high, so the damn things last as long as possible. I
spend a lot of my time just thinking, and thinking about the future, but I derive benefit from that when it's
time to make things.

However, this is the tiniest discernment that isn't available to everyone. Most Americans for example
wouldn't notice much of a difference between Swedish cities and American ones. They wouldn't appreciate
the difference between a high-quality computer and some piece of crap, and they certainly don't care
whether their restroom fixtures will last 1,000 years. They're fine with cheap and disposable.

But if you think, and dream, the 'cheap and disposable' route seems less plausible, over time. You start
becoming aware of the mountains of waste we leave behind, and how having shiny new things every week
doesn't make you any happier. Also, you feel more secure about yourself, and you have less need to pull
one over on people in order to feel smug. You just don't give as much of a damn about the transient and,
while knowing fully that it could all be destroyed tomorrow, you start to build for the future. I like living
among those people, the thinkers and dreamers.

I can't tell you any single factor that will limit entrance to a civilization to people who think like that. I think
the civilization has to form itself by breaking away, and starts decaying as soon as that happens, because
it's impossible to make a bureaucracy which keeps out the idiocy. But for people like me, the kind of
civilization we want is more like Sweden, and we'll always work toward that, even in the small things like
computers and bathroom fixtures."

I could sense he was awkward with the topic, so I changed it rapidly and spoke about computers for
awhile. He was a good conversant and had the inherent self-confident friendliness that many Swedes have,
and so we had a good time of it. When it was time for me to move on, as we were still in the salsa aisle
(surrounded by the smells of detergents, bright flashy plastic packaging and music of Marvin Gaye), he let
me know in some small way that he appreciated my honesty. No sign he agreed or didn't, but I could tell
he was cogitating on it. Maybe analyzing its impact over a millennium. I like living among those people, the
thinkers and dreamers.

October 15, 2004

Copyright © 1988-2010 A.N.U.S. | Site map
Why did you name it 'ANUS'?
My friends have a blast flacking me about my hidden life as an infotroll on the data stuporhighway. One
common question is, "Why did you name it ANUS?"

I have long observed that two worlds exist on earth, as they do in the theology of the Christian religion,
where there's this imperfect world contrasted by a perfect Heaven-world where things are exactly as they
seem (sounds boring to me). The two worlds on earth are reality as it exists, to the best degree that we
can perceive it, and reality as a psychological construct projected onto the world.

In the former, we see a car accident and can't be sure if the grey car hit the white car, but we know there
was a collision and people were injured.

In the latter, we're caught up in the chain of thoughts that says the white car was going what looked like
five miles over the speed limit, so was probably the instigator, and we're wondering what the intent of that
person was. Did they mean to be evil?

Believe it or not, most people live in that latter world, and usually justify it with the former. Life is unclear,
ambiguous, so they impose an Order upon it. Although analysis of the former should convince them of the
illogic of absolutes, they prefer their world of simple certainties.

The concept of the ANUS, or a form of naturalist nihilism, is a removal of the latter world and an embrace
of the former, including its ambiguities. The world created by humans considers only the human
perspective; something is needed that includes the whole. To get to this world, we have to first strip back
the illusions we have and then look at what exists in the objective.

Our perception of this will be "subjective," but to varying degrees. In the case of the best minds, enough of
the objective will be understood, even if imperfectly, that it can be acted on for ongoing evolution and
growth. This is natural in the finest sense of the word, meaning what is intuitive to those of high
intelligence.

The latter world, which could be described as a socio-emotional construct, is comprised of our reactions to
our world, which occur in the form of mental judgments. Death = bad, feces = disgusting,
violence = bad . While death, violence and feces may have negative effects on our lives, we've
confused the human perspective with the perspective of the whole.

Consider for example the mass murderer. Without ideology, or plan, he kills to feel the power of control
over another (this same phenomenon can be observed in bosses, high school principals, and authority
figures across America). If death is brought to the mass murderer, should we feel it is "bad"?

To obsess about his death would be to fixate ourselves on the isolated perspective of the human, and not
to look at the whole, which is just fine without him and moving on, with someone of potentially better
caliber taking his place. This concept shocks most people, because they are somewhat depressed and have
low self-esteem, thus automatically assume that any competition or predation would eliminate them.

When the organization A.N.U.S. was formed, it was named after something you can't mention in polite
conversation: that we defecate, disgusting as it may seem, and that from defecation as much as
consumption we derive life. Breathe in, breathe out: the CO2 you exhale is a poison, in enough
concentration, but it's a useful building block for plants. As is feces.

To recognize this nature of the ANUS, as being the "dark side" of the mouth, is to recognize life beyond the
human perspective. This is the essence of nihilism, or a reduction of all value except the inherent and
holistic. "Disgusting" is not important; the function of the world and the human body is.
Escaping absolutes in this way requires a good deal of thought and an inspirational symbol, something
which will forever be "banned" in the sense that most people will find it repulsive in some way or another.
Like punk bands, we named the organization for what is denied in the "real" world.

By naming that which can not be named, we break through the line between what is publically recognized
by humans, and that which is reality as whole. Anuses, death, violence, predation and the fact (not opinion)
that some humans are more intelligent, stronger, etc. than others are all threats to the human-only mental
reality.

It doesn't need to be a religious experience, but it usually is, to realize in any small or large part this
awareness. It's like a meta-sorting: suddenly you are given a tool to literally divide your world into real and
not-real, and to discard the not-real. You can then focus on the real, and rebuild.

What is it to "rebuild"? First, you will need to replace the mental constructs which were supported by the
unreal world. You have to reinvent your own ethics, and your values (preferences for one type of outcome
over another). You have to reinvent your own sense of personal destiny and mission. It's scary, like being
alone for the first time on a strange street on the first cold night of winter.

But it's also a sense of self-ownership. The hand that swung you is gone, and you are now both hammer
and anvil. There are no barriers to the world as it is, and you know how it can be operated and have
preferences that you have derived, using only your brain, which you hope to fulfill. Everything you earn and
create is yours and yours alone.

The major questions of life still remain, at least initially. Why are we here? Is death as real as it seems?
Does anything matter? You are approaching these as a nihilist, however, and so the confusion caused by an
illusion and your reactions to it are eliminated. For this reason, you can observe the natural world and
develop some working hypotheses.

Since any vision of reality only works insofar as it doesn't run into contradiction, the human fantasy world
requires finite, absolute answers to these questions for which there may be no immediate answers (or at
least not answers we in human form are ready to perceive). Nihilism avoids contradiction by not creating
symbolic answers to such questions.

This allows nihilism to avoid the problem of the modern world, namely passivity. When you generate an
absolute and objective substitute reality, the process of thought in life goes from "what must I do to
achieve" to "what must I do to not offend the Gods" (or analogues thereof). This psychology is responsible
for the passivity of the modern time, which cannot admit outright disagreement or difference between
people, and thus tries to norm them with religion, politics and social factors.

This in turn creates the environment where to talk about a fact of life, such as an anus, is "offensive" and
therefore taboo. Society retaliates against those who cross the line between
social illusion and reality.
When one takes the narrow bridge of nihilism, a perilous crossing in which the long fall into endless despair
funneling toward death is present on both sides, one reaches a point where acceptance of this new
philosophy is possible, and values can be reconstructed. Where the previous social illusion depends on
forcing its values on the world (through passive means), the nihilist path involves accepting the world and
working with its methods.

In this nihilism is far healthier, as one accepts the world as whole and nothing is offensive, or taboo, or
shocking. This doesn't mean that one blindly accepts destructive or stupid behaviors - in fact the contrary,
a consequence of having an active and not passive philosophy - but it does mean that one is free from
fearing things which would draw the social illusion into contradiction and thus shatter a worldview, and with
it, a world as known.

ANUS promotes this bravery, as it involves leaving behind all that is familiar and venturing into a frightening
world where there is no "follow this cycle and you will be OK until you die of old age"; there is error, and
horror, and loss. Overcoming this separates the individual from the illusion of prejudgment and lets growth
begin again.

Many of the most controversial aspects of this site begin at this point after acceptance of nihilism and
traversal of the abyss created by the lack of inherent meaning, mainly because unlike modern passive views
these controversial views are heroic. They advocate an order similar to the one observed existing, and
cease to wish to change its fundamental tendencies.

The biggies are:

Race . People freak out about this topic because since 1945, the prevailing dogma in the United States
has been that all people are equal in ability and temperment and should exist in a "multicultural"
society. Astute observers notice that this means all of our many diverse races get combined into one
average. That's destructive in our view. It makes more sense to preserve diversity by preserving
populations, and to let those who wish to mix races do so in places such as Mexico or the middle east
or Brazil where such things already exist. We support the concept of "localization," which means that
when one has ancestral connection to a land and a culture that culture survives, but if that chain is
broken the culture dies (causing a lack of diversity). Modern society spouts on about "equality" and
"diversity" but what they really mean is averaging. Every culture, every "nation" (tribal-ethnic group),
has the right to exist on its own and to exclude those whose values don't jive with what's already
there. Our concern is not in proving a hierarchy among races, or in encouraging one race to rule the
others, but to gain space for our own races to exist apart from others. The alternative is one world
culture being forced on us all, and if this culture is like the averages we've already seen, a big no
thanks. Of course, simple minded people from both sides wish to assault us for this. Those who enjoy
feeling power over others by accusing them of taboo violation and thus, presuming to have the "right"
answer, by "correcting" the situation, will accuse us of "racism" and complain that we're the worst
ever. Others may feel disappointed that we don't buy into their brand of "beat up the other ethnic
groups" thuggery; we have no love for National Socialist thugs, although we are very friendly to
National Socialism and any other system which affirms an ecofascist, Romanticist, natural order. If
you can't handle this, ask yourself why you're trying to push your values on us, and what you're
afraid of. Your values are from the past, a society that's already dying. We are both the future and
the distant path, times in which people of higher intelligence discover the order inherent around them
and work with it instead of trying to supplant it with social illusion.
Environmentalism . Our attitude is that the basic problem that causes human destruction of the
environment is that there are too many of us. Every person must eat, must defecate and have a
space to live. There's only so much land we can use before we destroy the ecosystems around us,
which although they don't contain people are intricate machines containing parts, all of which need
space. Humans should use 25% or less of the land deemed "acceptable" for human use. This requires
a world population of under a billion. Since we have nearly seven billion people now, there's an ugly
truth coming up: most people on the planet will be either killed or stopped from breeding. If we're
going to take such a drastic step, the most important thing is to select the best humans for breeding:
the smartest, strongest, and of highest character. Some people would rather we be "fair" by having
some kind of lottery instead, but to anyone who sees all life as continuous, this is insane. It's better
to pick the best so that the next generation is stronger. With a sane population, humans can live
comfortably, but here is where the other part of our environmental aspect comes into play: we deny
the importance of a consumer society. "Need" is too strong a word for luxury items and the endless
shelves of plastic at Wal-Mart. We can live more efficiently, and less destructively.
Values . This term is almost impossible to define, but "generalized preferences according to choices
available to us" might be a start. Our society is failing not because the Masons or Jews or Nazis
infiltrated it (pick your conspiracy), but because its values rotted from within. This happens when one
takes a bad turn and it spirals out of control. It isn't a moral judgment from a God in a distant perfect
world. As with any error, you pick yourself up, dust off your pride and you TRY AGAIN. That's the
path a hero takes, and that's the path we advocate. Our values are rotten, and have been for
thousands of years. The same excremental values that currently have women warring to be "equal" at
the expense of family and home were also behind the laws that allowed men to beat their wives with
a stick no thicker than their thumb. The same rotten values that allow giant companies to buy and
 sell and destroy our world at random are the rotten values that allowed the Church to burn as much
of the knowledge of the ancient world and middle ages as they could get their hands on. Our values
have become passive, but passive values don't always express themselves passively; they justify
themselves with something passive, like a public moral code, and use that to compel people to force
that dogma on others. Passive thought therefore requires absolutes, like "Women must serve" or
"Nazis are bad" or "Nature is here for our use, only" - these are a degenerate way of thought.
Anytime a society gets to the point where it has to write such kneejerk reactions into public standard,
the battle is already losing, and it's time to admit it was a failure and start a new battle. A creative
battle. We don't need "equality," nor do we need "rights," because these are absolutes that naturally
come into paradox, but we need good values so that we can trust our society and work with it.
Religion. You don't have the "right" to believe in whatever you choose. Some beliefs are insane, and
insanity is destructive when placed in a position of power. Dualistic religions, like Christianity and
Judaism, tell us that there is an absolute truth outside of the mechanism of this world, and that if we
follow it in this world, we get rewarded. This is a fancy form of mind control, but it's very popular
owing to the low quality of biological intelligence in humans as a whole today. In any healthy society,
all such beliefs are approached with skepticism, and they're unprovable and thus open the way to
dangerous conjecture about subjects for which there is no answer. A universal God could be watching
over us, but it's just as likely that the universe was started from the guano of a universal Bat who
eats dreams like insects. When you get into this silliness, there's no way to objectively disprove it, but
there doesn't need to be, because there's no reason to start believing it in the first place unless
you're schizophrenic.

The above are part of our belief system, described in detail here. It's not left or right, or even in the current
political spectrum. It isn't an easy thing for someone steeped in the culture of modern free enterprise
populist liberal democracy to accept. But we have to acknowledge that despite the shiny objects we have,
and our wealth, our society is failing. Global warming, internal tension, lack of consensus and general
decline in intelligence are killing it. When you strip aside social illusion, and make the passage through
nihilism, both this fact and solutions to it become clear.

November 3, 2004
The election?
The rhetoric flooding television is unbelievable; it makes us think this election was the beginning of the end
of the world. "It's in your hands!" they trumpeted. This neurotic paranoia filtered down through
conversation, where any number of people berated me for voting Nader. "You're going to let the evil empire
just happen!"

A friend of mine once said he would never give credence to the political opinion of any musician he
respected, because, as a musician, he knew that any good musician had to spend so much time on music
as to exclude study of politics. I now feel this way about anyone who has a job. They simply do not have
time for an informed opinion.

Kerry wouldn't have changed America. Bush won't change America. America's course, on the 500 year
scale, is already determined and neither candidate will change it, because what's required to change it is so
unpopular among the dutiful heads at jobs that it will never be elected in any form. This is why great
leaders lie their way to power in democracies; they recognize that telling the truth is an offense and thus
an election loser.

Bush's environmental policy is terrible; so is Kerry's. Both give lip service to the environment, sign some
legislation saving another strand of trees for the next 99 years, and continue to allow rampant
overpopulation, pollution and overuse of resources including animals. They may care, but we'll never know.
The fact is that to state the level truth on this issue will get anyone voted out of office.

One of the major complaints at George W. is that he's a "fascist," and is revoking civil rights across
America. I have news for you: Clinton (a Democrat) did more for revoking your civil rights than Bush did,
and without Clinton's start, Bush would not have had the foundation upon which to build. Your civil rights
went away the day you made government arbitrator of "good" and "bad" opinions. You now cannot have
them back, because in order to do so you have to make the unpopular statement that we will tolerate any
view, including that of al-Qaeda, neo-Nazis, radical Greens, and others who wish to destroy our way of life.

That way of life is what this election was destined to maintain regardless of who won. We all go to jobs for
too long and come home to many tasks. Money is our only goal, and our way of penalizing those who go
out of line. We have no connection to nature and think that a few more billion-dollar studies, government
programs and television campaigns will actually "change" environmental, social, racial and economic
problems.

In other words, we just don't get it.

Most of us still believe that our civilization is the product of all civilizations before it, and through some
ultra-simplification of Darwin, therefore "the best." We view life before technology as ignorant, pathetic,
disgusting, oppressive. We see technology and morality as the forces lifting us out of a primal scum of
human failure toward a distant Utopia. And if we just check the right boxes on the vote cards, we'll get
closer!

That is a television-watcher outlook. There on the sofa, it comes down to one single choice. Click the
correct button, you're a hero - you get a puppy biscuit. Click the wrong one, and no one says anything but
everyone hints that you're a bit Neanderthal. But it all comes down to clicking the right buttons, moving us
closer to Utopia.

This election meant nothing because people were being elected to roles in the system. The system itself
wasn't up for criticism. The system isn't something simple like "conservativism," but something complex,
like the idea that human must rule over nature with technology and thus, lacking any external checks and
balances, expand recklessly. And in the process, lose its courage and spirit internally, and begin rewarding
mediocrity instead of excellence.
We're breeding ourselves into a race of button-pushing clones. We have depleted our fish supplies, our
natural wood, our wild animals, and pour pollution into earth, air and sea at record rates. Our population is
now such that in another generation we'll have to cannibalize what's left to survive. And of course, when
that becomes obvious, our remaining energy will be devoted to internal warfare.

The election is a fantasy show for button-clickers; the real issue at hand is that your species is failing and it
has constructed a political, social, moral and economic system to perform elaborate denial of that fact. You
want to make a difference? Clear the system-logic from your head and stop worrying about the puppet
show of this election.

November 4, 2004
How does a nihilist live?
I'm very thankful for the thoughtful emails I get. Most people want a handout (please review my mediocre,
undistinguished, pathetic metal band) or want to attack me in the guise of posing questions to me (how
can you claim you know anything when you don't believe in anything?). The latter think their cleverness is
tearing down someone above them, and that makes them happy, since deep inside they know they're
mediocre. The former are just welfare cases in disguise, and deep inside they know that the reason they're
not getting anywhere is that they suck.

However, some thoughtful questions really cut to the chase and point out that people have questions about
things that are second nature to me now. Such a question arrived today: How does a nihilist live? I'll try to
answer that in a conversational form so that we don't get lost in the intricacies of philosophy, because the
pragmatic effects of nihilist belief are more important than detailed philosophical "proofs."

First, you do not ask others how you should live. All of the answers are before you.

Nihilism is discerning what is real from what is unreal. We do exist in reality. In it, some things actually exist
and others are phantoms of our mind. Strip away the latter and focus on the former. If you have trouble
figuring it out, go spend time in a forest. Buddha meditated under a tree, Jesus had his woods for 40 days,
Nietzsche had his mystical trances and Arthur Schopenhauer had long nights ignored by his family. Take
advantage of boredom, and natural surroundings, to decipher your world.

Truth doesn't exist. Truth is our perception of what does exist; our assessment of it. You will have to find
the truth that's appropriate to your own life. Note that I did not say "your own truth." Individualism is the
greatest con job ever. You are the product of those who came before you in your bloodline, and the factors
of your life. You do not exist separately from the world and you cannot escape this state. Furthermore,
there's no point. Pursue truth as it is evident to you. If you're insane, your role in the universe is to be the
insane failure that others mock and later, kill.

Not everyone can do this. In my view, there's no shame in saying "Look, I'm not a leader - show me a right
path and I'll get to work." Even that however requires an evaluation of reality and acceptance of some of
its basic traits. Your bloodline will be serving the commands of others until it evolves otherwise. I've
accepted that I'll never be a Brad Pitt or Andres Segovia, but I'm not really bothered by that; I'm too busy
being what I am. For that reason, I've got some general suggestions here.

The single most powerful weapon you have is your own preference. People can force all sorts of shit on
you, but they can't make you accept certain things except as necessary. For example, if the government
decrees that everyone must have a morning enema on pain of death, you'll submit to it, but even if every
other person you know then chooses to have an afternoon enema as well in order to show their patriotism,
you can reject that behavior by not doing it. You'll stand out in a crowd. Big deal. It's not like most of these
drones are paying attention to anything.

You will have to have some kind of work. Pick something that's inoffensive. There are plenty of good jobs,
for example, in helping environmental agencies. Apply and rise. You won't get the same salary or public
respect, but you're a nihilist now, and you recognize that public respect is as meaningless as it is fickle.
Create a life for yourself instead and don't commit the same transgressions that make society odious. Affirm
reality. Cease destruction of nature. Nurture your own culture. Reject modernity.

As becomes obvious, the people around you are tools; that is to say, they are grateful followers who
passively lap up the rancid semen of industrial society and are grateful for the "opportunity." While in a just
world they'd get a hollowpoint to the forehead, that's not going to happen for a few decades, so content
yourself with this: create a better example of humanity and leave them in your dust.

Most of your toolish coworkers, neighbors, people you meet on the street, etc. are capable of two modes of
conversation: entertainment and personal situation. They'll discuss endlessly the "important" movies and
television they see, not noticing that these repeat themselves on a three-year cycle, and they'll talk about
the weather or their hemorrhoids or other "important" issues of personal comfort. They cannot talk about
ideas. Therefore, reserve ideas as the grounds on which the few smart people meet.

If you talk to normals, talk about basic aspects of life, namely events in our time. You don't have to take a
side as long as you express an intelligent opinion. Make it clear you don't watch TV or movies. Talk about
the good things you see in life, like something great a person did, or something you observed in nature or
perceived about life itself. But don't fall into their trap. Seinfeld and Friends and ER are transient garbage
that will not matter at all, and these fools are wasting their lives on this stuff. Don't let them pull you into
the same trap.

Normals also have a tendency to express groupthink sentiments, and then test others with them. Such
things as "Isn't it terrible about that genocide in Darfur?" are probes to get you to either conform or be
identified as a lone wolf. If you respond with "I think it's funny" or "We need fewer people" the wailing and
lashing out by the crowd, which HATES lone wolves, begins (the lone wolf has what the crowd never will:
integrity, and for this reason, they hate it). The best response is indifference. "I didn't hear about that" will
get you a lecture, but "I think politics is made-up crazy stuff" will leave them baffled. They ask you about
something "serious" in their world; show them it's not serious in yours. Don't even take the issue itself
seriously.

NORMAL: DID YOU HEAR HOW BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION?

NIHILIST: OH, THEY'RE STEALING ELECTIONS NOW. HOW FUNNY. DID YOU KNOW BELL PEPPERS ARE A
GOOD SOURCE OF VITAMIN C?

NORMAL: OMFG I HEARD AL-QAEDA IS PLANNING TO ATTACK US!

NIHILIST: YOU KNOW, VAN GOGH REALLY CAPTURED THE ESSENCE OF SUSPENSE IN HIS SURREALISTIC
PAINTINGS. MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO CHECK THEM OUT.

NORMAL: GASOLINE IS TOTALLY EXPENSIVE THESE DAYS.

NIHILIST: MONEY EVERYWHERE. I MADE AN INTERPRETIVE SCULPTURE OUT OF MY COMPOST HEAP.

This drives normals nuts because it plays into their basic fear, namely that someone else knows something
they don't know and thus is not subject to the laws of the crowd. However, if you do this without being
aggressive, they have no way to justify lashing out at you and no way to handle what you've said. Let them
keep discussing their "entertaining" TV (entertainment is for people who cannot find a purpose of their own
in life; it's like slavery, but it's "fun") while you spend your time on more interesting things. Their unease
will grow as they watch you, and it will help destroy them.

Be careful with your money. Some idiot comes around the office asking for birthday donations, or money to
help the children in Sudan or whatever -- blow it off. "No thanks," is all you need to say, and if they start
asking more questions, they're in the wrong socially and nonsense replies are appropriate. "I'm saving up to
buy a nuclear submarine" or "The price of ice cream and motor oil just went up" is an appropriate
response. If you feel like you're talking to kindergartners, well, you are. These people are mentally
immature and should be treated accordingly.

When you shop, don't buy garbage. You will be tempted because who isn't? But recognize what's crap and
avoid it. You may have to pay $2 more for the metal version of some everyday object over the plastic one,
but then you won't need to replace it for thirty years. Morons fear people with this kind of wisdom, because
it reveals morons in contrast as unable to make such decisions. Don't spend your money on idiotic
entertainment, flashy cars, or houses in trendy neighborhoods. Pick a good place and live independently.
You don't need any of that crap (if you're a nihilist).

Finally, don't accept their view of reality. They'll blather on about "progress" and other inventions of the
human mental phantasm, but if you recognize these ideas are basically junk food for the mind, you can
bypass it and focus on other things. If after two years have passed, you've learned a language and an
instrument while they're still watching TV, they'll start to revere you. Then, profit from their idiocy and put
the money to a good use, like buying up the remaining free forest land out there or translating Pentti
Linkola into English. Nihilists bypass illusion and work on reality, and from it they get stronger while the
herd stagnates. Most importantly, they laugh while doing this. And who wouldn't?

November 14, 2004

Why I am not a White Nationalist or neo-Nazi
Numerous people come across various items on this site and come away with the ignorant opinion, "OMG
those guys are Nazis - they're bad." It's funny to watch, since their intolerance is both shocking and
misguided. They see only what they want to, according to narrow categories artificially defined by their own
lock-step dogma, and as a result are much like the conservatives and reactionary racists they claim to
despise. Even if your dogma is 100% against something, if your methods and values are the same outside
of that, you are what you despise.

While we support Nationalism and the Indo-European tribes, the members of this site have nothing to do
with neo-Nazi, White Nationalist, or White Power groups. And this isn't because of social taboo: we agree
with said groups on many things, most fundamentally that Indo-Europeans ("Caucasians","whites") have
the right to establish nations where no other races are welcome as residents. This is nationalism, by its
very definition (nation = a people), and in my belief it should be extended to every ethnic group, from
Basque to Eskimo.

However, speaking both for myself and other members of this site, that's where the resemblance ends;
"White Nationalists" and others who are basically hate groups in disguise piss me off because they're
incorrect in their philosophical assumptions and method. It's well and good to stand up for your tribe, but
don't expect me to embrace everything that looks white and lump it all together into one ethnic group.
That's insane talk, and when it's coupled with hatred for other races, you can count me out.

First, I don't buy into the idea that I should accept someone as a comrade because he or she is "white."
The majority of the "white" race needs nothing better than a bullet in the head; they're people of
substandard intelligence, character and strength, and eliminating them would make each tribe stronger.
When you go to a mall and see the fat, slow-moving, greedy, sloppy people who buy products for
entertainment and work like slaves at moronic jobs, enforcing that same moronic standard on the rest of
us, think of this statement.

That isn't to say that I "hate" those people; I simply want them removed, for the greater health of all of us.
There is no ethnic group that doesn't benefit from eugenics, as for each weaker person that you eliminate a
stronger one takes their place. It isn't a moral judgment on these people of "bad" or "good" but a simple
recognition of their genetic value relative to other potential people. If, hypothetically, you had 100 places
on a spaceship and could have no more, every retarded person or lazy person or child molestor or fat freak
you let on would be excluding someone better from having their place.

It's in everyone's interest to simply put a bullet in them and move forward with healthier breeding. I don't
trust any government or central bureaucratic agency to do this, so instead I favor smaller tribes who have
the ability to exclude anyone they want, without some idiot bureaucrat coming in and crying foul over the
person's race, color, gender, sexual orientation, weight, etc. Discrimination is a fact of life, and it should be
encouraged. Not every person belongs in every place. In whatever town John F. Kerry finds ideal, for
example, I wouldn't be allowed, nor would I want to live (same goes for many other politicians).

I don't hate them, but I don't want to tolerate them. In my local group, "white" or not, no one who is
grotesquely fat, dependent on viagra, prone to idiotic actions, or unable to self amuse would be tolerated.
If they didn't leave, they'd get a hollowpoint to the forehead. On our little spaceship, the 100 places would
each go to people of high ability and character. This wouldn't be some absurd interpretation that only
permitted people who looked like celebrity models to exist, but a pragmatic one: find the better people and
breed them while quietly ushering the weaker ones to elsewhere. This gives the next generation of children
a fighting chance by making them better and stronger than those who came before.

Most "white" people wouldn't make the cut, for me, and White Nationalist/White Power types would
immediately call me a blasphemer for this. I would not tolerate insane Semitic religions like Christianity,
either, nor would I tolerate people from outside of my tribe. Races are the major divisions: black, white,
asian and various hybrids. The smaller divisions within each race are tribe, such as French, German,
Russian, Welsh. Within each race there are castes, but that's a complex matter for a different essay.

White Nationalists tend to believe that if "we just offed all the Jews and muds," the world would be a
perfect place. I don't. I believe the white tribes have been in decline even before Christianity arrived.
Christianity made the situation vastly worse by destroying most records of pre-Christian times, slaughtering
those who wouldn't convert and encouraging people toward blind obedience of central one-size-fits-all
issues (these are similar to the moral commands from the Jewish god of Christianity). If you kill all the non-
whites, the white tribes will still be in the same deep doo-doo; that others appear in our midst is a sign of
the degeneracy, not its cause.

White Power freaks also tend to embrace Christianity alongside a virulent anti-Semitism, which is insane to
me. I'm against Semitic religions in Indo-European countries, and Jews by their nature as hybrids
originating in the middle east would not be welcome in our tribes. I support the idea of Israel, however, as
in my view each ethnic population should have a state. This isn't to say that I don't find Jewish values, and
Jewish culture, repugnant. They are passive aggressive parasites with a sick god complex as manifested in
Tikkun Olam, their doctrine of "repairing the world," and to my mind that makes them fit for a mental
institution, but outside of Indo-European society standards are different and it's not my business to police
them.

Christianity is the single most destructive religion I can imagine, and despite its origins in Judaism and
Buddhism, it is more destructive than either because of its blind supernaturalist and absolute dualism. It
literally promises immortality to those who do its bidding. This fits my definition of an insane virus, and
barring any reason to believe there's a god in a perfect world commanding this one in the first place, I
would never even consider taking it into my head. This isn't to say that I'm against gods, because in the
ancient sense of Hindu and Pagan gods, the gods were part of this world and were not as much
supernatural as they were supermetaphorical.

White Power, and "White Nationalism," both resemble religion more than reality. They have little in
common with National Socialism, which was Adolf Hitler's attempt to resist (a) rampant Communism which
did things like turn Russia from a cultured civilization into a third-world country, (b) rampant Industrialism
which overconsumed land as was pollution Europe, and (c) admixture of third-world blood into European
society, destroying native European ethnic stock. I don't have any beef with Adolf Hitler, and I believe he
has been slandered. Those who died in his concentration camps in Germany died of disease, although those
who were outside the country were killed, often by the natives of various countries who understood the
Jewish connections to Communism. His wars were fought with honor, and all of his killings had purpose,
unlike those of the Soviets. However, his modern day disciples understand neither his principles nor sense.

Beating up immigrants, and "hating" entire races, is not only stupid but ineffective. If you want non-native
groups out of your natively ethnic society, be strong about it and simply say: we must preserve our ethnic
consistency in order to avoid being bred into hybridization, which destroys us. You don't have to pass moral
judgment over these people, something especially dangerous since not every society shares the same
values. Cite statistics to me all day about how black people commit more crime; this is "crime" as defined
by Indo-European society, and the same rules don't apply in other cultures. Let them have their culture,
and you can have yours.

Further, "white power" people want to accept all "whites" as being of the same tribe, which is error. The
French are distinct from the Germans and Scotts for historical reasons, and the differences which define
them as a tribe are important to preserve in each case. Any "white nationalist" who endorses mixing Indo-
European tribes clearly doesn't understand nationalism, which is the independence and isolation of every
ethnic group, not their mixing because of nearby ancestry. I view mixed "white" people as English, and you
can find these populations in the majority in the UK, US, Canada and Australia. If these Alpinized
Germanocelts wish to create their own ethnicity, they can, by eugenics, eventually define themselves
ethnically as well as politically.

I could go on. White nationalists don't understand caste; they believe in societies without distinction. While
I'm no fan of class, which uses the insane doctrine of social Darwinism to rank us by "ability" according to
how much money we're willing to earn, "caste" makes sense to me. Some were born to be warriors, some
to be priests, some to be leaders, and some to be cooks. Each job is vital and none is more important than
the others. Mixing those together produces people with no specialization who are thus incompetent at any
and every job they undertake.

It's clear to me that in nature, nothing is equal. No tribe is equal to another, no race is equal to another,
no individual equal to another. Thus any doctrine of equality, even including Hitler's casteless society, is
insane bureaucracy in my eyes. White nationalists are weenies who want all "white" people to be made
equal because of their general ethnic heritage, and accepted for that reason, but to my mind that's
destructive. It's better to enforce Eugenics of even a positive, non-violent kind in all of the "white"
populations than it is to embrace everyone, thus breeding weaker people.

I'm no liberal either. I recognize that injustice, murder, war, ethnic hatred and genocide are not just
permanent fixtures of our world, but are necessary methods for evolving better human beings. Trying to
get rid of these things in order to create a Utopia is an insane practice that will lead us further into illusion
and make the name of that Utopia the banner under which we kill, much as occurred during the Crusades.
Incoherent minds would have you believe that if we cease certain behaviors, the world will be perfect and
everyone will be equal, but to anyone who has spent time in a forest, "perfection" is a misplaced goal as it
is the unbalances and inequalities of life that drive the natural system toward greater heights of evolution
and efficiency. There is no end, and it is flexible in any situation, thus more perfect than any Utopian order.

I don't trust the "science ueber alles" types either. Sometimes these blockheads deny that race exists by
using artificially narrowed definitions of race, which they argue against sagaciously as if others were actually
using said definitions. Often they remark, wittily, that soon we'll understand genetics and will be able to
create perfect beings. My response to this is that we'll soon be able to create beings that look perfect from
their collection of outward traits, but that genetics is literally a history of the decisions made by each
bloodline, and science will never be able to fake this. Nature literally is far more complex than we're going
to be, and if we fake it, we once again chase illusion to our doom.

Even more disturbing are the "White Supremacists," whose vision of "whites" at the top of a mythical food
chain is a sleight of hand redefinition of stewardship. I don't want any group with which I'm associated to
be worldwide bureaucratic administrators; I want us to have our own society, and our own culture and
customs, independent of Christianity, centralization, bureaucracy, morality and other fabrications of a
modern kind. While I recognize that there's an evolutionary chain, by which some groups adapted to more
complex survival parameters than others and thus developed more general intelligence, strength and
character, it isn't my concern to pass this on to the rest of the world or to, like Jesus Christ, hold it up as
an example for others.

Sounding a bit like a cheesy liberal here, I like diversity. I like that you can go to another country and have
it be completely friggin' different in every way possible, even down to genetics. Go to Bosnia and there's a
certain look, behavior and feel to the people; go to Nigeria, and it's another. That's true diversity. No
culture survives interbreeding, because the genetic histories of the newcomers and the natives are merged,
resulting in a chaos which settles on the lowest common denominator. This is why mixed societies inevitably
turn into trading centers and mercantile republics.

It's worth adding here that I'm proud to have friends with other races and, while I will never breed with
them or assimilate or be assimilated by their culture, I don't "hate" them or their races. The mixing of races
I might "hate," were I prone to emotional outbursts, but I don't hate them. That they are here, and that
our society is collapsing, are symptoms of the same cause: modernity, and its bureaucratic attitudes. They
have as much to lose as we do. Thus I refuse to indulge in mindless bigotry against them when I care
about them, and view them as allies for the eventual quest of Nationalism to overtake the world.

I don't like democracy. I don't believe everyone has equal aptitude for the kind of decisions required to run
a nation or even a town, and thus I believe most voices should be silenced on those issues. Every person
has some area where their judgment alone is supreme, and only reality judges whether they succeed or fail
(for some, such as bomb defusers, the judgment is swift and absolute). I don't believe all "whites" should
somhow be lauded just for having a certain amount of heritage; that's democracy. If we breed the best of
each white tribe and throw out the rest, we increase the aptitude of those who remain.
People act like politics is rocket science, and that it's a raison d'etre for their individual lives as "activists" or
"compassionate, forward-thinking people," but really that's a hoax. Politics has never changed. The crowd
always wants power, and with that power, they'll destroy any who rise above the lowest common
denominator. Each people (nation) needs its own place, because without it, their unique culture and
contribution to learning is lost. I would grant each its own space, and send the mixed race people to the
Middle East, as traditionally has occurred. There, they will produce their own society, one that will
undoubtedly resemble Judaism, itself a product of cultural and racial and caste-mixing.

Clearly I'm a fascist. I've spent enough time on this world to realize that most people will, without meaning
ill, do what is selfish unless coerced otherwise. Whether by money, or the barrel of a gun, their will shall be
denied in certain areas; and what of it? The reality is that life isn't found in having the ability to live
anywhere you want, or in having the biggest pickup truck on the block, or in being able to watch gay porn
and smoke crack cocaine all night. It's in finding your own character and developing it to the fullest, so that
you are a hero in your own life, no matter what that may be.

This concept applies to all people and all races, and while I agree with White Nationalists that the Indo-
European race is under assault and will soon be bred out of existence by hordes of invading immigrants, I
see this problem as a symptom of general degeneracy in modern society. We've come to trust our
technology and believe that newer is better, and to follow centralized commands instead of our internal
voices, and we're products of bureaucratic, cosmopolitan living who are steadily lapsing in the ability to
have independent thought. On this front, Malcolm X and Adolf Hitler, Rabbi Meir Kahane and Cesar Chavez,
Moses and Chuck D are all in agreement.

So if you're looking for a witch hunt, which is what the crusade against "racism" is, take your little hateful
plans and bail out. I recognize you for the broken, low-self-esteem cowards that you are, and I don't see
you as any "better" than the neo-Nazis you despise. If you've ever joined an Antifa group, you did it
because you want to consider yourself better than other people because you believe in something that
raises your self-esteem by making you feel like you're gifting the world with tolerance. Forget it. You're
crazy and I'd have you shot.

"Racism" only exists in mixed societies. It exists where groups side by side must compete, and therefore
learn to detest one another. Unfortunately for White Nationalists, most of them have discovered "racism"
and not true nationalism, and therefore are total failures, since they descend into hatred, name-calling,
cowardice and bigotry without any hope of achieving their aims. I and most other sane people want
nothing to do with you losers because unlike you, we're not caught up in our low self-esteem like some
broken antifa liberal, but we believe in a positive future for a humanity that overcomes modernity.

November 16, 2004

Guess who's coming to dinner?
As we gather around tables across the land, getting ready to gorge ourselves on justified excess, no one is
actually fooled into thinking this holiday is significant. We all know it's a day off and time to spent with the
family in a nation where you work 50 weeks a year. Hell, even if it were "National Rectal Exam Day" we'd
love it as a holiday. We are surrounded by food, family, and comforts; insistent Death is far away.

However, the people who are neurotic because of their wealth and positions of relative uselessness -
everyone from the soccer moms to the newspaper commentators to the talking heads on television and the
"celebrities" - will moan about the genocide of American Indians. There will be self-blame, and weeping,
and then self-flagellation, of course, because it's easier to cry over a situation than to fix the problem that
caused it.

A little blasphemy is in order. First, "Native Americans" is a bigoted

term since they weren't native to America; they were Asians who
came later than the Europeans who apparently first explored this
terrain (1 2 3) and assimilated what was left of those settlements
into their own. Second, they weren't genocided. They were aided in
their self-destruction, since by the time the white man arrived the
Indian empires of North and Central America had ceased to function
autonomously and had collapsed inward.

This isn't to excuse what some fanatical Christian ex-criminals like

Hernan Cortez did when they tore up remnants of an ancient
culture, melted them down into uniform size blocks of uniform
weight, and mailed them back home so that God could have greater
funding. Clearly he's a hollowpoint to the forehead case as well (in
my view, "Christian euthanasia" is all but redundant). However, the
Aztecs were at the time already necrotic and unable to reference the
world outside of their own civilization, part of a long downward slide.

The Maya were in a similar position. Surrounded by the ancestors of

modern day Mexicans, who served as slaves for both empires, the
tribes were distinguished by their neo-Semitic appearance, being of
hybrid Asian-Caucasian origins. They once had been great
civilizations, with the Maya being descendants of Toltecs and Olmecs before them, and the Aztecs having
had a warlike, glorious reign of centuries across modern Mexico. Yet the original impetus to those societies,
and the blood that had formed it, was gone.

I am not arguing here that they were Caucasian. I don't know, and I don't think I care. It is possible they
were, or that they were Semitic, or other forms of Asian hybrids, but that requires more conjecture than I
care to undertake. What is certain is that they were once a different tribe than that of their slave
populations, who were squat, brown and somewhat stupid, hence were subjugated viciously by the Aztecs
and Mayans in order to put them to some practical use, since they would never invent civilization on their
own.

How did Hernan Cortez, with a few hundred men with rifles, conquer the mighty Aztec empire? The answer
is simple: the Aztecs had degenerated as both empire and in quality of individual warrior, and thus were no
match for rifles even when they outnumbered him ten to one. But the more enduring answer is even
simpler: Cortez promised "rule by the majority" to the slave tribes of the Aztecs, and then marshalled them
into an impromptu army which - as is the case with all slave populations - far outnumbered the Aztecs, and
was inflamed with blood lust to kill them.

It is a classic case of resentment. The dumber, uncreative, servitude-bound people are promised a heaven
if they overthrow their "oppressors," who with that "oppression" have created a great civilization where
otherwise mud huts of a single story and communal sewers would have reigned. When one looks at the
isolated jungle civilizations of the Yucatan region today, one can see roughly the raw material both Maya
and Aztec empires were using: simple people whose ascent to civilization would not have happened without
the brutal "oppression" that turned them into non-chattel slaves for a great empire.

The Aztecs never get blamed for being "racist" or for their slavery, at least in the American press, but they
did what any sensible people would have done with these blockheads: they turned them into beasts of
burden. And as the Aztecs were, like the Romans and Mongols and every other empire that has risen from
muck, generous masters who cruelly punished infraction, the lives of these blockheads were improved in
exchange for loss of "freedom" to live in jungle poverty, afflicted by disease and their own failure.

Being somewhat dumb, and not very creative, these people could not create a civilization, but were glad to
be given an easy excuse: namely, blame their masters, or whatever the Aztecs were at the time that was of
a clearly different genetic status than the slave races the Aztecs used as manual labor. Modern people like
to try to paint these issues in black and white, but they forget that in Africa, the more advanced black
races enslaved the Bantu (average IQ: still 60) because they saw those blockheads as nothing but pack
animals. Same case in Asia with imperial Chinese and Japanese using Koreans, Vietnamese, Thai, etc. as
indentured servants because of their lesser tendency toward civilization.

This excuse, resentment against those who could create what they could not, gave these slave peoples
incentive to join Cortez and overthrow their masters, crushing the remnants of a great civilization. I say
remnants because, over time, the Aztecs had become interbred to a small (probably 1-2%) degree with
their slave populations, and also, had become correspondingly inbred in an attempt to conserve the
creative force of their civilization. This column doesn't argue that either of these is the "cause" of their
decline, or that it is not, but that both are symptoms of the decline of those who created the civilization,
and their replacement by those whose role was limited to living in the civilization created by others.

In the Yucatan, the Maya faced a similar problem. Their religion was in decline; their royal bloodlines had
decline; few people even remembered how to decode some of their most ancient knowledge. They, too,
had interbred with their slave populations and failed to keep up internal breeding standards, producing a
group of people with no ethnic ties to the civilization in which they lived. Once again, the creators were
gone and left those who could survive only in an already created civilization, or, of course, return to living
in mud huts by open sewers.

One of the sacred myths of a modern time is equality; we can all do the same work if exposed to the same
indoctrination, training, and opportunity. This is true where what is called for is something of a basic nature
like maintaining equipment others have designed, advancing already created technologies, operating a
printing press or being a CEO. You don't have to create anything, but you must be adept at manipulating
that which others have invented. Such people lack the ability to create civilizations, and while the average
Caucasian or Asian in America may be able by virtue of natural intelligence to do better than mud huts,
they are without the civilization creation impulse and ability.

Something similar, at a more advanced degree, afflicted "American Indians." These people, being of
predominantly Asiatic descent from the most recent influx of displaced persons, had once created
civilizations that ranged from mud huts/open sewers to relatively advanced tribal cultures. Another sacred
modern mythos is that of "profundity" in Otherness; we like to believe in Noble Savages who, having never
left nature, are in every way more spiritually aware than we are. This mythos is promoted relentlessly in
our media, who love cliches because they're crowd pleasers, and thus recently transitioned from placing
oracular "American Indian" characters in movies to using "people of color" in the same roles.

The civilization creators among "American Indians" were in the minority. For the most part, the tribes lived
separately and crudely, eking out an existence and occasionally making extinct the species around them.
They had little medicine, frequent internal wars, and superstitious pantheistic religions that demanded they
appease primitive gods with sacrifices. All of this is taboo to say today, because of the Noble Savage myth,
but civilization creators both among Europeans and "American Indians" recognized this, and thus enslaved
the lower grades of "American Indian" so that civilization could prevail.
(Mythology as in non-supernational spiritual belief, where forces of our natural world are personified as
Gods who are not moral, but capricious and unconcerned with the ways of most humans, is a positive and
healthy thing in my view. When you start getting Gods in magical, pure worlds who need us to impose their
order on this earth, neurosis has set in. The best aspect of knowing truth versus falsity is to spend no
emotion on falsity. One can focus on reality, and create, where others indulge in tears and righteous anger
over spiritual symbols with no grounding in reality; symbols that, in the Judeo-Christian tradition at least,
are opposed to reality.)

At the point in time when Europeans made a serious effort to colonize the Americas, the Indian populations
from Inca to Cherokee were in decline. Weakened by internal wars, loss of leadership bloodlines, and
famine owing to lack of economies of scale, these tribes had lost the impetus toward civilization building
and were collapsing. In their prime, no group of men with flintlock rifles could have beat them, as in the
woods a rifle of short range and limited accuracy is only of marginal advantage. But their warriors were not
those of the days of civilization building, and thus despite their bravery, they lacked the intelligence to
wage war effectively and were slaughtered.

There were exceptions, as Custer found out at Little Big Horn, when effective "American Indian" leaders
arose and kicked some ass. These were the minority of all interactions and tragically for the "American
Indians," did not occur strategically, thus were of little effect in stopping the war machine from rolling over
them. Once carbine rifles and other rapid fire devices were invented, the days of the "American Indian"
were over, as they faced a technology of substantial killing power. However, this only occurred at the same
time Nietzsche was writing his books, when the writing ("FAILURE") was already on the wall regarding
"American Indian" survival as tribal entities.

Now, of course, a modern society sits on America, and periodically - because it is easier to cry about a
symptom than to take action to fix a problem - the wailing about how "noble" and "pure" and "innocent"
the "American Indians" were begins. This is an artifact of a bloated, wealthy, neurotic society, and each of
those three causes contributes to the other. Its wealth means no direct contact with the source of
production, creating a bureaucracy. As a result, people who can't exist outside of civilization (or mud huts)
are bred, causing bloat. Then, because it is in decline and doesn't know why, the neurotic whining and
harrowingly insane self-examination begins, usually concluding in the crying about symptoms, since taking
action is a Big Deal that would mean leaving comfortable civilization-life to reinvent civilization - something
these people cannot do.

So we gather around tables and pig out, because that's

what our society offers us, and wealthy leftists shed tears
for "American Indians" whose culture they would have
eliminated by forcing them into the same boring jobs all of
us, "successful" or not, are forced to have. The passive side
of society whine about "genocide," and the burly and
aggressive side crows about how great our open-air-mall of
a disposable country is. Both are avoiding the most obvious
truth: much as the Inca, Aztec, Maya and "American
Indians" were in decline, so are we, and the truth-
avoidance is one of the most potent symptoms.

Civilizations collapse when the population of those who can

do/create/lead is replaced by those who would not exist, or
would exist next to open sewers, without someone else
having created that civilization first. To the dismay of racial
fanatics, this includes many causes, ranging from
inbreeding (generally occurs in groups of under 1000
people) to outbreeding to bureaucracy, which breeds fools
who cannot do anything but follow the letter of the rule, to
wealth without challenge. America's greatest hour may have
been WWII, because she arose from her stupor to face a
real enemy; when Vietnam rolled around, the decadence was so great that Americans collapsed when
opposed with even a minimal military presence ("FAILURE").

As every civilization declines, it replaces observations of reality with observations of its own belief system
and operations, things we might call "pleasant illusions" or "populist mythos." The idea that savages were
noble falls under this aegis, as does the concept that we can train, educate and force people to be equal in
opportunity and output. These oversimplifications exist because the truth offends, whether it's the fact that
not all races are equal, or that not all individuals are equal (translation: being white doesn't automatically
make you better than anyone else), or that bureaucrats and academics tend to be small-minded fucks who
could not survive a night in the open forest, even if we made it easy on them and gave them a machete
and flint.

Indo-Europeans, the group including both Caucasians and pre-Caucasian Europeans, have been among the
greatest and most ambitious civilization builders, and history shows us they have the farthest to fall as a
result. Rome collapsed inward; eventually, some barbarians showed up and kicked in the front door to
show the world it had become dead inside. And what killed it? We can list symptoms: decadence,
alcoholism, inbreeding, miscegenation, cowardice; however, these are symptoms not causes. What killed it
was its self-referentiality as a limit of perception. The people who inhabited Rome when it fell were not the
same as those who had created it. They were those who could not create it. They were people who could
only relate to the society itself, and who could not conceive of having to create one without a prexisting
civilization.

The cause of this self-referentiality is wealth without a goal. When one is clearing forest, conquering
enemies, cutting fields, etc. one has a constant goal: achieve civilization. Once civilization has occurred, the
enemy goes within and becomes complacency; people lack any ability to deal without reality outside of the
imposed value system of that civilization. Thus you have silly rules like "don't kill," which makes no sense
unless you're 100% dependent upon a legal system to kill deviants for you. Suddenly, not offending your
coworkers is more important than being able to survive a night in the forest alone.

What follows after this happens with amazing rapidity, considering that history is normally measured in
millennia: within a few generations, dysgenics - the opposite of eugenics, or breeding better people -
occurs. Those who succeed are the socialites and flatters, while those who lead and therefore are often
bearers of socially unpleasant truth, are demoted and breed less. The people who enjoy bureaucratic jobs
outbreed the others. Dysgenics occurs first within a population, and then external populations are bred into
it; without resorting to gutter racism, we can acknowledge that mixing two populations replaces them with
an "average" of both, not the "best traits" of both, since they self-bred for different things (otherwise,
they'd be the same population).

It only takes a few generations. The small-minded rule followers get the big houses and pretty girls
because to them, any life outside of a bureaucratic job distant from the rule of nature is inconceivable.
Those who strike out independently, think creatively and could create a civilization are not needed, and are
bred out. They tend to become artists or intellectuals, and thus survive for a generation or two before they
cease to see the need to breed. Degeneracy spreads, first in the cities, but eventually everywhere, as the
social pretense that governs the city is imposed on all subjects to avoid socially-unpleasant truths. Such
was the case in Rome, in Tenochtitlan, in Chichen Itza.

Civilization is more than technology, or learning. It is the ability to exist in some degree of harmony with
nature while asserting an order on human society that makes it more of a warlike, conquering, creative
mindset. When that is achieved, technology and learning occur naturally. When it is absent, bureaucracy
replaces technology and learning. Those who create civilization are the great heroes, while those who
uphold it in its final days are the unsung villains; passively, they destroy by NOT creating, without taking
the assertive destructive action one would expect from, say, a Biblical Satan. The true evil for us mortal
humans at least is becoming passive and self-referential.

But look at us now. We have wonderful technology, and we've conquered all of nature. Our enemies cower
in fear of our nuclear weapons and world police. What could go wrong? Nothing outside of our society,
definitely, but that's the catch: we're not looking for enemies within, and therefore, we are as surely falling
as the Aztecs or Romans. Enjoy your mass-produced dinner. Enjoy your dysfunctional, combative family
relationships. Enjoy tolerating your dysgenic relatives. Enjoy your bureaucratic job. These are all things
which become necessary in the final days of civilization.

For Indo-European civilization (the "Western" world) an ugly and powerful weapon was required to bring it
to its knees. Much as the slave peoples of the Aztec and Maya, who could not create civilization, felt
"oppressed" and thus overcame their masters, paving the way for the downfall of their society, populist
revolts in Rome and Greece replaced the civilization builders with what I call "the crowd": the group of
people made undifferentiated by their lack of distinct traits, by their passivity and self-referentiality both on
a personal and social level. The crowd only exists after civilization has been founded by others.

The populist revolt in the modern West is also the one that helped end Rome: Christianity, and its secular
counterpart, liberalism (note: this includes modern "conservatism," which is essentially reactionary
liberalism). The crowd feels that the civilization builders have oppressed it, and thus they have made
everyone equal, so that any leaders bearing socially-unpleasant truth can be revenged upon and forced into
not breeding. Surely we have made a paradise, now that with the same
education/indoctrination/opportunity we can each and every one be whatever we desire, regardless of
breeding, talent or character!

They felt the same way in Rome, too. Finally, "enlightenment" and "progress" had come, and there was no
more discrimination against those who - having immortal souls as ordained by a God in a supernatural
reality separate from this one - simply had the misfortune to be born into poverty, stupidity or mud huts
and open sewers. They were souls, people, after all. This is the language of the civilization in decline. It
separates reality into Gods and men, individuals versus nature, but doesn't recognize the continuity of the
whole, which as a smoothly functioning machine demands that civilization builders rise above the rest in
order for civilization to exist.

Hope you like that turkey which was grown on some mass farm staffed by illiterates earning $5/hour.
Maybe you'll enjoy those imported potatoes, mashed with butter filtered and processed by machine, and all
the other good things that one requires only society's tokens to self-referentially purchase. If you're lucky,
you can even have a good cry over the "genocide" of the "Native Americans," who you view as a society
more profound and truthful in every way, and (sob) we just killed them. No, my friends - what killed them
is the same death that awaits you. And if this coward of a society is all that opposes it, evil is entitled a
feast as well. That which is dying must die, so reality can be reasserted, and the civilization builders if any
remain can start anew.

This Thanksgiving, let Death feast.

November 25, 2004

Are you a misanthrope?
It's tempting to identify with misanthropy. After all, the agents of the travesty on earth - the human species
devolving into self-obsessed, destructive, thoughtless whores - are humans. However, after contemplating
this topic for some time I have to say I'm not a misanthrope.

First, I don't exist via "anti" sentiments, such as hatred or broad dislike. To the contrary, I enjoy being
alive. I like people. I identify with a certain American comic who said, "I've never met a (human) I didn't
like." This is true for me. Of all the people I've met, I've found something redeemable in all of them, even
the ones I loathe with a passion. Ariel Sharon might be a scumbag, politically, but he's a funny and affable
guy when you read his commentary. George Bush is likable, as, once you get past his nerdliness and
emasculation, is John Kerry.

However, part of loving life is to love what makes it great. In my experience, that is a form of architectonic
structure like that of nature. This structure encourages intelligence, and thus among other things, I love
intelligence. Any astute observer will note that to love something is to hate its opposite, and clearly I detest
stupidity. However, detesting a symptom is a far cry from hating its agents.

Stupidity is upsetting, but it is one aspect of every human being. Even the dumbest person on planet earth
has something to recommend them. That can't get in the way of recognizing that they're not designed for
creating valid opinions on certain topics. It also can't interfere with the knowledge that, since we're
overpopulated and it makes sense to keep the best among us, I'd shoot a lot of these people in the
forehead with hollowpoint bullets (I favor a world population of a half-billion, preferrably of high
intelligence, character and ability). These aren't emotional decisions, as misanthropy would be, however;
they're pragmatic ones.

On the same level, if someone breaks into my apartment or brandishes a weapon at me, I have no problem
taking that life, then eating a big meal, drinking a beer and getting a good night's sleep. In that case, what
I would have done is natural: killing a threatening predator. That doesn't mean I disliked the person, or had
an emotional response; rather, I did what I needed to for my own survival and the bettering of the
population and nature as a whole. Chances are, if me and the burglar sat down for a beer and chatted,
we'd hit it off. But one must do what one must do.

Part of the reason I can do this is that I have infinite trust and faith in nature. For every life that's lost, or
every tragedy that occurs, nature keeps going and produces more of the wonderful things that make life as
divine as it is. If someone I know who is of high intelligence and character, distracted by the beauty of life,
wanders across a freeway and is turned into pasta sauce by an eighteen wheeler, it is sad, but the sadness
passes: much as a strand of trees still exists if you cut down one, the good aspects of the human species
continue.

The only thing that threatens this is stupidity, specifically, devolutionary stupidity.

When people care more about emotions, and individuals, than the whole, the focus shifts from the strand of
trees to the individual tree. At this point, the threat of a lone woodsman becomes remote, and the threat
shifts toward the strand itself: will too many trees in an area of limited size choke each other with their
roots, block out sunlight and drain the soil of nutrients? To care so much about any one tree that none are
allowed to die is to doom the strand. That would be, in my view, stupidity.

Most of the people who provoke ire in me to the point that, were I emotionally out of control, I'd grab a .45
and put a lobotomizing bullet through their upper lobes, are merely in the grips of stupidity. This is often
compounded by a natural disinclination (and lack of ability) for the type of thought that would help them
see that the strand as a whole is an organism, and the trees within it, more like its cells.

Many people make a Big Deal of the left/right divide in politics, but for me this is a misnomer. The question
isn't finding which "side" is "right," but in finding a workable solution. And honestly I find as much
inspiration among the left as the right. I like people who are radical Greens, and who believe that society
should act collectively. The basic assumptions of the left make sense to me, until we get into crazy
Utopianism, at which point I then say something like "a Utopia requires dystopic elements, or it suffocates
itself."

However, this doesn't change the fact that most people's opinions are ignorant and or crazy, and that if
allowed, they'd implement those opinions and destroy humanity by focusing too much on the individual.
The stupidity that that would entail most probably awaits us, and will result in humanity being transmuted
into a species of weak individuals who are dependent upon technology. If we don't end the stupidity, that is
our certain future, and it will involve a loss of most good things in life, including our natural environment
and the highest capacities of humankind.

Yet it's not wise to swallow your anger, and nurture it; it's better to give it a clear object and not strike at
symptoms, but causes themselves. This is why the Greek myth of the Hydra saturated their culture. The
idea of a creature with many heads but one heart describes most complex problems. If a roaming animal
attacks, it is a simple problem, but anything inside of society or the human mind is more complicated, and
will have many visible manifestations (symptoms) and a single source (cause).

In the case of modern society, which is a deathmarch into being less capable beings dependent on
technology much as unhealthy old people need laxatives, the Hydra is stupidity, and its many heads are the
people who parrot or invent stupid things because they cannot do otherwise. Hating them, or declaring
oneself a hater of all people, is emotionally gratifying but factually incorrect, and thus a part of stupidity
itself.

As the ancient Greeks also knew (but Christians and Jews do not), sublimating your anger is a one-way
ticket to becoming passive and helpless, striking out at something you don't believe you can change. In this
mode of psychology, the individual attacks with cruelty and snideness, but is incapable of heroic action, and
thus becomes what he detests. This is why in our modern world those who are misanthropes or outright
bigots become swallowed by the same impulses that manifest themselves in what they detest.

The way I look at it, fighting stupidity without emotional reaction is the only way to achieve a lasting
victory. Sure, you can murder the heads of the Hydra, and slash away at symptoms or even kill every stupid
person on earth, and it will bring short-term relief. But until the cause is removed, the problem will keep
regenerating itself, and ultimately those who oppose it will be defeated.

November 12, 2004

Caste
When I was a little kid, I was shocked by inequality. Some children never had sweaters that were bought
new, and they went home to dingy little apartments and TV dinners. They wouldn't know what to do in a
proper restaurant, and their language was awkward; they'd stumble over irregular words. When we all got
to school on the first day, the teacher who had given us a list of supplies in advance put all the supplies in
a communal basket, and we never again saw what our parents had bought for us. This was to make the
poor kids feel less poor.

Of course, this was horrible to anyone whose parent had taken them painstakingly to a store and selected
even just reasonable options, such as the pencils that don't fragment into shards of sharp wood, or the
lined paper whose printing isn't blurry. Even things such as watercolor, true to the "freedom" of capitalism,
ranged from paints that made dingy water in a certain tone to paints a kid could actually use. While this
was happening, the drunken and impoverished parents hauled off down to the discount store and, "saving
money," bought every single lowest-quality piece of crap they could and sent the kids off to school with it.

And it all went into the box, and you got whatever came out by random draw - that's "fairness." This idea
comes from the grand tradition of making people feel better by making the inequalities of their situation
center stage. Trot the retarded kids out to perform with the jazz band, so every single person in the
audience can uncomfortably pretend they aren't making discoordinated noise. Why not appoint the ugly fat
girl prom queen? We'll make the impoverished feel better by forcing everyone in the class to submit to
equality, so that resentment widens.

It was always unsettling, like some judgment had passed over us making some of us normal and some
poor and a few, rich. Through college and the halcyon years immediately after, I believed that the only way
to end the disparity between rich and poor was to dump all the supplies in the basket, so that the poor kids
and rich kids alike were using the same stuff. Eventually I met a guy who had grown up in a trailer park,
and he gave me a brief insight: "Most of the people who were in that trailer park, belonged in that trailer
park."

He told me about the different paths into poverty. Being clueless about money and unable to plan for the
future. Being dumb. Being on drugs, or drink. Or being criminal, and prone to destructive including self-
destructive acts. He said there were those too who were born into poverty and stayed into it because they
simply couldn't muster the energy for long-term improvements, like patching the trailer or going to high
school or buying something other than on layaway. To them, every disaster was a surprise, and all
misfortunes so expected they had little psychological impact.

I didn't know how to resolve what I'd learned, both from him and from personal experience with the
impoverished. They weren't ready for anything but the kind of life they had; give them extra money, and it
went to lottery tickets and booze. If you told them you wanted to help, they would either laugh at you or
see what they could finagle out of the deal. It was hopeless. I didn't see any way these individuals could
exist in a society which demanded of them the same things expected from a stockbroker or doctor. And this
was my mistake: I thought all people should fit the same form factor, and be treated equally.

For me, the next years involved swallowing this ludicrous proposition in various forms. At one job, the taboo
was that Debbie was, gently put, a fucking idiot. Unfortunately, we could not fire her, so we gave her non-
essential jobs and hired someone else to fact-check them. The end result was that when the company was
in distress, and they hired a "management consultant" to help, he promoted the people with spotless work
records. Since Debbie had never had any important projects, all of her work reports indicated full success,
so the consultant looking over the numbers concluded she should be our department head. Her first act, of
course, was to fire anyone smarter than her. I drive past that empty building every now and then and
laugh.

One quiet night here in the bunker, I was reading the Bhagavad-Gita, perusing delightedly its many
contortions and metaphors. Like its cousins, the Iliad and the Aneid and Nibelungenlied, this Indo-European
epic talks in riddles, describing external events and the reaction of heroes to them as a means of charting
the psychology of the human and suggesting an ascendant, warlike direction. It's not "literature" for college
students, drug addicts, soccer moms and greasy hippies; it's literate for those in the thick of the world.

One aspect of the Gita is its sage advice on statecraft, something like Machiavelli or Dante, in which one
theme is that of caste. Call me conditioned, but as soon as I read that, the old creeping feeling - dare we
be honest and call it guilt? - crept in, and I found myself thinking of the poor kids with their bargain bin
school supplies. Images of faded paints, dingy erasers, garbage lined paper and leaking pens came back to
me with the same scent of those classrooms: mixed perfumes, food smells, sweat, flatulence and that
strange sawdust they used to soak up vomit.

It's important to understand that a caste system is fundamentally different than a class system. In a class
system, we are all ranked by how much money we have earned, and hence invested, passing the money on
to our descendants. If you work in the kitchen of a large hotel, work your way up to supervisor and
eventually own the thing, you can buy a chain of hotels and live among the very wealthy. You have gone
from lower to upper class via the singular determination of wealth. In natural selectionist language, this
means the person who is more devoted to earning money forms the basis of the upper class.

A caste system is based on specialization. Much as each race is formed by a series of specific traits that
reflect certain choices taken as a group, such as to use technology to specialize in agrarian or technological
living, each caste reflects the inclinations and aptitudes demonstrated by past actions. Some people are
more specialized to, and thus healthier as, farmers or plumbers and some as lawyers; whether we officialize
this in a caste system or not, it is naturally true.

What is unfortunate about class systems is that they promote derision between these, usually on some
presumed Darwinian basis, under the illusion that a lawyer is "more successful" biologically than a plumber.
This repugnant oversimplification rests on the assumption of a single career path for all people, with a top
(highest-paid) and a bottom (unskilled labor). It allows those who make money to salve their low self-
esteem with, "We all had the same goal and the same opportunities, thus there is something wrong with
you, and not I."

This means that in the same way that in a democracy, a homeless drunk has the same vote as a hero, in a
class system, your "upper crust" of society are people who made money in any fashion. Intelligent, hard-
working people who raised decent business to successes are on par with pornographers, drug dealers,
international arms sellers, and people with "genius ideas" like fast food, disposable lighters, and sitcoms.
You can imagine the daughter bringing home her fiance to the parents and saying, "I know he is squat,
ugly, stupid and mean, but he's made a billion dollars in anal porn!"

A caste system, in contrast, divides us by duties and endows none with a preferential, singular god-status.
If one's caste is among the leaders, there is no greater value in doing that than being a plumber - after all,
it not only wasn't your choice but it's the product of your ancestors that you are a leader (and: a test of
your own fitness, since no sane society accepts people at face value). Your job is no more important than
that of a plumber, but it is more specialized.

You can look at this in the context of a rock band. If any instrumentalism of note is going on, your
drummer and guitarist will most likely not be able to switch places, but both are essential. Even though
your guitarist could probably sub in for your bassist, he won't, if possible, because he's used to thinking in
a different role and thus is prone to miss the subtleties of a bassist. Similarly, everyone can sing - but one
specializes as a singer. And all are vital; without them, the band doesn't exist.

In medieval and previous ages, the caste system benefitted those individuals now grouped into the generic
category of "the worker" (meaning all those who labor without owning). This was mainly because, freed of
monetary competition, they had job security and thus were able to focus on the detail of each task,
nuances such as would not be supported by a system which competes according to the "bottom line."
Leaders did not have to pander to get elected, and plumbers didn't have to cut corners to make their prices
"competitive." Everyone had a place, and while competition existed, it was in the form of the task itself and
not the separate but related task of making money from that ability.
Government would localize, as in every local population you have some leaders and some of every other
type. Each caste would have its own place and be guaranteed work, with the more competent rising to the
top of each role, which would be viewed as being on par with "professions" such as lawyer, doctor, leader.
The enmity between people over amount of money earned would be greatly lessened, as all people would
no longer be competing for the most of a single thing, but would be working to become the best at what
they optimally do.

Most importantly, however, this would enable love to return among peoples who at this time are mostly
bitter and vengeful toward one another. Your leaders wouldn't be any more important than your plumber,
but they would be specialized differently. Their role, as those who are ultimately responsible for guiding a
people, would not be a "job" but more like that of a familial attachment, and they would thus be able to
work directly for their local area and their people. This type of system lets us take different roles and each
be important in them, without grading us by how much money we manage to con, inveigle, hype or
outright steal.

Speak about this kind of idea in a modern liberal democracy, of course, and people start nattering on about
the loss of "freedom." If you ask them what it means, the best definition is some head-in-the-clouds fond
illusion about how any of us can grow up to be president, a sports star, or a magical superhero or martyr.
Don't take our "freedom" away! they chant in unison. Obviously, anything adhered to with such bovine
desperation cannot be the balm it promises to be, or these people would have realized the great
advantages of "freedom." Instead they have excuses: I was born under a bad sign, my daddy was a drunk,
I was sodomized by wolves as a youngster, and the like. Justifications for not being "free."

A class system gives you this "freedom" by forcing you and everyone else into the "equal" category of
worker, at which point you compete against others for money. If you aren't fascinated by money, or don't
have rich relatives, or don't come up with some "brilliant" idea like interracial midget amputee porn, you're
going to be working for peanuts and while no one will come out and say it, everyone earning more than
you is going to subtly feel a boost of external confidence for being wealthier. This explains why when this
drug of false self-confidence is taken away, so many previously "successful" people self-destruct.

Categorizing us by how much we earn, and assuming that in some Darwin cum Jesus way this is a
selection of the "best" among us, is brainless. It makes us hate each other. It doesn't select for who does
the best job, but for who can fool the most people into buying their product for long enough to take the
money out of the system and retire. And who can blame them? They have no place granted to them by
custom, and thus are at the mercy of every other jerk who wants to rip off the rest of us so he can take his
pile home.

In this way, I went from fearing a caste system to liking it. We will never all be equal in wealth, and some
kids will get the seven-dollar watercolors while the rest use the fetid three-dollar ones. Trying to equalize
that inequality by averaging it means that we all suffer under a system designed for a person who doesn't
exist, the mythical abstract "normal" person, and that as a result, we're at each others' throats for tiny
pieces of paper and metal tokens and numbers in our bank account. That's so dumb even Debbie would
like it.

November 28, 2004

Nobody Wants Your Apocalyptic Hate Cult
That the white race is in trouble is beyond doubt. Assailed from within by ideological divisions, assailed from
without by the majority of the world's people, who are non-white, whites face extinction. They also of
course face the results of technology which they created and, hampered by said internal ideological
divisions, unleashed upon the world. These facts are beyond doubt.

What requires more analysis is the response to this. "White Nationalists" seem to like to throw a giant
tantrum and retaliate against the world with grand proclamations of war, and of superiority, and of scorn
and hatred. They sit around in their little clubhouses and rant out the same propaganda, convincing
themselves that if they just wake up enough white people to the imminent doom, everyone across America
will join hands, put on swastika armbands and start the slaughter.

Are you laughing yet? Because I am.

That will never work. An emotionally balanced person recognizes first that modern society is a deathmarch,
and next that it's a final trip for "whites," too. You cannot establish a global republic based on commerce
and have it do anything but what commerce does: consume, produce, and trade. This system will in short
order consume all of our fossil fuel resources, and then begin eating up everything else. It's analogous to
rats breeding out of control in a cage, and the response will be the same: massive internal warfare.

Most "white" people live in the dream that this isn't the case. Their world begins and ends with boundaries
defined by social thinking and social logic. That this is error is beyond question; however, every person on
earth lives somewhat in error and somewhat in function. In order to function, the average citizen of the
world has opted to be in error about environmental, cultural, social and racial holocaust of themselves.
(They will gladly moan it in others, and send professional armies to intervene, but don't confuse this with
caring - a band-aid and a kiss isn't caring unless it is part of a daily process of looking after the welfare of
someone.)

Those among them that still function as intellects, generally speaking, want nothing to do with emotionally-
out-of-control people, because they recognize this emotional unbalance as the source of problems within
the "white" race. We are divided internally between those who believe that pleasant emotions and social
fictions such as Christian morality dictate what is "real," and those who point to an ultimate reality
composed of physical existence. How many worlds do you see? If you see one, you're sober. Two, and
you're intoxicated - step out of the car, punk.

"White Nationalists" see two words: the world of the pure and true, and the current world. There are
"Aryans," who can do no wrong, and anyone who is "Aryan" is automatically better than everyone else and
worth saving. There is the Official Doctrine, and if you don't buy into it, you're the enemy - probably a
fucking Jew. They believe that if the Official Doctrine were made mandatory, suddenly everything would be
OK.

I have news for such people: no one who has succeeded in life will buy that crap for very long. You will fool
many, including many of great intelligence, because the germ of the message - that the "white" race is
under assault - is true. The response suggested by the Official Doctrine is moronic, however: violence for its
own sake, vast purges and a bureaucratic government enforcing racial purity. I've got news for you.

First, you're outnumbered, and your own race has given the "enemy" weapons. You will not win.

Second, most people, myself included, don't want to engage in a campaign of hatred. We're fine with
eliminating anti-discrimination law and bias in media, and even with isolating ourselves from other races,
but we're not going to play with the "let's go crush all Negroes because they're inherently stupid, worthless,
and criminal." That may be true of the population as a whole, but we all have Negroes about which we
care. So the militaristic crush them all approach is a loser with us.
Finally, you don't eliminate the problem. The values of the white race will still be rotten, which means that
the next evolution of the problem will involve whites slaughtering each other for the sake of internal
ideological disagreements.

Most people are vastly ignorant and poorly bred. Mixtures of caste, race and background have produced
people of a lowest common denominator, who can agree on sports and television and movies and music,
but not much else, and are swayed by the simplest argument presented to them. Therefore, they in every
case opt for the most simplistic and idiotic solution to any problem. The "white nationalist" approach is not
to change this basic tendency, but to play into it.

I'm not interested in saving the world, or saving "the white race"; I'm interested in solving the ideological
split among white people (because this is my race, and for no other reason; were I black, I wouldn't give a
damn at all and it wouldn't be any of my business; hence, I have the same disinterest in the black race)
and in nurturing and giving power to those "white" people who have brains, strength, character and moral
leadership ability. Most of you, including the squareskulls who hang around "White Nationalist" outfits, I
don't care about saving or even aiding.

There are some other idiots who reject "white nationalism" and talk about the importance of some "new
future movement" but these people are just as stupid: they don't realize that no new answers are needed,
because the answers never change regarding the biggest questions in life. Technology changes; what PDA
do I use? But questions of culture, breeding, education and character never do and never will. Nothing will
ever change the basic parameters of mortality and thus, a certain amount to accomplish before death, and
certain behaviors that are ascendant and others that bring one closer to the lowest common denominator.

The "new future movement" people are finding excuses for inaction, because their Official Doctrine posits
that until this "new future doctrine" arrives, they should do nothing except what gratifies them personally.
Clearly, they're even stupider than the "White Nationalists," but it's by a hair. I don't need to mention here
that "liberals" and "conservatives" don't even make it to the stupid-smart scale, because for them, ideology
is a question of self-image and purchasing power, which makes them products of the current society and
unable to see beyond it.

Yes, our world civilization is collapsing. It's not peak oil, or global warming, or nuclear weapons that will do
us in; those are symptoms of a greedy, neurotic, oblivious society run out of control, much as a dirty house
and disorganized life as symptoms of personal degeneracy. The solution is not to try to find a more
aggressive politic in the style of what is already known, but to work outside of the confines of narrow social
definition and to assert the commonsense moral values that made civilizations in the past great.

We don't need anything new. We need to stop avoiding the problem, and fix it: our values are garbage,
and they are that way because in our rush to find convenience through the implements of society, we have
stopped valuing self-discipline. One symptom of this, Christianity, encouraged us to think of the world in
binary good/evil terms, borrowing from a perfect world for validation of these, and this has in turn made
people slaves to an emotional flight toward good and from evil, wherever they can find these. And leaving
ignorant people to their own devices to find absolute "good" and "evil"? Comedy results.

The cultlike aspects of White Nationalism are its downfall. Instead of withdrawing from society into a
clubhouse where we can preach to the converted, what we must do is subvert mainstream philosophy to
our ideals - in part by broadening our ideals from race alone. The environment rots, we serve in mindless
and unnecessary bureacratic jobs, our sexual and breeding habits are slovenly, and we live by convenience
and money alone - we have no values system because it offends our self-image as independent, "free," etc.
to do so. And thus we construct our own prison.

Until we fix our values and get moving to fix civilization, the doom of the white race, and humanity, will
continue its inexorable march toward us while we sit paralyzed by our inability to think outside of the prison
that constrains us. You cannot make a better version of the prison, but must escape it before the clock runs
out and death finds you helpless - and feasts. No matter what our brave and violent rhetoric, if we allow
this to kill us, it is justice and a chance for a better species to take hold.
November 28, 2004
The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle
When one is young, there is a need to find a common index of things to discuss with one's friends. In times
when words were less inexpensive, these included the myths and stories of culture, but now, it is basically
limited to products. Whether media products, or tangible products like game systems, these are what one
has in industrial society to talk about, besides the "news" which is, as most kids will readily note, vastly
recombinant and usually a lot of paranoid hype about nothing.

Rock music was created as a product. Essentially, they first hyped the blues, portraying it as the wisdom of
an alien and suppressed culture, as if the alien and suppressed culture of Indo-Europeans before
Christianity wasn't real enough for them; however, cultures that emphasize healthy values don't sell as
many products, so that - fortunately - was not what was marketed.

We're told about the blues form now and given the idea that a group of impoverished musicians got
together and created it to sing of their sorrows at the mean hands of their oppressors, but really, the blues
form is a distillation of European popular music by those who, without the benefit of music theory, needed a
quick way to emulate it. Thus a simplification to the point of barebones, and development from there.

If you know your way around a diatonic* scale, you know how convenient the notes of the blues scale are,
and how convenient the blues chord progressions are: basically, you can't screw it up. It doesn't require
genius or years of training to produce. Although what you can do with it is highly limited, and its distillation
of the vivid notes of the scale creates a constant intensity which is contrary to most artistic needs, it's easy
to make and understand, thus accessible to everyone. Change the appearance of the artists, or add some
trivial finishing touches, and you have something "new." It's the perfect product.

From there, it was easy to re-introduce elements of other popular music, add a seemingly white face, and
voila! A new version of the same product, with the same advantages. It doesn't take much brains to borrow
some licks, a good beat, a bassline, and hype your own particular neurosis into a hit. The Beatles got to
pretend they were prophets for having discovered musicality in rock, but really, they were more reactionary
than revolutionary: they were introducing more complex elements into a culture designed to be simplistic
for the purpose of having its essence escape no one in a crowd of intelligence ranging from borderline
retarded to high normal.

Tap your foot, to the beat; catch the hook, sing along. It's something "new" and you should be discussing
it, and buying it, because your friends are. Because young people are introduced to this culture first, it
forms the basis of what they know as "music" and thus what they expect for the rest of their lives. And to
compete socially, they begin buying lots of expensive CDs and assorted paraphrenalia, and may even get
some instruments to slog along with their own band. It's the perfect product.

Notwithstanding that most of rock 'n roll is bland, and if you listen to it for more than five times in a row,
you will become very bored, it dominates the airwaves, and has even assimilated divergent genres like
techno and hip-hop (that which has no character of its own can assimilate anything). Its simple
instrumentation allows for very basic production, which makes it loud and easily heard while one is
pumping gas, smoking crack, buying products, or having a thrilling orgasm in an AIDS-infested bathhouse.
In fact, it is best if one is either wasted or doing something simple and repetitive, as it's perfect for a
reduced concentration.

Even the best of your kids, no matter how smart they are, are going to want to have friends. If their
friends talk about TV, video games, and music, and very little else, these kids are going to go looking for
the best in rock. Of course, since the whole thing is a giant ripoff, they will end up thrashing around until
they find something that is less offensive, and settling for that. It's an early lesson in passivity: don't aim
for the best, but find something that sucks less. This will provide good training for their future numb, neo-
mindless bureaucratic jobs!

I was fond of some metal music because it broke the rock formula. Where rock uses a fixed structure,
defined succinctly as "an intro, a verse, a chorus, second verse, a second chorus, a breakdown section,
back into a double length chorus and outro" by one experienced source 1 , metal uses a narrative structure:
songs develop, like classical songs, according to a central melody or "shape" of a dominant riff. Much as
Mozart buried a very simple melody in very complex symphonies, metal bands shape their songs around an
idea, and use a circuitous series of introductions, breakdowns, bridges and riff motif rotations to convey it.

This took a long time to develop, and was really not even extant as a concept until the late 1980s,
exemplified best perhaps by Metallica's tribute to classical music, "Orion," or Bathory's classically-inspired
"Blood, Fire, Death." These were, like the Beatles, a reactionary impulse against the dumbing-down that is
the basis of rock music. I had high hopes for this genre, but alas, the social impetus that gets people into
rock music also tears down anything that the crowd as a whole cannot appreciate.

Crowds detest those who stand out. The crowd mentality is paradox: one must be an individual doing what
everyone else is doing, of their own "free will," of course. This way the individual gets the best of both
worlds. They can worship their own ego, and also, socialize in a way that guarantees they won't offend
anyone, thus eventually will get whatever they want, whether it be sex, drugs or simply, friends. Because
these individuals have no other way to succeed, and because they depend on the crowd, they enforce it on
others. Rock music is a product of the crowd.

When metal finally succumbed to the fetal impulse toward lowest common denominator at the turn of the
millennia, it was an appropriate self-sacrifice, worthy of Jesus on the Cross. All of that labor to bring rock
music to some degree of braininess, first by prog-rockers inspired by the Beatles, and then by generations
of metal bands, was eventually dragged down by the nature of rock music - it is a product, and a product
needs the crowd to buy it. This is why rock produces bitter old men, since 99.99% of those who get
involved with it experience no real success, and the remainder are neurotic lapdogs kept by the industry
and discarded when their usefulness is over (enjoy your suicide, Mr. Cobain - you're right: you failed).

Conservatives, or those who wish to uphold (post-Christian) "traditional" values, have a singleminded
approach toward rock music. They will loudly proclaim that it's crap, and then ignore whatever their kids
bring home because, after all, the kids are stimulated by the music's ability to provoke that reaction in
brain-dead parental units. "Son, I'm reading the stock pages - turn that crap off and go to your room." That
further heightens the marketability of rock. Liberals, of course, listen to jazz and world music and contort
themselves pretending they can tell the difference between artists, tracks and genres.

My approach to rock music is to recognize the wisdom of this piece from the same source cited above:

There are twelve different Major keys and twelve different Minor
keys. In each key there is a scale of eight notes, the eighth note
being the same as the first but an octave above. A chord is
where two or more notes are played together. There are three
basic Major chords and three basic Minor chords in each key.
You do not need to know the above but if you do want to, that's
it.1

Our schools, public and private alike, have been dumbing themselves down for years to provide more
inclusivity. First it was for the less-rigorous cultures of Southern and Eastern Europe, infused with the failed
remnants of the once-great Greco-Roman empire, and then it was for new groups of people from other
cultures which didn't have a classical music tradition like that of Europe. This isn't to slam those groups;
they can do what they want. However, it's time to bring back classical music education for the simple
purpose of debunking rock.

When one is familiar with how easy it is to pick out a basic riff and harmonize it, then make a pop song,
the mysticism of rock - the longstanding tradition of "authenticity" through alienation extending from the
blues through punk - is vanquished, because the music is seen as un-fascinating since, well, it's actually
quite bland. You have a basic chord progression, and you use notes in that chord to determine what keys
you can switch to, if you do at all; guitar solos are a matter of staying within some degree of modal
coherence to the progression underlying them, or using the pentatonic so everything "sounds good." It's not
rocket science.

That's the approach I'd take. Our kids deserve better music, but in order to tell the difference, their first
experience with music has to involve knowledge, not the crowd-pleasing ignorance that makes rock a
perfect product. Stamp your foot and scream that all rock is crap, and well, they'll run to MTV and go buy
the latest rock or rock-hybrid at $16/CD. Show them something better, regardless of form - it's even
possible to simply make brainier rock music, as Yes and Bathory and King Crimson did - and they'll slowly
continue the reactionary process of converting rock from moron fodder into something listenable. That
alone is victory over the crowd.

Diatonic and Pentatonic Scales

One irate reader fumed that the blues scale is "not" a pentatonic scale. Wrong - it's a modified pentatonic
scale, but is not a five-tone scale. The comment here about the diatonic scale is to point out that if you play
only the emphatic notes in a diatonic scale, you get a pentatonic blues scale. Although that's sort of like a
Hallmark card-styled emotionality, most people "seem" to like it.

November 30, 2004

Metal Cult, or Metal Christ?
Way back in grade school, before you hit the age of sexual competition and thus get more rigorously
socialized, one of the more exciting things to do is spend the night at a friend's house. This means you get
spoiled by well-meaning parents, can order pizza with all the toppings, and spend the night watching scary
movies on the DVD player. At that time of life, it's pretty cool, although once you've moved on to bigger
things it seems like a parody of a really bad party. Who's got the ranch dressing potato chips, indeed.

It's conventional, among nice families, to keep this charade going until noon or later the following day,
mainly because that's about how long it takes the caffeinated soda pop and sugar foods to wear off,
meaning that all parties are tuckered out and need to be taken home and shoved onto a sofa with
homework "for your own good." This is a kindness extended between families to each other, allowing your
parents to actually have a night alone while you're rampaging at some other kid's house. Of course, if you
spend Saturday night with a Christian family, or Friday night with a Jewish one, it means you're going to
some kind of exciting religious service in the morning.

Back in those less preference-enabled times, I'd go along to Church or Temple with my friends and wonder
at the death denial of adults. There were great things about church - mainly the music, but I also liked the
weird little tasteless wafers at communion - and Temple had its moments, mainly the times when they'd
bring out the big old scroll of Hebrew writing and chant in languages I didn't understand. In general,
however, to young Spinoza Ray it seemed like adults getting together to agree on an excuse why we don't
actually die, and to answer at least two questions along these lines before saying something blithe like,
"Fluffy is in heaven with God now, and can chase cars every day and is always happy."

What I remember more than anything else was the expectation going into these religious services. There
were the smells of adult clothing, perfumes, foods, alcohol and the flatulence and dyspeptic belches of the
usual healthy specimens, mostly older, who cleave to churches like AIDS patients to retrovirals. But more
than that, there was a subtle kind of excitement: it was an event, and there was an expectation, whether
Jewish or Christian. You were going to a place of higher authority to receive wisdom, and it was to be a
cathartic experience.

Recently, in my wandering through the smouldering ruins of the metal community, that being all people
who create or appreciate the non-radio metal of our world, I was amused by how popular the term "cult"
remains among those who are metal. We're a pure metal cult! and Only metal is true! and I swear
allegiance to metal! and other comedic statements of this sort are common, like a dinner opera about
patriotism. These people are apparently oblivious to how disturbingly true their use of this term is.

A cult in my definition is any belief system that posits an Official Dogma and reinforces it, while
sequestering all those who do not accept Official Dogma as outsiders. It's a precursor to bureaucracy, and
in the case of Christian cults, at least, it's about like filling out a triplicate application. Do you believe in the
father? (check) Son? (check) Holy Ghost? (check) Heaven and Hell mythos? (check) And are you willing at
this time to sign an eternal contract to this effect?

In churches, people surge to the front of a large building while music plays and people in costumes perform
ceremony to distract them (note for our alert readers: Judaism is much similar, but Christianity is a more
familiar example for most North Americans, and since the two share most beliefs in common). There they
take refuge in the comfortingly familiar nature of religion; you have been through this ceremony before,
and you know what will happen, and at the end, your own expectation of receiving catharsis carries you
through to that conclusion. Basically, it's a lot like LSD: you find what you expected.

Rock concerts and metal concerts are very similar. You sanction the ceremony by paying money, thus you
have reason to believe you are accepted unless you perform heresies, such as fistfights or too much covert
marijuana smoking behind the fat guy standing up front. People in uniforms herd you into a place where
people in costumes perfom onstage, playing music you have usually heard on CD. Even more, for those
who are lost, every song no matter how convoluted at some point returns to the constant drumbeat, usually
snare, which builds cadence and interrupts any thoughts you were having between beats, which are the
loudest single element of the concert.

The metal cult, like the rock cult, is based in the idea of catharsis. You go to see some band you have
heard before, and after having the music affirmed, you go away with some brilliant insight like "They really
can play their instruments" or "That vocalist vomiting blood, fire, semen and feces was spectacular!" It's not
rocket science. If you're a musician, you can feel ever-so-elite by watching the band members play and
pulling from it some observation about how well the guitarist frets or drummer hits the middle of the
goddamn snare twice every second. No one is left out; if you had $5 in your sweaty little hand when you
went in the door, you were given the communion, allowed to join the cult, and ushered on out into the
surprisingly cool and unsweaty night.

Baptised in beer, perhaps intoxicated yourself on a range of exciting substances, you even have a chance
to double affirm your belief by buying tshirts and CDs, and can even talk to the band members, who
periodically deliver such benedictions as, "This is another song about fucking the dead - I want to see you
fuckers tear it up in the pit!" Conventional academics like Deena Weinstein periodically set aside the
Chardonnay (all academics are drunks, drug addicts or perverts) and to observe what an indoctrination this
ceremony is, and how it affirms membership in a group. She might as well say "...membership in a true
life-hating metal cult!"

Surprisingly, black metal was a counterinsurgency opposed to this. Initially, bands like Burzum and
Immortal eschewed live performance, since as they correctly observed, hordes of idiots would show up
expecting everyone to accept them purely on the basis of having (a) found the venue (b) being aware of
the band and (c) the benighted $5 in sweaty fist. Burzum's composer was vehement about it, and to this
day you can find credulous teens everywhere buying $20 live bootlegs of a band that never played live (but
since it's $20 and not $25, it's a "good deal" - you get an extra $5 to go to another stimulating concert).

Much maligned, mocked and parodied, the "No mosh, no core, no fun, no trends" attitude of these early
bands was a way of ending the religious service, an inclusive event, and turning instead to an esoteric
event. The difference between exoteric religions like Christianity and esoteric religions like, say, Advaita
Vedanta or Buddhism, is that in exoteric religions you have to show up and affirm Official Dogma, and then
you get sent home with a stamp on your triplicate form, which esoteric religions are best summarized as
"the truth reveals itself in varying degrees to those who seek it."

Christianity and rock concerts are birds of a feather that give you a 100% guarantee that everything's okay,
and then convince you to turn off your mind so you can do something useful like enforce Official Doctrine
on other people. They are the ultimate populist religions, and by that nature they must assert that
everyone is equal because, lacking an entrance requirement, they've already made it fact. If you can make
it to church, or find the rock club with your $5 (donations are always welcome at church, too), you're one
of the Chosen and can feel better than other people for your non-achievement.

One of the reasons I separated out Christianity from Judaism as an example, earlier, is that Judaism is
controversial because it is simultaneously a religion, a culture, and an ethnicity. Whether Khazar or
Ashkenazi, you're a Jew if you have any of those three attributes (bonus points and free instant
coffeemaker for all three). Among the black metal community, there are those who feel Judaism is the
great downfall of Indo-Europeans, and they wish nothing of tolerance for it.

I'd like to take time here to praise some aspects of Judaism. Its emphasis on education, for example, is
admirable, and far exceeds the Christian dogma that if one believes in God, it's okay to fail at everything
else in life because it doesn't matter - what matters is the world after this one, which like a credit report, is
absolute and binding and more important than whatever goes on here in our misery of animal existence.
Its racism and cultural supremacy is beyond questioning, and has kept the Jewish people alive and
functional through thousands of years of wandering through other peoples' countries. In fact, until
Christianity sedated Europe, Jews never had a homeland, and at this point are as European as they are
Semitic/Mongoloid.

Christianity has selective praiseworthy aspects as well. As Arthur Schopenhauer pointed out, its only
significant difference from Judaism is a classic Indo-European trait that can be found among the Aryan
sages of ancient India, that being "quietus," or an inner spiritual calm and contemplation to discover the
blessings of this world. If you're Arthur Schopenhauer, or Meister Eckhardt or Ralph Waldo Emerson, and
thus possess not only a genius IQ but an introspective desire for truth and beauty, this will occur to you.
The remaining 99.99% of Christians should simply admit they're following non-ethnic Judaism, and cease
feeling superior to Jews for having a martyr who gave his life because we're dirty little animals who
fornicate, murder, embugger and thieve from each other daily.

One reason I can't ever be a neo-Nazi, besides my ethnic Scottish heritage which includes pre-Jewish
Semitic Gaelic blood, is that they didn't act on this crucial difference, in part because in Germany the
Christians had already slaughtered anyone with a desire to resist Christ a thousand years before. In my
mind, Jews are an invading culture and I have no problem drawing a sword against them, men women and
children alike, to drive them back into the middle east, where they may have to actually stop feeling
superior to their Abrahamic brethren and make peace with the Arabs. Not my problem. But, I feel the same
way about Christianity: if you're not Eckhardt, or Schopenhauer or Emerson, I recognize that it's my duty to
draw a sword against you, man or woman or child or dog or AI, and drive you out of Indo-European lands
before you destroy what's left of our culture.

However, I've come to realize that "No mosh, no core, no fun, no trends" is also part of this same militant
desire which will come to any sane Indo-European who undertakes quietus long enough; rock music and
metal are the same cult as Christianity and before it, sickly Judaism and its wheedling, whining culture of
the lowest common denominator enshrined as benevolent love. For me, to love a culture is to defend it
against its enemies, with emotional detachment and not the "hate" to which modern neo-Nazis masturbate
in American History X -inspired fantasies. If you thought "the Holocaust" was bad, wait until you see what
will come - and it is inevitable - when the current culture collapses and warlike people like me clear out bad
Indo-European DNA, including Christ-worshippers and people whose sole contribution is to be "members of"
some rock-music-based "cult." Man, woman, child, and of course fat record producer scheming over cocaine
and harlots in the back room, shall all face the sword - without hate, but without mercy, either.

With this revelation in mind, I have to ask modern metalheads who claim to hate stupidity and Christianity
(and, of course, you cuddly stuffed NSBMer teddybears in your genuine NSBM tshirts and Nazi fetishist
wear), why are you partaking in the same culture that you abhor? There are people among the rockers who
are of noble countenance, and among Christians too, and I'd welcome these people into any future Indo-
European society (Jews are ethnically excluded, along will all other non-Europeans; you have your own
countries, go there and preach about your ideals and we'll see how "superior" they indeed are). But for the
most part, rock and roll is a failure at escaping Christianity. If anything, it's a new form of Christianity that
is even more accepting and less informative on the esoteric issues of spirituality, philosophy and
comportment.

For this reason, both metalheads and neo-Nazis are ignored by their more studied peers. After all, who
wants to get dragged into the same quagmire that has afflicted Indo-Europeans for the past millennia,
albeit in a new form and with new products to buy? Advice to future rockers, metalheads, and the like:
design your music and your career around something other than the glorified church service that is your
modern metal "cult" concert.

December 2, 2004
What about Homosexuality?
The rhythms of life manifest themselves in many forms. Seasons have their tide of activity from one
extreme to the next, weeks have their surge and fall, and finally, the mailbag swells and then it's empty.
From a couple weeks ago, the question "What's your view on homosexuality?" caught my eye.

You know homosexuality has hit the big time when people start talking about it in the same euphemism
reserved for "facts of life." When it was fully marginalized, people used words like "sodomy" and "bestiality"
and "coprophagia" to describe it instead. So, gays, be thankful: you're now accepted enough to be denied
in polite conversation.

There are now enough homosexuals in the West that they represent a powerful political force. The recent
public circus over gay marriage shows us how socially and economically powerful the homosexual voting
block is. As with most edge groups, they are being encouraged to take up political activism for a
generalized ideal that "represents" their "rights," and here they may make a great error.

Our thousand-year tradition of equality in the West has created a culture of "empowerment," where every
generation hands over the reigns in part to another group (lepers are next). The commonly-accepted
attitude goes, "Why should I care what goes on behind closed bedroom doors?" As long as you pay for
your house, it's your castle. This attitude makes partial sense, but denies indirect consequences, yet those
are only a problem as long as we insist upon equality itself.

What a maze - let's take it step by step.

Joseph and Trent own a nice little house in a hip neighborhood in Philadelphia. They pay taxes, keep their
property clean, and contribute to the local civic group. One day, into their idyllic paradise, moves a
character we'll call "the evil Spinoza Ray Prozak." Ray, as his friends call him, has one thing alone on his
agenda: chaos, namely the form brought about by heavy marijuana use.

Ray invested well in the dot-com boom and thus can afford a constant stream of high-quality pot.
Discounting the illogical illegality of this drug, he's within his rights, much as homosexuals were back in the
1950s when "sodomy" was in most areas taboo. Pot smoking like sodomy is widespread but
disproportionately harsh penalties awaited those discovered doing it. To stretch a bit, we can see pot use
and homosexuality as analogues: whether voluntary or not, people find them to be important parts of their
lives.

Ray is a terrible neighbor. He doesn't endorse crime, but the people who come to visit him are careless and
leave waste on the street. He doesn't upkeep his house to community standards, so it sticks out like a
grungy, patchouli-reeking, grease-smeared thumb. He's too stoned to find the local civic group meeting,
much less participate. And clearly he doesn't share the community values of hard work and sobriety. But
since he can pay for his house, he's within his rights.

None of the citizens see him smoking pot, but they seem him every day stumbling around, red-eyed,
unable to find his newspaper or figure out how to start his car. You tell the kids, well, Ray's different, and
we'll tell you more when you're 18. Thus this neighborhood, which exists only in our minds, receives its
first taboo: can't talk about Ray even when he hauls off and heads to the local Shop'n'Sack and buys 40
boxes of day-old creme-filled donuts at half-price.

It's all behind closed doors, but Ray has changed the neighborhood in two ways. First, you have to make
the decision to tolerate his legal but out of bounds behavior, or to make it a hush-hush taboo that will
make your kids haul off to buy pot when they're old enough to find it. After all, behind taboo hide many
secrets, and behind secrets often knowledge of great power, so kids by nature explore taboo. Second, you
have to decide what to do when other people of Ray's persuasion arrive, since they now know the
neighborhood will tolerate them.
Fast forward: sixteen years later, about 40% of the neighborhood are stoners. There is no outward effect,
except for slightly dingy houses, but you now can't say "fuck the stoners!" in daylight as that will alienate
40% of your customers. If they boycott you, you're out of business when a competitor appears. So now
we're stoner tolerant, and we all try to ignore the fact that 40% of our neighbors are in another world and
won't notice violent crime, house fires, alien invasions or anything else taboo against the social order.

To veer back onto topic, most "normal" people can be called "normal" because their needs are normal.
They like having a job where they're important. They want to have a wife and kids, and a nice little house
or apartment where they can relax on weekends. They want a couple hobbies, and a safe retirement, but
basically their needs aren't excessive, barring the occasional large 4x4 truck they buy in obliviousness to all
reason. This is normalcy.

In the mindset these people have, stoners and homosexuals aren't welcome on their block. They'd like to
raise their kids without having to either explain around homosexuality ("Trent's different") or de facto
endorse it for their still-forming kids, more of whom will then likely end up at least experimenting with it.
They'd also like to not have to tolerate more than a few stoners, for the same reasons. You don't raise your
kids to see constant psychedelic drug use as normal, do you? That places them farther from normal reality,
which is live, spawn, and die, and try to do it as ethically and comfortably as possible.

If we accept modern liberal democracies at face value, there are two ways this can go. Either society as a
whole decides homosexuality and stonerism are not part of the plan, and makes them illegal along with
fascism, heroin use, child molestation and nuclear weapons, or society the golden child of our collective
wisdom opts to "tolerate" these behaviors, and them become de facto endorsed. It's a slippery slope. One
year you tell kids Ray's just different, and two decades later the stoner lobby has "and it's OK to take
psychedelic drugs as a life quest" inserted into your textbooks.

I feel for both parties here. Quite frankly, in the same way I've known some enlightened skinheads, I've
known many cool gay people, many of whom were close friends whose memories are still sacred to me. I
have been a stoner and known many cool stoners, although stoner "culture" is dogshit garbage for people
of bored housewife mentality, empty and neurotic and looking for "profundity" in the Other. But ultimately,
I don't blame normals for not wanting stoners or gays around. It's not in their plan, and they shouldn't be
forced to "tolerate" (not act against, but not like it) either behavior.

In 1650s England, there was a popular saying, probably derived of medieval times and updated for the
newly politicized language of the post-Christian neo-Industrial era, which was, "One law for the ox and the
raven is tyranny." It doesn't get more clear than that to me; not all people are described by the same one-
size-fits-all approach of modern society; while it's handy for Christianity, bureaucracy, and industry, this
view destroys what makes humans in part beautiful: we operate chaotically, in parallel, attacking every
question from many angles (including behind), and thus are able to solve problems we can't even yet
describe. Or we can, when we're not neurotic as a culture.

Swing the camera to Houston, TX, perhaps the last place you expect mentioned in an essay about
homosexuality. Cows, oil fields, and rabid conservative Christians. Before all of this, however, there was
simple common sense. And starting in the 1950s, Houston found a solution to the gay situation which didn't
injure either party. Back then, either by tolerance or tacit agreement, city elders allowed the Montrose
neighborhood to become a gay mecca.

They did this so that in Katy, Texas, and Meyerland, and River Oaks and in Spring, the two percent of the
population who are naturally gay in any group would not have to put up with discrimination, and so that
anti-discrimination, one of the greatest forms of oppression ever devised, was not forced onto those same
"normal" people requiring that they "tolerate" homosexuality or be jailed or shot. It was literally, a separate
law for the ox and the raven.

You could drive, starting in Katy, TX, for nearly two hours through verdant, traditional, pious and orderly
subdivisions without finding a stoner or a fag the entire time. Most of the people there were devout
Christians, although the source of their spiritual wisdom came from something much earlier, a simple belief
that life was worth living and that trusting in nature ("God") led to good things, so you didn't try to destroy
nature and rebuild it, but you living it and gave praise each day for the holiness of life itself. You could
even get me to read the Bible if that's what Christianity was about, but it's a religion with a foreign element
that has absorbed the belief I describe above, and until that schism is resolved it will forever be equal parts
poison and wisdom.

After your long, comfortable, pleasant drive, you'd think: what a nice, quiet, "conservative" town. And then
you'd come to the Montrose. That subdivision, existing between downtown and the trendy arts and
cosmopolitan communities serving as its outlying area, was a gay paradise. Ornate bars, restaurants, shops
and saloons catered to gay people and were unabashed in their endorsement of that lifestyle ("Parking in
front. Entry in rear."). There was no shame, nor any need; this was the place determined by leaders to be
the area where being completely over the top gay was acceptable, and where being ultra-conservative and
religious wasn't looked up favorably. If you wanted Joseph Smith's empire, you went elsewhere, just as
gays in John Wesley's neighborhoods went to the Montrose.

Returning to the stoner example, I'd like to see something similar, for the good of both stoners and the
world at large. Call me a hypocrite, but I don't want to raise my kids around drugs that even I used
regularly. Their path in life will be different than mine, and I don't want to brainwash them with anything
except the basic philosophies and cultures of their tribe. To "tolerate" stoners would be to introduce an
unnecessary secret into the lives of children, and to force them to have some mental process for
"tolerating" stonerdom and the taboo that it causes.

Ultimately, this is my politics on homosexuality, because as far as my own opinions go, who cares? I'm not
gay and wouldn't know dick (sorry) about it. If I had to give you a view from the het perspective, it'd be
this: to most of us, what gays do seems repulsive, because for us to submit to sex or to have sex with
another of our same gender would be a nullification. It's different for gays, in the same way that men and
women have different views on sex. In my view, that's natural, and both groups can coexist provided they
separate the activities that divide them.

This is why third-graders will always call each other "fag," and why there will always be jokes about
unfavorable political leaders taking it in the ass from democratic candidates: if you're trying to be hetero,
engaging in sodomy is failure. Note however that I said sodomy, and not homosexuality; they're separate.
In my experience, homosexuality means literally loving the same gender, and not every homosexual is one
of the promiscuous drug-addled club kids that sometimes stumble into 59 Diner late at night.

I've had several close friends who were homosexual in my life, and in my view, what they mostly craved
was a loving relationship like everyone else - and, not surprisingly, they also sought serial monogamy and
didn't engage in any extreme acts. There are also promiscuous queers. However, I think there are "fake
queers" as well - people who are essentially addicted to sex, or what some might call "perverts," e.g.
having an unnatural appetite for it. I see these as similar to swingers, prostitutes or other sexually out of
control people, in that it's like heroin addiction: the drug takes over your life. People of this nature often opt
for homosexuality because it's convenient, in their view.

There are also people who are obsessed with power, specifically the power one gets being a dominating
force in the anus of another person. These are usually "bisexual" in that they don't care who it is as long as
they make that person subservient. Prison sex might be a good example. It's violence translated into sexual
form, and whether it's born of frustration as a Judeo-Christian psychologist might surmise, or an innate
tendency, well, it doesn't matter now. This is separate from what I see as homosexuality, which is a desire
for the same gender, which translates into loving and having sex with the same gender.

Homosexuality proper, or what I am referring to above as "real" homosexuality, is part of the grand design
of nature, and generally occurs most frequently among animals that live in groups. Much as roughly half of
all children born are male, and half female, it occurs mathematically in some percentage between 2-5% of
each population, and in my view helps that population by creating individuals who are not sexually
competitive. They thus gain in lieu of raising families a massive amount of time and energy they devote to
the civilization around them, usually among humans in the form of art or cultural work. In other species,
they tend to aid in childbearing. It's like surrogate parenting for all of humanity.
Some would argue that natures uses homosexuality to nullify some who have unworkable genetic
combinations, perhaps including things like congenital organ defects, and this may be true, in some of the
cases. But in others, it's like getting a brother and sister at once, and if you've ever been in a large family,
you can imagine how helpful it is to have someone around to help everyone else instead of spending its
time on its own offspring. This is a smart design.

In the linear Judeo-Christian worldview, one law applies to us all, and thus homosexuals have to be either
100% accepted or 100% classified as perverts. One law for us all is "equality," but my experience says that
nature is rarely so absolute. There's a place for all types of people (but not everyone - we're overpopulated
and should kill the 95% least capable in character, strength and intelligence) on this earth, although mixing
the groups always causes internal division that results in compromise and degeneracy. One law for the ox,
and one law for the raven; one neighborhood for stoners, and one for gays, and the rest for "normal"
people living normal lives. Maybe this isn't a perfect solution, but it beats polite denial in conversation.

December 7, 2004
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Recently Michael Crichton wrote a widely-published article disclaiming the disaster theories of past, and
encouraging us, his readers, to consider any present thought of cataclysm to be illusion. He dissected
proclamations of radicals from the past who bemoaned overpopulation, oil crises, comet crashes and other
radical forms of doom. He's part right: for a large entity, doom rarely comes in a single stroke, or from
outside at all.

When Rome was being sacked by rampaging Vandals, its emperor was occupied with playing a musical
instrument, and had no intention of being disturbed, since his personal guard held the gates and while
destruction crashed around him, he was having a fine evening. From our modern view, looking back at one
of the final moments of a great civilization, our impulse is to howl in protest at his disregard. Upon further
contemplation, however, we can both see his point of view and realize how his actions were symptomatic,
not causal.

Differentiating between cause and effect ("symptom") is not an easy process, even in relatively simple
situations. If the individual is blighted with a hacking cough, we might say "oh, it's the flu," because we
recognize that cough is a sign of the flu. But the symbol is not always the reality: the patient has lung
cancer. Thus we have to keep constantly aware that what we recognize as the flu isn't the flu, but visible
evidence of what could be the flu or any number of other causes.

In the case of our Roman emperor, we may recognize the signs of a man more concerned with his own
welfare than that of his citizens, but perhaps his sage unconscious saw that already Rome was so far
internally divided by selfishness that even the most drastic action couldn't help.

Consider this scenario: he gets together his army, who are accustomed to easy duty, and drives them
toward the battlefield, where evenly half desert or join the enemy. When he needs weapons, the citizens
who make them start bargaining for higher prices, and tell him "it's company policy" he gets them in two
weeks and no sooner. Outside the city, Julius Q. Publicus is busy selling provisions to the invaders, and
when they need a route into the city, he offers to lead them in "the back way" - for a finder's fee.

Even worse, among the working class of the city, who feel resentment toward a wealthy population that
uses them and tosses them aside, since it has been "every man for himself" in the Roman economy for
decades, there is talk of revolt. The invaders promise safe passage for anyone who fights, not to mention a
share of the plunder in the wealthy Parcus Avenue houses; well, who wouldn't fight for the Vandals? These
people made fortunes off the sweat of your brows, so now claim what's yours!

The situation worsens as soon as the emperor takes charge of the city and directs a segment of the
population to leave for the safety of the east. His biggest campaign contributors want to go first, and to be
able to move their entire households of possessions, and the groundlings who have been the first
generation in their families to have homes in the perimeter, naturally, are resisting any command to leave
their homes. Several people have filed discrimination lawsuits, and the women's group Isis is asserting that
he is not doing enough to prevent rape, while the coalition of disabled are concerned there aren't
wheelchair ramps out of the city. Chaos ensues.

Despair sinks in as he realizes that the middle class, who have lived and suffered under a bureaucracy
which penalizes them for rich and poor alike, are viewing this attack as another political bungle which is not
going to radically change their lives. Neighborhoods are drawing up contracts with the attackers so they can
keep business as usual from being interrupted, as with even two weeks of downtime, they're out of money
and are in hock up to their eyebrows. His army is devoid of professional warriors, who are busy getting
double pay in Ethiopia to beat up on invading Arab tribes.

The emperor realizes quickly that no matter what he does, the infrastructure of Rome has already
collapsed, and thus while he might repel the first attack, subsequent waves will turn his entire population
against him. So: head to the country home with a detachment of soldiers, and wait out the chaos. Many of
his people will be killed or raped, but they had no allegiance to him, so why should he care? At least three-
quarters will remain and he can rebuild his personal wealth with them, creating a small fiefdom which will
last for the rest of his days and perhaps those of his children. Problem solved.

Sudden loss of wealth, or source of energy, or an apocalyptic event did not cause Rome to fall. In healthy
days, repulsing these Vandals, capturing their leader and raping their women would have been no big deal.
But the illness was within, and he can't do a thing to stop it. A similar situation exists in our current time,
where since the vast assertion of the individual in the 1950s and 1960s, America and Europe have divided
against themselves and lack the consensus to repel even a slight parasite. It is similar to how in old age, it
may be a cold or an allergy that finally carries away the soul, but what killed it was advanced years and
declining overall health.

In our current time, the symptoms might be peak oil, or invading Chinese, or the whole population strung
out on drugs, but what casts in stone the failure of this civilization is its lack of consensus. We can only
agree on lowest common denominator ideas, which are of the broadest and most inconclusive sort. We
want to have families, jobs and homes, and good intentions toward others, but when this gets translated
into government, it becomes a strong bureaucracy mostly castrated by enforcing "do gooder" programs
while the "every man for himself" rule allows those who aren't insane to buy their way out of the mess.
This has no long-term future.

Of course, even blaming the current situation would be failing to differentiate symptom from cause. The
roots of this problem have existed for over a thousand years, and relate to not a single entity or external
force, but to a change in attitudes in the West. This article speaks to the West because the writers are
based in America and are of European descent. Our belief is that other cultures must not be meddled with,
and will find their own paths according to their own values, and imposition of our own values upon them is
destructive.

Initially, Western culture was based upon praising that which was great and aiming for greater heights all
the time. Our music, literature, art and philosophy emphasized heroic ideals, and achieving great things, in
the way that those rising above the low-expectation cultures of the past might be. Now that humanity has
mastered agriculture, the thinking went, it's not enough to have a roof over your head; you must create,
and create something great and powerful.

This philosophy requires people willing to sacrifice some of their own comfort and wealth to reinvest in the
future, both in their children and in establishing a collective environment that values education and heroism
and praising those who rise above at the possible expense of others. In this view, even if most of us do not
become greats, it is to our collective benefit to have a society which can produce great composers, writers,
thinkers, artists and military heroes, and that there is no disgrace in not being a great, but one is not as
valuable to all of us thus shouldn't breed as much, consume as many resources, or have the same political
power as those that are great.

Although this type of society requires us to set aside our ego (an assessment of self-worth as seen from
externally, usually by a hypothetical undifferentiated crowd of people in our minds) it guarantees that each
future generation will be stronger than the last, and it produces leaders with the complexity of mind and
character to do what is right, not what is convenient. It means we have to give up comfortable personal
realities, and set aside the issues (such as "lifestyle choices") which we feel make us stand out as
individuals. Instead, individualism is fulfilled through achievement and pride in family, land, and culture.

Naturally, this type of society isn't popular with the undifferentiated crowd, who are accustomed to an
adversarial "every man for himself" environment, and thus distrust others and fear that, if there is any
ability for some to rise above others, they will be left behind. In our culture, the origin of what became
socialism was a public goodwill that functioned as a guarantee that no one would be left out, but would
have sustenance and comfortable living so that those who rose above could be promoted above that level.
Unlike Social Darwinism, which surmises that the best among us will be possessed of a desire to earn more
money than others, this functions much like nature in which the strongest animals breed the most and thus
strengthen each succeeding generation.
Over the last thousand years, but beginning much before, Western society has undergone a shift from
promoting the best to ensuring the satisfaction and comfort of all at the expense of the best. Money is
ultimately an equalizing factor, because there are many ways to get it and, if one does not mind spending
one's time chasing after material goods, almost anyone can become relatively wealthy and join the
privileged "classes" of society. Further, making money is not contingent upon doing the best job; if you are
selling chairs, and find one that appeals to the inner moron in most people, and thus convince them to buy
it, you will make more money than a craftsman who creates excellent chairs that will last a century or
more.

This was followed by the populist impulses of Christianity and liberalism. Christianity as practiced by the
vast majority of people is a religion of pity; it sees those who are less capable as an opportunity for the
more capable to demonstrate their compassion for others by raising the less capable externally,
independent of their own will and effort, to a higher stature in a society - and this of course requires a
linear measurement like money. Unlike the esoteric religions before it, which had a "knowledge comes to
those who seek it" philosophy, Christianity distilled its beliefs into a one size fits all normative orthodoxy.
Every person is equal in the eyes of God, because each has a soul, and if they are willing to affirm Christ as
savior they're part of the club; this is the nature of exoteric, or populist, religions.

Liberalism had grand beginnings but rapidly evolved into the same form of pity. Originally a celebration of
the human form, and what humans could achieve, the Renaissance birthed nascent humanism, which
exhalted human existence over all else. This short cycle mirrored the larger cycle of society, in which an
initial system of praising greatness became a system of praising membership in the club. Liberalism as it
stands is thus equivalent to the original Christianity, and has changed civilization to fit its doctrine; even
"conservative" groups embrace its basic values. And who wouldn't? It's good for business to make sure
every consumer has spending power to buy products and services from others.

By placing emphasis on the individual over any collective goal, especially over any ambition to rise above
the commonly accepted, this new impulse in the West reversed the course of its society and, over the past
thousand years, resulted in increasingly bureaucratic practices. When there is no consensus, or common
agreement on what must be done outside of the individual, bureaucracy is what intervenes, because it is a
form of hierarchical central control. Once bureaucracy occurs, resentment follows, because distant leaders
give commands in utter lack of awareness of the specifics of local situation. Thus by its very nature,
bureaucracy is normative: one size fits all.

At this point, rules become more important than a shared belief in doing what is right. "Right" in this
context isn't absolute; like an individual might say "this course in life is right for me," right applies to a
certain civilization and its goals. In civilizations which are rising and refining themselves, "right" is known
among the people, like religion and culture and art, and is not something one looks up on an indexed page
to find an answer with which one "proves" a point to another person. Once that stage is reached, the
Vandals are already at the gate, gnashing teeth with an awareness of the impending victory once the hard
shell of a decayed civilization is pierced, leaving only rich soft meat for the raiding.

In this kind of situation, one might as well fiddle as Rome burns, as there is no infrastructure except people
using one another for individual gratification. Whatever finally carries off the aged and infirm society is of
no matter, as surely something will: "nature abhors a vacuum" goes a saying, and it is natural that
something weak be decomposed and the saprophytes have their feast until the momentum that provided
the wealth is lost, causing what is left of civilization to devolve into simple agrarian living with no higher
aspirations. Earth is littered with such saprophytic civilizations and, more ominously, the ruined buildings of
others which opted to self-destruct before such an ignominious end could consume them.

Crichton is thus correct, in that our disaster warnings are most likely wrong; we are looking for an external
apocalypse to distract from the poison already in our veins, the disease behind the cough which cannot be
fought directly. In decaying civilizations, you cannot pick up a sword and force people to organize toward
something more constructive, because the nature of needing to use force means that consensus is being
lost. The only possible salvation is in breaking away that which is healthy and giving it room to ascend if it
can, and giving no aid to the rest, trusting natural decay to carry it quickly to the most rudimentary level.
This brings us to our current society, all of which is fiddling while the fire builds within. Any society in which
it is more important to own things, and to have a comfortable life escaping from the vast horde of
miserable people eking out miniscule ignorant existences as chattel servants for the investments of the
ultra-wealthy, in its organizing principle, is incapable of rising above the disaster within it. Those who might
transcend and continue civilization building are by the nature of populism dragged down to equality in the
misery, as the crowd hates nothing more than those who succeed where the average person cannot, and
thus make such behaviors unprofitable.

Since there is no motive except the lowest common denominator, personal profit, the unprofitable are
weeded out in a perverse Social Darwinism which rewards the small-minded. There is no culture, although
one may, after a full day of making money, opt to look up some cultural remnants in indexed books and try
to apply them discoordinately to a personal life almost completely controlled by the needs of the crowd.
There is no escape from such a system, if one wishes to remain within the system. When this truth is
recognized, a positive future can be established: breaking away from a dying society allows the re-creation
of ascendant civilization.

In this light, to fiddle while this Rome burns is no longer evasion, but a recognition of reality through self-
preservation so that, when the fires burn cold, something new can be started away from the thoughtless
mass whose acquisition of internal power brought about the downfall of this civilization. They will not unite
to fight the invaders, because consensus has been lost; for this reason, a new consensus must be found.
And what better way to welcome it than with music?

As a wise Norwegian once said, "The next thousand years - are ours."

December 10, 2004

Interpretation vs Objective Reality in Art
A common refrain in our current time is the bleating that proclaims the interpretation of art, whether music
or literature, to be personal, a sort of "it is whatever you want it to be" proclamation. While to an artist this
is laughable, the average person is so steeped in the parent philosophy of this illusion that to them, it
seems a natural assumption.

We live in a time where the physical reality we share, whose responses are the same for all of us, is
deprecated in favor of a new "humanist" reality in which broad political-mystical concepts like equality and
freedom are thrown about as a way of basically justifying personal self-referentiality. We are locked into our
personal interpretations, thanks to our domination of the natural world and thus removal from direct effect
of our actions; all of our transactions occur through other people and bureaucratic social apparatus.

For this reason, we rarely see direct consequences in the way a caveman who forgot to build a fire in
winter would; we turn up the heat. As long as we can hold down some sort of a job, or remember to apply
for welfare, we are able to be in some place where a small dial controls temperature. It requires the IQ of a
dumpster to survive.

Because the quest for survival is thus so far removed from us, we are responsible to no one but ourselves
for our values, and can therefore create "lifestyle choices" in which even insane behavior makes sense. You
can spend your entire day watching television and, when night comes, turn up the heat and order a pizza,
and no one will point out that you're wasting your life. Surely, some day as you sit in an old age home
wondering what it all meant, the weight of mortality will bend your spine, but in the meantime, hey,
Seinfeld's on.

Our politics emphasizes the "empowerment" of different lifestyle choices, which means that society is
expected to bear any burdens incurred by the behavior in the name of the individual as king of its own
domain. The greatest good is seen as allowing the individual to make whatever choices it desires, so long
as it goes back to its simple job and earns enough money to buy products and keep the economy going.
The economy? Such a thing does not exist in nature, but for us, it is higher than the law.

There are no right answers, except the "foundation" of modern civilization, composed of technology and
economy and "freedom," which is assumed as absolute - everything else is a choice, and there are no
consequences publically admitted to these choices. This course of life is devoid of a goal, but what goal is
there besides individual comfort, when there is no differentiation between a symphony and ten minutes' use
of FL Studio to make a techno track? It's all a choice; all choices are equal; nothing matters except comfort
and, of course, your job.

In this light, it's easy to see why art has been emasculated, because the perceiver and not the artist
interprets what a work means (excepting political works, which are designed to reinforce one's sense of
stability in a time with no demonstrable "right" outcomes). If you listen to a symphony and think it means
that sitting home and watching Seinfeld is the highest use of a human being, why then, it must be "right,"
since the individual is the king of all determinations of this sort.

This attitude guts art, and reduces it from something which can bear content - meaning, experience and
feeling - to something which serves the same purpose as interior decorating supplies purchased at Wal-
Mart. If you like pastels, pick pastels, and you'll have that ambience as a product which makes your life
more comfortable. Similarly, when choosing art, you do not pick the most profound, meaningful or well-
executed, but that which matches the decor. Ew - Beethoven clashes with my pastels and the laugh track
on TV - better switch to something more universal like techno.

Naturally, this is to the benefit of those who own the means of production, and not the artists. Artists now
must struggle to make decoration, and must discard all of what attracts most people to art in the first
place, which is its emotional effect, since there is no longer an audience which can receive that
communication. When everyone interprets a piece according to their preconceived notions of what it would
Trees
In the darkened theater, I wasn't the only one cheering in "Lord of the Rings" when the trees attacked
Saruman's castle and destroyed his machines, put out the fires of his industry and flooded his underground
empire. Somehow, this one hit parts of the audience in the pit of their stomachs, and I don't think it was
the storyline. I think it was what it symbolized, what it meant outside of the movie and in our lives.

Metaphor will always be with us because of its practicality. If you need to describe how something works,
and it's essentially similar to something else, you will compare the two and, based on the known item, the
other will be understood. This shows up in the form discovered by ancient Greeks, the syllogism:

1. All members of category A have a certain attribute.

2. Item B is a member of category A.
3. Therefore, item B has that certain attribute.

We're in a bar, polished wood under the wet rings of our beer mugs, and someone says, "What's an
abacus?" I say it's an early calculator. Thus this person understands that, if they're reading a sentence in
which a character uses an abacus after being asked a question, he's doing the math.

Art makes good use of metaphor because precision is often not needed, but description of action is - and
action, like any process, isn't something you can hold in your hand or point out visually, but an ongoing
"behind the scenes" that translates into the objects that make up our world. Even death metal has
metaphor.

For example, Black Sabbath's "War Pigs" is the archetype of a metal song, from structure to lyrical content.
In it, people in the world scheme for their own wealth while creating disaster, which is eulogized as the
curtain closes on it with "Satan laughing spreads his wings," a mystical symbol of evil associated with the
greed and power struggles of a non-mystical, literal, physical humanity.

Looking further down the pipe, when Deicide wrote their epic Legion, the metaphor had changed: it was
good that caused us to believe in an orderly mechanical universe which we could exploit for our own gain,
and it was evil that was usurping it, smashing the false impressions created by living in the light. "Untie this
world from Satan - you know it can't be done!"

The next generation of metal developed this concept further, giving metaphorical importance to having a
spirit of strength - outside of the modern world. Immortal's Blashryk, an imaginary creation that could be a
place, or a spiritual state attained by a warrior, called us beyond the world to new heights. Emperor spoke
of the infinity of thoughts. Burzum was more explicit, proclaiming that "life has new meaning" when one
can perceive the beauty of a morning dew after turbulent night.

To morons, of course, these lyrics are decoration on the walls. They mean nothing, they convey nothing,
and are to be laughed at while trying to imitate the guitar work for their own simpler-minded bands. But,
for a moment, if we take these musicians seriously as artists, and discount most of their incoherence, we
can see a basic message forming, one that isn't as straight-cut as propaganda but appeals to the soul in
each of us that strives for something greater, more powerful and more meaningful in life.

Metaphor is a common vehicle for religion. In the Vedantic religions, our current time is the Age of Iron, an
age in which men forsake inner strength for the easy life that comes from wielding machines against
nature. It should give us pause that a religion five thousand years ago could recognize this, and prophesied
an apocalyptic end and rebirth into a primitive culture as a result of it. This too is metaphor, and shows us
where to begin finding new meaning.

Our civilization is rotted and en route to failure. As Spengler observed, and as Nietzsche observed, and as
even the ancient Greek Plato observed, the crowd has rushed into power and, using machines that equalize
a weak and pathetic man to a strong one, have taken control. Because they are the undifferentiated crowd,
and don't think about anything and in fact are proud of their ignorance, they've taken it too far.

In our quest for comfort, we've polluted the earth and overgrown. There are too many humans. We waste
our lives in bureaucracy, when if we focused only on the tasks that actually needed doing, we could work
three hours a day and be done with it. That wouldn't be equal, however, because slower and weaker
people couldn't do that. For the pretense of our own importance, we build giant cities and vast landfills. But
for what?

All of this, like iron, is "objects in the hand," or things we can touch and feel that thus are comfortingly real
and solid. You can point to a car and show it to your friends and compare it to other cars, where doing
that with spiritual development is impossible (although Jesus tried). Because of our pursuit of this "super-
real" we have neglected all other areas of life.

For example, it's not rocket science to realize that if you make life a matter of showing up somewhere from
9 to 5 every weekday, and all other aspects of survival are handled through an electric dial or cash register,
people will grow weak; the only person who will like this empty lifestyle is empty and spiritless. It's not
quantum math to realize that, while you can get away with dumping some trash in isolated areas, if you
dump enough of it the poisons will come back to visit you. Keep your toilet far from your food supply, but
how to do this when the earth is dominated entirely by humans breeding out of control?

Nor is it hard to see that if you replace ability with popularity as a means of achieving personality, only the
least sincere and most dramatic people will lead, with no concern except for their own ego (Clinton and
Bush both qualify, as would John F. Kerry). They make their profit and run, and luckily make millions from
their memoirs and business contracts, so they can afford purified air and water and large houses away from
the city. Our technology has grown, but we have become puny men who hide behind their machines of
iron.

And what is to be done? Think of trees raising boulders, but think metaphorically.

For me, the war is already joined, even if few see it. We are fighting for our future. If we wish to be strong,
we will do so joyfully and with the serenity of those who are assured that their cause is right, and need no
emotion or personal profit to motivate them. (It's this kind of belief that allows people to fly planes into
towers, consuming themselves in fire along with their enemies.)

When our founding fathers here in America initiated a war of separation against Great Britain, they knew
their chances were slim. They had fewer resources, a smaller population of warriors and almost no
experience. Believing their cause was just, however misguided it may now seem, they were able to at great
sacrifice wage war successfully. They had an easier task, however, in that there was a distinctly external
enemy they could alienate and attack.

Assaulting the modern mindset, however, requires a different kind of combat. Julius Evola called it occult
spiritual warfare, and what he meant was this: by not accepting the dogma of one's enemies, and by
working against them in every means possible at the structural and metaphorical level, they too can be
defeated from within. Thus the first task is to discover that which is eternally true, and to in serenity accept
it and put it to use in your own mind. That is occult warfare.

Translated to the world around you, this means exercising your power of choice whenever possible.
Recognize the dogma for what it is, and deny it; wherever possible, assert a better order. Show, don't tell,
others, of this path. When your own behavior matches that of a future you desire, you are creating the
change in yourself that others can see is superior to the current world. Refuse to accept, refuse to conform,
and assert positive values wherever possible.

And finally, to paraphrase Nietzsche: "What is falling, push" - do nothing to aid this world in its suicidal
path, nor do anything to stop what's left of Western civilization from collapsing. Reserve your energy for
the few among it who will be the foundation of the next civilization, because this one is already rotted and
dead. All of this begins with discovering in your own life what is meaningful, and has always been so, and
always will be so.
In European history, we refer to this belief as "Romanticism," an almost idefinable collection of ideas that
manifests itself cyclically through history when given a chance. It first appeared after the Industrial
Revolution really took hold, but it's present in many forms, including some of the popular music listed
above. It is the classic Indo-European spirit asserting itself to favor strong individuals and an ongoing
process of nature over the convenience- and drama-oriented ego theater of decaying civilization.

It must be joyful war that we wage. To be depressed, and bitter, is to become a snarling animal that
lashes out but ultimately doesn't know where to bite decisively, thus while it may inflict damage (Tim
McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Mahatma Gandhi, Adolf Hitler) it cannot strike to the heart. That can only occur
via occult warfare, which will gather a society of the future from within this rotting carcass of past failures.

What would this future society be like? It would be feudal, so that every person of good character would
have a job not threatened by competition unless they were grossly incompetent. It would use technology,
but responsibly. It would value fewer people of higher quality than an endless mass of low quality, and
would restrict its breeding and execute failures to match. But most important, for the occult warrior, it
would rebuild heroic spirit; however, this is the part that must occur first, and will initiate the change to this
future existence.

There is no way to describe the elation at seeing animated trees smash a machinery of pointless power,
and to not know what it means, but to wish it for ourselves. Saruman, obsessed with an object of gold that
exempts him from the process of mortal combat, was looking for an external way to substitute for the
heroic character which humanity now lacks. Both prophecy and symbol, he is among us today, and he is in
power, but like a rising testament of heroism, we have the power to crush his regime.

December 12, 2004

be, and reads nothing into it but a surface appearance, the only common denominator among the audience
is literally the decorative value of art.

In the case of music, this means that producers must use the latest technology and find "new"
combinations of already-known factors in order to provide sonic decoration; in visual art, it means that
painters must find quaint or "unique" scenes to portray inoffensively in the colors favored by Martha
Stewart and Christopher Lowell that season. Literature is even more destroyed, since people now buy
books to affirm their particular lifestyle identity: gay literature, drug literature, feminist literature, republican
literature, etc. This isn't about learning something new, it's about accessorizing.

There's only one way to fight this, and it is to be much more aggressive about what you consider "art."
Recognizing that most music, for example, is decoration and not profundity allows you to not only discount
its importance, but to bypass it - every CD you fail to buy is $15 in your pocket that you can apply to
something of real value, like land in the country where you can set up a mini-civilization that does
appreciate art.

When you expect more than decoration, you move up the ladder of evolution and transcend the mass of
lifestyle choicers who will never contribute anything to civilization (but will gladly enjoy its comfortable,
reality-free lifestyle). Art isn't "whatever you want it to be"; like philosophy and science, but in a different
form, it discusses the issues that give our lives meaning.

Meaning makes for a bad product; you can't mass produce and sell it in a range of pastel colors. This alone
is reason to adore it. While everyone else anaesthesizes themselves with the unreal, you can choose art
over decoration, and be stronger for it.

December 9, 2004
Nihilism
Much has been written about nihilism, most because for any great good in life, one needs an opposite, and
that is the belief in nothing: that nothing is worth striving for, that nothing can have any meaning, that the
individual and the world together are nothing. I refer to this as fatalism because, quite honestly, if one
believes that little - not even in the pleasures of being alive, the basest of joys - then death is a gift and a
deliverance. If your fate is so terrible, embrace it, and die well. Perhaps you can bestir yourself long enough
to strap an explosive device onto your person and, running into some commercial orgy such as a mall
during Christmas shopping, detonate yourself, clearing others of a subtler fatalism from amongst us.

Nihilism, in my view, is the removal of all value to things except what I will call the inherent, leaving that
term for later definition. When people wail about Satan, or the war against terrorism, or the great quest for
equality, you can look those straight in the eye and say, "These have no value except what we impose
upon them." By the same token, when people tell you how important it is to see the latest movie, go to
that exclusive party, or own a fancy car, you can similarly dismiss the concerns. Nihilism is a removal of all
except the inherent.

It is a gateway philosophy, as I see it, meaning that it is the initial realization on a course of learning. In
contrast to the "devotional" philosophies such as Christianity, where all who come and recite an oath are
considered to have received wisdom, the philosophies of life that are not a charade embrace esoteric views.
Esotericism says that wisdom comes to those who seek it, and in varying degrees; there is no magic
threshold to cross after which one can write the holy sign on one's forehead and be considered
knowledgeable. Infinite learning and infinite potential pitfalls instead await. When one embraces nihilism,
one has undertaken the first step of this initiation, by removing all value externally imposed, including by
other humans. Herein begins discovery.

Most philosophies of our time either enshrine some absolute, universal wisdom as the One True Path to
righteousness and power, or de facto do the same with the individual, stating "reality is anything you want
it to be." These aren't philosophies as much as extreme approaches to the question echoing through
eternity, "What is real/true/meaningful?" Nihilism offers a way out of this paradox, by affirming life itself as
the answer to the question of life: what is meaningful? renders to "life is meaningful," and leaves us to
realize that life is an ongoing process that cannot be quantized into some devotional answer, or even a
finite technological answer such as "money." To have a good life is to have beauty, truth, and meaning.

But how to define a good life? If we look for absolutes, such as the best comfortable living, or the most
power, or the most money or popularity, we find externally-defined things that do not reflect much of
satisfaction, except of material want. It makes more sense to look to the ancients and to say that a good
life is fulfillment of destiny, or of taking one's place in the inherent. Nihilism removes the sense of a good
life as something that can be created outside of the individual, but also acknowledges the frailty of the
individual: none of us will always see "truth" in the sense of what is accurate given the external world
around us.

To say this is not to endorse a shallow "objectivism," such as that of Alissa Rosenbaum ("Ayn Rand"), for
whom materialism became a philosophical object in the tradition in which she was raised, that of Judaism,
which despite its dualistic faith-character sees nothing of supernatural or ideal value above material
comfort: power, wealth, stature in community. These philosophies of "objectivism" become a parody of
themselves, as they have replaced meaning in life with the means to life, bypassing the question of life in
actuality. The objectivism of nihilism is closer to that of science or the ancient religious traditions of the
Vedas: we are all enclosed in the same space, which operates according to consistent rules, and it acts
predictably upon all of us, whether we perceive it or not.

Another way to say this is that when two people play catch, the ball is thrown and follows an objective
course, regardless of whether the catcher has her hands in the right place to receive it. If the thrower
misjudges her throw, the ball will land afar from the catcher, but the catcher can also compensate, having
seen the ball move, and thus catch it. The motion through external reality is "objective," while the thoughts
and perceptions of thrower and catcher are "subjective," and the two do not always come together; the
game of catch is a fun way to calibrate one's internal sense of reality to reality the external, which operates
much as a machine does, predictably according to its structure and the mechanisms therein.

Marcus Aurelius gives us part of the puzzle:

Surely it is an excellent plan, when you are seated before delicacies and choice foods, to impress
upon your imagination that this is the dead body of a fish, that the dead body of a bird or pig;
and again, that the Falernian wine is grape juice and that robe of purple a lamb's fleece dipped
in shellfish's blood; and in matters of sex intercourse, that it is attrition of an entrail and a
convulsive expulsion of mere mucus. Surely these are excellent imaginations, going to the heart
of actual facts and penetrating them so as to see the kind of things they really are. You should
adopt this practice all through your life, and where things make an impression which is very
plausible, uncover their nakedness, see into their cheapness, strip off the profession on which
they vaunt themselves.

- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, VI, 13

To dwell in the physicality of life is to be obsessed with the signs of meaning, and not meaning itself. In a
game of catch, what is not important is the quality of the ball or the sensation of seeing it whiz by, but the
ability to match hand with ball and thus connect the motion of thrower to receiver. A nihilist, initiated in the
value of no-value, thus recognizes that while neither objective nor subjective is supreme, bringing them
together is a value in the inherent, as it makes the individual stronger as interacting with "ultimate reality,"
or the physical and very real world that we all share. Similarly, to get too far into symbolism is to create a
"dual" world, in which symbol is more important than meaning to life itself; either dwelling solely in the
physical, or solely in the symbolic, is an error of reason (these roughly correspond to Judaism and
Christianity, respectively).

However, this type of thinking is beyond all but a few, hence the hordes of people who criticize this site for
being nihilistic and yet daring to believe in anything more than fatalism. The most educated of this type are
the Russell-Wittgenstein devotees, who are victims of essentially the most advanced 419 scam in
philosophical history; told that language is frail and thus error, they are asked to invest their belief fully in
subjectivism, and through that to achieve objective proof of the truthfulness of non-truth. Zen philosophy
offers a more benevolent take on this insight, one that is wise enough not to express itself in language, but
to rely on raw experience - and sometimes, a Zen master's slap - to reinforce that reality, itself, indeed, is
real.

Nihilism is a gateway to appreciating the inherent. Being thinking machines isolated in ourselves, we are
contra-intuitively isolated from the reality of life, and our most common error is to be the catcher expecting
the ball in the wrong location or the thrower, blinded by the sun, throwing to the wrong place. It is not a
linearization or a moralization to state that the expectation of the ball is at the wrong place in both cases;
literally, the humans involved have been deceived into believing their own perceptions higher than external
reality, which is the force responsible for space, and time, and indeed all other natural tendencies which
make the game of catch possible. This is the ground of the inherent.

Life itself is indefinable, except when we constrain the parameters of definition to be very narrow.
Existence might be a better term, but eventually even existence is predicated upon natural law and "reality"
coming to being in the first place, at a level lower even than physicality: that natural laws exist such that
matter is even conceivable, or that regularity or logic even existing, predicates the being of matter. What
Aurelius endorses above is an acceptance of the nature of existence, but a realization that meaning does
not exist, except in our minds: it is an abstraction based upon the inherent, which includes life itself.
Another way to phrase this is to say that we find life good when we perceive that life has meaning, which
is a factor of life being lived well, or being "good," in the first place. It's a giant loop if one approaches it
linearly, but from natural terms, it makes sense. Our environment grants us existence, and either adapt to
it or drift off into our own little fantasy worlds, and where we are able to adapt to it, we derive pleasure
from having matched our own desires with its tendencies - much like catching the ball thrown by another
perceiving being and conveyed according to natural forces through space and time to our hands. This is the
nature of the inherent, and there is nothing higher or lower than it.

To get to this stage, however, one must first undergo the cleansing rite of nihilism, by which all "meaning"
as told to us by others or "seeming" to us by physicality, is removed. Sex is not what gives meaning to life;
the relationship between the two is what does, as pleasure is transient and cannot by itself hold off pain
(indeed, as any thinking pothead can tell you, even the absolute bliss of being gloriously stoned loses its
luster over time, as the agenda never changes ). To counterbalance that, however, the symbolism or love or
purity or chastity is equally not what is real; it is a shared perception of the inherent, and not the inherent
itself. Only the inherent matters, and each of us can see it to varying degrees depending on our ability.

Additional definitions of the inherent can be found in transcending the "mind/body dualism" of life; most
embrace either mind, and the abstractions we consider real such as "good" and "evil," or body, and the
material comforts of life as highest value. However, it is more sensible to avoid a mechanistic approach to
analysis of life, and recognize that the value of the inherent is "value to whole and self-as-part-of-whole";
we cannot separate ourselves from the whole, nor view it as something independent of us. It created us
and equipped us with all that we know, and even in nihilism one recognizes a refutation of fatalism: we are
its agents, and what we do changes the course of the future, in varying degrees according to our abilities.

Thus we come to the thorniest realization of nihilism: no, dear hearts, we are not all "equal," either in some
cosmological sense or in ability. Some are smarter, some stronger, some of better character, and to realize
this is to cast aside the great social illusion that blocks nihilism. The crowd of people who cannot perceive
the inherent, or because of their own undifferentiated state in it deny it, would like us to think in terms of
equality, such that we could partake in a devotional "truth" where repeating a few simple words would
raise us - equally - to the level of holy knowledge. Nature is real, and in nature, many are born and a few
survive; this is a failsafe method of producing better versions of the organism each generation, which
means that for those who will live in the future, life will be better than in the past.

Nihilism is a gateway, and it is unwise to attempt to summarize it in a tidy essay that one can read on the
Internet during lunch, doubtless before returning to a stimulating task such as sending faxes, fixing cars,
making speeches or cleaning toilets. Philosophy for those concerned with accuracy is an esoteric task, and
reveals itself slowly, through experience, and any attempt to shortcut that is devotional egalitarianism and
thus illusion. But for those for whom the normal "meaning" of life is ashen and formless, an invitation to a
gateway is issued in this essay; believe in nothing, so that you may find the something which has actual
meaning.

December 15, 2004

Christianity and Buddhism are the Same
Sickness
In our busy lives, people spend almost all of their time doing things that are not only unrewarding but
destructive to their spiritual lives. The first and grossest might be dealing with a blockhead, illogical rule-
oriented bureaucratic system; more damaging is that daily we go to jobs where we serve the whims and
egotisms of others, usually in a capacity where 75% of our time is devoted to compensating for the
inadequacy of others and the pretense required to maintain it. "But not everyone in the committee
understands why the doorknob must turn to the right - do you have a visual aid?" We can go on: when you
get home from your paper-pushing, ass-kissing job, you get to deal with paying bills, fixing the technology
that you own that failed, and buying exciting products. If you're lucky, they let you out on Friday and
Saturday night to get drunk so you can be humbled and guilty feeling by Monday, which ensures better
subservience.

Because we recognize on some levels that our lives are meaningless, since they are spent in fulfilling the
neurotic delirium of others translated into the force of dollars without which we are homeless and foodless
and friendless, we turn to our quick fix religion, which we treat like a drug. In our modern brilliance, we
have decreed that all religions are equal, but of course everyone else has the freedom to, if they don't
understand or don't like your religion, to write you off as a nutcase and deny everything you have to say,
and/or slander you in the media and use that weapon of public opinion to bankrupt you. That's "freedom."
Memorize, class.

The biggest religions, hoodwinking over 80% of the American population, are Christianity and Judaism; they
are basically the same religion, with the exception that Judaism is a racial cult based in a material dualism
("the good life" versus life as a moron peon who doesn't believe that material comfort is the highest order),
and thus are referred to here collectively as "Christianity." Just as Christian anti-Semites are the biggest
blockheads in the world, any idiot Jew who objects to this grouping is deluded as to the uniqueness of the
religion he has purchased. Most people attack Christianity on its own terms, e.g. by trying to debate its
truthfulness in an absolute sense, but when dealing with the brainwashed, you will never convince them via
this method, as they will fall back on absolute truth and then bring out open-ended terms like "freedom"
and "faith" which mean nothing and thus are convenient for the mentally defective, since use of said terms
allows them to justify whatever insane religion they follow.

Christianity, called by Nietzsche "the greatest evil that ever was," operates on the presumption that the
world is bad and one can only achieve meaning in life by doing acts of good to the less fortunate. It's a pity
cult, and pity is a bad drug, since in order to pity someone you must consider them beneath you, and thus
can masturbate yourself into hysteria by considering that you've done something "good" for them. Daily
Christian cults can be seen giving handouts to the clueless and impoverished, not so much because they
care about them but because the good Christians feel like immortal Gods for having someone to look down
upon and "help," always with the requirement that one tolerate their nutty neurosis attached. Nevermind
that these people cannot help themselves, or they would have, and that giving them handouts is essentially
making them dependents forever and insuring that, using the intellectual skills which got them into this
position, they will also breed more clueless dependents. In short, pity to the "less fortunate" produces more
less fortunate who are less able to help themselves, but the Christians don't care: they got their daily self-
esteem boost for feeling "good" about themselves for helping those whose only option is gratitude.

In simplest terms, Christianity is negativity and passivity coupled with low self-esteem, and while it
originally afflicted only the functional yet deranged, it has now become an Official Value of our great,
errorless modern society. One of its worst aspects is requiring you to indoctrinate your children into it; they
thus grow up thinking that Christianity is absolute "right" because they are punished for deviating from that
path. For example, if you're an abnormally perceptive kid, and you tell your parents that church is basically
them jerking off themselves to hold back the void of death, they'll consider you to be mentally defective
and send you to reeducation, or, worse, a psychologist, who will fill your head with paradox until it seems
the only salvation is to lie down, stick your ass in the air, and submit. Christians like that, because they're
passive, and a passive person - by definition one who has no goal or means to achieve it - likes nothing
better than forcing another person to join the crowd of low self-esteem losers who are common in the West
at this point.

It became apparent to me, schooled in the forest, at a young age that Christianity was the art of defining
something as "good" and doing it to others so you feel your life has absolute meaning. It wasn't rocket
science. Adults dressed up for church, trying to cover up their animal nature, and then went and talked
about death, ending every conversation on that topic with the conclusion that death wasn't real if you just
accepted the religious dogma and signed away your brain on the dotted line. If you talked about anything
of value to life itself, such as the delights of killing some idiot or of nature or of personal strength, they
shushed you because you might offend someone. The real reason: you might point out to the crowd that
they're low self-esteem losers who gather at church because they lack the ability to give their own lives
meaning, now that there are no longer sage overlords to simply put them to work or use them as cannon
fodder.

Christianity for this reason appeals to neurotic people, and through its mechanism of forcing itself on
succeeding generations and isolating those who don't accept its rabid dogma, it has bred the West into a
race of slumbering, kow-towing, cowardly, self-obsessed masturbators. These are the type of people who
sit in traffic for an hour and slyly consider themselves smart for getting a "good deal" on a house only an
hour from their jobs. These are the people who when a president says, "God told me to wage war on
Islam," simply gulp it down and turn viciously on anyone who dissents from crowd wisdom (in our
enlightened modern society, we know that genius is dangerous, and that there is nothing more insightful
than that which the largest number of television watchers can agree to). If the world is divided into leaders
and followers, Christianity is the triumph of the followers, and it hates leaders.

Buddhism is a similar jerkoff, having the premise that the best way to decrease ego is to devote your life to
your own "enlightenment," while taking no part in the world that reminds you that your ego is one tiny part
of a large universe. In the name of wisdom, make the world your Self, and worship it, while considering
yourself wise and merciful for abstaining from participation in the world at large - oh, except for acts of
pity, of course, which modern Buddhists commit as much as Christians do. According to Julius Evola, the
original form of Buddhism was different, but it looks like the followers tore this one down and made it into
a product for the dumb just like Christianity. Either that, or Buddha was a drama queen long ago and he
still is, having come up with nothing better than that the best way to live is to avoid contact with external
reality.

What's most dishonorable about Buddhism is that it markets itself as an "alternative," especially through the
work of many Western adherents who busily memorize its dogma and pass it along to others who they
consider "lost," thus requiring help in the form of knowledge, another form of pity. It's not like honest
passing of knowledge, which occurs in debate when participants are at their highest strength, but it is
offered when you see someone experiencing one of the lows that life periodically sends to us all: you look
weak, give up on yourself and submit to our dogma, and you'll be not only well again but a better person.
It's like going into the bathroom and finding someone with diarrhea, and trying to tell them that they
should eat more clay, because clay is the source of all colonic enlightenment. The poor diarrhea victim will
unwisely protest that loose bowels are a fact of life (and eating Mexican food after beers at 2 am), and
that, while diarrhea will pass, eating clay guarantees long-term bad results because it is actually not food .
At this point, the Christian calls the crowd into the bathroom, points out the diarrhea victim and loudly
proclaims that this person cannot tell the difference between "good" and diarrhea, and thus must be put to
the sword. When his blood is spilled among the ordure, they'll go to his house and burn all his books, so
that none of the evil knowledge is spread further. At least, this is what happened in Europe when the
Christians came, and we lack most knowledge of the ancient world for it.

The reason these religions are diseased is that they reality and focus on the a fantasy world within the self-
conception of the individual, all in the name of reducing said ego through submission to some holy force
that is never wrong (not even after six beers and a snort of coke). This produces neurotic people, as
paradoxical instructions produce neurotic computers. Told something illogical, people keep digging for
meaning in it, but since they're looking in the wrong place, they never find it. However, since it proclaims
its own knowledge as absolute, they are brainwashed into not looking in other places! One place, a good
start, would be life itself - find out what gives meaning to you and act on it. Anything else is a replacement
of reality with a fantasy world for masturbatory purposes, which allows you to turn off your brain and hand
it Jesus or Buddha while removing yourself from activity in the world at large, allowing criminals to take
over your planet by putting a price tag on everything, selling it back to you, and then taxing you on it.

This isn't to say I'm against religion - or masturbation. Self-relief is as old as the hills and I see no need to
preach for or against it. And not all religions are broken. But Christianity is, as is Buddhism, and together
they represent the spiritual path most will take in our society, which explains in part how broken everything
is. The other part of our society, our obsession with money, makes greater sense to us in the light of the
Absolute Word as imposed by Christ, and is not challenged by Christ, as wealth is seen as a reward from
the God. Can you think of a bigger circle-jerk designed to please the mediocre among us while subjugating
the independent thinkers? Short of technological mind control, there isn't one.

If aliens came down among us and installed mind-control devices, there would be less illogicality in the life
of an everyday person; we devote too much time to avoiding statement of the obvious because it might
"offend" some insignificant ego enthroned as king by its fantasy-world morality. We talk our way around
Christianity. Yes, isn't it terrible that they found another hundred priests who were sodomizing young boys?
The disingenuous among us try to blame their homosexuality, or their own abuse at the hands of other
priests, but the truth is far simpler: mentally depraved people are drawn to being priests, as it gives them a
power they could not achieve otherwise. That they are or are not gay has nothing to do with it; not every
gay molests young boys. But pedophiles always seek a situation where they have power over the young,
and usually social status too, so they can coerce them into sex without having to outright hit them. There's
that passivity, again.

Not every priest is a pedophile, nor every Christian a rabid one. In fact, most people treat Christianity like
they do the electric company or their favorite cable channel: as a source of comfort that can be purchased
for a minimal fee, to which they have no allegiance as long as the bill is paid. Some would say this is
downright dishonest of them, but really, it's insincerity matching insincerity. Christianity is a mind-control
virus organized for its own profit, much like a pub or movie theatre is, except more virulent. Therefore,
those who treat it as such, and go for the "friendship" or "socialization" have understood it better than it
understands itself. When the framework of society that upholds Christianity finally collapses, this type of
person will just as happily drift over to the Hindu temple for "friendship" and "socialization" because they
had no allegiance to Christ in the first place - they needed an outlet, and a way to meet people, and
grinning Jesus gave them a chance. Having paid their dues, through time and tithing, they now view the
transaction is over, and will (like an ex-girlfriend on cocaine) rapidly move on.

Most of the undifferentiated crowd, meaning those that cannot stand out for ability or breeding, however,
have a different view: Christianity is a major access point for them to power in society. This is why its most
rabid defenders tend to be people without huge amounts of money who would like to pretend money
doesn't matter to them; just as many shacks in the south have Cadillacs next to them, many trailer homes
send thousand-dollar donations to televangelists. This pretense makes them feel good, like heroin, for a
short time until they need the next fix, and its root is in low self-confidence and inability to do anything
important, while still having a desire for power. Under a strong king such people are beaten down when
they become unruly, which allows their neighbors of greater ability to live unhampered by the wet dreams
of the envious.

Because this crowd is vociferous and willing to pay, few merchants or businesspeople are willing to alienate
them and their insistent dollars clutched in grubby fists, even if all merchants and businesspeople have
disdain for such morons because they're helpless and yet pretending to be "important" in some way
unknown to us all. It's like ugly girls in bars who end up doing drunken stripteases on tables: their assets
are minimum, but their aggression is high, because they have no other way of getting what they want,
whether social power or an unselective penis. For this reason, like the story of the Emperor's new clothes,
our society contorts and re-routes itself to avoid facing the obvious: while Christianity purports to
"empower" the individual, it is in fact the single biggest form of conformity in our lives today, even more so
than bureaucratic government, as it deludes people into accepting it of their own "free will."

Think about this for a moment. If a religious system honestly had all the answers, there wouldn't be any
need for church; you'd accept a truth and head on to a normal social event that doesn't involve death-
denial and tasteless wafers with bad wine. A more honest religious system might say, "Well, we've got the
basic framework, but the rest will require some customization before it fits you," knowing that - at the very
least - the religious perception of a genius will differ from that of the downtrodden masses, as a woman's
view will differ from a man's. Christianity does neither of these. It not only purports to have all the answers,
but it also tells us that the answer is the same for every single one of us, whether retard or conqueror.
Using a little algebra, we can see that this limits the answer to what a retard and a conqueror have in
common, which is basically nothing, except consumption, defecation, and the need to bolster self-esteem.
Aha!

The good news about all of this is that fantasy eventually collides with reality, whether that reality is
nuclear war, peak oil eliminating our easy energy sources, or simply the decay of society to the point where
the good, pious Christians are easy prey for more physically virulent criminality. This madness has gone on
for a thousand years, and in the process, has built a vast empire upon Jesus and money, but it sustains
itself on the deeds of those who came before that time and established a civilization for Christians, Jews
and Buddhists to parasitize. When things break down, don't weep for your brainwashed comrades - put
them, every one of them, Jew and Christian and Buddhist alike, to the sword, because no matter how many
lives are lost, those who survive (the non-deluded) will finally have a chance to live in a world of leaders
again.

Much like the race debate, in which it's news to most neo-Nazis that just because someone is white, they
are not automatically pure angels that you can trust and praise - and in fact many of them are scumbags
who create their own problems, the religion debate is part of the issue. There are people who follow the
secular counterpart to Christianity, an ego-obsession and emphasis on either pity or feeling superior for
having made money (thus, they presume, they are God-ordained as absolutely better than others - except
they don't believe in God, so they worship money directly), and these are called "liberalism" and
"conservatism" respectively. These people don't live in reality, either, and they should also man, woman
and child face the sword. Even if only a thousand humans remain, if they are of a type higher than the
Christian or Jew or Buddhist, it is a victory for humanity as a whole that the lower types were murdered.

Of course, most of you have already imbibed the Christian dogma over generations, and anyone in your
family who dissented was labelled either a blasphemer, a sociopath or insane, and thus bred out of the
gene pool, wasting away in the kind of poverty delivered only when the crowd decides to shut someone out
for offending their groupthink. Therefore, you literally do not have the cognitive capacity to understand
what is offered here, and will go back to thinking yourself smarter than others for having not accepted it;
you may even, as many do, feel the need to pity me and thus will write in with your email advice warning
me that fantasy gods will punish me or that I'll be exiled from social graces. Enjoy your mindless jobs, your
depthless wealth, and your masturbatory self-confidence boost from your fantasy land affirmation. When
the time comes, it is my sword that will taste your blood, laughing.

December 19, 2004

Men Among the Compost
When Julius Evola wrote his treatise on surviving the error that is modernity, he called it "Men Among the
Ruins," meaning that people in a modern time exist in the midst of wrecked ideas from the past, and what
has filled the void is failure, even if it hasn't represented itself yet. Indeed, there is no better "proof" in the
world than history, which shows that democracies inevitably lead to decay of consensus, and from that
comes internal division, selfishness and collapse. No liberal-democratic, multicultural, money-oriented state
has thrived for long, and none have risen to great heights; they live off the foundations built by their
originators, and once these sufficiently erode, descend into the conditions we in the first world recognize as
third world.

Now, of course, if you say this in public, the screams will begin. Our television is better than any other time
in history. We've got all this great technology (saying this out loud will cause your computer to crash,
immediately). The ancient Greeks had nothing on our pornography, and what other culture had the secret
of MDMA? Not only that, but we have fast food on every corner, alcohol cheap in bulk, and the freedom to
sodomize goats if that's what your lifestyle calls for. We're tolerant, and allow you to exist even if your only
contribution is carbon dioxide. And did I mention our amazing rap music, situation comedies, video games
and pornography? It's a big self-referential loop: we are great because we have what we think is great. No
one considers that greatness could lie outside of our definition.

I have found that recognizing what I'll call "reality," instead of truth, as to presuppose that truth can be
shared between diverse individuals is to cheapen the meaning of "truth," can lead to brutal depression.
When around you error is witnessed in everything, not so much in the physicality of it - you can still get
quality sausage, marijuana and music - but in the theory of it, or in the structural suppositions behind it,
one tends to see the inevitable doom as a culmination of history. If I could give one thing to my people, it
would be thus: we are not people among the ruins, but among the compost.

If you have ever lived on a farm, or had a garden, you recognize the value of compost. Plants grow and
uptake nutrients, and convert some into fruit or seed, but the rest remain in the leaves, stems and roots,
and when the season ends, go back into the earth. This process takes time, and clutter of plant detritus
can choke a garden, so the smart gardener scrapes up the residue and puts in a pile. The forces of decay
take over, and will keep a good compost heap steaming even in winter, as they digest complex forms and
turn them into their basic nutrients, ready for a new season. In my view, civilization as we see it now is a
withered leaf, and it is ready to be thrown into the compost, so that ferment and decay may render a new
beginning which, just as bountiful nature makes cleanliness even from feces, will be fertile and clean for our
reconstruction.

Or maybe - our construction - as the disease has run deeply enough that even the classical works that
survived the purging and bookburnings of well-intentioned Christians need to be taken with a dish of salt.
We don't need to rebuild, using the template of the past, as much as build, using truths that are so basic
that they exist in any age. For example, mortality will never be conquered, nor will the wisdom of choosing
friends of good character, nor the spiritual wisdom that allows us to endure the harships of life (which are
eternal; there is no Utopia) with perhaps whitened hair but resolute strength. We cannot give up on our
love for life, and in life we see the truly eternal, as it is a process the predates humanity and will continue
long after it. To some, that is a depressing thought, but to them I say: have a drink and learn to forget the
boundaries of time, and look upon what is meaningful in what we have now, and will have for these years,
much as the freeze of a winter night can surround a warm cabin filled with good friends, good music, good
books and the strong spirit of those who can create and do so because they can look past hardship to see
that life is great.

This compost surges around us in the cities built of fragile prefab which cannot resist hurricanes, and will in
a handful of decades be dust when no machines and dutiful baldheads exist to maintain it, and in the
lifestyles of people which lead them into decay and devolution, making them fit for nothing but conquest
and slaughter. Indeed, one troubling aspect of the final stages of any civilization is that there is no enemy;
you can't blame the police for following orders, or politicians for playing the game, or the greedy
businessmen for getting so wealthy they can afford to run away from it all. They are trying to survive it just
as you are, and they recognize that when the decay is this far gone, there is little a single individual can do
but lead a basically healthful life and to avoid being dragged into the decay, or compromising one's own
integrity to adopt the philosophies of this decay. This is values warfare: the values of an eternal, ascendant
civilization against the philosophies currently in vogue that support the decay.

When contemplated, however, these values share one thing in common, which is a fatalism, or a belief that
nothing can be done to be ascendant. To stop evolving, and becoming more specialized to be an upward-
thinking human, is to stand still. Since time does not stand still, one becomes stranded in the past, and
thus is devolving without taking any visibly downward direction. This isn't to say that there must always be
something "new" toward which to aspire, or some progressive vision to society, but that we must always
evolve to higher, braver character and a depth of intelligence. The greatest civilizations in their prime
emphasized these things, and here I'm thinking of ancient India, Greece, Germany, Rome and China, where
a warrior spirit and emotional detachment was seen as the way to propel oneself to greater heroism,
greater intellect, and greater gentleness and understanding of the world. A warlike spirit understands best
of all when to make war, and when to make peace, but what makes it warlike is that it is constantly ready
to assert an upward-thinking truth over the devolutionary behavior that is the default.

Humans, by their nature, are essentially gifted monkeys. We have the ability to make tools, and fire, and to
build cities, but without some other impetus, we remain monkeys in cities. Our impulses are the same, our
basic motivations, etc. This is the behavior that occurs unless someone sparks an ascendant impetus
among the people, at which point they bring natural selection to bear on themselves and begin evolving
toward higher goals. Their physical appearance changes little, but their inherent tendencies turn toward the
ascendant and complex in character, since those who do not meet those requirements are selected out by
being seen as unfit for such society. For this reason, near every great civilization in history there has been a
shadow population, formed of the outcasts who have not met standards and thus have been exiled to
places where the default, stagnant gifted monkey mentality prevails.

The great ascendant civilizations were rough on themselves. They sought comfort as a means upon which
to build, and their primary goal was not pleasure-seeking but accomplishment, and from this they were
able to create great art, architecture, war and learning. In our current time, this pattern has been reversed,
since there is no consensus about which values to prefer, and every human is an island: our society is
based upon satiation of individual desires, and has no collective impetus to rise above, as this means that
inevitably some individuals will be seen as less important than others. Because we are fearful of this, we
have low self-confidence, as we are untested, and thus have a paranoid fear of any collective goal that
might promote some over their peers. This egalitarianism is less of a philosophy than a collective neurosis.

Why I'd call us, meaning those who can recognize this reality, "humans among the compost," is that we
are the seeds of spring and not the fully-grown plants of winter. Among people with these devolutionary
values, we are misfits and outcasts, but their order grows old and begins to falter, since it lives off the fat
of past harvests and has forgotten how to renew its wealth. Sure, it has money, but this money exists
because it parasitizes itself, and through the notion of a barter-oriented society, creates vast profits from
overhyped consumer goods and services. It cannot generate wealth; it can only plunder, selling to itself
and as a result, growing exponentially, because one always needs more consumers to throw their money
into the pile. Its biological form resembles that of a cancer more than an independent organism.

In this time there are many beliefs one can take. One can be a liberal, or a conservative, or a green or an
anarchist, but in essence, none of these belief polarizations takes on the task of making a healthy
civilization; they aim at fixing issues within society as it exists now, and that entity by its very nature does
not address the actual issues. So to take these beliefs to an extreme is to joust at windmills, and to fight
symptoms and not causes. Even the most radical movements of our time, fascism and bolshevism, were
unable to do more than this. What is needed for us compost-dwellers is a vision not of how to "fix" the
death-ready, but of a new civilization rising from the muck, and how it will like a healthy plant convert dirt
into healthy springtime leaves.

For this reason, I encourage you to have happy lives, but never to compromise what you believe. You'll
have to compromise a bit, when you're at some job and that real blockhead down the hall is patiently
explaining that not everyone on the team understands what you mean by "the product doesn't work," or
when you're finding food and your choices are a drive-thru burger or the all-night tacos-and-donuts place.
But if your basic values stay intact, be proud and be joyful, for you're going to outlast this mess. It's a
suicide march, but you have the knowledge to, when this civilization says "On three, everyone die," count
to two and hit the road. You can build something better. And when the compost is raked, you will.

December 20, 2004

Bars, Pubs and Coffeehouses
Last night, I went to a series of bars and pubs in pursuit of enlightenment, and I found it, although not in
the form most would suppose. Luckily, my comrades in this adventure were people of hearty disposition
and good character, or there might have been one of those "unfortunate" mass killings. I was glad for their
company and would seek it especially outside of social situations where one pays for liquor. I learned: bars
and pubs are for the socially defective, and have nothing to offer someone who has observed the disease
of this time, and wishes to transcend it.

Probably not rocket science. After all, you can't imagine Socrates bellying up to some yuppie bar and asking
some besotted wench if she's (also) a Lakers fan. The idea of Arthur Schopenhauer doing anything in a
modern bar is laughable. And Odysseus - would Odysseus linger long among those whose highest goal in
life is to get loaded, get laid and then go back to their forgettable lives, laboring for a pittance while trying
to convince themselves it's "meaningful"? No, indeed - nor can we imagine Jane Austen, with her vivid
imagination, giving the time of day to some guy who "is a big fan of" AOR radio.

The idea behind going to a bar, or pub, on a Saturday night is that you will consume alcohol, be with
friends, "meet people" and perhaps take home some silly girl and plunk her brains out, then carefully shred
her phone number the next day. It's a very elaborate form of what is politely called recreational shopping,
which means going out into the world to buy things as a basis for your own entertainment or social life.
Sports events are really no different, since one goes to a stadium, purchases a ticket, alcohol and bad food,
and then has a chance to socialize with others joined by the common ideal (?) of believing one team more
important than another.

Alcohol, like most drugs, makes it easier; you can write off your failures with "I was drunk" and you have
an excuse to do things you wouldn't "normally" do, although the consistent part of the equation is you.
People like to think they're a different person when drunk, and for some, it may be true, but for the most
part, they're only slightly impaired and are using alcohol as a smokescreen for whatever errors of judgment
they desire to commit. But there you are, in the bar, with everyone around you doing the same thing, so it
seems OK. Right?

Well, the old adage goes: lower your standards and you'll eventually find what you are (now) looking for.
You can indeed acquire a woman for the night in a bar. But I found myself wondering where the quality
women were. Wenches aplenty; silly girls who look like they'd gleefully marry a Scott Peterson and then be
surprised when he, realizing that he's about to be locked between the legs of a fattened nag, strangles her
and throws her in the bay of San Francisco. They weren't bad looking, but I saw only three women that
would qualify as beautiful, and - whoah - each one was with her boyfriend and apparently fairly content in
that relationship. Perhaps they were enjoying the envious glances from the large crowds, as the people in
bars are mostly male and single.

I have been blessed in this life to know a fair number of specimens of what I'd call quality women. They
unite intelligence, physical beauty/strength and character in a single person. These are the women with
whom you can face a life adventure, or have an intriguing (but not "deep") conversation, and emerge from
it thinking you've found a comrade, taking into account the radically different ways men and women see
the world. These women, in my experience, don't go to bars. The reason is simple: they don't lack self-
confidence, thus not only don't need a social situation to encourage them to do things they don't normally
do, but also see no point in hanging with a meat-handed drunken crowd when there are infinite more
rewarding ways to spend their time.

Sometimes you find these women at private parties on a Saturday night, but you might just as well find
them at home reading, or on a date with a promising guy they met through an activity that requires more
brain investment than $5 at the door of a bar and another $5 for some limpid beer. They don't lack self-
confidence, thus, they don't care what the crowd is doing and what the crowd thinks is important. This is
why the women one finds at bars tend to be either young and unsure of socialization, habitual drinkers and
sex addicts, or blown-out middle-aged hags trying to "capture the essence of life" with another thirty
ounces of alcohol and quarter-ounce of semen. They lack self-confidence, and they can't socialize normally,
so... hey! there's a bar! the social activity equivalent of fast food.

Normally, this essay would continue with more hopefully trenchant analysis of the situation, but is it
needed? The truth as always is plain to those who look for it. I'll add a little personal data here. I used to
smoke marijuana frequently because, as drugs go, it's the one I find to be the best. Not only do you get
that warm and fuzzy intoxicated feeling, but you also have interesting hallucinations and can still function,
albeit with more chaos in your bloodstream. Before that, I drank beer and hard liquor, and thought it was
pretty neat because the world was farther away, and I more numb, for a space of time. But what's
intervened is boredom.

Pot can only give you so many hallucinations, and alcohol only so many escapes, before the pattern
becomes clear and it's about as exciting as eating a donut. Oh, the sugar rush - could I write mountains
about its importance? Neither for alcohol or marijuana. I'm bored with alcohol, and have been for years.
I'm now bored with marijuana, and rapidly approaching my own tolerance of recreational cigarette smoking,
although I think an occasional blast of racially-pure Indica sinsemilla mixed with good English tobacco (it's
the other thing they do well, besides homosexuality) is a great way to become intoxicated, if it's what you
seek. Would I do it in a social setting? Probably not, since it won't help me or my comrades or any young
ladies I might meet to be less coherent and more locked into my own little world.

Boredom is the greatest enemy a living being can have. When you've got shelter, a warm fire and plentiful
food, the eternal question rears its head: OK, you've nailed the obvious, but what matters enough that it
will fill your life? Too often, as in the case of bars and pubs, we interpret "fill" to mean "occupy space"
instead of "occupy meaning," and thus end up gulping down in excess food, intoxicants, sex and even
mass-media. After you've seen fifteen movies, haven't you seen them all? It might take more than fifteen
drinks or bong hits, perhaps more likely on the order of thousands, to realize this, but once you've
rampaged with the best of them, even that rings hollow.

I've got a theory about passing on knowledge that those who do it honestly do so in a contentious manner
so that any listening can take umbrage and leave without having to feel "humbled" or somesuch bullshit to
superior knowledge. Knowledge occurs over time and chance and yes, for those who seek it, but it doesn't
bestow superiority on those who transmit it, but rather to the knowledge itself. In other words: if one
caveman figures out how to build a banked fire through sheer chance, and passes it on to another
caveman, the action that makes the first caveman a good guy, in my book, is not that he figured out
something through random occurrence, but that he felt it valuable and took the time to share it. Perhaps
the second caveman will using that knowledge invent a primitive stove.

In the case of bars and pubs, my knowledge is slight, and it's probably going to stay that way. These
places are boring, because they're based on a dysfunctional social model for those of low self-confidence,
and thus the routine never changes. If I've learned to build a new kind of fire, it's that of normal
socialization: meet people through your activities and passions in life, not some place where you pay to
socialize. The bars and pubs are laughing at your weakness. They take in your door fee, charge you $5 for
a beer they may have paid a quarter for, and enjoy social prominence for doing so! The only better
businesses are cocaine dealing and religion.

As a side note, I'd like to exempt local bars and pubs from my diatribe here, and by this I mean
establishments which serve a town or neighborhood. These are places where almost every face is known
and thus there's no mystery. You go there to have a drink, or have a drink with friends, or to pick up the
town wench because you think sexual release will make your life complete. These are different from city
bars, which are open to the world and encourage them all to come in, secure in the knowledge that the
promise of the possibility of sex and intoxication will keep people showing up with money in hand, whether
they achieve what they wanted or not.

Of the three establishments mentioned in the title of this piece, Coffeehouses are my favorites, but they run
the highest risk of encounter with a true shithead, not just a mundane moron who can't socialize so pays
someone to arrange a social event for him. You pay a relatively high price for coffee, but you're basically
renting space with no agenda, instead of buying into a lock-step conformity routine. Bring a laptop, do
some work, or read a book, or write poetry, or hell, even smoke weed in the bathroom for all they care.
The true shithead you may encounter is the dreaded poseur; this person will try to lure you into a
discussion of Wittgenstein, Rand, Angelou or some other inferior thinker, with the sole goal of proving that
they have superior knowledge and thus, power. Whatever. These fools are relatively easy to spot and they
scatter when you mention Hitler.

I guess that of my choice of places to be in the social, political, moral, spiritual and intellectual wasteland of
post-egalitarian industrial society, I'd prefer the coffeehouses, but those don't address the need that bars
purport to achieve. My advice to any who want to get drunk is thus: gather your companions, have a big
meal, buy a shitload of alcohol and get wasted out of your head. Expand your social group through doing
healthy things that require more of a brain than bringing $5 and your ID to the door of some idiot bar.
Maybe you will find something more stimulating than the tedium of low self-confidence, loud mainstream
music and wrecked people experiencing futility in attempts to escape their recombinant lives.

December 19, 2004

Between Extremes
In the last few thousand years of Western history, a fundamental split has emerged between utilitarians
and elitists, and through the permutations of politics, religion, and industry, has become a cariacature of
itself, missing the essential similarity between both views and obscuring the important differences.
Expressed in terms of its extreme examples, it is a split between the divisionless Bolshevik system of worker
rule and the stratified and rigid class system of the late English empire.

Among the ancients, these ideas were brought into conflict most visibly with the Greeks, who roughly
divided in their political philosophy between an extreme democratic impulse and an aristocratic one. This is
passed down most visibly in the work of both Plato and Aristotle, who struggled between these two
extremes, praising aspects of each; Plato ended up advocating a bureaucratic society which imposed
equality on all people in order to ascertain by formal achievement the best, while Aristotle, like Nietzsche to
follow, favored a natural order of competition from which an aristocracy of ability arose.

What is similar about all iterations of these ideas is that they agree the best should rule; their methods of
selection differ, in that utilitarians translate the concept of egalitarianism from an equality of opportunity
into a single level of treatment, effectively levelling incentive for competition except at the bureaucratic
level, an entity which throughout history has distinguished itself by its corruption and susceptibility to social
engineering. Elitists are less focused on pleasing all of the individuals in a crowd, or even the individual
itself: they see the generations as a breeding ground from which levels of the best can be bred toward high
specialization and qualitative value.

This means that both groups agree that, in biological terms, among us there rise some of a higher ability
and that these are valuable, and should be moved upward to positions of more important function,
including in some cases leadership. Much as the egalitarians have been distorted by utilitarianism, which
translates into a belief that whatever pleases most people in a crowd is the best policy (free beer, less
work, and pornography are sure winners), the elites have been distorted by Social Darwinism, a blithe belief
that in a system measured by money, the best are distinguished by having wealth as a sign of their
superiority. This backward logic reached its fullest expression in the "Protestant work ethic," or the belief
that God rewards, with money, those who work hardest and thus are the most righteous.

What's sad about these perversions is not only that they destroy the essence of both egalitarian and elitist
thought, two forces that can balance each other, but that they are both deluded by the worker-state that
emerged with the collapse of feudalism. In exchange for social mobility, the worker in return has no
guarantee of work and sustenance, a radical change from the traditional societies of feudal time. As a
result, individuals are no longer measured by proficiency at the task itself, but by whether they can squeeze
the most money out of that task (a utilitarian presumption). Interestingly, this belief hybridizes both elitism
and egalitarianism into a blanket endorsement of industry and those who control the worker, benefitting
neither elite nor proletariat.

Such divisions in belief as between egalitarianism and elitism allow us to become partisan, a kind of
intellectual balkanization that means we identify more with a certain belief polarity than we do with the
actual task at hand, finding a solution so society can move forward . In fact, both beliefs have become
industries in themselves, with Michael Moore being a champion "egalitarian" and Rush Limbaugh a
champion "elitist," although clearly neither believes so much in a philosophy as a route to wealth and fame
- their actual beliefs closer resemble the confused hybrid above, where an egalitarian system manufactures
an elite of wealth, and money as the organizing concept of society is not challenged. The partisanship of
these beliefs forces them to gravitate toward extremes, and guarantees no solution will be found.

I propose a middle path - not a compromise. A good example can be found in societies of the ancients,
which bred themselves carefully to produce the best of humanity, always aiming for higher standards and
promoting only the exceptional. This did not mean their social levels were closed to those with little money;
rather, it meant that anyone who rose had to be well and truly far ahead of their contemporaries in the
areas of intellect, strength and character. Our modern systems are so based in absolute logic (perhaps a
holdover from dying Christianity) that we either see a system in which anyone can be anything, or a system
in which a few can be something, but forget that the goal of the system isn't the individual, but the
healthiest society possible, as this benefits all people - even those who forego excess individual wealth for
such an order.

In my system, the basics of feudalism would be restored; if your father was a blacksmith, you would inherit
by right his position and would have labor unless you proved either grossly incompetent or opted to seek
your fortune elsewhere. In short, there would be a position available for everyone in each local area, and
no need for people to go wandering between towns and cities seeking labor. However, those who excelled
in any capacity would be moved up in rank, especially those who demonstrated the capacity for leadership
in a compassionate but forceful way (a far cry from today's utilitarian politicians, who less lead than
represent the lowest common denominator impulse of the masses). But excellence would not be the fill-in-
the-blanks hollow praise of today, but would require them to rise above adversity and on top of that, to do
a better job than others.

This benefits both elites and masses. The elites are kept in check against the decadence of the British
aristocracy who, no longer able to demonstrate leadership in war or social organization, became a club for
useless wealthy people united by boredom and fear of commonality, probably as a direct result of the
utilitarian nature of capitalism. Further, a false elite of those who make the most money, usually by taking
the work of others and dumbing it down and marketing it to the mass, is avoided; this shows how this
system also benefits the masses, by keeping the only decision one can get from a committee or a crowd,
the lowest common denominator and hence leadershipless default, from overriding the interest of the
whole, which in turn benefits everyone. Masses are kept in check by a system of promoting the best minds
and characters to lead, avoiding the type of politican the masses tend to elect, who promises bread and
circuses and panders to their impulses, without a care for the actual common good or future of the society
(if you're thinking of the bland whores who ran in 2004, you're on the same page here).

Of course, this middle path - a sensible balance between extremes that left unchecked drag societies into
ruin, either by a spoiled mass without a brain or a bloated elite without ability - requires consensus in a
society, and consensus requires a few things. First, it requires agreement on basic values, even if those
values embrace a non-absolute order, such that marijuana is illegal except in California. Next, it requires a
shared culture, and as ethnicity is the transmission factor of culture, it thus requires (in local areas) uniform
ethnic makeup. A northern European society would, by its values system, promote two African-Americans by
generation; an African-American system would promote a similar number of northern Europeans. Better to
separate and give each its own rule. Finally, a consensus requires agreement that the individual is not
sovreign, and that the collective interest is most important, as this gives the individual the most stable and
nurturing ground for growth.

These values as expressed in this type of middle path system are anathema to the extremes discussed in
this article. Egalitarians will wail that there is not enough social mobility; decadent aristocrats will complain
that too much is given over to the masses. However, the group of people who make any society work are
those in the middle; they are not undifferentiated, having found a trade, and they are not elites, in the
largest part because they have no interest in ruling: their attention is upon their livelihood, family and local
community. These will benefit the most from this system, as it will enable them a comfortable life without
supporting either those who cannot sustain themselves, or a false leadership caste or, worse, a utilitarian
leadership that slowly shifts more of the burden of a bureaucratic society onto the people in the middle,
who actually generate most of the wealth of any society.

Taking a middle path requires all of us to give up our balkanized extremist perspectives, but it enables us
to get over this historical division and produce an upward-moving society which promotes the best and with
each generation, increases its prowess. It also requires us to give up some comfortable notions which make
us feel noble for our commitment to equality among all people, but replaces this emotional impulse with a
practical form of better living for everyone. While these ideas seem like flowery idealism in the present
time, the good news is that our current society, like all things based on fantasy taken as reality, is grinding
itself into collapse, and when it hits third-world status, what's left of the people in the middle will demand
something new - most likely a middle path between these extremes. And with that, we will cease our
devolutionary course and resume building an empire worthy of the ancients.
December 21, 2004
Most People Must Die
In our modern state of petrochemical power, life has become too easy. Were we a healthy species, we
would recognize that most people must die, simply because they lack the ability and character to do
anything sensible. Dozing once or twice a week at a traffic light, and having to hear the horns of drivers
behind you to awake, press pedal to floor and zoom through, that's forgivable. But what of those who
never make it through the light, or worse, doze until only they can make it through, stranding others
behind? There are too many of these, and not enough who are aware of the world around them.

Consider how much landfill we produce yearly because foolish people can be induced to purchase products
of no real value. Last year, it was plastic fish that would sing "funny" songs when you pressed a button;
funny for the first thirty times, anyway. After that, the entire object was destined for the trash or through
some illusion of avoiding the trash, namely giving it to an organization for the poor. Tell me, what use do
the impoverished have for a singing plastic fish that requires expensive batteries? Across the world, goodwill
agencies hurled the damn things by the thousands into the trash.

So will it be for this year's fad, the lighted Christmas figure or scene which is inflated by a fan with a bulb
atop. What is so unique, so distinguishing, and so important about going to Wal-Mart and taking home the
version of this toy that presumably matches your personality type? If I went to a public place and shouted
out, "I also have $14.99 and a credit card and will exert my will through recombinant plastic goods," people
would consider me insane and cart me away to some state-funded benevolent agency which would supply
me with Haldol for the rest of my days, but none seem to think twice about symbolically doing the same by
bringing home the box and setting up the same type-of-thing their friends and neighbors also have.

Do we gain uniqueness by picking Santa Claus over Snoopy, or maybe if we're very religious, a manger
scene instead of a cartoon character? Undoubtedly, it is amusing, when considered a rare object, but when
we realize that along the block every third home will have one, what is its value? By allowing people of this
mindset to breed, we weaken our race, in addition to piling up mountains of frivolous landfill that has
provided to its creator an easy source of income. Past ages had great leaders, and great poets, and great
craftspeople, but in this age, we have millionaires produced by figuring out what morons will buy and
supplying it to them. What kind of future exists in that ?

Again, to the commercial metaphor: if you cannot figure out how to cook simple means, even those that
can be achieved in ten minutes when steak comes wrapped in plastic and vegetables, frozen in plastic
bags, there's a vast array of food in boxes for you. Indeed, the biggest portion of our grocery stores is not
food in its raw element, but pre-prepared, chemically-sterilized boxed foods that you can take home and
heat in 3.5 minutes and serve to your low-IQ family. In the ages where you had to at least gather the
vegetables, and slay a beast and start a fire to roast it, you had to have your wits about you or at least
have the wit to enslave yourself to someone who did, but now, all you need is your $14.99 and credit card,
and a microwave, and you and your brood of inferior beings can live happily on boxed food, at least until
the preservatives bloom tumors in your veins, too late unfortunately to curtail your degenerate genetics.

Our vaunted "consumer" society, which brings you "freedom" and "lifestyle choices," has eliminated all
sense. The only barrier to purchase of anything, whether it be land or animals or plastic objects that last
two weeks and are discarded, is money, and money is easily had since most jobs barely require an 85 IQ
and, being designed for all of us "equally" to get along, require no common sense or the impetus required
to survive a night in the forest alone. You can run to Wal-Mart and buy all the plastic you can have on
credit, and when you take it home and find out that it is inferior versions of better products made cheaply
so you can be "equal" in having a salad shooter like your wealthier neighbors, too, throw it out. You can
purchase a dog and when it soils your rug, turn it out of doors, and no one will say anything but, numbly,
"Well, it's his right."

We're breeding a society of subhuman retards, and what's worse, we've made it an exiling offense to even
mention this. You can't fire someone for the reason "so-and-so is dumber than a sandwich"; you have to
navigate an elaborate maze designed to enforce "equality" of such tedium that at some point, it's easier to
hand the subtard a meaningless task and send him to a corner, writing off his salary as a loss. And before
the small minds among you take this as a racial argument, it is not; many of you lily-white skins would
stain my blade thirsting for justice, and no plea to kinship would stir me; you're bred wrong, and bred
stupid, and for the justice of all nature, I'd kill you. This isn't to say that the races are "equal," or should
live together in a "multicultural" society; both are obvious social illusions, and while what's most important
is breeding better people, each race should have its own space for, if nothing else, diversity in having
different populations to visit when we get sick of our own (even the English should be spared, although it
pains me to type that, as no more masturbatorily self-congratulary race of self-righteous pricks exists
except those bred of empire and protestantism and conveniently simplistic industry in England).

That some are bred retards, and others given intelligence through good breeding, of course, creates the
elemental strife in society to which the submissive reply with cries of "We must establish equality!"
(democrats) and to which the vicious reply with "We must gain wealth and rise above the mass!"
(republicans). No society exists in this state for too long, as it is divided among itself, but like all subtle
diseases it takes time to grow and eventually overwhelms said society in mediocrity, which offends only
those who can do better. And at that point, it's too late: the subtards so far outnumber those with any
brain that stupidity will triumph, not caring for its own losses, while those who would save their lives for a
better purpose die in the onslaught.

Now, what to do about this? The solutions are simpler than one thinks. First, we must rid ourselves of any
laws that say you cannot fire someone for any reason, and eliminate likewise all laws that ban
discrimination against the stupid. Next, we must pass legislation exempting companies from many types of
liability; you no longer will have to write "do not look down barrel and pull trigger" on shotguns, or "do not
eat" on silica packets designed to prevent electronics from drying out. Finally, since governmental solutions
for weeding out the weak always end in tyranny, we should allow local communities to exile stupid people
and, thus having fewer people producing the same income, redistribute tax benefit to their people.

Undoubtedly, the democrats will wail "that's dis-crim-in-nation" and the republicans will complain about the
lack of cheap labor and moronic consumers to buy their worthless plastic, but the next generations will be
bred smarter and will, as a result, have better values and build a less brain-dead and boring, functional,
utilitarian society. To do this is to accept that we're in the driver's seat of our own destiny, and to move
forward; to deny it is to be napping at the most important traffic light of all.

December 8, 2004
Beyond Racism: Race is Important, Racism is
Not
In an egalitarian society, there is no greater taboo than that of inequality, and the worst of all of those
taboo breakages is to assert that the races are not equal. In this article, I'll show through reference to
some sources that the races aren't equal, but that the question of race lies outside of the linear scale of
"inferior" and "superior." If you can handle being offended, and recognize that our current civilization is
dying because it is in denial of reality, read on.

We've all evolved differently, even the different tribes and nations of Europe. Each of us is a history of
traits, including mental traits, shaped by our culture. In any given culture, those whose inherent tendencies
match the values of that culture succeed; those who don't match are less likely to breed successfully. Over
time, this produces a shared cultural values system, which in turn produces philosophical and political
consensus, and this is the basis of every great civilization that has ever existed (although most are in
decline at this time, and race-mixing is one symptom of this decline). Without consensus, there is no
agreement to move upward and become better, so civilizations decline by settling on a pale imitation of
that, such as "Social Darwinism" by which we decide those who earn the most money - not those who do
the best job at a given task, but those who make the most money from their task, regardless of how well it
is done - are the most valued in that society. This is clearly declining, as bad products often make the most
money (Macintosh, American cars, junk food, fast food, cheap heroin), and with this kind of thinking ends
the desire of a society to better itself, and it is replaced by a desire to be comfortable during the decline -
convenience.

Because we have evolved differently, not only is race-mixing insane, but caste-mixing is insane; if you
merge a family of leaders with a family of carpenters, you'll either get a leader in the role of a carpenter or
a carpenter in the role of a leader, but either way, the inclinations of that individual will be mixed between
their ostensible task and what they're actually inclined to do. In my society, the castes are equally valuable,
but their specializations are preserved. It takes a different intelligence to be a carpenter than a leader, and
a leader makes a crappy carpenter, but both tasks are necessary for the civilization. Hence caste and not
class. Class ranks us linearly by money; caste doesn't rank us, but helps us specialize by task and ensures
that each has a respected, honored, necessary place guaranteed to them, unless of course they are grossly
incompetent or perverted. Does that help?

I love my African-American friends as well as my "white" friends (really: different Indo-European tribes,
including Indians, for whom "white" is a broken general category). I esteem them as individuals and respect
them in the highest way, which is to say I don't expect them to be like me or to fit into an Indo-European
society. You can say that African-Americans are more likely to commit violent crime, or that African-
Americans are less likely to find social status, that there are intelligence differences between the races, or
even that African-Americans lag behind in intelligence, or are products of a different evolutionary path
which valued different forms of intelligence, but it doesn't change my love for my friend, or for myself: I
believe I should be able to live in an Indo-European society of my ethnocultural tribe, and be surrounded
by only Indo-Europeans, and go visit my African-American friends in their society on weekends, and exile
race-mixers from either society to the middle east, which is where race-mixing has traditionally had the
greatest number of adherents.

In short, I believe the question of "inferior" or "superior" races is an issue for assholes to debate, and I
don't want any part of it; the races are different, and have different types of ethnocultural societies they
prefer, and that objectively is clear, but "subjectively," I prefer a society of my own kind, with shared
ethno-cultural values, and I don't view that as insulting to African-Americans or any other ethnic group ; in
fact it's the opposite: the highest respect I can grant to any group is to insist that they be separate and be
allowed to do things their own way, since otherwise is to presume that my way is better, and thus to
impose it upon them as an "improvement" over what they are. That's crass racism, no matter how much
we disguise it as Judeo-Christian liberalism. I don't have any use for racism, but I do believe in eugenics, as
it is one of the foundations of a society which is always moving toward higher goals.
Heredity is more important than inculcated values, but this applies not only to races, but to tribes, to
castes, to local groups and to individuals. One problem I have with the racists is that they believe all
individuals are equal, presupposing their origins in a certain general racial group; that's insane to my mind.
Not every "white" person is someone I'd let survive; in fact, at this point in history, most "white" people
need to be killed because they're worthless, brainless, spiritless products of industrial existence and have
nothing to contribute. My sword is unsheathed for them, because, among my tribe where there is
ethnocultural consensus, these people are inferior, simply because: they suck. They're not very smart, they
don't have good character, and they lack the impetus to do anything but go to do-nothing jobs and boss
others around with rules written on sheets of paper. Off with their heads, and let's murder their children
too: nothing good comes of such a seed. Hell, we have seven billion people on earth, and all but a few
million are worthless followers. Fewer people means more forest, more fish, more ecosystem and more
animals; what are we waiting for?

Eugenics is very real. One either establishes an ethnocultural consensus and refines every generation
toward a better version of this, producing smarter-nobler-healthier people, or one stagnates and because
time marches on, devolves, becoming less adapted to the changes in environment that fluctuate in cycles
as a means of encouraging evolution. I prefer the heroic outlook, which is to realize the individual is not a
world in itself, but a small piece of the whole, and thus to place individual pretense and safety as
secondary to having a healthy and positively-evolving society. Eugenics is very real. It's not the only
question, but it's a necessary tool of a society which achieves logical ethnic-cultural unity. And ultimately,
everyone benefits, as the children who are born in the future are smarter, healthier and of better character,
thus they struggle less with low self-esteem than the bloated products of mixed-caste, mixed-race, low-
achievement breeding. Put this way, you have to ask yourself, what would you rather do, doom future
generations to insufficiency or make sure those children are well-bred and happy? I prefer the latter, and
I'm not the only one, but among those who fear their own failure more than they aspire to fulfilling their
life's destiny, you find a prevailing opinion: all genetics are okay, all individuals are okay, just don't do
anything that might show any of us in a bad light, please!!! -- that is the way of the coward, and the
undifferentiated crowd, and any type of evolving person has no use for it.

This is just a taste of the philosophies that make life meaningful. Right now, people cower in fear of many
things, and as a result, have built a society based on convenience under the pretense of avoiding suffering
and making everyone "equal." This is the public veneer, but underneath it, the real motivation is
utilitarianism: from fear of our own worth, we hand judgment over to the crowd; the price of this devil's
bargain is that we can never again choose a direction, least of all a higher direction, because it will "offend"
someone or make them feel inferior. And the effect is manifest: where's the Beethoven for this age? The
Nietzsche? The Michelangelo? The Caesar? All we have are sniveling cowards for leaders and "artists" and
"philosophers" who write about trends so they can profit and have houses in the suburbs. The signs of
decline are evident, and while race isn't the cause, it's a symptom and one that we can fix. Further, it's
important to realize that racial separation is not an issue by itself, but part of a general program of
breeding that includes division by tribe, caste, and finally, eugenics applied to individuals themselves.

Dividing by tribe allows each tribe to have its own way of doing things; this is the only way to achieve the
consensus necessary for any kind of upward-mobile society. It is this alone, and not some ego-stroking
belief in being "superior" or "inferior" for being member of a group, that is the reason for racial separation -
not racial antagonism. I'll continue to care about my gay, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish friends,
but I will also continue to care first and foremost about myself and my people, for whom separation is
required for survival. Don't let the crass racists confuse you - you can acknowledge your own preference for
your own people without falling into hate, bigotry, and other forms of masturbatory self-image
enhancement.

January 11, 2005

Letters: Spirituality, Warfare, Racism
Periodically my inbox doth runneth over, and since many of these questions are legitimate, it's time to
share. I apologize in advance to these letter writers for periodically maiming their texts to keep only the
words relevant to the questions I answer here. I consider myself lucky to receive such email, or at least
most of it, because it means that people are thinking and fighting over these issues in themselves, much as
I have in myself, over time and experience, trying to find meaning and reality in an unreal modern world.

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:05:52 +0000 (GMT)

From: worldsshell <worldsshell-@xxx.xxx>
Subject: The "inherent".
To: prozak-@xxx.xxx

When you talk of the "inherent" do you mean the same thing that the neoplatonists,jung,yeats,mystic
traditions,etc hint about??? That there are transcendant fixed ideals that can be apprehended in various
degrees for those that are able to unconciously/conciously tap into them? Would this then show how many
of the elite in different cultures/civilizations share similarites in the ultimate essense of their philosophies
and expressions?

Forgive me if these questions/assumptions are completely off the mark. Even a simple 'yes/no' as an
answer would suffice. They have been asked because I myself have felt these when admiring various
seemingly irreconcilable pieces of Art... yet in each of them there is something there that is the same! And
it pulls on one's soul!

What a great question; thanks for asking. The inherent, in my view, is two things: first, it is the "ultimate
reality" of which many psychologists and philosophers speak, and second, it is the set of eternal wisdoms
which deal with the recognition of that inherent. I think it's the second meaning you are referring to in the
sense of Jung and mystic (hermetic/alchemical) tradition, at least. It's hard to define it as "fixed" but since
the conditions of life in the most universal sense will never change, it is to some degree fixed.

When I speak of the inherent, I mean reality as it is defined when one overcomes mind/body dualism,
which also translates into spiritual dualism (earth versus the world of Gods/heaven), and other
subjective/objective splits in perception. Over enough experience, one realizes that natural laws are
consistent and thus a few simple instructions allows the universe to create itself from nothing, or the
pattern of a fern leaf to grow from a single basic shape. This is the genius of the universe, in my view; it's
a clean cascading hierarchy of concepts which produces reality as we know it, a supremely simple and
logical organization. Human conceptions rarely approach this form of design.

You can find this hinted to in many places. Nietzsche's "Will to Power," Burroughs' "Algebra of Need," and
of course the source of the ancient mystical writings, the Vedas (Sanskrit is the parent tongue of German,
and India the original proving ground of Indo-European philosophy; the Vedas predate both Hinduism and
Buddhism, and are echoed in mystic/hermetic traditions because, after the rise of Christianity, it became a
fatal error to speak such beliefs in public, and even those who adapted them to Christianity in slight
degrees, such as Eckhart and Luther, faced public confrontation). Life is a mechanism, and what's brilliant
about it is that it doesn't create a predefined direction where everything is either all well or all bad; it's up
to us, as agents of life, to determine our own future. Nature gives us a blank canvas, and a powerful role
model.

Interestingly, this philosophy remains relatively consistent throughout the ancients. In the Iliad, Greek
heroes have a sense of destiny being shaped by their own hands without succumbing to the fatalism of
their enemies, which is hinted as having an Asian origin - it is likely that Asia found its own form of
Christianity, or a fatalistic and dualistic mystical-devotional tradition, thousands of years before the West,
and this produced the characteristic fatalism of the Asian spirit as well as consuming the ancient kingdoms
of China and Japan, although the latter took far longer to fall. The Aeneid, the Roman continuation of the
Iliad-Odyssey tradition of Homer, states:
First, then, the sky and lands and sheets of water,
The bright moon's globe, the Titan sun and stars,
Are fed within by Spirit, and a Mind
Infused through all the members of the world
Makes one great living body of the mass.
From Spirit come the races of man and beast,
The life of birds, odd creatures the deep sea
Contains beneath her sparkling surfaces,
And fiery energy from a heavenly source
Belongs to the generative seeds of these,
So far as they are not poisoned or clogged
By mortal bodies, their free essence dimmed
by earthiness and deathliness of flesh.
This makes them fear and crave, rejoice and grieve.
Imprisoned in the darkness of the body
They cannot clearly see heaven's air; in fact
Even when life departs on the last day
Not all the scourges of the body pass
From the poor souls, not all distress of life.
Inevitably, many malformations,
Growing together in mysterious ways,
Become inveterate. Therefore they undergo
The disciplien of punishments and pay
In penance for old sins: some hang full length
To the empty winds, for some the stain of wrong
Is washed by floods or burned away by fire.
We suffer each his own shade. We are sent
Through wide Elysium, where a few abide
In happy lands, till the long day, the round
Of Time fulfilled, has worn our stains away,
Leaving the soul's heaven-sent perception clear,
The fire from heaven pure. These other souls,
When they have turned Time's wheel a thousand years,
The god calls in a crowd to Lethe stream,
That there unmemoried they may see again
The heavens and wish re-entry into bodies.
(Aeneid, Robert Fitzgerald, pg 186)

Some years after the Vedas, which were preserved orally to avoid corruption, as it keeps people from
referred to a flawed book as "absolute proof," the Bhagavad-Gita was written, and it, many years before
the Odyssey or Aeneid, describes the same spiritual tradition:

Some say this Atman (Godhead that is within every being),

Is slain, and others
Call it the slayer:
They know nothing.
How can it slay
Or who shall slay it?

Know this Atman

Unborn, Undying
Never ceasing,
Never beginning,
Deathless, birthless,
Unchanging for ever.
How can it die
The death of the body?
Worn-out garments
Are shed by the body:
Worn-out bodies
Are shed by the dweller
Within the body.
New bodies are donned
By the dweller, like garments.

Not wounded by weapons,

Not burned by fire,
Not dried by the wind,
Not wetted by water:
Such is the Atman.
Innermost element,
Everywhere, always,
Being of beings,
Changeless, eternal,
For ever and ever.

...Death is certain for the born. Rebirth is certain for the dead. You should not grieve for what is
unavoidable. Before birth, beings are not manifest to our human senses. In the interim between birth and
death, they are manifest. At death they return to the unmanifest again. What is there in all this to grieve
over?
...
Realize that pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat, are all one and the same: then go into
battle. (Bhagavad-Gita, Prabhavananda/Isherwood, pg 10)

You can see in these an adualistic sense of "Heaven" and "godhead" as a ground of reality that is built in
the same world as this; it is a mechanism of this world, and not a contrary world. It seems like a semantic
split from the Christian "Heaven" and single God as a pure force in contrast to this world of sin, but note
the absence of good/evil rhetoric and of Heaven being a contrary stage to life; rather, Heaven is the ground
of life and an element from which it is formed. This is the root of the ancient philosophy which was
converted into a fantasy fairytale by Jewish and Christian mystics!

If one is mean-spirited, and believes modern "science" to be absolute, this can be seen as a simple
description of consciousness and life being properties beyond the individual, which never originated in the
individual; thus, when the individual dies, these same forces are manifested in new life forms. This leads to
the question, is the individual consciousness reincarnated, or a new individual produced with the same
consciousness that was originally granted to the first individual? It doesn't matter, at least until we face
death, as the basic theorem is sounder than anything offered by modern "science" or Christianity.

This, in my view, is a spiritual-mystical translation of the inherent: consciousness and life itself are not
originating in the individual, but properties of the universe of which each individual has a share. When one
sees life this way, one is not only "beyond good and evil" but beyond worry for the individual spirit, as it is
shown as connected to the heavens in the same way trees are connected to earth, water and sun.

From: Warren Huniger <whuniger-@xxx.xxx>

To: prozak-@xxx.xxx
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 21:13:14 -0800
Subject: a question

I have a question after reading the Metal Cult, or Metal Christ article about the "all academics are drunks,
drug addicts or perverts" comment. I spend a lot of time volunteering with academics (only because it is
required to get reference letters and experience for grad school), working with profs and grad students,
and in my experience most of them are very stange, kind of insane and neurotic, and their research is
pretty useless, so that comment really made me laugh. Can you elaborate on that comment? Do you think
that there's something in the psychology of academics that makes them this way?
-Warren
Vancouver, CAN

A great question; forgive me for editing out the rest of your well-written email. I admit to hyperbole, but
the germ of my comment remains accurate. Academia is both a boon and a terror. It's a wonderful thing
because it escapes reality as most of us see it, but a terrible thing because it is marionetted by the same
forces, yet without knowledge of how most live and the issues they face. Further, academics are more than
others thrust into facing the issues of philosophy in this time, thus they tend to have a need for oblivion
exceeding that of normals.

Your average academic goes through high school and finds that studying books is to her taste. She goes to
college, and excels where others are only interested in beer, fornication and football; she may partake of
this as well, but usually, is a bit quieter and grounded in the practical nature of her career , e.g. becoming
an academic. As college ends, the aspiring academic must not only pass her final classes, but must apply to
grad school, and thus is accepted and, after a summer job in a computer lab, attends. Now there is two to
seven years of additional schooling, possibly with part-time jobs usually connected to the university, and
then three years of being an assistant professor until the wait for tenure begins.

Tenure is where academics are fully birthed. The times for it to arrive vary, but trust in this: office politics
must be played, and student politics must be played. Our aspiring academic must garner enough praise
from students and colleagues, and must avoid offending any group that could raise a fist to block her
proposed tenure, such that she is eventually granted tenure, which is immunity from being fired unless
something grotesque and usually illegal is done. Tenure is designed to allow experienced academics, and
only those, to speak their minds freely, and it's a good concept, but is subject to the laws of this world as
is all academia, namely that schools must market themselves to students and other academics, as incoming
fresh blood (and the eventual endowment contributions those bring ten years after graduation) are what
keep the University alive.

Because we live in an impossible time, when the utilitarian principle is applied to all things, academics are
thus charged with a neurotic mission: find truth, and teach profitably, which includes both not offending
people and finding something trendy, new-sounding and revealing to a crowd of people who have nothing
in common but basic intelligence and the ubiquitous jobs that require them to look for meaning in tiny
slices of "profundity." I'd drink too. The best academics, in my view, are not only drinkers but potheads,
because no matter how you slice it, alcohol depletes your higher thinker while pot stimulates it - the results
may not be "profound" but the mind has been given a workout. Many are perverts, because perverts are
the ultimate type of passive personality and they seek positions of unquestioned power so they can force
others to heed their will. I've found that most multicultural appointees fit this description, which is what you
get for trying to force other cultures into a model not fitting their heritage: sycophants.

Ultimately, my answer here won't be helpful, but it is this: in a world where, because of Christianity or
industry or egalitarian utilitarianism, one cannot speak the truth freely, look for the the crypto-doctrine -
meaning that which hides itself behind the esoteric because saying the truth in public gets one shot,
flogged or makes one unemployable. Academics aren't just working a job; they have ten years of expensive
education riding on their not getting fired for saying the wrong thing. Find the most alert ones and very
patiently, carefully try your ideas out on them. They'll tell you when they can go no farther, but will point
you to resources. Or they may be brainwashed, in which case, say nothing controversial, as you will make
an enemy. Remember, these are people who make their living finding great profundity in whether or not
there was homoerotic imagery in the "poetry" of Maya Angelou (a political appointee herself), and what its
implications for gender-based language are - have some mercy, as they're both more neurotic and more
intellectualized than the average person.

I'm not the only one to note that academia as an industry is destructive to actual learning of any practical
application:

Asked by whether he would encourage people to enroll in schools of education, the distinguished author
and scholar Mihai Nadin ("The Civilization of Illiteracy," "Anticipation," et al.) replied:
"I would not. I would rather they forget studying education as it is a subject in the modern university today.
Education is part of the system of the institution and every institution is focused on its survival. I have
never heard of an institution which by itself decided to close its doors. This does not happen. An Ed school
is not going to hand over the keys tomorrow at 12 and say: let's do something else. So, I think I would
rather encourage that they start an alternative form of education.

"I made very nervous a group of important guys in Germany dedicated to issues of education when I
quoted a metaphor from Thomas Mann. He said the only important issue for mankind was how does the
cocoon become a butterfly? What this means is that you have free yourself from one condition before you
can get to a new condition. So, my message was, let's blow up the university. You had the students
applauding to the sky and you had the administrator saying: ok, we lynch him. I received messages from
other academics who said that if I worked for a corporation I would have been fired; you don't say things
like that...

"I tried to answer about 100-150 e-mails until I stopped because I saw this repetitive pattern where the e-
mail all kept talking about the retirement they would not give this up even if they knew that what they were
doing was not right.

"My claim is that the institution of education as we know it is an extension of the industrial society. Its
necessity today is no longer beyond being questioned. No one would say we have no problem in schools --
everyone accepts that we have a problem. But, having said that, look at all the answers given. Let's look at
continuity. Let's build on what we have. Let's improve. There is still a lot to be done. No one is willing to
say there is a need for a totally different form of human interaction that will in turn be reflected in a
different way of disseminating the knowledge society needs.

"Today we are looking at education as we have 10,000 seats empty, if we fill them we are a very good
university. That is not what education is about. Giving a piece of paper to show someone studied something
at some time? We are talking about people getting involved in practical experiences at a much younger age
than before and we act if nothing has changed. People get involved in practical experiences completely
independent of what they learn in schools to the point where they ask themselves: why did I waste my
time in school. I didn't do anything with what I learned. So, if we are honest about it we have to truly look
for alternatives. What should that something else be? We are experiencing a situation where the efficiency
of the university lags behind the rest of society. The university instead of promoting progress now blocks
progress."

Asked what hope he has, Nadin's answer was:

"Being the most optimistic person you have ever met I have hope that those who need education will start
to take their education into their own hands. The new generation has tremendous energy. With every
student I meet there is a determination to make a living because this is difficult. To be young to day is very
challenging. Change is so fast you have to ask why you need to be educated. They need something else... I
think the greatest challenge we have today is that each of us can be treated as an individual and not as
what we were expected to be. In other words each of us has a potential and it is the first time in the
history of mankind that potential can be brought to fruition.

For more by and about Mihai Nadin, visit http://www.nadin.name/.

From: Daniel Prins <daniel.prins-@xxx.xxx>

To: admin-@xxx.xxx
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 08:33:50 +0100
Subject: Some questions regarding the site

I have been reading your site for a while now, and want to thank you for creating it. Despite the fact that I
don't understand some of it, I found that the things I do comprehend make a lot of sense after the initial
knee-jerk reaction is over. I also really like the new essays you've been doing the last month or so,
especially But why did you name it ANUS? and Caste. There are still some things unclear to me though, and
I'd really appreciate it if you would answer the following questions:
1: As a nihilist, you reject all outer moralities imposed by human ideas, such as Christianity. Instead you
propose that we make this society one in which heroism, eugenics and societal / communal needs are
placed above socially accepted behaviour, materialism and individualism. Why do you feel that these things
are 'better', so to speak, than the current system we are using?

2: Related to the previous question, what do you feel is the highest goal in life, the goal that needs no
reason but is a reason for itself? I've seen you discount happiness of a person, and state that one should
strive to improve one's physical and mental capabilities, as well as one's character. Do you feel that this is
the most important thing for any person to strive for?

3: I can comprehend how we should not worry about death, since death is inevitable, no one really knows
what death is truly like, and death is a necessary part of life, since there would be no life within a very
short period if no animal or human ( that's repeating myself, but...) would die. However, I do not
understand the malign for people who wish to remove both physical and mental pain. Pain is always
experienced as a negative thing by the non-masochistic. No one likes having pain. Would the world not be
improved then, by limiting the amount of pain in it?

4: Speaking of improving the world, I do not fully comprehend your thoughts on utopia's. You state that if a
utopia would be created, it would always result into entropy after a while. But isn't having a utopia for a
short while, and striving to keep it as great a good thing? Professional sports players for example have a
peak as well before they can only go downhill, as do stars. That does not lessen the beauty of either one at
its peak, does it?

5: Another thing on utopias, surely you dislike the world as it currently is, infested with so many worthless
people and so many logical fallacies manifesting themselves through interbreeding of the races, lack of
respect for one's heritage, Christianity and the other monotheisms, liberalism, egalitarianism, WP
apocalyptic hate cults, macs, Rock 'n' Roll, and on and on and on. If you could change the way people
would behave and our entire political and economical system, how would the world look like? I've seen
some similar questions in interviews with you, and from what I understand from your answer, it would be a
sort of very small scale communism. How does science 'progress' ( I know you don't like the word, but I
can't think of anything else in this sentence ) if everyone concerns themselves only with their village? Will
their still be some form of monetary system or will everything be done on a basis of "I'll fix your pc if you
deliver me a couch"?

Couldn't this world vision be called a utopia itself?

6: In the metal section, there is a best of list both for death and black. Do you feel these ratings are more
than an opinion, do you feel they are 'objective'? If so, what standards do you apply to the rating of music,
and why are those standards superior to simple "because it fuckin, rocks, dude!" opinions?

It seems this turned out to be a little longer than I was initially planning, but oh well. Thanks in advance
for the answer.

Yours sincerely,
Daniel Prins
The Netherlands

What a feast of good introductions. Hell, I could make a site index page from your questions alone, linking
to bits of text here and there. One thing I've really screwed up is not preserving interviews, email
exchanges, forum posts and the like in a single place with such an index page. But thanks for the good
pitch - I'll do my best, point by point:

1: 1 and 6 are the same question; why are some things better than others? I'll say this: there is no
absolute better or worse, but, there is an "ultimate reality" in which some things are more effective than
others. Thus, based on my experience and knowledge, I pick music and ideas that work better than others
in adapting to this reality. If one aims for healthy and intelligent survival, therefore, they are "better." It's
trendy in this time to suppose that whatever form one picks for one's own survival is "equal" to all others,
but this can be disproven by simple formulae: someone who decides that taking heroin is the best lifestyle
will end up dead, as will someone who decides that unprotected anal with any comer is the best possible
lifestyle. Between this extreme and a traditionally virtuous life there are many shades, but this doesn't
change the basic truth that reality is real, and we adapt to it in varying degrees and are rewarded with
more options depending on those degrees. (If you see a parallel here to esoteric knowledge, you're on the
right path - reality reveals itself to those who seek it in varying degrees dependent on their abilities.)

Regarding metal, I try to make my reviews objective, but the "best of" lists are pure experience talking. I
have written about metal and presented it via radio for more years that any other source I know of, and
I've succeeded in doing that; the radio shows I've done and web sites were popular among the people I
regard as intelligent, and unpopular among those morons in Cannibal Corpse and Pantera tshirts (I've now
met a few smart Pantera fans, and it occurs to me that without experience of metal in general, they have
appeal, but they're basically a rock band; they took what Exhorder and Prong were doing and adapted it to
Metallica-style speed metal, using harmonies and melodic fragments common to Southern rock. An
excellent product, and meaningless and moronic as "art.") So if this is a trip you can follow, enjoy - and if
not, see how you feel about it in a few years, because you're judging the work of time more than the man
("me").

As to why I think a heroic society, and one based on reality including recognition of our individual smallness
and that our abilities are determined by natural selection, is better, the answer is simple: it's closer to
reality. Christianity is an illusion and under the Pax Judaica it has imposed, we've destroyed forests, culture,
and appreciation for the finer things in life. If you want an absolute justification, or "proof," of why it's
better to have a forest, you're lost in logical, objective terms because you've failed to recognize that
knowledge isn't absolute, and doubly failed, because you have failed to recognize that our current system
cannot justify itself in the absolute, either . There are preferences in life, and you are rightly judged by
them, both by others and by nature. It seems to me evident that those who want to live in fantasy land
and destroy forests are mental defectives, and those who wish to live in harmony with nature and produce
a society that always moves toward better, higher, braver, stronger, gentler humans are of a higher grade
of person. Christianity and "progressive"/"utopic" visions surmise otherwise; in their view, all individuals are
equal and have no room to evolve, but by following the trend of the day we can move "forward" in some
linear history at the end of which is technological-mystical-devotional utopia. Once again, listen to
experience here.

In fact, I think one sign of our decline as a species is that we require "proof" in an absolute sense that one
thing is "better" than another, as if life is linear - which it is not. Quantitative measurements fail where
qualitative measurements triumph; I can't compare two nice days linearly without being ludicrous, because
on one it may be snow-covered and beautiful, and on the other hot and breezy, but either way, both were
beautiful and to linearize them is to place a preference on a single attribute shared among them.
Objectively, rationally speaking, nature doesn't work that way; Christianity, utilitarianism and commerce
think otherwise, but those forces haven't been around long enough, and, judging by history so far, won't
be. The signs of decay are obvious, probably more so in America than in the Netherlands. I'd suggest
coming here, getting a normal job, renting a normal apartment, and meeting normal people and seeing
what their lives are like. It might be quite an eye-opener.

2: "life, the goal that needs no reason but is a reason for itself" is its own highest goal. To adapt to the
forces that created us, and to keep improving. "Happiness" is an illusion, since no one is happy 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year; they're "happy" when overall their lives are going well, and that
means living in a sane society, having comfortable shelter and food, and fulfilling one's own destiny. If
you're a painter, paint; a writer, write; a warrior, fight; a plumber, fix; a farmer, farm; this alone will fulfill
you. To search for "happiness" is to presuppose that since heroin is the happiest feeling in the world, we
should all do heroin (or metaphorical equivalent), and thus be islands unto ourself. Forget it; the individual
doesn't exist outside the whole, and the whole is only known through the individual. Do what has meaning,
but don't be fooled by palliatives such as "happiness" which suggest life has no meaning, thus the best you
can do is to achieve comfort and convenience as your highest goal. That takes meaning away from life
itself, and places it on the means by which one achieves significance, and not that significance.
Philosophically, it's akin to taking heroin.
3: "Would the world not be improved then, by limiting the amount of pain in it?" - the world doesn't need
improvement. Through both pain and pleasure we achieve significant things, and what matters is that
achievement, not our suffering. To assume "improving" the world is to linearize it, and to quickly fall into
the binary good/evil of Christ. Back to the heroin; it at least is healthier than being Christian (exceptions:
Eckhartian, Emersonian, Schopenhauerian and Hitlerian Christianity, which is Christianity in name only and
is more appropriately called "Vedic adualistic European Christian-flavored transcendent idealism" -
interestingly, all of these thinkers found the same belief and wrested it from Christianity against the will of
the undifferentiated crowd).

4: Utopia as a concept is the idea that a perfect or near-perfect society can be made; it is in no way similar
to trying to reach an athletic peak. Utopia is like presuming there is such a basketball game that goals are
only scored for the "right" team. Utopia assumes that history is a linear course to an ideal civilization, in
which the world is "improved" by limiting suffering. My view: suffering is necessary to achieve meaningful
things, otherwise they would exist by default. Our universe is brilliant because it does not have a linear
mindset, and thus allows for both suffering and pleasure, where if there were only one condition there
would be no meaning to anything, as both pleasure and pain would be the same. Utopia, or the
"progressive" worldview, ultimately aims to "civilize" nature and to reform it in such a way that there are no
bad notes, no sufferings, and no wrong choices. I have another word for this: bland. It's numbness
enshrined as grace.

5: "If you could change the way people would behave and our entire political and economical system, how
would the world look like?" I wouldn't elect for communism, but there would be a small-scale civilization
that would not solely be motivated by money. The full quote about money is that " The love of money is the
root of all evil," and in my view, love of money is found in both capitalism and communism, as both
organize themselves around money. My civilization would be organized around local communities taking
care of themselves; everyone would have a place, and be guaranteed a living, unless they were so grossly
incompetent or depraved that in the best estimation of the elders the person in question had repeated
proved themselves to be a genetic error, at which point they'd be sent to join the shock troops and gain
glory by dying in battle. I think most people want to have a comfortable life, but if given the choice, will
gain more wealth and possessions than they need; better to give them what they need. I think most
people, if you batter down their illusions with sound argument, will discover that what they seek is not
wealth or power but a sound living, a family, and the ability to fulfill their personal destiny, whether it's in
the creation of something epic, great feats of war, or just being a good village blacksmith and a person
esteemed by all who know him. This removes the insane "competition" for dollar bills and shiny cars that
seems to fascinate people these days, and replaces it with natural living in which the real issues of life are
given prominence. You notice most people these days are neurotic and, deep inside, quite unsettled? My
system would remove that in all but the insane (and I'd put them to the sword for their own suffering and
the good of society anyway).

Hopefully I've answered all your questions, which you did a great job of asking. Unfortunately, each one is
an essay in itself, so I had to kind of give you the shorthand. However, that has been for me the best way
to learn; when I think of the esteemed minds in my life, they've generally handed me pointers and let me
discover things for myself, so that the victory and satisfaction is all mine; not to compare myself to those
(!) but with luck I've done something of the same.

From: Dr_Rock <ubezleb_666-@xxx.xxx>

To: prozak-@xxx.xxx
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:55:59 -0300 (ART)
Subject: A question of clearness

Basically I have the same points of view regarding "nihilism". But for MANY OTHER reasons, living here in
Europe (a Continent that has become SO distant from your country in these last 4 years or so, and I'd
invite you to travel from France to Scandinavia if you can...) we couldn't go further together at the same
road.

Regarding instead other issues of your points of view, you probably take America as the centre of the World
(politically I'd agree, but socially and historically I wouldn't).
Talking about "Race" it's hard to believe that a Society to remain efficient (as you told about Sweden), must
to be as pure as possible. Not only America had have a huge wave of immigration but we here in Europe as
well, specially now that immigration to America is so difficult due to the 9/11 event and foreigners are
heading to France, Germany and Britain MORE THAN EVER. Like same gens that provide weak heritage,
mixed gens provide a stronger one, the same can be used a whole society. We LOVED American culture
until the 80s 'cause at that time so many innovations were brough up thank to that great melting pot it
WAS. Now, sadly, the music changed.

It's clear that our big problem is the OVER POPULATION and that the Earth can't afford more than six
billions human beings, but we're now living in a giant web (that involves ALL the Continents) that we can't
do without it anymore.

Your thoughs are not so easy to the big public (consider that there are so many among it that could join
"our society") and you probably could put a web page introducing you creeds in a more clear way.

For exemple, I still don't know your exactly political direction. It doesn't have to be Rep OR Dem, you see?
Or your clear religious or atheist status?

Pls, forgive me if I was somehow unkind but is not my intention and actually I'd like to understand a bit
more it. I'm looking forward for your answer.

Whoah - first, I appreciate your letter, but let me make this clear: I don't regard anything as the center of
universe. Wherever I am, that's what I know. Right now, I'm based in Texas, which is unfortunately still
part of the United States of America; it's my opinion that Texas is different enough that it has its own
culture and should have self-rule, and not be part of anything, whether Europe or America (although,
remember that in our Civil War, Texas was more closely allied with France than with the Northern part of
America).

The great American melting pot changed - well, do you think this change was sudden, or that it was the
product of something waiting to happen? After all, the philosophy of a society decides its outcome. If I set
up a civilization based on heroin addiction, it will surprise no one when it collapses because we all die from
AIDS, bodily neglect and overdose. Who's to say the "melting pot" is in fact a triumph? Indeed, history -
the only form of real "proof" of efficacy we have - melting pot societies have occurred in the final days of
collapsing empires, and have rapidly degenerated to third-world status. You might claim that's unfair, or
mean, or amoral to say, but let's get back to reality here - it is what happened, and it is what's happening.

America as a melting pot has become a different place than it once was, both culturally and ethnically,
since things like that tend to go together. It was a Northern European style country until right before the
civil war, when impoverished part-Semitic Irish and Italian castoffs flooded the country. Then, around 1900,
it began gaining the bulk of its population from Eastern European countries and the South of Europe. Not to
say any of these are "bad" in their own right, but we know from history that mixing tribes of the same race
produces people without any clear culture, and with a confused mental evolution. England's in the same
boat. Note that both England and America are exhibiting classic signs of the decline: loss of political
consensus, loss of cultural consensus, pleasure seeking replacing achievement. Unlike racists, I don't blame
this on racial admixture; I think racial admixture is a symptom of it, and that it originates in a bad
philosophy, and that this is the same bad philosophy that produced the melting pot. Note that it's a taboo
to express a "racist" opinion in America today; is such a taboo a sign of a "healthy" melting pot to you?

"Like same genes that provide weak heritage, mixed genes provide a stronger one, the same can be used a
whole society." I'd like to see an example of this in history, if you have one. As far as I can tell, you've
reduced the world of genetics into a linear state in which there are two possibilities: mixing races, or
inbreeding. Not to break the news too gently here, pal, but there's a lot more possibility than that.
Inbreeding occurs in very small groups, and even the most "homogenous" European populations have vast
internal diversity that exists without any external admixture. Further, even "homogenous" populations are
constantly in evolutionary status, thus produce favorable mutations to the point where comparing them to
inbreeding even on that basis alone is laughable. I've heard the popular line that we must mix races to
avoid inbreeding, but when pressed for proof and with historical evidence, every single person bleating out
this crowd-pleasing dogma has backed down. I'd like to know what makes you think this way. Note that
NASA, the American space agency (I should say "outer space"; our inner space agency is California),
determined that were a mission sent to Mars, it would require 200 individuals of the same race to avoid
inbreeding, even if it were cut off from earth forever. That's a conservative government estimate. Having a
"homogenous" (meaning: ethnic-cultural) population doesn't mean you have to marry your sister. Come on,
back to reality here, and stop being silly.

On clear political direction, or religious direction, you've given me in each two options that I wouldn't
subscribe to. Clearly I'm not monotheistic, but I do have spiritual beliefs; maybe looking here or in the
works of Schopenhauer, Evola, Nietzsche and the ancients will help, but my spiritual belief isn't written
down anywhere; if you must put me down as anything, call me an untutored tree-worshipper, because of
all things on this earth, I love the forest, the seas, the plants and animals, the best. If you came to Texas
in wildflower season, and walked alone without distractions among the fields, I think you'd see what makes
me believe. Political direction? Anti-modern; post-utilitarian, and while I would vote for Nader, that's a
compromise and doesn't represent what I'd do to make society better, which it seems to me is the root of
the question about politics: what do you believe makes a better tomorrow than what we have today?

If you don't mind (unfair of me to ask, since you're not here), I'd like to take the racial question further. I
believe we should affirm the presence of natural selection in producing both (a) better humans, specific to
an ethnocultural society, and (b) specialized humans, specific to an ethnocultural society, but I hate crass
racism. In fact, I think both racists and anti-racists are jerkoffs looking for a reason to stroke their own
deficient egos; the racists want to dominate other races, so they can feel better about their own lives; the
anti-racists want to dominate all cultures and replace them with an oversocialized culture that doesn't ever
point out the shortcomings of the individual (any time a better way is shown, the previous way is revealed
to now have a shortcoming, since we have two options: better or less-better but known), and thus feel
better about their own fears of self-insufficiency. Let me lay those fears to rest: everyone has a place,
because what we're fighting for here is the next generation.

Also, let me defecate on the head of crass racism here, a bit further. There are a lot of people I love, and
some are African-Americans, and I like that term for people of African origin better than certain vernacular
words because I believe a gentleman grants respect to all races; part of respect is realizing that they might
do things a different way, that way will by nature never fit into one's own culture, but it deserves respect
nonetheless.

This is similar to a healthy approach to homosexuality; I respect them by not believing they're inferior, and
by giving them a place to be homosexual; they respect me by respecting my right to, in the context of
myself, be repulsed by such behavior and want to raise my family apart from it. I think, in gay
communities, rampant gayness should be the norm, and should be praised; I think in family-oriented
communities, sexual behavior should be something discovered and sorted out by each individual
adolescent, while being given an example of "normal" sexuality: loving, chaste, families where people are
not so mystified by sex that they view it as more important than the goal of sex, namely love, respect and
family. When you think about it, quality marijuana is a better rush than sex, and lasts longer to boot (you
can screw for hours, but in most cases, neither partner desires this). People who are obsessed with the
feeling of sex are drug addicts of a different form. While Christians divide sex into a linear good/bad, it
makes more sense to divide it into realistic and not realistic, and people who are either obsessed with
avoiding sex, or with cheapening it, are both insane.

Race is similar. We've all evolved differently, even the different tribes and nations of Europe. Each of us is a
history of traits, including mental traits, shaped by our culture. In any given culture, those whose inherent
tendencies match the values of that culture succeed; those who don't match are less likely to breed
successfully. Over time, this produces a shared cultural values system, which in turn produces philosophical
and political consensus, and this is the basis of every great civilization that has ever existed (although most
are in decline at this time, and race-mixing is one symptom of this decline). Without consensus, there is no
agreement to move upward and become better, so civilizations decline by settling on a pale imitation of
that, such as "Social Darwinism" by which we decide those who earn the most money - not those who do
the best job at a given task, but those who make the most money from their task, regardless of how well it
is done - are the most valued in that society. This is clearly declining, as bad products often make the most
money (Macintosh, American cars, junk food, fast food, cheap heroin), and with this kind of thinking ends
the desire of a society to better itself, and it is replaced by a desire to be comfortable during the decline -
convenience.

Because we have evolved differently, not only is race-mixing insane, but caste-mixing is insane; if you
merge a family of leaders with a family of carpenters, you'll either get a leader who in the role of a
carpenter or a carpenter in the role of a leader, but either way, the inclinations of that individual will be
mixed between their ostensible task and what they're actually inclined to do. In my society, the castes are
equally valuable, but their specializations are preserved. It takes a different intelligence to be a carpenter
than a leader, and a leader makes a crappy carpenter, but both tasks are necessary for the civilization.
Hence caste and not class. Class ranks us linearly by money; caste doesn't rank us, but helps us specialize
by task and ensures that each has a respected, honored, necessary place guaranteed to them, unless of
course they are grossly incompetent or perverted. Does that help?

I love my African-American friends as well as my "white" friends (really: different Indo-European tribes,
including Indians, for whom "white" is a broken general category). I esteem them as individuals and respect
them in the highest way, which is to say I don't expect them to be like me or to fit into an Indo-European
society. You can say that African-Americans are more likely to commit violent crime, or that African-
Americans are less likely to find social status, that there are intelligence differences between the races, or
even that African-Americans lag behind in intelligence, or are products of a different evolutionary path
which valued different forms of intelligence, but it doesn't change my love for my friend, or for myself: I
believe I should be able to live in an Indo-European society of my ethnocultural tribe, and be surrounded
by only Indo-Europeans, and go visit my African-American friends in their society on weekends, and exile
race-mixers from either society to the middle east, which is where race-mixing has traditional had the
greatest number of adherents.

In short, I believe the question of "inferior" or "superior" races is an issue for assholes to debate, and I
don't want any part of it; the races are different, and have different types of ethnocultural societies they
prefer, and that objectively is clear, but "subjectively," I prefer a society of my own kind, with shared
ethno-cultural values, and I don't view that as insulting to African-Americans or any other ethnic group ; in
fact it's the opposite: the highest respect I can grant to any group is to insist that they be separate and be
allowed to do things their own way, since otherwise is to presume that my way is better, and thus to
impose it upon them as an "improvement" over what they are. That's crass racism, no matter how much
we disguise it as Judeo-Christian liberalism. I don't have any use for racism, but I do believe in eugenics, as
it is one of the foundations of a society which is always moving toward higher goals.

Heredity is more important than inculcated values, but this applies not only to races, but to tribes, to
castes, to local groups and to individuals. One problem I have with the racists is that they believe all
individuals are equal, presupposing their origins in a certain general racial group; that's insane to my mind.
Not every "white" person is someone I'd let survive; in fact, at this point in history, most "white" people
need to be killed because they're worthless, brainless, spiritless products of industrial existence and have
nothing to contribute. My sword is unsheathed for them, because, among my tribe where there is
ethnocultural consensus, these people are inferior, simply because: they suck. They're not very smart, they
don't have good character, and they lack the impetus to do anything but go to do-nothing jobs and boss
others around with rules written on sheets of paper. Off with their heads, and let's murder their children
too: nothing good comes of such a seed. Hell, we have seven billion people on earth, and all but a few
million are worthless followers. Fewer people means more forest, more fish, more ecosystem and more
animals; what are we waiting for?

Eugenics is very real. One either establishes an ethnocultural consensus and refines every generation
toward a better version of this, producing smarter-nobler-healthier people, or one stagnates and because
time marches on, devolves, becoming less adapted to the changes in environment that fluctuate in cycles
as a means of encouraging evolution. I prefer the heroic outlook, which is to realize the individual is not a
world in itself, but a small piece of the whole, and thus to place individual pretense and safety as
secondary to having a health and positively-evolving society. Eugenics is very real. It's not the only
question, but it's a necessary tool of a society which achieves logical ethnic-cultural unity. And ultimately,
everyone benefits, as the children who are born in the future are smarter, healthier and of better character,
thus they struggle less with low self-esteem than the bloated products of mixed-caste, mixed-race, low-
achievement breeding. Put this way, you have to ask yourself, what would you rather do, doom future
generations to insufficiency or make sure those children are well-bred and happy? I prefer the latter, and
I'm not the only one, but among those who fear their own failure more than they aspire to fulfilling their
life's destiny, you find a prevailing opinion: all genetics are okay, all individuals are okay, just don't do
anything that might show any of us in a bad light, please!!! -- that is the way of the coward, and the
undifferentiated crowd, and any type of evolving person has no use for it.

This is just a taste of the philosophies that make life meaningful. Right now, people cower in fear of many
things, and as a result, have built a society based on convenience under the pretense of avoiding suffering
and making everyone "equal." This is the public veneer, but underneath it, the real motivation is
utilitarianism: from fear of our own worth, we hand judgment over to the crowd; the price of this devil's
bargain is that we can never again choose a direction, least of all a higher direction, because it will "offend"
someone or make them feel inferior. And the effect is manifest: where's the Beethoven for this age? The
Nietzsche? The Michelangelo? The Caesar? All we have are sniveling cowards for leaders and "artists" and
"philosophers" who write about trends so they can profit and have houses in the suburbs. The signs of
decline are evident, and while race isn't the cause, it's a symptom and one that we can fix. Further, it's
important to realize that racial separation is not an issue by itself, but part of a general program of
breeding that includes division by tribe, caste, and finally, eugenics applied to individuals themselves.

Dividing by tribe allows each tribe to have its own way of doing things; this is the only way to achieve the
consensus necessary for any kind of upward-mobile society. It is this alone, and not some ego-stroking
belief in being "superior" or "inferior" for being member of a group, that is the reason for racial separation -
not racial antagonism. I'll continue to care about my gay, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish friends,
but I will also continue to care first and foremost about myself and my people, for whom separation is
required for survival. Don't let the crass racists confuse you - you can acknowledge your own preference for
your own people without falling into hate, bigotry, and other forms of masturbatory self-image
enhancement.

From: Bill Johnson <bjohnson-@xxx.xxx>

Reply-To: bjohnson-@xxx.xxx
To: prozak-@xxx.xxx
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:52:48 -0600
Subject: I will pray for you....

You are lying to yourself, as well as those that visit your website. You speak against religions that promote
only good and evil (Christianity and Judaism), yet AntiChristianity is dual in nature as well. The only
exception is that you are for evil, not good. Unless of course you are agnostic, which would make sense of
your mindless babbling.

Oh, Bill. You seem to be lashing out, out of control, when if you really had faith in your God, there'd be no
reason to respond. Anti-Christianity is not my religion, but I'm definitely opposed to Christianity, in the
same way I don't believe the Magical Unicorn from Uranus is going to save humanity and keep our souls
clean and spring-fresh scented. I don't have any need to believe in Christianity; there is nothing in my
experience which suggests I would even think of believing in it. They only reason I write about it is that it
and other bad values systems are destroying my world, and I rather like this place, so I'm acting against
them, while simultaneously asserting better values elsewhere. And what are you doing?

This definition may help: "Dualism is the metaphysical doctrine that there are two substances, i.e., distinct
and independent types of being, one material and the other spiritual."1 If you read it, you can see that my
distrust and hatred for Christianity isn't only rooted in its division between good and evil, but the absolute
world - and yet fantasy world - upon which it bases this distinction. From that philosophical notion alone
come all of the ills of Christianity.

In essence, Christianity tells us that reality isn't real, and we should let go of the reigns and pretend
everything that happens on earth is OK-fine as long as we get into heaven, which, conveniently, we do by
being pacifistic and passive in our response to others; it goes back to that whole "let whatever happens on
earth be fine" approach. Further, it promises wonderful things, glorious and emotional things, that
obviously make no sense. Eternal life? Milk and honey? These are extremes and absolutes, not a realistic
approach to spirituality. Even worse, it grants the same equally to all people if they just walk in the Church
door, thus proclaiming them enlightened; in essence, Christianity is spiritual Communism, and it removes
any incentive we have to work toward being better people, smarter people, and having better character.

Now, don't get me wrong, Bill. I don't consider you evil, or a bad person, or judge you as inferior for your
beliefs; I recognize they occur because of convenience and perhaps some well-founded fears (mortality,
self-esteem) you may have. That won't stop me from, when this society collapses and the Vandals are at
the gates, as is sure to occur, running you and every other Christian I find - man, woman, child, hamster -
through with my sword, and walking away whistling as the blood feeds the crackling flames. You are
spiritual blight and political blight upon this world, and the only way to respect someone with such
degraded beliefs is to let them keep those beliefs, but kill them, so that they can die for something they
find meaningful. That's fair play, as even you will acknowledge.

However, I think we should recognize, you and I, that your letter contains some factual errors and some
insinuations of error that are underhanded to say the least. I don't hate Christianity soley because of its
good/evil dichotomy; I hate it because it is a mental error, an inaccurate philosophy, and a misleading
illusion. Hating Christianity isn't "dualistic" (LOL) any more than not keeping cobras under the bed is
dualistic; it's an artifact of perception that you divide the world into people who keep cobras under the bed,
and people who don't. And although you see the world as divided into Christian, atheist and agnostic, I see
a palette of philosophies and am picking the one that's most adapted to reality, shade by shade, hue by
hue. I don't see that philosophy as being "AntiChristianity," although of course, since I don't come from a
paranoid and binary good/evil worldview, I'm not inclined to making that philosophical error either. If it's
babble to you, I can live with that, but for the rest of us here who haven't yet given up hope and run to the
comfort of a degrading illusion, I present these words so they can decide as they are able.

And I ask again - if you really were as confident in your beliefs as you assert you are, implying that I'm
"lying" and all, why did you write this letter? Who are you trying to convince? Best of luck, Bill. And
that's all for our broadcast tonight - thanks to our loyal readers; tune in again next time for more vitriol and
hopefully, reality discussion, from me your faithful host. Good night.

December 21, 2004

Why Not All Europeans Are of Mixed-Blood
When I tell people that I'm for localization and ecofascism, thus for ethnic pride and separation of races,
tribes, castes and individuals in breeding, they have one of several knee-jerk reactions. Most dogmatics
have this; what makes this dogmatism special is that it represents the cultivation of public opinion, namely
that anything "racist" is bad and therefore we have to be extra-special-careful in avoiding it. I've detested
taboos all my life and thus can't resist puncturing this one.

One of the most common responses is that mixed-blood people are stronger than "homogenous"-bred
individuals. To anyone who knows something about natural selection this is laughable; you don't achieve
better characteristics through random breeding, especially not from bringingly differently-specialized
hierarchies in collision. In my experience, mixing the blood of European tribes, as in America and Britain,
produces massively neurotic people; while they're driven to gain power via their inventions, they literally
lack any ability beyond immediate skill, and are worthless as thinkers. It's not like we're short of people who
can invent, write books, etc.; these tasks present themselves and yield to labor. In short, it's not work of
creative genius.

Another response is the religious response, which consists of broad platitudes like "skin color doesn't
matter." Well, skin color isn't the issue - I'm as opposed to mixing the French with the Germans as I am to
mixing Filipinos and Finns. Skin color is not race. Race is grouped traits inherited over time through the
shaping of culture; natural selection is the mechanism. And we must debunk natural selection: it doesn't
automatically pick "the best" but "the best adapted to a given environment," and that includes culture,
which is why the great age of every tribe has been one of ethnic-cultural solidity, or "homogeneity," which
is a misnomer since no tribe is homogenous, even if they're all of the exact same ethnic stock. This doesn't
dissuade the people with a religious-political approach to this answer, as they're too intent on feeling good
about themselves for picking the more universal, moral etc. option to notice. Try going into a porn store
late at night and telling the people in the peep show booths about any political issue; they're not interested,
and neither are these religious fanatics.

The most interesting response, which I write about today, is "but all Europeans have mixed blood anyway."
Laugh out loud; these people have fallen into the knee-jerk racist mentality that defines groups by
individuals and individuals by groups. Some Europeans are mixed, surely, as are many Americans and,
apparently, most English people, but no tribe is uniform in suddenly embracing mixture, and in my
experience, the healthier ones avoid it. Why is this?

Even if you've been exposed to zero racial propaganda, you know yourself, if you're reasonably intelligent
and inclined toward healthy values - a product of good breeding, regardless of class or caste. Knowledge of
self means that you're aware of what you prefer in most situations, and thus what your values are; if
you're a German, to use a stereotype, you prefer orderly settings and coherence of abstract thought
translated into pragmatic reality. French people prefer classic Mediterranean values interpreted in a
cosmopolitan sense, thus are hot blooded and love fine things, but lose every war they attempt. Englishmen
prefer... Englishmen. Travel the world and it's apparent that, despite the onslaught of the vast conformist
system of globalism, people are what their cultures have made them.

To know yourself, then, is to know your cultural background, and to be at home in it. With this in mind, it's
hard to imagine straying far from what has made you what you are, as, after all, you like it. For this
reason, most people of good breeding prefer to breed among their own kind, at least until social collapse is
so far advanced that they cannot identify their cultural background, or it is so saturated with corruption that
they throw out the baby with the bathwater and alienate themselves from both the corruption of their
culture and the culture itself.

Those who are alienated from their cultural background, or so cowed by the world around them that they
become submissive and wish to not be identified as having a cultural background that others wish to
plunder, will seek something "different" as a means of obliterating their own cultural identity. In healthy
times, these are the minority of people who "have problems," whether drug addiction or fascination with
trivial representations of foreign cultures or sexual addiction, and most people are happy to see them go -
so long as they pack up and move from their native lands to the country of their new partners. Indeed,
who couldn't be pleased with such a match? You take those who don't fit and find them a place where they
want to fit, so all parties are pleased.

For this reason, I know that not "all Europeans" are mixed, and in fact the greatest majority are
"homogenous" in the sense of having a single thread of ethnic-cultural origin. Some are in the middle,
having picked related tribes, such as Germans who marry Dutch or ex-Prussian Poles, but these have
essentially selected within their own broader ethnic-cultural background. The best of them stick within this
tradition and not only that, they breed well: they pick partners as competent as themselves, not having the
low self-esteem that causes people to marry others that they can dominate, and they raise their children
according to a healthy cultural tradition, specific to their tribe.

What interrupts this harmonious and natural process that preserves diversity by ensuring that not every
tribe becomes mixed into the slurry found in most individuals in the United States, England, the Middle East
and Latin America, is the intrusion of values which run contrary to (a) their tribe's and (b) reality.
Christianity is the biggest of these, but clearly the influence of cosmopolitan Judaism with its cloying and
self-aggrandizing doctrine of egalitarian utitilarianism is also a blight. These operate in two ways: first, by
encouraging people to dwell in a spiritual world where the container, the individual, is more important than
natural process, and second, by corrupting culture with bad values so that each upcoming generation of
youth are alienated from it, and encouraged to act outside of it. German culture would lose its repellent
aspects if Christianity (oh, and Judaism) were removed from it.

It is this same cultural degradation that has people today bowing to lick the dirt of multiculturalism and
egalitarianism in a religious-political sense, because they are alienated from cultures infested with money
and Christ, and because they have become submissive since they are tired of being seen as a "target." But
rest your minds, good people. If the dogma they preach to you is as easily debunked as it is in this article,
you can tell that the people who oppose you are not grounded in reality but in illusion , and thus also an
illusion is their power. Realize that not every European acts as the weakest among them do, and
strengthen your resolve to be what you are.

December 22, 2004

Why Civilization Requires Selfishness
or
Cruelty versus Self-Interest
Oversocialized eras breed people who are afraid to offend. I can only speak for America, having lived here
my whole life, but I can see the disease spreading to Europe via American media, products and attitudes;
it's a cultural invasion, not a physical one. Of all the invasions that occur, this is the most disgusting, since
it is passive, and passivity wherever it occurs goes well self-pity, self-righteousness and low self-esteem,
since nothing is worse than not being able to simply say, "This is what I want and I have my reasons, and
your objections don't matter to me." That is the language of those who create, while "We might be able to
do this if no one's upset" is the language of the submissive and reactionary. Given that this passive attitude
dominates among the "cultured" these days, meaning those indoctrinated in the global culture formed by
money and liberal democracy and cosmopolitan values, it is not surprising that most people are afraid to
deny others a chance to have what they have.

In America, this is manifested by an attitude that anything exclusive is bad, and anyone who creates a
community and then wishes to exclude others is bad, and that the highest good is making something good
available to all comers so that those who follow the rules can "get ahead" in whatever imaginary social and
political order exists. These things are truly imaginary; if you have food on the table, your family around
you and do something you find meaningful, you'll fulfill your destiny - that alone is reality. But fantasy
worlds prevail, in part because we're all surviving by being in denial of the impending collapse of the West,
which has lost its cultural consensus and thus is being slowly divided, consumed and parasitized from
within. What enables this destruction is in part the attitude that everything should be open to everybody.

Imagine an open frontier. You and your family find a place where no one lives, and through days of back-
breaking labor cultivate fields, build towns and develop all the specialized skills needed for civilization. Your
sons and daughters marry well, and bring in additional talents. All is fine, but now you're wealthy, and
hence soon are surrounded by supplicants who want to be "allowed" into your civilization, usually because
of some misfortune they perceive as having happened to them. What occurs if you let them in is the death
of the natural selection that made your civilization possible.

You endured hardships, and undoubtedly, some died. Some of these died for no reason, but most died
because of lack of judgment, intelligence, character or strength; the ones who remain are, by definition,
adapted to living in the civilization that resulted. This is the only true equality of opportunity that exists:
they were able to start something of their own and by endurance, create a lasting functional entity. It's not
equality of opportunity to then let any wandering fool into the place, as they had no part in its creation,
and thus are unproved. Unsurprisingly, societies that take on the general public have throughout history
become bloated and collapsed. If one looks at this from a reality-world standpoint, and not a fantasy of
religious-political implications, it's clear why this happens, and how the same mechanism that selects the
best to create a civilization works in reverse to digest it.

In nature, you can see this order everywhere. Ants succeed in part because they rigorously defend
themselves against other ants, and thus ensure that only the most competent ants prevail in their colonies.
Egrets will fight for their prey against other birds so they can feed their own young, and there's nothing
more noble or gentle than an egret. Why are humans different? The answer is simple: because the people
who come up with these egalitarian ideas are products of a civilization many years after its founding, and
not those who created it. To these people, any life outside of an already-established civilization is
unthinkable; society will always exist, why not let in others? After all, it makes us feel good to give this gift.
This process inevitably destroys every civilization infected with it.

For this reason, the best civilizations have during healthy times been places of a dispassionate nature, or
perhaps we should say: highly selective in their passion, and unlikely to grant emotion to all comers much
as a prostitute grants sexual favors to any man with the right wealth-tokens. It's healthy and fine to be
proud to be Indo-European, and to deny others access to your civilization; after all, self-preservation is
your first goal, and letting them in will destroy you. Similarly, it's healthy and fine to within that civilization
deny breeding and wealth to those who are less capable. This might seem cruel to them, but it's the
opposite of cruelty to your civilization itself, and from that comes benefit for everyone. This is the natural
way, and it shouldn't be replaced by human ways, especially seeing how these human ways have led to
collapse among us. Trust nature. Only then can we all fufill our destinies and live meaningful lives,
regardless of the degree of fantasy-world social prestige and comforts we enjoy.

December 22, 2004

Don't Despair Just Because It's Christmas
The holidays make it easy to express oneself, because the split between reality and fantasy in our world is
most evident. People rush around, minds fixed on symbolic gestures like gift-giving and dinner-preparations,
while doing whatever they can - and they have no shorter of subterfuge - to hide the shortcomings of their
lives and society so that, just for a moment, they can have a ceremonial peace of mind. In that, they're
both at their least neurotic and their most deluded, so the religious nature of the holiday is brought to the
forefront: they're like fanatics in the grips of religious delusion. And we scorn the suicide bombers?

Your coworkers will be thankfully busy kissing ass, which means you don't have to waste time listening to
their "opinions" which are essentially recombinations of TV, newspaper, and talk radio ideas. They will
however give you worthless stuff they bought at bulk prices, and hope to receive something actually
worthwhile in return (the solution: bake them banana bread, especially if you can't do it). Every single
person you interact with on a daily goods-service basis will also be angling for a gift. These are even better;
give them the worthless crap you got last year. It's not a question of what the gift means, but a question of
recognition. In our "free" society, we feel free to guilt each other into handing over something, which
primarily profits those who make functionless symbolic gift items, and, of course, the waste management
industry, who'll be hauling it away in June.

As if you needed extra giggles, you'll get to witness the entire consumer sales industry mobilized to sell gift
items. The guilt is heavy, and it's enforced by an image: people happily at home with loved ones,
exchanging gifts, eating and having a good time. The reality is obligation by social pressure to buy,
divorces, families fighting on phones, and people giving each other meaningless crap and spending up to
10% of their disposable income doing it. No one wants to hear the reality, and this is why they drown it
out with Christmas songs. They've even gotten clever (at least as clever as a gibbon on crack) and have
made "unique" versions of each Christmas song, like the techno "Silent Night" and jazz-fusion "I'm Dream
of a White Christmas." Get your sickening emotional cues now, because otherwise, you numb consumers,
you wouldn't even know you're having a "good time."

Since most of us live in a reality that's far from the television image, and must contend with broken
families, failed relationships, and droningly predictable office parties where at some point an idiot "livens
things up a bit" by getting drunk and doing something amusingly stupid - or it would be amusing, had it not
happened at every Christmas party over the past decade - there's a series of industries dedicated to
compensation. The alcohol sellers are warming up to send you out into the night with a case of red'n'green
beer. Psychologists crack their knuckles and schedule overtime leading up to Christmas. And if you lack a
pithy two-line statement of goodwill, the greeting card people have a new crop of cards with pleasant
illustrations on them. Parasites, all.

Don't despair, you say? We live in a crumbling civilization that most are too dumb to recognize, and it
continually breeds dumber people and hands over power to them, as that's the type of person who has so
little going on in their lives they need to become a bureaucrat. We are surrounded by bad design, from our
roads arranged to please developers and not serve the citizen, to our awkward housing designed around
profit centers and not pragmatic living. Our lives are manipulated by external emotions designed to please
everyone in a room, making us slaves to the weakest link in the chain, and now you've got to put on your
plastic holiday smile to cover it. No wonder Christmas is the season for heart attacks, suicides, divorces and
drug overdoses.

My solution, as in most cases, is to bypass despair for nihilism. You - or rather, the sense and sensibility of
nature - are in control, and you don't have to take it seriously. Do what is required, and nothing else, but
most of all, don't take this insincere marketing holiday into your heart. Yule was a real holiday, a winter
survival landmark, but Christmas ever since has been a time of humility and submission before the Jewish
prophet. Why? Give people at the office crap, and hand out garbage others have given you to those
supplicants who desire gifting for their services. Care not about it; summon the nihilism of your heart and
see the reality: Christmas is just another day, and a day in which you can do what you want, as long as
you aren't fooled by the hype of the crowd. Happy are those who never hear Christmas music at all, but
happier are those who hear without hearing, and notice the holiday without heeding. Crush Christmas with
your awareness of its meaninglessness. There's no need for despair if you never take it seriously in the first
place.

December 24, 2004

Utopia is a day in hell
The concept of Utopia exists with us daily, even if not expressed by name: it is the idea that if we move
forward toward an idealized moral society, we will eliminate suffering and by removing sources of pain and
inequity, thus live in bliss. In that view, life is evenly divided into bliss and suffering, and by subtracting the
latter, we're left with only the former. Of course, by "civilization" we mean the increasing physical
technology of human beings, and believe that by coupling this industrial society with a moral/liberal agenda,
we are coming into a golden age of humanity - an "enlightened" and "progressive" future.

To anyone with experience of life as a continuum, this is another dead-end mythos like Santa Claus, the
Tooth Fairy and diet junk food that's as satisfying as the real heart-killing, waistline-expanding, gut-rotting
deal. Sir Thomas Moore wrote his book "Utopia" to describe a future civilization that demonstrated a society
without suffering, but no one asked him whether or not he was sarcastic, because the idea was
immediately popular with the crowd. To my mind, life as it is in nature is perfect; by lacking a fear of
suffering, it avoids the pitfalls that those who seek Utopia might encounter.

For all of us, there are sad moments, depressive moments, when we think "Wouldn't it be nice if life was
without death, suffering and missed opportunity? After all, that way I could hang out on the couch and
watch TV and eat mint-chocolate cookies from those cute (and, illicit thought of thoughts, sexy) girl scouts
who pubescently offer them with the underconfidence of a Chrysler salesman?" Indeed, this is similar to the
Christian populist idea of heaven, where rivers run with milk and honey and every day is perfect and we
never die. Doesn't that sound nice?

No, actually. It sounds boring. First because there's no challenge or change in life; a constant state of
"enjoyment" translates to preservation, much like being pumped full of phosphates and shoved onto the
eternal shelf of some cosmic 7-11. Worse, however, is the idea that without death and the possiblity of
error, there is no room for decision or alteration in the course of action; what happens, is right, and thus
the plan remains constant like droning pop music in grocery stores after midnight. You are in stasis. That
it's comfortable stasis will become, after about day four, very secondary once you realize that what makes
sitting on the couch, eating junk and goofing off fun is that it is the antithesis of much of what life requires.

Utopians assume that we are moving toward a world like this as long as we thinking in "progressive,"
egalitarian, moralistic terms. Your destiny is defined by your daily living, and in such a world, your degree
of existential fulfillment entirely depends upon what's on cable. Tedious as all hell, it is? Yes, indeed. But to
those who fear death more than they crave adventure, such an eventless life would be ideal as the big fear
is gone. For those who are of a heartier constitution, of course, the idea of having nothing to achieve is
heartbreakingly boring.

Our progressive worldview in our modern time takes a more literal but ecclesiastically similar approach.
Heaven will be when everyone in society lives in a nice place, has plenty of food and access to toys and
electronic gadgets, and is not discriminated against in opportunity or social placement. Each human will be
a King or Queen, and besides death, which science will surely cure one of these days, we will have nothing
to fear. Of course, there will be no dragons to slay, nor any great deeds left to achieve, since society itself
will be the greatest deed ever and we'll live free of injustice and suffering or anything else that might
prompt us to move our asses from the couch. Such a society will probably center around cable television
and AOL chat rooms.

A Utopia would be, by definition, a place without change or challenge, without fear or conquest, without
inequity or the ability to move forward; you would just be in a state of perpetual junk food, cable TV and
couch. One can imagine that such a society would tear down its monuments to great leaders and heroes
and artists and instead build statues of couches, televisions and Nutter Butters. Since the basics of life, in
this future society, would be 100% good, there's no room for bad, and to stave off boredom we'd have
trends and novelty. "Sex is delightful - you have to try the newest, which is anal with a goat but, get this,
you're covered in peanut butter. It's unique!" Sound good yet?
No one will state it like this, of course, because what motivates us toward "progressive" thinking is not
logic, but social pressures. We don't want to tell anyone that they're ugly, so we say that in some mystical
future, no one will care about external appearance, since in a perfect world sleeping with a lumpy,
misshapen, hepatitic hog of a barfly is exactly equal to sleeping with a Prince or Princess Charming. It's not
polite to say "Well, guess you go back to your confused, self-destructive life in the trailer park, and - uh -
I'll head on back to the suburbs where I can afford to keep the heat at 74," because this points out that
people aren't equal, and we don't all live charmed lives, which is the ultimate social taboo. So to keep
everyone at the party happy, we put out plenty of junk food and plenty of junk logic - including insisting
that if we all lived the same painless lives we'd be happy.

This progressive vision is the cornerstone of liberal democracy. Democracy presupposes that if "everyone,"
including the deranged and homeless and perverse and moronic, has a voice, we'll find the ultimate answer
and politics will become unimportant. The liberal idea is that if everyone is "empowerment," none will want
for comfy living, couches and TVs, and thus we'll all be "equal" in avoiding suffering and life will finally be
good. Our society is based upon the assumption that this is achievable, and a good thing, but also that it is
inevitable if we continue upon our current course of action.

From this comes an illusion so profound that it grasps all but the wiliest souls. Because every new thing is
good, goes the logic, if something is new, it is good; if it is part of our liberal democracy, it is moving
toward the future, therefore it is good. The thought ends there. This is why "social experiments" become
law and never are challenged, in addition of course to the hollow justification that "they provide jobs,"
mainly for people so incompetent and neurotic that the only work they can get is as bureaucrats. The face
of Utopia is self-congratulation for conformity.

As an aside, it's worth noting that confused people will accuse anyone who says "Life will be better if we do
x" of being a Utopian or progressive. That is an illusion of mistaking the mechanism of the parts of the
whole for that whole, when really what defines the whole is its philosophical outlook as the force that binds
together its parts. You can imagine one caveman busy inventing fire and another saying, "I don't buy into
any of that Utopian trash." No - finding a better way of something is not Utopianism; presupposing that a
better society awaits if we use technology, morality and bureaucracy to eliminate suffering and "inequity" is.
Always keep asserting what is better.

Interestingly, Utopianism is most destructive because it draws us away from what really fulfills us. Lives are
made happy through achievement, and some would characterize using one's abilities for their natural
purposes as a kind of destiny. Musicians, make music! Carpenters, make furniture! Warriors, make
conquest! In the Utopian society however, no change occurs except through bureaucracy, so what is left to
achieve - namely, nothing, since suffering and inequity have been "eliminated" - is done through filling out
forms and nagging other people to vote a certain way. Because inequity is evil, one doesn't work to be
better than others, but to serve a role defined by others, "adequately." Utopianism is anti-heroic in this
aspect.

When we read the ancients, we find out that civilization isn't a course toward equal comfort for all
individuals, but a course toward greater glories for those who can rise above, thus breeding a higher grade
of human and setting new standards. Utopians try to eliminate this because they see inequity as a form of
suffering, and in doing so, become regressive and create the ultimate boring, changeless, static society. For
this reason I say that if Utopia ever arrives, it will be a new form of existential hell for humankind.

December 27, 2004

This World is Becoming -- High School
A philosopher's job isn't easy, and it's blighted by image as is every other job. They sit there, day after day,
working on grand theories of where we went wrong as a species, because unless you're a mental
mushroom it's clear something went wrong and we're in a devolutionary tailspin which will end in regression
to third-world, or worse, status.

The philosopher chews his pencil and looks for a unification theory. "That's it - we've forgotten the rules of
magnetism!" he shouts, and works out an intricate metaphor linking society's decline to an eloquent,
intellectual-sounding premise. Or maybe it's a writer like Thomas Pynchon, trying to use General Relativity
to explain man's inhumanity to man (which, given the number of inhumanly stupid people out there, could
be a good thing). I've chewed my pencil (not my metaphorical pencil, thank you) long enough now to have
a simpler, although less grand-sounding, theory:

Our society is slowly becoming High School.

You remember high school. Come on, now, admit it. We all went through it, and the only people who didn't
think it sucked are now counting test tubes while sneaking a page at a time of their latest self-help book,
"Realizing That You Suck (For Dummies)." You had to run a narrow path between rule-bearing Authority
Figures and the ubiquitous social pressures that everyone assumes are tough on teens because they're a
new introduction; far from the truth, social pressures are tough on teens because the social pressures
themselves are broken and sick and teens still have enough childish hope for life to resist them.

Adults, of course, were the plodding, schedule-oriented, lifeless beings who limply went through the
motions and then ran off home to pleasures that couldn't be mentioned to us. I found out after high school
that of my favorite teachers, for example, three were alcoholics and four were potheads, and the remaining
two were both fringe figures on the swingers scene. If this came out on CNN.com, of course, America
would rear up its head and scream, "Holy crap! These are the degenerates who teach our children?" -- but
the ugly truth is that these are the best we have, as everyone else is more dysfunctional or has out of fear
run to a high-paying job so they can grab their cash and head for the hills.

Kids were imprints of adulthood. The really screwed up kids had some kind of family trouble, in every case:
divorce, drunk parents, drug-addicted parents, mean parents, abusive parents, and/or poverty. This isn't to
say that poverty is some magic cause that takes nice people and turns them into monsters, but that
unstable people usually end up in poverty, dragging their kids with them. Most of the impoverished kids
showed clearly why their parents were broke: they were slow, and or mentally defective in some
fundamental way, so most of us gave them the best charity available and ignored them. There were a few
who had a spark of life, and they were accepted in social groups, where it was quietly not mentioned that
they wouldn't be chipping in for beer because they didn't have the amount the rest of us tossed out for
coffee, cigarettes or other pleasures of an unmarred adult future.

Bearing with them the sins and successes of their parents, kids were merciless to one another. Among
those who had enough money to live normally, there was competition for popularity and what would
eventually be sex appeal but at that time was assessed by one's same-sex peers as general fitness for
survival: appearance, strength, intelligence, and ability to socialize smoothly. In that was the cruelest cut,
in that everyone grew up at a different rate, and those who learned the ground rules of palliating and
complimenting others used their new status as socially-acceptable to pound the crap out of the rest of us.
In their most sadistic moments, they didn't just apply the fist themselves; they called others around and
would mock us.

For example, the hapless nerd. He grows slowly and so during his junior year still hasn't had a girlfriend,
nor tried a cigarette, nor even gotten drunk with his peers. He simply doesn't care: he's too busy having a
good end of childhood, including spending time by himself outdoors, enjoying his family, and possibly
indulging a nerdy habit like learning to program a computer or make a radio transmitter. He's not aware of
his clothing, hence wears whatever hand-me-downs his family gives him, and he's not socially alert enough
to constantly watch his own behavior for unacceptable things. Nerds suffer little from social fear; they know
they function adequately as human beings, and as such aren't afraid to have a kleenex showing in their
sleeve, or wear unhip sweaters from T.J. Maxx, or listen to goofy music like the Beatles or Kraftwerk and
admire it for its musicality.

Thus in many ways, a nerd is beyond the paranoia that grips all of us who try to "fit in" to a society.
Unconcerned about external appearances, or who he offends by his behavior, or trying to pander to an
ideal image that concerns the opposite sex, the nerd is alone with his thoughts. Until someone steps in his
path or sticks out a foot, and calls upon others to laugh at the nerd, and possibly even beat on him, as
frequently happens. The crowd hates anyone who doesn't fear it, and they'll do whatever they have to,
everything they can, to enforce that fear upon the individual. (The only kids who escape are the ones who
are both nerdly and psycho enough to slash tires or poison Cokes, and these get away because they thwart
the crowd by not fearing them, thus turning the table of fear onto the crowd itself, which cowers from the
lone wolf because it cannot be predicted by the rules of the crowd).

Our society is in the midst of a long progression from a state of animal freedom to this form of crowd-
enforced conformity. Hilariously, it enforces this conformity with the illusion of individual "freedom," since
hypocrisy is the most baffling defense any organism can use against another, and except in the cases of the
lone wolves, is almost always effective. Since we no longer have to forge our own way, building our own
homesteads from our own hands and providing for our families directly, we now depend on others. Thus
we defer to their authority in collective form - that is the only power the crowd has, and it's a tenuous
power, except that individuals can be cowed by the appearance of power more than power itself. Because
of this cowardice - let's call it what it is - people derive authority from appealing to the biggest group of
people possible.

In high school, this meant mocking the guy who spend his $14.99 at T.J. Maxx instead of Old Navy, and got
the wrong sweater, and didn't watch the right TV so he doesn't know hip phrases like "Yo dawg" and
instead says, awkwardly, "Hey everybody, what's up?" That's a nerd. Since the crowd watches TV, it can
recognize a nerd and agree to make fun of him, even though in the crowd there are defective people,
people hiding their secret homosexuality, people who are failures at everything they touch - but they can
do one thing, and it's be part of the crowd. Like going to church, or joining a political party, or even being
the popular one on your floor at work who brings candy on the holidays, being part of the crowd requires
only an entrace fee - conformity - and then you have the right to exclude others and congratulate yourself
for being part of the winning team. It's cowardice disguised as doing the right thing.

Our world is devolving into high school. The independent thinker will naturally come into conflict with some
group in the crowd; in the 1950s, the independent thinker dressed differently or smoked marijuana, and
thus could be spotted and crushed. In the 2000s, the independent thinker doesn't believe that
multiculturalism is right, or that all people are equal, and thus can be crushed. It's the same psychology
with the same basic value, which is appeasing the group and deriving power from that instead of asserting
what is correct and forcing others to obey, even though its appearance is of radically different values.
However, that's like mistaking a T.J. Maxx sweater for an Old Navy one; they're both sweaters, and in this
case the fundamental value is pleasing the crowd: equality, egalitarianism, morality, diversity,
empowerment, and other catch words just hide the basic truth, which is passivity, or deferring to the power
of others while using that submission to take power for yourself.

It's easy to abuse the crowd's power. Once they approve you, just like getting in the door at church, you
can hide your real actions easily. Be a pillar of the community and very visibly donate money to the
orphanage, or spend your time feeding the homeless and black, and you can quietly purchase large tracts
of forest and make them into soul-killing malls and no one will say a cross word to you - except those
pesky lone wolves, of course, and they're probably racists, terrorists, drug addicts or hackers. Do we need
another example of a child-abusing priest, a corrupt politician, or a businessman caught dumping toxic
waste next to the homeless black orphanage he founded? These are abundant, but they fall into the
memory hole, as there's no social value - no $14.99 Old Navy sweater - to be found in pointing out that our
society is based on illusion.

Not only that, but the crowd hates the idea that our society is devolving. "What? This is the source of my
power - in a society which competed on some level besides money, I might be seen as inferior!" goes the
cry. This is true. A society based on appeasing the crowd can never discriminate against people for inherent
aspects of their nature, excepting radical cases like retarded kids, or sociopaths, or ugly and deformed
people. The crowd-appeasing society doesn't like the beautiful, or the strong, or the strong-willed, but it
loves the range of mediocrity, from barely making it to nearly-good. This is why most failed societies
produce people who look very similar at all levels of society. They've excluded the beautiful and the
deformed, but everyone else is just a member of the team and is OK by them, so soon they breed
themselves into conformity.

Such a society is by nature devolutionary. It has removed the impetus toward excellence, and replaced it
with a reward for not offending others, and for including others, and for pandering to the lowest impulses
of others - since in a crowd of individuals, the only things that can be agreed upon are of the lowest
common denominator, such as "we like to eat" or "it's fun to be intoxicated and watch TV." This crushes
the independent thinker, who is feared because only independent thinkers come up with new ideas, and
only new ideas can reveal that most people are oblivious to what is called for in order to evolve. (Evolution
is the process of adaptation to one's environment, and isn't "progressive"; what is evolutionary is eternal -
there's no new way to write a symphony, but a better symphony can always be written.)

High school is a devolutionary society, but it continues to exist because it's a temporary one. When your
four years are up, they throw you out, even if you still can't read or write (luckily, hip clothing requires only
a credit card, which does not require literacy). You never see the real tests of life, to which the kids who
are the most popular are often radically unequal; it's a cliche that the most popular guy in your high school
ends up an alcoholic bouncer at a local club, but how often this is true! During high school, however,
there's no reality influence, so only social pressures prevail. Interestingly, television and movies provide a
similar world, since once they're over the characters remain in that perfect state of appealing to something
within all of us, that poignant moment of the perfect love affair or victory over the indubitably evil
character. They're image, not reality.

What do we do, we humans among the ruins, in this modern time of crowd control mentality driving a
populist force of conformity? The answer is more than "resist"; it is a combination of never giving in, and a
looking toward an evolutionary future. You can't speak your mind in public because in a culture of
empowerment, the offended parties will use the crowd against you; so make it clear in public that no one
can speak without fear of retribution, and thus debunk the illusion that there's an exchange of ideas. Any
time someone tells you this is so, tell them they're full of shit and that's the end of the story. They'll squall
and bitch and whine and whore, but the few other thinkers out there will reocgnize a kindred soul and
really, those are the only people you care about, since everyone else is broken and evolutionarily unfit.
Next, turn off the sources of crowd control. Smash your TV, your video games, and if you must watch
movies, watch the really sappy kind of movies that nice girls like. They're syrup but they're the least
offensive, and it's more fun to watch movies with girls, anyway, since they inherently recognize that movies
are a cheap drug and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Also, purge yourself of any crowd mentality. If someone points out that you have a small dick, stand up
and be a man and say, "You're right - I have a small dick, and having a small dick is less preferable to
having a normal-size dick" (having a huge dick is, like every other bizarre mutation, a temporary
gratification; it usually suggests that something else has been shorted in order to provide an external
figure). Don't be afraid to be a nerd, no matter how big your dick is, because what the crowd favors - its
styles of clothing, behavior, and television preferences - are easily forged from a few minutes of watching
these idiots. But most of all, recognize that any group which is formed based on its own membership, e.g.
that when you join the group you're automatically above others, is broken and part of the same crowd that
oppresses you.

This realization translates into other areas of philosophy as well, but you can make these into crowd
groupthink as well by assuming that by recognizing these beliefs, you're living them. Look at the white
power movement - white power should be as socially accepted as black power, but these fools make it into
a clubhouse and thus defeat themselves, since they're using the same logic as the crowd. Go into any
coffeehouse and see the hipster, who acts like a freethinker but is really creating an alternative crowd for
those who want to be groupthinkers but can't bear to join the majority groupthink. And for a good laugh,
go to a Pantera or Metallica concert and see all the "individualists" and "non-conformists" listening to pop
music made savage with distortion. There's only one way to get above the crowd, and you can't do it by
buying a different kind of sweater; you can only do it by acting evolutionarily. Push yourself to greater
heights. Write a better symphony, or a better novel, or better software.

Only by exceeding the crowd can you leave it behind. Do something better, and you have the ability to turn
around and say, "I've proven myself, and fulfilled my destiny." If you're a carpenter, be the best furniture-
maker or house-builder. A musician, write the best symphony. And if you make sweaters? I'm sure you can
figure it out. Even more, however, realize that you're not your profession: you're an individual, and the only
way to be an individual is to act individually and to do what is best in all areas. Exceed. Be stronger,
smarter, and of better character. Hold yourself to your own standards; if you're a better person, these
standards will evolve to be the highest. Don't ever try to appease others by writing something that's more
popular, or making music that's more popular, or selling sweaters to the most people; if you do this, you'll
give your soul to the crowd and be absorbed by them. Stand for yourself, and to the crowd, say: "You're
afraid of evolution: fuck you."

The crowd like to think you owe them conformity. Like in high school, they want power, and will assert it
by trying to drag the free thinker into their midst, either through hard ways (mockery, cruelty, beatings) or
by soft ways (social appeals, gifts, pandering), but either way, they hope to triumph, because the
fundamental fear of every "individual" in the crowd is that someone will make a better way, showing that
they way the crowd-individuals do things is in fact inferior from the only standard that matters in life, which
is reality. No matter how popular someone is, if they can't survive a night in the forest and get their shit
together to have a good life, a good brain, character and family, they're dogshit and inferior and they know
it. Fuck you, indeed. When life says "fuck you," it's for keeps.

As our civilization slowly turns itself into high school, what is lost is reality, which is a place where time is
real; physical events are real; and weakness-vs-strength is real. A healthy population of birds is maintained
when foxes eat the dumber ones, and hawks kill the slower ones, and those that steal food from others are
eventually killed by a free-thinking member of their own species. This conflict is natural and healthy; our
crowd-impulse is to fear any death, or any display of strength, as it will make someone in the crowd feel
inferior, but think about it this way: we want change to occur, even mutations and changes in our traits,
but change doesn't occur only in "good" ways ; it just occurs, mathematically. What to do with the failures?
Axe them, and move on. Modern society, being gorged on its own wealth and the ease of its petrochemical
power, instills in us a fear of this realization, since it would mean that some potential customers out there
in the crowd will be alienated. Fuck them. They don't matter; what matters is making better symphonies,
better sweaters, better people!

My goal as an individual is to crush weakness in myself; I can't do this with an external force, including
technology. I can use vitamin pills to help me get stronger, but they in themselves don't make me stronger;
only me testing myself against reality, including the reality of iron weights and seven-kilometer hikes,
makes me stronger (alert readers will note this is the process of adaptation, and that over time, adaptation
becomes evolution, by which the less-adapted are selected out either by death or lack of breeding at the
frequency of the more-adapted). When I test myself, I don't morally judge myself, as one might in society.
If I succeed, I gain. Everything else is unimportant. If a seven-kilometer hike bests me, I don't get my
revenge on it by pretending it owes me something and calling it "racist" or "homophobic" in public, thus
knowing the rest of the crowd will bring vengeful sanctions against it. This alone is growth, and only
through this do I become an individual.

High school is now, thankfully, a distant memory. The nightmare around me - namely a society which is in
decline and in total denial of that fact - cannot be helped, except on an individual level. Every day they get
weaker, congratulating each other on their new purchases and novel catch phrases, and I get stronger,
getting closer to reality and pushing myself to adapt to it. The problems of this civilization have already
made themselves clear, from pollution to sick religions like Judaism and Christianity to bad breeding
including multiculturalism and the belief that every race and every individual is "equal," and these are
dooming it, slowly. Already in America we can see that the pace of actual invention has slowed, and we're
more focused on selling crap to each other and denying that we're eating up our natural environment and
replacing it with mountains of waste and suburbs and soul-killing malls. The time of the lone wolf is
coming, and very rapidly now. Those who have not been absorbed by the crowd will be ready, and the rest
will be stranded in high school, unaware that reality out there is coming to clean up, and the words on its
lips are "fuck you."

December 28, 2004

Are we the failures, or is it?
To be alive is to wonder about your universe, including your time. More important, however, is that survival
in any age demands awareness of what's going on around you; if the King hates Christians and you show
up to the dinner party with a "Gays For Christ" t-shirt, he'll have you killed. That's of course an inverse
example - in this day and age, if you show up with any indicator that Gays For Christ is not OK by you,
they'll put your name on an unofficial blacklist and ensure you never get hired for more than $7/hour
again.

Survival in the current age demands we either face certain facts, or go about blithely in ignorance for the
sole purpose of being able to function without being burdened by things too big for us to tackle directly.
One day during casual conversation, my comrade g0sp-hell was expounding on what brings us alienated
types together: "You know, there's gotta be something wrong with us, or we wouldn't be as outsider as we
are." That's a paraphrase - the original was more elegant. But he brings up a good point. When one is a
fringe dweller on a society that one cannot articulate in a sentence a clear reason for destroying, what's the
breakdown?

To avoid the kind of narrow-minded thinking that can handle absolute or, but not a partial AND/OR
combination, I'll say this: most people are at least part dysfunctional, but there is no equality among levels
of dysfunction. Some are wholly dysfunctional - true-blue sociopaths (not just those labelled as such for
unconventional beliefs/views), pedophiles, priests - but most have areas of dysfunction, such as the abused
child who grows up to be a woman who has commitment-phobia, or the kid who got picked on at Catholic
school who when he grows up finds himself unable to form lasting friendships. These dysfunctions don't
invalidate the individual, nor is it necessary for every individual to be functional in all areas: specialization,
while destructive if taken in an absolute sense, is a beautiful thing in that it allows people to function in
their area of talent and power without being fettered by other, unassociated things. In a society that one
could label dysfunctional, many people could also be dysfunctional in part, but perfectly good members of
the community.

What would define a dysfunctional society? Clearly, since societies define their own function, either (a) a
society with a paradoxical, insane or destructive function or (b) a society which can't achieve its own stated
goals. Our current civilization - modern, industrial, moral "Western" civilizations circa AD 2004 - fits both of
these criteria.

Work: in theory, our goal is to use technology to work less. But where hunter-gatherers worked four
hours a day, and early farmers roughly six, we work eight hour days and, to avoid living in the rotted and
polluted and crime-ridden areas of our cities, commute for up to two hours in many cases. Not only that,
but our work doesn't actually produce anything viable for the most part; we're spending our time convincing
other people of things, selling them things, and taking care of people-related concerns, leaving the task
undone until the last minute. Thus our overhead is insane, we work long hours on tedious tasks, and we
get little chance to show our actual skills and talent. Even those in the professions, such as doctor or
lawyer, give most of their days to "associated" tasks and not the main task itself. Further, because of the
one-size-fits-all nature of our bureaucracies, most of what we do is tedious as all hell and thus we're not
only spending all of our time, but we're doing on it on trivial things, while being bored. If our goal was to
spend less time doing the disagreeable tasks of providing for ourselves, we have failed it in a big way.

Justice: according to our highest thinkers (high on what, I might ask) our goal is to achieve justice for all
individuals, and "freedom," a word which like most open-ended absolutes I distrust; you can apply it to
anything, such as "We're killing all these people for freedom" and the paradox isn't evident because
"freedom" is a broad, undefinable term in the first place. Despite our lofty statements, these people still
must have jobs, thus cannot have opinions that are contrary to the mainstream, or someone will call up
their jobs and complain and they'll be fired. Somehow, this ability is viewed as a check and balance type of
mechanism, and thus a good thing, probably by the same people smoking plastic who came up with an
open-ended term like "justice" for our society. We hope to someday make the process so bureaucratic that
it's equal for all, but this will merely increase the strength of bureaucracy, which is known for its blundering
tendency to crush anyone who stands out in a crowd, thus dooming society to groupthink and eventual
failure.

Compassion: in our highly slick official propaganda, we talk about compassion for others and how
important that is to us. But what's the compassion in taking a starving independent nation and making it
part of our political system, with the same malls, fast foods, soft drinks and mixture of people that you can
find in America? "Compassion" is our excuse for assimilation. We had to destroy the village to save it, sir -
Indeed.

Animals: Oh, we love cuddly animals. Mainly we love to eat them; nothing wrong there, if the animal
actually has a chance at life, but instead, we put them in giant warehouse factories and confine them to
the minimum space required. They defecate and urinate, and all of this is pooled nearby where it creates a
great stench, so we think to ourselves how dirty and gross animals are. But what's grosser - the creature
that by nature wouldn't put itself in a situation, or the creature that forces it to do so? Money dictates what
we do, and people will always buy meat as they associate it with a complete and satisfying meal, so instead
of producing better meat we produce more of it. Cows swimming in hormones, foods awash in
preservatives and flavor additives, and when you get to the restaurant, there's MSG on the table for you.
This is "progress."

Equality: it's important to us moderns that everyone be equal, and have the same opportunity. But
they're not equal in ability, so we dumb everything down to the level of the lowest person, so that it's "fair"
to "everyone." This creates an incentive against getting good at anything, so we all (equally) suffer under a
mediocre society, mediocre products, mediocre ideas. Those who might rise above will disagree with this, so
we'll fucking kill them, in the name of equality.

Women: "have been oppressed for years, living in the kitchen and bedroom, with no money or power."
OK, so we send them to the same tedious jobs everyone else works, and they thus have in addition to the
same workload as the rest, the obligation to find some way of raising a family, all while not appearing to be
an "old-fashioned" stay at home Mom, since everything that's not new sucks, as everyone knows. This
means that women have dysfunctional, abusive relationships through their 20s and 30s, and finally settle
on some shithead who they picked not because he's a heroic, good-looking, capable guy, but because he's
so meek he's the least likely to hurt them, betray them, or in fact do anything without consulting them.
Trust and faith between the sexes is thus dead, and these women - made neurotic by conflicting demands
of motherhood, career and social obligation - are therefore in a confused state, married at forty, and if they
manage to breed, it probably gives them cervical cancer, perhaps engendered by one of the precursor viral
polyps they picked up while trying out different guys trying to find the right one. But they're "empowered."

Minorities: you better want to be "equal" or we'll call you a Black Panther and lock you up for being a
terrorist. Your culture and way of life will be replaced with a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic existence, and
you will be taught the ways of your conquerors. You will be sent to a job and forced to act like everyone
else. Any attempts to assert to your culture mean that you're a terrorist, so only the meekest will breed,
dwindling your once proud "minority" (even though worldwide, there's more of you than "whites") into a
subservient lapdog of some wealthy shithead somewhere. But remember, it's not slavery.

Homosexuals: you have been ignored for so long, we're bringing you justice, which will allow you to
discover that healthy heteros are indeed repulsed by the idea of sloppy, cum-dripping butt sex, and thus to
discriminate against them by forming "gay mafias" at work which complain about, whine about and crush
anyone who doesn't appear to be "gay positive" to the agenda. Not only that, but we'll make sure everyone
knows AIDS isn't spread almost exclusively through homosexual intercourse, guaranteeing new generations
of unsuspecting gay youth a slow death after spending years on expensive retrovirals. But hey, I own
pharmaceutical stock, so they're ripped on for making my money and dying.

Freedom: a rare thing in history, so we're fixing that. You can't smoke pot. You can't take mushrooms.
You can't say you're a National Socialist in public. You can't live someplace where you have the right to
deny morons entrance. You're fucking free, do you understand? If you don't, you're probably some terrorist
with al-Qaeda, but remember, Islam is not illegal, only acting on your Islamic belief is.
 Choice: back in feudalism, no one had choice! You can move up in the world! Of course, unlike in feudal
times, you're not guaranteed a job, so you'd better begin whoring yourself to others so that you can get
one, and you'd better not fucking offend your bosses, or you'll get fired, be destitute and end up on crack
selling your ass by the pound.

Waste: part of our goal is to make sure you don't drown in your own waste. For this reason, we pipe it
far away from cities, where it eventually becomes an ambient factor in the air around us, so we're all
exposed to it equally, thank god, except those rich enough to live in filtered environments.

Decisions, Decisions: Kings were terrible - one man to rule us all? Better we have Democracy, where
everyone has a vote, and the vote of a crackhead is equal to that of a hero. Of course, because 51% of the
population has to agree on any choice, and you vote for leaders who listen to popularity polls, instead of
for issues themselves, only the simplest possible things - like free beer, wars and television - can be agreed
on and decided issues, and everyone else had better like what the crowd decided or we'll fucking kill you
when you take things into your own hands.

Peers: no more people from afar telling you what to do. Now, when it's time to buy pencils at work,
they'll herd everyone - your "peers" - into a big room and force them to decide what must be done. Since
no two people have the same opinions, it will become an endless debate until lunchtime, at which point
you'll accept some silly compromise just to get out the door. Enjoy freedom!

Sex: wow, now we're sexually liberated! One-quarter of American women have herpes, so pick carefully;
others have AIDS, chlamydia, genital warts, syphilis and so on. You can have sex with whoever you want,
however you want, all the time if you can afford it. However, since sex has replaced love and long-term
happiness including families as a life goal, you probably won't get that, and soon you'll be too old for
anyone to want to have sex with, so you'll settle for some boring long term relationship with whatever
neurotic slut of a partner offends you least. You can adopt.

Social life: we'll introduce you to billions of people, and you can pick the ones you like. Of course, they'll
be trying to do the same, so they'll judge you in advance by your appearance, clothing, interests, and social
behavior, because no one wants to get stuck with some slob who will offend anyone in a crowd. Thus, we
guarantee you insipid and short-lived friendships, but look at all the choices! Wow! 50% off!

Sports: having any real interest will offend someone, because, for example, how dare you assert that
classical music has any more value than Jay-Z and Britney? So we all watch sports, which consists of
watching very dumb people play very simple games, and pretending we care about the outcome. But you
get to have friends who also like sports, even though you have to think that anyone who really likes this
stuff is dumb as a brick, and you get to buy beer. Yay.

Shopping: this wasn't in our stated goals, but it seems to be what we do, and do best, even if we're
looking for an activity. Stuff is cheaper now than ever before. Granted, it breaks, or the software crashes,
or it doesn't work as advertised except in the narrowest definition, but you were able to buy it, and now
you can pay disposal fee, because we're building these great monuments to our time, called "landfills," and
soon they'll be the biggest structures around, so whatever aliens in the future pick through the ruins of our
civilization can see how cool we were...

This article is flippant; indeed, even I recognize that. However, it makes its points. Our society has no goals
except these open-ended, mystical "good" things which no one can define, or agree how to define, thus we
end up settling for something silly instead, and deny ourselves any chance of a great future in favor of
what "most people" see as a comfortable one. Nature won't let this go on for long, so carve your name into
a rock or something, because in ten thousand years all that will be left are the landfills.

December 30, 2004

Anti-Semitism
To love classical music is to take an active interest in who conducts your material, because not all
conductors are equal. Any time the question of Beethoven arises, for example, I'm one of the first to ask
who everyone's favorite conductor is, not because I imagine there's some way to compare dick size via
conductor preference, but from a desire to find more of the hidden secrets of classical music. It makes a
radical difference who interprets the music of any composer, almost more than the orchestra and certainly
more than the type of production - I'll take a $7 Naxos CD of some unknown Eastern European or South
American conductor any day because this label finds unknowns with a passion for understanding the works
of the greats.

When researching the work of Herbert von Karajan, who to me is clearly one of the top three conductors of
Beethoven, I found some ugly controversy: hate had reared its gruesome head, spewing forth in all of the
impotence and revengeful gnashing of teeth that one might expect. One thing I've learned about hate -
which is an emotional reaction and not a thoughtful approach - is that it can never come without cuteness.
The cuteness comes in the form of forgetting certain details, characterizing people as dogma itself
independent of all context or particulars thus prone to knee-jerk absolutist rabid interpretations in all cases,
using insults, cute spellings, or other cheap advertising to try to prove your point. The slander against von
Karajan is still at fever pitch.

"I'd never listen to him, even if he was the best; he was a Nazi, and for me, that's unforgivable," said one
poster - but this comment was echoed by many, many more in very similar language. It was
acknowledged, of course, that good art came from communist Russia, but it appears to be that these
people believe the same could not happen in a Nazi state. Others give him his credit, but mention he's a
Nazi, and then say that they don't believe any good art could come from a totalitarian movement, etc.
These are relatively straightforward, as slandering von Karajan goes; the worst of them try to attack his
historical record. Here's the story from their side.

In the 1930s, when the Nazi party took power, one of the first things they did - so the story goes, according
to these people - was to remove Jews from positions of power and influence, including in the symphonies.
Apparently, there were quite a few, disproportionate to their number (and explaining their small statistical
presence in agriculture, the military, construction, and the like), and as the story goes, when they were
removed, opportunity was seen and people like Herbert von Karajan took it, getting positions they
otherwise would not have had an opportunity to seize. Usually, these people stop short of saying "Unfair!"
but it's all but there, and clearly implied. This is how they see the universe.

Of course, I'm from a different time, one where in a degenerate culture Britney Spears sells more than
Beethoven, and the people picked to lead symphonies are usually mediocre to poor, with the rare
exceptions of intelligence cases (Christoph Eschenbach, Hans Graf) who manage to also play the political
game and have the right opinions, meet the right people, go to the right clubs and parties, etc. For this
reason, I've seen the other side of the coin, which is that if today we took these mediocre directors and
players and put them out of work, there'd be an opportunity for the type of people I see on Naxos
recordings - young, talented, and from places far enough from the technological-industrial centers of the
world that no one expects talent there. ("No one" is defined in the Western media sense, meaning the
same people who profit from those technological-industrial centers - it would be ethnocentricism, if there
were any culture or a consistent ethnicity behind it.)

In my opinion, the classic road of anti-semitism and racism is a dead end, because as it portrays itself, it is
incorrect. There were those who said there would never be a Jewish conductor who could handle the duties
of conducting; that is not so. There were those who predicted there'd never be a black CEO, or a Mexican
Secretary of Labor. And so on. Classic bigotry and prejudice relies on saying "these Other people are of
inferior ability and thus should not be included," and it infuriates me because at its heart is the same appeal
to commerce and crowd-pleasing that has made our society a mess in the first place, and it was that mess
that invited all sorts of parasites from within and without to begin feasting. Classic, golden oldies-style
racism and anti-semitism was what kept these Jewish conductors and musicians out of the orchestra, and it
was based on the error that they couldn't do it.

It was proven wrong. Musicians like Itzhak Perlman and conductors like Otto Klemperer, both thoroughly
Jewish in every way, are two of the many examples of Jews who could learn classical music and perform it
well. There is nothing technically wrong with their playing, and although they seem to be praised
disproportionately to their accomplishments, clearly they belong in the camp of those who can do what is
necessary. It was the response to this kind of bigotry that had a country divided, in that half wished to
exclude Jews - most thinking, "because they are inferior," which as we've seen is error - and the rest
wanting to include them, thinking that bigotry is inferior. This division caused an overcompensation to the
point that the Berlin symphonies were soon stuffed with Jews, who as every ethnic group does, were
promoting each other over all other comers. Nothing out of the ordinary there, and nothing inferior about
Jews.

However, von Karajan was a better conductor of Beethoven, and was somehow passed over. Why? In an
effort to level the playing field, those who made decisions about who conducted boiled down their selection
criteria to two things: who can play the music, and who can be politically popular enough to advance the
careers of the selectors (it's a hilarious sign of social decay when supervisors pick subordinates for the
political ambition of the supervisors as selected by a random crowd of people who have nothing in common
but having bought tickets).

I think nothing pisses me off more than bigotry. It reminds me of the exclusive little cliques people had in
high school, where if you didn't buy the right clothing, know the right TV shows and bands, and so on, you
were inferior. Not just excluded, but you were a fuckup, in their eyes. You were garbage, stupid, a nerd,
never to succeed, obviously a mistake. That's bigotry of another form, and the kids at Columbine
recognized this too late when a couple kids inspired in part by Hitler took on these bigots and shot them in
the face. Bigotry can be multicultural, bigotry can be liberal, and bigotry can be very normal; one doesn't
have to be a group of blonde, hip, wealthy people to be bigots, and in fact most bigots aren't blonde,
wealthy or hip. They come in all shapes and sizes.

In Nietzsche I find a cohort in my quest to crush bigoted anti-Semitism. I've known a lot of Jewish people I
enjoy, even love. Bigots wouldn't tolerate that. I don't share a lot of values with them, but unlike bigots, I
don't expect that all cultures should share the same values and pronounce some values "inferior" and
others the normal, accepted, de facto way of life. As a result, I don't have much love for the anti-Semitic
bigots who once preached that Jews were "inferior," but I also don't have much love for bigotry itself, thus
I'm not bigoted against the bigots: I can see how they might want to do things that way, and while I don't
share those values, and will work against them, I'm not going to pass moral judgment on bigots as
"inferior." What a twisted maze this is, eh? No mainstream columnist is going to attempt to navigate this
labyrinth of logic, but much as computer chips are infinite catacombs of digital switches, philosophy loves
complexity when it serves accurate articulation. And in this article, whether it is widely read or not
(approved by the crowd, e.g. wearing the right clothes, bands, etc), will attempt accuracy, which is
something I feel bigots and anti-Semitic bigots don't have.

Herbert von Karajan, for example, faced bigotry and overcame it. He wasn't popular, in part because he
had a vision of what classical music should be, recognizing its romantic nature and its Faustian spirit, and
he didn't bow to what was popular at the time. He didn't cultivate an audience by pandering to them; he
told them what was right, and as a result, wasn't promoted much. Some would call this "Social Darwinism"
and consider him inferior, but to my mind, he was in fact a superior conductor of Beethoven. Not only this,
but people seem to forget that his story isn't one-sided; while he joined the Nazi party, which was at the
time in Germany about like it is to say "I'm a Democrat" today in America, e.g. another political choice
among a few examples each with their own extremes, he also married a Jewish woman, Anita Gutterman,
in 1942. Further, he came from a Greek-Macedonian family who had moved to Germany long ago and
adopted its customs, language, and behavior; he was integrated and considered himself a German, while
giving a nod to his ancient heritage. Is that bigotry?

Still, many refuse to play von Karajan's recordings, or those of Wilhelm Furtwängler, from the same period,
because they joined the Nazi party. These same people, and others, refuse to believe that any good art
could have come from the Nazi period. They also deny Nazis today, and for all time, as only bigots, morons,
racists: inferior. To my mind, two wrongs don't make a right, and responding to anti-Semitism with anti-
antisemitism is just as broken, as you're still assuming that the crowd is right, what is popular is good, and
what sticks out and is different is inferior.

Fascism's defenders say that it is, like the Black Panther movement or Aztlan movement, an assertion of
cultural independence and preservation of their tribe - in academic terms, it is an ethnocultural nurturining.
This is true, and definitely for the Nazis. Under them, classical music thrived, and was more passionate and
more accurate than it had been before, when popularity ruled the airwaves and scholarship and artistry
were nearly forgotten. How can this be reconciled with the insane bigotry that says Jews are "inferior"?
Here's how: anti-Semitism is a misinterpretation of ethnic-cultural preservation. It gets sidetracked from
"let's preserve our culture" to "let's exclude the inferiors (as a means of preserving our culture)."

Klemperer wasn't inferior. He was able to proficiently conduct Beethoven. Gould can play the most difficult
pieces in classical music. Also not inferior. However, also not correct in their interpretations, which are
abysmal. Klemperor murders Beethoven. He takes a passionate, spirited, complex form of music and
streamlines it into a single emotive mode in which there are moments of aggression or sadness, but
basically, it is designed to please the ears and maintain a bittersweet constancy; it's schmaltz. More people
than can be counted have concluded Beethoven was crap and never wanted to listen to it again because
they've heard a conductor like Klemperer. To their ears, and to mine, he's a very complex take on Britney
Spears, and he murders the music of Beethoven by turning it into schmaltz .

However, that's my own cultural take on it; Jewish culture values different things. It's not as Faustian as
Germanic culture (and people of Germanic ethnicity) and is somewhat offended by what it sees as uneven,
dangerous emotions in Beethoven, thus to a Jewish mind, the best thing to do with Beethoven is to convert
it into something safe and Jewish, namely schmaltzy, even-tempered, ear-pleasing and continuous music.
All the notes are right; all the technical details are perfect; what doesn't make sense, to a German, is the
Jewish interpretation of Beethoven, because it takes something of Germanic culture and re-orders it as
something of Jewish culture. This destroys what the work originally had. Inferior? No, but it's in the wrong
place: the symphony of Jerusalem should sound like Klemperer, but the Berlin Philharmonic? Please, no -
diversity means we allow Germans to be Germans, and Jews, Jews. Anything else is bigotry.

The low road to cultural independence is to try to prove those who aren't of your culture are "inferior." To
me, this is an unworkable strategy and delusional psychology, in that it creates one standard worldwide
and forces everyone into it, thus derives its power from the approval of the crowd, which Herbert von
Karajan did not do and thus provided us with one of the few workable itnerpretations of Beethoven in a
modern time. He didn't try to use an external method, popularity, to make up for the content of his work;
instead, he focused on the content, did it correctly for a Germanic interpretation of a German composer,
and thrust it onto the world with a "this is the right way to do this, take it or leave it" attitude. I find that
more appealing that spending time worrying about what is not right, and then trying to convince the
unwashed, unthinking, undifferentiated crowd that it is "inferior."

Jews are not alone in having broken cultural interpretations of Beethoven. That gent Harnoncourt does a
few pieces well, and then has some truly atrocious interpretations that reflect a passive, castrated, skirt-
holding worldview. I've thrown those out, or rather hauled them down to half-price books with the
Klemperer and Gould and Bernstein recordings I have, because all of those gentlemen have failed to
interpret a German composer in the context of the German spirit, and thus have made a kind of ultra-
complex Britney Spears that will turn any thinking person away from that music; most, not having much
time, will thus associate Beethoven with the conductor's interpretation and conclude it, too, is a failure. How
depressing! Better to throw them out.

Similarly, I've thrown out all of the bigoted propaganda I found in any form, including my copies of Noam
Chomsky's work, various neo-Nazi tracts, and the writings of Francis Fukuyama. All of them have a one-
size-fits-all approach to the world, and want to make me and everyone else conform to it. I think this is
passive, and cowardly. My view instead is that I assert my right to have a preference for my culture, and I
pick traditional Indo-European culture, and in that ethnocultural unit, there's a right way and a wrong way
to do things. There's a right way to interpret philosophy, which hovers somewhere on the Nietzsche-
Schopenhauer-Heidegger axis, and a right way to interpret literature so that it upholds our culture values.
There's a right way to interpret music, so that Beethoven does not become schmaltz but preserves the full
Faustian, Romantic, passionate and terrifying spirit of confronting reality - in the Germanic view. And finally,
there's a right way to interpret ethnicity, which is to exclude all people who are not of Germanic ethnic and
cultural heritage. You must have both; one alone ("I'm German and I like to smoke methamphetamine,
vote Democratic, and have sex with many women at once") doesn't qualify. You must be both German in
cultural outlook, and thus behavior, and in ethnicity, or heritage. Is this bigotry? On the contrary, it's
bigotry to reject this view.

There will always be mixed cultures. I'm all for them - but not here. This country was founded by Indo-
Europeans seeking to get away from the insanity of a Christianized Europe, and while the crowd-pleasing
attitudes have taken over here, we're starting to see just how authoritarian and bigoted liberal democracy
is, and people like me are taking steps away from it. We don't want to become bigots, because bigotry is
an intellectual failure, but we don't want to be assimilated either - the Beethoven that works in Jerusalem
doesn't work in Berlin. Among us, those who possess still the ancestral spirit of our tribe are asserting
ourselves a new way: I prefer my own culture, and I realize that I need to exclude all other cultural
influences to maintain it.

Not everyone agrees, of course. But as Herbert von Karajan saw with Beethoven, in the context of a certain
culture, there's a right way and a wrong way. Those of us who prefer German culture are joining together
and forming local communities where we can do things the right way for us. You wouldn't know if it you
paid attention to the news-entertainment media, which is basically Britney Spears telling you what you
should think of what actually happened that day, but more people of my tribe agree with me than not. This
means that the tide has turned, and we're turning our backs on bigotry and bigoted anti-bigotry, and
simply stepping up to assert ourselves. Not only that, but we're recognizing that most people don't know a
damn thing, and thus that those who lead in our communities will have to take these steps even if they
appear to be "unpopular," because popularity is a passive measurement of what a population needs, and
reflects the loudest voices and the lowest common denominator. It's healthier to be heroic, like Herbert von
Karajan, and to be unpopular but to assert what is necessary for a population - those who disagree with
destroy our culture if they live among us, so they can quietly move elsewhere, such as California, and have
a blast being different there. Not inferior, not superior. Different.

Of course, you can't say this in the media, and while it's clear that Jews own too much of it for their own
good (this is why bigotry and "Holocausts" happen), the bigger problem is that the media panders to the
same crowd, and like all crowds, it cannot tolerate any opinion which steps out of conformity, thus it favors
only passive solutions like bigotry. Its bigotry is against any culture or health at all, since the weakest
among the crowd will complain and thus threaten to divide the crowd if health is asserted as a positive
value. What pleases the crowd is this: go ahead and do whatever you want, as none of it matters, and
nothing is right or wrong anyway, except for this one exception, which is the question of what's "superior"
and "inferior" in maintaining rule by the crowd . For this reason, the crowd hates any ethnic-cultural group
that steps out and says, "There's no one way that will work for it all, so we want to do it our way, and we'll
let history judge whether it works."

Even the most desperate and fearful know that the ultimate determination of success is time, and whether
some idea can sustain itself and achieve greater heights over that time, or whether it is ground into the
dust of meaninglessness. The crowd fears history, because deep down inside they realize as a crowd they
have nothing to say, and in fact, couldn't handle any major cataclysm that might occur. Their only strength
is their uniformity, and the only thing the crowd fears more than an independent thinker is the result of an
independent thinker, which is that the consensus and thus conformity of the crowd is broken when some
people favor the ideas of that independent thinker. This is why, throughout history, only a few voices have
been needed to sway nations and even entire races: once the surface tension of the crowd is broken, the
single will and resolve of the crowd shatters, and thus what the crowd ultimately fears comes to pass -
some ideas are tested by nature and shown, over time, to be more enduring than others.

One of these ideas is German culture, and as a subset of it, German classical movement like Beethoven as
interpreted by a clear-thinking conductor like Herbert von Karajan, Wilhelm Furtwangler or Christoph
Eschenbach. Another idea is - well, you can't say this in the media, but classic Islamic culture is pretty cool
too. It's not my bag, but of course, I'm a Germanic, not Persian, ethnocultural individual. Right or left,
people are afraid to even admit al-Qaeda has a point. But if you read what al-Qaeda have said, it's basically
thus: "We prefer our own culture and our own ethnicity, and thus, as cautioned by Plato and others, prefer
not to open our cities to world commerce; we recognize that many of our people would prefer that you
replace our culture with mini-malls and television and soft drinks, but as the responsible leaders, we resist
it." They have united the bigots in the crowd against them for they, like Herbert von Karajan, think outside
of the crowd, and thus threaten to break it up and defeat its bigotry.

December 30, 2004

Are we there yet?
or
Is the end near?
Every age has its doomsayers and prophets of annihilation. For this reason, most people write off any
apocalyptic prediction as the same old thing, forgetting that while it isn't true in every age, it clearly can be
true in some. And what would suggest its veracity? A society that cannot plan; cannot limit its own growth;
cannot produce a higher quality of individuals; cannot stop itself from consuming its environment and
leaving behind waste that decays into toxic byproducts. This shows a lack of reverence for life, and thus no
sense of the value of our existence as an experience, but also shows a lack of appreciation for life: its
carelessness is near suicidal. There's a great exhaustive depression before the end.

Humanity on its current course is doomed. This is clear if one looks at the whole picture, although it's easy
to get lured into small argumets about whether or not global warming is a real phenomenon, or about
specific issues such as ethnoculturlal purity. These arguments matter, but they aren't the whole of the
matter. They're details, and much as dots on a page make up the illustrations in a newspaper, details
scattered across a vision of life's structure reveal what is actually occuring in that ever-present but hard to
spot thing named "reality." Finding that vision of life's structure takes some experience, in the form of time
and events, and most people don't get any inkling of it until late in life. I'm told it's also a lot easier if
you're really super smart, like Arthur Schopenhauer or Ludwig van Beethoven.

Everywhere you look, signs of the disease are evident. There's not an enemy - it's not "the Jews" clustered
under bridges with worn copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion 1 , it's not some shadowy corporate
group with a name known only by those who are indoctrinated into special blood rituals, nor is it some lost
remnant of the Third Reich running everything behind the scenes with mind control devices (wear tinfoil hat
now) - but people believe in these enemies, and many more, and these aren't all alienated, failed people;
many of society's most successful are scurrying around in fear of one conspiracy or another. That there's
no enemy, yet we cannot identify the problem and keep looking for enemies, is Clue Number One that
humanity's about to take it in the ass in a vast, cataclysmic, geosocioeconomic-political sense.

Our lack of an enemy means we see no way of change outside of the current civilization. Anything you
can't vote for or say in a public of mixed genders, races, intelligences, etc. is not an option. People cannot
conceive of a different social order outside of the variants of industrial society, namely Capitalism (the most
vicious get the money, everyone works to get rich) and Communism (the most vicious get the money,
everyone works for them). We don't even take, for example, al-Qaeda seriously when they say they wish to
have a feudal, Traditional Islamic society. Our media tries to treat Islam like Scientology, as a curiosity
indulged in by a few who are being "different" in a - well, we never judge others, but slight weird and
unwise way.

What's even scarier than our inability to identify the problem is our inability to do something about it, were
someone even to come up with a simple solution like "The problem is people who sodomize penguins."
Well, that's a lifestyle choice, who are we to say? Because if we start looking too deeply into those who
analpunch the tuxedoed flightless seabirds, then we're going to have to look closer at other activities too -
in the interest of "fairness" and "justice" and "equality" of course, all commonly-affirmed ultimate social
goals that have no consensus definition, thus are a constant battlefield on which nothing is accomplished
except internal reshuffling of the most trivial parts of our society. Indeed, this has divided us politically into
two camps, those who want government to Do The Right Thing opposing those who want government to
Stay Off Our Back, with the first group trusting the broad citizenry less, and the second trusting
bureaucracy less. Any halfway awake observer will note that neither group deserves trust, much less any
unsupervised trust and broad mandate to "do what is necessary."

As if that wasn't bad enough, we're divided severely against ourselves. Each person thinks he has the
solution, and thus looks down on others who don't share that wisdom; however, simultaneously, because
they all have variations of the same basic solution, which is Don't Rock the Boat e.g. let liberal democratic
industrial capitalist society continue its course, they "respect" the rights of others to disagree. What kind of
illusory philosophy believes you can be wrong and right at the same time on the topic of basic questions
about our future? A diseased one, clearly.

Then there's other symptoms: most people are annoying, flamingly, dysfunctional. They're together enough
that they can hold jobs, breed, and pay bills on time, etc., but does that actually require brains or
initiative? No: you go shopping for things you need, including a "career," and then you pick the one that
seems most likely and keep at it. Over time, you get promoted, because if you don't promote people
regularly in jobs, everyone starts to fear that they'll be required to actually prove themselves, which isn't
what they signed on for: they signed on for the idea that if they show up and do the minimum, they'll be
able to keep making a living that way. Does breeding require any brains? You find some women, talk a few
into sleeping with you, and if one repeats the performance and doesn't offend you, you buy her stuff and
hang out with her a lot. Eventually one of you fumblingly mentions the l-word, and then you get engaged,
and there's kids. That's the best case scenario, if you're "responsible." Most people are 90% broken and
10% able to follow instructions and make simple decisions, and those latter two abilities carry them
through.

Other questions abound. Do we trust our news sources, knowing they're depending on (a) advertising
dollars, thus cannot offend advertisers, and (b) popularity, which means they must jazz up every story to
seem "interesting" to even the dullest, sleepiest, least coherent individuals? Our leaders are basically poll-
takers; their job is to figure out what most people want, and then to promise it to them while
simultaneously evading any future accounting as to whether it was actually achieved. As Ronald Reagan
proved, they're basically entertainers. And what of our brave philosophers, artists, thinkers, sages? Well,
they're all just trying to earn a living, too, so they're basically entertainers, finding mystifyingly obscure
ways of telling repeating back to "the people" their own basic philosophy, which is the philosophy shared by
crowds in every age and nation: don't rock the boat, don't offend anyone, don't rise above.

So, to analyze the signs of the times is to realize that humanity is headed for a fall, and a big one. We can
see it's going to happen, but can't tell when, because there are plenty of mitigating factors - and quite a
few catalysts that could blow it up before it really sags into long, slow, drawn-out, pointless oblivion ("not
with a bang but with a whimper"). Because we can't say exactly when, the denial fiends who pass as public
servants say "Aha! There is no proof!" and beaming broadly, repeat back to their constituents what they
want to hear: no need to change, go back to the couch and television and beer or bong or valium or
religion. And why would these public servants care, since their own goal is to get their money and retire far
away from this madness? It's a vicious cycle of people tearing each other down because no one can identify
the problem, much less a solution.

Of course, here at anus.com, that's not a problem. We know the problem exists, and that at some point, it
will blow up and tear humanity's ass out; further, we can see that it has been working its destruction on
those around us, who often reveal many generations of people breeding themselves into conformity and
denial. That the inevitable end awaits is undeniable, but most will deny it. That something can be done
about it is also clear, although most will not see it. What might have baffled us once, the question of
"saving the world," is now a non-issue; we know that we care only about people of selected qualities,
namely matched intelligence, strength and character of the highest order. And with that, we do what
writers do: appeal to those who aren't yet destroyed to wait out the end of humanity, and to rebuild in the
ashes, if that's possible. Otherwise, we'd just be prophets of a fearful end.
1
Hilariously, people debate every day whether this is actually a forgery. To me it seems that it describes
closely enough the effects of outsiders on native communities that if it's a forgery, it should be considered
literature, at least in the same way Elie Wiesel's Night and Kurt Vonnegut's Galapagos are.

January 1, 2005
Populism
Jobs afflict us all. Even if you work for yourself, or are independently wealthy, at some point you'll be doing
something like a job, namely dealing with other people and finding ways to compel them to do what is
needed for a task to be accomplished. In fact, we can boil most of modern civilization down to a job's-eye
view: once growing crops and fixed settlements were established, the only remaining major question was
how to get people to do the different unequal tasks required for a society. Succinctly, some must lead,
some must farm, and some must clean latrines, and they must get along, somehow.

During the last two millennia, a change has occurred in how we do things, and that has been marked in
thought by the rise of populism, or the belief in rule by those who have not distinguished themselves in
excellence yet make up the bulk of the population. Before Christianity, spiritual belief was applied unequally,
in that one figured out as much of life's mysteries as was possible given one's intelligence and inclinations;
before democracy, rule was made by those who had the largest instrumental part in setting up and
defending the civilization in question. Now however someone who can do nothing but clean latrines is seen
as having equal spiritual worth to a king, and equal capacity for governing - one vote - as a great war
leader or great thinker.

We are about to see the consequences of this change, and it will be gruesome and culminate in the most
forward-thinking among us forming civilizations apart and necessarily murdered uncountable others who
will surge forth hoping to parasitize and "join" that civilization. This "joining" attitude is one of populism;
healthy civilizations make you earn your membership by showing you have something to offer, since charity
is only useful for those with unearned wealth they wish to disperse back into nature. This great change,
and the delightful slaughter of fools and delusional cases that accompanies it, is yet in the future, so for
now this article discusses populism.

Populism serves the crowd; the crowd hates those who have the chance to rise, or earn a higher place in
life, because that some might rise threatens the stability of the crowd, which is based on consistency of
place that does not require earning. This stability allows members of the crowd to feel that they will never
be judged as inferior, and never lose what they have; in effect, it's a primitive form of materialism or
nostalgia, where one hangs on to "what is" because of fear that one cannot move on to new greater
heights or ever achieve anything impressive outside of what is. For this reason, populism fosters low self-
esteem among all who buy into it; those who naturally need it already have low self-esteem, which explains
its favored status among conquered and technologically less-advanced peoples.

What the crowd wants to hear is that everything is okay and will never change. This way, their lives are
guaranteed, and they must never test themselves against reality (a process called adaptation which, when
breeding/mortality selection is allowed to occur, thus making it permamnent, is called evolution ) and run
the risk of having their shortcomings revealed. They are more afraid of their own possible failure than they
are eager to achieve potential victories ahead. This is a belief system that looks inward not outward, to the
past, not the future, and centers around the individual because to look outside the individual reveals things
individuals don't want to see: competition, mortality and shortcomings possibly revealed. It is ignorant of
the process of life, and as a whole resembles teenagers who are too scared to ask out the pretty girl
standing at the edge of the dance, even though she'd probably say yes because she's bored and slightly
insecure too.

Insecurity - low self-esteem, self-image problems - occurs in everyone, even great heroes; it's natural
because to recalculate what we think of ourselves is natural. However, in some people, their fear is greater
than their desire, and thus insecurity dominates their personalities and they become unable to achieve,
because, in the very subtle way that a psychology with which one lives daily becomes ingrained, they are
paralyzed by fear. This subtle behavior, unlike a dramatic or sudden response to stimulus, is almost
inobservable, because agenda item #2 right after fear (item #1) is to hide the fear. A vicious circle? Either
that, or an ingenious maintenance mechanism which allows them to both be dysfunctional and to have the
ability to function for simple daily tasks. This is part of nature's brilliance, in that they're allowed to achieve
a lowly level of existence and, should one come along with greater intelligence and strength and character
than the rest, that individual is able to rise from that level to a greater one.

However, the populist crowd knows only its insecurity, because - as anyone who has ever been in a
committee or group meeting can tell you - groups of people must settle on what they have in common as
their collective agenda. Thus when you put people of different inclinations and lifestyles and vocations in a
room, all they can do is to agree on what benefits them all, which is usually what challenges them the least.
"We have unanimously agreed to keep things as they are, because that's how it's done around here." Let
someone walk in who has a new way, which is almost always an already-known way that has been
disregarded because it's too challenging, and the crowd will turn on that person, tearing them to pieces if
possible. This is another ingenious maintenance mechanism that insures cultures populated mainly by idiots
are never gifted with someone who can single-handedly turn them around; that would empower a group of
destructive idiots with authority. It's better they kill the few smart ones than give a group of idiots the
methods of the smart to do what idiots do, which is destructive and idiotic behavior.

This meant that in ancient history, the only societies that advanced were those in which more than a few
people recognized the need for heroic achievement. This transcended the tendency of most agrarian
regimes to begin growing crops of followers much as they cultivated grains, fruits and livestock. It also
escaped the problem of basic civilization, which is how to tell other people what to do without falling into
crass manipulation and thus breeding even stupider people; the societies of the ancients that embraced
these philosophies were ascendant civilizations, or always growing more adapted and more heroic,
therefore expanding, which meant they could explain themselves through the basic metaphor of conquest.
Unlike moderns, the ancients did not see the world as a competition between absolute states of selfishness
OR collectivism; they believed in a selfishness that's unselfish.

How can a selfishness be unselfish? When the values of what one accomplishes for the self serve the
whole, and as part of the whole, the self, selfishness serves the whole. If the dominant value of a society is
- as in modern America and Europe - "making money" and thus taking it out of the social system as a
whole, the individual is a parasite; if the dominant value of a society is an extreme collectivism, as in failed
Soviet Russia, the society is a parasite in the individual. Ancient societies did not think in such passive
absolutes, thus they saw that by doing great things and rising above others, the individual was making the
society as a whole greater, and that - by virtue of their living in that civilization - all of its people would
receive some portion of the benefits, even if they were not tangible, e.g. monetary, material or political.
Part of this realization involved recognizing that most people cannot see degrees of qualitative subtlety,
thus would understand only collectivism OR selfishness, but not the intersection of the two; for this reason,
the ancients rightfully deprived such people of all political power and told them what to do at the point of a
spear.

This was a virile, powerful, and world-respecting attitude. The ancients saw that the best way to honor
nature was to be excellent. They had reverence for the whole, and saw individuals as parts of a whole who
could act in self-interest as long as they also acted in a way that encouraged growth and health in the
whole. As part of that, they picked up on the fact that most people - the undifferentiated crowd, who do
not have the capacity to rise above others and thus fear the process of rising above, as they perceive
correctly that when it occurs it will deprive them of power - want stagnation. They don't want challenge.
They don't want excellence. They want the same old thing, because they understand it, and it doesn't
threaten them. This is why primitive societies have a habit of murdering those among them who invent, or
create, or have a contrary opinion; they fear how they the majority will appear if shown to be less capable
by this new invention.

The paradox of crowds, however, is that they're composed of individuals; what creates a crowd is a
tendency to preserve the individual at all costs, thus deny achievement and evolution and outside reality.
This naturally fosters "individualism," or the desire to have the personal pretense of being "different," since
there is no incentive to change or growth; what is left is to focus on the self as is, and to dress it up with
contrivances and behaviors that appear to make it different from all others. However, as elderly people can
tell you, when you look back at life what mattered was achievement: how you challenged yourself, what
triumphs you won, what you created, what you nurtured - but not your losses, as they fade into all of the
time that wasn't achievement, which includes all of life's boring moments (including hygiene, eating,
sleeping). That some time will mean nothing is a given; that some can be made significant occurs not
through individual pretense and self-adornment, but through creative and assertive acts which change the
world.

(This is separate from passivity, which no matter how it is manifested in violent or popular activity, is
justifying your own actions in terms of the populist crowd-pleasing mentality, and letting that momentum
carry you forward. Ayn Rand, or dead Susan Sontag, would be good examples of this; they found new and
cute ways to dress up the same old philosophy of empowering those who don't create, and thus were
praised by other neurotic and fearful people. As the Greeks observed, to have no creative goals is to
become obsessed with oneself and with mortality, and thus to become neurotic and incapable of heroic
action - or, indeed, any forward motion. In modern times, we like to use the illusion of "progress" to
assume that if we find better ways of being materially comfortable or popular, we are getting closer to
some Utopic state of an enlightened society, but this is passive and in denial of the passage of time; a
heroic attitude accepts death, suffering and time's passing and determines to do something creative with
the time available.)

The ancients, from the Indian Vedantists to the Roman legions, understood this, but their philosophies and
culture gradually died out under an assault of mediocre people produced by the ease of life afforded by
ever-increasing technology. The last gasp of this ancient belief was German National Socialism, which
despite some serious flaws represented a moment of sanity in an otherwise lugubrious history which, when
looked at on the scale of millennia and not centuries, represents the decay of the Indo-European people
into an honorless, graceless third-world power with first-world technology (our TVs are the best in the
universe). This was traditional culture rearing its head and trying to stop the travesty of our downfall, but it
was unpopular, and thus once again the leaders were simply outnumbered by the crowd, who have spent
the years since trying to convince us that there were "moral" and "philosophical" reasons for a war that can
be summarized more honestly as the triumph of the revengeful, hateful mass over those who wished to
reward excellence and deprive of political power those who could not earn it.

National Socialism, despite being the one modern political system with any integrity or sound concept of
reality, had two major problems. First, it was not heroic enough; it tried to "prove" its points to the general
population, and tried to convince them of its ideas by using oversimplifications like the terms "inferior" and
"superior" in regards to race, which played into the mechanism of populism and caused National Socialism
as a real-world entity to be absorbed by the bureaucracy of the mediocre. Thus despite National Socialism
as concept having transcended the mundanity of populism as represented in its real-world belief systems
liberalism and Christianity, National Socialism was assimilated by it. Among the side effects of this
assimilation was the crass bigotry and anti-Semitism of most National Socialists, who would have been
better off throwing away the concept of justifying their beliefs to the crowd, and instead standing firm with
a statement of subjective truth: For us, the traditional Indo-European belief is the only real one, and thus
we exclude other ethnocultural entities and their people from our Reich.

The second great error of National Socialism was a certain populism in its appeal; whether this was merely
propaganda, as many hard-core National Socialists allege, or something that in fact infested the core of the
ideology, it was a creeping herd mentality. A class-free society? Definitely: classes are ranks based on the
assumption that the best people desire to earn lots of money, thus the wealthy are, by reverse inference,
the best people in a society. The classless nature of National Socialist society was a step toward a better
future, but its insistence on a similar dismantling of caste was an appeal to the fearful among the crowd.
What if I'm not in the leadership caste, or one of the best warriors? This is anti-evolutionary, anti-heroic,
and fearful in nature.

Fear leads to a reactionary desire to preserve, not advance, and a study in relative motion tells us that if
we are standing still but our environment keeps moving forward, we appear to be moving backward; this
visual sense comes true in a life where to not accept the future and make it conform to a logical way of life
is to accept the past as the best that is to come. Because of these errors, the once-transcendent National
Socialist movement fell into the same error as conservatives and reactionaries everywhere make: they tried
to "preserve" something in a partial state of existence by eliminating the obvious impurities; while those
impurities need to be eliminated, the bigger task is to create forward motion toward a heroic ideal. This is
not to say that National Socialism was error; it was the best we've had in the last thousand years. It is also
not an attempt to group National Socialists with the "neo-Nazis" of today, most of whom understand only
hatred and resentment and thus are inherently passive and descending as a social order.

Any movement of future Indo-European culture (and this is the only culture that concerns me, as it is my
own, and I don't meddle in the business of others) must overcome this passive tendency and look first
toward asserting its own strength, and next toward eliminating impurities and errors. It can do them
simultaneously; "first" and "next" here are not as much chronological designations as rankings of
importance. It cannot fall into populism, or trying to "prove" or "justify" to others that its way is right, but
should take the active and creative route and say simply: My people must exist separate from others,
according to Traditional culture, because this is for us the right way to live. To assume "inferior" or
"superior," or to universally demonize some aspects of other civilizations, is to resort to trying to "prove" to
an ignorant crowd the truth of a complex thing. For this reason, any future movement will act in its own
interests without descending into populist crowd-pleasing justifications or moral absolutes. Its only absolute
will be its own creation, and while this will involve, for example, throwing out all people of alien
ethnocultural orientation, that won't be its only action.

The populist movement surrounds us; it is not only the strongest political and social force on earth now,
but it always has been, as there are more people who cannot create than those who can. This is fortunate
as, given leaders who can tell them to do the right things, these people are granted healthy and fulfilling
lives without the neurosis and personal pretense and materialism of a modern time. Without those leaders,
and the ideas that inspire such leaders, people - like children bored during summer when there is no school
to shape their minds - will drift toward boredom and fearful behavior. They will focus on being "different"
and on "empowering" others, but they'll miss the boat as far as adapting to reality and making a sane
society goes. You can see the effects now in an overgrown civilization that can't plan for the future and
experiences fundamentally bad psychology in the current time. If you have any red blood in you, you will
want this changed and recognize that change as a prerequisite to survival. For this reason, in the new year,
eschew "Daring to be different" - instead, listen to ancient knowledge that is eternally true, and "dare to
achieve," as only that will change our otherwise dismal future.

January 1, 2005
About these columns
These columns are written for strong people. By that I don't mean physically strong. I mean that, if I
wanted to write for the undifferentiated mass who think newspapers are a source of what's actually
happening of interest in the world, I'd write like Ann Coulter: demonize a clear enemy, make some jokes at
their expense, and then assert the ego of the individual as being supreme for having a certain set of widely-
publicized beliefs. I write these instead for those who create, whether civilizations or art, depending on your
specialization.

In past times I'd say these columns are for strong men, but I don't feel it fair to give slight to women,
given the expectations of feminism instilled in them: there are strong women too, and on the frontier these
were expected to be defenders and rulers of the house, and not too feminine to pick up a bow and arrow
or rifle and do away with raiders, fighting in concert with men. However, men - the male, assertive, action-
oriented mindset that is instilled in a human during fetal development by hormones - are a different
creature than women, and I say long live the difference, as it makes for a system of checks and balances
which is necessary for civilization. Men err toward the active; women err toward the passive. Together
there's a future. But those must both be strong, which does not mean a dissolution of the feminine or
adulteration of the masculine.

Because I write for strong people, I'm given the trivial grace of saying things you can't yap about in public,
and the much more potent one of being able to take on difficult topics without having to put them in linear
terms for the crowd, thus losing subtlety. Since this is mine to dispose, today I write about racial loathing:
the impulse of strong people to draw swords and slaughter those of other cultures and ethnicities,
recognizing these as alien to their own and thus an inherent struggle between their own culture and the
cultural invaders. My advice regarding racial loathing is simple.

First, recognize that there are many weak people you loathe, many among your own race and tribe. While
your response on seeing these may not be as visceral as that of seeing a true alien in our midst, when they
are recognized - through their political actions, or social actions, or other activities revealing of character - it
should be stronger, because these are as close as you're going to get to a true enemy : they're the Trojan
horse inside your gates, and they walk among you freely because they look just like you. Be ready to draw
swords and do what is necessary.

While alien people, bearing with them DNA specialized in ways optimized for their foreign cultures, and
attitudes bearing the ideas of foreign cultures, many of them which have already failed and thus preach
only disease to strong people, are indeed a symptom of the decline, they're not the cause. Furthermore,
the cause is far more widespread than the cure, and it is borne by many who are crypto-enemies because
their beliefs are basically destructive to all that strong people hold dear; however, they also far outnumber
you. For this reason, it doesn't make sense to draw swords against the symptoms, but to recognize the
cause -- and then things get complex.

One doesn't defeat a cause by preaching against it alone; there is a certain amount of railing and
doctrinizing that must occur for it to be widely recognized among the strong, who are otherwise interested
in their "real world" lives apart from politics and the futures of masses of people (this is, in fact, healthy, as
you will see later in this article). But to react too clearly to something is to set yourself apart in a
specialized camp of "not-cause," and thus to be only able to preach against it; it's more important to
counteract it, and one does that as one creates a civilization: by forming something better and promoting it
at the expense of all things of a weaker will.

Clearly our current society is in deep doo-doo. Its overpopulation and endless consumption and waste alone
will doom it, but even further, it lacks heroic and creative spirit, and thus is given to endless internal debate
which obscures any real meaning and any real chance at change. When ten thousand people fill a hall,
each screaming his or her own theory of what is right and wrong, what ends up occurring is noise, not
signal, and not reason. Therefore it is better that a select group move outside the hall of discourse, and
through action establish a civilization-value-system and worldview that is not only contrary to that of the
screaming crowd, but demonstrates through its existence a healthier life.

This amounts to a change not on the political or social or academic levels, but on the most practical level
there is: values. Most people will spend their lives focused on themselves and their families, but will apply
their values to what they teach their children, and, more importantly, how they choose to live, setting an
example not only for children but for neighbors and friends. This is how influence actually spreads; we all
look toward those who have what we would like to have, and if we're not parasites, we seek to emulate it
on our own terms instead of taking it from them via subterfuge or violence and claiming it as our own. This
is important because unless we have some understanding of it, stealing it will make it last a generation, but
it will then be lost, since the object or basic behavior will not translate across times and individuals.

It is fortunate that most people are thus fixated on individual lives, because values are the only way to
spread meaningful change. Politics in a democracy is option A or option B, but rarely a chance to define
your own; the closest it gets is analogous to a buffet or salad bar, where you have a finite number of
ingredients but you -- in your fortunate "freedom" and "liberty" -- get to choose which percentages of each
you put on your plate. From this we get Communism (egalitarian totalitarianism), libertarianism
(conservative anarchism), conservatism (liberal tradition-oriented reactionarism), and so on. None of these
will do anything but reshuffle the cards in the deck already dealt to us, and thus no meaningful change will
come of them. Values, on the other hand, permeate the daily lives of individuals who make things happen,
not the stuffy boardrooms of government or the spacy, distant halls of academia.

When you see alien culture invading your own, or alien people in charge of (for example) your media and
government, it's important to recognize that this could not have occurred without significant internal rot in
the values of your society. Parasites fail attacking the strong, but when something with wealth shows signs
of weakness, they're at the door with carpet-bags in hand. If there's aliens among you, it's because cultural
values didn't exist to prevent that, or more likely, values became so degenerate that people began doing
things for individual gratification alone, having nothing of a higher nature for which to live. This is the
enemy, not the symptom: the alien you see walking past, or the people of your tribe with alien values,
although the latter should be snuffed for being failures of good breeding.

If I could say one thing to the strong, and one only, it would be this -- attacking the rot is a failing
strategy, so instead, assert that which is strong and never give assent to the weakness. There are enough
of us still left, despite centuries of genocidal breeding and passive middle eastern religions (Christianity, and
to a smaller degree, Judaism), that we can by doing what is right avoid what is wrong. When enough
people have achieved consensus of what is right, the basis of a new civilization exists, and this can be
asserted purely through will: This is what I choose. From that point, the trivial tasks including clearing from
among us those of alien values will be a corollary, and a natural inclination arising from the values already
achieved.

January 3, 2005
Oh, Global Warming
In a time when people build their self-image around what they believe, in order to "morally" justify their
modes of living, any issue of importance is immediately polarized between the identifications of opposing
camps, and thus debate moves from the issue itself to the reasons for its condemnation or approval. Such
is the case with global warming, an issue that one might think would receive direct attention, but instead is
a source of ongoing verbal combat and, not surprisingly, no resolution to action.

There are plenty of reasons to believe "global warming," as a phenomenon, does not exist, at least in the
sense of the earth being heated by human-produced carbon emissions. Although it would be hard to come
up with any definitive proof either way, there's a lack of evidence for a direct causal link between human
activity and the heating of the earth. Further, there's a smattering of clues that provide the suggestion that
the observable increase in temperatures worldwide is a naturally-occurring, predetermined tendency.

The debate over proof for global warming almost overshadows the finger-pointing and name-calling
between two opposing "sides," which we'll call left and right following the nomenclature of our modern
politics, with the left believing global warming is real, and thinking we should put insignificant caps on
industry to limit pollution, and the right denying that global warming exists and thus mandating business as
usual. In the midst of this busy and resultless activity, a fundamental factor of the argument has been lost:
global warming is one symptom of many of human overconsumption of our environment.

Suppose we, "scientific"- and linear-minded moderns that we are, were to formulate an equation for human
takeover of the earth. It might look like this:

n = n - (x + y)
Where n is the amount of space and resources on earth, x is the amount of space used so far, and y is the
amount used in a given time interval, for example, this year. When we look at this equation for one year
only, its significance is lost; after all, it's a foregone assumption that humans will use resources this year.
However, if we are able to see this equation on a graph, or over time, it becomes clear that every year x
gets bigger, and thus n gets smaller.

In this light, the thought that n is of a huge size, almost inconceivable to our individual viewpoints, is
eroded, because no matter how big n is, after enough years x will consume it, since x keeps growing where
n stays the same. Therefore, eventually, humanity will consume earth unless there are limiting forces put
into place, and with our industrial society having conquered disease and premature death to the point
where only very few of us die each year outside of the parameters of our natural lifespan, it is certain that
eventually n will approach zero.

This gives us pause on the global warming debate. Setting aside for a moment the question of "proof" for
global warming, we have to think that no matter whether or not global warming is real, something will
screw up if this equation reflects reality, because nature is composed of ecosystems, which are complex
machines of interlocking species and climatic cycles such that a balance is maintained. Earth is a self-
sustaining mechanism, or at least is without human intervention. Yet this mechanism requires a certain
amount of land and resources, part of n, with which to operate, and n is decreasing yearly.

On this front global warming seems plausible if we assume that for each decrement of n, z , or the amount
of carbon waste produced by the growth that occupies the space and resources consumed by x, increases.
It's not my goal here to get into preaching about global warming, however. You could prove to me
tomorrow that it's a "natural" effect, and suggest I don't worry, to which I'll reply: I'm not worried about
global warming specifically as much as I am concerned about the inexorable decrease of n, which in turn
results in an inevitable decline in natural ecosystems, eventually culminated in species extinction, the death
of ecosystems and destruction of things that took aeons to evolve.

The very fact that we debate global warming endlessly while ignoring this ongoing process of decline shows
that we, as a species, are in denial about our effects on our natural world. As products of our modern era,
we're accustomed to using a process:

a. Isolate a factor.
b. Norm to some iterative constant.
c. Reduce to cause-effect logic, exploit.

Despite its effectiveness for producing internal combustion engines and digital computers, this process is
useless for understanding architectonic systems, or systems where the parts interact to form a self-
supporting whole, meaning that no part functions as a pivot but all parts are in some way pivotal.
Dragonflies eat mosquitoes, and bluejays eat dragonflies; bluejay excretory waste feeds yeast, which grows
enough yeast to break down organic products and attract more advanced creatures, and these return
nutrients to the earth to grow plants which in turn feed male and immature mosquitoes. It's a giant cycle
composed of many counter-dependent internal cycles.

However, to get too far into why our logical systems don't perceive these realities is to escape laying the
responsibility at our own feet for noticing, outside of whatever logical systems are in vogue this ten
thousand years, that we are steadily consuming our environment and its resources and, unlike mosquitoes,
we're not returning diddly-squat in return, unless you count mountains of plastic and paper landfill waste.
As reasonably perceptive creatures we should be noticing this overconsumption, and we're not; in fact, it
doesn't even require a genius-level intelligence to see this. Why, then, is it an unmentioned secret in our
society like child molestation?

Definitely it has its proponents. There are some who speak loudly and clearly about this destruction, first
and foremost being Pentti Linkola and Ted Kaczynski. Their voices however are a whisper in the roar of a
crowd watching a baseball game, or political rally, or a race to assemble machines. It's not that they don't
get their information out there; it's that the audience is unreceptive. How can a species of so many
intelligent people be so blind?

Philosophers, despite their lengthy and complex explanations of simple phenomena, have a saying among
them that often, but not always, the simplest route to the truth is the answer to any given question. Some
call it Occam's razor; others call it common sense. But if we set aside all the Wittgenstein-esque theories
about how we cannot be sure of knowledge, thus do not act, and the Hegel-esque theories about how
progress will eventually overcome fundamental paradoxes like having consumed the system that sustains
us, it becomes clear that we're in denial because our values are elsewhere.

Our values, in fact, have nothing to do with reality, and we seem to as a group love best the philosophers
who come up with excuses - I mean "reasons" - why we cannot be sure of what we know, or why we must
focus on human issues to the exclusion of all others, because they give us a logical, "proof"-oriented reason
for missing the obvious. For this reason, you can have a society of people who feel not only justified but
proud of themselves for stamping their feet and demanding "proof" for global warming, as if that issue
alone decided the question of whether or not we're committing ecocide, while thinking that "proof" is a
higher form of reality than simply recognizing the obvious.

Do we even really need the silly little equation I've put above to realize that, in a space of fixed size, an
human population increasing in size and using more machines each year will eventually take up the entire
space?

There are wonderful contra-philosophies of course, such as the idea of the "invisible hand" by Adam Smith,
which suggests that economies based on opportunity are self-regulating. In his view, businesses do what is
logical because they wish to be good members of the community, because this is good business; the rest is
handled by companies that see opportunities in the errors of others, and exploit them with countervailing
goods and services (presumably in flying people to other planets, so they can consume them also). But
none of these make sense when one considers that very few are aware of anything more than their
immediate surroundings, tasks and fortune.

We can even blame God's people, whoever they are this millennia, for creating fantasy worlds in the sky
that, like the "scientific" world of "proof," distract us from what's going on in actual, living, right-here-now
reality. Yet this too rings hollow, although it's clear that dualistic and moralizing religions such as Judaism
and Christianity are batshit insane, because even without these our society would ramble onward, eating all
that it can and leaving behind it a trail of petrochemical ordure. So what is our cause?

To find out, work backward. A sensible society would at some point have the power to limit citizen growth,
either by murdering a certain number of its people in a blessed reduction of latently useless traits (do we
really need people under 125 IQ points? if so, for what?) or by restricting food supplies so that natural die-
off culls the herd and restrains its breeding. A sensible society might even, at some point well in advance of
the danger zone, set out a formula for how much land and resources are needed for nature.

But you can't do that! No, because you'll be violating someone's rights. Everyone has the "right" to be
born, live, consume and reproduce before dying, and in order to limit population, we have to shatter
someone's world and either prevent them from having children, or dispense with pretense and dispatch
them with a well-placed 5.56mm round. Our modern society is based on the idea that you can't violate the
individual, because individuals together in crowds find only what is common between them, which is fear for
their lives. So how to band people together to protect lives, above all else? Make it illegal and immoral to
kill any one, and everyone can survive without fear of being judged as unfit.

This is how individualistic, "unique," autonomous beings become a single organism with no desire except to
preserve itself. They don't necessary actually believe in their doctrine of not killing; crowds are notorious for
murdering dissidents, for example. But they do believe in asserting some iron law that says you can't kill
any member of the crowd for following the generic order imposed on all, an order derived from what they
have in common, which is only the most basic desires of life, since a crowd of individuals actually have very
little of more complex desires in common. They will agree they don't want to die, that they want to eat and
they want entertainment, but beyond that, a crowd cannot decide an issue and will lapse into endless
partisan debate like that on global warming.

And why is the crowdthink perpetuated? It benefits individuals. They want an iron law saying you will be
able to survive and breed and gain wealth if you just follow a few rules, and they don't want any kind of
judgment limiting their wealth and power because, for example, they're functionally intelligent but defective
in any kind of moral reasoning or thought of larger entities than the individual. Even further, individuals like
crowdthink because it gives them a straight path to profit: find something that appeals to that lowest
common denominator that unites the crowd, and by golly, it'll sell. Circuses, junk food, soft drinks,
deodorant, home security systems, divorces and video game systems are all popular with the mob.

I am not saying that money is the root of all evil. What is conveyed here is closer to the ancient saw that
the love of money is the root of all evil; money may well be necessary, but those who are so fearful that
they care for money more than for reverence of nature, care for their society as a whole, etc. are mental
defectives who need that well-placed high velocity round. And would we miss them? The kind of people
who have been great leaders, inventors, artists and forces of social stability certainly wouldn't, because
those who do not succumb to that weakness are the kind who would plan in advance before advancing an
environmental holocaust upon their planet.

The love of money is the fear of being unequal to such people, and if leaders separate from followers,
followers form a crowd sheerly on the basis of having not been leaders. Then they attempt to create a
power structure which "evens up" the gap between leaders and followers, such that followers can have
power they didn't earn in civilizations they don't have the talent to create. Interestingly, this disease of
populism - for that's the only word which accurately describes the utilitarian nature of governing by crowd-
pleasing - afflicts only older civilizations, where the deeds required to create them are forgotten.

Before we get wrapped up in any of our other little political polarities, such as whether global warming can
be "proved" or whether abortion should be legal or how to "empower" women such that they have the
same "rights" as men, we should remember that n is decreasing with each moment of our unchecked
expansion, and that the end result is destruction of our natural environment by consuming it. There is no
way to "prove" its value, for someone will suppose that someday we will have machines to take the place
of plants and animals, and media machines to simulate the experience of open ground. Instead, I appeal to
a more fundamental force here.

Humans are creatures of play. We find things appealing because they are interesting, or have fundamental
tendencies that amuse or challenge us, and thus without having a serious goal, we toss them around and
play with them and, in the process, make our lives better; we bring laughter and skill and joy together in
one act. But what really is more rewarding than nature? We've been unable to design a machine as efficient
as a tree, and our science has no idea how to even quantify the joy of sitting under one on a quiet
afternoon, or breathing the fresh oxygen of a healthy forest, or watching squirrels wrestle over plump
acorns on spring ground.

Our natural environment is the ultimate playground, and something healthy people find inherently cool. But
without trees, there are no forests; without forests, no animals, nor any of the uncountable species of
plants, nor the vast diversity of ecosystems that remain starkly different yet self-contained in function.
Some might say this is not "proof" of why nature is worth saving, but for those who have souls left, it is
incentive to not destroy it, for the experience of nature is incomparable in contrast to the mechanistic
drudgery of sitting in a committee room discussing profits, or even, engaging in endless and inconclusive
debate about global warming.

January 5, 2005
The (expletive deleted) Internet
Like all other things in a modern time, the Internet was a new frontier which, after being explored by some
brave people with the capacity for theoretical thought, was immediately inundated in a horde of people
incapable of it. If you doubt me, go look through the past versions of websites, or public postings. Notice
how things became brutally dumbed down starting in 1996 and, once that had become accepted and the
"'net" was taken for granted by upcoming generations, how quickly the Internet became a sounding board
for wounded egos.

The cynical among you, of course, presupposing yourselves to be clever and witty, have a reply waiting on
your lips: but isn't that what you're doing? -- No. If I'd wanted to aggrandize myself, I'd have a blog that
focused on me, instead of being a public forum for philosophical (and, linked to them, political and social
and artistic) opinions. There's a difference between those who publish information, and those who
"participate" in neat little egofests like blogs, chatrooms, web forums, etc. Because that type predominates,
anyone who's serious about actually "sharing information" - the ostensible purpose for getting us all on the
AIDS-ridden Internet in the first place - is immediately labelled a "troll" and shunned.

But the Internet was once a more hopeful place, despite being addled by the cumbersome self-esteem
problems endemic to those who work in the computer industry, as well as their shortsightedness; nerds are
content to play with some gadget that they feel only a select few can operate, and congratulate themselves
endlessly on being of that group. Their impetus is not to make something others can use, or even
something that other smart people can use, but to make something like a religion, that only those who
have memorized its arcane and illogical ways can operate. It's not a test to admit the elites; it's a club of
the willing, and the clubhouse is there because nerds, at heart, realize they spent the years they should've
been socializing in front of the computer, playing with arcane and illogical gadgets.

Thus their revenge is to try to exclude everyone else, but really, if you put your mind to it for some hours,
you can master anything they do, and probably reorganize it in a more useful way, at which point they'll
scream. While admittedly the Macintosh computer is unreliable, expensive, breaks frequently, and has a
user group that is the social equivalent of having a lobotomy on LSD (it just seems profound, but they're
actually breaking a hole in your mind), even the most hardened anti-Mac cynic has to admit that the idea of
an interface that people can actually use is a necessary invention. Too bad Apple didn't invent it, but
thankfully, Microsoft - who makes operating systems that mostly work - had adopted it, so we can all have
it. (You could also run Lunix, but for most daily tasks, that's a step backward - you don't need real time
multitasking, nor do you need to have to use some bloated piece of crap like OpenOffice to edit a Word
document.)

However, the nerd club is but one example of the ego-blight afflicting the Internet. Every special interest
group has one. I've been to vegan forums that made church gatherings appear non-judgmental. There are
internet drug forums where you can be thrown out for thinking that drugs aren't for everyone, and white
nationalist forums where you can be seen as an enemy for using the word "African-American" instead of a
more grotesquely historied term. Worst of all, these are the norm; there are the super-mainstream
alternatives, on giant sites like CNN.com or MSN, but those are really for those who are discovering the
world of computing with their credit cards. The "culture" of the Internet, if the AZT-needy thing even has
one, is the behavior found on the majority of these boards.

Now, I'm not blaming the Internet; we live in a time when ego-ueber-alles is the password to what's left of
Western culture. If you set up a society around the notion that people should do what they personally feel
like, so long as they subject themselves to equality and attend mind-numbing work and brain-depleting
bureaucratic function, you will get people who in their off-time have one motive: seize power by enacting
revenge, thus becoming "important" outside of their trivial lives, which of course are destructive to their
personalities, health and intelligence. After a few generations of this shit, it's no surprise that most people
are trivial and weak. Now, since every brain-numb worker has a credit card, they can get an HP computer
at Wal-Mart and be online with AOL in a matter of hours - minutes - seconds, even. Here's democracy at its
finest.
What makes the Internet such a pain in the ass is that everyone brings baggage - a few truckloads - and
sets up an identity , usually some clever screen name such as TnSxF16 or xxxDarkLordxxx , and then defends
that identity in order to assert some "power" to get around their baggage. Swift little monkeys that humans
are, others don't miss this fact, and rush in to attack as a means of securing their own power. What follows
is the kind of bickering that makes an appropriate soundtrack to the fall of a once-great civilization, namely
the illogical and emotional argument of people with the minds of machines but the unstable personalities of
monkeys. And people wonder why I talk about eugenics so fondly?

My solution for the Internet won't be popular, but it comes from the hilarity of Scandinavian universities.
Back in the early 1990s, when US universities were trying to figure out if usernames should be first initial +
last name or last name + first initial, the Scandinavians had a practical idea: give people incomprehensibly
detailed numeric usernames, to remind them that computers are just machines and the internet is just a
tool. Thus some guy named Rolf Svensen would have a nifty login monicker like ur2398138 or a-rsv-1992 .
It was great; you can imagine xxxDarkLordxxx setting up a persona and a little fantasy world around that
name, but ur2398138 ? Try finding an aesthetic theme to unify that string of incoherence.

The effect was to make everyone anonymous. And, as spiritual anonymity - usually found in collectivism, or
admitting that one's world does not begin and end with the individual, although one's representation of the
world does - leads to religions in which people are more interested in leading sane lives that glorifying
themselves through public displays of pity for others, this anonymity benefitted the Scandinavians, at least
until some "progressive" Americans brought AOL-style cuteness to the otherwise beautiful Northern
countries. In addition to puncturing fantasyland, anonymity made it difficult to attack other people, which,
horror of horrors, returned focus in online discussion to the topic at hand . OMG WTF LOL.

The exchange of information does not require ego-ueber-alles, just as spirituality does not, and the
healthier forms of religious practice do not involve self-aggrandizement by "helping the poor" or "pitying the
weaker." It removes the illusion of absolute that both spiritual practice, with its giant open-ended topics like
"meaning" and "fulfillment," and the Internet, with its chatrooms and web forums and blogs, have. This
might not be a popular thing, but when have popular things such as junk food, fast cars, nu-metal and
American beer been useful things? An anonymous Internet would be a return from fantasyland to function.

January 6, 2005
The World as Will and Representations
Philosophy is a convoluted world. Writers try to find some central theme to their writings, and through that
unify a system of belief, but since reality doesn't fit under any heading in an outline except "reality," these
end up being contorted organizations. Despite thousands of people working in this field over the past
centuries, not much of a definitive nature has been produced. One of the great classics, and one that best
formulates the "transcendental idealist" position on philosophy, is the work of Arthur Schopenhauer.

Schopenhauer wrote his classic "The World as Will and Representation" to express two basic ideas as
indicated by the title. The first is the one grasped by almost everyone out there; that the universe, like
individuals, is not purely rational but is more like a personality, in that it is like individual animals motivated
by an attachment to life, or "will to live." The second idea is more important in a broader context, and
relates to the first; much as Plato saw "objects" and "shadows of objects" in his metaphor of the cave,
Schopenhauer separates the world into its essential force (Will) and its forms, which are a human
Representation based on sense-data of the world as is.

Unlike many who followed Plato, Schopenhauer avoided the trap of dualism, in which one would say that
there is a pure world and it is mirrored in our physical reality. Will is a force that animates the world, and
there is something like a representation generated from it, which we can't know as a "thing in itself"
because we are included in it and its scope is too broad for us to comprehend in a linear thinking system.
The representation in Schopenhauer's works was a revolutionary concept: he said that humans never know
the world as it is, but only know a representation of it, formed of their interpretation of sense-data and
memory.

These were revolutions to a philosophical world which had so far operated in the Christian tradition of an
Absolute, believing there was a dual world (or an abstraction that constituted a pure and singular form)
which was the blueprint from which the world of appearance is made. This is one viewpoint on the classic
division of philosophy: what is the world, and what is the human, and how can the latter best approximate
the former? The question "Why do we suffer?" even has its origins in this, as to the world, the suffering of
humans is inconsequential, but to a human, individual suffering can take up most of his or her awareness.

Although all of these ideas had vast political and social effects, what this article targets as its topic is
something else: the addition of another Representation to Schopenhauer's list. This is not an addition to his
actual cosmology, but a political notation. It is that in a modern time, when we have no uniform religious
tradition and are accustomed to devotional belief as our means of finding truth, we view government and
media and organized religion as sources of truth or at the very least, information about reality. This
comprises an additional representation that a modern must address.

This representation is not unique to a modern time; we are always influenced by others, and there have
always been doctrinal headlocks by various sources. However, in the age of technology, which asserts
concepts as "scientific" and "proof" in an absolute sense, it takes on enough political and social importance
that it's worthwhile to comment on Schopenhauer's philosophy and point out this additional cause of
confusion. In the most rigorous academic sense, it would not be included in Schopenhauer's description of
reality, as that is analytic of process and not situation. But for moderns, for the purpose of this article, it
bears commenting.

Nihilism by its very nature negates this social representation. Most people confuse nihilism with fatalism,
which is the belief that one can't know any truth or do anything about it, even if one could find out.
However, nihilism is purely this: a negation of value in any sense removed from the inherent. It is not a
negation of reality, but the values which are associated with a value-representation of reality, and while it
removes that which exists, it does so to enable the individual to analyze reality and from it derive values on
the terms of the individual in the context of a task, not an absolute. Fatalism says there is no ability to
interpret, value, perceive or think; nihilism says that such thinking must occur outside of what humans have
already projected onto their world.
Of course, reinterpreting this through Schopenhauer, we can see the reason for nihilism existing within the
individual: the individual knows the world through his representation, and therefore, can act only on that
data according to his degree of will. There is no absolute to which the individual can appeal, but there is
grounds for "truth" or at least accuracy in statements about the nature of reality if the individual interprets
it according to its structure. In turn, this interpretation is only allowed by nihilism, which by removing values
outside of the inherent de-emphasizes perception of what something is, and turns the mind to focus on its
importance in the context of a task or goal.

There are two ways to interpret Plato's cave. The first is that there's a pure world, and physical objects are
shadows of it; this presupposes that we know physical objects as they are, instead of as data from our five
senses. The second interpretation is that there's a physical world, and it casts shadows on the cave wall
that are what we know; these are the sense-data perceptions of physical objects, and this view
presupposes that we can know our own representations fully. However, it is more logical that we can
master thought than that we can achieve perception of things beyond our knowing, and for this reason,
nihilism is the only sensible gateway.

It is a rejection of the artificial world imposed upon reality by the additional representation mentioned here:
the social and economic reality that is trumpeted in our ears and eyes daily by any number of technological
devices. It is repeated in newspapers, on television, on radio and on the Internet; government leaders and
news/entertainment people give basically the same view, disguised as oppositional theories. All of these
debate things that are not immediately important for the long-term triumph of replacing the reality we
perceive, a representation of our world in our own minds, with another representation, that of a collective
reality based on social values.

One thing that can oppose this mindset is nihilism, but it does not exist as a philosophical system as much
as a method of liberating concentration to be able to apply other methods and intellectual systems. The
basic idea of nihilism is accepting ultimate reality - the physical world that surrounds us and, whatever it is
made of, is consistent in effect upon us all - and discarding all inference-information from others; it rejects
both the absolute and the ultra-subjective, and replaces them with subjectivity as contingent upon an initial
goal of valuation, such as a task. Although this is more complex than what most embrace, it clears the part
of the mind that values to consider life anew without being unduly manipulated.

Undoing the best efforts of philosophers, there is no central concept or theme to life, except life itself. It is
its own goal. Schopenhauer gave us some basic tools that can help us understand our relationship to the
world, but there is no complete, single answer - only a series of starting points. The individual can use
these starting points successively as the changing basis of a goalset, with each realization leading to
something new. But that path begins with something like nihilism, or the mind is awash in the absolute
representation of the herd.

January 9, 2005
Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen
A fundamental problem of ruling: if you have one person in charge, that person can screw up. So you put
many in charge. But then there's another problem: no one is solely responsible, so people fail to take
initiative, and you end up with the syndrome of too many cooks in the kitchen. Because there's no one
leader, power goes to no one; the duty of acting out the will of the cook committee goes to someone,
usually a rotating someone, who starts the task and is constantly given peanut galleries from the others. It
is through such failure of leadership that, it is said, the soup is ruined, because although you can put almost
anything in a soup and have it turn out okay, if you don't pick what type of soup it is, it will taste like
nothing.

This situation cannot be seen more clearly than in a democracy during wartime. Back home, the president
and congress in theory "balance each other" by keeping checks on power, the situation becomes tenuous in
that the president sends the troops to war, and only after that congress decides whether to fund them. In
dire situations, it's hard for them to deny funding, but they'll snip away at it here and there. This unsteady
balance causes policy to be planned in small increments around some vague idea of what the war hopes to
accomplish, and thus any concept of organized goal is diluted.

If there's one thing you learn in life quickly it's that without a goal, situations quickly degenerate into
disorganization, the same old thing we try to escape by striving for higher ambitions. However, democracies
of the kind where a leader defers to other leaders who defer to the people, who are forever divided into
different balkanized camps, make having a goal impossible. Let's look for example at America the
democracy during the Iraq war.

This war is both popular and unpopular; there are more "support our troops" and pro-republican sentiments
in this country than there have been for years, but at the same time, a large and restless counterculture
pulses with resentment that we went to war at all. However, this has little to do with the war in Iraq. In
democracies, populations quickly divide between types of power. Some people gain power through
aggression, others through passivity. For this reason, in any war except an invasion of America by a
superior force, the population will divide neatly into one half that will oppose any war, and another half that
will support any war. They see method, not goal.

In this last election, what probably swung people was that George W. acts like a leader: he is assertive, he
has unwavering belief in his ideals, and he is impervious to most criticism. While most Americans probably
don't fully accept his platform, they responded to his style of leadership; in contrast, John F. wavered a lot,
and his most decisive move appeared to be to consult opinion polls and then conspicuously respond. That
is not leadership behavior, and the Republicans seized on that and used it heavily in their propaganda.

Most of the people voting for Kerry were doing so because they (a) wanted the war over and (b) feared the
conservative Christian agenda regarding personal "rights" and "freedoms," both amorphous concepts that
represent a carrot held over the heads of the population by government (no government can allow absolute
flexibility of political and social choice, because that includes the ability to act against the interests of that
government). While Kerry had followed a straight career path to the white house, acting in every case to
reward his own ambition, Bush had taken a path with ups and downs that reflected more a man seeking
himself than seeking power. In power, he acted more decisively, even if wrong most of the time.

For these traits alone, he was elected, albeit by a slim majority of swing voters who overcame their
traditional camp divisions (aggression versus passivity), despite the massive amounts of money and free
publicity given to the Kerry campaign by leftist elements in media, entertainment, social circles and
academia. Although it was a slim margin, it was significant: the American voters preferred someone who
acted more like a leader. What was not seen in this result was that American voters, by virtue of having too
many impulses at once, have already selected out anyone who could actually display the kind of leadership
that is needed to (a) win the war and (b) fix America so that a conservative Christian agenda regarding
personal "rights" and "freedoms" is not needed.
How did a nation founded by the few successful outcasts of Europe - smugglers, religious freethinkers,
political dissidents and those we'd call "terrorists" nowadays - become this mealy-mouthed and indecisive
nation? The answer is surprisingly simple: the nature of its political system changed, and thus its
expectations changed; because one defines one's personal ambitions by what is expected, when
expectations change, values change. When America was founded, it was a democracy, but a democracy of
elites; one proved oneself by becoming a landowning independent and then could contribute. This was
perhaps the last vestiges of a feudal system by which the more capable people in a society became leaders,
and therefore were able to own land and rule local areas in a compassionate, benevolent style.

That relatively placid worldview changes when internal dissent forces every individual to scramble for as
much power as they can grab, as they no longer have trust in leaders to reflect their best interests. It didn't
take long for America to become divided over the issue of how much power states should have; indeed, the
pre-constitution confederacy of states was heading more toward the organizational system of Europe today,
where independent nation-states trade freely amongst themselves and operate for larger political goals a
bloc, but keep their own rules and local regulations. After a disastrous Civil War, America began handing
the vote over to new groups, including recent immigrants from the least-prosperous states in Europe,
namely Italy and Ireland and the first tricklings of the most Western of the Eastern European states.

Shortly after this point, the internal balkanization got more intense. Because there were too many interests
competing, or too many cooks in the kitchen, no one could trust the government to represent their
interests, and thus political groups of loose associations were formed. Women for example felt they needed
to organize as a political entity because there was no voice to protect them from the legal system. Various
other groups followed, until what happened in the 1960s was a full conversion to populism. The electorate
was no longer selected, but being able to vote at 18 was considered a "right," and it was assumed that
with the full participation of the population, the power process would represent everyone.

What a neat thought. What an idealistic thought. What a failure - in any group, there will be competing
interests, and those who are willing to settle for the concept that we can please everyone, by definition,
don't understand power and are not attempting any sort of goal; they're defending one. This defensive
impulse is the same mechanism that shattered tradition by handing over its guardianship to conservatives,
who despite asserting sometimes positive values, use passive methods. Passivity does not mean pacifistic; it
means merely that, like extra cooks crowding around the elbows of the poor guy assigned to put ingredients
in the soup pot, they yell out demands only when they're not shooting down the ideas of others. Active
leadership asserts a goal and works to achieve it; passive power structures work on the principle that
society as is needs maintaining, and they do it through a good/evil form of kneejerk approval and
disapproval.

It's this kind of system that causes internal division. Women, for example, realize they'd better represent
their "rights" to do certain things, or they'll be completely ignored; same with people of different tribes and
races. You can't blame them for that, because what failed was consensus: there was no longer any goal,
because the civilization "as it is" had become the goal, and the illusion was that by just maintaining it
according to our interests, it would be all okay-fine until doomsday. Instead of opting to make a certain
kind of soup, the menu is always the same: soup du jour, with all of the ingredients in the kitchen thrown
in. Apparently, if you like carrots, you're supposed to taste only those and leave all the other stuff on your
plate.

Populist democracy, as a value, has destroyed a once-great society. This is no surprise to anyone who has
read the works of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, all of whom struggled with the concept and situation of
democracy; Socrates, being perhaps the first Christ-figure in the West, lost his life for it when his ideas
proved unpopular enough to unite the quarreling and bickering elements of degenerate Athenian democracy
to elect him an execution. Unwilling to be a martyr, he died quietly and quickly, knowing that he had
achieved a great victory, albeit a passive one, by demonstrating the democracies are willing to murder
great thinkers for being unpopular. As with great thinkers, all great hopes are murdered by democracies,
because democracies by opting for passive, chaotic rule, are opposed to goals and indeed any kind of
unifying value to a civilization.

Those who found civilizations are aware that when a goal, or at least a values system that indicates a
consistent direction other than self-maintenance alone, is lost, the civilization decays from within and
whether the final blow comes from disease, sword or natural disaster, the disease that allowed it to kill
came from within. This is natural, much in the way that any stress or new predator on a herd carries away
the weakened, old and diseased long before it begins destroying the core of the population. If every voice
in that herd were equal, the diseased and weakened would be voting for their interests, which from fear of
their own deaths would include the value that no one should be allowed to die, and thus the herd would
respond, passively but not pacifistically, the predators, incurring losses among the strong for the lofty ideal
that occurs nowhere in nature, namely that none should die.

All great civilizations pass in this way. No longer having leadership, they are ruled by the followers, who are
given equal voices to appease them. These, fearing their own weakened states, enact an iron clamp of
passive rule; each time the guy putting ingredients in the pot says "Let's make a chicken soup," they
scream out, "But not all of us like chicken soup, therefore you're infringing on our rights" - but they also
apply the same dictum to potato soup, cream of broccoli soup, hot and sour soup, and so on. Eventually,
the soup becomes the same old thing consisting of every ingredient, and direction is utterly lost.

Looking at the great civilizations of past, we can see a disaster has occurred. The Aztecs in Mexico were so
fractured that when Hernan Cortez came bearing Bible and sword they were defeated by a few hundred
men allied only with the dumbest and least useful people in the region; the disease had already weakened
them, thus they collapsed. Similarly Rome fell at the touch of a far smaller army, and the Greeks, having
lost the Spartan leadership that had defended them for so long, were overrun multiple times. What did they
leave? Remnants of a great population, but mostly an empire which would achieve nothing in the following
millennia (how many wars have the Italians, Greeks, or Mexicans won lately?). You can see a similar
situation in India, in North Africa, in the once-great states of Afghanistan and Viet Nam, and even in Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq and Viet Nam, these two wars demonstrate to the world again the fallacy of populist
democracy, where everyone has their own interests and there is no consensus interest as a whole except
the most basic idea of making some kind of soup, no matter how mediocre, and feeding it to everyone.
America lost Viet Nam because she could not unify on a policy, which clearly stated would have been: we
will become the superpower that occupies the third world before the Soviets can, and we will eventually
destroy the Soviet empire. Even the conservatives backed off from this assertive position in favor of a
passive one, namely reciting how the Soviets didn't allow religious freedom, didn't allow independent
wealth, didn't allow "free speech" and thus it was imperative that we don't let them take over. But was
there anything as decisive as Patton's offer, at the end of WWII, to take his Armies to Moscow and give
America a benevolent world domination?

Even now, the divisions permeate America to the point where we cannot clearly see the truth. Some, on
the right, point out that all fallen civilizations are of mixed-race, and thus see that as cause; but it's clearly
a symptom, as no tribe mixes with others unless it is either conquered or has conquered itself. On the left,
they think that civilizations fall because they become too warlike and don't grant equal rights and living
standards to everyone, but that is also clearly a sign of kneejerk reactions within those cultures. No, my
friends, the answer is exactly as it appears to be: they fell because in terms of what they desired, they fell
apart, and thus couldn't agree on taking the action necessary to preserve themselves. Even a society where
money can buy anything, and our highest value is the power of money and what it can buy, is a symptom
of this decline.

At this point most people throw up their hands and say "But there's nothing we can do!" and consider
themselves smarter than others for having adopted fatalism before it becomes obvious. Ahead of the curve,
you must be, you smart individualists. But there is something that can be done, and it can occur either (a)
from an offshoot civilization being formed which does have consensus or (b) by imposing consensus upon
America such that a direction is chosen, even if it doesn't benefit anyone. If that direction is a smart one, it
will include some system which in contrast to the values of liberal democracy and totalitarian communism
alike, emphasizes the ability of some individuals to rise above not on the basis of earning money or
allegiance to doctrine, but by being better at their chosen task.

Cooks like to cook. When every cook in the kitchen has the same right of input, by which they can suggest
or deny suggestions, the soup will always be the same; if you send those same cooks each to his or her
own kitchen, and have them make soups in competition, eventually it will emerge that there is a best
cream of broccoli soup, and that another cook makes the best chicken soup, and so on. This is the order
that preceded the democratic impulse in Europe, something born in part from a Christian desire to sustain
the weakened and meek at the expense of the stronger, and it usually has as its foundation what we now
call "socialism" but what was once known as feudalism: the belief that everyone will be sustained by
society, but that those who do better work are promoted and that those who are weakened, diseased, or
broken are allowed to die (or, for societies that are fully ambitious, as the ancient Germans were, drowned
in swamps).

A society organized around money is the result of the tool of leadership being used in place of leadership;
the same applies to democracy. Sadly for humanity, the global society and economy we are now forming is
based on this democracy, so as it decays it will not take one nation but all industrial nations down the path
of utter failure. The first step toward revoking this travesty in progress is to realize that there can be one
cook in each kitchen, and to apply this value backward up the power structure, changing expectations from
"everyone has a right to sabotage the process of leadership with passivity" to "everyone has a need to be a
cook in his own kitchen, and to compete." If this realization occurs in even a small portion of the
population, people will no longer expect the generic soup of the day made with all ingredients in the
kitchen, and thus assertive and positive decision-making will begin to reverse the neurotic disorder of liberal
populist democracy.

January 10, 2005

On Personality
We live in a society of the ego. The individual is king, and there's no higher goal than saving a life, or
finding a new way to respect the lifestyle choices of others. While to anyone who has studied history, this
is like steering a ship by having each oarsman row in different directions, to the moderns, it's a fact of life.
One sticky aspect of this attitude is that you cannot promote a philosophy or an ideal without it being
associated with a person; this person forms the symbol of this system of thought, and the identifying
marker by which we all refer to it. "As Aristotle said..."

It's possible this would be true in any age, and that now it is made more dominating by the tendency of
people to identify themselves with what they own: jobs, status, houses and even belief-systems. Thus an
attack on the philosophy is an attack on them personally, and any praise for the philosophy they interpret
as a gratifying acknowledgement that they are indeed right and the rest of the world is wrong, wrong,
wrong. Call it the absolutism of human form, or simply the marketing of humanism, but it's a fact of life
that in the current time any belief system is expected to have a cult of personality around it.

However, what's really important isn't the person presenting the philosophy, as they are bringing an idea
but are not the idea itself, but how well the idea fits into one's own worldview, and what it means. People
are born, they do some things right and fail at some, and then they die, and rot, and are no more. A
philosophy, if correctly adapted to the reality in which we live, is eternal, in that it will always be true even
if the people who created it are dead and gone, and the books in which it is written are burned. The idea is
more real than the flesh which serves as its messenger.

Perhaps the most important idea this column can uphold, then, is that any idea that you find meaningful
only exists so long as you act upon it; it may always be true, but what's the use of a true idea not
manifested on earth? If it addresses our collective effort at survival here on planet earth, and it is realistic if
not an altogether better way of doing things, it should be brought from the level of idea to the level of
flesh, and you do this by acting on it and exhibiting its values in your daily life.

If someone gives you a choice, and one option goes against what you believe, don't take that option - you
don't have to tell them why, but that you reject it alone is enough to start bringing that idea to earth. You
will be given a chance to design certain things in your life, whether the configuration of your home or your
activities or even, at a job or volunteer effort, the ability to organize people according to an interpretation
of some task. Use your principles; these don't have to be explicit, and involve symbols or even any
statement of the philosophy, but they should uphold its values in every form.

For example, you might oversee a volunteer crew who maintain the grounds of a historical building. Clearly
it doesn't make sense to declare the group a Traditionalist organization and give them swords, commanding
them to kill populist Christians and liberals, as you'll be immediately replaced, but it does make sense to
ensure that they leave behind no trash, do their task efficiently and with honor, and endorse in no way any
of the degenerate values of this time. You may not be able to enforce your ideals in whole, such as having
the entire team be of your ethnocultural origin, but you can make sure they do not engage in any
unnecessary behavior affirming the opposite of your goals.

This is a short essay, thus it will conclude, as many writers in a hurry have done so in the past, with the
words of another: "Anything I have learned, I have learned from the forest. Despite my fortune in having a
good education, and wise people with whom to discuss my ideas, I was most lucky to be able to spend the
years of my youth reading the classics and then, in the afternoons, to go into the forest with nothing to
amuse me but my mind and what I could observe. From that I learned the design and order of the universe
as a living whole, and if there is anything in what I write that my readers find accessible, they must
remember that it originates entirely in that whole. The forest is a higher authority than any man, and if you
rest your future in one man alone, you will be disappointed when he inevitably crumbles into dust, but if
you trust the what you learn in a forest, truth will always be with you. Remember this when you read my
words, because I am only the hand holding the pen."
January 11, 2005
Separating Cause and Effect
In philosophy, the solution to any problem is formed by building a metaphor ladder, with each rung
composed of a logical thought that leads to the next, leading from cause to effect. This is one reason there
are so many therefores, thuses, and accordinglies in philosophical language. If any one rung of this ladder
is defective, even if the one after it appears to correct that defect, the whole thing is liable to fall apart.

With the political situation in Western civilization today, it is easy to confuse the origin and conclusion of
the ladder we'll call "fixing the problem(s)," because most people recognize effects, assume they are
causes, and are then confused as to why their adamant railing against the effect did not reverse the cause.
Because the cause is most commonly invisible even when one has gained some depth on the problem, it
requires a thorough analysis and produces often surprising results, and thus is usually ignored: surprisingly
origins of common problems do not communicate well to a broad audience. The unnoticed disease is the
cause, while the symptoms, its effects, are visible.

The most common place this phenomenon can be seen is in the bigotry of political groups. The left is
bigoted against those with wealth, those who are of Northern European heritage, and anyone who is better
at doing something productive than others - they're perfectly OK with people who write better liberal
essays, or shoot better liberal films, but they're biased against those who build things of a practical value,
in part because they fear "inferiority" and "superiority" complexes in themselves and others. A common
target for the left is the corporation, which is assumed to be part of a vast right-wing conspiracy whose
goal is to oppress non-whites, women, homosexuals and drug users.

On the right, the same situation prevails, but here the evil identified with society is different: leftist Jews
are infiltrating and destroying our basic social values, violent Negroes are creeping into society with their
plans to make it more convenient for their own existences, and in general, values against what we perceive
as tradition are being forced upon us by a hostile media and the leftist establishment in the arts, academia
and government. The right seems to be fine with large corporations that do not have leftist values, and of
course, those who actually produce something of value, because the right is less cosmopolitan and more
pragmatic than the left.

The scary thing is that both groups are correct: they have identified symptoms of the problem. Large
corporations do overrun our values and conspire to turn us all into profit fodder; leftist Jews have come to
America and begun preaching their own culture as perfect for all of us, part of their "Tikkun Olam" or
"repairing the world" mythos, and are over-represented in media, academia and government. The wealthy
do not truly care about the future of the country, and are content to oppress everyone regardless of race,
class, ethnicity, color or sexual preference. And yes, African-Americans do seem to have a high rate of
violent crime in every country they've ever been in. All of these are correct, but they're not diagnosing the
problem, and thus the "solutions" advocated amount to little more than bigotry.

Until we find the root of this problem, it is impossible to diagnose, much less solve. Bigotry will in fact
exacerbate the problem, by creating enemies among your own people of those who would otherwise be
sympathetic to your cause; no one likes someone obsessed with hate instead of creation, and to
misdiagnose the problem is to fail to see what can be done about it in a creative, positive sense, all without
giving up what you hold dear. Further, a violent revolution in this mindset will eliminate symptoms but drive
the cause of the problem deeper within you, guaranteeing that the next conflagration will be fatal.

To find the cause, we backtrack. Why are we in a multicultural society? Because a large number of our
people believe it's a good idea. On what principle do they believe that it is a good idea? Why, the equality
of all people, of course. Why do they believe this principle is important? In that view, it's the only way to
achieve "freedom" and "justice" and other "good" things. Why do we believe some things are good, and
some bad? There's this Absolute rule, see, that to respect the life of another is the highest good; you can
see it in Christianity, and liberalism. What kind of thinking would motivate this rule? Fear of other people,
fear of predation, and fear of death; if we're all equal, none of us can be interrupted or criticized by others,
and that's "freedom," remember. What made us abandon the idea of making a stronger, more natural
society for this strange plastic equality? Probably the same fear, and the loss of belief in something worth
fighting and striving and dying for on a daily basis.

Aha. The root of our modern society, with its egalitarian sentiments, is fear of other people, and fear of
being inferior. Fear of being proven, as occurs in nature, unequal to a task, and having a predator walk
away in victory licking his chops; fear of having judgment passed over us. Fear of nature as an Order, and
the desire to impose our own, based on the individual so that none might fear predation. And what might
we call this belief? Well, since it no longer affirms that some things are worth striving for as a whole, and
instead relies on defense of what already exists, we'll call it passivity. It's the antithesis of heroism: the
belief that nothing is worth sacrificing for on a constant basis.

Sure, we have wars. But we view ourselves as provoked into those, and only a small subset of the
population faces the battlefield; they're paid to do it, in fact. It's like any other job. Some go to offices, and
some to dusty graves in fields strewn with the shell casings and burnt plastic and metal detritus of warfare.
But on a daily basis, do we confront death, and do we affirm that it's worth risking death for anything? Hell,
no, we don't. We run in fear from that very vision. So: the root of our social situation at the current time is
fear, and it manifests itself in a passive philosophy that, unlike heroic beliefs, is unified by a desire to avoid
the possible risk of death, thus negating the idea that any constant ideal is so worthy that we would give
up our security of life for it.

Of course, since our civilization is slowly falling apart, that security of life is an illusion; it will take more
time for this to be apparent, but at that point the whimper and not a bang will already be in effect, and the
middle class mostly absorbed by either the thronging masses or the ultra-elites who live for money, to earn
money, and consider themselves superior on the basis that they earn more money. That is the ultimate end
of liberal democracy, and all passive civilizations, as the Greeks found out; both Plato and Aristotle disagree
on many aspects of this, but their hint to us future survivors is that once democracy and passivity take hold
of a population, it cannot make any decisions but the most candy-coated and obvious, and the most
bigoted - as we bear witness to, through history, in the form of the state-sanctioned murder of Socrates for
leading the youth of Athens to dangerous ideas.

History repeats itself, and here in the United States, in Europe, and in the East, that's our future as a
species. Democracy will reach a fever pitch and then collapse on itself, leaving in its wake a trail of leaders
who rule by authority for the sake of authority, with no higher goal. Passivity is the root of this, even
though it will beget violence as grotesque as anything witnessed in history so far; the ultimately casualties
will not be the hordes of morons out there who can barely manage to drive through an intersection while
the light is green, but the thinkers and creators who will stand out and thus be tempting targets when a
subliminally panicked population begins looking for evils. No amount of bigotry will hold off this end,
because bigotry aims at outside influences, while the fear is within .

While an influx of foreign races may seem like the problem, they are mere symptoms. Each race has its
own ideal society, bred into it through tens of thousands of generations of upholding the values of that
society and living by its laws, and each is as distinct from another as night from day. Once you recognize
the principle that different races have different ideal societies, the behavior of African-Americans is no
longer "bad" or "good," but their tendency as a race and one that will not mix well with any other tribe, as
the values of any other tribe mix poorly with it. There are many good people among them, and while their
ways are different from ours enough to cause vast internal conflict, the problem isn't African-Americans, but
the fact that admixture is viewed as necessary for our "freedom" and "good" - admixture being a necessary
component of multiculturalism, although no public figure will admit that on tape.

Similarly, the case of the Jews is a tragic one; their own culture was formed by fear and desire for revenge.
When the people of Europe streamed out of the Arctic at the end of the last ice age, they expanded into
every nation on earth and left behind cultural artifacts and often, partial DNA; from this we got mixed tribes
like the Northern African Semites, who, if truth be told, are a fine population in their own right with many
good people among them. Judaism, as a religion of a small and often-subjugated trading colony, was based
on instilling an order based around the individual, originally as a means of civilizing those conquerors so the
tribe could advance. With time, it too has like a cancer consumed the Jewish population, causing them to
come into conflict with every host population they have, and thus making them inclined toward aggressive
cultural domination wherever they go.

Once again, the problem is the mixture, not the ingredients. If you accidentally dump chocolate into your
asparagus souffle, you don't blame the chocolate; the problem is that the list of ingredients for that dish is
now composed of incompatible elements. Might as well pitch in some cayenne pepper, too, at that point,
since nothing will make it worse. The cause of that admixture is your inattention, because you were fixated
on personal issues - perhaps a new car you wanted to buy, the question of where you'll rank in the
afterlife, or the plight of the homeless in Seattle under the brutal doctrine of the Bush administration. Either
way, you were distracted from the goal, which was to make an edible dish, not the unpalatable wreck
you've now concocted.

The solution to this distraction is to back off from passivity. If your life depended on making that souffle,
you wouldn't be dropping chocolate into it in a daze of distractions and fond thoughts of ecclesiastical
deliverance; your survival at stake, you'd be very focused on making that dish correctly. But who in a
modern time would give up the convenience of being able to simply throw out the disaster, and order up
another from the local Wal-Mart? That is the face of passivity, and once you let it into one part of your life,
thus your mind, it rapidly spreads, because it is more convenient than facing personal mortality or the
seriousness of life itself. It's like being on heroin, except there are no visible signs of the addiction.

Our goal, if we are dissidents to this society who wish to build one in the traditional model of Indo-
European societies, which is a feudal order based on achieving excellence and forever moving to higher
ideals (not forward in some fantasy "progressive" notion of increasing "freedom" without a collective
ambition), must be to formulate a plan against passivity and to recognize, for now, that all else is a
symptom of it. Only by this will we achieve victory because we will rip the parasitic mind-virus out of our
collective consciousness by the roots, instead of snipping away at branches that regrow constantly. By using
an active and assertive philosophy, we grow consensus among us, and from this consensus, the basic tasks
are made clear, and from that the secondary treatment of the symptoms unquestionable.

An initial step in overcoming passivity is to stop trying to "prove" your beliefs to the crowd, because that in
itself is populism and a passive means of accomplishing your goal; instead, what you must do is thrust out
before them a vision of the order you desire, and say with all of the virile certainty this phrase carries in
such situations, "This is what I will, and my preference is immune to your criticism; it is irrefutable." When
you do this, you've crossed the line between having to cajole, threaten, plead and bribe your way to
victory, which is a passive means, to creating something new to which others can adhere if they still have
the courage and foresight. This avoids the disease of a modern time, and indeed the extreme forms of this
disease, such as Judaism, liberalism and evangelical Christianity. It also guarantees you a shot at defeating
causes while others are still slashing at effects.

January 11, 2005

Green
The first casualty of any populist system is the ability to exist in a non-partisan activity. Since your power
results from marshalling together a group and getting them to exert the weight of numbers, you have to
dumb down your ideas to the point where a group can accept them and agree on them. Since the society
as a whole exists to please the individual, individuals are cultivated to be "different" and thus they will come
to the table not willing to agree but to assert each and every one that difference, thus narrowing the focal
point of the group. As a result, one has the modern partisan decision-making process: complex ideas are
distilled into simple points around which groups rally, forming oppositional camps, and somehow (it is
supposed) they will arrive at the truth.

As anyone who has suffered through the decisions of a committee, or any other partisan political process,
can attest, the result is that any change occurs in incremental steps around the most obvious conclusions.
If a giant rubbery monster is attacking the city, it's easy to agree that something must be done; a problem
without immediate manifestation in a way visible equally to all, however, is much harder. It is for this
reason that societies collapse from within from lack of consensus, which means that when the rubbery
monster does finally surge from the sea spouting fire, no one can even agree that they give a damn enough
to save the city, and most of them, enwrapped in the fatalistic guilt of awareness of how much they've
given up control to crowd pleasing, feel it is divine judgment that they be destroyed.

With my primary issue, namely allowing our natural environment to enslave the human onslaught, this
phenomenon is observable to tragic degree. Most political parties, sensing that they can appease the guilt
of some with a few token bones tossed in their direction, and thus can possibly gain votes, have a token
environmental policy that, while it addresses a few symptoms, will do nothing to correct the problem. This
grim comedy was most evident in the debate during the last election over drilling for oil in national forests;
while this might indeed be an issue, it is a convenient emotional and symbolic issue that allows everyone to
bypass the issue as a whole and go about business as usual.

There is even a Green party! We would be fortunate if such a thing were actually politically viable. However,
the Greens have made themselves into an extreme form of the same practice, by which they address only
environmental issues, sniping from the sidelines, and have no practical plan for society as a whole. For this
reason, they get dismissed by many as airy idealism (vernacular, not philosophical, usage), because they
want to stop certain symptoms, but cannot address the causes, and have nothing to replace those causes
even if they can stop them, leading to a total social breakdown as vital organs are ripped out of the society
and a void left into which (if history is any yardstick) anarchy, depression, chaos and unwelcome sodomy
will fall.

Thus, while there is activity in the name of Green (and here we don't mean the usual green that comes
pre-printed with denominations redeemable in future value, assuming there's a future, and you'd better or
you'll be short groceries and health insurance today) there is no activity with a viable political future going
on to address the question of Green, which for you late-comers and back-of-the-classroom types I'll
reiterate: stopping overconsumption of natural resources, overutilization of natural space, and the vast
amounts of pollution (waste outside of special containers) and landfill (waste, garbage, toxins and discarded
plastic inside special containers) that humanity generates. Although this situation in itself is crisis, there's a
further dimension, and one that is familiar to any observer of falling empires: the most necessary changes
are profoundly socially unacceptable to discuss, because they go against the moral fabric of our slowly but
surely collapsing civilization.

It is inconceivable that, in a utilitarian society, there could be a higher priority than the individual; after all,
political power in utilitarian systems is derived by getting most people to agree that a certain action or
activity roughly pleases them. This is the definition of utilitarianism, and from this idea - pleasing most of
the people most of the time - we get our vaunted "modern" and "progressive" institutions of democracy and
individualism. Individuals, indeed, are the core of a utilitarian system, because gaining agreement rests not
so much in addressing their actual needs, but in getting them to agree that their needs are being met; this
is primarily achieved by not offending sacred cows, inevitably by addressing certain high and lofty concepts
that every individual feels benefits himself or herself. In a utilitarian society, the individual is king, but
paradoxically, rule occurs through the mass. All liberal democracies fall until this framework.

For this reason, a fundamental realization is avoided: that humanity grows daily because populations
expand exponentially, and that no population checks itself until it runs into a fatal regulatory factor. This
means that human populations will continue to expand a tier every generation, and that by the time this
population so poisons itself that decline occurs because resources are limited, resources will already have
been pushed to the breaking point, and there will be no unoccupied land masses to which the few sane
ones can run while the others die in their own waste. In short, it's a race to the cliff-edge, and most people
upon recognizing this have decided it's better to go first over the cliff than get sodomized by the losers at
the rear of the pack.

This dual force, on one side the social and political taboo of mentioning the problem, and on the other the
emotional and psychological futility associated with it, guarantees that the name of the primary cause of all
of our Green worries cannot be mentioned, no matter how many seals we save or whether we forbid all
drilling in national forests. The ugly name of this grotesque problem is Overpopulation, and for this I
advance a new definition: having too many people to allow natural habitats to exist in their native format,
which requires more land than humanity does. It does not mean, as some wish we would suppose, having
too many people to fit on earth, because at that point the cause is lost. Nor does it mean having too many
people to feed, or to fit in our current land occupation; we're already taking up too much space, consuming
too many resources and producing too much waste.

Overpopulation refers to the unchecked growth of humanity. We have no natural predators, so for example
an alien observer might suppose that we'd come up with some Design to regulate our population before it
reached the point where, inevitably with the growth of generations, it would consume all free-standing
resources and force the conversion of the remaining open land into space for the production of food in
order to "save lives." Overpopulation is not a static figure, but the ongoing process of having no plan and
thus expanding in all directions without regulation, including in such a political system where we cannot
mention the need to curb growth, because that will deny to someone the ability to have a big house and
family and produce tons of waste, and thus is the exact opposite of trying to "save lives."

Before you throw up your hands in hopelessness at this neurotic delirium, and put a bullet through your
own skull, let me say that it's easy to solve. But first, I'll address another misconception: that if we "just"
recycle enough, ride bicycles to work, wear sweaters and wash out and reuse our condoms we'll be fine.
What a happy illusion! Even if I smoked a grip of crack, I could never believe this will work, because the
only people who are going to voluntarily adopt such standards are those who are already wealthy enough
to have the luxury of doing so. Further, and most comical, is the knowledge that even if every person on
earth were to do this, they would still be expanding as a population and thus would commit the same mass
destruction as the path we current follow will, albeit maybe delaying it by up to a decade. Thus the
traditional Green concept of being an ethical consumer, while a good idea in its own right (what kind of
psychotic asshole would not recycle?), will not solve the problem; it does not address the situation; it is a
total failure.

There's another wrinkle here, which is that populations lacking natural regulatory factors breed out of
control both outwardly (sheer numbers) and inwardly , which refers to the quality of their populations.
Contrary to popular belief, predators are lazy, so they carry off the malformed, mentally and physically
defective, diseased and weak before they even think of assaulting an animal in its prime. Humanity has no
such regulatory factor, and if there's one thing for sure, it's that the stupid and defective breed more than
those who are strong and thus have the foresight and ability to breed only in replacement numbers, which
tends to be two parents = two children, and no more.

Before the propaganda of utilitarian society rises in you, and you rebel against me here and call me Satan
or Hitler or some kind of thug, realize that if you put any person on earth into a private room and ask
them, with the knowledge that the answer will be kept secret for all time, what the human problem is,
they'll mention in as many words, "There are too many stupid people." For many of them, nature's sick joke
will be that they are stupid, but you'll hear the same answer from a genius or a healthy religious leader as
well, so it's not only stupid people who suggest such an idea. Rather, it's a commonly accepted truth that
most human beings are fools who, while they can function fine in bureaucratic jobs, are useless for long-
term planning or appreciating the subtle beauty of a forest. Their interest is wealth and entertainment, and
as long as they can buy food, they don't give half a shit about the demise of our natural habitat, although
they may pretend to for the purpose of gaining votes or appearing "noble" to their neighbors.

The vast majority of the human population on earth is under 100 IQ points, and while the IQ test is far
from ideal, it gives a general idea of intelligence, and no person under 100 IQ points has the intelligence to
check their own behavior, thus is useless for any kind of society that has no natural predators - in fact,
they're more than useless, as they'll continue to breed more stupid people who will never check their
behavior, and thus will clamor the loudest for more products, wealth and landfills. These people can be
sterilized, or killed, but it amounts to the same thing: natural selection being imposed from within. If we
lose the three billion or so of these, it's a good start, but there's still too many people. Lest you think this is
a polemic against the third world, which is admittedly the biggest polluter (mainly unmeasured, since it
requires wealth to take correct measurements), I'll go further.

Most people in the industrial, liberal democratic societies of America and Europe are also fully useless. They
can read newspapers, watch TV, and fill out forms and make conference calls at work, but that's about it.
They don't care about the environment. They care about more food, more wealth, and better
entertainment. They are in fact devoid of all awareness whatsoever of the importance of any long-term
action. If our society is going to self-regulate, as it must since it lacks predators, these people need to go
away, whether by sterilization or murder. "Murder" has bad constructs, but we don't think of it as murder to
kill killers, while it is - "murder" is a positive thing as long as the person, in the words of many a cowboy,
"needed killing." Killing is the only way you ensure these people will not act out their diabolical agenda of
stupidity and short-term, self-pleasing thought.

Since I'm breaking taboo here, and all of the people who fit this description have stopped reading long ago
(and you thought that opening lengthy sentence was for show? silly you), I'll say this: we must consider
eliminating our population of under roughly 125 IQ points, since that's about the threshold for those who
can make long term plans and those who cannot. IQ is fallible, so I suggest looking at people's deeds so
far; no point telling them they must shape up, and then sparing them when they do, as they lack the native
ability and inclination to do so. A society of geniuses is probably not our goal, but a society of people who
can agree on the most basic long term actions like "don't shit where you eat" and "don't destroy your
environment" is necessary, and those who cannot make that leap of cognition are those who will always
work against it; let's remove them. Did I mention that ill-bred people also require constant medical care,
generating more mountains of waste? Healthy people spend little time in hospitals, until the end, at least.

Oh, the voices would be wailing now, if any of them could understand this far. It's terrible you do this! Our
goal is to save lives! My goal is to save life - that is, life a a whole - and some lives impede that, thus they
need to be eliminated. Further, some ways of thinking impede that, such as the idea that we should be
able to do whatever we can afford to do with no thought to the whole, thus that must be eliminated also.
Luckily, this can be done within a democratic process, by creating a feudal civilization in which an elite of
long-term thinkers rules, and there is a higher value than money and a consensus that civilization should
grow by natural selection toward ever-increasing heights, not stagnation. With even a small portion of the
intelligent population agitating for this, as it will make their lives better by not condemning them and their
children to future apocalypse, it will occur by democratic means within our very society. And while this
future society comes bearing death for some, consider the option: death for all, and our environment that
has taken billions of years to evolve.

In Vedic mythology, the oldest and most advanced spiritual system on earth, life runs in cycles which
roughly correspond to humans mastering their environment and, lacking predators or a consensual goal,
become bloated and fat like couch-dwellers, thus overpopulating and creating degenerate, failure-oriented
societies. At the end of these cycles, certain mythological figures appear, and if you pay attention closely to
your dreams, you will see their symbolism as wisdom. One such figure is Kalki, who appears astride a white
horse bearing a sword, clearing away the excess life so that life itself can thrive again. White horse = rare
in nature, but true to the method of nature, created by nature for a specialized purpose, and surviving by
its fitness above others. When you see a society that is unable to recognize its certain doom, that has
made discussion of the actual problem taboo and thus contents itself with frivolous self-gratifying talk of
symptoms, realize that death is here to save life - and in your prayers, look toward Kalki, death on a white
horse, and say to yourself, that alone is our salvation.

January 13, 2005

Slavery
Recently, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) got in a firefight with the liberal Jewish
establishment because PETA dared compare the extermination of Jews in Europe to humanity's practice of
mass farming and then slaughtering animals. The Jewish establishment wants to believe that the
"Holocaust" was a singular event in all of history, and not the uprising of a people against the parasitic
foreign population they identified with Bolshevism, which systematically Holocausted the best intellectuals
and strongest people across Europe wherever it took root; however, this article isn't about the petty victim
politics of a group of religious and racial fanatics (Judaism) but about the nature of our treatment of
animals.

There was an article recently about how McDonald's is considering a new, "more humane" method of killing
chickens: they're going to gas them. By itself, this seemed to underscore the provocative but accurate
commentary of PETA's statement, in that the mythological gas chambers have been reinvented for use in a
"humane" way of dispatching the billions of chickens we gobble every year in tiny styrofoam containers with
disposable napkins, forks and condiment packets adding up to a mountain of plastic landfill. However, it's
hard to tell whether the article was intended as macabre comedy or not, because it offhandedly tosses out,
halfway through:

McDonald's animal welfare council suggested a study of the newer method, said Bob Langert,
McDonald's senior director of social responsibility. It would replace a slaughtering process in which
chickens are hung by their legs on a moving conveyor line and pulled through an electrified vat of water.
- USA Today , 12/30/04

So we're moving on from dragging them through electrocution ponds to new and more humane methods?
Much as PETA, like Stormfront or One People's Planet, strike me as people who are fanatical about a single
issue because they have no solution for the whole, it's clear they're onto something here. No person of
integrity finds that basic method acceptable (interestingly, you'll find few people of integrity eating at fast
food restaurants, either). No one with any sense of even aesthetics finds that method anything other than
amusing in a hopeless way. When one is staring at a worksheet of costs and safety regulations, it may
shine like a beacon of Heaven in contrast to other options, but still - it's crazy, and brutal. The root of it is
that we see nature and its animals as material, not as a living, continuing process, and thus something that
like ourselves we must keep alive.

This is brutal comedy, and it would be actually funny if we didn't see here how modern society breaks
down: on one side, people are talking about profit and jobs and how important it is that every person can
earn a living, even if by generating mountains of landfill making cheap, disgusting food for morons. On the
other, there are some fanatics who believe, correctly, that the way we treat animals is insane, but they
offer no solutions, thus fall into a self-parodic cycle of attacking nearly every part of society without offering
a solution. (The probable reason: internal dissent over the solution, mostly brought on by the liberal
attitudes of members, which hold that it's terrible to force anyone to do anything, even if what you're
preventing them from doing is sadistic, destructive, excess waste-producing idiocy.)

I think of this in parallel to slavery. Whatever one thinks of black people, which is a separate issue from this
site and this column entirely, enslaving them as material for use by industry was clearly a denial of the fact
that they, like every other animal on earth (humans are animals, much as we'd like to deny it), originate
from the same source in nature, and that nature is a continuous process and not static material. It's one
thing to have indentured servants, or domesticated livestock, when they are an integral part of the life of
families and communities, but when they are sold as material, with no regard to their role in the process of
nature, it becomes destructive to both enslaver and slave. The slave obviously is no longer a participant in
nature, and becomes bred dumb and useless. The enslaver, accustomed to thinking not of nature but
material, soon begins to treat himself with the same lack of reverence.

A similar situation prevails with animals today. Far from the old days, where small farms took care of their
animals and raised them well, today they're birthed, grown and slaughtered on assembly lines because the
vast horde of stupid humans out there will pay $5.99 for chicken nuggets and guarantee profit to another.
The material consideration, profit, is the only one; no one points out to McDonald's that, if you make
products for morons, soon you become moronic yourself. No one considers their actions in terms of the
whole, but only in the specific artificial world of profit which is wholly dependent on this civilization and,
when it fails, will become as useless as tits on a bull. The result is that all of us, as involuntary enslavers,
become slaves to the moronic need of people who want fast food, and to the profit-motive that jerks us
like marionnettes through a boring and moronic course of life that we would otherwise eschew. But
remember - this is "freedom," and freedom is slavery.

January 13, 2005

Passage
Not every civilization is founded the same way. It might be as simple as a small tribe leaving another
civilization and wandering until they find a space that "will do," and then they begin the long process of
creation: building shelter, cultivating animals and fields, defending against enemies and starting institutions
of learning, spirituality and government. It might be a group of religious breakaways, or convicts, or rebels,
or a few individuals fortunate enough to evolve higher intelligence than the former group possessed.
However it is founded, it will have a birth, and with luck a long life, and then begin the process of decline.

The decline of civilizations is universal. First consensus is lost; there is no longer an external enemy such as
death through lack of civilization, so the mechanism of society is taken for granted and divided up among
those who inherit it. Without a creative goal, the civilization declines into infighting, and therefore is
incapable of choosing a direction on any issue; for this reason, the slow-acting poisons work unchecked
until it falls. Its only goals are internal, and these also lack the creative impetus, thus there is nothing to do
but for groups to take sides and polarize its parts against each other, with no one notices that this
polarizes everyone against the whole.

When a civilization is dying, it is a paranoid time: no one can be trusted except to act in their self-interest,
and since there is no long-term goal, those interests involve short-term linking like profit, power in the petty
sense of taking a position and enforcing rules on others, and of course social power, which is how one feels
"important" and can have authority for authority's sake among the population. Of course, nothing is worse
than unmerited "authority," so this further divides the people, and soon although they are all going in
separate directions, they agree on some "standard" of behavior which is used to alienate those who might
criticize the direction of the failing civilization.

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

- The Hollow Men, T.S. Eliot

Thus comes about classic "in-group" politics, because if anyone is confronted with the truth that civilization
is falling, it will make his or her accomplishments be shown as hollow, and since this person has no actual
creative goals and thus gains all self-esteem from holding positions defined by other people, that would
destabilize the individual. For this reason, the individuals form the social gang which applies the rules of
behavior, so they can each be "important" and no one may pierce the bubble of illusion that says society as
a whole is healthy, "doing just fine - hell - getting better every day!", and thus remove the legitimacy of the
power of every individual in the crowd. The mob of individuals creates its own rule based on the self-
esteem needs of its members, and reality is forgotten.

And who notices? The most pernicious weapon the in-group has is the illusion that we are separate from
history, that our civilization will live forever and is heading toward a "progressive" future, and that therefore
the rules don't apply to us . Other civilizations grow and fall, but we are the civilization that's a result of all
of them, and the only one ever to discover the right way to do things; thus (goes the logic) we are eternal.
We can make whatever changes we need because we are building on a platform that, like the memory of
our dead, will never go away. Right?

The globe is littered with remnants of civilizations living on as a shadow of themselves. This is not to
disparage those who live in them, except to note that they are the ones who survived a great disaster that
generally shaped everyone to conform to its needs, or to pass judgment on these civilizations; the question
"And what do you want for a civilization?" comes to mind here. The Aztecs in Mexico were once the height
of the new world, with learning and social structure far beyond Christian Europe, but now, Mexico is barely
able to hide the open sewers running down its streets, and contributes nothing to the world except a third
world economy, which is that of a nation industrialized enough to export raw materials and basic
manufacturing skills, but not learning or invention .

Tajfel found that when the boys were choosing between two boys in the same group,
choices tended to be made on the basis of maximum fairness.

When the choice was between one boy in their ingroup and one boy in their out
group the boys discriminated in favour of the ingroup...In making their intergroup
choices a large majority of the participants gave more money to members of their
own group than to members of the other group. Intergroup discrimination was the
strategy used in making intergroup choices.

In contrast the in-group and out-group choices were closely distributed around the
point of fairness.

- The Tajfel Study

But now the wailing starts from the in-group. Oh, you must be ignorant and racist and stupid and a
terrorist, and not know that Mexico was conquered by Hernan Cortez in 1519. My response: Yes, with 300
soldiers , which is not the amount of force required to overthrow an empire. He landed with a small force,
rallied the slave populations of the Aztec and Maya, and used them to defeat their masters; this was a
collapse from within, and Cortez merely the implement. I don't have any praise for him, as anyone who
takes the sacred gold of objects of a great society and melts them down is without reverence for his world;
his eyes were on God and wealth, not the sanctity of life as a whole, meaning not individuals but the
process by which civilizations occur and value things enough to make gods-in-the-earth out of them.

The Aztecs fell, and the Maya before them, from within. So, apparently, did the Hopi in Northwestern
America, as did the ancient civilizations of Angkor Wat and Afghanistan. Also, it seems, did the great North
African republics, as did Egypt, as did the once-mighty civilizations of the Islamic world. India, once the
source of all civilized learning and might, is now overwhelmed by a massive population with little ability to
create, although some have kept the learning and ancient ways alive. And Greece, and Rome? The political
entities that replaced them have achieved little, and resemble the original populations barely at all. Indeed,
all of Europe's great empires have fallen to some degree, after a period of colonialism and imperium.

But was this the imperium of healthy nations? To me it seems as if more likely, it was the in-group
expanding outward to conquer any who might be dissidents, because nothing threatens an in-group more
than people who do things a different way and, because they might be thriving in some ways compared to
the in-group, thus provide an option which usurps the absolute, solid power of that in-group. Conquer them
and convert them to Christianity: misery loves company, and if they're with us and we all die together, at
least that way we were not proven to be wrong . The once-great colonial empires of Europe are all in
massive decline; having exported their rule, they found they could not sustain it, and thus taking a blow to
the self-esteem relapsed into being pleasant vacation destinations. I am thinking here of the ancient
Visigothic empires of France, Spain, and Portugal, and the northern European states such as The
Netherlands and England.

England, or Great Britain as they want us to call it now, since it absorbed its nearer colonies through brutal
wars based on class and religion, is a perfect example. Once a nation of might, creating great things and
contributing to the world, it is now a neurotic, frivolous empire, exporting its insanity through a "world
policeman" role as a shadow to the USA, its newer offshoot which is clearly following in its footsteps. Are
people happy, there? By how "happy" is defined, surely: they have cars and houses and jobs with nifty
titles. Inwardly, however, they are craven and full of doubt, thus they cling to absolute ideas like justice,
multiculturalism, morality, etc. to compensate for their lack of inner strength. They are looking for
something in the world outside that is a fixed and immovable object, something to which the drowning can
cling.
Will they find it? No one has, because if such a thing existed, it would prevent the decline of that which
must face its time to die. Much like the Aztecs or Egyptians, the old order of Europe has died, leaving
behind reactionaries (conservatives) and a "new order" (liberals) who have no solutions, but encourage the
process of decay because, having inner weakness, they seek Absolutes in the form of pity for others, a
universal social order where competition is eliminated, and the like. If you limit your focus to how our
society defines itself in history, this will be mystifying, but if you look at history beyond the official doctrine,
and see how the patterns of the past repeat themselves, these processes can be distilled to nothing more
than the fibrilation of a dying empire.

Look at the people of our new order. We seem to lack many great thinkers and artists, as populated former
times; in literature, at least, it's hard to find any voices since the 1930s who had any strength or vision. The
ones who are left discuss their "great ideas" solely in the context of the in-group values of this dying
civilization, and where those values leave off, so do the authors. There are no T.S. Eliots, or Ernest
Hemingways, or F. Scott Fitzgeralds or even William Faulkners. Where is our Beethoven, or even on a lesser
level, our Mozart, or our Brahms? Somehow I doubt it's Eminem or Linkin Park, and even they would
disclaim that title. Where's our Carl Jung, or our Homer? A dying age has a lack of heroes, and raised
without heroes, its youth have no higher ambition than comfortable living and intoxication.

Look at the people of our new order. They have myriad health problems, mostly revolving around
congenital diseases and being fat and out of health; even the diseases they bring upon themselves are tiny
compared to the overall tendency to die of inactivity and overeating. They are neurotic, and demand
constant entertainment and drama to keep them from feeling the sting of life's emptiness. They are from
every nation on earth, and share no culture in common, so their culture becomes that of the television, of
the malls, and of the talking heads in charge. What kind of civilization is this? It is not; it is remnants , but
the fearful crowd - the in-group - will do almost anything to prevent you from seeing that, because if you
see it, that is one view that might contest their own, in which they lack inner confidence. A neurotic,
paranoid time.

The culture is decayed. Great ideas that should exist on their own merit are forced to sell themselves, and
to pander to the whims of a crowd that, bored with its lives, is always seeking something "new" and
"unique" as if one more piece of art deco furniture could compensate from a lack of consensus, thus no
way to establish a goal that benefits all, thus no way to establish quests and tasks which fulfill a life. Like
dying stars they collapse into themselves. Always eating and never full, they run through a parade of plastic
objects, temporary lovers, habits and vices, and even "kicks" - I'm on a yoga kick this week, or lately, I've
been trying out macrame - but their souls are empty and their eyes blank. When there is no plan for the
future, there are no values now, except comfort and intoxication, which are hollow and become boring after
only a decade.

Without a goal, our civilization lacks a will, and without that, has no meaning and thus lives in fear of
death. To live in fear of death means to take death into yourself as the highest value, and thus to be a
servant of it. All of your values are contingent upon avoiding death, or not mentioning death, or finding
something "important" with which to balance the inevitability of death: religion, morality, liberalism, antique
cars, modern art. This lack of will explains the urgency of conquest in the late European republics, and
marks the final stage of their passage from living civilization to burned-out husks like those of the "third
world." Granted, back when there were thinkers, this was recognized, but books need an audience and if
the audience cannot comprehend, or will not because of in-group politics, even the greatest truths spelled
out in simple sentences go unnoticed.

One way to view this passage is that there is an "other side," but that not all of us will make it. Most are
already so broken that to die childless and be forgotten is the best gift they can receive; others waver on
the razor's edge between being committed to reality and just wanting to pull the covers over their head
and go back to sleep, which at this point means a corporate job, a BMW and a "multicultural" significant
other, or series thereof. These should not make the passage. For those with the will to be reverent for life,
and thus wish to make a great civilization matching it, there are two commandments:

I. Survive
Perhaps this is mistitled, or maybe the typist or editor left out a word: to survive is to survive well. Rise
above. Marry well, breed well, and raise your kids according to the ancient values of your tribe. Even more,
live well yourself, and by this I do not mean comfort. Avoid the illusions of television, sports, and
oversocialization; keep alive around you the best ideas, people and values. Be unrepentant, and be
selective; anytime the in-group tells you that you "must" do or believe something, quietly do your own
thing. Be legal, and be polite about it, because this forces them to martyr you if they're going to strike, and
if they do that, they lose their own feelings of self-esteem through morality.

II. Do Not Bless the Illusion

The illusion is all around you, and every day someone will come running up to you with some artifact of it,
looking for you to praise it. Politely and firmly maintain your ground. "I don't watch television, but I'm glad
you enjoyed that program" is an honest sentiment without scorn, and should be more frequently heard.
Simiarly, dismiss all politics and "social conscience" palaver with "It seems our civilization is falling, and it
will be interesting to see what happens next." Then change the subject to something positive. This sows
seeds of doubt among others, but does so without making you an aggressor, and allows you to keep your
friends and friendly neighbors without compromising your ideals, which is the alternative if you start talking
about modern politics, society or industry as if it will actually solve the problem. It won't, and it deserves
no credit from an independent mind that is aware of history.

These are terrible things to write, if one believes that now is the only moment. They recognize that our
enemy is not without, but within, and that the ultimate test of our species is still at hand: natural selection
can at any moment remove us, or more likely, breed us into simpler creatures incapable of great civilization,
but those natural disorganization makes them self-regulating. While civilization still exists, however, we can
remember that nature is infinite and provides opportunity at every turn, so with decay comes room for
those who will survive the passage: these are the founders of a new civilization.

January 17, 2005

Dysfunctionality
You can tell the fan's about to get messy when delusion prevails, and inward strength is seen as a distant
second to showy displays of public importance. The latter is how you get a room full of people who barely
know you, and don't really care, to think you're doing something "good" - but because they don't care, their
praise is as insincere as their condemnation, and neither lasts long in that kind of attention span. The result
of this psychological chaos however: I'm surrounded by dysfunctional people.

I enjoy my friends. They come in different stripes. They are my friends because on the whole, they're
genuine to the best of their ability - after all, they grew up in dysfunctional families, their friends are
dysfunctional, and the people they work with - throw up your hands - are not only dysfunctional, but forced
upon them by the nature of commerce. You can't refuse to work with Susie because she's a nutcase unless
she makes some show display of public nutcase behavior, which for a society this "tolerant" means she has
to shoot someone, or finger-paint Dada murals in her own feces on the boardroom wall.

Basic insanity thus goes unrecognized. Similar, inner strength and force of will are ignored; people turn
noses away and say, knowingly, "He's so boring!" - they are speaking of a great guru, philosopher or artist,
who prefers logic and passion to drama, and therefore provides little of interesting gossip except when,
after a brief bout of success, he finds it just as hollow and begins self-destructing in Morrisonian ecstasy.
Let's walk through an average office - perhaps one of my clients, perhaps a phantasm of the brain - and
see some of the exciting dysfunctional people out there; it's not Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, but perhaps his
analysis couch, or his book of diagnoses.

First, we come to superman here in his office; Stan he runs our network, or maybe he's our product
director, but what makes him important around the office is his raw skill and can-do attitude. He never
says no to any project, and he'll knock himself out for a job. Of course, because he never says no to any
project, he's always on a project, and will have to look at yours later; because he heroically stayed up all
night and slayed the dragon incarnate of the latest spreadsheet, he's out of work on Monday and Tuesday
he's still bewildered. But he is superman, so he'll never say no, even if he's six months behind on
everything. Luckily, he can respond to crisis, so if you run in and tell him that something is on fire, he'll put
the fire out. However, he doesn't notice any of the smaller issues that keep the firm running, and therefore,
there's always something on fire.

Stan likes feeling needed. Superman of all things needs an audience, much like God needs you to pray for
him so he can save kittens from Satan. He likes being important, thus is always busy and always late, so
there's always people coming in to talk to him. What protects him is his chest of steel, behind which he
cowers; he takes a linear-rational approach to reality and so defines himself in strict logical terms. If you
point out to him that the latest car your company produced does not have a steering wheel, he'll cheerfully
point out that it's still a car and got completed on time. If the network goes down because no one replaced
the one hard drive that contains all of its routing tables, he will tell you with a smile that the backup system
failed last month and he's waiting to replace it, but he's been putting out fires, and so he has been so busy,
he just hasn't had a chance to make sure the company is functional. I have come to distrust "busy" people.

There are other needy people. Down the hall is Sara; she handles our billing. Sara likes to point out exactly
where you are in error regarding regulation 4261. What's that, you ask? It specifies that you must put your
birthdate on every form 8714-A. But you know my birthdate! You say. "Well, I thought you'd like to know,"
she says. Sara, like superman, doesn't mean badly, but she is so focused on details that she often misses
the point completely. She is thus a classic bureaucrat. If you come in to her office confused because your
paycheck disappeared, she will explain very carefully that because you did not file form 8968 on time, they
have no registered bank account in your name.

But what about the one they were using? Well, regulations say we have to get a new listing on that form,
so I'm very sorry you're out of money now, and we can get you a check within two weeks, although that is
probably after your rent, car payment, credit card bill and student loan repayment have bounced. Sara
cannot connect the goddamn dots enough to realize that every employee needs the check to go, on time,
to some place they can access it, or so she'll tell you. The truth is that she doesn't care; Sara likes being
important, and because she focuses on details, she cannot grasp the larger picture, usually because it
threatens her in some way ("OMG you mean civilization is collapsing? I...I... chocolate!"). For this reason
she hides behind "not having seen" or "not having noticed" the fact that, while all the forms were filed
correctly, the process as a whole is broken. I have come to distrust people who are so detail-oriented they
cannot notice the outline of the dots on the page.

Keep on going down the hall. Now we come to the room where the people who do the "real work" are.
These are programmers, or legal associates, or any number of other specialized administrative functions. In
their world, they alone produce income for the company, and everyone else is just wasting paper; there's
some truth to this, except for the fact that they also miss the big picture, because they're obsessed with
the trivial. Programmers, for example, can be found often saying, "I know the software accidentally sold
2,000 people cars for only $40 each, but look how fast it indexes our database - this is technological
triumph equalled by only another 4,000 people worldwide!" This is one form of obsession with the trivial.
Legal associates can be just as bad, in that they will calmly look up everything you request of them, but
then will fail to notice a case exactly similar to the one you are trying, and thus the cause will be lost when
the client gets an anonymous fax from a competing firm informing him that his lawyers are, indeed, the
bunglers he imagines them to be. Ask the legal associate and he'll look at you blankly: "But I did as you
asked!"

These people are one form of the great defect known as modern neurosis. You can find it anywhere,
however. In software firms they also employ artists; these work very hard on command, but have to be
told exactly what to do, as they lack the ability to look at the big picture and realize there's a need for
something. "You didn't say the program had to have an exit button," they'll respond. "But every product we
have does!" you remonstrate. No matter - they only see what's on the worksheet, and only think about how
it looks. This is why Robert Heinlein used to rail against specialization; "It's for insects," he would have his
characters say in any number of great science fiction books. Those who get super-specialized miss the big
picture, just like Sara and Stan miss the big picture. Because they habitually adopt this way of looking at
the world, soon all parts of their lives follow this function.

For example, Sara rented an apartment; it's right next to a busy freeway, but since it's an apartment at the
right price, she considers it a "good deal." Nevermind that no one except the deaf should have apartments
next to freeways, because developers keep building them right next to freeways because, look, it's
convenient to get to work this way. And since their audience is composed of Saras and Stans, no one ever
calls them up and says, "Did you ever think this is a Bad Idea, since the noise will be intolerable?" They'll
either retort with the utilitarian - "we haven't had any complaints so far!", which is the ultimate passive
defense - or will, like Sara, look down into their carefully organized file drawers - see, I'm a good worker -
and claim their job only involves looking at the details; they're detached from the big picture.

Other examples abound. The self-image junkies are the worst. Raul, down in Marketing, he loves to get
laid. Loves it loves it. So he's out every night at the bar, then bringing home a different chick who also
loves to get laid, and as a result his mind isn't really on his work. He slogs along through a project,
spending more time in front of the mirror and on the phone than even thinking about it, and then patches
it up and staples the mess together and runs it by his secretary, who has to clean up the disaster and make
it presentable, and then he's off to the bar. His work process is distracted, and as a result he makes the
same old mediocre crap that every other idiot makes out of a job: blockhead products, degenerate
marketing, stupid ideas. Why should he care? He is a stud, and he knows it.

Josh in Support is just as bad. You see, you didn't know this - and it's really not your fault - but Josh is a
secretly very profound artist. He may work in anti-capitalist poetry, or feminist film noire, or maybe even
has an iconoclastic rock band of his own, but he's undiscovered. His identity is entirely based around being
unrecognized, because it allows him to look in the mirror and say: "They just don't know, but I am superior
to them all." In act, the I'm-better-than-you seems to occur frequently among people who live in personal
realities, which are what I call these worlds that orbit our planet like distant sattellites and never seem to
have to correspond to reality. Even if his poetry sucks, or his films are appreciated only by those who are
alienated enough to kick around a dead genre like feminist noire , he knows he's better than you. His
personal world exists. Interestingly, although Josh doesn't like "organized religion," he's exactly like Phil,
across the hall. Phil's a conservative and a good Christian and believes the rest of us are going to hell, but
luckily Phil found the secret and he's tight with God. Allright.

Superman in the example some paragraphs ago was a control junkie, but there are other forms of control
junkies. Ron manages our audience research, and he's good at what he does, but he makes you wait in his
office while he digs up your report, proofreads it and hands it along. He enjoys having people wait for him,
because otherwise, what does he have in life? A television. Sergey in development is the same way, except
his symptom is different: he likes to argue the technical details of language, or of computer language, in
such a way that whether or not it is relevant to the project (and it's usually not) he is "proven" to be "right"
and you are - wrong. Sergey grew up in a divorced home, and put himself through college, and he thinks
anyone who didn't suffer as much as he did had it easy and is thus a weakling, and he likes crushing
weaklings. He also likes driving home that guilt trip. As a result, his projects often completely miss the boat,
like that website he produced which never mentioned the product, nor worked with any browser but
Internet Explorer. Locked in his own head? Sergey's Personal Reality.

The regular office staff have this disease to varying degrees. You'll often hear people politely declining a
task with, "It's not my job," if it's something they could be held accountable for, or "It didn't matter much
to me at the time" if it's not. Imagine these people trying to come together on something after work -
they'd never have the ability to start a business, get together a meaningful volunteer effort to protect
wildlife or even start building a settlement if shipwrecked on a distant isle. They will however make sure
that you know they did a "good job" on client calls, or sorting the supplier files, or organizing the lower
staff to actually do their jobs (lower staff, being totally replaceable, are expected to space out and start
making personal calls, playing video games or masturbating if not supervised constantly). They exist in their
own worlds, where only they are important and their choices are made solely for themselves. As a result,
they do nothing outside the mandatory, and even while telling you how much of a "team player" they are,
are concentrating their vital energies elsewhere.

I am not saying jobs are important - to the contrary, I think they're garbage, but that's the result of this
attitude. If we could each get over our emotional pretense, and function as a team, we could all go home
by 2 PM and spend time on healthy things like walking outside, or being with our friends and family, or
even some creative art. But really, that's not the kind of thing you can mention in one sentence at a party
and have everyone nod knowingly. Better to be obsessed with sex, or superman, or -- wait, there's a type I
forget: the emotional overdrive type. These exist in every office, near plump boxes of kleenex, and the
charge they get out of life is knowing that they are the few who are actually emotionally in touch with life.
If someone comes by your desk with a sign up sheet for donations to the poor overpopulated tsunami
victims, or weeping about the plight of the homeless in Alaska, recognize why they do this: it reinforces
their image of self to think of themselves as having discovered emotional "truth" while the rest of us are
callous, unfeeling, distant people.

Another type that you've all experienced is The Savior-Queen. This person views his job as the essence of
the business, and believes that if he doesn't make it in to work, the entire thing will collapse into dust as
brimstone rains around it. He usually thinks this because it is not true; his authority and responsibilities are
minimal, in part because he has so many psychological issues that he's impossible to deal with. The Savior-
Queen will come up to your desk when you're in the middle of some trivial phone call, for example finding
out how to get tax figures to the auditor by the close of the business day, and he will start talking as if you
don't exist - except he's talking to you, and needs you to exist, it's just that you're not important. After all,
you aren't the martyr of the business, and its fearless leader who is somehow unrecognized. When you peel
back all of his bluster, the Savior-Queen, like everyone else mentioned in this article, suffers from low self-
esteem. Consequently, he projects authority and rests all of his self-esteem in that; if you don't recognize
his authority, he takes it personally - very personally. These are the people who most commonly go running
to "Human Resources" (you fools, you have been domesticated) to complain about someone being
"unprofessional," meaning they didn't kiss his ass. The way to deal with these people is to tell them they
have beautiful eyes, or that they're "essential to the team," because, just like when you give a jelly donut
to a dog, they'll then follow you around for a week.

Dysfunctional, all of them. We can debate for years the origin of this dysfunctionality, but I say go with
Occam's Razor on this one and realize that the simplest rational solution is usually accurate: society has
divided to the point where we have no direct contact with the means of producing actual useful things, thus
we become mentally like our bureaucratic jobs. Since most people simply fulfill a small function, they don't
need to notice the details, and can afford to indulge any number of personality defects. And why not? No
one will notice until you shoot up the office or make fecal art on the boardroom wall. Further, what kind of
person would try to resist the onslaught? Just be broken with the rest of us.

Broken, indeed. Fully functional as far as having a job, sliding that credit card through the machine in the
checkout line, and mastering the details of ordering phone service, car insurance, or pizza. Yet inside - their
inner strength - they are depleted, and broken in the second sense of the word, which one uses with
horses: "He was wild when he came here, but we broke him over the weekend, and now he's content to
carry the plough for sixteen cents of grain at the end of the day." Has humanity domesticated itself? Most
likely. There is a lack of inner strength, and a dependence upon outward actions and great shows of giving
a damn or pretending to care about the project or company being broken because one was too obsessed
with details, nightlife, or rules to notice the drain-plug had been pulled and the water was escaping the tub.

This is how the world ends; not with a bang, but a whimper. No one noticed we were cutting down all the
trees and replacing them with concrete; no one figured out that we were spewing toxins enough into the
air and water to kill what lived in them, and turn them into a truly alien environment. People were too busy
or too distracted to see that our society was getting so dumbed-down people were becoming dysfunctional,
or that we were slowly making our cities into small hells where living next to a freeway, at the right price, is
a "good thing." Others were too involved in their own personal realities to recognize that society, as a
whole, was becoming less of an empowering experience and more of one of servitude. Well, at least you
aren't one of those suckers earning sixteen cents a day! I get a full $500 of grain per day.

I'm surrounded by dysfunctional people. At this point, I see the world in terms of leaders and followers, and
the ones who are mostly leaders are the ones I care about surviving, although I care for my friends, most
of whom have a mixed character between leader and follower. Some may end up being leaders. Others will
ultimately give in to their inner follower and become totally useless, at which point it's like visiting my
friends out of rehab: a long list of stuff you can't mention, because it will destabilize fragile egos. I view
those visits as duty more than pleasure at this point, and while every friendship involves some duty, only
those that are dying like this civilization are all duty. Much as I respect the few (under 1%) people who are
not dysfunctional at jobs, I love my friends who are mostly functional and will do a lot for them, because
just as a forest is more beautiful than a parking lot, shopping mall or landfill, they're superior to the
dysfunctional horde.

Maybe these tsunamis aren't such a bad thing. Perhaps global warming, despite its grotesque implications
for many parts of our environment, which will be obliterated, is a good thing. Bring on the next ice age. It's
time we pare down the people who couldn't survive a night in the woods alone because the rules didn't say
explicitly that one had to run from bears, or to put the fire exactly three feet from the tent or the tent
might burn. The people who are unable to think past their own genitals, or caught up in their self-image as
superman or forgotten artist, would be distracted as the flames lept higher or the bear crept nearer or the
ice formed overhead. Death strikes the oblivious. This might not be a bad thing. Those that survived - more
leader than follower - would be functional, at least.

January 21, 2005

Crowds and Mathematics I
A wholesale discount store provides a good way to observe the winners in this society. Obviously, most
items are made by giant corporations far from wherever you buy them; equally obviously, since the quality
doesn't vary wherever you buy them, it's important to get them cheaply. Further, any idiot who was half-
awake in high school can tell you that with economies of scale in action, the more you buy, the cheaper it
will be. Hence businesses arise that, for a single yearly fee, will gain you access to a giant no-frills shopping
barn where you can haul home as much stuff as your credit card will handle.

They're always full. After all, food, candy, clothing, DVDs and furniture are available at 2/3 of the normal
cost. Where you'd buy three bars of soap, you can now get twenty, for a significant discount. Of course,
most of these items are stocked according to the convenience of the retailer, usually through exclusive
contracts with giant suppliers by which the wholesaler buys up cheaply whatever the manufacturer made
too many of this last gift-giving season, or is about to phase out of existence. But it's cheap, and you can
get your sweaty hands on it quickly and drag the damn thing home to keep you occupied and safely in
denial of mortality for a few weeks until you tire of it, and send it to the landfill with everything else.

Of course, there's a split among thinking people. Some tend to view society in religious terms, and see it as
a kind of evil, thus they avoid it whenever they can and end up living in penury. These types buy the three
bars of soap for a higher price and walk home muttering how glad they are that at least they didn't have to
waste any time in Wal-Mart, because that place is the dregs of humanities. The others, perhaps being of a
more pragmatic nature, or simply a more acquiescent one, get corporate jobs and join the discount clubs so
they can get good wines at 10% above cost, have access to the best meats and, hey, the complete Star
Trek on DVD, and it's only forty bucks. Good deal.

At one of these places recently, I was forced into the unorthodox but necessary role of standing on the
edge of its exit path, where one has just slid the credit card, written the legal signature and now has a cart
piled high with things wrapped in plastic to take home to the wife and kids, or pornography and cat, as the
case seems to be for most people. I am not a weird-looking dude, but I seem to radiate some kind of
awareness that disturbs most people and, as this is amusing, whenever I'm in one of these situations I find
a need to observe for my own amusement. It is not that I scorn other people, or hate them or love them,
because these universal terms that apply without any boundaries to their logic are generally bad news, as
far as intellect is concerned, but I take advantage of the university worth of learning before me: observing
people in their native habitat reveals more than all the opinion polls, votes, person-on-the-street interviews
and talk shows in the universe.

Like a rock midstream, I watched people pass around me; these were the people who knew enough to get
memberships to discount wholesale stores and thus get goods cheaply, thus saving money and getting
ahead in this society: they are our future leaders. My observations were twofold: first, these people had a
certain uniformity to them, although on the outside they were not identical or even close; second, this
uniformity revealed something of how we have arrived at a state of this degree of degeneration, as a
civilization, and where else this has happened. From this I was able to piece together some wisdom of the
ancients with learning from modern sources, and formulate a plan for reversing this process of slowly
descending into uniformity.

First, we look at the people: they pass, heads down or averted from the gaze of an observer (Mr.
Heisenberg, your tea is ready), in an uneven gait as often as not created by health problems including a
fatness that is functional; it's not obesity, but they're not slender, either: they have extra weight strapped
around them like a suicide bomber's belt. When this is observed, it becomes clear why so many people die
of hideous cancers, arterial clotting, or colonic obstruction; they are not healthy people in any sense of the
word. While some have strength, it is unevenly distributed; those who specialize in activities of the mind are
either quite fat or quite thin, and usually have personal habits that would disgust a weasel. None reveal
consistent stressful exercise, although in theory all these winners are "working hard" at their important
jobs.
Anyone of distinctive appearance or physical health stands out like a sore thumb. The crowd height is a
fraction over five feet, with a few here and there who poke out above the surging mass. Only a handful are
not dark-haired. Very few have a clear, focused look to their faces, or would sustain eye contact. Before
this article seems like a polemic about racial issues, let it be clear that it is not, although it includes
mention of race: these people have no traits which claim a clean lineage to any race. They are not
attractive in any race. In fact, race is one trait they seem to lack: Of those that are not clearly Indo-
European, the majority have some heritage borrowed from all three race. Extreme dark skin was rare, as
was extreme light skin; these were mostly tan, with brown eyes and curly but loose-flowing hair.

They often wheeze at the effort of walking more than forty feet, which isn't surprising considering that their
diet appears to be high in greasy snack foods packaged in plastic. They are physically puny, meaning they
have no grace and no athletic strength, even though some may be strong. It is an absurd situation. They
are absurd remnants of once great things. This leads to our first observation, which is that, much as
chicken and sheep and corn have been domesticated, and thus changed into inoffensive and functional
versions of themselves that cannot exist outside of society's need, these people have been domesticated.
They are at home in their element: they would be completely useless if they had to hunt, fish or cultivate
earth for a living. They might eventually figure it out, but never to any great success.

These are domesticated people. They are literally products of their society, and are content in this role.
Even their form factor fits this description, since they are of average height, weight and health. Although
they're not leaders, clearly they all have jobs and make money, which they're spending here. But these
aren't the kind of people who head off into uncharted waters and found civilizations through the dual means
of military prowess and creative instinct. These are people who buy stuff, consume it, and then make the
difficult decision of what to watch on cable before passing out. Without our society, they would not exist.
Without our wholesale discount stores, it's doubtful they could survive. Humanity existed before them, and
degenerated, and they are the product - the proof and expiation. This was the first revelation.

Second, what hit my mind was this: many times before, this process has occurred. Great civilizations were
formed and then at some point turned on themselves, forcing their people to conform to such a lowest
common denominator average that soon they, too, were lumpy, runty, undistinguished types like these.
There were a few tall people, and healthy people, among the crowd, but most were from generations gone
by in America, and they were looking less lost than others but also vastly out of place. This isn't their time.
They are obsolete . Every great civilization has gone from a period of being leaders and builders to a time of
no consensus, and no goal, out of which comes such average people.

Modern generic domesticated human is a great animal. Put it in a city, and it will find a job, and consider
itself smart for having a "good" one such that it can afford lots of plastic. It generates income for industry,
even paying huge amounts for retirement. You can count on it to make the lowest common denominator
decision every time; put fresh vegetables next to bulk snack food, and it will buy the snack food, which
costs less to produce and thus has a higher profit margin. Introduce some "new" gadget or fad and the
cowlike masses will buy it, and think they're clever for being so "in" with what's "hip." Best of all, they
never ask any serious existential or larger-issues questions, thus are equally prone to watch TV instead of
seeking value and, while they all have political opinions, never cross the taboo line of suggesting that
society has gone astray.

When I realized this, I thought of all the ruined empires I've seen, and read about, and what the people
who were left over looked like. Very similar: a muddle of fixtures, a confusion of impulses, a lack of any
real goal except to exist as comfortably as possible in a civilization that occurred outside of their control. At
this point, my mind strayed to something I had read in a book about Indian mysticism. In it, a yogin
described the process of meditation as letting go of one's self identity, and realizing that one is a game
piece manipulated from within by "supernatural forces." When I read this, it repulsed me at first, because I
like most Westerners associate the supernatural with gods in the sky, strange moral laws and sheeplike
consciences.

Recalling that surging crowd, however, I realized that "supernatural" has another meaning: mathematics.
Our inward forces respond to opportunity and boundary, and thus form a simple kind of logic, by which we
predictably respond to our government. Who would, for example, give up a comfy modern life to go live in
an ice age cave? And when confronted with a broken society, those who do not object and thus run the
risk of self-destruction or crowd disapproval will by their nature opt for decisions that please the most
people. This means not taking controversial stands, and finding the best products at the best price. This is
how they breed themselves into this runty, undistinguished mass: they give up on nature and replace it
with a values system where image is more important than reality, thus it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy,
and soon reality is five feet tall and mediocre in health, strength, intelligence and character.

This second revelation hit like a brick. We are literally breeding ourselves into the same dumb livestock that
we exploit for all that cheap milk, cheese and meat you can get at discount wholesale stores. Is there a
solution? It rests in the revelation of mathematics: like a supernatural force, mathematics works from
within, or without our conscious awareness of a motivation. The current math is that our society rewards
inoffensiveness and obedience. If our values change, that changes; if people start respecting only great
character and deeds, and shun the others as products of a failed civilization, then we resurrect our breeding
toward higher states and not lower ones (although this might bankrupt junk food manufacturers, midget
porners, fast food establishments and hemorrhoid specialists). My goal with these columns, and everything
I do, is changing of that values, because I have now seen both the heights - the heroic, idealistic, natural
humankind - and the lows, namely the crowd of runts, and I know which outcome I prefer for myself and
my world.

January 24, 2005

Crowds and Mathematics II
I was explaining, perhaps, how the end comes not like a roaring demon over the horizon, but soft as a
morning mist until it is among you, tantalizing with its sweet smell so that none are awake to the blindness
until it is not only too late to see, but to counteract the poison. Indeed, poison that tastes like death is
useless, because none will take it except at the point of a sword, and at that moment, you might as well
run them through, since a grimacing corpse never looks like it died in its sleep peacefully. But poison kills
while you are sleeping, or at the moment when in the grips of hallucinations you fight to awake and see
around you what has changed, and die in the agony of realization.

Crowds love decoration. It is like painting an old and rotting house so you can sell it to the clueless young
couples from the cities: hide the rotting frame, paint over the cracks in the foundation, tie plastic around
the leaking pipes so everything holds together just long enough for the ink to dry on the contract, at which
point it is not your problem. Similarly there is nothing offensive about decoration. The insides are hidden,
including the churning gaseous gut, and what is left is a pleasant situation in which things can be done
abstractly, as if in a heavenly place entirely removed from reality, a perfect space. X will deliver Y on time,
and be paid $Z. It is so crisp and logical, so apart from the smears of bodily fluids and last gurglings and
wheezings of the bedridden elderly patient that we try to keep out of our minds so we can function, as
death like a moth trapped in the lantern of our eyes flits about the flame and throws shadows on the wall.

Among the crowd, you will see few blondes, but plenty of dyed blond hair. Face-lifts, tummy tucks,
esophageal constrictions and painted nails. Perfumes to keep away those ghastly digestive smells, and the
stench of sweat when one is creeping back from the house of a sudden lover in the early morning.
Shouldn't have, didn't mean to, but who will know? Appearance is distinct from reality. Keep working the
job and you can pay for the personal trainer, the special medicines to obscure whatever your personal
deformation is, whether impotence or dandruff or halitosis or schizophrenia. Most of all keep smiling at
everyone, and the crowd will love you. Mention only the positive; it won't do to speak of death. Of all
things on earth, the crowd loves pleasant-tasting poison the most.

Go to a movie. You will not see an ancient Greek tragedy, because that brings you closer to the mortal
span and any discussion of its meaning, which could mean you feel you fall short and wonder what dead-
end hall will be your last memories. Instead, you will see a catharsis of illusion, whereby you fall into
empathy with characters far removed from your own life and live out their triumphs, their victories, their
submission and ultimately their return to normal life, just like yours, except shining in gold and covered at
every step by the cameras of the paparazzi. For two glorious hours, you were not thinking about the
nagging husband, or the tepid job, or the dentist's appointment lurking like a hired killer around the corner
on next Wednesday; you were thinking about these magic people, in their perfectly dramatic lives, so full of
meaning and finally, contentment, or at least some ending that exudes meaning with every ion. She got the
man of her dreams, he took the ball team to the pennant and won against all odds, the good guys won for
once.

If not a movie, try some drugs. We have pills to bring you up, or bring you down if you want to slow down
and touch life from an insulated safari car. Or would the gentleman prefer hallucinations? It's all about you,
kid, just like for everyone else, it's all about them. Take your choice, put down your money, and be on your
way - time is money and I don't have all day. For those who are wealthy, there are vacations in far-off
lands, or lives spent making a 0.00001% difference in the life of one miserable village like ten million
others, not of practical value but it feels good. Otherwise, you can get into sports, and when you win, can
feel as if God Himself put you above others; if you're really broke, there's television, which is like a cheap
movie repeating in half-hour segments. Cry with the golden people; laugh with them, celebrate their lives
and enjoy the time apart from your own. This is what the crowd wants.

There is a subtle mathematics to this, also. Each motion in life takes the path of least resistance, as this
leads inevitably to some kind of open space. When there are no great dragons to slay, no great cities to
found, and nothing left to learn except small increments of what we already know, you might as well look
toward comfort. Thus each individual in the crowd, acting independently, seeks out what might fill the void
of knowledge of eventual death, if even for two hours. Have a nice apartment, some interesting lovers,
friends who never forget your birthday. There's a video game system in the corner, next to the DVD player
and the computer; the world at your fingers, ready for your whim. The mathematics of the crowd is formed
by each individual seeking a world of its own, and thus creating an idealized, averaged concept of person
which erects rigid boundaries around whatever choices an individual can make, such that all are beyond
criticism. This way, we're all safe from each other.

It is almost undefinable, the attitude of these crowds. Their math is the rise and fall of empires, and within
it, the things an individual might value based on choices available. When society is new, and the first trees
are falling to build the first shelters, and there are still wolves which at night carry off the unwary, those
who survive are those who can make the choice to plan ahead, to do what is important in the long term.
They have no choice about that situation; it is what they must endure or be consumed. When there have
already been generations of those who have gone before, the choices to be made reflect options within the
framework of civilization: how do I make my workers harvest more, or convince the king to fund a bridge,
or barter for the yeast that makes lush bread? Even further along, the options are both greater and
smaller: civilization has not only become self-referential, but it has lost its frontier, and lost its big open
spaces, so you take what's left.

This means fighting over the wealth, and the positions of power that are, not creating new power either
within through self-discipline, or without by creating new civilizations, new ideas to conquer space and
time. The crowd surges ahead; they demand that anyone can be whatever he or she wants to be, because
in the mathematics of the situation, any position requires no special skills, but going through the motions.
Appearance dominates over reality, as it becomes more important to convince others of something and
have them buy it than to make something effective in its own right; it is the age of marketers, of travelling
salesman and carpet-bag-toting investors. The civilization has nowhere to go so expands in every direction,
each individual in the crowd taking his own due, and although smiling in public, scorning the rest in private
and thus leaving nothing for the rest. Gods are worshipped for the divine power of the crowd, as a holy
man is trusted by all. It is twilight for the supernatural figures, and for the forest: Buddha goes to meditate
at his bodhi tree and finds it cut down. Jesus descends the cross to write his memoirs, joins a rock band
and is never heard from again.

The time that is described here is the time in which I observed a crowd of people streaming out of a
discount wholesale chain of stores, where membership is required to keep one well behaved, and all the
rules are clearly stated on small plastic signs because, since there is no agreement on ideal behavior, they
cannot be intuited and are not shared. The crowd are united by having nothing in common. The attitude
they have is undefinable, because it is not so much a strong belief as an absence of any. They are there to
claim their due. In this they insist, strongly, but it is not belief so much as pragmatic and the convenience
of convention that drives them to this rigid rule. Rights are more important than cooperation. Money leads
all other values, which in order to compete market themselves, and thus by the mathematics of finding
commonality, become more like all other values until none have any distinct value, and all perish.

In the cities and towns, the wisdom of success prevails. There is no forward direction: take what it is here.
All the pretty girls marry rich toads with big cars and go off to the cities to have half-ugly babies, and all
the geniuses write epic poetry which is burned with their belongings in forgotten attics long after they have
suicided, or taken too many drugs to notice that truck already an hour late on its shift barrelling down the
boulevard. If a classical hero, or great thinker, emerged in such a society, that person would head for a
small cabin in Montana or perhaps, bowing to the inevitable and pragmatic, simply get a job and dismiss
those thoughts which once raced with inspiration through an active mind as phantasms of the brain,
stimulated by inferior takeout food at lunch - call the credit company for refund. There is a profound
absence in them, of any striving or any satiation in achievement, since what they have to conquer is so
long defined even its tedium is forgotten, and thus the only question is one of comfort and withdrawl from
the mess, not a desire to organize the chaos formed from abstract definitions of a universal nature applied
in non-universal, specific situations whose uniqueness is of no concern to those who file forms, purchase
orders, stock certificates and arrest warrants.

This is mathematics. Much as the death of someone who has lived a century is the information science of
cell death and interdependent organ systems failing in sequence, the death of a civilization is the number
patterning of people slowly learning not to give a huff about anything beyond their immediate gratification.
With each generation, the tumblers of the great cash register slowly approach the zone of total unchanging
numerics; each birth cycle brings a lower intelligence, fewer noble traits, and less desire to climb to the
heavens. Those are obsolete desires. What is needed now is people who understand what is and adapt to
it, domesticated, and thus can see that a discount club provides the best value, and therefore get the credit
cards and membership, and all the best consumer goods so their comfort is superior to the rest. Despite its
hollowness, this effort is what they call their pride. Calculate the odds, and the math rewards them doing
so, since no one person can reverse the course of inertia, or can it be done? To even take that gamble is to
forsake stability and convenience, to doom oneself to a hard life and a lonely one, since no one wants to
befriend someone going nowhere in the world of dollars and products.

It is also mathematics that something great must change this society, such that the rules of survival alter
themselves greatly, and the remaining population can spend 10,000 years surviving an ongoing cataclysm,
so that only those who see far into the future and plan accordingly will pass along their genes. The climate,
destabilized by clouds of smoke from machines and bargeloads of waste from every corner of every city,
finally gives way, and ice covers the earth. Death reigns upon the unwary. Those who are left retreat to
caves, and find new gods who can give them strength to endure hardships that last beyond the individual
life, working for goals they will not live to see gained. This is why all great cultures have a Ragnarok
mythos, and why the crowd is so frenetic: their urgency conveys an inarticulable fear, as indefinable as the
absence of heroism among them, that lurks in the subconscious, reminding them that death is real and, like
the inevitable end for all they know, as mathematical as their own ambitionless lust for comfort.

January 27, 2005

Crowds and Mathematics III
The great mystery, in the ashes of any civilization, is how it fell, since we can see its works and their might.
How could a race of such strong beings succumb, and how did it happen? -- our minds relive every
betrayal, every night of burning cities, every lonely suicide by one of the few who saw the collapse
imminent. To understand the process of a civilization dying, we must understand how people move from an
inward strength to an outer one, and how it thus shapes them to lack the direction needed to put great
strength in the right place, and therefore, lays before them the poison of their doom.

When there is consensus, one can point to an idea or deed and say, "It does fulfill that which we together
value, thus it is great," and have others agree. All are unified toward a goal. This goal may not be a
tangible thing, nor an immediate one, but in every mind there is an image of it, like a golden idol or holy
scripture. When this goal disappears, like the sword of Damocles hovering above open ocean, with it goes
the ability to esteem any deed as beneficial to the whole culture, and the focus of people in that culture
turns to themselves, and ways they can use a public image of self to "prove" the worthiness of self; deeds
become secondary to a construct of the individual. In this way crowds are formed, which seems a paradox
in that crowds have one will while the individual has one, but it becomes clear that a crowd exists when
there is no agreement except a common confusion, and what arises of it is the simplest thing upon which
all can agree. Since all are individuals, this agreement is shallow at best.

In place of a universal collective good, the crowd seeks universal absolutes, and thus begins to construct an
ideal in its image, whether a God or a set of laws and customs which respect an idealized, average
individual, and erect rigid boundaries across which none other may cross, protecting each individual from
criticism or assessment of failure, using that ideal defined by boundaries and not desires for achievement. It
is a subtle sleight of hand, but an important one, as now the individual defines himself or herself not by
what is possible, but by what is possessed, and not by what is internal, but by what can be recognized by
all others in the crowd. It is a humbling position, through which one receives a sense of self, by showing
the group an image and with their approval, claiming it as one's own. For every action there is an equal
and opposite reaction, and thus the humility undertaken internally is reversed in an external persona that is
assertive, combative and most of all, selfish.

Why would one do anything for the collective, after all, when the collective is so disorganized and
demanding that it must be shown something pleasing to approve the individual? Those who speak too
much truth are dismissed; they have violated one part of the Absolute rule which states the importance of
never making another appear to be diminished, unless of course they have violated the rule, and thus
preserves the crowd as individuals. This trap is brilliant in its simplicity, in that where working together the
crowd could have everything they desire, instead they work against each other and claim the balance
established as a form of collaboration, meaning that simple tasks which could be done with quickly, leaving
the day for the individual to develop, instead take far longer because of the complexities of interlocking
webs of absolute demands and the conflicts they progenerate. In this realization, the individual sees the
crowd as necessary but not an ally, and thus it is every man for himself: the individual combats the world
as whole in order to make a pile of money and haul it off to an untouchable lair, promoting a paranoia and
distrust of all others, who are trying to do the same thing regardless of who or what it destroys.

In such a society, rules are more important than reality, because rules represent collective consent where
reality is visible in varying degrees to those who can see it. For this reason, if one points to reality and
says, "Isn't it obvious?" there will be some in the crowd who do not see it, and will be alienated and will
take their business elsewhere, fracturing the crowd's single will, and this is the one thing a crowd fears. For
this reason, rules are absolute, and breaking them equates to exile from the crowd. Those who are exiles
are, of course, likely to act outside the will of the crowd, and thus are commonly crushed - either by the
sword, as Christians do, or by public ridicule and the corresponding inability to get decent-paying work,
relegating them to the permanent underclass that feeds the machines with its bodies. A person from this
society, when asked what is real, does not observe, but consults a reference work; if something is known
to have been against the rules in the past, it is categorized apart from all things considered possible.
Further, anything which ends an individual world is a tragedy, thus except under extreme and heavily-
justified, usually with mountains of paperwork and public proceeding, circumstances, any life lost is a
tragedy that threatens the crowd by illustrating to each individual how fragile they are, and how anything
better than them could easily destroy them.

This realization spurs crowds toward revenge, proactive revenge and neutralization, of anything which could
possibly rise above the mass. It is well and good to succeed in ways permitted by rule, because everyone
knows it is a matter of following rules and persistence and thus means nothing of the inner spirit, and
therefore cannot place one person above another. However, to rise in strength or character outside of that
approved by the crowd is to reveal the impotence of crowds, and thus is a hanging offense in crowds
throughout the universe. There is no sense of cooperation or reverence; the individual is king, and through
the abstract concept of the individual as boundaries none may criticize, the crowd is composed of
individuals, who wield its passive and subtle revenge through civility, through commerce, and through
endless labyrinthine bureaucratic government designed to confound anyone who values his time and
experience more than his money and standing with the paper-pushers. In the ways prescribed by rule, all
compete against all others; none work together, except as means of getting ahead for themselves, and the
community as a whole is viewed as a substrate from which the individual may take so that it can recede to
safe haven with profit removed from the ongoing cycle of social growth.

To keep this system maintaing itself, crowds institute a form of Ponzi scheme, by which those who pay now
support those who bought in years ago, and those who are now making money are doing it by bringing
more people into the crowd and forcing them also to bear the yoke of industrial labor. Each works for his or
her own gain, and thinks not of the whole, thus even when facing a situation that will end bad, says glibly,
"Not in my lifetime!" and runs off with whatever wealth has accrued, thankful to be out of a system that
pits each against all. Since this goal is shared among all, it is used as a means of assessing other people,
which is the only such assessment permitted by rule. What is being measured is not internal to a person,
but something they possess, and thus to keep up the illusion of respecting the individual, the crowd invents
self-image. It is an external construct designed to represent the individual, and it is composed of both
things one owns and things one does or claims to value, a social avatar composed of static achievement.
As individuals see themselves in terms of this external self, inside they are not very secure, and thus they
work harder to affirm the external as a means of compensation, even though this only increases their
insecurity.

Low self-esteem of this widespread and pervasive sort motivates people to do what they can to enhance
their external image. They do this through highly visible but not necessarily effective acts, especially those
which show humility and thus make them appealing to each member of the crowd; they love to help the
less fortunate, to show how much wealthy they possess and therefore, how much humility they can afford.
They play games with this external ego, taking pride in having said a witty thing that showed another to be
in the wrong, according to the Absolute rules of the social game, or in owning something that few others
have, or in being able to claim membership in elites or a position of power in the social hierarchy: all of this
has nothing to do with the person within, and screams "I am important, because the crowd approves of
what I do!" - forgetting of course that the memory of the crowd is shorter than that of a hungry dog.

In life, only one person ever faces mortality, and that is the individual; the crowd does not, and no degree
of external approbation will stop the unstoppable descent of death. To compensate, a form of cognitive
dissonance of existential self-justification, the individual works harder to glorify the self in image; image is
safe, as it can be "objectively" shared with the crowd, where qualitative measurements such as inner
strength and degree to which a job is done well are only known to those with the brains and attention span
to see it (imagine Arthur Schopenhauer trying to explain the importance of philosophy to a moron). The
building up of external self is an addiction that never ends, as each time it is built the internal doubt
increases proportionately, until the individual faces death with open eyes for a mere moment, and in a howl
of terror rushes back to the tangible: those things the entire crowd can see and agree exist, and even place
a value on which they swear is above that of death. Through this collective denial of mortality, ease of
heart is achieved, since somewhere in even the dumber people is the awareness that their lives are being
spent for others, on tasks that require less time to complete, in lieu of developing the self and fulfilling
some kind of destiny.

Disorganization such as this has no route but collapse, as all the great civilizations have done, leaving
behind both ruins and people with some of the abilities of the old, but none of the inner wisdom. In our
current civilization, we have tried to unify the world, figuring that if we are all in it together, it won't
collapse, and if it does, none will escape to be victors over our graves. But who is to say this hasn't
happened before? If even 50,000 years ago a civilization as advanced in technology as ours existed, and
then passed into a time when there was noone to keep the power plants working, maintain the computers
and read the books in the library, its artifacts would not exist at this time: the ages would reduce them to
dust and the mingling of tongues obliterate their memory. Maybe that civilization found out, as ours is
about to, that all external resources are finite; there is only so much land, so much oil, so many fish in the
sea, and as we grow, we reduce those amounts daily.

We are killing all of the things with inward strength, things that self-renew like forests and wild species. To
kill them, we do not need to kill all of the individuals, but only to destroy enough of them that those
remaining have few breeding options and thus the pretty girls get carried off by ugly rich men and the
geniuses die alone. When they collapse, and our civilization falls apart in chaos or into third world disorder,
it will be unable to sustain itself if a climactic shift, such as an ice age, comes. This will lay the groundwork
for the mystery of its collapse, as those who maintain the great works from earlier times will probably not
leave notes to that effect, but will steal anything they can eat and then die as well after the easy ways of
survival are covered under ice and ruins. Much like humans, civilizations dying of old age do so slowly, with
the end being as anticlimactic as the realization that death, also, is mundane.

My advice to those who have read this far, and have enough clear sight in their souls to resolve in their
inner being the will to live on even if they will not personally reap the results, is to head to the north. In the
lands of ice it is not easy to live, but it is easy to hide from the rampaging southerners who, seeing death
written upon the wall, will attempt to gain temporary immortality by revenge on those who have done
better. Among the icy caves of the north, shelter can be found, and survival had by those who are both
crafty and of inner strength enough to see the long-term plan without cares for personal gratification at the
expense of it. It is like a filter, this arctic time, which admits only those who have faith in life and have
overcome their external self-image enough to see reality for what it is: an ongoing process, in which we are
but actors. Memorize Beethoven, and memorize the Eddas and Rig Veda, so that in the future we may have
some of a past that is otherwise destined to be lost in the passage of failed civilizations.

January 29, 2005

Spiritually Healthy Attitudes Toward Dissidence
If you are of reasonable intelligence, you can plan ahead, and in fact favor thinking toward the long term
for any big decisions. For this reason, you recognize that our society is slowly heading toward self
destruction as it consumes irreplaceable resources and ecosystems while expanding at no particular level of
merit; the piles of waste, and shattered cultures, that it leaves behind are a result of this obliviousness to
long-term thinking. Of course, that leaves you in a pickle: you're the long-term thinker who realizes this is
a suicide march, and you would like to do something about it. "But what? Right now!" shrieks the voice of
neurotic panic in your head.

Some will immediately screech at you to begin flyering every available surface, or to stand in some kind of
silly rally out in the rain, but really, these activities only make the participants feel good and are generally
ignored by everyone else. Others will talk about the necessity of immediate violence, or of making inflamed
and bigoted speeches, or of finding some way to get onto the news for your twenty seconds before they
switch to a story about multicultural hemorrhoids. To my mind, it seems as if these are spiritually unhealthy
means of being a dissident; mainly, they focus on making you feel better, but by applying a palliative like a
drug, they momentarily suspend reality with illusion and then return you back to it with twice the force.

The main problem afflicting us now is that no one agrees on how to proceed past the current quagmire of
monetary values dominating all else, and a moral passivity having settled over our people. Thus, to my
mind, the first task is to become clear in your mind on what you desire; simply saying "I want this to burn"
or "I don't want this population living among us" is not enough, as that is not a direction but a complaint.
What makes more sense is to understand, on whatever level you philosophize, what sort of thing you would
desire. In other words, for everything that sucks, there are untold numbers of possible ways around it. This
isn't to bleat "Invent something new!" like the most hopeless of the disenchanted, but to suggest that if
you want change in the world, make it in yourself first.

To look at the situation analytically, not much has changed since the birth of humanity. We are on this
planet as one species of many, and our goal is to find a life for ourselves in balance with our environment
that delivers some kind of meaning, as we alone among the species, apparently, have the ability for long-
term reasoning and thus can envision our own deaths and thus demand something of "meaning" from life:
something so significant it balances out the prospect of not being for all time after our deaths. It's not
enough to think of death as being in a lightless room; one is not even present to observe the lightless
room. One is simply, like unicorns or the tooth fairy, not there. A good nihilist understands as the basis of
his or her philosophy that recognizing death is to recognize life, as anything not death is at least the ground
of life. Defining those slippery terms "meaning" and "significant" of course become difficult.

However, there is an easy way around this one. We are what we have experienced, both through genetics
and personally living through situations, so we apply our minds to these memories and find we like some
more than others. What made those important? -- especially in the context of eternal nothingness. When
one looks at life from the prospect of eternity, the movies we watch, the fancy cars we drive, the homes we
own and the video games we play are second to the moments of significance, or moments that made us
feel most alive. For me, those moments include time among friends and family, great epiphanies of
learning, hours spent wandering in the forest and any activity in which I have made something better for
those around me.

To recognize nothingness is to realize that nothing endures permanently, and there are no absolutes to
cling to, thus what matters is entirely "subjective," but paradoxically, this subjective is objectively defined:
because our world is consistent, the same values apply to all who are in human form, whether or not they
recognize them. Some will wittily say that since value is subjective, they believe that playing video games
or shooting heroin is the most important (to them), and therefore that is an absolute right. This is poor
thinking, if we look at life's consistency, in that we see that it rewards the same general types of activity:
building a home and having family and friends and a culture of learning around you will always be
rewarding, where shooting heroin will always lead to evasion of reality. Life is real, and when we mature
enough to get over the subjective/objective split, we see that while we define our own meaning, that
definition is entirely shaped by our environment. Thus we dispatch with the triviality of personal preference
as "subjective meaning."

Our world rewards abstract achievement in the same way it rewards physical achievement. If you are alone
in the forest, you must find food and shelter, maybe warmth, and do it before night overtakes you and ice
forms on your limbs, dragging you into the heroin-like warmth of hypothermia. Similarly, in your mind you
must find sustenance and peace, maybe even joy, before boredom and depression carry you off to the land
of catatonia or suicide. This is what we mean by spiritually healthy, and having recognized the fallacy of
"subjective meaning" for what it is, we can see that spiritual health is a universal thing among all living
beings of a human intelligence level. Not all individuals will see it, but many of these people will either be
incapable or so destroyed they cannot, and thus, why trouble them with it? Death is all that remains for
them, even if in the living form of an existence so boring and eventless that television is, like, a really cool
thing.

Of course, weakness is among us; when the last ice age ended and the people who had been brave
enough to endure the ice left their caves and came south, our modern political time began, and
immediately the decay set in. Among those who were then, there were some who were so afraid that they
would be judged inferior that they set upon us a morality of utilitarianism, by which the individual as
abstract concept was so rigorously protected that society as a whole was paralyzed, since to make any
choice meant leaving some individuals behind, to rigid death in living form. There was so much fear of
personal ability in some that they demanded society sacrifice itself for their needs, much as a drowning
man will in panic drag down his rescuers, and over time, since such behavior was encouraged, more people
came about who followed such a pattern. This utilitarianism is the root of all modern error, including
democracy, equality, free enterprise and the idea that it's OK to cut down an ancient forest if the mall that
replaces it brings someone profit. This is the triumph of the weak.

Those who have these beliefs are weak not in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense: they are of such
low-self esteem, and thus afraid they can do nothing to balance death, that they would drag all of us down
to a lowest common denominator rather than risk one of them being seen as less-capable, less-desirable,
and therefore less externally important than others. This occurs because if one is inwardly lacking
confidence, external affirmation is all one has; this kind of weakness causes them to insist on the individual
as beyond criticism, because that way whatever they fear in themselves will not bring them censure, and
thus to condemn us all to being part of a mob: a group of granular individuals committed to not doing
anything to upset each other, thus incapable of selecting a goal. In short, the mob forces us to serve the
aberrant. This is the situation a modern dissident encounters.

It is tempting to pick an issue and to begin fighting for that, hoping to stave off the doom. Unfortunately,
doom has many heads and one body, thus to slay a head may delay the onset of collapse, but it cannot
stop it; the only thing that can stop the destruction is to find something to replace it that is not destructive.
For this reason, jumping onto extreme right or left bandwagons, or running into the arms of religion or
some universal good like "I believe in love," is destined to failure. You cannot stop the downfall of a
civilization by banning corporations, or by writing more equality legislation, or by murdering all of an ethnic
group, or by legalizing marijuana. You have to fix the design of the outlook and worldview of the civilization
so that you replace the root of its behavior with something more positive.

In my view, the first step to this is cultivating a spiritual peace in oneself, but there is a pitfall here, which
will be explained in a minute. Spiritual peace gives you the state of mind to make real structural change to
your world. If you are hysterical, or depressed, or out-of-control angry, you will not accomplish change,
although you may accomplish revolutionary acts. Look at the nature of revolutions: they transfer power
from an existing structure to that which claims to be its antithesis, but they use the same mechanisms of
control and organization as the past system, thus while they may delay the collapse, they don't prevent it.
In the meantime, fighting for control results in the deaths of many of the best people in the society. For this
reason, it seems to me that revolutions are just highly-organized temper tantrums. They do not accomplish
structural change.

Spiritual peace allows you to organize your own mind (and perhaps, soul) so that you know exactly what
values you must have, and you can apply these with patience and diligence. Instead of running up to a
head of the beast and slapping it, you are instead working on the ground beneath the body, gradually
changing it so that it rewards something different, thus making the body of the beast obsolete. Spiritual
peace means that you organize your own thoughts and emotions so they do not obstruct you, but also so
that you may instead of focusing on your enemies, who are many, focus on the single and unique thing
that you desire, which is your goal. Cultivate the ground of your goal and you make your enemies, who by
being defined as anyone who opposes your goal, are infinite in potential number, less relevant. They will go
elsewhere, or perish in the forest -- it doesn't matter to you. What matters is the goal.

Spiritual peace will also help you avoid self-destructing. If you are raging about in anger or confusion or
depression, most of your energy will be dissipated, and your enemies will laugh at your ineffectual
tantrums. If instead, secure and self-confident in what you want and how to achieve it, you move
methodically and joyfully, you take pride in your accomplishments and realize what you are doing is not the
product of an alienation from the world, but a love for it. You are not destroying, but sculpting, taking away
some here and adding some there, making a new shape out of reality that you would like to eventually
predominate. When you have achieved this shape in yourself, it is second nature to apply it externally, and
you do it without thinking -- in everything that you do.

When I look at the youth of the Indo-European tribe at this time, I see either people who are glum and
pragmatic, having accepted that they're beaten and thus turning to serve, and then an opposite extreme.
This opposite extreme consists in those who recognize that fatality of our current direction, but because it
upsets them, they are ineffective in opposing it and their enemies laugh at them. One might guess that
there was laughter at Jim Morrison's suicide, or Timothy McVeigh's execution, or even the Unabomber going
to jail. This laughter is cruel and full of revenge, and it comes from those who have already given in to the
weakness and thus lack self-confidence, and fear change, even if change to something which has been
eternally true in every "subjective" interpretation. Only success matters. When you have a goal, anything
that is not the goal is an enemy, but you no longer see your enemies as controlling your life; they are like
wrong paths taken through a forest, namely, they are ignored when you know the right path.

There is a pitfall to spiritual peace, and we see it in what is left of the great religions of Asia and in
Christianity, both of which are broken interpretations of the original Vedic truth concoted in India many
millennia ago. Spiritual peace does not mean passivity. Passivity is when you believe that life is beyond your
control, and that vast forces manipulate it, and that you should not take action outside of yourself, because
your only goal is cultivating spiritual peace. If that really is your only goal, I suggest heroin: it is a superior
agent for that changeless, careless state. To my mind, the only reason to cultivate spiritual peace is to be
able to act, because we are the only agents that will act in this world; the universe is beyond time and
does not intervene to save us or destroy us, but if it does view us, would view us as a colony of ants -- an
interesting observation in the afternoon sun of a summer weekend.

This pitfall of passivity is common all around you. People who see nothing but the ego can be either vicious
corporate barons replacing forests with shopping malls, or Buddhists meditating on their navels and unable
to change the world except to protest the deaths of dissidents. This is error. We are here to change the
world, and if we do it according to the principles of the world, good things will result; if not, we perish, and
the universe goes on without shedding a tear for us. Spiritual peace means peace of mind, not being so
"peaceful" you are afraid to force change upon the world, even if it offends others or costs them their
livelihoods or lives. Do what is right for the whole. Only when you have inner spiritual peace will you have
the confidence to do this.

January 31, 2005

What You Have Lost
An opinion poll recently revealed that 98% of heroin addicts believed the best thing in the world is... heroin.
I asked my hipster neighbors, and they said it was sex; but since I've seen his Viagra receipts in the trash
and I know she's sterile, I can't really trust that estimation too much. I went down the block to talk to my
favorite Catholic Republican, and he said the truth is found only in God, but God was apparently unwilling
to answer my questions. Then I talked to my favorite radical leftist, and she said that the most important
thing in the world is doing right, but when I told her that doing right meant we had to stop a lot of peoples'
dreams dead in their tracks, she told me I was wrong, and that if she believed in Satan, I'd be it. Instead, I
offer up a prayer for change, because none of these "bests" mean a thing to a thinker.

To me, at this point, the most important thing is: reality. Since I live in a civilization, and in civilization
something is only "real" if people agree it is so, I must modify this to include my fellow citizens actually
recognizing this reality: The best thing in the world would be a sane human world, well-adapted to nature
and not opposed to it in some paranoiac vision of mankind versus his environment. This realistic society
would exist in contrast to the present society, which is fed on economic and social and religious illusion, and
would necessarily replace it if brought about, but since society as it is fails in every significant way
(although money is still being made, and there's still lots of "kwality" TV), that would be no loss. Further,
most people being of a mundane nature would not recognize this society, but the loss of anyone who
cannot see the importance of change toward something radically more realistic is not actually a loss; we just
say "it's a loss" to make their family feel better - until we can shoot them.

All that I've read, and seen through history, points toward a feudal apolitical society as the height of
humankind's adaptivity to nature; apolitical in this case means that you don't have to convince other people
en masse of the truth, nor keep up image, but you take a vision couched in knowledge of an accurate
adaptation to your environment, and show it to the wisest people in society, and they act on it,
commanding others to do the same - even if they object, and their personal profit does not increase, nor
their stature, but their workload does. Right is right, and truth is truth; this isn't to say I favor some
abstract absolute to which we refer in deference in every situation, but that I think truth is found in any
situation and commands action. Rubbery monster attacking city? Call out the troops - and so on.

An apolitical society of this nature would be a feudal one, in that while money would exist, there wouldn't
be the rigorous competition that there is today for money as the sole means of getting ahead, because
caste-roles would replace class-roles in a non-linear, specialization-oriented system where each is assigned
work according to ability and all reap the reward of a more functional society, although they individually
may not be granted with excess wealth and more movie channels on cable television. Rather, the way one
gets ahead is by being an excellent person and excelling at what you do; there is no substitute for this. You
are not defined by what you own, nor by your position in society; these are attributes of your self, most
specifically, your character. Great deeds and heroic acts are not considered to be those which save the
most lives, but those which accomplish something great, or achieve something better for the society and
nature as a whole. Your sphere of influence is your own tribe, and more importantly, your local community.
Travel is rare and usually occurs only for epic quests. You don't have the right to choose any religion or
behavior you want; these things are dependent on the local community. On the other hand, they don't have
the ability to tell you what is morally acceptable thought, and exclude you for being outside of that narrow
box.

This kind of apolitical, feudal, amoral society is diametrically opposed to what we have now. In our current
society, the principles of utiltiarianism have created a paradise for the individual at the expense of
everything else, including our long-term future and the ability of some individuals to exist without a level of
participation in the workings of society that amounts to a sick fascination. Our society secures its power
with methods that amount to mind-control; you will be ostracized for thinking outside of its box, or simply
starved to death, and because it has constant televisions blaring the same sops of illusion around you at all
times, to step outside of its world is to take control of your own mind and make decisions against the grain.
Most can do that for one day out of 365, which is not in the least part because 358 of those days are spent
doing necessary things like jobs, car repair, home repair, moving, paying bills, arguing with bill collectors,
doing taxes, shopping for food, writing christmas cards, etc. Remember, you're "free" and modern society is
empowering you to do less work and have more leisure time.

Since the mind control dogma is so severe, and since our society fears nothing more than competition, as
we all recognize on some level that it is hollow, every positive thing I can say about feudal society will be
met with a pre-programmed reaction in you instilled by years of media and other people repeating things
they've seen in the media, and of course politicized "history" whose facts no one checks - because where's
the profit in that? - much as you were once indoctrinated to stamp your foot and shriek "racism" at any
doctrine that affirmed our organic originals and inequalities, or before that indoctrinated to recoil any time
someone suggested any death was anything less than the worst thing possible, or even before that
indoctrinated in the duality of toilet training. You are no more "free" than the animals they keep in small
cells and feed hormones and antibiotics. You are no more "free" than the decorative trees planted in seas
of concrete. You are however conditioned to think that you are free, and that any way they did it in the
past was wrong.

Witness all of the negative press about the middle ages - especially from the church and industry. "They
didn't have technology!" and "It was a primitive time!" ring out the nervous calls. But every few years some
astonished scientist staggers out of his or her lab and points out that in some detail, the middle ages clearly
was every bit as advanced as we are now - much as the Greeks and Romans were - and that points to a
more advanced society as a whole. This person is quickly drowned out by exciting news about television
shows, a middle ages revival? where's the profit in that? You have been taught the "progressive" view of
history: the past was primitive because they did not have technology and morality, and since we now have
these things, we are steadily moving toward Utopia. Interestingly, the techno-paranoid societies of "1984"
and "Brave New World" also insisted the same thing. Are you seeing how cheap words are, yet?

Despite the endless subtle propaganda against it, the past was not a terrible time. It did not have the
technology we have now, or the egalitarian empowerment, and as a result it was less encumbered with the
pretense of the individual and the demands of technology. You did not have large discount stores, but then
again, you didn't spend time in cars driving to them or waiting in line while the credit card machine
malfunctions (all technology seems to work great "on paper" but when deployed in real life, screw up
constantly). If you declared that you were a caprisexual and wanted to spend the rest of your life making
love to goats, they threw you out of your town and you had to find a new place to settle, such as the free-
for-all republics of North Africa and the Middle East. On the other hand, you did not have one hand tied
down in every decision because doing the right thing would offend - someone.

Love

One major factor about the middle ages that was pleasant was its view toward relationships. This was
before the reactionary and patriarchal laws of the early industrial revolution took hold; those were designed
mainly to regulate women as a labor force, and had no bearing on tradition. Back then, the girls were a lot
prettier than they are now, in part because they came from consistent ethnic stocks and in part because the
criteria for selection were more rigorous. Sex and love were not these wide-eyed, holy ideals, but practical
means toward a family, in which man and wife were equal partners of different areas of practice. Neurotic
girls and ugly girls and dysfunctional girls got sold to gypsy traders, while they'd send their defective male
counterparts off to the front line. The result was that people bred beter, and the result was many
generations of beautiful and intelligent people; now, you're lucky to get one of those two, although most of
the well-bred women I've met have had both. Since there was a consistent ethnic ideal, people were
naturally selected to fulfill that standard, and the whining of "individualists" unheard from the distant gypsy
cabins.

There was not a partisanship of the sexes, as there is now. Since feminism polarized women against men,
for the most part, the two sexes have persisted in combat by which each individual attempts to be as
sexually and romantically selfish as possible until advancing age makes a long-term relationship necessary;
then they "settle for" someone who's OK and spend the rest of their lives manipulating this person and
being manipulated in return. The 50% divorce rate and 50% rate of cheating that occur in our society now
are a direct result of that; previously, these things were reserved for times when such things were actually
warranted. Further, because people are so alienated, a marriage has become a social contract in itself;
moderns argue that by having absolute choice, we're closer to "true love," but it seems the only people
that find that do so by having a less absolute, idealizing vision of "love."

Economics

In the middle ages, your job was waiting for you, as a rite of caste and tradition in your locality. If your
father was a carpenter, you would be as well, unless you screwed up so profoundly that it was not sensible
for you to continue as a carpenter. On the other end of the scale, if you were a great and genius carpenter
- a very rare thing - you would rise to the level of builder and move on to do bigger and better things.
Since it was easy for anyone with a basic level of competence to survive, but those who were excellent -
and only those, since grade inflation didn't apply to the word "genius" back then - rose to great heights,
this system was so eugenic that by the very nature of your inheriting a position from your family, you
would have great aptitude in it. Further, the only way you could get fired was if you displayed such gross
incompetence that it was best for everyone to have you removed.

Now, moderns wail at this idea, because they like the spacy concept of Absolute Freedom in choosing their
jobs. However, what Absolute Freedom means is unceasingly brutal competition at the economic level,
which means you no longer have the freedom to just find a job and enjoy it: you have to fight to get ahead
or you'll drown in poverty. Further, because jobs aren't any kind of contiguous offering, they frequently get
eliminated or changed, forcing you once again to bow down before your job and shape your life around it.
Not only that, but because competition is fierce, you'll be competing with your time also: specifically,
working eight hours a day means that the guy who works ten will get ahead of you, and your career might
not recover, so you're going to work ten hours a day and then spend at least 30 minutes on the road, each
way.

In contrast, in the "oppressive" middle ages, you worked six hours a day or fewer and were generally within
walking distance of your home. There was also no unnecessary competition, so if you did the task
competently, you were fine and didn't need to work extra hours in order to snare possible victories. Your
job simply was not as important as it is now; it was only a vocation, and how you made your money, and
while that would be how you would identify yourself in a community, it was in the concept of "this is my
contribution" not "this is my source of wealth, and thus the basis on which I compare my social prestige to
yours." While there clearly was not Absolute Freedom to quit from a long line of carpenters and become a
gay porn producer, for example, there was stability, and thus jobs came second to important things like
friends, family and personal development.

Religion

In order for us to see the proper role of religion, we have to go back to before the middle ages, and
indeed, to before the latter civilizations of the ancients: to early Greece and Rome, including their transition
from deism to pragmatic naturalism. Before social pressures forced the creation of gods who promised
something, and thus were politically viable motivations - that is to say, before politics, back when leaders
led and others could actually have faith in their leaders - gods were viewed in the original pagan way as a
means to explain the "personalities" of nature. To us, as tiny dots on the surface of planet earth, the ways
of nature are often inscrutable; for example, we don't know that the wave that wiped out our ships was
necessary to deliver warm water suddenly into the arctic stream, maintaining untold forests. Since we did
not know, we sailed anyway and got wiped out; the pagan view of the gods takes the unexplained and
gives it a larger picture, by which we see that which sometimes does not benefit us is capricious from our
view, but beneficial in light of the whole. This is in contrast to us wise moderns, who instead blame "chaos"
and the "brutality" of nature, all while dumping hundreds of gallons of toxic waste by the hour into our
oceans. Clearly the pagans were smarter, at least as far as maintaining their own psychology went.

Further, gods were not seen as separate from the world; this may not seem like a big difference, but
consider the option. If gods exist separate from this world, we are forever trying to enforce an alien (and
unproven) order onto this world, but if gods exist within this world, we see them as contiguous with nature
and thus part of an overall sensibility that doesn't need us forcing some neurotic human order onto it. In
that view, humans are part of the world much as gods, and we all have a responsibility to keep it up, and
not concrete 90% of the usable land while wailing about how nature is so brutal and horrible and if we just
gave it JESUS everything would be OK. God was seen as a force within all of us, and in the forest, and in
the name of maintaining the overall good of life, it was okay for God (or Gods) to do what they must, and
for us to hang on for the ride and if we perish, so it went - our psychology was untroubled by endless
finding of blame, inventing reasons why, and trying to explain away death, disease, sadness and suffering.
The modern theology is like the modern mind: divided between reality as it is and some fanciful notion of
what "should" be, thus is an impotent thing. The ancients had no such mental defect.

Nature

Speaking of nature, it was not viewed as an enemy to be conquered, as it is today, because the ancients
did not have a linear worldview stretching between "bad" to "good" with little room for what's inbetween.
The ancients saw nature as the force that produced them, and a reason for being, as well as a harsh
master that would kill if someone did something foolish like pick up a rattlesnake by the tail. What was
fortunate about this view was that, in addition to not committing an ecocide holocaust upon the
environment that birthed them, the ancients didn't view every death as a tragedy, thus had minds mostly
free of death - they would laugh at today's newspapers, which bemoan the fate of fat and stupid and
useless people who "accidentally" step on mines or are killed by rattlesnakes. The ancients were not
focused exclusively on the individual, as we seem to be now, but saw an order of the whole, and thus did
not trouble their minds for finding "reasons" and "justifications" for every death; the ways of nature were
recognized as bigger and wiser than the ways of man, much as the gods were.

Conclusion

The modern time is marked by two things: (1) a dependence on technology and (2) a dependence upon
passive, utilitarian, moral thought. The difference between now and then, and our society's failure versus
what will take place in the future, should anyone with a brain survive the onslaught of television and greed,
is that the ancients did not exist in a schizophrenic worldview. They saw one world, and harmony within it
as the only way, and did not trouble themselves with internal division and profit-motivation. As a result,
they were content to live with less technology, although they invented it where they needed it, and while
that meant that fewer were literate, it meant that less garbage of no consequence to reality was written.
While it meant that fewer lived lifestyles of relative luxury, it meant no landfill, and no dependence upon
diminishing oil reserves or toxic nuclear power for daily living. They lived in harmony with the land, and
with its concept, and thus had no need to create a fantasy world and maintain it with destructive
technology.

I believe a fusion of the two can be found, if we are willing to resurrect our culture and sense of heroism.
Utilitarian and passive worldviews, which believe that the individual should be sacred and above reality,
seem to me to originate in a morbid fear of death brought on by a lack of any great things to accomplish or
value in life. Utilitarianism is seen in popularity contests, or democracy, where we consider that which most
people feel is a "good idea" (even though, by definition, the largest portion of them are unlikely to know
what that is) to be the best, because this does not aim for a solution but toward a pacification of the
individual by pretending that their individual input is important. What it does is effectively exclude the few
voices which do make any sense so the mass can keep on rampaging toward self-gratification; it is
selfishness enthroned as benevolence. This recognition of self is brought about by unnecessary fear of
death; the way to conquer it is to have meaningful things that offset the inevitability of death, as no
amount of explaining away or material or social gratification is going to grant us the absolute we seek,
which is a promise of immortality. Stop dreaming.

Passivity results from this utilitarianism. When you have to consult the crowd for any decision, soon you tire
of trying to lead and are content to make endless compromises, which by their very nature of dividing
intent instead of strengthening it, mean that absolutely nothing gets done except in the most dire cases,
such as rubbery monsters rising from the sea to consume your cities. When was the last time a democracy
got ahead of the curve on a problem that wasn't imaginary? Oh, we strike out against drugs in school,
satanic cults, gay marriage, etc. but these issues are a smokescreen for not dealing with the real problems
that cause these effects, because essentially, no one believes it will be profitable to actually address the
issues, as telling a crowd of people that they must sacrifice and change the way they're doing things is
invariably unpopular. Thus, we no longer lead; we follow, and leaders are despised and called "terrorists."
We've lost a lot. On the surface, we have better lifestyles, but inside of ourselves, we are twisted around
illusion and as a result fundamentally neurotic, and fundamentally depressed. Death rules over us by the
nature of people constantly acting in such ways as to deny death, but being unable to come out and say
that is the root of their fixation, instead they create a confusing shroud of schizoid belief that they drape
over us all, blinding us to reality so that we may live in pleasant illusion. It's like a doctor solemnly telling a
parent, "Your five-year-old has the disease of inevitable death - within the next century, for sure. I
recommend heroin, 200mg a day." No wonder people are such mental defectives; our society is a mental
defective. We can split hairs over liberalism versus conservatism (really, both are forms of philosophical
liberalism) or blame various ethnic groups, religions, etc. but the root of our problem - what has happened
in the last millennium - is that we have detached from reality. If we have any balls whatsoever, we should
reclaim this reality and move onward to better things instead of staying mired in this society of fear,
submission and fantasy.

How will this happen? There is no movement you can join, or petition you can sign; you have to do it
yourself. If we each work independently to assert better values, the smarter people in society will begin to
wake up, and to incorporate these ideas into their will. Since the more capable always enforce their will on
the less-capable, and the less capable emulate what they want but cannot have in their own right, the
values of society will quickly shift, and we can even vote in candidates at that point who see a benefit to
running on a "Destroy liberal industrial society, and replace it with apolitical feudalism" platform.
Democracies self-destruct into authoritarianism anyway, and whether it comes in the subtle form of Bill
Clinton or the blundering madness of George W. and his Evangelical Christian/Israeli support group, is not
of material difference. If we're going to destroy this democracy, let's destroy it the right way, and replace it
with something better.

If you already believe these things, or are turning them over in your mind and assessing them, you've
joined the army of the pagan gods, in my view, and you're part of the solution and not the problem. I can't
put together some group that you can join that will magically change everything without your involvement;
you need to live these things. Every day, you're given a number of choices, and if you use each choice as a
forum for shoving better values onto this society's intelligent people, you will be pushing us ahead. If you
deny the garbage of modern society - television, democracy, Judeo-Christianity, plastic products - a place in
your life, each of those decisions is a victory for nature and the ancients, as well. Further, if you keep silent
and do not give your approval when illusory things are being said, and if given a choice, buy your essentials
from places that do not support the insanity as much as others, you're inching us further along toward this
goal.

Every day, in every way, by every awakened person, this war must be fought. And really, this is superior to
a revolution: we don't end up killing our own people, as happened in the Russian revolution and in WWI
and WWII following it; the best die in wars, leaving less-capable breeding stock behind. Instead, it makes
you a better person as you learn to force your will on the world through discipline and contemplation as
well as direct action. Further, it gives you a chance to raise your voice and to make your will known, and in
doing so, to affirm the best thing in the world: life, as it stands in reality, separate from illusion, forever and
ever - amen.

February 7, 2005
Cultural Revival
Getting to the root of the problem is never as easy as recognizing the signs of the problem, or as usually is
the case, problems plural that afflict your civilization. To my mind, life is a good and positive thing, despite
the ominous shadow of death, and thus it's worth doing right. In my experience, there is a "right way" of
doing things with many internal variations; what makes it the "right way" is not its methods, but the degree
of reality that it recognizes and thus the values it upholds as means of our adaptation to the reality it can
comprehend. This is the genius of nature: it is by definition esoteric, in that there are a range of right
answers which deliver corresponding degrees of success, and although there are infinite failing ways of
approaching a problem, there are rarely rigid boundaries in which one can operate.

In the case of modern society, getting to the root of the problem is thus the beginnings of a right answer,
in that if we can come to consensus about the basic wrong direction of this society, and thus posit one in
its place, we can begin working toward that change - independently - in everything we do. If every person
known as wise to their peers described this column in their own interpretation tomorrow, there would be
many right answers in motion, and while this would produce an approximate solution, it would be better
than the current gridlock of ideas in our society which prevents it from ever changing from its path of least
resistance (failure). (I can already see the doofus in the back row mouthing slowly "But how is failure a
path of least resistance?" - those who fail congratulate themselves with "there was no other way" and thus
decline to take the responsibility for success or failure into their own hands.) There are no easy answers in
life, so what is discussed here won't take the form of passive activity like joining a party, voting for
something, or buying a product.

One vector through which a society declines is bad breeding. This is twofold: first, it decays internally, and
by nature of what it rewards, breeds people to be useless little kumquats who could not operate outside of
a market economy - these people, by definition, are not vision people; they're profit people, and since they
lack any form of long-term prediction ability, they will conspicuously consume every nature resource and
vital aspect of the society in question, and replace it with places you can shop for entertainment. Second, it
is destroyed through race-mixing; this is not a polemic against certain races, as I don't believe there are
any "bad" races, but that each race is optimized for its own culture and rule, and thus that to mix two or
more of them creates a population that has no culture and can only agree on the lowest common
denominator, namely, earning money and spending it on plastic garbage. If you want to badmouth certain
races, I suggest you consider that such dialogue is entirely extraneous to the question, which is fixing your
society, not wasting energy on someone else's, even if only to critique it!

Well, race-mixing is certainly a sign of the decline, as is the fact that we're breeding people to exist on
corporate jobs, television and potato chips, and consequently they're getting dumber every day, even if our
politically-adjusted "IQ" measurement system does not directly reflect that. Of course it doesn't; you don't
make clients by offending people, nor do you gain voters that way, so in any democratic liberal system a
government and society exists which will busily market itself to its people and say whatever it thinks they
want to hear, with zero consideration for the effects of this in the long-term, e.g. after the sale is made.
This is in part because a democracy is an inherently bad idea; to try to get a crowd of people to agree on
anything is difficult, and even harder if the issue isn't as obvious as a giant rubbery monster attacking
Tokyo, which is destructive because almost no issues in life are that simple. It's no surprise that most
societies fail by converting to democracy, becoming large market and trading centers, mixing their blood
with other tribes and then losing all point of cultural reference, thus collapsing into giant kleptocracies
where each individual takes all he can and no one is steering the ship. (Such is also the fate of America; it
is already passing into the third world without much protest from its television-brainwashed citizenry.)

There are other signs of the decline which, if you think about them, are equally as important as the race
issue in that they, too, spell doom for your people. No sane person would set up a campsite and begin
pouring toxic waste in a circle around it, but that's roughly what we've done with our society. For each year
of industrial society, the cancer rate has increased, but if you mention that, people consider you insane -
what are you trying to do, take away our jobs and go back to the caveman era? OK, then. Dying of cancer
isn't so terrible. However, what about the fact that we're eating up natural land to the point where not only
species become extinct, but entire ecosystems are irretrievably lost? The brainwashed idiots will also debate
that climate change is not a result of industry, pointing out that it could be also a natural cycle; anyone
with half a brain will realize that, natural cycle or no, depleting ozone layers and filling your atmosphere
with CO2 and industrial gasses will eventually have an effect. They don't mention this on TV, of course -
they like to stick to "facts" from commercial outfits who, like television stations, have a vested interest in
not upsetting the audience with reality, as that will decrease the amount of units sold. It's just too easy to
say "well someone will think of it" and go back to 500 channels of cable and presumably, 500 variations of
potato chips to match.

There's another important factor that almost no one mentions: the "existential-psychological" health of our
citizens, which is roughly defined as how at peace they are with death, having found something to make life
rewarding. Most answer this question with positive affirmations of their lifestyle, but these answers mean
nothing, since they're unaware of anything outside of it, and are constantly told they're not depressed.
Suicide rates rise, as do mysterious accidents where people end up dead, but those are by far the minority.
The majority of people slog off to work and deal with the petty politics and power games one might expect
in a democracy, which by putting all of its emphasis on the individual is necessarily dedicated to the
pretense of the individual, and then come home and take it out on the family. Their jobs are tedious, and
even more frustratingly, they deal with real fools who have power and demand token allegiance. This
causes an image game to be played, and at this point, jobs take twice as long as they should and that time
is spent on demeaning, submissive labor; people sublimate their rage and take it out however they can.
What kind of sane society views widespread child abuse, road rage, vandalism, drug and alcohol abuse etc.
as symptoms of insanity? Only one in which people are so depressed they get a charge out of looking down
on others, and thus are blind to their own suffering.

Taking this a bit further, from the individual to the whole, um, you live in a shithole. The natural land that's
still left is beautiful, but most of this has been converted into concrete or decimated by gardeners who slice
up ecosystems and replace them with boring little plantings that only someone of a 97 IQ could love - hey,
coincidentally, that's about the IQ of most corporate gardening staff. You drive down streets where, outside
of a few ceremonial plantings, the entire visible landscape is concrete, and you are surrounded on both
sides by stores, neon lights, and parking lots. Beautiful, isn't it? I'll bet the ancient Greeks would have built
the Parthenon this way if only they had the wonderful invention of the car. The Taj Mahal would also be a
sight better with some neon lights, a parking lot strewn with trash, and maybe a Wal-Mart right next to it.
You spend most of your free time in your car, going places and doing fascinating things that, while they
involve exciting "options" like which product to buy, end up taking up even more of your time with tasks
that ultimately have zero bearing on your happiness. Because everyone is in this brain-dead mentality, no
one notices that our cities are ugly, excepting the few sacrificial buildings made to look good for the
cameras, and that our lives are spent serving the rest of our citizens in the abstract by doing bureaucratic
or economic tasks. Remember, hunter-gatherers spent four hours a day and had the rest of that time to
think and experience. They may not have had cars, but how do you think their psychology stacked up to
ours? Pretty well, I'd say: they at least noticed their lives going by, and had something to look forward to
besides specialty cable programming.

Even more disturbing is that your society does not accept critique of itself unless formatted in the narrow
type which can be discussed as a democratic issue, meaning that every big concept gets splintered into
millions of small ones which promptly lose any coherence through the election process, and thus nothing is
done. Even more, you get billed for it (you also get billed for public schools which force-feed your students
the notion that consumerism is good, that all races are equal, that democracy is the highest goal of
humankind, and that dysfunctionality is OK-fine because dysfunctional people can work jobs, too!). People
are depressed. They're depressed because they at some level realize they live in Garbage, Inc. but are
unable to articulate why, or figure out what they'd change, and all around them there is a constant neurotic
babble about how great everything is. Do you doubt that you have a controlled press when even the anti-
war side talks about how great it is that "democracy" has come to Iraq? Most of you are too numb to even
consider these issues, and, having been well-taught by television, group anyone who believes in
environmentalism, racial uniqueness, or even things that radio waves and water-table pollution might be
harmful, into the "nut file," and you feel slightly better about yourselves for being able to put someone
down in that way. Signs of a healthy society? Only in the same way Kaposi's Sarcoma is a sign of sexual
health!
Pointing out the illogicalities, and certain doom, of this society could go on indefinitely; it's like shooting fish
in a barrel, or playing Monopoly against retards. It's failing and I ask those who deny that: What are you
afraid of? Why are you shunning the obvious, unless you're so defective and underconfident that you "need
to" believe in this society in order to keep your self-image above suicidal? They'll spend all day arguing
against me, but in the end, it's they who "need" to convince and I who do not; I know what the eventual
future of this mess is, even if I can't predict exactly when and how it fails, because I know that illogical
systems that cannot change their own direction eventually run into brick walls, with the impact noise almost
drowned out by the chorus of neurotic voices denying that there's a wall. There is a wall. Whether it is
third-worlding through racial mixture, death through environmental holocaust, or simply a combination of
depleted oil and gas supplies and a giant population of fetally retarded television addicts, the wall is waiting.
It will not move, but we're moving. At it. If you grab a helmet, the rest will call you insane. There is one
possibility of avoiding it, and it can be accomplished within our current ("democratic") system, but it
requires that people wake up and focus on setting aside differences to grasp the truth.

America is an Indo-European country, because that is who founded it, set up its laws and infrastructure,
and continues to the majority of people in it today. Fewer than 1% of these people owned slaves, or killed
Indians, or any of those guilt-hangups that cause the television-fed to immediately panic and go into denial
when the fact of America being an Indo-European country is mentioned. Babble on about guilt projections,
and really they are just that, since their importance is far exaggerated from its actual historical place, if you
want, but don't do it on my dime; I don't care what brick wall you hit. Similarly, if you're really concerned
with empowering NAMBLA members and retarded Afro-Cuban avantgardists, and you consider that more
important than saving society as a whole, stop reading here; you're obviously mentally defective yourself.
But if you care about fixing the problem, read on, as it really isn't a complicated problem. However, to
upset those of you who cannot pry the television, Bible or babbling egalitarian sentiment out of your head,
I'll start with the racial issue.

Of course it makes sense for each race to isolate from all others, because without isolation, it is rapidly
replaced by a mixed-race population and its culture is discarded. Witness what happened to ancient Greece,
Rome and India when they became cosmopolitan centers: cultural consensus was lost, and thus there was
no orientation point for future direction, and what replaced it was commerce. Culture died, and soon after
it, the uniqueness of that people was lost, as there are more people out there of hybrid genetics than those
who belong to the original tribes, each of which specialized over 10,000 generations into being something
quite unique with different strengths and weaknesses than others. Most of you spend too much time crying
over your televisions ("Roots," "Schindler's List") because it's easier than facing reality, and therefore feel
more guilt than self-preservation, because you the individual "feel" better when you're giving something to
someone else and thus, they need you, in your own nitwit mind. However, even historical sources directly
opposed to any racial values agree on the historical origin of the races, and if you've got any mental health
at all, you'll realize much in the same way we should preserve our environment simply because it is cool ,
the same is true of different races. Uniqueness rocks. Hybrids are run-of-the-mill. Yet I'm going to talk
about an argument against racial pride here, which is this one, and it's a humdinger: "Why would you want
to preserve a culture, when arguably you have none?"

The person wielding that argument has a valid criticism, but of course, a moronic conclusion; the topic of
this essay is the need for an Indo-European cultural revival, but I have never believed in throwing up my
hands and giving up on something that's worth saving just because culture is at a low point. Why is it at a
low point? A number of factors, but primarily: it got replaced by something easier, and the majority of
people felt it was more important. All of this occurred within the Indo-European races, although admixture
in small degrees may have been a starting point, since people who are even a small bit of a different
genetic framework are by the mathematics of genetics sizably different, usually in not-so-visible ways. The
fact is that at some point, the larger mass of society decided that it wasn't getting enough of the pie, and it
began to persecute and discriminate against its leaders. This first happened with populist religions from the
middle east, who held that all souls were equal and tried to talk the more competent people into achieving
the "greater" value of humility instead of simply being good at what they do. It got worse when the masses
decided they wanted the ability to compete economically, too, even though they lack the leadership sense
to do that without (surprise) destroying race, culture and environment as well as personal psyche. Finally, it
became most absurd when they captured culture as well, as it allowed the neurotic mass of less capable
people to brainwash the rest into accepting their tripe of a doctrine. The result: our leaders, who would
never bow down to something as mundane as a job and a television set, have been mostly bred out of the
population, or driven to insanity and suicide by the sheer unreality of it all, and our society stumbles out of
control at full speed toward a brick wall.

This revolution within replaced culture and achievement, valuable things for anyone focused on reality, with
a false reality that took precedence over actual physical reality, whether in the form of tokens (economics),
addictions (drugs and spirituality) or simply, pacification (television and self-interest). Our culture was
mostly destroyed. Christians burned books in Europe and slaughtered any leaders or free thinkers upon
whom they could get their hands; liberals routinely desecrate historical objects or outright ban them in
order to obscure the "offensive" knowledge of the past; corporations and profit-hungry individuals would
dice up their own mother and package her if it meant retirement money and a new car. We have not been
conquered by an enemy, but we have rotted from within. (The object of this essay is not to blame
Christianity or Judaism, as they are not the root of this decline, and some forms of Christianity, at least, are
less destructive than the mainstream religion. However, it's worth noting that criticizing either of these
religions gets you blacklisted and exiled, so here's a hint: their role is less than benevolent, especially in the
passive sense of, like television, brainwashing people into being so focused on their own "salvation" that
they neglect education, acumen and real-world activity. If heroin came in book form...)

The only thing that can reverse our rot from within is to recreate our culture, which isn't hard, because it
was founded on common sense as people of our genetic stock - those who descend from the breakaway
human tribe that survived the arctic in isolation and, through selective breeding, raised its own capabilities
during that time - and can easily be ascertained again, if anyone looks. The problem during the last few
thousand years of history has been that no one is looking, since to look at truth means looking away from
the fantasy-world of mob-empowered society. You can blame race, like the right-wing, or blame money, like
the left-wing, but both of those have their root in a loss of culture in order to empower those who could
not create civilization themselves, but wish to rule it. Democracy is your enemy. Egalitarianism is your
enemy. So is socialism. All of these systems can only be restrained by strong cultural consensus, and that
can only happen by agreeing in a general direction and promoting the smartest people of the best character
in that direction, regardless of "popular approval." In fact, popular approval is also your enemy, since most
people in this time are bred into stupidity, have no instincts worth a damn (couldn't survive a night in the
forest alone), and are also inflated with lies and pleasant illusions from their televisions, preachers, Rabbis
and local advertisers. Their "idea" of good is so broken that it's imperative they be ignored and shot if they
don't take it. By nature, and by behavior, they're incompetent for rule; such is the nature of every
democracy ever attempted.

There are no easy answers to the problems which we face. It's clear that society will not, on its own,
reverse its direction, so action is called for, and not passive action. At this point, the time is not right to
rally the troops and try to face the horde of morons head on; rather, what must be done is a conservative
version of the 1960s "tune in, turn on, drop out" idea. First, those among us who still possess brains must
tune in - to the words of the ancients, to whatever remnants of culture we can scrounge, but most
importantly, to the idea of culture and learning (and not "government") being the only thing that can solve
our problems in the first place. I guarantee you do not need your television, nor radio, nor newspapers, nor
magazines. These are elements of illusion and control by your government. If you cannot spend a month
without any television, you are part of the problem and not the solution.

Next, those among us who possess culture must no longer take a passive role in society. Gain importance
in business, the arts, and social concerns, but do so only on your own terms, insofar as you have a choice.
You will routinely be faced with questions which impact values, and you can make the right choices by
simply upholding your own values. This doesn't mean that everything that crosses your desk should have
"Christianity is a lie!" or "Racial separation now!" written on it, but that in every way you can without
compromising yourself, you should enact your values. And, most importantly: exclusively favor others who
think the same way. If two candidates cross your desk, and one is of your race and aware of the cultural
imperative, pick that one over the other, unless it is grossly incompetent. If your are given a chance to
make any kind of choice that effects this society, pick the option that reflects that. Be seen in public doing
important things, and never let anyone see you watching television.
Further, where given a political choice, express it. Your vote is still secret, so feel no qualms about voting
for even extremists candidates who express only one of the necessary solutions. Do not ever vote major
party. If you voted in the last election, you got played, didn't you? Some of you were stupid and voted for
G.W.; others were even stupiders, and voted for the other liar, and none of you came out ahead. It's the
money, stupid. It controls both candidates and since there's no cultural value to oppose it, will control you,
especially if you're dumb enough to buy into the propaganda and vote for one of the two major talking
heads. Who cares if Nader was ineffective? A vote for him would fragment the mindlock of major parties.
Most of you paid attention to your television, and to your moron friends who watch lots of television, and
thus guessed this one wrong. Score: Society - 1, You: 0. Don't fuck it up like that next time, you tools.

Finally, stop sitting at home and kvetching - join cultural activities. You have either (a) a dominant ethnicity
or (b) you're English-American, meaning built of a hybrid of Indo-European tribes. If (a), go join a cultural
activity of that tribe: art, traditional dance or theatre, literature, and the like. If (b), or if (a) and seeking
additional activities, don't be a passive sit-at-home. In every city, people gather to help clean up damage to
nature and to restore environments - go to it! Oh, you whine, there's only hippies there. Shut up shut up
shut - hippies are well-intentioned people who have been misled by their televisions. Go and enjoy them,
but uphold your own values, without preaching; people learn from effective people, whether they'll admit it
or not. Plenty of these people are nice, and really, they are working toward a solution as best they can, so
view them as potential allies, even if they babble on about racist right-wing conspiracies and corporate
world dominion - they're just brainwashed like you (LOL @ you) were during the last election. If you're
"English," get involved with classical music, or poetry readings, or yoga classes, or tree-plantings - anything
that doesn't affirm the product-based, television-oriented, crowd-empowerment lifestyle. Rise above!

There are no easy answers because there are many shades of the right answer, and each one will return
some degree of success. There is, however, one large and obvious wrong, because it is based on illusion,
and that's our current society. Revolutions replace illusion with a different flavor of the same, so those fail
to oppose it; in fact, they give it strength, because the television-watchers kill anyone they see as rising
above the crowd during revolutions. Only building a new culture can give us the consensus of values we
need to appoint leaders and to say, "They will now achieve our cultural goal," because otherwise, there is
no agreement on what the leaders must do, thus we try to micromanage it by having every idiot in the land
vote every four years (after their four daily hours of television on average). It's not a quick fix but it's the
only one that will actually work, because instead of blaming the parasites or symbols of our decline, it
creates a direction to replace the decline because the decay originates in lack of direction, and thus illusion.
It's not the work of an enemy, but a rot from within. Thus if we rebuild what is within, we will make the
illusion obsolete. And unlike most solutions, that action addresses the actual root of the problem.

February 7, 2005
Activism
It's clear to those who approach our society with an open mind, most notably youth, that it is diseased and
falling apart. It does not achieve its stated goals, and its process for decisionmaking is muddled in the
politics of appeasing the crowd, or making profit, and not doing what is right. If it were not for our vast
resources in material wealth, technology and capable individuals, this would have degenerated long ago;
but, like any situation where a fundamental cure is overlooked for symptomatic treatment, our society is
inevitably heading into the toilet and the tasks required to change it seem initially vast.

In the Viet Nam War, the Americans faced a choice of strategy: they could either opt for a political victory,
and somehow gain control of the country, or they could apply a public relations patch to the face of society,
and charge ahead with a brute force military solution - attrition, or removal of insurgents by killing them, at
which point, since there would be no opposition, victory would presumably come. Much as they will find out
this is failing strategy in Iraq, no matter how much they disguise it with "benevolent" programs to lure
Iraqis toward shopping malls (I mean democracy), they found out in Viet Nam that if you do not tackle the
problem at the level of its structure, no matter how many of its symptoms you kill, you will still lose.

And they did lose, more than just in Viet Nam, as they woke up many people at home to the lack of reason
behind their government and society, and the awareness that we were simply exporting this neurosis
everywhere we went without tackling our inner problem, but this was forgotten as soon as the "baby
boomers" could be bought off with BMWs and 401(k)s and private schooling for their kids who are now
busy working office assistant jobs and taking MDMA. Momentum was lost because, much like US forces in
Viet Nam, the people who woke up in this country could not adopt a coherent political message and
therefore ended up telling America that its values were OK but misapplied; from this we got Civil Rights
legislation, and a society that now favors every weakling over any strong person, in the idea that if we beat
everyone into a shapeless mass, no one will have any cause to resent another.

Thirty years later, we are still tackling this problem, and should be aware that most empires take a century
or more to fall, and that ours began collapsing roughly in the Civil War era, with the effects of that being
seen in the next generation and most notably in their progeny during the 1920s, at which point our culture
seemed to recognize that it was without value and thus hedonism, fatalism and distraction were excellent
palliatives. The "Jazz Age" - so appropriately named. Of course, to back up and see civilization on the level
of millennia, what's happening here is an ongoing process: long ago human groups were isolated in the Ice
Age. Nature selected the more fit in every race, and those were able to set up high civilizations which stood
far above what everyone else could accomplish. In the years intervening, "everyone else" - including those
who by genetic mutation or inactivity have been bred badly in high civilizations, have been busy trying to
take over that which they could not create for themselves. That is the face of the mob, the crowd, the mass
- that is the force that has steadily been moving civilization from being more selective into a state of being
passive and thus a great place for "everyone else" to live as parasites.

This is a vast disease, and will require a solution of vast scope, although as any martial artist knows,
sometimes the bigger ones fall harder because they have less maneuvering room and therefore can more
easily have their great weight and hence momentum used against them. What is required first, however, is
philosophical coherence; those who are going to make something new must get onto the same page about
the values that would found that new civilization, or, like the hippies, they'll simply repeat this one while
running around neurotically screaming about what a great new shining example of social excellence they
have created. Without philosophical coherence, any movement will either fail, or worse, succeed enough to
realize its values are incompatible, and then will destroy what its revolution initially spared, through
infighting and other signs of disorganization and hence, decline.

With this in mind we now turn to the question of "activism." Most of those who initially approach the
situation as it is now will, upon having realized the face of the problem, begin screaming for something to
be done about it; this is natural. However, as demonstrated above, to run shrieking at the enemy without
any plan or more importantly, ideal of what would replace that enemy, is to be either swiftly defeated on
the battlefield or after victory fall into infighting. Thus any would-be activist should plan well, or he or she
will become an agent of the very destruction to which the individual activist claims opposition: a vast wave
of crowd phenomenon. However, the question remains: what can be done?

Obviously, the first and most important task is to find fundamental philosophies that replace the error upon
which our society is based. This requires a process of digging and analysis, trying to get to the root of
where this society went wrong; when this is found, it is a matter of analysis to create not an opposite, but
a complementary solution to, that essential conflict. No solutions make Utopias; Utopia would be a place
without conflict, and conflict is in part what stabilizes any existing system - competition. With this kind of
idea in mind, we can design an ideal society to not only avoid the problems of this one (as a revolutionary
does) but to provide the best kind of society in general (as a philosopher does). Without this concept,
"activism" is meaningless, as it implies activity without goal, which would delight those who oppose social
change more than those who embrace it, as unorganized activity results in inaction, and nothing pleases a
crowd more than being told they can change nothing and still be doing the best that they can. The root of
passivity is fear, and fear is palliated by excuses such as "Well, you did all you could" or "There was
nothing to be done!"

For this reason, I see "activists" as running into long-term philosophical conflict with their own stated
objectives; it is more sensible for people instead to aim for cultural change, at the level of values, by
spreading a philosophy of this new society among those who have intelligence and strength of character.
Yet there is error here, too: while it is undeniable that to gain power in society, breed well and have
influence is important, to assume this alone will solve the problem is a mistake, as is underestimating how
much of your time that will take - it will take all of it. In the middle between directionless activism and self-
absorbing "success," there is a sensible path: gain power and influence in society, but do not let it take
your soul, and remember that at every choice you are given, there is a chance to assert your will - and that
will should be to carry out a philosophy that you understand in depth. Otherwise, activity - whether
"activism" or career-building - absorbs you, and you become like a Baby Boomer, bought off with a BMW.

What is fortunate is that, if attitudes change among even a small percentage of the population toward a
discernible new philosophy of civilization, that idea will become radically influential, and it will either divide
greater society in fear of it or cultivate those that can understand it from that group. Much as in martial
arts, a small push in the right place while blocking the motion of a foot can send a giant toppling, in the
case of our society, building consensus around what sort of society would not have these problems can
reveal the ignorance and fear of the larger mass, and thus begin getting people on board. Such a
philosophy must be free of illusion, emotional "activism," bigotry and other intellectual pitfalls. It must
clearly demonstrate why it is rewarding, and that it not only fixes our current problems but provides for a
society with fewer overall problems.

This brings me to the topic of this essay. This site, and its philosophy, is not like an organization that you
"join"; we have web forums, IRC chat, a music-sharing hub and a USENET group so that people can talk
about ideas and thus go over every aspect of this philosophy until they are sure of its structure and
relevance. Being part of these is not necessarily being part of the solution, any more than holding a shovel
is digging a trench; they are tools toward an end, and not the end in itself. Similarly, those of us who write
for this site are conveyors of an idea, and not the idea in itself. At this time, the solution to modern
civilization lies in a distributed network of people who understand what and how things must be changed;
there is no party affiliation, or identification, that one can use. It is a lonely path, for only the hardiest of
souls, exactly because of that lack of visible symbol, entity and personality.

And for "activism"? As stated above, live your life for excellence, and do not take society seriously, and
maneuver yourself into a position to live well and influence other thinkers - do not worry about the mass as
whole, because they will oppose anything that is not inaction. Make sure you understand these words. And
finally, realize that we all specialize in what we can do to bring about this change. Some will be politicians,
some will be scientists, some soldiers and some - including us - are the writers.

February 9, 2005
Misanthropy
We live in an age where there is almost no philosophy; yes, academics joust over whether the verb "to be"
has made us feel uncharitable toward the dispossessed, but there is no assertive discussion of philosophy
as a means of assessing values systems, because to discuss such things would mean that someone in the
audience finds his or her values are seen as illogical; then not only is tenure threatened, but future book
sales are hovering near dubious. As a result of this aphilosophical thought structure, most of the terms we
could use to describe certain aspects of a worldview are not only without definition, but have been loosely
associated with such absolute, kneejerk behavior as to make no sense.

One good example is "nihilism." This originally described a frame of thought where nothing was seen to,
pre-existingly, have any value; it had both active and passive examples, with the latter ranging from
stoicism to fatalism. In our current time, even the educated have trouble comprehending nihilism as
something less ominous than "evil," as their minds work through absolutes, in which case even the verb "to
be" is threatening: nihilism = no value, no value = ("therefore") no values; in conclusion, ladies and
gentlemen, nihilism = really bad, like "evil" but more scientific.

This runs in contrast to the healthier values of the ancients, who believed that if you looked deeply enough
into any system of thought, you could find where it approximated the same set of eternal truths and values,
things which did not "exist" but were perceivable and thus, although "subjective," were consistent. The
modern disease is to like a machine see categories as impassable divisions, and thus to miss this, in part
because our society grew up believing in gods in other worlds who sorted every object, person and idea
into exact, immutable categories like "good" and "evil." This is the false absolute that persists today; when
we have enough data to associate an idea with an existing extreme, we assume that it must "equal" that
extreme and thus discard all of its contextual thought.

Obviously, this is defective, as it has us imposing barriers where none exist, such as between "subjective"
and "objective." We assume that subjective is one polar extreme of thought such that all subjective things
are arbitrary, and not only do not need to correspond to reality, but are "choices" and not analysis,
interpretation, or logic. This shield of the subjective helps us tolerate the neurotic and schizoid ideas of
others, as we gaily say, "Well, that's subjective," and thus approve of no analysis being applied to belief
which is seen as entirely separate from thought. Similarly, we take it for granted that anything "objective" -
usually statistics, scientific categories or digital output - is not at all influenced by the arbitrary beliefs of its
human handlers, and is thus an absolute truth which rules our world. It hasn't occurred to these people
that all perceptions are subjective, even those filtered through scientific instruments, but that as all
subjective knowledge is interpreted from a consistent world, if the subject is not insane or in the grips of
some insanity like absolutism , the subjective data can very accurately describe the world.

In a time like this, it's thus nearly impossible to categorize one's own belief. If you say you believe in what
is ancient, the braindead mob begins chanting that it wants something new, as what is past has failed. If
you say you believe in something from the future, the braindead mob starts agitating for "proof" of an
"objective" nature that what you say will work, which if you look past the smokescreen of their bad
psychology is more likely a demand for inaction, because inaction offends no one. Inaction affirms that
what exists now is just fine and that everyone in it is fine and no one will be seen to be in logical error,
because after all, their arbitrary life choices - taking heroin, spending all their free time playing video
games, having lifestyles based around recreational shopping - should be "subjective" and beyond criticism.
In the light of this chaotic and broken mental state, it is important we analyze misanthropy.

Many great thinkers are said to be misanthropes, usually because they did not embrace all people around
them as the greatest thing since sliced bread (which is actually a terrible thing: it massively reduces flavor if
you keep it more than a day, which the shipping process by very nature imposes). This enables us to write
off their opinions as "subjective," with an airy wave of our hand and the all-knowing proclamation, "You
know he was a misanthrope" or "Her misanthropy kept her from knowing the good in humanity." This
dismissive outlook is designed to protect the meek among us, who might be offended by the knowledge
that recreational heroin use is actually a somewhat illogical outlook (to avoid absolute categories, we say
"for most," since for some people, dying of heroin addiction is the best solution). Misanthropy goes into the
file with evil, terrorists, hackers, Nazis, pot smokers and Montana cabin-dwellers - people who have rejected
society, and thus cannot be trusted.

Whenever one looks deeply into the definition of the word, there is always some loudmouthed segment of
the crowd that can be found pointing a stubby finger at a book and saying, "No. You're wrong. It says right
here that misanthropy is 'hating humanity," as if that settles the issue. They view the dictionary as an
absolute, just as they'll view the words of a scientific proclamation as an absolute, without looking into the
categorical structure of that scientific thought; declare that birds are closer to reptiles than mammals, and
these types will call birds reptiles and scream at anyone who does not obey the same simplistic thought. It
is profitable however to break "misanthropy" from this mold, and realize that instead of meaning "hating
humanity" it implies a generalized hatred of how humanity as a mass behave. Misanthropes rarely dealt
with no people, meaning absolute zero, but they were selective, and this is a sin to the voting public.

It is offensive behavior because it bridges the subjective/objective line that has been established by popular
consent for the purpose of protecting each individual from criticism. This is how you form a crowd - tell
them that they can be individuals because the crowd protects the absolute form of the individual, and then
in order to secure that individual "right" and "freedom," the crowd will turn on any who do not obey such a
division. In crowd-logic, all choices are "subjective" and all data is "objective," because this makes personal
choices immune to criticism. Selectivity means that you refuse to socialize with some people, and in fact
judge them as destructive, by their "lifestyle choices," and that you esteem others more highly for
intangible things like character, intelligence, and emotional outlook. As with any belief that ranks some
above others, this is offensive to the groupthink entity of "individuals," who would prefer that absolute
barriers exist toward criticism of any individual choice.

Misanthropy is thus, like nihilism, something that initially seems like a blanket condemnation of a category -
humankind or values, respectively - but turns out to be a highly selective system of finding only the
meaningful in those groups by denying their objective absolute status as law. Some would call this
"elitism," but what is elitism except a form of meritocracy - picking the best and holding them up as an
example to the rest? The crowd is fine with that when you pick the best by wealth, or looks, but when you
start picking them by character, they feel threatened. They should. For several thousand years now, our
society has made the assumption that people of any character can be shaped by external rules and made
to function as a social machine. Now that civilization is fully plunging into its self-created abyss, the few
thinkers who haven't been killed by the crowd are looking more critically at that idea, and instead electing
once again to esteem the internal values that, a long time ago, made our civilization reach for higher
concepts. These higher concepts have been dragged into the mud by the fear of the crowd, and it is
selective and cynical philosophies like misanthropy and nihilism that oppose this.

February 9, 2005
A Socratic Dialogue
(This is based on a discussion with a highly intelligent friend of mine who, like most, was indoctrinated in
liberal ideas and has not had time to think them through. Socrates serves in place of myself and two
others, and the idealized Bret serves for my friend and four others.)

Bret: Greetings, Socrates. I am told you believe that democracy is bad, and aristocracy is good.

Socrates: So you believe democracy is the best good - can you tell me why?

Bret: The individual is the most important good, and democracy allows the individual to express themselves
and have the most power against societies that can cause them harm, through representation. It is freedom
for the individual, and that is the highest goal of an advanced society.

Socrates: That sounds well enough. But tell me - if an individual were to develop a virus that would
eliminate all of humanity, would you stop him?

Bret: Certainly. He would be impeding the rights of individuals, and would have to be stopped.

Socrates: Even though he has the right to freedom, and to express himself?

Bret: His expression of self would prevent others from having the same freedom, so in the name of the
collective, we would deny it to him.

Socrates: So if the individual is doing something destructive to the whole, it must be prevented?

Bret: Obviously, if it restricts the freedom of the whole.

Socrates: What if the individual was using his freedom to create a political state which would restrict the
freedom of the whole?

Bret: He would have to be restricted.

Socrates: So if one individual were using his freedom to restrict the freedom of the whole, he would be
restricted. What if more than one individual were doing so?

Bret: They would also, have to be restricted.

Socrates: What if these individuals did not know their vote would restrict the freedom of the whole?

Bret: They would still have to be restricted.

Socrates: What if these individuals constituted a majority?

Bret: If the democracy were to keep existing, they would have to be restricted.

Socrates: But then there must be someone to restrict them?

Bret: Yes, a wise leader.

Socrates: So how is this different from a king?

Bret: Well, the people have freedom.

Socrates: But only to choose what is already chosen, namely democracy?

Bret: Anything else restricts the freedom of others.

Socrates: And to keep them from this fate they need - a king?

Bret: No, an elected leader.

Socrates: But if they do not know when their decisions will restrict the freedom of the whole, how can they
pick the right elected officials?

Bret: If they do not, they will lose their freedoms.

Socrates: But with a king, they always have freedoms?

Bret: Except to choose a leader!

Socrates: But we've already established that they cannot know if they are choosing a leader who will
restrict freedom of the whole, or not, and that if they choose the wrong options, they must be restricted.
Therefore, do they really have the freedom to choose a leader?

Bret: Well, it's freedom within limits.

Socrates: It seems to me a king offers the same limited freedom, and removes the chance of the people
making choices they do not understand. Supposing that people today are voting for something that would
restrict the freedoms of the whole in, say, 500 years, and once it is voted for, nothing can change that
course?

Bret: Of course that would have to be changed. Through education, or something of that nature.

Socrates: What if education didn't work - if it was something so complex the average person could not
understand it?

Bret: Then their vote would be restricted.

Socrates: So if someone is voting for something that in the far future would necessarily limit freedoms for
the whole, their vote would be restricted?

Bret: Yes.

Socrates: Yet democracy, in order to preserve itself from bad votes, must limit freedom of the whole. Do
you agree?

Bret: Of course.

Socrates: And votes which restrict freedom of the whole must be limited?

Bret: Yes.

Socrates: Does that include... voting for democracy?

(Democracy is a paradox: people voting on things they do not understand, in order to achieve paradoxical
goals such as the freedom to have unfreedom. It does not function, except as an appeasement to the
masses, who believing they are "free" will ignore the behind-the-scenes machinations of commerce.)

February 23, 2005

Elections and Futures
Plenty of ink has been wasted on the 2004 election in America, and what it portends for our future. Much
more won't be wasted here, but it is an opportune topic on which to show how people identify themselves
with partisan viewpoints and thus conveniently blind themselves to the actual larger question of leadership.
If you think picking Kerry over Bush, or Bush over Kerry, is somehow going to stop the course of decay, or
constitutes a decision of any importance, you are assuming that there is a solution within the system itself
and are denying its basic unworkability.

Those who own the media and politicians will be glad for such a view, at it supports the current dysfunction
and the broken values system behind it which praises "freedom" while allowing an oligarchy motivated by
money - not Judaism, not multiculturalism, not a vast right-wing conspiracy - to manipulate you and
destroy your future. In this view, you had the sensitivity people, represented by John Kerry, and the
aggressive people, represented by George Bush; if you picked one candidate and believed honestly that
that would change the nature of the system, or "prevent" a great ill, you are pretending that (a) that
there's not much wrong or (b) that there's so much wrong we can do nothing about it.

Such pretense is a justification for inaction that transcends political boundaries. Such an inaction takes this
system at face value, and by believing that solutions lie within the options offered, endorses our system as
not only workable, but worth supporting! In a larger view, a vote for Bush or for Kerry was a vote for a
continuation of a failed system which has been getting increasingly authoritarian through both Republican
and Democratic administrations; the system would continue on its course because its power lies in internal
division, which conveniently allows vast profits to be made while future problems accumulate - whether you
picked Option A or Option B on the ballot.

It is fortunate the George W. Bush won the election.

This is not because he was the best candidate, but because it brought the situation to a peak and
demonstrated the failings of this system in its entirety. Bush represents everything that's despicable about
America: its religious and "freedom" rhetoric while supporting corrupt allies for the sake of international
commerce, which transfers money from our population to investors who have no allegiance to anything
productive - they care only about their profit, and how to take it from you. They consider themselves
"smart" for doing this, since it is "getting ahead," and being "successful," and damn all who can't see this -
they must be stupid.

Neither candidate would have changed anything; it's clear that if Americans weren't rock-ignorant they
would have put in votes for Nader, guaranteeing the presence of third parties in a political system that
increasingly represents two different views of the same option. However, they listened to their televisions,
and out of fear that Bush would win, threw all their support behind Kerry, every bit as much the child of
privilege and conniving robber baron that Bush and his family are. Consequently, Bush wins this election,
and a democrat the next, and the system continues basically unchanged. Although it is current popular to
whine about Bush, keep in mind that he was elected by the majority of the people, and represented little
different viewpoint than that of John Kerry.

Imagine that John Kerry won. What would he do that differs from Bush's policy? Not much - Clinton
demonstrated the willingness of the left to sign away constitutional "rights" and "freedoms" in favor of
national security, and any president that doesn't address the threat of "terrorism" with more draconian
measures guarantees his own failure. He can't back out of Iraq without leaving Iraq to collapse; he doesn't
want to keep fighting the war; and if he picks a "middle option" of less military involvement, he guarantees
a military defeat as well as the collapse of Iraq. He might try to prop up the ailing Social Security program,
but, as the wisest economists point out, it's a system dependent on future wage earners making less and
paying less to support more people. It is doomed.

So what did John Kerry offer? He's a devout Methodist, remember - but he might patch up some things
with Europe. That's great, if we want to drag Europe down into the same morass that afflicts America - why
would we want that? He might be more popular worldwide because he's less visibly ignorant, less of an
insane warmonger and less of a religious fanatic, but that's conjecture based on the idea that he was
opposed to the Iraq war and would sign the Kyoto treaty. As shown above, his options in Iraq are
extremely limited; Kyoto is a symbolic gesture, and going beyond it would require that Kerry turn on the
corporate interests that helped support him. Not very likely, for a politician.

No, my friends - you aren't children anymore - there are no such easy answers. The disease runs far
deeper. Not only does every democracy collapse this way, but your system is motivated by a psychology of
masses versus elites that guarantees we all lose, every time. People rail against Bush because it's a popular
opinion. Every celebrity repeats it, and your favorite political commentators and entertainers parrot it. It's
popular because, like most popular opinions, it claims something vast and important for very little action;
it's a "bargain." Bush is the problem, bleat bleat; it's not the downfall of your country because the
foundations of its power are corrupt by nature. If we just get rid of the bad apples and "terrorists" - bleat -
maybe we can return to enjoying our freedom, our DVDs, our heroin and our hobbies. Wouldn't that be a
nice easy vision?

It is however an essentially similar idea to the concept that you can buy a different selection of products
than your friends and thus construct a unique identity, or the idea that if you buy a health club
membership, you'll automatically start excercising. My friends, there are no such easy answers, and in a
society motivated by money, all of your obvious choices will support that system of money. Neither Bush
nor Kerry came from anything but a life of luxury and doors opened by whispered names, but - bleat bleat -
they're clearly better leaders than Nader. They offer us what American society has always promised, which
is "freedom" (yet no one can define it) and the ability to earn as much money as we can stand putting in
the boring hours to achieve. American society promises there are no elites, and that we're all "equal," and
in that is the disease.

While George W. Bush is a horrible leader, a sociopathic fundamentalist zealot, and makes no illusions
about his being in the pocket of large corporations, the problems run deeper. Clinton after all had the same
issues, as well as some problems keeping his pants zipped. But you have to ask yourself: what kind of a
society keeps pretending this is an operational system? Money drives the world, and so culture and nature
and art are ploughed under while products that satisfy the basest of mass appetites make wealth for
unscrupulous investors. Since we always need new customers, the society itself keeps expanding. It doesn't
end, at least not from its own will; it ends when it collapses into a third-world economy, and those always
seem to be run by oligarchies of international investors who buy off local warlords.

Money drives the world - because we cannot agree on a direction, we pick money as something "equal" and
"fair" to us all, since the best obviously are the most driven to make tons of money and thus, are suitable
as our leaders. It isn't that these people were born of kingly blood, but that they've worked hard and
gotten ahead by manipulating the system - by being popular and appealing to the broadest segment of
opinion, no matter how ignorant it may be - in healthier times, we called such people prostitutes. It isn't
the president that creates the system; he is a creation of the system. If you believe as your controllers
wish, you'll think that democracy has been "subverted" but if you read a little history, you will see that all
democracies end this way, because the public image requirements of democracy create behind-the-scenes
commercial oligarchies.

While we have the ability to fix our society, but perhaps not the democratic system, it is not going to
happen by picking Option B over Option A as your vote. Nor can it be helped by making charitable
donations to the "right" organizations, nor by becoming an "activist" and staging public protests that no
one gives a second thought. It requires something new for the American public, and that's actual political
involvement, instead of "supporting" one of the two talking heads and hoping that "the good people" will fix
the situation for you. I mean, did you really believe that - are you still children, after all? The oligarchs
laugh at you, little sheep, for falling right into their trap, all while congratulating yourselves for voting for
the "right" man!

Realizing this cuts to the root of the problem: for centuries our society has been at war with itself, masses
versus elites, and it has ended up deciding in favor of the more populous group - the broadest segment of
society, who generally have no specific talents or inclinations, but are able to buy products like anyone else
and thus, if "empowered," become ideal consumers, because they have no tendency toward higher
rationale of purchases. There isn't anything "wrong" with such people, but clearly they're not the right
leadership for any society which wishes to rise above its origins. The public ideal that ignorance is better
than appearing to be "above" any other citizen allows the oligarchs to manipulate citizens with public
image. In life, everything keeps going on a path toward the simplest compromise unless something brighter
and more visionary intervenes.

Bush illustrates that the American way of life and political system is incompatible with any values system,
as the simplest ideas always triumph, and when your choice of leader is to pick one of two camps of
opposing millionaires, there's clearly a fault in the system and not in which candidate you pick. This is a
more complex view, and one that doesn't take our system at face value. I am sure you are all smugly
disagreeing, congratulating yourselves on knowing the "truth," but perhaps if you think on this you'll see
how you've been played for a fool.

Those who are the most smug are the drones, who are happiest with any philosophy that justifies inaction
and following the present course of action; these are the underconfident people who want some reason to
feel good about themselves, and the idea that we require change and constant development toward new
heights of strength and wisdom suggests to the underconfident that something is "wrong" with what they
are; these people see only the present moment, and not the bigger picture. Drones love the current society
because it gives them a reason to feel good about themselves; after all, we accept everyone as they are,
and look at the good things we are doing for others. We feel better when we can reach a hand out to
others and help them, as it makes us feel powerful. Who needs that but the underconfident?

And what is the ultimate evil, to a sheep or a drone, except to be beyond the rigid and absolute rules
required by underconfident individuals to protect them from criticism and possible defeat? For this reason
the rule of the sheep has prevailed in Europe and America, and it has bred people who conform to its rules
and expectations, leading to an ongoing decline which no picking of Option A or Option B can stop. Realize
that George W. Bush is what he is - the right man, for the right time. But recognize that time for what it is:
the final stages of a social decay. This rot comes from our illusory thinking, and makes broken people, and
only when we reverse it do we become internally strong enough to have a society worth living in again.
What reverses it is a heroic mindset, in contrast to our current passive one.

A heroic mindset places the individual second to what must be achieved so that all may experience its
greatness; its opposite is the passive viewpoint, which in adults (although most adults today adopt it) is
emasculating. Passive mindsets include the idea of an absolute religious truth, like morality, or an absolute
secular truth, such as liberalism; other variations on this are utilitarianism, or the belief that what most
people find appealing is the right path for us all, and of course, materialism, or the belief that nothing
matters but individual comfort and convenience. A decaying society will be passive, and will not offer you
an Option on the ballot to undo its error through a normal election; you will have to "think outside of the
box."

The passive mindset is your true enemy, although it may not directly affect you, right now. All declining
civilizations have such a passive mindset, because such an outlook is needed to stop increasing the power
of a society and to fall back into dividing up the spoils, following social trends and caring about popularity -
rising civilizations set aside these temporary delights, and instead look toward achievement as a sense of
pride. This is what made all ancient civilizations great, and will be responsible for the rise of any future
civilization that is great. Our current society has nothing to say for itself except that it is passive, and
pledges not to hurt you, unless you offend its sensibilities, in which case you are "evil."

Television drones pick one option over the other and congratulate themselves on thinking "progressively" or
for upholding "what made this country great," but no such simple options await you - Are you still children?
Bush is reprehensible, but he is a symptom of the illusory thinking of our decaying civilization. Instead of
believing in politics itself, think outside of politics and arm yourself with ideas of a better civilization - in this
is the only salvation from the type of dysfunctional options offered by election 2004.

February 20, 2005

One World/Archangel
If you find this human world quite empty, as many do, and see it as the death march that it is, as many
do, then whatever part of you has not given up wants to fix these problems, and make something better.
This is a natural response to error, but by the nature of time, you recognize quickly that you cannot look
toward the problems of today, but that you must look toward creating something for tomorrow which lacks
these problems. You must think not in terms of correcting, but redesigning, the world we have now.

Think of it in biological terms. A healthy body does not succumb to disease; it is only when weakened, or
old, that it is carried off. Similarly, no society succumbs entirely to outside assault, even by whichever
group of parasites seems most likely to do it this week (Masons, Jews, Scientologists, Democrats, Negroes).
Our society had to first weaken itself from within before the seeds of collapse could be sowed; for this
reason, it is clear that design errors exist. Other observable correlations support this idea.

What this means is that when we speak of change, we cannot speak of fixes to the existing order, but
designing a new order; however, our pragmatic minds remind us that this can be done be re-arranging the
parts which compose this whole, and orienting them around healthier ideas than those which created the
failing design of our present society. We work toward a new order. No single fix or idea can represent this
new order. It must represent itself as all things which are not illusion do: by being a body of values which
address reality, and find a sensible way of adapting and harmonizing to it, in dramatic contrast to our
collapsing civilization built on illusion.

World collapse has been visible for some centuries now, but only to those with the foresight to predict the
paths people will take in the grips of its concepts. It is not the concept itself that can be analyzed, in the
present tense, but its effects in the coming iterations of its idea, because ideas grow as villages become
cities, with each new generation adding its own layer of interpretation and creation to a core concept. To
most people, until now, these concepts have been things on paper or in speeches, but now we are seeing
not only how they have developed, but what effects they have brought.

In the West, the native ethnic populations of Indo-Europeans are breeding themselves into dysfunction.
Those who embrace a world of ten-hour workdays, credit cards and trying not to offend others are well-
adapted to a modern society, and breed, but by their nature, these people are not leaders; they are not
creators; they are not able to think on the level of the whole. Rather, they succeed because they think only
in terms of what is immediately before them, and thus are blithely unconcerned with the apocalyptic nature
of the course upon which the West has embarked. It is not that they do not care. They are unable to see
what lies ahead, and thus cannot care.

The intelligent are driven mad by this situation, as are those who would make good leaders, and so they
tend to suicide or become so socially unacceptable that they do not breed and thus, as part of our society,
die out; there are fewer geniuses than, but more "brilliant" people who can do one task well without a
thought for its holistic consequences, than ever before. Years of this has weakened our values, and
replaced our cultures with television, popular music, movies and the kind of sage wisdom that is necessary
to turn off one's mind and focus on making money. After many generations, this consequence has become
obvious.

Finally, our industries begin to collapse, having for years made money off of an expanding population of
capable people; through several bad breeding practices, these have been replaced with the less competent,
and thus the free growth has ended. All the new jobs are for drones, and the opportunities that were once
abundant are now concentrated into corporate monopolies that value allegiance more than ability. We have
finally taken up the open land, killed off the free-ranging game, and polluted our seas and air to such a
degree that we are prisoners in our own technological world. We require its filtered air and water, but even
that can't keep out climate change and a lack of natural beauty.

Even worse, our lives are without meaning. There is no community consequence as to what is "good"
except obedience to social regulation itself, and therefore there is no way to create something great and
have it be praised, since no one recognizes it. There is only serving in schools, jobs, churches, government.
As our lives lack any meaning other than comfort and wealth, we have nearly nothing to talk about. There
are no heroic goals, except perhaps the creation of an order to replace this antiheroic one. Since we must
keep up this happy illusion while denying our deepest-laid problems, we even censor our own thoughts,
more effectively than a totalitarian government could.

There is a lack of hope, as well. Most people are drones, so if we develop something exceptional in
ourselves, they will at least fail to recognize it, but more likely will detest us for it. Finding people with
whom a thinking being could fall in love has become a Holy Grail, one for which most people substitute a
compromise, and content themselves with manipulating this person until the inevitable divorce or murder.
Changing the system, even for small fixes, requires getting a vast crowd of voters to agree, and that never
happens, in the case of complex issues. Depression is so prevalent it has become sublimated, and we cover
our vehicles and office cubicles with inspirational slogans.

Such is the face of our reality at this time. When we recognize these factors as a collection, it becomes
apparent that our error is fundamental and far-reaching; it is deep within. We are lost. The only glimmer of
spirit lies in taking that first precarious step and recognizing this problem, then resolving ourselves to do
something about it. In this, we become more cheerful, as there is a thought that it will not always be this
way. We even consider the problems that were once invisible to someday be commonplace recognitions of
the failure of this time, so that in the future someone might say, "Back then, everyone was depressed
because there was no meaning, nothing left to conquer, and we were all tied to one another by a need for
self-validation through wealth."

If this writer could convey one thing to you, the reader, it would be to grasp this hope and never let go.
Hope should not be passive; when this is called a hope, it is meant as a hope-through-action, or in other
terms, a goal. Focus on the future and on what beauty it will bring. Concentrate on how this would be
brought about. You feel better already -- ? This alone turns you away from the resignation and boredom of
the present time. But here you must be careful.

The tendency in exhausted people is to look for a quick fix, or a single change that will somehow liberate
this world. Some find egalitarianism; others find racialism; others find environmentalism, and still others,
any number of even more granular issues that can be easily changed, but will offer no change to the
whole. Something both more comprehensive, and less dramatic is needed: this new order will be based, as
said, upon reality, in contrast to our time based on unreality. For this reason, it is as threatened by the
unreality of a single-topic approach in change as it is by the unreality of a stagnant present.

(Words of an Archangel: What we can do now is to establish a comprehensive system of belief, and to work
for our own power. Cheer your adversaries, as they make you stronger. Relish victory, but also struggle,
and the affirmation of larger dreams. What kind of assertive person would be content with only a career?
Higher, bigger, better, more powerful! You can have it all: sustenance, a family, success and a future
society that is not so broken. Leave behind your depression and the world opens before you.

It is an eternal truth eternally forgotten that life is basically good, and nothing is yet lost; we are on the
downward swing of many centuries of error, but it is better to reign in Hell, than to content oneself with
Heaven - a fractured, wrecked, poisoned, and sickening vision that is obviously a fraud to the thinker, but a
paradise to the whore and idiot. The signs of ruin are written on the wall; the prophet weeps blood and
ocean water; the howls from the forest penetrate even the most solid skyscraper. We are the future. We
are victory. If we can concentrate our thoughts, find solutions and then begin applying them, we will build
a better system.

There are no Utopias. One would not want them! Nor is there freedom from war, from suffering, from death
and from struggle - similarly, we would not want them! What we wish is a chance for greatness, not in the
sense of being on Heaven's television network, but in our own hearts and minds, doing what we know to
be real, and in sacrifice. Our lives originated in nature, and to natural death we go. All that can give us
enjoyment is found in doing what is not "right" in a moral sense, but what is "right" in a natural sense -
continuing growth, heroic acts, endless forests, untouched wilderness. This is what our spirits claim!
For now, there is depression enough to cheer a Priest, but to be assertive is to cast off this final slavery,
and to attack the world's challenge with all of your might! Poets, write! Musicians, create! You cannot both
settle for something mediocre and have enjoyment of life. You must stretch beyond what you know to be
yourself, you must exceed what you expect, casting aside the doubt that reigns happily over a humble,
resigned and mentally helpless population. We each are the transcendence of that, and a victory for nature
in doing so. Cast out from a Heaven of ill creation, we recognize its error, and we cannot - will not - go
back; ours is the way of the lonely path.

While some look to the Absolute for a sign, and for approval of their deeds, the independent spirit knows
the individual is transitory, as is the universal. There is no determination of life except life itself. All else is
error and illusion. Thinking machines like humans become trapped in our own heads, and from this error
arises, so we abandon heroism. The opposite is what we should do: we must embrace the world in all of its
ugly and beautiful detail. All that we create is ours. Illusion is dying and the world is renewed for us to
conquer. Destruction is creation.)

We must convert all of our present ideas, and all of our desires for the coming years, into a single hopeful
vision of future. That which exists now can be organized so that its destructive elements are deprecated,
and its other elements re-arranged around realistic, idealistic concepts. Those things which hit our personal
fear and anger buttons, whether of a political or social nature, must come second to the task of designing a
sensible order for the whole. There is one world, and we all live in it; we can create only one order for
ourselves, and by doing so, remove our negative influence on this world. The rehabilitation of the West
depends on this type of change, and from this renewal can come future creation without the errors that
now restrict us.

This alone can be our mantra. There is one reality, and one world - one chance for us to get it right. All
that adapts to this world, and recognizes it, and works with what we have is good; all else is error. That
which deals in illusion, or singular focus toward unrealistic "idealism" that promises great things but makes
us empty inside, is an artifact of the present time and not a direction toward the future. Action is needed,
yet it cannot take the same form as our past. Although this seems like more work to accept, it is liberation
from the illusion that fogs our brains, and represents a future by which we can as one be healthy again.
Modernity
There can be nothing more frustrating than trying to explain something to someone who cannot perceive it.
It is not that they will not; if they had that kind of decision on their hands, they could understand. Not did
not; they simply lack the ability to, now or forevermore, process the kind of detail required. This type of
thinking is not detail-obsessed, but it require that one build a mental picture of the future based on many
tiny details, because, and I hope this isn't a news flash, life rarely spells out its plans in big bold letters on
the wall in front of you. All myths to the contrary, life is plenty happy to let you wander right up to disaster
and linger by it for awhile until, figuring the coast is clear, you take one too many steps and BOOM, it
comes crashing down on your ass.

When I tell people that modern society has a great and pervasive disease, the common response is either
(a) I don't see it or (b) well, I'm doing okay, so why would I worry? The former is at least honest; the
paradoxical bitterness of relativity is that it doesn't excuse one for not seeing the truth, but admits that
most people literally have limitations as to how much complexity they can handle, and thus what they can
perceive. An idiot sees a house on fire; a genius sees a fire extinguisher in one corner. The second group of
people need more analysis, as they claim to have knowledge of impending doom, yet paradoxically, claim it
does not affect them. A genius sees a house on fire and gets the fire extinguisher; an idiot simply closes
the door to his room - out of sight, out of mind.

So here we are in the world where no one can perceive how deeply screwed things may be. There are
thousands of details that must be correlated to see the whole picture. Most people can't drive a car through
an intersection in a timely manner, or figure out routine transactions. They are distracted by their own
drama, and thus they screw everything up and take forever, then get weepy if confronted. The streets are
lined with giant, ugly buildings in which impersonal agencies dole out rigid policies and god help you if
you're an exception. Government takes in money and sends out fines and prison sentences for gross
violations. Those who are smart avoid the law while ripping people off, legally, and thus have the best of
both worlds.

Few notice, but we're steadily consuming more nonrenewable resources. There will be no more gasoline;
there's a finite amount. Most people cannot even comprehend that sentence to understand its implications.
There is no more land that is going to be created; there is only so much land, and we use more of it each
year. Everywhere one looks, the signs are there, if one knows what to look at. Jobs are hilarious shuffling
of papers and conning of fellow humans into believing one illusion over the other and, thus approved,
transferring one sum of money into another. People live for empty, pointless lives. The highpoint of their
day is often television, or consumption of products. Interpersonal relations consist of attacking others and
trying to drag them down to make yourself feel better. What kind of life is this?

One thing that astounds any sane observer is how people are isolated mentally in modern society. For
example, today I saw some guy in a wheelchair selling candy at an intersection. He'd pull up right beside
cars and sell you M&Ms for a couple bucks, a 100% markup for the size, and made his living that way.
What was worse was that people would stop and buy candy, holding up everyone behind them in line -
while they had a green light. It must be amazingly peaceful to be aware of nothing but yourself. And this
same critique undoubtedly applies to people who cut down ancient forests to make clones of apartments
that exist in ten thousand other locations, or people who dump toxic waste in rivers or junk in empty lots,
or people who write those clever cellular phone contracts that ensure that no matter what you do, it's
wrong but there's an extra charge that will make it all right.

This is the face of modernity. There's no way to tackle a specific issue in it, because the whole thing is
wrong. Sure, we could make rules about stopping at intersections, but then you need a cop in every
intersection to enforce that rule, or people learn they can get away with it, most of the time, thus they
don't change the behavior. Similarly, we'd have to assign an infallible cop to every single person out there
to prevent littering, toxic waste dumping, or sodomizing rape. Even worse is that no matter how many rules
we write, there are always new ways to do something that is technically legal yet completely devoid of
moral consideration for society and nature as a whole. You can make sodomizing rape porn illegal, but
someone else will find something legal that's similar and will market it, and they'll be cheered on by those
around them because hey, everyone loves money.

Modernity is the cause of this. We often think that our time suffers because it has no unifying philosophy,
but the situation is even worse: our unifying philosophy is one of making no decisions. Instead of having a
government you trust, you have the "freedom" to escape actions by your government, since it is assumed
that you and the government will never come to accord on a sane way to live. You wanted a sensible job?
Too bad - it's more important to have competition so that if your job sucks, you can devote the next month
to finding a better one. Let the jobs that suck continue to exist, so long as we have the freedom to choose
a lesser degree of suck. We're so afraid of legislation that we resist any restrictions on development, so if
people destroy your neighborhood by covering its forests with concrete, your can move to a less-destroyed
neighborhood.

Inevitably, such systems spiral out of control, because of two principles: relativity, and time. Relativity is a
problem in that you can find something that sucks less, so you pick that instead instead of fixing the
problem. Time compounds that by introducing a succession of greater suckstates, and you keep picking the
lesser suckstates, until at some point the less-sucks sucks as much as the original, and you still have no
recourse to change it - you're looking for something that sucks less, instead. Everything affected by this
model is a vortex of decreasing standards that eventually culminates in either apocalypse or third-world-
style anarchy. But remember, you need that "freedom," because instead of fixing the problem and creating
a sensible government, we want you to be able to defend yourself against all governments.

This is clearly diseased reasoning, if looked at from an architectural perspective, but since such things don't
pay, no one does. No one is willing to target the whole of modernity, for at least the simple reason that it
makes change a seemingly large task. I think it makes it a simpler task, as when we've found out where we
went wrong, we can systematically replace those beliefs with something healthier. But in a modern time,
we're used to external ways of change. Use money as a carrot, and the law as the stick; "educate"
(brainwash) people, or make them sign off on decisions like bureaucrats. We understand force, and treating
humans and nature alike like machines, but we don't understand internal motivation, or how we could
actually make people understand what they do and why. Reversing this attitude would alone undo modern
society, and would give us a clear and relatively easy path of change.

William Faulkner treated this subject tangentially in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech way back in 1950:

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by
now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There
is only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man
or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in
conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth
writing about, worth the agony and the sweat...Until he does so, he labors
under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses
anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or
compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes
not of the heart but of the glands...I decline to accept the end of man....I
believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not
because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he
has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The
poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help
man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and
hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory
of his past.

The gestalt we find by combining the many details of society's failing shows us that things are not well;
things are diseased and destructive. We are oblivious to them not because we ignore the details, but
because we pay attention only to certain details, and we do this because modernity more than being a
"thing" is a state of mind. We look at the external forces we can impose, the qualitative measurements we
can use, or the ways we can manipulate each other and thus feel clever about ourselves. These are passive
ways of looking at the world, and as they don't encompass all of it, they constitute only a certain segment
of its detail, and leave us oblivious to the larger picture.

It's time we stop shying away from declaring war on the modern world. The effete greens demand we
recycle more, and stop drilling in national wildlife refuges, but that won't stop this tide. The neo-Nazis tell
us to kick out all other races, but that won't fix the problem itself. Democrats wail on about social issues
and wonder why no one takes them seriously except in boom times, and Republicans periodically give lip
service to traditional values so that their weapons sales and oil profits can be unimpeded (Democrats seem
to have no problems with these profits, either). None of these groups offers a comprehensive solution,
because none of them will say the obvious: the system of thought known as modernity has failed, and over
the last 400 years, has increasingly led us into a disaster from which it's hard to extricate ourselves,
because the illusion upon which that disastrous system is founded now controls our thought process, and
thus has us asking the wrong questions and missing the obvious.

The war in the human soul is not being fought over specific issues, or political allegiances, but over the
courage to take on this task; the courage to start seeing our society for the sham that it is. What happens
when an individual picks up on this process is an avalanche of increasing disbeliefs. Suddenly, the
saccharine feelgood messages of commercials and government announcements are seen as what they are:
distractions from reality. Issues like abortion, Terri Schiavo's right to live, and civil rights are seen for what
they are: smokescreens to distract from the big picture. All of the drama of our personal and work lives,
which fills our hours so thoroughly we're always "too busy" to read Aristotle or Faulkner, is seen as the
emptiness masquerading as meaning that it is, and we realize that the reason we pursue it so fanatically is
the same reason a heroin addict chases the next fix in desperation: once the illusion is gone, we need
more, or we have to face the naked reality of our lives.

Running from fear never got us anywhere as a species, or as individuals. If we face this fear, and conquer
it, we can start attacking the real enemy, which isn't Republicans or Negroes or Corporations, but our own
lack of a meaningful philosophy. We can throw out the empty philosophy of modernity and instead achieve
something greater. This would end our isolated personal worlds in which we alone matter, but those
haven't brought us joy - have they. They've clearly brought us greater environmental destruction, more
tedious jobs, and more interpersonal politics of a revengeful and snipish nature. So what we're losing, that
reality which is comfortable because it's familiar, isn't anything to be mourned. With modernity falls the
illusion, and to fill that space, we need to return to a life based on meaning. Step up to that challenge and
declare war on modernity today.

April 6, 2005
Groupthink
Language knows no master. If ever a definitive description of life and the best philosophies possible in it
will be written, the people who come after will know how to subvert it: they will, starting from the smallest
and working up to the grandest, redefine its words to mean something convenient for their own beliefs;
they will bend the belief system toward their own by changing the simple equivalencies of terms. As a
result, it will become its own opposite, over time, although the fundamental structure will remain.

A term that became popular in the last decade is "groupthink," referring to the social animal herd-tendency
which causes people to bleat out dogma without having any idea of how to understand it. Like most pop-
culture diagnoses, it favors an us/them approach which makes everyone in the room feel that, by
comprehending the term, they have somehow surpassed all the others, and thus have found a new level of
understanding. Yet even the term carries a weight of irony, in that not only can it be misinterpreted, but it
can be a form of what it describes, by the very nature of this inclusive, devotional, just-sign-here access to
what is perceived as absolute truth.

One seemingly ugly reality that confronts us as developed and not nascent beings is that in order to have
civilization, or any kind of belief system, most of the people who work within that group have to be thinking
on the same page. Of course, popular literature and movies find this appalling, since what happens to
individuality? they cry. The grim face of it is that individuality as an absolute doesn't exist, in the sense that
each person would be entirely a creation of their own impulse; this is bad math, which has an equation
defining itself without reliance on its starting data or even on mathematics itself. This bad math holds that
we are each self-creating gods, having no origin and no reality to which our ideas correspond, and that it's
most important that we define ourselves apart from all others. Reality contradicts this.

In reality - that distant place where, when the ego-games of youth and pretense of adulthood are spent -
we confront the actual mechanisms that sustain our world, and subsume our "it oughtta be this way"
rhetoric to practical, this-is-how-we-survive concerns, for any consensus to exist there must be some
degree of similar thinking. Obviously, there will always be critics who point to that and scream
"groupthink!" and thus run off smugly congratulating themselves for being different and not falling into the
herd, when they have no answers for what must be done as a collective, and thus are in denial of reality
itself. This doesn't concern them - their whole agenda, literally, is to make themselves look good and thus
to get ahead socially and politically. Obviously, these people are death for us all.

So some degree of group agreement is necessary, but is there a danger of groupthink as well? Certainly,
and we cannot see it more clearly than in the Marxist and Rightist groups of today. These are composed of
parrots, who rehash the same dogma in new forms but accept it unquestioningly and repeat it. There's a
danger in that, in that these people do not understand what they parrot. In most cases, this isn't a
problem, since most people lack the aptitude or dedication required to understand politics. When leaders
succumb to this, however, a certain kind of spiritual death occurs, but even more importantly, a real-world
crisis is engendered: they are no longer testing their ideas against reality, but are constructing castles in
the sky and pointing to them saying, "well, it oughtta be" - this is the essence of academic Utopianism, and
in the only view of history that matters, that which is measured over millennia and not decades, it is a form
of calcification that might appear to be as lively and free-spirited as something else.

Critics - or those who passively point and try to tear down ideas, without suggesting anything to replace
them except the airy dogma described above - are notorious for pointing out such groupthink, such
conformity, and by finding it in some who uphold an idea using it to "discredit" that idea. Without
individuality, they proclaim, there is nothing except groupthink, and therefore the whole concept reeks of
submission and conformity, they argue, and therefore should be forgotten. They have forgotten however
what philosophers have long learned, which is that any philosophy must pass its own tests. The finger
pointers who scream "groupthink!," have, paradoxically, succumbed to groupthink itself by finding in
anything but absolute granularity a viable solution.

Granularity is like group consensus; some of it is needed, but taken to a calcified extreme, it becomes
death. The extreme of granularity is a popular social pose in almost any era, where people claim to take a
little bit of this philosophy, and a little bit of that, and thus to have something "unique" to them which
represents them and proves their worth, because after all, no single philosophy was good enough for them,
so they must be master of all. This is little more than egomania. No civilization, or organization, can be
founded on everyone thinking something different in all ways; that lack of consensus becomes a bickering
family in which each member undoes the work of every other, fighting for personal control. Hilariously, the
response of most granularists is to argue that such bickering is a sign of healthy government or salutory
"diversity of discourse," but somehow, nothing ever changes because each individual is an island, caught
up in arguing for his or her own form of control. Thus, business as usual goes on behind closed doors,
while the drama of politics and leadership resolves nothing.

Clearly democracy belongs to this form of thinking, as it is based on the granular individual and the
importance to the ego of having "individual" ideas and the freedom to "express oneself" by picking some
"unique" recombination of philosophy to date and proclaiming that it and only it will suffice for that free-
thinking, spirited, "different" individual. But what have democracies accomplished? Outside of the big
questions, such as attacking when being attacked or dealing with tsunamis, democracies focus entirely
inward and create more detailed bickering. As a result, they advance only the basic concepts of democracy,
and miss all of the long-term issues of importance. What was democracy's plan for stopping deforestation?
For protecting natural species? For ensuring we do not all become drones of a corporate feudal state?
Answer: there was none, but there was plenty of diverse and unique discussion!

The greatest groupthink is granularity, as it rejects the idea that any consensus can occurr without "being"
groupthink. I put the term "being" in quotes because, while x may "=" y, in real life things aren't so linear.
Thus any consensus may include some groupthink, particularly among those who are incapable of any
meaningful contribution; this is not terrible, as it turns them from agents of "unique" and divisive
philosophies into those can find accord and act it. This could mean that, in contrast to the last 400 years of
history, some sort of actual direction and philosophical unity might visit our civilization. We'd all have to
give up the illusion of our "uniqueness," however, and realize that what makes us individuals is not some
pretense of political activism, but our individual characters: how heroic we are, what tasks we can do well,
our emotional makeup, and the like. You can't make an individual out of a political theory!

This is reality, and it will be called "groupthink" too, because nothing threatens each human as an island
like something toward which their theories must correspond in actuality. Pragmatism, or simply, realism -
what's wrong with it? We live in the same world, subject to the same natural laws. We have roughly the
same bodies. Like it or not, the same forces act within us. Thus, for most decisions, we need roughly the
same thing; that's the nature of consensus, and that's how civilizations are formed. This isn't as popular as
the idea that we are each gods who think up airy rhetoric and make an individualistic self-image
construction out of it. Naturally, the ability to fantasize without consequences is usually preferred to dealing
with reality...

But reality it is, and is it so terrible? Once we get over our personal pretense, and that's really all it is, of
being "different" for having selected a unique mix of products, friends, political ideologies, and reading
matter, we can return to focus on ourselves as actual individuals, and to build up our character from within.
Individualism is won by facing what you fear and overcoming it, by making yourself better in every way,
and by doing what is right regardless of the cost to your physical life or pretense of uniqueness. You
weren't created out of nothing, a god in your own right. No - you're a human being, with parents and
history culminating in you. Is that so hard to face?

It's not an easy answer, the kind that occurs in a soundbite and sounds good to everyone, so the issue is
dropped and we all go back to socializing. Thus, it's never popular. For many people, it demands the
impossible, since they are in wheelchairs of a metaphorical or physical type, and cannot achieve greater
character or deeds; however, for most of the people you or I would want to know, it's very possible, and
when the misleading groupthink of anti-groupthink is revealed, they can get to work on the real character
that underlies the public perception of their selves, something we call self-image. And what would we call
this overcoming?

It's an end to passivity, for one thing. What is the opposite of passivity? Anything that is active - activity is
a category which can include many items. However, the most basic form of active philosophy is realism, of
which nihilism and existentialism and idealism are subsets. When you recognize that physical reality is the
ultimate reality, and that all of our ideas must address practical solutions within it, you've taken a big step
toward personal autonomy by casting aside the illusion that "unique" airy rhetoric somehow makes you
distinct from the uncountable horde of others doing exactly the same thing. Anti-groupthink is the new
groupthink, and it's part of the same error that got us into our current mess: being passive instead of
active.

Active people do not fear agreeing with others. They are confident in how they perceive reality, and have
made up their mins about what must be done, and thus do not fear doing it, even if (insert unpopular
person here) advocated the same, or the idea is old, or it offends other people. They simply care about
doing what is right in a realistic sense. This is the only way to truly cut out groupthink, because it removes
a passive focus - caring about what other people think, or trying to belong to a group - and replaces it with
a focus on the task. Any shared idea involves some agreement, but agreement is not groupthink,
necessarily; however, agreement not to agree on anything for personal pretense always is. Next time you
hear someone shriek "groupthink," ask yourself whether this person is looking at reality including the task,
or just jerking off to make a higher self-image for themselves.

April 6, 2005
Experience
To live and think in this time is to see humanity as a vast screw-up; to think a little further is to realize that
there is more than enough good to go around in the world, but that it is disorganized, based upon a few
wrong turns not in history but in our collective beliefs as a modern, global society (by "good" it is meant all
the good things in life, and not some absolute moral abstraction, a neat category into which we can divide
things as having one source or another according to an ironclad, absolute law that applies equally to us all).
In other words, while we can point to any number of symptoms and carriers of our bad ideas, which are
essentially vectors for justifying erroneous thought, it is that erroneous thought itself that is the root of our
problem.

(This essay is written for those developed enough in their thinking to realize that, no matter how much we
might think we live in separate, absolute worlds, we live in the same world and the same laws of nature
apply to us all, and there is no escaping them; in this realization we see two absolutes, the first being the
mistake of thinking there is one categorical way of life that can apply equally to each of us, and the second
being the mistake that we each exist in an untouchable category of our own, separated from reality. About
the only equality in life is the status of these errors. For this reason, "erroneous thought" can be translated
as "unrealistic thought," "illusion," "lies," "delusion" or any synonym of your choice.)

At our first pass, it seems likely that our thought went wrong with some tangible entity; money, or the
Church, or corporations, or "patriarchy," or the gods of the sandal-wearers. This answer is unsatisfying in
that first, the beginnings of the decline predate these things, and second, waging war against these things
on a test basis - in smaller communities or ourselves - hasn't stopped the pervasive nature of problems on
that level. Thus we are left unfulfilled, and go on to our next level of thought, at which point our
conclusions resemble the sappy lines from get well cards and bad short stories. If we only knew that love is
all we need -- if we only took time to care about the downtrodden, to realize their humanity is equal to
ours and their suffering is real -- if we only cared more, if we only took more walks on the beach at dawn,
if everyone just got stoned and started thinking about how fascinating life is... the cynic in us asks, "So
how did it work for you?" and the answer, universally, is that it worked for a few things, but the practical
problems of how to conduct life remained, after all the new age-y, starry-eyed bullshit was over.

So: at this point, most give up and fall into what is called "nihilism" but makes more sense when referred
to as "fatalism," namely the belief that nothing means anything, that nothing can be done, that no value
can be found, that nothing can reverse the decline. "Fatalism" is thus a fancy word for giving up on giving a
damn, and settling down to a life of self-pity and what medical professionals call "symptomatic treatment,"
or giving the patient care to release suffering from symptoms, having assumed that the cause of the
disease cannot be stopped; the extreme of this is "palliative care," in which scenario the disease is fatal and
the only thing that can be done is to dope up the patient and wait for death's swift kick to the rickety door
of the soul. In our time, this is the most common philosophy, this palliative fatalism, and it explains in part
why "conservatives" have fundamentalist, positivist religion and "liberals" have marijuana and wine - lots of
wine - and everyone else has money, and/or cheap and effective street drugs.

Another aspect of it is pity, or the feeling that if you have the ability to give someone less fortunate
something, it makes you feel good, in no small part for having the status of being higher than them and
having the ability to give a gift. You're not doing it for them; you're doing it for yourself, and because of
this, what you're doing is rarely what they actually need, but some form of condescension. Hand the poor
bibles and temporary food relief, but don't cart them off to work or, if they're mentally deranged, to a
desolate and lonely patch of freezing ground for a quick and relatively painless death. To others who suffer,
give little encouragements of the theme "you're allright," even though what they might need to hear is that
they have to make changes or they'll keep suffering. This feelgood condescension is the antithesis of "tough
love," which is a reality-embracing wake-up call to all who are suffering needlessly, and doesn't gently
suggest change but spells out clearly that they either change or die. Another aspect of "tough love" is
taking lame horses, mutant livestock, and fatally diseased animals out behind the barn and applying a .30-
06 to the skull. When you have no pity, you kill that which is having no hope, but unlike palliative
medication, you actually end the pain and give space to new life by removing that which has failed.
And what exists beyond this fatalism? Surely the author of this piece believes that something might...?
Otherwise, it would be pointless to even communicate, whether exhorting or preaching or cajoling, and it
would be most sensible instead to find some way to swindle you into buying some product so the author
could apply palliative medicine more effectively to himself. Does some aspect of that thought depress you -
those who lead the blind, becoming blind, such that they might profit? Maybe you recognize it as a
common occurrence and in fact, the motivation behind most advice you'll get that isn't outright pity,
making the giver feel smarter for having a solution the pitied have not yet seen. You were warned this is a
fatalistic time, but it was some paragraphs ago, so you're forgiven for forgetting it - on a standardized test,
your options would be clearer. But what everyone says about standardized tests is that they're not close
enough to reality, and test you more on your ability to fool a test than on knowledge of reality, or
knowledge of how to summarize knowledge. Communication in this time makes even bridging this subject
difficult, much less communicating how to surpass it.

We'll start with the basics. There may not be an answer for you; you may literally be condemned, by
character or ability, to live thrashing about in ignorance with no hope. Sorry - have some marijuana, or
have you tasted the Mogen David? Well. However, if you've made it this far in reading this document, and
still haven't started skimming for swear words or sexual references, it's likely you can process the
information at hand (if this were a postmodern piece of writing, the author would try to communicate
exclusively through sexual references and swear words but, alas, we're not that clever, and far too
pragmatic for it). Philosophers like to talk about sensitive but warlike souls (Mr. Nietzsche? your car is
ready--) who by combining these attributes have a selective aspect to their aggression; indeed, such a
description merits the Indo-European people in healthier days, in that unlike the more passive populations
to the east, and the unrelentingly aggressive populations to the south, they became selective;
contemplative; philosophical. In shorthand, this means that you must not declare the cause lost or won, but
return with a critical eye to the task we explored in the past four paragraphs; however, you must also do it
with a determination to not find a solution but make a solution, and do it with both warlike discipline and
the playful joy that characterizes most healthy primate behaviors.

By way of backward analysis, if we debug our own thoughts to this stage, we have a powerful clue about
where "we" as a species went wrong: we were not active enough, and were too passive, and therefore
when selecting future roles as "active" and "passive," we could not see a middle path between the two; we
either opt to be 100% warlike ("conservative") or 100% passive ("liberal") and in both cases, fail to find
working solutions because life does not operate in absolute categorical terms, but requires any ideal of an
absolute categorical nature be applied in the language of life itself, which is far more flexible. As the English
say in musky oyster bars and discoteqs, "Quite." It's important to take a brief detour here, which is
represented by the appearance of a Buddhist monk in saffron robes - saffron cloth was originally used to
bury the dead, and was selected for that reason as the icon of Buddhism, which like most modern religions
is a death religion: it spends so much effort explaining away personal death that soon conversation on
death dominates all discourse, and the result is that no matter how many delightful things Buddhism or
Christianity have, in practice they remain obsessed with death, and thus stop short from making positive
changes; theirs, too, is a palliative medicine.

If we had a Buddhist monk here, one of those tidy and dispassionately friendly little guys who seem to
exist without unnecessary memory or inefficient action, he or she would probably politely point out that the
West, like the East millennia before it, has become obsessed with the ego, or conception of self as
individual. Good point; back to your rice and pickled vegetables, now, while those who think toward
sculpting a future discuss the real issue. The ego is with us - or rather, the socialized self-image is with us,
too much, in that what we have for our egos is displaced into the absolute and generic perception of other
people: the assumption that there is some standard by which all people will view us, and that this
represents more of "us" than our inner attributes, such as our character and our spirit and our preferences
and values. What is important is not the person, but the person as demonstrated, or shown off in public. It
is no longer an individual, but a series of boundaries, as agreed upon by every person in the observing
audience, like a character in a movie. It doesn't matter that she loves animals and will, if she gets out of
this absurdly symbolic drama, run off gratefully to veterinary school and spend the rest of her life tending
to them; what matters is that she has chosen the Dark Path, because her character is summed up in a
certain way, say a preference for power over emotion, and thus she - like every good chesspice of symbolic
intent in art - gets quickly shuffled offstage and goes to the fate that, as you saw earlier in the movie, she
merits by her actions. This is not religious; it is not political; it is not social; -- it is all three, unified by
something more basic than a symbolic division of thought into discipline can symbolize.

Yet it seems that this self-image/ego problem is with us, in that the major cause of our world's decline is
people doing not what is right by all things, but what enriches them most in the short term, whether
through money, or power, or social status. Is this directly a cause of self-image/ego, or is there something
that underlies both errors? The lack of collective goals points toward a deficiency which existed before the
egomania of the current era, so our philosophical inquiries should probably target whatever created the
void into which me-first-ism fell. This task is complicated by the nature of selfishness, which although it
works through the individual, produces a revengeful crowd; the individual dislikes anything that threatens
its boundaries, and thus will work with others to tear down those who have higher goals that individual
enrichment and comfort. Although this seems a paradoxical proposition, history bears witness to the
downfall of the West as a form of mass revolt by the less distinguished against the part of their population
that traditionally bore the responsibility of leadership. If this is not envy in action, it would be hard to place
a finger on what it is. Those who could not be leaders, wanting what leaders had, destroyed the principle of
leadership through crowd rebellion, and thus created a void in which their egomania was unopposed.

For this to happen, however, there has to be some failure in leadership that allows such an unbalance,
where the majority of the population are so clueless that they are undisciplined and destructive. It may be
this failure was as simple as the leadership minority becoming so small it was overwhelmed. Yet -- using
what we have observed from day to day life, balancing probability against probability, this seems unlikely.
Experience dictates that such an overthrowing could not have happened without some fragmentation, or
lack of consensus, among the leadership population first , followed by its increasing irrelevance and thus
weakness. We could claim that what afflicted the leaders was what later deranged the bulk of the
population, namely, a nutty desire for personal power and wealth. This, at least, is common when a society
has no great task before it, such as growth, or warfare, or struggle with a natural threat. It makes sense to
keep going, however, because our analysis has not found a common thread basic enough to reveal this
widespread falling apart. We have found plenty of clues.

Such a common thread would have to be so universal it functioned as a bedrock not of government, or
society, or culture, but of perception itself, which is influenced by the attitudes around it and can thus re-
program humans to see the world in a different way; the smarter ones might find their way out of a logical
trap, but the most subtle and prevailing logical traps are the ones that take lifetimes of experience to
decode. These are the errors that cut to the core of our existential outlook, meaning how we value life
itself, and what we find as meaningful goals within it to pursue. They shape what we expect out of life, and
what for which we strive, and by those, what we're willing to endure. This is a form of managing both joy
and fear, and thus motivating the individual to work in concert with civilization and nature to live the best
life possible. And, to cut to the chase, that leads us to the question of experience, through the question of
what happens when fear eclipses joy, and out of fear we enshrine our doubts as holy, and deny our joy --
remembering, of course, that great success in civilization is a form of joy, as is heroism. To give of oneself,
and to make something better than what existed before -- can there be a greater joy, a greater triumph?

Experience is what happens when we make contact with the world, gaining knowledge which shapes our
internal "map" of the world, or the impression of it and its operations we store in our heads. When we think
of an action, we plot it according to what we know will occur according to the world as we have observed
it. A thrown ball will travel in a balance between its momentum and gravity, and at some point will fall to
earth as gravity overwhelms what is left of its momentum. We understand our world by this mapping of it
we have in our head: its geography, its natural laws, its cycles. While we have some knowledge of it via
intuition, as our brains are shaped by years of genetic adaptation to the world and are as products of its
mechanics prone to operate in a similar method to its laws, our basic method for adapting the world in our
heads to the outside world is experience. Some refer to this process as part of the "inner war": gaining
awareness of the world, and the discipline to act on it as is right for what is healthy (the "outer war" is
applying this discipline in physical reality). Experience can bring great joy, and also great doubt, and from
doubt comes a kind of fear that is different from fear of physical pain or loss; from doubt comes the fear
that our lives are not worth the price of death.

This doubt could be characterized as "existential" doubt, meaning that we no longer live secure lives in our
inner world when we have it; we wonder if our lives are misspent, if we could be doing something better, if
the self and the self-image are not rewarded enough. After all, no matter how much we spin the process of
death as a transition to another world, we never know for sure if it will be the case, so we focus on how
we live and what those lives mean. And there we enter a new dimension of questioning, because to have
something that is self-evident, such as survival, "mean" something introduces another layer of assessment.
Thus we question our own lives and choices, and think about making different ones for the sake of having
more "meaning" in our lives, even if we don't phrase the question that way. Existential doubt afflicts us
more passionately when we are trying to overcome doubt, and make the most meaningful decisions. At this
point, we hover in a grey area where much error or much greatness could be decided.

Doubt denies experience, as when one doubts, one would rather grasp something predetermined and
uphold it as an absolute. Each time we venture out of our inner worlds and look to the larger world outside,
we face possible rebuke, in the form of our preconceptions of what might happen not turning out how we'd
expect. The most extreme case of this is death, where something fails so badly we are physically destroyed.
Much as in religion, if one devotes all of one's time to explaining death away, death becomes a god, when
one devotes all of life to explaining reality away, anti-reality (our inner worlds, sealed off from any kind of
feedback loop with reality which could point out where illusion exists) becomes our new god, and it
insidiously does not have allegiance to any named philosophy or entity within society. Instead, it is
pervasive, and no matter what ideal we take on, because we have this preconceived method of parsing the
world around us into internal tokens, we literally have blinded ourselves to the significance of our world,
and have relapsed into internal symbolism. We are prisoners in our own minds, and we cannot escape until
we address the construction of our prison, which is under our control, unlike the larger social and political
apparatus around us.

The walls that confine us are made of our own fear of experience. It is easier to trust in an absolute truth
than to experience the world; indeed, most people need to, as their own facilities and time resources do not
allow for a study of philosophy. However, our entire society has at this point been infected by such a
delusion. We would like to believe in predetermined outcomes, such that if we simply follow a sign or a
path, we can arrive at the successes we see others as having. We fear taking the risk ourselves, however,
and when we see no one else undertaking that difficult passage, we assume it is unnecessary. In doing so,
however, we cut ourselves out of the equation of life, and see only the starting point and the product.
Witness the average equation:
x ( random mathematical stuff here ) = y

We look merely at Y, seeing X as our current circumstance (or, our selves and self-images), and seek to
skip the middle part of the equation. We don't want to take the risk, the chance, and the chance of failure,
that comes with the unpredictable middle part. We'd like a nice clean path: press button A (not button B!)
and you will be rewarded with success. There may be some ups and downs, but basically, you'll be OK, and
death will be something that comes in the way distant future - you will not risk death in combat, or in
struggle, or even in play. Keep it safe. Don't rock the boat. (This delusion can also occur in a spiritualist
sense, where one finds oneself saying, "I didn't win the game, or get the girl, and I'm still starving and
miserable, but at least, I did what was right!" It is for this reason that some philosophers, namely Nietzsche
and Schopenhauer, rail against the idea of absolute Christian morality, all while upholding the values of that
morality as sacred. They're saying that if the method of reaching a goal corrupts our minds, we will never
have truly reached that goal; this is the "inner war" common to every Indo-European religion and personal
mythology.)

From this fear of the middle comes passivity; from passivity comes absolutism, and from that baffling and
unreal worlds patterned after our inner minds that cause us to relapse into our personal versions of reality,
ignoring the obvious by ignoring the whole. When we look at reality, we see a single "thing" because all of
its elements are connected; sky to earth, earth to water, water to fire - individual acting on world, and
individual adapting to (being shaped by) world. Our fear of reality has made us prisoners in our own heads.
This enables us to deny experience, and look only at a certain type of outcome, known as the final state -
and to keep things safe, we measure this in material terms. We want our world to be exactly like our inner
world, and we exclude everything else, as it is threatening. Whether we do this with money, with morality,
or with politics is irrelevant, as the outcome (in the whole, not in the tangible part left over) is the same.
Experience also marks us. Like it or not, for every act we undergo, we strap wiring into our brain. Our
minds are entirely physical, and the way we retain our programming is by building components of the brain,
akin to those little squiggles on circuit boards, for each experience we undergo. This includes our decisions
within it, which explains how learning occurs: based on past decisions, we have the ability to take on more
refined tasks for present decisions, and thus all learning is cumulative. If you do not make the decisions
required to get to a certain point, you cannot make decisions after that point. This is why traditional
morality emphasizes selectivity in experience. If you have wiring in your brain for every sexual partner
you've had, they are literally a part of you; if you screw around too much, you soon have only generic
wiring, and don't even notice with whom you're sleeping. Focus on outcomes, not on experience, is
revealed there. Similarly obsession with money and power denies the rite of passage one undergoes to get
such things, a travail which in a healthy society would involve proving one's character and inner strength as
well as the mechanical ability needed to reach an outcome.

We fear the risk of that undertaking, so we focus on the mechanical ability, and since that is accessible to
everyone, we cheer ourselves for upholding "equality." This is philosophical error, and while it seems to
function now, really we're living off the fat of what our ancestors achieved, and the piper awaits payment in
the distant but closer-now future. Uh oh. Does it mean that our inner worlds will someday be
compromised? Wait and see - the answer is one you can create for yourself. Other aspects of experience
that terrify us include natural selection, or the idea that we might be insufficient to a task and just like the
slow mouse under wings of eagles, be slaughtered and thus end our lives. Death-fear comes to rule us,
doesn't it? Natural experience occurs both outside and inside our brains. If we opt for the easier, less
obvious choice in all cases, when the time comes for us to face a significant choice, we are unfit for the
task; we have selected ourselves out.

A potent metaphor for this realization comes from computer science. There are no random numbers in
computers; how do you think up something without precedent? Instead, computers create "random"
numbers by sampling random data, either atmospheric noise or user input or time data. Similarly, humans
cannot think of a random number, as they are basing their choice on what they know, even if they decide
to invert the choice - "I'd guess a seven, but I want something that is not obvious, so I'll pick something
crazy, like a 13." An astute reader might note that novelty - that which is new and exciting in form, but
perhaps of the same content as previous art - is created the same way. Pick what is rational, and then
invert the idea, and thus come up with something "new" and "unique" and exciting. We are our experience.
Make rotten decisions, and you program yourself to be rotten; make good decisions, and soon you will
encounter new levels on which to prove yourself, and slowly better yourself.

When we speak of experience, most people confuse that term with sensuality, or the idea that the
substance of life can provide a form of feedback that is interesting for its own sake. But really, how
fascinating is it? Is that there much difference between orgasms, forms of intoxication, and sensation? Or
do our senses point us toward something which is of much greater importance, namely the structure of life
- that an orgasm is most significant when shared with someone truly adored, that intoxication is meaningful
when it leads us to realizations or lubricates a social situation, and that sensations when assembled by the
brain give us a picture of the external world? Experience ultimately teaches us how intangible the tangible
is, in a form of paradox only something as brilliant as our universe (substitute "God" if you wish - it really
makes no difference ) could concoct. What matters is not the sensation, but what it signifies. This gets us
closer to wishing for outcomes as seen as error above, but not on the same level. Where outcomes are
absolutes without experience, ideals - "what it signifies" - are products of experience, and are re-calculated
each time we undergo an experience. There are no absolutes, sensation included, only an ongoing process
of evolution of idea .

You can hold onto nothing. Your body will decay, those you know will die, and eventually even your
civilization's romantic ruins will collapse into dust, and the planet Earth be swallowed by the sun. What
might outlast it is a higher grade of human, one not as developed in external character as self-image or
technology would afford, but fully developed in internal character, in values and heroic attitudes and
greater subtlety of thought and self-discipline. This sort of creature would be organized enough to escape
the pitfalls in which we now exist, and to use technology for something thoughtful, like establishing new
worlds and continuing the evolution of the species. Is this Nietzsche's superman? Is this the state of being
a god and not a mortal? Is this Nirvana? Possibly, all three: it is a state toward which we evolve, where we
are not distracted by substance or outcomes, but focus on experience as a way of programming ourselves
to a higher state.

Nature operates via a simple principle: create a proliferation of designs, and select the best from among
them by knocking out the least stable, and then build on that design base for the next generation. Even
when starting with a simple design, this process rapidly creates a sturdy and enduring design in its place,
and advances the state of knowledge radically. We as humans do not escape this process, physically or
mentally. When we choose to degenerate out of fear, as in the current era, we devolve to the point of
having no vision other than our own immediate gratification, and thus create doom for ourselves (such as
childlishly fighting over resources by expanding our factions until we have consumed all resources, then
becoming dependent on a machine-society, and thus fighting internally until we destroy that and, having
nowhere to go, collapse with it). And what is the origin of this devolution? A fear of experience, and of
experience shaping us, leading to us relying on absolutes - God told me to, The customers like it, We have
orders from above - passively, instead of asserting what is right for the whole and acting on it, regardless of
consequences. All of our downfall - mass revolt leading to dumbing down, industry that eats our planet,
democracy and morality and bad breeding including racial mixture - comes from this core realization. This
core realization comes from doubt as to the meaning of our existences.

The West - and now the world - has for too long been grasped by this existential doubt. Although we have
done well so far, our success has been mixed, in that for all of our genius, and all of our inventions and
successes, we are still plagued by this internal failure, and our illusions of reality have caused us to push
ourselves onto a path to sure collapse. It would be nice, surely, to find something internal to this system of
thought that we could eliminate, and thus move forward with only the good parts, but the plain truth of it
seems to be that our basic philosophy restrains us. We could have all that we have, and more, if we were
able to organize our energies toward positive ends, and not condemn ourselves with neurosis. Yet that
neurosis comes with our basic worldview, and explains why for every good thing we've done, we've also
brought doom upon ourselves in the subtlest of fashions, that of a long-term imminent collapse. With this
slow death lurking in the wings, naturally neurosis worsens, and the hysterical paranoia that results divides
us further and only hastens the collapse.

Since there are no obvious enemies, nor any allies without the enemy within, the only solution is to dissect
the illusion and to begin cultivation of a healthy philosophy that can unite us in the future. Not everyone
has to understand this; in any society, there is a small minority of leaders who understand things, and
many others who form the support infrastructure for the ideas of those few. This minority needs to come
together on a belief system, as currently it is so divided that its members no longer care about doing what
is right, so long as the ideas and symbols that represent their faction achieve a relative victory (even if that
means smoking marijuana and drinking wine in the ruins, having outsurvived the others by a small margin).
When we look toward this future philosophy, it makes little sense to rearrange the tokens we now use, but
good sense to attack its origins, in which is ensconced our attitude toward existence.

The symptoms of our error, at the lowest level, are an obsession with self-image, including a selfish self-
interest which denies the obvious reality in favor of what benefits us immediately, and a passivity which has
us herdlike following symbols and images while remaining blind to the truth. The most primitive diagnosis
suggests that, simply, we are disconnected from reality, and that this passivity and self-image obsession is
the result of us having no direct interaction with the world as whole, thus having no idea what are the
consequences of our actions. Like most errors, this begins with a few, and then as the rest struggle to
compete, spreads to the society as a whole; most people today do not act in pure blindness, but out of a
need to keep earning a living and surviving in a world that has gone blind. If someone stood up and clearly
pointed out the error, and enough leaders agreed that it was so, these people would be liberated from the
system of competing against others for the privilege of error. For this reason, finding consensus in a
diagnosis would liberate us from illusion and allow for a commonality of philosophy which would
disintegrate the illusion from within as individuals no longer found themselves compelled to act on illusion in
order to survive.

We can reverse this process. Passivity would have us looking for a single leader, a symbol, or other
absolute truth riding out of the mist, to which we could cling and say, save us - save us from ourselves. But
no one is coming to break down our prison, to shatter the demons that haunt our dreams, and to lift us up
into a pure world where none of this potential for error exists; we have to do it for ourselves, and escape
our prison by discovering what it is and then replacing it with something else. Don't bother with
deconstruction. It's an excuse for wasting time. Once you have diagnosed the nature of the prison, simply
replace it. This author suggests two things: (1) realism and (2) heroic idealism. The first is a recognition
that our physical reality is all we need, and that mystical concerns come after here-and-now action. The
second is an awareness that, much as in evolution, we are fighting for a better design, not greater comfort
of substance or even individual survival. The survival of the whole, including our planet and its ecosystems,
is the highest goal, and there is no sacrifice too great toward this end. Even if we die, even as we pass
away into grey ash and dust, the process of experience is marching on, and if we believe in the good things
in life we have had so far, we realize this process of experience is life - an intangible thing - and that to
value life is to uphold it, and even die for it.

Dedicated to Antti Boman

April 12, 2005

Superlatives
You won't need to buy another one. Always golden, soft and buttery. Everyone likes it, even the slow kid
on the block. 300 horsepower. A favorite everywhere. All that you wanted, and much, much more! Never a
dull moment. Can't eat just one! Show them how far you've come. It's everything you wanted, and more.
You'll never look so good as with -- well, whatever product it is. We're familiar, on a daily basis, with
advertising bombarding us. What defines advertising? It makes us associate a product with a lifestyle or a
success; the product is the sign, and what is promised is something far beyond it. Do you really imagine
simply owning one type of car, shoe, watch or jacket makes someone without power or prestige into
someone with those qualities?

Of course it does not. But advertising doesn't work by appealing to the logical brain, but to our memory,
which dutifully stores the association (a brand of beer, leggy blond hotties clustered around::a car, pulling
up to a class restaurant and being recognized) and, when we're exhausted or distracted and trying to make
a decision, pops it to the top of the stack and we select it. Of course I'll prefer that brand, or, maybe I can
afford a nice big car. Advertising works by targetting the part of our minds that don't get translated into
clear "I'm buying this for the following logical reasons" discourse. It hits us below the level we can even
put into words.

The same is true of politics. The best product in politics is one that links together a number of things we
think of as good, and puts a symbol atop them that is something everyone can remember and agree is a
"good thing." We might call it hyperbole, or overstating the effect and importance of something, or we
might call it a superlative, which is attributing to something a universal degree of power and worth, but
really, it's both, and more. Advertising and politics both use universal symbols that are not anchored at all
in reality, but in images, in associations, in non-logical ideas that attract our unguarded emotions but not
our critical thinking. This is the power of symbols, when redirected to a base level.

In literature and art, symbols abound, but usually, their purpose is complex: to associate a certain action
with a certain abstract idea or tendency. Advertising and politics are much simpler: they want you to see a
one-to-one correspondence between a symbol/product and a life you can leading, if only you select that
one thing. It's a good way to get led around by your nose, because you'll notice that in advertising and
politics, no promises are made. You're allowed to make an assumption because the advertisers and
politicians are vocal about the same assumption, but there's no followup and no guarantee. Did they
explicitly promise that if you buy a certain brand of beer girls will flock to you? No, but they showed you it
happening in a certain case. Same with the car. You saw one guy buy the car, and immediately be thrown
into a world of success. It's not logic, but imagery.

The modern age has done away with magic and most of religion except the most dogmatic and unworldly
type, the kind that promises eternal vacations if you just do what the god in question demands (note that
older religions would encourage you to sacrifice to the gods, but there was no guarantee you'd get anything
out of it; half the time they were still wroth with you, and the sacrifice was in vain). Modern politics, religion
and advertising thus are quite similar in that they say that if you do a certain action in this world, forces
from another world will make of you something in this world. Whether that other world is the realm of
gods, of the political-economic machine, or of money and leggy bimbettes, really doesn't matter. The
unstated promise, based on assumption, is what keeps you coming back for more.

We'll take an example symbol, not for the sake of assaulting it as illusion, but for demonstrating its effects,
although it is clearly one of the more destructive illusions. Why did we go to war in Iraq? Why, because
once the Iraqi people have freedom, they'll be like us. They'll see our way of life is the better one, and give
up those primitive tribal superstitions. They'll stop being unreasonable, and see it our way. What is
freedom? It starts with democracy, but it includes economic competition and the ability to earn lots of
money if you dedicate your life to it. It also includes emancipation of women, and of every ethnic group
and in short, equality of us all, except in our competition for money, in which we assume the best will win.
It's a one-size-fits-all solution. Freedom. And doesn't it just sound good?
You'll note these are not promises; they're assumptions. And they operate like magic. When we bring
freedom to Iraq, all of its previous problems (which required a series of hardcore rulers until Saddam
Hussein finally unified the place and began selling oil for a fair price to the English) will take a backseat. A
life of prosperity will settle. Presumably leggy Arab bimbettes will gather around sports cars, and those who
drink certain brands of beer can go home with the hottie daughters of Imams. Ignorance will vanish. But
does adopting "freedom" really have anything to do with sex, ignorance, or prosperity? These can come
from other sources as well, and obviously have, if the fecundity of the Iraqi populace is any suggestion.
We're not telling them freedom is a better way; we're letting everyone assume it is, and promising our
lifestyle in return.

Astute readers (good to see you again) will have noticed that advertising is amazing in that it predicts
inward and physical changes in response to outward, symbolic options. There is no more nutrition in one
brand of beer over another that makes you smarter, sexier, etc. Nor is there anything in one brand of car
that makes your breath smell better, your muscles tighter, your testosterone more vigorous or your penis
heartier (that's another product, but read the two pages of fine print, in case it kills you). Advertising and
politics redirect our belief in a thought process geared toward the right answer, and supplants it with
something which suggests a universal right answer, but in reality, only sells a product. It methods is this
same superlative hyperbole that we see in the belief that democracy/freedom will somehow conquer the
world and make it a safe, Utopic place.

You can even see this merely in how we define "freedom" and "democracy." Democracy means government
by vote; it doesn't guarantee that those votes are intelligent, or that intelligent solutions come from it. We
associate it with "freedom," meaning civil rights, but those don't ensure that what is best is done; they only
grant us a defense against government. In short, with democracy/freedom, we've gone from trying to do
what is right to trying to do what protects us against wrong. Our only direction is defensive. But when you
package that up as a perfect cure for all ills at once, it sounds good. And then when out of the forty
thousand words spoken aloud you hear daily, the loudest voices babble on about "freedom," you follow
that carrot even though you haven't been promised any real effect. Just an image, a shining image, one
that tugs at your emotions. Have you been sold an illusion?

April 15, 2005

Sociopathy
The pragmatically extremist core of the green movement has never been compatible with the mainstream of
the same. Where middle of the road greenism is basically an extension of the democratic party, "extremist"
(read: realistic, if we want to solve the problem) greenism has never fit into the leftist family of brands.
Part of the reason for this is that, like the right, "extreme" greens refuse to praise the worker, the common
man, "the people" and assume that, if power is simply turned over to these unfairly oppressed people, all
things will turn out for the best. The assumption is that an elite of moneyed psychopaths holds us all
hostage, and if we just overthrow them, the workers will do what is right.

Pragmatic greens recognize, like far-righters do, that in the past millennium what we've seen most
commonly is not domination by a cruel elite, but the creation of cruel elites to control the mob that, having
dominated the select few who can think, now cruises without a clue - and that always brings out the
demagogues, in the same way that fresh blood in water attracts sharks. What, you have no direction? Not
to speak too forwardly, but I'll help - for a fee. And absolute allegiance. Those words, fifty years later, turn
into the ruins of Soviet Russia: a once-cultured nation, now bereft of its genetics and values system, turned
into a conformist machine which impoverished its population and killed the best of them. While there are
signs that Russia is returning to health at the hand of Mr. Putin, there are also signs that something is
missing - something which can never be recovered, a certain European-ness and also moral concept of
civilization that is forever lost. It is perhaps true that Russia has forever joined the third world, not as much
externally, but internally, as its own attitudes have come to have third world expectations and, lacking
discipline, needs for third-world-style authoritarian rule.

It goes this way with every mass revolution. Some wise guy stands up and says, "It's them" - the wealthy,
or powerful, or good-looking, or gifted; take your pick, or combine - "they live well, while we starve. They
oppress us! If we crush them, we will live in paradise!" And so the mob surges forward, and while they
certainly murder a few people who deserve it, like decadent nobles and sex predator clergy, for the most
part they exterminate or disable the few people with the brains to help them. Keeping your thumb on the
fast-forward switch, you can see how in another generation, when the impetus of the revolution has run
down, there are no more spoils left to divide, and no more excess wealth upon which one can feast. The
nation is collapsing, and the revolutionaries are betraying each other in a desperate attempt to keep a grip
on not wealth itself but the slippery concept of how to produce it on a consistent basis. At this point it
becomes clear: being able to work a farm or factory does not imply being able to run one, from a design
and decision perspective. Since the people are without direction, the demagogues rise, and soon
authoritarian rule prevails.

Rightist authoritarian rule tends to be idealistic, and thus susceptible to problems because only a few
people can actually understand the whole of its reasoning, thus underlings are without a clue how to make
decisions until a generation has passed; mass revolts produce a different kind of authoritarian rule, close
kin to "power for power's sake," but something closer to "power for paranoia's sake." When civilization
comes unknit, and the rule of strength prevails, those who wish to endure take one of two courses of
action: (a) hide or (b) gain more power than anyone else, and subjugate them, eliminating the constant
threat. Hiding leaves one open to random predation, but becoming strong enables the group to not only
survive but have a sense of planning for the future as well. It is this benevolent impulse that produces a
climate of vicious leaders, and the generations shaped by this become true sociopaths, caring not about
power for the sake of avoiding predation, but wielding power like a sick joke, pursuing it for the thrill of it
and oblivious to consequences. When such men kill, they do not do so to make things better, as ideologues
do; they do so to keep themselves from being bored.

Of course, these scenarios are extremes; what about mundane sorts of government, the day to day stuff
we find ourselves dealing with in times of peace? Ah - like most mediocre things, they are hard to diagnose,
as they give us few truly offensive statements and most of their incompetence is covered up by the time
required for it to take effect. Much as when one works in the fields, a simple error is revealed in minutes,
but a fundamental hour might not come to light until the next season, modern governments make a
multitude of understandable tiny screwups and a few assumptions that create infinitely greater damage in
the long term. By that time those who remember the decisions being made are dead, and the new
generation knows only that something difficult happened, and endures it. There is no recollection of "we
could have done it another way." This is where one encounters the conflict that divides the green
movements worldwide: they realize fairly radical changes need to be implemented to prevent the train
wreck that is industrial society's exploitation of its environment, but they also realize these changes will not
fit into the realm of mundane decisions which governments and voters expect. How does one make a law
that says we must expand no further, and must make thousands of decisions across the board in favor of
the environment, for once?

For this reason, the greens are - like the rest of Europe and America, at least - divided by philosophy. One
philosophy is the dominant one now, which says we must look after the interests of people and never
curtail their rights, their desires, their hopes and dreams. The other, which is popular only in extremist
circles, says that we must look not at individuals but at the effect of the whole of humanity, and only in
that mindset can we see the damage and plan to control it. In this second mindset, instead of seeing
uncountable individuals, we see one individual, divided up into many small organs. We don't wish to
destroy any organs that we need, but ultimately, what matters is the health of the whole, not the health of
any one given organ. Organs are a means to an end, and that end is the whole. Thus individual organs are
expendable, if expended to preserve or strengthen the whole. This type of thinking is completely alien to
our modern society, and thus is also foreign to the mainstream greens, who are notable both for their
opposition to it and their total lack of success in delaying environmental apocalypse. They won't cross the
line of the individual, and thus they cannot restrain humanity as a whole, since it is composed of - nay,
driven by - individuals each seeking their own wants, desires, hopes, dreams.

The "extremist" greens have thus stumbled across the most important barrier in the modern time: like
right-wing parties, they are willing to curtail the rights of the individual for the health of the whole. Further,
like right-wing parties, they recognize that the worker would be something other than a worker if he or she
knew anything significant about government; thus simply handing society over to "the people" is a recipe
for continued selfishness, and not its abatement. They're in a tough place, these greens, since they've seen
enough to realize what must be done, but have no idea how to advance their political agenda. Mainstream
right- and left-wing parties capitalize on this by accusing greens of having a lack of political vision. And in
some ways, they're right. Greens have an environmental vision, but in order to get to the place where they
can put it into operation, they have to add to it a political vision, namely a plan for how the whole of
society operates such that it can find reasons to want an environmental policy, and thus act on it. There's
another problem, too.

This problem is broader in implication and easier to trigger. It's that one gets called a "sociopath" for
endorsing any type of action that, in order to make the whole healthier, is willing to limit what any given
individual can expect. If you suggest limiting population, you're a sociopath. Euthanizing the elderly, the
retarded, the hopelessly criminal - you're a sociopath. Even telling people they cannot have giant cars, or
oversized houses, is viewed as socially defective, violent, psychotic reasoning. This is how prevalent the
barrier of the individual is. It does not apply to any known individual, but the idealized individual, meaning
any of us and all of us. Bizarrely, the prohibition does not address outcomes but intentions; you are seen as
sociopathic if you desire to use a certain method, because it is a banned mode of thought, regardless of
what positive outcome it will produce. It's blasphemy to even speak it. Naturally, in such a situation, most
people give up on broader change and focus on having enough money for a house in a gated community,
with air and water filters, radiation sheeting and health plans for the inevitable cancers. That is "survival,"
and it's the softer option than dominating one's opposition, which is nearly impossible since their numbers
are so great. That is, if one assumes that the rest of society is one's opposition, something that to this
writer does not seem entirely accurate.

The slur "sociopath" operates by the same principle as the terms atheist and theist: if you are not one, you
must be the other, since they are opposites - correct? Nevermind that pantheists and polytheists exist, as
we can group those under "theist"; this dichotomy does not admit any variation in the definition of God. If
your god(s) require no belief, then you're an atheist; if you believe, but not in gods, then you're an atheist.
In short, either believe in the singular God of the dominant religion, or be lumped in with the "non-
believers." My way, or the highway. They're either with us, or against us. A binary worldview - this also
extends to sociopathy, which is the opposite of being a good citizen. Nevermind that there are reasons to
criticize society; it recognizes only one definition of good, which is its own, and any methods or ideas
outside of its own method are thus seen as deviant. In our society, the founding principle is that the
individual is supreme. Therefore, anything which seeks to limit the "freedom" and "needs" of the individual
is sociopathic, fascist, amoral, etc. Anything which is not what already exists is by predefinition an illness
which requires diagnosis and excision. For this reason, the term "sociopath," normally applied to those who
feel no concern for the consequences of their actions, is applied to those who feel so much concern for the
consequences of our collective action that they are willing to limit our abilities as a whole. It makes more
sense to say that the people who believe individuals should never be limited, even if they are destroying
the world, are sociopathic, but no one will mention that on television.

Where did this kingdom of the individual start? To see this, we have to look not only at belief systems, but
the sociopolitical shifts behind them. Clearly the highest degree of value is placed on the individual in non-
idealistic, materialistic (meaning: addresses only physical reality, not a second spiritual "world" like dualistic
systems) religions like Judaism, but the point of this exercise is not Judaism but the behavior of placing
emphasis on the individual. It's likely that as Christianity expanded in Europe, Judaic ideals went with it,
encouraging a focus on individual drama, personal relationship to God, and expectation that if one acted
well reward would come. However, this is only part of the picture, because simultaneously, other revolts
were occurring. Ever since the domestication of livestock, technology had been allowing human beings to
magnify their own ability through the use of tools, equalizing the war-strength of a hero to that of the
hidden sniper taking aim at him. Arrows, guns, the internal combustion engine... and finally, as all open
land ran out and it become required to get all items of sustenance from others, money. Each of these
means narrowed the gap between the genius and the idiot, the priest and the con man, the warrior and
geek. If in any society there are a fortunate few of high ability, and a large mass of those with lesser
ability, this technological progress amounts to a rebellion of the many against the few.

It is the order that these people created that calls "sociopathic" anything which limits the abilities of the
individual; this is because a crowd is formed only when every person thinks only for their own self-interest,
and thus dumbs down the intent of the crowd to the lowest common denominator, causing it to act as if of
its own accord. Crowds demand rights of the individual, because each wants to be able to hatch whatever
scheme or indulge whatever weakness she is keeping hidden behind social politeness. Crowds demand
democracy, because each wants to feel important but is dependent on others for his source of power,
therefore gladly grants others the same rights and plans in secret to manipulate them. Crowds insist upon
"proof," that being the demonstration of something to the point where every idiot gets it, requiring that the
questions to be proved be re-adjusted to deal with simpler topics. Crowds love public image displays,
because every single person can see the "proof" offered by image, and agree, which allows those who can
to manipulate behind the scenes. Interestingly, Plato offered this diagnosis among the ancient Greeks:
democracy breeds self-importance in every individual, and thus they act as an unthinking mass, responding
only to public image and demagoguery. For this reason, they're easily manipulated, not by a conspiracy,
but by the invisible but pragmatic bribes of an oligarchy of the wealthy. When the two candidates you see
on TV differ by inconsequential but dramatic "beliefs," and when all the newspapers report the same basic
news, but you feel something is missing, remember Plato - he realized quickly that "sociopathy" is how a
crowd labels behavior that will take away its power.

Returning to the question of environmental politics, it's clear that there is no way to "prove" that our
damage to the earth is worsening; those who don't want to believe will pull out some "study," however
flimsy or lacking any grasp of the meaningful questions that would solve the debate, and loudly proclaim
that the study has not been "disproved" and therefore the debate is open. This passive tactic is designed to
outlast an adversary by insisting upon the impossible: change my mind, and then I'll stop resisting your
attempts to change my mind by reason. Because people are persistent, and act for individual reward, this
behavior nullifies debate on the issue time and time again by dragging it into a standoff. And with a
standoff, those who favor no radical change rule over those who do. Why? Because to brush aside the
passive tactics of those who desire no change is "sociopathy," of course.

May 1, 2005
Irony
Among recent generations, although not exclusively, it has been popular to praise irony and find in it some
kind of meaning. Whether this is the Generation X hipsters who wear t-shirts from bad 1970s TV shows and
shop at thrift shops for memorabilia of crap they hated, or the hollow maneuvering for political effect by our
leaders, irony is with us in an almost religious context. "Isn't it ironic that the one thing he hated was his
downfall?" say the witty voices of our peers, with that certainty of having found some move to hold all our
queens in check -- we're so used to it, even, that we don't flinch when every commercial ends with an
ironic twist, or every military campaign has some symbolic destruction of the evil enemy by the very means
that brought him to power.

It's easy to fall into the game of irony as well, since it's easy. Find something that is paradoxical in the
character of another event or person, and hype it until you've taken it to an extreme where it is hardly
distinguishable from its opposites. Aha! Now you are the witty one. This strengthens your sense of self-
esteem, which is something external to your actual being - it's your impression of the impression a
generalized group, peers or friends or socially-important people, have of you. This gives it a sense of
religion, or that of finding something non-visible which is more important than the visible, because at this
point what matters is not reality, as you perceive it inside of yourself or as it exists outside of your
perception, but an arbitrary abstraction of reality, namely that impression of what the impression that the
people around you might have might be. In this mechanism, the state of seeing irony as having some
meaning at all sustains a thought process of the unreal taking precedence over the real.

Naturally, saying "the real" causes problems, since most people like to think there is no reality outside of
their own desires and self-image, but when one reflects on it, it is impossible to deny an external reality in
which forces of nature such as gravity and entropy do their work. If there is no external reality, picking up
a bee would not result in a sting, since we would will the bee not to sting us - yet it's not the case. A lack
of external reality would mean no death, and no suffering, and so on. But these forces act upon us, and
even those who scream the loudest that we exist in worlds of our own creation cannot stop them. So -
brushing aside the centuries of pointless debate over this topic, and the "thoughts" of our peers, we can
see there's an external reality. For the sake of completeness, we mention that there's also an internal
reality, namely that of our own preferences and desires, but this reality cannot be separated from its
internal nature: it is what we desire, and what we know, from our own experience. However, this reality,
like external reality, is often obliterated by considerations of the impressions of our peers, and irony is one
form of this mechanism.

Perhaps the reason for this is that irony, while suitably as a conversational gesture or a technique of novel-
writing, has no bearing on reality. Unless we posit, in a paranoiac sense, that some God watches over us
and tries to communicate with us through symbols inserted in everyday life, there is no more significance to
reality than any other event. So it's ironic that your best friend who turned her back on you years ago has
finally come back to see you in a time of need - or maybe irony is a way of describing your reaction, and
your thoughts, so that they can be communicated to others, and nothing more. It's like observing the
humor in a car crash, with the chaos of flailing limbs and bending steel, a mockery of everything that is
normal about passage down a road; it was not intended by an overlord of the cosmos, nor does it
communicate in some universal and absolute sense any meaning; it's an interpretation of what happened,
but an interpretation solely in a human context, for the purpose of communicating between two or more
humans. It doesn't exist in external reality, nor exclusively in internal reality, because when one does not
need to communicate some judgment of the events as they happened, there is no need for the irony.

It is precisely for this unreal nature that irony is popular. When we have no ability to change a
circumstance, and yet it gnaws at us with its unfairness or wrongness, we have a tendency to shout at it,
to curse at it, and finally, to get others to agree that it sucks. In this way, we feel that the wrong has been
ever-so-slightly righted by the shared belief that it was a wrong, even if there was no tendency of the
universe to commit a wrong or a desire of the gods to communicate some wrongness to us. Some things
just happen as they are. If the rains loosen mud on a hillside and an avalanche buries our village, we can
look at it realistically and see it as a natural consequence of gravity + viscosity of earth lubricated by rain +
location of village. Should that not serve our own need to judge it as wrong, we can look at it
superstitiously, and see it either as "good" (the judgment of a god on our village for, say, enjoying
marijuana) or "bad" (an evil god striking back at us for persecuting his demonic pot-smoking followers). But
these superstitions, are they real, inside or outside? They're a hybrid: an internal judgment of an external
judgment in the minds of others, projected back into the outside as a means of making it as real as the
event itself, so that we have a reason why where no reason exists other than the mechanics of external
reality itself. In this way, we get away from concerns of gravity and viscosity of mud, and therefore, might
be so dumb as to rebuild our village in the same location just in time for the next rainstorm. This is where
natural selection comes into play, but that is digression.

Our culture has been under attack for many years now by those who, feeling they have no efficacy in
reality as a physical construct, have been building fantasy worlds as a means of gaining parity with reality -
a form of revenge upon reality, for being so inaccessible to our inner worlds that often we feel it doesn't
consider us at all. That's close to true; it doesn't consider us much, since we are like atoms which compose
its fingernails. Try standing outside during a hurricane for a sense of your relative dimensions to that of
natural reality. Feeling the winds carry them in ways they cannot control, and also feeling "unequal" to the
demands and power of life itself, these people react by asserting a fantasy over reality. They talk in terms
of irony, and morality, and duty, and money - in short, in any terms of a human reality, which they can
control, over an external world they cannot control. Even further, it seems, they are trying to conquer their
own internal worlds, and by standardizing them to an external world of the presumed opinions of others, to
conquer the doubt they feel within. People like this hate anyone who is better according to natural, real
world terms (strength, intelligence, character, looks) than them, and use things like irony to gain control.
"Isn't it ironic that such a strong man was made weak? That defeat happened even to the victors?"

Their weapon of achieving such fantasy is a turning inside-out of their own doubt, and projecting it onto
others. Guilt is one version of this, and another is the condescending mechanism of pity: feeling superior to
another being and thus affirming that relationship by giving them something, defining the self as the giver
and the other as the inferior, needy, receiver. It is for this reason that the most neurotic people in a society
are the ones who offer helpful "advice" that sabotages the self-esteem of others, through these same
mechanisms of guilt and pity. They suffer massive doubt, and in agony at their own ineptitude, turn that
doubt onto others. When seen in this light, irony is doubt disguised as humor, or as poignant meaning; it is
a means of revenge and nothing else. The most obvious cases of this ironic doubt are seen in the media
spectacles that populate our daily lives: Saddam Hussein being led out of a hole in the ground, Ted Bundy
executed by a female cop, white racists depending on affluent black lawyers, and ecological activists like
Ted Kaczynski or Pentti Linkola being described as "failed" thinkers who then - naturally - turned to
extremism out of their own frustration. Irony is universal, in that it can be used to debunk anyone, and the
only people who are safe from it are those who never take a stand. It is possibly for this reason that the
most recent generations in the West embrace irony as a way of life, as a means of getting themselves out
of the line of fire and bonding sadomasochistically to that which is destroying their world.

What is important to remember about such irony is that not only is it not reality, it's not meaning. It is the
anti-meaning, the sabotage of all possible meaning with doubt, such as the meek statements of mundane
people to the effect that those who take on the burden of leadership will be consumed by it. Anywhere
there is irony, there is the stench of those who are afraid and wish to lash out with doubt at any who are
not afraid, thus preserving the uniformity and safety of a crowd who agree fear is the highest value. It can
be seen in religious form in Judaism, which by its nature as a religion of materialism, or the physical world
being the only measure of value, denies all but comfort and individual survival; in Judaism, there are few
goals for which sacrifice of self is worthy. Similarly, we see Christianity, in which only the children of a god
sacrifice themselves, and do so in knowledge that they simply go back to an ideal state, a heaven. In public
discourse it is the democratic feeling which proclaims any loss of life, no matter how degraded, to be a
tragedy, and condemns any who would deny to others the right to do whatever they absolutely please,
even if it is destructive. Irony is a small form of the force underlying all of these assumptions.

In overcoming irony, and thus fear of the ironic, the individual gains more than increased self-esteem. What
is conquered is doubt, in a small portion, and it serves as an innoculation against the larger forms of doubt.
Once the individual realizes that irony belongs neither to the internal world nor the external, but to the
hybrid world of judgment, which is an assumption based not only on our illusory personal perception but on
the far more illusory impression of the impressions of a group, it is easier to deny this false reality and
reach out toward what is actually real in life. Such a process helps us separate the real from the illusion,
even if the real is not something tangible, as in the case of long-term predictions like global warming, racial
annihilation, or spiritual death owing to the pattern of boring jobs, obedience and product-buying that is
modern life. This is the step that those who embrace irony are afraid to take, the step beyond the
consensual reality into a mindset where one must find both external and internal reality for oneself, with no
safe guarantees or comforting conformity to hide behind. When encountering irony, remember that not only
is it a petty form of revenge, but it's another aspect of the same disease that underlies our entire error as a
culture, and, with this in mind, deny it.

May 14, 2005

The Danger of Racism and Anti-Semitism
"Writer" is about the lowliest position on the planet. Even if you clean toilets, you have more integrity than
a writer, because what a writer normally does is manipulate people through their emotions, long distance.
It's like a phone sex line for the higher functions of the brain: you promise something, make the audience
visualize themselves having that, encourage an association with a product or action, and then sign off with
some poignant, witty or tear-jerking conclusion. Your job is to manipulate others into thinking the
conclusion of your thought, without having gone the intermediate distance, and then to act as you suggest
they do. It's all in the "suggest" and "visualize," if you do it right, with very little in the easily-recognized
and legally dubious explicit call to action.

There are some exceptions. While most writers are the modern equivalent of carnival hucksters, as are
most philosophers and journalists, the highest among them are those who write to explain a phenomenon
and to encourage not a static, fixed, obvious action, but an understanding of its mechanism, an insight into
its design. The best literature and philosophy is this way, and the worst of those genres is a parody of the
best, where complexity is replaced by binary statements and rigid herdlike thinking. It has always seemed
sensible to divided these different beasts into two categories, the first being "art" and the second being
"propaganda."

In the current time, however, it's very difficult to locate art. Almost all of what comes out of Hollywood very
slickly manipulates, even when the topic at hand has nothing to do with what the manipulation encourages.
In the 1980s, it became popular to quietly insert negative associations with drug use into movies. In the
1990s, racists and racism were portrayed as dumb and mean. In the 00s, what's being preached against is
extremism and collective action in any form. A conspiracy? More likely those who control protecting their
interests through the long arms of money, by hiring only those who think like they do and telling them that
it's "good" and "moral" to manipulate minds through movies. Even if you don't watch movies, your friends
and coworkers do, and thus your thinking is manipulated by them, as was the thinking of your
grandparents and parents. It's a media age.

The unfortunate consequence of this media age is that people think in terms of the psychological
suggestions offered by movies. There is no study of complexity, of design or structure, but a binary
judgment: approved or disapproved. Nobody asks by whom is this approval granted or denied; it is
assumed that the attitudes in movies reflect the common values of the sane people in society, although
looking at the question scientifically, we find that movies reflect the attitudes of a small percentage of the
population who work in media - people who, like academics or those who work for the government, are
often completely out of touch with the reality of life for most people. After all, when you glide between
cocaine parties in limousines and attend token groundbreak ceremonies for the tearjerk philanthropic
foundations of your choice, you don't have time to glimpse reality as it actually is - you're too busy creating
it as you wish others to perceive it.

Bizarrely, and humorously, some of the fallout of this media mindset afflicts those of us who, via our own
thought and reading the mostly-older books of our culture, have realized we're in the middle of a great race
swindle called multiculturalism. To summarize: culture doesn't equate to greater market share; in fact, it
resists it, because people who have traditional ways aren't neurotic enough to buy tons of products they
don't need. Insanity is profitable in that people who are mildly insane can still hold down jobs, make money
and spend it on things to fufill their empty lives, thus passing on profits to others. Sane people don't do
this and thus, on a balance sheet at least, are a loss for the power elites who - because media, votes and
public opinion are up for sale in a society where everything has a dollar value - greatly influence the
direction of our civilization. Because insanity is profitable, and culture reduces insanity, our traditional
cultures are being replaced with a monoculture. The most effective method of doing this is to mix all the
races together, and to take the people who result and raise them on a culture of television and products,
making perfect consumers who have no genetic or personal memory of culture. The balance sheet literally
glows in anticipation.

I doubt it has ever been spoken in such explicit terms by those in control. They don't think structurally.
They think in terms of immediate power, and don't look far into the future, as to wield such power is to be
in denial of its fragility, as otherwise the mind would boggle with paralytic fear. Don't look down - keep
moving ahead - keep gaining wealth and power, and hope it will all work out. Thus those who are in control
import people for cheap labor and, finding them useful consumers, market to them and, finding their
offspring without culture, swamp them in marketing and intensify every stage of the process. It's not a
plan, it's a cancer. It's not a conspiracy, but a void of power being replaced by the lowest common
denominator action of humanity, which is selfishness and a denial of long-term visions: because long-term
visions include among other things a realization of our own deaths, most people avoid them. They aren't
manipulating us from a grand vision, but from a lack of vision, and such behavior always - not sometimes -
brings about disaster in the long term. Until then, of course, they'll chortle along making money and then
dodge the blame when someday on a blackened planet we wonder where we went wrong.

Multiculturalism is one aspect of this grand lack of vision, and to counter it, people have started fighting it
in a well-intentioned but flawed methodology that includes "Racism" and "Anti-Semitism." Both of these
terms are so politicized as to have lost meaning, of course; in theory, "Racism" means that you prefer one
race above all others, but it's without context, so it is assumed by all to mean wanting to replace every race
on earth with one favored race. There is no category for those who simply want to keep their own heritage
and culture intact, except in National Geographic, and that only applies to tiny exotic tribes on faraway
islands. Again, it's not a conspiracy; pity sells, where forthright values are harder to foist off onto masses of
voters who are mostly distracted by television, drugs/alcohol, sports and new products. "Anti-Semitism"
originally meant opposition to the Semitic systems of belief, both Islam and Judaism, as well as the racial
groups to which they are linked. These days, it means any criticism of Jews, Judaism or Israel, and in a
society where you cannot turn around without finding mention of the Holocaust, it's an easy product -
again, pity sells, but complex solutions do not. While adopting the beliefs of "Racism" and "Anti-Semitism"
is honorable in that it's an honest, aggressive and straightforward response, there is a dual pitfall to both of
these beliefs.

First, these beliefs tend to degenerate rapidly into the same moronic yes/no thinking of our movies and the
current time, as mentioned above. They are, like all other political elements of our society including
multiculturalism, a kneejerk conditioned binary response. Where mainstream society says
"multiculturalism=good, racism=bad," those who oppose it tend to think "racism=good,
multiculturalism=bad," and from there their thought quickly degenerates into "other races=bad, our
race=good." Once again, good intentions - terrible result. Bigotry gets nowhere with most of us, as we see
it as an emotional reaction and not a logical solution. Further, by limiting one's approval to the category of
race and going no further, one tacitly approves of many of the failures and degenerates in one's own race,
thus contributing to dysgenics of that race which will eventually lead it to fall under the sway of broken
ideas like multiculturalism. This yes/no thinking process is always a dead end, and while the impulse toward
combatting racism and multiculturalism is good, the method leads back to the same cause it deplores. This
is circular thinking, and leads to failure.

Second, and more dangerous, is the tendency to conclude that if multiculturalism and pro-Semitic beliefs
are bad, simply removing these elements from our society will fix all of our problems. Nothing in life is ever
so simple, unless one is dealing with the absolutely basic cases such as lice infestation, but human societies
are more complex than this. The reason our society has problems like multiculturalism is that it
degenerated; it degenerated because those of lower ability took their revenge on those of higher ability by
using the greater numbers of those of lower ability to seize power, and thus, while showboating around
"freedom" and "democracy" and "liberty," quietly destroyed our ability to distinguish better ideas from more
mundane and mediocre ideas. This revolution of the masses crushed those who would lead society in a
healthier direction, in part by throwing them into the same reactionary position espoused by racists and
anti-Semites, and thus caused them to fail from within at the same time they were under assault from
without. Christianity was one aspect of this revolution, but another one is economic competition: when
money determines all value, there is no longer any importance to a leader who can avoid long-term
problems, as long-term problems does not create more wealth right now, here on the balance sheet.

The reason we have multiculturalism and Semitism (Judaism/fundamentalist Christianity) is that this mass
revolution took place. Linked to this mass revolution are many other problems, including our wanton
consumption of our environment through overpopulation, the wastefulness produced by the faceless masses
buying products that they feel will make them live the same privileged lives as those of greater ability, the
slavery of all thinking people to jobs and money because those "treat us all equally according to ability," or
the ability to want to earn money and do nothing else with one's life, at least. These diseases, together
with multiculturalism, constitute the ideology of a modern time; as mentioned above, this ideology is an
anti-ideology, like that of cancer or any other parasite: it has no plan but selfishness, and is blind to long-
term consequences such as ecocide or destruction of our traditional societies. Multiculturalism is not the
cause, nor is Judaism; they are the symptoms, and without the cause, they would never have taken
foothold, much as a well-tended garden has few weeds as there's someone who can tell the difference
between weed and crop who yanks out the weeds as soon as they grow.

Opposing multiculturalism and Semitism is perfectly honest, but only if understood in this context. Looking
through history, we see no successful multicultural societies; all of them die out or collapse into third-world
status within a few generations. Looking through history again, we see no society that has successfully
hosted a politically-active Jewish population without collapsing or, because one cannot in civility remove a
parasite, resorting to increasingly violent pogroms, of which the Holocaust is only the most recent and most
publicized. Judaism is parasitic, there's no doubt about that. It makes a clear distinction between "the
chosen people" and those goyim who are provided by the Jewish god to be a means of sustenance for the
Jewish tribe. Admirably, Judaism is also racist, limiting itself for the most part to those of the Jewish
ethnicity and excluding outsiders from its learning. It has a scholarly tradition that, were it compatible with
their values, would be the envy of the scribes of Europea and Asia. However, it is incompatible with
European beliefs: where Europeans tend toward idealism, including the concept of self-sacrifice for a higher
good, Judaism sees only the individual and individual comfort, and doesn't concern itself with long-term
consequences. It is the religion of traders and money-changers, thus this is natural, but it's equally natural
for Europeans to recognize Jewish values and thus Jewish people as incompatible with their own. Thus
there is no solution to the Jewish question except to resolve that they and their partial descendants be
ejected from European lands, as they are incompatible. Interestingly, this can be done without bigotry,
because we don't need to shoot them or hate them or gas them, only to recognize that according to our
values system, their beliefs are degenerate and parasitic. To them, it may not be so, but that's not our job
to decide. Our job is to decide whether or not Jews fit in our society, and the answer is a resounding NO.

A similar analysis can be taken toward multiculturalism, which would more properly be known as "mixed-
race monoculturalism," since its result is the gradual mixing of races until a generic tribe is produced
consisting of varied elements of all three (Euripid, Mongoloid, Negroid) races. Black values, Asian values,
and Middle Eastern values are not compatible with Europeans, nor are the genetics from those countries,
for the simple reason that if we breed with other tribes, we become something other than what we have
been for centuries. This traditional heritage of our population is something that our ancestors achieved by
making different decisions than those of Africa and Asia, both of whom appear to be populated by hybrids
of homo sapiens with previous species of humanids. Our goal isn't to pass judgment over these people, nor
to lapse into bigotry, but simply to conclude that their values and genetics are incompatible with our own,
unless we seek to destroy ourselves (this is popular with many people because, again, pity is an easier sell,
especially to the underconfident and directionless, than sense). We can see the results of this
incompatibility in the experience of African-Americans. There have always been more impoverished whites
than blacks, but never have whites equalled the destructive record of violent crime, venereal disease and
social decay which blacks have achieved. Before anyone goes off sputtering irrelevant distinctions like
"superior" and "inferior," simply consider that in a European-style society, anyone but Europeans is going to
be out of place and facing adaptation to something against their nature, and thus will produce a fairly
sizable rift!

When we get out of the context of thinking for a world order, and start thinking for our own homelands
alone, words like "Racism" and "Anti-Semitism" have no meaning. In Europe, there should be no one but
those who are culturally and ethnically European; thus Europe should be both "Racist" and "Anti-Semitic."
European-descended countries, such as the United States, should follow suit, as their population is 60%
European and their entire infrastructure, legal system and social system have been designed for Europeans.
Jews and other races are not compatible with this, so we have a choice: either we dumb down the entire
system so we can fit anyone into it, and in the process, make government and business opposed to all of
our cultures, or we separate those cultures by heritage and allow government to support its own people. It
is that clear. Currently, government acts as an agent of implementing multiculture, but given a little
pressure from the white majority, it will respond by fragmenting and allowing those of European descent to
have their own populations separate from the others. Naturally, most are trained by industry, media and
government to fear this outcome, so they must be convinced. They will not be convinced by bigotry, which
blames the problems of the European-descended countris on other groups; they will be convinced by
arguments for ethnic/cultural isolation for European-descended peoples, if made in the context of a general
reform.

Our future is bright, as European-descended peoples are awakening. Over the course of a few generations,
new populations were invited into their lands, and it's now clear that the fusion isn't working. A silent
majority in America is held hostage by the views expressed by non-European ethnic groups (predominantly
Jews) in Hollywood, and by the populist sentiments of politicians and businesspeople who welcome all
ethnic groups equally as a chance to make some income. During the time this has been going on, crime
rates have skyrocketed upward, literacy has decreased, and the general method in which we must live has
become more bureaucratic, more designed for a dumbed-down average, and more opposed to our
traditional culture. This has in turn replaced our values with a commercially-viable "whatever feels good,
buy it" mentality that has resulted in lower breeding rates, breeding for money, sexual promiscuity,
rampant drug use, violence and frustration. Our society as it stands now is a dead-end path, including but
not limited to multiculturalism and Semitism, and our people are slowly realizing it. You can help them
along - encourage them to stand up for themselves first, and not to be lured into bigotry, as the people
who propose bigotry are like most writers: they want you to reach their conclusions and act like
automatons to implement them, so that they can take home the glory and the profit. Yet that's the same
error that got us into this mess. Bigotry is the old error. Self-assertion is the new future.

May 18, 2005

Intangible
We're probably all tired of the cliche. Some old and worn-out looking person grumbles, "It just keeps
getting worse, year after year." Automatically, we ignore this person, much as we often write off any
activity that becomes infested with fools. But what if these people are, while indeed fulfilling a cliche, also
right? What if all of those in recent memory who have grumbled are also right? Is it possible their
grumbling sets us off not because it is a cliche, but because the official history with which it disagrees is an
illusion?

The official history is that, thanks to progressive thinking, humanity is moving out of the dark ages into a
new and profound technological time. We have more rights and freedoms than ever before; there's sex
without marriage, legal drugs in some areas, no restrictions by class or race or gender, and plenty of jobs
to choose from. However, those who have lived long enough to see what our paradise is replacing are not
so sure they like the new way of doing things. Simply put, all of these freedoms come with a price, and as
the bill comes due many of us are asking whether or not we actually care about these freedoms.

Let's look at it this way: for 99% of us, all of the new "freedoms" are moot. We aren't so driven by sex,
overeating or drug abuse that it matters to us that much if these things are legal; in the odd cases where
such things might be necessarily, we'll try for it and get away with it, as when a small and competent
percentage of the population is doing such things, it doesn't provide a threat - when a larger and less
competent chunk engages in them, it becomes a problem. We don't need "freedom" for such a world order,
but we do need to not have a government that's always trying to manage us "in our own best interests."

If we look at history in the trendy ten-year cycles used by the news-entertainment media, we see how
"progress" has made things better. Now you don't go to jail for as long for smoking pot, or not at all. Now
you can have a gay wedding in front of millions. Now it's easier to buy state documents with a credit card.
And so on, and so forth. But like any successful swindle, this one works by distracting us from the big
picture with vivid but inconsequential details. Such is "freedom." Would you need freedom if it weren't
considered A-OK to have a crazy government attempting to impose its will upon us?

Let's roll back the clock for a minute. The biggest division ever to occur in the modern world, the Cold War,
finally ended around roughly 1991 or so. At that point, it was a whole new ball game, although the same
old ball game, if one sees history as a continuum (and not a politically labelled sequence of events). Since
then, we think, we've finally been on the path. All the bad guys - Stalin, Hitler - are out of the way, because
no one's really fooled into thinking Hussein, no matter how "evil" he was, has the importance or power of a
Stalin or Hitler. By our logic, it should be smooth sailing.

After all, our technology has never been better. Our freedoms have never been freer. We connected the
world via the Internet and finally tamed the worst of our epidemics. A new wave of racial reconciliation has
spread across Europe and America. Yet there's also some unpromising signs. For one thing, all of the
problems these reforms are designed to counteract are still present, if not growing stronger.

Governments are getting more intrusive, and demanding more information from us; to avoid seeming
to be total fascists, they often allow industry to do the work for them. In the USA, you just about
need to give a credit card number and social security number to sign up with any service. You're on
the system files now, baby. It's now illegal to say more things than in Joe McCarthy's era. There are
more secret services and special police units watching citizens selected for monitoring on the basis of
their opinions . This is "freedom"?
Racial reconciliation hasn't stopped racial violence, but in fact appears to have made it worse. While
newly enfranchised "minorities," who in fact are the majority groups worldwide, have been given
untold billions in advantages, problems remain, and while we blame these on entrenched racism,
we're effectively alienating all racial groups from each other. This doesn't stop until the race war, but
no one bothers to speak of this in our political system - image is more important than deed.
The Internet has turned out to be a massive bust. For all the hype about new income, and a new
gold rush frontier generated, it turns out the Internet is much like the telephone: a vital part of
 business that created a few specialized industries, but not much more. Even worse is that its once-
vaunted superiority for finding information is adulterated, since now every idiot, dog and mentally
disabled person (retard) is publishing incorrect and biased dogma to sway the minds of those doing
research.
Our epidemics are only in remission. As we destroy our environment on every level, the dormant
viruses that have lurked in our forests for years are coming out and mutating. We haven't seen
anything impressive yet, but wait until these hit during an economic recession, when budgets for
hygiene and preventitive medical care are cut.
The human population has so spiralled out of control that it presently needs to consume more than it
produces, and thus is at constant states of internal conflict over the resources that it does have. Even
more destructive is that in these conflicts, those who are most numerous - historically, those with the
least investment in each individual, therefore the lowest skill and intellectual level - are triumphing.

Maybe those old guys who grumble about how it gets worse every year are right. Do people really like to
live this way? In America, customer service has plummetted to the point where companies routinely do
things wrong, knowing few customers have the time to sit through their broken problem-solving process.
Every other product is a ripoff, with cleverly-constructed legalese protecting the company from the
customer. But don't we have the choice to buy another product? Here, again, the masses triumph:
whatever they buy drowns out everything else, so you'd better like it - and buy it - or you'll forever be
trying to compensate.

Most people seem to go to their jobs out of fear of poverty. There are plenty of people who like what they
do, meaning the basic process, but how many actually like their jobs? The concept of "job" is not equivalent
to the concept of a profession; a job means working for someone else, according to office political rules.
And those are dehumanizing: if anyone is offended, the person who offended is automatically wrong. This
eliminates the strong. I'm not even talking about race, here, or other "freedom" issues - people simply lash
out at those who do not conform.

We have more roads, which means more time sitting in traffic. More required services, including the
Internet, which means more time fighting over bills and haggling with customer service representative.
More people, which means more waiting and less personal service. More races, which means even less
consensus about what our cultural values are, since we don't have a dominant culture. All of this has gone
on for some time, even far before 1991, but now, in the early years of the 2000s, we're finally seeing the
effects.

It's now a pain in the ass to live in America or Europe.

Beyond the tangible stuff, including the freedom to be forced into poverty if you offend anyone, or the
freedom to wait in line for hours, or the freedom to get ripped off because you don't have days every year
to devote to carefully comparing goods and services and contracts, there are the intangibles. More than
anything else, it seems to me this is what our grumbling elders speak of: the loss of a certain feeling that
held the whole mess together. In the past, we were a society, coming from similar origins and with similar
goals. Now what are... fodder for corporations on one side, and for any dispossessed or otherwise
impoverished/dysfunctional group on the other?

It's the intangibles that we're missing most. For many in Europe, it is the missing sense of connection to
common heritage and common goal. For many in America, it's the missing sense of community, where we
were working together to eke out an existence in our small communities. More than 50% of us live in cities
now, and there's no eking of anything. There's getting a job and a credit card, and attending that job while
trying not to think how unpleasant our daily existence of haggling, buying, being alienated from others and
trying not to offend is.

When we open up our view of history beyond the decade, this becomes clear. We see how even a thousand
years ago a populist revolt was started which created this culture of being offended or not being offended,
and gave triumph to the masses of low skill instead of the few who have the brains to get us out of this
mess. The grumbling of our elders has gone on for a millennium or more, because they've noticed how
each generation, slowly, it creeps up on us: dominion by a certain kind of conformity, hidden behind
"freedom" and "rights," that grants to the dysfunctional the right to beat up on those who might make the
difficult decisions which are necessary for us to have a healthy society.

It used to be you could make difficult decisions. Some lived, some died; there were individual tragedies,
and great suffering, but it was forgotten because, on the whole, people in that civilization were better off.
Now there's none of that. You cannot select some to live and some to die, except through impersonal and
"objective" means like how much money they're willing to earn, because someone might be offended. Thus
our society sags into ruin from within. It doesn't get any simpler than this, so I'll say it again: we've lost the
ability to make decisions. The cult of the individual rules over the collective good, thus we simply don't
make decisions. And thus the rot within increases.

Peek at the cities of the ancient Greeks and Romans. These were noble cities, beautiful cities. Clearly not
everyone got the "right" and "freedom" to work the biggest tool job they could find and thus afford some
wasteful suburban house where they could scheme against anyone who offended them, but in the end,
people lived in a saner time. It wasn't as much for the tangibles as the intangibles: we were all on the
same page, had the same struggle and valued the same things. It hasn't been clear for almost a thousand
years, but that's what we've lost, and all the "freedoms" and wide-screen TVs in the world cannot obscure
our mounting sense of loss.

May 25, 2005

The Conquering
When the sun goes down, and there's nothing left we have to do, it becomes time to sit around the fire
and tell stories. As I see from your faces that your yarns are spent, your bodies tired and minds at ease
with exhaustion, it must be my turn, so I'll tell one. Like most of my tales, this isn't fiction; it really did
happen, although I fictionalize it in the telling, because for one who has seen what I have seen the details
blend together and become symbols, the names and places settings for the story, which is how what
happened happened, and what it means to us now.

This story starts a long time ago, when life was easier, and there was a young man getting off a boat in a
new country. He had enough money with him to live for a few weeks, and was proud of this, but when he
stepped off that pier he saw suddenly how much bigger this place was, how people flooded around him like
the waters he'd just quitted. He stopped for some moments there, like you do before you take a drink, but
longer, and then began to walk. He went from pier to station, from boulevard to avenue, from store to
restaurant, his mind drinking in all that passed before him. He tried his new language, aware of the
bemused smiles at how haltingly words came to him, and how much was unknown to him. Everyone spoke
so fast, in an accent he didn't recognize.

There were new words, too, that rolled off the lips of those fortunate to be born there with an ease he
could only envy. That cock of the head, toss of the hair - you do know what a W.C. is, don't you? And then
the little men with thick dark hair and moustaches who came up to him with offers. Look, all you gotta do
is -- but something in him sniffed them out, knew these offers would turn out badly, whether them
disappearing around a corner with his money or him ending up in a foreign jail, sent to the country to do
labor no one would take for any price. He passed the smells of rich food, the comfortable hotels, and when
it was too dark for him to be seen wandering without being stopped by the police, he found a shady spot
under a secluded awning and shivered himself to sleep.

We've lost tracks of his days now, because they passed for him as in a dream. He took small jobs, learned
to speak without the awkwardness of an immigrant, and found some lodging better than the transient hotel
that had been his option before. He didn't go out drinking like the other young men, and he didn't spend
his money on presents for young ladies; he worked and when he got off of his job - he forgot quickly, and
so do we, what it was, but rest assured it was menial, a starting position - he read newspapers until he fell
asleep, running his finger under the words and puzzling them out, finding new ones and committing them
to memory. So it was for several years, until he grasped the basics of his trade. In the case of this young
man among millions, it was printing.

His fingers calloused and his mind sharpened to the job, he rose from paper-baling to typesetting to
managing one wing of the plant, giant machines below thrashing with a blast of metal and steam. He was
older now and spoke less than he did even in his home country, a place he was willing his mind to forget,
since it was no longer part of his life and would not be again. When he went to file his taxes, he changed
his name, rounding out the difficult consonants and dropping extra vowel endings, so that in a page of
names his would not stand out as different from those of the language of his adopted country. He saved all
of his money, made some partnerships, did not get drunk when he dined with his superiors and finally,
after nearly a decade, took out a loan against some assets he did not exactly have, and bought the plant.

The next day the changes started. The secretaries who had spent most of their days idle were gone, as
was the old drunken nightwatch. Several people whose output was less than optimum were replaced by
men he knew from his days on the piers, tough and determined faces. Knowing how he had done jobs in
half the time that others did them, he sent out new instructions and cleared out the old and inefficient ways
of doing things. Any worker who had some problem, like spending too much time drinking or chasing young
women, was out, and eating on the job was forbidden. He wanted only hungry men in his new plant, and
within years, he had realized the dream: money flowed into his bank account like the waters he had not so
distantly in memory left pooling around the boat that brought him here.

He could afford a small house, and he bought it, and he could afford better clothes, and he bought those
too. But that was it: he wouldn't spend more than he had to, and while the ink-smeared underlings at his
plant griped about his tight fists, they even had to admit they were grateful when times were hard and
they still got paychecks. In these bursts of hardship, other plants closed, and soon he was there, a small
paunch riding his hips, cutting the ribbon on another plant, and then another. Soon the same faces who
sneered at him when he was fresh off the boat, in another time, were people coming to him for money and
often, leaving without jobs. The parties reserved for the native born were open to him, as were the ladies
ten years younger, and by now, his speech resembled that of those who had been there their entire lives,
even if sometimes a word came out slightly too stiff or vivid for the colors of pronunciation there. He took a
wife, and two small children came of it.

At this point, his neighbors knew him only as a prosperous man, an important person to whom it was
important to be cordial, because with a few dips of his fountain pen he could change the course of a life in
ways for the better, or almost destroy it. When the Mayor of the city threw an important function, the man
was there, too, because he had carefully spread his money around to ensure he would succeed. Charities,
bribes, gifts, celebrations. Within another decade it was impossible to pick up a newspaper without seeing
somewhere in its pages a mention of him, if only on the masthead, since now he was powerful in the press
as well as in its printing. The house was tidy, and clean, and had that air of money spent carefully which
guaranteed it a prolonged stability. His children went to the best universities that the country could offer,
and took on important jobs high in its power structure; he was, in short, the best any immigrant could hope
to be, and on the docks many recognized in his new name fragments of the old, and took to imitating his
gestures and ideas.

The daughter, who had come first, married well and soon her greying father could count upon being called
to the social functions of those who were mining black gold out of the earth, first coal and then oil. Over
cigars and whisky, talk was made of some new things turning up, and well, his checkbook was handy; soon
you could read about him in every newspaper across the country. His son married well also, and as a loan
officer in the biggest bank, he was fond of looking over proposals and if he liked them, closing his office
door and making a new deal: the bank can only loan you some of the money, but this looks like a good
prospect, so I know how to get the rest. His investments, and those that his father made in his name, paid
off, and soon the son had an estate down the hill from the new family house, a place which required no
street number when mail was sent to it by name. In turn, these fortunate children brought forth a handful
of their own, which is where our story really starts.

At that point, talk was brewing of war in the old countries, and then, there was poverty throughout the
land. The man and his children were untouched by it, of course, since while others were out drinking and
chasing girls, they had sacrificed those years, married for sense and not passion, and owned not as much
physical things as promises of things: money in banks, investments in companies, and the like. Some days,
the old man would go to the park and watch the jumpers quitting their high tower offices with final jumps;
as the bodies landed, he would comment to those around him, "And that's why I gave all those years, why I
gave up so much so I could have this. Someday, you might, too." His grandchildren came of age into this
time and were told to be quiet when in public, because most people did not have what they had come to
take for granted. Still, they would never forget the scenes of that time: mothers selling their bodies out of
battered cars that served as home for their children, men in once-fine suits now greased by time and wear
selling apples, the people who lived in shanties made of garbage outside of the city, raiding the garbage of
the wealthy for their living. These things cannot be forgotten.

The first grandchild, against his family's wishes, joined up for the army before the war. Since his eyesight
was not good, and his aim even worse, he was sent to the worst of the jobs possible, in the kitchen. Soon
he learned, as his grandfather had, to do the jobs others would not, but to do them in half the time, and
so after two years of hard work, he was promoted to quartermaster and was responsible for buying food
and supplies. Coincidentally, his cousin operated a grocery and wholesale business, having wisely taken the
position offered by his father in one of the family-owned interests, and soon the cousins were partners in
business as well. They had different last names at this point, neither of which betrayed origins in a far off
country smirked about by the native-born, and no one suspected a link. The money flowed in while the
nation starved, and then while its native-born sons died in distant war, and by the time the war was
ending, these two favored sons were as established as their grandfather, and had bloodlines which
enwrapped those of the most favored families in the most powerful part of the nation.
What they did was second nature; much as their grandfather had crawled over the others who had become
distracted by drink and young women, they crawled over those who had not been sensible enough to not
only get the house and job, but also make investments - the right investments. This was a country where
one did not matter until one owned things, business and drafts of paper, which would return income to
their accounts. Having money from a paycheck meant nothing; even owning a smattering of stocks and
bonds meant little; but having part of a business, connections and the right marriages, this made all the
difference. The granddaughters also married well; each had a career, one running the best catering
business in the capitol city, another starting the last independent publishing house to really score big with
the new writers coming from overseas, and then they married well too, taking names which were also
engraved in the oldest cemeteries in the new country. Now the grandfather's family name was as much
part of the language as those he had sought to emulate when he rounded out its sounds, and his offspring
were well-known in the social pages of the newspapers in which he did not even have a controlling interest.
He died surrounded by servants, children and grandchildren, and his passing was noted in the financial
community as much as the socialite one.

The quartermaster, when he retired young after the war, had reached a rank that astounded any who
knew his inability to fire a rifle when he had first joined, but to all who were assembled the proof was
irrefutable, as those who spoke highly of him were the most decorated soldiers and most successful men in
the land. Calling some old friends from the service, he went off to California, and created for himself a
business making weapons for the finest services the country had to offer. When he built his house, he -
taking a cue from the rising sentiment of the time against the old money and its power - bought not in the
popular glittering neighborhoods of the city, but in its countryside, where he put a modest home in
comparison with those of his grandparents. His children ran wild, growing up under the care of a nanny
who had been schooled in the new theories of how a nation should run itself in respect to its working poor,
and experimented with marijuana, LSD and the new cosmopolitanism. As a result, they were popular with
their classmates, but were distracted much as those over whose knees their grandfather had crawled to
build his wealth. And why should they worry? They had wealth, enough to never want for it, so their
decisions had no impact on any but themselves.

If I haven't put you to sleep already with this familiar tale, it is fortunate, as the meat of the story occurs
here: these children were witness to a father who was rarely home, at work in distant lands or vacationing
in the paradise of casinos and brothels. Their mother took her first lover when they were infants, and the
nanny made sure they never strayed toward the wing of the house where champagne glasses and fallen
clothing mingled to the throbbing beat of the music they played in the fast clubs in the city. When these
children came of age, there was a messy divorce, and money traded hands; their father never returned
from one of his trips abroad, and their mother now lived in a foreign nation. The house was theirs, as were
the checks that came from banks whose very seriousness they mocked even as cashing them. Money - it
did not matter - pleasure did.

The old house changed; new decor came in, in the peasant style now fashionable in the cities, and parties
happened every night, long into the night. Cars pulled up and left many hours later, if at all, as the wine
and drugs continuously flowed into the veins of the revelers. The girl took several lovers, then stopped
making such formal distinctions, and offered herself as the whim might take her, the fine features of her
grandmother present and enjoyed by all who knew her. The boy at first confined himself to women, but
then opened his mind to new possibilities, and soon was a favorite among both sexes, from whom he
selected at seeming random and in abundance at the end of each night. Never a dull moment? Hardly.
After a decade of this, these children were bored, dark circles under their eyes, and lines prematurely
crossing faces which had seen the most youthful, carefree, and hedonistic lifestyle possible.

These children - even though they were at this point far older - are the core of our story. They grew up
without much suffering, although clearly they'd earned the right, and had come to believe, as in the books
of an ancient middle eastern religion, that any excess wealth a person earned was stolen from the mouths
of others. Crawling over the befuddled and distracted to gain wealth would not have occurred to them, but
since they owned it in abundance and could not conceive of a life outside of it, they did not abandon it.
Instead, they put it to good use, as they saw it should be. Checks flew from the large house between
parties, going to the salvation of the impoverished, aid for the diseased, protection of those who were not
favored by the privileges of being "normal." The newspapers delighted in these children, as did the
magazines and the television stations, praising them for their selflessness. No party on that half of the
country could occur without their presence, and many hung on their words as they did on the ideas of
other celebrities, people who formed a presence outside of that which was accepted by the conservative
public front of the time.

As they aged, the grandchildren found new outlets for their time. The son became the most prominent
disciple of a new religion, and the daughter, the most vociferous spokesperson for the new empowerment
of women, of the disregarded, of the impoverished. Where their grandparents and parents had been
money-earners, these offspring of that now illustrious line were heroes: they gave, not took, and brought
the new doctrines of a more enlightened time to a society oblivious to its importance. While most slaved
away at jobs, for the privilege of someday owning things, it seemed to them as they read the papers that
the grandchildren had transcended that state, and had become like angels, from a more pure state of
humankind. The granddaughter had a short marriage to a popular musician, and bore him a child who
looked nothing like those of her family before, but loudly took him everywhere she could have gone and
asserted his equal privilege. The son took on beliefs his grandparents would have found irrelevant, and
toured the country leaving behind wisdom and on many occasions, offspring left to the care of lawyers who
sighed and wrote monthly checks from lengthy lists of names.

The world belonged to them, and their children grew up in much the same way: the best schools, the best
opportunities, and the most prominent social existence. This was, to them, the culmination of their
grandparent's story, but for our purposes, it is where the story begins. In their children - the great-
grandchildren of the man who had crawled over others to build an empire in his new country - there was
much promise. The old wealth was only partially diminished, and they had social credentials unlike anyone
else, and nothing to stop them. They were like kings, in a time without kings. And so the party rolled
onward! Anyone who was important was at their door, or driving home unsteadily from their parties in the
misty early mornings, or at least had seen them on cable television news or the internet. Even after their
four divorces and three children each, the grandchildren were luminous in the public eye. And to mere
popularity they added heroism, as said before, by being the kindly hand that reaches out to those who are
being crawled-over, and grants them safety. All of this was bestowed upon their own offspring. It was in all
respects a modern fairytale.

The storyteller pauses at this point, unsure of how much to simplify, how much to render into symbols and
meaningful phrases, the vast amount of time that passed in that state. Well - to make long and short of it,
the children of the grandchildren grew up in great favor as well, and continued to live much as their parents
did. After sexual initiation at an age well inside the confines of childhood, they granted themselves much as
they did their money to all, one for all and all for one. They were more popular than popular, names so
well known they were part of the language, much like in our minds we could see some guy named "story"
giving rise to the term "storyteller." They lacked nothing, and held back nothing. On every continent they
were famous, wealthy, well-received. And then --

And then?

And then the wealth gave out. Not as much their personal wealth, but the wealth of their nation, which had
made them native in the short course of a century and a half. It had been a conquering nation, and had
become the first in the world, in military strength, in the power of its newspapers and television, in money
and economics. All other nations were second to it, and most of the big ones had been beaten by it in
battle, although there had been a few failures that shocked all but the most learned historians worldwide.
Its wealth, however, no longer came from the hands of those who crawled over fields putting seeds in the
ground, or from those who manufactured. Its wealth came from ownership, from selling things, from
expanding in every direction. And there was no one day where it ended, but a series of days where it
slowly to the point where like a heartbeat, it had fallen beyond the point of health and the only remaining
direction is downward, a collapse. Since this was a slow collapse, and since no one makes any money by
preaching the obvious doom, only dooms of a fantastic and unreal nature, it wasn't noticed until of course
there was little that could be done about it.

The walls caved in around them, but slowly. The sources of energy that had made them great profit got
more expensive, and profits waned; to compensate, they sold things that they had owned for years as, on
the advice of their counselors, these things had no future in them. Their income consolidated, and then
dwindled, and they started to cut into that which they owned in order to live. This upset the balance their
grandfather had established, where what they owned brought in money, and the owned things themselves
stayed intact. It seemed the days of easily farming that wealth had passed them by, and thus they were
getting less wealthy. Of course, so was everyone else around them - poverty unseen since their
grandparents' time was visiting the land, everyone equally having less of what they once did. The cars
slowly went away, except for a wealthy few; the cheap products and abundant food dwindled; again,
mothers sold their bodies out of makeshift housing, and suicides littered the streets as promising almost-
fortunes were lost. In the times that followed, people referred to this as The Conquering.

Unlike most conquering, it did not come from across the seas, or the skies, or even the limitless space
above. It came from within. When conquerors come from far away, people can run into the forests and
hide, but at this time, the conqueror was all around, and there were no forests in which to hide. It laid
waste to everything, even the rich. Such it was that the great-grandchildren of a successful man found
themselves rapidly approaching a level where they could not live. Surely, if they'd sold the great house, and
most of their assets, at once, they would have been permitted a normal life, but this was something they
had never had nor wanted. So they did not, and thus came to an end like the rest, which was not a terrible
end, but it had large consequences for their lifestyle.

The rest of them had been living off the past as well. Wealth had come, and then a certain amount of lazy
time with nothing to do, so instead of telling stories and relaxing they had invented things that had no
purpose. Desperate things. But these things were so normal and innocuous that no one thought about how
desperate they really were, and so no one noticed. Not only that, but these were good things, like helping
out those who had been crawled-on and not crawling, and this distracted them while their downfall
gathered around them. They started to think that nature had been conquered, and that the only world that
was important was the world they shared when they talked, made money or were seen in the society
pages.

You know why they say storyteller is a full-time job? It is because really, there are few stories to tell, since
most things are obvious if you just think about them. There is not a need for stories, except that it's how
we pass on what we've learned. When we live every day in the world, we don't really need to invent
replacement worlds, but we talk over what we've seen and done so that we have something we can say we
have learned. It's the opposite in diseased times, when storytellers are there like cheap opium, to make up
something distracting. That's not actual work, because there's no part of it that makes you make sense of
things. When you don't have to make sense, any turn in a tale will do, and so it becomes an easy tale to
tell. When people start needing distraction, you can tell you're in a diseased place and time. That's the type
of place the original man in this story found, but for him, the questions of life were simpler. Eat or don't
eat. Soon you're crawling over other crawlers.

You know, we really could have had so much. If we'd grown upward instead of outward, getting taller
instead of getting fat, we'd have had something there. Instead we got fat. That immigrant son ate up the
fat and grew himself, but eventually, the fat ate him up through his family. Since nature has no need for
time or memory, its only determination of success or failure is whether you endure through the generations.
You might be a rich or powerful person, but if you've gotten that way on unsteady ground, it doesn't last
too long. That's why they don't pay storytellers much, because if we get excess, our stories get poisoned
with laziness and stupidity. It has nothing to do with that old story that wealth is theft from the mouth of
others. There's nothing wrong with wealth. But too much of it will make you lazy, and take it for granted,
and it might afflict your future generations. Might make you die out, even.

Like I said, we could have had so much. With the oil and gas resources we had, if we'd spent them wisely,
we could have built to the stars. Stories are simple, and this is no exception. We got our wealth and instead
of putting it to some good use, we drained it away into the greed of individuals. Whether they were poor
and impoverished, or rich and ruthless, it didn't matter, because they took what they could get with no
thought for the whole, the big picture. So most of our gasoline went into cars and private travel, and very
little went into building a society that could outlast gasoline. We bred recklessly, and people grew fat and
lazy and stupid, and then we couldn't control our own society. We bred badly, too, and so even our own
people changed, not just in appearance but inside. They didn't care about anything, and they didn't know
any world but one where the wealth was already waiting there for them to take.

All of this changed of course when the oil wells started drying up. At first it was just more expensive, then
it was too expensive, and pretty soon whole parts of the world we'd built up for ourselves started just
disappearing. Our ability to travel through the air, or drive vehicles. Our food supplies. Even more, there
were so many of us we'd started eating up the forests and swamps and plains, until what was left was like
a shadow of what had been before. Every aspect of the world had fallen under human control, and that
control was looking to make more, not make better, humans. Because there were too many of us, and we'd
built this whole thing on selfishness, soon you had to get everyone to agree in order to make changes.
Well, fat chance of that happening. So it all fell apart, at least, any attempt to put reason into the process
did.

With that giving up, everybody went out and got selfish. Bought cars, drove them all the time. Took lots of
trips, bought lots of things, threw out even more, it seemed. We were all caught up running around trying
to find things to sell to each other, or ways to make money off each other, and we'd forgotten about
reality. It got worse and worse, and those who could see the disaster were ignored time and time again. It
was as if we were reading out of a rule book, and forgot that the rule book isn't reality. Only reality is
reality, and the only things that matter are what you actually can make happen in that reality. We didn't lift
up the impoverished, and the rich all came to bad ends. We didn't really help anyone go where they
weren't going already.

Really, looking back over it, the whole thing was a failure. We conquered ourselves. It was selfish, each of
us trying to make his own world with money, so he didn't have to listen to the others, or listen to nature.
The only time we came together was when anyone challenged that selfishness, and threatened to make us
behave, and then we lashed out and killed them and raped their women. So no one could stop the disaster
because we'd slaughtered the only people who saw it, wondering why they died with mocking smiles on
their lips, as if to warn us of something we couldn't outrun. Our lives became hollow and foolish, and like
slaves we spent our time caring about what other people might think, how we'd sell an idea to any idiot on
the street. Soon the selfishness, which could take any form it wanted whether government or religion or
economics, had us beat. We didn't stop until we'd run out of oil and, because we'd spent what oil we had
on selfishness, run out of dreams. We conquered our dreams, and drove them away, but it took awhile
before that caught up to us.

That's why I'm telling you this story tonight, after the cattle are in the pens and the fires are stoked down.
All of us here, we're just one tiny tribe in the north. I don't know what happened to the rest. Calling what
went on then a war is silly, because it wasn't a war, more like everybody just turned on each other trying
to gobble up what was left. I'm glad we're out of that time because now reality is reality again; if you don't
lock up the pen at night, your cattle go away and you starve. I sort of miss the big cities we had, the
architecture and arts, all the nice things in life... but I guess they made us fat and stupid, and were part of
our downfall. Once we went down that path, there was no other way it could work out. So now we tell
stories by the fire, and remember to keep our dreams close by us.

May 27, 2005

The Basic Error
If you were an outer-space alien travelling the universe, you would probably learn that most species screw
up in the same ways. In fact, when you analyze what happens, there's only one basic way any lifeform can
screw up. What makes animals (including sentient ones) unique is that they have consciousness, and use it
to predict how their world will react to them. In this light, there's only one error, and that's to misjudge the
world around you, including the error of becoming deluded as to its true nature.

Most species that screw up and destroy themselves, according to our alien traveler, do so by having a false
impression of reality. If you think that a wild beast will not attack you if you hold up a shiny stone, and it
does anyway, you fail as an individual. But if you with all others of your kind build a society, and agree that
something is true and it is not true, you run the risk of destroying the whole society because it is in part
based on error. Presumably, an outer space alien has seen the remnants of plenty of species that have
screwed up, and how most of them look won't surprise you: polluted planets later scarred by nuclear blasts.

On planet earth, we have now had plenty of experience with this basic error, but haven't yet brought it to
its conclusion. That means we can choose to save our sorry asses now, or can keep happily going down
the path of least resistance until our planet too is a grey ruin. The reason it's the path of least resistance
that is destructive is that in a society where delusion is accepted as fact, it's going to take a lot of work to
convince people to say that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and that we've got to try a different
way. People don't like having to switch from an easy way of life to a harder one, especially if the
consequences of that easy way of life - total destruction - are beyond their comprehension. (And let's be
honest: all but a few humans cannot think past his or her next paycheck, much less on a millennial scale!)

Right now a few of us have seen the error. But because we've lived in error for so long, we have no words
to describe it, and are left trying to give people complicated reasons when those that oppose us use simple,
moronic concepts that sound good and are therefore accepted. It's bad enough that their logic works in the
short term, where it takes much longer to see why ours is superior. Imagine trying to explain colors to a
blind man - that's about how explaining reality to the deluded is. Despite all of this, more people are seeing
the truth every day.

As you can imagine, the basic error doesn't break down along political lines. It's as popular among
Democrats as Republicans, and is at such a basic level of our assumptions about reality that anyone who
sets out to conquer it rapidly finds him or herself describing it in the words and concepts we use to
maintain our delusion. For this reason, most attempts to conquer it fail miserably. One way this basic error
is described is "relativism," and another is "pluralism," and yet another is "individualism"; these leftist terms
have counterparts on the conservative side, namely "freedom," "opportunity" and "free enterprise." All the
words mean the same thing, when you look at how they're joined as concepts over a thousand year period.

Relativism is a funny name because it is an attempt to politicize a scientific "discovery." Only fifteen to
twenty thousand years after the ancient Indian Aryans wrote a book called the Mahabarata in which they
described, among other things, the explanation of the observational fallacy which we now know as
"relativity," science came up with a simplistic doctrine of the same and expressed it in symbolic math. Those
who wanted to gain political power saw their chance. They portrayed all of society up to that point as an
ignorant conservative herd, and created a "new" idea, called "relativism." Relativism states, in short, that
the individual only knows what he or she has experienced, and it is as real to them as any reality, thus
when we make decisions involving those individuals, we have to consider what's inside their heads to be as
real as the reality we all share.

When you look at it that way, of course, relativism is revealed as the sham it is. If you boil it down even
further, you see that relativism is basically the doctrine that we can each believe what we want, and there
is no reality check, ever. In short, reality checks are made illegal by the doctrine of relativity, even though
reality has always been consistent for all of us equally. Even calling relativism a "new" belief runs afoul of
reality, as the belief of relativism has been around for a long time, but in the past we called it something
different: "insane." Our time is unhealthy, of course, so to claim that health exists is like saying the
emperor is stark naked when the newspapers say he is not.

Relativism got associated with Marxism and other diseases we attribute to failed places like Russia, which
during a century went from one of the world's leading nations to an impoverished third-world country
where prostitution is considered a desirable career choice, so those who promoted relativism picked a new
word: pluralism. Pluralism is a restatement of relativism to include "culture," which naturally means any
culture but that which is assumed to be the dominant conservative culture, a vestige of the time when
America was, like Russia, a European-style country. In pluralism, there is no clear reality either, but your
reality depends on your culture; if in your culture the sky is green and the grass is blue, that's as real as
any other perception. Of course, within pluralistic cultures, you can have your own relativistic reality too.

All of this fancy wordplay obscures a simple truth: healthy people like reality, and those who fear they are
not healthy (usually because they lack confidence in themselves) hate healthy people, therefore they
decided to tear down reality and replace it with personal desires. This is not much different from ostriches
hiding their heads in the sand, or drug addicts preferring to stay zonked. The underconfident ones decided,
as a group, that they wanted "freedom" as individuals, but the only way one gets "freedom" to do
unhealthy things is by obliterating the line between real and unreal, because most unhealthy things are
based on unreal assumptions. When you get rid of reality, you can claim something unhealthy is just as OK
as something that is healthy.

Of course, by doing this, you lose out a lot. First, you lose the ability to have greatness, since there's no
objective standard by which greatness can be measured. Second, you lose the ability to have reality, and
thus to respond to calamity. Finally, you create a social atmosphere where rising above the norm is
distrusted, because if you achieve health, you might try to impose reality on other people and thus reveal
their own inadequacies. In short, what is created by this process is a society addicted to unreality. We call
this "individualism," because it places the desires of the individual above collective reality. There is no
longer reality; there are only the wants of the individual.

Every society that has gone down this path, and there have been many, has collapsed and left behind a
fragment of itself, even if its people became more numerous. Most of the impoverished dumps worldwide
are remnants of great cultures, or what's left when the slaves overthrow the masters and declare reality
abolished, thus making a society that cannot even plan far enough ahead to have hygienic sewer facilities,
enough food and shelter, or higher learning. This is the thousand-year consequence of relativism, but those
who demand relativism never think that far ahead. They're only thinking of themselves, and how afraid
they are of reality.

There's another dimension that makes it hard to demand reality, which is that most of us are nice . We
don't want to make other people feel uncomfortable, or to point out their weaknesses. So when they make
it clear that admissions of reality would, for them, constitute a weakness, we quietly go on pretending that
reality doesn't exist. It's only a generation later that we realize our kids needed to see that reality exists,
and instead of teaching them that, we've shown them only unreality, and thus they've gotten a start in life
by making a number of unhealthy choices that they won't even partially understand for decades. They'll
spend their adult lives trying to sort it out. Doesn't the old saying go, "The road to hell is paved with good
intentions"?

The outer space aliens, when they see denial of reality, nod their heads wisely and head to another planet.
Our hypothetical cosmic travelers got to that stage in life by paying attention to reality, not finding ways to
explain it away. Maybe their own planets had a close call with delusion, and they learned, or maybe they
were just more astute, but now there is no doubt in their minds that to abandon reality, no matter with
what "good intentions," is to start the march down the path to inevitable doom. Maybe our society will
learn before it's too late.

May 31, 2005

Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism
One lesson we should all learn early in life is that if what you're doing is not working, consider another
method. This does not mean at the first sign of negative feedback, give up and do something different; it
means that, if over time, what you are doing is not producing the desired results, change strategy. Square
peg not fitting in round hole? You may have to think outside of your immediate task (cramming square peg
in round hole) to the larger task at hand (which pegs go into which holes). This sounds so basic and
fundamental, yet it is forgotten by most.

No clearer example of this can be felt in politics. Extreme leftists rant and cry in public, but in private spend
much of their time bemoaning that few are involved, and wondering how to compel people to get involved.
Environmentalists are known for being maudlin drunks who break into tears at the thought that most
people don't care at all about the environment, with their proof for this supposition being the lack of
mainstream involvement in their effete and radicalized groups. Similarly, what's left of conservatism - not
bloody much - tends to wring its hands over the absolute disinterest that youth have for the conservative
agenda.

Another potent example within politics is white nationalism. The WNs crowd around the fire, proclaim loudly
their dogma, and then wait for the crowd to fall into step behind them for the final glorious race war. And
why are they still alone, these brave WNs? The answer is quite simple: like liberals, they're a one-note
party, and while they understand their own dogma, they don't understand how to apply it. The result is a
radicalized, paranoid group of people who have no practical plan, and cannot even organize their own
minds in order to organize their own political actions. (There are three real exceptions: Overthrow.com,
Vanguard News, and the LNSGP, out of thousands of WN/NS groups.)

From my perspective, it's a pathetic state of affairs that both those who uphold our traditions and those
who wish to protect our environment are afflicted by the same mental disease. When one looks at the
ideals of environmental and white nationalist groups philosophically, it's clear that they are the two most
related forms of belief out there today. Both are preservationists who seek to limit the selfishness agenda of
modern society, and replace it not with bureaucracy but with a values system - a values system we share in
common, in dramatic contrast to pluralistic systems, where the only shared value is a belief in pluralism.
Both of these genres of politics could be easily drawn back from failure if they were willing to acknowledge
what they lack.

As said above, it's simple: one has to organize a clear political platform that includes all aspects of the
political system, and then organize one's agenda so as to contribute to society while reshaping it into
something better. This means that one cannot speak up for green agendas alone, or ethnic preservation
agendas (of which white nationalism is one) alone, but one must find some comprehensive way to remake
society into something saner. One such method is to re-group white nationalism and environmental
protection into the most time-proven system of governance we have, which is described as "tradition"
because there is no other word for it. It's a viewpoint that is outside of the modern viewpoint, but since the
modern viewpoint could be summarized as cramming square pegs in round holes, we might characterize
tradition as a broader mindset in which one can correctly identify what shape of peg goes into what hole.

Tradition refers to the ways in which our societies (in this case, Indo-European; the author is Indo-
European) have existed for millennia, and is an all-encompassing viewpoint. It is not just political, or
philosophical, or economic, or religious, but all of these. Its genesis is an awareness of humankind's
position not in a physical-economic order, but in a cosmic order, or in the patterns of life we find both in
nature and in our own minds. In philosophical terms, traditionalism is a form of cosmic idealism, which
means that it is a belief system where design-change in the external world (winning a battle, creating an
idea, composing a symphony) is more important than personal comfort or survival; cosmic idealism is a
dramatic contrast to Judaic moralism, as found in Christianity and liberalism, in which personal comfort and
survival are more important than anything else (the one exception being, of course, when one fights for the
"right" to live according to Judaic morality, at which point suicide and vengeance are celebrated as positive
values).
Radical Traditionalism is a view of tradition from within a modern time. It recognizes that, in order to
escape the modern crisis, we must first escape the modern mindset; this is the "radical" part, which means
a total divorcing of values and expectations from what modernity has to offer. Radical in this context does
not (necessarily) mean extremist action, but it means thought extremely removed from the norm. For most
people living in a modern time, the concept of tradition is not one that makes sense on the first read, or
the second, but sometime in the days following a reading after those. This is the barrier that radicalism is
designed to transcend. As a natural consequence of this, Radical Traditionalist belief may seem "radical" to
those in a modern time because it is far beyond what they are trained to comprehend.

Radical Traditionalism is a good solution because, unlike other political agendas which hope to make a few
small alterations and then declare victory and go home, Radical Traditionalism recognizes the need to start
thinking much differently about how we do things. It would take the entirety of our modern world and
remake it into something more sensible, without abandoning our technology (although certainly limiting its
use). Furthermore, Radical Traditionalism doesn't confine itself to race, although race is an inseparable part
of the ideology. It doesn't confine itself to environmentalism, although concern and nurturing for our
environment is an essential part of Radical Traditionalism. It is a holistic philosophy in that it addresses all
human endeavors, and does so not from the perspective of the individual or of the collective, but of the
whole: it places human individuals, collectives, and even our planet into a greater cosmic order.

This cosmic order, unlike those of humankind, is based upon pre-existing patterns found in nature. It is not
arbitrary, like communism, nor of a one-track mind, like capitalism or any other state based on economic
competition. It is not founded in the concept of dominion by the self over nature, nor does it pit humanity
against its natural world. And, unlike white nationalism, its view of race is flexible; Radical Traditionalists
believe races should be preserved, as racial differences are manifestations of a cosmic order called "karma"
by some which is a spiritual approximation of what we know as evolution. Unlike moderns, traditionalists
see evolution as a two-way street: one can evolve toward something higher, or devolve toward something
more base and less noble. Naturally, they see the modern time as an example of the latter, and most
credible evidence agrees with them.

Ultimately, however, despite its focus on cosmic ideals, Radical Traditionalism has a big leg over modernity
in that it focuses on reality. Not simply physical reality, meaning the tangible things in front of us, but the
reality of how our universe and physical environment operates. It doesn't substitute spacy "ideology" for
knowledge, and it doesn't sidetrack itself into fighting for equality among people of varied abilities. Modern
belief systems tend to take the form of "we should do (action) because (ideal)," but in tradition, the ideal is
life itself, and what should be done is what is effective given how this order of life itself operates.

In this, Radical Traditionalism is similar to one type of nihilism. Since the word "nihilism" means different
things to different people, it is important to define this type of nihilism as an outlook and a perceptual tool,
not a conclusion or an ideal. Those who hold Nothingness up as an ideal, and as an assessment of life
itself, are probably better referred to as "fatalists" because they do not believe any value can be found, and
therefore believe their choices are irrelevant (a fancy way of giving up). Outlook nihilists believe nihilism is
a way of removing illusion and looking into reality itself, from which we are separated by the frailty of (a)
our own perception and (b) the errors of our interpretation of external reality. Where conclusion-nihilists
take up nihilism as a means of ending further analysis of their existence, outlook nihilists use it as a means
to look deeper into existence.

Nihilism of this form could be expressed this way: Upon waking up, I realized that nothing had any inherent
value except for its presence as part of reality itself, such as a chair being useful for sitting upon, or food
useful for eating because eating prolongs life and thus perception. While I was tempted to stay in this
valueless state, I realized that to uphold a valueless state was in itself a value, therefore a valueless state
cannot exist for long. For this reason, instead of rejecting reality, I rejected values outside of reality, and
now try to see things only for what they are. This is the outlook nihilism of an experienced person.

Fatalism, or conclusion-nihilism, is solely the realm of life's failures. People who cannot make heads or tails
of life, and have failed to find a place within it, find refuge in claiming that it never made any sense
anyway and therefore they cannot be expected to participate - as if some cosmic parent were watching
over them, trying to force them into it. People of this mindset are clearly quite lost, as they have not
realized that their lives are their own and exist without need of interpretation, and furthermore, they've lost
the ability to see the world beyond their own little existence. It may be that not all of them are stupid -
most are simply misguided, and young, and underconfident, if not outright deficient. Those who haven't
grown out of fatalism by their thirties are probably mental defectives.

When we look at nihilism and radical traditionalism, what jumps out at us is that both are ways of negating
the values we have in a modern time and returning to a cosmic order based on the actual function of our
reality. There is no morality in either that places the individual higher than a noble task; the opposite is
true, since a nihilist recognizes that morality is not inherent and basically wishful thinking by those who fear
they might succumb to violence. Radical Traditionalism, like nihilism, emphasizes a quieting of the internal
dialogue over how to value life, and takes life at face value: things are simply what they are.

These forms of thinking are far more advanced than what most believe in a modern time. Most of the
trousered apes of modernity have been taught that, thanks to technology and morality, we are slowly
leaving a dark age behind and coming into a utopic state. This kind of worldview is called a "progressive"
one, in that it believes in progress from a bad state to a good state. Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism
shrug aside such concerns by recognizing that the basic dimensions of life remain as they always have
been, and no new choices outside of technology have been presented to us. Evolve or devolve. It's all a
factor of reality, no matter what moral excuses or numbers on spreadsheets we construct to support our
own desires for what reality "should" be.

These beliefs are of the type that will dominate in the future. Humanity has had a thousand year hiatus
from reality, first in the form of revolt by the masses, then via religious delusion and Judeo-Christianity, and
finally through our economies, free enterprise, suburbs and wealth derived from fossil fuels. However, true
to form, the delusional system of modernity brought us to a number of bad mistakes, and the end result
has been the squandering of our fossil fuels and continued degeneration of our societies. Therefore, as the
illusion ends, we return to common sense. If we want this common sense to succeed, we need holistic
ideologies such as Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism to take the place of one-note philosophies like White
Nationalism and Environmentalism, as they only increase divisions among us.

June 1, 2005
How to Become Your Parents
We all know what it is that makes our parents so distinctive: adults are more beaten down than children
because they've seen more frustration and hence, written off more avenues of approach in life. We're all
familiar with the sayings they have. Don't fight it, go with the flow, it's just how things are. Don't resist,
give up, go along, in other words. For this reason, most people have a nagging fear of being "conformist"
like their parents.

What your parents are, more than anything else, is practical. They've set aside a few things they can
control and written off the rest, knowing - if they're smart - intuitively that things such as democracy, free
enterprise, etc. are covers for the vast ongoing kleptocracy of modern government. They no longer have
time for ideals because in their experience, every ideal gets dragged down into the same old thing. You can
avoid this, if you want to, but it requires thinking outside of what is commonly accepted as an ideal.

It used to be (1960s) that the way to become your parents was to be conservative. If your only values
were earning money and going to church, by god, you'd be a parent in no time at all. The reason for this is
that conservatism was where the sheep hid back then, because it was the safest ideology. Now the sheep
have found an even safer ideology, and that's liberalism, in all of its covert forms - including what passes
for "conservatism" today.

The core of liberalism is class warfare, or the ongoing desire to lift up those who are impoverished or
oppressed so that there can be social equality. Liberal ideologies from Communism to the Democratic Party
to Anarchists to what passes for "Greens" all share this basic thrust. Their fundamental idea is that if we
make everyone happy, there will be no strife, and if there's no strife, we will not be personally endangered.
And that's where liberal thought ends. It doesn't go on to consider what might make a life meaningful, or
make living in a society positive. But it's a perfect ideology for getting along with people.

Think about it. If you encounter people working on your house, bums in the street, impoverished oppressed
AIDS patients, etc. you can tell them you're on their side. You believe everyone should have what you do,
and as a token of that, you'll hand them a small gift and send them on their way. It's a combination of
pacifism, or refusing to fight for what must be done because someone might get hurt, and pity, or finding a
way to make others seem puny by giving them things and thus affirming the roles of you as powerful giver
and them as weaker receiver. For whatever reason, because it refuses to assert that some ideas are worth
fighting for over others, and because it refuses to acknowledge that not all people are equal in ability,
liberalism is a very popular belief, even when hidden in a conservative skin in the style of George W. Bush
and Ronald Reagan.

However, remember the old adage: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberalism, as good
intentions, creates disorder out of society by, instead of putting effort into the growing areas of society, e.g.
its excellent people, putting energy into those who are going nowhere and removing any external pressure
for them to rise up out of a state of failure. Since liberalism is one of those beliefs composed of
moral/ideological projections instead of adaptations to reality, it also puts everyone in spacy cloud-nine
fantasyland, where they dream on about how good they are and how the poor are being helped while what
they should be focusing on - society as a whole - goes into the toilet. But no one ever got fired for adopting
a liberal idea, because if you don't stamp it with allegiance to a certain party (red star), the basic concepts
are socially inoffensive. "Sure, I accept every person as my brother or sister."

Liberalism is in fact no different from the conservative Christianity which was the bedrock of conservatism in
the 1950s. We fight the Soviets because they don't have "freedom," so what we're doing is morally right.
Now we fight "racists" for the same reason, not thinking that perhaps there is no end to this war. But let
me share with you a little secret: whether we call it Christianity, or liberalism, or pluralism, or humanism,
the simplest way to become a beaten down and submissive droid like your parents is to adopt this
viewpoint. The secret is that out of all the beliefs you can potentially adopt, almost all are derived from
liberalism, and therefore, basically the same.
Be a hippie or a Republican, an anarchist or a Green, a Libertarian or a Communist. It doesn't matter.
You're still upholding the same basic broken belief system that originates in the Jewish idea that morality
should preserve the individual at all costs, and avoid personal sacrifice; this is in dramatic contrast to the
Indo-Aryan ideal that ideals should be upheld at all costs, as they are the basis of structure in our lives. No
matter how much you rebel, with Che Guevara posters on your walls and emo in the CD player, you're still
acting through the same tired drama that has torn down every civilization, which is a progressive distancing
from reality and regression into the individual.

This type of thinking makes it easy to be beaten down. You can't have any strong opinions, because that
would offend someone, and therefore be not only un-liberal but bad for business. You can't desire any
change outside that mythological beast known as your "personal life," because that might conflict with
someone else's desires - no matter how insane - and thus cause offense and loss of business. Finally, you
can't ever suggest that the way we do things - liberalism - is in error, because it's clearly a "good" thing
and also a socially-accepted one. Keep these ideas in your head, and soon it won't be worth fighting and
you'll give in to the flow. You will have become your parents.

June 2, 2005
What's It Worth?
I saw a tiger swallowtail butterfly today. These used to be abundant around here, and you'd see one about
every week. Then the city grew out another ten miles, and they divided the intervening lands with roads,
paved much of it and cut the rest into neat little blocks. On those blocks, you don't want a chaotic, feral,
restless, atavistic, amoral natural field - you want a neat, even, conformist square of grass. So you kill
everything, including the habitat of the butterfly. And then, because your citizens fear mosquito-borne
disease, you spray poison every night that finishes off most of everything else. There are a few natural
patches left, here and there, usually unintentionally, and presumably my friend and ally the swallowtail
grew up and lived near one of those.

The experience of seeing one of these butterflies is impossible to describe. First, that such a thing exists,
being that it's delicate and beautiful in a world that often approaches functional, but I suppose nature has
outpaced humanity in making things both attractive and useful. Second, watching it move is an experience
in itself. Finally, that it has survived where so much has been torn up to make lookalike blocks of city, with
the same liquor outlets and laundromats and convenience stores and Starbucks stands, is amazing. The
thought one might have after the contemplations listed above is even simpler: in a world where everything
is given a dollar value, how do you value the experience of seeing an uncommon butterfly?

Let me explain. In America, right now, it's easy to get an apartment. Any old place will do, and they're not
expensive. But - you wanted the windows to work? You wanted to live outside the crime belt? You wanted
to have a view of something other than parking lot, and not be in the flight path of an airport? Ah - those
things will cost you. If a basic apartment is $500, one with working windows is $550, one outside the flight
path $575, one far from crime $600. This six-hundred-dollar apartment is for all purposes one can put on
paper identical to the $500 one, but the experience is different, in that you don't spend time fighting with
windows, fending off muggers, holding hands over your ears until the planes pass. You can go out on your
balcony and look over more pleasant surroundings. That experience carries a cost, in this case, $1200 per
year.

One might assume that having wild butterflies is a consequence of having a nice view, or that there's a
$700 "rustic" apartment where butterflies will probably exist. But there's no way to guarantee they'll be
there, and if there were, it would be too expensive to mention - having a staff that cultivated and released
butterflies through the garden, and dedicated land of several acres on all sides. It's going to get even more
expensive in the future, when the only place you'll be able to find butterflies is in the small tracts of land
that haven't yet been divided by fences, roads, stores, houses, churches. So there is no way to put a dollar
value on the butterfly experience. That in itself should be expected. However, that soon such a thing would
be required in order to see a butterfly should chill your blood.

The reason it will soon be required to pay extra for all services including butterflies is that, as humanity
expands, we remove things that we took for granted, including open fields and butterflies. And in our
society, nothing is recognized unless it is owned and/or paid for. This is how a consumer society works;
capitalism is the same as communism, except that in communism all things are owned by "the people," but
they're still owned. Both are consumer societies, driven by the desires of each individual and therefore,
creating intense competition for a few nice things. In other words, you will always be able to afford a place
to live which has butterflies near it, but the cost goes up every year as more humans join the flood of them
already on the planet. Today it may be $1000 a month, but soon it may require a twenty million dollar
home in the foothills.

I can't place a value on being able to walk out of an apartment and see a tiger swallowtail, or have them
near a house where your children grow up. I don't think such things succumb to simple numerical value in
the same way that one can assign a dollar value to having better windows, or a better patch of land
outside the flightpath of an airport, or a plot far from the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious and
multi-socioeconomic war zone of our inner cities. But we've now gone over a certain line drawn in the sand;
50% of the world's population lives in cities, and our population keeps expanding and taking more land.
Soon being able to see a butterfly will be a luxury that costs plenty, and it's not the money that should
bother you: it's that you should be able to appreciate nature without having to assign a dollar value to it.

June 3, 2005
God Says
Life is conflict; or rather, as in all cases with the word "is," it's appropriate to say that life "contains"
conflict. One attribute of life is conflict. However you phrase it, in order to avoid the glib leftist censors who
are sure that if we just stopped using "to be" verbs, all would be peachy and a socialist, multicultural,
pluralist paradise would finally pull us out of the dark age, the truth is there: life is full of conflict. If you
have a healthy view of life, you acclimate to this, and stop taking conflict seriously; you see it as how life is
transacted, and don't take it personally, but might even have a laughing attitude toward it even if it is
potentially fatal to you.

Because you love life, and because life necessarily involves conflict, you don't go on some Christian/leftist
crusade about how we "should" stop conflict because it's bad because in conflict, there's usually someone
who's the loser while another is a winner. If you love life, you see conflict as useful, even if it is personally
disadvantageous to you, because you love life more than your own fortunes. This is the heroic attitude that
is traditional to Indo-European societies, and it was replaced by the Jewish-Christian view, which is that
heroism is crazy and the best option any of us has is to save our own life, therefore death and conflict
"should" be made illegal or at least immoral. Indo-European civilizations valued heroism and were thus
always striving upward; Jewish and Christian civilizations valued individual life, and therefore are always
collapsing inward into greater selfishness and neurotic fear. Modern civilization came about in part because
of our technology, but in part because we embraced reckless selfishness that allowed insane profits, a
viewpoint justified by Judeo-Christian belief.

However, once we've gotten over the insanity of trying to tell life it "should" outlaw conflict, and thus some
being losers including losers of their own lives, we can see that life is conflict and conflict is a means to an
end, much as our own lives are means to the end of life itself. This is basic intellectual maturity, and in
healthier days, this came to our children at roughly age 15, although it was mostly realized by men; per
discussion in Evola's "The Mystery of the Grail," women already have a certain realization of nihilism
regarding mortality, and strive not to eliminate it but are purely adaptive to it, mostly because their logical
system is exclusively inductive where that of males is exclusively deductive (this sounds unreasonable until
you consider the ideal logical system for raising families so that as many as possible survive; the male
mandate is to make sure only the right matches in any situation survive, and consequently, for the most
part men are terrible heads of families). Acceptance of conflict, and transcendence of the fear of loss and
death, is necessary to move ahead and have a fulfilling life, much less one where one can do what is
necessary to fix situations without becoming craven because one "might" become dead.

Nevertheless, there is a subtler way to try to deal with conflict that one sees quite a bit in modern
civilization. If you're in an argument and are afraid of losing, you can always appeal to a higher source; in
simple arguments, people do this by trying to "prove" their points with definitions from the dictionary, or by
appealing to some source that is considered the end-all and be-all of wisdom in that genre. People often
refer to these as "God Says" arguments, because they are appeals to something which is outside the scope
of the argument and yet is presumed to be relevant to the argument. It's like using something that doesn't
exist in this world to end a conflict that does exist in this world, and it's the rhetorical equivalent of a
thermonuclear device for most arguments. Conflict arises; one person asserts a belief; and the other person
says God says otherwise, and therefore, the first person is wrong. Argument over, right?

This article is not a polemic against God. In fact, of all the articles on this site, this one is designed to avoid
insulting or slighting anyone's God, because the question of God is beyond its scope and totally irrelevant to
what we're saying here. For the sake of argument, in fact, please assume there is a God, and that he or
she does have opinions. However, recognize that the concept of God is necessarily outside of this world: for
something to be the source of all things, and to control them, it cannot be those things. It must be a
central order outside of the things over which it rules. In fact, monotheism is the original form of
ultracentralization, because in its belief there is a necessary addition to this world in which a single
authority asserts varying degrees of control over this world. Invoking God in an argument based in this
world therefore is like reaching outside of all possibilities and pulling in a "magic bullet" to end an
argument. This is not only bad form, but it's completely illogical, as things outside of the scope of this world
cannot have absolute dominion over it, or they would be so tied to it as to not exist independently of it.
Herein is the logical trap of "God Says": to use God in such a way would be to presuppose God is
connected to this reality in a way that obliterates his absolute authority, but the "God Says" argument relies
on that absolute authority.

As said above, the point of this article is not to defame God, but the "God Says" argument. For the
purposes of this article, the reason to bring up "God Says" arguments has nothing to do with God, but
something else that exists outside of this world yet in our minds seem to control it in an absolute authority.
That thing is money. Money takes a very complicated situation and assigns a simple dollar value to it. You
no longer worry about what lives in a field, or how old a tree is, or how important something is to a local
community; the only question is its dollar value as a commodity, and putting a dollar value on something
necessarily reduces it to a commodity. If someone wants to bring some useless crap product into a grocery
store, just because some people might buy it, there's no questioning of it - money is the argument killer. If
money can be made, jobs can be had, and we should all be happy. It's like appealing to God except money
is even more insidious, since we associate it with our own prosperity. To attack some idea because its only
justification in money is seen, in our society, as being as heretical as arguing against food.

"Money Says" is often an unstated argument. No one asks any longer whether it's a good idea to have
disposable packaging, or to sell obvious unhealthy junk food, or to have a thousand different mediocre
brands where one quality one would suffice. No one asks any longer whether it's a good idea to tear up an
empty field and replace it with a Wal-Mart (unless a marginalized group has a burial field nearby), because
we know the answer. New construction means new money. And we as a civilization have literally lost any
other means for assessing decisions. Our only question is money. There is no other plan, such as a vision
for how empty fields should be used to bring maximal benefit - we assume the "invisible hand" of
economics will regulate that, if we even care. We don't ask what is a logical decision concerning a product
like, say, beer; in a logical society, we'd find a reasonable way to distribute it and an effective way to
recycle those containers, but in our current time, any kind of tricked-out packaging that might lure a few
percentage points more of our idiot population toward buying it is fair game. We don't even consider the
questions of its impact, whether it's a good idea, etc. "Money Says" has replaced all of our ability to
question, to think analytically, to plan.

The consequences of "Money Says" are abundantly visible. Where we could have stretched our fossil fuel
supply to last a millennium or longer, and thus had a better chance of establishing space colonies, instead
we wasted it on what was profitable in the short term: cars and long commutes from the suburbs, because
the multicultural warzone of the inner city was no longer valued as highly as new housing developments.
Where we could have had a beautiful planet, we've chosen to screw it up so badly that the open oceans
are currently toxic to the point where it's inadvisable to eat fish more than once a week. Where we could
have had plentiful nature, instead we chose to breed recklessly and thus overran most of our natural
habitats, stripping them of life forms necessary to keep the whole ecosystem alive. We could have had
fewer, smarter people living well, but instead we chose to follow "Money Says" and now, as is the case
when one follows an illogical path of action, we've got a slow suicide: billions of unthinking, unintelligent,
and ignoble people who consume recklessly without the ability to think more than 48 hours ahead. They
follow orders OK, and like to buy lots of entertainment products, but no culture - and no heroic decisions -
will come out of these "last men." They're failures as far as the higher capacities of humanity are
concerned, and their creation has reversed an evolutionary process, and brought men closer to apes.

Because we followed "Money Says," and surrendered our logical faculties to an assumption that something
outside of this world can somehow determine absolutely how we should organize it (money is an
abstraction, thus not actually present in our world), we blew it - or rather, we traded a glorious future for a
miserable slow end. As global warming, global pollution, overpopulation, religious and class warfare, and
waning energy supplies converge on us, the world is going to change. We will no longer have the abundant
resources which empower a "Money Says" point of view, and there will no longer be the presumption that
human life is sacred, since we will all have seen the excess produced by being afraid to kill the stupid. And
what will result is killing of a brutality unmatched in history. You weep for the six million Jews allegedly lost
in Europe during WWII? Cough, cough... you're going to be looking at six billion dead in the next round, as
all the civilizations we have carefully built collapse in on themselves. This is nature's way of cleaning up.
That which is illogical grows fat in summer, but in winter, the herd is thinned. That is what you will soon be
witnessing; it may take anywhere between five to fifty years, but yes, it is coming. You can no longer hide
in the comfortable oblivion of an absolute such as that projected by a society based on "Money Says."

Many of us who were not fully deluded by the propaganda - our society is the best, ever! the most
enlightened! praise multiculturalism and corporate money and jesus! - have seen this on the horizon for
some time, and we are preparing in ways that the rest of you cannot comprehend. When things collapse,
we will quickly move toward a new type of order, in which no single absolute assessment determines a
situation. Most likely, we will get our slaughter on in degrees you will find appalling, with millions upon
millions of men, women and children extinguished for being of lumpenproletariat heritage. The smarter
ones will be able to identify each other, and will spare those, of course; we want allies. But for all the
people who are products of this "Money Says" society, there will no longer be a use, and their very
presence, daily consuming resources and producing waste, will be a threat to the new order, which is one
in which natural health is more important than money or popularity. Thus people like me will spend our
days in dual states: building with love, and killing with love, as we're going to eliminate the rest of you and
have a blast doing it. Where "Money Says" ruled, illogicality followed and produced a degenerate form of
the human race. That's about to be erased, and the order of the future, unlike "Money Says," will rest
entirely within the logic of this world and will bypass these false absolutes.

June 7, 2005
Apple Computer, Inc. at Stalingrad
Those who follow the computer industry probably allowed themselves a grin over Apple Computer's
announcement last week that it would be henceforth manufacturing machines based on Intel's pentium
processors. While the hypnotized zombies who believe every word of Apple's press releases continue to
insist otherwise, this is the death knell for Apple as a hardware manufacturer. It may take years, or even
decades, but Apple is now on the slippery slope of gradually eroding market share and will soon be known
for selling iPods and software.

The reasons for this are not as straightforward as they would seem. It is not that Apple will now be in the
clutches of the evil Windows-Intel hierarchy, nor that Apple will now be forced to bring its machines down
to the supposedly mediocre standards of PCs. Like most modern dilemmas, this one is simple once one
strips away the layers of dogma and socially-reinforced assumptions: Apple will cease to exist as a
computer hardware maker because there is no longer any reason to buy Apples.

For the last twenty-one years, Apple has marketed itself as the alternative to corporate dominance of
computing. Don't let the suits take over, warned the Apple ads, buy the machine that creative people love.
With this assumption comes a raft of other ideas which cluster around the concept of buying a machine as
an identity, "creative person," instead of for sheerly technical reasons. The mythos goes as such: creative
people don't have time for technical annoyances, not being those dead-in-the-forebrain suited types, and
thus they prefer a more dramatic, emotional, social computer maker.

This identity remains popular with certain segments of the world because it allows them to think of
themselves as not-evil, where evil is the grey suited ones, and thus to build a self-image around their
choice of machine. Once one makes that association, it becomes necessary to defend it, often by bending
logic. Windows machines are only faster when you use the fascist-approved industry standard benchmarks,
and Windows machines are only cheaper because they're part of the great Intel conspiracy. If you don't like
this corporate fascism, you can always buy Apple, which is the great alternative.

Apple did well, until it reversed itself in several fundamental ways. First, it did go corporate, and left behind
the idea of the happy friendly creative computer, marketing itself instead in terms of raw speed and power.
This put it on an equal footing to the corporates, and changed its audience from the computer-savvy who
were sick of tedious interfaces, to the computer-alienated whose main outlook was one of fear, and
needing an excuse ("I'm a creative person, not a grey suited technical type") to justify that isolation. Then,
after years of claiming its software was superior, Apple switched to that ancient and archaic system of
UNIX, installing its interface into it.

These two moves essentially left Apple as a corporate company whose marketing was different, not its
practices or products. While its internal neurosis - the CEOs who fought, the business plan that changed
five times a year, the fractious divisions that could rarely cooperate - had always been a downside, now it
had been brought into Apple's public face. Add to this the customers who got tired of years of fancy-
looking equipment that often worked poorly, or required parts so nonstandard the expense and rarity of
them created as much downtime as the arcana of CP/M had in its day, not to mention those $1500
upgrades after a year of machine ownership to keep it "current," and the grounds for a palpable shift in
userbase could be felt.

Now comes the latest, where Apple, after years of calling Intel and Windows a conspiracy by stodgy
corporate types to make computing obscure, has decided to use Intel chips. At this point, for a consumer
to use Apple, they have to decide that a technically identical but far cheaper Windows machine bundled
with the rock-solid and user-friendly Windows XP OS is too difficult, and must also decide that installing
increasingly user-friendly UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems is not worth saving a thousand or more on
hardware costs (note that where Apple was most competitive was in its laptop machines, in which the gap
between comparable Windows boxes was narrower).

In short, at this point, Apple stands revealed as (1) a pretty interface and (2) a pretty pretense of being
something "progressive" and "creative" where really, it's the same old neurotic corporate committee-driven
lack of vision dressed up in anything other than a suit. It's like a banker in a Hawaiian shirt, or a cop
wearing a jogging suit and bling-bling: another subterfuge, in a nation that is increasingly accustomed to
and sick to death of such things. Further, Apple has revealed itself much as Communism slowly revealed
itself to be, in the guise of "empowering the people," the exact opposite, and in fact more dangerous than
the alternative, because unlike the other empires of the world it did seek world domination and a single
central authority whose inefficiency would bleed the people dry.

To put it in other terms, Apple's business model is as follows. The one true computer company, surrounded
by droids, will forge ahead and sell you the only possible deliverance from droid-dom, but you must return
to the mothership in order to get your fix and be validated as a creative type and not a droid. Further, only
they decide who is or isn't a droid, and therefore you must play exclusively by their rules. Finally, they've
instilled a political outlook to the functional process of computing, where you no longer seek the best but
the most dogma-compatible outcome. Where Hitler wanted Germany, and Mussolini wanted Italy, Apple like
the Soviet Union wants all of Europe, and wants to bend it all to a single "enlightened" standard.

But this standard, no matter how "progressive" it seems, requires absolute obedience and a limiting rather
than proliferation of choices. Think how the PC industry works: you can buy a $50 motherboard or a $250
one, with a corresponding range of function to each. Your standard cheap-ass Dell or HP might be a piece
of junk, but if you have the foresight to squeeze a few more months out of the old machine, you can pony
up an additional $500 and get a far better unit that will not only last longer but work better. Alienware, for
example, has made a solid business out of selling high performance machines designed for gamers to a
corporate audience. Interestingly, this model is closest to the old Apple theory: build a better unit and you
spend less time fiddling with the recalcitrant computer, and more time using it to do great things.

Where the Wintel world was like a coral reef, or a basic superstructure onto which many companies and
different grades of computing power could grow, Apple was like Jesus Christ: all salvation must be had
through me, and please be sure to ignore reality, because salvation in the next world ("creative" heaven) is
more important than function in this one. The PC world allowed natural growth, where Apple insisted - all
with good intentions, of course, of course - on allegiance to a single path. As a result, PCs developed in
parallel and outpaced Apple radically, forcing Apple to compromise its basic vision by becoming another
corporation with an expensive logo. It's as if Ralph Lauren suddenly contrast Hanes Beefy T to make its
shirts, and used silk-screening for the famous "gay Englishman on horse" logo.

The example of Apple Computer is important because it mirrors the political growth of the West in the last
2,000 years. Nature was seen as the big corporate enemy, because it was only function devoid of
convenience of a morality of saving each and every sorry little ass out there; nature was red in truth and
claw, and often incovenient, involving bowel movements and slow deaths from gruesome disease. The
"progressive" mindset alleged an imminent utopia if we just began thinking of individual humans as more
holy than any collective task, and most of all, more divine than nature itself; it created a fantasy world
where only the progressive ideology led to the one narrow path to spiritual victory.

As a consequence, the world spilled out in great initial growth, expanding recklessly by empowering every
individual to be "creative" through the innovation of not applying any standard of reality to their desires.
Wish to be wasteful, or live a degenerate life? Well, it's your right, God bless you. We won't judge. This
populist vision pitted the drama queen in each of us against the corporate stodge of conservatism, or doing
things as they've been proven to work for the generalized best, and made each who took it on feel special,
almost holy, for bringing that one point of light into a dark world. It's a feel-good, us-versus-the-ignorance
viewpoint that's hard to argue down, since it bases itself on personal choice and not any kind of practicality.

However, much as the computer market has changed, the political situation has changed, and with the rise
of Political Correctness, the softened leftism of wealthy countries in North America and Europe was seen for
what it really was: the same obsessive desire for power, for justification ("I'm a creative person, not one of
those boring grey-suited conservative types") and for revenge that Communism was, with the same
disastrous results awaiting, albeit on a longer scale as leftism is less dynamically violent than Communism.
But disaster waits none the less. Leftism shows us one path that will only be happy with world domination,
and then will turn on itself; while modern "conservatism" is basically conservative-flavored leftism (as Apple
is now creative-flavored corporate stodge), the systems of organizing civilization that existed before this
split were more like PCs: there was no equality among motherboards, but sensible choices were rewarded,
moving the best people up in rank.

Apple's Stalingrad has been one of those seemingly happy stories about the little guy who somehow held
out against the evil empire. If you listen to Apple propaganda, Apple is something we should all try to
emulate, a beacon of individualism and creativity standing up bravely against the drudgery and
authoritarian power. It is not dissimilar to the rhetoric of the Democratic party, which portrays itself as a
champion of the little guy, the lone individual, against the encroaching power of Republic Christian dogma
(while not noting, of course, that Christian dogma and liberal dogma are terrifyingly similar).

While clearly this metaphor seems strained, it's interesting to note how accurate it is on the whole. As we
watch Apple slowly sink into becoming yet another Intel computer manufactuer, it will be gratifying to
watch leftism (including conservatism) descend to the same autumnal state, the threshold before the door
to oblivion. In this basic division between the one right path away from nature, and the natural path
applied as rightly as each can see, there's a lesson for our future, should we choose to heed it.

June 19, 2005

Frustration with Politics
Societies are large, and within them, we use means of communication to organize ourselves so we can act
as a single entity. This is the founding principle of civilization: division of labor and delegation of both
control and function. The people allow themselves to have leaders; the leaders, who would normally follow
the old saw "If you want it done right, do it yourself," have to content themselves with allowing others to
do many of the basic functions of collective existence. Societies use politics, or public discourse over the
means and direction of collectivism, to negotiate how they will act together.

Politics is both a fascinating study, and a frustrating one. Like most tools or activities, it carries with it the
danger of replacing its own goal. In the past, our societies have had strong leadership and not much
internal political dialogue; currently, there is a high amount of political wrangling, and very much a lack of a
clear goal. At this stage politics ceases to resemble a tool for organizing ourselves, and begins to look like
neurosis: a confused mind fighting itself over every move, always unsure, and consequently
overcompensating and then making itself more neurotic.

One reason for our political decline is that the smarter among us have for several centuries now abandoned
politics, as to them it seems like a gibbering monkey which turns and spits on anything that threatens its
sense of self-esteem. We can reference witch-hunts all we like, but the basic mechanism of recent politics
has been to establish a public belief, and then to impose it by filtration, cutting down those who do not
conform and thus leaving only those who do.

Personal Experience

Our loss is compounded by the political organizations which would ostensibly speak up against this method,
as they, too, have fallen into its sway, and offer us only a different appearance to the same failing. And
here, if you'll pardon me, I have to wax personal.

When I was younger, I was a Marxist. The simple reason was that Marxists, like the most vicious capitalists,
recognize that "time is money," and I felt it a travesty that we all worked such long hours, waited in line at
businesses and governments, and had too little time for our families. Most of my young friends were
accustomed to Dad being something that showed up late, left early, slept until noon on the weekends and,
if you were lucky, had an hour or two on Sunday for a game of catch or zoo visit. Some also had Mom in
the same situation, and grew up in front of televisions, since there were no parents to ask those all-
important questions.

The other reason for my Marxism was simple: I wanted a system of power that, while not totalitarian,
wasn't afraid to enforce certain rules absolutely, to the point of machine-gunning those who transgressed
them. This arose from the irrefutable experience of seeing the suburbs expand, plouging under the forest
and erecting row after row of look-alike houses. As a child, I had a few close friends but spent over half of
my time alone, wandering in the woods or playing with the toys I had found I respected most: batteries,
light bulbs, gears, fireworks (oops).

I knew that if there wasn't a strong hand to stop that expansion, the suburbs would eventually cover the
earth, paving it with concrete roads and at every subdivision, a network mini-mall with lots of concrete
parking and boxy plastic-windowed stores. To my mind, this was a loss of complexity and beauty, because
the forest wasn't all flat, had thousands of different trees and animals, and little brooks, occasional caves,
old gnarled trees and patches of fresh ones. There were hiding places and open spaces, ponds and
thickets.

I didn't have a problem with some of it being replaced so kids like me could have houses in which to grow
up, but I had come to know adults, and realized that there was no one in control. As long as there were
more people, and they had money, the suburbs would keep expanding. There was no stop point - it was
like an unguided train rushing down the tracks. For this reason, I began to be queasy about adult
motivations and what the future held.
There were other factors as well, but as a youngster, I didn't know how to put these into place. One was
that adults were alarmingly fake. They made fake smiles, weird small talk, and told "little white lies" to
cover up each other's failings. You couldn't talk about age in the context of adults, and never mention
death or defecation, which to me seemed like a bizarre religious doctrine. They also tended to bathe
themselves in strange scents, use lots of little products to cover up their natural faces, and do wasteful and
strange things with their purchasing habits. I rapidly came to trust not only their motivations, but their
judgment skills.

Alarmingly, no one seemed to notice what I was seeing, and no one - I mean no one - would talk about it.
People seemed happy to get in a car at seven in the morning, go into work until nine at night, then come
home and watch television, get in a fight with their spouse and then put the kids to bed, warning them that
if they didn't study hard, they wouldn't be able to have such wonderful jobs someday. It seemed they were
sending us to the same enemy that had stolen their own souls.

I read widely as a kid, and like my fear of adult motivations, this knowledge lingered in my brain, but I had
nowhere to put it. In high school, the world was simple: there were people who wanted to restrain our
freedom, and those of us who wanted to reclaim it. I identified with the founding fathers, and felt that if I
could just "educate" people, I could stop them from creating an endless row of suburbs occupying all land
on earth. My heroes were the people who opposed this insensitivity, mostly writers: Conrad, Emerson,
Faulkner, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Nietzsche, Fitzgerald, Williams, Joyce.

As I went through high school, in the late 1980s, change was afoot. Reagan was out and in the void of his
cult of personality, Bush senior was president. My most immediate concern was not getting drafted into
Iraq, as I anticipated the kind of Vietnamesque guerrilla warfare that is our current war in Iraq, but those
concerns passed. My world was divided between the people who accepted freedom and a lack of rules, who
were liberal educators taking lower salaries to fearlessly bring enlightenment to us, and those who opposed
that, namely the wealthy and Christian and conservative folk who seemed to run the government. It was a
nice, clear, easy worldview, a tool for filtering out the bad and seeing the good.

This changed when I went on to college. At this point, Bush senior was replaced by a man with more
personality - the charming and fearlessly independent Bill Clinton. At first, I was cheered by this, but over
time, I began to loathe the man. He hadn't done anything to stop the expansion of humanity; in fact, he
encouraged it. He did nothing to end the tedium of our lives spent driving to work, putting up with other
people, and then coming home to go shopping or spend money in bars. He not only wanted the suburbs to
keep building, but he wanted to put more people into them, mainly because those people had traditionally
been poor and of another color. And at college, I saw a different side of liberalism.

My first shock was realizing that among those of a leftist persuasion, I was one of a few who cared first
about stopping human overexpansion; those who were "environmentalists" inevitably mated their ideas to a
civil rights agenda, and therefore were not actually opposed to stopping the expansion, but wanted all of us
to stop leaving lights on, take navy-style showers and drive smaller cars. I had no objection to any of those
cutbacks, but I didn't see how they were going to solve the problem.

More alarmingly the leftists were occupied entirely by egoism. They wanted to feel good about themselves,
thus they took the side of the underdog, and were swallowed up entirely by a class revenge and civil rights
agenda. Having come from a city with healthy but separate black and homosexual and hispanic districts, I
didn't see the urgency of this task, as to me it was a distraction from the basic task: make society saner,
and everything else will fall into line, as the only reason it's out of whack now is that we're living insane
lives. No one would follow me there, so I became quiet on this topic.

At that time, I became heavily involved with the subculture known as death metal. It taught me a few vital
things. I learned first of all that most of the people in death metal were just as thoughtless and crude as
the rest of society, and that it was important to neglect their opinions, or they'd fill the world with
simplistic, plodding, stupidly violent music and ignore the better, subtler stuff. Second, death metal
reawakened my reading of the Romantics, as the imagery and ideas were roughly the same. Wordsworth,
Keats, Milton, Blake, and this leads back to Nietzsche.
By the time I left college, and was thrust into the world of working nine to five and then coming home to
pay bills, go shopping and buy drinks in bars, I was thoroughly disillusioned with politics. While the
bickering continued, I reasoned, nothing was being done about the basic issue - the insanity - and no one
would even ask the questions. These people were not out to fix problems, but to win, meaning to score a
victory for their side. The tool of politics had become a goal in itself, and no matter who won, society would
still be as acephalous and directionless as it had always been in my experience.

Seeing my coworkers fall time and again for the same stupid ruses, whether political or the time-honored
scams that businesses offer under the guise of contracts and promises, made me tired. These people were
like bluejays, easily distracted by shiny objects, and therefore would make a token political stance, but once
they'd gotten whatever it was that occupied their little minds for that month - a new car, a color TV, a
faster computer, heroin - they were inert and content to see the system keep churning. Left and right alike,
once they had what they wanted, tended to regard everyone else with scorn, as if they'd proved themselves
to be superior and the rest inferior.

After some years of this, and reading increasingly alarming long-distance environmental projections, I
returned to my basic concept: most people have the judgment skills of gnats, and what is needed is a
direction and those with the will to enforce it. I knew I couldn't trust either political wing; the conservatives
had lost and didn't seem to know it, because traditional values and society had collapsed, and they were
fighting to hold what space they had, but could easily be sidetracked by issues like abortion or school
prayer or flag burning. Symbols meant nothing to me; reality meant more.

I didn't trust the liberals either, least of all from recent experience. A liberal to me had become not the
fearless Marxist proletarian insurgent, but someone who talked a good game about helping the poor and
other races, then went off and got a corporate job and drinked themselves into oblivion every night - or
simply smoked weed, but they smoked it like weekenders; they didn't want a psychedelic experience, with
its cycle of euphoria and fear and death and rebirth, but they wanted detachment. To a person, they were
neurotic, deeply insecure and constantly making bad decisions, then inventing excuses and justifications.
There was always someone else to blame, and wasn't it clear that we the oppressed suffered under the
other side? No more, said I.

At this point, something vital happened: a man named Ted Kaczynski had been arrested as the Unabomber
and went to trial. I read his manifesto, and was amazed at how much it resembled (a) the works of
Nietzsche I'd been sifting through (b) my own notes regarding political philosophy and (c) many of the
opinions of the best of the writers of the 1920s and 1930s. What was even more astounding, I found out,
was how much it resembled what was written in the only legitimate candidate for "banned book" during our
lifetimes: Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler. I started reading more National Socialist, Nationalist and traditionalist
philosophy.

What shocked me here was the universal knee-jerk response I witnessed in others to National Socialism:
they didn't react with intellectual curiosity, or even benign tolerance, but outright condemnation. I saw the
witch-hunt mentality in full progress. Well, wasn't this interesting. The closest thing to this I had ever seen
was the War on Drugs under Reagan, but it wasn't even as absolute as the fear and hatred of Nazism.
Having learned well during childhood that any taboo covers either a great error (pedophilia) or great
knowledge (drugs/literature), I followed this path more attentively. However, over time, I became
disillusioned here.

Neo-Nazis and Nationalists, it seems to me, are just as paranoid and isolated as the American
conservatives. They act as if they're defending something that is still there, namely traditional civilization,
not realizing that long ago it was obliterated by modernity and that only remnants exist. The average neo-
Nazis thinks that, if we just kick out or exterminate the Negroes and Jews, everything will be peachy. Even
if the suburbs keep expanding, the pollution keeps piling up, and there are no trees left; even if we all still
pack off down the road every morning to a boring job surrounded by mentally defective people, and then
come home to buy things and watch television, it'll all be OK if we just follow that bigoted and moronic
program. As far as I could tell, their agenda had nothing in common with Hitler's, and they were acting out
the image of "neo-Nazi" as they saw it on TV and in the movies.
Onward to frustration: during these years, I had kept active, mainly by reading as extensively as I could,
remembering Faulkner's advice ("largely uncorrelated reading"). I had moved from idealistic materialist
philosophy of the Nietzschean type to a cosmic idealism like that of Arthur Schopenhauer, and through his
work and that of Julius Evola, had discovered the values of ancient Hindu and Buddhist thought. These
religions were not like the effete Christian and Jewish faiths that preached preservation of the individual at
all costs; they glorified an ideal, or having a goal and a direction, no matter what the cost, and sang their
losses as well as their victories. This was a sensible mindset.

Even further, unlike any religion or political philosophy I'd seen in the world, the ancient ways were full of
praise for nature and for humankind existing among it, not as dominator of it. Like the Romantic writers and
the death and black metal that reinvented their ideas, this was to me, a very healthy philosophy. It did not
waste its time with hatred, but suggested a way of life where we find ultimate beliefs and work toward
them, knowing that they apply in any situation. It was honorably warlike, and also addressed the existential
issue: life is a gift, enjoy it and do what makes it most intense and beautiful. No hours of commuting or
sitting in committees, there.

Values

Evola, through Guenon and Nietzsche before him, suggested a new paradigm: all of our political actvity of
the last thousand years has been of the same nature, namely revenge by the masses against the elites, and
its consequence has been the creation of the headless and greedy society we know as "modern." Judaism,
Christianity and liberalism were the same creation, as they had the same basic ideal. Their method was a
kind of paradox: a fantasy that claimed to produce magical results in reality (interestingly, all swindles and
false promises can be described this way). They were anti-reality, and hence, anti-nature. They believed in
saving every life, but that every life should be equally wasted in servitude to modern lifestyles.

In this I found a vehicle for my beliefs, which are as follows:

1. Environment

There is nothing holier than our natural environment; it is a thing of beauty worth preserving in itself.
As it is a giant ecosystem, it needs more space than we do, and thus humans should take less than a
quarter of earth's land for their influence, and leave the rest untouched. The primary threat to our
environment is overpopulation, and the ability of individuals (of varying judgment skills) to do reckless
things. The only way to save and protect our environment is a quasi-totalitarian system whereby
excess population is curtailed, and the "rights" and "freedoms" of individuals that are destructive are
removed.

2. Existential

We are our time of life; our lives are not tangible entities, but a number of days we have on the
planet. You can never be young again, nor redo the past, so there is no time to waste. As a
consultant, I found that most jobs could be done in four hours a day with only minimal efforts put
into making them more efficient; with a semi-radical redesign, our society could have us working only
three days a week. Further, our experience should not be tedious and depressing, as waiting in lines
or buying things in corporate bars tends to be. We should not be restrained by fear of offending the
less capable among us, as that creates an environment where we all tolerate the same stupidity.
Finally, we should be able to surround ourselves with pleasant things, as life is constant conflict and
when we are not fighting, we should be enjoying.

3. Eugenics

People are born with their abilities. You can educate them, and develop their abilities to a maximum,
but the raw material is basically what you get. An idiot will never be a research scientist, and a
plumber never a philosopher; confusing the two leads to democratic systems where the lowest
common denominator predominates. When we allow everyone to breed, and make the requirements
for life as simple as getting a job and buying things, we devolve toward a race of monkeys and not
 humans. Instead of creating societies that are designed so that everyone can survive, we should
design societies around our best people, so that we're always breeding to a higher standard. Who
knows - in five hundred years, perhaps we'll have a species of highly intelligent beings.

4. Karma

The Easternists rail against the ego, but to my mind, the problem is not ego but self-image. People
like to think of themselves as self-created entities distinct from the world; this is the root of the
individualism, or placing the individual above all else, that in the West originates in Jewish thought
(the Jews, as a race of traders and salespeople, needed such a belief). A healthier way to view life is
to see ourselves as manifestations of some will that is shared by all things; in this view, the individual
is not an entity removed from the world and has no reason to be excessively prideful in itself, as all of
its gifts - intelligence, strength, character - are given by the will which is shared among all things.
Further, we can look at the world in terms of karma, which is a mixture between evolution and
morality. Those who gain ability and push themselves to not just greater extremes of strength and
intelligence, but moral character, evolve upward in the cycle; those who behave as degenerates move
downward. The system of karma shows us why we advance the best, but view their abilities as
inherent and possible for all things, given enough time acting in a healthy way.

5. Race, Ethnicity, Heritage

There is no crime in saying that one prefers to live among one's own race, unified by the culture
shared naturally among members of that race; this belief is separate from racial hatred and bigotry,
and does not necessarily involve the use of force or gas ovens to achieve its goals. One wishes to live
among one's own race for the purpose of preserving that race, because no race can exist when it is
mixed with others; it becomes something else, and not something new or better, as mixed-race
civilizations have existed for centuries without producing a greater civilization. However, this issue
cannot be analyzed in terms of its practical value, as the goal is to preserve what is unique in nature;
one cannot sensibly argue that traits be borrowed from another race to create something "better," as
there is no definition of better in nature. Rather, we must bravely face the fact that healthy people
are most comfortable among others of their background, ethnicity and culture, and that it is racial
bigotry to deny them this right. (There is a subsidiary argument to this as to whether or not a racial
hierarchy should be instituted for the purposes of better leadership, as was done in ancient India; I
am selfish enough to say that separation is an answer, and let other races fend for themselves as
they will.)

6. Idealism

Any society without a goal becomes neurotic. Our goal should be centered around our cultural and
ethnic heritage, but aim at forever developing these ideas further. There are no "new" ideas in the
world, only (a) past ideas aesthetically disguised as something new and (b) better versions of ideas
that exist. Our world has not changed, and will not change, as far as the essential forces that shape
our lives are concerned; we will always be mortal, and have to exist by adapting to our environment,
and govern our own minds as well as our collective civilizations. Thus our society does not need
"new" ideas, or a progressive agenda that supposes that, through caring more about individuals and
less about having a goal, we are approaching Utopia. There are no Utopias. There are only societies
with greater and lesser degrees of sensibility, and when sensibility itself declines, the society begins a
slow descent into oblivion. Idealism in this usage means the recognition that every action or structure
in the world expresses an idea, and that by striving for changes in these ideas, we manipulate
ourselves and the world toward a better degree of the same order. We do not intend to remake
nature, or create a moral government. We wish to create a practical civilization in which individuals
have the discipline and foresight to achieve the most they possibly can. Idealism replaces materialism,
or belief in only the material and thus a motivation by individual comfort and desire, and is the only
possible end to domination by corporate or governmental entities.

These beliefs transcend politics, which is a tool that has taken the place of the quest for civilization itself. In
the current time, politics does not serve us; we serve it. And furthermore, it completely divides us. Liberals
and conservatives have not only balkanized our political spectrum into discrete and uncompromising
identities, but they have each failed to maintain the original ideological thrust of their movements.

Liberalism vs Conservatism

Liberalism originates in the idea of making society a better place for the normal working person, but instead
liberalism has become a quest to earn money and become powerful in order to subsidize those who cannot
or will not help themselves; it is a thin disguise for revenge against those of higher class, caste, ability and
beauty of others. This revengeful nature makes liberal policy a consumptive ideal when introduced to any
society, dividing it against itself and leading to a disorganized and devolutionary civilization. It is for this
reason that liberals are satired as "limousine liberals," or wealthy people feeling better about themselves by
"helping" others, when their real intent has nothing to do with helping those people but relies on using
them as a weapon against those who might rise above the herd. Liberalism is egoism, and a deep sickness.

Conservatism fares not much better. Its original concept was that of preserving traditional culture, and
allowing the best to rise by keeping them independent of too much entangling government and obligation,
but it has been sidetracked into the party for defense of wealth, coupled with a narrow reactionary view
that rejects deviation from the type of conformist behavior that adapts people to commerce. As a
consequence, it, too, has lost its way and become a form of egoism that allows people to congratulate
themselves as "superior" for having had the desire to have wealth as an end in itself. It is bankrupt of
actual values, and therefore finds itself obsessed with symbolic issues that relate minimally to the course of
civilization. Conservatism is reactionarism, and because it defends something that no longer exists by
asserting its nominal aspects and ignoring its ideals, it is both destructive and an obstruction to those who
would wish to resurrect those values.

Clearly, another path is needed. Modern people are trained to have considered all past ideas as defunct,
and to therefore believe that there are no options left. This is a consequence of modern people getting
their opinions entirely from television, either directly repeating what they've been told or seeing what they
are expected to see from a selective and small sampling of the data shown. Those who do not directly
witness these things on television usually socialize with people who will repeat these ideas to them. For this
reason, modern people are accustomed to disliking their government but feeling that no other options
exist, or that "new" options are needed and have yet not been invented. The opposite is true: the right way
to rule a civilization has never changed, and its principles can easily be adapted to our current time.

Third Way

Third way politics are so called because they represent a middle path that incorporates the sensible parts of
both liberalism and conservatism, although the whole of neither. It is another angle in that it cannot be
classified as either or the other, and is not "both" in that it does not take the whole of either, but it is also
a third way in that instead of taking a political approach, it recognizes that politics should be a means to an
end and implements philosophy as a way of understanding politics and grounding it in a values system so
that politics does not become divorced from its essential function. In this change more than anything else it
resembles nothing currently found in the political spectrum.

Others refer to this ideal as "Tradition," in that it refutes the progressive argument and says, in effect, that
there is one way of conducting a successful civilization, and implementations of that with varying degrees of
adaptation to reality. In this view, liberalism and conservatism are both aspects of the revolution of the
masses that led us away from the way civilizations were run for centuries without the problems we now
experience. From this mass revolt we learn that, while every individual might think his or her views should
be respected absolutely, only a few people of specialized intelligence are suitable to run a society and their
opinions must take precedence over those of the masses. Another way to say this is that the average
person will fulfil his desires by buying large cars, dumping toxic waste and cutting down trees to make
concrete lots, but that same person will not understand why this is destructive; those who do understand
must oppress this person to prevent such problems from occurring.

When we recover from the revolt of the masses that has created the modern theory that we should be able
to do whatever we desire, without care for the collective consequences, we return from a temporary illusion
to the traditional methods of civilization that always have worked and always will. In this type of civilization,
the specialization of labor includes those who retain wisdom, and rule, and thus have more power than
others. It also includes limits on what all people can do, and regulates social mobility through karma - how
well in intelligence, strength and moral character they have advanced - instead of monetary success. It is
not something that exists within our current political system, or can, because it transcends politics in favor
of a philosophical outlook.

National Socialism

Widely misunderstood, the Nazi regime's problems are compounded because (a) its would-be followers pay
more attention to Hollywood media than Mein Kampf and (b) postwar propaganda has done everything
possible to vilify the Nazi state and its leaders. Experienced people immediately discard both Hollywood and
postwar propaganda, knowing that each are popular ways of gaining control of the minds of a people
without having actually convinced them of a truth. The most important element forgotten in this process is
that the Nazi state, like most things, was a means to an end: it was a transitional government between the
flawed modern liberal democracy, supported by economic incentive, to a government by ideal, in which the
philosophy and culture of a people, including defense of their ethnic uniqueness, was the primary goal.

Hitler portrayed himself as an impassioned and often demonic presence, but his behavior speaks otherwise.
He carefully resurrected the German economy based on the productivity of its workers, and instituted
policies to protect them and allow them to live better and more honorably than before. He swept out the
distracting propaganda of modernity, including its degenerate art and lifestyle choices, and isolated the
German population demographically by clearing out anyone of 3/4 or more foreign blood. Despite occupying
many foreign nations, including some African ones, he did not institute genocide on non-whites there, but
was content to cooperate with them and to honor them as brothers in Nationalist struggle - them standing
up for their ethnicity, and Hitler his own.

Legend in America has it that he refused to shake Jessie Owens' hand when the latter won medals at the
Olympic Games in Berlin, but Owens' widow recounts that the opposite is true; Hitler shook his hand. While
he crusaded to remove jazz and other foreign elements from German culture, he allowed artists who were
of non-degenerate behavior to continue their work in those fields. Hitler's supposedly reckless warlike
expansion was not random, but designed to contain Communist-friendly elements in Europe, and had it
been allowed to persist, would have saved the world from a destructive and paranoiac Cold War. He was
unstinting in his support for Nationalists in other countries, and aided them in fighting for their own
freedoms as ethnic-cultural entities.

Modernity as Paralysis

It is possible to turn National Socialism, or "neo-Nazism" as it is now called because it is so widely

interpreted in the vernacular, into a modern crusade of balkanization potential much like the liberal-
conservative split, but this is productive only if one wants a political identity and not transcendence of
politics itself. What must be extracted from National Socialism is its implementation of the transitional
political-economic system that can deliver us from modernity, and its ideals, which are correspondent to
those of Traditional civilizations in ancient Greece, Rome, India and Europe.

These ideals can be upheld in any form, and it is necessary to think of them in this manner, because in a
modern society we are overwhelmed by information and thus find it difficult to make decisions. Most of this
information has some degree of propaganda in it, and therefore directly influences us for each second we
spend watching TV/movies or reading newspapers or popular literature (or rather, each second you spend:
I do not indulge in those activities). For this reason, most of our population is polarized to reject any
message other than the basic message of modern society, which is that individual "freedom" (and economic
mobility) is the ultimate goal of our society and that anything which limits it is unacceptable. We like our
ideal of no restrictions and open competition, because we have been taught to think only this is fair.

However, when one limits thinking to that narrow range of thought, the only system of government that is
not immediately rejected is that of the modern, capitalist liberal democracy and corresponding quasi-
socialist welfare state. The latter is necessary because with economic mobility comes disposability of the
worker, and the tendency for those with absolute allegiance only to money to get ahead, leaving the rest of
us vulnerable. When social mobility is replaced with a sane economic situation that guarantees employment
at good wages, as was had in traditional societies, the preconceptions of the modern state will be
discarded.

In the meantime our problem remains, in that our population is mostly paralyzed by a flood of biased
information, and we must make the transition to another type of civilization. Luckily, we do not need to
convince all of them. In any population, there are many people who lead normal lives, and a large group in
the middle - called the "Silent Majority" - who contribute the creative ideas and constructive practices that
make life better for the rest. This group are not necessarily rich, but they are not poor, as they are
inventive types who create a good living for themselves but generally abstain from politics. They see politics
as demagoguery, and thus realize they cannot compete in this field, so they try to stay out of the way of
authority while going about what they always do: small businesses, the arts, public service and
craftmanship.

Soft Racialism and Holism

Recently, British National Party politician Nick Griffin made a speech to American racialists and Nationalists
in which he condemned the direction Nationalism in America is taking. He argued that extremist groups
have the wrong approach, in that they appeal only to those who are already alienated, and have neglected
the Silent Majority in favor of those who are loudest and angriest. In short, Nationalist groups are their own
worst enemy, because they project themselves as terroristic bigots who wish to offend, and thus have a
political identity, more than they seek to achieve anything. The tool has become the goal.

"The [Nationalist] movement in the broadest sense of the

word in America, is riddled with lunatic casual extremists who
wreck your cause in the eyes of ordinary people. And also,
it's dominated right throughout all areas of it (including
people in this room) with people who put up with casual
extremism...if you want to be seen by ordinary decent
Americans, the people you have to have on our side, as we
break into the next sections of the population, then you have
to look at the things which people in or claim to be in our
movement do and you let them do by not calling them up on
it, and you have to say: do these things actually help, are
they actually necessary, do they hinder us? And if they are
not necessary and they hinder you, then you have got to
work to get rid of them, not put up with them for the sake of
being polite." - Nick Griffin, BNP

Griffin is not telling us simply to dress differently, or to disguise or intentions. His message is far clearer:
get rid of the extremist reactionary thought and those who espouse it. Extremism is a dead-end position, in
that it alienates those who are not interested in violent revolution and, by its own momentum, will deny us
the chance to re-organize civilization and will instead accelerate its destruction. Griffin is not asking us to
back down on any of our ideals, but to reorganize our thinking about how to implement them, and to
appeal to the Silent Majority instead of alienating them by being parade-ground Nazis who accomplish
sound and fury but achieve -- nothing.

I would like to go even further. No one is born a Nationalist, although most healthy people are born with a
natural tendency to stick to their own group. Nationalists have always come from other political
backgrounds, and have come to Nationalism because they recognize the imperative of cultural preservation.
However, I believe our focus in Nationalism has become misguided. We look too closely at the race issue, in
part because it is the one that sends our opponents into paroxysms of vitriol, and do not focus on political
ideals as a whole. My proposition is that we replace pure Nationalism with a traditional outlook toward
civilization, and use Nationalist parties as a means to that end but not that end itself. Again, the tool has
replaced the goal, and now our goal is an idealless dogmatic and violent extremist upholding of that tool.
The concept of holism is useful here. In contrast to modern political thought, holistic thought says that we
must address all issues and not specialize on certain issues, as liberals have specialized in civil rights and
class revenge, and conservatives have specialized in cultural censorship and economic mobility. Nationalism
alone does not address all of these issues, although it hints at them. What we must do is transcend
contemporary Nationalism, and allow Nationalist parties to organize people via appeal to their ethnic-
cultural unity, but to have as part of our platform a greater remaking of society as part of a long-term plan
to escape modernity and restore Tradition.

In doing so, we are dropping extremism but also dropping the pretense that we can make one change -
race - and thus fix all of the problems of our society. Race is a problem because our society decayed
through the influence of mass revolt, and thus left us open to immigration from other countries because it
benefitted parasites among us (most of whom are of our own ethnic groups - neurotic, underconfident
people arise in every population, and use political power to bolster their internal doubt and fear). We need
to get more extreme; race is not the only issue. We must address the environment, and the fact that our
society is motivated by economics alone, and the tedium of our daily lives in jobs and bureaucracy. When
we turn to such a broad spread of issues, we become something unknown in all of modernity: a political
movement with a holistic philosophy of what civilization should be.

This will appeal to the Silent Majority because, especially as our environmental troubles and internal turmoil
increases, they feel the threat of both instability in our society and the tendency of our civilization to nose-
dive into third world standards from lack of internal unity. They want a political movement that can address
all of these problems, as they believe these problems are serious and can see that neither liberal nor
conservative movements are going to come close. They are ready for a different way, and as they see how
bad things can come, an extreme makeover of our society, but they will not accept extremism because they
recognize it for what it is: negative thinking, and radical reactionary desires for revenge and destruction,
that will only hasten our demise.

During the final decline of ancient Greek civilization, a similar idea was reached: Plato and Aristotle both
agreed that a time of philosopher-kings was needed, in which ideals and not manipulation of a political or
social system would guide the population. The simple reason for this is that when shared values exist, a
society stands resolved to have a goal; when individualism and mass revolt predominate, the demands of
the individual take the place of shared values, and thus the only thing held in common is the lowest
common denominator, self-interest, in the form of economic mobility and freedom from interference. In this
diseased state societies no longer make decisions, but become fully reactionary, and thus slip into an
extremism of their own.

I now have a number of years of political and philosophical thinking and observation under my belt. I've
given this issue several years of thought, and have explored every avenue from Marxism to Nazism to
Greenism. While I am convinced of the superiority of National Socialism, and refuse to compromise my
beliefs on that front, I see no need for extremism and correspondingly, a need for a holistic system of
thought to enable us to move forward. I don't want a political identity; I want solutions, so I can go back to
enjoying the forests and friends and music and other delights of life.

Over years of attention, I have seen that healthy people everywhere uphold a philosophy, very much akin
to that of Romantic literature, that what matters in life is not some "progressive" hocus-pocus but having a
solid, heroic civilization upon which to build greatness. While it may take many generations for us to
reverse the damage we've wrought, and get back on course, I believe it is a worthwhile goal, and dedicate
a fair amount of my time to it. I am frustrated with politics as it is, whether liberal, conservative or "White
Nationalist." I see a need for a third way, as a tool to achieve what is an eternal ideal.

In this my goal is to reverse modernity itself, which is a case of the tool replacing the goal because the goal
was fragmented by too many different motivations and nothing in common but greed and revenge.
Modernity is a sick thing. Money was a method of meting out resources, but now it is our only goal.
Technology which was supposed to empower us now has us working longer to support it. Democracy which
was supposed to guarantee equality has become a distraction from the actual issues, and a means by
which the numb masses dominate the few intelligent ones. The tool has replaced the goal. The only
meaningful goals are perpetuation of nature, and continuation of life itself, with us striving to become ever-
better as individuals and civilization. Anything else is a distraction that will ultimately lead to this same
frustration with politics.

June 22, 2005

Cicada Killers and Christ
Lamentations should be reserved for great loss, and the best lamentations are those for a hero, where it is
not the mourners feeling their own loss in the person gone, nor assuming that the life lacked meaning
because it ended and thus wailing for the hero, but those where the cries go to the heavens for the loss of
the world of such a perfect object, one of its creatures and the fulfilment of its design. Today I have a
lamentation, and an enduring charge, for you and your soul.

The cicada killers are gone. I can still see solitary ones, sometimes, but they are small and furtive, hiding
away from the gaze of humans. It's as if they know their time is over, and the open fields over which they
once hunted in the suspension of air from diaphane wings that gives the greatest levity, darting quickly like
a hummingbird and fixing on their target with lethal temerity. They're gone because people spray
pesticides, killing prey and predator alike, and because people run them over in cars or suck them into air
conditioners where they turn into highspeed paste. But those are only the secondary reasons; the primary
reason they're gone is that the open fields to the west of here have been turned into more subdivisions and
apartments, and therefore, there's not enough prey for good hunting. Maybe they still exist somewhere
else, but I have my doubts, since all the land seems to go to feed our new populations.

Cicada killers are a metaphor for nature at large. They are like large wasps with barrel-shaped bodies, and
they survive by stinging cicadas (large buzzing bugs) into submission, then laying eggs in them and
stashing them in treetops. They're zombie creators, in other words, and remarkably successful when there's
enough cicadas - and those aren't nearly as loud or plentiful as they should be this time of year - to make
for good meals. You don't want to get stung by one. Their stings are like those of the little scorpions that
used to be around here but have all but disappeared. It'll really hurt for a few days, then go away slowly,
leaving a nasty bulge of traumatized tissue. For this reason, when cicada killers are around, you're careful
not to get too near. If you have a bb gun, they're easy to hit, since they're the size of small birds, but don't
miss - no amount of prayer can save you from a vengeful cicada killer.

This, to my mind, is a lot like nature at large. It doesn't cooperate on the level of language and other
absolutes, so there are rarely warning signs. "Caution: Hidden Crevice Ahead" or "Beware of Sudden
Predators." Not even a blinking light near the thickets where strange diseases lurk, or a detailed guidebook
telling which streams will give you dysentery and which are safe to drink during your long hike, as you must
drink from some of them or you'll die. Poison ivy warns you like a wasp warns you - its coloring and shape
are threatening to those who know a bit of nature's internal language. That warning however is an artifact
of its desire to create a deterrent; poison ivy doesn't want to be eaten, and wasps don't want to be
touched, so it's in their best interest to communicate STAY AWAY if they can. Predators on the other hand
don't want to scare, but to eat, so they're silent.

Seeing a cicada killer destroy a cicada is an exercise in mixed emotions. I like cicadas. They're cool
creatures that give music to the summer with their songs rising and falling in treetop crescendoes. It would
never occur to me, emotionally, to kill one. Nonetheless, there's something impressive about watching a
cicada killer take one out, however, just like when watching a UFC or street fight there's something
beautiful about an efficient, effective move. They're a microcosm of nature in this, predator and prey, in
that from the constant struggle between the two, many good things emerge. First, the slowest of the
cicadas are removed; the remaining cicadas, over time, are becoming healthier. Next, the cicada killer
population is maintained, giving nature another weapon in its arsenal.

It's not cuddly. There is no consistent, absolute, singular emotion one can derive from the process itself;
the only real emotion comes from considering the meaning of the process, which is that the world keeps
turning and living and thus there's a space and time for consciousness, like that which I possess (that word
is used deliberately; it didn't originate in me, and if I existed in a vacuum, my consciousness would not
exist). For this reason, despite having mixed revulsion and delight in the process of predation, I can
appreciate it in context for what it symbolizes, namely the continuation of life. This is the root of the
philosophical term "idealism," which means believing more in the significance of things than in their
physicality. Idealism comes in several forms, but the most comprehensive is called "cosmic idealism," in
which one believes there is a design to the cosmos and we all play a part - by being what we are. (From
this come systems of karma: do well, and do right, and you rise in the level of the design at which you
interact, in this life or a reincarnation.)

When we look at the current situation in the West, this lesson becomes vital, because there's a tendency to
balkanize and thus identify with a political outlook, or symbol, and not to see into the depth of the
equation. A more eternal view would hold that each of us does as is natural given their position in the
karmic level, and there are predatory views and parasitic views and then independent views, in which the
motivation is to be independent of other motions so that internal evolution can occur. When one holds this
view, it's no longer necessary to "fight" leftists or rightists, but to see them as part of an order that
normally balances itself, but is now overloaded with confusion arising from the tendency to sort things into
"self" and "not self," roughly corresponding to "good" and "evil" in the absolute idealistic view of Christianity
and Judaism that is also the psychological underpinning of leftist and "conservatism," if we even take that
seriously.

The highest cycle of karma is this kind of independence, which liberates itself from being dependent on
enemies, on good and evil. In this view, one does what must be done, and pays no attention to the labels.
As our society continues to have deep-seated problems and our elected officials of all stripes fail to address
them, these labels will become less important. Currently, people derive an identity from them; if you're a
liberal, you buy Macintosh computers, attend certain types of social functions and buy certain kinds of
products, and there's a conservative equivalent as well. Most of this is social behavior and has zero effect
on anything of import, but it makes people feel like they "belong" to a group and that they can justify their
existence with the concept that they're doing the "right" thing. Greens hang out and talking about
unplugging appliances at night, recycling cigarette butts and using dog poop in their gardens; anarchists
discuss "safe" alternate media sources, and endless reams of theory that seem designed to "prove" their
point. In the end, they and the conservatives happily pack off to jobs and keep working to support the
system they despise.

The view I'd like to propose here is one in which we simply do what is necessary, and worry less about
what original form of the belief is presented to us. There are smart Christians; they've dropped the pity and
the anti-nature stance, and have accepted "God" and "good" as ideals toward which they work, leaving the
rest to nature. There are smart liberals; their basic idea is to make life better for the average person, and
they're less inclined to get sidetracked on civil rights issues. Also, there are smart Greens, who leave the
"10,000 ways to recycle toilet paper" to others and focus on restructuring society to be less destructive
(including limiting population). Even among Republicans, amazingly, there are a number of intelligent
people who care about fixing the situation in which humanity finds itself. All of these people are allies of the
truth, even if the position from which they come is something we're trained to reject and hate.

Of all the factors in this equation, the most important is that truth, which is derived from an understanding
of people's psychology and how it translates into action. When we see class warfare and economic elitism
alike as reactionary, defensive revenge, it doesn't matter from what source they come; similary, when we
recognize pity as egoism in all of its forms, its brand doesn't matter. What matters is finding a smarter
design, and enforcing the higher-karma ideas over the lower. Those who have psychological problems, or
are of a fundamentally lower intelligence, will embrace any number of ineffective or destructive ideas, but
there is only one path toward higher design - a better adaptation for humanity. This design will never
change because humans do not fundamentally change, no matter whether you put them in caves or in front
of computers, or dress them up in suits or bearskins. They are still the same animal, and within that animal
group, there is great variance, with only a few capable of the kind of thought that is needed to lead.

I can see a better form of Christianity, for example, where we use nihilism like a scrub-brush and scrape
away all the irrelevant crap clogging up the path toward seeing its actual truth, which is a restatement of
the ancient Indo-European belief in divinity through fearlessness regarding mortality. Heaven is a state of
mind. In this light, all the concepts of pity and guilt and unquestioning democratic love that have clustered
around Christianity fade away. Similarly, if we look at the core belief of leftism, it is that society should be
designed in a way that benefits its citizens, instead of being an open market where predators are left to
tear apart those who fall into their clutches. Greenism is environmental preservation; all the garbage about
human rights, civil rights and peaceful revolution make no sense. And when we bleach away the confusion
around conservatism, it becomes simply this: those who have their act together should be able to live
normal lives according to traditional values without being forced to excessive degrees to subsidize others.
None of this is anything more than common sense, and when we pare these beliefs down this way, we can
see that they're actually compatible.

In my view, we've gotten so far off the track from reality that at this point, humanity hampers itself as a
matter of reactionary defensiveness and identity politics, which are what happens when one takes the
symbol of the belief over the actual beliefs. Laws are essentially predators that restrict justice; if there's
some idiot out there doing something stupid, and I'd otherwise run him through with a sword, now I'm
restrained from doing that. However, to those who have no brains to plan ahead, the laws aren't even a
factor, so he'll still attack me and my widow will receive apologies from the State. That's insanity. We have
tried to program a design for ourselves that relies on threats and encouragements, and the end result is a
giant neurotic mess that like an octopus in cesspool can never get ahold of anything solid enough to
escape.

Dickheads - stupid people - take away your rights because they'll abuse whatever is given them. If we say
tomorrow that people can smoke all the marijuana they want, smart people will generally have few
problems. Idiots on the other hand will promptly smoke up a ton of weed, fail at life, and become a drag on
the system. The problem isn't the marijuana; it's idiots. The same applies to technology, guns, sex, etc. Not
all people are equal, and some are defective; while all of us have some problems somewhere, most of these
are manageable, but for some, their problems outweigh their balance and positive direction, and thus they
become destructive. If we simply enacted planetary eugenics tomorrow, we would rise to a higher design
even within our current political systems, because smarter people will interpret them in a higher karmic
order than dumb people can. Take an idiot and give him Christianity, and you get destructive guilt, but in
the hands of someone smarter, the same religion could be enlightening.

By idiots I don't strictly mean droolers, those poor folk of under 100 IQ points who are doomed to living in
a fog from which there is no escape. I mean people without long term vision, which I call moral character,
and generally comes matched to a certain degree of beauty and strength and intelligence. Thanks to caste
mixing, there are plenty of people with high functional intelligence and no moral intelligence; these become
salesman of the sleazy variety, porn producers, Hollywood movie moguls, and the like. They are lower
karmic orders in positions that should be reserved for people of a higher karmic (moral character)
inclination. Much as an 85 IQ pointer will wreak destruction from such a position, someone with an IQ of
140 and a moral IQ of 85 will be destructive, but they will be more competent about being destructive. It is
these sorts of people that have aided greatly in balkanizing our belief systems.

At this point in my life, I have such a high degree of confidence in my belief that I don't debate it. I talk
about it, with an intent to amuse and explain, not "inform" or "educate" or some other pompous nonsense.
If people want to know where I am with beliefs, I'll tell them, and let them go home to sort it out. If
they're smart, those seeds will take root on their own, and they may incorporate part of what I've told them
into their beliefs in a form that originates in them. You cannot "educate" people. You can show them things,
and if they can find meaning in them, they'll adapt them. It's like eating: you take in food, break it down,
and it becomes part of you where you can use it. The rest goes into the carrot patch, and might feed
something else.

I see anyone who is willing to follow truth, meaning a design of a higher karmic order, regardless of their
political stance. I may troll them, or lure them into seeing the paradox of their own stated values, or
alternately discuss these ideas with them, but either way, I'll leave them with something to think about. If
they're of a higher karmic order, they'll understand, and their belief system will slowly convert itself to one
compatible with the one truth in existence: reality. Adaptation to reality is the basis of the karmic order.
Zionists, Black Panthers, Greenpeace, Republicans, Nazis are all welcome in my worldview, if they're willing
to take that step. We all live on the same world, and serve the same ultimate interest, which is the
continuation of life as a whole. That is served best, of course, by an intelligent design of a higher karmic
order.

In this is the final transcendence of "good" and "evil." To me, Christianity is not "evil," but it's not "good"
either; there is only one truth, and where it can be found in Christianity, I will speak it. Any belief can be
interpreted according to this truth and made sensible, although the same belief can be utterly ruined by
fools who interpret it poorly. Like the cicada killer, belief is a matter of function, and it's hard to have one
absolute view of it such as "Satanism is evil," because that is a symbolic and not realistic view. If Satanists
and Christians alike think hard on a higher karmic order, they will find the truth is shared between their
religions, much as Nazis and Zionists and Greenpeacers would. Function is the basis of idealism, and
arranging our human function into a better design is a way of moving up the evolutionary ladder, and is a
form of evolution in itself - and for any organism, this is the highest goal in survival.

June 24, 2005

Arbeit Macht Frei
While we hear daily rhetoric about "Iraqi Freedom," our ongoing Jewish-Christian jihad against Muslim
Nationalists, we are washed out with the idea that we are free. We also spend a lot of our public media
time whining about how terrible the Nazis were, to not only allegedly gas Jews but to put a mocking slogan
over the gates of the camp, "Arbeit Macht Frei," or "work makes you free." The American people, bloated
on junk food and a constant stream of moralizing and emotional television like Jerry Bruckheimer's "CSI,"
respond according to training when presented with Nazi stimulus, and loudly shout down any inkling that
Nazism was not evil.

Yet these same people think nothing of getting up in the morning, spending a half-hour getting ready for
work, driving to work for an hour, spending ten hours there and then coming home, too exhausted to do
anything but watch TV and eat junk food. That's "free"?

Let me explain something. The best way to sell any product is to create a vast fear, and then to promise
that your product fixes it. It's not enough to say the house has cockroaches - you have to say that
cockroaches eat wires and start electrical fires. Similar, in the 1980s, they used to con people into buying
elaborate electrical hardware by telling them stories about how "a lightning strike in the neighborhood" fried
all the computers there and cost everyone thousands. A slightly more advanced version is to describe how
another scam works, and then suggest your own scam as a replacement for it. That way, the consumer
never escapes the scam, but they feel they have, and it's that feeling of "I'm so smart" that has them
never looking too far into the facts.

It's the same in the West today. While you get distracted by the emotional neurotic rhetoric of the empire,
it enslaves you, and then makes you love your enslavement by telling you how "free" you are and how
smart you are for choosing "freedom." Thus deluded, you watch what the TV networks want you to see,
read what the media networks want you to read, watch the movies for which the entertainment industry
sells advertising space, and bleat out the dogma your government tells you. But it's your choice, so you
deserve whatever slavery they hand to you. And even that's a moot point, since you're already serving your
time.

June 25, 2005

Animosity
Humans operate like a giant chemical reaction: when enough of the reagents are in contact, something
happens - an explosion, a synthesis, or a neutralization. As evidenced by the increasing amount of coverage
given racial issues, the reaction on this issue is imminent in America and Europe. As someone who would
like to live in a sane world, preferrably one in which we are headed in an upward (not to be confused with
"progressive," which assumes we can invent a substitute for nature that's utopic) direction, I like to inject
my viewpoint where I can do so, and often find years later that people were indeed reading and took the
ideas to heart. I hope the same happens here.

The racial issue simmers for now. Most people, having their hands full with lives and families, are not
inclined to let something blow up unless it's so far out of control that they see nothing other way; this is
why humanity loves tragedies, as they emulate our own course of history, where events remain
backgrounded until something extreme must happen. The extreme will happen, although it's hard for us to
believe as we journey from air conditioned homes to stores to offices. We didn't think oil would ever run
out, or that environmental damage would come back to haunt us, but the perfect worldview in which we
are disconnected from external, natural forces has been pierced there and will also be shattered in the case
of the racial issue. It's a question of time, and how we organize our thoughts.

If we tackle this issue honestly, now, we will be able to not only fix the problems of the past but avert the
future disasters that lurk anytime one applies a temporary fix and then relies on it as if it were a
foundation. For us to tackle this issue requires that we locate our own natural instincts and, instead of
suppressing them like we dress up sweaty bodies in business suits and euphemize death at parties,
explicate them and understand their wisdom. Part of life is trusting the course of life itself; the origin of this
course is what we call "nature," which I see as an order to the entire cosmos that operates in ways not
immediately visible to human (through meditation, philosophy or any other form of consistent structural
thought they can be seen).

When we analyze the racial issue, it appears at first to be one of identity. We see ourselves as part of a
heritage, and within that, a familial line. Our identity in this context however is not like a social identity, or
a manufactured position in an arbitrary hierarchy of things we say and do, but is a symbolic reference to
our pasts as they are encoded in our genetics. Our heritage represents the work of our ancestors; even
more, it represents our own potential, as it is the design for the machines which are our bodies - and in
them, as part of them, our minds. Alcoholic uncles and genius grandfathers are things we inherit and must
deal with, as they're part of our makeup, much as a car which uses an older design of oil pump has
corresponding strengths and weaknesses. Genetics is the design of our selves, and much as our intelligence
and strength and physical appearance are not only limited by have a place on a strata from good to best,
represents abilities and failings.

Our goal in each of our lives is to move upward, and by pushing our machine to its potential with
discipline, education and experience, to further develop the design. This is a form of evolution, except that
as tool-making animals, we're in charge of it - not our predators, as would be the case with a mouse or
raven. Our raw abilities are determined at birth, as are the basics of our personalities, but through hard
work we can make these better. There is no escape from this cycle. We can pretend, but as we age and
our accomplishments are shown (or fail to materialize), the lie is revealed and we are seen for what we are.
Much as our society fears nakedness, and the possibility of a small penis or saggy breasts, it also fears this
revelation, as no degree of knowing people and being known can obscure what we are.

For this reason, we cannot become something different by breeding with a radical opposite; what is
produced is a fusion of traits, none of which are separate from their genetic past. Randomness occurs, and
as with all things in nature, no magic sudden solution to every problem emerges. From this realization we
see that we are our heritage, and there is no escape from it except by furthering it along the course of its
design. Further, we see that if we want to rise in life, the only way is by evolving upward, as everything
else over time is shown as a stinking lie covered with fancy words and ostentatious gestures. The potential
of our grandparents, and theirs and those of generations before them, lies within us, as do their failings.
We either recognize this and work toward bettering ourselves, or in denial, we make random decisions and
have random results, which means that for each trait our offspring have, it will be a coin toss.

This is the root of the racial issue: as populations, we wish to continue existing as an unbroken ethnic and
cultural line so that we may better ourselves. Those who want some radical easy solution to this, such as
race mixing, are hoping for a Disney-like magic pathway that ends all of their problems at once. Life isn't
that simple, because if it were, it would rapidly collapse from a tendency to achieve extremes without
addressing the details that make outcomes possible. It is not some religious aspect to nature that makes
this so, but basic mathematics: a certain degree of complexity is needed, and it requires attention to its
manipulation. Recognizing that easy answers do not exist, and that we are a product of our past, forces us
to recognize the importance of ethnic-cultural heritage.

For this reason, not "identity," those among us who are realistic and have the heroic outlook of wanting to
live life well will choose to breed within their own race and tribe, and even more, to try to acquire the best
mate they can so that their children exceed them in ability, physicality and moral character. People who do
not choose to make this decision are hoping to get away with an evasive and simplistic approach to life,
and they seem to achieve it, until one looks at the results over the next generations. It is this desire to
breed well, and to have people around oneself which are of similar inclinations and values, that is the root
of the racial problem.

Too many people try to argue that negroes are inferior or stupid or criminal, and therefore, "scientifically,"
that we shouldn't breed with them. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant. They're lying to themselves
when they say this is the reason. The truth of the matter is that healthy people, no matter how "superior"
the potential mixed mate might be, do not breed outside their own tribe, because to do so is not only to
give up on the past but to embrace an illusion of a one-shot fix. Combining radically different designs does
not magically produce a superior design, but a chaotic one, and while it may have some strengths, it will
lack overall direction and refinement - it will lack evolutionary upward potential. In modern society, where
the requirements of us are a) get job b) buy things and c) entertain self, it is often hard to see how abilities
degenerate through mixing, but when one looks at the intangible qualities of life, like moral character and
overall togetherness as personalities, this truth is undeniable.

The idea of arguing "superior" and "inferior" in an absolute context is not only futile, but distracts from the
essential mission, which is to breed upward within each of our tribes. In those tribes, anything which is of
that ethnic-cultural heritage is "superior" for the purpose of being of that tribe; when breeding within the
group, each individual picks the person who seems most likely to enhance their own abilities in the next
generation. The natural wisdom of this idea is not accessible to everyone, as it requires time to think it out
and a brain capable of the complexity required. However, it is the root of racial animosity: when other
tribes are present, breeding becomes fragmented, and the original tribe is destroyed.

When racial animosity is thus created, it too often takes the form of bigotry, or blaming one's problems on
the other races. This is a perceptual error, because the actual root of the problem is the presence of the
other races, and most of them will be oblivious to this condition. One does not obliterate their presence by
obliterating them, but by changing society in such a way that its shared values exclude the idea of putting
different tribes together in the same communities. Every single instance of racial animosity on earth fits into
this pattern, and every single one of them is cured when those involved turn from a hopeless task (wanting
to destroy another race) to a positive one (altering social values to exclude the possibility of racial/tribal
mixing).

As an individual, I feel no anger toward other individuals who are of other races. Toward many of them I
may feel friendship, respect, or even love. There is nothing wrong with them, but there is a great wrong if I
attempt to obliterate my heritage by mixing with something radically different, as they are. There is also
something sick and wrong when for social reasons I must deny biology, and pretend that evolution did not
happen in different rates in different races. It is natural to have friendship for others, but to feel hatred and
anger at the thought of mixed-race breeding. It is self-preservation, and preservation of the ability to rise
upward in genetics by refining what one is. It is an assertion of hope over the hopelessness of living a lie
that will be discovered only in future generations.
For this reason, I have often provocatively slandered organizations that assert either a) other races are
somehow inferior or b) that racial mixing is not only acceptable, but superior. Both groups make no sense
in the context of observation of nature, and both promote destructive agendas. For example, most "white
power" groups would breed all white people together into one mass of uncertain heritage. That is stupid;
breeding Germans among Germans produces better Germans, where mixing white people together
produces generic couch-sitters like the type that predominate among England, the USA and Canada,
making those places not surprisingly the most frivolous, revengeful, directionless places on earth. "White
power" and "white nationalist" groups would like to destroy their own race by obliterating its heritage
through tribal mixing.

By the same token, "anti-racists" are mental defectives who wish to cast aside nature and heritage and
replace it with social factors, thus never improving the designs of themselves or others. The kind of person
to whom this belief appeals has generally suffered abuse trauma, is low in confidence and secretly wishes
to tear down anyone with more (wealth, power, looks, brains, character) than themselves. Anti-racism is
revenge against those who wish to do what is healthy. Because our society politicizes its youth through
television and music, it often creates people who are "anti-racists" for a few years, before they realize that
"ending racism" has nothing to do with the question of our human future. It's a sideshow, and only those
so directionless that they need personal drama to feel justified in surviving perpetuate it.

Our racial cauldron is coming to a boil. Already there are forces divided who will fight over its future. On
the left are those who would destroy all race, and breed us into a languid population of no heritage; they
do not realize that by doing so, they are fulfilling the ultimate aims of corporations, for whom culture is an
impediment to the sale of products. On the right are the bigots, who would unite us by race but not by
tribe, thus reducing our heritage to a lowest common denominator within our race. Both sides are fueled by
out of control emotions, revenge and reactionary impulses. Neither should predominate.

If instead of getting tied up in the absurdly confrontational demands of politics, we turn to nature for
understanding, we can see that multiculturalism is a poison to our genetics and future. We can see why it is
that we can love someone of our own race who is of lesser ability, yet not breed with them, and love those
of other races, yet never breed with them. We are literally working to better our own designs, and through
that, to better ourselves and our children as people. This recognition that we are not self-created
personalities, but extensions of a design beyond our control, threatens most people in the same way that
not euphemizing death does. It's time we grew up, and accepted life for its hard facts and great beauties
alike, and therefore resolve to fix the racial issue instead of polarizing it into hysterical and violent reactions
with no clear solution in sight.

June 26, 2005

Gay Pride
Last night I went to visit a friend, and found the streets for miles around blocked off by tolerant-looking but
displeased cops. I figured at first that it was a concert that had spilled into his downtown district, and that I
could go around it by driving a block over; when I arrived at my destination, I found that something far
more intriguing was occurring: a gay pride parade.

When life hands you comedy, sometimes you have to trust in reality and let the river take you wherever it
is destined to go. We were planning on consuming some beverages, and making some music, but didn't
want to let the event pass without seeing what it was all about, so we attended a Gay Pride parade. Not
marched in, not participated in, but went to see what one was like. Like most people, I'd never seen one
up close except for one that obstructed by passage through downtown Vancouver several years ago.

Being devious bastards, we also printed up some ANUS flyers and handed them out to people, including
several members of community organizations. There's a slight chance I was heard over KPFK radio talking
about the holiness of the ass being equal to that of the soul, but it's doubtful they run rhetoric from crazed
nihilists such as myself. To the credit of the people there, no problems occurring from handing out these
flyers.

As a heterosexual, I have long believed that tolerance is a two-way street, and that my lack of hatred
toward gays should be rewarded by their understanding that I find what they do in the privacy of their
bedrooms repellent. I used to think gay pride parades were about gays, and perhaps a celebration of this
idea, but I no longer think so at all. After tonight's experience, I can say that gay pride parades - like white
nationalist meetings, church gatherings, stoner circles and elections - are about personal drama, or egoism,
with the exception of a few honest folk.

First, it's important to note that the city did a great job balancing tolerance with practicality. There were
plenty of cops there, and they were clearly not concerned about drug use, alcohol, or sodomy in the
bushes. Their job was to look out over a sea of surging bodies, and to prevent any violent or abusive
incidents. This they did by stationing themselves both conspicuously and inconspicuously throughout the
parade route, intervening if there was any sign of altercation. Not all of them looked happy to be there, but
they were professional and friendly to the crowd. Almost all of them were white males.

Identity

If there was a single cause for this parade, it was identity. People see their behaviors as defining "who"
they are, and they seek lives outside of their biological past and future, therefore try to make behaviors
into a "culture." It's about as silly as "stoner culture," or a stoner pride parade, which will never happen
since everyone would flake out on attending. For most of these people, being gay was not a preference, but
an identity.

For many others, being associated with the parade, and being the kind of person who supports a whole raft
of civil rights agendas including homosexuality, race, and class warfare, it was an identity as being one of
the "good guys." This includes the rough dozen Christian churches who send floats or marchers to the
parade, loudly proclaiming the moral authority of inclusiveness.

A good portion of those in the crowd were of this type, and they seemed to believe their good intentions
not only qualified their participating in a gay event, even though most were straight, but also gave them a
certain moral imperative, as if being in a queer pride parade justified whatever agendas they wanted to
push. See, they say, my intentions are good, therefore all that I do must be good. Their basic need is to
justify their lifestyles and find a reason - being "good" - that overcomes their failings, instead of actually
working on those failings. These people were deluded and sickening.

Some were old school homosexuals, of the kind that have always existed and always will, but these were in
the minority by far. More abundant were young people flirting with identity issues, dramatic people looking
for a social set or self-image, and outright perverts who, in a frustration at their inability to make a place
for themselves in the world, wanted to force the rest of us to accept them without judgment, even if the
only sane judgment would be that gay or straight they are perverts who need a hollowpoint to the forehead
and deserve nothing else from society.

Most of the lifelong homosexuals present were relatively quiet, in the way that one shows support for
something without drawing attention to oneself. Some dressed the part a bit, or went to their favorite pink-
painted bar, but they weren't hyping their own presence. They were there because they wanted to put
their weight behind something, and for them, it wasn't a party as much as a ceremony.

For the rest, it was a chance to be seen, to violate taboo and to associate themselves with a grab-bag of
ideas centered around the idea of forcing aside nature and judgment in preference to "rights" and
"freedoms." These people seem to believe that if we just suspend reality, and think emotionally, we can
create a more perfect society by increasing the number of dysfunctionally egoistic people within it. Since
there are very few excellent people, there are many of a lesser degree, and these ran away with the
parade.

Corporations

The most instructive part of the parade was seeing who financed the various floats which came down the
street. Some were as simple as an SUV surrounded by marching people with a large vinyl sign, but others
were elaborate platforms on which dancers and musicians performed. Many tossed logo-branded objects,
including plastic jewelry, to the crowd. The personal drama of the situation, as well as the low degree of
self-respect expected, was vile.

After several gay rights organizations, the ACLU, numerous churches and government agencies had floats
pass, the corporate floats began. Having not seen a parade since childhood, I was both impressed and
revolted by the amount of detail and self-promotion found on these floats. For the most part, the gay
organizations had tasteful floats. The corporations did not.
The most notable was the Smirnoff float. Muscular masked male dancers in briefs and braless women
dressed as clowns followed this vehicle, which looked like a large cake platform, and music as loud as a
death metal concert bathed the crowd. The usual offerings were flung to people who did not seem to mind
disgracing themselves by diving for them, like animals catching meat scraps at the table of a master. Large
plastic bottles of Smirnoff stood in front of the lights.

To me, this seemed like good business - convince every segment of the population you want to sell to
them. What marred it was the idea of rendering them into objects by treating them with excessive attention
to what they are, not who they are, and the entire thing rang of cheap enticements and condescention.
What followed next was even more surprising.

Major petroleum corporations - most notably Shell and British Petroleum (British... snicker) - had their own
floats and marchers throwing out plastic trinkets to people, assumedly so that they could be amused for up
to 48 hours before consigning these objects to landfill. They'd summoned all their house queers to march,
and had their corporate logos present very visibly alongside slogos promising equal rights, justice, etc. Was
anyone fooled?

While certain political groups like to pretend that corporations have a right-wing agenda, they forget that
corporations are composed of people in whom the values and attitudes of surrounding society are
manifested, so blaming "corporations" for our ills is like blaming groups of more than three people for
warfare. Corporations exist to earn money. They do this by pandering to various audiences. Unlike right-
wing conspiracies, they're accepting of everyone, so long as they have money to spend. They demonstrated
this to the gay community with lavish floats, cheap gifts and feelgood rhetoric booming through
loudspeakers over stereotypical "gay-friendly" techno, which seems sequenced to the pace of passionate
sodomy.

A bank or two and several radio stations followed suit, each investing a sizable amount of money in
cultivating the gay crowd. I'm sure there was an Apple float somewhere, but it crashed before reaching the
parade grounds, as anything from that neurotic horde of pretenders will do. The floats that followed were
for generally gay businesses, like bars and lubricant companies and clinics, and they were relatively
tasteful, compared to the garish and loud corporate trucks.

Freedom

The entire affair was decked in the rhetoric of freedom. Giant "=" signs everywhere, cheerful banners
proclaiming gayness as a right, loudspeaker voices cheering us to recognize everyone as equal. Although
this dogma was present in all of the gay organization floats, it was most overdone among the corporate
floats, as if they recognized that making everyone an unfettered consumers was the actual agenda of
"freedom" in the modern sense: an emotional absolute interpreted without bounds except those of
commerce and the "freedom" dogma itself.

Many people participating in the parade itself - not watchers like those of us who hung out with cops and
journalists on the fringes, watching curiously - were doing their best to be provocative, thrilling themselves
with how "daring" they were and spoiling for a confrontation. It was low-key, mostly because in a city as
polite as Houston, people avoid unnecessary conflict and are cordial even to those they detest. Even those
who found the whole proceeding abominable, and wished mass death upon its participants, would politely
nod and reserve their opinions for private discussion and political plotting.

The provocateurs demonstrated something about freedom: it's cheap when made a universal, and granted
to everyone without consideration of their abilities or acts. Because freedom was present, everyone could
be as freaky as they wanted, with only local laws about public sexuality restraining them. Because everyone
could be as freaky as they wanted, it required some really ostentatious freakiness to stand out in the
crowd, and that drove them toward bigger "freedoms," but none stood out because all were extreme.

As a result, their "freedom" did not gain them greater ability to pursue a sexual orientation, but a lifestyle
based on a culture of being freaky and extreme. This to my mind is not part of being gay, per se, but being
part of a media culture of what gay "should" be, openly egged on by corporations who make a big profit
selling to the freaky party scene. No shared values are achieved, outside of a lifestyle by which all are now
associated for the actions of some, and therefore "freedom" actually weakens the community as a whole.

Having lived in this city for much of my life, I have known this once exclusively gay district throughout the
years, and have observed that homosexuals come in three stripes. The smallest group are honestly gay
people; I believe they are genetically determined to be gay, probably from a dual mechanism that
automatically creates extra non-child-bearing labor in the way that an ant colony includes different kinds of
workers and warriors, or creates it if there would be problems with the individual in question breeding.
These people tend to be the least freaky, as their main concern is having a normal life while fitting love and
sodomy into it.

The largest group among the gay community are the confused. These are people who were abused as
children, and thus have come to associate dominant and submissive male sexual politics as a kind of
security - much in the way men do in prisons. Their sexual confusion leads them to try to re-enact their
initiation into confusion, like a kind of Stockholm Syndrome for the genitals. Many of these suddenly drop
out of the gay community in their thirties and have families and children. A far greater number are high-
school- and college-aged people who are, as the saying goes, working through some issues.

The smallest group, but the most highly visible, are people who are described by any sane observer as
extremist perverts. Their sexuality is voracious, and if the gay community provides a host, parasitically they
lock onto it. They are often "bisexual" as well, or are secretly gay or secretly hetero some nights of the
week, and although they are the most vociferous about their "rights," are predators of convenience whose
main requirement is lots of sex. Traditionally, the gay community has been the least critical of the sexual
orientation camps, and therefore, these have lived among them. However, after sexual "liberation" they can
be found cruising the hetero single scene as well, because their only requirement is lots of sex.

These who confuse quality with quantity do so because they are fundamentally empty in some way, and
therefore could not appreciate love or compassion as much as something tangible, like an orgasm. They are
lost but aggressive, and therefore turn their aggression outward into the sexual world, consuming as much
as they can to fill the emptiness. There is no real difference between their mentality and that of rapacious
corporate barons who denude the earth, because both are hollow and no matter how much they eat, they
cannot fill that empty space because all that can fill it is an emotional connection to life - something they
lack. In this, Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton had more in common with the perverts of the Gay Pride parade
than with the Republican or Democratic constituency. They are predators first, and associated with a sexual
or political orientation secondarily.

What "freedom" - defined in the modern context as a lack of shared values to a community, thus
independence from any external determination of OK/not-OK to behaviors and lifestyles - achieves is to blur
the distinction between these groups. Anyone can do anything, and so degeneracy follows, burying those
who would live normal lives among the noise. Because there is no means of selection that promote better
over good, everything flattens to one level, and soon all that is left is the freakiness.

Happiness

Was there really much happiness at this parade? For those who took it lightly, yes: it was kind of a cool
event, with a chorus of drag queens singing "It's Raining Men" and plenty of partying going on everywhere.
I've never seen HPD this tolerant of open alcohol consumption, or as unjudgmental of behavior. They were
literally stoic as a giant party unfolded before them, and at midnight, sent in the cleanup crews to get
everyone off the streets so the noise didn't wake the working people who live in and around the Montrose.

The old school gays I see hanging about seemed to be attending for form's sake and didn't really look
thrilled. They were more there out of obligation, and because they've been told they have to do this to
avoid getting hauled off and arrested, a sense of the original term "pride." That use of the term means
showing your numbers and taking a stand; while that was meaningful to them, to those who had never
known anything but "freedom," and those whose goals were perversion or sexual confusion, it was more
like a big freaky party with no real meaning. What's going on this weekend? Oh, Gay Pride parade - grab
amyl nitrate, lubricant, MDMA and let's go.
For those who took the politics seriously, it was almost an embittering event, a charge to battle and a
chance to smolder in self-righteousness. I will not forget the eyes of a Nordic girl who was watching the
events go by, clearly not happy and with anger under her blank expression, as if her hopes for conflict had
been dashed. There were others, also, who were almost disappointed looking as they saw how far
acceptance had gone, especially the corporate floats. They were spoiling for a fight and no one gave it to
them. Least of all the tolerant but jaded looking cops.

To my experience, "happiness" is an illusory pursuit; if one wants to be "happy" all the time, drugs that are
not yet synthesized are needed, since life cannot be always a happy experience or it would lack meaning.
The process of survival, and of achieving the things that are important to us, necessarily involves struggle
or it would lack reward. In this knowledge, "freedom" and "happiness" are misguided goals - wanting the
destination without the trip - and it is not surprising that those who only seek those things end up hollow,
and forever hungry but never full.

When the group I was with, all heterosexuals, returned, the responses were not very extreme. It had been
like watching a movie. The conversation quickly drifted to music, with a friend of mine from the younger
generation saying something extremely perceptive. He said, "When bands of the older generation wanted to
say that life sucked, they cooked up some elaborate mythos and made music that sounded angry. When
newer bands think something sucks, they sing about it literally and their music is less machinelike and
animal." This reminded me of both the gay pride parade, and something I'd observed in college.

At the time when I attended school, it was popular on the East Coast (and everywhere else) to be "open-
minded" and "politically correct," but both of these terms are not descriptive. What they referred to was a
tendency to suspend judgment, forget about shared community goals except those had in common by a
diverse population, meaning lowest common denominator goals. Since food and lodging and purpose ("get
educated") were given, the only remaining goal was "freedom," or a constant fight for people to do
whatever they wanted without interference from others. Because only freakiness comes under that kind of
examination, freakiness was defended.

One group that interested me were the male feminists. These were guys who conscientiously went to
feminist meetings and learned the rhetoric, and became very apologetic for males, even to the point of
disclaiming manliness or outright maleness. They wanted to assure women that they - men, but not-men -
were on their side, and fought for the same rights they did. Most of this centered around sexual rights,
which was convenient, since these male feminists picked up more different sexual partners than any other
group. Under the guise of protection of freakiness, the smart freaks found a way to disguise their predatory
intentions, and the baffled college women - drowning in a sea of feminist rhetoric - did not find out until the
next day, when they saw the guy doing the exact same thing to another woman. No matter how sexually
"liberated" one is, being used is a universal language, and these women saw it. There is nothing else to
which I can attribute the shift toward more conservative values in the junior year, than this realization.

Similarly, "happiness" and "freedom" are disguises for a lack of goals, and a path toward the kind of
emptiness that Dick Cheney or Bill Clinton exemplify. What people who think clearly, and recognize reality
do, is to achieve fulfilling lives, and these are not found by pursuing sexual excess, drug excess, monetary
excess, or social excess. They are found by creating things, and having a place in whatever community one
desires, but these places and things are not created by freakiness - a temporary state which anyone, even a
predator, can fake - but by being a participant, by working for other people and being known as a
contributor.

This state is as close as one gets to "happiness," and it doesn't involve "freedom" except in the sense of
being able to live normally. Even the most repressive regimes, like the Soviets and Nazis, did not outright
eliminate all homosexuals - they found the visible perverts and pitched them into gulags. Those who were
simply gay, and leading gay lives that were for the most part similar to heterosexual lives except for sexual
preference, were unmolested. In many ways, this must have strengthened the gay community, because
without the freaks and perverts, the gay pride parade might have been a good place to meet other normal
people of the same sexual orientation, for honestly gay people.

I felt the same way about the "emo"-influenced music of the current generation. It talks a bunch of big
abstract words like "freedom" because it has no other agenda, and no positive values; all of its values are
negative, whether complaining or asserting "freedom" as a means of escaping judgment or collective goal.
Hilariously, our President and his minder, Dick Cheney, speak almost the exact same words when justifying
distant wars: freedom. Freedom from something. Happiness: a removal of unhappiness. These terms have
nothing to do with reality, and disguise the intentions toward parasitism of those who use them.

Contemplations

For all the mixed bag that this event offered, I was glad I attended, and I recommend that everyone attend
one in their home city. It's a crime to have life pass by without seeing what it has to offer, and watching a
gay pride parade doesn't make you gay, or a pervert; it makes you an onlooker, perhaps "open-minded"
or, in a more innocent term, simply curious. It may have happened somewhere, but I didn't see any
freakiness extending itself to non-freaks who didn't go cruising for it. They don't bite, gay pride parade
people.

Ultimately, my reflections centered around tolerance, and the idea that nature is more tolerant than
humans can be. Where we turn gayness into a freak show and by embracing a negative absolute,
"freedom" and "equal rights," nature made gayness something whereby people could contribute to society
without the burden of having children. It also uses it in a positive way, where if there's something physically
unstable in a person, it prevents them from breeding and making others suffer. It is no coincidence that
many gay men die way young with ailments such as congenital heart failure, or susceptibility to disease.
Nature gave them a chance at meaningful life. Politicized humanity gives them extremes and freakshows.

I also handed out a number of flyers, and did a brief radio interview with KPFK, 90.1, in which I pointed out
that unless our society is willing to accept the anus as being as holy as the soul, we have missed the point
of nature, which is to join ideals and physicality in pursuit of something undefinable that we call "life." Dick
Cheney doesn't understand that, nor does George W. Bush, nor Bill Clinton, nor Josef Stalin. When one
tries to pull either physicality or ideals out of life, but does not join the two, an emptiness results.

After these thoughts, my mind returns to emo, which is punk music of an emo-tional nature that spends
most of its time complaining or describing sad situations with no resolution. This to my mind is more
negative rhetoric, and is destructive because it does not give people a goal, but hands them excuses which
- like "freedom" and "happiness" - are absolutes of our mind that do not join with our world. Physicality and
ideals are separated, and emptiness and an unquenchable hollowness remain. Emo is not its own creation,
any more than any of us are; it's a restatement of the ideals of our current time, in which we believe we
can detach emotions from reality and achieve a greater "freedom."

In actuality, however, we have given up our goals and our chances at a fulfilling life, and replaced them
with a shield for parasites, so it should be no surprise that in the white house or at a gay pride parade,
parasitism predominates.

June 26, 2005

Television
As our society continues its snowballing ride downhill toward collapsed empire status, some among us
become "radicalized," or willing to admit that this branch in humanity's history has been a big error and we
need to not "fix" it but replace it with something different at the most basic level of concept. Among Greens
and Nationalists this pattern has been most visible. Radicalized people do not necessarily advocate violence,
or brutality, but they are past the point of believing that a few elections, laws passed, or corporate boycotts
will fix anything.

The inclination one has upon coming to such a realization is to drop everything and go extreme, whether
that means stocking up on Barrett M-82s or forcing recycling upon one's neighbors. When one has gone
extreme, and notices that few others are following that lead, a period of wondering how everyone can be
so blind results. We see the end is near; why don't we mobilize? The frustrated Green or Nationalist activist
shakes a head in desperation, and goes home to cool his or her heels with a chilled beer and some mellow
television.

Herein is a great problem.

Our society is not controlled by a conspiracy, but by the shared idea that it's OK to live only for individual
desires as expressed in material means. Most people believe this is the right way to live, and thus they
uphold it, even to the point of enslaving themselves. The largest portion of them cannot help it: they don't
have the time or the mental wiring to understand politics. The rest are brainwashed, but again, it's by their
own choice.

The average American watches four hours of television each day. During that time, they see at least 20
commercials, and take in 3.5 hours of programming designed by people who make their money in product
placement. The job of a television program is both to interest people, and to tie itself to lucrative
promotions deals; this is why in your favorite sitcoms, characters often have preferences for certain
corporate brands or products. They don't mention them - that would be obvious - but how easy it is to be
using, or holding, the product during a key scene or funny line.

The same is true of our movies, and of what is best called "news-entertainment," which was actually news
in healthier days. Out go the corporate press releases; coincidentally, many of these corporations are
responsible for lots of the advertising and copromotions that keep Hollywood and the news-entertainment
media alive. It's not rocket science to realize that when the kids in "E.T." eat Reese's pieces, money
changed hands between Hershey's and Universal Studios. Or that all those soft drinks and beers in the
movie had a paid sponsor, too.

Some time ago, there was a hubbub over government influence on television shows and movies;
apparently, scripts were sent on to Washington for oversight regarding important issues like drug use,
racism, sexism, poverty, etc. While we all know that military movies are screened and edited by the
Pentagon in exchange for military cooperation, that government as a whole would ask to insert propaganda
in movies and television is shock to some people. But should it be?

Television and movies are a business; the only rule in business is to make money. In that view, government
is just another advertiser, and if one can get preferential treatment for making sure that government-
approved ideas are in your work, it's a financially smart move to do so. Furthermore, no business has any
obligation to tell you the truth - they make money from keeping you interested, so you notice ads and
project placement.

With this in mind, it's impossible - in my view - for any sane person to own a television or watch it
regularly. You are voluntarily sitting still while government and industry pour their opinions into your head
under the guise of "entertainment," which to me is a condescending word implying that you cannot keep
yourself busy. Because the nimwit friends and family members around you are not thinking critically, they
believe they cannot exist without television, and you join in to be one of the group.
That so many extremist activists even consider this course of action is mindboggling. Cheaper, more legal
and more effective than a shooting spree or vandalizing SUVs is to simply disconnect the propaganda
device: don't watch TV. In fact, if every Nationalist and Green activist stopped watching TV tomorrow, the
result would be more effective than a hundred thousand marches or protests. It would literally hit industry
at the only level it respects, which is money.

Each moment you spend watching TV is one in which you rent your brain to the dogma of your enemies. If
you let your children grow up around it, thinking it's acceptable to watch TV, do not be surprised when they
adopt attitudes from their electronic babysitter. It's not like they'll miss out; our society is so broken that
most people socialize by discussing entertainment, thus they'll hear about all of it anyway.

Television is a passive action, like metrosexuality or multiculturalism. It puts you on your butt and has you
submit to the ideas of others, which flow into your brain in unguarded moments when you expect to laugh
or be distracted, when in fact subtle cues are working their way into your opinions. It is a low-tech form of
mind control, although "mind influence" would be more accurate. But if that influence occurs for four hours
every day, how can it not be in whole or part absorbed?

Radicalized political people talk to me every day, and so few of them have thought of this that it's alarming,
as if the parasite is already too deeply entrenched. If you turn off your TV, you're truly thinking outside the
box. Any kind of radical act you can imagine is, for now, secondary to disconnecting from the flow of lies. If
you turn off your TV, those who respect you will be closer to doing the same. Each person who switches off
the box deprives those who oppose you of another propaganda outlet.

Oh, people will whine at first - but that should encourage you. Anything they're afraid to do, without good
reason, is part of the illusion that our society is something OK. If you're willing to radicalize, you deny that
our society is OK, and thus you should act accordingly. People used to try to rebel by listening to weird
music, eating weird things, and taking drugs, but now we are slowly realizing that the same people who
profit from those things are the ones against which we are ostensibly rebelling.

(And you might whine at first, too, about all the great programs and movies you're missing. If you go to
theatres, you can carefully pick which movies you see, and do it infrequently enough to avoid losing hours
of every day on "entertainment." If you avoid TV, you get four more free hours a day to work on yourself,
start a business, or act politically against those things you see as destructive. How can you afford to keep
wasting time on TV and movies, with your only worry being that you personally might miss out on some
distractions? Grow up!)

In fact, there is no way to rebel, or to strike a blow with socially-acceptable means, as long as you attempt
to do it within the sphere of entertainment products; your enemies own all of the means of production
there, and will sell you any type of protest entertainment you'd like, while quietly inserting their own
opinions into it. Each time you watch, they gain influence over your mind. The only rebellion is to step
outside of the media altogether.

Since the means of rebellion, like the means of production, are controlled by those for whom money
obscures all other goals, your only recourse is to head the opposite direction. The true revolutionary in
these times does not watch television, does not listen to major label music, and refuses to read news-
entertainment media. They know it's a big farce and show designed to distract and brainwash.

Instead, they read books and listen to classical music. When they do that, they're not only off-radar, but
counteracting the negative influence of a "culture" manufactured by industry and government to control us
all. This is why you turn off your television: you recognize that this mainstream "culture," our corporations
and governments, and most people are motivated by the same illusion, and that illusion is responsible for
everyhing you despise. Strike back at no cost to yourself - turn off the TV and never turn it on again.

June 28, 2005

Nordicism vs Pan-Aryanism, and
Preservationism
There's no question that Indo-European self-interest is gaining momentum. Thanks to multiculturalism,
Indo-Europeans (Caucasians, "whites," Euripids) now realize they are a minority targetted by other groups
who desire the perceived greater wealth and ability of people of European descent. That a change will
happen in this direction is not a question, to a broader observer of history. No one who has read a
meaningful breadth of history is surprised at the authoritarian moves of the Bush administration;
authoritarianism is how one deals with a divided society at the end of its cycle, like our own spoiled and fat
and directionless one - whether it's Bush or not is a different question. Similarly, since we know a
resurgence of nationalism is going to inevitably occur, it's time to pick the most sensible form of nationalism
possible.

In many ways, this issue is similar to the different approaches of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Hitler to
Christianity. Nietzsche said, in effect, "Christianity is sick and Jewish; let us destroy it." The more
contemplative and pessimistic Schopenhauer said simply, let us pick the best form of Christianity - and, as
astute philologicians know, he was thinking of his early influence Meister Eckhardt. Hitler, being of
exclusively a practical mind, essentially took Schopenhauer a step further: let us decide what is a sensible
religion, and make Christianity into it. These three thinkers all knew the problems with Christianity, and
took different paths to a solution, but the end result of these paths - which are but a means to an end -
would be the same, whether it were labelled Christianity, Hinduism, Nazism or New Age. It isn't the label on
it that matters, but the structure of the thoughts (philosophy) inside of it.

When we look at Nationalism today, the people who watch too much TV, buy too many movies and
download too much mainstream music from SoulSeek will recoil in horror and say, "Nationalism is fascist
and racist; let us destroy it." The hardcore clubhouse neo-Nazi types will harrumph and proclaim it "not
extreme enough." The level-headed thinkers, whether we are inclined toward nationalism or not, will decide
that regardless of label, this could be a way to adopt sensible values into an insensible society, and thus
move ourselves from a diseased time forward. At that level of thought, whether or not our future is
nationalist does not matter - outside of the primary statement of nationalism, which is grouping of peoples
into political entities by both ethnicity and culture (and not politics, as is the case in patriotism), there are
many more issues which fit together to form a philosophy. The question incumbent upon us is what that
philosophy might be, and how to pick the best one so that our reform extends beyond questions of
nationality alone.

To those who observe dying civilizations, it is clear that the primary trait is a loss of goal, or shared values,
and when that occurs, money and personal pretense ("rights" and "freedoms" to do whatever freaky, self-
destructive, or cancerously degenerate thing one desires) fill in the void. Replacing a monetarist civilization,
or one in which the primary goal is economic competition as a means of giving the individual power,
requires we find a higher value than money - that we return to a healthier stage of society, when there
was a bigger motivation than personal wealth. For this reason, there should be reason for all to take heart
at the adoption of nationalism; it means we are ever-so-slowly moving on from the low point in human
history where "it's profitable" was the only justification we sought or needed. Yet as mentioned above, the
concept "nationalism" is only one aspect of complete political worldview, although nationalism has been
throughout history associated with other values as well.

The broader historical view suggests that we view this not as much as a political change, but a
philosophical one: we're moving on from issue-based politics, materialism and individualism, and we're
heading toward organic collectivism. The remaining question for a nationalist society involves how it
designates ethnic-cultural groups, and how then it decides to structure society to support them.

In current politics, Nationalism is roughly divided into several camps. One of the most prominent are the
Nordicists, who argue that the Nordic (and some will say, as Hitler did, the "Nordic-Germanic") strain is the
closest we have to the original ethnic-cultural group that emerged from Northern Europe to establish the
societies of Greece, India, Rome, Egypt, and so forth. Most historical data supports this assumption,
although it's fair to note that, at least according to linguistic derivation, that original group fragmented and
diversified rapidly, although retained its core values and beliefs. Nordicists argue that Nordics must be
preserved from admixture by (a) other races and (b) other Indo-European ethnic-cultural groups. They do
not harbor ill-will toward those other groups, but wish them to each exist as their own nationality, refining
themselves through positive breeding as best they can. This is the oldest tradition in nationalism, and it
essentially states that the tribes should be separated and work together for common goals, but each must
rule itself.

Radically contrasted to the Nordicists are the "Pan-Aryanists" or "White Nationalists," who believe that all
things white should exist on the same stratum, and thus we should combine white races and tribes to
produce a universal "white culture" which we can then breed toward a higher level. This belief is the most
modern form of nationalism, and comes almost exclusively from countries in which a high degree of inter-
tribal mixing has already occurred, such as in the United States, Canada, Russia and the UK. The Pan-
Aryanists think that anyone of partial Nordic-Germanic-"Aryan" heritage should be included in one giant
tribe, and that tribe can approximate its culture from that mix. Admittedly, this is the most pragmatic view
in mixed cultures, because to divide the United States, for example, into tribal groups would be easy in
some areas (mainly the South) but impossible in others (such as New York, where almost every "white"
person is Irish-English-German-Slavic-Italian or some variant thereof). For this reason, American and
English neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups almost exclusively adhere to this belief.

For the sake of convenience, I will call these views Tribalism and Demographicism, respectively. The first is
called tribal because it believes in the division of tribes, and the second demographic, as it looks practically
at how people self-identify in mixed cultures. It's important to note that both are nationalism, although
tribalism divides on the basis of race and tribe, where demographicism divides only on the basis of the
largest part of ethnic heritage. Tribalists tend to shy away from the idea of mixing relatively pure tribes
(Germans, Scandinavians) with tribes already displaying admixture, and there's a good amount of historical
data to suggest that their point is valid: once mixed, always mixed, or so history dictates; mixing creates a
local culture that cannot return to its original state. Where demographicists have the advantage, of course,
is in a modern democracy; if you can unite people by the fact of being "white," it's easier than trying to
address individual tribes and then getting them to cooperate.

Also, as is impossible to miss, it's essential that some form of demographicist nationalism exist for those
Polish-French-Irish-German-Spanish hybrids in America, the UK, and Canada (as well as the corresponding
Germanic-Baltid-Slavic-Mongol hybrids in Russia and Eastern Europe, and the Semitic hybrids of the
Mediterranean and UK). Without this demographicism, they have the unsteady participation in nationalism
of being identified as new mixes, such as "American" or "English," that do not directly describe a single
bloodline. But for those who are mostly unmixed, does it make sense to blend their bloodline, especially
with hybrids that include non-Indo-European races?

Clearly this is where the Nordicists make the most sense: if you're going to preserve a race, do so by
starting with that which is less mixed and work outward toward other strata. For this reason, I'd like to
propose a new vision of nationalism, called "Preservationism."

Preservationism not only formulates a more sensible grouping of Nationalists, but also, associates with
nationalism a general agenda that not only supports the political needs of nationalism, but the philosophy
that allows people to appreciate it. Preservationism includes a form of nationalism, but is not limited to it;
however, for practical political purposes, we can call it a type of nationalism. Where Preservation differs
from Nordicism is that it is willing to create a Pan-Indo-European group and call it, for lack of a better
term, "English"; this applies to all mixed-tribal white people, and separates them from those of relatively
pure (3/4 or more) tribal heritage. It differs from Pan-Aryanism/White Nationalism in that it believes in
preservation of those relatively unmixed Indo-European groups, and their separation from others.

The reason for this is inherent in the name: unlike most neo-Nazi or White Nationalist groups,
Preservationists do not seek to prove that other races are inferior or unfit. They seek instead to assert that
their own group needs to be preserved, and the only way to preserve it is through nationalism, including
exclusion of all other races and tribes. Further, Preservationists seek to, in the same way the Nazis
championed "Blood and Soil," establish a communitarian principle of government; this means, for you who
are familiar with leftist language, an impulse toward localization and permanent association of ethnic groups
with ancestral land. The reason for this is also derived from the name: Preservationists seek to continue
what nature started, and to act in concert with both natural order and Tradition, in the Julius Evola-Rene
Guenon-F.W. Nietzsche sense. They recognize that the "progressive" vision of society is Utopian delusion,
and seek to restore the only working form of society that has existed, and that is one where humans see
themselves and nature as participants in a cosmic order, and thus work toward "ideals," or designs of a
higher evolutionary nature - not "new" and "empowering" ideas in government, or politics, or art, but better
versions of the eternal philosophical concept that unifies them all.

Preservationists are simultaneously Green, Nationalist, and Localist - this is the essence of communitarian,
or community-based, government. A local community defines itself by its land, its culture, and its heritage,
in this view. Unlike Pan-Aryanist/White Nationalist views, Preservationism is detached from the implement of
modern society - large centralized bureaucracies - and returns to an order by which civilizations develop
independently with allegiances only against common enemies. In this, it allows a return of Traditionalist
values to Indo-European culture, with these including, among other things, a reverence for cosmic order
including the system of karma, by which one moves from a least-evolved state to a highest state of
evolution. As karma is conveyed through the vehicle of evolutionary breeding, it is not only a racial
hierarchy, but one of castes and individual abilities as well. Unlike Judeo-Christian morality, karma does not
posit good or evil, but says that if one lives according to higher ideals, one steadily moves up through the
caste system from lowest to highest. This happens over many lives, and could as easily describe the
process of selective breeding as some kind of reincarnation. For those who believe that the design of their
bodies, including minds, creates their consciousness, the two are roughly convertible concepts.

We cannot undo history. The division of the Indo-European peoples has happened; our technology running
roughshod over the world and destroying much has happened; our political failures have occurred and
cannot be taken back. What we can do is to start working on what we have now, and to take it to a
Traditional state, including caste systems. This requires we take a clue from the Nordicists and, for unmixed
tribes of whites, breed them into better versions of what they are: Germans, Scandinavians,
Mediterraneans, Slavs, Irish. Mixing the unmixed is destructive, and will accomplish the same destruction of
heritage toward which modern society aims. As each group carries in its collective genetic memory the
recollection of events and decisions made in the karmic cycle to reach its current position, mixing would
obliterate that past and start the entire race of white people off at a lower level. However, for those who
are already mixed, giving them a cultural identity - English - and encouraging through selective breeding
the refinement of that ideal, will produce - much as it has in Slavs, Irish, Italians - a local culture which will
steadily move upward toward greatness.

Furthermore, by associating each group to a local community, we remove the braindead system of
centralized bureaucracy and replace it with localization, including environmental protection, as who would
poison the land of their ancestors which their children will inherit? This also allows diversification, and the
rise of those who are more capable and of better moral character, without lumping us all together and
standardizing us to a single level in the same way modernity accomplishes all of its political aims. Pan-
Aryanism is modernity; Nordicism is too limited; Preservationism is right. As democracy collapses, and
individualism reveals itself to be unfettered selfishness, fascism and nationalism are coming - if we inform
ourselves to the degree that we can understand why Preservationism makes sense, we can make
nationalism an enduring success instead of another stage in a lugubrious decline.

June 29, 2005

Impeachment Now
Most people cannot tell the difference between cause and effect. They see the effect and, passively, figure
that if they slash at that, they'll end the problem. Then when it returns again, they're baffled, and figure
some evil conspiracy has made a fool of them. They're partially right - the "evil conspiracy" is the limits of
their own intelligence, and this is why our ancestors created caste systems: most people lack the capacity
to participate meaningfully in politics.

Back in the 1980s, when our actor-cum-president decided that a war on drugs was necessary to save the
American people, we had a festival of confusion of cause and effect. Drugs were the cause: not prevailing
misery at empty lives, an excess of wealth and a dearth of worthy causes, or an overall sense of decay like
the scent of dead rat under a distant eve. So we fought drugs and let the causes slumber, to the effect that
this day drugs are as popular as ever, but instead we have a paramilitary police hiring millions to fight
them. Because we did not see the cause, we adopted it as a parasite.

Another situation of note is the war on terrorism: by the very nature of this name, we assume terrorism is
the problem, and not our fundamentally broken foreign policy that will leave us boxed into a corner. Our
allies are obligated to be friendly; when our back breaks in the next Viet Nam, they will begin edging away,
knowing that when every bully gets weak, out come the detractors who swarm around him and devour
him, such that only bones are left. We assume terrorists have no cause, and are both cause and effect in
themselves, while idly supporting their enemies and bombing their countries in the name of two religions
that history has taught them are hostile.

Right now, many people want to put their heads back under the blanket and go to sleep after having
swatted off the alarm clock, and that alarm clock is G.W. Bush, our President. He is not a cause, but an
effect; the cause is a fragmentation of America and a lack of real solutions, so people tend toward the guy
with the most realistic and simplistic answer to our problems. It is a fond but delusional hope that got him
elected, and an equal and opposite deluded response that impeaching him will solve anything. He is not the
cause, but its result; impeaching him will give us several more years of palliative democracy, and make our
problems even worse because, like cancer, the gravest problems cannot be immediately seen.

If we wish to extend the metaphor, even politics itself only addresses effect. We have become so detached
from the cause - the decline of our values, the loss of a culture in common, the loss of belief in ourselves,
and the adulteration of our population with morons - that we believe an election, a handful of laws, or
maybe a good war can solve our situation. No; we have taken it beyond salvage, as far as those means are
concerned. Politics in this age deals only with effects, because to address the cause is to unmake our
current form of politics.

Impeachment will strengthen our disease by hiding its symptoms. It will make us feel good for some time,
while our failings within gain strength and, not being appeased, will return with a vengeance. It will make
us popular with people who do not ultimately care about our welfare, as they realize that under both
Democratic and Republican presidencies they have been bombed, invaded, or taunted with financial aid that
comes with many strings attached. They do not confuse cause and effect: we are the cause, their
misfortune is the effect. Therefore, they wish to see us go -- and quickly.

We might feel better, as if watching a cartoon, when we slay the dragon and go home in a golden wreath
of symbolic glory, but this is also a case of confusing cause and effect. The dragons and parasites and
enemies are here because we invited them, as our system rotted and we fought increasingly among
ourselves, and we continue to invite them, because we have no values system to replace our original one,
and therefore settle upon "if it's profitable, it must be good." That is like sending a battle-cry to the hounds
of hell to come here, dress in suits, and begin tearing up the prize to divide and scurry away with.
Impeachment does not address these circumstances.

I do not write this article in support of Mr. Bush, but rather out of lack of support for any of the candidates,
and recognition that deposing one figurative head of government for another who will not solve the
problem is like taking a massive bong hit and pretending the real problem does not exist. You do not fix
problems by addressing effects, but by tackling their causes, and if your current political system makes it
"offensive" or "unpopular" to attack those causes, then your current political system is part of the cause. It
is it - that political system that prevents you from taking action - that you must impeach.

June 29, 2005

Solutions vs Distractions
When one does not have life experience, it seems as if concepts define reality; over time, concepts are
relegated to a backseat, much like words are even to those who use them well, as a means of describing
reality. If humans turned color when this realization occurred, it would be very easy to separate out those
who should have nothing to do with politics, but it is not to be so. However, almost everyone recognizes
that there are some who should not be active in politics.

(Think about this critically: almost everyone you know bemoans the existence of "idiots" or "evil people"
who screw things up. Whether those evil people are morons, or George W. Bush and his cohorts, or the two
groups are one, is academic. We all agree that there are some who should not wield power. Even the most
benevolent among us acknowledge this as fact, indirectly. Yet none will say it directly, as it violates the
basic taboo of modern society, which is the idea that we're not all identical little machines to be used as
industry, religion and government see fit, acting in our own "best interests" of course.)

Why should some, and not all, be active in deciding our future? Answer: because abilities vary. In the same
way that we do not ask skinny lab scientists to play football, we should not ask those without the mental
inclination required to try their hand at leadership. It is a specialized skill dependent on certain inborn
factors, including intelligence potential and personality type. If developed, these characteristics qualify one
for a leadership position.

However, we do not make such distinctions, in our "enlightened" and "progressive" (not to mention self-
congratulatory) age of modern technology and individual empowerment, and thus we are constantly
subjected to a flood of opinions and dogma, much of which comes from people who do not understand the
structure of political systems. Since they do not understand structure, or how things work together, they
focus on changing elements of these systems and hoping for a symbolic victory.

This is the difference between solutions and distractions. Solutions take structure into account, and propose
fixes at the level of function, while distractions may make people feel good, but because they don't address
the actual problem, they are in fact destructive: addressing the distraction takes the place of a solution, and
while everyone's busy feeling good, the problem remains.

The distractions discussed in this article may not seem to have much in common as actions. When seen in
the context of what the ideology behind them needs be achieved for fulfilment, however, they can be seen
to be symbolic gestures replacing an impetus toward effective change.

Soft Environmentalism

Perhaps the biggest group of nitwits who like to hear themselves talk, and love to stroke themselves with
self-congratulatory encomium while doing nothing effective, are the soft environmentalists. These are the
people who believe, in radical contrast to available data, that if we "just" live using fewer resources, we will
somehow magically solve the environmental problem on planet earth.

Soft environmentalists spend a good deal of time discussing topics such as turning off water faucets while
brushing teeth, unplugging appliances from the wall at night to save electricity, buying expensive eco-
friendly products, shutting off security lights, using hybrid cars and recycling menstrual pads. While all of
these ideas are sound in and of themselves, they do not address the problem.

Suppose, for example, that we all reduced our consumption by 50% - we each halved the amount of
energy needed and waste produced. This sounds good, and feels good, but what it doesn't take into
account is that if the population of people living first world lifestyles doubles, everything we do is cancelled
out. That population doubling has already occurred, and will occur again ad infinitem, as there are no
checks on our population's expansion, especially in the third world, where first world technology is
encouraging first world lifestyles.
In short, no matter how many taps or appliances we shut off, or how much we recycle, that contribution
will be miniscule. Soft environmentalists don't like to think about this. They will ramble on about how if we
"educate" the vast majority - that is, force our will upon them under the guise of enlightenment - maybe,
just maybe, they'll all change. This would be a great solution if most people responded to education, and if
we had the time to wait for them to change. For soft environmentalism, they'd all have to change
tomorrow, and our population would have to be declining, not advancing.

Soft environmentalism will be eternally popular, however, because it's extremely easy. Add a few lifestyle
changes and you're part of the solution not the problem, and therefore can set aside all your guilt and
continue making reckless amounts of money from the up-and-coming third world nations living first world
lifestyles. Nevermind that the first world nations have stopped population growth, but that third world
nations keep growing. Just turn off that tap and everything will be fine, remember?

The concept of soft environmentalism is one of seeing details, and making symbolic changes, but lacking
understanding of the structure of the problem. The environmental problem is a result of overpopulation, not
leaving taps running. No matter how efficient we become, the population expands every day and has no
means of stopping itself. Eventually, even if we all refuse to bathe or use electric lights, we will consume
every scrap of our environment. Soft environmentalists don't like to think about this.

The reason soft environmentalism exists is that people want to be "doing something" about the
environmental issue, yet not actually changing their lives much at all. Turning off water taps, turning up air
conditioners, and unplugging appliances are all temporary, tiny little fixes - distractions - that miss the
bigger issues entirely. Our population keeps expanding, and will eventually use up everything on earth and
pollute earth to toxic levels, but they don't want to think about that. They would rather we all buy
"environmental" products and do simple rituals involving small changes, because that way not only do we
not have to change our lifestyles, but we don't have to break the taboo barrier of individualism, either.

Individualism is the basis of our society. No, not for an ideological reason - because it's convenient.
Individualism gives us independence from any kind of judgment over what it is we do, at the expense of
having any collective goal. It lets us indulge our selfishness, and excess, and perversion while protecting us
from other people pointing out how insane we are. Individualism is the kind of philosophy that emerges
from a decaying civilization, and it makes queeny little brats of us all, but because we don't trust one
another and have no values system in common with them, the best among us uphold it to protect
themselves from others and the worst among us uphold it to protect their own decay from the eyes of
others.

The only problem with individualism is that it is incompatible with true environmentalism. If you can do
anything you want, it's your choice whether to accomodate the environment or not, but if you are the one
who unselfishly gives up the extra profit to be had from developing forest land or dumping toxic waste into
rivers, there's nothing to stop some other guy from getting ahead by doing the same. As long as our
society is individualistic, it will have this kind of competition, and there will be no way to enforce a solution
to our environmental problem. Soft environmentalists prefer to ignore this and, by offering a non-solution
as a solution, clog our heads with garbage where we otherwise might see clearly the obvious truth of
individualism and environmentalism being irreconcilable.

Racism

Another equally ludicrous example of distraction is the hijacking of movements to return us toward a
tradition culture by the forces of oversimplification, e.g. racism. Imagine it in dialogue form if you want to
see how nutty it truly is:

Person A: Our people hate their own culture, and are chasing frivolous amusement, as a result rarely
breeding and more than likely with members of other races.

Person B: It must be the fault of the intruders. Exterminate all the brutes!

That's not a solution - it's an emotional response. However, before I go further, let me make something
very clear: for any nationality to survive, it must defend itself both culturally and ethnically. In practical
terms, this means excluding outsiders and outsider ideas for the most part, because to bring those in is to
hybridize one's culture radically and thus to obliterate its original strain. That doesn't mean you cannot
make a curry in Germany, or sing a Chinese folksong in Russia, but that one keeps the ethnic-cultural
group alive such that foreign elements are an extreme rarity. Any group that does not do this gets merged
into the "no plan is our plan" vein of humanity.

Hybrids are a curious thing. In farming, when one produces a hybrid crop, one destroys all but the
strongest and breeds those apart from the others. The reason is simple: you want to keep the original
strains alive, even if only for the purpose of future hybridization. In human groups, there is little to be
gained from hybrids, as we're complex enough that it takes years of specialized population evolution to
produce any distinctive traits that last from one generation to the next. With human populations, the rule is
simple: if you become mixed, you cease to exist.

This naturally brings up the question of mixed societies, and what happens to them? Look at it from a
natural perspective. Nature respects generalized specialization, such as the species of bird that adapts to
mountain climates but does not limit itself to a single food source or method of finding mates. This is
flexibility within the context of a specific area. Take that bird to a far different region, like transplanting a
pelican to the desert, and it will not fare so well, but any less than cataclysmic change it can take. Breed
that bird with another type of bird, and...?

For starters, when you mix different strains of an animal, you lose all of what has been accumulated by
generalized specialization and thus, adaptation to certain areas. If some animal breeds for thousands of
generations toward a form that rewards certain behaviors, those tendencies are ingrained in its bloodline,
as if it were designed around an ideal. When that is hybridized, the result is a loss of that specialization in
both parts of the hybrid. It's as if one starts over again with a much simpler animal, thus we call this kind
of breeding "devolutionary adaptation," or the opposite of forward evolution - regression. It's fair to
mention that the situation is even worse than simply returning to a more primitive type; the hybrid
produced has a mathematically random combination of physical and behavioral factors encoded in it.

Any animal is composed of a series of traits. While these are not explicitly linked by the genetic code, as
that would make it inflexible, they tend to work together; if a bird has a thick broad beak, it should
probably also be able to easily digest the kind of nuts it would crack using such a beak. Mix types of birds,
and you get something with a stomach for fish and the beak for nuts - a very confused and possibly
starving bird, in other words. It's the same with humans. Some traits from both parents predominate, but
since everything in our minds, including our moral character, has its origins in a genetic trait (origins that
must be developed by their environment, or their potential atrophies), to randomize traits is to produce, for
example, a creature with the mind of a king but the stomach of a barbarian.

Many of humanity's greatest screwups are partially explained by genetic mixing. This genetic mixing does
not occur in a vacuum, but usually happens after the society has lost direction, and thus reverts to its
simplest behaviors, namely individualistic greed and ego-drama. When a culture devolves, it loses its shared
ideals and then through hybridization and generally bad breeding, devolves into a third-world culture of no
distinct traits and thus chaos, anarchy, violence, predation, usury, etc.

For the same reasons, inter-tribal breeding is a terrible idea. As Nietzsche pointed out, the English and the
Americans lack a single cultural thread that unites them, having to "make do" with recent (and usually
commercial or patriotic) inventions like apple pie, the Union Jack, tea-time, baseball and sodomy. When we
look at the leading sources of decline in Western society, whether racial mixing or drug use or cheesy music
or working slavelike office jobs, they've come to pass in England and America first. Why? Lack of genetic
and cultural resistance makes these cultures the easiest to infect, even by weakened parasites that appeal
only to self-interest.

The forces of government, religion and industry would love a mixed-race world. Culture impedes commerce,
because the kind of products that culture offers - loyalty, devotion to land, simple pleasures, enduring
values - cannot be packaged and sold, and usually contradict the best climate for commerce, which is a "Me
generation" in which any whim of the individual can be satisfied by a product, as can the consequent
neuroses. Government wants mixed race people because without culture, an abstract plan of action such as
egalitarian capitalism or communism can be implemented; religion wants total control over values; industry,
of course, needs both consumers with no long-term memory for product failure and dronelike workers to
keep its machines running.

The only people who resist racial-, tribal- and cultural-mixing are those who actually enjoy diversity. These
are the people who notice the subtle factors in life; in fact, they're some of the same people who say we
should preserve open natural spaces from human expansion, not for some number on a spreadsheet but
"just because." They value the beauty of the world and its diversity and realize that such a thing can only
come about if each group stays distinct, or multiculturalism will blend every population on earth into the
same mix.

Racism is a distraction, or a symbolic solution to a complex problem. "Kill the other" will not address a
disease running far deeper. The problem in the west is that our culture is decaying, and has been
dominated by commerce, and as a result of that we experience a number of problems, including loss of
racial consistency. This is not to say that we should not preserve our own people, and our culture, in part
by isolating others; in other words, by racial separation. But it is a warning that racial antagonism alone will
not solve the problem, even if it alleviates one symptom of it.

In order for racial decline to occur, there must first be a state where people are unaware of or indifferent to
the need to preserve the ethnic-cultural entity that is the race. This situation arises when people stop
finding meaning in their own tribe, or in its uniqueness, usually because its values system has been
replaced by commerce. When this happens, higher values cannot exist; all that matters are the lowest
common denominator values that can be agreed on by individuals with diverse motivations, such as "we
should have the right and freedom to earn money."

Solutions

Distractions are plentiful, but solutions are few. Where the two issues above find commonality is that they
have the same solution: our society has been motivated by money and individual desires for too long, and
it is not working. Under the guise of "freedom" and "rights" we have been lured into a situation where we
cannot say no to any proposed idea or desire, and therefore we are all held hostage while the system itself
runs out of control. And nobody is to blame, since nobody is actually in charge; the system is there to
facilitate our desires, not pass judgment.

This is the hard truth of modern times - that to look deep into the causes of our problems is to find that
our society is founded upon a series of good-sounding lies (distractions) but that, as a working entity, it
doesn't function well in the same way that a forest does. It functions like a business, inefficient and
eventually collapsing, but unlike a business, it literally controls our world - our ability to remain living and
conscious and perceive life as an ongoing experience. To look deep into this truth is to see what actually
needs to be done, and to look past distraction.

July 2, 2005
What I Desire
Arguments go through stages, when they're held under the guise of politeness, and because everyone is so
invested in who they are, what they stand for, what they're worth, etc. they rarely end cleanly, with one
side saying, "Aha! I see your point." No, no - instead, they ramble on until they're so muddled that only a
draw seems conceivable, or both sides go into oblivious denial of the relevance of the other and start
repeating dogma until all observers leave. In some cases, however, people instead opt for a soft landing
and deftly transfer the conversation from argument to explanation.

I'm fondest of these. It's not hard to debate someone else into a stupor, or to sabotage every point they
make, or even to make them look foolish to the people standing nearby. These things do not take skill as
much as persistence and aggression, although some skill is part of it as well. For this reason, anyone with
half a brain and determination can clobber someone else with repeated argument corresponding to
deconstruction of the other's point of view, and end up with a "win," although most people are too punch-
drunk on their own self-importance to ever admit it. But these battles keep both sides polarized; it's better
to early in the debate imply a draw, and then explain the advantages of what you have to say. You might
not convince anyone but you will at least make their doubt less uniform and foreboding.

When I'm talking to people about things of weight, namely what I believe and the direction in which I hope
politics goes, these draws turn to my advantage because instead of talking about what we have now, I can
talk about the future. Most people of any quality of intellect whatsoever recognize, no matter how far they
hide it behind unconscious desires and thoughts, that there is an order to the cosmos and that we,
stumbling human beings, have a piece of its consciousness but know little of the whole. This is the idea
that knowledge can be discovered, and even if they cannot articulate it, most of them want - on some level
- to know anything that might lead to more of what we call "truth."

After the beers are put down, and the night has grown old, and everyone is tired enough to be honest but
too tired to continue a fractious discussion, what usually comes out of the experience is a questioning alone
these lines. What is true - and its grandfather question, What is real? We usually get to these when
someone, pretending to be exasperated by whatever I've said (usually, "We've got seven billion people -
that means 6.9 billion extras"), finally gets down to the question: so what is it that you desire? Translation:
what kind of order would you like to see on earth?

I think most people would be initially disappointed by the answer.

I'd like to see peace, so that wars can mean something again. These political-economic wars not only grind
us down by slaughtering our professional troops, but they bore us all into tears. We're off slaughtering the
latest pretend-Hitler, hoping to fight some evil for as long as it is that we can keep our attention focused
on it. These are useless. I'd like to split us up into smaller entities, and have more skillful wars, involving
accuracy and hand-to-hand combat, preferrably with swords. That's a ballsy kind of war, a real war, an
interesting war, the kind that makes honest heroes. Bombing people from thirty thousand feet or spraying
bushes with machine-gun fire doesn't really make for heroism as much as it does the same kind of effective
functionalism that keeps a car running, or defragments a hard drive.

I'd like to see an end to our pillage and pollution of our environment. The only way to do this is to radically
cut back on our numbers, and cut back on our "freedom" to carry home whatever stack of plastic junk we
can afford, only to pitch it into the landfill days later. No more disposable pens, lighters, fast food cups. If
you think about it, all of the packaging in our society ends up in the landfill, with the products that come
shocking cheap because they're garbage following not far behind. By the same token, but not as a result
solely of this reason, I'd junk all the excess paperwork we do that bores us into a reactionary stupor.

I'd like to see freedom from ethnic strife, and my experience teaches me that the only way to do this is to
separate ethnic groups. You cannot pretend to be what you are not, and you feel best among those who
have for generations been like you. People who have been abused or otherwise have low self-esteem might
want to mix racially, but I've yet to find a well-adjusted race-mixer. They're just broken people, like all the
girls who end up sluts because daddy raped them repeatedly while saying "good night," or all the boys
wearing sailor hats who don't realize that no amount of anal sex can fill a wound in the soul. Our ethnic
strife, and our desire to salve it via the passive means of multiculturalism, comes about because we've
discarded our cultural-ethnic identities as our societies have collapsed. I'd fix this.

I'd like to see a return to the small community. We move wherever the jobs take us, and thus our
friendships, too, are disposable (and please do not be so naive as to tell me that Internet "friendships" are
lasting - they're based on being unable to see the less-than-ideal parts of people, where true friendship
means accepting them warts and all). When one is inexperienced in the world, a small community becomes
boring; when one has experienced enough of the world, it's all boring, and the stability and possibilities
offered by a small community are refreshing. They're not disposable. You get to actually know people, and
to be important for what you do for a community, not for how much money you give to some ineffective
charity.

I'd burn all the singles bars and dating services. These are great places for more hookups that like a
television show, pass a few hours comfortably and then end in loneliness as you find out all the illusions
were hollow. If you need a whole lot of sex, there's probably something wrong with you, usually a self-
confidence issue. It's better to have a place where you can see women in day to day life and realize their
strengths and weaknesses honestly, then pick the one that matches you the best. When there is no illusion,
love and relationships are founded on reality, where it seems to me modern relationships are like used car
sales: cover up the defects long enough for the bill to be signed, and then pray to some nonexistent god to
patch up the rest.

I would like to end all of the pointless jobs and mindless labor that people do for the sake of being
employed and feeling like full citizens. This is stupid; most jobs could be done in a fifth the time required,
and so we could send a lot of people home. Further, I'd like jobs to mean something, instead of being
paper-shuffling or elaborate schemes to con fellow citizens into certain actions. Healthy people don't mind
working hard if what is achieved is meaningful, but they become depressed deep within when their jobs are
bureaucratic creations that have little to do with reality. Even the most boring jobs are tolerable when you
know what you contribute to a community, and feel both needed and thankful for others in that role.

I'd destroy the culture of offense, and through it, the concept that people are sacred just because they live.
Life is cheap and there's a lot of it. The only things that deserve respect are those that earn it. Unearned
respect makes people feel unconsciously greasy, because they're given a cheap gift that does not recognize
their own nascent abilities, and does not encourage them to grow. When respect is expensive and hard-
won, it means something. Otherwise, it's just words on a form or in the mouth of a television announcer,
and means nothing. I would bring back adversity, and the idea of heroism, or doing a task because it needs
to be done - regardless of consequences or personal cost.

I'd murder the loudmouths, complainers, whiners, priests and other passive people. They sabotage
everything that one does by claiming injury anytime someone else takes action; it's like bin Laden versus
America, in that America contentedly bombs Arab lands and then claims injury when the Arabs fight back,
using that perceived injury to spur its people on to war. Or the "Holocaust," or slavery reparations, or
people who were offended by any number of opinions, symbols, or ideas. Life should be tough and often
offensive; at least it encourages people to fight, and not just whine. Even more, however, the culture of
offense allows all good ideas to be shot down because someone is offended, and since we're all equal, we
cannot point out that that person is a whining idiot and therefore will be offended by any sensible idea and
thus should always be ignored.

I would march fat people across America and produce skinny people or corpses, no matter which; in either
case, they would have conquered their fatness and thus in part fulfilled a destiny.

All the people who live on constant medication, or otherwise in the arms of doctors, I'd slaughter, along
with their offspring. You can fix a car any number of times, but the only way you make one that's fun to
drive is by designing a better one, like a VW beetle, so that its owner is free from constant worry, fear, and
pain. People who live in that state always make terrible decisions and because they lack self-confidence and
health, will sabotage any decision that benefits the healthy.
I would change every form of human organization from a state of mind that everyone must be included to a
mindset that rewards excellence, and if some get left out, too bad. We're not all good at everything.
Maturity is accepting that, not bending over backwards to make even the retarded kid feel like a star
football player, because cheap praise is easy to see through and you make even the retarded kid feel like
you're condescending to him. Condescension, guilt, pity, shame, etc. are mental diseases. I would not
tolerate them.

There are some obvious targets as well, like televisions and insane religious cults, but these would fall as a
result of the reforms I've already mentioned. Even Christianity would lose its nutcase sensibility if put into
the context of a healthy society (and selective executions of the most emotionally esurient priests). I
suppose it's fair to mention that when I cut the population down, I'd leave the best among us alone, and
focus on sterilizing and murdering the people with the least intelligence, health and moral character. Why
breed the worst? Kill them, so the next generation are better. When you figure that one out, you will have
defeated half of the death-fear that clutches dying civilizations like our own.

Beyond what is mentioned here already, the specifics are hazy, and they don't need to be clear at this time.
What is clear from what I've offered is a paradigm shift: from individualistic, economic-competitive
individualism to a sense of an organic cosmic whole. In this view, we are not demigods who created
themselves and whose word is law, but atoms in the service of a larger order. Over time, we'd come to see
this order as holy, again, and we'd cease our pointless infighting and excessive self-indulgence in favor of
working for the greatness of our world and our people. For the first time in many years, mental health
would come to the population as whole. That's what I desire. And to that end, I write.

July 5, 2005
For the Experience/Domination by Mediocrity
Poor humankind! Stranded in a problem of its own creation and, since nothing has been done to fix it, now
in the vortex of a whirlpool to inconsequence. Some say it's impossible that this could go away - this
seemingly eternal network of stores, homes, roads, wires - but others point out how it's a house of cards
that could easily sag and fall if any one of its foundations went away. And sad, sad humanity: many of its
foundations are merely concepts.

For the Experience

In our busy and "important" modern world, everything is done for a reason. Therein is the problem. Our
reasons must be material, tangible: it makes profit, people like it, it achieves a result, it changes a number
on a spreadsheet somewhere. There is no room for experience that justifies itself, such as falling in love,
walking on a starry night, the thrill and horror of battle, the fresh scent of springtime in the forest. All must
produce measurable results, as in a museum, and must justify itself according to the overall goals of (a)
money or (b) popularity. Consequently, we learn from an early age to lie and claim almost anything will
produce those goals.

We have forgotten how to enjoy life, and where we could be kings of our world, instead we are renters.
That which does not have a justification is entirely off our radar, and invisible, and therefore those who
choose to pursue it are seen by us as insane, or simply hobbyists. We wish they'd just get jobs and
compete like the rest. There must be something wrong with them, because they don't do what the herd
acknowledges - we all agree, right? - is the smart path for an individual to take. And anyone thinking
outside of the individual? A nutcase, really.

The best part about our experienceless modern system is that we apply it to ourselves. It does not have a
single leader or center of authority which can fall; instead, by all of us working for our own material
interests, it is upheld. Whether we work as janitors or CEOs, we apply the same dogma onto everyone else.
And it's good we do that - it keeps the system running, and without it, we'd be living in caves or
something. I think. If you don't work for your own interests, someone else will come along and take them
from you, 100% legally, of course. This is a type of evolution that's better than evolution; we call it Social
Darwinism.

Experience, you see, has no function. It doesn't produce anything. Where is the product rolling off the
assembly line, the dollar signs, or the ad on TV? If you pursue things like experience, it's like being a drug
addict, and you impoverish yourself with nothing to show for it, because the rest of us aren't that deluded.
We're going to get while the going's good, because you never know how long this whole gig will last. Do
you?

Domination by Mediocrity

We are unwilling to assess difference in the value of people publically. It is offensive; it violates that idea
that we are each a world-in-himself, or something that, regardless of raw material, could rise to be an
Emperor or simply be a Janitor. Regardless, even if we hate Janitors and think they're scummy, we pretend
in public that all of us are important, even though many of us can be replaced by other workers, cheaper
workers from the third world, or still-cheaper robots. This cannot be mentioned out loud. Publically, we do
not acknowledge there is any difference in worth between individuals.

Because we cannot compare individuals, we accept anyone (can you imagine a CPU that could not compare
numbers? it would be an ineffective computer). Because we must accept anyone, we keep up the fiction
that all of us are equal, in public, of course. But because our power is affirmed in public places, it's now
part of our politics: you are all equal, and all important, and all can be anything from a Janitor to an
Emperor - there were no born Emperors, nor born Janitors. All are free. Et cetera. Because we cannot point
out one person as more important than another, we are dominated by idiots.
Think about it: if you cannot reject any ideas, you must find a compromise that accepts all ideas except the
blatantly insane (I must murder my six children for Satan). The only compromise you will find is an ideology
that suggests acceptance of all ideas. A big loop? You got it; and the compromise becomes the lowest
common denominator, so everything is dumbed down and soon even the smart people start behaving like
idiots. Ah, equality - akin to mediocrity, and fed by our egos, and our need to be recognized, and to deny -
deny! deny! - our own bodies contain our minds, because if that were true, not only would death be
significant, but we would also each be marked as Janitor, Emperor or in-between since before birth. Not fair
- it reeks of death - send it away.

There will always be more idiots than smart people. If you give them equal power, soon they drag
everything down to their level. Then mediocrity invades. Mediocrity constrains growth of better things, but
encourages growth of population and economy. Our technology grows, but it is applied in mediocre ways;
people seem to have empty eye sockets and numb cerebral cavities. Are they zombies? One thing is for
sure: they have made us all slaves to their lowest common function.

We are truly slaves to the mediocre. There is nothing to be done, but take away their power, or kill them -
really, who will care which in 500 years, if humanity is to survive? When someone dies, they fall out of our
memory, and it is alright, since more people are born. We have no shortage of people. But most of the new
ones are idiots, and the percentage is rising, since to be a non-idiot in this society is to go insane. They will
make us all slaves to mediocrity. Forget class war, forget race war, it's time for eugenic war - if all the
idiots died, it would become legal to think again.

July 12, 2005

Nihilism as Holy Grail
In one of the oldest, and most popular, stories in English-speaking countries, a handful of knights seek a
mythical object called the Holy Grail. In the course of their adventures in seeking it, they overcome illusion
and fear and become one with a natural order to the cosmos, being thus able to do what is required to
transcend the supernatural protections of the grail and to "achieve" it.

To anyone who has read much literature, or is familiar with the structure of legend, it is clear the grail is a
symbol and that the real acquisition is the knowledge and strength gained from pursuit of the grail.
Whether the grail itself has mystical powers, the mythos of the journey is that of the knights gaining
mystical powers, and by it, passing from one level of power to another. This power affects the organization
of their consciousnesses, and therefore, grants to them a higher degree of effectiveness, much as martial
arts training improves one's combat skills.

When we speak of nihilism, it is extraordinarily difficult to come up with a basic definition of it for the same
way that explaining language to a cow is difficult - unless you already have an understanding of the basic
archetype on which the definition is built, it's almost impossible to comprehend. It is like a thing from
another world, in the stories of H.P. Lovecraft, that appears to us as terrible because to correctly perceive it
requires more dimensions than those in which we are conscious. Nihilism is to most of us this thing from
another dimension, as being accustomed to Judeo-Christian morality, we have no knowledge of why such a
thing would be valuable.

Nihilism can be described as a rejection of knowledge, a rejection of belief and morality, or a rejection of
decision-making. It is all of these, but rarely in the way we describe. It does not make sense to reject all
knowledge, or one stops in the middle of this sentence (here) because one has rejected the memories of
language. It makes little sense to reject all belief and morality as that destroys even our faith in logic, or
our ethos of wanting to discover truth. And to reject decision-making, as a whole, is passivity, not nihilism.
So how to define it?

One way to look at it would be that nihilism is a rejection of any belief system that is exclusively human,
e.g. does not have a paired structure in nature. That means that unless we see reason to believe in the
Gods, we do not believe; that unless we see reason to believe in equality, we do not believe; it is a form of
skeptical, educated, and yet open-minded empiricism. It does not make absolute rejections, but pares
down our knowledge to what is realistic, passing on the Judaic-style moral systems that create arbitrary
systems for artificially equalizing the wills of different individuals.

More than empiricism, however, nihilism could be described as a gateway to realism, but a form of realism
in which the intangible is recognized; most realism translates rapidly into materialism, or belief only in the
physical world, which is not what nihilism means. For the uninitiated, materialism seems fine until one
realizes that in the philosophical definition, having any values outside of material things - comfort, wealth,
survival - obviates materialism.

Nihilist realism is a grasp of reality that preserves our knowledge of the abstract structure of the cosmos,
and thus avoids the blockhead interpretation of realism as literal materialism. Much like knights going to
find the grail, we often must experience it in our lives before we can understand why it has value; this
brings us back to the question of morality. Judaic-style morality revolves around the individual, and
preservation of that individual. Nihilist morality frees itself from this absolute to consider only realism.

From a realistic view, for example, an overpopulated planet needs to be cleansed. Therefore a nihilist does
not worry about whether it is "murder" (and thus taboo) to kill people, but concentrates on killing the right
ones so that humanity and its world get healthier. For example, to a nihilist, it's very obvious that seven
billion people are too many, and that killing the dumbest of those on planet earth will be a positive step
toward sanity. Some may waffle on about sterilizing versus killing, but to a nihilist it is not a question: one
does what fixes a bad situation, rather than worrying about the individuals within it, as individuals are like
water - a commodity of nature, and more will be created.
A nihilist does not adhere to Judeo-Christian views about morality in other ways. Most nihilists are not
inclined to violence, but where it is the right tool to better a situation, they would have no moral prohibition
against it. Nor against war. Nor against laziness, or drug use, or any other "wrong" behavior - with the only
caveat being that, in a realistic sense, it must have purpose. To a nihilist, an action without will is an
admission of fatalism, or a lack of ability to make decisions, and probably merits death if repeated
consecutively.

Only reality is real. Relegating what is in human minds without a natural correspondent keeps us in touch
with what is real, so we don't drift off into fanciful notions of God, Justice, Freedom, Money, or other things
which are our symbolic systems for interpreting life, but not relevant to life itself except when used
accurately in that capacity. When one becomes a nihilist, it is no longer a question of accepting absolute
values, but which values to pick - based on reality, and an enduring realism that recognizes the holiness of
life as a whole.

This ultimately is the paradox of nihilism: as a philosophy, it is a gateway to an understanding of cosmic

order as it is, not the creation of an alternate cosmic order (God/morality) with which to compel others to
act for the benefit of the individual. It is the only transcendence of the individual, and thus of death-fear,
which is available to us, and its tenets have been found in all of the ancient cultures and religions of merit,
but its most enduring appeal has been through common sense: reality is real; get over the fear of death
and low self-esteem, and do what is great, not what is a phantasm of a lonely and fearful mind.

July 14, 2005

Feral
You're reflexive; you live for the animal within. Right away, you're looking for some cover, because you
understand that you and the tribe have split paths long ago - and you suspect their "evolution" might not
be a way up, but an invisibly slow descent.

Only time will tell.

You relish your bloodlust. When it is time to fight, as will be necessary, you should enjoy it like anything
else, the fire in you awakened to the possibility of conquest. Your fear of death is in a distant place. You
know that if you are the one eaten, lifeless, glassine eyes staring everywhere and nowhere, it will not
matter. You will already have moved on. Such is the knowledge of deathless eternity in the feral mind.

Claiming your own space is a ritual, and one that is serious for you; you need your area alone, that you
control, so if anything goes wrong, it is yours alone to inherit. You don't want the meddling of others.
Sometimes, you break this rule, and invite over a friend or maybe a possible mate. But then the
rulebreaking is delicious, a type of forbidden that is made rational in the breaking: it is well because I do it.
The absolute rule does not apply here, as I am the only absolute rule for myself.

All of your friends have something you want, but could never take, so you study, and in good nature, fight
them. That which does not kill me --

Your mother, in your mind, had every head in town turned; she was beautiful. You don't like to think that
she gave it away, however.

You like to think that your father merited her, and somewhere in that distant past, he took a stand and
earned her love.

Anything that wears a suit you automatically distrust, because in allowing itself to be so controlled, it has
become a submissive animal. You know from experience that submissive animals are the first to rebel, and
always fight dirty, because they are never satisfied. That is okay; once you know what they are, you have
no problems fighting dirty either. And unlike those half-willed creatures, you'll fight for the throat.

You give a wide berth to any talk about what "ought" to be, and find refuge in acts making something in
your mind what is.

Music and art with a bloodrush of energy, of masculinity and assertiveness, is essential for you. The open
forest makes a mockery of the paltry pacification hymns of folk rock and grunge.

Your own tribe is your family; you live in them and with them, as you trust them to think as you do. You
like this network, because it means that slowly, the will that contains yours is expanding.

You cannot imagine what good a priest would ever do you, since more than books - books! - your guide is
your own mind, and you know it can be sharpened like a sword.

When the hunt is on, you will crush unthinkingly, putting young and old alike to death for the completion of
your task. And then you will relish the completion, knowing the forest, too, forgets the dead.

After your death, you expect to have left no mark on the earth, nor to have mattered, except to yourself.
You like it that way. You are both your world, and only a doorway into the larger world, a place you delight
in exploring...

You're a feral animal, and society wants you dead.

July 15, 2005

Progress versus Getting it Right
A short note on the nature of life: all of what goes on in the human mind is pure creation, construction,
words and symbols and designs used to describe something that exists outside of our minds. That doesn't
mean that it isn't an objectively-functioning world out there; try putting your hand in a moving blender and
you'll see the world is very consistent in its actions. However, this world is sometimes maintained by some
very spacy ideas, like chaos theory or cosmic idealism, and may not even be "real" in any sense of physical
matter existing. However, insofar as events go on in it, it is "real" and you are subject to the forces of its
reality.

Being able to understand both the unreality of life, and its mundane but effective physicality, is the essence
of what is required to be a realist. Realists do not trouble themselves by trying to explain away reality with
bad science or bad religion. They look at the world, take good as well as bad, and adapt. This is their
ultimate game and goal and it makes sense, if one is a complex organism who cares about function, to
take this course of action.

Fools, on the other hand, either deny significance beyond the material, or assert the existence of some
fantasy world that is either more important than reality or "describes" reality in some way that is assumed
to be important. They confuse our evaluation of the world (mind) with its actuality (body), and thus we call
them dualists, a term that in itself is dual: dualists believe in a world beyond this one, and most commonly
construct it along the lines of mind/body separation. Those of us who are realists are unitivists: we believe
the physical world, our minds, and any significance or values abstracted from those are part of a
contiguous, rational system (although not rational in a linear sense).

Because I am a late-night psychopath reader who likes a good story more than the pretentious crap that
passes for literature of late (two exceptions: Tom Wolfe and William Gibson), I found myself digging into
"Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton. Yes, yes, I know, it's garbage - but only on the surface. Crichton's goal,
since the wildly successful "Andromeda Strain" that kept him from having to practice medicine, has been to
wrap a small amount of adventure around a discussion of scientific implications. Unlike most scientists, with
the possible exception of Carl Sagan, Crichton directs his critical eye not toward the technology itself but
toward its meaning via its effect on the world and our lives.

As such, he's both a brutal cynic, and a breathtaking concept writer, in that he grasps exactly what is
scaring us at any given time and explains it in such a way that those of average or higher IQ can perceive
its strengths and dangers. He's good at not becoming a hysterical liberal, but hasn't yet lapsed into the
complacent "as long as the stock market's still up" attitude of most American/English-style "conservatives."
What's great about this book is that he takes issue with modern society's explosion of technology, and
points out that no one considers the consequences.

Ian Malcolm, a (homosexual) British mathematician, is the voice of the author in this work; not only do
quotes from him introduce each chapter, but his lengthy monologues summarize one of the two major topic
areas of this book. The first, obviously, is genetic engineering - bringing an ancient form back to life. It is
counterbalanced by a study of chaos theory, in which Crichton attempts to explain how natural systems
work. The result shows hard science in the grips of forces its unleashers cannot understand, namely the
tendencies of systems to achieve and lose balance, and this metaphor forms the basis of Crichton's lesson
to modern science.

He uses harsh words for recent epochs. Most technical people and scientists are "thintelligent," Malcolm
says, meaning that they can function well in a high-intensity narrow bandwidth of thought, but are lost to
practical implications or systemic thinking. Crichton uses the words linear thinking several times, and
lambasts the west for adopting this form of thought, although he does not trace it to its Jewish-Christian
roots (Crichton grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in NYC, but seems to be a gentile). He illustrates this
crisis several times through the behavior of his characters, who are always just saying "Well, now our
technology is working again" when some dinosaur comes crashing through the wall and eats a coworker.
It's a form of subtle comedy usually found in horror movies. Crichton makes his points, however, and since
this writing is not here to review the book, let us move on to the next point: Crichton also makes a classic
error of the type made by scientists and not philosophers, and it's nearly unforgivable. He posits that linear
science is "obsolete," and we need to move on, much as we moved on from medieval times. In this, he
reveals his ignorance by adhering to the progressive fallacy.

Espoused by Hegel, lambasted by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and anyone else with a brain, the
progressive fallacy is that idea that we are always growing toward a "new" higher state of humankind. You
can hear echoes of this in the dumbshits who, if anything is proposed, state they don't want an existing
path but want something "new." It's also found extensively in media and commerce, which benefits quite a
bit from the automatic assumption that of two things, the newer one is better. In a book excoriating linear
science, how about some words for how stupid linear history is?

If one reads widely enough, and deeply enough, it becomes clear that history is linear only insofar as our
measurement of time is (whether time "really is" linear or not is for another debate - we perceive it as
linear; end of story). According to traditionalists and ancient sources, "history" is a process much like the
lives of individuals, by which civilizations are born, grow old and fat, and finally decay into sordid collapse.
Crichton alludes to a scientific version of this philosophy when he notes that fluctuations in cotton prices
over the last century mirror their vicissitudes during the course of an average day. Why doesn't he again
turn his mirror to history?

The answer is that like most of us moderns, he's well-educated in linear thinking in ways even he, not a
dumb man by any stretch, cannot recognize. He's like Hegel: a well-intentioned innocent who needed to be
more warlike and cruel in his thinking, slicing away the ideas that mostly made sense and replacing them
with ideas that always did. The progressive view of history is with us always, whether in television
commercials or political speeches. It's a convenient way of assuming that no one else has seen what we
have, and that we're "unique" in this time - all of which seems to me to be a way of staving off death.

Even if our technology never occurred on earth before, and our societies have encountered configurations
that did not previously exist, when looked at from a higher-level design analysis, nothing that is happening
now has not happened in the past - and the consequences of our now are just as obvious as they were for
past societies. It's another way of saying that, while the scenery might change, the play doesn't - the
emotions and motivations of the actors are as real in one time as in another. Thus what ancient Greeks
observed is still observable and relevant today, as are observations that are much older.

What Crichton bemoans - our tendency to see the world only through the eyes of science, and thus how we
can change raw materials into some kind of product - has its roots in many things. How to explain that?
Quite simply: it's a lower level of thinking than the enlightened thinking required to see what must be done.
When one gets over the linear model of history, and sees past the "progressive" view, it becomes clear that
there are no "new" thoughts, only thoughts in new contexts with varying degrees of correct and incorrect
adaptation to our situation. This is realism, and only in realism do we find an escape from the twin barriers
of materialism and dualistic idealism.

I could wax on with more philosophical terms, but you can look them up - I recommend the Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy and an Oxford English Dictionary, for starters (if not, there's SEP). At some
point even talking too much on any topic makes it wanking, as one either is able to see the truth of the
situation, or casting around blindly - more of something (experience, wisdom, intelligence, time) is needed.
Part of what Crichton's saying that is also being said in this article is simply that life is real, and when we
make decisions, we should place the airy logic secondary to a practical view of life as something in which
we live.

Crichton points out that we cannot destroy life on earth, which is a way of saying that, no matter how much
humanity screws up, life will come back, although it will not be as developed as as great as what we have
now; it's a backhanded slam at humanity's recklessness. In saying this, he communicates something
important: we should make the right decisions for our own benefit, as right now, we're in a self-destructive
tailspin of bad values. Having now experienced enough of life, both sane (good) and insane (destructive), I
can say that I prefer sane because destructive values always lead to devolution and thus more boring
existences.

Further, if Crichton ever transcends his linear view of history, he'll come upon a great truth of our world: to
live as a Romantic is the only way to live, and if one is a Romantic, one does not hunger for "new" things,
but for what is eternally true. One does not need the "progressive" view of history in order to realize that a
well-fought battle, a lifelong love, a feast of friends, etc. is an eternally good - sane, adaptive, evolutionary,
logical - thing. We rail against "good" and "evil" because they remove judgment from practicality into some
weird abstraction, and from that we get a progressive view of history, moving from ancient evil to modern
good. I wish the dinosaurs would tear that one down and throw it into the fires, as humanity would be
healthier if in its absence it instead focused on reality.

July 17, 2005

Postmorality
If there is one thing humanity needs to hear right now, it is this: "Grow up!" However, this is not the form
of maturity of which is commonly spoken, by which they mean a certain docility and resignation that allows
one to call a job and servitude to social prestige a meaningful life. The usage here refers to the ultimate
maturity, which is an ability to accept reality in all of its positive and negative dimensions, and resolve to
act upon it as is necessary.

We could call this ultimate maturity "realism," because when all the semantic arguments are brushed aside,
and all the ontological concerns shown to be aspects of the same question, we realize that most of human
discourse centers on objects of perception without stopping, first, to form a comprehensive system. Since
there is no explanation for our world as a whole, what replaces logic is an ability to analyze details intently,
without ever discovering the interconnection between data.

This basic failing is akin to us as humans selecting to believe only that which originates in a human mind,
and to relegate reality - the interaction of beings, natural forces, and objects in our physical real-time world
- to second-class status. Whether we pick materialism or dualism, both extremes serve us badly by taking
our attention away from an observation of life and pointing it toward arbitrary linguistic problems that do
not necessarily related to reality.

As such, realism is the king of all scientific outlooks, and herein is its paradox: although we all live in the
same world, not all have the fineness of perceptual analysis to understand realism. Most people not only
"would prefer to" cling to stolid absolutes that require no interpretation or context to be applied, but also
cannot conceive of any other form of belief system. It is only in our recent (400 years) mania for new
customers to not offend that we have made the presumption that all people, if "given the same
advantages," can understand the same complex thoughts.

Thus we have a troubling situation, onto which another is rapidly piled: a nearly indefinable belief based
upon a reality in which we all live, but which we perceive to different degrees. Luckily, nature makes this
easy for us, and the best-bred among us are the ones who - owing to greater intelligence, health and moral
character - are able to perceive not only what is, in an immediate sense, but its function, even over time.
These are realists who often move to the next level, which is idealism.

Idealism in the vernacular means something different from philosophical idealism; in philosophical idealism,
one suggests that the world is (a) composed of thought or (b) operates in a similar method to thought; the
two are roughly conflatable, in that if the world operates as thoughts, on the high level of abstraction at
which philosophy works, it might as well be thought. Still, even the most spacy of the idealists affirm
realism as the basis for their idealism. How does this work?

What we call science is the process of deducing structural functions to our world, and then using those to
in turn predict responses to certain events or actions. When we understand how our world works (realism),
we can then turn toward the question of its manipulation (idealism), which is subdivided into questions of
how, which relate directly to our degree of realistic perception, and why, which are more akin to the goal-
setting tendencies of idealism. Realism is perception; idealism is a study of design both in perception and
moral action.

Of course, balancing these two ideas is quite a challenge for almost anyone, and only the smarter ones
among us can do it - but among Indo-Europeans, this is not as small of a population as one might think.
Although the dumbest among us make themselves known as the loudest, there is usually a silent group
who function at a high level of efficiency and care deeply about doing the right thing; these however lack
the impetus to draw attention to themselves, as they already understand a spiritual principle by which self
is secondary to whole. These people understand the secret of nihilism.

Unlike most philosophical systems, which are based on achieving an ideal or asserting a value as higher
than others, nihilism is a discipline. It's a way of training your mind to look at the world, and from it, as in
any fully-developed philosophical system, comes an explanation of the entirety of philosophy as opened for
us by the initial realizations of nihilism. Once again, it's not for everyone; if you don't get it, you might not
be ready, and many among us will never be ready, as they literally lack the circuitry to understand it. Much
as you cannot educate a kitchen blender into a supercomputer, you cannot make a philosophical genius out
of the average mind.

Nihilism seems a paradox. It denies all value, thus obliterating the objective/subjective and mind/body
divisions favored by dualists, yet it upholds the idea of abstract structure ("design") behind our cosmos, as
when one denies value one turns to function, specifically function of the physical world. It is not, however,
materialism, as materialism champions a faith that material comfort and individual survival are the highest
goals that exist; most likely, those who are materialists lack the circuitry to go further. Nihilism is a form of
idealism, in that it posits an order to the universe that can be understood through logic, but rejects value-
judgments as a method of doing this; don't categorize and classify, suggests nihilism, but describe.
Describe structure, not physicality or emotionality.

In this we achieve the beginnings of a fully mature philosophy, something akin to the "pragmatic idealism"
Nietzsche described or the pessimistic Hindu-inspired idealism of Schopenhauer; it is reminiscent of the
beliefs of early Greco-Roman civilizations, where the gods personified natural forces and were beyond any
form of "moral judgment," or classification into good and evil. When the ashes settle over the last thousand
years of Western civilization, it will quickly become clear that moral classification led us to a kind of linear
thought that detached us from a study of systemics, and thus allowed us to do ludicrously destructive
things in the name of details - the individual, an absolute moral principle, or the need to make some cold
hard cash.

One of the best aspects of nihilism and cosmic idealism alike is their rejection of absolute moral judgments,
meaning any type of rule that applies without context and to all people alike. The simplest example is the
hypocrisy over murder in the West; we say murder is wrong, and then murder people for committing
murder. A nihilist avoids the initial error by never saying "murder is wrong," but instead, electing to murder
those who threaten whatever values are held dear. A rapid stratification appears among human beings at
this point, because depending on where we are on the intelligence-moral character scale, we value different
things. Those who are at the higher end of such a scale have valuable opinions, and the rest... should
probably be oppressed.

All philosophical concepts are interrelated, and every philosophical system uses a core concept as an
introduction to all other parts of philosophy; if your system is idealism, for example, you translate all other
philosophical questions into idealist vocabulary, and then analyze them and synthesize responses from that
point. A nihilist system is no different. Nihilism is both radically different from Christianity, but agrees with it
on many points, much as it does with Hinduism and other cosmic idealist systems. If it has an enemy, it
would be the lower-level systems, like materialism and superstition, which rules out Judaism and Voodoo.

However, any good nihilist does apprehend quickly why in ancient societies the principle of karma/caste
was rapidly attached to a postmoral system: if there is no prohibition against killing, one had better limit
that function to those who know enough to handle it. In the same way we do not give firearms to three-
year-olds, certain privileges must be earned by those who show aptitude and character for them. As most
of the questions of philosophy are complicated enough to take a lifetime, ancient societies tended to breed
people for these roles, thus producing the original definition of aristocracy: the philosopher-kings and
warrior-kings who knew how to wield the power they had.

A modern comparison to this is any form of martial art. The students are taught slowly to take on the
powers of a fully capable fighter, so that alongside raw technique they may absorb years of wisdom - and
be sent away by their teachers if they are psychopaths or otherwise defective. Just as one does not teach
post-911 Arab students to take off in planes but not land them, one does not teach nutcases to kill with a
punch. The caste system is part of this karmic order in that it is recognized that, with each advance in
breeding, the design of the next generation changes; those designs are most likely to function as their
ancestors did. As a result, one creates groups like aristocracies which are bred for the finest traits and pass
them along to their offspring.
This system works surprisingly well. Outside of a few defectives, most people have the abilities of their
parents, if developed by education. Even more importantly, they have the moral inclination and traits of
their parents, and therefore make similar types of decisions. The power of nihilism and postmorality in
ancient societies was kept among those who had for generations proven themselves able to wield it; this is
a more effective system than our modern one, which supposes that "anyone" could be effective with this
kind of power, so we give it to them and hope they don't screw up. Remember that during election year.

What we refer to as postmoralism was designed for elites by breeding, as it is a complex system.
Essentially, traditional "Western" (Judeo-Christian) morality is designed around simple rulesets: evil is bad,
murder is evil, therefore if you murder, you are evil and we should murder you. Postmoral tradition, as
mentioned above, does not waste time banning murder. It asks, simply, was the murder fortunate? which
means: did the murder increase the elegance and graceful function of a natural order? If one has murdered
a child molestor, order is increased and made better; if you murder a child who otherwise would likely done
great things, you are probably a psychopath and should be murdered.

In warfare, for example, murder was viewed as glorious in the idealistic tradition, as those who lost lives
had done so in fulfilment of their place in a natural order, and in doing so, had risen a level in the karmic
cycle by not shirking from what must be done. Even more, victims were sacrifices to the gods of the nature,
and had fulfilled their own role; material fortunes came second to spiritual ones (a complete reversal of the
modern logic). One did not weep for a conquered enemy, but sang for the whole of nature, as in the
growth of better people a more logical order was instituted.

Other examples come to mind. Idealists tended to treat their women better than any other group; they
gave them privileges, had laws against their mistreatment, and tended to murder and mutilate those who
committed rape, incest, and assault in peacetime. In war, it was different; rape of a conquered enemy was
viewed as a chance to increase the breeding potential of that tribe, and was thus a joyful occurrence. If a
warrior with IQ of 140 raped a woman with IQ of 85, the logic went, she received an upgrade (payable in
next generation) of some IQ points, thus all was cool. It's important to note, of course, that idealists did
not engage in world wars for economic and political commodities, thus it's impossible to compare their
actions to those of a modern time.

Another example is money. For those who deserved money as a means of achieving their function, it was
viewed as a natural right and something not to be questioned; for those who did not have such a use, it
was seen as suspect to care too much about it. If you have enough to live and retire, what is the need for
desiring more? - they viewed it in the same way our current society views people who spend their entire
income on pornography and lubricant: obsessive. Money was something granted by the gods for a purpose,
not a purpose in itself, as it is in modernity.

Unfortunately, this system was replaced with a one-size-fits-all system, in which postmoral rules cannot
apply, because they must apply to everyone, equally, in order to be "fair." As one might guess, such a
system was not created by the few highly intelligent ones, but by the masses of unstable and unspecialized
people who inherently fear those who might be more capable than they. The masses won by numbers, and
overwhelmed their leaders and aristocracy, and that brought us the downfall of Greece, of Rome, and the
future downfall of America. It also brought us absolute moral judgment and "good"/"evil."

Now that America has run its course, and it has become clear to even liberals that the system is collapsing
under its own weight and paradox, the idea of a postmoral society is again considered. And, as all concepts
are linked, people are again considering the concept of an aristocracy of our most capable to wield the kind
of unfettered power that such a civilization allows. Creating rigid moral rules, and then having checks and
balances on leaders, hasn't worked; not only has corruption flourished, but we've been unable to make
necessary long-term decisions.

While our system is reassuring to those who fear they are inadequate, it has traded sanity for the
accomodation of those who are defective or underperforming, and not surprisingly, the results have been
terrible. This is why humanity needs to "Grow up!" and realize that we're not all equal, and we need some
qualified leaders fast, before we make ourselves miserable and then in short order, exterminate ourselves
and all that we care about. To take that step, we need to go down the winding path from realism to
idealism through nihilism, and in doing so, to cultivate in ourselves a new maturity.

July 18, 2005

Low Biological Quality of Humankind
It's taboo to even mention a range of topics, because they'll make some people feel uncomfortable. Having
seen how well this empire of not offending some people has steered us into an ecocidal evolutionary dead
end, I'm not inclined to care: their empire failed, in a way that ancient civilization and the NSDAP could not
(you'll recall that many great artists are only discovered after life has defeated them and buried them in
pauper's graves; so it will be with tradition).

How did their empire come about? Impetus toward creating civilization was lost, because civilization itself
got wealthy and powerful. The parasites came in, and seduced the women and compassionate men, who
rapidly gave way to "new" ideas (there are no new ideas, only good ones or bad ones; originality is a
separate concept, and applies to how well you describe an idea in art or discourse). These "new" ideas
consisted mainly of vast profit to be made by manipulating hordes of dumber people.

Over time, because the fundamental assumption of these "new" ideas was a lack of responsibility to the
unitive whole of nature and cosmos and humankind, as was provided by the religion-philosophies of ancient
civilizations, these philosophies expanded scope (as all philosophies tend to do; it's a "slippery slope"
argument that applies in every case) and came to include the empowerment of the general masses. This
meant giving them a vote equal to that of people who were smarter, healthier and of better moral
character than they.

Herein was the disaster.

At this point, you have a society which promotes dumb, ugly and destructive people over those who have
more beneficial traits, simply because dumb, ugly and destructive people have a need to disunitively make
profit at the expense of others. Most people who were born into a bad body/mind tend to be destructive,
and if they're smarter than the absolute bottom, they become shrewd because that allows them to be
remarkably intellectually effective - albeit within a narrow and meaningless space. They become experts at
making money, usually through sleazy means, as did the Snopes family in Faulkner's "The Hamlet."

Soon the dumb, ugly and mean guys get the pretty girls, because no matter how disgusting you are as a
person, if you have wealth, well, in a society of equals that's the most important thing, and therefore you'll
be a good parent. Your kids will probably be wealthy too. Over many generations, this equates into a dying
out of the better people and the promotion of the greedy, stupid, violent, etc. In short, it's counter-
evolution, or a destruction of what evolution has done through greed and egoism, which as you can see are
the motivating forces behind "equality."

At this point, most people are of low biological quality, as measured in the three indexes:

Intelligence. Whether you measure it with an IQ test, or watching them in a revelatory activity,
intelligence can be measured, although you usually have to be at least as intelligent as what you're
measuring to get any kind of exact figure (this explains high school guidance counselors and their
destructive, weird and revengeful decisions, doesn't it?). However, intelligence is an inborn property.
You do not get a genius out of a turnip-picker, no matter what the popular media says. Find some
genius born "magically" to two stupid parents and you'll either find an adoption or a genius
grandparent.
Health and Beauty. People who are well-formed, who are naturally healthy and who tend toward
healthy decisions are usually the most physically able. They may not be great athletes in a specialized
sport, but in terms of general ability to do things like get around and survive in a forest or battle,
they're absolutely qualified (note that many major league players would not qualify, as the history of
athletes in combat bears out). People who are well-bred tend to have health and beauty as well as
intelligence and moral character.
Moral character. This is a difficult definition, but a good starting point is this: one's natural inclinations
and values are inborn, although they can be changed by post-birth treatment, especially abuse. These
inborn tendencies where they touch on ethical questions form one's moral character. By moral, I do
 not mean the binary "don't kill, hurt or offend any person" morality of Judeo-Christianity, but the
holistic morality of the ancients: doing what is right by the order of the cosmos. In some cases this
means killing; in other cases, healing. There is no clear absolute rule for it, and that's why the ability
of the individual to perceive it - this ability varies widely between individuals - is quite important, and
complex enough that it can only be conveyed by years of positive breeding.

When I look around the average American community, there's a very clear low biological intelligence factor.
People waiting in line at McDonalds for twenty minutes, wasting gasoline and paying high prices for very
bad food. People who cannot drive, even though it's a simple process, mainly because their attention spans
wander and they exist in a slow-motion dream of their own distraction. What about all the true idiots one
encounters in offices and stores, who can be guaranteed to miss the obvious and thus take the long way
around to solving any problem, wasting tons of your time?

Even further, look at what people buy. That most people will buy a $3.99 plastic widget instead of a $5.99
metal one of the same function that will last twice as long shows not only a basic ignorance of math (6/2 =
3, not 4), but a total lack of moral character, in that they prefer cheap garbage that clogs landfills to
something of enduring presence. Maybe they don't trust themselves not to destroy it? And what did they
spend that "saved" $2 on, anyway? Oh: beer and DVDs.

Something tells me this people will never be appreciating Beethoven, or even Emperor. They aren't going to
read Conrad, or even Crichton. They're never going to see past the lies of Bill Clinton, or of George Bush.
They're consumers, pure and simple, and they cannot appreciate anything subtle in life, or anything that
demands knowledge of structure and not merely external form. Yet we're breeding more of these and
squeezing out the smart people, because even a total fool can narrow his sights on commerce and make a
lot of money in a specific area - and plenty of them do.

Bill Gates, for example, couldn't survive a night in a forest armed with only a pocketknife. Steve Jobs
wouldn't last as long as Bill would. And Paris Hilton? John Kerry? Britney Spears?

We're descending in not only ideology and lifestyle, here on planet earth, but also in terms of biological
quality. We're failing it on the "producing better humans" front, and because so many people are dumb as
rocks and without moral character, we deconstruct and simplify and abstract anything we write, see, hear,
do so that everyone in the room can get it, in the process obliterating meaning for the few who actually
matter.

As our current society begins to fall apart, starting first with its higher functions and moving into all aspects
of its homeostasis, it at the same time confronts some obvious truths that people have been ducking since
the 1950s, namely that pollution, energy depletion, overpopulation and entertainment culture really do turn
us into elaborate hamsters who are guaranteed to die of cancer in some crime-infested hole of a city. This
process has inspired new impulses toward purging the world of waste.

Our best ecological experts, namely the ones who are alert to the full depth of the problem, suggest 500
million people on earth. If we're going to trim back people, when we grow up and get over our pretense, it
makes sense to select the best 500 million by intelligence, health/beauty and moral character, so that
humanity as a whole improves instead of staying at the same level of mediocrity with simply lower
numbers. In this respect, it's fortunate that our society is falling apart, as it gives us a chance to clear out
the dummies and start working toward higher biological quality again.

Interestingly, a eugenic society would require almost no internal changes. If suddenly we moved up a
grade, the people who would be left would use our extant social and political systems for sensible goals,
because there would no longer be hordes of morons to manipulate with demagoguery and fancy products.
We wouldn't even have to change religions, as smart people interpreting Christianity would start it off on a
more realistic, nature-friendly footing.

Now that we've gone so far into the void, it doesn't look like we could come back, but it's entirely possible
we can, especially if our first step is to upgrade our genetics by slaughtering fools, morons, criminals and
other blockheads who impede sensible living for those fortunate enough to be well-bred. I have a strange
feeling that in this future society, there'd be a lot fewer taboos about discussing intelligence and biological
quality of humankind.

July 20, 2005

Obtuse
Those who have been on the net for some years will appreciate that its audience is getting increasingly
obtuse. Part of it is net culture, and part of it is natural microselection: those that have something else
going on attend to it, leaving only lonely disconnected geniuses and total retards to populate the net. Most
people come to the net to find a social group, but others do it to leave behind the tedium of everyday
socialization.

This in itself is not a problem. What is problematic is how passive and obtuse people on the net have
become, in part because they deal with other people of the same nature. They literally cannot understand
anything outside their past immediate experience, judge the world only through terms of their own ego and
self-image, and are incapable of taking any kind of action to change the things about which they complain.
(These people almost perfectly prove arguments against democracy.)

It'd be nice and convenient if the cripples were limited to a specific belief. They're not. Any political view
has a majority of these people. Obtuse is the best word for them: they are blind to anything but what
they're thinking, and their interpretive powers, already weak, are further attenuated by a desire to not
accept anything they have not personally been championing. They derive identity from their viewpoints, and
see themselves as 'unique' for what they believe. I ask this: if there's a right answer anywhere, why would
you want to be unique when you could simply be correct?

One great example of this is the politics people. On one hand you have the diehard rightists, who rant out
the same crap that's failed for fifty years and are happy to keep failing, because they don't actually care
about making change. They want a clubhouse where they can feel unique for being the only people who
figured it out, the holy truth itself, so they can point fingers at others. You were stupid! they say. But
they're ineffective.

It's not rocket science to figure out that Nationalism doesn't need 'racism,' per se. I'm not going to deny
differences between races, or even their ranking in things like intelligence and physical ability. There are
differences. However, my argument against dwelling on that is two-fold: first, it's not relevant to the
question, and second, it's dangerously prone to being unclear in such a way that it requires a religious
belief that can "go polar" in the believer.

First: the question is not whether other races are inferior or superior. The question is why they need to be
separated and eliminated as breeding partners. The reason for this separation is preservation of the unique
racial and tribal groups on earth. Even if Africans were 200% smarter, stronger, etc. than white people, you
STILL wouldn't breed with them, because it would destroy your own race. Get it yet? What they do is
totally not relevant. What you do is relevant.

As a side note to the first point, I'd like to add that race is only one part of Nationalism, as a subsection of
the Nationalist belief that each population is an organic entity. DNA passes along design instructions and
some forms of knowledge via innate, intuitive tendencies. This is at least 80% of what determines a
person's ability and function. Good breeding and eugenics, population control, racial separation and tribal
separation are thus parts of the same issue, which is a part of Nationalism because Nationalism escapes the
modernist individual-utilitarian viewpoint as sees societies as functioning, living things.

Second: Any belief system had better be crystal clear in its structure and reasoning, or it gives way to
religious thinking, which goes along these lines: "You believe this 100% and justify your belief with your
belief." Such systems collapse in ugly ways, usually sending people 180 degrees in the opposite direction -
a consummate problem for White Nationalists . How can this occur? Does it mean that racial differences
don't exist? Hell no, it doesn't. It means that if you brainwash people into thinking overly simplified things
about race, when doubts do intrude, they'll smash everything to hell.

One reason most White Nationalists are morons is that after several generations of screwing this up they're
no closer to a solution. They keep trying the same dumb, simplistic thing, and it keeps not working, and
they keep finding someone else to blame. These folks need to realize that they're actually working against
the interests they claim to serve. They're weakening the Indo-European races and destroying themselves by
insisting on hammering round pegs into square holes. It does not work; change strategy, or give up. The
reason it does not work is that it's an oversimplification in the first place.

Race is a general category. Within each race, there are variations among the individuals, with some overlap
in certain abilities. However, each racial group is optimized for certain functions, and these very rarely
overlap in whole, meaning all of these functions at once, as a non-linear ability profile for the individual.
When you try to linearly define superior/inferior without clearly having defined a task, you launch a
contextless absolute like "freedom" (as in terrorists-hate-our) that makes little sense. There are smart
Asians, Africans, and the like; trying to prove that all of them are stupid or useless is a failing proposition,
and you convert thousands of people away from your cause because they meet a smart black person or
have an Asian friend.

The only way to see this issue is pragmatically: you wish to preserve your own tribe, because without
National groups as organic entity, there's no hope for a future human society. This requires we separate the
races. It doesn't require anything else. Whatever you think of the general capacities of Negroes or Asians, it
is irrelevant to the question, because all that you need to know is no mixing because it will obliterate your
own group. That is solid reasoning. There's no place on the earth where there's a detailed description of
what humans "should" be; objectively, we have have no reason to say an African is inferior to an Aryan.
However, if you're Indo-Aryan, everything but an Aryan is inferior because it is not Aryan; you wish to
preserve your own group and thus you need no admixture.

(Some clever moron will make an inbreeding comment here. Science recognizes that with relatively few
individuals, one can entirely avoid the problems of inbreeding. This hasn't reached the moron contingent
yet, most of whom are not White Nationalists. While White Nationalists frustrate me through their stubborn
insistence on failure and alienation instead of success, which they could easily have if they just woke up to
these obvious truths, I have to admit that almost all people are pathetically obtuse when it comes to such
issues, and their own opinions are no more useful.)

Another issue where people are obtuse is philosophy. Academia is full of these people; they recognize only
what fits a pattern they have trained themselves to see. This means that they only approve of things that
hit certain keywords or conventions, and whenever they see something they disagree with, they begin to
argue against it with a pre-memorized case that they apply to anything in that general topic area. Of
course, to someone familiar with argumentation, this is a ludicrous idea, but these people are - underneath
all of their pretense and education or pride in the lack thereof - not skilled at argumentation. So when a
stimulus pops up, they have a canned response, and most "debates" with these people consist of them
arguing against something that exists in their own minds, instead of the case at hand.

Many of the responses to these articles fit into this category. In addition to the above "anti-race" argument,
inbreeding, there are witty comebacks aplenty: If you're against overpopulation, why don't you kill yourself.
If you're a nihilist, you can't believe in nihilism. You can't prove God doesn't exist. God exists and he'll show
you, someday, when you're dead. Et cetera ad nauseam! Why we're even burdened with this repetitive
ignorance is - well, is strong argument against populist democracy. Most people lack the ability to
understand or formulate argument, and it's why they should have zero political power and be oppressed if
not outright drummed out of the gene pool.

F.W. Nietzsche had an aphorism where he described sensitive people are recoiling before the world before
them, but normal people, whom he compared to drunks, being numb and thus immune to all kinds of pain
and discomfort. The numb people are comfortable in a world of stupid, as they have programmed
themselves to notice nothing, and therefore it's all the same to them whether the world is insane or
sensible. They don't care, and consider themselves empowered for this. The obtuseness we see on the
internet among the general population arises from something similar.

The fact is that digital communication seems to be more important than it is, as it allows one to directly
change the symbolic language to which other people respond; this is why WikiPedia seems to be an
authoritative response, and why flamewars come about as people try to virtually destroy each other in the
only way they can access, namely emotions. These things are artifacts of virtual existence and not its
strengths. If you put one obtuse person into such a situation, his or her numbness is so abusive (you can
either waste all your time explaining things this idiot cannot understand, slowly, to them, or become numb
yourself) that everyone else in the situation becomes a numb abuser.

Thus obtuseness is born, and spreads like a cancer, much like the ignorance of modernity itself. What
makes it interestingly tragic is that those who are obtuse are literally enslaving themselves to their own
depression and failure. Because they allow themselves to become numb and obtuse, they are unable to see
how much the power for change is in their hands. Volunteer a little effort here and there, and you can start
a tidal wave that floods from the net to "real life" itself. Many have done it, and many more will.

It can happen in politics, or culture, or art. Most people who are obtuse, like blockhead White Nationalists,
don't actually desire to solve the problems they complain at length about. As a friend mentioned, everyone
in NYC has a big political opinion (my response: and how many are serious? less than 1%, especially in that
rathole). People on the net talk big and are too numb to recognize the power of change when it comes
their way. They cannot even successfully help on projects at their favorite websites, preferring to hide
behind a small cloud of excuses. In doing so, they continue their own slavery and misery, and by preferring
to spout off instead of doing anything, dig themselves deeper into depression. Let's hope they all suicide,
because the world has enough extra billions we can afford to lose a few bigmouths who cannot actually
contribute anything.

July 28, 2005

The Undermen
"DEATH TO THE JEWS" - Alex Linder 1

All great things perish from their own strengths. It may be, as Alex Linder - and he is quite a smart fellow -
says, that the Jews are responsible for much of it. But to me it seems there's a more likely explanation, but
like most obvious things in complex situations, it hides behind several levels of interpretations. These levels
compensate for time and the independent reaction of autonomous beings to the effects of the previous
level. When we peel away these levels, we're left with a simple truth that flowered into a complex downfall
- as are most things in nature.

Indo-European society also grew in several layers. On top of a series of stone-age populations, groups of
northern people, both proto-Celtic and proto-Nordid, emerged from the climactic extremes of Scandinavia
and Russia and made their way into the rest of the world. These people were strong in a way that
physicality cannot describe - they had spiritual strength, which translated into both amazing physical feats
and a relentless creative genius that found them positions of power among the people they encountered.
Was it that they were conquerors? In part, but the more likely explanation is simpler: they were better
leaders, and therefore were accepted as a gift.

These peoples had subjected themselves to the most rigorous conditions of survival yet seen by any human
population. Going to the far North, where winter is long and resources are few, they had to be adaptive
and physically tough in order to survive. Even further, and here's the real test, they had to have an
overpowering sense of spiritual positivity and strength to thrive in an unforgiving and bleak, grey climate.
Their sunlight was within for most of the year. In those regions, suicide is common, as those who lack the
inner compass toward belief in the positive become depressed and collapse.

The prevailing belief was something like this: everything that happens has reason, and therefore, we adapt
as we can because we believe in life - no matter how bleak it now seems. This was a spirituality of willing
hands and warlike determination as much as any New Agey positivism. It was one of the first forms of what
we now call cosmic idealism, in that it placed all physical suffering and loss secondary to the achievement
of the utmost goal, which was the transcendent appreciation of life and understanding of the cosmic order
so not only to endure in it, but to continue its work of ever-higher evolution and greater achievement. This
was the great strength of these people, which kept them moving forward despite grievous losses and
foreboding circumstance.

As a result of this conditioning for many generations, when they spilled out of the north they were as the
earliest Greeks, Romans and Indians were described: fine flaxen hair, radiant blue eyes, tall and with an
uncanny inner perception. People from the post-Stone Age tribes who witnessed them described them as
gods because wherever they went, barrenness was turned into fecundity, sorrow into joy, confusion into
order. This was their inner light; their inner sun. They had a spiritual certainty that made it easy for them
to be nurturing when it was time, and to kill without any kind of moral compunction when appropriate.

They had no excessive urge to kill, nor any response to it. To them, death did not change the sum total of
energy and complexity in the universe, so if the death was compatible with the cosmic order, it was not a
loss or a gain. They even viewed their own deaths this way, praising the heroism of those who fell,
mourning them with a reserve tempered by joy at the achievements of those brave warriors, even in death.
Their spiritual view was best summed up perhaps by those who created an offshoot of this culture in India:

Arjuna:...Killing these Must breed but anguish, Krishna! If they be Guilty, we shall
grow guilty by their deaths; Their sins will light on us, if we shall slay Those sons of
Dhritirashtra, and our kin; What peace could come of that, O Madhava?...

Krishna: Thou grievest where no grief should be! thou speak'st Words lacking wisdom!
for the wise in heart Mourn not for those that live, nor those that die. Nor I, nor thou,
 nor any one of these, Ever was not, nor ever will not be, For ever and for ever
afterwards. All, that doth live, lives always! To man's frame As there come infancy
and youth and age, So come there raisings-up and layings-down Of other and of
other life-abodes, Which the wise know, and fear not. This that irks-- Thy sense-life,
thrilling to the elements-- Bringing thee heat and cold, sorrows and joys, 'Tis brief
and mutable! Bear with it, Prince! As the wise bear. The soul which is not moved, The
soul that with a strong and constant calm Takes sorrow and takes joy indifferently,
Lives in the life undying! That which is Can never cease to be; that which is not Will
not exist. To see this truth of both Is theirs who part essence from accident,
Substance from shadow. Indestructible, Learn thou! the Life is, spreading life through
all; It cannot anywhere, by any means, Be anywise diminished, stayed, or changed.
But for these fleeting frames which it informs With spirit deathless, endless, infinite,
They perish. Let them perish, Prince! and fight! He who shall say, "Lo! I have slain a
man!" He who shall think, "Lo! I am slain!" those both Know naught! Life cannot slay.
Life is not slain! Never the spirit was born; the spirit shall cease to be never; Never
was time it was not; End and Beginning are dreams! Birthless and deathless and
changeless remaineth the spirit for ever; Death hath not touched it at all, dead
though the house of it seems! 2

What is important to these heroes is not that death occur, but that it occur in such a way as to
complement the transcendent structure of the universe; to them, the entirety of the universe is an
organism, and it is healthy when its cells are arranged in an intelligent design. The lives of the cells
themselves are transient, and the consciousness they feel is a property of the universe itself, thus neither
they nor it lose anything by their deaths, but if the universe gains a greater degree of order, entropy is
postponed and any deaths incurred were worth it. (This is not a philosophy for beginners: most have to
meditate frequently for several years to see the value of even what is carefully worded in this paragraph.)

The appearance of these people into the post-Stone Age communities of central Europe took a group of
people about as intelligent as the average white farm laborer in the mid-1800s and transformed them into
one of the world's most vital societies. Europe was already ahead of the game, as far as certain realizations
of intellect and emotion, but only after the appearance of these higher-caste populations did it truly take a
lead over the East and Middle East, rapidly outpacing them in every area of civilization. What made these
people so powerful was the universal order they worshipped: by confronting adversity without fear, they
had shaped themselves into a stronger population, and after many generations, had risen impressively in
every area of ability.

An important side note here is that the history of Europe provides only one slice of history; presumably,
similar populations were created in Asia and Africa, but those may have been many years before, and it
would be hard to compare their abilities to those of the Northern dwellers. Comparisons aren't important.
What is important is the principle that those who subject themselves to the greatest rigor, the greatest
discipline, and the most comprehensive long-term plan are those who evolve most favorably. But as is
commonly said, that which goes up must come down, and starting only a few thousand years after the
great Northern expansion, Europe began to decay.

By the time of the late 1800s, it was clear that the decay had manifested itself and taken over. Like a
forlorn rearguard, the best artists and philosophers of the day summarized remarkably coherent worldviews
and carefully committed them to record, as if unsure that such thinkers would come about again. Through
circumstance, both Christianity and the industrial revolution were in full bloom, and those two entities - one
an absolute spiritualism, the other a resolute materialism - distracted the European people from the basic
question of their own health as a popular, in terms of the inner strength that had brought them so far.

At the present time the decline is rampant. Most Euripids have no idea what propels their lives, so they
settle for "filling" their time with pleasant things - whether merely material or not, they are usually
analogues of some form, such that even if they are abstract pleasures, they are taken in the same way one
would a physical pleasure: consumption without integration into a larger form. Although we're all familiar
with the picture of the average American - couch-sitting, TV-watching, in a desperate marriage or
neurotically single, going to work for ten hours a day and then trying to find ways to evade death for a few
hours before sleep - the same situation has come to visit Europe, where people work less and focus more
on life but still have that nagging inner voice that suggests emptiness. There may be nothing for which they
would gladly give their lives, supposing it bettered the order of the World!

We can perform any kind of diagnosis we want, but without the spiritual certainty of having some fully
coherent world-order in our minds, we will only be "sure" of its accuracy when it's a postmortem. We have
forgotten the philosophies that connect our world to our actions and our values, and therefore, we are
simply guessing at what the causes might be, because we have no firm starting point - no conception of
world-order - from which to make our diagnosis. It is for this reason that modern people are obsessed with
deconstruction, supposing that if they strip away all that they know, they can start from square zero and
form a complete picture of the workings of their world. They can, but only the best among them, and then
only if they dedicate their lives to that task.

There is no question that Alex Linder and Adolf Hitler are genius intellects. Likewise, there is little doubt that
Aristotle and Nietzsche were anything less, and it is widely known that Arthur Schopenhauer is perhaps the
smartest man on record within recent centuries. All are highly intelligent malcontents who upon perceiving
the structure behind the world of appearances in the society around them, saw a great sickness, and
became its antagonist, giving their lives to change it as they saw best possible. The question before us now
is whether they did enough, or whether they put the puzzle together enough - no, that's not the question.
The question is whether or not we can put together the puzzle they have carefully prepared and, more than
knowing, act upon it.

What they perceived cannot be summarized by Mr. Linder's statement "Death to the Jews," but clearly none
of them were positive toward the Jewish people or Judaism. Schopenhauer saw Judaism as a filthy faith fit
only for used car salesmen and insurance frauds; to his mind, it justified such behaviors, and therefore only
people so inclined would find it fulfilling. Nietzsche carefully praised the Jews backhandedly while pointing
out their permanent spiritual deficiencies, concluding by through his praise appealing to values they would
find wholly alien. Having learned from the exampe of Wagner, Nietzsche saw no need for a head-on assault
against Judaism when it would result in defeat, because passive people are experts at appearing the victim
whenever criticized. Hitler and Linder, being masculine characters, have no need for delicate footwork, and
simply advocate removal of Jews and Jewish culture from European lands, preferring to relegate the camel-
traders to Israel.

However, these solutions are alarmingly physical, meaning that while they remove the immediacy of a
perceived problem, it's unclear as to whether or not they fix the underlying weakness that allows such a
thing to take root and manipulate the spirit of a nation. Further, it's not clear that the Jews are cause of
our misfortune, or simply leeches on a wound, and while their removal clearly will aid the healing of that
wound, it in and of itself cannot achieve that healing, and runs the risk of making us feel an oncologic
solution to the problem has cured us entirely, when in fact a longer-term course of therapy is needed. It's
too bad, in a way, as it would be handy to blame the Jews, gas them all, and then move on to a better
future. Clearly in the West that would improve our lot, but it would not heal what ails us.

At this point, we must ask the two questions fundamental to any medical practice: What went wrong? and
How do we fix it? These questions require us to look deeply into the natural patterns that occur when a
strong force becomes sedentary, and to overlook for a moment the more complicated answers and the
overly simple ones, instead favoring the answers that are plausible in terms of natural entropy: how things
fall apart, with no one's fault but time and the steady creep of disorganization that goes along with it.
When we reach this mindset, we have come to the first stage of the mental clarity necessary to conceive of
what must be done - and to carry it out, although it would shock us, were we to retain the trained
mentality common in society at this point in history.

July 1, 2005
The Undermen
I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic
depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no
expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty -- I
call it the one immortal blemish of mankind... - F.W. Nietzsche

This article is not written to exonerate the Jews, or more insidiously, Christianity. For while Jews were
outsiders, the Christians arose from within, and took their time destroying many of the greatest aspects of
Europe, replacing them with a sheeplike dependence on a public pronouncement of something being "good"
or "evil" - wise heads will ask, according to whom? Yet neither is the purpose here to indict Jews, or
Christians, because as shortly seen, they are not causes but vanguards of the decay here.

Lest the outrage be lost, as nothing provokes greater horror these days than "anti-Semitism," it is important
first to note that there is nothing agreeable about Judaism or Jewish culture. Some individual Jews are fine
people, albeit ones who carry within themselves, no matter how sublimated, the odious Jewish culture, like
a gene for retardation or cancer hidden behind a pretty face. Yet recognition of forensic data is a far cry
from passing judgment in the form of blame.

To keep up that "anti-Semitism" charge, however, it's important to ask simple questions: if anti-Semitism is
so obviously false, why must laws be made against it? If it is such a brazen lie, why does it recur, again
and again, while other lies perish young? And finally, we must ask, if Jews are so wonderful, why have the
fortunes of Europe and America waned after their acceptance into society? But still, you must trust your
author here - even recognizing these truths, and far worse ones about populist Christianity, does not mean
we're pointing the finger. Merely it means we recognize reality as it is!

If our problem were as simple as "the Jews" or "the Christians," it would have been solved long ago, as
such things, while unpopular, can be recognized when the enemy is an active force - of course, both
Christians and Jews prefer to operate passively, so there's a possibility this would never have been noticed,
once the pacifying effects of Christianity took hold. However, one still must ask: could it be that simple?
This does not negate the importance of carefully questioning these faiths, and the presence of ethnic Jews,
although it does suggest that such blindside taboos on criticism of Judaism as our fear of anti-Semitism be
banished.

Our problem is slightly more complex. Only slightly, because it is a level deeper in the hierarchy of
confusion, but deeper enough that it has been dismissed as a subtle distinction and missed by the action-
hungry crowd. In the West now we've gone through several changes of political system, and an equal
number of philosophical changes, with one crowd - the counterculture, the reformers - crowing that their
ways will make everything better, while those who oppose them prefer a return to something from the
past. Yet both groups make the same mistakes and have failed, when given power, to render a better
system. Could it be that the problem, like a virus, has infected at a lower level than that of a tangible idea?

We make a solid distinction between active and passive for a good reason when speaking about evils. An
active evil is obvious; hitting someone on the head. A passive evil can take place over decades or centuries,
and usually does not leave a bloodied victim but many people inconvenienced or deprived of wealth over
time. When a landlord "saves money" on construction of new apartments; the disaster is not known until a
fire hits, and the building collapses ahead of schedule. Or more likely, the cruelty is felt in the daily
deprivation of those who live there of slices of their time, which is wasted in "working around" the defective
assemblies.

The difference between active and passive is as follows: it is one thing to state a reason for doing
something, and another thing entirely to have that reason be the actual motivation. An active crime is
outright doing wrong; a passive crime is a lack of doing right, and thus allowing a subtle wrong, while
maintaining a justification through reasons unrelated to the actual motivation for actions taken. It is this
sort of crime that can remain unnoticed through the ages, especially as its cumulative effects result in a
numbing and norming of the population.
For this reason, the problem before us has two aspects: first, a philosophical deficit at such a low level of
cognition that it infects all levels above it; second, a physical effect on the population that both brainwashes
them and, over the generations, breeds them into compliant ruminants. This means that not only is our
infection insidious, but it is also nearly indetectable, since our population and its expectations are literally
shaped by it. We face an ugliness of profound jurisdiction in this one.

And what of Mr. Nietzsche's comments about Christianity, much like Mr. Linder's earlier cited comments
about Jews? If we must indulge a pathology of blame, let us include everyone. The third world populations
blame Whitey; the liberals blame corporations; the far-right blames Jews and Negroes; the moderates
blame dishonest politicians. Nietzsche in part blames the Christians, and many selectively blame
"fundamentalists" or "organized" religion, as if it matters whether a corrupt philosophy has a formal entity
behind it or not. Can all of these people be wrong at once? Or more importantly: can they all have a
glimpse of the same truth?

Christianity remains one of the more enigmatic ideas to blame, although we will take each of these in
sequence, for it has a mixed record. Indeed, as Nietzsche said, it did bring about a "slave morality" in the
West, where those who were our leaders began to enforce an egalitarianism upon us that led to an
ultimate decline in both our expectations and the quality of our populations. Christians perpetrated most of
the great crimes of Western history, as well, whether the Children's Crusade or the hunting of "witches" (a
fancy term for "independent thinker" or "atheist," depending on your view). However, many great people
throughout history acted on their own interpretations of Christianity to create awesome works and deeds,
and many have been comforted by this religion.

It's clear that there are problems with Christian theology. First, it explicitly divides mind (soul) and body,
and promises along the same lines a second world to this one, which like a Platonic thought-impression is a
pure world, without the ambiguity of this one. Further, Christianity provides a Jewish sense of binary
morality, where there is an absolute "good" or "evil" classification imposed upon each act by an unerring
power, a singular Perspective that dominates the universe without prevarication. Finally, as a result of this
morality and its emphasis on emotion/thought over pragmatic recognition of reality, egalitarianism is
fundamental to most interpretations of Christianity.

This division arises to the largest degree from a division between proto-Greek and proto-Vedic thought in
Christianity. As the Greek empire was swallowed up by Asiatic and Persian elements during its dying days,
much of Greek thought influenced the new scholars of independent Jerusalem. They extracted from Greek
ideology a sense of the ideal, but translated it into the literal sense classic to Judaism, which ended up
being materialism. Consequently, they had to form a pseudo-dualism based on the will of a deity as
contrasted to the will of nature. Judaism thus had an original bias against nature's devices, which is
expounded upon in their concept of "Tikkun Olam," or "repairing the world." Only something broken needs
repair.

On top of this thought a half-breed prophet (son of god = son of the godlike race, that is to say, Aryan
Romans) named Jesus Christ layered ideas he retrieved from his time studying with the Buddhists of India,
where he was known as Issa and well-esteemed. From this ancestor of Vedic thought, Christ extracted a
sense of idealism, or of a truth larger than physicality which related to the mechanism and not texture of
physicality. In other words, a death may be unpleasant, but if it allows some positive change in the
workings of nature and the world, it is positive - a parallel for this can be found in evolution, where the
deaths of individuals strengthen both predator and prey species alike. This idealism hybridized unsteadily
with Judaic thought, creating instead a duality between pure (mind) and impure (physicality).

In Christianity's favor, it overcame the crass materialism of Judaism, and returned toward a proto-idealistic
system. To its discredit, it retained the binary morality and thus egalitarianism and duality of Judaism,
which is the belief structure that had Nietzsche and others seeing it as a revenge of the weak. "Weakness"
in this case refers to a spiritual weakness which prevents its bearer from acting directly, and requires him
or her to instead snipe underconfidently through passive actions; it is not a physical weakness, nor an
intellectual one, but a weakness of character. We can see in this weakness a fear of idealism, and in
parallel, of evolution, by which the underconfident individual seeks to make survival egalitarian and thus
"defeat" ("repair") death.
Because of this dual nature, Christianity was preferrable to Judaism, and in fact, many European Christians
used it as a weapon against Judaism not from a Biblical command to avenge Christ, but because on a
theological level, they saw materialistic Judaism as an undoing of the selfless, meditative and idealistic
aspects of Christianity. In this they were right, and not surprisingly, the list of proponents of this idea
includes some of history's smartest people: Arthur Schopenhauer, Martin Luther, Adolf Hitler. While some
deride Europeans for re-interpreting Christianity, arguing that such acts obliterate its original significance,
others acknowledge that its original clarity was lost but partially restored through European intervention.

Seeing Christianity in this light demonstrates to us how it alone cannot be culpable for our downfall, as like
our own decay, its character demonstrates not only duality but the marks of a similar force. Blaming
Judaism for this is only partially right, because, as we shall see, the same force was active upon Judaism,
and shaped the people who are today's Jews. One might wonder where else such a force was active,
casting a glance to pre-Buddhist Asia as apparently a turbulent place divided against itself. And what of the
origin of the Jews?

History here is somewhat hazy. What we do know is that the original Jews were a Semitic population who
over time became almost exclusively a trading population. Their origin was primarily Caucasian, but
included a large degree of Asian and small degree of African admixture, suggesting to us that they were
indeed the ultimate hybrid of all three races. The only sort of population at the time which would have all
three races present and breeding, and be based upon commerce, would be one like our modern state:
multicultural and egalitarian, motivated by individual wealth. Not surprisingly, a materialistic (meaning:
concept of reality constrained to the physical) religion with a legalistic morality might be appropriate for
such a tribe!

It is then possible, if we are willing to look at history poetically and not get caught up on the details -
details of which our present conjectures are unreliable, and may never be fulfilled - that Judaism and the
Jewish people were shaped by the same forces that we find working on ourselves now. In that light, we
start to see these forces not as something with a foreign origin, but of a nature endemic to all peoples if
allowed to flourish. A good comparison would be the tendency of committees, no matter how smart the
people on them are, to destroy any forward motion and replace it with compromises: too many voices ruins
any clear idea of what must be done.

(People now will protest this, of course, but they would rather object to a detail and thus remain
unchanged in what they've been taught, primarily by their televisions, than admit that the overall shape of
change throughout history supports this proposition. No matter - anyone thinking in such poor state of mind
will not comprehend anything herein, and instructions for dealing with them will be found at the end of the
third section. The fact remains that history is a logical progression, and therefore there are causal reasons
for what happens, no matter how we try to explain them away as instantaneous emotional outbursts or
financial schemes that somehow lasted for centuries and appeared in many locations.)

Boldly making the assumption that this is correct, and a disease is shared between the West and ancient
Israel, we must then turn to this ailment, which must be of a vastly covert nature to hide from all of our
efforts to excise it. One might see the modern fascination with deconstruction, and with a series of theses
blaming everything from gender to language for all of our woes, as an attempt to claw past the surface and
get at the tumor which, having infected the blood, can move freely and resist any attempt at removal.
Remembering that this disease is not only philosophical, but also affects our breeding by its selection of
who is favored and thus outbreeds the rest, we must look deeply into the major philosophical events of our
history.

August 3, 2005
The Undermen
"Well, there aren't so many patterns in life, you know. One
recognizes patterns as they come up. It's like a book on knitting.
About sixty-five different fancy stitches. Well, you know a
particular stitch when you see it." - Aunt Matilda 1

The progress of this article so far will offend and disturb people from both sides of the political spectrum.
For the right wing, it will fail to condemn traditional targets (Jews, Negroes, Atheists) and for the left wing,
it will fail to exonerate them. Reality is a difficult thing to portray, and it rarely fits into Hollywood-movie-
perfect categories, where you can look at a character and say, "He's from this group, so he must be good."
Indeed, this article will offend most white people by pointing the blame squarely where it belongs and
calling for immediate and effective action against it.

What makes this article instantly relevant to any thinker is that not only does it not deny a long-term crisis
in the west, but it notes the subtlety of that crisis, and eschews the kind of blundering drama that will only
worsen the disaster. Nor does it sugarcoat what needs to be done. This is not an article which panders to
popularity, because people are inherently either able to accept it or already lost to its observations, at
which point, it's for the best they get offended and run off screaming. It is not intended for mainstream
publication because the only reason things get published is to make money, and difficult truths which apply
only to the creative, strong-willed, morally sound thinkers of a society are not very popular nor profitable.

Such ideas are relevant because, to anyone with half a brain, it is clear that something has gone wrong in
the West. The great artistic works of the past have been replaced by dramatic statements in plastic that
ultimately leave us unchanged. The great leaders are gone, and instead we have a series of pandering
indistinguishable goons who seem to do little more than enrich themselves in office while bathing us in
pleasant but unrealistic visions. Our science which once made great gains is limping along, and nothing it
produces seems to work consistently. Even our computers crash constantly. And the quailty of our
population? There are fewer beautiful, noble, intelligent people than before, but we now have an endless
supply of people who behave like animals who have adapted to survival through money and supermarkets.
Only those who aren't already subsumed into such a lumpenproletariat will notice the truth of this
observation. Those who have nothing better to recommend them than the ability to get a job and buy
things will find this article offensive.

This kind of widespread decline does not happen because of a single political system, because we've tried
several (although we have not questioned the nature of political systems themselves, and whether or not
there's a better way). It does not happen because a single group controls society, because if they did, they
would no longer require the profit that even seems to motivate them - whatever has infected us, has also
diseased the "power elites," whoever they are this week. Even more, this kind of decline does not happen
in an election cycle, or decade cycle, or even within a handful of centuries; this is the kind of failure that is
so subtle and slow-working it takes millennia to fully bloom, and since it moves at an infinitessimal pace, is
impossible for the average person to observe. Only those who try to summarize all of history in large
mental constructions will spot it, and they have, through the centuries - Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche,
Schopenhauer, Kaczynski, Linkola, Hitler. (Oh! Did I say a forbidden name? That this "free" society even
has forbidden names, or concepts that subject you to social isolation, should have you striking the word
"free" from its description, post-haste!)

And who is behind this decline? Who has brought it upon you, whether willingly or not? Soon you will
know. In the meantime, it's important that we again address Mr. Linder's idea ("DEATH TO THE JEWS,"
remember?) and question whether or not the Jews are responsible for our plight. It seems unlikely, since
their appearance is relatively late in the cycle, and they don't yet control everything, although certainly their
prominence in the news-entertainment media, finance and government is troubling. This article isn't an
apologetic for the Jews; clearly they do not belong in Western culture, as their values are entirely foreign to
ours - their materialistic dualism does not match with the healthiest of European beliefs, cosmic idealism,
and is in fact diametrically opposed to it, to the point that whenever a Jew opens his mouth to speak
"ideology" you should be assured it is harmful to you - and should be ejected by any means necessary. It's
definitely not an attempt to praise them, since while they've done many good things, this is in part a result
of their having relentlessly self-promoted and passed over capable goyim, such to the point where it's
natural they have accomplished some good things, because they hold disproportionate amounts of the
positions required. But on the whole, have Europe's fortunes raised or lowered because of the Jews?
Greater divisiveness, neurosis, infighting, and ugly hook noses - Europeans are becoming Jews, from the
looks of things!

Nor is this article here to excuse Christians. Those who have infused cosmic idealism into Christianity have
made from it the best religion on earth since the original Vedic belief, but not all Christians follow this ideal,
and since most cannot figure it out on their own and Christianity has a misleading character, it is commonly
destructive. Indeed, throughout the Western world, we see Christians acting against nature and helping the
helpless, importing third worlders into European populations, subsidizing the dysfunctional at the expense of
the functional. Such Christians are criminally insane, and that their religion is delusional does not excuse
their behavior. Christianity can be fixed, but it requires an iron hand - and a healthier (morally) population.
Nietzsche referred to Christianity as the "immortal blemish" of mankind, and from a technical view of
Christianity as a philosophy, he is correct: its tendency toward pity and individualistic morality is sure to
restrain the strong so that the morally weak, mentally defective and unhealthy can achieve a plurality in
any society. In fact, from an outsider's perspective, Christianity acts like a classic computer virus in that it
appears safe until activated, at which point it systematically defuses defenses and implants its own logic
where once more creative, independent thought reigned.

We could even be good liberals and blame corporations, or if we're smarter than the average liberal, money
itself. Yet corporations have only been around for the past 25% of the death cycle of the West, and while
money has been misleading and is a bad primary motivator for any society, money has always been with
us, without causing damage this widespread. Something else crapped in the soup first, friends - something
more powerful than the lure of money, which seems to appeal to those of a lower mindset, the same kind
of underconfident and morally deficient people that use Christianity as their chosen drug and masturbatorily
consider themselves "good" for having pitied others, even if the end result of their pity is destructive - such
as encouraging the breeding of the lesser, while demoting the stronger, as if planned as an antidote to
evolution! (And who fears evolution? Do strong, healthy, morally strong people worry that they might be
unfit?...you're catching on here, if you follow this point: who benefits from a moral system that promotes
the weak over the strong?)

Who is holding you back, Western human? What's the poison in your wedding cake, the landmine in your
playground, the flea in your jockstrap? The far right immediately screams that it's racial degeneration (true)
and then points to Negroes and other third-world groups, less favored races on the evolutionary chain
perhaps, but is it their fault? Their intent? And why are they here in the first place, if they're such a bad
deal for us all? The left sees far right conspiracies in anything more organized than a picnic, but if one
looks at the actions and rhetoric of modern governments, they clearly follow a liberal democratic agenda,
not a far-rightist one, so you have to be somewhat insane or mentally dysfunctional to see that logic as
sound. One tragedy of modern time is that we're all taught to talk and write without necessarily having
mastered the logical skills necessary to assert a sensible proposition, or even test one, thus we have an
abundance of highly literate gibberish and very little clear, plain thought. Why is it that common sense is
dead? Could it be that we do not (even among whites) share the same common sense?

There are only so many patterns in life. It's doubtful that we've found a new one for our decline, which
means that it is something easily recognized, as much so as becoming tired and falling asleep during a long
drive home. Further, it is not complicated, as to engineer failure is a simple task, even when a cryptic one.
It is something literally staring us in the face, but we keep asking the wrong questions and getting the
wrong answers, thus instead of starting the process over and asking new questions, we beat ourselves
senseless with our lack of answers... why is that? Could it be that the right answers are somehow
unacceptable? -- another way of saying, to whom are these answers so offensive that they would hold all of
us back?

Let's do a postmortem, before the decease, since for those who have the foresight to see that history is an
ongoing process and its results occur because of our choices, and vary with the different possibilities
offered to us, i.e. are not random as many would like to believe, will see that our process is one of
inevitability. Didn't T.S. Elliott say something about this? He recognized that the most likely form of collapse
occurs slowly, and is not so much a big bang, as a lapsing away... a slow drop into failure, at which point
an equilibrium of failure is achieved, and no one thinks to say aloud that failure has occurred. Only change,
and we all know that newer ideas are better than old, right? (Nod for tax deduction.) In fact, if we observe
the third world, even Africa, we see the remnants of once-mighty civilizations that have collapsed into a
comfortable mediocrity. It wasn't a disaster. Just a slow lapse of forward motion, followed by an unending
stasis in almost-was could-have-been status. That's our future. But it isn't here yet, so let's look at what
caused this disease.

It seems that first we lost our philosophy. We no longer shared basic values in common. Then Christianity
arose, and immigrant populations - at first, Jews and Gypsies (Roma) - came into our countries, and
interbred among us. Then we stopped caring about ancestors, and interbred freely. In the meantime, our
commerce had grown like wildfire, and so we took over the world, basically - yes, you, Western man - and
then turned that same intelligence toward making money. We found we could do it better with first slaves,
and second cheap labor, who are incapable of inventing our methods and machines for themselves. Soon
these slaves became part of our populations. Our aristocracy died out and were replaced by rock stars and
people who made themselves fabulously wealth; these were our new heroes. Finally, we reach the stage of
pluralism, where we believe that the best method of governing is not to agree on anything at all, which
forces our leaders to construe any obstacle as not just an impediment - but a mortal enemy who attacked
us first, who hates our "freedom," etc etc. We've gone from being active people who did heroic things and
established great civilizations, to being passive people who have to convince themselves they've been
wronged before they can attack. How disgusting, and how dishonest. It seems there's been a failure of
quality control in the West!

One reason most people will not join "pro-White" or "White Nationalist" parties is that most of the
dickheads and criminals and passive jerkoffs they meet in daily life are "white." Another reason the
historically educated will never join any idiot "White Nationalist" undertaking is that they recognize all white
people are not the same. The Irish aren't of the quality of the Germans; many Italians are barely first-world
quality; almost all Slavs are remnants of a slave population that specialized in running water supplies past
open sewers and getting gang-raped by Mongols! You do not want to breed your Germans and
Scandinavians into your Slavs and Southern Europeans, or you will handily destroy the best among whites.
This is only part of it. Another reason many of us will not join "White Nationalist" parties is that we perceive
them to be violent bigots without a solution, and we do not wish to engage in "hate" to motivate us - it's
passive to have to hate something before you can act on it; it's pathetic and destructive to one's moral
character. (I'll note exceptions: Alex Linder is a National Socialist, as is Bill White, and the NSM and LNSG -
these organizations have at least an ideology that isn't some idiotic "Pan-Aryan" excuse to feel better about
ourselves by construing ourselves as superior to other races! -- as if there's that much difference between
your average Southern Italian or Slav or low Irishman and an Arab or Jew or Mexican, anyway.)

Our problem is a far more subtle one.

A troubling symptom is that white people are for sale, these days. Whatever makes money, they go with,
and they'll argue for it on TV or in front of Congress. They no longer seem to think about the long-term
consequences, or even the reality of an action; if it's socially acceptable, and makes money, they go ahead
and do it, with a few exceptions who abstain from behavior outside their character and thus are punished in
earnings potential and thus breeding potential, slowly squeezing them out of the gene pool. While this
behavior is very clearly a problem, most white people will not argue against it. The far-right ones are so
afraid of Communism they'll never slander their precious earning potential, and both sides agree that it's
good to be able to chase the almighty dollar, as it levels the playing field for all of us. Economic
competition is part of that individual "freedom," and if there's one sacred cow in this society, it's that
everyone should be able to do whatever they desire - and can afford, of course.

Even more disturbing is that white people seem to trust their society, its new-entertainment media, and its
figureheads. They're like sheep. Stamp "evil" on something and they run for it; stamp "good" on something
and they go off to war to fight for it, never mind how many of their European brothers they murder. They
refuse to act on anything which is socially unacceptable, or "offensive," to others, and therefore routinely
bypass truthful answers and workable solutions for illusion and passive, ineffective action. The disease is
within white people, then. They cling stubbornly to high-minded ideals like "freedom" and "justice" and
command themselves to be blind when the failures of those big spacy abstractions are revealed. They
willingly set their children down in front of televisions for four hours a day so the parents can have time for
their personal agendas. They hate their jobs, detest the amount of time they have to spend waiting in lines,
etc., but as soon as the day is done, they're gloating about how much farther ahead they are than their
neighbors. These are no Aryans.

(We could be good brain-dead Buddhists/Scientologists and start ranting on about how "the ego" is to
blame, and how when we get over the ego, we can congratulate ourselves for being smarter than others,
for by spending all our time negating the ego, we have disciplined it... nothing could be farther from the
original intent of Buddhism. The ego isn't the problem - the socialized ego is a symptom of looking for an
external absolute, as in a dualistic system, and leads to passive action mentalities. Modern Buddhism has
been absorbed by the same disease as Christianity, and some smart entrepreneur figured this out and
hybridized the two to create Scientology. There's a saying in computers: "GIGO," or garbage-in, garbage-
out. In the case of religions, if you run inferior people through a religion, they will convert it into an inferior
religion.)

The West has a basic philosophical deficit that is so pervasive among every area of its thought that it is
literally invisible to even trained people looking for it. It is an assumption on such a basic level that all other
thought is predicated upon it, and therefore, it infects everything, invisibly, and makes each person taught
in any one of these disciplines its carrier. An ideal virus, isn't it? One wonders if it serves nature like
disease, by carrying away that which is past its prime and lacks the will to recover . This virus can be
explained through bullet points, since that's all the modern ape understands anyway:

1. Our society is built in a contra-evolutionary direction. Instead of hoping to make stronger people, we
want to accept all people.
2. We do this because at some point, political power was given to the masses, who are composed of mostly
mediocre people.
3. Consequently, they insisted on egalitarianism, or the view that every individual has identical rights and
obligations.
4. In order to support this, they invented individual economic mobility, which granted us "freedom" but
encouraged people to value money above all else.
5. At this point, money has replaced evolution, and as a result, we are breeding people who respond not to
reality-as-whole but to economic reality.
6. Consequentially, we are devolving as a species, and producing people of lesser quality.

How did this process start? The stronger among us are the more tolerant and fertile, and therefore are
accustomed to moving independently without being concerned by those around them, unless they outright
attack. They easily forget that mediocrity is a greater evil than malevolence, because while malevolence
manifests itself through active antagonism, mediocrity patiently chips away at higher standards, gradually
bringing everything together into one lowest common denominator norm. It eats away from within, like a
cancer; the broken cells form tumors, the tumors demand equality, and soon healthy tissue everywhere is
replaced by tumor. At the same time the mediocre are demanding power, they're unable to handle it -
while their brains can grasp linear thought, or simple value trees, they cannot handle holistic or
transcendent thought. It's beyond them. They prefer to have things spelled out in external absolutes, like a
big sign painted with a list of things that are "good" and things that are "evil," and in doing so, they
obliterate the need for people who - having higher intelligence and moral character - can innately tell the
difference. Mediocre people fear these higher people, who we'll call the aristocracy, using the older meaning
of this world (before it came to mean, in the British sense, those who are simply wealthy). Mediocre people
are anti-aristocratic, and thus they always demand egalitarian principles. Drag down the strong - as they're
outnumbered, and even God himself cannot outdo the millions of squalling voices - and remove their
privilege. Take away what nature has given. The mediocre cannot bear the thought that any would rise
above the crowd, as that splinters the crowd into individuals who recognize their own shortcomings. It's a
bad comedy - insane people who are incompetent to rule grabbing power so they feel better about
themselves, but all that can really make them feel better is to improve themselves from within , which may
take many generations of positive breeding - and the possibility of (oh God no) death, as death is the
sculptor's tool in evolutionary systems.
The crowd relies on what can be "proved" to the crowd. Complex postulates annoy them, as do ambiguous
statements. They want clear good-vs-evil, profitable-vs-unprofitable, popular-vs-offensive style statements.
Anything that requires more interpretation than that grants value to the higher man, and the crowd wants
nothing more than to revenge themselves on the higher, and to destroy them. Why is this? The mediocre
want power, but they lack the inner strength that is required with power, so they become neurotic, and
desire to tear down anything that reminds them of their mediocrity. Complex rules give the advantage to
smarter people. Destroy the complex rules, then - they want nothing that places some naturally above
others. Let them all fight it out in some nice easy linear game, like making money, so that those who do
not mind giving up the rest of their time to slave away for tokens get ahead. Let me ask, dear reader: do
you think the people most motivated to money are the best among us? Quite clearly not - they're the least
confident, the least complete as souls and beings, among us. They have a hunger within that they try to
fufil externally. And this leads us back to the loss of philosophy in common in the West. Once - perhaps
during the time of the Rig Veda - there was a philosophy in common, and it was a heroic one. It denied the
individual as anything more than a fragmentary manifestation of universal consciousness, and thus placed
emphasis on the vehicle of the individual, namely the physical body. All is physicality, it proclaimed. There is
order, but it is intermingled with the physical world, and thus there is no duality. One world; no heaven, no
hell, except as states of mind. In this philosophy, what was rewarded was work on the inner world: gaining
more intelligence, more physical beauty and strength, and more moral character.

Aha! says some modern, fancying himself to be clever. "But strength is ex ternal!" No, no, no. You do not
understand. External is the world beyond the body. Strength and beauty can only be shaped by evolution,
as can intelligence and moral character. Think about it: 80% of your being is defined by genetics, and the
remaining 20% is the swing vote. If you act heroically, and overcome your fear of death and do what is
right, you gain power, internally. If you shirk from any real challenges, and opt for a comfy materialistic life,
you don't gain anything over your initial 80%, and you may in fact decline a bit with atrophy of your
powers. Imagine a family that for ten generations in a row improves itself in each generation, and -
regardless of what your science has taught you - imagine that even half of those new acquired traits are
passed on through breeding. What do you have? A much better animal, in terms of its design, as measured
by intelligence, strength and moral character.

That right there is the internal strength that mediocre people fear. It requires they use self-discipline,
accept their lot in life, and be willing to give up their lives or comfort for some far, far, far away long-term
improvement to their genetic line. Mediocre people being dumb, and therefore selfish, will rarely act on
such a thing. They will see only the next two weeks and the coming baseball game and all the cool things
they could buy, but they won't see the long term. At least, most of them. Some, like our ancient mediocre
caveman ancestors in Africa, kept going. Instead of taking the easy way out, they challenged themselves.
They rose above the crowd, and got away from it, by running to the far north. There, in peace, they began
to change. And from that came Caucasians. This knowledge is essential, as Nietzsche points out with his
nasty crack about there being "no pure races." Each race arrived from the same origin, but now they're
radically different; the Asian will never be Caucasian, nor the African. This isn't a reason to be mean to or
denigrate Asians/Africans; there is some overlap, and the best among them are quite good people. We
should accept them, love them, learn from them and esteem them - but not breed with them, because as
any idiot can see, to breed with another tribe is to obliterate your own by changing it from being a unique
thing into being a mix of things, which is a less organized system and thus more prone to entropy. It is for
this reason that no mixed-race, mixed-culture empire has existed long in the annals of history, and that all
of them have collapsed into mediocre third-world nations ruled by a pretentious crowd of crass linear
thinkers.

Schopenhauer spoke about the tendency of people who have lost personal initiative to want to breed back
to lower levels of humanity, to become more primitive... it's like a drowning person making the choice to
give up and go under: at some point, the mental stress of continuing exceeded their capability of tolerance,
and thus they collapsed under the load, and regressed. This is evolution. The mouse that stops struggling
feeds a hawk. The Caucasian that stops struggling for a higher state becomes - a third worlder. However,
first there's the step above, namely mediocrity. In societies that breed for money, a majority of mediocre
people is produced rather quickly; these people are capable of holding jobs, even "inventing" things by
combining known parts and following known process, and they can be "smart" in a linear sense, but never
genius. They are morally defunct, in the same way Jews are, because they have no higher ideals than their
own comfort. They can be criminally insane, the way Christians and liberals are, in that they consider their
own self-image before the effects of their deeds; they're solipsists who ultimately care little for their effect
on the world, because the entirety of their consciousness is devoted to themselves as an externalized, social
image. These are the mediocre people, first by the mindset they produce, and then by the terrible breeding
they encourage. This is the crowd. These are the revengeful masses. These are - well, to coin a term from
Nietzsche - these are Undermen .

Like the Last Man, they believe in nothing but the material. They hate those who have more ability than
themselves, even if they'll never admit to it publically; no, better to look good and praise this person, while
in secret moments admitting their true emotion: hatred, fear, a desire for revenge. They detest aristocracy
and genius, things they can never have within this lifetime. They are pleased by anything that panders to
them, because in their simplistic minds, it seems to be acknowledging their equality (when in fact, like pity,
it is acknowledging their inferiority, but with a smile - and that makes all the difference). Undermen are like
rats in that they are only happy when they are in a nest of filth, because there is nothing that is above
them, and thus for once, they feel perfectly in control of the situation. If they drag everything down to their
level, they will be in control, their primitive (not much more advanced than a chimp in their conceptual
abilities, although they're better with tools and language) minds reason. In short, Undermen will destroy
anything of the higher or finer values in life, because they cannot perceive these values, and they will drag
down anyone who is rising to greater heights than they have achieved. Undermen are like the anti-
evolution; they're against setting high goals and striving, because striving means possibly losing, and that
will threaten their fragile world composed of a desire for power they cannot handle and a consequent lack
of self-confidence. Undermen will take any decent society and slowly, inevitably, over thousands of years,
drag it into the third world.

A small clarification needs to be made here: Undermen does not mean simply dumb, in the way an IQ test
would measure. IQ tests measure linear intelligence. There are good people -- well, take this example. Joe
P. is a plumber. Joe didn't set out to be a plumber, but he got into it, and during those moments when he's
looking over a job he did well, even if it's just a toilet installation, Joe is glad to be a plumber, and he likes
it, and he's proud of what he does. Joe leads a basically moral life. Sure, he hauls off and gets drunk with
the boys on the weekends - but that doesn't have much to do with morality, does it? Morality determines
the direction of your life, how you conceive of yourself in the world, and what heroisms you're willing to
enact. It has very little to do with avoiding "evils" like drunkkenness and lust, although one rises to a
higher level by not engaging in such behaviors - the path to becoming more than you are is a high degree
of selectiveness, in how you spend your time, in your sexual/breeding partners, in the thoughts you allow
into your consciousness. Self-discipline makes higher people. Joe doesn't have rigorous self-discipline, but
he tries to do the right thing, and holds himself back from some actions as a result. Joe is probably not
going to advance a level on the karmic wheel, but he won't fall back one, either. Thus Joe the Plumber is
not an Underman, and he should pray he is never recognized as such, or Undermen will have their
revenge, and it's what they do best.

Similarly, some among the wealthy are not Undermen. Fearing society (rightfully!) they undertook to earn
enough money that their families could navigate around it. Depending on the duration one wishes to avoid
society, this can mean hundreds of millions of dollars. At some point, however, these rare wealthy people
opt to do something else with their time, and rarely is it the crowd-pleaser of handing out condoms in
Africa or building latrines in Central America. No, they aim higher than that; why devote time to life's
failures, when instead you can create victories? These are not Undermen.

When we look at the West with this knowledge - that it's being eaten from within by Undermen - we can
see the wisdom of our greatest writers. Elliot saw hollow men digesting our moral core. Faulkner saw white
trash taking over through economics, and replacing grandeur with store-bought interchangeability.
Fitzgerald saw a country motivated entirely by personal wealth, bringing boredom to those who had it and
an amoral viciousness to those who desired it, a viciousness that soon became the standard of behavior.
Hemingway saw people obsessed by their own drama, unable to realize their own Underman behavior was
what was dragging them down to the level where they would be replaced by others (even Jewish boxers).
Conrad saw a Europe giddy over money and popularity as a result losing its inner strength, and descending
to the level of savages, or even lower, perhaps, because it lacked the ability for non-passive action. In
philosophy, Nietzsche saw revenge by the undifferentiated masses as destroying the aristocratic tradition
and thus breeding increasingly complaisant sheep; Aristotle saw the same. Plato saw a crowd easily
distracted by a show, thus allowing hidden oligarchs to manipulate it for profit. Marcus Aurelius saw a loss
of the quietude that brings heroic spirituality, and Schopenhauer and Eckhart echo him in that observation.
The West's disease is not unknown. It is undermentioned, however, because it is not popular with the
Undermen, and they current constitute the largest portion of our population.

It's a mistake to blame Jews and Negroes for our downfall. They're here because we're falling apart. That
they should be sent away, along will all other non-Caucasian races, is not in doubt, nor that we should
never accept immigrants from Eastern Europe or other already-collapsed white empires; this is merely
common sense. Equally commonsensical is that we should breed better people wherever we can, and that
we cannot do it via administrative means like IQ tests or linear-thinking eugenics, but that we must find
among us those who have a balance of intelligence - strength - moral character that permits heroic action,
and breed more of these, to drown out the Undermen. But alas, the mistake has already been made - by
the Undermen - of breeding far too many Undermen to the point where they immobilize us politically,
unless, of course, we're willing to step aside from politics. On a planet that can support a half-billion, if we
want such nice things as unbroken forests and unpolluted oceans, we have seven billion. The largest
portion (90%) of these are useless, worthless, blockheads - Undermen.

What must we do?

It is simple, really. Alex Linder's quote started this article, and that quote ("DEATH TO THE JEWS") is
admirable because it doesn't beat around the bush. It goes right for the assertive, warlike, masculine and
powerful action that he sees as what must be done. Consequently, the author here will coin his own:

DEATH TO THE UNDERMEN - Vijay Prozak

We have too many people. Most of them are mediocre. If we don't cut back now, we'll overpopulate and
consume all the resources on earth, committing ecocide and destroying the best people among us. Thus it
is time to act. Death to the Undermen. If one hypothetical non-Underman handed a sword to each non-
Underman he met, and they each did the same while slitting the throats of all Undermen - man, woman
and child - that they encountered, the process would quickly reverse itself. Political objections can easily be
neutralized by buying off the foppish and ineffective leaders, and murdering any businesspeople or news-
entertainment media figures who intervene. Undermen act brave in crowds, but when the crowd's power is
broken, they cower and run in disorganization. it will be easy to hunt them down and slaughter them. Their
bodies will help nourish future forests.

This isn't to say that killing the undermen ("DEATH TO THE UNDERMEN") is the only solution. Clearly we
must outbreed them - killing them helps that, y'know. But there's also the need to find quality people and
get them to breed. Even more important however is resurrecting evolution. Bring back adversity, and stop
making daily life so safe. Let death take the unwary, the perverse, the delusional. Let the non-insane
Christians separate from the rest, and have their own elite churches, where no apologies are made to the
poor and retarded and Undermenschish. Nature rewards long-term thinking, such as preparing for winter or
breeding selectively or developing inner strengths, so let us resume a society that does that. Anyone who
pursues money as a goal above all else is an Underman - THEY MUST DIE. Anyone who objects to this
platform is an Underman - THEY MUST DIE. Anyone who squawks "How dare you?" or starts talking about
equality is either an Underman, or rapidly descending to be one - THEY MUST DIE. THEY MUST DIE NOW.
Mercy is pretense, pity is egoism - you do not need these illness, or you will become an Underman as well.

Whether we sterilize the Undermen, or by some mathematically impossible deed outbreed them, or we kill
them all with axes - the outcome is the same: we will destroy them and restore evolution. This is the only
positive solution. To claim that pacifistic breeding-out is "better" than murder is nutty, since the result is
identical; do we really need the pretense that says those who do not lift a blade are better than those who
do? Whoever wrote that clearly cared more for his own ego than the future of his people! Undermen do not
desire sensible world orders. Like Jews and insane Christians, they are morally empty, because they are so
fixated on their own lack of self-confidence and their own neediness, a need for reinforcement, that they've
forgotten about the world. They will not mean to destroy it, but destroy it they will - it's one of Agatha's
simple patterns, like a cross-stitch, that shows up in every population. The road to hell is paved with good
intentions. The only way to transcend hell is to aim for higher goals; to recognize reality, and act heroically
upon it. Undermen oppose this. Unless they are eliminated, they will destroy us all, and our planet besides.
THE UNDERMEN MUST DIE. Every generation in every population, no matter how wonderful and high
quality, will produce some experiments that fail - mediocre is worse than evil, and if these mediocre are
tolerated, they will soon become Undermen. THEY MUST DIE. To love life is to remember its primal rule,
which is that without evolution, a backward process begins. Life as a whole, as an organism, is more
important than the loss of individual lives. We must produce better lives or we will fail, evolutionarily, and
will regress toward mediocrity. To praise life is to praise necessary death. By doing what is necessary, we
will grow stronger. Those who oppose us are the Undermen. Those who brought this upon us are the
Undermen. The only solution is to remove the Undermen. DEATH TO THE UNDERMEN.

DEATH TO THE UNDERMEN - Vijay Prozak

August 5, 2005
Pacifism
At some point, the West decided it would rather roll over and play dead than deal with the existential stress
of having to constantly assert it. To be top dog means you have to act like one, and fight off all incomers,
and at some point, people opted for personal comfort instead of being assertive. They justified it of course
by saying they weren't interested in "just image," sounding of course like the exculpatory defensiveness of
a stoned teenage metalhead explaining why he is, in fact, doing nothing with his life. Sour grapes, as the
saying goes.

In the west, there was knowledge of what it was to keep up an empire. It had happened for centuries at
that point, since the people of Central Europe went into the far north and thus rid themselves of any
genetic strains that could not handle waiting a long time for gratification, and doing what raises one's
environment to a higher degree of order regardless of the costs. They had during that expansion merged
with the lower white races who had not made that pilgrimage, and picked up remnants of the collapsing
Asian and North African and Semitic empires into parts of their bloodline. What it was to be European was
changing.

Because they had decided to be pacifists, and not warlike, there was no overall challenge made to this.
Anyone who did challenge it was seen as intolerant and mean, and un-Christian, and just downright terrible
and unsociable. This caused others to have a second thought about speaking up; most of them turned in
bitterness and said, "Well, it's your funeral, but I'm going to have my life and you can't touch me as long
as I don't violate this taboo." The undermen - the only people who are ever threatened by anyone have
higher-than-mediocre standards - rejoiced, for they knew that in time, they'd take control.

The undermen of course, come from within, and they're very present with us today. There are plenty of
Indo-Europeans. The problem is the quality of today's Indo-Europeans. They tend to be small, snivelling
people who are good at having office jobs and not offending anyone at parties, thus taking home enough
bucks to buy their way out of the ghetto, to get their kids to college and have enough medical insurance to
survive the inevitable cancers. If it came down to the line, they'd rather not miss a meal than take on a
heroic quest. Although some of them are quite healthy, that number declines every year.

Indo-Europeans at this time tend to be people of mixed tribal heritage, more and more, and they are slowly
(1%) beginning the infiltration, again, of bloodlines of other races. Consequently, we're getting even more
weird looking people than ever before, because as is obvious, if you mix two differently specialized things,
you'll get a weird offspring. We have one Halle Berry for how many million mixed race people? And there
you go. Even more, look at the average "100% white" person in America. A mishmash of English, Slavic,
Irish, German and French, ending up with something of uncertain origin and purpose. We're making generic
people. The undermen love that, as it gives them a good hiding place.

Undermen come about anytime there is a lack of heroic challenge, and therefore, people who cannot act
heroically and think holistically are allowed to breed. Traditionally, these people breed more than heroic
people, because they are scatterbrained and invest less effort into each offspring. Why are they
scatterbrained? Because they have no complete logical philosophy with which to guide themselves. They're
bullshitting their way through with bits and pieces there. You can hear these people everywhere talking
about philosophy as if it were shopping: "Well, I liked this from that, and that from this, so I put them all
together and I've got my own unique incomparable special philosophy" -- no, enough with the idiocy.
You've got a philosophical soup that doesn't stand up to inquiry. (Of all the people I've met of this nature,
there was one who came close to having a unified outlook, and he flaked out after the second round of
analysis.)

Yes, pacifism. Isn't it nice to stop trying - to give in - to relax, to just stop worrying? No longer stressing
yourself, not striving for anything, not fighting for anything - it's so easy. Just let it all go away. Stop trying
to do better than average; just do what's enough. Why push yourself so hard? Girlfriend, you'll be all
stressed out if you do that. Chill out with your bad self. Maybe do some things for The You so you feel
good. Go shopping, get yourself a new DVD (that movie where George Clooney saves the AIDS victims
from Iraqi Nazis in the Florida Keys) and maybe have a Frappucino. Life's made to be enjoyed.

When you don't fight, you're not testing yourself. When you're not testing yourself, you're not striving for
anything greater. Doesn't it make sense that each generation should be better than the last? That we
should push ourselves, and grow, so we don't have a constant void of meaning inside? If you think about
it, and think you might be able to pull it off, it does. If you're a creeping Underman (or - oh so PC -
"underwoman") you'll hate this idea. What? Your entire life - all its meaning - might go away! You could
die, or be embarrassed, or be ostracized! Oh noes!

Our ancestors believed in a world beyond the material. It wasn't a tangible world like the Christians
believed, but it was far from the negative viewpoint of the Jewish faith, in which there is nothing but the
material so you might as well be comfortable. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are all of the
non-materialist nature, with varying degrees of adaptation. Those religions represent an advancement over
the primal and go-nowhere, know-nothing nature of Judaism. And what has happened?

(The ancient Indo-Europeans considered it positive to be "warlike." That meant taking an active, aggressive
role in solving problems, in leaving in every place a higher order of organization than had been there
before. This sometimes required brutality, as when slaughtering and raping lesser tribes, but in fifty years,
those tribes were twice as adapted as they had been previously. Evolution is an example of this warlike
belief in action. In order to take on this heroic view of the world, one must acknowledge that the individual
is a transient state, and that when death occurs, if a higher level of organization was achieved, that is more
important than the individual's suffering or death. It's a self-negating, but whole-life-affirming, philosophy.
It requires one to look at the big picture, namely an order on the cosmic level, so that one can place
oneself within it and not have one's world be limited to one's self. This is how idealism becomes realism
and then returns to idealism; the world operates like our thoughts, pushing down the weaker and
accelerating the more adapted. If the world works this way, we must put it to use in the physical world and
acknowledge its operation - that's realism. When one has achieved this state of realism, it is celebrated by
a return to idealism, in which one sees the cosmos as a giant mind calculating optimal order. But this
philosophy is not for Undermen, who are so underconfident they only accept philosophies which glorify the
physical self, its comfort, and its whining drama. What did the ancients seek? A higher order. In everything.
And what do we seek now? More cable channels, and better treatment of retarded obese lesbians?)

We're sliding backward, through pacifism. People don't believe in striving for anything, thus over time,
natural selection rewards the most pacifistic, and we get short, dark, squat, dumb, passive, sheepish,
chronically ill people. This is fine for industry; all it needs are people to pull levers and file reports. But what
about our future? Love adversity and love aggression, especially against yourself by challenging yourself to
greater heights. Anything else is just an excuse.

August 10, 2005

Retribution
Pacifism may well be one of the most ludicrous doctrines ever created. Not that giving up one's life for an
ideal is bad, but that the ideal - peace and not constant conflict - is insane. It presupposes a world where
everything is done right the first try, which if you think about it, is a world where there is no chance for
change, since there are never empty spaces which need filling with new actions. Pacifism hopes to still
change, and it generally does it out of fear. It should not be confused with sacrifice, which is what happens
when one decides there is no way to avoid dying in a situation but that the situation is worth dying for,
and thus one elects to give up one's own life as a means of forcing change. That in turn should not be
confused with being a drama queen, which is what most prophets do when they commit suicide-by-
reigning-authority-of-the-time.

However, there is some truth to pacifism, in that often people confuse retribution with warlike action.
Retribution in and of itself is not warlike, as it is fundamentally passive; the aggrieved party feels that a
wrong has been committed, and demands "equal" suffering to "repay" that wrong. The warlike alternative
of course is to conquer the offending party, because that ensures that the problem will not happen again
and honors those who were aggrieved by making their suffering significant ; suddenly, they have suffered
not for no reason but as part of the long chain of events that culminated in the glorious conquest,
massacre, rape and defilement of a worthy enemy. That's healthy thinking. Retribution is self-pity unless it
takes this warlike form.

In our modern society, we have plenty of opportunities to see retribution at hand. Like most forms of
passive action, it targets the symbols of certain problems instead of the problems themselves, and thus it
makes most people - the undifferentiated mass who are part of such an entity because they possess no
unique skills or gifts, no higher consciousness or greater moral awareness, and no desire to have anything
but a part of what already exists; they are not creators nor conquerors, but turnip-pickers and past and
future slaves to the brighter ideas of others (if they're well-behaved, we call them thralls, or laborers; if
they're mailicious and resentful, we call them undermen) - "feel good" about the situation without having
achieved anything. This their favorite state of mind: all self-image, no sacrifice or action required, with the
illusion of emotional change "just like in Braveheart."

Retribution, in short, is the metaphysical equivalent of taking drugs because your life sucks. Woe is me, etc.
etc., and therefore, I deserve something to make me feel better , although no word on how that actually
solves the problem. When the drug wears off, the life still sucks, and so more of the drug is needed, since
the problem itself is well on the way to being rapidly insoluble. Target the image, not the reality. Focus on
the manifestation, not the structure. Look toward the animal feelings and sensations, not the metaphysical
and the psychic reward of accomplishment and creation. This is the descendant path, and it ultimately
leads to untermenschenheit, or the state of being an underman. It is also by far and above psychologically
easier than trying to do anything important with your life.

What has retribution wrought upon us here in modern society, and is it really as addictive as crack cocaine
with frosty chocolate toppings? We have a war on drugs that results in our children being body-slammed by
cops in full military gear who descend on them from armored vehicles. Despite thirty years of this
escalating retribution, the drug problem is still in full flower, and shows no signs of abating . Politicians look
for an answer and, finding none, elect to appear "strong" instead and thus vote for a succession of more
extreme sanctions against drug lords, drug users and the like. The result is more people in jail with more
lives irrevocably destroyed, but drugs continue their steady march toward victory. All because we address
appearances and not reality. (The reality is that people, made slaves to industry without a culture that
rewards them psychologically for doing well on a metaphysical level, experience great restlessness and
often self-medicate; some are hopeless fools, and others are actually normal, healthy people on a
depressive kick.)

The same thought might be extended to terrorism. We rolled over some people, long ago, and they lacked
the weapons to fight back in kind so started blowing up our planes, killing athletes, and the like. Did we
attempt to understand their motivations, e.g. the structure behind why they do what they do? No; we
preferred to demonize them, and escalate immediately toward more brutal sanctions. The problems that
cause them to be terrorists remain, and now they've got proof that we're bad guys, since we not only
ignore their side of the issue but attempt to bomb, arrest, sanction and invade them into docility.
Retribution has not worked here either.

There are mundane examples too. Every year the fines for moving violations in cars increase, yet the
violations themselves do not. If someone ever studies this issue in depth, they will probably find that the
more we punish and fine and arrest those who speed or run red lights, the more they find themselves
alienated from the idea of being law-abiding. Tell someone they're bad, and strike hard at them for a minor
and forgivable infraction, and use it as a cheap excuse to take your money, and they no longer feel guilty -
they hate you and think your law is a lie (and they're probably right). Soon it is no longer a question of
responsibility to a public standard of good faith behavior, but a question of avoiding yet another scam even
if it comes from governmentally-endorsed, uniformed fraud artists. And what about spam? More laws,
resulting in more expense and restrictions on our email, but does the problem go away? (Here the solution
is simple: we don't need defective people who are so insecure they fall all over themselves buying penis
enlargers, viagra, porn, etc.)

And then there's corporate regulation. Every time there's a blow up and some lumpy CEO is found guilty of
absconding with billions so he no longer has to deal with the rest of us, there's a cry for action, and
retribution it is! Laws are written that require more paperwork, more bureaucracy and ultimately more
expense that is passed on to the taxpayers and those who must deal with the corporations in question.
Often it is not monetary cost, but increased time spent dealing with rank and file tedium. Does it make our
lives better? Does it solve the problem? Inevitably, the laws are circumvented or outright ignored over time,
as they have become hated for in 99.9% of all situations doing nothing except increasing cost, boredom,
annoyance and wastepaper. If you have recollection beyond the memory hole, wait five years and you'll see
Enron, Worldcom and the like being played out all over again with a new set of actors. "How could this
happen?" politicians will wail.

There are abundant examples of retribution failing. It's an emotional response, not a logical one, and thus
is doomed to fail in any situation. However, it's a crowd-pleaser. This tempts us to take retribution on the
crowd, and to attempt to punish them and to make them suffer for what they've done, but history teaches
us that the best revenge is success. For that reason, our only recourse is to stop the culture of retribution
by ceasing our attempts to find crowd-pleasing responses, and instead, by taking on the difficult questions
of motivation and cause to solve the problems that initiate the symptoms that prompt retaliation. We don't
need to punish the crowd, but as soon as we stop thinking in terms of public image and making people feel
better instead of fixing bad form in our social design, we will have replaced the culture of negative
retribution with a positive, forward-thinking outlook.

August 22, 2005

Crowdism
History may run in cycles, but each era has its distinctive flavor, and those form the methods by which its
part in the process of history is fulfilled. In our modern time, we have uniquely united the world through
centralized media, by which someone in one location produces what comes to be known as the official
"truth," and it is then distributed throughout the globe almost instantly. The people of earth, conditioned to
require the absolute "truth" from central agencies on matters of commerce and governmental regulation,
promptly extend the same courtesy to political and social truth as conveyed by the "official" media.

The result of this is that a small group of people create our public perceptions of events; the events
happen, and the rest of us, who are fated to find out about them second-hand in any case, rely on the
descriptions of those events relayed to us by this centralized source. In such a climate, it is not surprising
that there are errors in our perception of reality, as all that is required is for those in the "official" truth-
telling capacity to miss a detail or, more likely, be convinced for social reasons that they need to hush that
detail. It will put people out of jobs; it will make people feel bad; they don't need to know what they can do
nothing about; it will not benefit your (you, personally, the guy responsible for putting out the news) career.

Who Owns Truth?

Another way of saying this is that if fifteen people witness an event and give roughly similar testimony,
barring any prior agreement to collusion among them, it's a lot more accurate than if there's only one eye-
witness who also has a vested interest in how the outcome is viewed. If the landlord of a building is the
one person to witness its burning, and he claims it was the reckless conduct of the tenants and not shoddy
construction that allowed the blaze to devour the complex entirely, how likely are we to wholly believe
him? After all, he has a reason to lie that directly benefits his livelihood. The same can be said of our
media, who eat based not on the degree of truth to their stories, but the degree of human interest. They
sell drama, but not difficult truths, as those will make one unpopular enough to be bankrupt.

For this reason, it has been very slowly that discontent has built in our society, because for most people,
there was never any reason to trust the official version of events until now. We were told foreign dictators
were bad, so we all banded together and crushed them. We were told that we needed to buy certain
products, so we did, hoping to keep our families safe and futures secure. We were told that it was
important to believe certain things, as they were ideologies of the future, and through this "progress" we
got to a better life; who doesn't want that? Most of us live in small worlds, focused around family and
friends and local social community, and we don't want more than that. Nothing is more admirable, since
this is a view of life that negates fear of death and embraces what life offers the individual outside of social
and monetary absolutes. It's a healthy, normal existence.

Yet these small worlds have been shattered, as despite our armies of scientists and reporters and
researchers, these problems crept up on us: global warming, terrorism, mass immigration, economic
collapse. It's well and fine to have missed a few fragments of information here and there, and to be
surprised by a shortfall in a government program or a new population trend, but how does something as
big as global warming sneak up on us? That's like getting ambushed by a glacier. Undoubtedly, the thought
that hit many minds when after years of fighting the story, our news media and politicians finally gave in
and said, "Aw shucks, this global warming thing is real," was quite simply that either we're being told a
partial story or, more ominously, that these people do not care enough about reality to get the whole story.
This puts an image in our minds of, instead of diligent and honest guardians, profiteers running the show
who leave it to us to survive as we can.

With this sudden distrust of the "truth" upon which our society is based comes another sobering thought:
for things to get this out of control, where we are controlled by predators who seem oblivious to our future,
something must be fundamentally wrong about the way we're governing ourselves. As said before, most
people are content to lead local lives, but our world is now so interconnected that government rarely stops
at the town, city, parish or county. If people in distant nations screw up and dump uranium into our
oceans, we get the cancers here just as fatally as anywhere else. Should negotiations fail and nuclear war
rain death upon us, our localities - which have been quietly going about life - are no longer autonomous,
but targets belonging to whatever political entity incurred ire. Our lives are bound up in the fortunes of the
collective, and when it errs, we are the ones who pay. How do you hold a government, or a corporation, or
a world governing body responsible? You can haul out the people in office and shoot them, but that is little
recompense for the vast amounts of good things destroyed by the errors of such leadership entities.

If we follow this chain of thought to its logical conclusion, then we are - as a species - ruled by distant
forces who have little accountability for the decisions that affect us, and may be motivated by self-interest
more than the best interests of the species as a whole. Modern people are so used to long strings of words
that mean nothing, so this is restated in the vernacular: you are under the control of people who are
leading you to their profit, not yours . Even more, if you resist, other people - well-meaning, normal, healthy
people - will do their best to kill you, believing that they are destroying a dangerous deviant and not
someone with a rational objection to the system as a whole. In other words, the world is turned upside
down; truth has become a fabrication, the predators are in control, and dissent is not tolerated in any way
that will have actual effect. If one were paranoiac, it would suggest an evil force in control of this world.

Deflection

Yet it is the demonic nature of this process alone that provides us a clue to its origin. No human
organization in history has been so well-managed that it could pull off a conspiracy of this nature without
revealing itself or collapsing in infighting. Whatever engendered this particular mess did not have a leader,
or a central organizing principle, although it has manifested itself in centralized authority. A systematic
change to this kind of order comes through a shared assumption, much like when a group of friends, upon
perceiving their favorite bar is closed, meet at the next most likely place without having to communicate the
name amongst themselves. More than a leaderless revolution, it was an unconscious one: those who
brought it about had no idea they shared an ideology, or no idea what its name might be, or even why
they did it. They simply did it because it was natural to do, and because nothing has since opposed it, it
continues to this day in grossly simplified form.

We are tempted by the opposite conclusion, because if we were able to find a single easy cause, like
removing a jam from a machine we could yank it out, and by mathematical simplicity, would have all of the
good in society with the negative removed, thus an all-good society. When was the last time life was that
simple? Any infection on the level of our assumptions has pervaded our society at its lowest level, that of
its values and worldview. We could blame language, or x=y thinking, or sin waves of emotion, or any of the
other detours that have absorbed our best liberal thinkers looking for a symbological fix to our problem, but
really, these are just the devil's messengers. What's wrong isn't us; it's what we think we believe, and even
if we say we want to fix it, our minds have become mesmerized by a certain outlook on the world and are
unwilling to leave it. Thus our disease remains, since even when trying to excise it, we re-affirm the
infection by assuming the necessity of its component parts.

It's like the mafia boss who's determined to root out the informer in his organization. He and his personal
secretary interview all of his department heads, and after some theorizing, they put the worst of them into
the bay. But the next time a bust happens, the boss realizes he's still infected. He goes after every person
he can think of, but can't ever clear himself of the informant, until one day he's put into jail. You can
imagine his shock when the star witness comes out to confront him: his personal secretary! In our case, as
moderns, the disease is worse than an informing secretary; it's within us. There is no clearer evidence of
this than our mania for deflection. Is it the Communists? Then the other side whispers: it's the Capitalists.
Is it the drug-users? The hackers? The terrorists? The Nazis? Who else can we blame - what do we do
when we finally run out of people to blame? (It's not fair to let the right off the hook either: it's not the
Negroes or the Jews that are the root of your problem, although their presence can be argued to be a
symptom!)

All of these futile attempts have failed, since even when these demons have been exorcised, the disease
has remained. That is not to say that these attempts have not improved the situation, only that they
haven't gotten to the core of it. Think for a moment: what sort of problem is it that one cannot identify and
root out? The simple answer: one you cannot tell to another person, and therefore, even if you know it, no
one else can work on the problem - and in modern society, every problem is too big for one man. Imagine
working with another police inspector on this case. You can tell the guy everything except that which might
potentially hurt his feelings. So the investigation goes on, and despite your partner being slower than you
are, he puts his heart into it. At the end you have no answers, because both of you don't know the answer,
even though it's in your knowledge.

The dirty little secret of the West's collapse is that it has come from within. The extent of our modern
disease is revealed by the fact that when we think this, we immediately try to blame either everyone, or no
one. We are afraid to blame a process and implicate certain people as its methods. And why not? We're not
passing moral judgment, claiming them to be the spawn of Satan, as our leaders do to enemies during
wartime. All we are saying is that they, by what they do, have caused a massive problem. The real social
taboo broken here is the unstated obvious: in order to fix the problem, we have to limit their sainted
"freedom." Nevermind that few people actually need freedom. What they want are normal, comfortable
lives, without other people intruding in upon them and telling them what to think. That's not freedom; it's
common sense and common decency. People like to conceive of "freedom," however, as a limitless
absolute. "I can do anything I want," they say, forgetting that most of what they actually want falls within
the narrow sphere of what benefits them in a practical sense. You could make sculptures out of your own
mucus... but do you need that "freedom"?

Yet any person who advocates breeching that "freedom" is portrayed to be a bad guy, which is interesting,
since in times without freedom, there was not such widespread deception where a few people could control
"truth" for an entire planet, even if through the quasi-voluntarily methods of television and entertainment
media. To a thinking person, the fear of losing "freedom" is another type of deflection: finding something
irrelevant to the cause to blame. It's psychologically very easy, actually: to blame something external
divides the world into two segments, the desired and the undesired. In actuality, it makes no sense to
divide things that already exist into desired/undesired, because the only thing that can be desired is an
outcome and by definition anything but that outcome is undesired - yet outcomes usually occur in partial
degrees, or with modifications, so that kneejerk response makes little sense. When manipulating the
masses, however, it makes sense to tell them that the world is divided into "freedom" and those who hate
freedom, as they react more quickly to the positive feelings associated with "freedom" and only more slowly
to the logic trap into which they fall. Heart first, then brain - even with very smart people.

Crowdism

This emotional process of trying to solve logical issues is obviously paradoxical, but it is the foundation of
our modern morality, which is derived in part from Christianity but has previous antecedents; this means
that while Christianity (as practiced by most, not the happy few who've made a real religion of it!)
embraces this ambient quasi-ideology we are describing, it is not the sole origin of it. Rather, morality of
this type has been with the world since its earliest days; it is not a new invention, merely a less successful
one, thus one that was until recently alien to our societies because many generations ago we transcended
it. It is a belief system based on appearances: emotions come before logic, personal boundaries come
before the necessity of doing what is right for all, and abstract divisions of "good" and "evil" regarding
intent come before a realization of the effect of any action. In short, this is a belief system which
manipulates by preventing certain actions rather than by recommending others, and it attacks before any
action is ever committed.

When we remove all the irrelevant theory, what becomes clear is that this is a belief system designed to
protect a type of person; that is why its negative, preemptive assessment. It does not have a goal. It does
not have an ideology. It is wholly negative in nature, in that it identifies certain things that are destabilizing
to those who find it important, and it attempts to censure and criminalize those. It in fact replaces the idea
of having a goal with the idea of not doing wrong, and thus restricts what can be done to those whose
actions might be so selfish that any sort of goal would conflict with them. These sort of people might be
described as passive criminals, then, since what they do is not outright criminal, but by being what is done
instead of pursuing a healthy goal, and by requiring a morality that prevents others from interrupting it, it
supplants the seeking of a healthy goal. It is thus a crime of omission if nothing else.

Another way to look at it is from this angle: imagine that something needs to be done for the good an
entire community. Healthy people are willing to make sacrifices for this. But some would prefer to rigidly
negate that proposal because it interferes with their personal fortunes or convenience. By doing this, they
are dooming the community in the long run, even if it means they get to keep whatever it was they desired
in the short term. These people need some kind of protection that, no matter what the overall goal is,
justifies their selfishness. Even better, it should eliminate the concept of overall goal, and focus only on the
individual. To do that, a morality was created which banned actions and not goals, effectively hobbling any
goal-setting because any real change will always infringe upon someone's little world. Morality is the
assertion of personal reality as a higher value that physical, this-is-the-real-world-pay-attention reality.

We can diagnose it: solipsism, or perhaps a low grade sociopathy, or even in the simplest terms,
selfishness. It could even be described with fancy academic terms like materialism, meaning a focus on
material comfort that places all ideological concerns at distant second, or absolutism, meaning a creation of
a false abstraction that governs how we see reality. What reveals its nature the most however is
understanding the type of mentality that produces it. To do this, we must go to folk wisdom, in which it is
recognized that what people would not do as individuals they will do as a mob. Under social pressure,
people will take drugs, torture one another, steal, lie, cheat and delude themselves. If they internalize that
social pressure, they will do these things without the presence of others because they are aware of the
eventuality of having to interact with those others. In this sense, the mob mentality can extend to those
who are alone, because in their minds the rest of the mob is always there.

This behavior transcends ideology. One can as easily assume the identity of a Green, or a modern
Republican, or a radical neo-Nazi, or a harmless Democrat, and still wield this belief system. It can strike
any social class, any intelligence, at any age, although it tends to be supported among the lower middle
class young of moderate but not genius intelligence. It does not require awareness of its own presence;
those who are its carriers never would know it by name, and most commonly believe they are fighting for
something else when they strike out with it: justice, "freedom," equality, love, peace, happiness, wealth.
Even more tenacious, it is based in the emotions of the individual, so it does not succumb to rational
argument. It is there because it is the intersection of a person's emotional need and their lack of higher
reasoning to keep it in check. In this sense, it is part ideology -- and part pathology, or disease.

It makes the most sense however to give it a unique identification, since it is so prevalent that any other
reference would be ambiguous: Crowdism. The belief, whether known in language to its bearer or not, that
the individual should predominate over all other concerns is Crowdism. We name it according to the crowd
because crowds are the fastest to defend individual autonomy; if any of its members are singled out, and
doubt thrown upon their activities or intentions, the crowd is fragmented and loses its power. What makes
crowds strong is an inability of any to criticize their members, or to suggest any kind of goal that unites
people, because what makes for the best crowds is a lack of goal. Without a higher vision or ideal, crowds
rapidly degenerate into raiding parties, although of a passive nature. They argue for greater "freedom."
They want more wealth. Anything they see they feel should be divided up among the crowd.

Crowdism strikes anyone who values individual comfort and wealth more than doing what is right. People of
a higher mindset leave situations in a higher state of order than when they were found. This requires that
people form an abstraction describing how organization works, and create in themselves the moral will to
do right, and thus embark on a path that is not accessible to everyone: the smarter and more clearsighted
one is, the greater likelihood exists that one is realizing things that an audience of average people have not
yet comprehended. For this reason, Crowdists hate people who leave situations in a higher state of order
than when they were found. These people threaten to rise above the crowd, and thus fragment the crowd
by revealing individual deficiencies again, and that steals the only method of power the crowd has: superior
numbers and the illusion that everyone in the crowd is in agreement as to what must be done.

In short, a crowd does not exist except where underconfidence unites people who, being unable to lead on
their own, find solace in the leadership and power of others. They want to be in control, but they are afraid
to lead, and thus each person in the crowd delegates his authority to others. The crowd therefore moves
not by choices, but by lowest common denominator, assessing each decision in terms of what all people in
the crowd have in common. Predictably, this makes its decisions of such a base nature they can be guessed
in advance. A crowd derives its momentum from the need of its members coupled with their fear of their
own judgment. Taking impetus from the need, it asserts itself violently, but because its only mechanism of
decision-making is radical compromise, it moves passively toward predictable resolutions.
Crowdists love "competition" of a fixed nature, where a single vector determines the winner. They do not
like real life competition, including evolution, as it assess the individual as a whole and does not simply rank
individuals by ability. For this reason crowds love both sports events and free market capitalism, as each
allow people to gain power according to a linear system. The more time you put into the system with the
sole goal of making profit, excluding all else, the more likely it is that you can get wealth - and it can
happen to anyone! That is the promise that makes crowds flock to these ideas. It is like the dream of being
a rock star, or a baseball hero, or a billionaire: what makes it attractive is the idea that anyone can do it, if
they simply devote themselves to a linear path of ascension - one that is controlled by the whims of the
crowd. The crowd decides who is a baseball hero, or what to buy and thus who to make rich. Control
without control.

Of course, since the crowd has disclaimed all true idealism, its only ideology is that of personal gain. It is by
nature opposed to culture, since culture establishes a values system against which one can refer any
potential choice to determine its viability in the community's preference. Crowdists like to replace culture
with the grandfather of multiculture, which is the idea of a facilitative society, or one in which the only goal
is to satisfy its members. In this vision, a common goal or even standard of society is not needed. Society
exists for its members to fulfil their personal needs, and it explicitly disclaims the ability or need to oversee
those, unless they violate the basic tenets of Crowdism, of course. Crowdists naturally embrace both
internationalism, which denies local culture in favor of an international culture of novelty, and multiculture,
which mixes cultures with nothing in common and claims to be satisfied with any result. Crowdism is not a
decision any more than cancer is a design for a new organism; it is the lack of decision, of goal, of design.
It is not random, however, so unlike chaos, it is a predictable and rarely-changing order. Some would call it
entropy.

Any ideology is automatically dominated by Crowdists. They were at home as Marxist radicals, but equally
happy as conservative American capitalists. Crowdism is not an ideology, but an emotional response. They
view any ideology as a means to an end, and that end is Crowdism itself, although Crowdists cannot put
this in words - they're part of a Crowd, remember, which means they don't make choices as much as force
compromise, and by the nature of something akin to dialectical materialism, compromises always move
"forward" although toward eternally the same goals. They will dominate any democracy, and turn it away
from encouraging excellence toward subsidizing weakness. They will dominate a totalitarian state, humbling
it by making its appeals to its proletariat and winning their allegiance through unreasonable concessions.
They will use corporations to dominate a culture, producing products that reward those of a Crowdist
mentality, while ignoring the needs and desires of those of a higher mentality. Even a non-ideology will be
dominated, as Crowdists will use social pressure where there is a lack of decision-making.

Characteristics

Among all human phenomena, Crowdism is unique in that it turns timorous individuals into a dangerously
assertive group. Crowdism appeals to those who are underconfident. They're unsure of their abilities and
fear that, in a competition like that of evolution, where many factors at once must be measured and one's
judgment and character are essential, they might not come out ahead. In fact, they have a sneaking
suspicion they'll come out behind. This is only logical, since those with such abilities have no need of a
crowd, and therefore only very rarely become Crowdists (usually in cases of: drug addiction, child abuse,
mental illness). The average Crowdist needs a crowd to do what he or she could not do alone, including not
in the least the process of making decisions. The crowd provides anonymity and the illusion of a cause.
Crowdists are underconfident, thus incapable of the kind of assertive and creative action by which one
glances at a situation and calls the shots; therefore, all of their modes of action are passive. They cannot
strike without first having been struck, but it's perfectly acceptable for them to provoke others with a
thousand small irritations until the other responds, then to retaliate with full force. Notice how America has
entered her wars: placing ships within range of Spanish saboteurs, sending passenger liners full of weapons
to be torpedoed, cancelling steel shipments while giving a fortune in weapons to an enemy. It is a brilliant
strategy, in that one never has to make a decision: one is always the injured party and therefore justified
in responding, even if it ends up being to one's advantage.

Crowdists have a great fear of mortality, which is linked to their fear of evolution. They do not have a value
higher than their own lives; there is nothing for which, unbidden, they will give their lives (although they
will gladly give them, in anger, when having provoked an enemy, they are able to embark upon their
"justified" response). This shirking personality and lack of self-confidence manifests itself in a form of
cognitive dissonance that creates an inverse response to the failings of confidence: the less the person feels
confident, the more egomaniacal they are, at the expense of being able to accurately perceive external
reality. As a result of their need to supplant underconfidence with ego, they turn off any external feedback
which could prove critical of their selves, and therefore lock themselves into a world composed entirely of
the self. This creates a crowd of little queens. They demand "proof" - someone must hold up something
tangible and show it to them, and have it be simple enough that everyone in the crowd yes even the deaf
mute hunchback can appreciate its significance; this is why crowds do well with butchered babies,
torpedoed ocean linears, gas chambers and gassing Kurds, but do poorly with concerns about global
warming, genetic fragmentation, or pervasive ignorance. In fact, they seem to treasure their ignorance in
the same way that higher people treasure their innocence. Crowdists like to keep things simple so as not to
distract from the basic focus (themselves).

The term "lowest common denominator" has almost become a cliche in our society in that it explains so
much. A group of people - an electorate, a committee, a mob - gets together, and soon a once-promising
idea has through compromise and censorship (the removal of that which might offend, or shock, or be
contrary to already-well-established tastes) become distilled down to something completely acceptable to
every member of the crowd. The only problem is that, in the process, it has come to resemble every other
action that the crowd has been known to take. No matter - the same old thing dressed up as something
new serves a dual function, in that it both provides novelty and, by virtue of being essentially similar to
everything else, avoids presenting people with stimulus they cannot recognize and thus immediately know
they can handle. Low self-confidence reveals itself in situations where the unexpected occurs. Crowdists like
to minimize that by dumbing everything down to the lowest common denominator, at which point they feel
they dominate it and in that state of control are no longer threatened by it.

The paradox of crowdism is that because these people refuse to have a long term vision, they have nothing
worth dying for, and therefore their lives are empty of meaning and they respond with the hollow attempts
to control that comprise Crowdism. It is as a pathology much like overeating, in which case one confuses
the signal for being full, which eliminates psychological doubt, with the process of eating, and hopes that
by eating again and again to banish doubt (which increasing doubt in direct proportion to girth!). If they
had faith, or belief in doing something which does not immediately reward them, or the vision to see the
benefit in doing things which help the community as a whole but in the distant future, they would not have
this gnawing emptiness. Civilizations in the past saw fit to make such people into serfs and servants, such
that others could give them causes, and they could both be kept from being destructive and given a raison
d'etre which would sustain them for their natural lives. Crowdists will never admit it, but secretly, they have
a desire to submit to authority because they do not trust their own judgment.

Indeed, there is somewhat of a sadomasochistic nature to Crowdism. For every crowd that exists, there will
be some who manipulate it expertly; as in a microprocessor, most of the circuits do the mechanical work of
computation while a few are responsible for at key moments switching the flow of data. Such is it that
some of the voices who shout out at opportune times are to redirect the crowd, such as the classic "He's
getting away!" screamed by an anonymous crowd member and provoking a stampede to bring down the
suspect. Others simply profit from the crowd. By far the best way to profit from a crowd is to pretend to be
its servant, as its memory is short and being underconfident it loves to be flattered, and therefore rarely
notices that its servants are robbing it blind until it is too late for anything but revenge; the thief is killed,
yes, but the money has been spent, and the crowd feels even less confident when its blunder comes to life,
so it rages on to the next event in a search for something of substance to occupy it. Always eating and
never full. But the manipulators of a crowd eat well.

If one were to divide up a population according to "Crowdist theory," there would be many sheep, a few
born leaders and a larger group of shrewd people who lack the capacity of a true leader, but are mentally
agile enough to manipulate the crowd and make a profit from it. These are your Josef Stalins, Ken Lays,
Ivan Boesky, George W. Bushes. They are cynical enough to realize that the "ideology" of the crowd is
nothing but lies, and its actual agenda is power. They recognize that the crowd loves gaining power
through revenge on those with more talent, intelligence, beauty and character than itself, and these
manipulators create bogeymen and justifications faster than the crowd can decode them. However, to be a
manipulator in a crowd is to be acutely conscious of belonging in the crowd; after all, if one did not need
the crowd, something else would have been the path. Thus manipulators both love and loathe the crowd,
appreciating it for being the vehicle of their own greatness, but hating it for being necessary and thus
constantly forcing them into the role of gentle servant when their inner wolf-personality seeks to escape
and manifest itself. Manipulators are like drug dealers: they realize too late that their profession will
consume them by forcing them into a function, and thereby eliminating any hope they ever had of making
decisions about their own lives. They follow the function, and therefore, all of their choices are reactions;
there are no independent choices to be made.

The dominant characteristic of a crowd, as mentioned by F.W. Nietzsche, is the desire for revenge: they
detest anyone gifted by nature with more than they have, whether it is wealth or natural traits. Much like
ancient tribes who believed that eating the organs of an enemy would transfer his power to the eater,
Crowdists believe that destroying others raises the Crowdist's own stature. Their primary weapon is
equality. By insisting on one level for all people, they have an excuse to curtail the higher abilities of those
who rise above the crowd. Further, they have the ultimate weapon, in that since equality sounds good on
an emotional level, it is perceived as a good, and thus anyone who resists its advance ("progress") is
automatically a bad guy who has transgressed, and thus against him or her retaliation can be launched.
This is the ultimate threat of a crowd, which is expressed in a simple syllogism: I. Our way is the path of
good intentions, equality. II. If you are not for our path, you are against good intentions and will attempt
to destroy us. III. Because you will attempt to destroy us, we will destroy you first. It is a mental trap of
epic proportions: if one joins the crowd, one has agreed to limit one's own abilities to the lowest common
denominator; if one resists the crowd, one is styled as the aggressor and destroyed by direct force. At the
point when the question of with-us-or-against-us has been asked, the battle is already lost, as the Crowd
have gathered behind the questioner with torches that could just as easily be applied to the dwelling of the
questioned as toward a feast in her honor.

Effects

The effects of Crowdism take many generations to fully permeate a society. Indeed, Crowdism is like the
effects of aging on each of us: we start aging the instant we are born, but at some point, the effects of
years have piled up enough to carry us off. Crowdism exists in every society, but to varying degrees, and
as societies age, it increases. Almost all societies on the brink of death are totally dominated by Crowdism,
which helps carry them off as it paralyzes the decision making capability; if your population sees only its
own gratification, who is going to mobilize it to fight an enemy while the enemy is still distant? By the time
the Vandals reach Rome, the battle is lost, but the Crowd will never respond until directly attacked, so will
blissfully ignore the assailants until the battle has begun. Disorganized, the crowd responds slowly and then
panics, abandoning the empire to its lessers, who promptly destroy it. It is for this reason that everywhere
a great society once stood, there is now a barely technological, semi-literate society distinguished mostly by
its lack of ambition. These are people soul-weary with combat and with power, and they have opted for the
stage after Crowdist, which is a form of highly granularized apathy. (There's no point studying this in
America until after the Chinese, sensing our distraction and inner weakness, invade and crush our
centralized authorities, at which point those less-fortunate populations within and surrounding us will
consume the spoils.)

In fact, throughout its life span, Crowdism promotes apathy by forcing inane decisions on people and
threatening them with passive aggression if they refuse. This could be seen most clearly in the former
Soviet Union, where people quietly worked around any number of absurd proclamations and dysfunctional
government agencies. They realized that things were hopelessly broken, but that the first person to speak
up about it would be torn to pieces by the crowd, thus these things had to be tolerated. And what a
disgusting word "tolerance" is - it means to recognize something's inaptitude, but to ignore it and even
accept it. Accept mediocrity. Accept failure. Accept the lack of a goal. This beats people down into a state of
submission which periodically polarizes itself and becomes violent, as if all of the psychological energy kept
suppressed when given an outlet explodes to the surface in a form beneath rationality or even an organized
emotional state. It is this form of passivity that is idealized by religions such as Judaism, which clearly arose
in a civilization which had already reached this degree of apathy, and therefore was little more than a
survival guide. Some would say that Asia went down this path thousands of years before the West, and
thus through submission achieved the uniformity for which Asian culture is famous.
The "morality" of the Crowdists affirms the importance of the individual over doing what is right. A society
based on this lack of choice, and lack of goal, is inherently frustrating, and thus breaks down all but that
which Nietzsche called the "last man." The last man is someone who cares about nothing but his own
material comfort. Does he have an expensive car? Enough to watch on television? Get to go out to the
clubs that others covet? And have a trophy girlfriend? -- if so, he is happy. No plan for the future, and no
significance to these things, other than that he owns them and therefore can construe his personality - that
externalized "ego" that we insist is a social construct, a form of personal marketing - as a success as a
result of them. The last man does not fight the good fight; he instead does what benefits him. He looks
upon ideological conflict as silly, because he is inherently submissive to the external order and thus never
thinks of changing it. His revenge upon it is to profit from it, and to consider himself smarter and better
than all the others for not having been fooled by value, and possibly having given up his life or his career in
some crusade to do what is "right," instead having been more competitive and shrewd and enriched himself
while others fought ideological battles. The last man is an opportunist, a profiteer. He is like a Satanic Zen
monk, in that none of his energy is wasted on emotional display. It all goes toward The Bottom Line, a.k.a.
making him feel better about himself (an intangible state) through an increase in tangible things like
wealth, prestige, and power.

Last men are the type of people who are manipulators of the Crowd, only a more advanced version than
the somewhat masochistic "leaders." A last man simply takes and has no emotional reaction. Where a
leader like G.W. Bush or Kim Jong-Il is cynical, and kleptocratic, he still has some degree of emotional
response in him; in contrast, a Stalin is without emotion entirely and feels no reason to respond to his
changing fortunes, as he is busy focusing on the only thing which matters, which is increasing them. When
things go badly, he schemes for recovery, wasting no time on reaction or indulgent displays of emotion. A
Bush might have some days of depression, or stumble in public, but a Stalin remains impassive, his iron
grip unchanging, knowing that only discipline and a lack of emotions will restore his power. Over time, the
last men rise in power through their lack of response, and those with emotional excess descend through an
inability to stay focused on the goal. When one descends, one becomes part of the crowd. We call those
who have descended Undermen , because they have viewed the challenges of life on several levels and
opted to run away or take a course of profiteering, yet have not succeeded even in that through their lack
of discipline, which is essentially the ability to see that events distant in time are as important as events
proximate in time, because time is continuous and for plans to succeed one must unite the moments in an
ongoing series of planned developments. Undermen do not plan. They do not think. They react; where the
last man is deliberate, the Underman is impulsive and fired with a consumptive desire for revenge, since to
an Underman the world is grossly unfair: because his reactions are out of control, he cheats himself out of
everything good that comes his way, and therefore always feels that others have been gifted where he is
deprived.

Undermen are sabotage incarnate. Like other Crowdists, they are passive in nature, and therefore will never
directly assault an enemy. To live among them however is to constantly clean up after them, and to
double-check anything they do, knowing that more often than not they will subconsciously leave things in
defective and dangerous states, hoping in their inner minds that others who are more fortunate than them
will be destroyed. Where true last men plan their pillaging and execute it with detail, Undermen execute
clumsy and violent thefts. Undermen like to live in their own filth and keep others out of the clubhouse of
their filth, associating around them others that they can dominate. Undermen exist at all stages of the
Crowdist process, but it is most revelatory to point out that a successful Crowdist revolt will after many
generations have converted the entire population into Undermen, and thus have plunged the civilization into
disorganized, self-afflicted third world status for the next thousand or more generations. Undermen are
saprophytes. They compensate for lack of higher function in themselves by destroying those who do have
it, or the works of those who did, under the assumption that if it cannot be seen it will not exist to remind
them of their essential spiritual hollowness.

Back to Now

The Crowdist dilemma puts us modern humans in a bad situation. As the reader may recall from the first
paragraphs of this document, we are manipulated by centralized reality representations that are subject to
the same influences Crowdism places on all other reality. The weapon of Crowdists is passivity; if they are
"offended," their retaliation is justified, because they are the blameless ones bringing us the progressive
and superior doctrine of equality. Equality of course does not allow us to tolerate offense, because if
anyone feels less than equal, the crowd falls apart and cannot protect equality. The logic behind crowdism
is like a musical scale, in that if one starts on any note and runs through the logic, soon one has followed
the scale back to its origin in a repeating, endless pattern. The crowd in its view is always right, and its
goal is to remove those who would prove it be a paper tiger, e.g. only a crowd of underconfident people
and not the ultimate authority on morality it would like to pretend to be.

Looking at our situation practically, we who are not yet absorbed by the Crowd are in a rough place: we
cannot strike out against the crowd, and yet we cannot continue to tolerate it, or it will eventually reduce
our civilization to third-world status through backhanded destruction of all things higher than its non-goal
intentions. Even more, as it has crept within our society, it has spread its agenda of destruction against any
higher ideas or ideals. Crowdists triumph through greater numbers, and with each generation of Crowdist
control, more people submit out of exhaustion, and thus swell the numbers of Crowdists. It is not a
conspiracy; it is a cancer. Since Crowdists have the purchasing power in our society, and the popularity,
they ignore any higher visions. A product designed for those who are not Crowdists will not be boycotted,
only bypassed. Those who speak up about the truth of the situation, or any of the details associated with
the truth that can be construed as offensive (women and men are not equal, races are not equal,
individuals are not equal, decisions are not all equal) will be branded a heretic and, while no overt action is
taken against them, they will passively be denied opportunity until they accept their destiny as a janitor or
in rage against the injustice lash out, become an aggressor and are killed. Remember, Crowdism is negative
logic. It does not set out to establish an ideal as much as remove those with ideals, as those conflict with
its paradoxical worldview, which is that of facilitating individuals rather than uniting individuals with a goal.
Crowdism is anti-aspiration, and anti-organic. It only approves of systems where one individual is in power,
or all are equally in power, and thus nothing gets decided.

Yet society continues its decline, and with the appearance of Really Bad News like global warming and
economic instability, there is again chance for change. During the Great Depression, America could have
easily swung into a Communist state; during the Viet Nam war, political instability led to directional changes
(unfortunately, both options were and are Crowdist to the bone). We are heading toward another such
nodal point in the neural net of details that determine whether our civilization heads in an ascendant way,
or descends back into third world status, from which we all came and toward which all societies fall. With
each failure of our trusted information sources, and with each incontrovertible proof that our "truths" are
not reality, we get closer to radical alteration in course. The problem is of course that, as in most
revolutions, ours is mostly likely to take with it the assumptions of its previous masters, and thus to re-
create their reign with new faces. This is why accurate diagnosis of Crowdism is essential. One can switch
to Communism, to Tribalism, or even to Anarchy, but as long as the assumptions of Crowdism remain, the
path is barely altered and the end result is the same. If we wish to transcend Crowdism, we must first
restore our heroic outlook, by which there are things for which we're willing to die, ideals we hold more
precious than life itself. By thinking in parallel, and not in terms of organizing everybody as equals to
undergo the same mechanical process and thus cure us all at once, we can move the best people among
us to greater heights and slowly bring the rest of us to our respective places. We can deny equality in all of
its forms, as it is a crazy doctrine that ends in the norming of us all. Localizing government and turning
away from single points of informational "truth" helps as well. Even more, we can finally break the taboo
barrier and tell individuals that they cannot have it their way and also participate in a non-failing society.

All of these methods will help defeat the Crowdist disease, but it is not defeated by method alone. It
requires that we take on a reorganization of our own minds so that we avoid falling into the
underconfident, anti-heroic thoughts of Crowdist. It requires that we value actual truth above any socially
convenient illusion, or friendly distortion of the truth. We must face facts and stop taking them personally.
To an awakened mind, our faults and strengths are visible, and so what we think of as hidden will soon be
no secret to the post-Crowdist people who will rise if we succeed. For this reason, we must transcend our
personal pretense and ability to be offended. The truth will set us free - perhaps not, but the pursuit of
truth for its own sake will free us from the cancerous plague of Crowdism and its millennial reign over our
society.

August 31, 2005

The Internet
My relationship to the Internet is different than most: I manipulate it as a means of establishing certain
information as more important than others. I do not really enjoy it as a means of socialization, although I
enjoy in any form seeing people do what is right. I mean that although it is fun to me to do what I do, I do
not see it as social time or an activity I enjoy in its own right; I enjoy the results, and I enjoy being able to
change minds and inject some of my mental DNA into the process.

Most people IM. I don't. Most people email more than I do; most of my emails are of a technical or
informational nature. I'm not here to be popular, which is why I seek anonymity. I'm not here to be a
personality. What is important here are the ideas that I propagate, and the only enjoyment I get is out of
seeing these ideas spread. While other people are on the net for personal reasons, I'm here to conquer
informationspace.

This is not to say that I am not active for reasons of personal benefit. On the contrary, I think that if the
insane world order under which we currently survive were replaced by a more sensible one, I would have
an immeasurably better life. It would be very pleasant to live in a civilization that was not a death-march
into oblivion for the sake of pleasuring each other's egos. It would be very pleasant to live in a world where
ecocide, European genocide, death by cancer and servitude to morons was not a daily reality. Yes, I would
benefit quite a bit.

People often tell me, thinking that they're smart: "You really could be nicer, and people would accept you
more." I don't want acceptance. I want these ideas accepted, and I recognize that most people will never
accept them because the lack the basic competence necessary. Therefore, me interacting with other people
on the net is planned drama; we fight it out so that those watching can see the true nature of the show. I
am here to demonstrate, not be someone's buddy or social factor.

This isn't to say that I do not genuinely care about the people I've met through the net, but that's
incidental to my mission. My ultimate goal is to stimulate thinking with the mental designs I have
concocted, based on history and pure thought. I am not interested in being a poster boy, or cultivating fan
groups. If I was, I'd pull a Michael Moore or David Duke and pick a side and campaign for it. The people
who get farthest along that angle are the Ann Coulters and Noel Ignatievs, who pick an audience of people
who base their identity on what they believe, and then deliver the product they expect. It's no different
than being Britney Spears or Rush Limbaugh: sell people what they want; truth doesn't sell.

I don't have a political side, because political sides are identities for members of the crowd, and by the time
something becomes a partisan issue like that, it has already been corrupted to the point of uselessness. I
am not a White Nationalist; I detest White Nationalism, much as I detest multiculturalism, multiracialist and
anti-fascism. I do not have a "side," or a party, or a flag, or an affiliation. All I have are some ideas, and
you will have to look into the ideas themselves. If you need to make choices by picture, try a vending
machine instead.

I do not hate Slavs. I do not hate Negroes. I do not hate Jews. I do not hate the Irish. I do not hate
Italians. But, I am a realist. I know that Slavs are what's left of an ancient branch of Europeans who
hybridized themselves with Mongols and Semites; I know that Negroes are an earlier evolutionary branch of
humanity who are as a whole one standard deviation of intelligence away from Asians and whites. I know
that Judaism is a religion of self-interest, condescendion and ego-drama, and that Jews are a cultureless
people who for aeons have bred themselves to be soulless and parasitic. I recognize the fundamentally
mixed racial nature of the Irish and most Scots, and many English, and all but a few Italians. I don't hate
them, but I refuse to let my feelings blind me to reality.

I also don't hate women, but I recognize their limitations. Further, I don't hate men, but I'm aware of
where they fall short as well. I'm even aware of where I fall short, and where I am in the system of things,
which isn't as some God-figure above it all but somewhere closer to dead in the middle. I realize that not
all of my friends are as smart as I am, and I realize there are smarter people than myself. I can care for
someone, and be a friend to them, even if their abilities do not match my own. Or if their race doesn't. Yet
I am a realist: I'd deport them in an instant, because that is the right cosmic order and should always be
upheld.

If it benefitted this order for me to die, I would die - and I may have to, in the future. If I had to kill no
one, or had to kill seven billion, to fulfil this order, I would do so and then go home, eat a big meal and
sleep all night with no worries on my mind. When you do what is right by the whole, you do not worry
about consequences, because you know that doing right for the order of the cosmos is more important than
personal fortunes! Whether my fortune, or that of the ones I slaughter, is irrelevant. None of us matter as
much as having the whole be organized well.

I recognize that mine is not the only consciousness on this earth, but I refuse to place another
consciousness before mine except that of the whole, and I recognize that said consciousness is divided into
parallel entities we call "lives." I acknowledge the holiness of life and I believe in it and always will. I realize
that life's greatest invention, which occurs in our thoughts as well as in nature, is the ability to find ideas
that are better adapted than others and promote them. I realize that to pick one idea out of two is to
destroy the other; for this reason, I have no compunction about destroying lesser designs or killing lesser
people. What matters is the whole.

I say this so no one is confused about my trolling. Where some troll to amuse themselves, I troll to get a
point across. Where some socialize on the Internet, I use the internet to get ideas across. Where some get
involved with politics for something to do, I use politics as a means to communicate changes in the order of
our civilization. While some pursue philosophy to appear deep, I use philosophy as a language for the
design changes I would make in the world. All that I do serves the cosmic order, and while I benefit from it,
I am not the cause of my interest in it.

Most people should not be hated, but by the same token, it should be recognized that they have no
aptitude for politics and their opinions in this area should be disregarded. Further, it should be known that
they have no idea what is good for them. If left to their own devices, they would eat all dessert and no
main course, and sicken and die. Some are born better leaders than others. Those who have the aptitude
should make the decision.

For this reason, I am often accused of being callous toward the opinions of others. That's right. Very few
opinions are really important, and most fit into a handful of categories, no matter how different they seem.
If I say, "I'm a gay coprophagic Marxist who would paint the world beige," how different is that from "I'm a
Marxist"? Answer: not to any important degree. People love to think they're "unique," but anyone having
such a thought is pursuing a philosophical path that is far from uniqueness.

Uniqueness itself is overrated. What is so creative about finding a combination that is random enough to
not be in existence? I would rather be realistic than "unique," and I would rather be "right" than different.
Nature has given us all the difference that we need. It is personal pretense to force oneself to be
"different," and the only people who do it are those who lack confidence in who they are. They lack that
confidence because they have no goal in life other than themselves. These people do not need uniqueness;
they need more rewarding tasks in life.

I don't believe anything in life is evil or wrong. I believe that certain organizational schema are of a higher
level than others, and thus are preferred to me. I don't attempt to "prove" - hold up some example before
the crowd for a cheer or boo - anything. I don't attempt to justify what I believe in some cosmic sense. I
am asserting the kind of order that appeals to me, and if anyone else says differently about their own
beliefs, they are lying.

My goal is to bring about a higher order on this earth, which in accordance with the cosmic order of orders,
will bring about ascendant results. I would like things to always go to higher states of organization, and to
fly as far away from the entropic lows of short-sighted, materialist and absolutist function as possible. I do
not need God; the cosmos is God; I accept God in this context. People fight over details like names and
political orientations, but I would rather fight over the ideas.
I cannot help you by being a poster child for some cause you hold dear, and I cannot take anyone's "side"
in weird Internet battles, even if I mostly agree with their ideas. All I can do is talk about the ideas. In this,
I believe I will create a better order, and thus instill a higher degree of awareness in the godhead spirit
from which the consciousness possessed by each of us is fashioned. This is the highest use for my life, and
I accept it willingly.

September 1, 2005
Racial Marxism
To be involved in politics in the 21st century is to realize that there's a double standard and a taboo in
place that says you cannot talk about race. Such a taboo does not occur unless there is legitimacy to the
fear; indeed, if we take the combined knowledge of history, credible science and philosophy, we will see
that the races are each branches of the human tree with a different degree of evolution. It's forbidden to
say that, but if we care about finding a non-failing future for humanity, we must face all truths.

Having accepted the truth of race - that race designates rough position in an evolutionary hierarchy - we
have to tread carefully and only apply this knowledge where it is useful. For example, there is variation
within each race. However, despite that overlap, there's still clearly a scale from oldest version of humanity
(revision 1.0) to newest as we evolved before the modern time. Things got a bit more complicated in the
modern time, as we assumed total control of our own factors of selection in evolution, with varied results.
When we bring these facts to life, it becomes clear that even one gets past the public embargo on
speaking about race, one has to tread very carefully if one wishes to be accurate .

In life, truthfulness is a liberating force. "Truth" does not exist; it is adjectival, as in "that statement has
truth to it." In older English, you would not be inclined to say "That is the truth," but: "That is a a
statement of truth." There is a reason for this; our ancestors were more accurate intellectually in everything
they did, and they abhorred ambiguity of a misleading type. To say the truth exists is to suggest that
somewhere in this universe exists a quantity, truth, which is actually not a part of the world it describes;
this is like suggesting there is a God in a Heaven, or other insanity (even the most erudite Christians have
tended to find God in the world, as a property of its design and function instead of some bureaucratic,
authoritarian entity).

Thus when we approach race, our only saving guidance is truthfulness, and in order to be described by
that term we must explore race beyond the simplest recognition of its presence, which is that over the
years different groups branched out and evolved differently. We say "differently" because there is no
objective proof that, for example, the Western European way is superior to all others; in another ten
thousand years, we may agree that the African model of civilization is superior because it endured in its
original form, thus maintaining population stability although not personal consistency of its members. We
also use the term differently because it is free of any absolute judgment; it is not only possible but likely
that the best order for humanity consists of each race living according to its traditional model of civilization,
as each serves a purpose in a larger schema.

Even further, we may elect for divisions within each race as well, probably focusing purely on whichever
group to which we belong, as it is the only one of which we have in-depth experiential knowledge. It is
evident to even the casual observer that not all people within a race have the same abilities, and it is
evident that across all humanity, those who are less gifted in the areas of intelligence, strength/beauty and
moral character are more prone toward "base" actions, or those with short-term rewards but long term
disadvantages (hence their rejection by anything with the brains to see further than 48 hours into the
future): rape (sex), theft (sustenance), predation (power). Smarter animals might resort to these behaviors
when there is a loss of other options, or when acting against an enemy, but otherwise, they recognize
social order as collaborative and thus see such acts as destructive to social order and thus personally
disadvantageous.

A few tribes (subdivision of race, tribe: German, Zulu, Latvian, Scots, Malay) have opted for rigorous
internal eugenics since pre-history, and it has generally benefitted them well, but most tribes are unwilling
to take this step and almost none can do it so effectively that an elite strata of society is preserved for
long. For this reason, every civilization that has ever existed has required some system for ranking its
people into general layers, usually with the intent of preserving its highest rank for its most difficult
functions: leadership, science, religion, art and war. Generally, people whose function is picking turnips fail
as leaders because they opt for those "base" actions; races higher in the hierarchy will have higher base
actions, but those will still produce long-term failures in leadership and thus the destruction of the
civilization.
If we're going to be honest about race, then, we have to admit that it has dual components. The first is
that if any ethnic group wants to survive, it must sequester itself from all others; the second is that within
both the human species and its races, there is a need for eugenics and aristocracy. Eugenics refers to the
process of culling design failures (violent repeat criminals, child-molestor-class perverts, retards and gross
physical defects) while fostering a system of natural selection that promotes the best. Aristocracy is the
name given to the process of breeding a higher level of human beings and using them for difficult tasks.
Therefore, the question of race is both ethnic uniqueness and hierarchical breeding. These two components
are inseparable from any discussion of human population quality, which is in the modern time the
underlying issue to all racial debate.

The first component is hardly touched on yet in this article. Two cultures cannot exist in the same space at
the same time, therefore either one will become victor and ethnically cleanse the other, or the two will
become merged and become a "new" third culture - with "new" being in quotation marks because of all
things on this earth, cultures formed of a mixture between the three major races are not new. Anytime you
mix the races in roughly equal proportions, you start to get similar-looking people, which is why some
Russians resemble some Mexicans resemble some Southern Italians resemble some Indians resemble some
Jews (in all cases, you have a mostly Caucasoid infused with large doses of Asiatic and small doses of
Negroid, which is roughly what would occur if you threw all the races into the same location and had them
compete in a natural context for survival). Culture is encoded in race, because aptitude for a certain culture
is the primary factor of selection in the post-civilization evolutionary process; those who are naturally
inclined to think, look and behave as is found desirable in that civilization outbreed the others, which over
sixteen generations or so roughly standardizes the population to a cultural ideal. In turn, genetically-
determined ability influences what sort of culture will be chosen by a population. If they are from the early
stages of humankind, they favor loose familial tribalism, but the later versions tend to like civilizations
organized around ideals or cultural values.

The second component requires less explanation. Every one of us, no matter how liberal or generally nice,
has reflected that there sure are a lot of thickly stupid people around. Blockheads abound. While we might
be too socially-conditioned or simply polite and well-meaning to notify these people that they are
blockheads, we recognize that stupid people exist and when they are in any necessary position of power
(even checking us when we make purchases) they will obstruct our progress by choosing "base" actions
over simply getting the chore done. Idiots are more easily distracted; they consummately prefer immediate
gratification to a sound solution; they take themselves too seriously to realize that they do better to just
get the task done well. Idiots are destructive wherever they are doing something more involved than
picking turnips. Many ancient civilizations created a class of people without liberty, "slaves," for people too
stupid to have any authority without being destructive including to themselves. Although sometimes it
seems this way, not everyone is an idiot. Many people are quite smart but physically weak and ugly; others
are highly intelligent but without moral character. Although they have great intelligence, they also commit
"base" decisions, but in this case, because their will to do what is ultimately right is weaker than their
desire for short-term gratification. Others are physically perfect specimens without brains, or morally perfect
individuals without intelligence or looks. Clearly these groups fall somewhere between "idiots" and "leaders"
(aristocrats), because they would be destructive in leadership roles but clearly have surpassed the fools.
Among people in the middle there are divisions: some could fix a car, but not understand law; some could
understand law, but not philosophy. This further subdivides them. The question is not the label with which
they're stamped, but where in the hierarchy of abilities that they fall, as no matter what others see them
as, this alone determines their aptitude in relation to leadership. Aristocracy is a process of over many
generations, building a society up from the lowest to the highest levels, with the knowledge that only a few
will make this passage but that, owing to the greater competence of these few, they should lead the
society as a whole for the benefit of all of its members, since the others cannot make such decisions
without screwing them up. When we talk about "eugenics" in a modern context we think of sterile,
bureaucratic eugenics whereby some weird old men in lab coats decide who must breed and who must
become livestock feed. There is this aspect to any healthy society; if someone who is clearly broken
(pervert, retard, physical defect) is born, they drown them in swamps or sacrifice them to pagan gods. This
is an essential part of eugenics, but the smallest part: preventing the introduction of known failure-prone
designs (individual genetic profiles and the traits they carry). Modern eugenics repulses most of us because
it puts a great deal of power into the hands of centralized government, which is often unreliable, to put it
mildly. It also only captures part of the problem, as in modern society, the only factor for natural selection
is the ability to hold a job and buy food (you do not even have to be able to cook it).

We can see then that not just race, but "caste," which is the term for distinctions within racial groups, form
a competitive hierarchy designed to migrate the best specimens toward the top while suppressing those of
less-desirable traits. Immediately some cry, "Oh no, their rights are being violated" - they forget that,
because idiots impede us all, our rights are violated anytime we breed more idiots. Ancient societies
recognized this by seeing each society as an organic whole, and therefore, not choosing to fixate on the
individual; if the whole society was healthy, and had good leaders, this was seen as the greatest benefit for
individuals of all castes. Caste is a measurement of the genetic ladder that forms the underpinnings of an
aristocratic society, with leaders at the top and idiots at the bottom; caste systems can also include other
races, but rarely in a simplistic sense where a level of caste "equalled" a specific race; more common was
that all members of other races and some (idiots) members of one's own ranked as the lowest caste of
laborers.

Caste is not class. Class is a pseudo-caste measurement based on Social Darwinism, which is the idea that
the best among us will roughly correspond to those who earn the most money; it's a primitive substitute for
natural selection. Those who value caste often find class distasteful, because it takes a measurement of
several dimensions (intelligence, beauty, strength, moral character, personality) and replaces it with a single
blockhead measurement, e.g. how much money this person has (a) been able to and (b) been motivated to
earn. Class made some sense in a society where jobs were not as immersive and defining and time-
consuming as they are now; back then, it was possible to have a reasonable living and not be a slave to
one's job. Starting around 1900, however, people have increasingly been fleeing wealth for a comfortable
poverty in which free time and family overshadow the demands of a gluttonous industrial machine.

The traditional order of Western society, even until quite recently, has been a representation of the ancient
orders of aristocracy and merit. This is why Westerners value competition of the individual type; they want
to be able to see superior quality of athletes, thinkers, artists, warriors and leaders. They have historically
been less disposed toward linear ("single blockhead measurement") competition, as it tends to produce
"winners" and "losers" without really showcasing rank or giving people a string of points representing
degrees of success along which they or their descendants can advance to true excellence. Money, for
example, gives you either riches, a middle class existence, or poverty; the divisions within those groups are
more arbitrary than most would like to think. Western competition existed so that those who were going to
display excellence could rise above and be recognized, and thus be rewarded and moved up the cycle; it
was not considered terrible if none moved up, because such an advancement was reserved for those who
were truly great. Unfortunately, this traditional order of Western society was swallowed up by a fierce
beast: the economically-driven society.

Previous to that time, all societies had possessed economies, in that they transacted with money and both
exported and imported products. They however had other motivations for existence: cultural values,
religious values, or simply the pursuit of "the good life" in an area that required extensive work to support
it. Social attitudes changed, and soon it was seen better to support the individual than an aristocracy which
might rank some above others; in order to maintain order, the system insisted upon the "equality" of
individuals but then proceeded to rank them via a single blockhead linear measurement called "economic
competition," by which those with the most devotion to their jobs and personal profit (thus the most
predictable people in society, as there is a direct correspondence between their self-interest and their
actions) were rewarded and outbred others. As this single linear system of measurement was arbitrary, and
rewarded not ability but dedication, it was seen as "fair" and "equal" by the majority of the people in
society, most notably the lower castes. As a result of this change, centralized bureaucratic governments
boomed, since they could now rely on a surefire motivation for their population; people would do what
rewarded them, and avoid what didn't, and it was convenient that government often defined those
boundaries. The previous system, which rewarded heroism and good behavior and nobility independent of
political profit, was dead, as you cannot have selective heroism ("I'd save the day, but first, what's in it for
me?").

When we look closely at what happened here, we are less likely to blame robber-barons or other captains
of industry for what happened, as the movement was too widespread. What is more likely is described
throughout history, and is obvious if one thinks about the problems of a specialized, stratified society: those
of lower ranks, being only able to assess "base" actions, cannot appreciate the wisdom for their position
and using their greater numbers overwhelm their leaders and take over. It is called mass revolt and it is
the reward for leaders who make successful societies, as at that point the workers are prosperous and
breed prodigiously, producing offspring who have never known want and thus are unaware of the wisdom
of the aristocratic system (since they have always been fed, they see no need for a leader who can avoid
the disaster of famine). To those who look at history on the ten-thousand year scale, it is obvious that mass
revolt occurred twice, initially: first, in the assumption of economic competition as the basis of society,
because economic competition is a dumbing-down and thus popularist interpretation of the factors that
previously allowed people to ascend to aristocracy; second, in the response to the society economic
competition created, which within a few generations became dominated by predatory industrial interests
which had so much power they literally ruled the lives of the workers (yes, Virginia, mass revolt is a "base"
action, and thus over time always creates a nightmare dominated by parsaites). Unfortunately, the divisions
established by this time period have continued into the present day.

The most visible political response to the oppressive conditions of the worker was Marxism, which
presupposed that if workers were made equal under the governing sight of a strong central government
with "ethical" scientific aims, life would be made better for the worker. Discussion of its failing is a topic
beyond the scope of this article, but for the sake of argument, consider that it is possible that two things
doomed it: political thinking and population quality. First, because it created ideological regimes in which
everyone was important, any one person could destroy another with accusations that they (a) were secretly
opposed to the ideology or (b) had infringed on the rights or dignity of another worker. Second, in a "flat"
hierarchy of society, there is no reward for achievement among the normal ranks of society; some great
inventors and athletes get wealthy, as in Capitalist societies, but everyone else lumps it and is rewarded
equally. Population quality decline meant that soon competence was hard to find; Communist societies,
being extreme ideological revolutionaries, also tended to execute dissidents, the educated, the wealthy and
others who might not agree with Communism, which is why Russia almost overnight went from a Eurasian
country with a European ruling caste to a Eurasian country ruled by despots. Marxism created a world
revolution of workers, but in doing so destroyed the possibility of anyone rising above that state.

In response to Marxism, far-thinking people in Europe attempted to resurrect the values of a time before
the first mass revolt, which required something to motivate people other than economics. They settled on
Nationalism, which had previously referred to government of people as an organic body united by language,
heritage and culture. Nationalism was a motivation outside of money; it was ideologically inclined toward
doing what was best for the whole, through aristocracy; it pointed out that workers had a greater
connection to the health of their local society than to some global movement for workers - notorious for
being horrible at governing themselves, much less each other - to rule the world. In order to establish this,
they had to find clear allegiances for their kingdoms, and in doing so, they triggered the rearrangement of
political boundaries to fit ethnic-cultural populations, and thus sparked the conflict that became World War
I and, finding no resolution there, went overtime with World War II. During the latter, the most powerful
Nationalist entity to ever be created rose in Germany, then the most educated nation on earth: National
Socialism, or Nazism. It was a modern political system based on the values of the old, and rose far above
the democracies of its time before their greater wealth in natural resources wore it down.

During the years since WWII, Western societies have become increasingly inclusive. Their doctrine now is
that if one can earn the money to support it, one has the right to live whatever lifestyle one desires. The
concepts of "racism" and "multiculturalism" are both postwar, the former referring to anyone who
recognizes racial differences at all and the second to the concept of a society in which people of multiple
races, cultures, castes and philosophical outlooks ("lifestyle") share the same country and govern it through
liberal democracy. The modern West, as led by the USA, seeks to portray itself as opposed to both Nazism
and Communism, and therefore, argues for its own value on the basis of its "freedom," multicultural
fairness, and economic strength, all of which are flagging at the time of this writing. Unlike past societies,
the United States is virtually unified in this outlook, and, although people adopt political views that seem at
odds with one another, very few take on one that even opposes this basic outlook at all. This in turn leads
us to the topic of this essay.

White Nationalists, or those who wish to apply Hitler's theory of National Socialism to one entire race and
not just the German people, spend a good deal of time making disparaging comments about normal people
and how they are unwilling to simply see the truth and become White Nationalists. While the reason they
commonly give, that most people are brain-dead television sheep who cannot envision and refuse to care
for the future, is correct when applied to the majority of the people in our society, it fails to recognize that
this majority have little or no impact over the running of the nation outside a few token votes and their
tendency to buy products seen on television. There is a small group, probably about 40% of the white
people in America, who actually get things done: start companies, fix things, write things, design things,
teach functional classes like science, math, and history. This group are best referred to as a "Silent
Majority" because, even though they do not have numerical majority, they constitute the majority of people
who do anything effective. Their viewpoint is actually not unfriendly to the ideas that cause people to be
White Nationalists, but the Silent Majority will never want to be White Nationalists.

In fact, while the press rails against White Nationalists, and the ADL cries out about them, the Silent
Majority are harder to fool. They simply want no part of White Nationalists, and view them as ineffective
losers whose movement blusters on without solutions, plans or anything except the same ranting
propaganda and "hate rock." Further, they recognize that in terms of applying the ideology of National
Socialism, the White Nationalists are actually farther away from it than the Boy Scouts are. To a person
who is accustomed to being effective, and working in the real world, the White Nationalist movement seems
like a violent emotional outburst without any content. There is no answer to "How would a WN society
work?" except that it would be exactly like our current society, except all-white. Silent Majority types laugh
at this, because they recognize that our current society either needs to be entirely revamped, or shouldn't
be interfered with at all, because right now it allows those who are more competent to rise if they don't
mind fighting it out in the world of business which, while it sucks, is preferrable to fighting it out in a class
war revolution.

Furthermore, Silent Majority types are used to working with people and diagnosing their motivations. To a
savvy entrepreneur or problem solver, the clubhouse rhetoric about "saving the white race" seems to be
hiding something else, and a quick look into the demographics and motivations of White Nationalists
provides it. Those who claim they are saving the white race are by definition clearly identifying themselves
as white, or "Aryan," as the case may be, and therefore gain access to a group that was previously
exclusive to them. Furthermore, by claiming they are doing the one right course of action, they suggest that
the rest of us are in their debt, and therefore, that they're not only equal to the rest of us, but should be
leading us since they saw the problem first. This rhetoric is almost identical to that of revolutionaries
worldwide, and it does not take into account the wide variations among human beings, but assumes that a
one-size-fits-all wonderland is perfect for all.

Next, Silent Majority types look at the demographics of White Nationalism. While it has its share of Nordics,
the movement has a majority of people in it who are from groups that, up until the early part of the last
century, were considered far less preferable than North-Western Europeans, and in fact, many of these
groups were not considered "white," owing to their mixed racial nature and fractured cultural histories as
well as quasi-third-world living conditions. Irish were excluded because the original denizens of that island
were Semitic groups who became over time absorbed by Nordic and Anglo invaders; the Irish also felt the
need to intake partially Moorish populations from the Southern part of the continent. For this reason, while
many Irish have a mostly Northern European genetic heritage, throughout the population are Semitic
elements. Something similar happened in Italy, which mixed extensively with Arabs and Asians especially in
its Southern portions; Greek was inundated with Turks, and they make up a good part of the heritage there
today. Slavs are Eurasians who have a fundamental Mongoloid influence in their bloodline, thus have never
been seen as "European" in the same way Germans or the English are. Other groups that were accepted at
the same time include Scots, Poles (mixed-Slav) and Jews.

What we have here, then, is a group of people claiming that all whites should be equal and should join
together to commit racial holy war against non-whites, thus delivering us to a society that is a mirror image
of our current one except that it is all "white," including the mixed tribes mentioned above. Further, those
who are involved in the quest wish to dominate this new society, and to exclude or execute those who
have collaborated with the current society, much like revolutionaries have in the past. It is a revolutionary
movement, not a constructive one; it wishes to tear down a hierarchy and replace it with a worker's
paradise, even if all the workers are ostensibly "white." In short, it is racial Marxism, and it will prove as
destructive to the Indo-European tribes as capitalist multiculturalism has. This is the reason it does not
appeal to the Silent Majority: it would end their ability to separate themselves from the "base" rabble and
achieve greater heights, therefore, White Nationalism is not the one roll of the dice we should take when
reforming our society.

Among thinking people of course there is no question that our society should be reformed, and more
radically than any White Nationalist has so far suggested. Our values became fundamentally rotted to the
point where the first mass revolt could occur, and since then, we have been degenerating as a population
even without the influence of other races. We are breeding people to have jobs, buy hot food, and then eat
it watching television. Divorce rates are sky-high, drug abuse is rampant, STDs are skyrocketing, pollution
increases yearly, our climate is shattered, we die of cancers at incredible rates, depression is on the rise in
all industrialized countries, we spend increasing amounts of time manipulating a system that was supposed
to be working for us, our leaders are cynical predators who use the image of truth to disguise a personal
profit agenda; we are declining into a third-world state without the intervention of any other races, and
while multiculturalism is a symbol of this and a failure of an ideology in itself, it is not the cause. The cause
is within. We cannot blame others; we have to look within. And when we've found the cause, argue Silent
Majority types, instead of screaming for vegeance we should find a long-term solution to the problem. Since
that involves replacing economic-driven modern society with something that lives for values itself, and is a
reversal of the steady decline of the last thousand years, it's no small order. Not only is White Nationalism
not up to task, Silent Majority types argue, but by the nature of its Marxist roots it will interrupt the healing
process that is needed.

This reason alone among all is why normal, successful, intelligent people who are not sheep will not support
White Nationalism. It does not solve the problem, and by claiming to, it forms a distraction from the more
complicated and difficult work ahead. In a metaphysical sense, it is a form of procrastination. This is not to
say that the Silent Majority disagree with Nationalism; most of them are from North-West European
backgrounds for the most part, and would support a Nationalist party that defined America as a land of
North-West Europeans and worked for the interests, cultural standards, and future of those people. This is
because of all ethnic groups on earth, those in the nations of North-West Europe are the most similar, since
all have an overwhelmingly Germanic background. Danes, Germans, Finns, Dutch, Swedes, Austrians,
Norwegians, English and the like can produce a comfortable society here, because throughout history, they
have represented the highest caste of Indo-Europeans and have the most in common culturally, ethnically,
in values and in behavior. Within these groups there are now castes, and it would not make sense to mix
these, but this does not happen for the same reason that fewer than 1% of all Americans have mixed
ethnic blood: most people, unless they have become mentally unstable, prefer a partner from their same
background, including ethnicity, caste, education and appearance. It is these stable types who tend to
breed the most successfully.

Ethnic separation is second nature to Silent Majority folks, who have realized for years that multiculturalism
is a failure which will saddle the richer people in this nation with the fortunes of those who cannot help
themselves and never will. When people on television say "Multiculturalism," the Silent Majority person
usually thinks: stewardship. Us taking care of them. They do not bear ill will toward other races, nor think
less of them, but have no desire to attempt to integrate societies with them. Silent Majority types know
from experience that "helping others" is the proverbial road to hell paved with good intentions. If they
cannot help themselves, what they need is a change of environment, not a handout. For this reason, Silent
Majority people quietly view racial integration as a complete and utter failure like almost all programs of our
well-meaning Federal Government, and would happily cut it free and let other races fend for themselves.
Someone who is healthy never wants to see his or her children marry someone of another race; they want
to see them succeed and produce more people of a healthy, consistent line. This changes somewhat when
even effective people get brainwashed by television, but few of the ones who really do anything impressive
have much time for television, and many more of them recognize it as the mindeater that it is.

While normal people will endorse ethnic separation, and those of all races might approve it if it appeared on
a ballot tomorrow, it first needs to detach itself from racism. Ethnic separation says that we want to be free
of other groups; racism implies that everyone of the favored race is magically better than all other races,
and therefore, if it is of the favored race, it is automatically equal to all other members of that group. Racial
pride is a natural and healthy thing, but trying to make everyone in the same race feel equal to one
another is Marxism, and will ultimately accomplish what other races have been trying for years: by mixing
in trace elements of Asian and Negroid genetics to the white population at large, it will turn it into a generic
group which has lost its distinctiveness and genetic tendencies toward cultural values. The resulting
lumpenproletariat have nothing in common, so will get their culture entirely from television.

It is important to remember that culture is something ingrained in heritage. Each individual carries within
them a record of the decisions made by all of their ancestors, and in each generation, a branching occurs
that creates a child specialized for a different way of tackling the world. Those that do not survive are no
longer present in the bloodline, and therefore all future descendants specialize in a different direction.
Germans prefer German culture not as much because they were brought up with it (the "nurture"
hypothesis) but because it shaped their ancestors, and as a result, they have genetic tendencies to act in
that manner (the "nature" hypothesis). Genetics do indeed rule our lives: identical twins, raised apart, live
similar lives and pick similar mates. The children of genius parents are more likely to be genius. People
raised in entirely alien cultures since birth revert to the behavior patterns in thought common to their
original country. Genetics is our programming, and the programmer is natural selection, over many
generations. When one mixes unrelated tribes or races or castes, one obliterates thousands of years of
programming by forcing the recombination process to find compromises between many unrelated traits.
This is why the sages of ancient Greece, Rome and India all cautioned against not only admitting foreigners
(other races) but also warned against mixing castes; it produced people with the intellectual and physical
abilities of the higher rank, but the "base" behavioral instincts of the lower, and thus most of those ended
up being incredibly crafty criminals.

Some would even suggest that caste-mixing is the source of origin of the Middle Eastern peoples, who are
known worldwide for their cunning in salesmanship and devious business practices, but are nowhere held
up as paragons of social design or ethical virtue.

Racial Marxism would accomplish this caste-mixing and destroy our culture, thus giving us no reason to
preserve ourselves against outsiders. At that point, nothing will unite us other than skin tone. We will have
sacrificed what made us unique and distinctive for a political expediency that, despite appearances, will
merge us all into one generic type of "white" human being. This is a common thread among class war
revolutions, which wish to tear down hierarchies and replace them with equality on the presupposition that
the human being educated in revolutionary ideology will be just as good as any other ("nurture"), while in
reality, what happens is a decline in quality of humans and thus a collapse into infighting. Bad breeding
plus class warfare creates massive downfalls.

The class war fanatics obliterated a healthy Eurasian nation in Russia and, after slaughtering as many of
the elites as they could, bred its people into numb and dysfunctional individuals. Not surprisingly, despite
emigrating to the United States and Canada, Russians have not shaken that outlook, because at this point,
it is in their blood. Only genetic isolation and many generations of careful breeding will restore what they
once were. The same is true of Italy, of Spain, or Ireland and of large parts of the USA where people have
already become of mixed tribe and caste. One cannot undo a hybridization, so the only meaningful course
of action left is to re-invoke natural selection and breed a highly refined version of that hybrid. Much as
Nordics emerged from Negroes over thousands of highly selective generations, any tribe can breed itself
back toward an aristocratic ideal, if it is patient enough. It may take more than another thousand years.

White Nationalists try to brush aside such suggestions by immediately claiming that all of America, and
most of Europe, is already of mixed blood and thus lost, so we should just start over - with all whites being
equal, of course! The truth seems to be that nature is more resilient than that, and has kept most of our
genetics intact even until now, so what we must do first is not sacrifice that heritage toward some
misbegotten political ideal. Our historical error has been to allow mass revolt, and thus to decide to forego
quality in favor of quantity, and thus we have become a populist society united by a lowest common
denominator agenda (money, television). As a result, the greatest threat to the future of whites is not race-
mixing but internally poor breeding by which those who are content to have jobs and watch TV outbreed
those of higher quality, and since higher quality is not recognized or rewarded, those people die out and are
replaced with cynical, base behaving, crass opportunists. White Nationalism is working toward such a failure
of a future; it is war by lower caste whites against all others, with the hope that if "we the righteous" seize
power, they can dominate others who would naturally be ahead of them and thus achieve a worker's
paradise.
The proof of this can be found in the one-dimensional literature of White Nationalists. Where Hitler had an
educated, complex worldview, the entirety of White Nationalist dogma can be summed up as "exclude the
other races, they are inferior, but because we are white, we are superior." It is a clubhouse. This is not
philosophy, or even politics, but political manipulation (to be fair, it's on the level of what these people see
on their TVs from both major parties, who are as equally as inclined to doom). They do not have any long-
term plan for changing society outside of this racial separation. It will still be a commercial nightmare
breeding morons to work in slavish jobs, and it will still not be geared toward excellence, aristocracy or
heroism; its goal will be, as in the current society, to please and not to rise above, a condition which
produces a negative evolutionary influence.

Multiculturalism is without a question also racial Marxism, and it threatens disaster as well, because it is an
insane concept based on the proposition that two things can exist in the same place at the same time and
still be distinct. They cannot. Multiculturalism rewards employers by producing a massive proletariat who
have nothing in common culturally, thus live entirely by what information they find on their televisions and
computers; these people lack the time, experience and intelligence to develop or discover a philosophy
beyond that which their corporate masters give to them, and therefore, will forever be in the thrall of
modernity. Multiculturalism is crazy. No race should tolerate the presence of another among it, if that
original race wishes to survive. While all humans can breed together, we are separated by thousands of
generations of specialized evolution, which makes it a poor idea.

Further, if we are willing to tell the truth, we must acknowledge that no races or tribes are equal. Evolution
branched, and now they are at different points, with different abilities and preferences. Home is where they
understand you, and there's no place like home, but most people will never experience home, because they
have been transplanted into insane polyglot societies like the United States where the idea of agreeing to
have a single set of cultural values has gone out the window, and thus all that remains is the lowest
common denominator. That is the face of racial Marxism. First breed people into mush, then inundate them
with whatever benefits industry and government, two parasites that like Marxism often enjoy pretending to
be ideologues working "in your best interests."

It makes the most sense to preserve individual cultures where we can, and in the mixed-tribal nations of
America and England, to breed the best possible Northwestern European strain we can find. A
horticulturalist would recognize the wisdom of this approach, as would an animal breeder, but not a
Marxist: a racial Marxist will only feel safe when we are all equalized by the system, even if we had to
separate the races to create that effect. Nationalism is the only intelligent starting point for our future, but
it should be one of Nationalist groups for different tribes collaborating, not trying to create one generic
"white" tribe for political convenience. German Nationalists can work with French Nationalists; America can
divide itself into Nationalist parties for its unbroken ethnic lines, many of whom remain German- or
Norwegian- or Swedish-pure for five generations or longer. Together, our Nationalist parties create a single
front: a demand that we cease with economic-competitive governance and return to an aristocratic, tribal
worldview.

Nationalist parties offer a shield to a number of ideas - aristocratism, environmentalism, racialism, eugenics,
anti-consumerism, communitarianism - because these ideas are a part of the overall Nationalist worldview,
which is that of an organic society motivated by an ongoing ideal; such a society decides what it will do,
and then configures economics and politics to support it. Modern societies, on the other hand, are
manipulated by their own economic and political systems and end up compensating for those and never
achieving any clear vision or goals. While "White Nationalists" may enjoy delivering hateful ranting flyers to
people who don't want them, or repeating taboo ethnic phrases in public, Nationalists include race in part of
a larger plan for society which will benefit the average person in more ways than simply making them part
of a preferred racial group.

This approach is the only one that will handle the true crisis of humanity, including white people, which is
our steady genetic decline under the influence of modern society. We have no cause except to work; we
have no culture except our TVs; over generations, we are bred into pliant conformists who will never take a
stand for something because it is "right," even if it is not popular; they will always do what benefits them,
regardless of its ultimate outcome. Our problem is the economic and political system that supports this.
When we reverse it, we can again begin breeding quality people, and all of our racial problems will be
footnotes to that fundamental question. When we change the way we govern ourselves, we can again
begin breeding white people for quality, and all other issues will again make sense in that context. White
Nationalism is an attempt to distract and find a cheap solution where one will not work; it is racial Marxism,
and like all Marxism destined to destroy what makes us unique. Reject White Nationalism, but embrace
Nationalism: it is the only solution that can undo the damages of the past and keep us moving toward a
higher future.

September 3, 2005
Video Games
So you're out socializing, and some friends are playing vids, and you end up grabbing a controller and
playing for awhile. Perhaps you have a long walk home, and think it over, much like how in sleep we try to
make sense of our days. At that point, some truths about videogames become obvious.

First, these are the perfect tool of industrial society because, like our jobs, they emphasize memorization of
task and brute-force "creative" approaches that are essentially a variation of known acceptable moves.
When you are on a new level, you try versions of the same strategy that worked on other levels, or
attempt new versions of the tactics indicated by what the controller buttons do. For example, if one button
is "jump," you eventually try some jumping-based solution to any problem, even if there are also buttons
for "shoot" and "defecate."

These games are quite moral in their rules, however, in that they create scenarios where absolute
judgments apply. Guys on your team never go bad, and guys on the other team never turn out to be
genius writers or artists or doctors that you slaughtered in the prime of life. They're faceless droids, and
you kill or be killed according to their position. This is fairly realistic, except that the positions are so fixed it
would seem as if God himself administrates each game.

Videogames also batter into your brain the idea of a finite universe where there are only a certain number
of things one can do, and outside of that, there is no effective strategy. War games are a world of
unending war, with no resolution. Sports games show only the world of sports. Everything in those worlds
serves that topic, so it is sometimes like existing in a card catalog of isolated specialties that seem more like
functions than play.

The user is encouraged to hard-wire his or her brain for immediate response to various stimuli, which gives
rise to the "when you have a hammer, everything's a nail" syndrome; anything that pops into the line of fire
has to be blasted before your thought is even complete or you're at risk. This forces a minimal set of rules
for understanding the world onto the mind, to the point where one sees reality as a subset of the options
defined by the game.

What makes these weird worlds so appealing is the same thing that makes the internet addictive, or religion
or politics compelling: if life is divided between mind (abstract) and body (tangible), this is a world of the
former absolutely regulating the latter. You can win a world war in ten minutes, or bring your favorite team
to the superbowl. There's a sense of -- well, accomplishment probably isn't the word - but a "setting right"
and a definition of self in what one would do (if it was real). This is why the best games are sometimes
those that do not try too hard to be fully realistic. It is symbolic warfare.

One disturbing thought that occurred to this user: "If I spent even an hour a day at this, I would be as
good as these other people." Sickeningly, it is not a specialized skill, except perhaps those tournament-
winners out there; videogames are designed for the average person to get good at them through repetitive
practice. Devote your hours to these games, and you will wire your brain fo them, and soon be quite good.
It's amazing to see a player go from novice to expert in a matter of weeks, until you realize the degree to
which time has been dedicated.

In this, videogames are a lot like commerce, because as in the video-world nothing in the money-world is
that conceptually difficult, but all of it rewards the amount of hours put into it, usually (as in videogames)
while seated in front of a glowing machine or equivalent, like a pile of receipts or documents. It rewards
time spent away from reality, and willingness to dedicate one's life to a task that may be entirely fantasy. It
rewards no moral contemplation of what is right; it rewards only playing the game.

The disturbing facet of playing the game is that, while the game is not real, it has real-world effects. It is a
way to socialize, or to stave off boredom; it is an "activity" for modern people to discuss at work or in the
gym or on the set of bondage porno films. Much like our jobs, it is something we invented to fill lives that
we fear might be empty (regardless of the reality, which probably varies between individuals). And, much
like what occurs when playing a videogame, while working late watching evening descend on a beautiful
day, you might feel you missed something.

September 6, 2005
Buying an Identity
In a society driven by commerce, we are expected to distinguish ourselves by what products we buy. Some
products, while claiming to be the antithesis of this plastic culture, in fact enforce it by equating themselves
with an identity. Clearly, the classic example is a car, but there's a more mundane example closer to home:
a Macintosh computer.

For over twenty years, Apple Computer has marketed its machines as "superior" with questionable data to
support that assertion. They have never attempted to resolve this disparity, as all that is required of them
is that they convince the roughly one in twenty computer users out there that Macintosh is a brand
overlooked by a global conspiracy toward boredom. The user, usually an egodramatic sort, finds this type
of thinking fits into her worldview: the great Right-wing conspiracy in Washington denies the unprivileged,
the boring corporate machine denies individuality, most people never see the simple profundity of movies
like "Save the Last Dance," and so on. This person has succumbed to an intricate form of pity in which, by
pitying themselves, they are required to think that the world denies all quality, and therefore, they look for
"quality" in the minority options of any decision-making process.

Back when Apple made machines based around Western Design, Inc's 6502 processors, they portrayed IBM
who, if you can believe it, was the leading computer maker of that time, as the big bag guys in ugly suits
who wanted you to have a boring, tedious experience. Never mind that IBM's operating system could do
many things Apple could not, and that their machines were faster and not that much more expensive (after
a few years: substantially less expensive). Apple wanted to market their computers as "unique," which was
a way of avoiding direct competition with IBM.

When the Macintosh came out, Apple ran a series of "1984" ads that portrayed Mac users as the "freedom
fighters" (gosh, sounds like something the Bush administration would say!) rebelling against the evil and
stupid empire of Big Brother. The idea was that if you bought a machine with a visual interface, you would
be fighting back against the tedium. Oddly, the fact was that the Mac was far more expensive than the
other machines available at the time, and it was already round two of Apple's attempts to make such a
machine, having already failed with the $10,000 Lisa. Oh, and did we mention that GUIs - graphical user
interfaces - were actually common at the time, having been invented by Xerox PARC almost ten years
earlier. Does anyone remember GEOS for the 6502 machines? Or X windows? Yes, well.

Apple kept the propaganda machine churning, and they live by it to this day, selling machines that are
three to four times the cost of equivalent PCs to a devoted userbase. Even more grotesque, these machines
cannot be sanely upgraded (general upgrade price between computer lines: $1500 per two years) and thus
result in giant mountains of landfill because unlike a PC, a five-year-old Macintosh is just about useless
because all the software etc has been upgraded and is now inaccessible to it. These are $2,000 machines,
mind you.

Currently, if you go to look at computers, you will see two major options: any number of PC clones, and a
series of Apple machines that look better and have a much fancier interface. Thanks to technology
borrowed from Steve Jobs' other company, NeXT, which went bankrupt after a series of bad business
decisions, the new Apple machines even have a decent underlying operating system, OS X. The only
problem is that the interface does not match the machine, and therefore, like Macs for time immemorial,
much of what you need to do is hidden behind cryptic layers of first visual and then textual interface.

Apple, of course, will tell you how much superior their machines are, from physical plant onward. This is
nothing new. They insisted the 68000 processor delivered more power than an equivalent Pentium, but
soon that was not true, and they switched to the Power PC, while claiming the same thing. Recently,
they've switched to Intel, mainly because they cannot get the superior power they've been claiming for
years out of the Power PC chip. Few have asked them, but it's pretty obvious that Apple was lying for all
those years of statistics that put them ahead of PCs. Even more, it's obvious much of their propaganda had
a dodgy origin, including their dubious claim that using Macs made users more efficient. When one looks
carefully at any Apple statistics, one finds a reek of bad science: when testing equivalent machines, the
Apple box uses custom software and installations, and the PC box uses the most blockhead generic
installation and software possible. There is no pretense of fairness, but Apple doesn't need it, because their
company does not sell products based on their superiority, all rhetoric aside. They sell them as an identity .

If you buy an Apple, the ads claim, you have automatically (for ticket price $2,000) entered the small elite
group who actually know What's Up, and therefore buy the hidden superior product instead of the
blockhead machines everyone else carries home. Even more, there's a whole agenda associated with Apple.
If you buy an Apple, you support "expressing yourself" and "personal freedom" and being artistic. Thanks
to their ads, you may even be supporting your right to be stoned, or to be gay (this is the company that
had the rainbow logo, remember?). It's a wonderful, wonderful pluralistic world with Apple, mainly because
when you buy an Apple, it's all about you.

And this is what sells computers for them. Clearly their userbase does not care if they are superior; they
want the identity. Most people are fine with PCs, because recent versions of Windows are quite solid and
run on a range of hardware, giving one quite a few options. Further, most people don't actually care how
great the GUI on the machine is, because they only need it for a few functions - and most of what Apple
adds to their GUI does not make those functions easier, it only makes them more obvious. It's like
increasing the font size on streetsigns and using very simple words. It's the computer for those who fear
computers. When they have something of reasonable quality, they claim the world of it, but they also do
the same when their machines cannot even compete. How would one ever trust such a company?

The answer is that one doesn't trust, but like a drug addict, one needs one's ego fix. The modern citizen is
without cultural context, or really anything they would be willing to die for, as far as beliefs go. They'll vote
for whatever makes them feel better about themselves, usually through the mechanism of generosity and
pity. They'll buy things that make them feel like they are somehow different than all the other people who
bought the same product. Isn't it wonderful, to think that because of a mathematically unique combination
of bathroom and home furnishing products, you, too, are an "individual" like the rest! These people do not
derive individuality, as once was done, from actions or creativity, but from the process of "different"
arrangements of familiar objects. In that case, I know a sure way to be the most individual: be insane,
because you'll never use anything for its actual purpose!

Apple likes to tell you that they're the alternative to Big Brother, but really, they are Big Brother. What the
powers that be do is manipulate you into thinking you're unique, worrying about pity, thinking about
anything but reality; this lets them run the show behind the scenes while you're distracted. Furthermore,
they convince you that somewhere in this society there is some other group which is naturally given more
than you, and thus in the cosmic balance of good 'n' evil, you are "owed" something by them and must
take revenge upon them. This is the mentality of not only Apple Computers, but George Bush's neocons,
Marxists, corporate marketers, drug dealers and pedophiles everywhere. It is manipulative. You either stand
against this, by looking critically at it and seeing what it actually is, or you join the mass revolt procession
toward oblivion that currently grips our society. Apple is part of this deathmarch, and if your soul is so
weak that you need something external to ratify your self-worth, they'll gladly sell it to you with soothing
words and endless distractions.

September 7, 2005
The Eternal Circle
People in modern times are conditioned by buying products. First, you invest nothing in the product but
your money; you are not required to thrust forth energy into understanding it or comprehending its
context. You need a vacuum cleaner - locate; buy; read instructions. Second, they are accustomed to
selecting from interchangeable philosophies. A vacuum cleaner does not demand that you re-interpret your
other philosophies of cleansing, or that you find a broader framework of understanding why to clear. You
match problem (dirty carpet) to solution (cleaning machine) and plunk down the credit card, ready to go.

For this reason, when people schooled in a modern way of life attempt to approach philosophy, they almost
always make a mess of it by falling into a kneejerk pattern of trying to match "issues" to solutions that are
disconnected from a systemic approach and therefore, as philosophy, fail. In fact, most of what people
would call "philosophy" is a grab-bag of caveats, self-conceptions and homilies; there is nothing that unites
metaphysics and epistemology and ethics within it, for example. It is this type of person who approaches
the writings here and, not wanting to admit the logical connections are lost to them, declares them to be
"ranting" or "incoherent" or that old standby of the embittered, "it's just a bunch of big words to make you
seem smart." Crowdism there, indeed.

However, if one is willing to not read between the lines, but look at these philosophies as logical tools much
in the same way different pieces of software make up an operating system, it reveals the function behind
what otherwise seem as rootless pronouncements coming out of the void. In this article, we look at four
major components of the beliefs expressed here, and illustrate how they are connected and thus what
implications for the whole can be drawn from their presence.

Idealism

The initial confusion here is that idealism in the populist vernacular means any kind of belief in a
progressive or utopian sense, and when we speak of "idealism" we generally refer to someone who screws
up reality for some starry-eyed optimal ideal. In the philosophical sense, "idealism" means a belief system
in which the cosmic order is composed of, or acts as if it is composed of, thoughts. The Cambridge
Dictionary of Philosophy expresses it well:

"The philosophical doctrine that reality is somehow mind-correlative or mind-coordinated -- that the real
objects constituting the 'external world' are not independent of cognizing minds, but exist only as in some
way correlative to mental operations." - Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy , Second Edition

There are two components to this belief. First, we understand the world only through the process of
thought. Second, the world acts much as our thoughts do, and because all of our actions thus affect the
design of the external world, our actions are like thoughts: a series of reasonings which are by process of
elimination filtered into an answer. This answer is the working hypothesis upon which the next level of
thought is built.

Idealism is important because it navigates a path between materialism (belief only in material value) and
symbolic-literal thinking, in which individual thoughts are more important than reality. Idealism joins human
thought and the working of the world by pointing out they have a common mechanism, and thus a common
end. It is not dualistic, nor is it solipsistic; idealism is like a highest-level abstraction that explains the
motivations of both humankind in world in evolving the design of their thoughts to greater levels of
discipline, clarity, and interconnectedness.

Realism

In other words, for the world to think, it is required that we act; our actions, by changing reality, change
whatever thoughts correlate to or cause changes in our physical environment. In this sense, much like an
inventor with a blowtorch, our actions are the process of designing or redesigning our world, and the
reason we act is to achieve change in the design of external reality, or an abstraction of its function. The
design may actually exist, like DNA does, or it may merely be our method of understanding how the world
can be predicted through consistent tendencies inherent to its operation (some call these "natural laws").
By altering reality through our actions, we alter the design of our world and if we do so in accordance with
natural laws, enhance its function or our position within it.

What is essential for perceiving this design and its changes is a sense of "realism," or a taking of changes
in our physical world to be the totally of existence. This separates our thoughts and feelings from our
recognition of changes in our external world, and allows us to point clearly at something known as "reality,"
even if we later interpret it as a process of thought which we change with our deliberate actions. Since this
later interpretation will be exacting, and will require us to perceive patterns in our world and then anticipate
them with our actions, we call this belief in the primacy and consistency of the external world "realism."

Nihilism

If we are to act on our world and change its design, we must do so with a clear understanding of how it
works, and not act on thoughts which are solely confined to our internal design, and are not shared by the
external. This requires that we clear our minds of illusion and tighten the correspondence between our
perception of events and the actuality of what occurs, so that we might predict as exactly as possible our
actions to manipulate our world. Nihilism is the process of clearing away all belief and preconception from
the process of perception, so that we see simply what is and do not encumber ourselves with illusion, or
emotionalism, or other pitfalls of consciousness.

Nihilism is controversial for many as they confuse it with an utter lack of belief in anything, or in the
effectiveness of anything. This highlights the difference between a belief that colors interpretation, and a
belief in value , in that values beliefs do not affect how we see the world but they influence the choices we
make as to how we change it. A nihilist may hold deeply-felt beliefs, but will cease to be a nihilist the
minute he or she allows these beliefs to intrude upon a realistic perception of the cosmic order. Values are
not to be used to interpret the world, but are something that we act upon it so that in the changing of its
design we bring them closer to manifestation.

Integralism

These philosophies imply a framework that embraces all of them. Nihilism allows for perception of reality,
and realism means that we accurate see its design, while translating that into a thought process of the
cosmos through idealism. All of this so far has been operational, in that it describes the workings of the
world and our means of interpretative it; none of it has been prescriptive, or instructive of a values system
which suggests what we should do with this system. To address this need we have integralism.

Integralism posits a unity of human and external events and thoughts. From comparison of our own
intentions to the operations of this cosmic order, we determine how well-adapted our ideals are. This
allows us to understand what a higher value might be: a more elegant, greater adaptation which increases
the quality of our lives in harmony with the order of the cosmos. It is the achievement of these higher
values that is the core belief of integralism, and its prescriptive goal as passed on to any adherents:
discover your world, get a clear picture of its design, and work to complement that design, as the same
language which describes external design also describes internal adaptation, e.g. the beauty found in
thoughts and imagination.

Continuity

William Blake once said that "If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as
it is, infinite." When we unite our imaginations to the process of the universe, as is found in the belief
system of idealism, we have opened up that continuity and are now closer to accepting our mortality as
part of that larger plan. In this we have found perhaps the one bliss that exists for thinking creatures, and
we have done it by entangling ourselves with that which we fear most (nothingness) and finding a sense of
order not within it but that includes it. It is this inclusion that forms the basis for our believe in turn in
continuity, as we see that all dark things lead to light, and vice versa.
Philosophy does not succumb well to a product-oriented outlook. It is something that does not mix and
match well. Regardless of the point of entry chosen, the beliefs of the individual must eventually resolve
into a comprehensive worldview, or be seen for what they are: scattered borrowings with no unity. While
this makes it difficult to initially comprehend the worldview espoused on this site, it makes it far easier,
once one has accepted its genesis in ideas, to explore its breath and find from it an explanation of and
response to our world.

September 19, 2005

Clearing the Modern Mind
The modern mind is fundamentally divorced not only from reality as a state, but as a motive. In its
delusional state, the brain frenetically confirms its own hypotheses because it cannot compare them to
reality and thus determine how fit they are as solutions. For this reason it has nothing to consider but its
initial assumptions, which it soon begins to defend vigorously. As a result, any ideas that contradict these
are seen not as ideas but as acts of aggression against it, and the bearers of the modern mindset lash out
at them.

It is for this reason that thinkers attempting to escape the modern have hit on a new hypothesis: our
worldview is broken, not our methods. Most systems until this point have tried to regulate method, by
changing economic or political systems, or trying to re-educate our language or visual preferences. While
these efforts have each changed some traits of our societies, they have not changed the basic trend, which
remains consistent. For this reason, liberalism has failed; conservatism has failed; even reformers have
failed. Politics cannot save us, nor can economics, nor can military might. We must rethink our psychology.

PTSD

Although studies about the effects of living under a clear dominant authority, such as totalitarianism or the
Stockholm Syndrome, are familiar, few have studied what happens under passive authority. Passive
authority is created by an assumption that defines reality, and because its power is predicated on that
hypothesis, a tendency to punish those who contradict that worldview. In passive authority, those who
deviate from unstated rules are punished, where totalitarianism relies clearly states its rules and punishes
those who oppose them. Passive authority is a superior mechanism for control because it does not act
aggressively against detractors without first having construed them as the first to act with aggression. It is
always the victim; always the well-intentioned parental figure, abused by its offspring, and thus justified in
punishing them. Since its power relies on its assumptions regarding reality, anyone who differs with those is
the worst kind of ideological criminal.

This leads us to the interesting condition called "Post Tramautic Stress Disorder," or PTSD. It occurs
frequently whenever there is a disturbing or violent even that shapes the life of its victim, but it almost
always happens when there is such an event and no way to reconstruct the self afterwards, such as by
justifying the event as necessary or good. Most of us are familiar with the high rate of PTSD in returning
Vietnam veterans, but a lack of corresponding rate in soldiers from the second world war, despite in many
ways a more horrifying experience. Many theorize that the reason is very simple: veterans in the 1940s
came home to congratulations, while Vietnam vets never had a clear positive consensus coming back to
them from society. As a result, they were forced into the role of "bad guy" by the passivity of a society
which would send them to a war and then, as a result of its own indecision, blame them for its extremity.

PTSD describes most of the people in modern society on a day-to-day basis. Although they are functional,
they are in shock at a sublime level, such that most of what they do is part of a cover story that affirms
their sanity and self-worth. Like secret agents in the field, they use their cover story to reinforce their
sense of self, which is actually defined in a completely different way, since their internal agenda does not
match the goals they would reveal in conversation. They are secret agents for their own safety and
fulfilment. They can never tell their actual motivations to those around them.

This is a consequence of passive unreality. When we are all expected to silently agree on something that is
not real, those who speak out for truth are the aggressors, and the passive society retaliates against them
(ostracization, boycott, crucifixion). For this reason, those who dare glimpse the truth are traumatized by
realizing that the knowledge upon which we need to act is the very knowledge that we deny, and they spot
then not just an error in our society, but a fundamental corruption so vast that it will if not destroy us turn
us into creatures of servitude to the most base and boring existence possible.

Disadvantages
Another area in which the passive society dominates: we live in a time where people cannot tell the
difference between a disadvantage and a failure. A disadvantage is a negative consequence of some act
when the act still attains its goal; for example, if I need to put wood on the fire but I bark my shin on the
woodpile. In that case, it's illogical to say "I can never build a fire again, because I must bark my shin" -
the fire must be made, so the possibility of barked shin is taken as a disadvantage. On the other hand, a
failure is when an act cannot achieve its goal. If my goal is to make a fire, and I attempt to do it by
machine-gunning the woodpile, then I have failed (there may also be disadvantages).

Lashing out against disadvantages supports a passive society. First, assume that the status quo is a working
solution which will always get better - people who feel that modern society is fixing the past fall into this
category, one which is "progressive" in that people believe we're on the path to progress and therefore,
even if things are bad, they will get better because we are on the path of progress. Second, take any
argument against the status quo and find a disadvantage with it, thus discard it. If we make our fires
outside, the thought of making them inside is immediately discredited because we might bark our shins.
This argument against disadvantages is passive because it denies the disadvantages brought on by the
current system, and essentially demands a perfect, Utopian, flawless solution in order to change course -
and when we drop that pretense, we see it's all a big logic trap designed to reject any course but the
present. You might even call it inertia and not be wrong. This passive view of the world is fundamentally
negative, in that it assumes there is only one solution, and we already have it, thus we must accept what is
wrong and not seek to change it, because any change will bring about some disadvantages. People even
argue this in terms of lives lost; we cannot have change, as someone might die, even if that person is crazy
and dies because of his or her craziness. Therefore, they rigidly stick to a failing course of action and lash
out at anyone who proposes something different, as those disadvantages might not only inconvenience
them, but might illustrate the complete illogical farce that is modern society.

Brainless

Our society is passive because it defers to the judgment of individuals. It defers to the judgment of
individuals because, lacking a common cultural or philosophical goal, it unites itself through the power of
vast crowds of individuals who, as granular political entities, want nothing more than an increase in
personal wealth and power and social prestige. The Crowd is formed of those who cannot lead, so their
agenda is to destroy leaders, and then to drag down standards for earning wealth and gaining power and
achieving social prestige, so that even idiots can do it. The Crowd likes the kind of system that rewards you
for spending the time, not doing something genius or unusually powerful.

This makes for a brainless society. Our opinions depend on the opinions of others, which means that no
one is leading, because the way one "leads" is to figure out what other people are thinking. We're all asking
each other what we should think and, since there's no way to get a clear thought of that process, always
concluding that we should keep on roughly the same course and beat down anyone who threatens it. To
liven things up, we rename our course and re-construe it as something new, but it has basically been the
same for at least 2,000 years. It has been and is the process of making the rule of the Crowd stronger,
under the guise that this will empower the individual (and it does, in the short term - it's just the long term
where the individual must pay the price).

How does this brainlessness manifest itself? We no longer have any clear path from the current time to a
better state except for our assumption. We assume that by continuing the process of equality, of "freedom"
and economic empowerment, we will arrive at a Utopia, but have we seen any signs of that yet? Things get
worse, but because we exist in a passive society where teh assumption of "progress" is a sacred cow, we
take no clear action. Instead, we allow ourselves to be led: we are led by the economy, by popularity, or by
"surprise" disasters for which we cannot prepare. We have no sense of design; our cities are a jumble of
different functions that collaborate reasonably while we have cheap transportation, but reflect no particular
order. Our lives are empty because there is no purpose other than self-gratification. Our hands are tied at
the elbow in thousands of ways, where we reach for something that seems intuitively to be a better future,
and then are reminded that it is unacceptable: we will cut someone out of the picture, cause a retarded
orphan to cry, offend the sensibilities of some political entity. In short, we will transgress against the
passive ones, and thus, the Crowd will rise up and smite us.
Passivity

It is almost impossible to explain to someone why passivity is destructive. After all, it is like a form of
pacifism, and if conflict is eliminated, we tend to think a situation is under control. Peace is the absence of
war. However, it can also be the absence of something necessary that some call "change" but to my mind
is more fundamental: doing what is necessary to maintain a social order headed to ever-higher heights. If
we make peace our goal, instead of doing the right thing, we have no way to get ourselves back on track
once we drift toward mediocrity. We have no way to forcibly say NO to someone who is doing something
retrograde and destructive. Passivity ties our hands, except for in one special circumstance. When someone
violates passivity, even if for a higher goal than is currently being pursued, they are crucified, because we
value peace more than we care about being on the path to something better.

Terms like "truth" and "right" and "justice" and "freedom" have become our enemies. They are too easily
twisted with implication, and inevitably, those who do the twisting run off to make great profit behind the
scenes while their civic-minded neighbors fight it out over the definitions - ultimately concluding nothing,
because few of them understand enough philosophy to make sense out of the question. We cannot say we
desire truth, because some clever nitwit will say, "Well, whose truth?" implying that we live in different
worlds and therefore there is a different assessment of truth in each. We cannot say "x is right and y is
wrong" for the same reason. We have lost the sense of cultural and social consensus that allows us to
agree on reality not in a descriptive sense, e.g. "The tree is green," as much in a valuative sense, as in "It's
more important to have written language than hedonism." It is this consensus that allows civilizations to
arise where none previously were, and when the consensus aims toward a higher standard for the
civilization, it is what allows great civilizations to arise: Rome, Greece, India, Germany.

Our modern passivity comes about because we became distracted by wealth and power; the ones who
were distracted were those who did not have wealth and power, and thus made a collective crusade out of
it: this was the Crowd. Those who had self-confidence, noble bearing, and intelligence had these things
already, or had no need for them , much as a Zen monk desires neither Cadillac nor CEO position. When the
Crowd overwhelmed the leaders with its superior numbers, the leaders tended to fade out of the spotlight
and try to survive as best they can. However, no person is an island, and when your society is run by
people driven insane by greed and mortal fear, soon you too will be working for their causes and not your
own. As it is today: cost of living is high and everyone works/commutes for ten hours a day. You either join
the procession, or you starve in obscurity, and if you fight it, you have offended Passivity and will be
beaten down as an enemy of the state.

Morality

If a cyclic view of history is adopted, the solution to this mess has already been present in the past many
times, and will return when the Crowd finally screws up to the point of wrecking things, allowing some of
the smart people to manipulate others into creating a civilization around a concept other than those which
motivate failing civilizations (egodrama, materialism, equality of Crowd members). One thing that can be
hinted at is the need for a different morality in two key ways. First, it will not be dualistic. Second, it will
not be individualistic, at least in the populist sense that places the individual before all else, even sense.

When we speak of dualistic morality, we are describing the source of moral judgment in the moral system.
Dualistic morality requires an absolute reason for judgment external to the reality in which we live. This can
be a god, or an abstract concept, like equality, or simply a conception of "truth" which exists independently
as opposed to exists as interpretation . When someone says "The truth is..." they are on dangerous ground
unless they understand the alchemy of truth; it is an assessment of an action or idea in the context of the
ultimate "truth" of existence, which is existence itself - otherwise known as "reality." To say something is
true is to say that it corresponds approximately to a prediction of how an action or idea will translate into
the world. This is why we can say that "You will survive a ten story fall" is NOT true, unless there are
mitigating circumstances. Truth is a way we interpret our thoughts alone; when we speak of things external
to our thoughts, truth is a tautology, since because they exist, they are true. There is no way to
encapsulate truth outside of this formula. Dualistic truth attempts to do exactly that. If we are to move
forward from our current disease, as a species, we must find our truth in our thoughts as they adapt to our
reality, and not try to create some Truth which we can define somewhere and force upon the Crowd,
because they cannot figure it out themselves.

And what of the individual in morality? Our current morality is that of the Crowd, because we believe that
preservation of the individual is the highest goal we can have. Our commandment is not "Do what is right,"
but "Avoid doing what is wrong." Do not kill. Do not offend. Do not brush aside the "rights" of another. The
only exception is the primal one, which is that one may kill or offend or deny rights when the person in
question has transgressed against society; can you see how passivity comes into play here? Society sets the
rules, and those who disagree have no option, because their opinions themselves are even an offense. They
must either find a way to frame their ideas in terms of Crowdist doctrine (not possible) or they must be
silent, lest they transgress and the injured party, Society at large, take its turn to crush them.

For these reasons, when we speak of "morality" now, what we are talking about is an abstract concept with
no relation to practical, here-and-now existence, and it is based in the individual, as none wish to find
themselves inconvenienced by the need to do what is "right"! What we have created is the greatest illusion
that any thinking being can undertake, which is the supposition that our thoughts are reality, and that we
exist independently of our external world (including death). In this light, the environmental destruction by
humans is entirely too clearly revealed as more than gross ignorance; we had to destroy the environment
to "prove" to ourselves that only our thoughts dictate the world. Why is our society such a mess? We are
distracted, all of us, by following our personal vision - to the point that we do not consider that it is
contained in, and dependent on, a whole. The modern human is oblivious to the fact that his consciousness
merges with a larger awareness. Therefore, he sees nothing but himself and his own desires.

Frustration

It is impossible to both live now, and be aware of the whole; one who attempts a "holistic morality"
whereby one thinks outside the individual and instead asks, "What is the best order for all of this - nature,
humanity, and cosmos?" will surely go insane. Daytime is occupied by function, whether in job or family,
and in fending off the handful of thoughts that are repeated a million different ways by almost all of the
voices around us. It's hard for people to realize how pervasive our media is, but think about it: of the
people you talk to on a daily basis, how many got their information either from product-media (meaning:
media that sells stories as a product, so that truthfulness is secondary) or from someone who did? Even if
you live in academia, or the rural areas of this continent, the answer is likely 75% or more.

We live in a time of inferior minds masquerading as benevolent leaders; we have eliminated the
independent, realistic thinkers or driven them into hiding; we are motivated by profit and equality, which
are one and the same impulse, thus we keep ourselves from rising to the real challenges that can select
better minds among us. Our society has not made a bad choice of political system or economic system, but
a bad choice of its most fundamental value: it has elected for Crowd domination, and from that all else has
come. (Money is popular, especially among the poor, for the same reason the lottery is: one can dream that
one will climb the ladder that way, and it's an easier and more likely dream than gaining traits like nobility,
intelligence and beauty. The Crowd loves easy ways to get ahead.)

And there is no escape. Society is global. It poisons air, earth and sea, so even running away to a faroff
land will not stop the problem. People have tried various solutions and each has failed, depressing us
further. Those who can even understand the issues in question are the smallest minority of all minorities in
society. New types of government, "new" ideas about language or values, and new economic systems or
new areas to make wealth are all failures. The disease is within. To fix it, we must reprogram ourselves.

PPOT vs PTSD

To change the world, we must first become what we wish it to be, and the first step in that is to think
positive. The apocalyptic agenda of various political groups - leftists and far-rightists in particular - is
destructive in that it is anticlimatic. They will encourage you to take desperate action because if you do not,
right now, the cause will be lost. They do this because they respond to very simple emotional symbols, and
to desperate situations, much like bad movies always feature lost orphans and murdered puppies and other
heart-tugging symbols. This mentality is part of Crowdism. Discard it. There is time for us to act, and our
actions do not need be hasty. Think positive: the world is good, and what we are going through now is one
part of its cycle, and therefore, we shall be delivered from it as inexorably as we came into it.

Positive thinking takes many forms. Just saying to yourself that there is a solution will free you from the
PTSD that afflicts our smartest people, who go through life tortured by the knowledge of the death-march
upon which our species has embarked. Set that out of your head. If you think positive, you can see another
way and act accordingly; even a small percentage of people doing this are important, because they put the
lie to the Crowdist doctrine that there is no other way, and they fragment the Crowd by making its
members distrust its conclusions. Positive thinking crushes fearful thinking, which is all that binds a crowd
together. They're afraid that they cannot stand alone, and cannot face the consequences of their choices,
so they form what is basically a large street gang, even if they call it liberal democracy and stamp UN and
ADL logos all over it.

Positive thinking delivers you from frustration and depression. It also gives you focus to work on positive
things. One of the many reasons that White Nationalism is a failure doctrine for utter morons is its inherent
negativity; White Nationalists are by definition people of mixed Irish-Slavic heritage who would rather sit
around complaining about African-Americans that doing something positive for white people. Furthermore,
they're afraid to admit that even among white people there are divisions, and that some are better than
others. That is Crowdism, and its roots are in depression and fear and underconfidence. Positive thinking
builds confidence. Wherever you are in the hierarchy of life, even if you're a paraplegic AIDS-ridden slave,
if you act according to positive principles, you will not only be doing right but you will be feeling better
about yourself for doing it. Positive thinking followed by positive action drives away underconfidence.

Post-Crowdism

Once you have a positive outlook, you can look into changing the psychology of our times - in yourself.
Observe what the Crowd believes and how it manifests itself. Realize it is a deficiency. Then, act without
that deficiency. Where others have individualistic morals, think in a holistic moral sense, where you do what
is right by an external order no matter who is inconvenienced. Although people on the Internet (generally
oversocialized, underconfident losers) will tell you otherwise, if you have some brains and think positively,
you will rapidly get to positions of power where you can exercise this ability. Do so. You will inspire others
and show how the Crowdist doctrine of "the individual ueber alles" is false.

It's too much to outline a complete solution in this article, and no thinker worth his or her salt will do so,
because once you set it down in black and white, the Crowd immediately emulates it as an unconscious
attempt to discredit it. But what should be clear here is that by leaving passivity behind, you become a
creator and a lover instead of a destroyer and fearer; those who claim not be destroyers, not to be afraid,
to embrace difference, etc. are the ones with the greatest amount of fear, and that's why they preach
doctrines that are accessible to the biggest sheep among us. When you think positively, and outthink
Crowdism, you lay the foundations for getting past this bad period of human psychology. In that is
something greater than defeat of the Crowd - it is victory for all of us.

September 25, 2005

Future Past
Divisions among humans are common, but one enduring selection that will forever separate people is their
view of the past. In essence, some revere the past and others consider it a horror, a bad memory, and
congratulate themselves on being part of a superior time. This continues even to the ludicrous degree of
denying that older societies had learning, were attractive or intelligent people, and knew things that are
now dead to us. It is a form of religion, denying the past, and it is comforting because it makes us feel like
the present is a road to a better future, even if many signs point in the opposite direction.

If one discounts the past entirely, or sees it as a primitive time of failure and filth, then by process of
elimination the modern time seems a blessing and gift. This seems like a natural view based on our own
lives, where we move from childhood to adulthood and in the process learn a great deal and become "fully
aware" as people. Applying this personal metaphor to history, it seems plausible that the past would be
childhood and, now that we are awake, we have the modern day environment as a testament to our
maturity. Much as adults are more disciplined than children, and more inclined toward conflict avoidance,
our current society is pacifistic and orderly compared to the past. They had wars, we have courts and laws.

However, there are flaws with this vision of society as an analog for personal mortality. If the past was
childhood, and present adulthood, then old age and death come soon, and while that might not matter to
someone exclusively obsessed with the individual, it does signify the destruction of civilization as a whole.
As a civilization should outlast its citizens, this form of apocalyptic thinking is too passive and accepting of
self-destruction for the tastes of this author. Further, it seems to legitimize a projection of individual
psychology onto society as a whole, an arrangement that produces neurosis if nothing else.

Even more disturbing, it is a theory based entirely on the appearance of the modern time as more civilized
than the past, when there's no clear indication this is the case. The ancients did not struggle with an
internal lack of meaning, as we do; they had clear values systems and a culture that was more than a
marketplace, as all of the modern West at least seems to be. They had a purpose, where we have no
purpose but our own wealth and through that, "happiness." Some are satisfied, and many are resigned, but
who is "happy"? The modern time may appear more mature, but it is questionable as to whether this is so.

From the opposite perspective, those who venerate the past are happy people. They bypass the external -
our technology, our wealth, our morality and our all-powerful death-denying governments - and look
instead to what makes the soul grow and develop. Their outlook is one of internal quality, and of striving
against themselves to become better through achievement and struggle; it is heroic, and it is ideological,
but it is also the purest and most commonsense view of life. Be good at being you and take on the vast
struggle - is there a more profound statement that includes not only the individual, and not only the
collective of all individuals, but also the collective of individual and individuals and earth, sky, water and
animals? We are one part of the vast ecosystem, and by balancing our own needs with it, we fully adapt in
a way that those motivated only the individual or the collective cannot.

Bandwagon

The goal of recent articles on this site has been to break up bandwagon tendencies. No, we do not blame
our readers for this, nor do we particularly notice a rise in it. It has been observed however that in the
modern time, especially after television and the internet, any good idea is converted to a bandwagon-
friendly marketable concept, and then it is mobbed and devalued by reduction to lowest-common
denominator. The bandwagon will assimilate any idea, even apparently elitist and other anti-populist ideas;
the bandwagon knows no sense, since its only goal is social and self-esteem driven. Our goal here is to
present ideas for independent action, not foster a bandwagon.

We could easily have converted this into a "movement" whereby people can buy into it and become active
in it, but this is to our minds a case of becoming part of the problem, not its solution. There are in this
society about 2% of its members who are capable of independent thought and action, and we want to
reach them, and offer them thoughts. Beyond that, we simply must trust in nature to convey our ideas and
others toward a sensible conclusion. Those who need to "join" something should pay attention to our
variant of that concept, which is independent action that contributes to the collective.

So far, this approach has worked reasonably well. Even further, we have avoided assimilation by the
various bandwagons - anarchist, racist, leftist, Linux, anti-Christian - and continue to present a site that
baffles all but those who are of a natural inclination toward this method of doing things. Our goal is not
allegiance to a symbol, or to a doctrine. It is an awareness of what is needed to create a post-modern
Traditional empire on earth. When we say traditional, what we mean is a society like that of the ancients,
with heroes, kings, warriors, thinkers, etc. all in constant struggle for the dominion of neverending light
(improved design) over earth, which as a means of self-regulation has tendencies toward a telluric, inward-
focused, passive and death-embracing side to all of its creatures.

Everyone wants a bandwagon, but bandwagon-jumping destroys any ideology.

The Mathematics of Time

In each generation, the question of evolution arises and people find themselves baffled by it. This is
because for the most part they live in a world of intent: things are created by mental will. How is it, then,
that nature can simply "arise" by the product of some detached, invisible hand? The answer is simple when
we consider time, which is generally absent from human consciousness not owing in the least part to its
reminder of Death. Evolution is the mathematics of time, meaning that what survives over a particular
period is compounded by the same process being repeated infinitely, each time contributing a tiny amount
of what some might call "intelligent design" and others might call "prevalence" or survival of the fittest.

Fittest according to what? -- adaptation to the whole: the entire environment of nature around the
organism, including its internal environment and mindset. Survival of the fittest is more emphasis on
survival, and healthy survival, than on "fittest" in the modern sense of best football player, guy who wins a
single fistfight. Yes, the people who clean rifles by looking down the barrels, cross freeways without
checking both directions, and steal gasoline by torchlight are eliminated from the gene pool. But they are a
small subsection of what natural selection does, because in life, the obvious cases are few and the
questionable cases are many. For the most part, "survival" means prevalence of traits achieved by greater
breeding - and greater adaptation of those ensuing organisms to life. In other words, even if one is a higher
degree of ability, if one abuses or ill-prepares one's offspring, they will probably not survive.

We, the moderns, like to think that we're past all that icky stuff like evolution where we are mortally judged
as inferior or superior and there is a "plan" to life itself. We're not. But evolution is not a contest. It is a
simple matter of seeing what is left after years of testing the design against its environment. Instead of
thinking of gladiators at war, imagine a tomato garden. If five plants produce the biggest and healthiest
tomatoes, they get replanted in greater abundance the next season. And the next. And so on, until they
have outbred every other plant, and thus have introduced their traits - biggest and healthiest tomatoes -
into all other plants. Evolution is both removal of that which does not work, and promotion of that which
does, and in a balanced view, it is the latter that takes up the largest part of the equation.

Pre-Destined Failure

Plenty has been written about the recent hurricanes, but what is needed is less ink and more words on the
actual topics of importance. These are the scope of the disaster in New Orleans, and the role of global
warming in producing super-hurricanes. Outside of the blizzard of "evidence" and commentary, what has
been forgotten here is common sense.

First, superstorms hit all over the world, and not every population reacts as did those in New Orleans.
Despite their poor wisdom in building a city below sea level right next to the sea, New Orleans would have
had a better time of things had there not been rampant criminal behavior throughout the entire ordeal.
Even the normally reserved people of Indonesia and Britain were driven to comment on the rapes, murders,
drug use, theft of televisions, etc. that occurred in New Orleans. It was a subtle form of comedy for those
who could observe it. Snipers firing on their rescuers? Armed gangs patrolling at night? The media now
says reports were exaggerated, but what's to embellish about a city ruled by the lawless and predatory?
This is not a racial comment, necessarily, although someone else will undoubtedly want to weigh in on that
(although they should remember that the majority of New Orleans' African-Americans left town in advance,
along with its white and Asian populations). It is a comment about delusion. You can outwalk a hurricane
by getting on a road and going north at a normal, walk-around-the-mall pace. Hurricanes move at 10-15
miles an hour and start out over 500 miles away. If one is marginally attentive to the news, it's easy to
outwalk one even as it is very close at hand. Should one decide to stay in a city marked for destruction by
its proximity and reduced stature to the sea, it is common sense to find high ground of any kind and to
stay there. And while no one misunderstands "looting" of perishables and other necessities such as food,
spending one's time raiding electronics stores is clearly not very rational.

A city hit by a storm is one thing. A city hit by a storm where the residents use the lack of deterrent by
force as an excuse to begin criminal activity is another. We saw the latter in Louisiana, and whether these
people were white or black or otherwise, it is clear from their behavior that they are destructive and
pointless people without whom we would be better off. A society that lasts is not founded upon people who,
if unsupervised, turn to self-destructive behavior. It is not founded upon people who are so helpless that
they need the care of others to survive relatively mundane traumas. Yes, it was a diaster, but let's not go
too far: it would not have been as much of a disaster had it been a better population of people who were
affected.

On top of this comes the global warming debate. One side suggests that global warming is a hoax, and the
other insists that not only is global warming a problem, but that it was directly responsible for Katrina's
excessive wrath. Interestingly, the first side can often be spotted attempting to conflate "global warming"
with all of humanity's effect on its environment, which is far from the truth (there are many more forms of
pollution and environmental effect than the excess of CO2 that produces the global warming effect). We
should not bicker over these trivialities. Regardless of global warming, having an ever-increasing human
population means that we will eventually deplete natural resources and consume all the land on earth, if
unchecked. Since we know that some acres of trees are needed to offset the effect of even a single human
being, it is clear that we should perhaps use no more than a quarter of earth's usable land for ourselves
and leave the rest in its natural state. Without that, we have no guarantee of the quality of life of our
ancestors.

Looking at the problem from this angle, it becomes unimportant whether Katrina was the direct product of
global warming or not. Most likely, there is a natural cycle which has made temperatures rise and storms
proliferate, but there is also an added global warming modifier that makes the process worse. However, to
dwell on these issues is to lose sight of the common sense mathematics here: for every added human
being, there is less land and more pollution and fewer spaces for unbroken natural habitats. We must
regulate our own population, and we are already overpopulated. Whether we're feeling the effects of this
now, or will in fifty years, does not matter; an insane plan always produces destructive consequences. The
media and robber barons of industry want you to fight over "global warming" as if it's the whole of our
effect on the environment. It's not. You don't need facts and figures, but you do need simple math. Ever-
increasing human populations in a finite world will poison and deplete that world. That alone is the issue,
and almost no one will say so.

Evil

When Nietzsche says we must get beyond good and evil, what he means is that we must not look to good
and evil as existing, external forces. Rather, they are ways we describe our own behavior. Evil is not some
force that exists in the world, but a state of mind, and that state of mind is selfishness. This self-
centeredness arises from an inability to see the world as a great and beautiful continuity, and thus a mortal
fear for oneself, as if all one knows of the world is the self, mortality is a terrifying End of the World
scenario. Therefore, if we must assign evil to anything, it is a pervasive form of ignorance by which one
denies the continuity of existence and simultaneously does oneself harm by acting selfishly, which results in
short-term reward (free hubcaps) but long-term, holistic disaster (everyone in neighborhood now fears for
their hubcaps).

Evil does not exist, but evil can exist within us, just as our thoughts exist only as electrochemical impulses
until we act on them and make their concept part of life's grand, infinite design. Just as not every thought
is correct - "I thought I left that pen on the desk, but here it is in the hallway" - thoughts which do not take
into account continuity of existence are blind to time, and thus to long-term consequences, and therefore,
wall the individual into a Hell formed by the boundaries of the individual itself. Life solely for yourself, and
soon you are confined to the self, and then there is nothing to live for but gratification, physicality and
wealth, and over time, none of these are as comforting as one might expect. Evil is the absence of
continuity in our thinking, and thus, a death of our belief in the infinity and goodness of our world.

Taking out the Trash

As modern neurotics, we look to fill our lives, because we fear those spaces on nights without plans when
we are alone in the house and have to listen to the ticking of the clock and wonder if we are truly on a
sensible path or not. If we have families, we fear their absence and long for its return, as that distracts us
from the inevitable narrowing of our time and worse, of our ability: we become frail and old, we sag or go
bald, we must not venture too far from a toilet. Consequently, we see before us the void of death opening
like a flower of misery, and realize that there is no holding it back, and nothing that can be done to delay
its inevitability. Worst, it invades our thoughts, so that we are aware of it when it would be more pleasant
to be, like animals, unaware of its approach until its victory is certain.

In those silent moments, we resolve to stuff more things and experiences into that void, in the hope of
balancing death with our lives. "I had a good life," said the relaxing old man, "and therefore, I do not mind
dying now." We all hope for this sort of spiritual calm (which is often as not brought about by endorfins in
the bloodstream). We all hope to act for it. But what plagues us in response is a proliferation of semi-
meaningful things. Most people run to jobs to be around others, but then find they are surrounded by
mostly fools, and thus feel sinkingly within the pit of their stomachs a fear that their time is wasted.
Activities are fun and wonderful, yes, but they also have their downside, including the knowledge that most
of the people involved view this as something little more advanced than television watching. We even like
being so busy we're distracted, running in thousands of directions, but in the end this only fragments our
consciousness for enjoying the moments of peace and satisfaction that we do have.

To these busy moderns, a Traditional thinker would say: just throw out the trash. Do not try to fill your
mind, as there is no escape from the inner awareness, but instead, pick the things in life that are
meaningful and pursue them, and do not fear those sleepless late-night hours of isolation when death
steals upon you. There is nothing to be done about this awareness. You cannot fill a void, as it is infinite.
What you can do is construct a world around that which you value. In the experience of this author, that is
found in friends, family, serving a holistic cause (nation + nature) and the joys of the mind. Everything else
- going to bars, table hockey, jobs, etc - are a means to an end, and that end is meeting the people who
share your values. Trying to put significance into your life on the basis of these activities alone is like trying
to find spiritual divinity by eating more sugar: hollow, and ill-advised.

Why White Nationalism Fails

This article will need a disclaimer to offend all of those readers who are still unclear on the issue of race:
race is heritage, and heritage is how nature passes along the important traits, and thus race is one of the
more important considerations in one's life. Race is not just "white" or "black," but what tribe - what
mixture of racial subgroups later shaped into something unique by geography and culture - comprises one's
origin. Race is the measure of empires, and the only continuation of a people (German-speaking people of
mixed-race aren't Germans, but German-speakers). Race is the only way that memory and values are
preserved through the ravages of time. Race is also taboo in the modern society.

Why is it taboo? Briefly: we are in the final days of a mass revolt, by which the crowd of laborers rose up
against the aristocracy and replaced their quality-based system of rule with a quantity-based system that
focused not on the holiness of the task as a whole, but the holiness of the individual as an atom. It was a
switch from top-down to bottom-up rule, and while it resulted in some positive things, it has also created
the greatest disaster in human history, which is our overpopulation and a massive decrease in the quality of
our population. Race is one aspect of this crowd revolt, as the crowd likes to use race and any other tool
possible to break up bloodliness and force us all to be "equal," which is the natural state of people in a
crowd since few of them are good at anything but being a member of a group.
Before one approaches this issue, it's important to see with clarity its framing. There is not a conspiracy on
the basis of race against races; rather, there is an underlying tendency toward the type of society in which
we live to crush those who are different and possibly better at something or another, and to value linear
quantities - money, popularity, power - more than internal qualities, such as those which permit selective
breeding to produce better humans in every race. Because we are ruled by the crowd through implements
such as democracy and economic competition and product popularity, every idea that is publically advanced
to us will be a solicitation for the popularity of the crowd. For this reason our politicians and social leaders
are exclusively in denial about race, because to deny someone anything on the basis of inherent traits is to
deny the primacy of quantity over quality.

It is the belief of this writer than Traditional nationalism is the best system of government for any race, and
for all races together. It allows the individual to live among similar people who share values systems and
therefore intuitively get along and can work toward shared, higher goals. It gives an identity to land, and
gives people a reason to believe in things larger than their own lives, including the surrounding ecosystem
and the culture as a whole. It is the most positive system of government that exists, in contrast to the
selfish modern governments that indulge the whims of the individual while attempting to shape him
according to a centralized program of "good" intentions. Nationalism is also localism, as it means that
smaller communities police themselves and handle their own trade, shying away from large corporations
and central governments. Nationalism is diversity; Nationalism is flexibility; Nationalism is natural.

However, "white nationalism" is a populist (crowd revolt) interpretation of nationalism, and it needs to be
destroyed for two reasons. First, it takes the place of a meaningful nationalist movement, and sucks people
up into its vortex, burns them out, and then spits them out, at which point they will normally have nothing
further to do with nationalist ideas. Second, it is ineffective and because of the cycle of cognitive
dissonance entered by those in the grips of its ineffectiveness, tends toward violent and destabilizing acts
that achieve nothing. White Nationalism is pro-white crowd revolt, and it will increase and not decrease the
underlying problem that has caused our racial problem in the West to date. In place of white nationalist
movements, it makes sense to have groups based around national ethnicities in monocultural (Germany,
France, Zimbabwe) areas and to have nativist movements - based on the identity, culture and heritage of
the original settlers of these lands - in mixed countries (USA, Canada, UK, Latin America).

The essence of nationalism is that each race be distinct from all others, and each tribe as well, and that
together they form an order which is opposed to internationalism, or the cosmpolitan mixing of races and
cultures for the purposes of commerce. Nationalism is a higher value than mindless self-indulgence, or
profit, or any of the other ways in which we gratify the individual at the expense of nature, humankind and
the soul of the individual. Nationalism is not a modern function, although it can adapt to modernity and
indeed be a vector of changing modernity from soul-killing function toward a qualitative, spiritual existence.
Unlike modern political systems, it is not an excuse to unify disparate people under some banner of "self
interest" based on sketchy, spacy, academic concepts in politics. It is a blood and soil, practical as a good
shovel, both-feet-on-the-ground view of politics as an agent to serve civilization, as seen in the unbroken
heritage of the local population.

"White Nationalism" is a modernist solution to the situation nationalism addresses. Its goal is to round up
all whites, form a single population unified by being white, and then to wage race war and violent, bigoted
exclusion against other groups. This author has no problems with violent exclusion, as any population that
does not practice violent exclusion will be bred out within a few generations, unless it is so impoverished
that no immigrants are attracted. However, White Nationalism does not solve the problems it identifies, and
will bring about many more problems owing to its delusional and modernist nature.

1. White Nationalism does not fix the problem.

Banding together all whites, including those with Eurasian or Semitic admixture, will simply produce a
generic, cultureless race of whites who will then be much easier to assimilate than today's national
groups.

2. White Nationalism makes whites neurotic.

 First, it makes people feel bad about themselves for adopting such doctrinaire and violent outlooks.
Second, it is an apocalyptic belief system that makes whites feel that if they do not act now, violently
and dogmatically, the entire cause is lost and all will be fecal. Further, it shows them a world in terms
of whole loss or whole salvation; either all whites are "saved" and the Great Race War occurs, or
nothing happens and we're all horribly doomed immediately. (This author does not attempt to
discredit the idea of inducing Race War, as among other things, it would reduce the population of
useless and stupid people of all races.)

3. White Nationalism creates pointless enmity toward other races.

The problem is not Them. The problem is that they're here, where we need to be. Clearly they need
to be removed, but that does not mean we have to kill them, hate them, slander them, or otherwise
speak the negative, both true and untrue, of them. What we want is for us and not Them. We want
our land for us, and therefore we kick out anyone who isn't us. We can be polite about it. White
Nationalism should just rename it after their favorite slander for African-Americans, as it seems to be
all they talk about!

4. White Nationalism lowers our level of heroism.

White Nationalism is a defensive philosophy. It is reactionary. It is panicked, and it portrays whites as

victims. What is needed is a calm voice of reason and masculine assertion of what is right, not a
reaction to what is wrong. There are infinitive wrongs in life, and the only way to triumph over them
is the success of what is right.

5. White Nationalism does not address internal quality.

In addition to failing to draw distinctions between radically different populations such as Germans and
Slavs and Venezuelans and Italians and Irish, all of whom may claim to be "white" but each of whom
has a distinct heritage and culture that will not mix with others unless averaged into a lowest
common denominator as seen in many parts of the USA and Canada, White Nationalism attempts to
gloss over internal caste divisions and quality control in the white races. Simply put, in a fair world,
most white people would be killed for their gross stupidity (as would most people regardless of race;
stupidity has triumphed in modernity). Further, not all white people are equal, and within each tribe,
we want to breed the best to lead. White Nationalism is a form of racial Marxism that hopes to mix all
whites into a generic melting pot and then eliminate caste and class divisions so that the lower can
triumph over the higher; in this way, it's no different than crowd revolt, populist Christianity or
Communism. White Nationalism is another modernistic "quantity over quality" idea.

6. White Nationalism is a revolutionary ideology.

The concept of revolution is that a grassroots group overthrows ruling elites, and puts into place a
better system of leadership. In practice, however, what happens is that a few vicious souls appeal to
the sympathies of a grassroots cause and maneuver themselves into power, at which point they
murder anyone smart enough to oppose them and then begin ruling in exactly the same way their
predecessors did. Communism starved more than the Tzars; the French Revolution murdered an
aristocracy and then returned the people to exploitation after years of political unrest; the American
revolution separated a colony from its parent country so that it could assume its "world policeman"
role. Did anything positive come of these? Perhaps the American Revolution did for the simple reason
that it detached a colonial territory from unwieldy central rule. Otherwise, no, and all of these
revolutions brought with them the exile and murder of high-quality people for having the wrong
opinions.

There is no need to abandon our society. There is good among the garbage. Build up the good, and
throw out any garbage in your way, and you will have a healthier future than that of some
apocalyptic, violent, paranoiac, inflexible "revolutionary."

7. White Nationalism addresses only race and ignores other issues.

 Unlike National Socialism, which did include economic and green issues, White Nationalism focuses
only on race. After the Great Race War and revolution, White Nationalists reason, they will build a
perfect society by virtue of its being white. Yet they mention no changes except racial ones. What
about pollution? What about overpopulation? What about the fact that we all work long hours in
boring jobs for minimal pay? White Nationalism falls into the traditional trap of "left versus right,"
something which occupies the population with a political dog-and-pony show while the real power
exchange goes on behind the scenes.

8. White Nationalism forgets that nationalism is good for every race.

For years, insightful minds have suggested that White Nationalists pair up with nationalists from other
races. They have not. Why is this? For the most part, it is because they are violent bigots seeking to
make themselves feel better for being "white." Many of them are from the lower strata of the white
race, or from mixed tribes like Irish or Italian or Russian, and their goal is to try to become part of
the favored Northwest European races (German, English, Dutch, Scandinavian). They want to have
equal status. This requires not that they take a sane look at Nationalism, but that they find some way
to argue their own superiority over other groups simply by virtue of their being white. This in turn
requires blind, idiotic bigotry. It's true that the races aren't equal, and that we're different levels of an
evolutionary ladder, and that some are above others - this is simply history and science. But one does
not have to make a big deal of this; what is important is that our own tribes separate, and be able to
breed within themselves to produce the best humans possible. White Nationalism obscures all of this
with repetitive, violent ranting.

9. White Nationalism denies the good among Black, Brown and Asian races.

They aren't us. They will never be welcome among us. But many of them are good people, and
people who have found friends among whites. Do we have to be haters in order to stand up for our
own race? White Nationalists would like to think so, thus including anyone sane or compassionate
from pro-white political activity, and alienating the rest of us from it. Normal, sane, decent white
people will respond to a political initiative that says (sans violent ranting) that we must build a positive
culture for white people to exist by themselves and for themselves. This is what most people want.
They won't vote for it if it is presented in the White Nationalist way, however, because no one wants
to deny the importance of people of other races to us. Many of us, in the way one loves friends (non-
sexual), love these people and care about them. We want no part of some ranting organization that
sees all Black, Brown or Asian faces as The Enemy. Pro-white is good politics, but pro-bigotry is a
failure. That White Nationalism exists permits our overlords to group all pro-white activity with ranting
bigots, and thus White Nationalism ensures that no nationalist movement with a chance of success
will ever exist.

10. White Nationalism doesn't address the ego problem.

The major problem in the West is that people are fixated on themselves and their self-image. A crowd
is, paradoxically, made of individuals, and what they want is protection of the individual above all else.
Therefore, crowd revolts breed egomania. Most white people now are disconnected from anything
beyond their own jobs, wealth, homes and affairs. This leads to a general breakdown in community, a
loss of culture and heroic values, and a replacement of all our motivations with selfishness, i.e.
commerce, as is favored in Middle Eastern nations. White Nationalism has no plan for this.

11. White Nationalism creates a false positivity.

"Feel good about yourself because you're white!" - this is a false and addicting premise. One feels
good about oneself for achievements, including but not limited to those of one's ancestors. And one
must find an active reason for feeling good about themselves, such as achievements or personality
traits. Quality not quantity - but White Nationalism hates this idea, and wants only quantity of whites.

12. White Nationalism is confused regarding Jews.

 No other culture belongs in one's own. For this reason alone, Jews need their own nation, as founding
Zionist Theodor Herzl noted in Der Judenstaat . In 1930s Germany, Jews were the foremost and most
successful immigrant group, owing largely to their own racism against Germans and diligent nepotism
which allowed them to always hire and promote their own people over Germans. Jews are not unique,
not as a people (Semites, of mixed Asian, Black and majority Caucasian descent) and not as a culture,
in that their morality is typical crowd revolt mentality. Most likely, they're the remnants of an ancient
culture that underwent what the West is undergoing now: crowd revolt, a loss of culture, and the
eventual ascendancy of commerce as a replacement for culture and national identity. Jews are not the
identity and, while they have clearly disproportionate influence in politics and industry and media, the
underlying problem is that white people are susceptible to these ideas because they have no better
ideas presented to them. You cannot blame brainwashed masses watching television on Jews; you
have to at some point realize that it's more profitable for someone this way, and thus perhaps that
the profit motive - a replacement for culture caused by crowd revolt, as the crowd loves quantity
instead of quality, and profit is a measurement of quantity - is our downfall and Jews, among other
internationalist groups, are merely its enablers.

13. White Nationalism does not reform Christianity and liberalism.

For centuries now Christianity has dominated the West, and while there are highly enlightened
(Schopenhauer, Blake, Emerson, Eckhart) Christians, populist Christianity has combined crowd revolt
ideology with the dualistic obsession of Christianity. This results in people who think in terms of
abstract, absolute symbols like "equality" and "good" and "evil," but view this fantasy world as more
important than reality. It is this perverse belief, manifested in both populist Christianity and populist
liberalism, that has destroyed our world and contributed greatly to the racial problem. There are sane
interpretations of Christianity and Liberalism that do not involve taking on the populist or crowd revolt
dimension, and any sensible plan for white people should involve converting these beliefs to healthier
form.

14. White Nationalism does not increase culture or values.

In fact, it is opposed to culture and values, as it wishes to mix all whites (including those with
admixture) into one giant melting pot, and pull from it generic White Culture, which we assume is
something derived from the Cleaver family on television. You can have German culture; you can have
French culture; you can even have nativist American (English-German) culture. You cannot have
generic white culture without destroying what makes each nation great. If you want better whites,
separate out other races and tribes, and then breed each nation for its best people. It has been too
many years, and too many different experiences and varied fortunes, for whites to be re-integrated
into one large group. Trying to commit that integration is a political delusion, and not a practical or
beneficient plan.

And this brings us back to:

1. White Nationalism does not fix the problem.

Despite claims to the contrary, White Nationalism will not make life better for whites. It will force them
through another insane revolution and class conflict. It will destroy their culture and replace it with
commerce. It will cause untold carnage, destruction of learning, and will probably result in the killing off of
our upper castes, slaughtering good along with bad and thus weakening us overall. White people do not
support White Nationalism in droves not because they disagree with the idea of "white nations for white
people," but because they disagree with the idea of bigotry, the idea of generic white people, the Marxist
racial agenda and the utter lack of plan beyond race war inherent to White Nationalism. White Nationalism
is a device of our enemies; it replaces political success with clubhouse-mentalitied, backroom resentment
and plotting paranoid revolutionaries. This will never succeed among the healthy and normal whites. For
whites to succeed in politics, and for them to get national independence and freedom from the intrusion of
other races and cultures, White Nationalism must be obsoleted.

September 28, 2005

The Internet People
Some people simply use the Internet, while others become part of this nebulous group known as "the
Internet People" even to those who use the net infrequently. The Internet People are always there with an
opinion, and their opinions are always dramatically similar. They have certain tendencies known to normal
folk, such as a desire to reject any positive idea and to go back to whatever fecal little existences they've
carved out for themselves online. Sociologists see them as a cognitive dissonance experiment gone wrong.
Nihilists seem them as a symptom of this time. Who are "the Internet People"?

A healthy way to use the Internet, or a telephone, or a TV, is as an extension of normal life: you have a
goal and you achieve it by using a technology of whichever flavor. There are some however who, like those
who are addicted to television or buying the "different" CDs of similar-sounding rock bands, are permanent
residents of the Internet because they have no goal and therefore use the net not to achieve real world
things, but to exist in for its own sake, as a surrogate social situation and power structure. These are the
people you see trumpeting their importance on forums, making clandestine deals with moderators so they
can exclude their enemies, and of course endlessly adorning their blogs, mySpace accounts, IMs, emails
and P2P profiles with new information about how fascinating, unique and truly inwardly beautiful they are.

For the Internet People, the internet is a source of entertainment and, as is the case with everyone whose
goals are so limited, it's all about them. They see the internet as an extension of their own broken
socialization and their own needs. They do not consider using it for a greater good, or greater task, even,
because for them there are no greater tasks or greater goods. There is only amusing themselves so that
they can continue to function, which is usually a mishmash of steady contribution and dysfunction. They
work fine at their jobs, because someone is there to tell them what to do. Let them loose in a grocery store
and they come out with five boxes of candy and an apple. They can respond to government, because it
tells them clearly what to do and threatens them with consequences.

They can even run their own businesses because those parameters are established and proceed in a linear
manner from a basic assumption. But independent action? Art? Organizing something of a new type or
method? Forget it; they're out of their depth and in underconfidence they scurry back to what they know,
which is munching junk food and playing on the internet. There's a sort of uncoded attitude these people
have, which is "We're The Internet People, man, leave us alone, because if we wanted to be out there in
the real world with you, we wouldn't be Internet People." Internet people are moral and personal failures,
but they often do well in life, as long as someone is there to tell them the rules. They can follow a basic
thought pattern as long as it already exists somewhere. Imagination and inventiveness are not their allies,
except in tightly-controlled, minimally-variable situations such as Internet chat rooms.

What's even worse is that not every Internet Person is a total idiot and jerk. Many are smart, competent,
capable and likable. They may not buy into the whole aspect of Internet People culture, but may behave
like Internet People none the less. It's a useful affirmation that no matter how much one recites the correct
opinions, actions speak louder than words, even if those actions affect no one but the individual. I've
known a number of cool Internet People, and I wasn't aware that they were Internet People until the time
came for them to step up to the plate and spend time independently working on something they claimed to
believe in. They made excuses, or pretended to work and then faded away, or outright flaked; many of
these were also involved with heavy metal music, another entertainment culture at this point, and thus
were doubly upset that reality intruded upon their fantasy play time. They like to imagine they're part of
some movement or grand idea, but the trip will be ruined for them if they have to make it real. It's the
fantasy - the could have beens, the fantastic daydreams, the erotic conjectures - that propels these people,
not any firm sense of actually doing something .

For example, one reason that members of this organization are skeptical of people who "volunteer" via the
Internet is that we're accustomed to 99% of them, whether good guys or sloppy fool idiots, flaking out
within the month. They want the image. Not the reality. That's the core of being an Internet Person. That
membership mimicks another one from real life: Undermen are those who wish to live in fantasy, and not
deal with unpleasant reality. Crowdists are those who enforce Underman doctrine on others out of fear for
themselves. Like entertainment culture, delusion and solipsism are comforting to those without the brains
to see the inevitability of long-term confrontation with reality and thus, the value in actually addressing
reality and making something good of it, instead of running away from it into the arms of illusion. Heroin
addiction and most religion fit this profile as well.

In the end, the Internet People provide a firm example of the disease of our time, which is the same
whether political or philosophical or spiritual or behavioral: a cognitive dissonance response to reality
because of a lack of heroism. Heroism is what makes us get up and face unpleasant truths, in order to
triumph over them by converting disorder into order and misery into beauty. We cannot fix death, perhaps,
but we can make life so good that death is paltry. That is the heroic outlook, and it is totally missing among
the deluded. Their fear is greater than their desire for a good life, and they want to drag the rest of us into
their cesspool of hopeless fear, underconfidence, denial and masturbatory pleasures. In this, the Internet
People - and all who think like them, whether millionaires who look like Brad Pitt or crack whores with AIDS
- are fundamentally cowards, and by running away from life they guarantee that no matter how much they
"succeed" in society or on the Internet, they will never have taken life on its own terms, and made
something of it. Their mentality is that of slaves. For this reason, they deserve scorn and to be shoved
aside by those for whom fear is secondary to achievement.

October 19, 2005

Nightmusic
Listen to the night, the next time you're up when others are asleep. Everyone has gone to a grateful sleep
after whatever they believed would fill their days. Cars go by as others rush to amusement, but the traffic
is slower than in daytime, and therefore it is fitful, spurts of lost souls racing over the concrete desert in
search of - something: who cares. It is now you alone with the night, with the emptiness, with the lack of
certainty, and with that, your future death.

When you are young, of course, it is less present on your consciousness. I'll die, some distant day, you
think. Or maybe beneath the level of consciousness that puts things into words you don't believe it will
happen to you. That's what goes on with old people, you think, and I'm not old - I have no signs of aging.
Perhaps this is why young people like John Keats, afflicted with the certainty of fatal tuberculosis, or those
who go bald or grey prematurely, have a wisdom that others do not: they've already seen the death curve
and know their time is marked and running out. Slowly, however.

This is not to believe in the fear of death, but to remember to tell death to fuck off via the only means you
have of understanding it: recognizing its certainty, and since there is no way of stopping it, finding
something to make life worthwhile. To recognize death is to praise life. To feel the emptiness of the night
and its lawlessness stir your soul is to accept what you want in the daytime, or that you might have the
same things in the face of night: after all, you are the captain of this ship you call your life, and being a
good nihilist, you recognize that your life won't mean anything to anyone but you. If you get famous, they
remember a name, but they will not know your consciousness. They may remember your art or deeds, but
how much of that is you? No: you pass on to dust, as does all knowledge of you. The consciousness that is
you literally disappears, or ceases to be.

These morbid meditations will free you, however, in the only sense of the word "free" that is meaningful.
You will not gain some absolute freedom, or immortality, as in Jewish-Christian fairy tales, but you will
"free" yourself from the mental hell that comes with illusion and denial. Want to beat death? There is only
one way: accept death by realizing how much death is needed for life to have meaning. Eternal life... what
would you do? You would follow pleasures, or maybe learned pursuits, but either way, your life would have
no shape, no form. It would be a series of days. There would be no sweetness in a young love affair, or a
family, since that could happen at any time. You'd have innumerable affairs, do uncountable things, and at
some point, would face your boredom and find some excuse to die. I didn't notice it was loaded, honest!

It's the temporal nature of life, in part, that makes it sweet. Your time is unique. The choices you make in
spending it are delicious. There is a world of conquest in saying "I will do this, but not that." When you
make such divisions, you are lord of your own world, in a way that places everything else secondary to you.
There is no certainty, but you make a decision anyway; you are telling the world that for your own
purposes, you are better informed than they are. And you will not make every decision correctly, but that
makes the winning ones far more treasured than a random win, as in a lottery, could ever be. Everything
that you have in a metaphysical sense will be things you have built for yourself. Can one imagine a greater
poetry than this? The infinite void spans dimensions we cannot even visualize, and yet, somewhere in the
midst of it, there is a center of warmth and light that is one's own personality, one's will, one's choices and
joys.

We fail to understand the universe because we approach it from a linear, rational aspect. X +/- Y = some
tangible result. What if the universe operated emotionally instead? Its goal is not to churn raw materials
into product, and to call it "progress" and congratulate itself on being enlightened - its goal is experience,
and the feelings that motivate a desire for the same. Why else would life exist? Surely not from some
chemical necessity. More likely, there is a consciousness to (but not outside of and controlling) the
universe, a unifying principle in the cosmos, and it loves the poetry. It delighted in the sensual contrast of
the big bang, between a void so profound it extended to a lack of matter, and then the sudden impulse,
the orgasm of exploding data becoming for the first time (this iteration) somethingness . There was that
moment of shock where nothingness realized its lack of something, and that very realization created a
somethingness, since to know that something can exist is to have made something out of that very
thought.

When we look at this poetic universe, we understand the beginnings of idealism. Life is this giant gift that
kisses us with its shock of discovery, like a love affair in the teenage years a balance between good and
terrible, the goods being so amazing that we cannot describe them, and the lows so profound that our
souls shudder and tear at the thought. The contrast is like freefalling in infinite space, or even the lack of
space; much as on a painting the brightness of colors is defined by the difference between all colors on the
contrast, instead of an absolute, in our lives experience is defined not by some absolute ("good","best
value","evil") but by the stream of experience and the differences between its parts. Meaning "is" not;
meaning occurs in our minds as a response to what we have known, and we must know something before
its opposite has sense. Without pain, pleasure would be a mediocre sensation.

Our world works like our thoughts. Our thoughts are a product of the world. Without our world, our
thoughts would have no context or meaning. Without our thoughts, our world would go unnoticed and thus
all of our days would have the same impact upon us, leading to a mundane sort of boredom which, if we
look at it critically, would be as much of a hell as a heaven where nothing could go wrong and therefore we
would exist in a state of perfect tedium in stasis, forever and ever, amen. These permanent beingnesses
would bore us to tears, and thankfully, they do not exist - it is instead our poetic one and only life that
grasps us, and gives us meaning between the dark and the light, such that we have a situation forced
upon us in which we either make meaning or drown from the lack of it. Can you feel its beauty?

Now, it makes no sense to wax spacy about all of this. Idealism is well and good, but it has two
components. The first is that both reality and thought have a common ancestor or thread, and the corollary
to that says that if we wish our thoughts to become known, we have to carve them out in what we know
as physical reality. Your thoughts are profound? Make them so: the world is thought, but thought is of the
world, so you must create it by action. "Action" does not necessarily imply the typical idiocy advocated by
the Internet people - not just people using the Internet, but people who thrive on the virtuality of the
experience, "the Internet people" - of the form of demonstrations, or terrorist acts, or pointless attempts to
call attention to ourselves with a narrow guise of ideology as camouflage. Action can mean planting a
garden, or starting a war, or writing a book, or cutting a CD, but it only applies when this virus or creation
is successful and perpetuates itself. Another bedroom CD-R of music "that matters to me, even if no one
else wants" - who cares? If you really felt that way, you would have hummed it to yourself; instead, your
excuses are all too visible as the product of a lack of confidence and a fear of rejection. If you make music,
thrust it into the world, such that the world changes from its touch. That alone is action.

Our deeds are thoughts, insofar as for the world to think, the ideas must leave the individual and be
communicated through space and time and other beings in order to become manifest, to become
incarnate, to become corporeal. And what greater way to increase the poetry of existence? To die with a
pure thought of realistic poetry on one's lips, even if dying in defeat, is to be achieve a metaphysical victory
beyond the bounds of those who never tried; it is greater to die having achieved victory, and knowing that
one's idea and contribution is spreading like wildfire across the dry surface of earth. The idea is greater
than the life, as the life is a product of the idea - that concept should perhaps be allowed to ferment in the
partial form whereby herewith it is expressed. Life is poetry, and poetry is ideas in contrast with
nothingness, a perpetual restatement of the process that brought us somethingness in the first place. The
big bang? Or the big Eureka!

When you have accomplished the thoughts necessary to digest the above, come back down to earth:
nihilism alone is real. Nihilism is the process of removing illusion and staring straight into the world as it is.
You cannot will it to be your personal reality; the world is "objective," oh yes, in that it is consistent
regardless of your desires for it. "The world is my representation" does not mean "the world is as I desire
it," only that world is known through our thoughts of it. And our thoughts can be misinformed, or
inaccurate. The smaller the degree of inaccuracy, the greater our success in manifesting our ideas. Sound
familiar? It is similar to the scientific method, but where that is linear, this formulation remains open-ended,
because life as we experience it is far from linear. Nihilism is a removal of all human artifacts from thinking.
It reduces belief to perception, social pressures to observation, and emotion to assessment.

How can the world be both ideas and physicality, outside of the grim fact that ideas (the product of a
electrochemical reaction called a brain) are part of physical reality? One example is biology. We are
genetics, but our thoughts influence genetics. If we choose to attempt greater acts, we have a higher
chance of losing our lives, but if we succeed, greater influence and wider breeding. If our thoughts lead to
higher actions, we play higher stakes, and if our thoughts are disciplined, we might win out. In this way
thoughts become not only actions but a genetic heritage by which one's offspring are more likely to behave
in similar ways. The crowd would like to believe that at least - at least - 80% of our actions are not
determined by genetics, but that's the usual wishful thinking for an equality to obliterate the differences in
ability and appearance between us.

Life ain't fair. Intelligent people accept that. Creeping, craven, lying, cognitive dissonance cases and
parasites cannot, so they snap back with what they think are convincing arguments. Of course, since most
of humanity is brick stupid when it comes to structural argument, most people accept these ideas.
However, that in itself is proof of the genetic argument: most people are undifferentiated fools because
their ancestors have had little clarity or consistency to their breeding, and thus, are the ones nodding their
heads sagely when such foolish lies are presented. Genetics is not "fair" when you compare it on the level
of the individual, but it's much better than fair when one looks at history over time. Those who may not
have been given the most comfortable place to live or easiest path advance by making intelligent,
disciplined decisions, and this equalizes the natural disparity between someone living in a jungle (easy food,
warm) and someone living in an icy forest (hard to find food, freezing). In this light, genetics is not only
fair, but it's an ingenious form of long-term RAM: if people's genetics encode decision trees, it enables
evolution to over time produce individuals with highly abstracted decision-making skills. DNA reflects design,
which is an abstraction, but it is encoded in a firm and tangible method. Thoughts form reality; thoughts
form reactions which through natural selection, eventually form this code - closer to thought than anything
else - which forms reality.

In the same light, we can look at culture and history and see how these are similar methods of encoding
thought into physicality. Culture reflects the shared values of a population as established over many
generations. Those within a culture succumb to evolution according to its design. Those who naturally live
well within that values system, and find it to help their lives, will breed more than those who do not (at
least in healthy times, unlike the present, where any idiot who gets a job can breed as much as he is able
to tolerate filling out welfare forms). Values systems come into conflict throughout history, and while at first
it seems that popularity - lower taxes here, laxer laws about drugs, more whores - will predominate much
as climate influences genetics itself, what ultimately determines the difference between a "great" civilization
and a merely servicable one is value systems. Great civilizations push themselves, and push their citizens to
act not just for the collective but for an abstract ideal which is more universal than the problems in which it
will be applied. These civilizations develop more thoroughly and thus, while they're always susceptible to
being outnumbered and slaughtered, when it comes to achievement and leadership they dominate.
Thoughts become value systems become culture, which is then used to shape genetics, and thus exists as
a physical pattern alongside another physical pattern, which is the course of history, in which those with
more stringent value systems rise above others. Thoughts compete in a form of evolution like that we
encounter in reality. They are then transferred into pattern design which influences reality, and eventually,
becomes part of it.

The third form in which it is imperative to study thoughts becoming reality is intellect itself. Our thoughts
do not occur in a vacuum, but built upon other thoughts. In order to reach this state, through time we
approach any question or problem by attacking its biggest questions first, and drawing conclusions from
them, and then building conclusions onto those conclusions until we finally have a tower of logical relations.
Since we manage not a few thousand details but millions, when one considers the actual likely number of
factors in any multilayered contemplation, it soon becomes necessary to re-assess one's entire concept of
the world according to this pyramid of related ideas. In that impulse, these ideas switch from being
observations to being valuations, and at that point, the pyramid reflects a method of assessing and
analyzing reality as whole; by the very nature of our minds, in which methods of analysis occur before the
subject being analyzed, it is thus that thoughts about something become more real than the thing itself,
since our perceptions, after all, are only thoughts themselves. Our active thoughts become our
assumptions, which then become the mental image of the world (how one knows, without direct
experiment, how to predict the response of reality toward any given action). We act upon this image, and
thus our thoughts become reality.
If thoughts dictate reality, and reality represents thoughts, then clarity of thinking is of the ultimate
importance (hence some of us being zenlike nihilists).

To my mind, what has happened with humanity is no different than what happens to an untended garden:
weeds crop up, order is lost, and thus there's no efficient breeding. Unlike a forest, it was never good for
this kind of order, therefore is a mess. If the land is forest, it is okay. If it is garden, it is okay. In a state
in-between, there is nothing but breakdown. Such is the occurrence of humanity now. All of its problems
relate back to a lack of order. We are ruled by the crowd, and through their need for competition,
consumerism, and thus our values decay. But what caused this crowd rule? A lack of agreement on
leadership and, simply put, the weeds outnumbering the gardeners. That is also why "nothing has been
done." If 2 people out of a thousand can understand the problem, they face 998 people they either have to
manipulate, murder or drug before they can make any positive change. The six thousand people who can
figure it out in the USA, for example, have no desire to take on a losing battle, as the braver National
Socialists in Germany and ultra-brave Ted Kaczynski did. They're going to live the good life if they can, and
get ready to abandon the rest of these morons the instant the Chinese attack. They hate those morons
because morons enforce upon us a collective version of reality, based in artificial anthrocentric values and
perceptions, as only that makes them feel immune to death and to the inequality of nature.

People love the artificial human reality because it is equalizing and it is safe. No reason for complicated
thinking or doubt; it eliminates ambiguity and makes mortal questions (real reality) secondary to our
shared worldview and values system. God, money, products, dogma: these are tangible and yet universal,
as we see them. They are safer than death. The Crowdist is one who is unstable without this ambiguity
crusher, thus one who is dependent on the Crowd for a vision of reality. This is the source of Underman
philosophy: a fear of the real world, and therefore, a retreat into a world of what we all agree are
comfortable, easily digestible, non-threatening "truths." The more radically reality threatens to intervene,
the more extreme the Crowd becomes about imposing this "truth" upon its world; it is classic cognitive
dissonance at work. Ambiguity is the dark side of the infinite, and the Undermen values fear more than
ambition, and therefore would suppress the Infinite so that the Safe can prevail.

These Undermen form a vicious little community which is, in fact, the majority, because it appeals to those
with no skillsets beyond the immediate. Undermen can be rich or poor; undermanness is determined by
spiritual attitudes. They can often be found referring to movies as if they're something important you
should know about, or talking knowingly about different restaurants and amusements in town. They'll
discuss ideas they consider important and imply you should, too. Their single weapon: "the rest of us know
this," and it's not that they make it as a promise, more of a passing reference. Guilt. Passivity. Parasitism.
Conformity. "Authority." Commerce. Bureaucracy. These are all weapons of the Undermen, as they are
weapons which are not even considered by those of leadership capacity; leaders are too busy trying to
change reality to use a fake reality to manipulate people radically dumber than themselves. Undermen,
however, need a palce to hide.

There is no doctrine to which you can run to escape Undermen, nor any doctrine which encompasses
Undermandom. Most Christians are Undermen, but many are also not; it depends on how you interpret
Christianity. If you're an Underman, you'll interpret it as Underman dogma, where a healthy person will
view it from the standpoint of healthy person dogma, and thus see it as a subset of that. Some things are
clearly tools of Undermen - democracy, in its populist sense - but this does not mean their creation was
designed to empower Undermen. It was probably a benevolent gesture which was blind to the depravity of
most people, something which arises from their fundamental ability to make long-term decisions. The only
doctrine which explains Undermen is the psychology of Undermen itself. Where the rest of us explore the
idea that thoughts influence physical reality, Undermen look for a "safe" form of this and translate it into
the idea that socially-acceptable fantasies are equal to reality. That is illusion, and as illusion always leads
to failure, a diseased mental state. Next time you look up at the night sky, and reflect on the poetry of life,
resolve to pursue the healthy mental state of realism - even with all of its horrors and beauties, the contrast
forming poetry - instead of succumbing to the brain-numbing, soul-killing, logic-ablating virus of Underman
dogma.

October 23, 2005

Learning to Fly
In ancient literature, a common motif was that in order to find the truth of a complex situation, one had to
visit the land of the dead and ask a spirit. The spirit - someone who is not living, and does not have human
desires and emotions - then reveals the truth of the situation. It is as if life itself is an addition to the
structure of events, and that the dead can see structure, because it takes a mind dead of emotions and
fears to reveal structure, which roughly corresponds to an enlightened Platonism, or a view that there are
ideal forms upon which reality is roughly patterned.

What is structure? The function and underlying shapes of transaction of energy in a situation. The structure
of a forest involves trees trapping sunlight and converting it into products that feed other life forms; then
still other forms harvest varying parts of plant and animal life, creating a complex ecosystem. We can
diagram said ecosystem, draw it in language, or film its parts and associated numbers (28% of all squirrels
are eaten by homosexual bears). These representations of structure do not diminish the fact that, whether
or not it "exists," structure is the only accurate way of mapping events and objects.

Some people, and some religions, take Platonism too far. They assume that structure is somehow a pure,
dualistic world, and that we live in an inferior world of rendering (structure is the blueprint, rendering is
what is created from it in physical reality). This is not what Plato was suggesting, in the view of this author.
He was saying that our consciousnesses become ensnared on the details of physical and tangible objects
and events, while forgetting the relationship between them, the flow of energy, the actual transaction of
significance; the structure. He was saying that we get caught up in our senses and lose sight of the way
things interact to form our world, and thus we become materialistic, or confined to the physical world and
unaware of the world of structure.

Where this gets tricky is that structure does not, for all practical purposes, "exist." The closest we get are
encoded blueprints like DNA; show me the structure of a chair, for example, as it exists. You can point out
the design of the chair, outline its structural points, and summarize in abstract language or mathematical
formulae what a chair is. But the structure of chair, something which would have to be inherent to all
chairs, doesn't "exist" - it is an abstraction of our minds. This does not change the fact that it is a vital part
of chairness, and that without some idea of that structure, one cannot create a chair. In this we see that
the only dualism in Plato is a division between mind (structure) and body (physical reality). Even in those,
there is overlap; Plato is clearly not suggesting a dualistic system in the Judeo-Christian sense, where
Heaven "exists" somewhere in a purer world than this half-evil, half-good one.

(Side note: every intelligent Christian I've ever met has overcome dualism as a concept by recognizing that
God is the world, and the world is God, and that when we speak of God, we're speaking of something like
structure that is inherent but does not "exist" discretely in the same way a blueprint or shotgun might. All
religions, if meditated on enough, become something like the Hindu or Greco-Roman religions, where gods
represent parts of our psychology and the psychology of nature as a joined force of a similar nature, and
nothing is promised, and heaven is a state of mind and not a place. Encouraging those Christians who have
the brains to understand it toward this state is a more sensible goal than "fighting" Christianity. Christians
have the ability to change unlike those poor souls stranded in Judaism, a materialism-monistic religion
which attempts to disguise its morality as practicality, thus falling back on the only genre of thought where
such things are true: business, and materialist ethics arising from its rules. It is no surprise every civilized
nation has at some point persecuted the Jews; their religion is disgusting, inherently anti-heroic, and will
drag any nation into the toilet if given a chance to be assimilated.)

For the ancients, the dichotomy between design (structure) and manifestation (form, physicality) was
profoundly drawn, because they were idealists in the philosophical sense: to them, nature behaved in the
same way that governs the creation and nurturing of thoughts, so they saw the world as a system that
worked like a mind. To them, this meant that thoughts (creatures, individuals) were created on an ad hoc
basis for the purpose of testing hypotheses, and what matters at the end of the day is that those creatures
bearing important hypotheses survive and the insane hypotheses do not. Each of us is a test design, in the
view of the ancients, and may the best prevail! What matters is not our suffering, not our deaths, not our
wealth, not our social importance, but the prevalence of better ideas and designs through heroism. For
them, the universe was empty of manifest gods, but it was far from empty, in that it was a living thing in
which we like thoughts attempt to rejoin its infinite wisdom by fighting it out. When one warrior stands over
the bloodied corpse of another, the ancients surmised, a better design or concept has won. It is for this
reason that they had, like most of us have bred into us, a rigid concept of fairness. With fairness, heroism
was possible. When cheating became the norm, heroism took a back seat toward self-preservation - who
wants to die for a rigged contest, which decides nothing? - and thus society drifted toward Judean
materialism. Sad day, that was.

This form of idealistic belief was more realistic than any of the "moral" belief systems that countered it,
because it fit in with the organic systems that operated around it. It did not try to impose square, rigid,
materialistic moral concepts onto an unruly nature, but sought to understand nature's design (and came
closer than anyone else has, to this day). It did not pretend it could make things better with "right" and
"wrong," but developed a flexible morality based not on survival (murder = wrong) but fairness (a just fight
is the will of the gods). Its core concept was explaining how nature and human thought were alike, and
thus, how a higher state of mind could be found that showed why this world, with all of its goods and evils,
ultimately makes sense and leads toward a positive goal. This is idealism, but it cannot occur without a
counterpart, which is what is symbolized by a visit to the land of the dead: a stilling of the mind that
removes the drama and trauma of living, and looks only at structure, not at tangibility. It is no longer a
hamburger you can taste, but nutrition that empowers you to do certain things; it is no longer a sensual
experience as much as it is a step toward a goal; it is no longer a material value of fixed nature ($8.95) but
a flexible value placed on being able to get to the next stage of the process, and if it requires a
hamburger? -- it is possible no cost is too high, or too low.

Realizing this moral flexibility, and land-of-the-dead style mental state, is essential to moving beyond the
human condition to accept the place of humans in the entirety of things, and thus to derive an idealism
which sees possible higher states. One cannot live until one has died, so to speak, because one has not yet
recognized the value of living. And what might a modern call this state of mind, this pessimistic Zen, this
clarity of deathlike thought? Some time ago, a modern thinker of note but no fame called it "nihilism." His
point was that when one strips aside all but physical, immediate reality, it is possible to derive the structure
of things and thus their actual value. In this view, nihilism is not the lack of belief, faith and caring about all
things; we refer to that, more accurately, as "fatalism," or in the vernacular, having given up and running
home crying to Mommy with your testicles in a lunch sack. Nihilism is a clarity of mind that removes illusion
and specifically, human illusion, including emotions and desires and anthrocentricisms and self-interest.

(It is of note that most people coming through this site are so cynical they assume what we've written
about it is boilerplate, and go elsewhere for definitions of nihilism, coming up with "belief in no value" or
variants thereof, and immediately begin considering themselves superior for finding the truth of no truth,
and start hassling others for believing in anything. They have, of course, forgotten that believe in no value
is belief in something ("no value") and thus that their criticisms are, of course, impotent and pointless.
Such people do not care about philosophical truth; they care about finding some mental system to use as a
shield and form of self-identification, a way of saying "I figured it out this way" in the same way that others
use Christ, drugs, money, sex, belongings, the Army, etc. Our goal is not to assault these people, but we
aren't fooled either, and we see them for the aphilosophical future middle managers that they truly are.)

So nihilism...is not a total lack of belief? It's a total lack of inherent belief, yes; one clears the mind of all
preconceptions, then analyzes the situation, then makes a choice of action. Nihilism is a Zen state, a warrior
state, of having cleared aside all but structure so that when one acts, it is in concert with the way things
naturally turn out, and thus will have success of the longest-lasting and most profound variety. Those who
have too much of the illusion of life in their minds act according to the interests of creatures, and thus
often miss the point, the structure, the ideal of a situation... to be a nihilist is to clear your mind so that you
can always see past the form of a scenario to its organizing principles, and thus to effectively change is
however you see fit. Nihilism is not a belief system for those who want to believe in nothing, because of all
things, it assaults such emotional reactions ("I'm taking my toys and going home, if you don't make
metaphysical value obvious to me now, Life!") first and demolishes them utterly. Nihilism is not an end
state, but an initial state, and a discipline that grows as one explores thought. Nihilism is learning to fly.
When one wants to learn to fly, one must first negate all one has learned about living on the ground.
Gravity is not absolute, and it can be bent. The wind isn't weak, but strong, and you don't resist it like a
stolid building, but find the right way to cut it, and it's like getting energy from the gods. The sky isn't blue,
but degrees of blue and black depending on how far you go. Clouds aren't solid, or soft, but are like ghosts
in the air, and they're always moving. So is everything, but you can tell more when you're flying. Learning
to fly requires that you forget and destroy everything you knew about being a two-footed, meaty land
creature. Your bones too can be hollow, and your fingers grow wings, if you see the path before you is not
a path at all, but a compass of a very advanced sort. Flying, one moves in three dimensions; on earth, one
generally moves in two, mapped to the surface, with rare exceptions for tree climbing and astronomical
flatulence. But when one flies? Up and down join forward and back and left and right, and each must
suddenly have not only degrees, but some point of reference. Everything is relative, including relativity
itself, which is relative to all things, much as nihilism reduces "nihilism" itself. Learning to fly requires the
discipline of a clear mind.

(Interestingly, those who resist this doctrine the most are those who complain the most about Christians,
liberals, other races, etc. yet fail to realize that while they're not supporting the same groups, they're
supporting the same conditions that got us to the state where these groups are in conflict. Individualism is
a dead-end street, because it places the individual before all else, and is basically a radicalized form of
materialism. Follow this path and you out-Christian the Christians, and are well on the way to heading back
down the evolutionary ladder and becoming Jewish. Most kiddie "nihilists" fall into this category. They want
to come up with one good reason why they shouldn't do anything but complain, and keep goofing off with
video games and drugs and garbagoid heavy metal music. They think "nihilism" will do it; if you don't
believe in anything, you just keep goofing off. Little do they know that true nihilism of that sort wouldn't
allow them to even enjoy their GTA III and bong hits, and that nihilism for a thinking person - a non-
trivialized, non-anthrocentric one - is something else entirely.)

My advice to any who wish to pursue the truths in the world, or to change the world: for you to alter the
state of existence, you must first know exactly - and not in vague college-esque we can bullshit whatever
paper you want ma'am terms - the changes you would make to its structure. You might not be able to do
this, inherently; if the gods did not grant you with the brains, or the moral will, or the judgment, you will
fail. No one can educate you into a higher state of mind. Even if you are of the ability, there is no
guarantee you can pull this off. You must first discipline your mind, or it will be like standing on a boat in a
storm trying to shoot an arrow at a floating target. You now know the basics of the esoteric discipline of
nihilism, which will lead you first to realism and next to idealism and finally, to transcendence. Are you
ready for this path? If so, my best faith and wishes for you. And one more thing - to fly, you must lighten
the load you carry, and infuse joy into your soul so that it rises joyfully, without care for its own dead,
toward the sun spinning above in an infinite cycle of energy exchange.

October 28, 2005

Definitions
Sometimes it helps to have a few basic terms spelled out in the simplest form possible. While this article
does not attempt to dumb down any of these ideas, it does give you the elemental structure, although you
- the reader - will probably have questions owing to the elusive nature of many of these concepts at initial
contact.

Nihilism

Removal of value that is not directly relevant to reality. We exist in the same world, and interact in ways
that can be predicted, given a study of repeatable actions and responses. Therefore, while we can noodle
on about whether or not reality is "real," it is for all intents and purposes as real as anything can be.
Nihilism is a belief in nothing, which if you unpack it linguistically, means a positive belief in the value of
nothing. Nothingness can be applied to all of our neuroses, fears, impressions, and the illusions produced
by poor interpretation of our own senses. What is left is a clearer view of reality. We may never have 100%
clarity in viewing our world, but the closer we get the more powerful we become. Thus nihilism strips aside
anything that comes between us and a perception of structure and context in the world. Most of these
"preprocessor directives" originate in our emotional and socialized responses to the world, which demands
we categorize certain actions as "good" or "bad" for the sake of keeping all of us here in the crowd on the
same page. Nihilism is not a belief system for followers, although many followers claim to believe in it. It is
like Zen consciousness: a removal of illusion, a focus of the perception facilities, and a joining of the
imaginative and analytical minds. In doing so, we transcend our position as individuals and mortal beings,
and are able to see the world as it is, infinite and continuous and extending far beyond our own lives.

Structure

This term is almost indefinable, but it refers to the internal relationship of parts that forms a whole to any
given thing, and the transfer of energy or support of form therein. When we speak of a chair, its structure
can be summarized as a certain number of legs supporting a platform which in turn supports a chairback;
no matter what the chair looks like, this physical relationship will be expressed. Structure does not exist; it
is our perceptive mind finding common relationships between objects; however, structure also quasi-exists
in that its functional relationship is essential to the existence of objects or events. Structure is what we see
in abstraction when we look at things in our physical world. While anyone can call something a chair, it
takes mental energy to understand what makes a chair a chair, and how to build one. Theory is the study
of structure. Plato suggested in his famous metaphor of the cave that we see shadows cast by a fire as our
metaphorical reality; outside the cave, there are objects, and in our minds these leave silhouettes which are
structure.

Context

All things are relative, and all things are relative to the whole. The interaction of different relative parts
produces context. Context is surroundings and natural forces.

Reality

That part of the world which is external to us, and consistent, and provides sustenance to us and takes our
lives as it sees fit. Specifically, its description as physical objects or structural concepts with immediate
correlation to physical objects. (Translation: the world outside you, minus your thoughts and emotions and
blue book valuations, et cetera.)

Crowdism

When one looks at life analytically, it is clear that it has many different parts which operate best in certain
contexts; to think non-linearly is to understand that each has its place contributing to the whole, operating
in parallel. Crowdism is the desire expressed by the greatest number of us, who have no facility for
leadership and no ability to think past the direct consequences of their actions, for linearity, so that none
are above or below others. It is an emotional response to the inequality of nature, and is oblivious to the
fact that in nature equality is achieved through the singular beauty of life which can be experienced by all.
Crowdism is a revenge impulse which wishes to destroy those who have exceptional abilities or who have
risen above the crowd; it is the ultimate in-group, out-group response. Crowdists by definition do not think
of long term implications to their potential actions, and thus are terrible rulers, but as they think
emotionally and their thinking is limited to their own desires, they wish not to have any above themselves
as they find it insulting to their generally low-self-esteem personalities. While anyone who is incapable of
seeing beyond the immediate consequences (linear thinking) of their actions is an Underman, Crowdists are
those who take being an Underman and make it into a political statement: tear down the superior, exalt
the inferior, and we'll all be "equal." Unfortunately, emotional reactions fare poorly in the real world, as it is
much more carefully constructed than some out of control cognitive dissonance resopnse, and therefore, as
history shows us, Crowdism destroys every civilization where it gains predominance. However, it seems
Crowdism is a part of the life span of every civilization, usually immediately preceding its demise into third-
world status, because as civilizations grow their citizens take them for granted, and seek to "improve" upon
a model they do not understand as they have not known struggle. Crowdism, then, is like getting fat: a
result of idleness and lack of clear view of reality. Crowdism can take on any host, whether Communism or
National Socialism, Greenism or Christianity. The only response to Crowdism is an insistence upon
meritocracy, including of bloodlines, so that one can create a leadership caste which sequesters the detailed
knowledge necessary for rulership. However, the only kind of society that can maintain such a caste is one
with a rigorous ascetic tradition, and a desire to remove the excessive mediocre people who will otherwise
gain a numerical majority, demand "democratic" representation and thus overrule those better suited to
lead. The previous sentence is a servicable description of what has happened to the West, and why it is
now in crisis.

Materialism

This term is misunderstood: in the philosophical sense, it means a belief that the physical world is all that
exists, and all that is valued. Interestingly, this precludes idealism, because in a materialism view, nothing
can be higher than material good/bad, thus comfort is more important than some ideal or abstract goal.
Materialism is the belief of cosmopolitan (no inherited culture) and Judaic societies worldwide. It has never
been adopted by any group with a clear ethnic lineage and connection to land and a form of universal
spiritual belief.

Idealism

The belief that life operates much as our thoughts do, and that it is likely they have a common ancestor;
this opens the door to analysis of the mathematics behind existence, which at its most abstract level is the
foundation of metaphysics. Idealism as a prescriptive belief places a higher value on correct thoughts than
on material consequences; it is the opposite of materialism. As a descriptive belief, it affirms that evolution
and our own scientific method of thought have similar origins and function. Idealism is the one truly
masculine belief system, in that it operates as follows: 1. Analyze world. 2. Determine optimum structure.
3. Impose it upon physical reality. 4. Death is no defeat. It suggests the possibility of a higher plane of
continuous structure to reality, whereby our thoughts join with the thoughts of the world, in a combination
between analysis and imagination. Interestingly, European knights and Zen masters and quantum physicists
all seem to stalk this same plateau of understanding.

Undermen

Undermen (if you're an Underperson, you'll demand we use that gender-neutral term) are those who
resent others and believe we should all be equalized. They do not recognize that every state in life is holy,
and that the collaboration of these states produce the whole. They have the idea that somehow rats are
evil, the anus is evil, death is evil, etc. without realizing that these things are essential to the survival of
something better than good, which we call "meta-good," a state that requires both positive (good) and
negative (bad) elements in order to keep going. Without death, life would be endless pointless time.
Without defecation, more eating would not be so beautiful. Without rats, the forest would clutter with
waste. To be beyond good and evil is to recognize this relationship, and to embrace your life whatever
your stature - wealthy businessman, plumber, janitor, soldier, or homeless crack-addicted bum. Undermen
come from every social class, every walk of life, and every persuasion. It is an attitude. Higher-bred
Undermen are more capable, and thus more destructive; Undermen are produced through tribal mixing, as
it shatters the contiguous evolution of a specialized value system in the individual, and leaves them to
invent their own, which, unless they're a philosophical genius with lots of free time, usually ends up being
some form of Crowd revenge or another (Jesus Christ, V.I. Lenin, George Bush: high-bred, mixed-breed
Undermen). Those who accept their stature in life without revenge and look upon life as holy are not
Undermen, even if they're impoverished crack-addicted homeless bums. Those who wish revenge and
resent those who have better abilities or traits than themselves are secretely revengeful against nature and
life's order itself, as they distrust and fear evolutionary process, and they are Undermen, even if they're
fantastically wealthy, good-looking and surrounded by admirers. For the observant, this is nature's justice:
character and internal will are the only judgments of worth that matter, because all else is window dressing.

Exoteric

Any belief which externalizes its structure of advancement, which by the nature of external things as
unpredictable, requires it have a single layer of approval. Any organization, church, or social club where if
you walk in the door and sign on the dotted line and are considered a member, by its nature, is exoteric. It
is a linear form of belief.

Esoteric

Any non-linear belief system, such as one that internalizes its structure of advancement. These systems
tend to be open to all, and recognize that only inside of the individual - heart and mind - can advancement
be made. They are direct opposites to exoteric systems.

Parallelism

The knowledge that there is no single linear "right way" of doing things, but any number of approaches to a
problem, and that they can exist if segregated, as they do not mix. What may be right for one group is evil
for another; what may work for one person is evil for another; what may be perfect at one moment is
destructive in another. For some people, living like reckless hedonists and dying young is the perfect
fulfilment of existence; for others, living conservatively and growing old surrounded by family is. In Israel,
Judaism and the Jewish ethnicity are perfection; in Germany, they are destruction. It is for this reason that
ethnic groups do not combine, social castes do not combine, and some individuals will never understand
others. What is important is recognizing that working in parallel, we achieve the perpetuation of this
amazing, beautiful world.

November 2, 2005
Voodoo Doll
When I was young, I rapidly learned to hate conservatives. They were bloated people of rigid minds who
devoted their lives to earning money and owning things, and they had a little list of what was OK and they
lashed out against anything that was not visibly on it. In fact, what bothered me the most was their
categorical mindset. They had no flexibility of thought. You either taught Creationism, or you were a devil;
never mind that evolution could be proof of the infinite genius of their God. You were either married, or a
slut; you were either Christian, or a heathen. Not to imply that they should have seen middle ground - after
all, that is in itself a complete fabrication in matters of ideals - but that they did not see the whole of the
order of the universe. They had an invariant, one-size-fits-all outlook that was convenient for condemning
others. It was like a sick little clubhouse.

Fast forward some years. I've now learned to hate liberals. They are not bad people, as conservatives
aren't bad people, but they are misinformed. Even worse, they are motivated by emotion and not holistic
thought, and their responses are as kneejerk as those of the conservatives. Either a certain belief is on
their whitelist of accepted ideas, or they lash out against it. They cannot see how traditional lifestyles fulfil
much of the liberal dream: local communities, ruled by leaders selected for wisdom and not (George W.
Bush) popularity with the lowbrow crowd, and a furtherance of culture, justice, knowledge and art. In fact,
liberals are willing more than anything else to destroy, even destroy all hope, so long as their one precious
hot-button issue is preserved: revenge against those who have more than others through equalization and
subsidization of the less-capable. They want to even humanity out into a race of clones, so that none are
above others.

This leaves me even more of a misfit than before, and unlike those who see politics as their personal
identity (most people from New York or London), I don't want a political identity, least of all misfits. I am
not concerned with the label of ideas, but the ideas themselves, and more importantly, the structure of
belief systems into which these ideas fit. There is no place for such thinking except in philosophy, and it like
all other aspects of Western culture, is steadily being absorbed by those who have the disease liberals and
conservatives have in common: rigid categorical thinking, based mostly in a desire to justify their own
lifestyles and empower their own self-image, e.g. "I am right for thinking this, and everyone else is wrong,
so whatever I want to do to them is justified."

I have more in common with the average people of the West than most politicians in that I seek not power,
not identity, but a practical lifestyle. Those of us with enough experience and mental focus to think through
the questions of life have long known that the flashy lifestyles of the city and entertainment culture are
meaningless; what matters in life are the intangibles, like friends, family and personal experience, especially
in achieving triumph over that which we fear and through that, ascendancy to a higher state of mind. They
used to call this transcendent thought, and all the writers and thinkers I've ever loved have idealized this
state of mind. Interestingly, so did the knights of ancient Europe as well as the Zen monks of ancient Asia.

When we think in practical terms, it no longer makes sense to passively look for a side to join and hope
that They will figure it all out through some mechanistic process. Wouldn't it be nice if life came down to
selecting one of two choices, and everything got basically peachy after that? Reality is more complicated:
both right and left are rotted like a gangrenous limb, and there is nothing we can do to redeem ourselves
by blindly supporting them. The only path is to pick the values we find meaningful, to envision a better
society, and to support that through any and all agencies that make themselves compatible to its aims.
With this in mind, it's hard to want to be a conservative, or a liberal.

Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Ronald Reagan, recently took aim at the war in Iraq. "We
ought to make it our duty to help make the world friendlier for the growth of liberal regimes," he said.
What he's referring to is the same thing Francis Fukuyama referenced in his book The End of History and
the Last Man, in which he suggests that the final state of human history is one of liberal democracy, human
and civil rights, and free economic enterprise and personal economic competition for all. Fukuyama and
Scowcroft (and Bush and Reagan and Clinton and Carter) repeat basically the same doctrine: we have
found a Utopian "progressive" design, and that is the society driven by equality of individuals and their
competition in open markets, open social situations, and other linear challenges. Like the conservative
Christian moralists, they see one way to redemption, and anything not on that holy ordained list is "bad" or
"evil" and must be crushed. This is the crux of modern Western thought, which combines the idealism of
the past with a focus on the individual and material comfort derived from Judaism, coming up with a belief
system that is anything but holistic. When we're feeling nice, we call it "anthrocentric." When we're not, we
say it's a kingdom of individual pretense that has no leadership, but is a circle of sheep chasing each other
in an attempt to manipulate popularity for personal profit.

History tells us that this revolution has been ongoing for two thousand years in the West, and that identical
breakdowns have happened in every great society, most notably that of the Greeks, who collapsed shortly
after discovering populist democracy and international trade. The individual - all individuals - became kings,
and thus, there was no consensus, and shortly, the mechanisms of society broke down and the weakened
civilization degraded itself to the point where it was quick work for foreign conquerors to destroy it. This
revolution has gained momentum since World War II, when superpowers competed on the basis of which
was morally more "progressive" than the other, and conservatism comprises one half of its pincer attack.
Like a wrestling match, the outcome is fixed, and the "competitors" bought, but they make a good show of
it because, win or lose, they'll take home a ton of money from keeping the proles amused.

Now we get into difficult territory: liberals allege that recent conservative electoral wins (George W. Bush)
have made some kind of vast difference. They haven't. Bush and Clinton are brothers in advancing the
agenda of worldwide liberalism, even if George W. Bush cloaks his agenda behind mumblings to the
evangelicals and traditionalists, and Clinton hides his own impetus behind platitudes to civil rights and
"freedoms." They're the same animal, because they've been produced by the same system and the same
assumptions, and therefore are not independent thinkers/leaders but those who fulfil a role. Their job is to
make money for themselves and their allies, and whatever window-dressing they use to obscure their
actual intention is fine, as long as it is popular. As a consequence, they've neatly paralyzed the electorate
by dividing it into two camps who form personal identities based on their political orientation, and forget
the underlying values and lapse in keeping their leaders accountable for upholding those values. (It's
redundant to point out that populist democracy, which hands the vote to any unqualified person over a
certain age, is destined mathematically to failure by the inability of that group to make decisions of the
complexity required. It's for this reason that history shows that every populist democracy ever created has
rapidly collapsed into selfishness, infighting, bickering, theft, graft and deception, then been conquered by
more literal minded - did I say The Chinese? - neighbors.)

How could such a system take place - is it a vast conspiracy? I'll say, firmly, it is not. People can collaborate
unconsciously if they work toward the same ends, or uphold the same basic outlook. For example, there
was no conspiracy to build housing, yet every early human group figured out how to do it. There is
similarly, no conspiracy here; what we are seeing is an emotional reaction that is inherent to any human
group, and its triumph over the past two millennia has been a product more of its simplistic, lowest
common denominator message - and swelling numbers of people who can live well within civilization, but
lack the discipline to survive in the wild, a product of civilization's strength in increasing ease of access to
food, shelter, medicine, and "learning" - than any grand plan. In fact, we could call it the "anti-plan."
Instead of providing an ideology for the future, or a holistic vision of how we could live better, its impetus
is a gesture as old as humanity: dividing up the spoils in such a way that every member of the crowd is
satisfied. It is pacification.

The disorganized, anti-plan, anti-conspiracy movement has triumphed through something I call the voodoo
doll approach. When you are faced with an enemy that unifies its constituents through a belief system,
there is one way to take it down that works every time. You build a replica of that belief system, but you
change a few things so that like a Trojan horse it slips into the population and like a virus, begins infecting
others with the changed outlook. It may take centuries, but gradually it will gain power, because most
people cannot tell the difference between it and the real belief that enabled the society to prosper. Even
better, sweeten it a bit and appeal to cognitive dissonance - tell people that they've been wronged, and
they deserve something for nothing, and they will rapidly fall in line behind the new belief. One can only
imagine that cancers in the human body act the same way, appearing to be normal cells but having an
agenda of reckless growth (the "anti-plan") which is not discovered until too late. Yet no one calls cancer a
conspiracy.
Conservatism is the voodoo doll that emulates traditional beliefs, but sells them out at its core. It is not
radically different except that its philosophy incorporates a different scope, and thus creates a changed
motive in those who uphold it. Where traditional societies were idealistic and holistic, meaning that people
did what was right by the whole of the society and its environment, instead of trying to do right by the
individual, modern societies are individualistic: their goal is to gain wealth and political equality for the
individual above all else, including all holistic concerns. The individual does what benefits him or her, and
lets someone else worry about the consequences. Conveniently, no one is worrying about the consequences
- where's the personal profit in that? - which makes it a perfect system for those who wish to accumulate
wealth, especially through means that while not illegal are, in a holistic sense, unethical. I include
pornographers, politicians and sellers of plastic garbage alike in that indictment.

Where tradition proposed a complete design of civilization, conservatism is a rider to the general agenda of
mass empowerment that is the revolution described above that has been consuming the west for two
thousand years (the West has died hard; it has taken a long time for this concept to have any momentum;
luckily for those who push it, they have no other options, and thus will attempt it perpetually).
Conservatism says, yes, let's go forward with the liberal society, but let's make our personal list of what is
approved include only things that sound like traditional values. But, of course, in a society of mass revolt,
the list needs to be something even an idiot can understand. So it is dumbed down, and then made even
dumber, until it reaches the point of being a list of categorical knee-jerk responses. At this point, it makes
perfect fodder for the wrestling match of politics, in that its categorical responses are blind to reality, and
therefore it constantly fails and gives its twin, liberalism, a chance to get in a few shots. The "voters" - a
term that implies that they make actual choices when casting votes - are bewildered and baffled, and thus
become increasingly balkanized, clinging to political symbols and emotions with which they can identify. (It's
only fair to mention again that populist democracy casts the responsibility of rule on those who are
inherently unable to do it; while they are fine people in everyday life, and it is not a character defect of
theirs, they are as out of luck as a car mechanic attempting to perform brain surgery. It's an entirely
different task from everyday life to lead a nation, or to pick a belief and political system which benefits it
holistically. Thus the voters do not even attempt it, and vote selfishly, casting their society into an early
grave through the resulting internal division, graft, etc. that this engenders.)

The Neoconservatives - mostly Jewish intellectuals and evangelical Christian drunkards and cocaine addicts
like George W. Bush - have formalized this membership. Conservatism is liberalism. Like mint iced tea, it's
still liberalism, just flavored with a sprig of token traditional values. If you don't believe this, ask what
conservatism has done for traditional values lately. Abortion? Banning abortion has not stopped the problem
of desperate people, trashy casual sex, and thus unwanted babies. Drugs? People are miserable and bored
and find their lives pointless, thus take drugs excessively. Conservatism hasn't addressed that issue at all.
What about crime? Depending on which way the wind blows, the statistics claim it's up or down, but that
does not change the base reality that it's out of control and impacts our lives negatively. What about
corporate power? A decline in culture? Lack of shared cultural values? Conservatism has failed on all of
these issues, and always will, because conservatism does not take the stance necessary to control these
issues: we need some form of society other than the mass individualized kleptocracy of liberal democracy.

Consider another issue: women. We are divided, permanently and inextricably, between feminists and
conservatives. Feminists want women and men to share a role in equality, have abortions and lifestyle
flexibility, and generally, to treat each other like commercial products in a jockeying for power.
Conservatives lash out with a doctrine that translates similarly into ownership of women, but this time, in
theory, women are given to men, who must then serve them and their corporate overlords alike in tedious,
conservative jobs. It's clear that feminism is deleterious to women, in that in the name of avoiding a
minority of marriages that were abusive and unhappy, it has converted women into a zombie army of
faceless single dropouts in their 30s and 40s, burned out sexually and emotionally and romantically by a
series of failed relationships in which both parties fought to keep power and, in the grand tradition of
crowds, shouted each other down and obliterated any possible direction. Feminism is crowd revenge -
equality - for women. It's not really any different than "White Supremacy," which supposes that if one is
mostly white one is entitled to rule over the other races of earth, except that it address only women.

Feminism has destroyed what made women unique, and what gave ancient cultures the ability to see them
as having a unique and invaluable role, and has made them more grist for the mill of commerce, throwing
them into careers like men and thus keeping both sexes in competition. Who benefits? Those who use
them for labor, of course. Did women benefit? There are all these rules about equality now, and a literal
smorgasbord of rhetoric, but in the end, what has happened now is that most of them are ending up in
unhappy relationships and the graces of femininity and its unique place in the universe are destroyed. Once
again, the crowd clamors for equality and thus destroys quality, dragging us all down to the lowest
common denominator. But when the choice is seemingly between blockhead conservative ownership, and
blockhead liberal ownership, are women given much of a choice? Not bloody likely.

Tradition saw no one-size-fits-all role for anyone. Women were not equal to men, but men were not equal
to men; each person was seen as having unique strengths and weaknesses, and thus a permanent position
in a social hierarchy. There was not economic competition, but this meant that people worked less and
spent more time developing themselves. There were unhappy marriages and abusive husbands, but those
were in the minority (and, amusingly, they still exist, showing us the complete failure of liberal feminist
rhetoric). Women had a role which was granted to them by nature and which could never conform to the
demands of ownership. It was not a function; it was not based on external traits alone; it did not assign
them a linear value through "competition." It granted them something that has been so wholly taken away
few now would even recognize it.

In the traditional worldview, one must look at the world as whole. All of us, and all of the elements of our
environment, work together to provide a singular reality which is seen as the greatest form of holiness
possible. It transcends the difference between gods and humans, as it includes both, and it is more than
mere ideas or mere physical reality, but an order which encompasses both. In this context, you did not own
a woman, nor did you compete with her as an "equal" as fodder for the capital machine. Men and women
together created something holy, which was the family and continuation of the species, and were not
obligated to each other but paired as a matter of opportunity (note to feminists: there have always been
single women and lesbians living out quiet lives, through all of history, and for the most part, they were
unmolested). A woman was something that graced one's life, and a partner in a lifelong quest to continue
that which made a life that not only created both partners but had treated them well. A woman and man
were the basis of a family. You did not "own" your woman, nor did you serve her, nor did she serve you; it
was an attitude of mutual worship grounded in worship of the whole, which was seen as greater than the
individual. Women had a unique place and were respected for what made them different, not what made
them workers like everyone else who could be owned by some dollars-and-cents business. What we've lost
in modern times is this reverence for life, and this mutuality, whereby a man and woman could see each
other as gifts to each other from the gods. Contrast that to "Sex and the City" and you'll see how shallow
modernity really is.

I call the mass revolt, the equalization, the pity culture, and the Jewish "individualism" by a more rightful
name: Crowdism. It is giving power to the crowd, and excluding the individual, most specifically an
individual who wishes to live on his or her own terms and be valuable for achievements, having beaten
fears and conquered doubt, and having sculpted out of raw existence a life which is rewarding. Crowdism
fears those who might be satisfied, and its solution is that we all - "equally" - are dissatisfied, and forever
snapping at each other and competing in trivial ways. The only people it makes happy are those who do
not and cannot think about the consequences of their actions, as they are simply glad to have revenge over
those more gifted by nature, and feel that this compensates somehow for their failings. Crowdism is
cowardice, because it denies to all of us the need to assert ourselves as individuals, conquer our demons,
and create in ourselves and our communities a sense of benevolence and higher order. Not everyone can
do that, and out of deference to those few (and a need to use them as footsoldiers in the revolution),
Crowdism wishes to drag us all to that unsatisfied, self-doubting, paranoiac level.

There are multitudinous other examples of why conservatism is garbage. It denies that the environment is
part of our whole existence, and wishes to sell it, also, to the machine. It denies the differences between
individuals and the fact that it's a stark choice between raising up the lowest, or promoting the highest;
with the latter, a civilization always has new mountains to climb, but with the former, the mountain is
reduced to a foothill so that everyone can climb and thus feel good about themselves. It's an illusion within
the human mind, an anthrocentricism so crass that it motivates people to treat their world and each other
with a subtly disguised form of scorn. Conservatism even fails in Iraq, where under the guise of bringing
"progress," we bring death and Coca-Cola, and absorb an ancient culture into our economic machine
whereby we all serve the low-brow interests of the Crowd. But hey, at least their women have "equality,"
so they can now be single and bitter in their 30s and 40s while patting themselves on the back for having
been handed their new rights.

The Crowd reminds me of an unstable family, where regardless of the consequences, it is felt that if
everyone is doing the same thing, "control" is in place and therefore, it'll all work out okay, somehow,
sometime, somewhere. The Crowd therefore has as its first tenet equality and the enforcement of one-size-
fits-all logic, and for that reason justifies that logic as "progressive," even if these people under freedom
seem more neurotic, single, desperate, sad and lonely than ever before. The Crowd doesn't care; it is
motivated by fear, not a desire for higher things. Those who have not been infected with the dogma of the
crowd think in a holistic sense, and realize that "One law for the ox and the raven is tyranny," and that,
much as there are many different species in nature, there will be many different types of humanity. It is
entirely OK for the women of Iraq to live as they have according to their tradition, and for some parts of
humanity to live according to the liberal-consmopolitan rhetoric that Judaism and liberalism endorse. The
holistic doctrine suggests that in different places, different orders will prevail, but the corollary to that is
that they will achieve different results. The Crowdists want a lowest common denominator, and the
conservatives want a form of that Crowdist logic, but me, I want it all. I want a society that constantly rises
to higher orders, based on reverence and mutual rhetoric, and I both desire and work toward that end. For
this reason, I'm a traditionalist. Conservatism is a subset of liberalism and I want nothing to do with either
of those revengeful, petty, blockhead doctrines.

November 5, 2005
Bleak
Wander down the road with me aways. You will be breathing exhaust, mostly invisible and indetectible
except for the drying of your lungs and throat. This road was once smaller, but now it's needed to carry
people out of the cheap apartments into the major arteries of the city. Occasional diesel trucks you can
smell; that exhaust is the most carcinogenic. So you walk past a convenience store, a donut shop, a hair
care salon, a record store. Now you wait at the intersection - so many cars! They pass.

You walk across the rubble of two curbs and into the parking lot. Cars are here, poised, and there's some
guy sitting in his with the engine running and loud violent music playing. Pass him by and go into the store.
A woman in an employee's uniform is exiting, carrying with her a case of Miller Lite. If you drink that stuff,
it'll give you cancer for sure; it's tapwater with beerishness injected, to keep it as cheap as possible. She
paid $10 for it, but it cost $0.40 to make. Good beer might cost $4.00 to make, so the guy who came up
with Miller Lite - and the $0.20 per case of advertising required to get generic people to buy it - must be a
genius.

Inside you look for bread. No, there is no bread. What do you mean? There's a shelf of bread. I mean
there's no bread with the ingredients in healthy bread: flour, water, eggs, milk, yeast, sugar, salt. All the
bread has ingredients lists longer than this article. So no bread, unless you want that to give you cancer as
well. Of course, there's plenty of stuff here that will kill you. The catfish fillets are on sale, but catfish sop
up industrial fertilizer and pesticides like sponges; do you really want to eat that? The ocean-caught fish is
full of mercury, dioxin and who knows what else.

So you go to get something simple, like maybe, onions. There is no price marked on them. They are, for
the most part, small. You can pay twice as much for the organic onions, but there are fewer of them. So
you'll be coming back, soon, unless you're cooking a small amount. Pass rows and rows of food in boxes.
Note that even the tortillas have extra ingredients you remember from a high school science class. What
happened to flour, lard and lime? They're low-fat now, but you have to ingest three preservatives and
several artificial flavor agents to get that low-fat buzz. Cancer, while thin. Progress.

There's a lack of any good looking tomatoes. Only the $3/lb "organic" ones look at all appetizing. You either
buy those, or lump it with the rest, and who knows what's been sprayed on them? By the time the tumors
carve you up, it'll be too late to blame anyone, least of all the poor guy who's just trying to make a buck
selling cheap tomatoes. On to meat, for the same situation. There's cheap red meat everywhere, just above
$2/lb, but you don't know what's in that. Do you trust these people and their judgment of what hormones
will kill you, and which won't? Well really, they're not thinking about it; it's not their job. Their job is to sell
meat.

They're playing sad love songs again. Some chick who got paid handsomely is droning on about how she
believes in love. Repeat it another time, maybe you'll believe it. Angry minorities walk past, wearing ethnic
gear like do-rags and Pancho Villa tshirts. Not all of them feel this way, of course; there are ethnic
minorities doing their best to act like the balding white manager. Their friends back home see them as sell-
outs. Do you? Well, no matter - you couldn't bring that topic up in conversation without alienating people,
and if it got back to your employer - well, good luck finding a new job, because gossip travels between
jobs.

In aisle five, there's a device for sale - $20 - that's shaped like a plastic onion. The idea is that you put a
special type of onion in it, and you can cook it in your microwave really easily. You know you'll get one at
Christmas, and like everyone else, throw it out in June. But there they are, next to essentials like fruit and
vegetables, so the guy who invented it must be making some real money. Important invention. He must be
a genius.

Wander out the checkout. The guy putting stuff in bags is stoned. Give him a friendly grin, because he has
another six hours on shift, at which point he can take the $40 he earns after taxes and put it toward -
something. The guy doesn't have the brains to invest it, doesn't have the education to understand it, and
will probably spend it on pot and beer anyway. His kids will also be stuffing bags in supermarkets, but
that's better than people of that level of intelligence having more complicated jobs, as in the case of the
manager, who clearly should be doing nothing more than picking turnips. His name is O'Shannon or
Yablonski. Take your pick.

You'd have to be an idiot to buy most of the stuff in that store. Then again, people keep buying it, and
there are far more of them than you, so who cares what you think. Workers are smoking cigarettes near
the door as more angry minorities wander in from the project-apartments to the south. They think they're
moving up, shopping at the white folks store. But all the white folks who could moved out of here two years
ago. In fact, you'll have to reconsider that decision to take the less stressful job over the one that makes
more money. You're going to need it to rise above this shit. In the future, it's only the proles and the ultra-
rich, and if you're not the latter, well, get used to cancer, crime, ignorance and a future stuffing grocery
bags.

Back down the street. Wait at the stoplight: most of the cars around you are SUVs with giant engines,
mainly because people fel safe behind all that steel. How can you not? And it's good to be locked inside
one, because the people wandering around here vary a lot. There's some like you who won't cause any
problems. Then there's that guy rambling to himself; maybe he has a knife, or will simply reach out and
take what he will never have. And a lot of these guys coming home from those boring jobs are drunk as
ass, and they might plough into you at fifty, so you better have a big vehicle to take the hit. And who's that
crazy fuckup walking down the street? Doesn't he know...? -- they mean you.

Speaking of jobs, you've about had it with those. There's a task, but then there's the additional task of not
pissing off your bosses, who tend to be unstable people because, who wouldn't be, given the paradoxical
goals they have before them. You have to do your job well, but not so well that you minimize profit, so
everything's a rush. Your coworkers have more personal problems than you can count, so you're always
stepping in to fill the gap where someone is hung over, strung out, depressed or simply delusional. About
half of your bosses have some grasp of the task, but the rest are in their jobs because they're friendly and
play by the rules, so who can fire them? Oh, and then there are the affirmative action appointees, and
women; they can't be fired, either.

Whores above, and whores left and right. You were late last week and someone - no one knows who, of
course - let the higherups know and you got called on carpet. You can just about hear the snicker when
you cross the workfloor. Gotcha! They probably feel better about it, and if you asked them at a bar, they'd
shrug it off. It happens to everyone, and higherups promote snitches, so... wouldn't you? Your job also
requires a lot of busy work. It's there to make everyone think what you're doing is important. Keep the
bosses thinking you're working hard, and keep coworkers thinking the field is open for them. Who are they
kidding? Most of them go up three pay grades during their career, and the divorce, medical, psychological,
and car payments eat up most of that. They'll end up with a modest retirement. Hope they spent their
money on catastrophic insurance.

You drove home down another street. It's lined with plastic, glowing signs. Every single building on this
street is a business. Not all of them do obvious things, either. There are many places to buy entertainment,
or go out to eat; you know that your coworkers spend most of their money at such places, if they don't
outright run to titty bars for the promise of a quick fuck that never materializes, to the point that they owe
on their credit cards. Oh well - can't squirrel out of that with a personal bankruptcy anymore. Five percent
will avoid that trap, and the rest will be in debt until they die, at which point the debt will be sold to a
collection agency that will pass it along to their "heirs," whether they inherited anything or not.

After work is done, you can go out with the girlfriend on Saturday night. Buy, buy, buy. Either you go to a
bar, or a coffeeshop, or a restaurant, or a movie, or some combination thereof. You will buy things for her,
and she will consider herself taken care of. You would be buying sex, but she's a feminist now, so she
knows that she is not required to give you sex for money, unless she chooses to, at which point she should
liberate herself from sexual fear and simply be a prostitute, because it pays better and dowdy academic
feminists everywhere will cheer her. Jews are like women, retards, minorities and gays because all of them
are assumed to be on the bottom. Strike out against one, and you're the problem. They can strike you,
though, and they should.
So your date, or night out with the wife or girlfriend, doesn't end in sex but that's okay because most of
your male coworkers spend 2% of their income on porn, anyway. That's about a grand per year for most
people, since you wouldn't socialize with anyone earning less than that; if people at the office found out,
they'd think you were leading a sleazy double life or possibly a Communist, or even worse, a Nazi. Those
are the only people stupid enough to care about those who've failed in this world. Your girlfriend, of course,
will hold it against you if you earn more or less than she does, and she will suspect you of manipulating her
like all goddamn males do. There's some truth to what she says, but it will motivate her to get some of her
own on the side, like the guy from the finance office she's screwing, and if you're smart, you'll do the same
with an attractive girl of your own. By the time you die, you'll have slept with 171 different women, and the
only memorable experience will be the first one. After that, most people are too cynical to put energy into
sex, either going about it like dead fish or being so professional and adept at it that any authenticity or
nuance is dead. Might as well get out the Vaseline and www.blacksonblondes.com.

When you're done with the date, you can go home and watch television. You probably spend about twice
what you do on porn on cable, the physical TV, and renting movies, alone. More for video games. If you
buy books - weirdo - that's even more. It's better to watch something than try to tolerate conversation
about jobs and friends, both of whom exhibit painfully bad judgment that is depressing to hear about, or to
try to decide on music. Hah! You told her you liked Beethoven once, and with scorn, she said, "Classical
music is for rich people." That leaves you with anything below that level as your options, and nothing too
angry, please, because it's antisocial and might damage your job prospects. How about some relaxing hip-
hop, the music of the oppressed working classes?

She gets on the phone. Go into the kitchen. The water coming out of your tap smells strongly of chlorine.
Better buy a filter for that too. Buy a bus ticket home, or buy a car, or call a cab. Buy, buy, buy. Spend,
spend, spend. You can see the grateful faces as you do, because their income is now assured. No more
thoughts of you, or anyone else. Did they come this way, or did we make them this way? Possibly it's a bit
of both. They're just as desperate as you. The rich climb there either because they need wealth to feel
whole, or because they're just as afraid of the consequences as you are. Everyone is afraid of the ghetto,
except the people who live there already, because they've given up hope. Ah-ha. That's why people refer to
hip-hop as America's only authentic art movement.

Light up that forbidden cigarette - if there's anything in it but tobacco, you'll lose your job; if they catch you
smoking too much tobacco, you'll just lose your health insurance - and think for a minute. It is a bleak
existence, outside of the parts that would be good in any society, that is the parts that have nothing to do
with the design or operation of that society: the personalities of other people, the joy of children, the
beauty of nature (a small park near your house), or intoxication with learning, specifically those books -
weirdo - you found at a garage sale, back from when books were supposed to do more than only amuse.
In those books you learned many things, but one important thing: it wasn't always this bleak.

Pollution, poverty, violence, instability and boredom hover at your door. The radio blares encouraging
commercial messages every six minutes, as does the television. After hearing them for more than a day,
you start to believe, even to listen, because it's easier than resisting. When you wake up in the middle of
the night, in a cold sweat, you sometimes think there is no light at the end of this tunnel, that only oblivion
awaits and it will never change. It can't go on forever. Sooner or later, there will be no more land or oil,
and the air pollution and cancers and wars will get so bad we're paralyzed. But only losers think of that.
Winners get ahead.

Your thoughts drift to something you read long ago. Consumerism, it was said, was not motivated by the
desires of the wealthy. They didn't need it, after all, as they already had everything they needed. And while
consumerism created a boom in technologies, it's not clear that these technologies weren't going to be
invented anyway, albeit not in such stimulating ways as plastic shells to cook onions. The rich don't need
consumerism. It's those who want to be rich who do. In the past, one was rich because one owned land,
which was granted to the family by the king, in recognition for great deeds. That must have been
inefficient, because now to get rich, you must undertake a stroke of genius such as selling pornography, or
making plastic shells in which to microwave onions. Now, we're all free to get rich, as long as we don't
mind doing nothing but that for our lives. What kind of empty person needs only wealth to feel sufficient?
It's enough to make you convert to a negativistic philosophy like Judaism, which states that physical
comfort is all that matters, and all ideals and thinking of the whole and not the self come a distant second.
That kind of belief system could be fine solace in this society!

No, you think, the rich didn't need consumerism. What has driven us into this mess and keeps it in place
are those who couldn't get rich under the kings, and now want an equal share of the pie. Nevermind that
the knights and kings built this; they see the spoils, and they want their parts. It reminds you of all the
faces in those SUVs and cars that pass, endlessly, while you're walking down the road. They're all gunning
for their share, and they won't give that up. No way can you snatch victory from their grasp like that! Of
course, they will destroy the planet and all good things about humanity, and only 1/100th of 1% of them
will get rich, but don't tell them that. It's the lottery of life, man, and they're going to have a go at it. The
fact that they cannot think far ahead enough to exceed the next pay period - 14 days - and that they're
oblivious to the indirect consequences of their actions, out of sight out of mind, might have a lot to do with
this.

The crowd wants its piece of the spoils. It wants revenge, in this way, since it cannot be contented with a
normal existence, but has to gun for the big score, being wealthy. They're not demanding that a wrong be
righted, but that they get a chance at unmitigated greed. If others can, why can't they? And don't tell them
any of this shit about the difference between individual humans, and how having the brains to see beyond
the next period and into indirect consequences of one's actions is rare, and should be a trait of our leaders
- you're trying to keep them down, you fucking Nazi!

They believe they deserve that lottery (and in a sense they do, since so few of them will win). According to
their morality, everyone is equal, and therefore, they should get what the rich have. Well, maybe just a
chance at it. Nevermind that no one gets to have a comfortable existence because we're all fighting each
other. Nevermind that they will obliterate the helpful leaders and replace them with whorelike demagogues.
Nevermind that, if we all get to live the high life or some cheesy Wal-Mart approximation of it, the
mathematics are bad: we all breed, all of our children breed, and so on, with each generation taking up
more resources than the last until we've exhausted the planet and left a pollution ruin to be fought over by
the remaining humans. Nevermind all that. What matters, the crowd says, is when do I get mine and how
do I keep anyone else from stopping me?

The less competent have surged in, outnumbering the more competent, and formed a society based on
revenge and greed. Why doesn't anything happen? Well, for starters, our leadership is divided into Left and
Right. The Right fears the judgment capability of the crowd, recognizing quite properly that very few people
have any wisdom at all, and the Left fears what the crowd has done. If Right and Left got together, they
might see that the crowd revolt is the root of their problem, not whatever showboat issue they've been
parading today (abortion, drugs, hackers, civil rights, school prayer). Because Right and Left are divided,
rule by the crowd continues, and those who profit from the crowd keep getting rich. After all, like all of us
competing against every other one of us, Right and Left are competing like businesses, trying to get their
own people rich. There is no unity. There is only individual profit, and God Damn the costs to our
environment and, less visibly, our selves.

Our morality is based upon not violating the space and "rights" of others. This started in Judaism, but really
gained popularity with Christianity, because it wasn't just limited to people of Jewish ethnicity (smart
marketing, Christ). No one can second guess their choices, because after all they are theirs, and it's their
right to not be stopped - for example, show a crowd member this article, and they'll snap back, "It's my
prerogative NOT to read it!" - and since the only way to stop them is force, they'll consider you amoral and
dangerous and gang up on you. They outnumber you 1000 to 1. Good luck! In fact, anyone who tries to
establish a plan other than rampant greed disguised as individualism is going to be seen as amoral, and
even worse, trying to place themselves above others. One can only act on those below oneself, not try to
rise above, because then - popular wisdom goes - you're trying to be better than others, as if you deserve
more than the rest of us for having a right answer. The crowd together will chant for your blood.

Because you cannot stop someone else from doing something destructive, you become an outsider the
instant you criticize their intent or its outcome. You can only judge their means of achieving what they do,
not their goals. So if their goal is greed, you can only complain when that greed violates the rights of
another; but that's hard to prove, and besides, there are plenty of unethical things that are not illegal
(Goedel would assure you it's hard to list everything that's destructive, and even harder to get a vote taken
on it). You cannot strike at those lesser than yourself. You cannot tell them what they are doing is insane.
You would say "the ends justify the means," but they would be horrified by this. For them, there are only
means, as they lack the intelligence to see that it is a question of "ends" that determines whether we live
or die. It is beyond their conceptual understanding that a society might elect to not commit environmental
and personal suicide through greed, pollution, boredom, etc.

This is why some people - usually Nazis and Communists - strike out against Christian morality. The idea of
morality based on means, designed to protected the lesser from the stronger, prevents those who have
better ideas (by definition: the stronger) from ever reigning in the illogical impulses of the lesser. The lesser
are kings, and all of us must suffer for their judgment, because they are in control. Even many Christians
have at this point figured the truth of this situation, and realize that Jesus came not in peace but with a
sword, but what are they to do? 1000 to 1 odds means that unless every smart person on earth joins
hands at once for a final battle, the lesser are going to win simply by numbers. Killing 999 of them each will
not be enough to triumph.

Yet we either crush them, or continue this long sick march of death to oblivion. We will consume all of our
resources. We will pollute all of our habitat. And we cannot stop it because to try that would be to violate
someone's rights, probably those at the bottom, since the wealthy aren't the ones doing the violating;
they're the ones providing the products, and demand for those products creates the violation. See, it's no
one's fault. But no one is driving this vehicle hurtling out of control down a darkened road, and for those
who are not lesser, it becomes a matter of concern. With these idiots in charge, we and our children and
our culture (including Beethoven) are doomed. But by definition, to the lesser, this isn't a problem. The
Christians call it a "holistic" view to look at the entire situation, including environment and humanity as a
single entity, instead of the individual. Philosophers call it idealism, but it's 8 AM again and if you get
caught reading that shit at work, you're fired and blacklisted. Welcome to the ghetto by 9:30.

We cannot move ahead until we fix this problem. We will forever be making "progress" - civil rights,
women's rights, abortion, gay rights, drug rights - but this will not affect our ultimate destination. We will
continue this march of death toward oblivion, and no amount of handing rights to gay black coprophagic
pot-smoking women will stop that. The conservative businessman and the liberal activist alike agree that
our current system is the way we must go, and they have only token changes. All they do is promote the
same agenda that is the status quo, with modifications to deliver more profit to their camp, in the
meantime ignoring the problem: our existence is bleak until we rise above this assumption ("Crowdism")
and change it.

November 9, 2005
Spirit
Whispered in alleys: (The aristocracy is the root of our problems; they became decadent, and could not
defend us, or do right. It was the upper classes, actually, which have always been a shill for the aristocracy.
Well, perhaps it was all white people, because they represent a meta-class to all the world's people. I
consider it also important that we address the role of men over women, as they have dominated women of
all classes and races for time immemorial. You value your heritage, but what does it mean? Your ancestors
aren't you, and you're using heritage-worship to cover up for the fact that you haven't achieved anything
that important. Oh yeah? If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?)

These words mark our lives. Our lives pass in their shadow. We are told they are solutions. Every solution
we try turns to disaster. Only a few can see this disaster, and the rest are happy if they can afford color
televisions. The greed of the masses drives the manipulation of the elites!

Daily we are offered a number of "solutions." Some are lefty, some are righty; none are effective. Why?
The fundamental beliefs of our society are so rotted that we have forgotten what we lack to tie it all
together, and we dumb it down for the crowd and thus make it further into mush. You don't make a rule
that says "All people must equally..." to help the lowest, but to hold down the greatest. Well, that's a
problem. But it's not the root of the problem. What is?

-- For some years, the West has been in decline. There are symptoms - Christianity, corporations, crowd
revolt, miscegenation, drug use, child molestation, demagogic leaders - but these are just symptoms. What
happened? Our spirit collapsed, as happens to all at some point in middle age. Because we are a fecund
race, when the spirit collapsed, it had repercussions as every level of society struggled to master it. Most
cannot and never will be able to, even if you send them to Harvard (they lack the goddamn wiring, man).
Our spirit went into a dip, a midlife crisis, a depression -- and we have not yet recovered.

But we can.

The beliefs you are offered today have several things in common, but the most fundamental is that they
are all passive. Together we will eliminate some wrong - Nazis, negroes, elites - and we will be left with the
purest of rarified butter, the ghee of a gleeful new future. We will not move forward until we overcome this
passive mindset, and look instead of toward ideal social orders toward a purification by testing ourselves.
Oh no! That would involve deprivation and for many of us, losing... possibly losing our lives. We cannot do
that! -- the previous statement is the essence of passivity: have government do it, apply an order equally
and through bureaucratic means upon the world, and then things will organize well by magic. The invisible
hand? We'll have an army of them.

Passivity infects all belief systems in the modern time. Look at what happened to National Socialism. Its
current caretakers are total failures at interpreting it correctly. Their complaint is legitimate: that modern
society wishes to eliminate white people, and infest America and Europe with foreigners. Clearly that is
true; anyone who objects there has his or her head in the sand. But is this the primary goal of some
conspiracy, or a side effect of a lack of values? Look at France: businesspeople brought in Arabs and
Negroes to be sources of cheap labor, and the population likes being French, so they don't hire them.
What's the solution? In my view, let the riots continue, and if the French have enough strength, they'll grow
up and realize the world isn't all peaches and cream and that one cannot solve problems by making laws,
and they'll get shotguns and pitchforks and baseball bats and drive the invaders out, murdering as many as
they need to. If they cannot do this, maybe it's time for France to fall, so the Germans can invade, kick out
the interlopers, and set up a superior society.

But most of us just mince along, content to look at society as something that will someday, magically work.
That's kind of like hoping a rapist will get bored and not bother with the task at hand, isn't it? Our society is
structured on a profit basis, and profit supersedes all other concerns, so culture and heritage and values
themselves even are on the auction block. Most people don't want to think about this, so they passively go
into denial, and pretend that's not the case, thereby ensuring that the problem not only persists but has a
home among them. Their women especially are guilty of this, but it's a paradox of life that women can be
both wonderful and absolutely useless in politics. Shouldn't vote, shouldn't participate, shouldn't have
opinions on it: they fail universally, with the possible exception of a few great women of genius. One can
always make exceptions for the five politically capable women throughout history, and keep the others out,
so they don't pacify us with more rhetoric of doing nothing about subtle but evident problems. Women
encourage us to simply gain enough money that we can go around the problem, giving it a permanent
home in the neighborhood. Equally guilty are the bean counters and bank presidents and lawyers who
always have passive solutions. Their job is not to fix problems, but to bill hours dealing with perpetual
problems. Yes, invite the Devil in! they chorus. We can make a year's income just hiding him from the view
of paying customers. That's the face of passivity. If some businessperson did it, well, it earns money, so it's
okay. If some impoverished shithead did it, well, he's trying to better himself, so it's okay. The Germans
have a word for this kind of attitude: Sitzpinkel , or sitting down to urinate as a male. Emasculation: a lack
of the active principle, vir , what makes a man feel a man, more than cheesy false machismo or one night
stands with giant-racked thluts can do.

Sitzpinkel defines our modern political outlook. There can be no order; everyone can have it their own way
(pluralism). We will not lead by picking the best course, but by picking the most popular one, which is
inevitably the one that enriches the largest segment of society (democracy and consumerism/these are
conflatable terms). We are afraid of the differences between us, so we normalize everyone by restricting
their abilities (equality), and we think that if someone is good at a certain job they should rise above
others, no matter what spiritual qualities they lack (meritocracy). Best of all, we're conditioned to think that
if we just pick one of the above solutions, all will be okay, because by picking the best method, we've
somehow cured the problem. Wrong. The problem is within: a dead, passive spirit, and the antidote to this
rot occurs in few and in different degrees; we cannot all be the heroes here. Forget the image put into
every movie, book, etc. that praises democratic thinking, in which at the end the entire city/village/race
realizes its error and together comes to fix the problem. Symbolically that might produce happy feelings
and sell tickets, but it's not reality. Can you understand that? You're lying - only 2% of you will be able to,
at most, and the rest of you are faking.

Passivity is an outlook on the world that transcends politics, philosophy, even religion -- by modern
standards that makes it "good" because everyone, no matter how drooling retarded or spurtingly depraved,
can participate! -- because it is a way of thinking and not a goal in itself. You might proclaim yourself a
pacifist, which invariably means you'll fight to keep others from fighting, so you can dominate them, but
you wouldn't proclaim yourself an advocate of passivity. Where's the "American Passivity Party"? It's more
subtle than that: it's a social attitude, and because it is a declining and aheroic one (as well as completely
without poetry, or higher spiritual belief), it is very popular with the proles. Ask yourself: what have the
poor and the working people done for any civilization, besides serve in their positions? Answer: NOTHING.
They do best when they focus on what they know and of course, when they have enlightened leaders.
They don't have the brains, the strength, or the spiritual outlook to lead, thus when they do, they always
fail. Do we need bring up the facts that Communist Russia's mass revolt took a wealthy country and
converted it permanently into a third world shithole, or that Christianity so weakened Europe it could barely
resist the Great Khan, being more interested in internecine squabbles and fighting over riches? The Church
hovered in the background, like a doctor waiting his payment at a deathbed, because whether Europe rose
or fall, the Church would still be powerful! That's the essence of passivity: opportunism by encouraging a
dysfunctional order which one hopes to survive because one is already dysfunctional. Crowdism is an
offshoot of passivity; for the Crowd, no real changes will ever occur, because their lives will always be
either disorganized or rigorously scheduled by needs. Therefore, their desire is to tear down those who
have risen above that state, and they are willing to sacrifice entire civilizations for it, because a Crowd
member is in the same fix whether a Mongol or a Jew or a Christian or a Democrat: they will always be
serving an order they don't understand, doing a relatively limited range of tasks, and quite probably,
disorganized at a personal level.

There were some who rose high above passivity. In ancient India, these were called "Arya" (noble), but in
modern times, we often refer to them as Hyperboreans, meaning the Nordic populations who came out of
northern Europe. They had discipline, and were benevolent, but were not afraid to kill, especially to kill
defective people. If you want one reason to praise Genghis Khan (and this is about the only one), it's that
he slaughtered useless people. The idle rich and disorganized poor alike got stuffed into mass graves.
That's the kind of order we need, but it of course needs to come without the rest of Khan's poisonous plan,
which produced an empire that cruised on inertia before coming apart abruptly because it had an essential
lack of ideas. The National Socialists in Germany believed in killing the useless and throwing all of their
weight behind the strong; this was the best part of their own agenda. In America, many of the rural
populations started to take on similar beliefs, and as a result resisted the idiocy of modern times far more
than the cities. But passivity grows each generation, and thanks to America's post-WWII wealth, she has
led the world on a course for passivity. We can no longer blame the Church, the corporations, etc. It is a
spiritual feeling all of us in the modern West share, and if we wish change, we must as Gandhi says
"become the change we seek in the world." If we fix our own spirit, it spreads like a virus and soon others
share the same belief, and changes occur. We cannot make laws to fix our spirit, nor can we create an
economic system that avoids spirit. This war is within ourselves. If we conquer our fears and come out on
the side of bravery, we will prevail; if not, hopefully the Chinese will invade so that we have an enemy to
unify us.

Many of us detest White Nationalists because they are the fake solution that takes the place of the real
solution in public perception. This isn't about your race. "White Nationalism" is a clubhouse of people who
want to believe that if they exterminate the Negroes, everything left will be just fine; no, no, no, you
blockheads. Negroes don't belong in America and Europe, much as no races other than European belong in
Europe, but that's part of Nationalism, and extends to tribe; Russians don't belong in Germany either, and
the Germans should feel free to slaughter them. Nationalism is confused, by "White Nationalists" and
clueless liberals alike, with the issue of population quality. We're not saying that Negroes are crap, or
inferior, only that they don't belong here. Confusing the two is to play into the liberal ideal that we're all of
equal quality, and the idiots will trot out some quasi-scientific "science" to "prove" their point, nevermind
that three years later we'll all find out the research was faked, the conclusions logically unsound, or the
scientists simply biased (or Jewish, same difference). People want Nationalism to be as simple as hate, but
it has nothing to do with emotional reactions or population judgment. It is simple: exclude that which is not
your tribe, or your tribe will be assimilated and its days of greatness will be over - if you don't believe this,
name a mixed population that has achieved anything great. Get it? Mixing is the enemy , not Negroes. Other
tribes are incompatible with your own, and while you might make pluralism work for a few generations, it
will destroy you. The people who insist otherwise are misinformed, or as is more likely, Crowdists who are
also misinformed, but fundamentally hampered in that their brains cannot grasp the complexity of the
situation. Crowdists and White Nationalists alike are passive.

Conservatives are also passive. They want to maintain a system of economics that, in theory, rewards the
best among us. But what is so "best" about earning a ton of money? It requires a few skills and passes no
judgment on the fitness of that person as a leader. In fact, it helps us pick the worst among us - the
unbalanced, sociopathic, of low confidence and low moral aptitude - because these are the sort of people
who are driven toward lots of money. Normal people want a good living and a job they don't mind, but are
not driving maniacally toward the accumulation of wealth. When you see someone whose life is wholly
devoted to earning excess wealth, you have to ask: what's this person's defect? They are as defective as
the lazy urban poor, who have no motivation toward self-sustenance whatsoever. The two are opposite
ends of the same defect. As much as conservatives are passives for relying on this idiotic system, liberals
are sitzpinkel for believing that they can tear it down, leaving a giant void, and have accomplished
something. Their entire goal can be described in two words: "class revenge." Tear down the better, exhalt
the poorer and weaker and sadder, and hope that somehow we have evened the scales and we can all
exist like robots in the exact same form. What's a worker's paradise? All of us in apartments, none in
houses, and no geniuses, only loyal workers - each of which, despite lacking the brains for the task,
considers himself or herself an expert on politics. Ah, yes, what a moronic fantasy.

Ancient Europe was strong because it had constant conflict, both within and without. Not organized into
countries, it could afford internal warfare for the sole purpose of keeping its aristocrats strong; it battle-
tested their leadership. Then in came the goddamn church and suddenly that was out, since the Church
unified most of Europe. So some aristocrats became fat cats who were useless. The next centuries were
busy with "democratic" and "egalitarian" ideas, slowly crushing any remains of belief that suggests some
people are better designs than others for certain tasks - and that no amount of education or scientific
intervention can change that. You either have the type of mind and spirit that can rule a nation, or you
don't. You cannot purchase some equalizing product to make you into something you are not. After
democracy and enlightenment and all that overhyped stuff whose praise somehow resembles that of
starlets for their latest Hollywood film? Oh my god, the same problems remain, and they're worse. Good
work, guys.

There is a better way, but to break from passivity, we cannot use the methods of passivity. There cannot
be a Fuehrer, or a bureaucratic government, to deliver us from it, although we'll need some kind of political
system to stop our enemies from crushing us. The change is occurring gradually, but people - the 2% who
can do anything complicated in the first place - are realizing that our entire drift toward the global liberal
agenda (democracy, consumerism, equality, shopping malls) has been a giant disaster and that we need
something more like the ancients, but that to get to that point, we need to return to the heroic spirit.
When we understand the spirit of what we desire, it will be easy to see what fits into the picture and what
needs to be eliminated. And I mean eliminated - we're overpopulated, so any killing you do today is
empowerment for the earth and for all of us who want to survive in some place where we can eat the fish,
drink water from the streams, etc. Passivity tells us "thou shalt not kill" and therefore, that any life lost is a
problem, but the more lives we have, the more we must pollute and use land and energy, rapidly
consuming nonrenewable resources. That no one has violently and visibly noticed this paradox is the final
proof needed that rule by the Crowd is at best incompetent; at worst, it's a suicide pact ("let's let the retard
lead, and we'll be dead in no time").

You will undoubtedly argue for other paths, at least 98% of you will, probably more. You will believe like
Carl Sagan that all we need is science, forgetting how easily science is swayed as it has no founding
philosophy; you may argue that more tolerance, democracy, and equality will do what 2,000 years of it so
far has failed to do. You might even go completely off the chart and gap about some faith in politics,
religion or technology that's unfounded. Go ahead and talk. You're just proving why you're unfit to rule.

You might find my methods unsound, or horrifying, or other adjectives to cover up your inability to apply
them and your fear for yourself. Relax - what matters is the health of the whole. If your life is lost, it will be
a glorious sacrifice (we must hearken to the wisdom of the Aztecs, who told unwanted people they were
"beloved by the gods" and cut their hearts out in a ceremony which unified the population around, among
other things, a lack of passivity). If you cannot do what I recommend, it is further proof that you are to be
ruled and not to rule. You get my drift?

You might make up a fantasy world where everything works out okay, and suggest that we emulate your
unicorns and gremlins. But this isn't very practical, is it? You could demonstrate that your world is
structurally similar to ours, and thus convince us that it will fit into reality, but instead you talk in the
accountabilityless abstract of "should" and "ought." Fuck you. You're crazy, and this is proof you're unfit to
rule.

You might talk about how you're entitled to certain things, or how the poor/Negroes are, but again, you're
veering away from reality into fantasyland. We're all in this mess; our society is failing, and we've poisoned
the oceans so much we cannot even safely eat fish. Are you fucking nuts, worry about your entitlement?
You're selfish and it makes you crazy. A mass grave is your future.

When we get past the insanity - democracy, consumerism, Christianity, Crowdism, Judaism, pluralism, but
most of all, passivity - we see that there is a single solution: we must become active, and the philothophical
term for that is "heroic." We want to see the spirit of the Odyssey, Illiad, Aenaeid... that of settlers coming
to the New World... of stormtroopers slaughtering moronic Soviets by the thousand... of intrepid artists and
thinkers like F.W. Nietzsche or Ferdinand Celinne. Only this returns our red-bloodedness, the opposite of
sitzpinkel, our bravery and our determination: this is what we need. As said, it is coming, because already
the cracks in the wall of our current social order are evident to the first few. As more oceans are poisoned,
more air becomes toxic, more food becomes prohibitively expensive, it will be clear to others. The bad guy
is our own spiritual weakness. This lets the masses create stupid needs that crafty and dishonest elites fill,
and keeps the rest of us too passive to change it until it wrecks our world. People are getting sick of this,
however, because the daily frustration, impotence and most of all, futility of suggesting otherwise, is
enraging them. They want solutions, not just talking about modifications to the existing order.

I have no doubt that massive social change is coming. However, experience in history shows us that most
revolutions end up replacing a destructive social order -- with a virtual identically social order, except owned
by the former revolutionaries. Serfs became comrades in Russia, and we executed the educated and upper
classes - oh glorious day!, but why are we still starving, illiterate third-worlders? Notice that this condition
continues in Russia to this day . Yes, Slavs are not Germans, and therefore are more prone toward
submissive orders, since they did after all accept their instructions from Mongols for most of their existence,
but Russia was quite a nice place... the Crowd came in and murdered its enemies, and now Russia is a
fecal nightmare. But they were promising to deliver us from that! Words are cheap, kid. Revolution without
understanding of the complete change that must occur is disaster.

We are renovating our spiritual outlook, and it does not limit us to one issue (environment, race, sex,
drugs) but to all issues. We must reinvent our society. We do it first by achieving spiritual coherence, and
we do this by making in ourselves the type of order we'd like to see, instead of trying to create in society
an order based on what society's interpretation of function "should" be. How do we bring heroism back into
our blood? We start by believing in things enough to die for them: our individual lands, our people, our
culture, our languages, our philosophies. If you're a Zulu, kill the white man in your lands and leave
nothing of him. If you're an Aztec, kick out the invaders and the Negroes. If you're a European, slaughter
all non-Europeans and torture their leaders, so they know to never come back. The ultimate penalty is the
only convincer. And yes, many of you will die in this, but the result will be that many more live in a sensible
social order.

Passivity has us by the balls, and it will never let go, because like a cancer, it is defined not by having an
intent but by having no intent except to consume and grow (cancers would not be a health problem if they
did not grow). Science and technology won't save us, democracy won't save us, nothing will save us - we
must do it for ourselves. Heroism grows out of idealism, or the knowledge that there are things worse than
dying, and that to die upholding a concept of a better life is more noble than finding comfort and blowing
off the process. Judaism says comfort is greater than ideals, and funny thing, capitalism and democracy and
consumerism suggest the same thing. Are you hearing me? Wake up! These are your fucking enemies. Both
tradition and super-modernity, or what's coming after post-modernism, are achieved by spiritual awakening
from passivity and a heroic assertion through idealism. History is a loop, even if time is linear, and we've
come full circle. The next thousand years are ours, if we choose to make our spirits pure so we avoid
repeating the errors of past, and if we're ready to both love and kill with the same ferocity. Death to
passivity. Death to the Undermen. Hail the future!

November 15, 2005

Quality
Plenty of people out there would like you to believe that there's a binary distinction in quality of people.
Those who earn money, idealized liberal politics, are white or black, or straight or gay, are seen as the
Chosen Ones who can do no wrong, and the rest of us are lesser. This kind of clubhouse mentality appeals
to the Crowd best of all, since if there's an elect who will solve all of our problems, the rest of us can go
back to slacking off and watching TV while they fix things.

Quality is an illusory concept in some usages, but a fundamental one. Consider that even among a highly-
refined Nordic population, such as in Scandinavia, there are vast differences between individuals. Some are
geniuses, some are superior warriors, and some top out at being short order cooks who can drink entire
bottles of vodka. These are different qualities between people, but does this mean we can put them on a
linear spectrum? After all, much as a body needs a stomach (dumber than a brain), nervous system
(weaker than muscles), and muscles (less durable than a stomach), doesn't any healthy society also need
genius leaders, brave warriors, and durable artisans and laborers?

Within any population, there's a great deal of diversity. Consider your friends, or at least the people who
are dear to you -- undoubtedly, some are smarter, some are stronger, and some more steadfast in day-to-
day tasks. Geniuses make poor short order cooks, as their attention tends to wander and they want to
"innovate" with each iteration of the process, which is moronic if you want a traditional omelette (did it
really need raisins and cilantro with avioli sauce? probably not). Each friend has different strengths, and
together, they work in parallel to form a healthy friend group. You don't hold it against big Ed if he's not as
smart as Stan the computer geek, because you care about him for other qualities.

Such is the case also with human populations. At some point, tolerance and intolerance merge, and this is
along the mental creasing point of parallelism: there are different societies, localities, groups and even
people. Together they can form larger and more flexible structures, especially if they do not try to linearize
- or become one single entity, under a single set of rules. This doesn't mean it's not time to thin the herd;
there are plenty of people who are extraneous, even if we decide they have some positive qualities. The
bottom line is that with fewer people, our ecosystem can continue to operate autonomously, which requires
3/4 of earth's space for it and 1/4 for us, which requires fewer people living less "first world" lifestyles. It
does mean however that we can understand each other without being "equal" and without comparing
ourselves by the same yardstick.

In this thought, the greenest hippie and the most diehard National Socialist converge: they believe that
local communities should rule themselves, avoiding the creation of a linear society that, lacking any goals
outside of its own growth, cancerously expands until it threatens the very system that birthed and sustains
it ("nature"). Even some fag-hater like Rev. Fred Phelps and an ACT UP activist can agree that not
everywhere on earth needs to tolerate blatant homosexuality, and that not everywhere on earth needs to
be ruled by the Iron Hand of interpreted Christ. Perhaps some communities will choose to live that way,
and some will be like the Montrose in Houston, so gay friendly that the parking meters make kissing noises.
Perhaps some communities, even nations, will be happy under future Hitlers, and others will be perpetual
Clintonites. Can they coexist? Definitely; the only thing keeping them from doing so is the idea that we
need large centralized republics like the USA, EU or China to unite us.

There is an inverse relationship between leadership capability and the number of people trying to make a
decision. In most cases, an individual will arrive at some "work in progress" decision when confronted with
a problem, and by developing their response, eventually solve it. Two people take longer, especially if they
have different goals. When you get to a decent-sized committee, it's more likely that they will reach a
compromise that takes no decisive action, unless the problem is so obvious that response is more reaction
that considered design (giant rubbery monsters attacking Tokyo require dramatic response). When you get
to the point of a nation with 300 million people all voting on the same issue, some with the wisdom of
genius leaders and others with the knowledge limitations of fry cooks, there's no chance. They are doomed
by the very act of trying to find one rule that fits all of them.
No clearer example of this problem occurs than in American politics. The big cities on the coasts have one
outlook on the world, which is a liberal democratic cosmopolitanism, but the other states - where actual
work gets done (just kidding, sort of) - have an entirely different pragmatic traditionalism. Both groups get
yanked around by politicians who do their best to appear to be one thing, while continuing business at
usual behind the facade of token issues (abortion, civil rights, evolution in schools, drugs, homosexuals in
military). Did George W. Bush really represent Texas, for example? Or Clinton really represent liberalism?
These guys are showmen, and they're not evil; they're earning a living like the rest of us, but by being
public symbols. This system created them and perpetuates them.

You'd never think that hippies and Confederates would walk on the same path, but what's come out of the
sensible extremes of leftism, especially where it converges with environmentalism, is an emphasis on
localization. Not coincidentally, the more traditional elements of American society (almost exclusively in the
South) came up with the same idea some centuries ago, realizing that a federal coalition of self-ruling,
independent States made more sense than a monolithic federal entity. What's true in Georgia might be
irrelevant in New York, and vice versa. If we overcome our balkanized identification with a political outlook,
left or right, we can see that above those divisions common sense alone is king, and that common sense
says we are different in local community as much as in individual spirit. We can work in parallel, but only if
we accept our differences, and the way to do that is not to force "tolerance" on everyone (thus asking
them to give up their own character) but to tolerate differences between communities, and to sort
according to that agenda. If people really want to be stoners, they can go to California; extremist Catholic
communities that don't want abortion do not have to have it.

That's individuality. You can either accept it or freak out about it, but one thing's for sure: modern society
crushes individuality and parallelism by forcing us into linear, gigantic, one-size-fits-all conglomerations that
by representing "all" of our interests, represent no one, unless you can find a person who naturally is an
average of all other people. Nature's order clashes with the rigid binary logic of humankind, but is that
kneejerk logic really natural to us, or is it a pit stop through history caused by democracy and the
corresponding consumerism and egomania of a group of individuals trying to find one standard for all?
Think each, not all. Individuality - whether of belief, behavior, race, sex preference or regionality - is
superior to creating a vast machine and forcing us to conform to an average. It's the only way to preserve
our unique roles and through them, the overall quality of our species.

November 17, 2005

Flywheel
Some of the best material from this column comes when theory is put aside and real-world experience is
explored with the attempt to explain it as a form of logic. What is found, usually, is vestiges of layers of the
past; the exploration represents a historical analysis and not a revelation of structure as it is now as some
adaptation or otherwise logical process of responding to the world. Such things have me thinking of
flywheels.

As you probably know, a flywheel is a counterweighted, spinning wheel used to absorb and store energy,
which is translated into the momentum of the wheel and later sent back into action. For example, some
transmissions use flywheels to store momentum when idle; upon re-engagement, the gears immediately
have power while the engine takes a few seconds to catch up. Infrequent bursts of power store well in a
flywheel, so that a constant lower rate of power is drained from its momentum while the source can work
intermittently. It's a sensible device, in certain situations.

However, upon visiting a modern grocery store, I see a flywheel of history: energy stored in case someday
it might be useful, but more likely than not, simply running down because it is disengaged permanently. It
took nearly a half-hour to get through the line at the grocery store within easy walking distance here, and
when we look into the events that transpired, much like reading the rings of a cut tree, we saw what went
wrong.

To set the scene: several customers waiting in two lines, including some who have giant loads of stuff in
their carts. As it is mid-day, there are two types of people here: the self-employed or otherwise flexible
scheduled people, and those who have nothing else to do. At the third line, an "Express Lane (Fifteen Items
or Less)," another checker is getting ready to open her lane. She is doing so at an absolutely vermicular
pace, taking nearly five minutes to unlock her drawer, another five to remove her jacket, then plenty of
fiddling under the desk.

Fifteen feet away, at the "Customer Care (We Care)" desk, another employee is drumming her nails on the
counter between transactions. Here people come to reimburse coupons and transact rebates and the like.
At one of the other checkout lanes, an employee is stocking bags with vigor, but she is delayed by the
person checking out, who is moving very slowly. Now, we're looking at a flywheel here, so expect this
narrative to generate some energy, store it, and then discharge it in a different direction.

The slow-moving checkers - all three - are non-white; black, black, Hispanic. The girl at the customer care
desk is Hispanic. Next to her, at the bank, a young Hispanic couple are applying for an account or a loan.
The customers are about half white, and the other half is mostly Asian and Hispanic. Occasional Africans
wander through, but during the day, it's mostly the lighter ones. The girl who is stuffing bags is white, and
hefty and not attractive, while the Hispanic and black checkout people are more generally attractive and in
two cases, thinner.

So what happens is this: the snail's pace of the girl opening the express lane finally culminates, and having
nothing else to pick at or preen, she opens the lane. Her first customer is a white lady in her sixties,
obviously a stay-at-home wife, who breezes into the lane with a cart half-full and proceeds to chat with the
cashier, needing help extracting purchases from the cart, and immediately mentions her coupons and her
free turkey (apparently, the store gives them away to people, like her, and she said this, who have been
shopping there since 1952). She debates the price of an item. And here's where it gets interesting: the
(Hispanic) girl from the customer care counter comes over at the behest of their checker, and goes to
investigate with the customer. The rest of us wait, and the checker does... nothing.

In the meantime, from the door behind the customer care desk, a hefty white woman in her fifties comes
out and resumes duties, having seen that her deskgirl has disappeared. Interesting. The whole process
grinds to a halt, customers pile up at the lines, and one woman walks out, having abandoned her
purchases because she was unwilling to wait fifteen minutes to get through the line.
If I were writing propaganda for simplistic people, at this point, I'd blame someone. Liberal? Blame whitey.
Rightist? Blame the Negroes and Hispanics. Instead, I'm a design-based hater, and have observed over the
years that it's not the details of our modern system that are broken, but the fundamental design; it's
completely unrealistic. I could fight the heads of the hydra, like racists or environmentalists or civil rights
leaders, but really, that's a non-winnable proposition, which is why it attracts professional protestors,
activists and politicians, who are not looking for a solution so much as they're looking to sell us a product in
their own image. What do I blame here? I don't know if I can blame as much as point out where the
flywheel of history spins, and where our own energy is thus lost to entropic dissipation.

First, let's look at it from the perspective of the woman who left. She was older, and had taken care with
her personal grooming; she was from an older generation when bad service was unacceptable. In our
"progress," of course, we've moved on to liberate the workers from most obligation and to give them
violently combative unions, so now service is worse for everyone, and if each of us there was earning
$20/hour, the world would "owe" us $10 for our time that was wasted. That's "progress," remember. This
poor woman got screwed out of at least ten minutes of her time, first waiting in two slow lines (remember
the hefty girl who had to slow her bagging because the checker was slow?) and then bailing out without
her purchase. Her expectation was that a grocery store would exist for every neighborhood, and would
make enough margin to hire the same people as checkers, and they'd be grateful for the job.

Should they be? Well, let's look at it from the perspective of the Hispanic workers first. They are not first-
generation; they were born here and grew up in Mexican and Guatemalan and El Salvadorian
neighborhoods. In their view, they are here because their parents came here for greater opportunity, and
compared to life in the open sewers of San Salvador, it's an improvement; however, since they've grown up
here, they can see (unlike their parents) how they are at the bottom of the system and, since competition is
fierce and there are new people pouring in everyday, unlikely to rise. They are labor that's sold like
potatoes, by the pound/hour, in which there's little room to compete on the basis of intelligence or
diligence. From their perspective, and I'll throw napalm on the fire by saying it's legitimate, they are getting
screwed the long and slow and boring way, and they're not going to hurry because -- why bother? (They
will eventually change this attitude as even more people arrive, but for now, it is accurate, and I attribute
no blame to them for being slow as molasses.)

OK, let's look at the African-Americans. I like the term "African-American" because it conveys racial pride for
the black people among us, although it would be superior I think to name them by tribe. They have grown
up here; their ancestors fought for equality, for the vote, and then for affirmative action, and new
generations have found out it doesn't mean a damn thing. If they're the tiny percentage of African-
Americans who can make it through college, there's infinite scholarship money and a constant stream of
jobs to fulfil AA quotas. But that doesn't feel right either; it's like selling out, to become an Oreo Uncle
Tom, and to fucking suck as a person, basically. I sympathize with this view; it's better to live according to
culture and neighborhood than it is to have a pliable spine for money, obviously. Most of these were below
100 IQ points, and thus, were doomed to these types of jobs forever. Why hurry? Really, I think they've
figured it out accurately. They have no incentive to hurry.

Now, what about this fat white chick working behind closed doors? A lazy bitch, right? Well, not really. She
realizes that the scenario outside her closed door is a disaster by design, and that to fix it requires
spending more money on employees than the grocery store wants to, and so she's going to hide out
because otherwise, she'll have to hear about it all day long, probably from elderly white people who are
wondering why things are so dysfunctional when back in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and even 1970s they
were more workable. Even in the 80s and 90s there were holdouts, especially in the neighborhoods outside
the city centers, where you could find good service. But now? One of the guys at the butcher shop cannot
read or write. I don't mean the quality of his reading or writing, but I mean that he cannot; he has to ask
the guy who works in seafood if there's anything printed or scribbled on a work order. In the age of UPC
symbols, all he has to do is scan and hit "Total," and then summon a manager if the customer points out
that $19.98 a pound is a bit much for head cheese.

We could always crucify the older white woman who took so much goddamn time at the register. After all,
if it hadn't been for her, we would have been out in -- well, actually, seven minutes faster, all added
together. That's not that much, considering how long the whole debacle took. What was her problem? Like
most older white people, specifically baby boomers, she now lives in a world that has raced forward past
her. I don't mean technology, as a totality, but that she lives in a different type of society. She mis-read a
price; in her day, there were price tags on individual items, and stuff wasn't crammed on shelves so that it
was easy to mistake prices. Further, there were people you could ask who were more accessible than the
few wandering price checkers in this store (cutting costs, again, the stores have removed most of their on-
floor staff; I know because I was able to shop in old school grocery stores in America and Canada in the
1980s). She screwed up a few things. But ultimately, what was her error? Loneliness; the woman was
going batty from living alone in a world where clearly she relates to few people or things, so she goes to
the grocery store and invokes extra help so she feels she has had a human interaction. She is probably a
115 IQ pointer, and was once not bad looking, though now she has the spindly regality of age.

I see plenty of older people doing this, because they grew up in a time where the rule was to find a job and
work hard at it, and you'd do OK in the end. They have. Unfortunately, their society rotted around them, so
now they have trouble finding activities. There are no community centers, no towns, no consistent
organization. Some go to churches, and find themselves sequestered with people of their generation,
talking about death. Others chat with young girls from Russia for $50/half hour. It's stark and empty, but
it's what they have, and so like the woman who held up the checkout lane, they do what they can to adapt.
Really however, society has passed them by, and we have to wonder if this "progress" brought us to a
better state.

If I were a good moronic leftist, I'd blame the store. "You bastards! You have the money!" But they don't,
because they're publically traded, and competing against five other chains. Their job is to cut costs and get
people into the store, which they do with advertising and coupons and the like; they're not trying to offer a
superior product, because they'd go broke doing that. Selling more crap in cans and boxes and bags raises
their stock price, not faster lines, because people cannot compete according to such intangibles. They need
numbers, lower ones, specifically. Thus we have a situation where no one is to blame, yet everyone is in
the wrong: non-whites here as work fodder, but unloved by the white population, who are declining and
thus becoming queenlike in their demands and avoiding the real issues. It's a tragedy, not a story of
victimhood, as what will be left will be a society that has nowhere to go but further decline, yet people are
caught up in their egos and political identity (left vs right) and therefore, do nothing about the real issue.

Some out there would like this to be a racial fairy tale, where black = bad and white = good (right) or
white = bad and black = good (left). They're equally racist and misguided, because the only "equals bad"
here is the design of our system. Using people for labor doesn't benefit them, as it takes them from
societies where they were equals and brings them to a place where they're servants, and cheaper services
for white people means that increasingly economic competition tears apart their communities and leaves
them so lonely that arguing over the price of turkey with an anonymous cashier is something they desire.
The new immigrants will find their children are indifferent, realizing their fate is to be grist for the mill
(much as white kids now are dispirited, knowing that A Job and an endless procession of featureless days
are in their future), and thus lazy and drug-addicted and useless. Accustomed to different societies, the
races cannot get along because they expect different things and thus are in constant clash, which creates
employment opportunities for increasingly greasy politicians who, in the Clinton-Bush style, show us there's
not much difference between right and left except on token issues (abortion, school prayer, AIDS
education).

No one is minding the ship, and that's both the end result of the design of modern society, and what has
been its design problem all along. You might try to swat at the details, like the black nationalists and white
nationalists out there will attempt to do, but the fact is that you're shit on the flywheel of modern life
because you're not addressing the fundamental problem: our motivations are corrupt, and because we
compete for popularity and low prices, no one is going to address the goddamn problem until it blows up in
our faces. But like a flywheel, it never explodes; it simply drains away the energy from all races, from all
people, and leaves behind only a lingering whining noise.

January 4, 2006
Toward the Superman
Civilization, like the health of ethnic groups, is a cyclic pattern. It starts with a few brave explorers who, in
contrast to others, have the long term vision and faith in life to create something anew; to strive for
something better, even if it does not immediately benefit them. They eschew opulence and popularity and
immediate public recognition in favor of a vision barely cresting the horizon, that of something better not
on the level of the tangible (wealth, comfort) but of ideal: a higher form of organization to life, known as a
new civilization.

When these pass on into the great undreaming sleep of death, those who succeed them face genetic
variation to which nature subjects all species, namely the turning of entropy (randomness) into variations
and then the testing of those by survival, with the elimination of the lesser. Humans do poorly emulating
this, since most of them can only think according to one comparison at a time, e.g. strength in arranged
combat or multiple-choice tests or wealth, and therefore, they cannot do what a stringent natural
environment in which death is as plentiful as life can do. Consequently, over time, instead of turning
entropy to their advantage, aging civilizations absorb it in the form of blockheads, fools, perverts and the
indolent.

No matter how much Christian pity, liberal tolerance or conservative good-ol-boyism lurks in your bones,
you recognize this truth on some level, because you are constantly surrounded by people, and you have no
use for more than you find fair companions. There are sexual predators who cannot be rehabilitated, career
criminals who will never change, and people who are either outright stupid or of such blunt perceptual skills
that they might as well be. You can put 10,000 Harvard educators on each case and never change them;
their failing is innate. We don't like to talk about this in polite society, but this is because polite society is
designed toward gathering consensus, not achieving the best answer; aging civilizations favor compromise
over direct truth.

Swallowing these people gluts your society with those who will almost always make the wrong decision,
rather than those who will usually make a right one. I say "a" right one because while there is a singular
right matrix of principles by which one makes a decision (survival, higher order), there are many ways to
implement it. Blockheads don't see this, and insist on a single means of measuring people, such as wealth
or popularity. Blockheads thus further the erosive process like a body rejecting healthy organs. At this
point, since blockheads make up a fair percentage of the population, in order to achieve consensus society
must bring it down to the blockhead level. Thus a civilization passes from middle age into old age, from
which there is no escape.

This contra-evolution selects lesser orders, which have broader application among a population consisting
mostly (for example) of people from 85 IQ to 130 IQ, and thus steadily demotes higher orders. Intelligent
ideas fall prey to popular ones, inevitably featuring greater comfort and hedonism; great art falls prey to
popular culture, and religion becomes a matter of showing up and repeating comforting mantras designed
for a group of mostly blockheads. It is similar to feeding wildlife: those that prevail are not the ones who
can take care of themselves, but those who are most conditioned to take a handout. Society domesticates
itself, inverts evolution, and begins the descent into oblivion.

In wealthy societies such as our own, this may take some time. It's important to note that IQ numbers are
used here, as in all essays by this author, as an approximation and not a rule; the IQ test is fundamentally
flawed in plenty of ways, the least of which being that it equates a linear mathematical representation of
tactical ability with an assessment of strategic thinking capability. It's entirely possible that a genius like
Arthur Schopenhauer would test out at 135 IQ, which would be an obviously false result, as he was able to
perceive and articulate things that many 160+ IQ types found impossible. For the sake of argument,
assume that IQ is a hypothetical approximation, and recognize that much like IQ, our own measurements
of our society's health are linear and prone also to massive failure. We have wealth, and technology, but if
we fall apart from within , those things will not massively organize in parallel to "save" us.

While no one will admit this in public, because it is unpopular thus unprofitable thus equivalent to standing
up and screaming "Impoverish me!", our society is in the final stages of its death procession. Whether we
have five years left, or fifty, our intellectual and spiritual life is made impoverished by the futility of higher
order in a system that favors lower orders. This subjects us to constant stupidity, makes us numb and
depressed at such a subtle level that we don't even know it, and assume that an ugly landscape of
concrete and plastic in which almost every action or object we undertake is a product inferior to real
experience is somehow "OK." Look around you; everyone is surviving, but few are enjoying the process.
They escape into enclaves of conditioned positive thought, like religion or family or drugs or business, and
ignore the big picture. When truth is an offense, civilization entropy is not far behind!

Naturally, we all detest the person who screams "Fire!" and does nothing more. There is a solution to this
problem, and it's as radically simple as the reasons for decline, when you look behind the weird
justifications (justification = finding a reason for an action after undertaking it for a different reason) like
politics and economy that people use to explain our failing society. Opulence is what allows a civilization to
tolerate its own entropic detritus and call it "citizen," and perhaps, a deviation from the path of praising
monetary prosperity is our future. Because we deal in wealth, wealth is needed to survive well: housing
away from the ghetto-heads, private schools to keep your kids away from morons, better medical and legal
services to avoid the public mediocrity. Yet for all this gelt , we are like drowning men trying to climb out of
the water that surrounds them as it rises; there will never be enough money to escape the pool of
blockheads which gets bigger every year.

What is a future without wealth? A society where we are not predominantly motivated by personal self-
interest. How does this work? Other values, like culture and heritage and quite simply, creating a higher
order in every scheme of organization we touch, must prevail. Could that work with our current population?
No, on two levels: first, they are genetically morons in the majority; second, their spiritual and philosophical
outlook is geared against evolution and not with it. For our future, we need to at least be ruled by people of
a higher grade of discipline and a finer intelligence, such as people who can balance a need for some
degree of material comfort with an abstract values system that may not immediately reward them. These
supermen will be more like the creators of our civilization, long ago, and less like the daisy chain of
mediocrity that has followed.

Fred Nietzsche, from whom the term "superman" is borrowed, is misinterpreted on the left as a Nazi and on
the right as some kind of Communist for his suggestion that humanity rise above itself. His concept
however is not solely eugenic, nor solely political, but predominantly addresses the spiritual state of
humanity: the superman is one who is willing to rise above fear of physical discomfort, and even rise above
the need for personal security and survival, in order to, like the creators of civilization, assert a higher ideal:
an order not on the level of the tangible.

He saw this higher consciousness in the heroic and tragic works of the early Greeks, who would praise an
act for the degree of thought required, regardless of the outcome for the actors involved. If everyone died,
but died doing something noble, well, then, it was a positive outcome for them - this thought is blasphemy
in modern times, when our newspapers are required to call any death a "tragedy" and those who died,
either "victims" or "heroes," the latter term having lost all significance after the al-Qaeda attacks of
September 11, 2001 (heroic attacks in themselves, since without caring for their own deaths, the al-Qaeda
commandos achieved a highly symbolic victory). The Greeks, the ancient Romans, like the ancient Indians
before them believed there was a fate worse than death, and it was the ignoble act of preferring a lower
order to a higher one.

This is a spiritual question because it reflects how much faith one is willing to place in the operations of the
world. If life is good, and we can organize our surroundings to a higher degree, there is no reason not to
except personal failings, such as laziness or perversion or innate stupidity. Those who have long term vision
and can see past the tangible see a larger picture of life by which they understand its order, and how
humans can fit into that at a higher level, including acceptance of and in fact utilization of evolution - a
thought which requires we face our own mortality, as part of the nature of evolution is the loss of lives,
including possibly our own, if we don't measure up. Are we selfish, fearing death so much that we would
endanger all of civilization, or are we brave enough to trade our own deaths for a greater degree of
organization?
On this question the concept of Superman hinges. Our current society is ugly, futile in its repetitive nature
and menial goals, and self-destructive in that it threatens ecocide (which, contrary to popular belief, does
not require elimination of all living things, but enough to disrupt the ecosystem as whole, and thus throw a
balanced system into a chaos that leads to a downward slide) as well as suicide through our subtle
depressions and ennui neurosis. It is clear that the previous model of civilization, and indeed the genetics of
most of the people in it, have failed a crucial test by refusing to acknowledge the firm realities of the
future: humanity must curb its population and must cease its reckless pollution, externally, and must find
something better to live for than money and status, internally. Since they have failed, and the countdown
has begun for our civilization's death, those who are still brave must plan toward the future, and that plan
will include our own next stage in evolution, from human to superhuman.

Heaven

If you want a room full of credulous, simple people to believe your religion, you tell them simple lies. They
want you to lie to them about dying, and tell them that as long as they do some token thing, they won't
die. So you invent Heaven, twisting an ancient concept into a product, and promise them that if they swear
an oath to a certain god, they go there, no taxes or surcharges required. How does this become
destructive?

In the ancient sense, Heaven was not "a place on earth" (cf. Belinda Carlisle) nor was it a place at all;
Heaven is a state of mind, according to the ancient faiths. You do not go to heaven after death, but if you
dwell in heaven throughout life, your death does not trouble you (and it is unclear if you actually "die,"
since it is possible that your mind and actions branch beyond the individual). Because Heaven is a state of
mind, and not a place, the only way to get there is through individual action and finding one's own path.
No one can promise you Heaven in exchange for allegiance or a specific set of actions (usu. "kill the
unbelievers"). You have to get there by yourself.

Can you imagine why telling people they must achieve a state of discipline called Heaven is healthier than
promising them a place called Heaven in exchange for task/belief (essentially, a political notion, as it is the
basis of mass manipulation)? Surely this much is clear: when Heaven is a place, people cease working for
heavenly states within themselves.

Ecoterrorism

Sheeplike people content themselves with categories, believing that if we all agree something is of a certain
type, it makes it so, and somehow changes the world at large. For this reason, we call certain soldiers of
the enemy "terrorists" if they don't play by rules that we define, which, naturally, are to our advantage.
Perhaps they hijack planes and kill civilians; in our public view, this is somehow different than our purchase
of planes for the express purpose of bombing civilian areas. We would make more sense if we claimed that
they were "terrorists" because a 747 crashing into the WTC has three numbers, while a B-52 bombing
Fallujah has only two.

The fact of the matter is that when you are fighting to the death for something in which you believe,
nothing is too dirty or too mean, especially in modern warfare. After all, ungodless America sprayed dioxin
on forests to remove natural camouflage (Viet Nam), fired radioactive antitank rounds into schoolyards
(Iraq I), tortured prisoners and held others without trial for years (Iraq II), firebombed civilian centers with
high concentrations of children (WWII), gassed enemy troops within sight of villages (WWI), used
camouflaged snipers against uniformed infantry (Revolution), spread biological agents to enemy tribes
(Indian Wars), and faked attacks on our ships to justify combat (Spanish-American War & Vietnam). There's
no method too dirty for us because there can't be, if the other guy is willing to use it, and even if he's not,
our job is to win, not to be "moral."

We call people "terrorists" like we call them "evil," or "cowardly," or compare them to Hitler; all of these
things have been done to al-Qaeda and other groups that resist us abroad. Domestically, we reserve this
term in modified form for those who dare to note that ecocide is impending, and thus fight back with the
weapons they have. We call them "ecoterrorists."
Ecocide is a tricky issue. Idiots like to equate "global warming" with all of humanity's effect on our
environment; this makes it easier to get fanatical about global warming (left) and argue against it (right).
Global warming is one tiny part of environmental change, which is a euphemism for "actions leading to
ecocide." Look at it this way: our environment is maintained by "ecosystems," or interactions between
plants and animals and weather and growth media (soil, air, water). There are millions of parts in the giant
equation of our global ecosystem. When we remove enough of those parts so that the mechanical process
that is our ecosystem can no longer balance itself, it will collapse like a bridge whose infrastructure has
been destabilized, and destroy many species and the equilibrium of energy and growth media exchange
that permits life as diverse as what we have now. That is ecocide. It is not a single change, or even all that
many changes, but it is vicious and permanent.

Some wits argue against this point by saying that earth has always been under change, and that humans
have wiped out species before. True, but earth's changes have been the collective result of many natural
forces, and are not linear (consumption of land fueled by overpopulation, and pollution from industry) as
humanity's are. Further, those species that were wiped out in the past were a handful of large animals;
that's a far cry from shattering an entire ecosystem, in which literally millions of species will be destroyed,
obsoleted or mutated into something as generic and boring as the tame squirrels, pigeons, sparrows, rats
and cockroaches that infest our cities. We are going from a complex ecosystem in which many species exist
in parallel and cooperatively achieve a cycle that maintains itself to large populations of adaptive generalists
like squirrels, who maintain nothing but survive anything. This is a loss of diversity and a loss of the overall
"life" to our planet, replacing that with a few species that survive as long as their resources last.

For example, if we consume enough forest, it will be unable to reseed itself healthily, and we will replace
thousands of tree species with a handful that will be maladapted in many soils and climates, causing
erosion and damage. If our oceans get toxic enough, but not necessarily fully toxic, there will be a
reduction in bluegreen algae that corresponds to not enough oxygen. The things upon which we depend for
life will change in intensity and possibly presence. You might not know that if we kill enough frogs, but not
all, they will not breed at replacement rates, starving all the animals that depend on them. The entire
system collapses like a house of cards, but there is no obvious signal that it will happen.

Our global ecosystem needs most of the planet for itself to function. Not city parks, not land divided by
roads and fences, but unbroken wilderness. All of the changes we see now are just tickles, the first signs of
failure, like the weakening of a support strut in a bridge beginning with a small creaking noise. There will
be no giant flashing sign that says PUSH HERE TO DESTROY EARTH, nor will the response be sudden. It
will be slow, but at a certain point, like a chemical reaction, it will have gone too far to be reversed.

Those who realize this are "ecoterrorists." They see something that most people not only lack the brains to
see, but would not acknowledge if they did see it, because they are fundamentally selfish, usually as a
result of their limited intelligence. This is not to say these people are "bad," only that their judgment is
suspect, and they should not be allowed to make decisions with far-reaching outcomes. For many of them,
the most complex decision they should make is what to eat for lunch, and judging by what most people
eat, they will screw that up as well. Ecoterrorists are inherently fascists. They recognize that unless forced
to do otherwise, the majority of the human race will happily usher in an age of ecocide because they want
that big pickup truck, that Dead Kennedys CD, that mocha java in styrofoam, that new television with
widescreen - thinking only of themselves, they are blind to larger implications of their actions, and thus as
both ignorant and uncaring agents of destruction will collectively commit ecocide.

Ecoterrorists should wear that name as a badge of honor. Not all of them are visionaries, and in fact many
are blockheads, but they are perpetuating a necessary resistance to industrial society and the proletariat
masses that empower it through their reckless, selfish consumption. You cannot blame the rich, nor can
you exclusively blame the poor; you must blame the system that allows unwise, selfish and misinformed
people to make decisions with wider consequences. Ecoterrorists want to take "freedom" away from these
people, which is fortunate, as it's the only sane conclusion. Ecoterrorists know that these same people will
use their democratic "freedom" to block any sane action on the environment until it is too late. Ecoterrorists
realize that it is immaterial how many humans we lose, because we can grow more, while ecocide is
forever.
Whether you are left, or right, or somewhere else on the political spectrum, you must realize this:

a. There is a real threat to our environment.

b. Democratic systems will do nothing about it, as they are based on individual self-interest over
collective interest, and even collective interest generally includes only collected individuals, not our
environment.

Ecoterrorism helps accomplish what politics will not. Liberal democracies are incapable of addressing the
environmental problem, because they are based on selfishness. Token responses like the Kyoto Protocol will
lessen one symptom, global warming, but not address the problem as a whole. We are leaking toxic stuff
into our environment and overconsuming land and resources, displacing and destroying species needed for
our global ecosystem. Slowly we are committing ecocide. Only ecoterrorists oppose this. Your local
ecoterrorist deserves your support.

December 1, 2005
Inward
There's a difference between being your own person and being obsessed with yourself. I was unfortunate
enough to witness a debate in my favorite coffee shop between several groups of people, and was
reminded again how this world is divided into leaders, and then followers, with the latter subdividing into
outright submitters (follow the dominant paradigm) and self-style "iconoclasts" who derive their identity
and self-worth from being "different" in appearance while bleatingly repeating the same silly ideas.

The latter will tell you until their dying breath that "being your own person" equals being obsessed with
yourself; they talk a good game about how everyone is wrong, and only they and others of a certain elect
have the truth, but their basic message is this: repeat the right ideas, and be "different" and "unique" in
your lifestyle, and you're one of the right ones and everyone else is wrong. Their message is identical to
that of the corporations they detest and the Republicans they loathe: show up, sign up for some idea, and
then keep being selfish and somehow you're an "individualist."

Whatever. I say this not with a sense of acceptance, but in the knowledge that followers pretending to be
leaders always blurt out the same nonsense message, which is that we can all be included if we just repeat
the same thing. Because their modus operandi is that of a follower, their message is follower-friendly. They
are telling you that what is most important is your own comfort and your personal drama, regardless of
what is true or a higher ideal that just being a sheep. The message of crowds everywhere is that each of us
is our own little world, and that no one should take that from us, so we should band together and start
preaching about how we must protect these little worlds regardless of the effect of detaching ourselves
from reality.

Resistance to the organized mass can be effected only by the man

who is as well organized in his individuality as the mass itself.
-- C.G. Jung, The Undiscovered Self (1957)

Really, that's what it is. Whether you're a Bush-can-do-no-wrong sheep or a beret-wearing iconoclast who's
the only person in the world unique enough to prefer horse semen in your mocha java, their belief is that
we should all exist as inviolable sacred personal worlds and be obsessed with ourselves. Damn reality! Go
deeper into being You, be a God unto yourself, and find meaning in life in your conflicts, your fears, your
clothing and product preferences and the expanding cult of You. If all of us together demand this same
thing, we can all be "individuals," together!

The scene queens like to think that having the world's most diverse CD collection, the right combination of
thrift shop clothing that no one else has, and a "unique" take on the world through a "different" sequence
of popular thoughts is the way to be an individualist. These people fundamentally hate the order of nature,
in which those who adapt best to reality are rewarded, and want to replace it with an order where those
who are the most popular are rewarded. And we all know how easy popularity is. Make yourself into a
product that's distinctive from others, then dress up the same old line in a new way, and tell people that
they can be as cool as you for repeating what you've said or done or how you've dressed, and you'll be
popular. Even if what you're preaching is "iconoclastic" and against the grain, it's basically the same old
line.

I call this Crowdism, because it rewards followers disguised as leaders, and excludes real leaders. Its
message is that you can get ahead in life through appearance, and not through discipline or by doing
anything of real importance. Whether you're the local scene queen at the coffee shop, or the guy who
repeats exactly what he reads from government news sources, it's the same psychology. Don't go inward;
go outward. Be part of the crowd, but in order to do that, you must be "unique." Those who like our
government claim they do so because it gives them the best chance to pursue their personal lifestyle,
where those who hate our government do so because they feel it oppresses their uniqueness. These people
have no philosophical statement, because their only idea is that they want to worship themselves, and they
make up 98.6% of our population.

The only way to be your own person is to go inward and to find out what you value. No amount of external
"rights" or the ability to be dramatic with your CD collection and mocha java can do this for you. Tackle
your own fears, get better at doing whatever you love, and most of all, stop being a world unto yourself
and reconnect to reality. Make changes where change is good, and don't try to define yourself by external
things where no change is needed; simply appreciate them. You don't need a forest that's unique because it
has pink cacti growing next to evergreens; you need to discipline your spirit and soul to appreciate the
genius of the forest as it is. No amount of external reconfiguration can do that for you.

December 6, 2005
2008
Vijay Prozak
PO Box 1004
Alief, TX 77411
USA

The German Consulate General

1330 Post Oak Blvd. Suite 1850
Houston TX 77056

Dear Germany,

I am applying for political asylum to your country as a refugee from the United States
of America. Ever since the malls invaded my country, I have been persecuted both
politically and economically because my beliefs conflict radically with the idea that
everything on earth should be for sale. America, as you know, has no native culture
joined by language and ethnicity and values, and therefore, everything is for sale, and
this is why the malls came: misguided fellow citizens invited them in by majority,
because the idea of gaining wealth is so simple and persuasive it manipulates even
good people. Once the malls came to power, first by popular election and then by
sheer might, this reached a fever pitch.

As you know, people who have values outside of earning a living are the forgotten
minority in America. Those who would do something because it is a good idea, for not
only humans but earth and the sanity that comes with logical order, are persecuted
through denial of positions in our economic system and of course. Truth is not
marketable; popularity is. To be popular in the mall-society, you have to offend no
one and promise gigantic absolute results for very simple and selfish actions. This is
how the malls get to power, and if your values conflict with this idea, you're not going
to get the good jobs, the beautiful wives, or even a life free from people scorning you
and trying to blacklist you.

The malls have an infinite number of collaborators who carefully note the names and
addresses of dissidents and pass them along, warning others not to work with people
who have such dangerous ideas. We who appreciate experience - like seeing a
waterfall at twilight, or deer chasing each other through snowy peaks, or even the joy
of great literature and music - are at odds with popular culture and its underlying
idea, which is that we should all be "equal" in a sense of economic opportunity and
thus free to pursue whatever selfishness we want, even if it's destructive in the longer
term and broader view. This kind of linear logic creates the kind of problems you see
in America, like the sprawling cities and constant need for greater wealth to get the
expedited services that are necessary, unless you want to rely on incompetent state
services and the bureaucrats who act out their personal biases in their application. If
you're not with the malls, you're no one, and dissidents like me have nowhere else to
go.

While we're chasing giant mountains of material possession we miss out on the
experience of life, which is happening every moment that we still breathe. Can you
sell an experience? You cannot, so you have to sell goods, and this requires being
inoffensive, primarily by refusing to tell anyone that they can't have it Their Way all
the time. Who is going to give up a shot at stock options just because it will result in
the clear-cutting of a forest, the dumping of toxic waste or destroying of culture? In
fact, by standing for something other than popular culture and the idea of gaining
 "equality" by working nonstop for wealth, you're already out of step. The malls and
their allies whip themselves into a frenzy of being offended and persecute such
dangerous revolutionaries, even if there was no revolutionary intent. In fact, those of
us who value experiences and intangible things over material wealth see our belief as
ancient and modern at once, something that will always be true, but the malls don't
see it that way.

America was once a verdant place where fairness, or at least as close as we could
get, was the rule. The problem was that the malls put a fifth column amongst us, and
did not tell us that their plan was to dominate our society, kill our best people and
cover almost everything in concrete. They did not tell us they would take all of our
land, put up roads and fences, and kill off all of our creatures and almost all of our
forest. They didn't say we would drive an hour to work every morning, eat food out of
plastic, and think of Britney Spears and Cannibal Corpse as acceptable "culture." The
invasion crept right up on us, and now you cannot go anywhere without passing rows
of colored lighted signs, parking lots, gas stations, fast food and convenience stores.
The malls have utterly triumphed.

What is really scary is that the malls are pushing up toward an apocalypse, even if a
slow one. They recruit from the lowest among us, promising them riches and wide-
screen wall-size televisions, and so the poor misguided and misinformed join up and
help tear down our world. Because their numbers grow daily, and each of them wants
a car and a house and a fast food drive-thru (see, they've even changed our
language) of their very own, the malls are pushing us to a point where there won't be
any wilderness, just endless miles of streets named after the trees that were once
there. There is no stopping point, because to be fair to everyone, you have to let
each one take as much wealth as he or she can, and the malls never criticize people
for cutting down trees or dumping toxic waste in rivers because it's cheaper than
dealing with it.

I can't go on anymore. Everywhere I turn, there is a mall guard watching over me

from its lighted windows with slogans promising heaven in exchange for hell on earth.
I cannot find a place to walk where there are no concrete paths, waterfountains and
pay phones. Everything is either a mall or a "park," which is like a captive wilderness
Disneyland to remind us of what once was, so we can refresh ourselves before going
shopping again. The malls have domesticated us, and now we live in cages called
"cars" or "apartments," awaiting the end that our common sense tells us will
eventually come but of which we cannot speak in public, because people will become
offended and turn on us.

Please help me by granting me asylum in your fair country. I estimate your country
has another fifty years before the malls take over, thus asylum would give me liberty
for most of my natural life. I would be indebted to you and promise not to breed with
your women, as if I introduce mutt American blood into your heritage, I will be
contributing to the adulteration of what is it to be German and thus giving the malls a
chance to replace your culture. Furthermore, I promise to never eat fast food while in
Germany. I hope you can consider my application fairly and deliver me from a state of
persecution, for which I will be forever in your debt.

Sincerely,
Vijay Prozak

In 2008, we have an election forthcoming which could determine a difference in our future. If we keep our
partisan identities, the you-Democrat me-Republican egofest that prohibits us from ever seeing the actual
issues much less finding anything other than a mutually dissatisfying compromise, we will determine
nothing. However, when one realizes that the people in politics are not as brick-stupid as they appear, and
that there are some natural needs and impulses behind their desires which cannot be compromised, it's
possible to look toward a new beginning.

We can take our values, but not the form in which they've lain dormant, and start a new chapter in
American politics. Our old allegiances are rotted, because when we have only two "sides" and even they
have become so similar as to be irrelevant, the choices are almost purely aesthetic. Democrats don't know
how to end the war in Iraq; Republicans had trouble figuring out how to start it. Neither side is going to
implement any aggressive pro-environmental policy. Both sides want to naturalize more immigrants.
Neither side has said anything about lessening the time spent commuting or dealing with bureaucracy so
we can get back to family, friends, and spiritual growth.

In short, they're actors, playing up to the largely ignorant audience which democracy creates by putting
zero challenge into getting the vote. You sign up, show 'em you're over 18 and live around the polling
place, and you're as equal as anyone else to the vote counters. They tell you what pleasant things can be
had for minimal effort, and then rapidly spin the conversation into big ideals like "freedom" and
"opportunity" that ultimately have zero effect on you and usually take away a little of both. They will divide
you up into token special-interest groups - Christians, gays, video gamers, minorities - and then play you
off one another. Their speeches say they want lots of good things for little of our effort; the reality is that
they want power, with a lot of our effort, and they don't give a damn at all how things turn out.

The good thing about this sickening process is that like most scams, its enemy is time. Fool me once, the
saying goes, shame on you. But fool me again? Shame on me. The subtlest scams take years to be
recognized, but like a virus, that recognition spreads as rapidly as it took long for initial notice to be taken.
Such is the case in America, where increasingly our voters are realizing:

Our politicians are actors who speak essentially the same message, with zero intent of fixing our
actual problems, as the truth of how to fix those problems is politically unpopular.
There is no longer any real agreement about values or future in our country, thus we are doomed to
an endless series of compromises that will tie us up in infighting until the Chinese destroy us. There
are no answers, any more.

This coming election season - and you've got three (3/tres) years to prepare - think about undoing the
situation we're in, instead of trying to carve up power between two sides who really don't have any interest
or profit in changing the way things work around here. Thanks to our democracy, you'll be voting against
millions of morons, but they tend to back down whenever a clear idea presents itself or, conveniently, try
to make it taboo. If the smart people put their weight behind a better idea, they can stand out from the
horde and present an actual solution, which even many morons will find hard to resist. The rest of this
article details how some of our political parties could change themselves to get ready for the future.

Greens

The problem with environmentalists is that there are two types: ecoterrorists, who understand the problem
accurately but have ineffective methods, and ecoliberals, who fail to understand the problem and have
ineffective but politically acceptable methods. The former want to blow up SUVs, and the latter think that if
we all purchase hybrid cars, use low-power toasters and blow our noses on recyclable muslin somehow it'll
all work out just fine. Clearly the former are the more realistic of the group, in terms of action, while the
latter are mostly there to hear themselves talk. Yet neither has grasped the duality of the problem.

The crisis of environmentalism is that (1) it must recognize the actual factor of our environmental disaster,
instead of pointing to dripping faucets and luxury sedans; and (2) that it must find a solution that
incorporates the whole of our socioeconomic system, instead of suggesting extremist revolution or
ineffective strategies like unplugging appliances at night, as the ecoterrorists and ecoliberals do,
respectively. (1) requires that it face a truth that neither division wants to talk about, and (2) requires that
it cease being a political flavor and instead becomes a comprehensive political platform.

Ecoliberals are the biggest impediment here, because they will not want to recognize the truth. These are
ineffective people who want to make some token changes, buy organic free trade coffee and otherwise do
nothing to address the problem; their solutions are ludicrous, from hunting down drippy faucets to using
low-energy bulbs, and if everyone on earth did exactly as they suggest, the overall impact would be
negligible. I call these people ecoliberals because they are basically Democrats with an environmentalist
flavor, and by occupying the position of "environmentalist," they block out any significant discussion of it.
Ecoterrorists are more developed but by their extremist nature are essentially a protest movement that will
not gain large numbers among the general population.

What ecoliberals are afraid to face, and even ecoterrorists shirk from discussing, is that to mention the real
issue behind our environmental problem is a taboo, because it says that all of us cannot have it all, cannot
have it our way, and in fact, some will have to make large sacrifices. What is at stake here is ecocide, or a
smashing of the delicate balance of species and weather conditions and nutrients and transfer of energy
gleaned from sunlight that is our global ecosystem. Destroy it, and lots of things we come to see as just
part of the scenery suddenly will not be there, or will be in such weakened forms as to be useless. Global
warming is a smokescreen, in that some degree of it was natural, and that its consequences are far
secondary to those of land overuse, depletion of natural populations, and of course pollution. Global
warming will change our climate, and we're not sure we can blame industry for it, so let's set that aside -
ecocide will destroy life as we know it, and it is a clear end result of all of us going out and having houses
and cars and kids who each do the same.

Humanity grows exponentially, even if some populations (Europe, American Europeans) have stabilized their
populations at roughly 1.8 children per family, below replacement rate. Overpopulation is our great enemy.
It does not make sense to back away from the innovations that modern society offers us, but we cannot
give that lifestyle to anyone, nor can we continue to give it to future generations. A few hundred million
people living first-world lifestyles will not present a problem, but seven billion, soon to be nine billion, will
deplete our land and leave our earth a polluted wreck. Why do we keep breeding recklessly? Our
manufacturers and services need new markets, and new labor to work old scams, so any time someone
speaks up about overpopulation, a chorus screams about human rights, but what they're really talking
about is stock prices , specifically for stock they own.

Greens have to get over this taboo. People respect honesty. Say up front that we have to limit our
population, in part by allowing AIDS and H5N1 to do their work, and in part by not giving foreign aid to
anyone no matter how cute their starving kids are. Is it inhumane? -- maybe. More inhumane than
dooming all of us to death along with our ecosystem? -- definitely not. For that reason it should be
supported, yet Greens refuse to mention it, fearing they'll be seen as extremists. Instead they're seen as
people ducking the real problem, who in lieu of an actual plan come up with unrealistic "solutions," just like
the other groups of politicized liars we're all learning to distrust.

By emphasizing green solutions that complement business, Greens can demonstrate how there will not be a
loss of jobs or of lifestyle so long as we take care of the essentials, namely preventing further development,
population growth, or unfiltered pollution. Even if the only statement the Green party has is that it will tax
businesses 50% with wide deductions for environmental spending, they stand a better chance of election
than they do now, because most people see them as both ineffective and poised toward radicalism. In the
2004 election, the Greens committed suicide because they were afraid that John Kerry would not win if the
Greens ran a successful candidate. They not only lost that election, but would have done so for a man with
zero interest in effective green legislation. Perhaps the ecoliberals have taken over, since the ecoterrorists
are already hiding in tents outside SUV dealerships and new suburbs?

Conservatives

A party with even less of a clue is the GOP and its conservative allies. Still in shock from the effect the
counterculture had on Baby Boomer voting patterns, the conservatives have relied on finding whole voting
blocs they can transform into allies. In 2004, it was the radical evangelist Christians and big business,
whereas in 2008 they're planning to seduce minorities and gun owners. This is a mistake as instead they
could have the largest section of voters in America.

Most people, even if of fairly liberal views, are generally open to conservative politicians because they
recognize the stability of conservatism, and the importance of traditional values. Both are attributes needed
for a smoothly functioning society. The average hard-working, sensible person will vote conservative unless
driven away from it by conservative parties doing the exact opposite - such as appealing to religious
nutcases, Israel, illegal aliens and the like. The GOP and Republicans are about to cut their own throats
through a series of ill-advised ventures into trying to capture bizarro voting blocs when they would be best
served by simply capturing the biggest bloc of all, which is the sensible average people who make up the
middle class and small business owners in America.

Your average person might be a gun owner, but also might not be; they may or may not be Christian, but
are too pragmatic to get all wishy-washy about some evangelical mission to save the world by hastening
the final apocalypse and thus shortening the time until we're all in the arms of Jesus (note to Europeans:
apparently, many Americans including most of our new Hispanic population believe this). The motto of a
sensible conservative party would be: do not cater to special interests; provide for traditional values! There
is no way to group into a handy package the average hardworking sensible folk out there, because they
don't go in for special interests. They go in for stability that gives a nudge to traditional values because this
is how people raise their kids if they want their kids to go far. Traditional values like hard work, respecting
your culture and elders, heroism and thinking for the long term (chastity, respect for nature, sobriety) are
how you live if you want to be successful in any genre.

Conservatives have almost entirely abandoned these people in their pursuit of the special voting blocs. This
is a dire mistake, and explains in part why liberals triumph over the beady-eyed nutcases like Bob Dole.
Average people want stability, not power hungry and not mystically included toward group suicide. They've
waken up having seen George W. run into Washington, slot his cronies into power and then start a series of
disastrous long-term wars. They want people who put the citizens first, before spacy issues that are done
for symbolic allegiance to voting blocks, but in fact endanger, impede and marginalize the responsible,
hard-working people of traditional values among us. The conservatives are no longer a traditional values
party. Either they change that, or they will perish, because they will not be able to out-populist the liberals.

Democrats

A trend that would worry the Democrats, were they savvy enough to have a consciousness between
elections, is a worldwide slippage of Democratic parties that has been going on for many years. The reason
is simple: if you promise better societies through the revolutionary logic of liberalism, you'd better deliver.
Clinton was popular in the USA mainly because his civil rights program promised to reduce ethnic tensions.
It didn't, and many believe, especially after Hurricane Katrina, that nothing will (they're right). FDR was
popular because his liberal programs promised jobs for those destroyed by rampant speculation and the
inevitable recession that followed. Liberals who address a real need and have a real plan can be quite
successful; however, Democratic parties worldwide have been coasting on the same rhetoric of
empowerment, subsidy and pluralism for a long time, and the results are increasingly not impressive. In
fact, liberal parties have not only failed to change many of the problems they identify, but have made them
worse.

Part of this is the fundamental schizophrenia of Democratic parties. As liberals preaching revolutionary
rhetoric dolled up as common sense, they have to either deliver a revolution or dilute their message to fit
into the normal transactions of everyday life. Most people fear the revolutions, remembering how in France
and in Russia leftist revolt led to a slaughter of, among the privileged, many of the nation's smartest and
best people, effectively ending its long-term prospects as a world power. America's revolution was fortunate
because, although liberal in appearance, it was in fact conservative, being a land-grab by local landowners
who recognized that living as a colony was not only bad for business but would prevent the development of
traditional values in their new nation. Ever since that time, the phrase "leftist revolution" (or class war, or
race war) conjures up images of intellectuals bending over trenches, waiting for proletarian bullets. Veering
away from that extreme, Democrats become milktoast conservatives who believe in pacification while
preaching grand ideals, and the increasing visibility of the failure of those grand ideals to either manifest
themselves or fix problems has voters wary.

If liberals want to really triumph in 2008, they should grab ahold of one of the best ideas that came out of
liberal think tanks: localization. Instead of advocating, like their conservative brethren, that we all join
together and do things about the big issues, they should encourage a fragmentation of government so
different localities can have different standards and manage themselves. After all, not everyone is going to
be a liberal, and liberals either have to dominate those people and reveal themselves as revolutionaries, or
compromise with them and raise suggestions that Democrats are Republicans on estrogen. If Democrats
were to come to the election promising that communities like Alief, TX would be freed from levels of red
tape so it could rule itself, they'd gain the vote of many conservatives.

The grand secret of conservatives, and most successful liberals, is that people are not the same. Please
don't turn this into a racial issue - whether or not that applies, it's not what I'm speaking of here. I refer
simply to the difference between communities and people within them. If Alief, TX wants to remain a semi-
rural community, and put into place its own conservative rules, no harm is really done to those
surrounding, and it can become a magnet for people who think the same way. This leaves other
communities to do as they will, even if it is radically incompatible with Alief; local communities have to
collaborate on a handful of issues and otherwise can be fully independent of one another. Did we really
expect that the same rules that apply in Brooklyn, NY would apply in Alief, TX? Of course not. Agree to
disagree, and move on.

Liberals have spent too long behind their class-war, racial-equality, women's empowerment type of issue.
Such things are, with the exception of a vocal few who almost never have succeeded in anything or even
held day jobs recently, entirely inconsequential to most people, even though you can brainwash them into
thinking such things are important for their younger years. Most normal, non-neurotic people want a fair
shot at a decent working wage and safe places to raise their families. They don't necessarily care if they
are universally "empowered" or "equal" so long as they can have a job and a place within a community.
Not everyone wants to live in New York or Dallas, and if they have a decent life, they care more about that
then political equality or other token symbols that ultimately have little effect on their fortunes. Most of the
people in the ghetto are there because they don't have their act together at all - more rules and subsidies
won't change that. Change must come from within.

Finally, Democrats should do more than lip service for the environmental issue. Kyoto is great, but wider
change is needed. Just as with the greens, Democrats should not be apologetic about this stance so long as
they provide for a smooth transition to this state; radical change without a backing plan for keeping people
in jobs results in failure every time. More people than ever before are aware of this issue and will support
those who have practical means for implementing it, including a foreign policy that for the first time since
WWII does not encourage growth in developing nations or anywhere else in the world. Just as Republicans
should back down from some of their nutty foreign policy ideas, Democrats must too, if they want want to
survive as a political entity.

Nationalists

For the first time in a long time, in 2008 America will most probably have either a Nationalist or extreme
Conservative candidate running for office. Why? -- well, while the Democrats and Republicans have been
duking it out for many years, out of sight of the figures we maintain on such topics our quality of life has
been slipping. Crime may be down, incrementally, but most of us still live in constant fear of our violent
cities. Racial antagonism may be tempered, this year, but it's still high with no sign of abaiting or sensible
solution offered. Further, traditional values have never earned anyone a vast profit, so there is a constant
assault from industry and entertainment on the values by which conservatives live and which they want to
teach their kids. This results in more good stable families getting the call that their offspring, being taught
that open-mindedness is the path to heaven, tried drugs and lost that battle of roulette or got murdered in
a city alley. They're sick of it. They want a 1920s America back, a place that knows its own culture and isn't
afraid to tell some people NO so that the rest of us can live according to what traditionalists see as sensible
values.

(Nationalists should note: while part of nationalism is the knowledge that each organic nation is a group
joined by heritage, culture and language, it is imperative that you not translate this into bigotry, because
bigotry removes the onus from yourselves to fix your own nation. The nations I know of at this point have
rotted from within, glutted on fiscal luxury and technological opulence and drama of the individual, and that
must be fixed, or all the separation in the world cannot save you. I can tell which nationalist groups are
going to succeed by how quickly I cannot find racial data, crime stats, etc. on their web sites! Loving your
own race doesn't translate into hating others; it translates into separating from them, which precludes a lot
of hateful, bigoted, linear, one-dimensional politics.)

Nationalists are also, among the major political persuasions, the only ones to adopt a sensible attitude
toward ethnicity, which is that if each ethnicity wants to keep itself healthy it will separate from all others
and agitate for autonomy including self-rule. Your standard neo-Nazi is saying nothing different from what
your average Rabbi or Nation of Islam bootboy says: we need to rule ourselves so we don't get assimilated.
As America invites in people from all over the world, often under the guise of helping them out, those who
make up the traditional backbone of America are agitating for the defense of their own way of life, and
Nationalists provide the only workable plan, which is separation and self-rule. Is this unpopular? Well,
everyone's been taught to call them "racists," but it's not really racism. It's more like... Nationalism. Ethnic-
cultural self rule. And in countries of European descent worldwide, it's gaining in popularity, especially with
those who now that they're past 30 are forced to consider practical solutions instead of emotionally
goodfeeling ones.

Conclusion

We have a chance in this election. The Bush conservatives, or neo-conservatives, have shot their wad. The
public is equally sick of mincing liars like John Kerry and his rich man condescension to the poor and
minorities. This dissatisfaction isn't unreasonable; in the fifty years since WWII, conservatives have lobbied
for more enforcement and war and liberals have lobbied for more internal dissent and class war, and
together, they've taken a prosperous nation and turned it into a conflicted, neurotic, pointless existence.
The solution to this dilemma is to divide up, rather than try to find a single rule for disparate folks, and let
nature judge the outcome of each possible way of approaching the question of survival. Conservatives and
liberals cannot be reconciled. However, if each group drifts more closely toward its core principles, we can
see where the nation must separate and thus let each group enjoy its own preferred mode of existence.
Not only is that the only true form of tolerance we will find, but it's the only possible future for a nation
that no longer agrees on even the most basic values.

December 8, 2005
Cops
Or How Abusive Authority is Not Authority Itself
Most people like to see the world in two sides, x versus y, a linear equation. They would like you to believe
that there's a right way, and a wrong way, universally, of doing things. They would like you to believe that
some people are evil and some are good. They want you to see anyone with money as bad, and anyone
without, as innocent and pure. They also want you to see any authority as oppressive, and any anti-
authority as being on the side of fun, freedom, and acceptance. This is the oldest trick in the book: they're
trying to lure you into Us Versus Them, and oversimplify the world, so that you can feel good about
yourself for joining the "right" side.

Pay attention to both extremist and moderate propaganda. The Republicans want you to think that their
position is moral, and anyone else is amoral, and thus lacks the strength to take necessary action (invading
Iraq) and will cause society to degenerate. The Democrats want you to believe that those who have money
will oppress all others, and that only those who embark on a pity crusade to raise up the lower are correct
and moral. Both sides have some truth to them, and if you take their ideas out of linear context, there's a
germ of something compatible between them: moral action must be taken, and some are against it.
Because they use oversimplification, however, their platforms become blind dogma and have little relevance
to the real world.

Extremists do the same thing. In the environmental movement, there are people who would like you to
believe that only those who check carefully for dripping faucets, buy organic food and heat their bathrooms
with solar energy are right, and everyone else is "blind" and destructive. Neo-Nazi groups preach exactly
the same dogma, except their rhetoric is conservation of race. Only those who adopt a strictly racialist view
of the world are right, and everyone else is part of the conspiracy. Both groups suffer for their linear
outlook, in that both degenerate rapidly into bigotry. Organic buying hippies versus the mass corporate
horde; if we just oppress that mass corporate horde, everyone will live comfortably with water conserving
toilets and recycled maxipads. Neo-Nazis tend to preach, in a manner guaranteed to alienate all successful
people from them, that if we just eliminate Jews/Negroes (Jews being Asiatic- and Negroid-hybridized
Caucasians, historically speaking) everything will be okay. Us Versus Them. Good Versus Evil. Right Versus
Wrong.

Life isn't designed on a single axis.

There are two problems with the Us Versus Them theory, and they are as follows: first, that a universal,
single law can apply to all places - universality, because it must apply a single measurement to diverse
areas, is by nature absolutist, and increasingly so as those trying to implement it become defensive.
Second, that it polarizes between an Elect and a Preterite, e.g. the Us who are ordained to do what is right,
and those who are destined to have it done Unto Them. In Platonic terms - and we all know that Plato's
metaphor of the cave was misinterpreted as metaphysical description, in the modern belief "neo-Platonism,"
when it was a metaphor for the interpretation of knowledge - in the world of appearance, we see only
ourselves and a world opposing us so, because of our entrenchment in the self, we tend to contrast
between two extremes. What Plato was hinting out however was that we are enslaved by that perspective,
and need to rise up out of the cave of our artificial knowledge and look directly at the world as it is, so that
we can understand its structure , which is by definition not linear but parallel in form. Some might say this is
itself a polarization, but it's not Us Versus Them but a contrast between a simplistic way of viewing the
world and a more accurate one. Anyone can pick up either method, thus "Us" and "Them" are not
descriptive terms.

One place this can be seen clearly is in our responses to authority. By nature, most of us are anarchistic in
emotional outlook, but when it comes time to getting things done, we recognize the need for leadership.
This leads to the problem of authority, because someone must not know what the plan is and tell people
what to do, but must also give a firm yes or no to their actions. Therein lies one of the paradoxes to
society: in order to have the freedom to enjoy what civilization grants, through specialization of labor and
the corresponding efficiency of scaling, one must have some kind of authority. Leaders. Sergeants. Cops.

Authority versus Authority Abusive by Design

This concept of authority, in itself, is not abusive. In theory, authority is granted by tacit contract between
citizens and the enforcers so that the enforcers can do what is right for the citizens (a group which must
include the enforcers as well). When authority does what is beneficial for the citizens, only those who
oppose authority are in disagreement; when authority is either abusive, or is applied universally to citizens
with different needs, an abuse of authority occurs. At some point what unifies a society is agreement on
what authority must do, but when that breaks down, the tendency of most leaders is to become defensive
and to try to replace that consensus of authority's purpose with greater authority. The thought is that
greater strength can replace citizens who have grown apart in values and, like the same principle applied to
a dying romantic relationship, it makes active abusers of authority and passive abusers of those who must
submit to it. It is a no-win situation.

Bill White's recent article about speeding tickets brings to mind a powerful example. Speeding tickets are a
case of abusive authority because they are motivated by the wrong ideals. Local law enforcement is
encouraged to use them as a means of collecting revenue, like a tax, although the original idea was that
society could be divided into safe drivers versus reckless drivers. In the first days of traffic legislation, the
focus of giving citations was to rack up enough negative points for bad drivers so that they could be forced
off the road. Things changed. At the current time, a car is required to get to work, so instead of trying to
eliminate bad drivers, the law has mutated to become a bizarre form of taxation on behavior - not the
behavior of bad driving, which is open to debate, but a good old linear measurement: speed.

When we say that authority applied universally is defective, we mean in part that not all people are equal.
Some can drive safely at seventy miles an hour, where others should drive at fifty or not at all; a driver can
be as dangerous driving slowly, and causing traffic pile ups and thus forcing others into bad behavior, as
driving quickly. But assessment of speed gives us that good Us Versus Them feeling, where those who
drive within the laws are OK and those who go faster are outcasts, amoral and lawless, etc. That the cops
who give the tickets are not only taking in money for their departments, but also getting personally closer
to promotions and praise, turns this situation of dubious authority into one of predation: cops become
predators who find those who, responding to speeding limits designed for the least competent but applied
equally to those of all competences, drive faster than the official limit. There is no greater confirmation of
this than the tendency of American freeways to have an average road speed of ten to fifteen miles per
hour faster than the posted limit.

"In a closed society where everyone is guilty, the only crime is getting
caught." - Hunter S. Thompson

When we see someone pulled over for speeding, we have initial compassion replaced almost immediately by
a sense of Better Them Than Us, because we know that it's a luck of the draw that the person pulled over
got caught and we didn't, since in order to function normally in this society we all speed on a regular basis.
At this point, what we have is authority that is of a poor design, and thus is abusive. There are many other
examples, but speeding tickets are a daily fact of life for all of us who drive anywhere, and it is small
feedback loops like citizens annoyed at being taxed for what others equally escape that will contribute to
change in our view of authority.

Authority versus Abuse of Authority

Being careful to separate authority itself from abuse of authority does not blind us to recognizing where
authority is abused. Authority is both a power, and a responsibility, in that in the role of authority one is a
servant of those over which one presides, and must do what is best for them regardless of its popularity. If
it is necessary to do more work in less luxurious circumstances, it is a hard sell to the population, but that
does not obviate the necessity of that transaction. We all want to hear that we can have more of what we
want without much sacrifice, but life often is not compliant, which is fortunate, as to use a simple example,
if we ate only desserts and not main courses, we'd be an unhealthy bunch.

Authority is abused when the person in authority acts outside of the social agreement by which the
authority was bestowed, using authority instead for reasons of personal enrichment or emotional response.
Probably the best example of this in recent memory is the assault on Branch Dravidians in Waco, where a
popular president encouraged his forces to attack religious dissidents who also sold rifles. The excuse was
that they were violent; the reality seems to be that those in authority resented people disagreeing with
them, and decided to crush them, sending all of them and their children to their deaths. While the Branch
Dravidians may have been a bit odd, there was no definitive proof that they were dangerous or even
committing criminal acts, and in the intervening years, evidence has emerged that suggests they were set
up and wholesale murdered by President Clinton and his cohorts for the crime of not going along with his
vision of the world. Even if screwing around with his intern was what in theory brought him down, Clinton
lost much of his popular support after he decided to incinerate his own citizens with military force. Like
most career politicians, his method was to adopt popular viewpoints but his goal was raw power and
personal ego-gratification.

Currently, we can witness abuse of authority in the American crusade in Iraq. At first, it was a war against
terrorism; that didn't pan out, so it became a war against WMD, presumably to take out Israel's primary
enemy (Israel had bombed Iraqi WMD programs before). Finally, with all else failing, it became a war for
Democracy and Freedom, both of which mean nothing when they come at the expense of your native
culture being replaced by cultureless Product-ism and American-style infestation of malls, fast food, etc.
Iraq is at this point as neurotic as America is, since the Americans have effectively divided it against itself.
Where one ethnic group ruled, now each group pulls in its own direction, dooming the country to endless
civil war. Women are now polarized against men, the poor against the rich, the rural against the urban. Iraq
is destroyed much as the Branch Dravidians were, and for what? Well, it's convenient that, as in Vietnam,
American industry can take over and cultivate both new sources of cheap labor and new markets for
mediocre products (Coca-Cola, General Motors, Microsoft). The reason for this war is less obvious, but lies
within the revenge impulse of George Bush himself: he wanted to best his father, and finally beat back
those who defied not only American-Israeli hegemony in the middle east, but also the American way of life
and "official" religion, evangelical Christianity. Oil, democracy, WMDs, terrorism, religion are the
justifications - the real reason is pure abuse of power, based in the personality of our leader much in the
same way it was with Clinton. Maybe being popular forces politicians to internalize so much of their own
personalities that when those elements come out, they are by nature violent and revengeful?

Authority becomes abusive when it falls into the power vacuum created by a lack of official consensus, but
a powerful majority who will identify with its Us Versus Them rhetoric. Iraqis and Branch Dravidians = bad;
Freedom and Democracy and Civil Rights legislation = good. The abuse of authority is enabled by a
population that cannot agree on basic values and is willing to be manipulated by such demagoguery, in part
from the belief that greater force will compel others to join the "right" and not "wrong" side. It is not a
property of authority itself, but of authority placed into an impossible decision and the error compounded
by leaders choosing to avoid the actual problem - disunity - and to emphasize force instead. The Iraq
problem lies in an ancient division between Jews and Muslims, exacerbated by Christian Crusades, and
cannot be solved by force alone. The Branch Dravidian problem arose because America, as a culture and
shared set of values, has always been a melting pot and thus has no common ground except basic law and
order and money, of course. In each of these situations, misuse of authority has simply hastened the
inevitable collapse. The Iraq war came on top of announcements by al-Qaeda that America and Israel
would attack Muslim lands, and immediately made prophets of al-Qaeda. The attack on the Branch
Dravidians spawned greater divisions in American society and more radicalized dissidents. The only solution
that misusers of authority see is greater authority, which they'll tighten until they force revolution or other
extreme social breakdown. Entropy is our future.

Conclusion

Didn't this column promise to be about cops? Now that we have some understanding of the underlying
problems of authority, it is easier to understand why cops are so divisive. There are two major attitudes in
America, at least, toward law enforcement. The first are those who out of pure meekness and submission or
practical not rocking the boat choose to support law enforcement radically; they tend to fear the lawless,
the coming anarchy, and the hordes of impoverished, drug addicted, violent felons that America produces.
The other group believes that cops are inherently authority abusers, and paints them all with the same
wide brush as consummate bullies and oppressors. The reality of course is that cops must represent a
system of law that is, as in the case of profit derived from speeding tickets, abusive by design, and,
because of the paradox under which they labor or other personal factors, that some cops are authority
abusers. The counterculture would like us to believe that only authority abusers join the police force, but
this does not address the fact that some form of authority is needed. The other side is blind to the failings
of the design of our authority and the situations in which it places cops that make authority abuse easy.
Authority is only as good as its design and underlying that, the will of the citizens to come together and
agree on values systems.

There are plenty of good cops out there. Hardworking, they see their job in a transcendent light, which is
that it's their chance for heroism on a daily basis. They look forward to placing themselves in harm's way
so that they can do an act of good, usually saving the rest of us from some deviant. It was cops such as
these who spoke up against the Branch Dravidian invasion and the war on drugs and other misguided,
abusive ideas, and it's their counterparts in the military - who view their own roles with the same kind of
respect and hope - who are currently voicing the rumblings of dissent with the Iraq war. Much as many of
our citizens are either passive bullies or active forces of subjugation of others, some cops are simply
screwed up people. Many are not. What makes people fear cops is the system of values behind their
authority, which in its absolute and universal application of laws that do not take into account the
differences between people, creates an oppressive atmosphere in which both sanctioned and unsanctioned
abuse have free reign.

December 9, 2005
Conversation
Upon observing normal people, one thing that strikes me as terrifying is that they cannot tell the difference
between good conversation, and a solid plan. They talk about the things that sound good to other people
and then, as if finding a holy writ which makes all other experience inapplicable, proclaim those things as
their plan or values and deny all else. When they talk to people, they try to flatter them, to tell them nice
things -- and then in their minds, a disconnect occurs, and they turn these conversational pleasantries into
their vision of reality.

It is not much different than getting one's opinions from television, as in both cases the individual is taking
social dogma as his or her own opinion. When you are conversing with someone else, the interaction is
more than two or more people; it is also governed by the rules of politeness, which involve avoiding
negative topics, never directly contradicting someone else's dreams, and always looking on the positive side
of any situation. These rules are sensible in conversation - who wants to talk about dead relatives, the
mental or physical handicaps of others, or the doom that awaits us - but conversation is not reality. When
we mistake it for reality, we introduce a disaster.

One blatant example of how much we have transferred social logic into political reality is our treatment of
news sources: most people literally do not listen to any source that disagrees with them. This means that
people read and watch and listen to only sources whose conclusions are somewhat predetermined, as if
picking wallpaper instead of an information source. Just as in conversation, they don't want to bring up
anything disturbing. So if you are liberal, you watch CNN or read MoveOn.org, but if you're conservative,
you watch Fox news or listen to Rush Limbaugh (if you're a traditionalist, or nihilist, or anarchist, you don't
get a major network, sorry). Two people can watch the same story on different networks and come away
with exact opposite opinions without having any radically different collection of facts.

Much as in conversation, in our politics and news we refuse to acknowledge that which is socially
disturbing. We don't like to talk about death or the possibility of failure. We don't like to point out that not
everyone can join the party, because that's elitist and it's contrary to being sociable. In fact, any concept
that denies that any one of us can be everything and anything is unsociable, since it excludes some people
from the conversation. The rules for conversation are to be inclusive, to be positive, and to avoid any of the
things which illustrate our mortality or different abilities.

The impulse behind this conversational lack of reality is not a bad one. If you are talking to other people,
you don't want to exclude them from what you're discussing, or make them feel bad. The problem is that
conversation is not reality, much as our fantasies are not. When we speak to other people, we are making
gestures not an alternate vision of reality, much like when we say "How are you?" we are exchanging
tokens of personal interest in the other's existence. We do not actually want the details of their lives,
including bowel movements and taxes and failures, but we want to hear a general summary. We want a
symbolic reality, and the symbols do not exactly correspond to their meaning.

This shows us why conversation is inapplicable to politics. For example, when in conversation, we'll tend to
lump together good things as those which preserve life, and frown on those that personally threaten us,
whether or not these things are necessary. In this way cancer and fascism and speeding tickets get lumped
together in the evil category, and we approve "democracy" and "freedom" with the same emotional impulse
that has us say fond things about chocolate and warm beds on cold nights. It's not logical. It is human, it is
personal, it is friendliness, but it has nothing to do with the science of planning our future; that belongs to
politics and philosophy.

Conversation will not acknowledge the dark possibilities in our future. We do not mention death or
defecation. We cannot talk of things that threaten us, or that in avoiding threats will deny one of us his or
her impulse, or desire, or chance at wealth and a house with a white picket fence and two cars and a
chicken in every pot. For this reason, we cannot talk about overpopulation as a problem, because no matter
how vague we make it, it's clear we intend to deny someone the ability to live and breed. Even more, we
cannot mention the hierarchy of genetics which occurs between individuals, where some are smarter than
others. Conversation should not denote a leader; leadership belongs to whoever is talking at any moment,
and that is not denied to anyone.

(A good example of conversational "logic" is in the denial that some people are not smart enough to make
certain decisions. To say that excludes them from the debate. I am not even talking about whole groups
here, because that is conversational taboo, and conversationalists love to talk about how they "judge only
the individual." I'm judging individuals here: there is a hierarchy of smarts. For every person, there are
smarter and dumber people. Depending on where they fall on the scale, they should not be making certain
decisions. I would entrust more decisions to Arthur Schopenhauer than to Brad Pitt or Jerry Seinfeld.
Schopenhauer is simply smarter. In conversation, we cannot point this out, as then it makes Brad and Jerry
feel like they're excluded, and not part of the gang. Conversationalists try to portray any hierarchical
thought as being motivated by a desire to exclude, because they think exclusively in social terms; the
reality behind the appearance is that most decisions to exclude are made not on the basis of the external,
e.g. who the person is and what they look like or who they know, but on the basis of the internal, e.g. their
intelligence and moral wisdom. Conversationalists pretend the possibility of that vector of decisions does not
even exist . Another example of conversationalism being far from reality is that regarding those things that
are negative, it's lunatic. Constant warnings about cigarettes, high-fat foods, driving drunk and other "social
evils" pepper conversation, identified with the bad side of things like cancer and fascism. Almost
immediately, the warnings reach a saturation point. From then on, nothing is noticed, but the gab
continues unabated because any good conversation must have evils upon the avoidance of which to
congratulate others.)

Like most things designed to be pleasant more than realistic, conversation is not appropriate for planning
the future. Conversation is the place where we mention all the good things, like at a break time after work
we only talk about dreams such as fine women and fast cars and the land where the whisky/marijuana
never ends. To talk about the future requires work, and requires us to face the ugly in life, including our
own fragile mortality. To talk about mortality requires we face the fact that our minds are harnessed to our
bodies, and that both are finite and fragile resources.

While if we were in conversation among those of the highest genetic strata for intelligence, who were also
educated and experienced in philosophy and spirituality, we might talk about the unity of minds, or
transcendence, as we find things so beautiful and worthy of belief that when contemplating them we do
not mind or fear our own mortality, for general conversation such topics are threatening. It even sounds
false to tell someone that no matter if they live or die, the beauty of the forest lives on - and how do you
continue a conversation from that? I am not against conversation, as I am not opposed to fantasy, but I
know that it's essential to separate them from reality, and I fear that in our current time no one is doing
that.

December 12, 2005

Anti-Evolution
As a nihilist, I recognize only the order of nature. That is literal physical reality to which I must adapt if I
wish to survive. Because I'm not an idiot, like the "nihilists" who are essentially fatalists who believe nothing
can be done and thus throwing up their hands and caring about nothing is a legitimate course of action, I
tend to prefer survival with comfort and honor over the option, which is living like a mange-ridden flea-
bitten stray dog, hopeless of ever bettering itself. Because I like being alive, and recognize that life gets
better the higher one aims, I am a Romanticist, including being a Nationalist.

Nationalism says that a nation is defined by its original ethnic population, e.g. Germany for Germans - those
who are ethnically, culturally and linguistically German. This means if you move to Germany from Zimbabwe
or China or Ireland, you're not a German, even if you speak the language and adopt the culture, just as if
you're a German who lives according to Zimbabwean or Chinese or Irish culture, you're not a German. Go
somewhere else - the rest of the world is open to you. Nationalism is a natural phenomenon, in that it
reflects evolution in serial (species advancing over others in intelligence) and parallel (species developing
according to specialized rules, simultaneously and in different areas). If you flood Germany with non-
Germans, you obliterate "Germanness" and the culture, language and heritage of Germany - for example.

Nationalism, however, is not a clubhouse. Because I am a nihilist, and a naturalist, I champion evolution.
Most "nationalists" would like to create a clubhouse, whereby if you can claim being part German, or liking
Germany, you're OK, welcome in, and in exchange for your membership dues or swearing loyalty to us we
promise to make you equal and one of the Chosen Few.

I see that kind of "nationalism" - and really, it's patriotism and not nationalism - as being completely against
evolution. If you want strong Germans, you're going to have to kill the ones that are bad DNA, or simpler
less-evolved DNA. This doesn't happen through a simple mechanism such as loyalty to state (Communism)
or earning money (Capitalism). It's far more complex. Modern society is set up to be anti-evolution, and a
clubhouse in its own right, and thus it degenerates Germans as well as others. Bottom line is: if you want a
strong German nation, you've got to be prepared to weed out the weak Germans and drown them in
swamps. By "weak" I mean possessing no distinctive balance between mental, moral and physical
characteristics, thus being either mutts of differing tendencies (caste-mixing), hybrids (race-mixing) or
simply one of nature's genetic experiments that is unstable and thus, in an intelligent environment, is not
allowed to breed.

I would kill most people on this planet for being the kind of useless DNA that can only survive if it has a job
to go to, instructions to follow, a TV to watch and places to buy pre-prepared food. These people are both
generalists, in that they have no specific abilities, and super-specialized, in that without the conveniences of
modern society they are lost. They are generally well meaning, but because the judgment skills are
excremental, they can be counted on in any situation to do the lowest common denominator thing, and by
weight of numbers, to enforce that on others. I would kill most "white" people for being of this type,
recognizing that by doing so, I would raise the overall and individual quality of "white" people, including
Germans.

The idiot form of "nationalism," like the idiot form of "nihilism," has more in common with democracy and
consumerism than with ideology. Its basic statement is that you can have it your way, no matter how
stupid that way is, as long as you swear loyalty to a dogma or fit a bureaucratic set of requirements. This
"nationalism," like consumerism, breeds nations of domesticated sheep who will screw up anything they
touch. As our species is about to commit ecocide, and our best mathematics suggest that a half-billion
highly intelligent people could live well on earth instead of having seven billion in mostly near poverty, I see
it as the moral choice to kill the inferior among us and to replace them with better people through selective
breeding - not greed (capitalism) or dogma (communism).

This brings us back to my form of Nationalism: the values that determine who should survive in German
society do not transfer to any other society, as those have evolved in parallel. If you mix everyone on earth
together, and apply German rules to them, you will end up killing people who would be otherwise fine in
their own cultures. The greatest reason of all perhaps for Nationalism is that it enables us to separate
people by specialized heritage, and thus for each heritage-group to weed out the weak as they see fit.

Russia

One of the greatest screwups in history can be found in the tale of Russia. A small elite ruled over an
unwieldy mass, who then rose up and overthrew the elite when, lacking competition, they degenerated into
useless people. The masses, being useless and prone to making the wrong decision every time, then
murdered the quality aristocrats and intellectuals along with the misguided, misinformed and degenerate.
Consequently, Russia downbred itself to the point where its citizens were basically idiots, and Communism
seemed like a good idea to them since, being idiots, none of them had anything and therefore they were
willing to believe that killing and taking from the better people among them would somehow make them all
comfortable.

Seventy-two years later they found out the truth. The society of those who could not manage the affairs of
a peasant without becoming unstable and starving, instead of being a kingdom of equality, became a giant
kleptocracy where the most vicious predators ruled while assuring the peasants that the future would be
better. Adhering to dogma, and vigorously repeating it, became the qualifier for succeeding, and as this
was linear and did not measure the quality of people or their DNA, idiots soon ruled and ran the country
into the ground. As the Russian peasants had murdered those with the intelligence and willpower to
actually restore the country to European status, it became and remains a destitute, ignorant, Eurasian toilet
of third world proportions. Russia has utterly failed as a society.

Before you smirk, Americans and Europeans, remind yourselves that the same fate awaits you. Oh yes, it
will take longer in Europe, because of the better education and higher quality of breeding of most
Europeans. Yet you like morons are following the same path as America, inviting consumerism into your
countries and believing that pluralism - the art of never reaching an answer - will somehow find an answer
for you. What are you, retarded? The same path that America follows lies before you and, while you may
have a fifty year cushion, it will catch up with you and turn Europe into America, Junior, at which point the
whole world will mock you for being utter fools. European superiority is a joke. Were it true, the
Scandinavians and Germans and French and Swiss would not be slowly descending into the funnel of
American-style thinking. First come the thoughts; then the actions; then suddenly a crowd of idiots
dependent on those thoughts and actions, and smart people, they will outvote you and outfight you - even
though they are fools, there are more of them, and each casualty you inflict upon them they will view as a
mortal offense, no matter how many die.

America is like Russia in that, where in Russia preaching state dogma got one ahead, in America earning
money and living like a consumerist idiot gets one ahead. Being inoffensive is essential to getting ahead at
work, including the stolid mindset by which one never becomes irate no matter how stupid the surrounding
people, rules and situations. You are being domesticated. Your "success" is controlled by others and like the
rules in Russia, is really an allegiance test. Some of you will earn great fortunes but these will not last long
in your family, because your descendants will be foolish and spoiled. They have no task or role as the
aristocracy had, and they lack the quality breeding the aristocracy had. Their trust funds will run out within
three generations, and they'll be idiot proles again.

In Russia, you had to repeat the lies of communism. In America, you repeat the lie that you are happy
while devoting ten hours per workday to your job, commuting through ugly plastic cities, and consuming
garbage food, garbage culture and garbage politics. Why is it you don't notice? For starters, you never had
a culture to begin with, since your country is pluralistic and thus can never definitively say, "We want X
over Y"; pluralism is by definition saying that X and Y must coexist, even if they are diametrically opposed.
Further, you're misinformed by an endless stream of people who repeat dogmatically what they see on TV,
hear on the radio, read in the newspapers or get sent by the government, not realizing that all of those
media are for-profit entities with no motive toward actual truth.

While capitalism succeeded in the short term over Communism, it was mainly owing to the higher quality of
the American population and its industriousness, not its motivation by greed. That lead only lasts so long,
as it only has another fifty years in Europe, and then the same kind of decay sets in as happened under
Communism. But how could this happen? say the Americans - we had good intentions. Good intentions
don't count in this world. Only results do. The result of setting up a "culture" based on the whim of the
individual, and the insatiable lust for material wealth that empowers it, creates a civilization divided against
itself in competition for resources, and because this competition is linear and not natural, it does not
produce the best but the most vicious, the most narrow-minded, and the least likely to trouble themselves
with existential issues.

Good work, modern humanity: you're raising a bumper crop of sadistic idiots while slowly funneling your
society into third world status. Why don't you just nuke each other and get it over with quickly? Maybe the
Chinese will reform you when they invade, because they don't have delusions of individual grandeur and
are therefore more focused on reality, more ruthless and more practical. America and Europe don't stand a
chance, and their elimination will be, quite honestly, a form of natural selection. Destroy the inferior and
replace it with something that has its mind on reality and isn't so caught up in its personal drama that it
detaches from that knowledge.

Design

But how can I say that people are bad DNA, or more specifically, that some DNA is better than others
(within a national context, as this is where serial evolution can be fairly measured; comparing people across
nations yields inaccurate results)? All computers are made from silicon. Some work better than others, and
can process more instructions or go longer without crashing, or returning erratic results like a Macintosh.
What makes computers different is a matter of design.

More advanced designs work better, but more advanced does not necessarily mean "more intricate." It
means more adapted to the task at hand, with the least amount of energy and fewest instructions devoted
to non-necessary work. The same components - silicon, metals, plastic - that make a garbage computer can
be re-configured to make a smoothly working and powerful one. By the same token, the software that runs
on that computer can be inefficient and clumsy or sleek and streamlined, and the latter works better; both
programs use the same language, and work in the same general way, but the second type has a superior
design.

When we compare all people, say, all Germans, we can see that some are of better designs that others.
They are made from the same material - meat, bone, brain, gut - but those whose brains are better
organized will function faster, more thoroughly, and more honestly, since there is a certain mathematical
advantage to selfless honesty when measured on the scale of the whole of a population. This is before we
load software (education and experiences) onto them. A better design will run the software better than a
poorer design. Can we compensate for a bad design with more software? No - it will always run less
efficiently and less accurately.

If there are thousand places in a town for people to live, each idiot is that is allowed to exist replaces a
potential non-idiot. Further, each idiot will breed, and through the silly decisions of young people, some
idiots will breed with non-idiots, producing half-idiots, who will possess the wisdom of an idiot but the
ability of a non-idiot, and will thus be twice as destructive as an idiot. If a town of one thousand people, of
which seven hundred were idiots, was to kill all of its idiots, it would be a smaller town, but only for the
next two generations. The non-idiots would breed to fill the town and while through the random mutation
factor of nature some non-idiots would breed an idiot or pervert among their brood, the removal of those in
turn would assure a population of higher quality.

If you like life, why not aim for its highest level? Select the best people and kill the rest - we won't even
remember them in a generation, and we certaintly won't miss them. Through education and heroic acts and
practical learning, the civilization can raise its own standards constantly, always getting better. That is a
non-fearful attitude toward life, as it does not fear death or inadequacy, but focuses on what is best for the
civilization as a whole even if individual lives are lost. In modern society, we live by guilt and pity, because
we as individuals are divorced from any collective culture, and thus fear most for ourselves, because there
is no plan in common and since we are surrounded by idiots, we are paranoiac regarding the judgment and
will of others.
I like life. I like it so much I'd have no problem murdering 86% of the planet so that its best could continue
forward without committing ecocide or living in a plastic hell that most do not notice because they are
idiots. This is a more loving action than preservation of useless life which clots our society, and a more
farsighted one as well, because it provides that each future generation is better than the last and thus no
longer has to fear inadequacy. Death to the idiots!

Television

Looking deeply into the question of television, it is clear that there are three basic problems with it:

1. It is a passive activity, e.g. sit on butt on receive transmission without sending response.
2. Moving images approximate the state of dreams and memory, and can be easily confused with the
same.
3. It is an inclusive activity, in that any idiot can do it just as well as a genius (no feedback from user =
thoughts of a genius contribute no more or less than those of an idiot, since no one is measuring
thoughts in response to programs so dumbed-down that even a genius will not have much to say
about them).

Television is the loneliest way to spend your time possible, in that you return nothing to the world by
watching it, and are left alone with your thoughts, which are not even your own, since you are receiving a
broadcast in the same form as your interpretation would take, thus shortcircuiting the need for you to
interpret it. It is like being fed from an IV line. You do not chew, and whether you like it or not, no one
cares. Your only task is to absorb it, and that does not even require a brain.

Drugs are illegal, but most people like television for the same reason hardcore drug addicts like drugs: you
can turn off your brain and sit, and your time is spent in a way that while not impressive is not offensive.
When you're forced back into reality, you can spend time with your friends talking about television so that
you can pretend you're back in unreality again. Some time, somewhere in the far-off and probably not real
future, you will die. We can all wonder whether as you're dying you will regret the years you spent doing
nothing but absorbing the thoughts and marketing of others through your television.

December 13, 2005

Nature is a Bug-Wrecking Factory
In New York, they cannot imagine why someone would choose to live in heathen, dirty, uneducated,
Republican Texas. It is simply so un-hip, unglamorous, and the shopping has nothing on fifth avenue.
When, as good nihilists, we strip aside all the social pretense and morality and politics, we can see Texas as
it actually is, which is a good-sized chunk of land that contains at least five distinct ecosystems, and infinite
numbers of wonderfully bizarre bugs.

Specially adapted, these species occupy niches in the environment which are still unknown to science, and
their shapes and colors reveal this position. Strange mandibles rise above serrated limbs, and wings come
in innumerate shades of translucent color. You can wander through these woods in summer and see a new
kind each day without even trying, although you will be trying to swat away the impressively bellicose
mosquitoes. Each variety has its own form as inspired by what it eats and what it avoids.

There are moths that you cannot tell from tree bark until they move. Cicadas dwell underground for
seventeen years, then emerge as gnarled warmachines with razorlike claws, worthy of an underground
Japanese monster movie. Worms drop silently from silk enshrouded branches, and multitudinous ants move
under a layer of leaves, invisible. Praying mantises like wrought iron stand immoble until their prey is
exactly within striking range, and then they obliterate the present tense because suddenly their stillness is
past, as is their strike; they dwell patiently in the future, eating or waiting, because their movements are
too quick to be captured in current time.

There are giant beetles with pincers bigger than any limb, spiders brightly colored as if to warn enemies
like children shouting into dark rooms, wasps that hover and paralyze their victims, carrying them off to
become zombified food for imminent young. Not only is Texas home to millions of bugs that, once you see
how their form mates to a function, are beautiful, it is also a gigantic mixed martial arts competition
between bugs. Nature makes them, and out of the eggs they stream, violent and vigilant, ready for war.
When they collide, one sees the strength of each design matched against an equally strong will, and that
which has the advantage wins. Nature at these moments is an enormous bug-wrecking factory, as if
searching through uncountable possible blueprints for the future of each type.

It is not only militant, but playful, because these bugs are without emotion when they grapple. They
perform it as a function like eating, seeming to relish every moment of stalking their prey and then sucking
out its innards or embalming it in strands, stabbing through its exoskeleton to inject parasitic larvae. It is a
dance, when these bugs confront one another, through the detritus of the forest floor or high above on the
lichen-speckled branches of ancient trees. They show no fear, or anger, but move toward it like any other
fate that waits them, as if more curious to see what happens than concerned about their own mortality.
They live, and die, without blinking in the stare of eternity.

This reminds me that whatever force created this universe is present in all things, as if each of us were a
device driver or daemon running on a giant UNIX system, and that in its purest gaze, nature is not afraid of
death because it does not die, even if its objects are destroyed and consumed. It is eternal, and whatever
force engendered and sustains it grants consciousness to its bugs much as to its humans, aware that when
they die, consciousness flows back into the whole and then out again to a new set of creatures. Life cannot
die (barring ecocide by selfishly individualistic humans) but death is one of the colors of its palette, an
unavoidable ochre to stain the canvas so that a watcher might feel an emotion in the contrast as the eye
passes over form and vision, a story unfolding.

Like us, the bugs fight it out, neither creating or destroying, but preserving an eternal balance which
affords consciousness avatara in which it can exist perpetually. Selfless and fearless, bugs engage in
combat knowing that their deaths are meaningless, in that through the massive digital computer of nature
their designs are slowly tested in architectonic millions of ways, bettering them at every increment. Through
these better designs, the machine of life becomes more efficient, leaking less energy through inexact
tradeoffs, and pumping life back into its origin so that life can return eternal. There is a massive spiritual
peace in war and death as in a sunny day or the birth of a doe, and it is all as natural as our angers and
fears and loves.

In the ancient religion of my forefathers, which some call Paganism and others Hinduism, there were many
gods but all things came from the same godhead, which was like a great brooding consciousness not
outside of the world but present in all of it; it does not exist outside of reality as we know it, but through
its will, manifests that reality and thus comes into observable being. It does not judge, and while it makes
flamboyantly specialized creatures and thrusts them into neverending war, it is creating while it destroys,
and destroying in order to create. It alone is a perfect balance. When I walk in the woods and see nature's
bug-wrecking factory, I am looking into the parentage of the gods and man and nature alike, and it touches
my heart with appreciation for the genius of life.
RESIST ECOCIDE
Aztlan
To be a nationalist is to support world nationalism, which means that whether black or white or other, any
group that endorses nationalism is your ally. (If European nationalists realized this, they would transform
themselves from angry groups of people who hate negroes into a legitimate political movement.)

While I am in favor of "Mexican" nationalism, and I support the Aztlan movement, I think it's take to take a
critical look at their claims. First, I want to analyze what it is to be Mexican, or rather, the pluralities of
Mexican, and next, I want to look at a reasonable claim for these folks toward land and nation.

Mexico is a modern invention. The name is old, but the nation-state is new. Formed from remnants of
Spanish and French colonial empires, the modern Mexican state is composed of people of European
descent, people of mostly Aztec descent, people of mostly Mayan descent, people of African descent, and
then, as the majority of the people, those who are primarily derived from the slave populations of the Aztec
and Maya, mixed with random proportions of the above groups.

When we talk about Mexican nationalism, and as a non-Mexican, I'm doing so purely conjecturally, it makes
sense to realize that Mexico's only legitimate claim has been to the area south of the Rio Grande. Anything
north of that was Spanish or French colonization of areas that belonged to North American Indians, and
before that, to groups of people like Solutreans, who came from France to colonize the new world before
the Asiatic flood that composed the base of modern Indians. In fact, Indians as known in North America are
by definition hybrids of Caucasoid, Asiatic and in some cases, other elements.

When the Aztlan movement wants to claim California, Texas, New Mexico etc as their land, they are
forgetting that the Mexican colonization of that land occurred after it was unified as political territories by
Europeans, and was mostly by people of Spanish descent. While it makes sense to me to create Aztlan, or
a homeland for the descendants of the true rulers of Mexico, e.g. the Aztecs, it is illogical to extend this to
territory that was politically claimed but never occupied by Mexico.

It makes sense to separate Mexicans by their root nationality. Why not an Aztec empire, and a Mayan one?
Send the European-blood Mexicans north. There should be a restoration of one of the greatest cultures the
world has ever known, the Aztecs, by allowing them separation and self-rule so they can practice their
traditional forms of eugenics, which were rigorous and during the healthy days of the Aztecs - years before
a small band of Europeans allied their slaves against them and destroyed them - ensured a high quality of
population. The Maya had similar beliefs and techniques.

However, the restoration of Aztec and Mayan culture is not served well by making claims to vestiges of
modern Mexico, e.g. lands north of the Rio Grande. Even when these were politically "Mexican" territories,
they were not primarily settled by Mexicans, nor were they effectively ruled by Mexico. Mexican nationalists
claiming North American land is like Texans claiming Canada: it just doesn't make sense.

That small matter aside, I suggest to all nationalists that they support the Aztlan movement and support
Aztec independence, as the Aztecs and Maya were powerful and beautiful ancient cultures whose values are
worthy of study for all.

December 16, 2005

Computer Mediated Communication
Back when the net was young as a popular phenomenon, there was talk of internet use as "computer
mediated communication." The idea was that people would use the net to share information and tools, and
to do their business and spread their art.

This has been replaced by "computer aided socialization," which is what happens when in a proliferation of
instant messenging, video chat, web forums, blogs and "social networks" like MySpace, people are using
the net secondarily for tangible information but primarily to exchange social dialogue.

Social data is different from functional data. In social contexts, what is being said is important not for its
content, but for its place; people trade compliments or discuss their "important" projects or ideas, but what
they're doing does not concern the ideas but the people speaking them. The actual content is meaningless;
what is being exchanged is social validation.

As a result, people do not have web sites to publish information, but web sites and blogs to represent their
personalities and through which they hope to gain increasing social validation, like votes from the masses,
with which to build popularity in the little fantasy world that is online.

For most of us, especially those of us who were using the internet before 1990, this is pointless behavior.
You socialize in real life. Maybe you contact your friends using email or IM, but you don't go online to hook
up with people you will never meet in real life. Reality is still real.

This site, and all of its content, is not here to represent personalities or curry favor points from that
specialized audience of people online who do not represent reality but the segment of our population with
nothing better to do than use the net. These people are losers in the philosophical sense that instead of
challenging themselves, and rising to meet the needs of reality, and perhaps bettering themselves through
heroic action, they've chosen a cheap and easy way to feel self important.

This site is here to communicate, and if you try to link what is on here to a personality or a desire for
socialization, you're barking up the wrong tree. The "netty" people out there are not reality. They're losers
socializing through televisions with keyboards. This site is for those who want information, who want to
learn and challenge themselves, and realize that the experience and knowledge of our writers could be a
useful research resource toward that end.

December 17, 2005

Externality
If, for some reason, you have become amnesiac and run out of reasons to deplore modern society as a
short term success and inevitable long-term failure, consider the question of externality. Modern society
operates almost exclusively on the presupposition that external factors can be used to manipulate our
internal qualities and outlook.

An obvious method here is the idea that we can deter criminals by having fierce punishments. Such means
only discourage those who are already not of a criminal mindset and therefore can measure risk of getting
caught against the rewards of crime (in almost all cases, paltry ones). We reward good citizens with
security, and punish bad citizens, yet the latter group does not value security and, being out of control of
planning its own future, does not consider punishment even if it is horrible. The most repressive and
totalitarian societies on earth still had rampant crime, and in fact, produced better criminals, as in Russia.

In our modern wisdom, we suppose that we can control the souls of our population through their stomachs
or, in contemporary terms, their wallets. The assumption is that if you have more money, you will be more
satisfied, and less likely to engage in criminal or dissenting behavior. "Criminals commit crimes because they
are impoverished," bleat the most "sympathetic" among us. But a wealthy criminal might move on to a
higher level of crime instead, because his or her fundamental internal impetus is destructive and resentful
and therefore, even when he or she "has it all," there will be a need to strike out, to prove equality or
superiority to the rest of us. We see criminality as a side product of poverty, yet ignore the fact that not all
impoverished people become criminals. Clearly, there's another vector here that we do not measure.

We also sagely found our logic on the idea that those who criticize the system (whatever that is) are those
who cannot succeed in it. If someone points out our obvious failings as a culture or a civilization, on the tip
of our tongues is the accusation that had they a solid income and two cars and a wide-screen television,
they would not be so quick to be critical. This of course suggests that our only reason to find fault with the
modern world is personal, that we have not gotten enough, and therefore, that we can be bought off. It
assumes that the rich would be more acerbic in their commentary if there was a need, and denies the
thought that those who become rich do so for the most part because they have narrowed their focus
entirely to the personal. There is no place in our society for criticism on the base of the whole, and its
dangers; everything is personal, yet impersonal, because it relates not to our choices and values but to our
incomes!

Finally, there is the assumption, closely mated to the idea that criminals can be made into good citizens
through wealth, that the best among us will rise to a point of being wealthy enough. There is some truth to
it because anyone who is not insane will do his or her best to have enough wealth to get away from
society's failures, its rotted inner cities and lack of health plan cancers, but that assumption does not
distinguish between comfortable living and radicalized wealth. We pretend that anyone smart will earn
money, and that the comfortable and wealthy among us somehow represent our best, which denies that
there might exist smart people who find jobs repulsive and do not seek wealth because their value their
time apart from society more than the wealth gained from slaving within it for a number of years.

What is most disturbing is that this assumption - that we can externally control the outlook and behavior of
our citizens through wealth - is shared by both conservative and liberal viewpoints. Few want to call it what
it is, which is "Social Darwinism," or the misguided idea that commerce represents a kind of evolution and
that within it, the best will rise to wealth and the idiots, degenerates, criminals, etc. will impoverish
themselves. While the left is critical of wealth, it's not critical of comfortable levels of wealth, and therefore
reinforces Social Darwinism on a day to day level. Even worse, the left is the predominant expositor of the
idea that wealth plus impoverished people equals less criminal behavior.

While our society is divided into left and right, its fundamental impetus has been from a liberal viewpoint, in
philosophical terms. This viewpoint is the idea of fundamental human rights and equality, meaning that we
all get treated the same way regardless of wealth or quality, and from that, we get "justice." Both
Republicans and Democrats embrace this view, and even far-flung parties like Greens and Nationalists
seem to, which means that in our political outlook, there is no deviation from this assumption. We view
equality as the highest good, the individual as the highest pursuit, and wealth as the means of that pursuit,
and anyone who doesn't agree with that is worse than a Commie or a Nazi, they're a failure and probably a
sociopath.

In our desire to be equal as people, we have denied the person within: the internal traits and preferences
that make each of us who we are. We can be measured by our wealth, or our height, or our wish list on
amazon.com, but what defines us as individuals has nothing to do with these external factors. It is a
combination of personality and abilities. We want to be remembered not only for our skill at guitar playing,
but for what the songs we wrote conveyed and made real to others. We want to be known not just for
participation in public beach cleanup programs, but our own private choices and sacrifices that helped keep
waste out of the world. Even more, we want to be known for how we treated our friends, how we raised
our families, and the things we valued enough to die for them, as a life is looked over when the living is
done. These are all internal factors, and they are denied by modern society in its desire for external
equality.

True, our internal factors are not all "ours." Genetics plays a huge role in who we are, but not a complete
one. Our DNA might limit our abilities, and people of lowered abilities tend toward less optimal behaviors
(including criminality), but it does not wholly define us. When genes are translated into flesh, variations
occur, so that some well-bred people turn out lazy and criminal, and others turn out heroes. We are not just
our heritage, but our generation. Within the abilities granted to us by heritage, there is also personal
experience, and how we responded to it. There is personality, which is in part shaped by experience. There
is will and worldview, including to what degree we find transcendent value in the world and thus decide to
work for certain ends and not others. Even if our deeds go unknown, what makes each of us an individual
is a complex series of preferences and loves and hates that cannot be measured externally.

Fairness, in the modern view, is genericism. If we treat everyone exactly the same way, they will have
justice, we think. Yet when you have a group of people ranging from IQ 85 to IQ 150, it's the 85 pointers
who will define what happens, because in order to include them, the entire process must descend to their
level. This is why democracy fails in populist society: in order to get the maximum number of votes, you
must dumb down your platform to the point where all the idiots can "get it," and if you go too far beyond
it, they freak out. Even further, if your actual task is to make things better, you're going to design a society
they won't understand, and it will inevitably limit some of their greeds and freedoms, making them irate
and you unlikely to get elected. Instead, you appeal to an average or lowest common denominator "voter,"
not a person, and manipulate them as they're best manipulated, namely by promising more wealth or more
of that great abstraction, "freedom," which to them means the ability to squander their wealth on whatever
stupid and selfish objectives they think they desire.

As has been said before in these pages, when we strip aside all the pretense and justification from human
society, we can see that modernity itself is a process of crowd revolt, and that from its inability to control
the individual (who often has insufficient judgment) all its problems originate. Crowds count heads and do
not measure souls. Membership in the crowd is what counts, not individual contribution or values, because
crowds fear individual membership. That would place some above others, and dissolve the power of the
crowd as a single unit wanting lowest common denominator outcomes. Crowds are not leaders; they are an
acephalous force which moves by its own collective desire, and they are blind to the outcome of their
behavior. Someone else is always to blame when greed causes overpopulation and pollution and ecocide, or
revolution, or the collapse of economies. The crowd is the perpetual victim because no one has made these
bad decisions - they just "happened." Lack of leadership, coupled with an ever-growing set of basic
demands, leads to instability, but no one decided to make it so. The most dangerous thing about crowds is
that they are pure desire and never calculate decisions for the best outcome.

Once a crowd is in power, it is almost impossible to remove that power until the civilizations collapses and
fragments. A crowd in power will always opt for external measurement because it avoids the ugly truth of
our inequality as individuals, and consequently, the crowd will drown out any voices of reason as those will
offend someone and therefore be unfit. The crowd in power has without exception throughout history
pushed its society toward greater individual "freedom," and thus lack of consensus as well as deviant
behavior since there are no standards, and through that, caused the population to devolve to the point
where no leaders exist or will speak up. The greed goes on and on until something from afar finally
challenges the civilization, at which point its lack of unity makes it an easy conquest. Vandals surge in the
gates and destroy the ailing, useless, broken society.

We are constrained by equality. It translates into measurement by external and not internal factors, and
from that leads to a bureaucratic averaging/lowest common denominator behavior expectation. Even
further, we build a system on external manipulation, and therefore forget to reward and breed more of
those who could be leaders. It is a dead-end path, although it may take decades or centuries to complete
its course. While resisting crowds is difficult, we can make a start by looking at people for internal and not
external factors, and making the slow pilgrimage back to a point where it is legal to use such
determinations to pick our neighbors and business associates. In this reversing of "justice" through external
manipulation, we return to a point where we look at the internal factors of our people, and start creating
better ones instead of more generic ones. Only this, and not any political movement or notion, can save us
from the inevitable self-immolation of modernity.

December 17, 2005

Preconception
One hilarious aspect of a world where people cannot tell the difference between appearance and structure
is the tendency of our "civic-minded" folk to rail against values from the past, claiming they are
"preconceptions" or antiquated values that are untested against the present time. The past is bad, the logic
goes, and our "progressive" notions will escape antiquated beliefs and lead us to a golden future. It's all
about escaping those preconceptions, folks, and moving to the new.

Like all good lies, this has a grain of truth to it. When something stops working, you have to reconsider the
most basic assumptions about the task that have guided you, and then start again from a new angle.
However, there's a pitfall here as well, since you can throw out good data with bad, and if you cannot find
a place to start, you will forever be reconsidering your assumptions and will never find a solution. In other
words, you need to have some kind of preconceptions in order to make decisions at all.

In fact, if we look at those who wish us to do away with our "antiquated" preconceptions, and use our
philosophical minds instead of looking at appearance, we will see that the basic concepts they bring to us
are as old as any other ideas we could propose. The core idea of all "progressive" logics is that by nullifying
conflict, and focusing on greater individual comfort instead of finding an outcome to the conflict, we can
have perpetual peace and greater happiness. Only problem with this is that the original concept of society
ran along such lines, and it was only after individuals made sacrifices and strove toward collective goals
that civilization arose.

We like to believe that our natural preconceptions are bad too. We might resent someone for doing
something we see as destructive or cowardly, but our social chaperones tell us we must fight that inner
impulse to violence. They see the absence of war as peace, and believe the only way to end conflict is to
pacify all parties and explain away all possible reasons for war. They tell us that they are overcoming our
preconceptions of violence, but aren't they doing this with some very unproven preconceptions that make
no sense, such as the idea that conflict can be eliminated? Conflict is beneficial; when you stifle it with
pacifism, none of the important changes get to happen!

In our world order right, the idea that consumerism and multiculturalism and democracy and entertainment
culture are our inevitable future is a preconception that most people are trained to use to replace our other
"preconceptions," namely that all of those neat ideas are illusions that might take some time to collapse but
inevitably will. As events in Paris, Denmark, Germany and Australia are showing us, this future society -
which overcomes our "preconceptions" - is not working so good.

Yet because the world is run by masses, we need something they approve. If our message is that all
conflict is unnecessary, and that all people should continue pursuing selfish ends without tempering them
for collective or long-term goals, we will be popular. Our current corporate superstate rests on this
cornerstone. The greed of the masses propels consumer industry which, supported by an ever-expanding
democracy and entertainment culture, controls the world at the behest of the crowds, who want its
products. No one oppresses us except ourselves. And to justify this world of inaction (and thus, because
stagnation is death, steady decline) we invent this "progressive" idea by which we overcome natural and
historical "preconceptions" to move into a better more altruistic time.

We are told the past was horrible and to forget it, yet we do not have great thinkers as once existed. We
are told that ancient cultures were oppressive, yet it seems people then had more free time and challenged
themselves more as people, thus had more meaning in their lives. Our preconceptions are based in this
past, and while they can be attacked from the perspective of the present time, that perspective is unproven
as a workable model of reality over time. And when we see that it is not only unproven but based on
emotion, and individual desires, and not fact, it becomes clear that which is to replace our "preconceptions"
is the worst kind of preconception itself - an arbitrary one.

But the crowd rushes forward, liking its self-conception of multiculturalism and consumerism and
democracy and entertainment culture, not concerned about reality. By denying that their preconceptions
are wrong, they will postpone recognizing the problems of society until they become a snowball of rage that
can only end in brutal violence, and they will at that point be unable to stop it. They will deny all conflict
and all ideology until the pressurized situation overheats and detonates. It will overwhelm them,
unprepared, and will be far worse than all of what they feared. That's the danger of preconceptions.

December 19, 2005

Egoism
It is never so easy to see how one's behavior does not fit into as it is to observe the same in another. The
West, seen from outside, appears to be in the grips of an egoism, or fascination with self-image and self-
identity, that will surely crush it from within. No matter how much Western leaders and thinkers would like
to blame terrorism, European right-wingers, drugs, Asians or Negroes, the West has undone itself by being
fascinated by itself. This occurs on an individual level and since individuals compose a whole, eventually
becomes a social standard, or an accepted mode of thought and behavior.

We can see some of egoism's many traces in what the West seems to value through its literature, films, art
and politics. First is pity, or the ability to feel better about oneself for seeing another as downtrodden and
through condescension and compassion, "helping" or at least empathizing with them. Second is
egalitarianism, or the science of making us all equal; those who preach it the most do so to liberate
themselves from outside criticism so they can make a bundle ("some are more equal than others," he said,
counting his cash). Third is altruism, or justifying one's behavior as better for others, and thus feeling good
about oneself because one exists to help others, although most commonly - as in the case of the Reverend
Jesse Jackson and David Duke - it is used as a shield for one's own enrichment.

All of these are symptoms, but the crowning and identifying factor is individualism: the human personality is
seen as an island, and expected to act only in its interests regardless of the impact on its surroundings
(self-interest is a paradox: in order to fully enjoy it, you have to make sure you don't destroy that which
sustains you, e.g. environment and society). Individualism in perverse ways justifies the above symptoms
because those who believe it will justify pity, egalitarianism and altruism by claiming those make them feel
better, and therefore they have the "right" to pursue them. Very little in life corresponds to its surface
definition, and here we have two excellent examples: altruism justifying individualism, and individualism
justifying an altruism which serves the altruistic individual more than those "helped." This is not to say that
altruism and egalitarianism do not have some beneficial aspects, but to note that in the larger picture, their
presence is more destructive than that which they solve, as measured in the context of the whole of
humanity.

You would not think that these seemingly contradictory impulses would combine except when it is realized
that altruism is a projection of the self onto others; it, like many other things, is a subtle means of control.
In the altruistic mindset, others exist and suffer so that the self can help them and feel better about itself.
We might call this altruism a disease, since those who are infected by it are unaware of the destruction
they render, mostly because they are only conscious of their own feelings - this is the definition of egoism.
Egalitarianism, altruism and individualism are manifestations of the same idea, which is a worship of self by
manipulation of external forces. It is as if internally we are in disarray, so we turn to the things outside of
us, figuring that if we put them in the right order, we will become better, even though the only things that
can cure us are entirely within. We might even call it a very advanced form of procrastination, or denial.

This egoism reveals an inner insecurity and weakness, a lack of confidence in one's own worth, something
described in the Bhagavad-Gita as arising from caste-mixing, by which those with a lower-caste mentality
are given higher-caste powers, like handing a disaffected teenager a machine gun. Unfortunately, the most
egoistic among us are always the loudest voices and most socially prominent faces; the squeaky wheel gets
the most grease and because our society is egalitarian and thus we're all "equal," we look for those who
stand out above the crowd. The easiest way to stand out is to be loud and "unique," and these factors
have no bearing on how accurate one's ideas or intents are, which means that those we see as most active
in society are not its thinkers but its parrots and firebrands. Those who actually keep the place running are
not the egoists but those who instead of trying to dominate the inner world through outer forces, order
their inner selves carefully. For such people, there is no impulsive need to control the outer world except to
fulfill legitimate needs such as survival, and thus, they undramatically and simply complete tasks well
without expecting to "express themselves" through them.

Indeed, the individual that is confident is the one that has accepted the external world as solely function,
and having thus dismissed its connection to internal self-esteem, is free to act in harmony with it - this
individual is free of projection, and does not attempt to use external forces to bolster flagging self-
confidence. In this there is a truer independence, because one neither expects nor needs anything from
outside the self except sustenance and natural beauty. It is a true maturity: to recognize that one's own
death means nothing more or less than the slaughter of a cow for dinner, that one's own life will pass
unrecorded no matter how many ozymandian monuments one creates, that in order to give birth or survive
one must endure massive pains. All of these are true and yet what makes life great is not dependent on
them, nor marred by them, so such a confident individual sees them as means to an end. What is
important is within, and cannot be shaped from outside, so the external takes secondary importance to
internal discipline and spiritual balance. This is the traditional, naturalistic view of existence.

Although the illusion is that what is significant differes widely between human beings, this is unlikely,
because all of us live in the same world and it defines wholly what we find important. We must survive; we
must procreate; we must find something to do that passes our time in a way that we do not entirely mind
death when it comes. Family and friends, a place in the community, a chance to do good work in whatever
field one finds interesting, some degree of comfort but not opulence - these are the eternal things that in
every generation, in every era, in every land, the best people discover as important, letting the madding
crowd and its ever-increasing demands for novelty and distraction pass aside. When we seek maturity, we
do it by getting to know and tolerate ourselves, by overcoming our fears and doubts, and then without
illusion achieving what is important to living things, namely a better form of life itself. And what makes life
better, oddly, is within us more than outside of us. We might need to do work externally to make things
better for survival, but beyond that, all of our values concern our own behavior and spiritual balance with
the bigger factors of existence, like death and suffering. When we're at peace with these, the rest of life is
simple and functional and not all that important.

Asian philosophers often rail against the egoism of the West, but what they might instead wish to condemn
is its crowd revolt; the confident and sane are not those with an overbearing need for power through
numbers, and they are not the loudest voices, because they have no need to convince themselves. The
herd, on the other hand, has no internal spiritual peace and no balance, and therefore both needs to be
heard and to assert its power, drowning out the sensible ones. To a naturalist and traditionalist, of course,
this is why throughout most of history those who could not distinguish themselves were "oppressed." For
their own good, they were ruled by those who had an internal calm and therefore were not likely to project
their own neurosis into the external world through damaging actions. Philosophers of the future might like
to point this out, since the egoism of the West does not infect is best people, but those are a minority that
is rarely represented in the public drama, since anyone who has escaped that insane mindset is probably
both very aware of being at risk from those who have not and equally mindful of the lack of influence a
voice of reason has on the insane.

Another problem with indicting egoism is that the mandate against it will be interpreted in the crowd-sense,
and the crowd will promptly turn on anyone who rises above the herd, screaming "Death to the Egoist!"
Those who lack altruism will be seen as egoists; those who do not affirm egalitarianism will be seen as
egoists; those who do not greedily seek power for the individual will be seen as some kind of sick egoist.
The path of condemning egoism to a crowd leads to a more subtle and insidious form of egoism. The only
solution to egoism is to break the power of the crowd by defying it at every turn, for each thing we do that
they deny is observed by others and weakens crowd-power in those eyes, not so much turning them to
another side but turning them away from faith in crowd-logic. When crowd belief fails here as it is slowly
failing in Europe, we can again appoint strong leaders who will instead of trying to flatter the population, hit
them with the hard truths: not every homeless person can contribute anything of value, not every individual
desire is legitimate, no one is equal, and not everyone should have a chance at wealth and the power it
conveys.

The egoists will cry out at this mention, naming us as "oppressive" and "sociopathic," but the question that
will still their noise is thus: are our methods an end in themselves, as they are with the crowd (freedom =
freedom to pursue illegitimate individual desires), or are they a means to a greater end? And if that end
makes life better for humanity as a whole entity trying to survive on this planet, do they need justification?
The asking of these questions is the defiance of egoism, or the desire to make the self greater by
manipulation of external and trivial things, and a return to naturalism, or an existence in harmony with the
order of the universe. Ego cannot defy ego, but reaching out to a greater and more comprehensive truth
will crush egoism like the fallacy it is.

December 27, 2005

People
In the common parlance, it is often said that power corrupts, but this generally applies to people who are
personally unstable and spiritually undisciplined, and so once they escape the corset of social obligation,
they act out their suppressed inner fantasies with deranged results. The flip side of power is that it teaches
a form of compassion, a "tough love," that comes from the necessity of motivating people, because
motivating people is both a matter of strict external force and gentler internal reward. If you're going to
lead people into battle or business or a volunteer effort, you need to show them that their task is just and
there is no other way, but also make them feel a sense of empowerment and world-remaking importance in
their job, so that they see it as not only necessary but beneficient to society and self.

People are raw material. They come to you a mixed bag: they have strengths, and weaknesses, and fears
as well as ambitions. Most of them do not know how to channel their ambitions, so if not given reason to
think otherwise, will become egocentric and either seize power, or disclaim it entirely and retreat into
personal worlds of amusements and fetishes. On the other hand, if their ambitions are given a clear path
and a reason to exist, they can exponentially increase their productivity and acumen simply by the fact of
being inspired toward their task. Among other things, this explains how throughout history small groups of
men and women have changed the world radically, and how sometimes a smaller army or business can
crucify its competitors: its people are more focused and believe in their task more than the opposition.

Although amplified by the modern world, throughout history most people have spent their day to day
existence in a state of slight depression. The simplest reason for this is that very few of us get to live a life
where we are a constant focus of attention, and so we labor mostly unknown except to a few close friends
and our families, whose praise means a lot to us, yet, we would prefer to be more widely influential.
Further, because life is a long and winding road in which it is necessary to make errors in order to learn the
foundations of successes, all of us will have some failings and embarassments lurking in the past. We prefer
not to mention them in public, but whenever we consider our next move, doubt arises in the form of these
past memories, much like beating a dog with a stick when it soils the carpet will convince it in the future to
remember pain and associate it with that act. Our own histories literally condition us to depression.

What amplifies this depression in the modern time is the sheer size of our society, and its general course
downward, which even the dumbest among us seem to have noticed. We notice such things on a subliminal
level more than an articulated one, since to understand the situation in structure and words requires
knowing more of it than most lives will see let alone analyze. Since our society is huge, and seems so far
beyond our control or even understanding that it is inexorably going to do what it does, most are slightly
depressed by their lack of influence on changing a worsening situation. Among the intelligent, it is
recognized that masses of morons will undo whatever they achieve, or worse, turn it into a dumbed-down
version of itself, missing meaning but preserving appearance (if you're thinking of what Metallica did with
the "black album" here, you're on the right track). This keeps even the best among us depressed.

The catalyst of change for this situation can be a seemingly miniscule change in belief. People now believe
they cannot change themselves or the world, and that things will continue as they have been; if given the
knowledge that not only are things invisibly changing, but that the future favors this change, and that they
can be the implements of such alteration, people will become inspired and find belief in the future. The
same energy that fuels their depression can propel their hard work and brilliant invention in remaking the
world. Another way to view this is that depression is the result of one's energy having no outlet, thus it
works against the individual by creating internal chaos. Give people an outlet that they believe will have
positive results, and they will move the world. It is for this reason that stubborn assholes such as this writer
believe that as has happened in the past, a small group of determined people will change our world yet
again. People of the world, your time is coming.

And time is on our side. Every day we grow stronger and more disciplined, the errors of society bear it and
its lackeys further into oblivion, crushing them under the weight of a design which is doomed by its own
contradictions to failure. Each day that we do not give in and do not parrot their rhetoric, ours is seen more
clearly by others, and more respected. And with each passing day, more of the failures of our current
Self-Righteous
Any time that people start talking about "good" and "evil," the context of topic has become personal. They
are talking about personal fears as if they were absolutes, like the concept that god himself will disappear
when an individual dies; this is the solipsism forced on those who cannot or are afraid to look at the bigger
picture. Personal thinking of this type denies the world as whole, including its intricate mechanisms that we
see as an ecosystem but are unaware include us, "from within," as they are based on external forces that
influence our survival.

There's a lot in this paragraph, so let's break it down: good/evil morality is personal because it reflects
personal fears, that is, "I might be killed," therefore make killing a taboo - then the individual feels safe,
even though if someone simply breaks that taboo, the individual is still dead. The order of the world will
always support killing because it can happen; morality is an attempt to deny that it can, like a nervous
truth enacted between gangs. It makes us feel better to think that killing "should not" occur, but it still
does, so we act with increasingly retribution against those who do kill. This goes on to the point where
we're willing to kill, and since this offends our psychology, we invent elaborate justifications for when killing
should occur (right-wing) or become pacifistic, denying the obvious need of self-defense and thus
becoming passive and forever angry at the world for putting us in that state (left-wing).

That every society on earth so far has divided itself roughly into these states, the liberals who focus more
on the sanctity of individual life to justify passivity against the conservatives who focus more on ritual
removal of the Other, should show us how this path is not only human but endemic to any group of
thinking, autonomous beings; it is one of the fundamental choices about how one orders a civilization,
uniting individual perspectives/lives into a collective force. If pressed, even your most extreme liberal will
admit there are times when force is needed: an invader, a rapist, a truck dumping toxic waste in a river.
We respect Gandhi because he entirely denied this and suggested an ultra-passivity, or commitment to
non-violence, but this is useless in a practical sense: our inner animal wisdom does not respect a person
who watches his or her family get raped, a country that does not repel invaders, or those who would not
shoot accurately to stop irrevocable poisoning of a river.

However, any time we consider force in the abstract, our personal fears crop up: what if it's applied to me?
If we have nothing to live for except the individual, this is the greatest sadness to us, like the death of God;
our entire worlds will go away and since we see the world only through the individual, to us it is as if the
world itself has died. Those who have wit enough to live for more than the self can content themselves with
the thought of family, great art, or natural landscapes surviving, but they are in the minority. This is the
difference between seeing the world-as-individual, and seeing world-as-whole. In the latter state, we don't
think only of ourselves, but see ourselves as the result of an ongoing process of life that can be taken as a
whole. Something caused the universe to start, even if internal, and its has natural laws that continue the
process of life beyond even human beings. When we see the world not as a city, or social group, or even
planet, but as a cosmic order, we finally have the scope of perspective to see where we - tiny chunks of
talking meat - fit in.

From this fear, and not from a sense of designing a plausible place for ourselves in a cosmic order, we
create the absolutes we call morality, which we guise as "helping others" to disguise our inner selfishness
and insecurity. As soon as this becomes common practice, the surrounding civilization enters its final age,
when big impractical concepts like "freedom" (wage slavery), "free speech" (except what offends),
"happiness" (empty pursuit of wealth) and "luxury" (ability to gain better goods and services than please
mass taste) start getting bandied about in the same tone of voice reserved for morality. Society has at that
point begun misleading itself for the purposes of the selfish not few, but mass - most people begin to think
selfishly, and acting together, they create a degenerate empire that is at its core parasitic. There is no evil
right-wing, Jewish, Masonic or corporate conspiracy, but those evils arise because of the openings created
by the degeneration of society as a whole.

Such is the nature of disunity, that it starts with personal instability and rises to a religious level of dogma;
people cease to pay attention to the task of survival, and focus entirely on their own wants, which most
commonly don't jive with the best interests of society and the cosmic order ("personal" wants, by their very
nature, are things forbidden to most for reasons of excess or destructivity). People are no longer looking at
what is right, but what is "right" according to their own personal mysticism, and as a result, all the finer
things of civilization - art, philosophy, architecture - degenerate into functionalism, because there is no
concern for what is good in an overall sense; there is only concern with personal importance and profit.
Interestingly, both right- and left-wing thinkers agree that excessive concern with wealth and individuality
cause a depilation of all collective and environmental concerns. Yet both have their hands tied, as a
founding part of their philosophies involves this sense of personal identity-as-world.

The sad truth of human psychology is that we cannot discover more of it by looking inward, but by looking
outward: our psychology is entirely shaped by the broadest type of experience, that of being born an
autonomous being that must adapt to its environment. All of our impulses, including our ingrained spiritual
outlook, are adaptations which when properly interpreted make sense. Of course, since a society of the ego
perverts these, most of us have not seen them in a sensible form during our lifetimes, except in brief
glimpses into the biographies of famous artists. Since the disease has run so deep, it has broken people
down to the point where they do not even consider themselves with reverence, but devote their entire
attention to cheap tangibles, such as money and popularity and novelty, as well as the age-old pursuit of
manipulating others to avoid being bored.

Total Darwinism

Why do we care if our civilization, or our race, or even our species, flounders? After all, we'll probably live
comfortable lives and then it's someone else's problem. My answer to this is twofold: we enjoy living, and
thus damage ourselves when we act against the greater force of life and recess into ourselves, and further,
if we believe all is lost for the future, there is nothing to live for except transient desires which ultimately
won't keep us fascinated for long. We will be like the spectral residents of nursing homes, besotted with
television and alcohol, drenched in the luxury of a life's wealth accumulation, and yet completely without
any longstanding meaning in their lives. This premature aging can already be seen in our youth, who live
for brief excess and then settle down to a beaten impotence, mourning days past yet dutifully trudging
toward an existence in which they do not believe.

Charles Darwin, in formulating his nascent theory of evolution, observed how external forces (much as
influence our psychology, inherently) shaped species by eliminating unfavorable traits and promoting
positive ones, much as we do by inclusion or exclusion of individuals in our own friend groups. He soft-toed
the question of applying this theory to humanity, which occurs on two levels. First, the quality of our
population is determined by the actions we reward; when we give best prize to those who greedily make
the most money, we create a society of sneaky, aggressive parasites. Second, our own civilization is judged
by its fitness, and when easy wealth such as is offered by oil resources vanishes, the competition will
eliminate those civilizations which cannot stand on their own. A disunified society full of idiots, no matter
how great its warriors, will collapse when attacked because of internal chaos as people thinking only of
their own imminent death freak out and run around screaming, counteracting any attempt at counteracting
the attack. This is why all great civilizations die from within. Some extend this to race, but I would like to
extend it further: to interplanetary concerns.

While our science has not yet detected alien life, to look at the situation mathematically is to see that it is
not only possible that other planets have life, but almost certain. The same external forces that pressure
the development of multiple competing species on earth will apply to the cosmos in general; while the
distances are vast, and we can barely see past our own front porch, it is most likely that other species are
developing in parallel to our own. Much as there are basic "tests" for any species on earth, like its ability to
find food and mates, and there are similar "tests" for civilizations, like the ability to preserve unity in war
and peace alike, there is a test for humanity, and it is whether we destroy ourselves through disunity
before we make it to the stars, and whether we are of sufficient intellectual quality once we do to hold our
own with the competition. I haven't seen any UFOs yet, nor do I necessarily believe they have visited, but I
am certain, looking at the mathematics of nature and the stars, that civilizations capable of building
something like them are out there, and if they mature and have their act together more than we do, in the
future humanity will be subjugated if not eliminated.
Ice Age

Perhaps it is part of nature's order that things going wrong synergize one another, creating something
more like a landslide than the orderly procession of rocks in sequence down a mountain (some would say
humans think of things as sequential because individuals are sequential: one is either one, or another, but
two never have the same mind except in cases of transcendent love). It does make some sense; the end of
the Kali-Yuga, or age of Iron, is one in which humanity gets too powerful for itself and loses control,
consuming itself through selfishness. Simultaneously, the changed climate, coinciding with natural variation
in cycle, becomes inhospitable, and most being disorganized and existing in a frenzy of envy and hatred
and revenge for one another perish. Those few who survive make it to a safe but uncomfortable place, and
because they believe in life, they tough it out for millennia, being shaped by the natural selection of a
harsher climate. Presumably, those who remain behind degenerate further until they're little more than
half-removed from chimpanzees, creating an anti-civilization which survives merely through animal will.

The hyperborean mythos suggests that something such as this happened long ago. Before our modern
races and religions and countries, there was an ice age, and a small group trekked to the north to escape
the chaos brought on by collapsing civilizations. Their thought was simple: because the cold is feared, we
rush into the cold, so that those who would otherwise overthrow us with their greater numbers are left
behind. The small group struggled at first, but eventually found ways to prosper, not in the least because
natural selection made them smarter, taller, of denser muscle and faster nerves. Their eyes got better and
their digestion optimized for living with primitive technologies such as domesticated animals and milled
grain. They accumulated learning, in part to take advantage of shorter growing seasons and in part to pass
the time during long winters. From this came a race of superhumans who, without the pretense of moral
fear or distraction by wealth, came out of the north as it thawed and spread their knowledge and genetics
around the world, creating our modern races out of hybrids of hyperboreans and those-left-behind.

A future hyperborean migration is possible because, if humanity encounters crisis, it's unlikely that all of us
will die at once. Small groups will recognize the reality of the situation faster than their fellow distracted
and delusional citizens, and will give up their wealth and social status in order to survive in the rough. The
disease, famine, warfare and internal strife that will shatter even the most formidable civilization will not
touch such a group, in part because they will be occupying land that does not offer any immediate promise
of easily-obtained resources. Far from gold, oil and precious gems, they will forge a civilization based on a
will to survive, and to reach higher. Several things will shape them via natural selection: the necessity of
adapting to cold and lack of abundant food; the need to live cautiously and inventively; denial of personal
comfort (those who need comfort to live will perish); a long-term spiritual vision based on denial of tangible
things in favor of long-term tangible goals; a need for fewer people to get along more efficiently and do the
work that would otherwise required many more. Their societies will be more spread out, less sociable, and
more introspective, and these people will emerge after thousands of years with much higher IQs and more
importantly, greater focus to their personalities and an inherent cosmic spirituality which accepts that life is
worth living no matter what short-term or tangible factors seem to contradict that.

This winnowing and upbreeding process could happen a group of Africans, a group of Jews, or a group of
Germans, but it is not a moral decision by nature: the cosmic order is a dumb process, one that works by
repetition and not consideration. Over time, through natural selection, whatever group manages to escape
will be altered to have higher capacities, becoming a more proficient and smarter version of itself by
degrees until it ultimately resembles the original hyperborean race. The same factors that selected
hyperboreans will still be in effect, and much as humans evolved from primitive mammals, these factors of
natural selection will refine slovenly modern humans into superhumans. The less capable the starting group,
or the more mixed the group's genetic character, the longer this process will take.

In this new race, an aristocracy will arise, because sensible survival-oriented beings pick those among them
that are most capable of leadership, and follow their wisdom through strife and good times alike. They will
carry with them a uniform spirituality, a singular will, and roughly similar customs and personal
appearances and behaviors, although within their minds there will be a great diversity of perception and
character. Outwardly, -- well, they will not be fascinated by outward appearances of the ego, as modern
people are. They will be focused on the areas where one can truly prove uniqueness, like personality and
learning and the overcoming of fears. Who can deny that this new race will be superior to modern
humanity, even if we are many and have pretty technologies and wealth? And yes, in time, they will
discover the same sequence of inventions we have, or one closely related, and develop the ability to reach
out to the cosmos through interplanetary travel.

All of this will take a hundred thousand years or more, but much as every error in life costs us time, every
screwup in civilization delays us by what is not long to natural process but is many lifetimes for us puny
mortals. Oh well - the next time someone says that stupid people and Crowdists don't harm you, remember
the idea of your descendants waiting two thousand lifetimes to undo the damage that herds do! Joke's on
you, of course. Maybe you could abandon some of your own selfish habits and work with others toward a
human-oriented natural selection and leadership process that undoes this great error before it occurs, but
maybe it's too late. See what's on TV.

When you look toward the new year, think about everything unnecessary that you can give up and all the
things you can do to work toward a future in which a slimming of the human population according to a
long-term goal of better humans and a less selfish future. We can do it, if we choose, before nature sees fit
to simply terminate most of us and renew the natural selection process. If we do, we will reclaim and
restart all that has been wonderful among our peoples and civilizations.

Celtic Frost and Metallica

I have come to distrust people who read only a certain genre of book, because that makes it clear that
whatever the genre, they're reading for entertainment. They have found something they like and wish to
repeat the experience. Of course, this is lessened when they read only literature or only philosophy, but
even so, those habits can quickly become self-gratifying as well. There is a difference between
entertainment, and art or learning; the latter division will bring something of the world to you, where the
former will dress up the same old habits and ideas as something "novel," or superficially new, so that you
can entertain yourself and avoid reality. While there's nothing wrong with some avoidance of reality, those
who need "entertaining" are really little black holes of will that cannot generate their own path in life and
thus like to be distracted.

Reading Thomas Gabriel Fischer's "Are You Morbid? Inside the Pandemonium of Celtic Frost" (Sanctuary
Publishing, 2000, London, 339 pages), I was struck by how much the story of humanity is acted out in
microcosm through metal music. In creating a metal band, the same boundaries of logic exist that face an
organism: it must find sustenance, defend predators and procreate (the wicked). Much as a civilization
faces an uncertain landscape and the possibility of being overwhelmed, a metal band is also like a small
society: four or five guys who work together not on completing a predefined task, but on pouring
inspiration and feeling into a musical work so that it meets their own standards. Fischer's book details his
strategies and experience in going from clueless teenager to world-renowned metal musician.

First, some on the book itself: according to Fischer, an American editor helped out, which suggests that this
book needed a higher budget, as plenty of slang like "kicks butt" and "to the max" occurs, followed up by
repeated use of phrases and often rambling discursive passages when summaries would have sufficed. It
could easily be cut by a hundred pages to make room for more stories and footnotes, in which some of the
meatiest and most revelatory details are encoded. Where it succeeds is relating the raw information
through the perspective of metal heads who avoided the excess of drugs and (mostly) drink, so what we
have is a clear narrative that is fortunately too wise to try to explain it all to us. Despite some editorializing
by Fischer, what we get is mostly a factual narrative that isn't tied together except by the reality-based
dimensions of the story. No metaphor, no religion, no theory.

Although the book is apologetic, in that Fischer bemoans his errors too much and tries to explain away past
failings, it is formidable in knowledge because of that same apologetic tendency, as Fischer avoids
celebrating a past without reservation, and acknowledges the steady process of Celtic Frost's decline from
seminal material into the excremental heap known as "Cold Lake," and uses the culmination of that descent
to explain his exit: when the inspiration and ability to create great works had departed, Fischer lost interest
in what was otherwise a grueling, brutal process that rewarded morons over geniuses. When that
inspiration was there, he had no problem suffering the rigors of a metal musician's life, but as soon as that
transcendent goal departed, he was without will to continue. The section of the book that explains this
decision is astutely candid.

Fischer details the errors made by himself and other members of the band, and makes repeated references
to industry and fans, but would be better served by segregation into topics after the narrative has
concluded, even if these rehash the path described by the rest of the book. It's almost too much to
interleave analysis of industry with the history of the band because it is not mentioned frequently enough to
qualify as a thread; it's more like a periodic aside interrupted by a story. The book would be better served
by truncating some of its less relevant stories, focusing more on the type of revealing anecdotes at which
Fischer obviously excels (and which propel the first part of the book). It could benefit from above all else
more of his lucid analysis of what fans reward with their dollars, and the mechanics of popularity in a
relatively closed system genre such as heavy metal.

This leads us to the crowning achievement of the book, which is essentially Fischer's introspection
regarding his behavior and how it translated into music, both sucessfully and -- well, if you've heard "Cold
Lake," you know the agonizing sounds of Celtic Frost failing. Reading carefully, one can find a short list of
how Tom G. Warrior thinks bands succeed:

1. Practice daily: hard work and familiarity with the material is key to success.
2. Walk/bike/take a train to practices: meditative introductions to work.
3. Avoid luxury and drama: the more external forces distracted, with pleasure or pain, the less successful
the band were.
4. Be focused on the end product as itself: when Celtic Frost made great material, it was because the
musicians were caught up in an impetus to make great art for its own sake, like a transcendent experience
for the listener that the musicians as listeners would like to have. During times of success, they saw the art
as a task in itself, not as a task that was a means/tool toward the end of greater wealth or popularity.
Music is its own goal, and to make excellent music, one must focus on the end product as a desirable
experience and not an audience manipulation for an end other than enlightenment and sharpened
awareness through music.

It is this final point that, through the melancholic shades of nostalgia and retrospect, Fischer reveals to us
like a spiritual manifesto of Celtic Frost: the experience itself must be worthy, because the tangible rewards
pass too quickly and are meaningless to a mind geared toward larger concepts or consciousness. At these
moments of discussion, he ceases to be a musician past his prime and becomes a larger-than-life neo-
philosophic figure who reveals to us, through the metaphor of the experience of a heavy metal band, a
trenchant analysis of the modern time. We have become focused on the tangible, and have forgotten the
experiential, and thus tend toward luxury and distraction and a lack of hard work, as if we have become
focused more on ourselves than on what we share with the world, or the art of living.

He isn't the only one to undergo this process, although he might have learned more than Metallica, who
seem to be awash in the same currents without Fischer's inner lighthouse to even looking back make clarity
of the madness. Metallica started as a hungry, ambitious band whose goal at first was to make the coolest
ass-kicking metal they could envision, but over time, have become bloated Hollywood shipwrecks who live
in luxury and try to falsify the anger and lust for life they felt once long ago and expressed successfully in a
core of seminal albums. Much as Celtic Frost did on "Cold Lake," after "...And Justice for All," Metallica have
focused on their art as a means to the ends of popularity and thus wealth. Unlike Fischer, Metallica were
from California, and thus have been naturals at image manipulation and have succeeded wildly where
Fischer left off, although he will be remembered more fondly at his funeral.

Conflicted musicians, after they lose impetus, never regain that momentum that allowed them to be greats
earlier in their lives, and while they may live in more luxury, they feel as if a part of their soul is missing.
They're correct. What was once an inspirational process, a pure pouring of life-spirit into artistic form, has
now become a job like anything else: a task to be completed for tangible ends. Long-suppressed personal
failings are given air by popularity, and the pursuit of a lifestyle to work around these failings creates
further hypocrisy. They become exhausted, not in a physical sense, but a metaphysical one. Most
immediately blame the aging process, but Fischer is still smart as a whip and clearly spirited; what he hints
at, deftly, among the pages of "Are You Morbid?" is that it is not youth, but spirit, that determines the
quality of work: the body will rot, but the mind can keep together if unified by a belief in the task as itself,
or, in making art for no purpose other than making a greater artistic experience. It's tautological, but to
make metal music for any purpose other than making great metal music results in a broken musician, and
Fischer also hints that we can apply this to other areas of our lives.

This looking at experience as a thing-in-itself which can be separated from the mechanisms used to foist it
upon the world and by which reward is gained is reminiscent of an awkward scene from V. P. Rozan's short
play, "The Entitlement of Epiphanus":

Marcusian: Don't say that - it is vile.

Thelemanus: Don't tell me what to say.
Romanus: Ha, don't you see? You're both telling each other what to do!

Rebellion is the same action as that which it claims is oppression. What must be found is proof in action,
simply creating a better example of what existence can be through experience, and through it making an
uplifting or transcendent experience. Celtic Frost may have been moribund, violent and aggressive, but it
conveyed a sense of power in living through which one overcame death by giving it context, and then
turned death around and used it as one of the colors in an artist's palette, as if affirming its necessary
place in life as a step toward reaching other places. You cannot fight things that suck in life as political
bands do, but you must create better prototypes of existence (experience), art that rises above and uplifts,
no matter what its topic area - this is what we learn from Thomas Gabriel Fischer and, in contrast, the
continued dismal artistic failure inversely related to vast commercial success of Metallica.

Evolution, of individuals or civilizations or species, is a similar process. One cannot base it upon rebellion
against certain issues or facts, but can only do it successfully by reaching for something higher, even if
expressed in subarticulate terms like "that would kick ass" or inspire; what makes life more intense and
more organized is the goal, as that leads to a greater experience, even if most people would rather simply
be entertained (much like most now prefer watching TV to doing anything of note, or even, anything). Most
people will grasp the tangible, and see life as a means to a tangible end, but as we learn from metal
musicians, life is intangible and can only be used as an end to itself. Tautological? The ancients knew this
argument and expressed it as eimi , or "I am what I am." The goal of existence is itself; the goal of any
being or civilization or species is its own survival.

When we look at the human present, and the human future, it is important to remember that we have lost
sight of this truth and are slowly regaining it, but we cannot solely do it prescriptively, and we cannot do it
from the self-righteous principle of utilizing experience as a way of making our public selves glow brighter.
We must rediscover what inspires us and use this transcendent experience as a means of motivating us
toward creating more intense forms of existence, including evolutionary success on a personal and
planetary level. Only in this have we found a larger order than that of the individual, and something that
will outlast us at our funerals.

December 31, 2005

Future
Coffeeshops resemble the internet in that almost everyone you meet in such places has a strong political
opinion, or a theory of changing the world. This is fortunate for those who do not desire change, as it
means that any possible accord is fragmented into literally millions of perspectives that differ enough to be
incompatible. Of course, if you're trying to sound important in a chat room or hipster-beaten sofa, you
need the most distinctive appearance for your political opinion possible, so consensus is not your goal.

Luckily for those who study philosophy, it's easy to group these opinions, as they universally represent a
few actual viewpoints, when one removes the trivial conflicts where the political thinker is addressing a
symptom and not structural function. Despite whatever personal conceits they invent to justify the
uniqueness of their opinions, these ornamentations do not affect the general theory of each viewpoint;
further, if that viewpoint were achieved in reality, almost all of the decorative uniqueness would be
subsumed by a larger function. Even if you're the one republican who favors abortion, if the general theory
of your outlook is that the government chooses what should be legal based on republican values, abortion
will be decided by that principle, if nothing else through the opinion of a public conditioned to a certain way
of doing things.

Almost everyone one encounters has some variation on the Christian-liberal theme, which is the
independence of the individual and the consequent deferrment of collective needs; one reason America is a
political disaster, as noted by Samuel Huntington in his epic "The Promise of Disharmony," is that the
fundamental American political creed is anti-government and anti-collective: it is a form of personal
kingdom that becomes selfish only when one sees that its pursuit obviates any chance for consensus or
moving to a state of anything but constant debate, conflict and a see-sawing of political power. Americans
do not agree on much because their only shared value is the importance of material individualism as
expressed through a reluctance to agree. From our Puritan origins, and our massively powerful rhetoric
during the Cold War, this amalgamated opinion is as deeply-entrenched as it is hopeless.

There are defectors, of course, most notably Communists, Greens and Nationalists. These are more
pragmatic sorts who see the need for some agenda in common so that society can get past a state of
constant indecision, which much as neurosis wears down the individual, over time erodes the political will to
get anything done and thus leaves the nation susceptible to an ongoing degeneration of function until it
reaches a point of third-world chaos. Each of these defector ideologies pulls in its own direction,
unfortunately, negating the synergistic effect that could be found from looking at this commonality: they
believe in a need for consensus and a higher value system than that of "if it makes money, it's good" and
represent our only chance for escape from consumerism. Their problem, in addition to their fundamental
violation of the American credo of materialistic individualism, is that each by narrowing in to a specific tenet
or issue has excluded from their thinking the necessity of creating a whole system. Society must go on, and
cannot radically discard un-Green practices, and life for normal people must not be interrupted by the
radically normalizing of Communism; even Nationalists succumb, in that they have unrealistic or nonexistent
plans for the rest of society after National separation (or, in the case of the white power wackos, genocide)
is achieved.

What unites these dissident viewpoints with the mainstream consumerism-democracy-individualism crowd
(who will insist they are themselves individual and unique thinkers, although a structural - "philosophical" -
analysis of their beliefs reveals otherwise) is a belief in revolution. At some point, whatever it is that they
have found to be defective produces a need for too many changes that inevitably conflict with each other,
and like an airplane trying to out-turn too many adversaries, they run out of open space and declare a need
for an extreme levelling to make their philosophies work. This inevitably translates into revolution, which
takes many forms including genocide, and points to a failure in their thinking: they are looking toward the
past. Whether they want to resurrect fallen empires, or remove what they see as a great evil, they are
viewing society from the perspective of a frozen moment instead of seeing it as a constantly growing thing.
They want an immediate and final solution, and to achieve one of these, one has to eradicate organic
details and make big abstract absolute statements, whether "freedom" or "ethnic cleansing," in order to
answer a question inextricably bogged down in details.
The revolutionary mindset is to be feared because it lacks a plan beyond revolution. Revolutionaries are
inevitably more conditioned by social and political influences in the system they claim to be overthrowing
and thus, once they've murdered their leaders and enacted chaos, they have no new structure to put in
place and end up mimicking the old . In no small part this originates in the "individualism" of revolutionaries,
who are not prone to consensus except the need for something radical to fix everything in one fell stroke.
This is like trimming a tree by cutting it down, and hoping something better grows in its place, where in
reality trimming a tree is a process of finding out its pattern of growing and making select ("structural")
changes. Revolutionaries look toward the past, and hopelessly out of touch with the future, instead repeat
the past with a new brandname.

Those who will make any kind of positive change deal in facts, not feelings, whether those are feelings of
personal uniqueness or a "it should be this way" desire. Positive change comes from accepting the reality of
the situation, and trimming it so that it grows into something better in the future. It does not happen
overnight; every overnight "miracle" revolution has collapsed in its own disunity. It is a slow process of
nurturing, which includes both stimulating growth and cutting away that which injures correct growth.
Positive changers do not look at details, or emotional reactions, but pay attention to structure and modify it
so that the whole of society changes. They do not zero in to a single issue and assume that fixing it will
magically resurrect the whole. They deal in facts, not feelings or appearances, and they are willing to
forego some measure of self-expression in order to find commonality; this, after all, is the founding
principle of society: we give up some "freedoms" in order to work together more efficiently. We've
forgotten this in the years since founding our society.

When I think of the changes I desire, I look toward the future. I want to group people by culture
(nationalism) so that they can make the changes that concern only them, and keep going in their preferred
direction; culture is the only antidote to consumerism, corporate robber barons and other entities that place
money at a higher emphasis than doing what is right according to a cultural ideal. I want to remove politics
from education and give those who can do great things the right tools, and remove pointless barriers from
their path. I want to find a way to make industry work without destroying our world, and limit our land use
and population so that we do not deplete earth.

I want to do all these things while continuing to grow toward greater heights of culture, learning, art and
science; I do not want to give up on civilization. Revolutionaries see only the lack of potential in our current
system, and want to destroy it, but are not rebuilders. I know we can make a better future while correcting
the past and that all of the sane people, the ones who do not waste time in coffeehouses or ego battles on
the internet, will agree with me and give up some degree of "individualism" so we can find common ground.
Perhaps this is why the ancients worshipped the sun: even a sunset is part of a cycle that will bring
eventually a new day, where new possibilities are infinite.

January 5, 2006
On Viciousness
What is truth? If we're honest, we say that it is an assessment of how well something inside of our heads
corresponds to the world outside. We say something is true when it will be borne out in reality, meaning
the physical (and possibly other dimensions, although they will correspond to the same organizational
principles of the physical world for the most part) world in the passage of time. Truth compares our ideas
to the external world, and only that world - not our in-head "truths" - reveals how accurate they are.

What is evil? Evil is untruth for short-term and/or personal gain. I say this not in a dualistic sense, but in
the same way that truth describes our ideas contrasted to the external world, evil can be an assessment of
our thoughts and actions. If something is billed as one thing, and performs another with negative results,
we can see it as evil; I assess this evil in holistic terms more than personal, meaning that someone ripping
off someone else is not as important as a false idea impacting the whole of our human endeavor. Evil
illustrates to us why it is important not to assume that something labeled "Good" is in fact not evil, as the
easiest thing in the world is changing a label.

Examples of evil that most (thinking, intelligent people of noble character) will find realistic: dumping toxic
waste for $500 off the books; stealing supplies from hospitals; killing a neighbor to enslave his wife in a
basement sex nest; torching a forest. Evil is denial of the holistic truth for personal gain, in this context.
Since we have choice about not only what we decide to do, but how we label objects and ideas, evil is a
choice possible at every step of our lives.

And what is viciousness? It might be said that it is a tendency to gain regardless of assessment of good or
evil. It is not caring if what one does is good or evil, as distinguished from death and life by their influence
on the course of human lives. True viciousness is a defensive reaction, a neediness and a fear, that comes
of feeling (truthfully or not) that one is under attack at all times, and is forced to respond in a manner of
self-preservation at all costs. Viciousness requires this justification, although a hollow one, because every
person feels morally correct in responding with force when they have been attacked first.

So far, we have confined ourselves to definitions on which most functional intelligent people agree. Now we
shall get into the deeper waters that provoke troublesome worries, as definitions reveal a truth that is no
longer as it is labeled; good shall become evil, and vice versa. Prepare yourselves with a fortifying
intoxicant, sexual act, or religion of your choice - it does not matter, as nothing will stop this chain of
thought. You can even stop thinking about it. You have the rest of your life to wonder, and if you stray far
from this thought, don't worry - it will find you (unless you are not intelligent, in which case you have
already turned on the TV).

There are two dimensions to every evil act: its method, and its outcome. Intention is secondary. If I drive a
truck full of napalm into a nursery school and immolate it, it does not matter that I didn't "mean to" torch
the preschoolers. They're dead. Similarly, while basting someone in napalm and flicking a zippo is clearly a
horrible thing, if I drive a truck full of napalm into a horde of murderers before they can commit their
dastardly acts, it would be good via evil method (unless, of course, they were going to murder other
murderers). Even moreso, if I bring a Bible to the New World to save souls, and it turns out the Bible is
infected by smallpox, I've committed evil via good method. What an interesting paradox, if you're
thickwitted.

When considering viciousness, we have to look at outcome and not method, as illustrated by the parable of
napalm truck versus murderers above. Clearly their removal is a positive thing, all silly sanctity of life
arguments aside (and what sensible person believes that, in a world of seven billion?). Maybe I damaged
my soul by using this evil method; more likely, whether I lock them up or set them ablaze is
inconsequential: I have interrupted and prevented their intended course of life. Is it vicious to commit a
good act viciously? Conversely, is an evil act committed without viciousness indeed evil?

Much as we have two ways (method and outcome) of assessing an act, we have two degrees of scope in
which to consider it: the individual, and the world as whole (collectives, as groups of individuals, belong to
the former category). If I am in a sinking submarine with ten other people, and a flooded compartment
must be sealed from the inside, we have a literal, binary choice: one person can give up her life to seal the
damn thing, or all eleven of us can drown. If we use the principle that each life is sacred, we reach a
paradox, because we cannot give up a life - yet we have to, to preserve others. The interests of the whole
therefore come before the interests of the individual.

So... what if a vicious act must be applied to some individuals, to avoid a vicious act being applied to all?
Back on the submarine, supposing that we must seal the forward bulkhead in three seconds to prevent the
entire ship from sinking, but the people behind that forward bulkhead will take eighteen seconds to
evacuate it? We might fudge a bit, and say we let the first three through, but if there are ten people in the
forward compartment and five hundred in the rest of the ship, it becomes immaculately clear what must be
done: we condemn them to death and listen to them drown. Gurgle glub!

It is the same way in a modern time. We have made some horrible errors that have allowed us as a species
to get too big to continue; if we want to preserve our natural environment, we must convince most of our
population not to breed or, more likely, since they're not going to accept that, force them to. What to do?
It's such drama for those who haven't thought it through, but in this case, we have a situation where
murder is the giving of life. A vicious act has a good outcome. Or rather, a vicious act for some has a
positive outcome not just for all who exist now, but for an unknown amount of future generations (who
knows how long the future lasts?).

Some would say this is vicious, and that we need "proof" of the truthfulness of our statement. I would say
that the proof is there but is invisible to most people; it requires smart and strong leaders to interpret. But
it is an unpopular verdict! Well, so it is. They will demand proof up until the point where proof arrives and
then, well, the bad events in waiting will have happened, and it will be a moot point . How hilarious self-
defeating. It's like a man covered in napalm refusing to not smoke a cigarette until he's on fire.

Although we have through wealth and the size of the world been able to avoid this point so far, we have
now reached the point where things are not only not as labeled, but not as they appear. Death can be life.
Life can be death. It's important to realize this means the fourth age of definitions of good and evil has
arrived.

I. Man Versus Nature

At first, our conception of good and evil was pure mysticism: small familial bands roamed and had to fight
off sabre-toothed tigers and fatal diseases. We needed each other so much that person-to-person evil was
relatively unknown. So evil meant the unknown: disease, predators, insanity, hemorrhoids, weird things
howling in the night.

II. Man Versus Other Man Outside Civilization

Before permanent civilization, larger bands of humans roamed and sometimes clashed. At this point, we
had our first definition of human evil: the outsider. Someone not from our tribe might kill us, giggling like a
schoolgirl, in fact. And what of people among us who transgressed? They were the few who had gone
insane - see definition I - because to do so was to be without a band of humans in a time when there were
still enough animals that this was a bad idea (now, it's a moot point, since just about everything wild
enough to eat us is dead, except AIDS).

III. Man Versus Other Man in Civilization

This is where it gets interesting: Judaism and Christianity belong to this age. Once people decided to settle
down in large groups, we had civilization. Civilizations got attacked, but it was less frequent than before,
because established towns and cities had strongholds, which meant less frequency of success for the
intruders - like a burglar staring down the barrel of a shotgun after stumbling into a dark room, lockpick in
hand. This meant that, statistically, there was a greater chance of facing badness within civilization from
without. Whether it was farmer Josef ben Meshuggah stealing your grain, or a wandering Hittite clocking
you on the head and taking your wife, it was evil from within. Christianity tried its best to limit this with
absolute, contextless rules like "Don't kill" and "Don't steal." Because these rules represented a fundamental
paradox with the rule of force, exceptions were made for war and the courts, and force was deprecated
through a series of rules designed to construe he who used force first as the aggressor, no matter what
went before. I might have been stealing your grain for twenty years, but the instant you whap me with a
shillelagh, you're the goddamn barbarian and you'll burn in hell, you pig-fucker.

IV. Man Versus Other Man via Civilization

You can tell in any article when the author starts mentioning something in increasing frequency that it's
probably the main point, or something like it. What about this things-as-labeled nonsense? That brings us
to the fourth moral generation of good 'n evil, or the time when people use civilization to commit
viciousness to one another. It might be legal to buy out someone's ancestral home, for example, or to buy
up forest and chop it into pressboard, but is it not vicious? We've found ways of using society against one
another, in part based upon that last principle of the previous age, namely that "he who uses force first is
the aggressor." That gives us license to do whatever vicious and vile things we desire, so long as we don't
use force (it's unclear whether dumping toxic waste in pristine rivers is "force," but we're polluting rivers to
avoid that paradox). This is the Nietzschean age, in that he was the most identifiable philosopher who
pointed out that passivity - provoking the other guy into using force by doing what is unjust - is now a
bigger plague than the moral transgressions Christianity so strictly outlined. God is dead, indeed.

If I have to leave you with any conclusion to all of this, it is this argument: It is more vicious to be selfish
and untruthful (using society against others, passively) than it is to slaughter some so that the rest can live
well. We're overpopulated. Even worse, the majority of our population are so devoid of inherited
intelligence, nobility, beauty and strength that they are always viciously and passively attacking those that
they perceive to be above them (blonde jokes, anyone?). Given that our population will inevitably expand
to take over more territory than permits nature to renew itself, we should stop this now before things go
awry.

Older generations are so afraid of this logic that they simply shut down, mentally, when it is mentioned.
They cannot process it. However, we the people who have inherited the earth (meek or not) have to think
about it, and to act on it. We're the army of setting things right by clearing away undermen and the corrupt
society (money = power, passive = not vicious) that fostered them. What we need to do cannot be
expressed in third generation morality; what we need to do can only be understood below the clear
appearance but ambiguous meaning of things-as-labeled. We must look to reality, and do what is right, for
the preservation of a future in which sane, intelligent people would want to live, or we forever lose that
option.

February 9, 2006
Hostage (To Morons)
The saving grace of philosophy or politics is putting it into practice. Conversely, the reason for the existence
of abstract thought arises from the necessity of finding better organization schema for our real world lives.
Ideas affect how well things turn out; a poor design works less than a good one. When a modern
philosopher ventures out into the world, he or she is going to immediately realize that those who think, in
this society, are hostage to those who do not.

We are literally held hostage by morons. It is not in such a dramatic way as might occur in a bank robbery
or hijacking, but it is nonetheless a powerful regulator of our lives. We are not held at gunpoint, or confined
to small cages, or suspended in terror by someone next to us wearing a bomb, but instead of having one
powerful event of control, we are subjected to infinite thousands of daily events which show us how our
lives are controlled by morons. We are held hostage because since their behavior is always of the lowest,
simplest, stupidest possible variety, all of society must be changed to accomodate them.

Imagine a philosopher driving to the post office. First, he must wait while at the head of a long line of cars,
a moron slowly attempts a turn. Where a smart person would brake gently and then pull through the turn,
the moron brings his car almost to a complete stop and then, without a hurry in the world, slowly
completes the turn. It's not rocket science, but you wouldn't know by watching him! Since everyone has
more to do than they have hours in the day, and are constantly in a hurry to steal as much of their time
back from society for themselves, people become immediately frustrated as the moron's slow turn causes
each car behind him to in sequence brake, bringing the line to a complete stop by the third vehicle. They
whip out of the lane in clumps, causing cars in every other lane to hit the brakes as the traffic pattern
becomes unpredictable. We all wait for the moron. We all wait for the traffic damage the moron has
wrought. We all arrive later after having been in more danger of a wreck than is necessary. But remember:
you should be tolerant of morons, because they don't directly cost you anything - or so it is said.

At the next light, the philosopher waits for morons to drive slowly through the intersection. They are
delayed by distraction, since things like power windows and staying within the lines of their lane and
listening to the radio are big, complicated adventures for them. So where twenty cars could get through a
light, fifteen do; the backup grows over the course of the day and eventually spills over to nearby roads,
delaying other people further. Everyone loses because we tolerate morons. As the philosopher drives up to
the intersection, a legless man in a wheelchair crosses the intersection against the light, and delays the fat
person eating a burger who is ahead of the philosopher; the light changes to yellow, and the philosopher
must stand on his brakes to avoid running a light he can barely see ahead of the van.

Finally, at his destination, the philosopher gets to wait in line because a moron ahead of him cannot figure
out a simple form. In fact, everyone waits. While the moron at the front of the line delays everyone by an
unnecessary ten minutes, others compensate: they take out cell phones, start filling out other forms, or
space out. This means that each time a new person comes to the start of the line, they have to return to
the real world. This adds delays across the board. A moron would say, "So what, it's just time?" but three
of these a day subtracts a half-hour which means eight full days out of the year are spent unnecessarily
waiting in line - the figure for waiting in line is much higher. Even more it means that any line becomes a
downright unpleasant experience, since it is obviously bungled but no one "can" do anything about it as
morons might be offended, and they mightily wail when they're upset.

(It's fair to note that the word "moron" here is technically inaccurate. There is a form of intelligence that IQ
tests don't measure which has to do with the ability of an individual to see a situation as whole and act
realistically. It's impossible to test that with a standardized form, because it is the exact antithesis, but
modern society is based on standardized tests. Morons can be functionally intelligent but they lack the
capacity for wisdom, for reverence of the finer moments in life, for romanticizing life itself... morons are
spiritually dead, but will always insist on their own importance out of a combination of fear and anger that
others might be getting more than they are. There may be no good/evil axis in the world, but surely no
matter how tolerant we are, we can realize that there is an axis of stupid and wherever it is given power,
things get stupid?)
Morons steal even more time when the line-wait is over with. Did you want the product that did the job
better than others, but cost 15% more? You'll be denied; the morons demanded cheaper, not better, and
so your voice is drowned out. You cannot elect a candidate who represents you because he will be feared
to be "elitist" by the morons, and even if such a candidate could run, some moron would run and promise
impossible but good-sounding things and be elected anyone. Democracy is triumph of the moron because
by its nature, intelligence is a rare and beautiful thing. So your government, which is run by morons, also
holds you hostage.

Even worse, you're subjected to any number of processes designed for morons. Cops approach everything
as a crime in progress because with morons, it is. Psychologists assume you have toilet training and breast
feeding psychoses since morons do and morons, making up 90% of their paying customers, are more
important than smart people. Paying taxes or doing anything official is difficult because it has been dumbed
down; instead of giving you access to your own future, they make all of us jump through many hoops
because morons cannot understand the raw actions they need to take, and will screw up anything they're
given. Morons are holding your time - the one measure of your life, your mortality and your potential -
hostage.

This situation has come about because we have taken our eyes off the task of survival, and have instead
become fascinated by the physical method of survival, which is the individual. Society will live on if an
individual dies, but this threatens that individual, so instead of concerning ourselves with society's survival,
we idealize the individual and focus on that, to the point where we're running society as a whole into the
ground. And it's too late to protest, because you'll offend morons and thus not only go broke when that
90% of your customers ignore you, but also will be arrested for some or another "moral violation" in daring
to tell the truth. Morons rule through enforcement of individualism.

The disease of modernity makes illogicality into a supreme goal through this mechanism, and replaces any
thought of having a better society with an obsession with the individual. All of our "progressive" ideas have
to do with making life better, fairer or easier for the individual, usually through "equality" and "freedom,"
mythical concepts that sound good in speeches and are therefore optimal for manipulating morons. But by
pursuing these ideas, we guarantee the individual has a place even where it is illogical to give one, which
explains why we illogically allow morons to define our agenda and methods. Morons, however, are defined
by what they don't understand more than what they do. It is for this reason that they insist on
individualism, forgetting that by forcing people to be treated identically, we remove what little chances they
had for real distinction as individuals. Morons don't notice, and morons don't care, but we remain their
hostages.

February 12, 2006

Activism
Most people when confronted with the question of acting on their supposed beliefs will do one of two
things: first, they will criticize anyone who takes action as not doing enough; second, they will claim nothing
can be done. This document points of the errors of psychology that keep them misinformed, and gives the
anti-modern-society activist a starting point to do something effective instead of symbolic. Its ultimate goal
is to teach a new form of activism that will remake modern society into something which rewards inner
abilities instead of external ones. That process will restore nobility and sensitivity in perception to the
human race, abilities which will help us avoid quandaries like our current mess, which cannot be linearly
"proven" to be wrong but when considered by a noble and sensitive mind is clearly a dead-end path that,
no matter how long it takes, will end in disaster (much as our current society is, after hundreds of years,
finally showing its true and malicious colors).

Excuses

The first barrier to activism is that most people are lying about their motivations and capacities. Modern
society has conditioned us to live through social appearance, as that is how we market ourselves, and thus
to invent all forms of clever justifications for inactivity. People have inertia. They like to sit on their asses
and do nothing, but to preserve their self-image, they need to justify this inaction. We can see this in the
two cases illustrated above:

1. When someone says, "I would join hands with that organization or idea, but they don't do anything,"
what they are doing is finding an excuse for doing nothing. The organization does not perfectly fit into
their worldview, so instead of joining something imperfect and making it work for them, they pretend
that nothing but what is perfect will do for their dainty little footfalls. These people are in the grips of
delusions of self-importance and even more fundamentally, laziness; they claim to want change, but
their modus operandi is to find reasons to escape it. They're fakers.
2. When someone says, "I would work toward a better future, but nothing can be done" or "I am
waiting for violent revolution to make changes," you can tell that they are also deluded and despite
what they claim their reasons are, their actual motivation is either self-image or inactivity. Change can
be had without violent revolution, but it takes more thinking, and more work. That is unpopular.
Change can be had in a system that is constantly changing, but it takes work and unseating oneself
from comfortable inactivity. These people do not want change. They want to appear "concerned" but
they won't do anything. They're poseurs.

In fact it seems that almost all people in modern society are fakers, poseurs, liars and other dysfunctional
types who will speak a good game but do nothing about it. This works OK for those who are supporting
Democrats or Republicans, because all that is required for them is to put the correct bumper sticker on the
car and to click the right lever in the voting booth. This allows them a passive attitude, but in exchange,
they get the same old thing every time because no matter how much the two major parties do battle, no
one ever wins, so every four years there's a change of leadership that undoes whatever the previous four-
year king created. Self-defeating? Quite - and that's fortunate for those who hope to make money, as it
means nothing will ever come between them and the ironclad law of modern society, "if it makes money,
it's God to us."

Those who would change society have a problem in that much as the category "artist" includes both
geniuses and idiots pretending to be artists so they can be lazy, the category of "activist" includes mostly
people who have no desire to do anything but make themselves look better. If we had a dollar for every
leftist moron who has a bigshot political opinion in the coffeehouse or in conversation, but does absolutely
nothing, we'd be wealthy, right? It's the same on the right - grumbling conservatives - and in the third
front.

Why are people such shit-talking morons? Most people have political opinions not from an honest desire to
do right, but from a desire to appear wise for having answers - and this desire is best served by finding
answers that cannot be achieved, because that way, they get to look good without doing anything. To
actually work for change requires getting off the fucking internet and doing something. It requires giving up
a chance to sound important by having all the answers, and getting one's hands dirty. Has it struck anyone
else as odd that everyone on the internet has all the answers, yet almost none of them do anything about
it?

Yeah, they're poseurs. Look at it this way: nature creates a spread of different people for different tasks.
Most people are created by nature to pick turnips, herd sheep, clean toilets, etc. They don't have the brains
for anything else, even if they seem functionally intelligent; they are monkey-see, monkey-do and thus can
program computers, make graphics, type long messages on the internet, etc. but they cannot emulate what
they do not understand, which is logic. Thus their "logic" is almost always designed to hide some
psychological dysfunction, which is why their "political opinions" and "social ideas" mean nothing. They are
using these ideas to make themselves sound good, and to justify their lack of doing anything. It's like
someone waiting for a perfect world. "Yeah, I'd do something with my life, but the world's imperfect, so
instead, I'll watch TV."

Almost all of the people on the internet fit into this loser mentality. The worst are those who claim that
some idea is offensive and therefore must be banned; they are passive and portray themselves as
wounded, "offended" or shocked, and that's their "logic" for why something must be banned. That's like
pointing out a mountain and saying, "That bothers me, so it should be dynamited." It's not logic; it's
psychological dysfunction. As you may know, it's fairly easy to set up a computer script that spits out
sentences that look like they mean something, but on analysis, do not. Why do we assume that most of
our species, who we know are good for nothing better than picking turnips and watching TV, are different?

Almost all of people in life fit into this loser mentality. There are a few who snap out of it, usually through
good breeding, but most will be dragged down into it. Then again, fewer than 2% of society know enough
of the words and grammatical concepts necessary to understand this article, so that 98% of people are
"talking monkeys with car keys" (from a Kam Lee interview) should not bother us. 98% of society exists to
clean toilets, pick turnips, etc. and has no capacity for logical thought, political or otherwise. This is one
reason why democracy is insane. What is important is to quickly recognize those who are making excuses
as distinct from those who are able to do something, and then, to use guilt, violence and implied self-
importance to con the 98% into actually doing something useful, as they will never, ever do anything of
value of their own impetus.

Most people make excuses. "This organization doesn't do enough" and "There's nothing that can be done"
and "We have to wait for violent revolution" are the biggest, easiest lies out there. Does it surprise anyone
that both teenage anarchists and meth-addicted homeless white nationalists encourage us to wait for
revolution? Of course not: that attitude both makes them sound smart and justifies their inaction, so they
can keep sounding smart, of course. They want to find "logical" reasons for doing nothing ; their "political
ideas" are only an excuse to that end, and have nothing to do with fixing humanity as a whole. For them,
the entire process is one of entertainment and self-image cultivation, and they care not at all (0) for an
effective solution, or even recognizing the right problem. They want to sound smart. They want to do
nothing. Everything else is an excuse.

Almost all of the people I encounter on the Internet or at real-life political events are there to show off their
own egos, and have no intention of being effective. They are trapped in a drama of self-identity, and will
buy endles bumper stickers and talk about "the big issues" into the small hours of the night, every night,
but will make excuses in lieu of taking action (mainly because to take action ends their comfortable world
of feeling important for being right without having done anything to merit it). Excuses have nothing to do
with logic unless we mistake them for logic. When you have gotten proficient in sorting excuse from logic,
you can go on to the next stage: making a difference.

Planning

Finding out that you dislike something is only a small part of the journey. Although modern people tell us
that "admitting you have a problem is the biggest step," this is a complete lie designed for neurotic morons
in denial that they're addicted to drugs, anal sex, money or lying. The biggest step is finding out what you
would rather have in place of the current system, e.g. a complete design to replace what we have now, and
to work toward making it exist within the present. If it comes to exist within our destroyed modern society,
it will take over from within. Your other option is violent revolution, which usually kills the good intellectuals
along with the bad and plunges your country into permanent third-world status, as happened in Soviet
Russia (violent revolutions also completely fail to replace what they find antagonistic; note that Soviet
Russia is capitalist today). France had a populist revolt which took her from being one of the preeminent
military, social, cultural and economic powers of the day into being irrelevant in all those categories, and
essentially a brand category for frilly shirts, creme pies, and toast. Revolutions destroy. Only pro-active
replacement design works. As Mahatma Gandhi, an exceptional thinker marred only by pacifism and racism,
said: "You must become the change you seek in the world."

As usual, the dreaded "most people" want immediate violent revolution or to decide they cannot do
anything about the situation, and therefore can go back to their coffeehouses and chat rooms to talk about
how terrible it is. As usual, most people are not only wrong, but misleading. No great change happens
overnight, and it never happens through the single stroke of a sword. If it did, our world would be so
unstable we would not have even made it this far, because as soon as one deranged, misinformed,
delusional or underconfident person got ahold of a sword, everything would change to some random order
fitting their random and dysfunctional psychology. Most people get it wrong because they have no
background in logical debate, philosophy, or structured politics outside of a single system ("democracy," as
they bleatingly teach at universities). They are simply not capable of making the decisions in question, and,
as shown above, they are not concerned with making the decision; they're concerned with making
themselves sound good . Remember this: most people = making themselves sound good . Kant would call
that a hypothetical solution to the questions at hand, but sager, meaner thinkers like myself call it totally
fucking irrelevant.

To fix this world, you need a slow virus that will seduce its occupants away from the easy lures (money,
tits, beer, drugs, TV) of modern society toward a higher state of mind and thus living. The greatest majority
will never understand this, as they're simply not smart enough (average IQ in America is 103; while IQ is
not a perfect measurement, this suggests that fully half the people here are too stupid to have any opinions
that matter outside of their daily job-function) and simply not noble enough - they're self-serving fucks like
the rest. You're not targetting them. You're looking to influence the people that are basically competent,
and know where their own sphere of ability ends; plumbers who are happy being plumbers and have few
political opinions, lawyers who limit themselves to the law, computer programmers who do not pretend to
know anything about philosophy, etc. Among us perhaps a tenth of a percent of the population can handle
the kind of thinking needed for leadership, and fewer than half of them have the noble outlook which will
make them anything but authoritarian servants of the great pointlessness. Normal people who are
functional and happy are your goal. Do not make the mistake of the Republicans, and target only the
wealthy, or the mistake of the Democrats, and target the downtrodden. Target the functional middle
classes. These people respond to pragmatic solutions first of all, and only distantly second to ideological
concerns; it is worth noting that you're looking more at the opinions of heterosexual men here because
women and homosexuals, in their biological position as nurturers, make a different sort of decision, one
that is out of place in politics and philosophy. There will be exceptions, and those should be cherished for
having the foresight to overcome what they are for long enough to address a different kind of problem.

Frequently I have rebutted people who screaming in to the ANUS about how we must take action now,
decisive action, there is no time to lose, etc. These people have usually been reading the site for only a
short period of time and have latched on to one aspect of its thought, whether anti-dualistic-religion or
nationalism or ecoterrorism, and want us to commit ourselves to becoming suicide bombers for that task.
Funny thing is: they never have any idea what form this action will take, but they are sure it must be
extreme, and extremely soon, or we'll all die horribly kthxbye. Well... most of these people are simply the
dysfunctional type described above. About a fifth of them are informers and agent provocateurs;
governments get rid of threatening underground movements by sending in cheerleaders who urge everyone
toward some extreme and illegal action, at which point they all get arrested and the movement dries up. I
don't think it's "conspiracy logic" to say this. Sending in informers is a time-proven method that predates
Biblical times in its use and utter effectiveness. In modern society, if someone screws up once, they may be
given a chance to regain their lives by informing on others. It's a business transaction, not a conspiracy,
and it has helped our government rid this society of many useful movements as well as many dangerous
and psychotic groups that I would equally erase.
The stage of planning requires you avoid all these pitfalls and have a clear impression of what you desire. It
is beyond the scope of this document to design a replacement system for modern society, but here is the
crux of it: replacing external measurement with internal. We must be driven by values, not money; we can
use money, but there must be some higher value than it. This requires that we consider something outside
the individual at all times; we have to look at the world as a whole comprising not only individual and
collective but also natural order, and what we do must be in harmony with that order as it is our origin and
sustenance, no matter how advanced our technology becomes. Because we are outside questions of the
individual alone and money alone, we can no longer rely on bureaucratic systems, which process well things
which need by considered by a linear, single-factor determination. We need local governments where
culture, and not authority, regulates behavior; further, we need to allow natural selection, so that people
act as is inwardly appropriate to them and we exile those who do not meet local standards, while rewarding
disproportionately those who are examples of excellence according to the local definition. As part of our
breeding people for higher purposes, we need a caste system to replace our money-bound class system, so
that we can over the course of generations concentrate those traits which specialize in certain tasks. It
takes one lineage to be a king, and another to be a plumber; although in our modern, individualistic,
greedy, dramatic selves we think a plumber's kid should be able to be king, in reality, that kid is going to
lack the abilities he needs and therefore although he may be able to handle the tasks of kingship, his
judgment and nobility will be unequal to the role, and therefore, bad long-term consequences will await
even if all the plumbers out there do not notice them in the short term. Further, we must end the endless
warring between right and left, male and female, race against race; this is accomplished by terminating the
concept that constant competition and struggle brings any kind of answer; we will find an answer, and
develop it toward a better version of itself, but we will not engage in "Democracy-style"(tm) constant
banter and debate that is never resolved because all parties have a personal interest in remaining discrete,
marketable factions. The solution to feminism is to realize that men and women serve different roles, and
rarely cross over; the solution to racial antagonism is to realize that each race needs autonomy and
freedom to pursue its own culture, as cultures and bloodlines do not mix; the solution to right versus left is
to realize that right and left are, at this point, different versions of the same idea, and in our society we will
replace them with common sense.

Got all that? Good; there's a lot of thinking there. If you want a primer, try reading Industrial Society and
Its Future by Ted Kaczynski, then Politics by Aristotle, then Men Among the Ruins by Julius Evola, then
finally Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Fred Nietzsche and The Fourfold Root by Arthur Schopenhauer. It might
not hurt to throw in some friggin' hobbits, too:

"I've never thought it an accident that Tolkien's works waited more than ten years
to explode into popularity almost overnight. The Sixties were no fouler a decade
than the Fifties -- they merely repead the Fifties' foul harvest -- but they were the
years when millions of people grew aware that the industrial society had become
paradoically unlivable, incalculably immoral, and ultimately deadly. In terms of
passwords, the Sixties where the time when the word progress lost its ancient
holiness, and escape stopped being comically obscene. The impulse is being called
reactionary now, but lovers of Middle-earth want to go there...[Tolkien] is a great
enough magician to tap our most common nightmares, daydreams and twilight
fancies, but he never invented them either: he found them a place to live, a green
alternative to each day's madness here in a poisoned world. We are raised to
honor all the wrong explorers and discoverers -- thieves planting flags, murderers
carrying crosses. Let us at last praise the colonizers of dreams." - Peter S. Beagle,
introduction to "The Hobbit," 1973

If you want to read literature on this topic, there's an abundance. Try Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
and The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway; don't miss The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald or Look
Homeward, Angel by Thomas Wolfe; there's The Wasteland by T.S. Eliot and Naked Lunch by W.S.
Burroughs. It wouldn't kill you to read The Bhagavad-Gita and the Bible, either; there's a lot of information
about how societies thrive versus how societies fall apart in both. In fact, who really cares what you want;
read the above to be informed, because you either make yourself stronger or join the problem by being
selfish and individualistic ("individualistic," in a philosophical sense, means placing the individual above all
else; it has nothing to do with conformity except that, because it is a predictable form of selfishness,
individualism is the ultimate form of conformity; paradoxical, it seems, but think about it; it's true). These
books can show you the accumulated wisdom of people who have spotted modern society and its turbulent,
ugly failings, and have suggested alternatives or methods of diagnosis regarding its crisis.

There is a duality to your task: you both want to create a new society, and fix the damage wrought by the
old. For example, this world can comfortably support a half-billion people and at most two billion without
corrupting its natural ecosystem; we have seven billion. The math isn't complicated. There are millions of
miles of ugly concrete, backlit plastic signs, asphalt parking lots and strip malls that need to be bulldozed
and recycled. Not to mention thousands of acres of landfill and numerous toxic waste sites, including most
of the former Soviet Union.

Action

Many of those detractors who have claimed that various groups do nothing or not enough would be
disappointed by the public face of effective activism. The activism that is truly helpful is more along the
lines of supporting cultural activities, encouraging learning, poking holes in the illusions of modernity, and
supporting local communities including but not limited to family and friends. This is not to be confused with
the non-activism of modern leftists, which in environmentalists manifests itself in reams of paper being
wasted on pamphlets about turning off lights, unplugging televisions to make sure they don't waste power,
recycling tampons, and reusing teabags. This form of system-friendly activism is designed to break no laws,
ruffle no feathers, and give the average idiot something they can do without materially changing their lives.
It is ego-delusional like all other things in modern society, and makes the "activist" feel important without
having done anything of any importance. Another aspect of this are the people who write rigid right-wing
dogma into violently bigoted newspapers and flyers and hand them out to people who don't want them;
screaming propaganda that assumes the listener/reader already accepts its precepts is not effective except
at turning people away from your dogma (of course, this is what they want: they are more "unique" and
"individualistic" if others don't agree, and it spares them the obligation to do anything). Activism is neither
non-activity or dramatic but ineffective activity; it is community- and values-building because these things
exist at a more fundamental level than political or social constructs, and thus will replace them when they
fail - and can be induced to speed up the process if existing sociopolitical constructs are found to be
wanting!

For that reason, the remainder of this document is two sections: first, effective methods of activism;
second, a universal standard that can be adopted by organizations, individuals, businesses and leaders to
build consensus.

Methods

Most of this stuff will sound weenie to those who want big dramatic action, but if they want to grab rifles
and run screaming at the capitol, that's fine by me - except those people never seem to actually take that
step. Our goal is building values, and through values community, and not to take on the rotted and corrupt
political or economic systems directly. Change what people want and expect out of life, and show them a
better way, and they will adopt its values and thus know at every level of the process how to make it. If
you know what a chair is, you can make one even if you know little of woodcutting, carpentry, seat-
weaving or finishing; you know the theory and general design of the end product, so using that as your "to
do" list you can figure out enough of what must be done to get something resembling a chair made. And if
the first one you make sucks, you can always add knowledge to your basic plan; the concept of chair
remains the same and you have organized your intent around creating something that fits that design.

In your local community, there are numerous places you can begin helping. Your goal is twofold: you want
to work hard to make the task succeed, but you also want to inject your knowledge of post-industrial
society and its values. You are an ambassador for this belief system, and if you do well and people respect
your actions, they will also come to respect your thoughts. Here are some places to work:

Libraries have book discussion groups, philosophy discussion groups, and organize book collection
efforts. You can use these to strengthen local knowledge and make connections.
Churches have similar discussion groups and activities that bring together people who have not yet
been absorbed by the great void. You can meet people here and introduce them to ideas and others,
such as your library discussion group.
Museums, especially art museums, offer exhibits and classes. Promote traditional art and ways of
thinking by helping out with either.
Non-profit groups will hold workshops and events, many of a practical nature. Counting birds helps
ascertain how quickly they're becoming obsolete; you can clean up garbage at beaches or by
roadsides or in forests. You can also help these groups organize and write propaganda.
Choirs, bands, singing groups, and cultural musical entities (sangerbunds and others) exist in your
local area. Join one and do more than just "be part of"; help out with the administration and
promotion of the group.
Schools and tutoring. Many schools need substitute teachers and tutors and other staff. Consider
volunteering or taking this on as a paid job. As a substitute teacher, you inherit a classroom for a day
and no one expects you to be able to do more than maintain order. What happens if you read works
of great literature, or talk about important values? Kids listen to adults they respect, so your first task
is to prove you're not a tool like all other adults they've met.
Small business. You can start a small business that does something better than others. If you make
cabinets like The Mentor, make traditional designs. It's hard to compete with the cheaper is better
influence from Wal-marts and the like, but there are still options.
Public spontaenous activity. If you go to an open field and start doing something interesting, whether
swordplay or basket weaving or traditional music or martial arts, others will become curious and often
join in. This complements another form of activism, but in my experience is ineffective unless joined
to a museum, educational or religious institution.
Flyering: flyers work, but if your activism is limited only to flyers, you're heading for uselessness. Most
people write down their dogma; this is ineffective. Show how your ideas would make life better, and
give specific examples instead of becoming airy and abstract.
Students. If you're in school, start an organization or have an unofficial meeting. Tell people you're
opposed to modern society. In any class, argue against modern systems of belief. There is no single
better diagnosis of modern belief systems than the articles at ANUS.com, even if we have to say so
ourselves.
Neighborhoods. Get to know your neighbors. Clean up garbage. Talk to them about positive things:
art, literature, music. Use one of the above methods to create a group and urge them toward it. I
recommend a soft sell; most people are too flaky and delusional to do anything, so mention ideas
when relevant and let them see you going to do them.
Press. There are numerous small newspapers in America looking for writers. It's probably as much fun
if not more than your current job, and while it doesn't pay much, it does let you get ideas/data into
print so others can refer to them.
Arboretums and nature centers. Most cities and towns have at least one of these. You can volunteer
and not only protect the grounds, but become part of a public outreach program. Now you're a
"spokesperson" and have far more power.
Public access cable, letter writing, pirate radio, and the internet. These methods are important ways of
getting out a message, even if you think you're not a content creator: read aloud the entire text of
"Industrial Society and Its Futures" while showing video of industrial devastation. It is not hard to
learn video editing, HTML, or the basics of radio, but it requires that you be a self-starter and not
expect people to hold your hand (many of the "volunteers" at ANUS.com hide behind not knowing
something, saying "I'd like to help with the web site, but I don't know HTML" - they seem to be
unable to purchase books, rent them from the library, or use a search engine to find the free
documentation on line; these people are not serious and will do nothing but waste your time; a real
activist expects to do research and learn new skills). On the internet, false activists start yet another
web site that will be down within two years; what is needed is not another blog or website, but
someone to promote good ideas (such as "Industrial Society and Its Future") on other blogs, forums,
social networking (myspace) sites, news services, free press release services. Most people go on the
internet to talk about themselves, but an activist won't do that. Letters can be remarkably effective;
any time an issue comes up, you can quote the appropriate passage from Nietzsche or "Industrial
Society and Its Future" and explain how it applies. Many newspapers are starved for provocative
letters.
No one of these methods is the answer, and they are all in addition to the basic task of living a good life
according to the post-industrial ("traditional") principles that you desire. We say traditional because before
modern society, there was function; that is tradition, not something from the 1950s or even 1860s. When
the industrial madness is over, our eyes will be cleared - if we survive - and we will return to an eternal
order, that of tradition. "Progress" is an illusion, a marketing scam. Live according to tradition, promote
tradition in all that you do, including your job, and add to it one of the above and you're on the course to
making a change. It will not be an overnight change, but those don't work anyway, so why worry?

A note on charity: don't. Helping the poor, the retarded, the drug addicted, those in jail or in insane
asylums makes you feel good but it doesn't change the direction of society, and if statistics can be believed,
doesn't help the poor or retarded or criminal; there's more of them than ever, and most who are "saved" go
back to that same situation. Most of us are leery of Christianity because its individualistic moralism suggests
pity, and makes people feel better for treating the downtrodden with affection, but misses the point that
they are downtrodden for a reason . Poverty doesn't just happen; in every period of history, smart and
organized and hardworking people find their way out of it. Insanity doesn't just happen, nor does drug
abuse and prostitution. These people are fucked up and "helping" them will not fix their primary problem,
which is being broken people, nor will it change society. It will make you feel better but if that's your
"activism," you're a masturbator and should do us all a favor by shooting yourself in the face. If you work
within Christianity, find a sect/church that embraces holistic and not individualistic morality - they're out
there, mostly in the traditional (Catholic/Methodist/Baptist) sects.

"Personal activism" is also a lie. When I lived in Austin, the extreme leftist part of Texas, I found that there
were many coffeehouse activists. Interestingly, they have the exact same mentality as people in internet
chatrooms. They want to talk, and be heard talking, and have people listen, but they don't want anything
to change as that way, they'll have nothing to talk about. These people are broken. They are
underconfident, and this is the root of their "activism" and "beliefs," which are as insincere as they are
transparent. These people need to be told what to do with the barrel of a gun, as left to their own devices
they are nothing but destructive.

Other than these traps, you have clear passage to make a change. Your goal is to nurture the local
community like a garden. Reinforce traditional values and most importantly, the reasons behind them
(chastity = experience numbs you to existence, thus more sex creates less receptivity; sobriety = alcohol
creates a fantasy world that is easier than reality, so you live in it and do not make a life for yourself;
nationalism = each race gets to keep its own autonomy which would otherwise be erased by compromising
the different values of groups to find a "norm"). Your goal is to give each person a unique place in a social
order, instead of having us all be "equal" bodies for the machine to masticate. Develop values, not symbols
or dogma (repeated slogans, yes/no responses to complex issues). Stimulate creativity and a desire for
meaningful experience among people. Show them something better than television; taking a kid out to the
forest to shoot guns at cans is more real than television, and more effective than screaming "TV is teh
debbil" at them 100,000 times.

Covenant

Our most immediate problem is that there is no agreement on what should replace modern society. If there
were an easy option in the lections, such as "punch this hole to tear it all down and go back to Middle-
Earth," undoubtedly anyone with an IQ over 100 would be hammering the damn thing. But life requires we
make our own path, and we'll be stronger for it.

The Covenant of Traditional Values (CTV) is an enumeration of the highest level of description of traditional
and post-industrial beliefs. It creates this design-oriented nutshell view so that citizens can find unity
around a platform, and so that governments and businesses and non-profit organizations can proclaim they
support this whole agenda as necessary; this helps them escape criticism of tackling any one point of the
anti-modern agenda, because all of it will offend someone. The CTV will offend them, too, but there is no
single point on which they can hammer to divide us. It is complete and whole and gives its own reasons.

When you are being active (what an activist does), present this to people and organizations and ask them if
they support it or are opposed to it. Most will try for a middle ground answer, at which point you can tell
them that if they support it, they'll gain the votes of people... like those in your church group, or classes, or
environmental organization. The CTV does not work without some context of your own leadership and
community to anchor it.

The Covenant of Traditional Values

Whereas, modern society (defined as the collusion between consumerism,

democracy, and capitalism) as a design theory and not simply a physical entity has
shown its unfitness through long term problems including but not limited to
pollution, land overuse, rampant cancers, crime, urban blight, worthless plastic
products, meaningless functional lifestyles, and so forth, we the undersigned
commit ourselves to a new system of values that will be the underpinning and
abstract description of the design of a society to both replace modern society and
restore our ancient traditions and ways of life.

Our goal is not to replace our leaders, or to transfer wealth within our economies,
as revolutions do, but to create an entirely different society which is not prone to
the failures of modern society. Only structural change will accomplish this. We
must both remake little of society, in that our changes will leave most of daily life
and most people undisturbed, and we must remake all of it, in that we need a
new design philosophy for society and a new way of living.

Modern society is defined by its preference for quantities, based on the form factor
of the individual or the material worth of each unit, instead of internal traits. We
assume that because something is defined as a tractor, it will work like all other
tractors; we extend this same logic to humans and, needing to justify our absurd
assumption, use bureaucratic averages to create expectations of a generic human
being with generic behavior. This not only fails to predict our actual needs, but
works to shape us as docile and whorelike people of limited personality.

Our platform contains a handful of major changes in our outlook and methods of
civilization:

1. Leadership by Intelligence and Not Popularity. Modern society is based on a

greed empowered by individualism, or the placing of the individual above all
else; this is the result of underconfidence on the part of a large number of
our people, and their political empowerment allowing them to misappropriate
resources to ensure individualism takes precedence over any other thought
or value. Consumerism, democracy, and media/popularity are the means by
which we make decisions. For the future, we want to have intelligent leaders
chosen by a subset of our population that comprises the intelligent and
capable in making leadership decisions; instead of democracy, and the
consumerist ideal that whatever idea makes money is the best, we would like
a community of leaders picking leaders based on what is the best course of
action for our society, no matter how unpopular it appears at first (most
great ideas are initially opposed by most people, so it is unreasonable to
expect that because most people do not like the sound of an idea, it is bad).
2. Not Equality, but Guaranteed Positions in Social Hierarchy. We are not
interested in equality, as with it comes necessary economic and social
competition and the resulting instability, because if we are all equal there is
no way to stand out except by dominating others. We prefer a good living
according to our abilities, such that except in cases of gross incompetence,
we are able to work in the positions given to our ancestors and to gain a
better living if we are dramatically more competent than others. However,
the basis of our new social view is that each person is unique, and we
 cannot compare a plumber to a bank president and conclude that because
one makes more money he is superior; we must each take our position in
life and do with it what we can, but not attempt to draw moral decisions
based on income and therefore force all of us into a vicious competition that
eventually consumes us all. Competition leads to a lack of lowest public
standard, in that whoever cuts the most corners wins, and impoverishes
more people than it makes rich.
3. Our Natural Environment is Not a Resource, but a Living Entity of Parallel
Value to Our Own Lives. Our environment created us and nurtures us and
will remain important no matter how good our technology gets. Its survival is
as important as our own. We must cease to see it as raw materials for a
society, and see our world as civilization and nature coexisting. To this end,
we need to end the cause of all of our environmental woes, which is
overpopulation, and to cease dumping toxic effluvia and chemicals into our
environment.
4. Natural Selection Must Regulate Us. Both as individuals and as groups, we
need regulation by an external force. We must re-design society so that it
disproportionately rewards those who have the balanced traits of intelligence,
beauty/strength, and an inherent nobility to their moral thought such that
they consider the whole over the individual and do what is right according to
the balance of the cosmos. Further, we must enable natural selection to
eliminate any community that is so unable to run itself that it perishes from
natural (famine, war, disease) causes.
5. We Must Have Higher Values, Not Inclusive Ones. A fundamental trait of
modern society is compromise; we value making sure everyone is heard,
that every opinion is aired, and that all people are represented over doing
what is best for the world as whole. It is this logic that leads to our
unhealthy fascination with the individual, and hence popularity/profit. Our
goal is to have higher values so that we constantly envision a better design
of not only civilization but an idealized human, and strive toward it. Heroism,
natural beauty, transcendence and harmony with nature are more important
than any kind of equality or compromise or social popularity. By having
higher values, we are always pushing ourselves toward a goal that will make
us healthier, smarter and more noble as people. Through this mechanism,
we offer people something better with each passing generation, and each
set of parents can look on its offspring with pride in both their abilities and
the world they will inherit.

Modern society is based on the individual because the individual is a useful unit for
counting power. We do not seek the best answers, but the most popular. Because
even a group of highly intelligent people will have contrasting opinions and thus
will only be able to find an inclusive opinion that is a lowest common denominator,
modern society through democracy and consumerism erodes every good idea into
the same old thing. It is incapable of changing itself. It is up to us to change it. By
these concepts and actions we, the undersigned, swear.

Conclusion

Most people are liars. Society is delusional. The average person will prefer to live in his own fantasy, the
subjective, than deal with reality, all while claiming that he or she has found his or her "own truth,"
forgetting that truth itself is an objective property. There is no way to debate the moderns, nor to prove
them wrong, as they are so far from sense that all their definitions are artificial and all their ideals are lies.
For those who have realized how vast this error is, it becomes incumbent to act as socially-acceptable,
positive-contribution activists; any who do not find solace in this path are just making excuses, and should
be excluded if not completely ignored for being mentally incompetent.
Sincerity
It now marks our letters as a disingenuous parting formality, but the term "sincere" once meant a type of
seriousness toward life that enlightened and rewarded all that it touched. To be sincere was to intend to do
well by the world as a whole, and therefore, to look at each task for its own sake in the context of all things
it touched. Of course, since all systems, eco and otherwise, on earth are interrelative, the only way to
understand "sincere" is as a holistic morality which addresses not the individual nor the collective
exclusively , but the order to which both belong.

Immanuel Kant brilliantly used the word "hypothetical" in a sense that is parallel to novelist Michael
Crichton's use of the word "misinformed": both terms refer to someone who answers the wrong question.
While in the public vernacular "hypothetical" conflates to "conjectural," in Kant's usage it means any
response to a stimulus which by design is responding to a different stimulus; obviously, this is equivalent to
misperceiving the situation, or having an emotional and not logical response, or as Crichton says, to simply
be "misinformed" and to have fundamentally necessary data wrong or contorted in their contextual
application. A hypothetical response is one that answers the wrong question, and thus responds to stimulus
with an irrational and unrealistic countermotion.

Here we get into trouble with the misinformed moderns, of course, who believe the greatest "freedom" can
be had by not believing in an "objective" reality; if these people really believe this, I suggest they stand in
front of a loaded gun and stop believing the bullet will hit them when they pull the trigger -- and then pull
it. Objective reality as shared physical space exists, although the reality itself is relative, in that we know it
only through the contrasts in its parts considered in juxtaposition. In other words, while it is objective, it
cannot be known completely and in a single stroke in exact detail, as to have such knowledge would to
literally become either the whole of reality or to have all of reality within oneself; even therein, Heisenberg's
theorem would apply. We do not have complete knowledge of our own selves, but it is unlikely that we
need complete knowledge, and clear we do not to see that we exist in the same physical world and the
same organizational and physical laws apply to us all. We are atoms, and atoms behave the same way, no
matter how much our interpretation of them is hypothetical.

For this reason, we can derive sincerity over the protests of the irrational moderns, who are demanding
"subjectivity" not for scientific reasons but for a desire for personal political recognition; it isn't an argument
for realistic interpretation of reality ("truth assessment") that they're making, but a grab for power. After
all, to be able to sabotage any organization larger than the individual makes the individual most powerful,
and by insisting on the preeminence of the subjective, the individual is able to "disprove" any plan affecting
more than one person. Obviously this is ludicrous, as if these people were given the task of founding a
civilization they could not do it; they can only exist where others have found common ground (and yes,
perceived laws of objective reality) and made it for them. Even more baffling, these people argue for
subjectivity using "objective" laws, starting with "we each have our own reality" -- in "have" is the concept
of an externally-created personal reality handed to the person, and by demanding we respect it, they are
suggesting that this "subjective" reality exists in the context of the objective. If you said "what?" it's
because the premise they're invoking is so ludicrous that to explain it clearly in language renders it to
gibberish. The problem there isn't language; the language has done its job well and represented the idea as
it is. The problem is the idea of "subjectivity."

Sincerity is a sense of wanting to do right in the highest context possible. One desires the highest -- most
abstract -- context in order to avoid making any errors of omission that render one's proposed action
hypothetical. For example, one error is to be ethnocentric, and only to have perspectives from one's own
culture; another error is to be anthrocentric, and only to see human perspectives; yet another is to be
terracentric, and to assume only perspectives from planet Earth (humorously, since multiculturalism is a
culture unto itself, to see only the multicultural perspective is to be ethnocentric, although multiculturalists
will rarely admit this). To in any way foreshorten one's awareness is to leave out details that one might
need to construct a vision of the whole order of the universe (the highest context) and thus to know how
to do right by all things as equally as can be. To slight the human is to benefit the squirrel; to slight the
squirrel is to benefit the human. Better to take neither "side" and do as most benefits the natural order --
and this requires understanding the natural order via abstract principles, or laws. Interestingly, the ancients
were far ahead of us moderns in this area, in that while their methods unquestionably lagged behind ours,
everything that they did had a place in the larger context of a metaphysical understanding and the tradition
based upon it. There were no random acts, and therefore, fewer chances for insincerity.

Without sincerity, we are doomed to fail, as a will toward sincerity more than a will toward truth or morality
is what allows us to share a conception of reality and to work within it to avoid crises and better ourselves
as a culture and as individuals. It is easy to mislead; deception is a destruction of the fragile perceptions of
truth that make up the mapping of the world that each individual keeps in his or her head, and to deceive
that individual is a process of carefully replacing a few ideas that like support struts in a bridge hold the
rest together. Pull out the supports, and the whole thing comes crashing down, leaving the person
suggestible -- don't you want to buy a new car? It's not at all unlike buffer overflow attacks used to hack
distant computers. To be insincere does not require construction of a complete worldview, only enough
knowledge to destroy the entirety of one and incite a panicked human to follow a linear path, such as "new
car = reproductive success" and therefore success in all of life, something too complex to be measured
simply by reproduction (and within that, the quality of that reproduction: not every BMW-lovin' bimbo is
mate quality). Sincerity is holistic, because only by knowing the entire system of the cosmos do we know
where we fit and thus what will achieve ultimate success, which is to complement and revere the universal
design so as to further its growth and thus benefit to us as we were conceived by it. To target part of this
system is to create a hypothetical solution, but such a response is exactly what a manipulator desires,
because by focusing on one and not all attributes, it is easy for them to construe the world as a bifurcation
between "good" and "bad," artificially. Interestingly, they do this through the conflation of subjective
("good" for me might be "bad" for you) with the objective, something we call the "absolute" as it doesn't
"exist" per se in reality ("good" applies outside of a perceiver, thus "good" to you is "good" to me, even if
one or both of us dies).

"The world may be explained in sociological terms. David Riesman describes three basic social personalities in The
Lonely Crowd . 'Other-directed' people pattern their behavior on what their peers expect of them. Suburban America's
men in gray-flannel suits are other-directed. 'Inner-directed' people are guided by what they have been trained to
expect of themselves. [General Douglas] MacArthur was inner-directed. The third type, the 'tradition-directed,' has not
been seen in the West since the Middle Ages. Tradition-directed people hardly think of themselves as individuals;
their conduct is determined by folk rituals handed down from the past." - American Caesar, by William Manchester, p
537

In traditional societies, the goal was to achieve a complete understanding of the universe so that the social
order produced people who were not only capable but sincere (Ariya, or "noble"). This sincerity was the
basis of heroism by which they valued doing what was right over doing what was personally advantageous,
and thus not only would sacrifice themselves for the common good, but would avoid the mundane pitfalls of
greed and gluttony and stupidity because they had something to which to compare these things and find
them wanting. If you are accustomed to having the wisdom of the stars, what is a 12-pack but distraction?
You might drink in context, with friends, but by having a bigger context than simple intoxication you avoid
being lured in by the linear promise of alcohol as a replacement worldview. Sincerity was not only good for
society and nature as a whole, but it was good for the individual, as it gave them something larger than
themselves to nurture and believe in, thus removing the sting of death and teaching them healthy living at
the same time. In traditional worldviews, the universe was a supreme order worthy of reverence and awe
and a form of love for which we do not have words today, but did not demand such things; we knew our
place, and our place was like that of ants to an oak tree, both essential/integral and at the level of detail.

Sincerity obliterated the idea that we could pretend one linear factor determines the whole; you cannot
make someone live longer only by feeding him better food, as diet is only one of many (exercise, genetics,
wounds) criteria that determine the length of survival. We like to pretend that one factor determines the
all, whether we call it truth (or "truth") or God or money or television, because it makes us feel as if we are
in control and thus our mortality is not real, or at least deferred to the point where we can ignore it without
feeling foolish. Our rigid linear orders are not realistic and therefore demand that we create great ziggurats
of exceptions, such as "To kill is wrong" to which is added "Except to kill killers" to which is added "Except
when they're insane or retarded or of an ethnic minority or Christian women who drowned their children."
We patch together these pathetic, incongruous idea-trees because we want that in control feeling, and
even more, we want it personally, which is the ultimately linearization of life: it can be divided into "what's
good for me" and "what's bad for me," and needs no further analysis - this is individualism, which in the
philosophical definition means placing individual preferences before everything else in the universe! We
create chaos by making rigid rules because there is only one rigid rule, and that is reality itself, which per
its flexibility is not as rigid as human absolutes. To pretend one thing is the whole (or "represents"
accurately the whole), when reality operates differently, is to be insincere. Could it be the simple fact of
our downfall, then, that we have lost sincerity?

March 1, 2006
Progressive
It's hard to imagine a bigger pile of excrement than the concept of "progressive." It is used to describe
"new" ideas, which to the young and other ingenues, seems like something possible. Let us correct that
misconception immediately! There are "new" technologies, but they are variants on past technologies
recombined in new ways; there are "new" events, but they repeat the patterns of history. No two events or
technologies are identical, but their abstract forms are so similar it's silly to try to differentiate them. We
have "new" ideas if we find new ways to express an eternal truth, like writing a new book or a symphony,
but will we invent a "new" way of writing music? Not really, except in an academic sense, and with the
untold billions of songs played through history, it's likely that our "new" idea was hit upon by someone else
at random. Thus the idea of progress is foolish, because what is true will always be true, and one cannot
find a higher form of truth through some "new" concept. But why is the idea of progressivism so favored? It
allows couch-sitting idiots to sit back like fat kings on a throne they don't deserve and demand "new" ideas
to solve problems that are only problems because of our disorganization and selfishness. As always with
humanity, deny the elephant in the room and focus on the details, as it allows us to continue existing in
our private universes, free from caring about reality. At least until pollution, war, disease, famine and
discontent of our own making either wipes us out or breeds us into an elaborately complicated variant on
the chimpanzee.

Individualism

The root of all the West's problems, at least, is individualism. By this we mean putting the individual before
all other factors of decision making. A common misconception of course is that by being an individualist, the
person somehow gains a greater uniqueness or bravery in asserting their own beliefs (which they invent in
order to assert them, in a parody of logic). Nothing could be further from the truth! The individualist has
created a false god, a worship of self, which is like saying that in the world we will pay attention only to
things that come in threes. There is more to the world than the individual, but we choose to focus on the
individual instead of the whole; what could motivate this except fear? Fear that the individual does not
measure up? Consider this: if herds of sheep united against their attackers, they would never lose a
member. Instead, they panic as a group and determine their paths individually. It seems paradoxical, but
the greatest herd-mind is that of the individualist, because they are afraid to embrace the world as a whole
and do what is right, which actually takes bravery as it may require individual sacrifice, and it takes actual
knowledge to know what is right. Interestingly, individualism requires neither of these, nor has ever
produced a single viable solution through history. Bleat yourself into a corner; be an individualist.

Negativity

Listen, I -- I don't know how to tell you this, but it's one of the most important things you can learn: there's
a lot wrong in this world, but not with this world. The same nature that produced us and refined us to the
degree that we can understand philosophy, architecture, art, science -- this is a wonderful gift from the
void of the universe. The basic order of life is sound, benevolent, and godlike in its gifts. Humans may be
screwing up, but from every error there is learning, and life will reward that which is true to eternal
principles, because life is a higher order than humanity -- everything humans do is regulated by life, much
as the weak among us would like to convince you otherwise!

Most people who get involved with any form of social critique give themselves over to a negativity that
believes not only that things are wrong with society, but that humanity and by extension life itself is
somehow broken. This is an error that assumes our current human society determines more than the
passage of a few centuries, which to my mind is error. That which is well-designed will persist; that which
is poorly designed may take long to perish, usually because it is parasitic, but eventually is relegated to a
lesser role. Where is the Soviet Union today? Pol Pot? The Spanish Inquisition? All these things lived off the
excess of others and when forced to make a way for themselves, could not: all they could do was react
and parasitize, and they failed to create.

Creation is a positive sensation, although it involves destruction, but there is a form of destruction not only
without hate but without love that is merely a practical matter. If love is in your heart when you conceive a
design, but the design requires the removal of people or things, you destroy them without any emotional
response because your emotions are reserved for the goal at large. You want to make something better,
and all of the tasks leading to that betterment are blessed by a fullness of spirit, but it does not mean that
one reacts to a necessary death any more than one reacts to the cleansing of a bathroom. Life has its ugly
and its beautiful, but together they serve a more sedate kind of beauty, which is the eternal renewal of
nature and the cosmic order.

I will not lie to you -- our society now is misbegotten, it is destructive, and it is a path to death. But it is
only one force at play on the battlefield of life. You and what you do with your life are a force beyond
society and its moral rule, and the instant you realize that society makes rules for itself only, you are
liberated to see the whole picture. It is transient. That which is eternally true is not. If you joyfully labor
according to the latter, and not the former, you will rise above the mess and become a force contributing
to creativity. Most people, whether punkers or metalheads or bitter bartalk liberals, get immersed in the
negativity and use it as a shield, justifying their own lack of accomplishment (whether in a social sense --
$$$ -- or not). There's more that you and the other people who are not drawn into this mess can
accomplish.

Negativity as an emotion will corrupt and poison everything it touches, much as decay spreads from rotting
corpse to dry wood in a coffin. It is an error because it is an emotional reaction to the world as a whole in
a binary sense, such as "Either I'll like it or hate it, but either way, I'll have some clear-cut indisputable way
to explain my position in it." Undermen are those who are consumed by negativity, although they are
specifically those who use popularity as a tool of revenge against reality and natural selection. There are
those who claim to be on the opposite side but are actually in the service of negativity, and if you question
them, you will find they lack any intent of making things better. They want to complain and if given a
chance, to slit throats and help themselves to the riches. Your average neo-Nazi and Democrat are the
same in this sense, because they are propelled by this desire for revenge. All of this originates in an
underconfidence that can only be assuaged by some statement that sounds like the word of God, e.g. "The
world is evil and I must destroy it" or "The world is good and I must submit to it." What is the world, in
that view? -- They are confusing the world with the social world, and forgetting that the social world is a
phantasm of our own minds, untested against nature on the scale of thousands of years which will prove its
fitness.

No matter how much the world appears to you to be horrible, to suck, to be beyond redemption, look at
the facts: the error is in human society and in particular, this type of human society; it is not this period in
history itself, but the fact that during this time of history, we have opted for this type of society, this type
of philosophy, this type of fundamental motivation. All of our errors can be cured in the mind. The first step
to this is purging oneself from good and evil, positivity and negativity, holy and profane... removing all
arbitrary distinctions that allow us to classify the whole without looking simply at the task. When one looks
at the whole picture, often what is good is revealed as evil, and likewise -- therefore it makes less sense to
do that than it does to think of a design we desire, and work toward it with a subtle positivity and love in
our hearts, but no emotion in our fulfilling of its tasks. This is the path beyond negativity, self-hatred,
underconfidence and other useless time-wasters that vitiate most people on earth and turn them into
useless slaves to bitterness.

March 4, 2005
Perfection
When people talk about perfection, they often fall into the trap of assuming a linear world: a place like the
mythical Heaven where there is no bad, only good, and good of the purest sense. While as symbol that
sounds appealing, when one goes through the process of plotting out life, it sounds terrible, because it
would rapidly lead to repetition. If there's one right answer to every question, and every activity turns out
excellently, is there any enough contrast to claim one has actually had an experience? Without danger,
adventures would become tourist play; without the possibility of failure, success would have no greatness.
Without death, there would be no reason to make one decision over another in life, as all experiences
would be exactly equal thanks to infinite days and thus zero consequences. Screw up your life? Live
another lifetime, within your lifetime. Boundaries give meaning to what lies within them, in other words.

Much as in an equation, we can cancel out elements in common between items being added, or can
arbitrarily multiply or add any number to one side of the equals sign so long as it is also done to the other,
when we think about life we must recognize that it is the difference between experiences that gives them
meaning; the same experience, like the reduced factors of the number cancelled, have no impact on the
overall direction of the equation. They are extraneous in part because they are tautological: a known thing
requires no activity.

Some of us have identified ourselves as gnostics because we have grasped the concept of relativity as
expressed in such spiritual ideas, which is not properly "dualism" in that it does not assert duality for the
sake of having two things. It is better described as "contrast" or "opposition," because if one analyzes any
single thing in a closed system, it is clear that all other things relate to it and often counterpoint it, much in
the way that mice are balanced by hawks and foxes. The contrast between two things is what separates
them, for our consciousness; a lighter object appears closer, a slower sound farther, a mission statement
the principle around which the rest of a speech is organized. It is this contrast that redefines perfection
from "100% good" to "balanced." Every dark thing permits a light thing, and vice versa. For each good that
exists, there is also a negative, although those terms describe human perfections and not the balance in
nature.

This opposition can be seen as a manifestation of the perfection of nature. Instead of creating a pure world,
which would rapidly cycle into repetition and therefore lose all benefit to making one decision over another,
soon drawing itself into a mathematical nothing-state where no change or transfer of energy would exist,
our world of positive and negative sustains itself by balance, ensuring that the system as a whole retains
energy even if its parts are constantly created and destroyed. A system of a single part would do transfer
energy exactly, and have one will between a singular part ("God") and all else, but this would become
entropic as described above. Our system maintains a constant balance between spaces where nothing
exists, and things that exist seeking to consume those spaces; it is a universe where even nothing is a meal
for something. To a gnostic, this opposition is superior to dualism, where a perfect world (one god, one
will, everything right the first time) commands or balances a physical world that might even be seen as evil;
to a gnostic, good and evil are not opposed in this moral sense, but are contributive to a "meta-good" or
good of the whole. This is why in most gnostic mysticisms, nothingness existed first, and because of an
implied contrast, somethingness arose; then to keep from dominating itself into tedium, somethingness
elected to produce its own form of nothingness, that which lives yet asserts the void, where in the void
there was no life -- this is what most people call evil.

Modern people are too accustomed to sorting out life as if it were the objects on sale at a mall. Keep the
good, throw out the evil; then you have what is pure. We figure that people are the same way, and that
good people never make mistakes, and bad people never do good things. We deny that life is a learning
process, and prefer to refer to ourselves in the constant present, as if aging does not change us and
learning does not make us grow. This is a philosophy of personal instability, a fear of being prey to the
void, and therefore, it seeks to deny the void by looking only at positive and negative. It forgets that much
as there is a meta-good, there is a form of "meta-bad," which is a return of the void; nothingness is less of
a consignment to a hell of torture than a relegation to non-existence, where there is not even
consciousness to feel pain (in this sense, Hell is a promise against the fear of death: to those who fear
death more than anything else, living on in eternal torment is preferrable to nonexistence). Our modern
view denies the gnostic and pagan view of the universe as something which created itself and maintains its
order through the cycles of creation and destruction which we try to sort into, respectively, "good" and
"evil."

If you look at any scene, your mind will try to understand it, and will thus select some feature of it on
which to center. When you look at that object, everything else in the scene becomes background, and your
mind orders it according to the dominant object perceived: in relations of distance, or flow of action, or
physical connection. This is not an artifact of humans, or of being conscious, but the way that all complex
information systems are organized. This is relativity at its most basic: for there to be somethingness, there
had to be nothingness first, and when somewhere in nothingness stirred an awareness of the possibility of
somethingness, it was created by the process of inverting background and foreground focus in this way.
Similarly, we do not know destruction unless something has been created first, although we might classify
the void as being entirely destruction except for the lack of preexisting things to destroy. Gnostics divided
the world similarly into an unconscious will, which could not be quantified, and a conscious aspect, which
takes the form of what we describe now as "data." Thoughts, numbers, items, words, recognitions -- these
are data. They are derived from the actions of the formless, which manifests itself in forms recognizable by
consciousness.

The ancients therefore did not remove their thoughts from reality entirely, as they recognized that our
brains are part of physical reality and therefore interact with it in ways not requiring physical action -- this is
the basic of gnostic occult warfare, called by some "magic." Like the modern cosmic idealists, most
importantly Kant and Schopenhauer, they believed that humans were entirely of the conscious side of life,
except when they tapped into the unconscious and were thus able to see (and manipulate!) the cosmic
order. Yet in that view to understand the cosmic order enough to manipulate it was to aquiesce to its
wisdom and act within its precepts; even the evil sorcerers of old were players in a metaphysical drama,
acting out a role not dissimilar to that of the wolf or another predator. Same with the parasites. The reason
for this balance, in the gnostic view, was to keep the people who would be neither predator or parasite
from becoming repetitive and cyclic and thus weak. Evil was the province of unconscious will, where
consciousness was its counterbalance and yet just as much dependent upon it.

There is a tendency among us moderns to wonder at the imperfection of the world, evidence of which we
see in its many evils. The gnostic view is ultimately more positive in that in it we see evils not as a cosmic
negative but as empty spaces into which more creation can expand, if it is strong enough, and we see the
challenges to creation not as imperfection but as part of a perfect order that keeps good strong. It is a sad
fact of history that while the ancients did not have our technology, unlike us they had a population which
could understand this "double negative" logic and thus look beyond good and evil to see their role as
creative agents in a perpetual nature of immaculate goodness and perfection.

March 5, 2006
Futility
It's probably not an exaggeration to say that those who have experienced life respect endurance. In this
world, because chaos is its lifeblood and its way of stress-testing any variation before it happens, you have
to take some whacks before your idea gets accomplished. You might starve a lifetime, lose a war, collect a
mountain of rejection slips, or even spend decades in jail, but if you keep at it, the world in its benevolent
wisdom smiles upon you, eventually. However, this bittersweet platitude is balanced by a hard fact: some
persistence is pointless because even if the desired change is accepted, it will not fix the problem or change
the overall outcome.

For example, we might have a sadistic laugh at the expense of worldwide liberalism, which might be
summarized as the concept that personal empowerment equals the best government; it's a highly contrived
form of utilitarianism that does not rely on central control. Focus on the individual is the herald's call of the
left; Focus on the community is the unstated maxim of the right; the third front, being wily bastards, say
Focus on the ideal through which our community complements cosmic order , and at that point, lose
everyone's attention including that of their own Gauleiters and Reichsmarshals (idealist philosophy is best
undertaken only by those with at least 150 IQ points, preferrably more; this is why Jim Morrison, Hitler and
Buddha got it but their followers mucked it up consequently). In this context, we can see the continuous
liberalizing trend - more focus on the individual, on the ownership and political rights of the individual - as
an unbroken chain of leftist ideas that, amusingly, coincide with the collapse of will to accomplishment in
our society and hence the rise of "let's divide the spoils" logic such as capitalism, communism and
marijuana mooches.

However, we have to ask ourselves: and what did this achieve?

This vast tide of leftism, emerging from our distant history and culminating in the luxuries afforded by the
internal combustion engine and populations in the billions, has it fundamentally changed the predicament of
the individual? No: most still work for those who own them almost literally through debt, and while they
might have "freedom," the important freedom - time apart from the tedium of money and bureaucracy in
which to appreciate family or interests - is lacking. Yes, they can move anywhere - if they have the money.
They can say anything, as long as it doesn't offend, and anything truthful will; if they offend, they had
better be rich, because they won't get employed again. They can express themselves however they want,
as long as they don't need an audience, since the media barrons have far more influence than individuals.
In short, they have the freedom to do anything harmless, but beyond that, they're in the same predicament
they've always faced - and it is the "beyond that" which not only encompasses most of what is meaningful
in life, but anything that would be needed to make change to this system.

I have to ask leftists what all these years of campaigning have gotten them. Women can vote. Minorities
can vote. Gays can marry. Pot might be legal. But jobs are still tedious, and there are still social taboos.
Smart people are still in the tiniest of fractional minorities, and most people still waste their money and do
destructive things. Our rivers are clogged with trash, our streets inundated in cars going nowhere
important, our air filthy, the species we once counted as glad companions vanishing... and our "freedom"?
What has it achieved? It has changed the details and missed the larger point, and therefore our "freedom"
is the greatest guarantee our oppressors could ever need. It's like a football game: whether the home team
wins or not has zero bearing on life as a whole. Liberalism is like putting uplifting, hopeful, positive
wallpaper in a jail cell and giving prisoners the "right" to scream obscenities, since they'll never be released.

Similarly, you have to wonder about other activists. Neo-Nazis seem to want to keep the fight going,
instead of doing something practical like influencing society outside their tiday little camp; anti-racist/anti-
fascist people are even more insane, and simply want an excuse to torment others, something perhaps as
binarily open-and-shut as "fascist=bad, multikult=good." The people who hate abortion and the people who
love abortion can now be seen in the context of failure, which is that a 30-year cycle determines what will
be popular. These political positions are all chosen for their clear identity as opposition to other ideas, like a
pyramid made of negative reactions to whatever is proposed. For each idea that exists, the counter-idea is
roughly equally popular. This is where the society of constant debate and critique gets us in democracy; we
wanted more discussion, more freedom, more rights. And what do we get? Incessant bickering that as soon
as it reaches a conclusion, undoes it on the rebound. Democracy = stasis through constant debate. It's a
boon to those who would control us, as it gives us the illusion that we can change our world, but because
every action meets an equal counteraction, ends up preventing any change of meaning.

When I look at this kind of futility, the sad old truth hiding behind new and more creative appearances
dawns on me: most people were bred to pick turnips, shoe horses, fight battles and create masonry.
They're not capable of philosophical thought, and not inclined to it, which prevents them from making any
real sense of politics, although they can fake it. This truth - that not all can do the thinking necessary to
make decisions - is their Achilles heel, and they do their best to mask it by insisting on "equality" of wealth,
of opinions, of representation, and so on. That political stance however is like a drug addict insist that
rooms not be searched, because that's where he keeps his stash -- their political "activism" is limited to
covering up their own shortcomings. For this reason, all of their other futile political inclinations exist so
that they feel a sense of identity and importance to the constant bickering, instead of a desire to actually
solve problems, and because any task which is approached for the wrong reasons ends in futility, so does
their entire political experience.

The system that has them thinking they should be "equal" and politically active is to blame here, because it
is not a bad thing to be a turnip-picker, although a horrible thing to be a turnip-picker pretending to be a
king (we're all indoctrinated as to how the royalty became inbred, but the inbred ones were the minority -
the rest were good and often great leaders, yet we never hear of this - think carefully: why is that?).
Putting people who cannot handle a task in charge of it is a good way to make them cover up their
shortcomings, and invent political dogmas to conceal their own incompetence. They will create a big lie
("freedom"/"equality"/"peace") to hide their most fundamental lack of ability, and then as if selecting
television shows to pass the time until death, will invent a succession of smaller issues to amuse themselves
and to give them an identity, and deep down, they will thus be content with the fruitless process of endless
debate lacking results. And what sicker thing can be imagined than to be pleased with futility?

March 5, 2006
Beyond the Absolute
Conservatism has painted itself into a corner in the context of modern democracies because it tends toward
the political stance that there is one right way of doing things, and that all must either follow it, or society
shall collapse. Two immediate disadvantages arise: first, society does not collapse visibly, but decays slowly,
and thus this warning appears to be an empty threat; second, when faced with someone who does not fit
the correct order, conservatism must either exclude them, and appear draconian to the crowd, or include
them, and erode its own order.

What may be more sensible for conservatism in the future is to discard this sense of absolute, one-size-
fits-all government and to embrace instead the concept of pluralism, but to modify it from parallel
pluralism, where we all exist according to our own individual schemes in the same society, to serial
pluralism, where individuals of similar belief aggregate into societies within a larger society, and are free to
conduct the local operations of their civil unit according to their beliefs. A parallel pluralistic society would
be one like modern-day California, where postmodernists rub elbows with Romanticists, but a serial
pluralistic one would be like medieval Europe: individual tribes and communities define their own ways and
exist as neighbors with no intention of establishing a dominant, absolute standard for all subdivisions of the
civilization at large.

Although this realization sounds similar to the populist utilitarian rhetoric of the left, it is not equivalent to a
belief in cosmopolitan multiculturalism, nor an abandonment of the moral and cultural imperative that we
reach for the traditional heights and disciplines of Indo-European society. It is however a more complete
formulation of these traditional beliefs, and a way for us to achieve them in a world where we are
massively outnumbered, yet wish to hold on to what we have created and are creating for ourselves: our
way of life, and our ideals. The way one upholds such ideas is by relinquishing the concept of proving them,
in the sense of an absolute such as one way of life by which all must live, and turning to the idea of
asserting them independently of all other beliefs, such that the conservative belief system is based upon
preference as a means of establishing uniqueness. Under this view we live as one society among many, but
like the other societies we see lauded in National Geographic or The New York Times for "fightingly valiantly
to preserve their way of life against encroaching modern society," our cause is no longer one of attempting
to control, but trying to carve out an enduring place for ourselves.

This does not at first appeal to the warlike and assertive spirit of the Indo-Europeans, but when we
consider that we have always been a minority, and have lastingly been the civilization builders who
succeeded by isolating themselves in areas where the power aspirations of others did not influence, we can
see this as a restatement of historical and ethnographic fact. Further, to say "I prefer" is a stronger
statement than some "proof" which uses the tokens of popular culture in order to attempt to justify its
view; our "I prefer" requires no justification, and is irrefutable as a statement in itself, as it is the binding
concept of our order, in that we are the ones who have selected themselves by belief in this type of
system. Being defined by our belief in this, our position is longer one of authority where we are forced to
deny others membership and thus see ourselves as draconian, but one where we remove ourselves from
among others by our beliefs in a higher ideal. This ideal, as one of many, needs no dominant social system
to support it, and therefore is not open to criticism by others, and since membership is elected through
belief in it, they cannot request to be part of it without having accepted it - including its emphasis on
traditional Indo-European values such as heroism, discipline, naturalism and ethnoculture.

When conservatism embraces such a belief, it will have moved from trying to create a centralized
"objective" bureaucratic order into the world of "subjective" idealism, and thus will abandon the dead
weights of trying to save the current society, or force all of current society to obey a saner order. This
idealism -- the belief that life is transacted in concept and structure via the means of material, for which
material is a means and not an end in itself -- is a classical Indo-European philosophy and spiritual system.
It rejects the idea that there is a single order for all of life, and by freeing itself from having to justify itself
in those terms, returns to the process of achieving ever-greater ideals, whether in tangible things such as
art and architecture, biological ones such as race and good breeding, or abstractions such as spirit and
heroism. Of even more longstanding implication is its rejection of the idea of objectivity in choosing
governmental systems, as this inherent rejects passive methods, such as "studies" and democracy, in favor
of a heroic leadership process, one that affirms biological factors by upholding the idea that our degree of
vision is dependent upon our inborn character, and thus that what seems apt to one individual will be
either cryptic to one of lesser character or mediocre to one of greater character.

If we take a historical view of conservatism, it is clear that it has failed in its aims; while it has picked and
stabbed at various "issues" within the political spectrum as normally defined, it has done nothing to make
dominant traditional civilization within our nations, and has become increasingly reactionary and defensive
as time has gone on. This is a direct result of its appeal to an absolute, both in the form of a rulesystem it
believes we should each and all follow, and in its desire to prove that belief system to the broadest mass of
society. Such an approach will never work, because it is passive, and tries to point to some external,
objective factor and then justify its beliefs as necessarily arising from that. However, the consequences of
any change in civil organization outlive the individual, and thus are not provable, and the degree to which
the largest mass of society can understand the long-term implications of actions varies, meaning that it
settles on the lowest common denominator (material) instead of opting for an ongoing evolution of
ascendant order (ideal). Idealism bypasses the absolute, as it is clear that not all can understand a higher
ideal, or will want it, and strikes out instead for a warlike and independent spirit, that of "I prefer" which
naturally leads to "I will, and I do as I will." Only in this mindset do we reverse the consumption of our
traditional civilization by modernity, and for that reason, it is high time conservatism change tactics toward
this traditional and eternal way of thought.

May 18, 2005

Conservatism Passing Its Orbit
What a fortunate time in which we live - it is a terrible age, where error is called truth and truth is
excluded, but as every action has an equal and opposite reaction, what comes in this very time (we are the
pivot) is an upsurge of momentum to change this illusion and replace it with something meaningful. This
momentum is quite powerful, and it marks the full circle of a process upon which we embarked some
millennia ago, in that those who wish to uphold our culture as Indo-Europeans have moved from a focus on
involution, to a will toward evolution.

These terms sound like clever wordplay, but they represent polar opposites of the process of growth.
Evolution is greater adaptation to the external world, where involution is a focus on our internal world, and
as is a natural consequence of that focus, a passive means of applying it to our environment. Evolution
occurs when people do not fear death, and heroically seek to achieve regardless of the cost, but involution
occurs when people are so afraid of death and failure that instead they prefer inaction, or action of the
meekest type such as voting, protests, flag-waving and the like. Involution is decay to a healthy soul which,
fearing nothing and seeing nature not as some divine Judgment but as an ongoing process of, among other
things, making better heroes, does not fear dying in the quest of something essential.

Those who defend the traditions of our culture are, in the current time, called conservatives, but
conservatism has come full circle as well and, with the ending of its orbit roughly where it started, will now
reconstruct itself from a movement that defends a decreasing amount of tradition against assimilation by a
hostile world, into a movement that boldly asserts its values onto the world and justifies them to no one; it
will cast aside politics as a game of pleasing the masses, and move to politics as the science of picking
what is right for the whole, no matter who is inconvenienced and thus less likely to vote for it in the future.
As an old saying goes, you can't appease Satan; if there is a great wrong, it cannot be bargained with, or
reasoned with, but must be conquered and banished.

Of course, to people of this time these words seem extreme and terrifying. They are more concerned with
the politics of involution, which require that one find some very basic, dumbed-down idea that most of the
deluded fools out there can concentrate on for long enough to check the box marked YES/SI. Since only the
issues that please those who fund our political process make it to the voting booth, it is unlikely that this
strategy of evolution will do anything but slowly become assimilated by its enemies, thus proving again that
appeasement fails.

Old-style conservatism hopes to preserve certain aspects of culture by using the means of its enemies, but
this will change; populist democracy is our enemy, because it leads to an involutive focus, by which we
shuffle tokens in our society for the benefit of the individual, ignoring the consequences for the whole.
We're about to commit ecocide and genocide the Indo-European race through admixture, but what passes
for politics is: Have we empowered disabled lesbian eskimos yet? No? Well, that's an action item, then. This
type of politics by its nature will assimilate all tradition and destroy it, unless we remove it from existence -
which we can do, if society lasts so long, via democratic change. However, we must become organized, and
we must become assertive.

Evolutionary conservatism, called "traditionalism" or "integralism" by most, no longer aims to rope everyone
together and find something they can agree on, as that involutive process is passive by its very nature and
destructive to any architecture of truth or overall consensus to civilization. Unlike its predecessor,
evolutionary conservatism is not afraid to step outside the way things are done in liberal democracies and
proclaim broadly its views, but first it must agree on the essence of those views, without fighting over the
details that can easily be resolved later; only truly useless people fight over tiny details and thus miss the
whole picture, thus dooming themselves to never make the choices over which they are fighting.

To find this consensus, we have to look toward the essence of traditional Indo-European culture.

Upheld in art and philosophy as something called "Romanticism," traditional Indo-European values
emphasize an integration with nature and an evolutionary impetus within society toward the best individuals
it can produce, valuing individual experience above individual political participation. It tends to take a
hardline look at death, and see it as inevitable and thus, instead of trying to explain away death or
minimize its spiritual importance, it accepts death and resolves to find in life things so important they offset
the inevitability of the end. It is worshipful of nature, and understands nature's will as larger than
humankind's, and thus does not attempt to re-organize nature or "repair the world." It is not constrained
by moral law, as for it, the goal is always more important than the method. It is emotional and effusive as
opposed to being stoic, although it is disciplined, for it recognizes that nothing can remove suffering from
life thus, like death, suffering must be made important through a counterbalance of meaning in life itself.

This philosophy is unique to the Indo-Europeans, and any future conservative movement for that group
must insist on making it the founding and unitive principle of civilization. Removing any of its elements will
cause it to lose structural integrity and fail, so even the unpopular parts must be upheld; to make this
rational, we will say that any who are not of Indo-European heritage must rule themselves elsewhere, as
we have no desire to force our system upon them. For our own people however we choose this system,
regardless of what they think their individual preference is, because we recognize that most people don't
know what they need, couldn't figure out what they needed if it was on a multiple choice test, and will
always select the "conservative" option - what they see as immediately in the short-term being of greatest
financial or social benefit to them. This leads to destructive politics, and should not be tolerated.

Instead, our new conservatism will aim to solve all of the issues of modern politics by presenting a single
idea: we are an ethnic group that operates according to the principle of doing best for the whole, because
long-term planning is what has shaped us and is that for which our minds are optimized. In modern terms,
this translates into:

I. Environmentalism: consistent with Indo-European Romantic views of naturalism, we believe in nature

as inherently a positive thing no matter how bloody and brutal it appears to us, therefore we will
never endanger our ecosystems, even if it means reducing our numbers and our lifestyles.
II. Ethnoculturalism: culture is race, and race is culture; without both heritage and culture, an ethnic
group ceases to exist. For this reason, we choose to separate from others without passing some kind
of judgment over them. We do this for us, not them, and we believe we do them no injury in this act.
III. Organicism: evolution is what makes better humans, thus we fear death less than becoming
mediocre, and always breed ourselves to produce better, smarter more honorable people by
exclusively honoring those characteristics - not money-making ability, or "success" in a world
dominated by technology. Further, we are oriented toward families, and do not desire to polarize the
sexes against one another, as they are each essential parts of the family unit, which is ultimately the
most rewarding goal an individual can have.
IV. Feudalism: beyond socialism or capitalism, we believe in a system which rewards the most competent,
not those who find a way to get the most people to buy some plastic piece of junk, and we also
believe that those who are not incompetent should have a comfortable living without being forced to
compete economically, as this distracts time from family, culture and nature.

This is both a new philosophy, and an ancient one; it is a modern restatement of values that, although
found in the ancients, will apply to any culture that wishes to be inwardly as well as outwardly healthy, as
it forms a rewarding psyche by which one does right to all involved parties, achieves a balance with nature,
and has sensible biological and real-world achievements such that anything gained can be said to be
exclusively a product of the individual and the tribe. We owe nothing to others, and deprive ourselves of
nothing, because all that is done is done for a better whole, on the level of our race, our environment, and
our individual psychologies.

This natural and logical system removes the illusion under which moderns labor and replaces it with a
pathos of the whole. We are part of the whole, but indivisible from it. We recognize our individual limits,
and strive to be better, so that everything we have are victories we have earned honestly and
independently. We reject fear of death, and embrace life, and in doing so adopt a philosophy which makes
for a healthier balance between individual and world. As a result of these tendencies, this new belief
system is not merely political; it is culture, philosophy, society and politics all in one, and thus can only be
called "tradition."
We can achieve this new vision in part because current society is failing, but also because it is the only
sensible approach to human reality, and will always be. No matter how much technology we develop, we
will be mortal, and will not be able to replicate in the lab the complex natural process of evolution, which
does not just add one trait to an organism but balances all traits into an enduring design. No matter how
much we attempt to empower people, it is still more sensible to rule for the good of the whole, and to give
the individual a new kind of freedom by exempting them from a mundane and futile political process.

Our vision will be terrifying to most modern people, as they are both conditioned to see the current way as
the only way, and lack self-confidence that they will have a place in such a society. Their fears are
unfounded, because not only will they have a place, but they will have a place in a healthier society that
will guarantee them and their descendants more balanced, logical lives. Unlike involutive political
movements, we do not seek their approval, however. We know what is right, and we shall do it.

Each person who sees the wisdom of this philosophy becomes a warrior for our cause, regardless of their
membership in organizations that support it; ultimately, what will bring this about is for those who can lead
to adopt these ideas, and not allegiance to some form of political brand. Through self-discipline and
visionary thinking, they will apply these ideas in every decision of their lifestyle and public careers, realizing
that it will inevitably take hold and create a better society. This is conservatism coming full orbit: from an
organized pandering to the mob, to a self-assertive belief system that appeals to those who can recognize
the error of our modern time, and independently, take steps to correct it.

February 8, 2005
Cultural Revival
To look at the topic of the political rights of Indo-Europeans in the current society is to dismay; we are
viewed as those who control it, and thus those responsible for stewardship of others. In short, we are the
oppressors and providers, and the nagging schoolteachers, over a horde that views us with distrust, as they
should - for any population ruled by another is in an unstable and submissive state. Part of the goal of any
Indo-European nationalist movement, then, is to escape this classification and to return to a phase where it
is seen as acceptable and logical that we assert our right to be ourselves as a tribe.

For us to do this, we must first construct an ideal, next purge ourselves of counterproductive behaviors,
and finally take action in a unified way. To miss any one of these steps is to give in to disorganized
behavior, at which point we will undoubtedly commit the classic error of revolutionaries: to strike against
the appearance of the system we wish to replace, without seeing the chain of ideas underlying the
symptoms that make up the appearance we abhor; to do this is to literally repeat the same error under a
new appearance. For this reason, most revolutions become power struggles that upon achieving their
visible aims collapse from within, giving way to a form of government strikingly like the one they replaced.

As regards the first step, constructing an ideal, it seems to this writer that while the goal of many in the
Indo-European nationalist movements may be to lash out at symptoms, what is meant by the broader
sense of our goal is a cultural reconstruction and replacement of our current society with one that
harmonizes with the goals of Indo-European culture. Although most “white nationalists” content themselves
with merely saying nasty things about Africans, if they were to sit down and list the things they would
change in our world, it would become clear the “race issue” does not exist in a vacuum: far from a cause, it
is one of the final symptoms of a decline that grips our race and is manifested in many aspects of modern
society.

This does not mean that we should soft-pedal the race issue, or be illusory about it, but that we should be
honest. Regardless of whether other races are “superior” or “inferior,” our goal is preserve our own kind,
which to a studied mind recalls that every population is defined by both ethnicity and culture; without
either, that is, without both, no population exists independently of the broadest mass of humanity, who
have seemingly always been of indeterminate racial origin. For this reason, there is nothing wrong with
Africans, nor with Asians, nor with mixed-race people, unless they exist among us, in which case we must
eject them because they threaten our existence. We do not have to judge them, or to insult them, or even
to wage war upon them, but by making this clear when we redesign society, we will induce them to leave,
as no person feels safe where they know they are not wanted - regardless of how much we like them as
individuals.

When we reach this state of honesty, our desire for racial separation becomes natural alongside other good
ideas, no matter how demonized, such the breeding of smarter, stronger people of better character in
general, and developing our culture through art, learning, food and ideas. By seeing the “racial issue” as
one component of a cultural revolution, we address the root problem of our racial decline, which is that our
culture has been replaced by industry and social and religious morality. It is because of this lack of culture
that few see the point in preserving themselves racially; they do not perceive they are part of a larger
population group except that of international citizens, who are those who get ahead in commercial society
and a generalized learning (science, sociology, economics) without having a specific cultural tradition.

In this mindset, people do not belong to population groups, but are atomized individuals attempting to
advance in a single world order where money and popularity define success. Nationalism, by its very
nature, is opposed to internationalism, because with the replacement of culture comes a loss of uniqueness
and a lowest common denominator culture composed of media, politics, economics and generalized
learning. When culture is lost, the population is lost, and all that its ancestors have done to make it
powerful is dissipated. Astute observers of history will note that a mixed, cultureless population is what is
left after the fall of every great empire; to most it seems inconceivable that an empire could fall by means
other than warfare, but when one examines every great defeat, behind it is a lack of unity in the
population.
Nationalists value unity in populations because it creates localization of power, and allows each tribe to
define itself, meaning that specialization can occur as well as the only form of advancement which applies
to populations: the creation of ascendant, or highly adapted and idealistic, civilization. Such civilization is
the rarest thing on earth; the earth however is littered with the remnants of such civilizations, which when
they decay do so through internal strife, usually a conflict between workers and elites, and end without any
dramatic consequence in what we know today as third-world republics. One of the symptoms of such
decline is race-mixing, which regardless of the excellence of the races mixed, produces a population without
heritage which loses the uncountable specialized traits bred into a population by its distinct ideals, which
regulate which traits breed most widely. Another symptom is democratic, or passive, government, and a
transition made from traditional culture to abstract, quantitative entities such as commerce and science.

In this light, we see the goal of nationalism is not racial partisanism, but a distinction and separation
between all races such that each tribe can retain its own culture and ethnic heritage as part of a broader
revolution which, in contrast to the last two millennia, pits cultural revival against the utilitarian forces of
industry and democracy, which together constitute the fundamental tenets of modern society. Although few
take a broader historical view today, if we back up and view history through the lens of aeons, we see that
since the middle ages Western civilization has been engaged in the process of replacing traditional
civilization with such a modern society. While modern society brings many short-term benefits, as its
shortcomings become visible, we see the long-term damage it creates and thus can realize that it is unfit
for any form of enduring civilization.

This cultural revival is our goal, and it cannot take reactionary forms, e.g. solely aiming to restore
something from the past, or it will collapse from our lack of direct knowledge about the past. Rather, like
every diligent worker, we must take what we know of the past and join it with what we know to be
sensible to the values of the past to create a society of the future. This society is the aim of our cultural
revival; when viewed in this light, our movement is not a passive or reactionary one, but an assertive
direction which replaces a fractured system with a better one. We do not make our demands in the context
of the current society, but so that its successor can arise, and humanity can move forward lacking the
widespread - but invisible to most people, by the very nature of their limited function and belief in their
own political efficacy - failings of the current system.

Our keystone realization is that, as Indo-Europeans, despite our different tribes, there is more that unites
us than divides us, and that except for those who are already of mixed Indo-European tribes, we can
continue to divide into our traditional societies and will not have to live under a one-size-fits-all
bureaucratic government administering a sterile “culture” to us all. On top of that, we can recognize that
whatever religions or cultural traditions we wish to uphold, we can keep those by finding within them that
which is compatible with our spirit, and rejecting the rest. Like society itself, beliefs must be remade in the
context of our culture.

Most Indo-Europeans are not politically active as they see no culture, thus nothing worth preserving, and
therefore are afraid to take on mass opinion (commerce/social/media/religious) in defense of something to
which they have no immediate connection. When we realize that our preferences as a people unite us, and
that we have more in common than in difference, we can begin to work on this culture, meaning the
methods and ideals of our learning and art and lifestyles, and use it to unify our disparate opinions with
those we have in common. It is important that we realize that without such unity, we are divided in the
face of our real enemy, which is a values system that emphasizes modern society as the only rational
future for humanity, and thus continues the death march toward ecocide, loss of culture and heritage, and
loss of personal integrity as we find nothing of meaning except earning money and buying things; in that
state, we are drones, and fodder for the machine of corporations and governments. In that state, we do
not command, but we submit.

All peoples in the multiculturalist system have this type of identity, except those of Indo-European heritage,
for the reasons mentioned: we are perceived as the guardians of this modern civilization, and not a culture
within it. Giving our people a cultural identity - including their unique tribal identity, such as French,
German, Italian, Irish and so on - is essential toward moving forward. Defensive and passive ideals such as
conservatism and bigotry have failed, and there is no point repeating a failing attempt without changing
method, as it will undoubtedly fail again. When we leave these reactionary and panicked emotions aside,
we can achieve a cultural identity and begin working on ourselves to strengthen and develop a new society
in the ashes of the old. This can be achieved by democratic means, and is the only revolution worth
supporting.
Fascism
"Fascism" is the name that moderns use to describe the style of organized, leadership-oriented government
that predominated in ancient times, and to which all healthy societies return, knowing that of the ways of
handling human frailty, the best is a system which selects the least frail and pushes it forward; the
alternative, seen in modern liberal democracy, is a system which accepts human failings but then tries to
impose upon them a "good" way of life.

When we gather together and form an agrarian or other immobile civilization, we know that some form of
leadership will have to occur to compel us to complete the myriad tasks of maintaining an organized, large-
scale human colony. At first, this is the warrior-chief, who tells people face to face what must be done and
patrols the walls himself, sword in hand, but as the civilization grows in size, layers of intermediaries
become needed, and thus the questions addressed by political theory become very real.

At this point, general types of society emerge: the state with a single leader; the state with a junta; the
state with a leader and parliament of intermediaries; and finally, the disorganized options: the state run
locally by intermediaries, and the democratic state. The democratic state takes two forms; republican
democracy allows the people to delegate their allegiances to politicians who then decide how to apply those
preferences, and direct democracy allows the citizenry to vote directly on proposed ideas. (There are also
democracies of the elite, but these are of the fundamental type of a state run locally by intermediaries, with
democracy being the method those leaders use to come to agreement on collective issues.)

The type of government selected shapes the people, because it defines what is expected of them and what
they can expect, and the latter is used as incentive because it can be allotted in degrees according to, for
example, a citizen's status or his vote. In leadership-oriented states, this tends to be determined by how a
citizen rises in the hierarchy of specialized hierarchies according to ability; in democratic states, this is
granted to all citizens, a minimal competitive aspect (e.g. money or doctrine) is provided so a single
hierarchy can exist. This split occurs because leadership states have a collective goal, where democracies
exist for the citizenry and assume that their individual decisions, even when collectivized by a vote, are
equivalent to the work of a leader.

Another way to look at this is that leadership states embrace specialization, while democratic states are
centered around the individual personality. When strong leadership exists, government plans shape the
elites among the citizenry, and therefore naturally tend toward finding differentiated elites for specialized
tasks. Democracies have more internal dialogue, and therefore government becomes the focus of activity,
including debate about how government should be applied. It is for this reason that democracies react
more slowly, and more simply, than a leader who has specialized in familiarity with the issues of her
civilization and the unique tasks of command.

Citizens shaped by these governments react differently, and consequently, develop themselves and
eventually breed differently. A "fascist" state has a clear goal and ongoing process of achieving it, and
therefore provides minimal governmental interaction in the lives of its citizens, but in a democracy,
everyone must become involved and fight for their own "interests," which inevitably occur on that gradient
of reward such as monetary wealth which is the democracy's equivalent of natural competition. While in a
"fascist" state citizens excel in their specialized hierarchies (for example, craftsmen or artists or farmers)
and leave government to another specialized structure, leadership, in democracies all are assumed to have
earned the right to leadership by right of birth, and from this arises the fatal flaw of democracies.

In individual life, things go wrong; this is how learning occurs, and change. When the conjecture of the
individual about how an idea might work out in reality occurs in a far different way than planned, it is
recognized as a failure and is re-assessed. Similarly, in governments,large errors require some form of
change. In a leadership state, it may result in the head of state recognizing the error and changing his
policy, or being replaced if this is another incident of failure in a string of them. Democracies, being
constantly active in decision-making and debate and theory and other somewhat neurotic pursuits, have
already assumed that the citizens are all capable of making the right decisions -- and for that reason, must
find someone to blame.

This tendency is why democracies, more than any other form of government, are moral: they have a need
for internal evils to blame for the failings of a schizophrenic, self-referential worldview. Since no single
person leads, and "everyone" makes each decision such that "no one" is ever responsible for the axis of
decision ("leaders" in democracies are delegates of the people, thus are responsible for finding popular
opinion and implementing it, or they are not re-elected), in democracies, when something goes wrong,
someone or something must be blamed. These states rarely choose to blame "the system" of democracy as
whole, because it is hard to find fault with any "good" method of government that is in theory empowering
its citizens, thus they look internally for those who take controversial or seemingly "bad" viewpoints,
especially those that go against the fundamental idea of democracy, namely that every citizen is as fit to
rule as a leader.

The essence of fascism is positive: we are governed to promote what we love among our people and wish
to nurture and make stronger. It is in this mindset only that one can recognize threats for what they are,
because one has something one values and wishes to make grow ("consensus" in the longest-lasting
sense). Democracies on the other hand are based on fear of strength and challenge that might puncture
the political viability of the individual, and for this reason their primary mode of thought is avoiding threat
and seeking out evils to overcome and normalize. People in democracies aren't "bad" people, but they are
in the grips of a dysfunctional philosophy.

The democratic philosophy is based in fear and denial of what could be; they are not "seize the day," in the
dynamic leadership style of"fascist" civilizations, as much as "preserve the individual." This causes them to
isolate individuals from any form of large-scale change,and promotes the increasing fascination with the
government itself and its workings. Such beliefs deny that pain and uncertainty are the currency of change,
and will always occur; the only choice incumbent upon us is whether they occur for something meaningful,
or not. And for there to be meaning there must be consensus, a state which groups of individuals whose
highest goal is preserving those individuals from challenge will not achieve.

It is this reason that made our ancestors in ancient times choose "fascist" states when their empires were
at their healthiest and not already in decay: they wanted to form consensus, remove government as a
question, and move on to creation of great empires and cultures through constant change, selecting the
good and letting the less opportune pass by. Contrary to popular debate, "fascist" states were not an
extension of the warrior-chieftain but probably occurred as a natural response to failures in democracies
(anyone who has ever sat through a committee trying to make decisions recognizes the value of strong
leadership, even in error, as at least achoice is made that can then be criticized and modified, while
committees are incapable of making choices far from the default "but that's how it's done around here").

Typically, as noted by Plato most strongly among the Greeks, who amongthe Westerns first recorded their
experiments and debate over the nature of government, democracies have a tendency to hunt evils until
they descend to a linear, binary mindset of "good" versus "evil," at which point they murder all
nonconformists and elect the biggest conformist as emperor. From this one eventually gets hybrid systems
such as Soviet Russia, where "the people" under goading from well-funded decadent academics, rise up
and murder the higher castes,then implement a society where everyone is equal and ruled by a strong,
unquestioned tyrant.

Interestingly, a population of healthy, strong-minded people given the vote will usually elect a strong
leader; they understand specialization, and realize that bringing government into the life of each individual
will compel that individual to spend more time on government, without necessarily having the time or ability
to develop aptitude for it. This is a healthy response. To those who have grown up in a modern time, it's
like life in the old neighborhood. Few people move in or out, and families live among it for generations,
passing down houses and roles. There are butchers, bakers, grocers, repair workers, and many other
specialized roles, including that of leader. This allows each to get the day's work done, which although it
might not be perfect is a workable model which can then be perfected, and then go home to their families
and friends, free of concern for government; after all, those are the things that define our lives as
individuals.
The neighborhood is both harsh and forgiving. You are the individualare known for your actions, and since
everyone knows you, there are few secrets that last long. On the flip side, however, your positive attributes
are also remembered and praised, and will be used as the summary of your character, nota single negative
incident, or evil. Human frailty is accepted and those who do basically constructive things are moved up,
and there's noreal need to look for evils because threats are obvious, the neighborhood having achieved a
basic consensus of its operation. While some neighborhoods, particularly those in which families live for
lessthan a generation, are notoriously corrupt, the healthy ones tend tohave strong leaders who bypass
bureaucratic paper-filings in order totake care of their people. And is that not what government is for?

January 4, 2005
Lifestyle
When the neurotic flailing about of current conservative, Indo-European nationalist and deep ecological
movements ceases, and the participants in those parties recognize the greater commonality of their cause
than its divisions, we can begin reconstructing an Indo-European cultural identity as a means of creating
local governments which, by placing common interest in health of nature and populations as a whole over
monetary and other means used to divide us, can replace the one world government of a money-driven,
liberal democratic society. Once we have created this conceptual ideal, one of the first goals is to wake up
the members of our race who have not yet given themselves fully to a dronelike, subservient existence, and
the first step in this is encouraging lifestyle change.

With a cultural identity to which we can point and state its superiority to the greedy and reckless
disposable society that rules us today, we can compare the mindless and empty lifestyles of consumer
products and mass-entertainment media that bewitch our people and reduce their cognitive capacity to that
of an intoxicated ape. This is the first element of lifestyle change: weaning people from a passive world in
which they follow blindly what government and industry designate as healthy, and giving them something
of a greater nature for which to live, including their own individual satisfaction derived from existence in a
society that is as a whole much smarter and healthier. They may give up some individual comforts, but it
must be clear to them that they gain something meaningful in exchange, not effete "culture" in the form of
artifacts from the past but a living and unique lifestyle based on the shared ethnic and cultural values of
our race and its myriad tribes.

When people change lifestyle, they are voting in the oldest method possible: with their money and their
feet. Although the system of democracy promises results for our votes, the truth seems to be that it cannot
handle the details of managing complex societies because it is engaged more in internal combat than in any
thrust toward a resolute direction, and thus we rage back and forth between partisan camps without ever
accomplishing anything substantive. Accordingly, its highest and best use is to elect leaders who can
replace it with a better system. For this to happen, attitudes must change, and lifestyle alteration is a
powerful means of achieving this because by voting with money and feet, the elites of society abandon bad
values and cease supporting the institutions that uphold them.

Some will scoff at the idea of boycotts and organized support of positive cultural means, but look at the
damage wrought on the American economy by periodic disfavor in Europe, and the choking effect on Israeli
companies created by a boycott of them in the Arab world. These are not small successes; they are huge,
in that they show one way we can quickly begin reducing the power of those ideas that oppose us. Phrased
in another way, if even ten percent of Americans turned off their televisions and cancelled their newspaper
subscriptions, those industries would suffer, and in order to regain the votes of money and feet, would
internally re-adjust to accomodate better values. Further, those who escape the television addiction that
afflicts our population in general would leave behind a passive "what would the herd think?" mentality and
begin living for their own satisfaction and knowledge that they have done right.

The media and government are powerful tools, but they are not omnipotent, and depend on having an
audience for their power. Voting on paper "sends a message" but effects no real change; voting with
boycotts, and selective support of institutions and communities so to opt for those with positive values,
immediately deprives them of this power. As most operate on relatively tight margins, losing even a small
portion of their audience triggers an internal crisis in those businesses; the prospect of longer-term losses
creates shareholder revolt, and turns the same mechanisms used against us into self-destructive behavior.
Even more importantly, as such businesses fail and cease to employ many people, the economy itself is
forced to adjust to the new preferences of its customer base.

This is a smart form of revolution, and one that does not require radical acts, but most in the "white
nationalist" community are unwilling to undertake it, nor are they willing to face the honest reason for their
unwillingness: they are addicted to the passive entertainment lifestyle provided by television and
degenerate products. Well, of what use are you? - it is a fair question to ask these people, since they are
upholding the tools of their enemies, and further, by endorsing them through their own usage of them (you
do not engage in a behavior unless you believe it is worthwhile), are delivering victory to our enemies at
our own expense. Is this "activism"? If so, this writer wants no part of it: turning off the television,
canceling the newspapers and magazines, and dropping out of the consumer lifestyle by buying only what
you need, and avoiding frivolous products, is far more effective than even millions of people who take their
behavioral and political cues from Hollywood sops like "American History X."

Ask yourself: what do you really need from television, and newspapers, and consumer products? "To see
what's going on in the world" - you mean to say, to see what the corporations and religious groups who
control media wish you to see as the activity of the world, and to give more attention to governments that
don't address your needs. Or maybe the objection is that your Playstation 2 with "Grand Theft Auto" and
shiny new car and plasma television give you some kind of enjoyment you cannot find elsewhere; to that a
thinker says that no victory occurs without change, and no change occurs without sacrifice. Could you live
without these things? Surely. And would your life be any worse? Unlikely - it would be different, and you
would be freed of your daily programming by the interests of those with money.

Most people are unaware that televisions, newspapers, et al are businesses; their goal is not to tell you the
truth, but to prepare an entertainment product that you will consume, thus transferring wealth to them and
their advertisers. If they can get you to see their entertainment product as a source of reality, why then,
they control what you will admit as truth and, by repeating big lies often enough, will deceive you. Do you
really want to make yourself open to such an attack, and then to unknowingly use that attack against your
own people? All of your arguments distill to a preference for convenience and an easy vision of reality,
where glowing boxes tell you what to do and you feel as if your life will be fulfilled with the next shiny
object you purchase. You are being misled.

There are many ways you can vote with money and feet against the system that will destroy your people
and culture - that of modern industrial liberal democratic society, which is motivated only by what is
popular, and thus what is profitable. Since we know that most people do not see the big picture, and thus
do what is convenient with no thought as to its long-term consequences, we can immediately recognize
that what is "popular" is always what is convenient and not what is right to do. They will tell you that it is
"freedom" and "individualism" to have certain preferences in entertainment media and products, but think
like a brave and assertive person here: what kind of freedom and self-definition comes from products that
anyone can buy off of a shelf? You are becoming a weapon against all you claim to uphold.

Business has prospered at the expense of Indo-Europeans because we have all been too busy buying
products, working at jobs, and consuming media - billions of dollars of it - without seeing the big picture,
and thus being unable to oppose it, we are dominated by it. To continue in that lifestyle is to submit, but
to use your purchasing power and personal allegiances to select healthier things is an assertive and strong
method of making change. Buy organic fruit, and never buy junk food; throw out your television, and stop
reading the garbage prepared to make profit from your delusion and thus sacrifice of not only your race,
but your planet and its natural ecosystem. Would you really miss anything? Not anything you could not get
from instead of watching television, spending time with friends and family, or in doing things to better
yourself. These are real things; television and products are an imaginary reality constructed so others can
make money from your decline.

They are laughing at your stupidity and ignorance, these profiteers. "It was so easy to conquer these
people - and everyone said they were independent, and tough-minded, and smart - see how quickly and
how low they have fallen!" But while they laugh, the people with televisions and shiny products make
excuses, and because deep in their hearts they know they are lying, they degenerate further as individuals.
Make the lifestyle choice that matters; reject this plastic garbageheap of a world and everything
meaningless that is in it, and instead spend your money and your time doing things that have long-term
positive consequences. You will be amazed at how many follow you, and how effective, together, we are.

February 17, 2005

Surviving Multiculturalism
In the end stages of every great civilization, several things happen. First, impetus is lost: people no longer
have an urge to create civilization as, heck, it's already here, let's enjoy it and not think too hard, because
the people that made this place, they took life too seriously, man. Second, consensus is lost, in that people
accustomed to appreciating the benefits of society no longer have the singular focus on maintaining it that
comprises a healthy goal set. Once consensus is lost, what we commonly call "values" cannot exist, since
there's no agreement about what is valued. After this, the symptoms set in, namely internal division, loss of
learning and culture, and of course, bad breeding, first within the bloodline and then miscegenation.

This is how great civilizations fall, and you can see their ruins today all over the earth. T.S. Eliot was correct
to note that "it ends" with a whimper and not a bang, because by the time the ancient structures are
falling, there are few left who can actually realize what's happening. Most of the population have already
transitioned to the idea of living among the ruins in a more primitive state, and lacking most qualities of
discernment in themselves, aren't much concerned about how all finer things are crumbling around them,
because they still have their fast food and television and are content with that. There is rarely a sudden
appearance by the forces of evil to sweep into the streets and crush a vibrant culture; rather, the collapse
of a great civilization is as anticlimactic as the death of a terminal cancer patient.

As always, there is writing on the wall, for those who remember how to read it. Lacking a goal, people
become obsessed by novelty and personal conceits, so instead of having hearty, strong people who can
create, you have very trendy people who adorn themselves excessively and are neurotically obsessed with
appearance. This is a natural consequence of having lost consensus, because since there is no longer a goal
to the society as a whole and an agreement about how to reach it, people focus on living in a society of
disorder. To gain power in such a society, one entertains and flatters, and this requires a decadent but
"different" lifestyle in order to distinguish oneself in any way. Bread and circuses for the poor, trinkets and
fads for the wealthy.

One can survive such a society, but it requires doing something most free-willed people find abhorrent:
dedicating themselves in the largest part toward earning money, and sacrificing most of their time to this
goal. Work six day weeks and bring home a fat paycheck, and you can get out into the suburbs where most
people are gentler. You can afford the Alta Dena organic dairy milk, the no-pesticide vegetables, the finer
clothes; you can drive a nice car, and buy memberships in places where the screaming rabble don't
congregate. However, ultimately, such a lifestyle requires increasing amounts of money as the rest of the
economy collapses and thus such finer things become aberrations in a consumer environment rewarding
goods that above all are cheap - quality becomes second to quantity.

In effect, this destroys the middle class, because it raises the bar on the cost of living outside of the
undifferentiated mass. You're either wealthy, and living in a gated community, or you're with the rest living
in a technological third-world environment. With the loss of the middle class comes a loss of the ordinary,
hardworking decent people in the world, because they are turned into either whores for money or semi-
impoverished scatterbrains like the rest. When that occurs, the base of support for the finer things in life -
the arts, culture, and learning - falls entirely into the hands of the wealthy, who are not really concerned
with getting it right; they're concerned with finding a way to make millions so they escape the hoi polloi.
Culture dies; art dies; learning dies.

Of course, the mutant corpses survive. There will be "art" - but it will be little more than decoration,
"unique" patterns and styles designed to shock or amuse: the kind of stuff that Hitler, being an artist, had
no problem ordered being destroyed. There will be "culture," but it will consist of going to places where you
buy things to participate in cultural events will all of the decorum and depth of a Nirvana concert. The
institutes of higher learning will continue but will devote most of their time to teaching the ways of the new
society, re-interpreting the older knowledge to fit the new rubric and, consequently, destroying it as a
system of thought. It, too, will become aesthetics, and although it will exist in reference books (if not
burned by the "progressive" newcomers) there will be on a handful who understand it, and none who can
add to it.
This is the future that T.S. Eliot and other writers of his generation saw in the 1920s, when America first
became obsessed with money and fads, and the first wave of "mostly-white" immigrants rode into the
middle of a fair complexioned Northern European stock. Currents in thinking changed, then the population
changed, and that cycle begat another. What T.S. Eliot was fortunate enough not to see is the dimension to
which modern society has grown. Thanks to industrial technology and greater transportation, this is now a
global society, with counterdependent economies and military alliances. It probably does not pay to wonder
if the domino theory will apply in nations falling to decay, but it's clear that most nations are on the same
liberal democratic, global industrial society path, and thus will suffer similar fates.

You can't mention any of this in the current time, of course. Since there's no goal, people are concerned
with making their own money and "rising above" the undifferentiated masses, thus they are mortified that
you might offend someone by pointing out that there could be a consensus, because having agreement in
values would make some people "better" and "others" worse for the purpose of having citizens who can
enact those values. They are also socially concerned; they can't speak out without losing friends and
alienating potential mates. Where bravery is called for, sheeplike herdthink prevails instead simply because
the immediate personal cost is too high, although the long-term personal cost of inaction will be much
higher. Most can't handle that so conclude that with personal death their interest in the world ends.

So what is someone concerned about having a civilization to do?

The first and most important task is to begin sorting the world into yes and no categories. This means
finding out what you will support, and what you do not consider part of the fulfillment of your goals. In this,
you are escaping some Absolute vision of what is "right," as the conservatives do, and opting for the
stronger assertion of will that is "I prefer." It transcends subject and object classifications, and will occur to
the degree of which the individual is capable, but this is a more flexible system than some knee-jerk
Absolute which rapidly parodies itself and becomes reactionary and preservationist, which is an error
because what is needed is not to save a society that exists - that one has already fallen, I'm afraid - but to
create a new society according to the ancient tradition of the Indo-Europeans.

After Friedrich Nietzsche, who asserted a naturalistic and aristocratic social system and derided liberal
democracy for its failings, there was Rene Guenon, who gave us a simple logical device for understanding
resistance to modern society: all that we saw in the ancients that was functional is part of a set of values
that are true in any age because of their fundamental recognition of the problems of reality for those who
desire higher civilization, and that is called Tradition; what opposes it is Modernity, and the "progressive"
society that believes we can reach some Utopic ideal through egalitarian and utilitarian government.
Guenon was correct in dividing current history into these two threads, as Modernity takes many forms,
including both Capitalism and Communism, conservatism and liberalism. There is no escape from Modernity
once you begin using its divisions.

This split is important in that it allows us to group all aspects of traditional, pre-Christian Indo-European
civilization - what is called "ascendant" civilization because it believes in evolving toward a higher state of
an eternal ideal, in contrast to "progressive" civilization which advocates a constant change of ideal on a
root of progress to Utopic liberalism - into something which can not only be upheld but developed. The only
future for Indo-Europeans is to stop trying to finding Absolute reasons to "prove" we are right, and to start
building this form of ascendant, Traditional civilization within the train wreck of ideas that is a modern time.

One aspect of Traditional civilization worldwide, regardless of race, is ethnoculture, which is the idea that no
culture can exist without its traditional ethnicity to uphold it, because the tens of thousands of generations
that produced that culture also shaped the population through selection for those who tended toward
upholding its ideal values. Ethnoculture does not designate an Absolute "superior" or "inferior" race.
Instead, it asserts an "I prefer": for each culture to exist, it must prefer to have its own ethnic group
isolated from all others. This is not inbreeding; there's enough variation in even a small population to avoid
inbreeding. It's not "racism," in the sense of wanting to keep others down, but it's an honest statement of
need and will to keep them out so that the culture can develop without becoming a mixed-race society like
so many remnants of collapsed ancient civilizations.

The only workable way to create a Traditional civilization is to begin working with the declining ruin at
hand. Yes, the basic values of society around us are defunct, but like a disciplined wrestler, we can use its
oncoming weight against it and thus achieve our own means. For that reason, the first proposition of this
article is that we accept "diversity," and take it to its logical extremes.

Diversity means having different groups coexisting; however, in order for them to remain different groups,
they can't merge (our media and institutes of higher learning seem to have forgotten this part). As I once
put it to a homosexual gentleman, diversity means that I don't think much about what you do in your
bedroom, but it also means that you don't begrudge me the right to make gay jokes and be repelled by
sodomy, because to a heterosexual, such behavior would be a disastrous submission and loss of
masculinity. I respect his "difference," but he has to respect mine. The same applies to different ethnic
groups. To acknowledge their difference is to recognize that participation in that group is limited to
members of that group, and now matter how "authentic African art" we buy at Wal-Mart, we're still
members of our own.

This requires formally defining diversity in the first place, and getting some public agreement on this fact.
The definition proposed above benefits all groups, as it keeps them distinct from others and guarantees
them the ability to govern themselves culturally. A change of this nature would reverse the current
tendency for "diversity" to become an emotional value of a passive nature, translated into "accept everyone
regardless of their behavior," which is exactly the opposite mentality of every group that has ever created a
civilization with more than mud huts and large rodents roasting on the open fire. Some might call this
change "extremist diversity," but every philosophy should be able to be extended to its extremes without
becoming paradoxical.

Because after culture has fallen the task of restoring culture is an artificial one, meaning imposed externally
instead of occurring "naturally" from within, it can't be done with bureaucracy or rules. It has to be done by
creating something and drawing those who can appreciate it into the fold, and this can only be done by
eschewing alienated ideology for a commonsense belief system that does not require them to give up their
membership in society or to adhere to any philosophies of a radical or violently emotional nature. The
philosophies these people will find meaningful are ones based on "I prefer" which involve action toward a
positive goal. They are not interested in bigotry, nor are they interested in Utopic silliness from liberals.
They want a better way of life. This is the origin of all civilization-building, from the first caveman who
decided having a permanent fire might be a good idea, onward.

We've all read the articles in National Geographic talking about the isolated tribe of Whatitsname "fighting
hard to preserve their traditional culture and ways in the face of the onslaught of modernity." You would
never guess from public rhetoric in America that Indo-Europeans are fighting the same battle. We can win
it by taking our society's mechanisms and adapting them singularly to our own need in the type of scenario
described above. If we begin building something new that is an option within the realistic spectrum of
choices offered to people in our society, the hardiest among them will consider it and be likely to move.
The others are too busy "just doing my thing, man" and we are fortunate for their voluntary exclusion.

This plan would require an Indo-European living space. To get started, it needs some kind of economic
base, even if only a single corporation that is willing to hire local people. Once the character of the
community is started, the laws of our society must be changed. Anti-discrimination legislation, including the
Housing and Urban Development rules, no longer need apply in a modern society, so we can campaign to
have them removed, not on the grounds that we "hate" other groups, but on the ethnocultural grounds
described above - "white people" are no longer in charge of America, and this group of Indo-Europeans
wants the right to preserve itself. Similarly, other affirmative action legislation needs to be repealed. It has
served its purpose, and now isn't needed; we want the right to hire only our own kind so we are not forced
to alter the makeup of our community to fit racial quotas. This would be a quiet revolution in American law
against "one size fits all" legislation to something that would allow actual diversity by giving localized
groups the ability to rule themselves, as culturally appropriate, in ways different than those preferred by the
undifferentiated masses.

A state such as this, whether located in one place or communities distributed across a continent, will require
its own cultural conventions, much as neighborhoods of a longstanding ethnic mix have their own informal
ways of governing themselves. It will require its own media: its own television, its own authors, its own
artists. It will require its own economic structure that only hires members of that community. Much like
successful cultural holdouts such as the Basque or Amish, it must be willing to isolate itself without falling
into a passive and hopeless "reservation mentality." In all likelihood, it would be a feudal state organized by
breeding - much like National Socialism. With only a handful of legal changes, it can happen in modern
America and Europe, and can separate those worth saving from those who oblivious go into the same doom
that has afflicted all great civilizations.

It may seem like fanciful thinking now, and perhaps this article is only metaphor for the changes needed in
society as a whole, but given that society has developed on its current path through 2,000 years of liberal
democratic thought, it is unlikely to alter its course without violent collapse and revolution, things which
historically have not afforded the birth of a new civilization but have cheerfully destroyed many remnants of
the old. Civilizations die like stars, by collapsing inward, and the only way to reverse that is to birth a new
star from the ashes of the old. We are in the end stages of what our ancestors built, and the time has
passed where we could simply destroy alien elements and consider ourselves saved; we must create
something new according to the values which engendered the great Indo-European civilizations. In this new
birth is our only future.

Some useful reading resources to accompany this article:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/290AAS2IBYMHB/
Patriotism or Nationalism?
If one had to draw a distinction between the newer elements of right-wing thought, and the older, it might
be that older elements are patriotic, where newer elements begin in nationalism - and continue onward.
Interestingly, however, the most successful of the new political movements are a fusion of the best ideals
of both left and right, unified under a concept of tradition - supposedly the inspiration of conventional right-
wing politics. As this division is beginning to gain public attention, it makes sense to contrast patriotism and
nationalism to find the point of divergence.

Patriotism is a belief in one's country, a political unit known as the "nation-state" because it unites nation
(tribe, race) and political state, meaning that a people are no longer defined by heritage and culture alone,
but by the political and economic boundaries of their parent state. Since inclusiveness is the goal, not
commonality of origin, patriotic politics is "empowering" in that it aims to find a place for everyone in the
sociopolitical infrastructure of the nation; it is inherently opposed to nationalism, or "race-patriotism" as it
was formerly called. For this reason, it operates upon the individual as a granular entity, as it requires the
participation of individuals in order to build consensus, and there is no longstanding consensus, such as
might be formed by a cultural entity, assumed.

In order to appeal to the individual, nations use patriotic belief that commends the individual to consider
their nation better than others for its attributes that appeal to the individual, usually broad implications
such as "freedom" or "justice." Inherently, the nation-state must be a populist entity, as it requires the
support of people among whom a consensus does not exist, thus nation-states are almost exclusively moral
creations, in that they justify themselves through some absolute good considered better than that offered
by other nations. Even those without "free" economies, or of a totalitarian nature, do this, as did the Soviet
Union back when it was still the world's foremost Communist entity. Populations are urged to support a
nation via this belief in moral right, and from that emerges patriotism.

Accordingly, the nation-state thus strips itself of all identity except that of (a) political system and (b)
economic system. For this reason, nation-states tend to welcome mass immigration, and have no
restrictions on the freedom of individuals to engage in whatever practice or advocacy of whatever belief
they find meaningful; since there is no consensus except for political and economic systems, everything that
does not directly assault those is permissible. Since these systems are required to appeal to the individual,
they tend to be populist and affirm "freedom" over all other goals, thus it is almost impossible to do
anything which threatens these systems except to advocate a different economic system, or some kind of
politics based on commonality and collective interest instead of the granular individual.

When conservative movements support patriotism over nationalism, they are inherently against any
determination of consensus, whether of heritage or overall political direction, as to do so would exclude
some of the people in the system, and in consequence make individuals fear that their way of life, or
preferences, or means of economic sustenance, would not be acceptable to that nation. Whether this
happens in the first generation or succeeding ones is not important; it is inevitable either way, because
political systems start from a germ of a thought and rapidly lead to its full form by the very nature of
people developing depth to that concept. This is the same mechanism that fills out artistic movements,
languages and cultures; one starts with a broad concept and over time defines all of its parts, much as
builders put up a frame and then floors and walls within it.

These are the boundaries of the definition of patriotism. Patriotic nations are ones that produce statements
such as "they hate our freedom" or extolling the virtues of being free and able to earn wealth as a means
of shouting down the Communist threat. They appeal to the individual responding only to self-interest, and
seeking to gain power and wealth, and for that they seemed a viable option for many years. However,
conservative movements are fundamentally at odd with these: how do you assert traditional values in a
culture that is based on the consensus to have no consensus? For this reason, conservative politicians
today appeal to the most polarized and delusional constituent base, generally those deluded by
fundamentalism and paranoia, and address token issues without making major change in the system.
One area where the dysfunction of patriotic nation-states is seen is in the environmental sector. It might
seem obvious that any nation proud of itself would do its best to preserve its natural beauty, but that does
not seem to be the case, as the most patriotic and "free" nation-states have done their best to invite in as
many new people, especially of the unskilled labor class, as possible, and in consequence, have expanded
recklessly - in addition to the damage done by unchecked industry. After all, if you are justifying your
patriotism by having "freedom," that includes the freedom to build a McDonald's anywhere you want. It
includes the ability to make however much profit you can from natural resources. Nowhere is there any kind
of check or balance in the system to measure impact on the whole, as that would require consensus.

Not surprisingly, today's patriotic conservatives polarize themselves against the environmental issue as a
whole. This is not a claim about the environmental "movement," which is as dysfunctional as most political
identities, but a measurement of conservative response to environmental interests. There has been virtually
none, outside of token dedications of parks and periodic vague legislation that encourages "letter of law"
compliance. Since we as citizens live in our world, and benefit from its natural health as well as the beauty
of natural surroundings, it would be sensible for those interested in tradition to preserve and nurture our
environment. They have not, because to do so would require disenfranchising someone who wants to make
a buck off cutting down those trees or building a McDonald's in an irreplaceable ecosystem.

Another area of conservative failure is finance, specifically, a willingness to participate in international

finance that exports money from the country and leaves it in the hands of foreign investors or, worse,
investors without a home country, who thus have allegiance to nothing and zero accountability with any
government. Multinational corporations, international banking cartels, and foreign investing lobbies not only
own a good portion of America, for example, but their interests are represented most strongly by
conservative groups. If you cannot say no to anyone, you say yes to everyone, and thus what prevails is
anarchy checked only by public image and an increasingly authoritarian police force. This is not a sensible
future for Indo-Europeans.

Dispensing with patriotism, let us look at nationalism. In contrast to patriotic belief, nationalistic belief is
centered in tribe and culture, and thus inherently is based on commonality and collective interest. This does
not take the collectivist extreme of Stalinism, nor the laissez faire extreme of America, but a path between
the two where the individual is represented in the context of the interests of the whole. Insofar as the
individual does not desire something destructive for the whole, "freedom" exists; however, because the
system is based on consensus and the idea that a single ethnic and cultural group comprises the nation and
always will, the system has the ability to have consensus and prohibit things that are destructive. Where
patriotic systems limit freedoms by destroying things not recognized as being of value by the masses,
nationalist systems impose restraints on destructive freedoms so that the masses do not dominate with
selfish interests.

Further, nationalist systems have historically been concerned with environmental issues for the reason
outlined by the NSDAP in Germany with their slogan of "Blood and Soil": a nation is its people, but those
people are tied to the land by tradition and desire for continuation of the people. Past and future are
equally important when one considers environmental issues. Where patriotic governments have their hands
tied for fear of limiting someone's "freedom" to tear down an ancient forest, nationalist governments
recognize the importance of keeping that forest for everyone, including those who are not yet born. Since
nationalist governments by definition exclude those who are not born into the ethnocultural group which
inhabits the nation, there are no investors who, living elsewhere and seeing only numbers on a balance
sheet, could care less if an ancient forest is destroyed.

The same concept is applied to finance. Nationalist governments create a higher value than profit, and that
value is the preservation of a people united by commonality. For this reason, they tend to withdraw from
the international investment and banking racket, and attempt to become as self-sufficient as possible, with
an emphasis on renewable sources of wealth, as opposed to the consumable ones that, once used up, will
never exist again. This limits the financial flexibility of the citizen, and his or her ability to earn unchecked
amounts of wealth, but in exchange offers economic security to the citizen by eliminating a constant stream
of competing interests. It allows people to continue in the professions of their ancestors, and to work fewer
hours in exchange for a decent wage. They are not subjected to the kind of insane competition that causes
mass layoffs or outsourcing. This is beneficial for the culture, although patriotic investors might find it limits
their "freedom."

This difference, that of commonality-based versus facilitative/individualistic political systems, is essential

toward understanding the future politics of both left and right. For some years now, many on both sides of
the political divide have recognized that the partisan divisions of left and right are being used to keep up a
show of political change, while the basic errors of our civilization -- and the course of its death march
toward overpopulation, resource depletion, pollution and ethnic-cultural dilution -- remain unchecked. While
the right and the left fight, and the voters cheer when the "best man" wins, the mechanism that operates
behind the scenes is unchecked. For this reason, there is convergence on a third way, as those who care
about the future more than a political "career" are interested in solving the problem, and they realize that
partisan democracy distracts rather than focuses on the issue - and even worse, it creates the illusion that
some change is occurring.

Future political systems, recognizing the failure of conventional conservatism as well as the hijacking of
liberalism by special interest groups, will hybridize left and right, taking from each the elements that target
a goal: a consensus-based society which is willing to tell people they do not have certain "freedoms" that
result in destructive acts. Currently, such an idea is politically unthinkable, as the patriotic crowd on the
right will shout it down and the left will howl about individual empowerment. However, much like the
difference between a patriotic right and a nationalistic right, this gap will be closed as people realize our
future grows increasingly dim while we allow political mechanism to get in the way of collective objectives.

March 3, 2005
The Sleepwalkers
A healthy organism will adapt to its surroundings. In the wisdom ofnature, an adaptive animal will survive
even when its customarysurroundings are drastically altered. This is both a blessing and acurse, for self-
reflective animals such as humans: we can endureanything, but our curse is that because we can endure,
we often do notthink to wake up and change the negative elements of what we areenduring.

Such is the case in modern society, where a population of otherwisesmart people lives in ecocidal and self-
genocidal circumstances becauseof the bizarre psychology of adaptation. Their primary goal is toadapt, thus
they tolerate the insane circumstances around them and arequickly lulled into a kind of sleep where
nightmares are the norm andthus, like a drunk walking down an icy street, one becomes numb to painand
illogicality while focusing on putting one foot in front of theother.

These sleepwalkers form the majority of the people around you, andthere is nothing "wrong" with them, but
they have not yet realized thatwhat they accept as "reality" is a dream, and a bad one at that. Theysimply
endure. To their minds, any thought of long-term planning isimpossible, because if they look too closely at
the direction societyis inevitably heading, they see only disaster. Thus they limit theirfocus to the immediate
patch of sidewalk in front of them, and make thebest of it that they can. It is nothing new, as this is the
process bywhich people have survived a succession of disastrous governments,wars, plagues, famines and
internal crises since the dawn of time.

What is most alarming about their condition is that, by itstendency to limit their focus to the immediate, it
prevents them fromany thought of structural change to the society in which they live,including its
governments and social agencies, but most importantly,its values .They survive by free enterprise, and thus
the idea of being accessibleto all people equally -- since they equally might be customers -- issound logic.
Their income is derived from an economy that functionsonly when it is constantly expanding, so loss of
natural ecosystems andtraditional cultures is something they accept as necessary.

Those who succeeded the most as ancient civilizations were those forwhom the long-term goal eclipsed
short-term gratification; the abilityto accept delayed gratification, and to work even for an entirelifetime for
a goal that may occur beyond that lifetime, was natural tothem: this is how epic civilizations are built, and
great works oflearning produced. When it became easy to survive in moderncivilization, especially after the
internal combustion engine removedthe importance of efficiency and harmony with nature from our
lives,this long-term focus was nearly entirely obliterated. If a modernperson were suddenly granted with
this vision, they might go intoshock, having realized the dream created by focusing within theboundaries of
a reality defined by society and its media, limited inscope by fear of the future.

Sleep enforces an iron inertia on us. Even though the dreams areterrifying, if we see them as predictors of
the future, awakening meanshaving to face the possibility of doing something about it, which putsone in
direct opposition to the society of sleepers. No one likes to beawakened rudely, and the vast majority of
sleepers would prefer toquash the messenger than address the message. Thus the awakenedindividual must
either ignore the truth and attempt to get back tosleep, or know the truth and try to survive in an empire
of death. Thelatter being a disagreeable proposition, especially for the majority ofus who breed by instinct
and later justify the act in the light of whatwe know of our children's future in a death-age, it is most
commonlydenied.

Much as denial on a personal level causes instability in theindividual, the division of our modern time into
public fantasy andprivate reality has made the psychology of society as a whole unstable,lending this
schizophrenic outlook to the individuals enwrapped in itsgrasp as well. Most people are subliminally
depressed, probably aresult of their realization at a level simpler than words thatsomething horrible awaits;
we are like Temple Drake in Faulkner'svisionary "Sanctuary," screaming out to the deaf ears of those
whodon't care, "Something is happening to me!" Instability, coupled withdepression and the relinquishing of
control to an impersonalbureaucratic society, results in people with low self-esteem, meaningthat even if
many were to awake tomorrow, they would "instinctively"trust the prevailing social wisdom over their own.
The collusion of low self-esteem with a society based on denial meansthat reality needs to be explained
away, or denied via any number ofglib evasions; in any degenerate age, the most popular philosophies
areeither those that justify inaction, or those that encourage such agranular action ("if we just ban
abortion, everything will be allright") to amount to inactivity on the larger balance sheet of
societalhomeostasis. The most common denial is a sidestep of the principle ofinevitability: increasing
demand confronted with a fixed amount ofresources will eventually end in total resource depletion; this
appliesas much to fossil fuels as it does to remaining natural land, or to theethnic populations required to
maintain each unique culture: ourillusion requires we believe they are infinite resources, as otherwise,we
must face the paradoxical nature of the longterm "plan" on which ourcivilization is currently embarked.

Clearly this collision is something beneficial for any thinking peopleto induce in themselves and others, as it
casts aside the thrall ofsleep and replaces it with an alertness that is vigilant if nothingelse. However, by
the nature of rejecting every assumption one has beentaught is required for social membership, one can
become paranoid; thisis not a productive event. The sleepwalkers, if awakened, need to beoffered a
complete philosophy to replace the illusion, or they willlapse into self-destruction. Such a philosophy would
not tacklegranular issues within the context of the status quo, but would suggesta replacement civil design
that exists outside the (erroneous)assumptions of the current convention. It would have to be a
cohesivephilosophy with a single central principle, and would have to includeall granular issues under that
hierarchy of values.

Conservative politics, as currently defined, cannot do this, becausethe nature of conservatism is to preserve
elements of traditionalvalues still found within the status quo. It does not aim to remakesociety in a new
form, and because of that aspect of its outlook, itcannot stop the long term collision with inevitable
resource depletionand cultural loss that is incipient. Since right-wing politics is notawakened, it slumbers on
and attempts to preserve something that willinevitably decline unless the system is fundamentally altered.
For thisreason, conservative politics is not an answer for a dreamerinterrupted.

A political philosophy restricted to a single issue, such asenvironmentalism alone, or race alone, will doom
the political movementof that tendency to a defensive battle, and this leads quickly toreactionary politics
where, unable to achieve the main objective, onedefends turf as if that will accomplish something. By
definition, itcannot, as when one is limited to defensive action only, the principleof inevitability states that
one will eventually be worn down, and willthen defend increasingly smaller spaces until internal collapse
occurs.

There is nothing within the current political framework that willsupport what needs to be done. This is an
ideological statement, andnot one of method, as it is fortunate that every system has some meansof
changing itself, even if it wholly lacks the ability to come toawareness of what that change might be. What
holds us back is not anenemy, or anything inherent to the mechanics of a democratic system,but the lack of
a unified philosophy which will address all of theissues in error in a modern time. To a sleepwalker, fixing
one problemalone means nothing; the only impetus to awakening comes when there issomething better
that can replace what is. We cannot substitute a dreamfor a dream, as they will always choose the dream
that is already inpower.

To awaken a sleeper, one touches them gently on the shoulder, andinforms them of a good reason to start
their day. In our case, theattitude should be that we have infinitely better futures to gain, andour method
of waking them should be a call for a general Indo-Europeancultural revival. Our culture has been replaced
by money; our strength,by machines; our soul, by morality. We cannot attack these directly. Ifwe
emphasize however that our cultural values apply in any era ofhistory, and that they include a better way
of leadership, a way offixing and reversing our damage to nature, and an enduring system ofbelief that
sidesteps the pitfalls of a modern time, we address what iswrong in the current system by suggesting its
replacement. Our taskstarts in resurrecting our culture and deriving consensus on thesevalues, because in
doing so, we give the sleepers something better thanthe stupor of a dream: we give them hope.

February 3, 2005
civilization come to light, and more people look for alternate answers, perhaps not to act on directly but to
support covertly or simply as vessels for their hope of a better future. When people become inspired, they
gain a nearly godlike status in their ability to think clearly, act decisively, and make each choice correctly
the first time. In this state, the errors and stumbling confusion that hampers us in daily life is minimized,
and replaced with a state of pure function that comes of a lack of spiritual doubt about one's course. People
of earth, your fortunes are changing.

If you've got a modicum of intelligence, you are probably depressed, and you were probably born
depressed: society is against you, as it wants to dumb down every aspect of its function to the point where
you will be a misfit and your best efforts will not be appreciated even when successful. You are surrounded
by idiots, and thanks to democracy and consumerism and popularity, they do have greater power than you
- for now. You have no faith in the rotted process of our society, or its calcified judgment, or even life itself,
perhaps, for it has delivered you to this state. Yet this is changing, and the same force of life - call it
nature, God, or chance; your pick - has brought this cycle toward the beginnings of a close. You must have
faith in the process of living and the change it can bring, because at that point, you can see yourself as an
agent of this change. As a wise man once said, "I don't know if what I'm doing will make things better, but
I feel better working toward something in which I believe." That outlook requires leaving behind the comfort
of feeling you cannot change anything, so contenting yourself with distractions like television, drugs, novelty
music and social pressures.

We live in a world of a lack of absolutes. We cannot "prove" what we're doing is right any more than those
who oppose us can, but we can make a firm stand with statements of personal experience and wisdom
such as "I prefer" and "I believe." Nature takes her time, but our environment has changed to the point
where it will no longer favor the foolish with excess, and all of the things that smarter-than-average people
have dreamed of as a means to restore meaning and beauty to our world are returning. The forest will
reclaim the cities, the wilderness our moral souls, and intelligence will storm the walls of our civilization and
plant the banner of "ever upward" over the ruins of contentment, gluttony and placating the crowd. Our
time is coming, and our victory is a choice of our hands and our hard work. Our depression is obsolete, and
the time of our triumph newly dawning. Where will you stand: with those who give up their comfortable
depression and sloth, and take charge toward the future, or those who will through inaction defend the
dying? For me, I prefer to believe. And the more I see, the more I realize that the age of great change is
coming, and the era that has oppressed all the fine things is life is ending in flames and smothering decay.
People of earth, you can similarly be inspired, but you must choose it .

December 30, 2005

Abstraction or Reality?
Modern politics by nature is a science detached from the actual function of society. It deals in abstractions,
or concepts that exist by themselves and refer to the ways we organize those things that provide for our
survival. These concepts are powerful, in that they allow us to make changes to the system as a whole,
but also dangerous, because if they no longer accurately represent the actuality of a situation, they can be
misleading.

Before modern politics, humanity was divided into glorified tribal groups. These "nations" signified people of
common values and culture who ruled themselves according to these ideals, and therefore could not be
grouped with others. As culture is both created by and influences heritage, these nations were also of
similar ethnic heritage. This does not mean they were races of clones, but rather, that each nation directly
represented the interests each population had in common.

With the rise of the modern state, "countries" were no longer grouped by national heritage, but by political
expediency, and thus the former method of politics was considered obsolete. In order to motivate people to
act for the continuance of each society, their leaders organized them around abstractions, such as
"freedom" or common religious interest, and assumed it would operate as well as politics previously had.

Failures of Modernism

However, now that our society has gone down the road of time a bit further, we are seeing some
fundamental flaws in this outlook. Our societies have lost the ability to say "no" to destructive ideas, and as
a result have been unable to avoid disasters such as overpopulation, pollution, crime, drugs, and the like.
Where previous societies could point to a common cultural standard and say, "We are not interested in
behaviors that deviate from this," modern societies try to be all-embracing.

The root of this view lies in the need of modern society to produce laborers for its machines and wars. For
this reason, modern societies treat all individuals as abstract entities which can be shaped into whatever is
needed through training and laws. We can call this view utilitarianism or decentralization, but it started in a
far more innocent idea: that a society based on economic competition of the individual treats its workers
most fairly.

When we start building a society around the abstract "individual," and assume all are the same, we apply a
greater normalizing force that had previously been at work throughout history. By the very nature of such
an idea, it both liberates the worker to make more money, and constrains all who would rise above a crass
lowest common denominator; it is therefore both freedom and oppression at once. In order to keep the
workers appeased, such a system normally has grand rhetoric about "freedom," and pledges to support
whatever each individual desires.

This facilitative view of society is therefore by nature without leadership, as it exists only for the individual,
and because it has no goals in common, does not grant the individual the ability to work for something
larger than the self. It also has a "dumbing down" impulse, because if any one of the people to whom
something is shown cannot understand it, the unity of divergent interests is lost. In political terms, it is
more like herding cattle than achieving a clear goal for the benefit of a population.

The consequence of this illogical design is that civilization, while busy harvesting its workers for the work
value they provide, is also active in uniting them around ever-simpler political goals. Since there is no goal
in common but the continuation of facilitation of the individual, its political objectives normally involve
greater "freedom" and fewer restraints that might lead toward a common goal. In such a system, any
individual attempting to participate in something larger than themselves does so at their peril, as there are
always competitors who conserve that energy and apply it toward self-interest.

As a result of this process, developing over centuries in every-increasing intensity, we have the modern
society, which is such a permissive place it has outlawed any area, no matter how localized, from making
choices about who it admits to its membership. While this is undoubtedly well-intentioned, it is destructive,
as it constitutes a normalization of the population and a reduction of the freedom of the individual to live as
they would desire. For most, their desires do not include any form of collective activity, or any particular
culture, and thus those that desire such things are at an economic and social disadvantage.

Such a tendency is common at the fall of civilizations. Greece, Egypt, Rome and ancient India went through
the same process, first losing a sense of values in common, and then becoming cosmopolitan, multicultural
societies united by nothing greater than a desire for commerce. As a result, both their cultures and
heritages were eroded, causing them to weaken from lack of collective resolve. When trouble finally did
come their way, it crushed them easily, as they could not unite to take action against it.

We are now observing the same things in our modern system. Not only is it bad for the environment, and
for our cultural-ethnic groups, but it is destructive to our souls, as it detaches us from the collective
process of striving and from a sense of community, leaving us as abstract, idealized, individual workers who
are valued only for their labor. For this reason, many now not only have fears about the direction of our
society in the real world, but they also have a spiritual and philosophical void caused by the lack of any
cause except self-fulfillment.

Nationalism

The development of nationalist parties came about shortly after the creation of the modern nation state,
which as mentioned above is categorized by political belief and not desired way of living. Where modern
societies try to out-compete each other with abstract rhetoric, such as the Communism versus Capitalism
drama of the Cold War, nationalist parties appeal to the simple triumph of leaving behind empty
abstractions and embracing reality.

Reality is that, while many want to deny this, we are our bodies; our brains are functions of our physical
selves and the design of those selves. For this reason, much of what makes us comfortable revolves around
the kind of cultural values that shaped our ancestors, and the type of living they would find fulfilling.
Inherently, we prefer to live around those who look like, think like, and have similar preferences to
ourselves.

A further dimension of reality is that, all political abstractions aside, what makes a citizen happy is how well
he or she lives. This includes the basics, such as food and shelter and medicine, but even if the citizen
cannot articulate this, extends to larger concerns such as the health of the local community and the ability
to contribute to its collective welfare. Most people are well-intentioned, and would like to help out their
neighbors and have a social system tailored for the type of people they are.

Nationalism addresses these realities by grouping us according to heritage, and then representing the
interests of that heritage not be engaging in abstract international politics and finance, but by ensuring that
its citizens have a good quality of life and a traditional style of living. This way, they always have a place,
even if there is less radical economic mobility for the most monetarily competitive; they are understood by
those around them, and have the ability to contribute to a community at large.

Most importantly, nationalism rejects the idea that a working society can be formed of people with
fundamentally different interests. Its goal is not, like those of the grand ideologies of Communism and
Capitalism, to take over the world with a one-size-fits-all abstract political ideal. The goal of nationalist
societies is to take care of the people within them, and to allow those people freedom from constant
economic worry so that they can concentrate on being better at what it is that fulfils them: artists creating
better art, farmers growing higher quality crops, plumbers displaying the finest workmanship possible in
their task.

In this type of society, unlike all modern societies, money and politics are returned to their role as functions
for achieving the goals of the population. They become a means to an end, instead of the end in itself. A
facilitative society is based on the opposite principle, namely that there is no end, and therefore the means
- money, comfort, political prestige - are achieved for their own sake. Nationalist societies recognize that
abstractions cannot be sought for their own sake, as only life itself has that position in a healthy existence.
Nationalist societies empower better life. They do not attempt to take everyone, or to take over the world
for some abstract ideal that "seems to" be better, or start wars because people "hate our freedom." They
exist to benefit their citizens and help them grow as a culture, a heritage, and as individuals.

Practicality

When one accepts the wisdom of nationalism, the next task is to apply it. Nationalism's focus on reality
creates a real community, and places focus on culture and people, instead of creating bureaucracies that
try to fit every disparate individual into a cookie-cutter mold labeled "Individual." Even further, it withdraws
from international politics by avoiding pursuit of money or abstract ideologies, and turns its focus inward on
its citizens.

Stating a belief in nationalism itself is only a start, because nationalism is also a means to an end (the
people) and must be further interpreted in every issue that confronts us. As it has, unlike modern political
systems, an overall organizational principle of a practical nature, this is not a difficult task, but it is
important for nationalists to quickly overcome the difference between nationalism and modernism and
focus on the practical issues that threaten our stability as cultures.

Fortunately our societies still retain much of their traditional cultures, although another few generations of
modernist politics may obliterate that in a flood of mass-culture products. We must replace the euphonious
but empty abstractions of modernity with a focus on daily life, which requires that we give up the right/left
divisions assumed as necessary in contemporary politics. After all, we no longer have allegiance to a
political entity, but to a practical one: our people as selected by culture and heritage.

In this state of mind, we can actually confront the things that threaten us, including the need to find new
energy sources; the imperative of restraining our reckless growth; the necessity of cleaning up pollution so
we do not all die of cancers; the demand for stable, reduced crime cities where families can have normal
lives without having to constantly be on the defensive. These are the ultimate goals of a nationalist party,
as these are what our citizens need, but our outlook is not limited to that.

If one uses nationalism wisely, it is not only to stave off disasters, but to encourage growth of a society.
Our culture has taken a back seat to television and pop music; our people have become seen only for their
profit potential to industry. This has happened because we have refused to find a commonality in
preferences, in part because we're unwilling to group nations by culture and heritage. Nationalism reverses
this entire trend in history, and therefore, represents the best hope of humankind.

July 13, 2005

Animosity
Humans operate like a giant chemical reaction: when enough of the reagents are in contact, something
happens - an explosion, a synthesis, or a neutralization. As evidenced by the increasing amount of coverage
given racial issues, the reaction on this issue is imminent in America and Europe. As someone who would
like to live in a sane world, preferrably one in which we are headed in an upward (not to be confused with
"progressive," which assumes we can invent a substitute for nature that's utopic) direction, I like to inject
my viewpoint where I can do so, and often find years later that people were indeed reading and took the
ideas to heart. I hope the same happens here.

The racial issue simmers for now. Most people, having their hands full with lives and families, are not
inclined to let something blow up unless it's so far out of control that they see nothing other way; this is
why humanity loves tragedies, as they emulate our own course of history, where events remain
backgrounded until something extreme must happen. The extreme will happen, although it's hard for us to
believe as we journey from air conditioned homes to stores to offices. We didn't think oil would ever run
out, or that environmental damage would come back to haunt us, but the perfect worldview in which we
are disconnected from external, natural forces has been pierced there and will also be shattered in the case
of the racial issue. It's a question of time, and how we organize our thoughts.

If we tackle this issue honestly, now, we will be able to not only fix the problems of the past but avert the
future disasters that lurk anytime one applies a temporary fix and then relies on it as if it were a
foundation. For us to tackle this issue requires that we locate our own natural instincts and, instead of
suppressing them like we dress up sweaty bodies in business suits and euphemize death at parties,
explicate them and understand their wisdom. Part of life is trusting the course of life itself; the origin of this
course is what we call "nature," which I see as an order to the entire cosmos that operates in ways not
immediately visible to human (through meditation, philosophy or any other form of consistent structural
thought they can be seen).

When we analyze the racial issue, it appears at first to be one of identity. We see ourselves as part of a
heritage, and within that, a familial line. Our identity in this context however is not like a social identity, or
a manufactured position in an arbitrary hierarchy of things we say and do, but is a symbolic reference to
our pasts as they are encoded in our genetics. Our heritage represents the work of our ancestors; even
more, it represents our own potential, as it is the design for the machines which are our bodies - and in
them, as part of them, our minds. Alcoholic uncles and genius grandfathers are things we inherit and must
deal with, as they're part of our makeup, much as a car which uses an older design of oil pump has
corresponding strengths and weaknesses. Genetics is the design of our selves, and much as our intelligence
and strength and physical appearance are not only limited by have a place on a strata from good to best,
represents abilities and failings.

Our goal in each of our lives is to move upward, and by pushing our machine to its potential with
discipline, education and experience, to further develop the design. This is a form of evolution, except that
as tool-making animals, we're in charge of it - not our predators, as would be the case with a mouse or
raven. Our raw abilities are determined at birth, as are the basics of our personalities, but through hard
work we can make these better. There is no escape from this cycle. We can pretend, but as we age and
our accomplishments are shown (or fail to materialize), the lie is revealed and we are seen for what we are.
Much as our society fears nakedness, and the possibility of a small penis or saggy breasts, it also fears this
revelation, as no degree of knowing people and being known can obscure what we are.

For this reason, we cannot become something different by breeding with a radical opposite; what is
produced is a fusion of traits, none of which are separate from their genetic past. Randomness occurs, and
as with all things in nature, no magic sudden solution to every problem emerges. From this realization we
see that we are our heritage, and there is no escape from it except by furthering it along the course of its
design. Further, we see that if we want to rise in life, the only way is by evolving upward, as everything
else over time is shown as a stinking lie covered with fancy words and ostentatious gestures. The potential
of our grandparents, and theirs and those of generations before them, lies within us, as do their failings.
We either recognize this and work toward bettering ourselves, or in denial, we make random decisions and
have random results, which means that for each trait our offspring have, it will be a coin toss.

This is the root of the racial issue: as populations, we wish to continue existing as an unbroken ethnic and
cultural line so that we may better ourselves. Those who want some radical easy solution to this, such as
race mixing, are hoping for a Disney-like magic pathway that ends all of their problems at once. Life isn't
that simple, because if it were, it would rapidly collapse from a tendency to achieve extremes without
addressing the details that make outcomes possible. It is not some religious aspect to nature that makes
this so, but basic mathematics: a certain degree of complexity is needed, and it requires attention to its
manipulation. Recognizing that easy answers do not exist, and that we are a product of our past, forces us
to recognize the importance of ethnic-cultural heritage.

For this reason, not "identity," those among us who are realistic and have the heroic outlook of wanting to
live life well will choose to breed within their own race and tribe, and even more, to try to acquire the best
mate they can so that their children exceed them in ability, physicality and moral character. People who do
not choose to make this decision are hoping to get away with an evasive and simplistic approach to life,
and they seem to achieve it, until one looks at the results over the next generations. It is this desire to
breed well, and to have people around oneself which are of similar inclinations and values, that is the root
of the racial problem.

Too many people try to argue that negroes are inferior or stupid or criminal, and therefore, "scientifically,"
that we shouldn't breed with them. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant. They're lying to themselves
when they say this is the reason. The truth of the matter is that healthy people, no matter how "superior"
the potential mixed mate might be, do not breed outside their own tribe, because to do so is not only to
give up on the past but to embrace an illusion of a one-shot fix. Combining radically different designs does
not magically produce a superior design, but a chaotic one, and while it may have some strengths, it will
lack overall direction and refinement - it will lack evolutionary upward potential. In modern society, where
the requirements of us are a) get job b) buy things and c) entertain self, it is often hard to see how abilities
degenerate through mixing, but when one looks at the intangible qualities of life, like moral character and
overall togetherness as personalities, this truth is undeniable.

The idea of arguing "superior" and "inferior" in an absolute context is not only futile, but distracts from the
essential mission, which is to breed upward within each of our tribes. In those tribes, anything which is of
that ethnic-cultural heritage is "superior" for the purpose of being of that tribe; when breeding within the
group, each individual picks the person who seems most likely to enhance their own abilities in the next
generation. The natural wisdom of this idea is not accessible to everyone, as it requires time to think it out
and a brain capable of the complexity required. However, it is the root of racial animosity: when other
tribes are present, breeding becomes fragmented, and the original tribe is destroyed.

When racial animosity is thus created, it too often takes the form of bigotry, or blaming one's problems on
the other races. This is a perceptual error, because the actual root of the problem is the presence of the
other races, and most of them will be oblivious to this condition. One does not obliterate their presence by
obliterating them, but by changing society in such a way that its shared values exclude the idea of putting
different tribes together in the same communities. Every single instance of racial animosity on earth fits into
this pattern, and every single one of them is cured when those involved turn from a hopeless task (wanting
to destroy another race) to a positive one (altering social values to exclude the possibility of racial/tribal
mixing).

As an individual, I feel no anger toward other individuals who are of other races. Toward many of them I
may feel friendship, respect, or even love. There is nothing wrong with them, but there is a great wrong if I
attempt to obliterate my heritage by mixing with something radically different, as they are. There is also
something sick and wrong when for social reasons I must deny biology, and pretend that evolution did not
happen in different rates in different races. It is natural to have friendship for others, but to feel hatred and
anger at the thought of mixed-race breeding. It is self-preservation, and preservation of the ability to rise
upward in genetics by refining what one is. It is an assertion of hope over the hopelessness of living a lie
that will be discovered only in future generations.
For this reason, I have often provocatively slandered organizations that assert either a) other races are
somehow inferior or b) that racial mixing is not only acceptable, but superior. Both groups make no sense
in the context of observation of nature, and both promote destructive agendas. For example, most "white
power" groups would breed all white people together into one mass of uncertain heritage. That is stupid;
breeding Germans among Germans produces better Germans, where mixing white people together
produces generic couch-sitters like the type that predominate among England, the USA and Canada,
making those places not surprisingly the most frivolous, revengeful, directionless places on earth. "White
power" and "white nationalist" groups would like to destroy their own race by obliterating its heritage
through tribal mixing.

By the same token, "anti-racists" are mental defectives who wish to cast aside nature and heritage and
replace it with social factors, thus never improving the designs of themselves or others. The kind of person
to whom this belief appeals has generally suffered abuse trauma, is low in confidence and secretly wishes
to tear down anyone with more (wealth, power, looks, brains, character) than themselves. Anti-racism is
revenge against those who wish to do what is healthy. Because our society politicizes its youth through
television and music, it often creates people who are "anti-racists" for a few years, before they realize that
"ending racism" has nothing to do with the question of our human future. It's a sideshow, and only those
so directionless that they need personal drama to feel justified in surviving perpetuate it.

Our racial cauldron is coming to a boil. Already there are forces divided who will fight over its future. On
the left are those who would destroy all race, and breed us into a languid population of no heritage; they
do not realize that by doing so, they are fulfilling the ultimate aims of corporations, for whom culture is an
impediment to the sale of products. On the right are the bigots, who would unite us by race but not by
tribe, thus reducing our heritage to a lowest common denominator within our race. Both sides are fueled by
out of control emotions, revenge and reactionary impulses. Neither should predominate.

If instead of getting tied up in the absurdly confrontational demands of politics, we turn to nature for
understanding, we can see that multiculturalism is a poison to our genetics and future. We can see why it is
that we can love someone of our own race who is of lesser ability, yet not breed with them, and love those
of other races, yet never breed with them. We are literally working to better our own designs, and through
that, to better ourselves and our children as people. This recognition that we are not self-created
personalities, but extensions of a design beyond our control, threatens most people in the same way that
not euphemizing death does. It's time we grew up, and accepted life for its hard facts and great beauties
alike, and therefore resolve to fix the racial issue instead of polarizing it into hysterical and violent reactions
with no clear solution in sight.

June 26, 2005

Cynicism
How nice it would be to be numb, we think sometimes, as in the current era, those who notice more and
can think farther into the future are punished for this ability. To be aware, and to connect the dots on the
map of this society's future, is to notice an oblivion into which we inexorably walk. Even more, it is to be
aware of history as at least recently a giant chronicle of failures.

Even more, it is to note how in nature, there is never "freedom" from competition for survival. Species wipe
themselves out all the time. And even if we are the only life in our corner of the universe, there is nothing
to say life is not developing elsewhere. We are expendable; there is no religious, moral or historical reason
why we, humanity, or we, any specific group within humanity, must survive.

This of course plays into our observation that in recent history most ideas start out healthy and rapidly
degenerate into either nothingness or a pale shadow of themselves. To know things is to be a bit cynical, in
the modern meaning of the word, which signifies a distrusted of all stated motives and a doubtful glance
cast at the survival prospects of those doctrines and groups that state them. Cynicism does not require an
exact prediction of our future, only a certain degree of detection of illusion.

For example, it may be that most people were caught unawares by the sudden rise in gasoline prices, but
to many among us, it was a matter of time before something drove up the price - after all, it's a finite
resource. Do the math. At some point, all finite things run out. Yet if you had watched our media, politicians
and the conversations of most people from a neutral vantage point, up until very lately there would have
been no indication of such a thing. We were in denial.

This principle extends toward society at large. Turn on a television, or talk with the average person, and
you're barraged with possibilities and advantages within the world order we have. Yet there's an autumnal
sadness to this, also, in that it is immediately obvious that the speakers see only tangible advantages, and
have no idea of the direction of the system as whole. Even collapsing empires have advantages. No one will
articulate these possibilities.

From the perspective of parents, of course, there are questions that keep one up at night. If our society is
moving ahead so swimmingly, why do so many fundamental problems endure? In other words, what are we
leaving for our children to inherit - promise, or the labor of cleaning up the past? And there's always the
disturbing thought that we've finally pushed over the line, and done something so destructive that we
thrust them into a world where they fight for their lives, possibly against something as undefeatable as
climate change or cancers from nuclear fallout or international combat over water supplies.

To have awareness in this world is to have a sinking feeling in the pit of one's stomach, noting that while
right now everything seems okay, if we were to plot this society's trends on a graph we would find that -
absent the arbitrary factors of measurement like economy, morality, politics and entertainment - the curves
we see point toward eventual failure on the scale of sooner more than later. That no one discusses this,
and that many of these topics are actually taboo and mention of them brings covert recrimination upon the
speaker, affirms a sick reality: our society is violently in denial of its own future.

This has gone on for many years, and no one has really spoken up because the majority of the people in
our society would be offended by that, and would work hard to shut that person down. We're familiar with
religious executions, political instability, Alien and Sedition Acts. We know people languish in prison for
thought crimes; this is a country where in the same year you could get thrown in jail for being extreme
right or left. The law is don't rock the boat; it's bad for business and upsets people. Thus for years those
with intimations of the future have kept quiet. Speak up and be destroyed? Well, then, do the best you can
for yourself and your kids.

In other words, this one will have to run its course. However, the psychological damage of that outlook is
massive, because in assuming it, one invites despair into one's house. Cynicism takes two forms in human
beings. The least profound of the two is a somnolent depression by which one comes to see no future, and
to embrace futility, including a negative faith in oneself and others. It is bitter, but self-reflexive; this
cynicism creates nothing but an unhappy, silent person. The other cynicism reaches deeper by forcing the
person to give up on value, instead of merely assuming negative value.

This other kind of cynicism takes for granted that nothing can be done about the situation, and thus
justifies the kind of aggressive self-enrichment that in previous years was thought to be immoral. However,
this behavior is now the standard, from corporate boardrooms to presidential candidates to people working
counter at sandwich shops. There is no solution, goes the logic, therefore, take what you can and have a
good time, because it will all come crashing down someday. While it's hard to logic against this point of
view from the perspective of personal benefit, one wonders: what damage does this do to our minds and
the regulator of our emotions and hopes, the soul?

Probably science has "proven" that the soul does not exist, but it seems to this author that the soul is a
property of the mind. Much as emotions are a form of logic, the soul is a type of organization, something
that assesses all of what makes us alive at once and uses it to posit a direction. Do we have personalities?
The grandfather of personality is the soul: it is what ultimately we value, and therefore, how we know for
what we'd give our lives. It's the part of us that understands the necessity for love and thus is capable of it.
It's the part of us that appreciates life enough to want to give back, during healthy times.

The soul is what gives us reason to understand a classical symphony, and to parse our own feelings to
draw a conclusion, and to apply it to our life. That is what the soul is, perhaps: a conductor of our Will, of
our capacity to see the possibilities of life even when in dire situations. Our ancestors, living out endless
winters in Arctic caves, doubtless had quite a presence of soul. The greatest among us have a single
quality that unites them, and that is the ability to hold on to an idea and to labor against all odds and
without praise until it is accomplished; in that there are the stirrings of soul. If science proves there is no
soul, we should fund research to find out what "acts like the soul."

It is in this area that our cynicism is damaging. The first kind of cynicism is depression; the second kind is
opportunism. Both afflict us unduly, as populations, in that half of us are mutely watching the disaster
unfold and the other half, long having given up on doing anything positive, are acting as agents of its
decline. Perhaps this is why to many our society seems demonic and threatening; it lacks a soul, thanks to
its inherent cynicism, a spiritual darkness reflected in its materialism and callousness toward all finer things,
including our natural environment and heritage. We cannot prove those have monetary value, so they are
solely the province of the soul.

Cynicism is oddly comforting because it gives us a clear statement of what we're doing. "There is no hope,
so enjoy what you can," terminates the question of whether or not we should be trying. Although the
message is negative, the ability to pronounce judgment and thus stop struggling with the question is
comforting. It is like deciding that there are or are not monsters under the bed, as a child; either way, one
goes to sleep, either accepting sure death or trusting in solitude. The power of cynicism is that it ends the
constant mental dialogue over whether or not there is hope.

If I could give one gift to my people, it would be for even a moment to free them of this pervasive
cynicism; to show them that while the situation may be dire, and while most do not see it, nothing is yet
lost. We are still here and we still strive for something better, something that can be measured only in the
soul. Although history has treated us badly, and affliction from within has diminished our strength, we can
reclaim the greatness of past if we concentrate and work toward the ideal that we see. The future is ours if
we choose to inherit it. The first step toward that, however, is abandoning our cynicism.

March 23, 2006

Elites and Masses
The political spectrum is irretrievably divided into left and right not from a sense of utility, but because it is
useful to the powers that be that we be so divided by identity. Those on the right can roughly be described
as traditionalists, and those on the left, reformers. The traditionalists believe that the fundamentals of
society, morality and culture have not changed, and thus we should uphold the values of our ancestors.
The reformers, on the other hand, believe the past is a horrible nightmare and it is somehow obsolete, and
thus we must repeal the traditions of past, and remove the "elites" that uphold them.

To engage in right-left rhetoric is pointless, but it is useful to give the idea of "elites" some context. When
revolutionaries - or progressives, or liberals, or reformers; the terms are roughly convertible - talk about
"elites," they mean a small group that's in power and rules the rest for its own benefit. To hear them talk
of it, the same few people have been ruling the world for centuries, concentrating strength and wealth, all
at the expense of the rest of us. In fact, they see a diametrical opposition between the "elites" and the
"workers," where the former live off the work of the latter because the elites own the means of production.

It's a bit simplified in civilized liberalism, which is not quite as blatant as communism, but everything on the
left (like everything on the right) is a matter of degrees of the same idea. Where they're right is that elites
definitely form, and because they own things, they compel others to work for them. Where they're wrong is
the composition of these elites, and what keeps them in power. In this crucial distinction we can see where
right and left not only agree, but could work together to build a better future.

Elites exist because in any power structure, someone needs to make the decisions. In a system based on
ownership, someone is going to own the whole mess, and other people will work for them. Now, in a
traditional system, ownership is not the primary goal, because culture and heritage take precedence over
something as trivial as money. Such systems find their elites by ability, and usually have some form of
aristocratic caste of the most able people. This is an actual elite by ability, a "meritocratic" elite, where in
ownership-only societies, the elite is picked by wealth as its sole factor. This is why traditional
conservatives, while they favored individual ownership over some abomination like Communism, were not
gung-ho about unchecked capitalism. Culture, heritage, and the best interests of the people - as interpreted
by capable leaders - came first.

In our modern society, elites exist because of the purchasing and voting power of the masses. These elites
are relatively new, and have nothing in common with the old European aristocracy, the previous "elite" that
the left targeted during revolutions in France and Russia, among other places. These elites occur because
they created a product that the vast majority of people wanted. These products do not necessarily
correspond to what is best for the population; in fact, there seems to be an inverse relationship. Coca-cola,
McDonald's, wasteful SUVs, cigarettes, plastic junk, pornography... all of these make millionaires, and those
millionaires are our elites.

So while the left is correct that elites swing us around by the nose, what they fail to understand is that
these elites exist because most of us make poor decisions in purchasing products, and thus make wealthy
power mongers out of fools. The elites are created by the needs of the masses. Thus it is hard to say who
is actually "in control," since the elites get to their position by interpreting the desires of the masses, and if
they do not gain approval by the vast majority of people, will not make enough money to be elites. In the
traditional leftist view, the elites command the rest of us; in this more detailed view, we see how the elites
are given the right to command us: through the lowest common denominator behavior of the masses.

What rational society, after all, would allow unchecked growth (including reckless immigration which
introduces competing cultures), unless it benefited business? The interest of business is selling products,
preferably, cheaper ones, and the widest segment of society wants that regardless of collateral damage or
long-term costs. The wiser among us might caution that cheap, disposable products and reckless
immigration are destructive, but to the average person, all that matters is the bottom line. And cheaper
products enable those with less money to live as if they had more. The people want it and because of that,
the elites provide it.
As humanity grew, it moved from smaller communities to large centralized ones, and began to use options
such as democracy and the "invisible hand" of market economies to govern itself, since it could no longer
rely on a system of wise elders in every local area. It is this very tendency, the cornerstone of modernity,
to rule by proxy that has made our societies grow distant from reality and reach a stage where
consumption demands by the least-capable segment of society, its broadest mass section, is the primary
guiding force, and the elites, instead of ruling over this horde, are in fact ruled by it and gain their elite
position from its favor. This is modernity, and while traditionalists outright oppose it, liberals (reformers)
loathe its effects.

From a leftist position, this society oppresses its masses by keeping them as virtual slaves to its
corporations and economy. This much is true. Despite the cheaper products, the plight of the worker has
not improved at all under modernity, and in exchange for the "freedoms" of consumerism and economic
competition, the worker has lost a guaranteed place in a hierarchy that provided for his or her basic needs
and restrained silly impulses that today displace many through gambling, drug addiction, bankruptcy and
neurosis. From a rightist position, this society oppresses all of us by holding us hostage to the preferences
of the masses, both through democracy and our choice of products.

After all, in a society where people cannot tell the difference between quality and garbage, no one will
make money selling quality, or at least, will find their market so reduced that they cannot compete on a
broad scale. There is no longer a reward in doing things the right way, but there is always reward in doing
things the lowest common denominator way. Our old elites, who specialized in doing things the right way,
have given way to a new elite, whose goal is to satisfy whatever urge the broadest spectrum of society
thinks it has. Unlike the old elites, the new elite do not care about consequences. Their only goal is their
personal wealth, accruing.

The consequence of this pattern over the past two thousand years has been a steady migration toward an
acephalous society. We no longer have leaders; we have public image experts, who seek to pacify the
broadest spectrum of society and quash dissent. They do not lead in the sense of choosing the best
decision, regardless of its popularity, but they "lead" in the sense that they find what is popular and do it.
Thus the least capable, en masse, lead us and the capable are shouted down. Luckily for our new
"leaders," there is no accountability. At some point, they throw up their hands and say "we ran out of
money" and that is the end of the issue. It's a far cry from the accountability leaders faced under traditional
reign.

If there is a solution to this mess it lies in returning to localized rule. When one human encounters a
problem, a decision is always rendered. Add more humans, and the chance of finding a course of action is
proportionately less likely. If a room full of executives, a committee, cannot come to a clear decision in
most cases, what is the prognosis for a virtual room of 300 million? We are holding each other hostage by
our lack of leadership, and in the meantime, the lowest common denominator prevails. Perhaps leftists and
rightists alike can learn from traditional societies, where local groups were bound to land and spoken for by
elders of the community. If that is the case, it is a good time for convergence, as clearly both groups desire
and end to the rule of the elite masses.

March 23, 2006

Hidden Reality
If you were going to cross a river on the low-hanging limb of a tree, you would test that branch quite
carefully before fully entrusting your weight to it. When we interact with our world, we depend on a mental
representation of reality to accurately predict what will happen in response to our actions. The simplest
example of this is knowing not to grab a hot stove, as it will result in burns. More complex examples come
about in philosophy and politics. It is this mental model of reality that is the branch between concept and
reality, and it is this that allows us to not only survive but to put our dreams into action.

When people in the 1960s started talking about reality being a consensual hallucination, what they meant
was that what we know of reality is how we predict the world will respond to given actions. Like natural
laws, these are things we've learned via something resembling the scientific method: they are repeatable,
predictable actions. Hold a ball three feet off the ground, drop it, and it will fall. Grab a hot stove, and it will
burn you. These easy examples are undeniable, but the more complex aspects of modern civilization were
up for grabs. How do we know that Communism will obliterate our lifestyle? That relativism is a disease?
That we shouldn't have an FBI keeping files on each one of us? And so forth.

It is for this reason that we find ourselves returning to arguments like "what is real?" and "does truth exist?
" In our modern society, which is an inorganic political entity based upon the nation-state, there is no
shared philosophical basis to a society and thus answers are expected to vary widely between individuals.
The consequence is a lack of shared knowledge, which means that each individual must discover a
philosophy for themselves. This sounds good on paper, until one realizes that between school, jobs and
family, the average individual doesn't have the time, and most of them do not have the intellectual focus
required either. There are more exciting things than reading philosophy, for most of us.

Realizing that we live without any irrefutable knowledge of the nature of reality, we must next see how
fragile our conception of the world really is. We know most of it secondhand. We are taught things by
authority figures (scientists, priests, leaders) and we absorb them from entertainment (news, movies, TV,
radio) and we get them via social means (friends, rumors, sayings). And since our world is massively
complex, we do not get our reality from a single source, but have to stack secondhand sources one on top
of the other to provide a whole picture of the massively complex and overwhelming world in which we live.
Not only must we adapt to nature, but we must memorize and be familiar with any number of methods of
technological society. Language. Economics. Psychology.

This tower of dependent assumptions is one of the fundamental control mechanisms in modern society.
Because we believe that most murderers get caught, and the penalty is necessarily high, there is a
"deterrent" to encourage us not to murder. Since we expect that working hard gets us a reward, we work
hard and accept what we are given as rewarding. Whether or not this is a benevolent control mechanism or
not, it is effective, and it makes us even more dependent on getting accurate reality data to act upon. The
massive and diversely specialized nature of modern society means that none of us know the whole of any
situation, and thus are dependent on others for vital information. All of us are at the mercy of others,
depending on the accuracy of their perceptions and their intellectual honesty for knowledge about our
world.

As the alert reader might guess, the main issue here is the intent behind the actions of others; "honesty"
means, roughly, that the way individuals act is not geared exclusively toward self-interest. However, our
society is built on that very principle, since all of its moderating influences - shared Northern European
culture, checks and balances, a strong spiritual belief - have been stripped away, leaving us with a version
of capitalism that cannot coexist with culture. In fact, there is only one absolute commandment in a
capitalist multicultural society: you cannot trust others to share your values, so get money and buy yourself
out of the stream of laborers. It's the American dream, part II. Get your millions and find a way to exist so
that you are not dependent upon or subject to the values of others, which are not expected to coincide with
your own.

That this was not the founding principle of our society, as originally intended, is clear, but it is safe to say
that it is what remains of the once-vaunted American system. The land of opportunity requires vicious
competition for money, and since we no longer have a culture or values system in common, money
becomes the level on which we fight, with a few nods to public security (no treason, no murder, no
pedophilia). This unfortunately translates into something of vital importance to our impression of reality: it
is entirely controlled by autonomous individuals seeking to enrich themselves, and thus manipulating
"reality" with image. While this is probably not a newsflash for anyone, in the context of our ability to
perceive our world accurately at all, it is a sobering thought.

For example, what is left our of press is now called the "news-entertainment media." This sobriquet was
earned by the diligent practice of using sensationalistic practices to sell newspapers, a habit which like a
cancer grew to now include almost all news, such that every story has some kind of spin or scare to it.
News must be profitable. This means it must be closer to entertainment, and that it must not offend
existing advertisers, and that it succeeds the most when it attracts new advertisers. Like a harlot on a
streetcorner, our news-entertainment media seeks to make even the most mundane events into profitable
transactions!

Let us look closer at what it means to have advertisers sponsoring different functions of our society. From a
financial point of view, it's important to get someone to pay for these things. But when we step back from
the artificial rules we make to encourage commerce, we see that our modern society is effectively covered
in advertising like a graffitti wall. If you go to a baseball game, you see more brand names than baseballs.
Driving down a street, you see billboards, posters, shop signs and signposts bearing the names of owners
or sponsors. The four hours of television left on in the average American household project commercials
several times an hour, often for up to a quarter of the total time of each program. Open the mailbox, and
commercial messages fall out like fish from a net.

Commerce in itself is not an evil, but when it is not regulated by cultural accord, it quickly takes over all
other values. In the case of advertising, we have allowed not only our public spaces to become signposts
for sponsors, but we have allowed advertisers - via their flexibility in choosing one outlet over another - to
select what it is that will be funded, and thus what we can or cannot see. Your public television station is
dependent on funding from corporate sponsors, and what they're willing to fund determines what is shown.
It may be replayed in your child's classroom, alongside "educational" products whose existence is
determined by investors who believe them to be profitable. Even their textbooks are an industry now, thus
will succumb to several golden rules of business, the first being not to offend. In short, your reality is
controlled by money in that non-profitable information <i>will not find a publisher</i> in the mainstream,
everyday world.

Sure, you can head off and find an underground publisher - if you knew you needed one. But you will still
be surrounded by friends and family members who, not knowing any better, will parrot what they've heard
from the television and their fellow citizens. Their opinions will be designed to be profitable. It is not a
conspiracy that does this, unless something unorganized can be a conspiracy. It is the independent actions
of many individuals following the same basic rules of making money, and therefore, becoming frighteningly
similar in their motivations and in what they will admit to in any public depiction of "reality." Their collusion
does not require them to organize, or have a plan; like a cancer it is the breakdown of order, and the
consequent growth of things which know nothing but greed. Its agents are not intending harm. All they
want is to make a profit and go home, but that as a goal before all else is harmful.

If the other bank of the river is truth, and truth is knowing how our thoughts correspond to their effects in
reality, our branch is our knowledge of the ways of the world. There is another reality hidden among us,
one that is radically different from what is profitable and thus publically acknowledged. This hidden reality
describes the world as it functions, not how we think it should function or the type of pleasant illusion of its
function that sells cars, condoms, stocks or hamburgers. In this hidden existence, the only truth is physical
reality itself and how our actions actually turn out, not our good intentions or polite taboos. We would not
discover this hidden reality if it were not for the gradual breakdown of our public, consensual "reality" as its
failures come to light.

The reality-illusion supported by profit and politeness is not a new event. It has been with us for over a
thousand years, eating away at our ability to grasp the actuality of our situation and thus better it. Its
origin is a desire to please those who are not of distinctive abilities, and to use them as a means of seizing
power, since they are more numerous than those who know better and can inherently see reality as it
actually is. This mass revolt has been ongoing with disastrous consequences, as it replaces intelligent
leaders with shrewd and immoral businesspeople, and it functions both to oppress the masses by using
them for profit, and to empower them with economic competition, so that their participation makes such
profit possible. Logical? Perhaps not, but like a cancer, it is marked not by logic, but by sheer parasitic
aggression.

In the last few years, the groaning dread that has hidden in the pits of our stomachs and our ancestor's
stomachs has finally gotten a voice. Oil is running out. Climate change is real. Pollution and cancer are
suddenly unavoidable. Constant war looms on the horizon, and our cities are suddenly noticeably turning
into slums. Demographically and culturally, our old neighborhoods - the comfortable, gentle places of the
1940s through 1980s - are gone, replaced by miles of concrete and plastic signs and violent, alienated,
cultureless city dwellers. Television has become more important than books, profit more important than
friendship, and marketing more important than truth. This is a decay that has lurked within for a long time,
and perhaps the only way to fight it is to make the hidden reality once again what we acknowledge to be
truth.

March 23, 2006

A Bumper Crop of Stupid
If you were a foreign leader trying to find out the reason for the social collapse of Indo-European society,
you would send an intelligent spy into one of their countries. This spy would immediately be alienated. He
or she would be surrounded by people whose ambitions in life are a job where they can avoid offending
others, a football team to cheer, toys (cars, computers, stereos, instruments) and a vacation every 12
months or so. For these people, religion is an accessory to their personality, as is politics and even
philosophy. They live for nothing except their things and the only bond they understand between people is
manipulation. While we cannot call these people stupid in the sense that they can handle some intelligent
tasks, when we look at how they live and what they value we must consider them to be "talking monkeys
with car keys" as Kam Lee says.

Your spy would realize in a sickening moment of impact that the intelligent people among the Indo-
Europeans are in fact more alienated than a foreign spy. They must conceal their intelligence, as if it is
noticed, it may be acted against by those driven by envy or resentment; they must hide their knowledge of
how ideas turn out in the long term, and try to filter out the constant stupidity around them. Your neighbor
thinks educating people without brains will solve the crisis; his neighbor thinks that giving us all more free
money will. Who can even listen to such opinions without laughing at the sheer emptiness of them? The
smarter ones must hide their reactions, have no opinions, and serve in jobs and social capacities designed
for people much dumber than them. They are the ultimate minority, a hunted few who survive only by
disguising themselves as normal dysfunctional people.

We all know how it happened. Someone who wanted to gain power against someone smarter cooked up
this idea called "equality," which made his serfs equal to the king in their minds - little kings of their half-
acres. They ran to the castle with weapons, demanding equality, and as the knights in the castle were
depleted by war and outnumbered, won a battle, and crowed their triumph to the world. We are free from
inequality! Now we can all reign superior in our little worlds. From this point on, anyone who rose above
the crowd in ability or moral logic would be crushed; anyone beautiful or talented would be manipulated by
money and pleasures of the flesh until they debased themselves. It was seen as suspicious to want more
than what one's neighbors had, and though it took time for this victory of the little kings to spread across
the world, now it has taken hold.

Fortunately for it, with it came great wealth. Based on the knowledge of the past, we were able to
maneuver a few inventions - digital switching, internal combustion, mass production - into an economy of
many technologies and riches which are essentially derivations of those few core inventions. This let the
stupid grow and interestingly, they even produced a few geniuses - but what do you call a genius with
technology who has no skills of judgment, leadership or morality? - a smart moron? They are all the same,
these people of simple pleasures and humble paranoia, because they are shaped from a demand that we all
be the same, which in itself came from the fears of the serfs that they would not be kings, which led them
to despise their condition and falsify another one. By rising up in importance in their own minds, they felt
as if they controlled their own lives, had gained power over them and might even have beat death through
some metaphysical importance of their new position. Their fears, and the needs of greedy and selfish
rulers, brought about this revolt, not some kind of altruism based on what is "right." After all, what is right
is what works best for the whole of us and environment alike, and that... well, it may take many years to
see that one.

This is not to say that these hordes of stupid people are bad; they're just serfs. Harvesting crops, taking
care of livestock, fixing roads and bridges, maybe even some basic artisan skills: these are the limits of
their judgment capacity and moral logic, and to these areas, in a sane world, they'd be confined. Instead,
they're out there proving how "equal" they are -- to a genius, the previous phrase was a punchline. Most
people cannot see why what the sheep do is destructive and wrong, therefore completely fail to notice the
"equality" they prove is inequality. These people are generally friendly, and don't mean ill, but they're also
not in control of their own minds, mostly because of their desperate attempts to control their external
surroundings. A spy from a foreign land might wonder: if these people ever stopped manipulating each
other for such selfish ends, they might get somewhere.
Of course, to stand up in a gathering of your fellow citizens now and to say that we're on the wrong path
will prompt angry shouts that prove your point unwittingly. Most people think we're doing just fine, but their
motivation is purely for themselves and does not consider the whole of our system, thus they literally do
not care if we self-destruct, as long as they become "equal," they get a color TV like their neighbor has,
they have a home team that wins the StuporBowl, etc. When they express satisfaction with our society, it is
because they feel rewarded, not that they think we're on the path to something right, in the end - they
don't care. Most are unwilling to think beyond their lifetimes, even if they breed. This shows us how difficult
it is to construct an organism that looks and plans ahead and has a benevolent will toward life, even when
it must do non-benevolent things to some. Most people are intelligent at a basic level, but several sigma
away from the state at which they would make competent leaders. They're serfs and in a sane society, their
political influence would be limited to their fields and cattle.

However, they point out, brightly, that things are going well. We all have equal cable television, and our
home teams each have a chance at the SuperBowl, equality of opportunity and all that. If you put your
head down and work hard, you can have a great job and house in the suburbs and trophy wife, or you
might even get totally rich if you're cleverer than most of the monkeys. Why would you want to jeopardize
that? There are a few who do, because they see where the path of illusion is leading, and how the march
of the little kings will take us into oblivion. The first writing is on the wall, too: suicide a leading cause of
death; cancers keep rising even as smoking falls; global climate change is wreaking havoc; pollution and
violence and ugliness force us to increasingly limited places to live, which forces us to earn more money,
which means that soon we're creatures "of the office" who appear at random to our families. And then,
how surprising is it that the wife or husband strays and starts screwing the UPS delivery person? How
surprising is it that our kids end up on drugs, addicted to crime, or vapid and witless?

Well, don't forget, things are going well, but the question is: for whom? Perhaps beneath the roots of
mountains a Satanic bellow is heard as the master celebrates having enslaved us all by leading us toward
positive things (freedom, wealth, equality) that come at the highest price - the sacrifice of what we could
achieve together, namely civilization itself as its own pleasures. Who can love in a time like this? Who can
trust a friend? And who trusts the government, which is made up of people as insane and flaky as our
fellow citizens? You've got a bumper crop of morons here, sir. And they mean business. Nature is merciful
and therefore, they lack the consciousness to see what they have wrought. While things are "going well" in
this five-year span, or in some idealized view of history as a whole, to someone who actually tracks the
quality of human beings and their ideas, we are entering a whole new kind of dark age brought about by
the needs of the little kings and the bumper crop of stupid they have bred. It may take twenty years, or
fifty, but we're nearing the end of this cycle, and soon it will become evident that the selfishness of the
serfs and not the elitism of kings took us from the height of civilization to a menial, worthless existence fit
only for the stupid.

March 7, 2006
Open Your Eyes
The internet - a bold new frontier in media. Not only does it escape the necessity of being confined to a
single channel to receive information, but it also enables users to be publishers. Radio and television
couldn't do this. Yet after an even decade of the internet changing our worldview, have we really learned
anything? No, I'd argue -- because our problem exists on such a basic level of thought that we cannot
address it by changing methods. Our problem is a series of assumptions in the minds of most people.

There's an old parable about not seeing the forest for the trees; if all you see is a tree, you might not
notice that it is surrounded by other trees. It's the same way with the forest of symbols we've created for
ourselves in modern times. In an effort to be well-educated, to have political power and important
opinions, we the people have inundated ourselves with information we cannot digest. Overwhelmed, we
turn toward the nearest comforting view that seems to encompass it all, and thus we stumble from
democracy to dictator with no thought of actually ending this situation.

Symbols surround us but even more, become part of our identities. If we are liberals, we must - must! -
defend certain ideas. If we are conservatives, who are just conventional liberals these days, we have a
different set of symbols we must use to process any incoming data. If we do not, our personal identity is at
stake, and since we base our self-worth on that external construct determined as much by our peers as by
our own actions, for our identity to be at stake means that we feel our own self-worth is in doubt. We
might have to suicide if judged unfit by the herd, which graciously grants us membership and thus makes
us feel worthy in the first place, rising above the machines that populate our skylines...

This is why people will stumble, lie, dissemble, etc. in order to avoid seeing the truth. The truth is plain, but
they feel they cannot change it or that to face it would destabilize some aspect of their own lives, especially
their egos, so they campaign against it. But really it's quite simple. Societies decay much like any social
group. Initial impetus being gone, the members campaign for personal power instead of collective success.
This leads them to adopt ironclad ideas like capitalism and egalitarianism, but basically what's going on is
an "every man for himself" mentality: it's not social behavior, but complete parasitism. There is no contact
with reality.

Our current Iraq war is an example. People ramble on for hours about paranoid conspiracies and lies and
falsified data. They forget the truth is obvious: this war makes powerful and wealthy people happy,
probably for a number of reasons. Is it Israel? Certainly. And oil interests? Probably. What caused it?
Convenience. Same way with multiculturalism: there is no conspiracy behind it; it is profitable, however, to
import people to a foreign culture and hold them hostage for a generation or two. And then you can sell
luxury services to the indigenous population as they try to avoid the ferment of violence that is brought of
conflict cultures, especially when some are bred for tribal hunting societies and others have evolved as a
result of established, educated agrarian/artistan cultures.

If I had one word of caution for someone trying to make sense out of the human situation today, especially
while using the internet, it would be this: cynicism. I mean that in the oldest sense, which involves a
willingness to look past what people claim is their motivation to their actual aims, a cui bono before all
other questions. Look at people for what they are: scrabbling animals who are unaware of the world around
them yet doing anything they can to gain power within it. Look at your leaders - do they lead, or make
promises? Then look at how your society is structured: equality of the individual so that each can gain as
much power as possible. Do you need conspiracy theories anymore?

March 22, 2006

Serf's Up!
We like to think well of ourselves, in this modern time, and we like to feel smart -- even though the smart
people among us are a minority we hound to death for being "different" and daring to think both
realistically and creatively. We like to congratulate ourselves on our society much like we would the
purchase of a new boat, or car, or house, or the completion of a successful marriage or business merger.
We like to look back at history and exclaim, "The horror! The horror!" while smirkingly congratulating
ourselves on what we have.

After all, we're free... no longer are we owned by the king, or the lord of the manor, but we can go
anywhere we want and do whatever we desire -- if we can afford it, of course. We have the right to move
freely, to marry freely, to escape all boundaries of class and accident of birth, except, of course, the need
to earn a living. And that is a bit of a rub. While we don't have a lord of the manor, we do have landlords,
or banks to whom we pay quite a lot for housing. And then we go to a grocery store and -- well, you don't
want to not buy organic; you might as well smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. And if you send your kids to
public school, they might end up stupid. Don't want to live near a ghetto? Well, now we're talking yuppie-
class housing. Add up the organic food, the security system, the computers and other tools of success, the
private schools, the better-than-average car, and of course the house in the suburbs or safe city
neighborhood, and wow, you're talking quite a bundle.

If you're lucky, you can work from age 22-70 at some job and earn enough money that your family can live
like yuppie kings on their own manse, and avoid becoming dropouts, gangsters, illiterates, drug addicts, or
crime victim statistics. You'll be doing okay, of course, until competition comes along; then it's no longer
enough to work eight hours a day and commute one. And of course there's no limit to competition,
because everyone wants the same thing: your yuppie lifestyle. So soon you're working those sixteen-hour
days, knowing that your wife's diddling the pool guy and your kid's into pot because you're not home to
anchor a family. At least you don't live in the ghetto, because if you come from a good zip code, the courts
will cut him a break on his first offense.

When you get done with it all, at age 70, you'll have sent both your kids to college and paid for your wife's
venereal health and psychotherapy, because the poor thing's bored out of her mind and keeps wondering if
she shouldn't be doing more with her life than yoga, kid-care and the pool putz. Enjoy your freedom. You
can take one vacation a year, up to two weeks, anywhere that you can afford -- and really, you're the only
one limiting yourself here by noticing that a $10,000 vacation leaves the curve of your kid's college funding
accrual a bit flat. So you drive to the grand canyon, or go to Hawaii, or some thing; enjoy your freedom.
Back to work on Monday.

You can now mix races if you so desire, and there are no social classes, so you can marry anyone. You
have sexual freedom so you don't have to marry (although many did not marry in traditional societies, we
like to pretend that everyone was hetero Christian and normal or they got speared immediately) and you
can have as many partners as you want. When that gets boring, as it inevitably does, you can find a wife
who's as bored as you and you can both try not to scream out the wrong name during intercourse,
wondering in the back pocket of your mind what exactly is different between people in this grunting, cycling
motion. You can live as weirdly as you want, but if any complaints sneak back to the workplace... well, they
don't fire you for being different, but if the competition isn't? You come up short. And are replaced.

Good thing we got rid of that medieval stupidity. Lord of the Manse, hah! The only people you owe money
to now are the banks for your house, the credit cards you must use to stay competitive, the insurance
companies and of course your retirement fund. When you get past 70, you'll start living off that, so we
hope that you didn't spend too much on your yuppie lifestyle, because you're going to have to save up
investments which will produce $30,000-50,000 a year to pay for retirement homes. You wouldn't want to
be without medical care, or a place to go. Those people end up worse than homeless, or doing granny
porn.

It's amazing how hard people work. All of them want the same thing, but only a few percentage points of
of the population get a chance to have a life this nice; most people try to get rich, and do not succeed. It's
not always something they could have done something about either, as timing and market forces play a lot
into it, as anyone who invested in Netscape in 1998 can tell you. You're going to have to work harder in the
future too, because to make all these new impoverished people and millionaires, we've had to expand
humanity and now the air and water and even ground are poisoned. So in addition to buying your way out
of the ghetto, you need to buy your way into a filter-sealed environment where the outside poisons cannot
get you.

True, it is a never-ending cycle, this feedback loop that has us always needing more profit and thus
causing more problems we try to avoid. There is no end, and there's no mercy for those poor dumbshits
who couldn't get this far. Be glad you're ahead -- or are you? Scan those stock reports, job emails, and
phone messages now (pay for the pool guy's venereal test, while you're at it). Is it any wonder that most of
your friends get to bed with three glasses of wine, a sleeping pill, and some mantra that suggests they'll
never die? What are you throwing your life away for? All you do is work and then attend supervised, pre-
ordained, purchased entertainment activities like movies, bars, rodeos, yoga classes. You barely know your
wife or kids.

Fact is, modern man, you were so clever -- you saw what the lord of the manse had, and you desired it,
like Cain viewing Abel naked in the shower, resplendent in a natural glory you are in your Gollum-like
ugliness not given, resplendent in a natural intelligence that in your Goliath-like stolidity you are not given -
- cheated! -- like Esau viewing Jacob the future inheritor, like a dark-haired girl looking longingly on a
blonde until longing turns to hate. You saw what those gifted by nature had and you determined you'd take
it. You gathered all you knew and said, now we rule -- and you did. You overthrew the Lord of the Manse,
you married and impregnated his granddaughters, and now everything's equal. Yet there's a new Lord of
the Manse and it's not one person, but millions, hiding behind your credit cards and your house payments,
parasitically wanting exactly what you do which is more money all of the time, and thus we all prey on each
other, parasitic brothers locked in arms as we descend the whirlpool of our feedback loop rotting society for
our profit -- but surely it was worth it, because you're free?

You're not a serf anymore, or are you? Oh, you outsmarted yourself, and ruined the whole game in the
process. Good work. Next time life gets you down, remember that you've not only prolonged your servitude
but made it bitter and turned every person against all others for -- for what? For gold? Oh, there's no
hope. Enjoy what you've made. Maybe even embrace depression and low self-esteem, and think about
hating your own life and subjecting yourself to the most mindless tasks you can out of pure anger, even
turned inward -- like suicide, but parasitic and prolonged. There is no hope; leap into the vortex of
darkness. Last one in's a rotten egg. Serf's up!

March 26, 2006

Aphorisms
217. Subversive

A healthy society stretches before you like a landscape -- but when the "official" way of doing things
becomes rotten, the next generations decide to subvert it. They don't know the entire ideology they'd
rather have; what they know is that everything that is, they distrust; therefore, subversion as a universal
maxim is safe. Now that social landscape is folded on itself. Here next comes the problem with subversion:
the subvertors do not agree on why they're subverting or what they desire, so they almost immediately fold
into a countermovement. This of course becomes unstable, because it's an impression of an idea that was
never clear in the first place, so with every disagreement in the future, it subverts itself further. And what
eventually happens? Like the formation of an embryo, so many divisions occur that soon freely-dividing,
autonomous cells exist. These are fortunate if they have a plan, because if not, they become a cancer.

218. Breeding for Intelligence

Generally, high intelligence is a trait that appears "randomly" through the generations. It seems to be
recessive, and thus only comes out when two highly intelligent people breed; at that point, it skips a
generation, and their children who are of above-average but not high intelligence, if they marry someone
else whose parents included at least one genius, will produce offspring of genius. These offspring, if they
breed with other genius, now have a halfway chance of also producing genius; if not, they produce
offspring who require yet another genius or dormant genius (a "skip" generation) to produce high
intelligence offspring. This means that if you are a genius, marry one and then socialize with other
geniuses, as if your offspring find one of their offspring, you'll likely have grandchildren who are genius. It
is part of nature's brilliant plan that this happens, because it means that reckless and wanton societies are
too disrupted to allow this delicate breeding apparatus to occur, and thus produce fewer geniuses -- which
is fortunate because people from dysfunctional societies, like people from dysfunctional families, tend to be
tormented and rage against the world around them. By contrast, if the society is organized enough --
especially by caste -- that geniuses can meet others, they propagate the inheritance smoothly and
eventually produce families that have almost no tendency to skip generations in breeding genius.

312. Why Everything Goes to Shit

Nature has a brilliant system for producing more deliberate organisms, which in turn produce more
interesting responses to nature, increasing the strength of the whole feedback loop: entropy. That which is
not guided by some kind of plan rapidly returns to a fallow state of disorganization that breaks down into
the feeblest, most granular, most selfish parts available. Societies break down into mobs and then decay
further into every man for himself -- continents break down into countries and eventually warring localities.
Nature's symbol of breakdown is the flat hierarchy, or one general category with a single "miscellaneous"
category under it that contains everything in granular form. Think of it this way: even grains of sand are
organized by the rock that composes them, their shape, etc. If every grain of sand were identical, a beach
would have fewer interesting properties than it does even now. Nature works on an elective principle, so
that those who desire to rise above the morass can do so by applying design and logic and discipline to
their task. The results are always an improvement, once the initial errors are out of the way. And if they
"let go of the reins," and stop applying any kind of order? Disorder and decomposition, death and decay
result, neutralizing whatever they built before it can gain a mind of its own and serve some destructive or
parasitic purpose. Indeed, if it were not for this principle, parasites would be even more numerous than
they are now -- and that pushes the boundaries of credulity.

261. Parenting Maidens

So you have a pretty daughter: you love her, and she's just sixteen. Do you want her to be faithful to you?
Spare not the rod, and show her no stronger will than your own. Do you want her to be faithful to her
heart? Then you must show her your limits, and your love. Between the two she will find what she seeks --
what, you interrupt me? You worry for her virginity? What is that but a symbol of faithfulness to heart? If
she is wanton, her heart knows no faith but the moment, and for this there is no cure.

If you love your daughter, you want her to have a good life, and to have nice things. One of the nicest of
things is a pure heart. When it comes time to buy her a car, get her something old that still runs; your
heart calls for you to run off and buy her a new shiny thing, but what do you teach through that form of
"love"? If you wish her to be faithful to her heart, train her heart to love the invisible yet always present,
the value in life and not its symbols or objects. -- you fear she will use drugs or drink? What are drugs or
drink but material substitutes for value in life? If she is wanton, her mind cannot distinguish between
symbol and reality, and for this there is no cure.

148. Evolutionary Duty as Refuge from Analysis

Marriage is safe after age 25. You've done as much of the youth stuff as you're likely to, so why not move
on? Now you no longer have to find something to do on Saturday nights, or to justify your time. If anyone
else seems competitive, or you feel like a loser, remind them that you have a family. Instant excuse! It also
makes it convenient to duck away from any social event. You're doing what's natural, what everyone wants,
draped in white lace and promises. You can no longer be a total failure, no matter what else happens, and
if you find yourself alone on Saturday night with nothing to do, remember that your obligation is first to
family.

We like obligation, as creatures. It means we do not have to plot a path. In the same way it's easier to be
an outsider than a member of society who thinks, it is easier to have duties: one does not have to define
one's own time. The outsider must simply define what she is not, and then look to what is left by the
removal of normalcy; it is always fewer items, and to that one can adapt with the comforting sensation of
"I had no choice in the matter!" Slaves suffer less existential trauma than others, for they see it cannot be
another way, thus they must simply adapt and make the best of it. There is no better or best option
taunting them with what they might have been, or could be. They simply endure.

98. God as Symbol

"God is a symbol and reality as one." He, she or it cannot be used as metaphor because that which is
metaphorical in God has been made identical to its supposed presence in real life. We can now see the
complexity of confusing spirituality through the mention of God; if the term is not already understood, it
immediately becomes a black hole in meaning because it is a single value shared between name and
meaning to which anything can be assigned. Those who are genius seem to inherently treat God as a
holistic concept that may or may not "exist," but is rendered by belief.

April 7, 2006
Squirrels
At night I would try to sleep. But they were out there, plotting against me, scratching against the roof and
taunting me with their incoherent calls. In the morning, bleary eyed, I would find my hubcaps missing.

During the day they would sit lazily in trees, munching fermented nuts. Sometimes, they would come to the
house and tear at it, making passages into the attic. If I caught them there I would flail at them, but
sometimes they bit me. They would attack my wife when she went to put bird seed in the garden, and they
stole any shiny object they could find and took it back to their garish nests which reeked of feces. Worst of
all, they had come into the attic through a rusted gutter, and now had holes everywhere. There was no
inducing them to leave.

I could not remove them from the attic for fear of shooting a weapon in the house and what my wife would
do to me if she found me murdering squirrels. In fact, these were the worst years for my relationship.
Everytime we talked, we would argue. She had one way, I had another. During the early years, we each
worked to find the right answer, but now, we just wanted it our way. So we almost always ended up doing
things each our own way, and then meeting for dinner in silence.

My kids did not understand either. They wanted their own space, not to have me telling them what to do.
My daughter even made a pet of a baby squirrel, and would be seen carrying it around carefully, petting its
head and lowering her lips to kiss its soft, strange skin covered in fine hairs. When I talked to my kids in
those days, it would end with screaming and the slamming of doors. I could not show them that their
interests and mine had a common path.

The night it happened... my wife and I did not have dinner together, because we could not agree. My son
came home late, drunk, and told me he was not going to college because he did not want a career. I told
him he was a welfare bum and not much better than the squirrels, and he agreed. "Better to be a useless
rodent than to live in your corrupt, money grubbing higher culture," he said. My daughter was in her room
with her squirrel. My wife told me to clean the dishes, and I dropped one, and she told me I was never
paying attention to what I needed to be doing. I told her that after a long day of work I wanted to no
longer be thinking about primitive stupid machines, or what other people wanted; I had done enough for
nine hours, and then an hour of commuting each way.

So there I was lying in bed, thinking about it all, unable to sleep. And down the hall I heard my son making
noise, and next to me my wife was muttering curses, and somewhere my daughter was pacing, murmuring
perhaps to her squirrel, and this went on for hours and I could barely sleep and my head got thicker with
rage. Finally, I got sick of it -- I admit I had a tantrum -- and I murdered every one of the little fuckers. I
went to the attic with my crossbow and slaughtered every single one, reloading and shooting like a dance
between lovers. The small bodies piled up, a pathetic site, but my heart was cold and the rage felt good. I
was doing a good thing.

When I was done, I threw away the bodies and went back to bed. Silence reigned. Everything was good. In
the morning, I got up and had a full breakfast, and no guilt like the preacher suggested I might. In fact, I
have never dreamed of that mass murder, nor felt a twinge of regret. When I thought of it at first, with all
of those grey bodies in a pathetic heap, I had a surge of energy in my veins like desire for a woman, but
now when I think of it, I am empty of emotion. The attic stinks of urine less however.

Some time after that I caught my son drunk outside in the snow for the last time, and told him to ship up
or he was going to military school. He left and the strain wore down on us all. My daughter came in crying
because she had slapped her baby squirrel for disturbing her sleep, and he had run away, looking for a
young squirrel of his own to love. My wife blamed me for sending my son away, but I told her what else
could I do, as he would not carry on my line or help us when we are old. "Fool," she hissed. "We have
money and we have machines, what do we need to worry about death for?"

It was a few years after that when she took the car in and the mechanic told her that the engine was
faulty. Rather than call me, she spent the money. I went out to look at the car and saw that he had taken
our new engine, because the car was only two years old at the time, and put in an old engine. "Well, I
don't care, it runs better," said my wife, looking at the television. I told her she should have waited for me,
but she said she was tired of having me make these decisions. We ended up having a massive fight and
when it was over, she would not look at me but she had no tears either. I went to a bar and drank like my
son, then drove home somehow; I don't know what I was doing. When I got there, she and her clothes
were gone.

My daughter and I live alone now. The fucking squirrels are gone forever and have never returned, but my
house is not in order either. In fact, it is miserable. However, I do not blame my extermination of the
squirrels. That did not cause this. What caused it was here before then, and in fact, before the squirrels
came here. All of that energy we had years ago to make things right, to understand one another, had been
drained away... into my job, into her television, into his alcohol, into her pets. We were empty when we
came to confront each other, and we let everything slide, which was why the gutters were not repaired and
the squirrels came into the house in the first place. I am glad I killed them, and I do not think it caused me
loss, but I am also sure it did not fix anything.

April 24, 2006

Winner Takes it All
Since the dawn of Socialism and its ultra-centralized variant, Communism, people have inventively
generated a stream of objections: it won't work because it removes competition, it deprives us of individual
souls, it's atheistic, it oppresses us and takes away our freedom. All of these are completely wrong once
one realizes that Communism and Socialism do not necessarily indicate Stalinism, which is less a political
system than the megalomania of rulers in a country where the 94-IQ underclass overbred, blamed its 140-
IQ rulers, and after killing them plunged itself into an orgy of cannibalization.

Eastern Europe is not unique in the history of Western cultures except that it persists by sheer numbers, in
part because of the withdrawl of Western European powers after the disasters of colonial times. According
to Coon's Races of Europe, Slavs were originally a hybrid of corded Nordic, Dinaric and Southern European
sources, but at the same time Mongols surged across the plains of Russia, somehow became the modern
shorter, simpler, cruder variant. Dare we posit a bit of interbreeding with the conquerors? Indeed, the Slavic
nations fell the hardest before the Mongols, and Western Europe never forgave them, because the reason
for their downfall was individual selfishness to the degree that they could not even unite against a common
oppressor.

When Western powers encountered Eastern European nations after that time, they found a pattern
repeated through the third world and the threshold to it: a small, wealthy, intelligent and cultured ruling
class outnumbered drastically by impoverished, ignorant, resentful laborers. Mexico has the same situation,
with social strata composed of a Spanish upper class, a mestizo middle and lower class, and outcaste
Negroid Mexicans used basically to cushion the fall of heavy equipment. Stalin, rising out of this mess,
observed that he was surrounded by blind ignorant people whose desire could be used against them, much
like Judo master shifts the momentum of his opponent to engineer a hard fall. Like an Andrew Carnegie of
the East, Stalin seized power "by any means necessary" and ruled the state for himself and his cronies.
While his killings dwarfed those of Hitler and Pol Pot combined, he is ignored by leftist academics because
they view him as an argument against Communism. He isn't. Communism for Stalin was like all things, a
means to an end.

Initially, Communism had some good ideas. Instead of a society where whatever made money was
assumed to be the correct path, Communists reasoned, a design had to be created which provided for the
people. This design would be imposed upon them and money would be made to serve it, instead of the
tail-wags-dog arrangement that persisted previously. This arrangement, like all forms of socialism, teeters
precariously above the welfare state, in that to bureaucrats it's often hard to distinguish between the
deserving worker and a parasite, and over time, they come to support parasites. Indeed, the Soviet Union
supported many parasites, especially at its highest levels of power, but much of this can be explained by
the peasant background of most Soviets: out of their league in modern society, they did what enhanced
their own prestige and let the system they did not understand fall into ruin through inaction at important
points. Still, this is less an argument against Communism than an indictment of the class war that brought
it about in Russia (and exported it to a number of Eastern European and Baltic states, devastating all of
them in sequence).

The best argument against Communism is a simple one: it does not support "winner take all" economics.
"To each according to need" is a tempting philosophy, in that it implies we take care of everyone and thus
make a society sans conflict, but it does not take into account one vital component -- time. If we have one
night to camp out in the forest, giving everyone food according to need makes sense. If we must set up a
camp for years or decades? Winner takes all makes the most sense -- because those who are able to
achieve more than others will, with whatever excess wealth they are given, apply it toward bettering other
areas of life. If someone has distinguished herself by rising above others to create a better way of doing
some task or another, it's likely that this person has more to offer and if given power, will continue the
process of innovation. That is winner takes all. More than "competition" or "freedom," this determines the
health of a nation, since it allows true parallelism: each person represents (much as in a modern computer
operating system) one thread of computational energy tackling a problem, and each thread takes a slightly
different angle of approach, with those that succeed out-pacing others and eventually, being emulated for
having a superior method.

Interestingly, this method is common across all disciplines -- in natural selection, the eagle with the best
hunting skills produces more young; in science, the most perceptive discipline is quickly adopted across the
board; in art, the celebrated artist of the last generation becomes the starting point for the next. "Winner
takes all" systems are superior to any other kind. Does this mean an endorsement for capitalism? Hell, no.
Capitalism, like all consequentialist systems, rewards perception and not reality. Utilitarianism -- the
governmental extension of consequentialism -- states "The greatest good for the greatest number," but
what is un-stated in this equation is that "greatest good" is determined by the perceptions of the "greatest
number." In a utilitarian system, a population sated by bread and circuses is better off than one in which
25% of the people recognize it has superior art, learning, organization, health care, etc. In capitalist
societies, as in Stalinist Russia, the actual decisions are cast to a survey of the peasant proles, who
inevitably cannot see through sociopathic manipulators like Stalin and thus time after time promote people
of his ilk, then blame others for their slavery at his hands. Proles, peasants, simple workers of the world...
these decisions are beyond you. In fact, they're beyond the middle class as well. You need philosopher-
kings to make complicated decisions, because like chess masters, they're always seeing hundreds of moves
into the future.

Communism and capitalism thus share a common failure: they pay attention to society as it is right now,
without realizing that past and future form a continuum with the present. We can divide up what we have,
either according to need or as in capitalism, according to popularity delivered through public perception of
"happiness" and "pleasure," but when we try doing that day after day and year after year, what we do is
empower the impoverished to select the most rapacious and criminal leaders. The United States is now
discovering this through its last two presidents; Clinton was as incompetent and criminal as Bush, but he
believed far less in his own crusade, so quickly avoided anything with a chance of unpopularity, including
wars. Bush, being part of a cult of his own ego (as mystical leader and benevolent giver, the "decider")
foolishly assumes that the proles are going to stick with him through the war they egged him on to
undertake (note: anti-war movements always swell exponentially after the start of war, not after it
becomes clear that war is going to occur). Clinton had no such illusions. He knew his job was to keep
happy feelings afloat in the population, and damn any consequences after his term (historians of the future
will note that Clinton's reckless encouragement of an artificially-inflated internet economy doomed the
nation to a following decade of mild depression, a move as disastrous as Bush's war spending if not more).
Our presidents are manipulators, and in that, they have more in common with Stalin than the starry-eyed
founders of America.

"Winner takes all" can only occur when the game is defined so as to pick the best, not the most vicious
(Stalin) or most popular (USA). Popularity is a fickle thing, because it is based on the assumption that
promises become true and personal "happiness" is equated to a fulfilling life; a truly popular leader will
never make his people eat their spinach, because he agrees with them that it doesn't taste as good as ice
cream, even if a diet of ice cream will wreck their health. He might, like Clinton, promise the underclass
revenge against the upperclass through civil rights legislation; he might, like Stalin, promise the underclass
revenge against the upper classes through violence and dogma. Either way, his goal is to manipulate
appearance and not reality, and thus he leaves a ticking timebomb of an illusory nation. As America
collapses into its lack of commonality -- no longer are there common values, common culture, common
heritage or even any agreement on what constitutes "success" as a nation; there is however worship for
raw power and money, but true power and wealth are regenerative things, not beheld only in this moment
but in all moments uniting past and future -- we should remember that our error here as in Russia was to
empower people who cannot make decisions to make them, and thus to allow ourselves to become infested
with manipulative parasites who easily control appearance but have no ability to shape reality.

May 2, 2006
Retreat
Natural human tendencies are, like most things in nature, conditioned to respond optimally in all situations,
and thus are imprecise. Losing consciousness, for example, will save a life (or make an easier death) in a
statistically prevalent number of disparate situations, but may be an incongruous or ludicrous response in
certain specific ones. For this reason, we pay attention to the impulses of our bodies, including our minds,
but like a plumber trimming pipe, cut them to the appropriate size for any given situation.

This causes the phenomenon seen by outsiders as humans "fighting" their own reactions. It is relatively
easy to apply in situations like losing consciousness when one is trimming pipe or defusing nuclear weapons
in Fort Knox, but becomes vastly more complex when we look at our response to situations that occur in
more than one moment, or properly, in a span of moments up to and including the length of a lifetime. At
this level, we do well to temper our reactions through the activity known as "planning," which means using
whatever interpretation of Scientific Method (or occult wisdom, if you'd prefer) fits to design a lifelong
response: perceive, interpret, hypothesize, test -- repeat. We are self-correcting organisms, which in itself is
a massively persuasive argument for consciousness.

The sea captain's letter to his daughter:

...So you've recognized the world is shit, in so many ways, and by "world" I mean
the external reality as you must survive it, including its dreaded Human Dimension,
or social factor, or civilization itself, "society" as used in D.R.I. lyrics, e.g. the
politics of surviving alongside others including as necessary decieving or murdering
the esurient language-enabled rodents that they are. I find I like the sea
oftentimes because the rules out here are much clearer, since we either all pull in
the same direction or face immediate Fate as derived from the pull of the waves,
the slap of the wind, the serrated beak of some godawful Monster... it is obvious
what we must do to survive, and that we need a chain of command, and those
who do not grasp this evident process we consider to be fit for the brig and
nothing else. Would that I could gift you, daughter mine, with similar clarity in
daily life back in England (editor's note: former name for "Brokeback Island")! But
what I can tell you, perhaps the best of what I can tell you, is that among those
who live on land -- or should I say some of those who live on land -- there is a
similar awareness, but because the madding crowd does not share this knowledge,
it is not expressed openly... like Templars at midnight mass, Nazi spies in French
roadside cafes, or even Nietzscheans at a barbecue, we keep our silence with
watchwords and implied meanings, sometimes an offhand gesture symbolizing a
book of knowledge shared like a cipher machine between two passerby on the road
to Bath... They Are Out There, and you will find, being unfortunate to not only be
born of sound body but mind, that you will not only delight in them, but to keep
yourself from hating the Out There, need them.

The single most manifest fact of nature is inequality, meaning that no two humans are alike, because alike
things respond exactly the same way and thus in an information system, decrease variability and enhance
the tendency to fall into linearly-repetitive cycles, which as known to all astrophysics are notorious for not
conserving but iota by iota bleeding out energy. Perhaps, looking at the universe from a quantum physics
perspective, we see the importance of this inequality as not a destabilizing but a stabilizing factor, even if to
us from the tunnel vision of individual fears, desires and instabilities see it as a gigant threat. In life, thus,
our society thrives through inequality, because it prevents the crowd from literally taking over; if we were
equal, the instant one made a mistake, the entire group would, and society would not have made it this far
(mistakes are natural, because the appearance of a situation rarely reveals its structure, and exploring
structure requires iterative impressions, e.g. Time).
However, the crowd is never far from us; they are there, we might surmise, as evolutionary throwbacks or
simply as what they appear to be, which is like the packing materials in a package from amazon.com
insulation for the actual payload. Indeed, the smartest thing any civilization would do would be to kill its
slaves, having the dual benefit here of a lack of slave revolt, which has taken down (Maya, Aztec, Inca,
India, Greece, Rome, England) most great civilizations, whether active revolution or passive through
economic, social and moral systems; -- and forcing the smarter and better among us to clean their own
goddamn toilets and mow their own lawns and build their own houses, which keeps them from becoming
idle, effete, useless wealth-storage receptacles. Imagine a world where the king carries his own suitcase...
and there are no proles to delight in that humility, only people wise enough to see that it is no humility, no
morality and no poverty but simply common sense that makes him do it! Ah, death to the slaves... death to
the slaves... no society as of yet has been heartless enough to do such a thing, but if humanity survives its
current debacle, it is likely there will be astute enough servants of history to do just that, and to slaughter
everyone at 125 IQ points or fewer.

In the meantime, back here staggering through reality, we face an immediate cold and hard fact, which is
personal survival: regardless of what we think of this time, or the better visions we have, we must live
through it; we desire survival because as individuals we like to live, and collectively, there is a point to
surviving as a civilization with advancement in learning and culture. Although some argue there is no point
to life at all, clearly they have imbibed too much pseudo-philosophy from the heights of verdadero
Intellectualism, because if you think too much in disconnected abstracts (the Frankfurt School, get well
cards, and late-night infomercials) you lose track of the tautological yet inevitable surging reality of life: it's
here, it's fun, and therefore, the point to it is it and we might as well get on with it, capische? If we decide
to survive, it is an additional smidgen and not more of energy required to live well, provided we are gifted
with sound mind and body.

Of course, that's easier said than done once the crowd has taken over, as it has in the West, progressively,
over the course of the past 2,000 years. Interestingly, the disaster has only gotten real wings under the
auspices of Crowd-supportive systems like Democracy and god-replacing Communism, which alongside
technology has accelerated the process to form a real mess, but if we list the stages of its decline
independent of the delaying factors (European disunity, pagan spiritual impulses, vast numbers of genius
malcontents sabotaging the omnivorous Crowd at each turn) and accelerating factors (voting, mass media,
equalization through firearm technology) we can see that what happened in Greece is being repeated, as it
was repeated in Rome, and as the Vedas hint, was in progress in India when like a sleeper dying it passed
inobservably from great civilization into declining one... even as immigrants throng our streets telling us of
the proud Aztec and Maya, they decline to mention that they -- these immigrants -- are not the unbroken
descendants of Aztec and Maya, but for the most part, the spawn of their slave people who let the Spanish
sponsor and arm their revolt against them, overthrowing those once-noble but then-decadent cultures and
then, keeping the former rulers as essentially a captive underclass much as the former middle class was
treated in Communist Russia, through rape and economic predation, bred them out. All civilizations die the
same death, and it is almost never a single external (disease, war, drugs) factor as much as a culmination
of internal factors such that, like the shutting down of a body's homeostasis, they do not die so much as
lose the order that kept them growing forward, and thus lapse into stagnation, autocannibalize, and end up
as third-world remnants lumping it under a sun of ignorance.

For a moment, look with compassion upon the people doing stupid things -- watching idiot television,
repeating ver batim things heard on the news, eating junk food, buying plastic gadgetry -- and recognize
their situation: they haven't studied even this far, have no idea what to read to understand their situation,
and know only their own discontent but cannot put it into words or structure. Frat boys vandalizing light
fixtures and ghetto dwellers stealing them have one thing in common; they sense/feel more than cogitate
that their surroundings constitute a failing world and one in which they are not to be cared for but are
substrate for the profit of others, and they're rebelling with anger (the difference is that frat boys, on the
whole, are 21 IQ points above ghetto-dwellers: but you can't say that on television...). Your average "tool"
citizen, a job-toting, Wal-mart-shopping, media-consuming brain strem of a human with no future except to
serve, has made a choice that is not entirely irrational: faced with a situation which is unlikely to change
through the acts of an individual less than an exceptional one, the normal, un-exceptional person opts to
adapt and, in doing so, opts to drug themselves into oblivion with the process of modern life, as to resist it
is painful. These people -- "tools" in the parlance of the hip and/or cynical -- do not idealize the life they
lead, but pick it from a practicality of exhaustion with resistance. They're not ready to start a revolution, so
until something better comes along, they're game for the plan because (a) it's easier (b) it leads to success
and (c) like a topical analgesic, it enables them to avoid self-criticism and that creeping feeling that they
could have a better life; equal parts cognitive dissonance and resignation, it's a survivability tool, this
posture of ass in air with hanky and lubricant balanced precariously on one cheek... it gets easier because
up and down the block, everyone else is doing it.

Everyone except You, dear reader, because if you've made it thus far into the document, you're more
motivated than average to find some answer, or are a researcher from an Abnormal Psychology
department... you want to know: how do I survive this -- this excremental era -- without become either a
submissive like the rest, or going postal like the few sane but suicidal (McVeigh, Rudolph, Gandhi, Hitler)
who try to change it with radical action? Well: the answer is surprisingly simple -- don't accept the
situation, don't retreat; live as if you're existing in the time you desire, and act as if what you're doing is
not only normal but the only rational way to act . Not surprisingly, to those who have observed our glorious
simian heritage (cf. Burroughs), the hootin' and hollerin' Crowd backs down when confronted with someone
acting on a Plan, because what defines the Crowd, like all bullies, is an inner sense of insufficiency... if they
see a Plan in action, and don't understand it, they'll act in fear and retribution if it is given a name and
central location, but if it is the act of individuals they will retreat in confusion, because the Crowd fears
nothing more than the thought that some individual has a better answer than they do, and thus will Get
Ahead...

The tendency for most dissidents, malcontents, insurgents and other keen observers of the human
condition is, when confronted with a broken society rendered by Crowdist impulses, to retreat. They find a
way to survive, a house to run off to, and raise their families quietly and under the wings of what in any
other situation we would recognize as camouflage. One man I know made a fortune selling fake television
aerials to undercover thinkers in the suburbs... "Also got these blue bulbs, see, they're made bad, and they
flicker at just the same interval as television does, so your neighbors think you're tuned into That's
Incredible or Monday Night Football, when infact you're reading Schopenhauer or making a spaceship out of
the family car... fools 'em every time." But retreating not only does not fix the problem, but it forces you to
live in fear, and ultimately, the generation after you tires of the seemingly futile energy expenditure of
constant resistance, says screw it and buys a big screen TV... never knew football was this fascinating.

Let me put it this way: we all know what happens when some mangy-looking rejector of modern society
stands up and says, "This is a disaster that leads to certain death," but what happens when a normal-
looking bank president does the same? Effect of ten thousand rifles discharged at once toward capital
buildings through which pass a meaningless cycle of faceless politicians... oil prices fluctuate, nuclear
missiles re-target themselves on harmless South Sea islands. That cannot happen if you retreat.

While your impulse, and natural reaction, to this modern world is to recognize that it's a disaster of the
subtlest kind such that it will only be understood as such when the end really is nigh, and thus to head for
the hills in a metaphorical fashion, this defeats your ultimate goals as both individual and member of the
collective. Do we need yet another college professor living quietly in the hills with his books, devoted to the
"life of the mind" and shunning that of the body, because society is an unending failure? Another suburban
family who quietly explain to their kids that you have to pretend God exists and American cars aren't
garbage or your classmates will be offended? Another young male in the prime of life who, looking out his
dorm window and seeing the thronging pulsating mass of sweaty illiterate bodies writhing, simply pulls
down the shade and returns to "Abstractions and Data Structure in C++: Volume Seven"? You can have
both, your life of the mind and your place in society. Revolutions don't work; they kill off the best and leave
dogma-bound blockhead bureaucrats in place. But social revolutions? Even better, non-organized social
revolutions, with no name and no symbol, no face on which to land that particularly aggressive punch or
cry of "anti-egalitarian"?

We know how retreat ends; it's a delaying action, not a forward action. Do not retreat. You might opt not
to slam people over the head with knowledge, or inundate them with dogma, but instead, to act as if you
owned this goddamn world because what you're doing is right even if others do not recognize that (and did
you expect them to? You know that no matter how much wealth and power they've accumulated, in their
hearts they're proles - peasants - Priests). Running away might buy you time, but not much, and it won't
leave your children anything -- and if you're really confident in your genetic worth, you'll want to leave
some kids. Why? Because life is great, and it needs greater people. So no running away -- what to do?

(a) Social events

Most social events are a moronic excuse to get together, dumb small talk, loud blockhead music,
intoxication to cover fear of social incompetence, and numbly groping sex to substitute for "meaning" and
"love" and "significance" (much as one can confuse appearance and structure, one can easily erroneously
conflate physical gratification or tangible consumption with that non-existing but perceivable thing called
"experience," which is not so much the act as its placement in a series of events, much like an adventure
requires unknowns, dangers, betrayals and finally, victory). "So I was standing around with a warm flat
micturate of a beer, flat-footed and looking for some innarestin' conversation..." -- go to their moronic
social events. Spot the smarter people. Then create your own social events, and do them up better. There
is socially acceptable music of quality. There are intoxicants of quality. You don't have to reinvent what a
party is; just make one of a better quality. If people are gonna gab, wander around and throw in some
ideas. You don't have to preach dogma; in fact, to do that will be self-defeating. Talk about all the
interesting things in life, the discoveries, the intangibles... people don't so much "understand" as they
submerge themselves in a milieu of ideas, getting ambient gratification, which they then use as the form of
future interaction. Quality parties condition quality behavior. Try it.

(b) Lifestyle
Obviously, you'd have to be a Moron to get a television -- so don't. There are plenty of activities
(environmental cleanups, participation in athletics, martial arts and music, artistic events and classes,
groups organized by activity or politics) in which you can engage. Yes, most of the people there will be
morons, but 2-5% will not -- save those phone numbers and get your own gig going. If only idiots attend
beach cleanups, do a forest cleanup for a more elite group. Not only do you form the group itself, but the
people therein make social connections and expand your network. It's like planting a seed -- water and
watch grow. Obviously, you're not going to waste money on excessive cars, personal possessions, etc., but
there's no point in going without essential things. You can get that coffeemaker and not "sell out." No
indicator will exist to tell you where you are on that imaginary line that divides sheep from wolves; "only
the Shadow knows" -- only what's in your heart, soul and mind can let you know that.

(c) Politics
National politics at this point requires one-fifth of a billion dollars to enter as a candidate; try local politics
instead. The intricacies of water runoff, dog management, school budgets and signage may not interest
you, but you're not involved in politics for fun -- the ultimate "fun" in life is doing something right, e.g.
having a meaningful experience instead of a entertaining distraction ("fun"). Every decision that is being
made can be done better, and if you're the one who does that or helps do it, you get to make more
important decisions... and on up the line. You will not work your way up to President this way, but you can
get someone to be a better Mayor, Senator, Comptroller -- and if your community does things a smarter
way than others, you'll stand out and be emulated. Imagine yourself as a basket-weaving instructor, in
front of a class. When you tuck wicker under bamboo, so does everyone else. Lead by example. Also, there
are more ways to "get political" than politics itself. Advocacy groups, residents associations, artistic and
social lobbies, even churches and sports associations all weigh in on these issues and influence candidates.
Non-profit organizations tackle specific issues, but by failing to include unrelated dogma, can be liberated
toward a better cause... and by failing to do things that conflict with that better cause, can by absence
serve it.

(d) Food and Goods

Selfish morons eat out at overpriced restaurants constantly and hand their money over to the illiterates
behind the counter and the shrewish bitches who own the company, including its whorelike oafish
stockholders and their voracious, greedy lapdogs of lawyers, bankers, socialites and spiritual advisers. Don't
be a shabbos goy for the great greed. Sure, you might end up eating out, but try an independently-owned
restaurant whose owner you like or support. Don't buy packaged food. You can get raw meat cheaper than
frozen pizza, bulk cheese cheaper than milkshakes, frozen or fresh vegetables cheaper than takeout
Chinese, dry beans cheaper than beer, and so on. And if you put a bunch of restaurants and
microwave/frozen food makers out of work? Good -- maybe they'll pick up a rifle and do something
constructive with their lives for a change. Join a food cooperative for greater efficiency in pricing... most
goods sell for two prices, (1) the lowest and (2) the convenience price. You can see a simple example in
the markup of liquor stores over groceries. What are you paying for? Buy it now, easily . Yet it only takes
another 5-10% of the time invested in shopping to research a product and find it cheaper, assuming you
even need the damn thing in the first place... bulk buying saves money, so you and five friends can get
whatever it is you need at half-price if you motivate them to collaborate. Drugs? Brewing your own beer is
easy and fun, and if you need marijuana or mushrooms ("need" is questionable, here, as it is with beer, but
they're handy for social events), you can grow them with a minimum of effort. One gent I knew simply
dumped dirt in a pot, put a seed from his last bag in it, and put it on the balcony of his apartment,
remembering to urinate in it at least once daily... the pot was strong like an ox and tasted faintly of the
brand of coffee he preferred.

(e) Jobs
Every day you go to a job, remind yourself that you will spend at least as much time on your own pursuits.
Steal every moment of time you can get back from your employers; they cannot see what you do on a legal
pad, or with a stack of printouts, or on a laptop you happened to bring from home. Do something that
furthers you every day. Whether this is discovering a new thing to research and explore, or reading a book,
or exploring a different section of town, do it -- fight back against the soul-killing boredom, numbness and
frustration that eventually has you chuck it all and make your life a matter of attending work, television and
bars, sequentially. When you get a chance, start your own business, even if as a partner... own
something... spend your money on stocks, or gold, or offshore investments, instead of wasting it on
"entertainment" like your clueless coworkers. Become powerful in a normal job, and then become a
cornerstone of your local community by owning one.

(f) Art
Most people confuse "art" with "entertainment." Entertainment passes the time, amusingly and with novelty,
so one can return to the state one was in before entertaining without change -- oh sure, they present
"social issues" and "ideas" but these are the same four basic concepts dressed up in ways to make them
bittersweet, so you feel conflict and resolution but no movement of ideas, no learning, no "aha!" moments.
Art is a transition between states and communicates something that like a journey or a personality enwraps
ideas in demonstration, and is not tangible so much as it is the process that occurs in your own mind; in
contrast, entertainment is self-contained and requires very little from its audience. The Crowd prefers mass
culture: simplistic rock music, sentimental or violent movies, quirky "unique" paintings made from "unusual"
materials (often, as if self-parodic, including garbage and feces)... the Crowd always prefers the tangible
and self-contained to something which requires you meet it halfway to get something from the conjunction.
Art is not method; art is not setting or character; art is not technique; art is not message. Art, like life, is
experience. Art uses technique, setting, character, method, materials, etc. to convey an experience, much
like how in life, a rafting trip in the mountains can teach you heroism, but there's no tangible object
"heroism" in the mountains, the raft, or the characters including yourself... it is an abstraction formed in the
mind from the perception of the change in events. Even non-narrative art can achieve this. First step
toward artistic revolution: do not criticize, do not mention, do not notice the "entertainment"... find the real
art, even if one solitary item, and praise it and incorporate it into your life. There is no retreat in art, as in
life. Assert yourself and make yourself and those like you a known artistic audience, even a marketing
quantity... but never relax your standards. That which emulates your favorite art isn't that art. You cannot
ape method, technique, setting, ideas and produce art "equal" to the original. Conversely, you can imitate
technique, setting, ideas, method from entertainment and yet, by virtue of the experience you portray and
the ideas revealed (that elusive thing known as "content," as distinct from technique as "structure" is from
"appearance" or "meaning" is from "objects") create art. In other words, if Dave Matthews and Cannibal
Corpse looked at the world artistically, and revealed it in their music, they would be art -- but they don't.
Why? In the answer to that question, much wisdom slumbers! Find art; make art; pursue art; never relax
your standards. You and others like you, even if only a few, can create your own community, world of
visions... and the slumbering masses of the middle classes do respond to quality art, when they can find it,
even if they don't seem to be looking very hard. "The Great Gatsby" still outsells "Snow Falling on Cedars"
and Burzum has, over a decade, outsold Dimmu Borgir...

(g) Life partners

Most guys with brains seem to think most women are stupid because they have met only silly, devious,
manipulative, soulless sluts; most women with brains seem to think all guys are blockheads because they've
only met inconsiderate, self-obsessed, violent or milktoast boys. Cannot these two groups meet? It requires
people to socialize, as you'll have to meet a hundred women to find one you want to pursue. And dating...
as an activity? Sex... as an activity? Romance... as an activity? This is a silly denial of the end goal of
relationships, which is enduring love and family, which still exists. Anything less than this is to substitute
objects for spirit, appearance for structure, a vote for a soul.

If this document achieves anything, it will be to convince some out there who, blessed with sane minds and
body, are falling into self-pity because they are surrounded by morons. The goal here is not to sugarcoat
the truth, and tell you that somehow the Crowd will like the end of a Disney movie turn from bad guys into
good... that would be a lie; they're destructive, thoughtless, soul-killing but can be manipulated and/or
eventually exterminated (keep in mind that with each generation, random recombinance occurs, so the
crowd will be reborn anew in every generation that does not practice some form of rigorous "weeding out"
of the underconfident, snivelling, parasitic, shrewish, Priest-like units). What is important is that you not
give in to these useless sacks of protoplasm. Fight back, but not by fighting them ; fight back by asserting
what is right and thus denying their intention, which is to portray Crowd-logic as a replacement for reality,
and thus to exclude all higher functions, as the Crowd (rightly) sees these as inaccessible to it. They want
bread and circuses, you want meaning... spend no time thinking about these losers (to miss out on the best
of what life offers, e.g. experience and not tangible things, is to be a total loser, even if wealthy,
surrounded by luscious whores, elected democratic leader, and popular). Do not retreat. Do not hide. Do
what you must to assert meaning. It is an additional 5% of effort over what you will end up doing
anyway... it will not take you away from your path, but augment it.

Social mechanisms -- parties, relationships, friendships, art, learning, culture -- are the same in every age,
but as with art, their "content" varies with the audience. Right now, the audience wants stupid and easily
digestible, and so social mechanisms serve stupidity and whoredom. Instead of withdrawing, get
representation: make your own analogs (parties, relationships, friendships, art, learning, culture) and
promote them among those who "get it." In time, your group will grow. You don't need a logo, a name, or
an ism-based philosophy... action is always better than words. It is enough to recognize that you are those
who understand the eternal truth of life, which is that what we desire internally is shaped by the logic of
our external world, no matter how abstracted a form of adaptation, and thus will be the same in any age,
with any technology, in any society-type. The Crowd likes to look at surface change and assume from it
that they control the world, including (by some leap of faith to the unreal) their own mortality. They want
to bypass meaning for "safe" things like objects they can touch, people they can consume, moments spent
"entertained" instead of challenged. You want the opposite. They are defined by the fact that they cannot
understand what you want, so you'll have to make it for yourself. Think positive: we're here, we know what
we want and we're gonna take our place and have our share, and nothing can stop us -- in fact, by living a
life above the rabble, we're not gonna stop them but surpass them, and there's nothing they can do about
it.

May 6, 2006
Overcivilizing
The term "bourgeois" was used by Marxist theorists to refer to the complacent middle classes who, in
pursuit of the comforts that moderate wealth could provide, neglected all ideological concerns. The
bourgeois attitude became characterized by the idea of "don't rock the boat" and a benign form of Social
Darwinism that figured if people did not have money, it was because they did not want it or were defective
in some way (true in 99.4% of poverty cases; the remaining 0.6% are philosophers, artists, dissidents and
orgone scientists). Where Marxists found the most support in the West was among the intellectuals who,
terrified by the drugged attitude that wealth defines aptitude prevalent in their societies, wanted to find
something to break the money yoke. Unfortunately, the only contrary instinct among the left has been a
tendency to equalize income, which still relies on income.

After the second world war, and the world silent conflict known as the Cold War, communism proved its
untenability for this reason to the middle classes of the West even if not to the academes who eschew
normal life in favor of the subsidized, accountability-less lifestyle of the professional theorist. Watching a
succession of countries be devasted culturally, economically and socially by the dogma-heavy class-revenge
agenda of communism made us skittish about it. For this reason, the word "bourgeois" fell out of favor
except with self-parodic student "activists." Yet the word is making a resurgence today to describe the
egalitarian distribution of its disposition.

Near A.N.U.S. HQ there is a public park that, unlike most shared spaces in cities, was created from
undeveloped wilderness; such a thing is rare since most cities expand first and then find reasons to
dedicate recreation centers from the flattest land available, and usually begin by razing all existing wildlife
and replacing it with orderly lawns and public restrooms. The park in question in this article was preserved
by accident of legislation, and initially, was unregulated public space populated with trees. The rarity of
such a place within driving distance of a skyscraper made it immediately popular.

Initially, its fanbase was formed of the outdoorsy types who wanted to wander through trees and see
butterflies and rivers and marvel at the thousands if not millions of species of flora and fauna accessible to
those who could still their neurotic need for "activities" long enough to observe them. It was a great place
for a walk or to simply meditate in a natural setting. This was not to last long.

First, the "sportspeople" spoke up: they wanted to be able to ride their bikes through the underbrush, so
needed paths. This naturally led to conflict with those who walked through the forest, and led to bans on
such things as BB guns and tents.

Next, the suburban walkers and cell phone users spoke up: they wanted to be able to take nice genteel
strolls without having to interface with the bugs, snakes, poison ivy, thorny undergrowth and fallen logs
that are part of any successful forest. Government, always eager to curry votes, leapt into the fray and put
down a paved path which -- of course -- required at least twenty feet of shaved earth made into boring
lawn on either side.

Well, at this point, you've invited in the general population, so what happens? Crime! Soon, police patrols
were needed, and since crimes happen at such distant intervals, they brought with them a horde of
regulations to justify their existence. Soon rules about leashes, skateboards, sleeping outdoors, and a
pooper scooper patrol came about. In order to patrol in their motorized carts (most efficient!) of course,
they needed more forest shorn and replaced with grass.

Not surprisingly, all this lawn created further needs. It had to be mowed, and the most efficient way to do
that is with giant riding mowers, so "obstructions" had to be removed and straightaways and turnarounds
created. Exit more forest.

Of course, when you break up forest like that, you ruin its ability to exist as contiguous space and thus
some parts of the ecosystem die and breed certain creatures, like mosquitoes and rats, disproportionately
(generalist species such as rats, squirrels, sparrows, raccoons and cockroaches exist at a ratio of five times
normal in suburban spaces because specialized species require unbroken terrain, where things that eat
anything and breed recklessly fit in anywhere). This in turn required clearing of forest floor detritus, which
eliminated whole ecosystems and in turn created other needs to clean up after their death and the leaves,
logs, roots, and bug carcasses that otherwise would have been composted by nature.

Finally, the civic groups got involved. What was left was small trailings of forest shot through with
smoothworn bike trails, surrounded by lawn and wide patches of open dirt where detritus and other forces
of nature had been removed. It was boring. It was ugly. It did not look like a park in a major, important
city, but an open lot with forest like acne shot through it. So what does a government that wishes to be
popular do? It landscapes the damn thing.

There's still forest left, and for this reason, the area is still more popular than other parks in the city.
However, this forest is not like the wild, but is closer to a kept garden which is allowed to walk a little on
the wild side, and you cannot go more than five feet in it without encountering some human-regulated
space or leavings. What has happened to this area? It has been overcivilized , or made safe for so many
interests that it has lost its original purpose and appeal, which was as natural space in a city where people
are sick of managed, civilized spaces.

It used to have snakes and bugs and things that could kill you; it had neat geographic features like
escarpments and copses and dropoffs and underground rivers. All of these however can result in injury and
lawsuits, so they had to go. Even more, it had to fit into the exercise and recreational expectations of city
people, so anything which obstructed that had to go. In the process of making it fit the diversity of
expectations, we changed it into the same kind of space we find elsewhere in the city, but decorated like a
forest. Civilization proved its own worst enemy again.

What we see here is, to borrow that Marxist word, the influence of bourgeois tastes -- but in this case, we
cannot blame the middle class. The suburbs are home to people of all economic grades, all ethnic groups
and backgrounds, all genders and sexual inclinations at this point. No one is not guilty.

Restricting "bourgeois" to middle classes alone was step-on-a-landmine wrong and a product of the burning
resentment and desire for revenge inherent to all leftist movements, who fearing the greater competence of
the middle class of that of the worker, seek to destroy both middle and upper classes and replace them
with an "equality" of generalized, reduced competence. This is one reason why all leftist societies collapse
inward; it is not the lack of competition, but the tendency to cannibalize, endanger and shout down above-
average citizens that crushes them.

In the context of public spaces, the mixed attitudes of the citizenry conspire to enforce a bourgeois taste
rooted in the idea that we can provide what all people think they want (utilitarianism) and via this total lack
of plan, come up with something that will please the average and thus suffice, nevermind that it adulterates
into nonexistence the original intent of a space or idea. It's no different than your favorite band turning into
radio rock to sell more records, classical music being used to sell tennis shoes, or politicians and civic
leaders backing off of "daring" proposals to cede power to innumerable special interests groups and thus
aquiescing to the default direction against which their original plan was a deviation.

What is this default? It is the idea that all of us can have what we think we want. That default concept is
opposed to any kind of leadership, any kind of specialization, any kind of purpose... it is death to unique
and the enforcement of a universal norm not because of some decision toward that angle, but because
many small decisions whittle away at any unique concept and gradually convert it into the Same Old Thing
no matter what its original intent was. Where the original bourgeois attitude was that of middle and upper
classes preserving wealth, the fully-matured bourgeois attitude is that of overcivilizing from the pressures of
all groups wanting to secure their own lifestyles and individual preferences. The poor are as guilty as the
rich.

We can see overcivilization in society at large. Because we focus on pleasing the individual, we institute a
dominant course toward overcivilization in all things which, since opposing it is difficult and will eventually
be reduced by thousands of small compensations into the Same Old Thing, creates a de facto liberalism in
outlook in all things we do. Liberalism is, for those who study history and philosophy, any system of politics
based on satisfying the individual -- in philosophy it is called consequentialism, which is a fancy term for
utilitarianism, or figuring that the best solution is what most people identify in polls and votes as what they
desire. Such systems measure the intent of people, and never the outcome of events, because you cannot
have a vote to decide whether or not a plan worked... you propose an alternate plan. And then come the
special interests, civic groups, injured individuals, dogmatic bureaucrats to whittle it away until it resembles
every other plan.

The postmodern bourgeois corrupts all it touches, and turns politics into a vast distraction that raises
endless hue and cry but in essence never varies direction, because its assumptions of the means of power
determine its outcome: any civilization regulated by individuals alone has not one direction but thousands
of tiny limits to direction. The only system that supports such constant conflict and ultimate
directionlessness is liberal democracy, as it encourages that concept of living by placing emphasis on not
what is good for the society at large but what the individual desires. And given that almost every citizen
agrees most of the rest are misinformed, it's clear that misinformed and stupid decisions will be the order of
the day.

We can see this bourgeois attitude in what "popular culture" has done to art: turned it into entertainment.
Although we now have niche markets for every conceivable type of art, these end up being variations on
the same old type of art, since it fits the same need as this park -- to be everything to everyone. For gay
literature to be understood by the masses, it must conform much as the wilderness is forced to so that it
accomodates the individual impulses within the gay community. Thus, not surprisingly, the difference
between gay literature and teenybopper romance novels is the gender and vocabulary of its characters --
the Same Old Thing dressed up in pink lace and buttless chaps.

Entertainment is bourgeois "art" because unlike art which has a distinctive plan or idea to communicate,
entertainment pleases people with a lack of specialization so everyone can participate. Entertainment starts
the reader or viewer out from a point of view that accepts the direction of society as the best, shows them
fantasy worlds and car chases and sex scenes, and then returns them to a point of view that affirms the
dominant direction of society at this time not as much explicitly as by method: if "art" is created about
individuals fulfilling their desires and damn the collective consequences, like a park it will be shoehorned by
a thousand competing voices into something that offends no one and facilitates all, thus is a massive
averaging of artistic ideas into something that no matter how bizarre is milktoast in its content. Its goal is
to suspend disbelief for a few hours and then reinforce acceptance of the world as it is so people can go
back to their jobs without being threatened or challenged.

This concept in art and politics and philosophy is one of nullity because it has more "don'ts" than "dos."
You cannot offend the walkers, or have dangerous snakes, or have unsightly forest, or have a lack of bike
trails... you have to facilitate what everyone wants, in every situation, exactly the same. The only area for
difference is in where you set it or the outward details of the characters, so you get supernatural thrillers
where lesbian tuba-playing Sudoku experts take on half-amphibian eco-Nazi Scientologists, but the bad
guys are all about ending individual desire and the good guys are all about affirming it. The story never
changes.

This nullity allows the process of overcivilization to go on unabated by not challenging its basic assumption,
which is that we can take any idea or chunk of land or artistic work and have it be all things to all people
without losing what makes it distinct. By not challenging that assumption, we allow the default to continue
and in fact gain strength, which furthers this process to the point where we cannot revoke it. Liberal
democracy, the culture of diverse critique, marches on and by eliminating the distinctive creates an ever-
increasing crowd of generalist whose political instincts are a mix between Communist (class revenge) and
Capitalism (competitive altruism, or getting everything you can for yourself and making token gestures of
guilt and subsidy for those unfortunates below you, while feeling good about yourself for gifting them from
your lofty position and thus making yourself necessary in their world).

As our society decays, "smart" people can be heard asking where our plan went wrong. The answer to
them is simple: we had no plan, but we allowed the process of planning to continue anyway, and in the
process, we have overcivilized every aspect of our life into the exact same type of thing hiding behind
transparent "diverse" facades. We are normalizing ourselves, much as we wrecked the forest park, and that
is the ultimate failure of modern society.

May 13, 2006

Souls
We're used to science measuring us, deconstructing phenomena into material forms, and spitting out tightly
symmetrical conclusions. Love is a chemical impulse, anger is a reaction of fear, the soul is a construct of
personality and electrical impulses rattling down the dendritic antennae of our biological machine... but
whether we cling to ignorance or to strength, many of us including our most "scientifically" (lisp it)
educated maintain our belief in the soul. It is not our tendencies, nor our reflexes, nor even our abilities. It
is that which urges us on to what is not required and what is not reproducible in the physical world; it is
the seat of belief, of aspiration, of hope and of determination.

When we talk about weakness, we do not speak of the physical or of the mental ability, but how those
abilities are forced into patterns of effectiveness; how they are organized by whatever controlling impulse
comprises that which makes our decisions, what spurs us to act without a stimulus or material reward. The
great question of philosophy is not training the rat to press a button for food, but why the rat might forsake
food and neurochemical impulses for love, learning or a heroic act... weakness is a lack of power in the
soul, a desire to reach this state above the material x=y. When we speak of people as weak, we mean they
lack this power in their souls, and when food is thrown on the floor, they will rush to it and stuff it in their
mouths... as they would with sex, money, and other pleasures.

The greatest among us have been qualified by their ability to forsake pleasure and comfort for intangible,
not-yet-real ideas. Heroes could chuck it all, order up another round of beer and a woman of the night, and
be perfectly comfortable far from the clash of swords with their wavering tips pointing both to death and life
in undecided moments. Writers could set aside those pointless dreams, and content themselves spinning
tales to amuse the groundlings. But they do not. They look over the pleasures available toward a concept
forged in their souls, and then, even if slowly as glacial melt, they dedicate themselves to that proposition.
They give up all that they could hold in their hands in order to strive for something uncertain.

Of course, in our modern logic, that's crazy. If you've got a good thing going, milk it -- make the money,
take the woman, eat the food. Think about yourself and what you want, which is pleasure and comfort of
course, because when you think only of yourself that's all that is available to you. When you think beyond
yourself, whether for the benefit of others or the greatness of an idea to all including those non-human
(trees, for example), you have transcended the material plane, which we know is but a manifestation of the
Idea that assembles and organizes it all. To transcend is to see past need and lack and to fly over positive
and negative to see the whole, yin and yang collaborating, death and life conspiring, future and past
combining, to render unto us this physical face to the invisible, the mysterious World Beyond, that force
composed entirely of concept which through its calculations creates what we know as the real world. Is the
world beyond a place? A dual world, as Heaven might be? Or is it a principle of a higher level of
organization than what we know as physical reality, of the same world and unified at an inextricable level?

This is the hunting ground of the soul and the plain of nothingness on which heroes are forged, and
creative genius birthed. It is here that you face the greatest challenges to bravery, as instead of facing only
material consequences, you decide the direction of your life, which requires you to decide what you value.
Aspire for the intangible, or settle for the tangible? Those who face this challenge and surmount it change
on a fundamental level, become of clearer mind, higher stature, greater spiritual balance and greater
strength of will and soul . If there is a ladder of karma, the step that falls on the rungs in order to climb
them begins in this battleground of the spirit.

Our modern society denies this aspect to being. It is entirely a world of material effectiveness, and in that,
pleases those who have shirked the approach of the spiritual plane. They are afraid. For that reason, they
take refuge in both material dynamics and in something far queasier to those of strength, pity and guilt...
both guilt and pity are means of control as deterministic as those of material manipulation. When you pity
someone, you construe them as weaker and make them dependent on you for your gifts, at that same time
making yourself feel more powerful; when you use guilt to manipulate, you are creating a bond as
functional as a contract or cog in a machine, a material obligation translated into the psychic realm. Those
who are afraid depend on these finite, tangible methods of living.
For those for whom life is a gift, and thus meant to be explored and taken delight in, these material
constraints are a false humility and indeed, a selling cheaply of the self and a degradation of the soul. We
wish to rise above the expectation that showing a human food produces a stimulus-response reaction in all
cases... we wish to rise above control, manipulation, and its emotional counterparts in guilt and pity. These
things fascinate us no more than a bowel movement, and indeed, less, since they are not as functional as
defecation: they are unnecessary, especially to those who do not wish to waste their one and only life
(systems of control invariably posit some form of immortality, whether actual or "in memory," in order to
make their victims give up on the importance and magic of life). Those whose souls are strong recognize
the material as means to an end, and that end is life, but life is not a static thing like tangible goods or
material reactions; it is a process, a span of time in which creativity and heroism can grow the limitless
bounty of the imagination and of the desiring soul, and in that state of mind, cannot be constrained by the
controlling, mechanical, manipulative and limiting.

In our souls, we will never consent to modern society. We may be defeated but never conquered. We will
not bow before it and accept it as right, even if it may be stronger. And while we still live, there is hope;
remember that even if all but a thousand of us are slaughtered, if those thousand keep this ascendant
viewpoint, a new civilization as great if not greater than the past will arise. But only if such a mentality is
kept, a care for the soul is more than for the tangible. To those who think, and can look past the fog of
repeated illusion brought forth by media and social pressure alike, it is clear that our modern society is in
its descent to self-cannibalization. Our fates are not tied to it, no matter how much it materially appears so.
Those who believe in the soul will continue to create and discover, and in doing so, will survive the dying
hulk and renew humanity with a more hopeful existence -- one not based on what is here and now, but
what can be, through the conduit of the wisdom and strength of our souls.

May 16, 2006

Pyramid
America, as like the Roman empire our post-modern superpower, leads us all in terms of what it adopts as
civilization technology, we adopt. By civilization technology it is meant methods for keeping society
together. When we look at America, we see a history that is positive on the outside but disturbing after
prolonged thought: a constant internal battle over agreed-upon ideals, resulting in many reforms but no
basic changes. If one were to design an ideal government based on the idea of stability through sponsored
dissidence and not controlled but not oppositional reform, that would be it. Many inconsequential small
revolutions and no change.

In this process, we see philosophy in action, because philosophy if nothing else can be construed as a
pursuit of the root causes of phenomena (things that happen in reality) and the finding of realistic ways to
adapt to them without creating instability. It is for this reason that philosophy occurs before a civilization is
founded, and then disappears to show up again only after stability is founded. People look at their way of
life, analyze, and come up with a suggested alternative, that they then test by putting into action; this is
why philosophy and the scientific method are one and the same, but unlike science, philosophy deals with
the organization of reality (ideals) and not solely its material, x=y, push-this-to-get-that form of material
thought.

A philosopher will look at the ideas in a society and arrange them in a virtual pyramid, with the broadest at
the base being daily methods and their effects, and the highest being the founding principles of that
society. The pattern resembles a pyramid because while there are many things at its base, there are just a
handful if not a single one at the top. In this process philosophy goes beyond other sciences. Sociology,
psychology, science, and most of all, politics, stop somewhere in the middle. They are effective so long as
they do not need to rise above their position. When they attempt to become more than what they are, we
witness the hilarity of people attempting to regulate cause through effect.

In the pyramid of ideas that founds America -- well, let's be honest and say instead that America is the
archetype of the modern liberal democracy, with two modifying characteristics: (1) vast natural resources
and geographic isolation (2) as a created nation, a 60% German-English population and the rest a
smattering of Europeans and later Eurasians, Armenids, Middle Easters and later still Congoids, Mongoloids
and Australoids -- the top of the pyramid remains elusive except to those who have learned enough
philosophy to recognize that America can be described as a motivational factor instead of a regulatory one.
Let us leave that for now and return to it, and instead look at some past reform movements.

Hippies, or the divisive generations of the 1960s and 1970s, represent so far the furthest extreme in
American protest movements, mostly because theirs was so widespread. What defines hippies? They are
the children of the postwar middle class, which thanks to social reorganization in the great depression a
decade before the war, included many newly-enfranchised groups like Italians, Greeks, the Irish, Poles, etc.,
which were groups traditionally shunned by the German-English/Northern European American foundational
society, as it recognized that each group had become mixed by outside forces: Italians (Persians), Greeks
(Turks), the Irish (Phoenicians/Spanish), Poles (Eurasian). As a result, they had traditionally been viewed as
an entirely different population. Consequently, for the first time in American history, we saw a divided
middle class that could no longer claim a single inheritance of culture. It had to invent its own.

It did this by returning to the formalized statements of America's incorporation, namely the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution, in part because these are the grandest-sounding proclamations of
American identity, but also because they are the last complete theory of America as a society that it has
articulated. Since then, we have labored in their shadow (and chipped away at them in various directions
diligently). When the hippie generation arrived, they saw an America that had given up on ideology in favor
of money and power, and so they very logically returned to the last clear statements of American belief.
Naturally, a few wondered if this would bring about change or simply restart the cycle.

The disagreement was simple: hippies took one look at "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and saw
the reality -- wage slavery, bored suburbanites, impoverished city African-Americans, an old-boy network in
the businesses -- and commented rather accurately that our stated ideals did not match the reality (no
questioning of whether those ideals were realistic was attempted, however). Fired up by this injustice, they
created a protest movement based on the Jesus model: we, the saviors, will descend and bring justice to
all, and our new enlightened society will become a shining beacon -- a city upon a hill! -- to those
worldwide who are suffering. Shades of the Communist revolution? Heck, shades of the French Revolution
(liberty, equality, fraternity) and the American revolution, but even before that of the Mongol Empire and
the early Christians.

While the hippies were canting against The Establishment, its response seemed to vary, which can easily be
explained when one escapes paranoia and realizes The Establishment is not a cadre but a way of thinking;
it's a philosophy in response to our social philosophy as a whole, and it constantly recruits new members,
because once one assimilates its values and acts on them one is automatically part (easier, even, than
joining Fight Club). As it was, various members of The Establishment grumbled and even acted hastily
against the hippies, perceiving correctly that this was a "soft" or unarmed revolution, but in doing so they
stumbled upon the tired failure of conservatism, which is that reactionary behavior against a passive
movement portrays one as the aggressor and thus loses popular support. Millions of Americans who hated
everything the hippies stood for became more inclined to support them after four unarmed students were
shot at Kent State University; while the hippies were spoiled brats, they reasoned, shooting those little
more than children is not conducive to anything. Naturally, those in power stumbled further by staggering
into a costly foreign police action (a police action is a war where a guerrilla army offsets an occupation
attempt) and slaughtering more kids of both Caucasian and Asian persuasions in an attempt to "stop
Communism" errr or maintain American hegemony in Asia.

Yet the Establishment drones did not fully balk. While their middle managers -- expendable desk jockeys --
and pundits gapped and whined, the more sage minds in the system looked at the hippie revolution as
simply another business opportunity.

Hippies: We want the individual rights upon which America was founded! Equality, freedom of speech and
action, and goodwill toward all humans. We want equality for women, gays and Negroes. We want an open
society.
Establishment man: And how to do that?
Hippies: Through strong government protection, and incorporation into ... the economy! Establishment
man: Well, that's not far from our plan, so we can work with you. In fact, we'll assimilate you, since our
idea is a grandfather version of yours, which is that each individual be free to accumulate wealth and thus
have whatever life he or she desires. Not only that, but we'll use your Other-ness (self-defined, of course)
to market products for the next forty years. We make out like bandits and don't have to alter our course at
all, although we do feel a sneaking suspicion that society is breaking up... well (heh heh hehe) I guess the
best will rise, and be able to afford gated communities, air filters, water filters, organic foods, and private
medical care. The rest of you... well, I guess you're the Negro now. These expenses will be absorbed by
society resulting in not only higher taxes, but higher bureaucratic expenses as we adopt layers of expensive
government to fund them. Even more, the internal division in our society is going to require that we
replicate structures... different products for different lifestyles... constant conflict mediation... there's
endless possibilities for profit here. That's always been our model. In fact, we don't actually get inducted
into The Establishment through a blood ritual... all you have to do is get the picture, and then start piling
up wealth for yourself. It's social breakdown but we're gonna come out on top. Nothing to sign!
Hippies: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~shoa, i'm fukcin

And so what happened? The hippies had their day of protests; token changes were made; government got
stronger and business got stronger, and after another ten years, almost all of the hippies figured they were
up against a force stronger than they and bowed their heads and joined. Now they run ethical coffee shops
and pay their workers $8/hour, own stock portfolios, drive SUVs and pay for the fourth wife with salaries
padded by corporate excess.

And their record? "Free love" became an excuse to use the body as a commodity, and now the sex industry
dwarfs both movies and book publishing in revenues. Even more, it's acceptable to treat your sexual
partners like disposable lighters. Is this "freedom"? Freedom to enjoy the ruins, but not the castle! "Equal
rights" became a great way to bring more people into the workforce and, by requiring endless government
civil rights legislation, providing oodles of profit for anyone who cared to get in on the game. "Legal drugs"?
Well, we can't do that because someone will die and sue us, but instead, we'll lay off you suburban drug
users (drug enforcement is nonexistent in suburban communities). You can have your bangs and whistles
but you're going to need a job, because in part thanks to all this divisiveness, rents are now up... utilities
are more expensive... competition is fierce because everyone is a worker... And that brings us to "women's
rights." They're equal now, too, which means they get thrown into the worker pool and have a very
reduced chance of finding a husband to raise a child. Solution? Don't have children. Of course, one does
miss out on the joys of life beyond 30 that way, but hell, there's television to keep them distracted... The
1960s and 1970s did produce a flowering of music, but that too became a commodity, and now there's a
gigantic industry which relies on prying dollars from children for an interchangeable series of boring rock
bands. We have Slipknot and Cradle of Filth because of this spoiled, captive audience.

Business loves nothing more than dissent, because it creates new markets. The hippies barrelled through
and created new markets because really, their own goal was their own pleasure; they wanted to feel like
Jesus by saving the Negroes, women, gays from inequality, and they wanted to find "the good life" in the
pursuit of pleasure through sex, drugs, and boring music. They didn't realize that they were essentially
restating the principle which mates liberal democracy to capitalism, which is that the individual by acting in
her own best interests creates an economy of vicious competition which, with no cultural goal to guide it
(because culture is a higher value that the pursuit of individual pleasure) turns the entire society into one
giant economy. Every object on the planet suddenly has a price tag on it, and all of our time is ranked by
what we're worth... you can have whatever freedom you desire, if you can pay for it, but since in the
absence of culture and social accord, business takes over with its simpler agenda, you will now serve your
new masters. The hippies in effect broke up what was left of the old America and, in the name of some
very abstract ideas taken to their simplest extremes, made it so divisive that the corporations can take
over.

You'll find many ex-hippies now sipping $8 lattes and complaining loudly about corporate culture -- in
Starbucks. Like most people in the city and the suburbs with political opinions, they are not quite serious
about what they say, because their political opinions are a vehicle toward their own satisfaction through
pleasant self-image and physical comfort and convenience. The hippies never differed with The
Establishment at all except in method, and since The Establishment is a process of deconstructing, breaking
everything down into resources and goods and services to be sold, it gladly accepted more divisiveness and
breakdown... good for business... opportunity for some bright young guy. And we've now got women, gays
and blacks in positions of power, but they think exactly like the Old Establishment guys. Could it be that
sharing an ideology defines behavior, and not participation in some blues-tinged underdog former slave
group? Eh.

Since the time of the hippies, our social decay has continued. Oh, we did hand over some rights, and have
free love and women's liberation and quasi-legal drugs and equal rights, but that did not stop the overall
progress from being a culture with goals higher than money to being a marketplace with no goal except
profit. Such is the nature of individualism, or putting individual pleasure and freedom and desires before all
else; in fact, individualism is another word for utilitarianism, which holds that if most people are happy with
a proposed idea (translation: it appeals to their sense of pleasure and personal wealth), it's a good idea.
Utilitarianism, capitalism, liberal democracy... one and the same idea, as Greeks such as Plato and Aristotle
noted. You cannot escape that plague by re-adopting its ideas, as the hippies did, because you only add to
the cycle and like reactionary conservatives, by lashing out and creating discord, you in fact make things
worse. It's for this reason that only clueless suburban kids buy the thousands of different hippie-themed
products in stores today; it's like Mickey Mouse, but it implies these grand-sounding ideals like freedom for
all of us, free love, et cetera, et cetera.

Why has our society produced nothing great in recent years -- no great literature, no great music, no great
art? Too much internal friction, and not enough focus placed on the creation of great things outside of the
individual. Why is that? Too busy making our own piles of cash, enjoying our own "freedom" (lisp it). The
hippies failed miserably not because they sold out later, but because they had no different idea at the top
of the pyramid from the beginning. They were following in the footsteps of those who created The
Establishment by indulging the oldest error in the world, one that's opposed to a recognition of reality and
through that transcendence of the "negative" parts of reality, and that is selfishness. Capitalism is
selfishness. Democracy is selfishness. Utilitarian is selfishness. And hippieism happily joins that pantheon.

This cycle happens again and again. Andrew Jackson railing against banks and robber barons; grunge kids
whining about the emptiness of it all; hackers declaring that the way to get over squabbles regarding the
ownership of computing resources is individual "freedom" (which of course must be enforced with
ownership, including of computational resources, but trust a geek to miss long-term implications); pot
legalization people realizing that to make it legal would be to make it a product, or a value-added service,
with increasing costs and sickening corporate behavior -- witness what happened to California.

You cannot fix a broken system through division, because whatever value is a step up on the pyramid from
where you are assimilates you. You have to invent a different kind of society, and that may mean giving up
comforting concepts like economy as defining your place, pleasure and personal happiness as the goal, or
even that equality is possible. These concepts are the basis of the American (liberal democratic, capitalist)
system and if assumed in any form, will become the top of the pyramid and over years of conflict and
debate, will return as a default. Every society which has embarked on individualism as the top of its
pyramid has followed this course and while it may take some years, as the hippies found out, ultimately
there is no deviation within it.

If there is hope, and by that is not meant hope in an external sense like "maybe the unicorns/blues
musicians/hobbits/technology will save us" but the idea of hope as trust in the power of our minds and
hands, it is in the generations spawned of the dysfunctional hippie relationships. We've seen how our
parents pursuing pleasure led to divorce, greed, bitterness and most of all, neglect of environment and
family and culture and self in the haze of confusion brought on by the pursuit of pleasure through
individualistic wealth, rights and freedoms. We need a better paradigm. Increasingly, among today's
generations there is a desire to find a social system that does what is right first, and fits us into it, because
we are no longer as concerned with pleasure and wealth as we are about the future. This, if done correctly,
might constitute actual change instead of a covert restatement of the errors of our forebears.

May 23, 2006

Iconoclasm
To some degree, the problem with civilization -- and its culmination in modernity as the finalization of its
death cycle -- comes down to numbers. One person can always find a course of action, even if it's a
compromise that ends badly, and can work to refine that course of action; something that starts stupidly
can, through a process of scientific method/natural selection called "furthering what works, and abandoning
what doesn't" become intelligent. Get two people together, and agreement is harder, unless they're
hardcore in love; get twenty together and it's impossible. 200 million? You're screwed.

What causes this? The simple fact of numbers is the essence, but this can be overcome if they're all willing
to pull together in the same direction, and to cede some personal authority in exchange for a wise course
of action . Your twenty people in a committee meeting are doing fine if they are surrounded by a society
that tolerates some mistakes, and gives them a clear-cut mandate to do good; when their commanding
and unifying authority is to be popular, or to make money, they drift away into a private reality and start
scheming against one another. "What will my compensation be?" and "I don't want to get blamed for this
mess." But even more than methodological concerns, there are also qualitative concerns; one stupid person
in a committee will make every vote so tedious that soon the goal becomes to get the meeting over with,
and damn the consequences.

We humans are afflicted because our freedom/individualism/choice causes us to come into friction with one
another, and without a dominant voice -- a philosopher king, a poet, a sage, a god -- telling us exactly
what to do, individual preferences take over. The programmer wants to write code, so instead of making
the computer work better, he writes a 3-D rendering program. In itself, it's a good contribution; on the
level of the whole, it's a failure, because what was needed was operating system refinement. "But that's not
as much fun!" and "That's boring; I wanted to express myself" -- epitaphs, not mission statements. We
overwork ourselves, exhaust ourselves with the needs of others, and then make radical, destructive
compromises. Because dysfunction has set in, we make a habit of manipulating each other. Soon we have
created ten thousand layers of middle management, even in our own minds (morality), and therefore are
miles distant from seeing the realistic needs of a situation. And then we're defenseless against the parasites.

Some would say it makes no sense to be harsh on parasites. Why come down on the van that drives
around selling ice cream to kids, if it's "not harming anything"? Simple answer: because "not harming" is
not enough. It needs to work with the society toward simplifying its task and reducing the hours we spend
on it. You want less work? Have more order. The more parasitic tasks like selling ice cream to children that
you permit, the more your order becomes bloated, calcified, confused, and thus the more time you'll spend
fixing it and working around it. If we tolerate deviation, we actually become less free because we spend
time compensation for the lack of a clear direction.

The citizens are caught between two oppressive forces: leaders, which can become abusive, and their
fellow citizens, who through unintentional selfishness can impose so many parasitic demands on a
civilization to drag it down or at least make participation in it a tedious and aggravating task. How many
more generations do we need to pack off to jobs they hate, dealing with moronic coworkers and
incompetent bosses and bitchy customers, to realize that we're oppressing each other? It's commonly
accepted as truth that our problem is oppressive leaders, but if we look deeply into our motivation, that's
mainly to obscure the latter force (parasitism of crowd demands) because we all secretly want it our way
and hope that we can just cheat a bit on reality... pretend it's not there... make ourselves comfortable,
even if at the expense of the whole.

Once upon a time, people of European descent were more intelligent, more attractive, and more likely to
work together. Because they worked together, they worked less: they spend almost no time dealing with
internal adversity, they had no perplexingly cross-purposed tasks before them, and they had few parasites.
Parasites arose first from within, and then invited others in to share the blame and increase the power of
parasitism; at first it was those who wanted wealth but did not deserve it, then it was the masses they riled
up to get their "equal share," and finally it was immigrants and new religions and special interest groups
each with its own weirdness. We are all penalized for these people, and yet get nothing out of them.
Two thousand years later, the suffering of this individualistic iconoclasm has reached a peak. Thanks to the
internal combustion engine, we live so comfortably that we can pretend not to notice our parasitic
existence, so long as we don't wake up to how bad basic services are, how dangerous our cities are, how
moronic our culture is, how much time we wait at red lights, etc. We get to immerse ourselves in our own
drama - what do I want to watch? What is my spiritual direction? What different, new weird thing can I do
today? -- but these don't make us happy; we eat constantly but are never full. We even get to cheat on
the requirements of life, since even our "hard working" jobs are easy tasks with lots of breaks, plenty of
shuffling paper and talking to people, using phones and email. But we're going to spend eight hours at the
job and two in the car.

You've been sold a bill of goods, people of earth. They told you that you could have it easier; instead, all of
us work harder. They told you that you could have it "your way"; instead, you have your way as interpreted
through mass tastes (e.g. total dumbing down). They told you that you could be anything you want, but
now you have a society based on the morality of false humility so any attempt to find something that isn't
instantly cognizable by the masses is a money-losing project and thus dies in obscurity. They told you that
you would be an iconoclast, but instead you're another sad puke with a hobby and a day job. Sure, there
are a few rock stars and CEO robber barons, but they're the minority, and most of them die miserable.
What's your direction, modern human? Answer: toward self-destruction through excess and descent into
the third world.

Only the intelligent, the Kaczynskis and Nietzsches and Vikerneses and Huntingdons, see this pattern and
they're an unpopular minority because it's offensive to most people to see someone so much more
intellectually gifted than they be given power for that reason alone. "But they didn't work for that!" say the
wise masses, slyly scheming any way they can to tear down those above them. (They know little more than
what they read and see on television, oblivious to the fact that all of these "information" sources are
motivated by the same idea: tell as much of the vivid news as you can without getting into the ugly truths
beneath the surface. Intelligent observers note the similarity between mainstream and underground media
as proof of this nearly identical motivation; even subversive newspapers must gain an audience, and to do
so, both cannot offend and must provide titillation, since everyone is so overwhelmed that only !!!screaming
extremes!!! grab their attention.)

The human experiment may turn out to be a failure, especially since it keeps growing without finding a
better direction. All of the hysteria over global warming and gas prices is temporary; the long-term crisis is
a reduction in quality (intelligence, strength, beauty, honesty/realism) of human beings. If there's no one
smart left to notice that we're living in shit, well then, this is the best shit on the planet! It doesn't get
better than this. Pay your taxes, pay your bills, listen to the fear and sycophant ease on television. It'll all
work out for the best. The apocalypse is not a big explosion, but a slowing of time into identical actions
repeated with "new" faces over and over again, getting nowhere, and each iteration slowly grinding us
closer and closer to being dumb, stimulus-dependent, pleasure-seeking brutes incapable of the beauties
and heroics that once distinguished us from apes.

May 25, 2006

Microcosm
Show a desktop computer to an average person, and he or she will think, "Very useful sometimes but those
things sure screw up a lot." The exception are Macintosh users, who are so obsessed with brand-status that
when their computer crashes they think, "Sure is an interesting feature, deleting the hard drive and
shutting off like that" (this is similar to the behavior of heroin addicts that considers living under a bridge to
shoot heroin "a minor inconvenience"). But for most of us, the computer represents the duality of modern
technology: superior technology -- in theory -- with a high rate of failure in reality . Is the problem our
technology? A conspiracy of Jewish unicorn-gremlins that sabotage it? Masonic symbols on microchips? Or
is it something subtler... something inward...

I.

Dill Computers is about to introduce its fall line of machines. Binkely Berman, Project manager, is explaining
to Mikhail Dill, the founder, about his new machine. "We found quality parts and put them together," he
said. "If our margin goes down to 28.2% from 36.6%, we can sell them for $500 and have the best
computer on the market." Mikhail Dill thinks this is a neat idea, but since he got big in this business by
caution and severity, he runs it by his lawyers, accountants, and management consultants first. The lawyer
comes into the room first.

"On the surface, there's no problems," he says. "But keep in mind that by starting a price war like that,
because this machine is clearly better than others, you'll be opening yourself to non-competitiveness
legislation as well as lawsuits." Dill thinks: this is actually a small risk, but maybe we'll raise the price by
fifty bucks.

In comes the accountant. Contrary to popular belief, accountants are not as destructive as portrayed;
however, they are (while being usually politically liberal) the most conservative types you can imagine
because their entire job revolves around the ratio of likelihood of something going wrong to cost. So the
accountant's presentation is brief. "Using premium parts is an unusual decision," she says. "Were we to use
standard parts, we could assemble the machine for $32.50 less per unit and make a 36-38% margin."

Dill thinks. "Would we save money on technical support if the machine broke down less?"

"Hard to tell, sir," says the accountant. "We have pared technical support down to two former drug addicts
reciting sections of the Windows manual and reminding people to plug in their monitors," she notes. "It
can't get much cheaper. But we have no data on saving money by having our product work better, because
we're not sure how many people are calling tech support based on the product not working, or their minds
not working."

In comes the management consultant. This is a person who literally generates no actual positive net result
for society, because their job is to maximize profit. They are hampered in turn by political factors: they
cannot recommend too many firings, or suggest anything publically unethical, but that which is legal and
makes sense on a spreadsheet is fair game. The management consultant takes one look at it and says,
"You know the shareholders are gonna have your balls for lowering margins."

Dill thinks and says that he senses new markets might open up with a better quality machine. That sinks
him, of course, because the management consultant hauls out a sheaf of "research."

"You did know, of course," she says, "that 86% of the customers identify software and ease of
configuration as more important than how long the machine lasts or how fast it is? These parts are high
quality but might be more complicated. Ease of use is really tops."

Dill says he thinks the software can be configured for the new parts.

"But that will cost money!" ejaculates the consultant. "And then there's the fact that according to a recent
Diff-Zavis study, the average user is consuming only 60% of the machine's power anyway. These people
don't need faster machines, or better machines, they need easier ones. Just look at the success (market
share: 2.4%) of Apple Computer, Inc."

Dill tells her he's fine with it and off she goes. In comes the shareholder representative.

"Backdoorway and Hewlett-Bastard are estimated to have a 2.68% increase in profit this quarter," he says,
smirking over his blue wool pinstripe. "You're talking about reducing profit margin at a time when our
competition is fiercest."

Dill, uncharacteristically, says he would rather make a better machine. (Dill prides himself on succeeding
despite not being the smartest or noblest engineer, but in having made technology "accessible" -- meaning
cheap and easy -- and deriving from that huge profits.)

"The shareholders don't know that," says the rep. "All they know is that you're bringing in less money,
selling more complicated machines, and requiring more support resources since these quality machines are
obviously going to have a range of function; they're versatile and flexible and people are going to do
everything with them. That won't work at all. It's cutting into advertising."

Speaking of advertising, in comes the adman. "Mikhail, baby," he says. "Bigger, better is not where the
market is going. Lifestyle marketing is where it's at. You want more computers sold? Make 'em in pink like
Apple does, and we've got a humdinger of an idea for you... get this... put a built-in vase on top of the
things. Wowza! Instant market recognition."

It comes down to, two days later, the final planning meeting. Dill stands up. "Originally," he says, "We were
going to make a better machine with quality parts and an expert configuration. Research suggests that not
only is this too hard for the user, but all but a handful of them are oblivious to quality since they shop by
price and convenience -- too much research, numbers, ideas confuses them and interrupts their pursuit of
pleasure. So we're going to do what we always do, which is pile together the crap our purchasing
department found on close-out, staple it together, and put a pink vase on top."

II.

Griff Bigglesmountain at Bucklink High Speed Internet is planning his next campaign. "So we get them a
reduced-speed high-speed at a lower cost, and we make it easy to install," he says. "Since the installation
is our highest cost, I've had a brainstorm: we're going to bundle software with our installation. StealPlayer,
HIV Messenger, DVD-Fry and Snorton Anti-Virus will pay us to have a default installation of their software
with our 'EZ-konnect' point and click software. Their stuff works for a month, then either gets upgraded for
$$$ or it starts showing ads."

"That's what we always do," says the CTO. "Why are we gonna load all that useless crap on these poor
people's machines? If they got a Dill Computer, it will already have fifteen different sample packages. If
they have a Mac... well, who cares about 2% of the damn market, especially since the only software they
use is Bath House Video Chat."

"Yeah, but 34% of them either have a corporate move, get AIDS and die, or flake out and discover
themselves in some non-digital way within the year," says the director. "We gotta have a one-year contract
to really show some profit."

"How do we make such huge sums of money then?" asks a confused intern.

"Well, the biggest chunk of our audience are normal people, who install the damn thing once and pay
$30/month to check their email for the next five years. We make bunches offa them... it's everyone else
who loses us money."

"Why not avoid marketing to them?" says the intern.

"Can't," says the director. "We put a sign that says 'Morons Do Not Apply' and we're going to get sued
more ways that Britney Spears has taken dongs... we try to sell it to smart people, and someone's gonna
say we're elitist and then no one's going to buy it. It's a sad fact of life that we need the idiots as much as
they need us, or something like that, son."

"OK," says Bigglesmountain. "So we put all this crap in the package but, what if there's an existing version
or worse a competitor for one of these softwares?"

"Have our stuff do a militant install," says the Director. "Nuke the configuration files, then put ours in, and
if their other stuff doesn't work, too bad."

"We're going to need to include versions of the network code for several versions of the operating system,"
says Bigglesmountain.

"Crap," says the director. "Well, all of these operating systems can use the version from 1998... so have
that in there. If it overwrites something newer, it should work -- but let's not think too hard on that..."

III.

In Rupture, Washington, the board of Macrosloth, Inc. is sitting down to a scrumptious meal of $12 donuts
from the luxury Thai organic donut shop. "So about this new operating system..." says Toby Ballher, CFO
and CTO and OOD of the company.

Bob Goetz, CEO, looks back at him. "We were gonna include an anti-virus," he says. "But it's gonna screw
up our supplier relationship with Aborton Anti-Virus, so we gotta leave that off. Ditto the better text editor,
the non-retarded firewall (NRFW), the advanced file system... we put any of those in and it cuts out our
business partners."

"How about the OS itself?" asks Ballher.

Goetz shrugs. "It's an update to the previous," he says. "We had eleventy-billion lines of code, and really
the task is impossible in the time we had, so we picked the top ten things from the consumer survey and
fixed them."

"Which was...?"

"Ease of use, of course," says Goetz. "That means nothing and the customers don't get more specific, so
we added colored icons... made the windows bigger... use only monosyllables in the help file. They also
wanted a better version of the card game that comes with it."

"Enough!" says Ballher. "I've seen the salaries and resumes around here -- we're hiring the best in the
industry. Why's this so damn difficult?"

"Contradictory objectives," says Goetz. "It has to run on all sorts of hardware, and half the time the
consumer 'saved' money and bought some half-baked no-name from the third world, put together in six
months and full of errors... so it has to be dumb as a brick in how it deals with hardware and should ignore
most problems. Um, and people are going to install all sorts of software on it. This is a desktop computer.
That means they'll put everything from $5,000 CAD programs to freeware utilities that show the time in
flashing colors with animated hearts and dancing bears, so it's gotta be super-tolerant of that... also, there's
really not that much of a mystery here, so we have to keep adding features to keep them feeling like
they're getting 'new' technology. The basics of what we're doing haven't changed since the 1970s... a PDP-
11 and our OS have more in common than cars and trucks do to each other. Oh, and market forces... we
have to make it cheap, reliable, easy, and on time, all of which are contradictory objectives. We have to
include stuff that the average moron repair person can fix and charge money for, and a bunch of
development tools so the average idiot programmer can spend a lot of time screwing with it. But really the
basic question is that there is no objective. We make an operating system for users who don't know what
they want, but demand what they think they want, and since we have no idea what they use it for, we
throw everything and the kitchen sink into it and hope it doesn't crash."

"But these developers," says Ballher. "Don't they get pissed with this piece of junk?"
"Hell no," says Goetz. "They love it. They can charge for hours and hours of time just fixing the time
display. Their job remains so frustrating, boring, tedious, illogical, and driven by memorization that no one
else wants it, so they've got job security. And open source software? Those people are so busy wanking off
to their own abilities that they don't notice their software is just as bad. And Apple? Their hardware is such
junk that even if their OS wasn't bug-riddled the machines would crash constantly. So we've got no
competition, which means there's still no objective, so we keep pasting together this collection of random
shit and shipping it out to the poor idiots."

"Christ," says Ballher. "I should've gone into major league baseball."

IV.

So Quincy and Lucretia Consumer get this new computer, see, and they take it home and plug it in.

Right away the thing has problems. "Why's it loading so slow?" asks Lucretia.

Quincy looks at what the operating system's running. "Holy crap! It's got 41 applications already running, all
little things. StealPlayer Audio, some DVD burning, a color picker from Abode, two virus-checkers, two
software-updaters, chat programs and video cams, the Dill idiot-proof remote upgrade/fixit facility, the
wireless network bandwidth monitor, the consumer suggestion indicator, bug reporter, Boogle tool bar,
dancing bears and flashing colors... no wonder it's running slowly. Only 30% of our system memory is free
for our programs. The rest is running this garbage! And then there's stuff the operating system has running
that we'll never use, like file and printer sharing, remote object linking, messenger services, communion
with pagan gods file system..."

Then they plug in the high speed access. "It's got a CD," says Lucretia.

"Probably crap," says Quincy, "but if I'm masochistic enough to live in a liberal democracy, there's no
reason I wouldn't install this." He puts it in. Flashing colors, lights, tons of crap being copied to the hard
drive... "Now it's crashing," says Lucretia.

"Well, it just installed another forty apps," says Quincy. "Photo uploader, printer tester, ass wiper... couldn't
we do all this stuff ourselves? This isn't mal-ware, and it isn't spyware, it's moron-ware."

"You know, it's weird," says Lucretia. "This computer now runs as slowly as the old one, which is going to
be 64.2 lbs of toxic garbage in a landfill, since no one wants to spend time retrofitting old machines that
are statistically likely to fall apart within six months anyway. I mean, how many of these hard drives last
past five years?"

"The good ones do," says Quincy.

"Yeah, but those cost $20 wholesale," says Lucretia. "The drive in this cost $11. We probably saved $1.40
on the purchase price by getting the cheaper drive."

"Well, what do we do now?" says Quincy.

"I'm calling someone," says Lucretia. "He's an ex-lover but he's allright, I promise." She hangs up the
phone a minute later.

"Hope this guy's good," says Quincy.

Suddenly there's a hammering on the door. Lucretia swings it wide and there's Vijay Prozak, a two-foot
blunt hanging out of his mouth, banging on the door with an M-60 machine gun. "Heard ya got the
computer AIDS," he says, then mumbles incoherently. He drops the gun on the floor ("if I'm going to shoot
the computer in frustration, I'm going to kill it dead pronto") and blows thick resinous smoke around the
room... Lucretia notes her head is filled with helium and the voices of singing children, the children she did
not have because between the career and cable, who has time? -- Quincy watches the world stretch away
from him like a rubber band and come back, quivering as if underwater... -- the family Chihuaha named
Child/Sanity Surrogate hides under the bed in its SS uniform, imagining that the Hebrew National man has
come to put a bun around it and sell it to tourists...

Prozak kicks over the extra chair. "No multitasking for you," he says. More thick smoke, tinged with
tobacco, floods through the room like an errant orgasm. He squints at the computer and begins writing in
Latin on a prescription pad.

"What's that?" asks Quincy.

Prozak shows him the Latin, which has magically modulated into Sanskrit... "Komonova
Anhavjaselphagudtijm," he says. "Means 'totally laden with useless, parasitic shit' in Hindu."

"Oh," says Quincy. Prozak produces a Possessed Seven Churches CD and whips out a CD-R from under it.
"Stripped down version of the OS," he leers. "Got none of the 'free' software, and none of that Communist
open-source shit either. Those people nag at me like Christians... don't want no Communists in my car. No
Christians either."

In thirty minutes, he has installed the operating system and the four programs the Consumers actually need
-- word processing, internet browser, e-mail and MP3/video player -- and is stubbing out the remains of his
blunt. "You smoked the whole thing?" asked Lucretia. Prozak shrugs. "Gave some to Quincy," he nods at
the fallen form.

He explains later over cocktails. "See, the basic operating system isn't that bad. The engineers at
Macrosloth aren't bad. It's the marketing department. When you take away the cute visual styles, the extra
gimmicks and flashing colors, and all the junk software, the computer really is a simple gadget and it works
well. The OS is basically stable... the word processor almost so... the email client reasonable... and this
browser, Opera, was created by some guy who hated both corporate software and open source, because he
realized that like Communism and Capitalism what matters is the intent and goal behind the society more
than its methods. His goal was a stable browser. Same with the guy who made this SSH client, PuTTy... or
the text editor, EditPad. These guys didn't go Open Source or Croesian wealthy with the corporates. They
just responded to function! So I took out the junk, turned off all the moron functions to make the OS look
easy to use to idiots, put in some quality software, and kept everything as simple as possible. Now if Dill
Computers had just gone with the original quality parts, it could have been as long as a decade before this
fifty pounds of toxic crap hits the landfill... if all of our industry were designed around common sense like
Opera and EditPad and PuTTy, the whole thing would be upgradable and would have reached this state of
technology a decade ago. We could have saved... billions of pounds of toxic junk from the landfill..."

Quincy shakes his head. "So I don't understand... is the evil Mr. Goetz to blame?"

"Hell no," says Prozak. "He's just another pawn. He happens to be the richest one. The problem is our
expectations. Instead of figuring out what the goals of our society are, and designing our technology to
match, we try to make it everything to everyone and thus it becomes nothing to no one. And in our
confusion, we let the makers of garbage software stick in all their crap, because more means a better deal
(people "think"), and there's lots of others just trying to make a buck who get their hand in on the gig, and
the end result is a big confused mess. Take away as much of the confusion as possible, and it works, but
only about 1% of the market knows how to do that, so they don't count on spreadsheets. If we had a
smart leader, he or she might define some of these objectives, and then we could cut out the 60-80% of
this experience that's not relevant to getting anything done at all. But, that kind of realism is offensive," he
finished.

"Why?" asks Lucretia.

"To take the world seriously is to accept death," says Prozak. "It also means seeing ourselves as something
other than the center of the universe. That bothers most (99%) of all humans. We would rather be self-
important up until the day we all die together than plan for the future. It's part of the natural regression of
technological society. Technology makes life easy, so we have no goal... so we do what is profitable and
ignore what is real... common sense is dead. And hell, why do we worry; the consequences are for our
grandchildren to worry about." He looked at Lucretia's dry womb. "Or those of our neighbors from less
developed nations, I guess."

Prozak lights another blunt and continued. "See, to be starving, to be striving for a society, that means
everyone's on the same page: build or die. But when you've had society around for a while, people get
used to the idea that there's food in grocery stores... medical care available for a few $$$... television and
social lives to be attended to. They detach from reality. They detach from nature. To them, 'nature' is some
mowed lawn with a few ceremonial palm trees. That same process afflicts the computer industry. Everyone
is trying to do what is most popular, a kind of utilitarianism that makes King Individual out of each citizen,
yet because it considers them together, makes an average of everything and then adds in all sorts of
irrelevant stuff."

He fixes them with a cold eye. "It's not just computers that are laden with extra garbage," he says. "Most
of what we talk about in this society, worry about, isn't reality. It's neurotic and it's distracting. But still, we
think it's better than facing death, our own inadequacies... the inner world that is impervious to all but the
daring. And that's truly the last frontier." He looks down at the blunt, which had vanished in his powerful
inhale.

"Everybody's just passing the buck, cruising on the past," says Quincy. "We built all this... and now we're
letting it all go. And for what?"

"Well, gotta go. And as they say, when you gotta go... but you know it's comforting to think that, after our
society descends into the third world and ruins itself with industrial poisons, something will succeed us.
Giant mutant frogs, talking mosquitoes, telepathic dolphins. The great thing about nature is that it keeps
trying, and its creatures are sensible enough to kill parasites on sight instead of waiting for them to
outnumber and outvote the few smart ones."

With that, he vanishes into the night, leaving behind a scent of sweat, black bean tacos and pungent,
aromatic marijuana.

May 27, 2006

Trends
Science suggests that socialization has an evolutionary effect on animals: it makes their brains more
complex, perhaps bigger, to deal with the infinite interdependent details of manipulating other individuals.
All things in nature however fit onto a kind of bell curve where too little is not enough, but too much
becomes not enough of other necessary things, and leads to a collapse of the system. It is not
unprecedented to assume that too much socialization might make individuals oblivious to anything but
socialization.

Those who are familiar with this balance come to distrust trends. A trend can be defined as any behavior
which is transmitted on the basis of its popularity, and not its inherent value. People select it by proxy;
because others do it, it must be smart. Some trends are not destructive: if one sees a crowd fleeing a
predator, it is not entirely unwise to follow, but a crowd fleeing an imaginary fire will trample those who
join it. For this reason it is wise to suspect any trend which has no corresponding stimulus in reality. We
who have grown up among the socialized look for smoke when someone calls "Fire!"

Most trends are simple behaviors that keep those with no capacity to think or lead busy, and the worst
thing they generate is landfill (piles of Emo CDs, "Baby on Board" signs, Kewpie dolls dot the nation's
garbage heaps). However, in a socialized system, trends tend to pile up and while it is easy to recognize
the new ones, it becomes hard to see the more pervasive ones -- these tend to be the broadest and most
fundamental assumptions of those one meets on the street. The greatest trend of the last two thousand
years has been utilitarian individualism.

Utilitarian individualism is the idea that we must please ourselves with what exists instead of striving for an
abstraction that not all can see; like all forms of government or social principle, it is a control mechanism. It
starts from the principle that material obligations liberate the individual, and progresses to the idea that the
individual pursuit of pleasure is more important than the pursuit of an accurate abstraction of reality and
the tendency to master it such as to create an ascendant civilization: art, philosophy, science, religion and
heroes of a higher level than would be expected from the simple material needs of life. Descending
civilizations concern themselves with what exists right now, and how to divide it up, where ascending
civilizations direct themselves toward conquest through creation.

From this materialistic individualist perspective comes a morality of the physical such that we judge actions
by their potential material consequences on individuals, and are blind to the impact of individual actions
upon the whole; the individual has become sacred, and what inconveniences an individual -- even if a
higher state for all of civilization is to be gained -- is viewed negatively if not outright made taboo. Our
morality is materialistic in that we think it "exists" as an absolute categorization, where the ancients saw
morality as a matter of motivation and the significance of acts in the physical world. To an ancient society,
to intend evil was the same as having a poor philosophy of the world, and intent naturally led to acts which
would be seen as evil. The modern view of the world sees only the act, classes it as evil, and therefore
attributes an evil mindset to the doer. Ancients believed evil was mental error, but now we believe it is an
inescapable category and thus refuse to see how our ideas might be mediocre and thus destructive -- evil.

In the ancient system, evil and good were like heaven states of mind, and the gods were personificiations
of nature, not some powerful deities existing in a space that like technology acts on our physical world from
an abstraction and is mechanically consistent. Modern people think of religion and morality like machines:
the act originates from a desire toward a function with no necessary mirror in reality, a pure arbitrary "evil"
that can have no worth in life. Gone is the idea of evil as an extension of predation or parasitism. We in our
modern wisdom need to make up reasons for the fundamental categorical altering of the evil individual, so
we see them as motivated not by logic but trauma from child abuse, financial gain, etc. We believe to do
evil is to intend evil, or to be of an evil machine-function, but choose not to notice evils which may arise
simply from bad logic.

All of this supports the over-arching trend of looking away from the world as a whole, and accepting time
as a series of moments with cause and effect, to instead see it as a matter of what already exists and how
individuals will exploit it. Translated loosely through the filter of motivations, this can be seen as a desire to
back away from rising above our fundamental obligations -- eat, sex, sleep -- and to legitimize them as
goals. The modern trend is a shattering of goals beyond function and the pursuit of the comfort of the
individual. Translated from the perspective of the single human to that of all humans, it is utilitarianism:
that which most people consider in their interests is right; forget all those abstractions like better art or
ideas, or even comparing ideas at all. Everything is an arbitrary choice.

Of course this trend has its defenders. "It's simply human nature," they say waving a hand in that
dismissive coffeehouse gesture normally reserved for mention of Republican candidates. Or: "But it's what I
want." Even worse is the moral argument, which is utilitarianism translated to religion -- the only moral
right is allowing most people to pursue what they see as the fulfillment of their interests. And what if
they're wrong? Well, no choices are wrong you see... it's all machine function... unless you disagree, in
which case you're evil (abused child, mental illness, drug addiction, service in Viet Nam, or even greed are
to blame).

Where the ancients saw a world of both positive and negative attributes, and determined to accept those as
method so they could transcend them in order to achieve the greater positives -- art, culture, religion,
learning, heroism -- that life has to offer, the modern trend-person is stranded at acceptance of negativity.
We don't want to accept it. We want only the positive, but since we cannot accept the positive, we achieve
only the material positive, the here-and-now, the limited to the individual... we forego the greater positives
that can be had by accepting the negative as part of the mechanism of life, and thus using it for the
purposes of achieving those higher positives. We just don't want to see the dark side, whether it's death,
aging, fatness, baldness, hemorrhoids, war, chaos, sodomy.

The ancients did not have a science of mechanical logic, or acting upon the world to produce uniform
results. Their science was inseparable from the world, as was their religion. This bonding with the world
and acceptance of its nihilism (one must kill to eat, other things may kill you, some are stronger/smarter
than others, some ideas are wrong because they conflict with reality) was what enabled them to stop
struggling against the darkness in reality and to start looking past it toward transcendence and the creation
of greatness. In their view, this entire world is a machine, and it enables those who understand it -- like a
paintbrush, a musical instrument, logic and martial skills -- to choose what they wish to render. In that was
the spark of transcendence, or a rising above material circumstance to see the creative aspects of life and
to embrace them. Modern trend-people remain stranded in material circumstance, and consequently have
no culture to speak of.

Still not all have joined the trend. It is encouraging to see a Kraftwerk record or Tom Wolfe book join the
bestsellers, because it means those who understand the eternal philosophy of life are still out there. These
are the people who see the genius in nature and let that override their fear of becoming prey or dead;
these are the people who live not for what exists now but for what creativity, hard work and genius can
provide. They are transcendents, like the ancients, and although there are fewer of them every year they
persist in the knowledge that illusion always leads to a downfall, and that this modern world has a clock
ticking over its head like the culled characters in the video game "Lemmings." Their transcendence is the
mark of a higher culture, like that of the ancients; as a whole society, we have abandoned this worldview,
and our fortunes have waned in consequence even if it has taken 2,000 years to see.

May 28, 2006

White Power
White Power movements originated in the United States and United Kingdom during the 1970s which, as
exactly one generation past World War II, represented the first stirrings of awareness in mainstream
populations that perhaps our great democratic crusade in Europe was going to come back and bite us on
the hindquarters. The result was the modern "white power" organization, which combines aspects of KKK,
National Socialist, radical conservative and ethnic socialist rhetoric to form an entity patterned after the
"Black Power" movements of the 1960s. Herein is the basic problem with white power groups: they are
another partisan movement desiring political power, and do not represent any kind of solution for the
whole.

Standard white power rhetoric is as follows: non-white races are inferior, but white races are superior,
therefore we need to band together all whites and exclude these others. Generally, outside of mention of
homosexuals and Jews (who are as white as most Southern or Eastern Europeans at this point) that is
where the dogma ends. These movements attempt to justify their beliefs through scientific and sociological
research, and often point to the high rates of crime, disease, poverty, illiteracy, and low IQs of other
groups such as African-Americans (Jews, while often seen as more intelligent than average, are condemned
on the basis of their intent). These movements are increasing in power and must be combatted with
whatever resources we have.

Their first error is a failure to note the origin of all white problems: namely, that among white people there
are many who are inferior, and that these not only breed more inferiors, but have reduced society in
complexity to the point that it rewards inferiors: those shuffling untermenschen who go off to bureaucratic,
pointless, lazy jobs and are content to write blockhead memoranda and enforce rigid rules unthinkingly;
this is The Establishment Man whether he is black, white, Chinese or from Planet Xerxon. This mentality of
being happy with a trivial empty life in a decaying society causes the proliferation of inferiors, because only
a true brick-stupid untermensch could find such a life acceptable or desirable. However, millions of them
have, from the uptight white guy wimps of the 1950s to our current multicultural bureaucrat; nothing has
changed, because the position in which these people serve requires nothing more than obedience and
minimal thinking skills. It appeals to the inferior among all races.

White people have suffered this decline for many centuries, and with each passing year, it gets closer to
domination. Whether it is the execution of nobles in the French Revolution, or the destruction of the last
independent aristocracy in America during the Civil War, white people have been in cannibal mode by
empowering the workers, the disaffected, and lazy suburban "activists" to blame many complex problems
on a simple source: Elites. The Elites, they have told us for centuries, are manipulating you, causing
problems... the solution is to dethrone the elites and let the people rule! Oh joyous day... but then century
after century the problem persists. Luckily for his manipulators, the average white person at this point has
the attention span of a gnat, and therefore can pass this process down the line. White people are
consequently, in terms of population quality, descending toward inferior.

Even more, white societies have been drenched in technology for some time. From rifles to computers,
technology lets someone whose highest actual function is picking turnips assassinate a genius or spam
100,000,000 mailboxes. But it's his right to own that computer, and his right to make income, so who are
we to criticize? It's also the right of individuals to make porno films, sell defective products, become
televangelists, generate mountains of landfill. But do these actions strengthen or weaken a society? Ah,
they weaken it; and what if they are repeated a million times? Then they weaken it appreciably. Looking at
white societies today, it's impossible to believe the white race is superior to other races, because white
societies are a mess. Moronic bureaucrats, cunning marketers, everyday people who are slovenly and fat
and oblivious, nagging spouses and cheating paramours. Then there's the knowledge that such society are
at war with themselves. One side screams for the underprivileged, and the other side shills for industry.
Where is the plan for betterment? Or even fixing the problems, such as endless freeways, too many stores
and ugly buildings, pollution, rotted inner cities, public ignorance, morons in positions of power?

While white power movements would like to believe that one day while the white man was asleep, a horde
of Jews and Negroes stole in the back door, gangfucked his wife, indoctrinated his children with "rap" and
"crunk" music, turned the inner city into an AIDS-ridden war zone, and took over the country, the historical
fact is different: white people invited them in; white people made profit from "authentic" music of the
oppressed; white people, by fighting constantly amongst themselves, have no direction that might conflict
with music profiteering, inner city rot, or even violence (violence produces a product spectrum, from pepper
spray to electric gates, to deal with it and is thus profitable to many sectors of the economy, although the
socialized cost affects us all). White power movements, instead of being beneficial to white people, are
destructive because they deny the actual sources of white problems. You can blame Negroes, Jews and
homosexuals until society ends, but the problems, whitey, are within.

White power movements have simple dogmas: "if it's white, it's right" and the idea that if all non-whites
are excluded, society will somehow become good "again." They address (what they see as) a symptom, and
not the problem. They also ignore almost all other important issues outside of race. It is as if they are more
provocateurs than political thinkers, here to hit us with a quick and repellent suggestion before fading
away, laughing at our discomfort in their discontent. They are not alone in this, since almost every special
interest group from Environmentalists to Pro-Lifers to Black Power groups falls into this category; it may be
a failing of our political system itself that makes agreement so difficult that political movements must be
distilled to the ultimate simplicity and singular focus. But if all non-whites died tomorrow, what would
happen? The basic problems of whites would remain.

We can distill these problems to two things:

1. Predominance of low-quality whites.

2. White society in the grips of an insane design of a civilization.

In addressing the first, we have to look at the problem this way: not all things Caucasian are identical. Any
society, no matter how wonderful, produces destructive or stupid people; this is the nature of genetic
recombination and environmental factors. If you plant a field of corn, you're going to end up culling the
weak plants and the mutants that do not have beneficial attributes. With every generation, some great
people are born, and some weaker -- inferior -- ones. If the culture in question manages to have the great
people breed more than the weaker, it rises to a higher overall standard. If not -- decline. And what has
happened in white culture? First we overthrew the aristocracy and guaranteed universal rights. This places
the choices and attributes of the individual beyond criticism . It's illegal, immoral or some combination
thereof to discriminate against people because they are delusional, stupid, corrupt, disgusting, ugly,
perverse, etc. This leads to a reversal of the equation of healthy societies, and explains why white societies
have gone from producing Beethovens and Shakespeares to Britney Spears and Anne Coulter.

When we look at the second problem of white societies unacknowledged by white power groups, we get
into a more complex situation: what is the ideal design for a society? If we thought clearly, we might say:

a. Leadership by the capable: genius intelligence, conscientious application, empathic understanding but
given toward seeing the whole picture and not the conflicting demands of individuals.
b. Does not trash its environment through reckless industry and overpopulation (the primary threat to
our environment is land overuse, as with sufficient natural land to absorb, process and counter our
pollution through oxygen production, it can deal with us just fine -- yet when we occupy almost all of
the land that can be civilized, whether with farms or factories, we destroy that nurturing support
structure).
c. Has healthy values that place creativity, sobriety, sexual selectivity and marital fidelity, heroism and
transcendence above temporary pleasures such as physical satiation and seizure of power or acting
out of emotional desires (revenge, hatred, desire to be loved through popularity).
d. Gives to each of us a place where we can contribute meaningfully, and returns the rest of our time to
us. The average person works 8-10 hours and commutes nearly two per day; this leaves 4-6 hours for
paying bills, haggling with service providers, fixing up the house, spending time with family, spending
time with friends, etc., per day. Weekends for most people consist of a day for errands and a day for
rest, with one or two nights of recreation in between. This amounts to too little time for a quietude of
contemplation and devotion to family and friends and society in a meaningful way; instead, we get
token applications of each and, because people are constantly exhausted, lots of television watching.
 e. Produces higher culture, learning, arts and heroes.
f. Rewards those of a higher nature, and ushers the criminal, mentally defective, stupid, ugly and petty-
minded toward evolutionary extinction.

White societies lack all of these things, and have now for centuries. Until we fix these roots of the problem,
all of the symptoms will re-invent themselves even if some genocidal master plan is implemented to clear
out all non-whites (which would be a shame, seeing how most of them were invited here by white people
as labor, and in innocence believe they can find a "better" life here, although what they really mean by that
is greater wealth and technology). Our problem is that our people do not agree on a sensible course of
action, together, because they are too busy with individual pursuits of pleasure, wealth, comfort. We are
divided and surrounded by (white) people of low quality. White power organizations ignore that reality, and
prefer to send us on a wild goose chase after non-whites, so that white privilege can take the place of
actually fixing our society. Not only does this ignore the problem, but by offering a placebo solution,
perpetuates it.

May 29, 2006

Traps
In any situation where delusional thinking becomes the norm, as it clearly has in a modern society to which
global climate change was a sudden surprise, the effects of the delusion will be analyzed and a variety of
voices clamoring for attention will proclaim "solutions." In that we find the first of a number of traps which
protect delusion by attacking its manifestations and not its origin.

* Head of the Hydra: the first major delusion is that you can fix endemic problems with band-aids. You
cannot, because like the mythical Hydra, any cause of delusion will simply regenerate. Address global
warming, and holy mackerel, there's pollution, water shortages and peak oil sneaking up on you from the
same source of the problem.

* Good Cop versus Bad Cop: Any system with a core delusion will become occupied by those who seek
power, and they will rapidly find a need to manage power by allowing controlled opposition. Such "conflict"
is both real and illusory, in that while two powers vie for the same throne, they share one agenda (of
several) in that their goal is to perpetuate not change the system. They perpetuate it by making a series of
small changes which they know the other side will undo; every sixty years or so they will change sides. This
is why Republican versus Democrat, Liberal versus Conservative, Freedom versus Oppression has been such
a losing card over the years; both sides are controlled by the same basic motivation, which is power and
not solutions.

* Methodological thinking: The concept that by putting into place the right system, like buying the right
machine, we can "control" a human population and force them to the right conclusion is similarly illusion.
Not all humans react alike. There is no universal "human nature" any more than there is a universal ice
cream flavor. Further, many people are constructed such that they will always be destructive; most people
are constructed to be incapable of decisions beyond their personal sphere; a few people are constructed to
be conscientious, perceptive and cognizant of long-term consequences. In saner times, we killed the first
group before they could breed, sent the second group into the fields or shops, and made the third group
leaders.

* Economic thinking: One hilarious idea of a delusional time is that if everyone just has enough money,
they will act for the collective good. This is fairly humorous when one considers that because people
expand families and activities with the arrival of money, they will at some point need more than enough;
further, it completely ignores collective political action, because buying off the individual does not address
problems of society as a whole; finally, it assumes that money and not other factors (revenge, powerlust,
emotional responses) governs all of humanity, where we can see that is not the case.

* Pure collectivist or individualist thought: These two basic schools trade off over the centuries in the "good
cop, bad cop" routine and have produced no tangible benefit. Collectivist thought in its purest sense holds
that we act for the interests of a bureaucratic entity known as "the collective," and that by doing right by
all people we do right by the individual; however, its basis is in individual materialism and it uses the
individual as means to an end of the state. Individualist thought denies the collective to focus on satiating
the individual, believing that the collective will somehow be addressed as part of the individual's scope,
even if as we have seen from countless examples most people cannot think beyond their personal sphere of
influence and are thus unaware of it. Individualist and collectivist thought in their pure forms end up seeing
the task of governance as that of overseeing individuals, and miss out on qualitative and abstract factors.
Traditional societies see both individuals and collective as means to an end which is an abstract idea of
ascendancy based on the rules of nature and science.

* Photonegative fallacy: If we remove the opposition, this thinking goes, what is left will be the good
people. It is an illusion because "opposition" changes as the dogma changes, and therefore, a perpetual
group of easily-subjugated enemies is maintained. While this allows the leaders to show up before the
crowd with severed heads and proclaim the problem solved, it never is. More sensible is what Aristotle
suggested, which is to eliminate all illusory ideas and thus to have remaining an approximation of the truth.
It makes some sense to remove populations whose values are contrary to that of the society, but that can
be accomplished by denying them property ownership and jobs.

* Good intentions: One giant illusion that afflicts particularly women from the suburbs is the idea that if we
mean well, others will understand and help us out. It isn't dangerous because in itself it is untrue, as
meaning well always helps in any interaction, but because it ignores the basis of power and it ignores the
autocentricism that defines "good" and "well." First, power must settle itself according to pragmatic goals
and methods, and intentions do not factor into those negotiations. Good feelings do not solve problems;
solutions do. Second, each society has a different meaning of "well." Our idea of meaning well naturally
includes bringing what we consider "good" to other societies, but they might not want democracy, Coca-
Cola, Wal-Mart and 24 channels of Internet anal porn. "Meaning well" is often a disguised desire to
passively subvert and destroy other cultures; this is most evident in treatment of Arab nations and Africans
by the United States.

* Compromise: The biggest silly thought ever is that we can have a rational solution by taking two possible
answers and finding a compromise between them. Doesn't it sound good? The idea of accord, each side
giving a little... but in reality, what this means is that what makes each answer workable -- its unique
approach and method -- is adulterated by the other and the solution, the "compromise," thus becomes so
averaged that it is not structurally distinct from the status quo. Compromise is a method of destroying
solutions to preserve our power squabbles, not a finder of solutions.

* More government/privatization: Dummies love an answer you can spout off in response to any problem.
The idea of more government, on the left, and privatization, increasingly on what's left of the "right," is the
same impulse: instead of shaping society toward positive goals, we will put out more "policemen" to
constrain it. Unlike real police, however, these regulators oversee morality, social factors, driving behavior,
form-filling, etc. and at the end of the day contribute nothing. If everyone in your society is pulling in the
same basic direction, you do not need these outrageous control mechanisms. If everyone is going in
radically different directions and thus cannot be counted on to do the right thing unless forced to, that is
the root of the problem and it cannot be fixed with band-aid application of more control mechanisms.

* Don't offend: Any system based on illusion has supplanted reality with social popularity, because it
derives its power from manipulation. Consequently, a basic tenet of its operation becomes "do not offend"
because that alienates potential customers/voters. We turn our politicians into salesmen, and soon even our
military leaders become late-night infomercial voice-overs. Hint: this type of decline can never be reversed,
because as soon as one eliminates that which is offensive to one type of person, a new type pops up. In
America, we had to first avoid offending the nouveau riche; then the women; then the Southern European
immigrants; then the African-Americans; then the homosexuals; then the Hispanic immigrants. Now each
group has its own entrenched bureaucracy, and all of them oppose any clear statement of truth if it might
possibly offend their members; of course, they tend to be overzealous, because when one is paid a salary
for nonsense work, one tends to leap up at chances to justify that salary through dramatic (and quickly
over) action.

* Not in my backyard/Parasites are not a problem: We might as well call this "out of sight, out of mind."
The idea is formulated by your average television-watching voter as, "I don't care what you do in your own
home, as long as you don't do it here." Translation: if it is out of sight, it is out of mind, and I am thinking
about nothing but myself. People doing destructive things do not confine themselves to a different
backyard, but actually manage to cultivate communities around the same activity. Parasites, for example,
might not be doing things in your neighborhood but the costs of supporting them affect you, as do the
consequent disasters throughout society. Those who think "not in my backyard" are ignoring that our world
is one (1) single entity and that destructive actions anywhere come back to visit us all. Take it to an
extreme: would you be OK with me testing nuclear weapons in my backyard, if it were big enough? You
would worry about radiation. The same way I should worry if you are fomenting a cultural movement that
will tear apart a unity of direction and values in a society.

* "Freedom","Justice","Liberty","Equality","Brotherhood of all humans": Anyone can promise you the world,

especially if they wrap it up into a simple single idea of no clear direction. You want freedom? Well what
does it mean, then? -- no one can tell you. They just know they want it. You are not hearing words, but
bleating. Compare these ideas to a saleperson's rhetoric: "All New","Best Ever","Lowest Price","Unique" --
these are promises with no time at which they are tested, and no necessary bearing on the quality of your
experience. It might seem to be the lowest price, but if it's also a cheap piece of junk, does that help you?

Our society is complex enough and has enough complicated failings that these basic realities take years of
analysis to see. One way such a delusional system stays in power is by grabbing people when they have
too little experience to know anything, polarizing them with a political identity ("good cop, bad cop") and
sending them off to do battle. It will take them decades to admit what they once thought were solid
answers might have holes, and even decades more to find an alternative to the thought process they've
been taught. The result is regretful old people sitting in retirement homes wondering where everything
went wrong. And, per its nature as delusion incarnate, the system keeps chugging while they talk
inconsequentially...

May 30, 2006

Sex
A baffling aspect of reality that reminds us that our abstract mapping of the world and perceiving agent
brains are entrenched in biological reality is sex; like death peeking around a corner, it shows us that for all
of our ideals and thoughts starchily removed into the mathematical, orthogonal worlds of logic, we are
creatures and of the earth we must be. The sexes divide us into two groups but, contrary to modern
"wisdom," also reflect how we think and what we are. In bitter response to Schopenhauer's "Of Women,"
this article attempts to enumerate the natural wisdom of sexual differentiation and where it might go to
avoid the kind of polemic hatred that characterizes both feminism and Schopenhauer's derision of the
female.

Women

Let us take a moment to appreciate the beauty of woman. In her non-plasticized state, she is a nurturing
antidote to the mania of man for accomplishment of abstract ideas. She does not deal in concepts of what
might be, but in a practical bettering of what is; where a man looks to the horizon for his dreams, woman
is busy examining what is in her hands and configuring it to be as pleasant as possible. When man comes
to her in a state of duress, heartbroken at a failure of some small part of the dream and yet unable to cry,
she is the one who empathic cries with him, if even silently, and sings him to sleep. If his dreams become
too fantastic, she is the one to nod and point out that the house needs fixing. In its natural state, this is
not sabotage (as it might be today), but a reminder that if he works outward from what he has, he might
be happier and also clear his mind for the task he seeks. Woman is like man except that where he is
deductive, and posits responses to observed tendencies in the world, she is inductive and becomes these
tendencies in a bettering form. When the world is on fire and the devil coming up the pipes, it is woman not
man who will lead the tribe to prevalence.

In saner times -- not the Christianized years of Europe, when women were viewed as property -- women
were not exempt from the warrior tradition. Men as is fitting for projective mental technologies would wage
war afar, and defend against the organized assaults on the homeland, but woman was the guardian, the
gentle but proficient Athena who guided spears into the hearts of brigands and cutthroats. Where man will
reach a point where he is ready for surrender, woman never does surrender by force; she will decide to
surrender if it seems apt, and while man is a better gauge of that in most circumstances, she is often more
realistic about what bravery can compensate and what it cannot. She is less prone to battle-lust and more
prone to cold-eyed extermination, as her nature is practical (no snakes in the house that are not tamed). In
her younger years she is idealistic and willing to believe in true love, and the marriages formed by sane
people during these years are the most enduring, as they have never compromised their idealism and
emotion with bitterness. Where man will tire of the arts of loving in the absence of love, woman will usually
not, and will continue to give as she can, being more adept than man at accepting the finity of her lifespan
and the inevitability of living decay. If love fails her, she will love herself and her children and seek pleasure
in an entirely different category; the two are not linked as they are in men.

Of course, in a time when all things have a price tag on them, man becomes corrupt and starts to view his
own sexuality as pleasure, because if everything has a price tag, there must be some way to compare
values. Thus in his corruption he spreads this disease to woman and she, defending herself, perceives that
there is no love inherent to life and thus seeks pleasure. In this state, women instantly become whores,
and while we like to believe that both goddess and whore coexist in one person in the modern time, such
ideas produce schizophrenia of a low grade through the indecision and underconfidence of those
conjecturing substance where there is none. What leads them into whoredom is the whorelike proposition
that we can assign an abstract value to real-world experience, when there is no such single valuation on
romantic love or raising a family. Thus woman becomes corrupt, and like a coin with one side blank,
becomes empty, and wages war against anything but her pleasure, because pleasure is all she has been
left. Schopenhauer's mother, the ambitious society whore, and most of Nietzsche's proposed lovers fall into
this category: politicized, plastic women. However, without the insanity of believing in a God outside of the
world, this single valuation does not occur, women do not become corrupt, and the castes (intelligence-
nobility rankings) remain unmixed.
Men

Much as the penis invites its use as a probe, the man is that which launches into the world, where woman
as a recessed genital organism is more focused on her sphere of influence. As a result the male brain
operates from impulse to a quasi-scientific response to the world, projecting a counterpart to the natural
laws it observes that, if applied, conjecturally seems a logical means to achieve an ideal formed of an
ultimate archetype of that impulse. A man seeing cruelty formulates a theory of justice and then struggles
to implement it, where a woman simply avoids the source of cruelty. This projective impulse is really the
only use of the male, and it is the origin of all reasonable wars and defenses and idealisms; when society
becomes plasticized, men lose their idealism and thus begin to seek pleasure, but must justify it and so
denigrate reality as a concept in their minds and praise illusion. A man goes from hero to religious lunatic in
three seconds if not properly balanced by a woman.

Much has been said about the active role of man versus the submissive role of woman, but this is
somewhat delusional in that to be active requires a submissive, and thus must involve an exchange of
submissions. In sensible times man submits to woman on emotional questions and regards her as the head
of his household. He must guide the family on questions of idealism but she is its preserver, like Pallas
Athena, and dispenser of wisdom to keep heroes from running amok into suicidal risks because they have
ideals. Men are like children in the hands of women where women are like children in the hands of life.
Properly balanced, the two keep each other from either reaching too far or not reaching at all. Not
surprisingly, tests reveal that men and women have different sorts of brains: men tend to triumph at
rational activities including spatial and mathematical reasoning, while women are better with language and
emotional logic (emotion is a form of non-linear logic). This does not apply to every case, but exceptions
should be reserved for the exceptional, or the recognition becomes cheap and the result mediocre.

Differentiation

After all, our minds reason, humans are the same at conception and only later are there visible signs of
gender differences. However, these differentiated traits are formative and do not confine themselves to the
genital and breast area. Women are made with a finer hand and seem to smell better, while males are
given sturdier implements of hand and muscle. Nature seems to grant us with more men than women in
percentages of births, but this is not insensible as any idealistic creature is going to be prone to moments
of dramatic heroism or stupidity ("wouldn't it be cool to strap a rocket to the car?" is a form of primitive
idealism) and thus require a few extras to replace the casualties.

Schopenhauer does correctly note that men are better at abstract logic, but it would be foolish to assume
this is the only property necessary to experience life. As we as humans are both logical minds and biological
selves, we require more than pure abstract logic unless we live Buddha-like in a state of meditation, which
might appeal to some but in healthy times seems superfluous. The balancing of male and female traits is
intelligent because it guarantees that each has a counterpoint to absorb its extra energy and prevent it
from becoming overbearing. Much as we are mind and body, we are man and woman, but both man and
woman are both mind and body; this bonds us to a unity of mind and body by giving two views of each
which are counterdependent. Men have a certain physical sensibility and an abstract mentality, while
women have another of each, and together the two represent a whole view of mind/body relations. Either
perspective in excess rapidly falls into the problem of using a single point of approach on too many
problems, at which point it becomes predictable and the world responds with something outside its grasp.

All of the above can be said of the sexes in healthy times, and of course we live in an unhealthy time where
we are not only unrealistic but in denial of it, thus where our forefathers sewed promising futures we create
long-term devastation in exchange for short term gratification. This can be seen in both men and women:
men turn inward and women turn outward in inversion of natural roles, but each has by denying its nature
substituted for it a cheapened alternative. Men seek ideals within themselves, and lose their sense of
optimistic heroism, and women seek physical acts to supplant emotional ones. While Schopenhauer's "Of
Women" is a mistake, the entirety of feminism is the same mistake crafted in the pseudo-science of
individual politics. Feminism is not about doing right, but about getting as much power for women as can
be had, which furthers the permanent alienation of the sexes. Interestingly, if we blame Schopenhauer's
terrible relationship with his "modern" mother for his attitudes, we can see that "Of Women" is a direct
response to feminism.

One reason this breakdown occurs is that in a time where all things have a linear value outside of their
position in the non-linear physical world, we no longer have a way to individually derive value and are
dependent on third parties. This results in a lack of love for the world as there is always a controller-
controlled relationship to blame when things go wrong, and since our society does not acknowledge its
fundamental errors, we are at a sublime level constantly looking for someone to blame. Through the chain
of errors that this attitude produces in society, compounded by our search for linear value, most of us have
not known love. Our parents view us as possessions to be disciplined so they become promising future
properties, and our teachers view us as obligations that might sue; our friends are transient when their
parents change jobs. What we know of love is usually physical affection, but just as commonly control; it is
no surprise that some sources estimate 40-60% of people have been sexually molested or raped by age 25.
No sane society accepts such behavior, but it is convenient for our pornography to have a steady stream of
sexually dysfunctional women.

We cannot quash the alienation between the sexes by simply denying "Of Women" or feminism, but by
inventing a better alternative, starting with an end to valuing each other as flesh (a product of itself of the
one God outside the world, which causes us to assign arbitrary universal single values to things of many
values in different contexts). One step in this direction is to de-universalize humans by recognizing the
differences between the sexes as not only inherent, but functional and necessary.

OF WOMEN

By

Arthur Schopenhauer

Translated by T. Bailey Saunders

You need only look at the way in which she is formed, to see that woman is not

meant to undergo great labor, whether of the mind or of the body. She pays the

debt of life not by what she does, but by what she suffers; by the pains of

childbearing and care for the child, and by submission to her husband, to whom

she should be a patient and cheering companion. The keenest sorrows and joys

are not for her, nor is she called upon to display a great deal of strength. The

current of her life should be more gentle, peaceful and trivial than man's, without

being essentially happier or unhappier.

Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early

childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short-sighted;

in a word, they are big children all their life long--a kind of intermediate stage

between the child and the full-grown man, who is man in the strict sense of the

word. See how a girl will fondle a child for days together, dance with it and sing to
it; and then think what a man, with the best will in the world, could do if he were

put in her place.

With young girls Nature seems to have had in view what, in the language of the

drama, is called a striking effect; as for a few years she dowers them with a wealth

of beauty and is lavish in her gift of charm, at the expense of all the rest of their

life; so that during those years they may capture the fantasy of some man to such

a degree that he is hurried away into undertaking the honorable care of them, in

some form or other, as long as they live--a step for which there would not appear

to be any sufficient warranty if reason only directed his thoughts. Accordingly,

Nature has equipped woman, as she does all her creatures, with the weapons and

implements requisite for the safeguarding of her existence, and for just as long as

it is necessary for her to have them. Here, as elsewhere, Nature proceeds with her

usual economy; for just as the female ant, after fecundation, loses her wings,

which are then superfluous, nay, actually a danger to the business of breeding; so,

after giving birth to one or two children, a woman generally loses her beauty;

probably, indeed, for similar reasons.

And so we find that young girls, in their hearts, look upon domestic affairs or work

of any kind as of secondary importance, if not actually as a mere jest. The only

business that really claims their earnest attention is love, making conquests, and

everything connected with this--dress, dancing, and so on.

The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower it is in arriving at

maturity. A man reaches the maturity of his reasoning powers and mental faculties

hardly before the age of twenty-eight; a woman at eighteen. And then, too, in the

case of woman, it is only reason of a sort--very niggard in its dimensions. That is

why women remain children their whole life long; never seeing anything but what

is quite close to them, cleaving to the present moment, taking appearance for

reality, and preferring trifles to matters of the first importance. For it is by virtue of

his reasoning faculty that man does not live in the present only, like the brute, but

looks about him and considers the past and the future; and this is the origin of
prudence, as well as of that care and anxiety which so many people exhibit. Both

the advantages and the disadvantages which this involves, are shared in by the

woman to a smaller extent because of her weaker power of reasoning. She may, in

fact, be described as intellectually short-sighted, because, while she has an

intuitive understanding of what lies quite close to her, her field of vision is narrow

and does not reach to what is remote; so that things which are absent, or past, or

to come, have much less effect upon women than upon men. This is the reason

why women are more often inclined to be extravagant, and sometimes carry their

inclination to a length that borders upon madness. In their hearts, women think

that it is men's business to earn money and theirs to spend it--if possible during

their husband's life, but, at any rate, after his death. The very fact that their

husband hands them over his earnings for purposes of housekeeping, strengthens

them in this belief..

However many disadvantages all this may involve, there is at least this to be said

in its favor; that the woman lives more in the present than the man, and that, if

the present is at all tolerable, she enjoys it more eagerly. This is the source of that

cheerfulness which is peculiar to women, fitting her to amuse man in his hours of

recreation, and, in case of need, to console him when he is borne down by the

weight of his cares.

It is by no means a had plan to consult women in matters of difficulty, as the

Germans used to do in ancient times; for their way of looking at things is quite

different from ours, chiefly in the fact that like to take the shortest way to their

goal, and, in general, manage to fix their eyes upon what lies before them; while

we, as a rule, see far beyond it, just because it is in front of our noses. In cases

like this, we need to be brought back to the right standpoint, so as to recover the

near and simple view.

Then, again, women are decidedly more sober in their judgment than we are, so

that they do not see more in things than is really there; whilst, if our passions are

aroused, we are apt to see things in an exaggerated way, or imagine what does
not exist.

The weakness of their reasoning faculty also explains why it is that women show

more sympathy for the unfortunate than men do, and so treat them with more

kindness and interest; and why it is that, on the contrary, they are inferior to men

in point of justice, and less honorable and conscientious. For it is just because their

reasoning power is weak that present circumstances have such a hold over them,

and those concrete things, which lie directly before their eyes, exercise a power

which is seldom counteracted to any extent by abstract principles of thought, by

fixed rules of conduct, firm resolutions, or, in general, by consideration for the past

and the future, or regard for what is absent and remote. Accordingly, they possess

the first and main elements that go to make a virtuous character, but they are

deficient in those secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in the

formation of it.1 1 In this respect they may be compared to an animal organism

which contains a liver but no gall-bladder. Here let me refer to what I have said in

my treatise on The Foundation of Morals [section] 17.

Hence, it will be found that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it

has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that

women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also

traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex.

They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive

capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. For

as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants and boars with tusks,

bulls with horns, and cuttle fish with its clouds of inky fluid, so Nature has

equipped woman, for her defence and protection, with the arts of dissimulation;

and all the power which Nature has conferred upon man in the shape of physical

strength and reason, has been bestowed upon women in this form. Hence,

dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of

the clever. It is as natural for them to make use of it on every occasion as it is for

those animals to employ their means of defence when they are attacked; they
have a feeling that in doing so they are only within their rights. Therefore a

woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimlulation is perhaps an

impossibility, and for this very reason they are so quick at seeing through

dissimulation in others that it is not a wise thing to attempt it with them. But this

fundamental defect which I have stated, with all that it entails, gives rise to falsity,

faithlessness, treachery, ingratitude, and so on. Perjury in a court of justice is more

often committed by women than by men. It may, indeed, be generally questioned

whether women ought to be sworn in at all. From time to time one finds repeated

cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, taking things from shop-

counters when no one is looking, and making off with them.

Nature has appointed that the propagation of the species shall be the business of

men who are young, strong and handsome; so that the race may not degenerate.

This is the firm will and purpose of Nature in regard to the species, and it finds its

expression in the passions of women. There is no law that is older or more

powerful than this. Woe, then, to the man who sets up claims and interests that

will conflict with it; whatever he may say and do, they will be unmercifully crushed

at the first serious encounter. For the innate rule that governs women's conduct,

though it is secret and unformulated, nay, unconscious in its working, is this: We

are justified in deceiving those who think they have acquired rights over the

species by paying little attention to the individual, that is, to us. The constitution

and, therefore, the welfare of the species have been placed in our hands and

committed to our care, through the control we obtain over the next generation,

which proceeds from us; let us discharge our duties conscientiously. But women

have no abstract knowledge of this leading principle; they are conscious of it only

as a concrete fact; and they have no other method of giving expression to it than

the way in which they act when the opportunity arrives. And then their conscience

does not trouble them so much as we fancy; for in the darkest recesses of their

heart, they are aware that in committing a breach of their duty towards the

individual, they have all the better fulfilled their duty towards the species, which is

infinitely greater.1
1 A more detailed discussion of the matter in question may be found in my chief

work, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, vol. ii, ch. 44.

And since women exist in the main solely for the propagation of the species, and

are not destined for anything else, they live, as a rule, more for the species than

for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously

than those of the individual. This gives their whole life and being a certain levity;

the general bent of their character is in a direction fundamentally different from

that of man; and it is this to which produces that discord in married life which is so

frequent, and almost the normal state.

The natural feeling between men is mere indifference, but between women it is

actual enmity. The reason of this is that trade-jealousy-odium figulium--which, in

the case of men does not go beyond the confines of their own particular pursuit;

but, with women, embraces the whole sex; since they have only one kind of

business. Even when they meet in the street, women look at one another like

Guelphs and Ghibellines. And it is a patent fact that when two women make first

acquaintance with each other, they behave with more constraint and dissimulation

than two men would show in a like case; and hence it is that an exchange of

compliments between two women is a much more ridiculous proceeding than

between two men. Further, whilst a man will, as a general rule, always preserve a

certain amount of consideration and humanity in speaking to others, even to those

who are in a very inferior position, it is intolerable to see how proudly and

disdainfully a fine lady will generally behave towards one who is in a lower social

rank (I do not mean a woman who is in her service), whenever she speaks to her.

The reason of this may be that, with women, differences of rank are much more

precarious than with us: because, while a hundred considerations carry weight in

our case, in theirs there is only one, namely, with which man they have found

favor; as also that they stand in much nearer relations with one another than men

do, in consequence of the one-sided nature of their calling. This makes them

endeavor to lay stress upon differences of rank.

It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual impulses that could give

the name of the fair sex to that under-sized, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped,

and short-legged race; for the whole beauty of the sex is bound up with this

impulse. Instead of calling them beautiful, there would be more warrant for

describing women as the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for

fine art, have they really and truly any sense or susceptibility: it is a mere mockery

if they make a pretence of it in order to assist their endeavor to please. Hence, as

a result of this, they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything;

and the reason of it seems to me to be as follows. A man tries to acquire direct

mastery over things, either by understanding them, or by forcing them to do his

will. But a woman is always and everywhere reduced to obtaining this mastery

indirectly, namely, through a man; and whatever direct mastery she may have is

entirely confined to him. And so it lies in a woman's nature to look upon everything

only as a means for conquering man; and if she takes an interest in anything else,

it is simulated--a mere roundabout way of gaining her ends by coquetry, and

feigning what she does not feel. Hence, even Rousseau declared: Women have, in

general, no love for any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have

no genius.1

1 Lettre a d'Alembert. Note xx.

No one who sees at all below the surface can have failed to remark the same

thing. You need only observe the kind of attention women bestow upon a concert,

an opera, or a play--the childish simplicity, for example, with which they keep on

chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that

the Greeks excluded women from their theatres they were quite right in what they

did; at any rate you would have been able to hear what was said upon the stage.

In our day, besides, or in lieu of saying, Let a woman keep silence in the church, it

would be much to the point to say Let a woman keep silence in the theatre. This

might, perhaps, be put up in big letters on the curtain.

And you cannot expect anything else of women if you consider that the most

distinguished intellects among the whole sex have never managed to produce a

single achievement in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original; or

given to the world any work of permanent value in any sphere. This is most

strikingly shown in regard to painting, where mastery of technique is at least as

much within their power as within ours--and hence they are diligent in cultivating

it; but still, they have not a single great painting to boast of, just because they are

deficient in that objectivity of mind which is so directly indispensable in painting.

They never get beyond a subjective point of view. It is quite in keeping with this

that ordinary women have no real susceptibility for art at all; for Nature proceeds

in strict sequence--non facit saltum. And Huarte1 in his Examen de ingenios para

las scienzias--a book which has been famous for three hundred years--denies

women the possession of all the higher faculties. The case is not altered by

particular and partial exceptions; taken as a whole, women are, and remain,

thorough-going Philistines, and quite incurable. Hence, with that absurd

arrangement which allows them to share the rank and title of their husbands they

are a constant stimulus to his ignoble ambitions.

And, further, it is just because they are Philistines that modern society, where they

take the lead and set the tone, is in such a bad way.

1 Translator's Note.-- Juan Huarte (1520?-1590) practised as a physician at Madrid.

The work cited by Schopenhauer is well known, and has been translated into many

languages.

Napoleon's saying--that women have no rank--should be adopted as the right

standpoint in determining their position in society; and as regards their other

qualities Chamfortl makes the very true remark: They are made to trade with our

own weaknesses and our follies, but not with our reason. The sympathies that

exist between them and men are skin-deep only, and do not touch the mind or the

feelings or the character. They form the sexus sequior-- the second sex, inferior in

every respect to the first; their infirmities should be treated with consideration; but
to show them great reverence is extremely ridiculous, and lowers us in their eyes.

When Nature made two divisions of the human race, she did not draw the line

exactly through the middle. These divisions are polar and opposed to each other, it

is true; but the difference between them is not qualitative merely, it is also

quantitative.

1 Translator's Note.-- See Counsels and Maxims, p.12, Note.

This is just the view which the ancients took of woman, and the view which people

in the East take now; and their judgment as to her proper position is much more

correct than ours, with our old French notions of gallantry and our preposterous

system of reverence--that highest product of Teutonico-Christian stupidity. These

notions have served only to make women more arrogant and overbearing; so that

one is occasionally reminded of the holy apes in Benares, who in the consciousness

of their sanctity and inviolable position, think they can do exactly as they please.

But in the West, the woman, and especially the lady, finds herself in a false

position; for woman, rightly called by the ancients, sexus sequior, is by no means

fit to be the object of our honor and veneration, or to hold her head higher than

man and be on equal terms with him. The consequences of this false position are

sufficiently obvious. Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if this Number-

Two of the human race were in Europe also relegated to her natural place, and an

end put to that lady nuisance, which not only moves all Asia to laughter, but would

have been ridiculed by Greece and Rome as well. It is impossible to calculate the

good effects which such a change would bring about in our social, civil and political

arrangements. There would be no necessity for the Salic law: it would be a

superfluous truism. In Europe the lady, strictly so-called, is a being who should not

exist at all; she should be either a housewife or a girl who hopes to become one;

and she should be brought up, not to be arrogant, but to be thrifty and

submissive. It is just because there are such people as ladies in Europe that the

women of the lower classes, that is to say, the great majority of the sex, are much

more unhappy than they are in the East. And even Lord Byron says: Thought of
the state of women under the ancient Greeks--convenient enough. Present state, a

remnant of the barbarism of the chivalric and the feudal ages--artificial and

unnatural. They ought to mind home--and be well fed and clothed--but not mixed

in society. Well educated, too, in religion --but to read neither poetry nor politics--

nothing but books of piety and cookery. Music--drawing--dancing--also a little

gardening and ploughing now and then. I have seen them mending the roads in

Epirus with good success. Why not, as well as hay-making and milking?

The laws of marriage prevailing in Europe consider the woman as the equivalent of

the man--start, that is to say, from a wrong position. In our part of the world

where monogamy is the rule, to marry means to halve one's rights and double

one's duties. Now, when the laws gave women equal rights with man, they ought

to have also endowed her with a. masculine intellect. But the fact is, that just in

proportion as the honors and privileges which the laws accord to women, exceed

the amount which nature gives, is there a diminution in the number of women who

really participate in these privileges; and all the remainder are deprived of their

natural rights by just so much as is given to the others over and above their share.

For the institution of monogamy, and the laws of marriage which it entails, bestow

upon the woman an unnatural position of privilege, by considering her throughout

as the full equivalent of the man, which is by no means the case; and seeing this,

men who are shrewd and prudent very often scruple to make so great a sacrifice

and to acquiesce in so unfair an arrangement.

Consequently, whilst among polygamous nations every woman is provided for,

where monogamy prevails the number of married women is limited; and there

remains over a large number of women without stay or support, who, in the upper

classes, vegetate as useless old maids, and in the lower succumb to hard work for

which they are not suited; or else become filles de joie, whose life is as destitute of

joy as it is of honor. But under the circumstances they become a necessity; and

their position is openly recognized as serving the special end of warding off

temptation from those women favored by fate, who have found, or may hope to
find, husbands. In London alone there are 80,000 prostitutes. What are they but

the women, who, under the institution of monogamy have come off? Theirs is a

dreadful fate: they are human sacrifices offered up on the altar of monogamy. The

women whose wretched position is here described are the inevitable set-off to the

European lady with her arrogance and pretension. Polygamy is therefore a real

benefit to the female sex if it is taken as a whole. And, from another point of view,

there is no true reason why a man whose wife suffers from chronic illness, or

remains barren, or has gradually become too old for him, should not take a

second. The motives which induce so many people to become converts to

Mormonism1 appear to be just those which militate against the unnatural

institution of monogamy.

1 Translator's Note.--The Mormons have recently given up polygamy, and received

the American franchise in its stead.

Moreover, the bestowal of unnatural rights upon women has imposed upon them

unnatural duties, and, nevertheless, breach of these duties makes them unhappy.

Let me explain. A man may often think that his social or financial position will

suffer if he marries, unless he makes some brilliant alliance. His desire will then be

to win a woman of his own choice under conditions other than those of marriage,

such as will secure her position and that of the children. However fair, reasonable,

fit and proper these conditions may be, and the woman consents by foregoing that

undue amount of privilege which marriage alone can bestow, she to some extent

loses her honor, because marriage is the basis of civic society; and she will lead an

unhappy life, since human nature is so constituted that we pay an attention to the

opinion of other people which is out of all proportion to its value. On the other

hand, if she does not consent, she runs the risk either of having to be given in

marriage to a man whom she does not like, or of being landed high and dry as an

old maid; for the period during which she has a chance of being settled for life is

very short. And in view of this aspect of the institution of monogamy, Thomasius'

profoundly learned treatise, de Concubinatu, is well worth reading; for it shows

that, amongst all nations and in all ages, down to the Lutheran Reformation,

concubinage was permitted; nay, that it as an institution which was to a certain

extent actually recognized by law, and attended with no dishonor. It was only the

Lutheran Reformation that degraded it from this position. It was seen to be a

further justification for the marriage of the clergy; and then, after that, the Catholic

Church did not dare to remain behind-hand in the matter.

There is no use arguing about polygamy; it must be taken as de facto existing

everywhere, and the only question is as to how it shall be regulated. Where are

there, then, any real monogamists? We all live, at any rate, for a time, and most of

us, always, in polygamy. And so, since every man needs many women, there is

nothing fairer than to allow him, nay, to make it incumbent upon him, to provide

for many women. This will reduce woman to her true and natural position as a

subordinate being; and the lady--that monster of European civilization and

Teutonico-Christian stupidity--will disappear from the world, leaving only women,

but no more unhappy women, of whom Europe is now full.

In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Manu,1

she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son. It

is, to be sure, a, revolting thing that a widow should immolate herself upon her

husband's funeral pyre; but it is also revolting that she should spend her husband's

money with her paramours--the money for which he toiled his whole life long, in

the consoling belief that he was providing for his children. Happy are those who

have kept the middle course--medium tenuere beati.

1 Ch. V., v. 148.

The first love of a mother for her child is, with the lower animals as with men, of a

purely instinctive character, and so it ceases when the child is no longer in a

physically helpless condition. After that, the first love should give way to one that

is based on habit and reason; but this often fails to make its appearance,

especially where the mother did not love the father. The love of a father for his
child is of a different order, and more likely to last; because it has its foundation in

the fact that in the child he recognizes his own inner self; that is to say, his love

for it is metaphysical in its origin.

In almost all nations, whether of the ancient or the modern world, even amongst

the Hottentots,2 property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in

Europe that a departure has taken place; but not amongst the nobility, however. 2

Leroy, Lettres philosophiques sur l'intelligence et la perfectibilite des animaux, acec

quelques lettres sur l'homme, p. 298, Paris, 1802.

That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won

with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who

then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time, or otherwise fool it away,

is a grievance and a wrong as serious as it is common, which should be prevented

by limiting the right of women to inherit. In my opinion, the best arrangement

would be that by which women, whether widows or daughters, should never

receive anything beyond the interest for life on property secured by mortgage, and

in no case the property itself, or the capital, except where all male descendants fail

[to exist]. The people who make money are men, not women; and it follows from

this that women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it, nor

fit persons to be entrusted with its administration. When wealth, in any true sense

of the word, that is to say, funds, houses or land, is to go to them as an

inheritance they should never be allowed the free disposition of it. In their case a

guardian should always be appointed; and hence they should never be given the

free control of their own children, wherever it can be avoided. The vanity of

women, even though it should not prove to be greater than that of men, has this

much danger in it, that it takes an entirely material direction. They are vain, I

mean, of their personal beauty, and then of finery, show and magnificence. That is

just why they are so much in their element in society. It is this, too, which makes

them so inclined to be extravagant, all the more as their reasoning power is low.

Accordingly we find an ancient writer describing woman as in general of an

 extravagant nature--[Greek writing].1 But with men vanity often takes the direction

of non-material advantages, such as intellect, learning, courage. 1 Brunck's

Gnomici poetae graeci, v. 115.

In the Politics2 Aristotle explains the great disadvantage which accrued to the

Spartans from the fact that they conceded too much to their women, by giving

them the right of inheritance and dower, and a great amount of independence;

and he shows how much this contributed to Sparta's fall. May it not be the case in

France that the influence of women, which went on increasing steadily from the

time of Louis XIII., was to blame for that gradual corruption of the Court and the

Government, which brought about the Revolution of 1789, of which all subsequent

disturbances have been the fruit? However that may be, the false position which

women occupy, demonstrated as it is, in the most glaring way, by the institution of

the lady, is a fundamental defect in our social scheme, and this defect, proceeding

from the very heart of it, must spread its baneful influence in all directions.

2 Bk. I., ch.9.

That woman is by nature meant to obey may be seen by the fact that every

woman who is placed in the unnatural position of complete independence;

immediately attaches herself to some man, by whom she allows herself to be

guided and ruled. It is because she needs a lord and master. If she is young, it will

be a lover; if she is old, a priest.

June 9, 2006
Method
The suburbs, if we read history, are not a new phenomena. Anywhere civilization has expanded dwellings of
their nature have arisen and for the same reason: the newly-wealthy merchant class, the last to arise
because merchants unlike farmers or artisans have no direct connection to the production of goods or
services but are resellers and marketers by nature, wish to be like the rich and have houses in the city, but
as in all cities land is at a super-premium, cannot and so settle for outer rings of houses paradoxically away
from both rich and poor.

Interestingly, this is not the foundations of the middle class; the middle class arises from those who perform
functional jobs in some leadership capacity but are not rapacious enough to be profiteers. The merchants
are a hybrid between middle-class and profiteers; where the middle class traditionally is familiar with
wealth, and thus avoids get-rich-quick marketing scams, those who are new to wealth rise by becoming
merchants, resellers, advertisers, spammers, etc. The middle class is entrenched in professional function,
but the merchant class are basically unspecialized labor with an inclination toward profit.

Of course, over time the suburbs become accepted, and thus since most people want to buy a house in the
suburbs they crowd out other markets and soon if you are between poverty and riches you buy a suburban
house. Thus the middle class gets blamed for the suburbs, and for the "bourgeois" mentality following,
when really, it's a consequence of newly-enfranchised people seeking to assert their wealth. Unfortunately,
the bourgeois rapidly develop political opinions as well: at first they are conservative, because they are self-
congratulatory about their new wealth and wish to assert social darwinist rhetoric (conservativism is a
liberalized adoption of the ideas presented by aristotle, and as such has no legitimacy to a philosopher).

Think about life from the perspective of the new generation, those who have grown up in and know no
other reality than the suburbs: everyone you see is about of the same ability, and is making a living in
fields that are "easy" because they do not involve physical work; they're desk jockey jobs. As a
consequence of having nothing substantive to do, a process which only gets worse as the number of desk
jobs proliferates and thus competition equalizes them to a lowest common denominator, the suburbans
have a unique morality: they believe that all people are equal because to them all functions are equal,
performed equally by those of mediate ability but not exception or decreased faculties, and in their
boredom they assume everyone is like them (boredom, paradoxically, gives itself to less in-depth study of a
problem, as to be bored is to be accustomed to unsatisfying distraction, thus one gives every idea a
singular glance and moves on).

The suburbs thus invent their own morality not out of any special purity of the heart or mind, but out of the
kind of boredom that comes from utilitarian, interchangeable tasks. Further, they treat all problems like
those encountered at suburban jobs, namely ones where a change in method can produce better results.
How many movies/books from the 1900-1950s rise of the new merchant middle class in America featured a
hero who found a new method of separating corn, or of knitting socks by machine? The merchant middle
class approaches morality the same way: everyone I see is of equal ability in equality simplistic jobs,
therefore we must all be equal.

Note that the honest worker revolts do not embrace equality until some college-educated suburbanite slips
among the darker, dirty-shirted forms at a meeting and begins speaking in that clear accent... "I lower
myself to your level to help you, because it's the right thing to do" -- but inevitably that suburbanite has
had a failed marriage, is impotent, is perverse, is addicted to drugs, and is thus not raising the lower so
much as raising its own lowered self. They are fallen angels making themselves feel better by "helping"
others. But the normal worker revolts have a simple demand: they are being mistreated, and they want
better working conditions and more money. "Equality" to the worker makes as little sense as depending on
angelic aid, because they are aware of their own failings and limitations. It's only when some suburbanite
descends and makes itself feel like an angel by raising their expectations that they get the notion of
"equality" at all.

Suburbanites embrace equality because they assume that method will make us all function the same.
Surrounded by wealth, they look at the poor as a question of our method of dealing with them, and by that
very "us" and "them" dichotomy designate the poor as non-autonomous, something we the "us" -- with
power, good graces and wealth -- must act upon because they cannot act for themselves. Suburbanites
embrace equality, in other words, because it affirms their power and leadership. Equally importance in their
embrace of this illusory idea is that surroundings in which it is created: suburbanites work in jobs that
involve manipulating other people, socialize in unrealistic circumstances centered around money, and have
goals that are entirely realized externally to the individual but internally to the socialized mentality of the
individual, e.g. society at large. This unreality created the suburbs, and the people who adapt to the
suburbs thus in turn pass it on.

Think about what people, black and white and yellow and red, have done when they've gotten into the
suburbs. They buy a house, and immediately become interested in defending their own interests against
those of all others, because to have something in this world is to immediately become a target for
parasites. After fighting off the scam artists, the realtors, the tax men and the school board, they're sick of
the goddamn world and assume it is always wrong and they are always right. And why wouldn't they?
Next, they cluster in social groups where the goal is never to offend, because these social groups exist to
perpetuate advantages at the job or in the business. So they talk about things that are horrifying but
cannot be fixed.

Soon the paranoid suburbanite is buying insurance and scrambling for more wealth. Since they talk about
wealth anyway, and pass on opportunities to one another as a means of socializing, this rapidly translates
into a fixation on wealth at the expense of others. However, this is far away from home, and thus whether
both partners work or not, they begin to view the world differently, from home: with pity. They see their
own wealth and the poverty of most, and because they exclusively watch and listen to and read
emotionally-wrenching material from Disney movies to newspaper exposes to books about death, they feel
a leaden guilt... so they make a sacrifice to that guilt, and give away not more than one-tenth of their
income.

Do they give it to effective causes, like finding a saner path for humanity? Heck, no. They're doing this to
make themselves feel better, so they give to visible charities with heart-wrenching causes, like disabled
orphans or African-American Republicans. In doing so, they usually make the world worse off, because
these charities are parasitic; their goal is to perpetuate themselves, which does not involve solving the
problem. And so on -- on and on, South of Heaven (and east of the Beltway).

The suburbs, like other examples, show us that modern society is a mindset more than a tangible entity.
Thanks to our wealth based on the inventions and struggles of the past, and the passive imperialism of
world capitalism, we can live in luxury in exchange for working most of our free time on jobs where most of
our work is not only not essential but devoid of actual, Realistic value. It is simply pushing papers around
and "generating" wealth. Recognizing our uselessness, and feeling guilt, we diverge further from reality.

If we had to summarize this process, whether modernity or the suburbs, we would say that convenience
and socialization obscured realism while technology equalized the lowest with the highest, and the result
was a civilization without leadership that rapidly consumed its resources and sank to a third-world level.
The suburban mentality, like modern society, is a method of control dependent on this unreality subsidized
by technological equalization, and like all illusory things, leads to eventual destruction. But that's getting
ahead of ourselves, and you can bet it won't be mentioned in the suburbs until it's too late.

June 19, 2006

State of the World, 2006
Behind the Veil
What we know as reality is limited to our senses. If some diabolical merchant of death plugged us into a
computer designed to fake a reality, we'd never know, since when we reached out for the arm of a lover it
would simulate the silken feel of scrubbed, youthful flesh. Most of us are confined even further because in a
world of seven billion, we depend on other people to tell us what's happening in distant parts. This is why
even the most cynical people read newspapers.

Thanks to the centralization of our society, both through government and business, we now have a mass
media that in Soviet Russia would be called "State Media" but here is roughly the same. They show up at
press conferences and, burdened by deadlines and the same mental insouciance that afflicts society at
large, they scribble notes, call a couple sources, and then fabricate the news from that. If you think you're
getting the whole story, you're insane, because at this point that's mathematically impossible as well as
unlikely.

Do we need a conspiracy theory for this? No, we don't: it's business. Newspapers do not make money by
devoting massive amounts of resources to stories; in the past, they could, but they were then a much
larger voice. Same with television and radio. Now that we have newspaper, radio, television, magazine,
internet, podcast and soon virtual TV, we've got many thousands of competing voices jockeying for market
share. How do they get ahead? By cutting costs, glitzing up what they do have, and forging ahead. You
don't make money by doing in-depth stories that no one has time to read anyway.

Awareness of this conspiracyless state of quasi-truth shows us a side of modern society that is inevitable
and no one's fault: by the nature of its size and complexity, we are never directly in contact with events,
and rely on others to portray to us a reality that is too complex and far-flung for us to investigate on our
own. Think about it as a normal person: you graduate college and can then decide to spend ten years in
libraries and laboratories and war zones finding "the truth," or you can pick the best news source you can
find and get on with it. Problem is that even those "best" news sources are subject to the laws of the
market, and as competition increases, get more hasty.

Although these stories vanished into the memory hole, a few years ago there were a number of scandals
involving newspaper and magazine articles that plagiarized, or outright invented, stories including a few
internet Trolls that somehow made page one. The press was shocked -- shocked, I tell you! -- that this
could happen, in public. In private, they knew it was inevitable: the salary and the prestige of being a
reporter has not even kept up with 1930s levels. The amount of time a reporter could thus spend on stories
decreased, as did the type of person electing to make a career of reporting. End result: the hiring of
scumbags, the rushing of half-cocked stories, and the generation of not-real "news" through a dysfunction
system that is not a conspiracy and is nobody's fault.

It is important that we moderns remember that at all times we exist behind the veil of such non-fault, non-
functional connection to reality, and that much of what we know as "truth" is nowhere near verified.
Someone may categorize it as truth, esepcially if it originates in a trusted source like a religious or political
or economic leader, but does that mean it is actually a part of physical reality? As the old song goes, "It
ain't necessarily so." The veil is produced by this faulty system and, fortunate for those who lead, is easily
manipulated. There is no conspiracy, but if I as a businessperson want to advance my cause by slipping a
few thousand dollars into the right pockets for favorable media coverage, who is harmed? It isn't as if
people mistake "the news-entertainment media" for real news, unless they're clueless proles.

Behind the veil is where the truth lies, but it's not a truth we will be able to actually observe, because to do
so would require being in a thousand places at once, often behind closed doors. A true modern idiot -- the
kind of thin intelligence that can fix a car, program a computer or sell stock funds but is blind to the
implications of actions in reality as a whole -- will say, sagely, "Wuhl then you can't tell what the truth is."
Incorrect: we don't know what the truth is now. We can conjecture based on historical tendencies and
observed traits and from that actually get a better picture of what's happening than from a handful of
people paid to make a product that's mostly entertainment although based in news. The modern idiot trusts
the news; the person triumphing over modernity looks at history.

And what exists behind this veil, you might ask? Power, for one; biology, next; and finally, existential
stress. Let's look at these in sequence.

POWER

Power is one thing that moderns do not like to touch. We are afraid of force, so we make moralities and
rules and distinctions like good/evil in an attempt to manipulate each other, but what we're unintentionally
doing is strengthening the mechanisms of control that will ultimately lead to the use of more force. Like
drug addicts and criminals, we make our own fates by denying the obvious reality in exchange for that
"feelgood" sensation of a few moments. We don't want to see ourselves as barbarians using the sword and
famine to shape history, so we pretend we're "moral authorities" and through this dedication to peace and
democracy end up overthrowing governments, using nuclear weapons on civilians and machine-gunning
wedding parties. We're afraid of power. We would rather deal in big heart-happy symbols like peace,
freedom, democracy, justice, but since we arbitrarily control the definitions of these to suit our power
needs, we're simply deceiving ourselves (trust me: the people on the other end of the machine guns are
not long deceived). The politicians drag out the sacred symbols of democracy and freedom and equality,
and the voters charge forward to approve, and then six months later are "horrified" to see the carnage that
results. Is it really a surprise? No: surprise is the pretense we use to obscure our fanaticism for power.

This parallels our Judeo-Christian morality, which is essentially passive aggression. It states that we are
each free to do whatever we want, so long as we do not impede others, and ignores conveniently the fact
that this is completely illogical when one thinks on the level of the direction of the whole . I want a society
that produces great art; my neighbor wants Britney Spears. The two do not coexist. What wins out? Why,
the simpler, more popular alternative... by virtue of the swing vote of the vast number of simple people out
there. To them, symphonies are pretentious and fine art is above their heads and probably for rich people.
Oh yeah? Well fuck the rich -- let's have something for The People. What the people do not realize of
course is that they're being bought off, and that all the junk culture in the world does not change their
slavery, in the largest part because they will always be enslaved by the fact that they are simpler in the
head than others. Dumb people exist for the smarter to manipulate. Our morality, based on passive
aggression as it is, only permits us to act against those who would impede our "freedom" -- this is the
aggression part of passive aggression. Even if what someone is doing is destructive to all good things in life,
it must be respected, and anyone who steps over the line and stops him -- whoah, dude, that person is an
extremist or a terrorist or a bigot . That person is The Wrong. Let's go kill him -- for justice, freedom, and
equality! It is for this reason that Judeo-Christian republics cannot exist without a Satanic enemy, because
without an excuse to look outside themselves and blame someone they are forced to become introspective
and -- well, let's just say that passive aggressive behavior becomes obvious with too much study.

Biology

There is a certain school of thought that says, left and right or Communist and Capitalist, all political
dualities are in fact illusory because what we know of as "politics" has arisen in the modern time around a
central theory: through categorical logic, we can channel all people toward a uniform, absolute, appropriate
standard of behavior. The reason for this hybrid of the utilitarian and the egalitarian is that it is comforting
to the lower ends of ability-intelligence spectrum, who find it useful to think that the same rules applied to
all people produce the same effects, with only a small deviation for vast gaps in ability.

Sensible people know differently, of course, and point out how how geniuses break all the rules and get
ahead of morons who obey every one, but society's response has been to dumb down the task so genius is
no longer appreciated. Symphonies make some of us feel stupid? Here, have monoharmonic rock music.
Literature makes some recognize their limitations? Here's the niche novel -- write about being a bisexual
vegan astronaut Anarchist and the other 400,000 of your niche group will buy it. Forget genius; we've got
inclusivity. And true to form, modern "careers" are paint by number and tend to eschew the organic
learning that makes, for example, one carpenter an artisan and the other merely a laborer. We've got
interchangeable parts. We've got standard memorandum formats. We've got hundreds of thousands of
pages of documentation to specify the correct form archetype of anything from speeches to computer code
to murals to rock songs. Don't focus on saying anything; get the form right, get good production, and
you're the best "art" this time will produce.

With this in mind, modern output can be decoded into what it actually is. The "genius" postmodern novel
becomes a series of linguistic tricks chained into a structure of mis en abime; the "genius" postmodern rock
becomes an inversion of verse and chorus with "exciting" fills using esoteric scales. The business "genius" is
someone who recognizes an opportunity that has not yet been written about in a trade publication. This is
not to say that these people are not smart, but that their output is not exceptional. It follows the same
categorical mandate as our politics, our machines, even our love affairs: external force applied uniformly to
disparate elements produces uniform results. And while this works when manufacturing munitions or filling
Coke bottles, it is of questionable application to humanity, not from some "it denies what makes us
Individuals" garbage argument but from the mathematic that what inspires a simple person will bore a
genius, and what inspires a genius will be inscrutable to a simple person, yet both exist .

Our modern thinkers, who are usually "thin intelligences" with ability in one area but a total lack of the kind
of application of theory to the whole of reality that distinguishes our best philosophers, will counter with
some "Average" as in "The average person responds well to this categorical action." And where do we find
this average person? It does not exist -- instead, we have many different people inconvenienced to the
degree they deviate from average, including the comedy of "Army" clothing sizes that make large men look
like giants and small men look tiny. The average person is motivated like a whore by televisions -- if you're
not, then you'll be inconvenienced. The average person wants to spend most of their money on cars and
entertainment -- if you're not, too bad, because you'll need these things anyway, since society is designed
to work with the average.

In fact, through the multiple reflective layers of response that produces natural reality, the response of
nature to categories is a breaking of averages, because if reality indeed were able to be manipulated by
categories, there would rapidly be no room left for variation, and thus no ability to respond to change or
error. If an average mouse was never eaten by the average eagle, the ecosystem would shut down;
instead, the average mouse gets eaten an average number of times, and this causes the mouse to keep
evolving to try to get that average predation factor (APF) closer to zero. But what happens to creatures
without predators? They lose the ability to fly, like the Dodo bird, and get fat and lazy like modern humans.
Categorical-average thinking creates stagnation and reality disconnects wherever it goes. Further, it creates
the illusion that we can run society like a machine: anonymously, uniformly, functionally, causing us to
separate local communities and thus subtract lifelong friendships from our existences, remove the ability to
be good at something unique to our personalities, and thus boring us to tears in interminable jobs that
become more an exercise in personnel politics that being good at anything, and finally, our functionalism
removes the focus in finding meaning in life, for individuals or the whole, thus we go through motions and
avoid having any kind of goal at all, dropping us into a boredom of like mechanics discussing variations of
machines that will never be replaced. We have made an external paradise, in that we've got "freedom" and
luxury and plastic gadgets and entertainment, at the cost of making our inner worlds a hell -- but this only
influences people above the average, which means we do not all share this discontent!

In fact, ever since global warming "sneaked up on us" and we awoke to find ourselves on the verge of a
first-world versus third-world WWIII, an increasing number of people have been laying a charge against
modern politics: that it's detached from reality and the only reason we tolerate it is that the greatest
number of our people cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy, and thus do not find the
system offensive. This is why genius activists burn churches, mail letterbombs, nerve gas subways and
crash planes into underinsured towers. The number of people who can receive a message is dwarfed by the
number of people who cannot understand it, and since every decision in society is made by counting the
ayes and nayes, this means the system itself will never elect to make a change.

The truth is unpopular. Even worse, the truth is understood by on average 2-5 of 100 people, and they get
shouted down by the crowd around them who want more SUVs, cheaper televisions, complimentary beer at
work and more "freedom" to have cheap sex, take drugs, slack off, and pursue pleasures of an unhealthy
nature, because you only need "freedom" when you're doing something that needs explanation. E.g. people
never need "freedom" to raise their families; they need to be left alone. There's a difference. The people
who cry loudest for "freedom" are the ones doing something that should not be trusted. This is in contrast
to what most decent intelligent people want, which is to be left alone, meaning to be independent of
unwarranted interruptions by government, lynch mob, or intrusive business predator.

No one both intelligent and experienced trusts "freedom" because they know that any system dedicated to
"freedom" will spend its time defending deviants, criminals, perverts and morons while allowing us boring
middle-of-the-road types to get walked all over. "Freedom" is a justification, not an actual state of
existence. Words like "freedom" and "justice" and "tolerance" are popular concepts that mean almost
nothing, but because they sound good are universally acclaimed. If the truth is unpopular, we'll invent
popular "truths" and use those like the red cape of a matador on a bull: while the population goes charging
forward screaming FREEDOM, we'll lure them away from the actual issues which we'll poke into them until
they're too tired to resist anymore. More people are unable to see beyond this state than will recognize it,
so once again, popularity obscures a truth.

The fundamental idea of modern politics -- that we can apply a categorical, external logic to all people and
come up with a uniform result -- is a popularization of a half-truth, and has nothing to do with reality. This
has been noticed by the same critics of our society that noticed global warming is having real world effects
while our "intelligent" leaders debate its actuality. Increasing numbers of voices are claiming that our
mental tools of modern politics have, instead of guaranteeing better lives for all of us, created a political
system that instead of dealing with real problems creates a fantasy interpretation of existence and
addresses its problems instead, since the truth is never popular and no one gets elected, or their product
bought, or becomes a popular socialite for telling the ugly truth. So we create fantasies. Freedom, justice,
tolerance. Prosperity, democracy, progress. Love, equality, victory. And what do they mean? They are red
capes in front of our bullish eyes.

In contrast to this fantasy world of mental-emotional symbols, there is biological politics: that some
individuals have more ability than others and that if we are to survive as a species, we must gradually shift
ourselves toward that end of the spectrum rather than the spectrum closer to apes. And because it's a hot-
button issue, let me say that I'm not talking about race here: there are "good white people" who are closer
to apes than most black people. Are Andrew Fastow and Ken Lay and Janet Reno and Bill Clinton closer to
monkeys than higher-order humans? You bet: they're power-hungry, small-minded, ruthless manipulators
who put on a public facade of having "your best interests" in mind. If they could, they'd dot the i's with
little hearts so you know what warm, caring, good people they are -- deep down inside, when they're not
busy stealing, burning heretics and cripping American foreign operations by cutting off money when their
deceit is "discovered" by the press (hint: to have the press discover your opponents are up to no good,
phone them with the obvious truth but spun and a few thousand dollars). No, race isn't a determiner,
although each race has evolved differently and with different abilities, and within each of those races, each
ethnic group has evolved differently (compare Russia's 94 average IQ -- on par with Mexico -- with
Germany's 107 -- who would you rather have leading you? Oh, I forgot: those Germans are amoral; but
what if they're right? Well, we don't care about that -- only popular truths admitted here!).

For all of our bluster about justice and democracy, all of our fascination with symbols and international
politics, and all of our ranting about a better future for all people, biological politics matters more: it
determines the future of the species. We will always need intelligent leaders and capable people.
Technology breaks. Empires fall. Flags burn. Even democracy collapses (as is historically 100% consistent)
into authoritarian states. The only thing that can save us is having intelligent, capable, noble-minded people
who can lead us; this is the reality of biological politics, and it's one our modern politicians choose to ignore
because it offends the proles by reminding them that, white-as-snow or not, they're closer to apes in
mentality.

Existential

It's a fact of life that most people are not writers because they are not articulators. You ask them why they
did something, and they tell you words without meaning; "It seemed like the right thing to do" is a
statement of preference, not logic. They don't know. Theirs are not minds that put things into words and
logical argument, and this is not necessarily a failing of intelligence; some of the most intelligent musicians
and visual artists have been hilariously incompetent at explaining their motives and ideas. Among the
normal population, people are generally not inclined to articulate; they can state a preference but not tell
you why. It is for this reason that our existential crisis is not widely recognized.

The West exhausted itself with conflict for what was right because, thanks to its prosperity, it grew within;
as is the rule in nature, those of lesser intelligence have more children and give less attention to each one,
thus the West swelled with peasants. If you can get past the bullshit that somehow a mass of peasants will
magically choose the right option through democracy, you can see what happened next: the peasants put
pressure on their leaders for things they did not need, and the leaders retaliated with increasing force, until
the peasants by virtue of "passive aggression" in turn retaliated and thanks to superior numbers, could kill
their leaders and take over. In Russia, the serfs did not want to be freed, at first; they had no debts, no
obligations, and someone made sure they were taken care of at every turn. After a few years of
revolutionary rhetoric, they decided to revolt, and spent the next century in abject poverty ruled by not
aristocrats but those taken from among their ranks -- and as it turns out, peasant rulers like Stalin defined
new levels of cruelty. Stalin himself admired the Czars for their ruthless rule, but thought they were too
soft. And what happened in France? The peasants outbred a reasonable level of population, and then
became starving; the aristocracy, recognizing that the best solution would be a die-off of extra people, did
nothing and was overthrown. Despite a few flarings of Napoleonic aspiration, France never regained its
military or cultural preeminence after that time, having murdered its best minds for the single reason that
they were prosperous and the peasants wanted revenge.

When one looks at history in these terms, it is easy to see why the West is exhausted: we are so tired of
internal conflict between our best and our most generic that we want to roll over, offer up our asses for
passive anal intercourse, and ignore the rape and go about distracting ourselves. We'll pick wallpaper as the
dong slides in, maybe watch television during the grunting and thrusting, and afterwards talk about equality
and justice while drinking ethical coffee. Anal rape? Well, yes, it happens, but by allowing it, at least we
don't have to oppress people. The West is so exhausted by the conflict between its aristocrats (average IQ:
120-150) and its proles (average IQ: 94-98) that it is has even maneuvered itself, by being passive and
then aggressive when other people recognize the illegitimate insanity of its passivity, into a future war
between the first world (average IQ: 104) and the third world (average IQ: 94). Existentially, we're
exhausted; we wish the obligation to fight for what is right would just go away and leave us to distract
ourselves with alcohol, television, sex and gadgets.

Yet exhaustion is paradoxical, because being exhausted makes one more exhausted, where having a sense
of levity and joy in life gives energy that keeps on giving. If one thinks about modern society on its own
terms, one is not looking behind the veil but at the veil, and as everyone knows if you stare at a mesh it
appears to be solid when it is in fact translucent. Follow the light and it will take you through the veil, and
you will see reality as it is. When this happens you can cast aside the massive load of baggage you carry in
the form of lies, passive aggression, manipulative symbols and expectations; you see that instead of having
a massive task before you -- converting the world to democracy and capitalism and "educating" them into
having the right opinions (which they of course choose of their own "free will") -- you have a small task:
find the people who are biologically of a higher caliber, get them into power, and remove the authority of
the proles. This sounds harder until you realize that the people you wish to overthrow are entirely
distracted by a lack of reality, thus if you simply act upon reality, you will triumph while they will still be
befuddled by illusion.

ACTIVISM

"Well, I really don't like the direction society is going..."

Stop: most of the people who say these words mean nothing by them. More specifically, they may believe
them, but they will never act on them. For some it's that emotionally and intellectually they are too
immature (or limited) to get over the ideas that big symbols like democracy, freedom, capitalism, etc. are
what we need. For most it is that they like most people are not ready to function independently; they are
herd creatures. The greatest of all herd creatures are those who pretend to be independent thinkers but
actually lack any sense of direction or will to act.
You, if you're still reading this far, may have the will to act. First you need clarity of ideology, and next you
need practical goals; finally, you need to begin a regular course of working closer toward those goals.
However this should not be a duty but a joy. After all, you see that modern society is despite "doing okay"
right now headed toward a conflict with reality: it has a lack of real values, it denies our inner need for
meaningful experience, it overpopulates and overconsumes and pollutes, it replaces all higher people and
ideas with low-brow versions for the proles. You are not "oppressed" by this society as much as made ill by
it, the way one is when watching any idea that will end badly when most people are oblivious to this fact.
It's like watching a horror movie and wanting to scream "Don't go into the room!" as the blithe idiot
character approaches his or her doom. When you watch the world, that's what you see -- a constant state
of imminent horror.

To have the will to act you must first transcend your seriousness. Recognize that in all likelihood your
species has, in a desire to avoid conflict by pandering to the individualism of the crowd which thus unites
itself into a mob because its only ideology is that individuals want absolute freedom from interruption of
their pursuits no matter how moronic, given itself to a final conflict in which the have-nots, with the
technology of the haves, will initiate a war against the haves which no one will win; either that or the
haves, exhausted by years of fighting off hordes of have-nots, will acquiesce to passive rape and simply be
bred into the have-nots, creating a future third-world society of IQ 94 that will produce none of the
greatness of the past. This society will nonetheless be able to breed to the fullest extremes, and will
populate every nook and cranny of this earth, thus guaranteeing its slow attrition. Either way, what is
important to remember is this: modern society, on its current course, will never escape itself and will slowly
whittle itself down into more and more mediocre versions of itself. Do not think of it as a conspiracy; think
of itself as a cancerous smoker who cannot stop because, what else does it have? Inhale.

When you see society in these terms, you are freed from the "seriousness" of brain-dead leftist activists
who rant about how people need to "just wake up" and talk about the apocalypse as something exciting
and active. You are also freed from the tired priggish speeches of the conservatives who bemoan a loss of
traditional values, while rushing off to get busy earning money and buying plastic. "Seriousness" can be an
enemy here; the game is already lost, but we have a chance to win after all. So joyfully move forward! If
you fail, nothing is lost -- if you succeed, everything is. (And remember, that should humanity snuff itself,
there are nearly infinite planets out there that could support intelligent life...)

Most modern "solutions" in fact begin like this:

1. Wake everyone up to the truth.

2. We all get together like the end of a Hollywood movie and demand justice.
3. The music starts playing and everyone gets "freedom."

Our modern solution is different:

1. Recruit among the 2-5% of society that actually are capable of independent action.
2. Have them agree on the basics of an ideology and implement it at every level of society simultaneously.
3. Seize power by deception, and separate the proles from power by peaceful means.

Why peaceful means you ask? Has our author succumbed to the aforementioned liberal democratic illusion
-- no, but violent revolutions tend to be destructive and most commonly get out of hand. Further, there is
no strategic benefit to harming the proles. We desire government of real leadership, which democracy will
not provide -- not now, not ever. The honest and functional course toward this goal doesn't include proles,
but with their ability to vote and purchase junky plastic products that later crowd landfills eliminated, proles
are not a large problem. They will keep living as they always have, which means spending their money on
stupid things, denying reality, breeding too much, etc. In a society that no longer views them as the root of
political power, they will have to face the consequences of these actions alone -- which will return them to
natural selection, and over the course of generations, breed them into something more than proles. Let
nature do this winnowing. If we get involved in revenge politics such as murdering proles (or religious-
ethnic groups) we have removed our focus from the goal -- a saner society -- and sidetracked it toward
some kind of transient, temporal satisfaction.
In modern society, as in all human societies, biological politics remains constant behind our drama and our
propaganda, our economics and symbolism. Most people go to jobs, then go home and watch TV. They do
this because they are not capable of anything else. There are a handful of people, perhaps as many as five
per hundred, who do the exciting stuff: create computer programs, write books, teach classes, build bombs,
paint art, have sex with horses. Many of these are also thin intelligences but if pointed in the right direction
can be quite effective. The first goal of our anti-revolution is to show these people what is behind the veil,
and take note of those who are brave/capable enough to follow that truth.

The essence of all political power is consensus among these people, who represent in the caste system the
highest rank of Kshatyria: they are the doers, the independent actors, the foundations of what is new
versus what is old in any generation. Many of them are broken people -- molested children, alcoholic
wrecks, shattered self-confidence -- but there are those who are not. If consensus among any sizable
percentage of those is achieved, they will by the nature of doing what they always do -- seize positions of
influence in society -- spread that doctrine to the point where it is implemented. Forget "ordinary people";
they are politically inactive except in cases of greed and revenge. Go for the doers. And do not bend the
truth to pander to them, because then you'll invite incompetents into your inner circle. Tell them what
reality is and if they cannot handle it, either abandon them or keep working on them, but do not change
your vision of reality to become politically acceptable. Among other things, this means that they will respect
you as truthful unlike others.

At this point, if you need further detail, you're making excuses -- most people make excuses instead of
acting. You can spread knowledge through the internet or real life; there are documents detailing that on
this site. You can promote a political goal via conversation, via flyers, via community radio or television or
cable, via blog, even through public marches if you have to. Dishonest people make a token effort -- "OK, I
posted this to a few blogs" -- where honest people stay on task. You may not know how to be honest, but
you can learn, unless you do not believe in yourself at all. Your goal is to find other thinking people and
influence them, and the first stage toward that goal is to get people talking about your ideas. Ignore your
doubts, and have fun, because being an agent provocateur of truth in a time of lies is one of the most
paradoxical and amusing roles ever possible. But remind yourself that each day you do something to
forward this goal, you're becoming less of a helpless rape victim and more of an independent, powerful
person who is fixing what plagues them about the world -- where others whine, make excuses, and
ultimately revert to the same entertainment and political fallacies that got them in that position.

July 14, 2006

Television
The loneliest thing on earth is to watch television: things happen on the screen, and ideas change or are
reinforced in our minds, and we are left with the impression that something actually happened. It didn't -
outside of our minds. Thus televisions are bubble worlds, both insulating ourselves in the castle-prison of
our own opinions and perceptions, and like drugs an encouragement to passivity. If the greatest events in
our life happen solely within our own minds and do not necessarily involve external reality except the social
factors of what other people think, there is no need to act so to secure changes in external reality. What
happens out there just happens, and what happens in here we can control and makes us feel good, so
focus entirely on the individual and its perceptions.

Television as a psychological conditioner is thus a wrecking ball. We have trained huge populations to
watch the damn thing every night, and make the conclusion implied but not outright stated by the news or
any number of "entertainment" programs that nevertheless tackle "social issues" so they can be perceived
as serious/artistic. That way, if a poll (What is your opinion? All opinions are important) or vote comes up,
that huge population can weigh in with whatever opinion proves most popular, which necessarily has little
in common with reality. Put up a choice between an easy decision that makes us feel better (free cake,
entertainment, or some emotional positive feeling) and a hard one (self-sacrifice, long-term thinking,
culture or learning, eating our spinach) and the population will inevitably choose the easier decision at
makes them feel better right now , and if they've been coached in advance by the talking blue screen, well,
then it's a shoe-in.

So am I saying that... an evil conspiracy controls both television and government? No -- we are both
individuals, and our own rulers, and together we're deluding each other. Much as in business we sell each
other products, or tell socially-acceptable lies to make other people do what we want, or even urge our
girlfriends toward oral sex with selective quotes from famous actresses, we are swindling each other. We
are each both producer and parasite, and the only conspiracy is our collective ignorance and willingness to
manipulate others for our own convenience. Is television the devil? Like all things, technology enhances
previously existing forces and multiplies their effect, so television is like "peer pressure" turned up 1,000%
and is vastly effective. It turns us into passive toads who like queens utter a "yes" or "no" and imagine it
means a difference, which for the short term it appears to.

Think about it this way: businesses sell us products, but are always finding some more popular than others.
In an effort to find out what will be popular, they poll us endlessly and conduct consumer opinion surveys,
but these fail as often as they are successful; when consumers are asked to compare two extant products,
they do alright. When asked what they actually want, they come up with with fanciful notions and
unrealistic suggestions. Business responds to the population's will, but the population is forced to choose
from what business offers... government caters to the population, but only the choices offered by
government are available... media tries to follow public opinion, while showing the public what it believes to
be that public opinion, regurgitated through the filter of "art" (entertainment, distraction) or profit. Which
came first, the chicken or the egg? I dunno, but in a democracy, the chicken will not vote to produce an
egg.

We can see television's effects dramatically on the internet. At first, the internet was seen as an information
resource (especially when its most profitable industry was pornography) but rapidly it became a
participative one as chat, forums, and video flooded it. Where people once sought informational resources,
now they seek entertainment; where they once could, like software developers on an email list, discuss
ideas and come to a conclusion, now they re-affirm their own conclusions by shouting opinions at those
who have contrary beliefs. It has become a dead-end game where nothing changes and no one does
anything, except of course the content producers, who have something to sell. It is for this reason that
many of us have progressively receded from the internet, as we realize that all the people boldly stating
their "opinions" have no intention of acting on those opinions; they're watching TV, and want the characters
on screen to yell and jump in response, and then go back to the status quo. This is why the internet has
increasingly come to represent a separate culture entirely divorced from reality, with its ORLY owls and
LOLs, in which people all have radicalized opinions they scream at lungtop, drowning out all digital
conversation.

Since television is not only a big industry but a popular method of spending time, and to criticize it implies
that those who watch it are wasting their lives on meaningless garbage, it is exceptionally hard to criticize;
unlike a strong political opinion, criticism of television and movies and Hollywood-style "art" (music,
paintings, dance, theatre) is not rebuffed with violent words by a bitter snub. It is simply not acknowledged.
Few want to point that what we seem to consider as "culture" is not only of low quality, but popular merely
because it is deceptive and encourages us to consider passivity equivalent to action. It is one of those
paradoxical fixtures of our landscape where we know that fast food or television or popular elections are
destructive, yet "tolerate" them because they are popular. By thus inviting them in among us, we watch
everything become consumed by them; literature becomes television-like, paintings reflect MTV videos more
than the masters, our theatre is increasingly dramatic yet without substance, and our music -- well,
generations raised on Britney Spears should not perplex their parents with bad behavior (it should be
expected). Television's passive mentality encourages us toward "art" that increasingly celebrates the drama
of the individual and its preferences and pleasures, with no concern for reality passing us by. We are
drowning in the existential because we have confined our scope of criticism to the individual, much as if we
were a nation of people on couches pressing buttons to express our opinions.

May 3, 2006
Putting Race in Context
Our modern world is a form of hell. It is hell because it does not reward any kind of fine or beautiful
behavior, only a gutless functionalism. If it makes money, or pleases the masses, it's great; if not, it is
forgotten and cast aside. All of what our ancestors worked for, and indeed any intelligent person through
history would work for, is disregarded. Intelligence and accuracy come secondary to popularity and
marketability. Simplify, simplify. Everyone in the room must get the joke. The result is that intelligent
people are prisoners of a time out of control.

Further, it is a death march. I am not referring to some specific "disaster" like global warming or cancer or
class warfare. I am referring to the tendency of this entire system to dumb itself down, and then, having
killed meaning, to lament meaning. It is a suicidal, morose and neurotic existence, and these always self-
destruct. Unfortunately for the good people among us, it is also creeping up on us like aging does. It did
not make a single brave assault. It has gradually increased over the years to the point where we are used
to it, and then it gains another dimension. It makes us live like servants and deny any of the most
meaningful things - fidelity, achievement, heroism, spirit - in favor of the most mundane, namely not
offending others.

This death march may take a long time to wind down into total destruction. It will be as T.S. Eliot
suggested a whimper and not a bang. However, that it is the wrong path is beyond doubt, if we look at all
the factors (and if we are from the fortunate 1/2 of 1% who can actually consider all of that at once, and
the elite group of even fewer who have done the necessary groundwork in reading and thought to
understand at what they look). An insane path will have negative consequences, such as global warming
and industrial cancer and widespread misery, but those are disadvantages; its primary terror is that it leads
away from success toward something mediocre, and living through that experience is not pleasant. The
happiest people are the ones in a society that is rising toward a higher goal, as it has a reason for existence
that is more abstract and more positive than the downside to existence itself, namely mortality and
defecation.

Paradoxically, the modern death march is one that is excessively sweetened. All of our rhetoric sounds
good: modernity empowers us with economic competition, gives us rights, helps us with medicine and
technology, u.s.w. We are lifting up the downtrodden and granting to them equality, and we are making
sure that everyone has a place in our big happy family. All of our intentions are good. However, the world
does not work on intentions; it works by design, and our positive intentions obscure the fact that our plan -
the design we propose - is unworkable. Not according to nature. Not according to human psychology. But,
according to mathematics, our design is unworkable: we propose a system that is omnipotent and molds
people into identically functional shapes and motivates them toward some kind of "right" that applies evenly
to all lives. It is like an average, but one shaped by heavenly good intentions. However, it is still an average
person-form into which we are shuffled, and we feel the corresponding loss of meaning.

Modernity cannot work because it denies the qualitative inside of us. It cannot work because it denies our
need for achievement, and for experience outside of jobs, purchase-a-product social situations like bars and
churches, and the material comfort that our functionalist society considers the only measure of happiness.
We need more, and we need less. It denies our humanity as means of denying reality. Modernity fears
death more than it desires heroics, and therefore, we cannot discuss death and we must consider every
death a tragedy, but, suspended in this state, we are unable to do anything of significant meaning to stave
off death (there are exceptions, but they are tempered by a need to either live as a pauper or have a job,
and those - no matter who says otherwise - are never fulfilling to the intelligent). We are served by all of
technology and theology, yet we serve society most of all, because the price of its stewardship of us is
absolute allegiance to its model.

That model is function.

So why start an article on race with all of this? To put it in context. Race is the premier issue of our time
that is denied, and it is taboo to speak about, which is why this and every other honest article on the topic
is anonymous. Race is the biggest story of our time. It is a powerful issue because for some, racial
separation is a matter of preserving their communities and traditions. For others, racial dissolution is a
chance for the greatest class war victory ever, a final smashing of those who rise above the level of the
average and thus are more gifted and prosperous. These two sides play tug of war with race as an issue. It
is a highly important issue because it alone regulates the survival of certain populations. However, it's also
important to see it as part of a larger pattern, or one fixates on race and goes insane contemplating the
negative future of one's own tribe.

We cannot view race in modern terms, as function. In functional terms, we need people to do the menial
jobs, and we like economic competition as it gets us cheaper products and thus empowers us to comfort at
a greater level. When one thinks functionally, race is not part of the equation (functionalist thinkers are
limited to the present tense, and cannot project themselves ahead several generations, to the point where
one must begin looking to see why race is important). In functional terms, any person is as good as any
other, because they will be indoctrinated with laminated cards covered in pictures of idealized workers
doing idealized tasks, and the tasks will be broken down into such simple fragments that even an idiot
could do them. Culture, heritage, community, etc. are impediments to profit, not its enablers, and profit is
what allows even the lowest among us to enjoy comfort and, if they are wise enough to generate greater
profit, to rise to the heights of our society and become "elite" for their wealth.

Putting race back into this view shows us how it is part of a larger motion, and one that has gripped the
West for a long time: the rebellion of the working classes and their desire to overwhelm elites and replace
those elites with members of the working castes. Since workers do not have the fineness of mind, of
beauty, and of moral character that traditionally have been the glories of the aristocracy (who in Europe,
incidentally, were almost exclusively blonde and blue-eyed), workers do not elect elites on that basis.
Instead, they create simple linear scales such as profit or social approval, and use those. These scales
reflect function. They do not measure fineness of intellect or character, and in fact, they deliberately ignore
such things. The masses wish to crush the aristocracy, as that is the last earned elite in history. The new
elites get there simply by being vicious, shrewd, clever and determined enough to gain wealth, and we
consider this "fair." Do we consider it fair for the sake of the older elites, the blondes and the geniuses? No.
- we consider it fair for the worker who algeresque hopes to rise from bolt-tightener to CEO and later, neue
royal.

Crowd revolt is the biggest news story of the last five thousand years in the West, and few will report on it.
As Nietzsche noted, the founders of Europe as an organized entity were blondes who came from the North -
some refer to these as hyperboreans. Within them, he noted a "blonde beast" tendency, which was a form
of nobility, much as the word "Aryan" meant noble; he realized this could be found in any race, but that a
racial evolutionary hierarchy existed, and the blonde rulers of Europe were closer to the top. One might
view it as a scale between crass opportunism and Zen master style enlightenment; all of us are somewhere
on the scale, but the original European Aryans were very close to the far end and removed from the crass
end. Every race has a position on this scale, and the closer one is to the Zen end, the farther one moves
along toward being of the highest tribe; since this happens over generations, this process literally describes
the evolution of humans from crass chimplike creatures to Zen nobles of fair features emerging from the
North. We are one race. But that race is a giant hierarchy.

The "blonde beast" tendency, if discovered and used as a basis of shaping one's life and habits, is what
advances the individual in the next generation. "Science" has not yet weighed in on this one, but it's likely
that they will find small changes occurring in the DNA of human beings throughout their lives; these
changes reflect the responses of the individual to challenges and the state of mind of the individual. A more
noble state of mind is passed along to the offspring. This is how the blonde beast tendency has worked for
uncountable aeons, slowly moving primitive human beings toward a more noble state and in the process
changing their appearance and ability. It is an exact analogue of how responding to physical challenges,
and facing natural selection, makes any species increase its physical adaptation to its world and overall
population quality. Why would we consider spiritual-mental qualities to be any different from physical ones,
since they do originate in the brain? (Answer: to see the brain as mind is to deny a dualistic soul, and thus
to bring us closer to ugly thoughts of mortality. C'est la vie.)

The Bhagavad-Gita alludes to this both literally and figuratively. The book opens with a massive battle and
in response to Arjuna's prayer, Krishna reveals the secret of life: if we strive for ideals over physical
comfort, we rise up this scale (opportunism <-> nobility) and make ourselves better in the only way that
matters, which is in terms of the actual design of our bodies. It is praise of both evolution and idealism at
once, a joining of soul and body, and a more heroic religious statement than has been heard in the West
for some time. It also warns against not just racial mixing, but caste-mixing (castes are internal divisions to
a race which reflect degree of moral character and thus ideal social position and responsibility; the
aristocracy are the highest caste, followed by the warriors, and then the artists and artisans, and finally, the
semi-skilled laborers). It condemns class warfare and multiculturalism as they interrupt evolution of both
mind and body, and does so without cruelty, but without diluting realism, either.

Sensible Racialism

George Santayana wrote of "race patriotism" that it was acceptable to understand that evolution had gifted
the races differently. After all, he said, this is common sense, and to deny it is pretense. There is some
truth to this. The races did not occur simultaneously, but probably represent a series of evolutionary stages
into which later variants were bred at different rates. This does not mean there is a lack of overlap in
ability; however, it does mean that, generally speaking, each race exists at a different stratum of
development. Further, it suggests that since each race has localized itself as a population (a phenomenon
well-known in nature which allows different variants of the same species to avoid breeding despite the
viability of offspring) it is impossible to compare behavior on a linear scale. Each race is literally adapted to
its own purposes, as shaped by its environment and the cultural values that have held its society together
for aeons. Clearly race patriotism makes some sense. However, it is only one part of the picture which we
need experience.

If we look at race as it is defined for us in the media, we see only conflicts between discernible but broad
racial-ethnic groups. If, however, we look at it as the ancients did, we see race as a subset of the issue of
breeding, and breeding as a question of maintaining a scale between animal and superhuman (noble) with
which we can always orient ourselves. Translated into a modern time, this leaves us with two dimensions of
race:

1) Racial-ethnic preservation. This means preservation of race, and within it ethnicity, such that someone
who is ethnically French is both "white" and "French" (or a designation of a local ethnic group, such as
Breton). We preserve racial and ethnic groups for the same reasons we preserve local communities: to
create diversity, and to allow humanity to act in parallel, so that for any question different groups find their
own solutions, allowing these solutions to then be compared.

2) Eugenic breeding. This is separate from state-sponsored eugenics, which requires a bureaucratic
government - which can barely even get the trains to run on time - to make life or death decisions in order
to pick the best breeding material from a population. Entrusting the modern state with this responsibility
would be a disaster unless truly enlightened leaders with highly intelligent staffs were present (unlikely). It
makes more sense for our society to set up its own factors of natural selection, and make them more
complex than the ability to earn money, thus enforcing an evolution on ourselves to produce people of
higher physical strength, mental strength, and holistic moral capacity.

While most views of race are either a class-denying bigotry (Right) or an agenda for class warfare and
mass revenge using race as a mechanism (Left), the above is a practical view. It recognizes that diversity
only exists when different ethnic groups are allowed to live apart according to their traditional culture
without attempting to make it a subset of an extant culture, as occurs in multiculturalism and other
assimilationist doctrines. It recognizes that when our only standard of breeding is money, it is no surprise
we produce uglier, weaker people of less subtlety or depth in intelligence. It expands the energy we expend
dealing with "race" into a general policy based on breeding for quality, not quantity, and recognizes this
degree of quality as an indicator of the survivability of our civilization. Although it is not "racist," it
inherently contradicts the class war agenda that has gripped the West for so long, and is thus an even
greater taboo-breaker than "racism."

Localization
Possibly the most encouraging sign to emerge from mainstream politics is that at the edges of both left and
right, there is agreement that the future must involve localization of politics, or a transfer of power from
distant centralized authorities of specialized function to local community governance of broad function. This
eliminates many of the corruption problems of central authority, as well as its norming influence on diverse
local communities.

If we had to divide "Nationalism" from "Racialism," a sensible distinction would be that Nationalism
supports localization in that it is heritage-based, not exclusively race-based. It includes race - there is no
way around this - but as a subset of race, it preserves the local variant of that race. While the French, for
example, may have a mixture of different racial subtypes and histories, they also have many traits in
common that over time will resolve themselves into a single, clear ethnic group if segregated from mass
breeding (greater than 1/2 of 1%) with other groups within the same race. Nationalism preserves what it is
to be French, or of any other Nationality. It is distinct from racialism, which is often apocalyptic to the
degree that its advocates demand the mixture of all racial subgroups into one superrace. This denies crucial
differences between the subdivisions of a race.

Much as races are on an evolutionary curve stretching from most primitive to most adapted/evolved, so are
ethnic groups within a race. The older groups are usually the simpler variants from which, through selective
breeding, more capable groups emerged. It is this stratification within races that produces castes, although
the caste system is reinforced by natural selection for ability appropriate to caste role. When ethnic groups
live apart for any meaningful duration of time, they gradually breed their own caste levels, and as such,
become unfit for re-integration.

For this reason, if it is our goal to increase the quality of human beings, it makes the most sense to breed
within subgroups so that the best traits of each can be maximized; this avoids losing the many generations
of breeding that already separates that group from other members of the same race. By retaining this
effect of natural selection, it develops individuals toward a higher standard without corrupting the influences
so far retained. It also avoids the consequences of trace admixture, which is present in many ethnic
subgroups to the degree that integrating a race into a single ethnic group would introduce more impurities
than it would eliminate.

All of these ideas taken together suggest a single logical truth: local groupings designate not only a
generalized status in the process of evolution, but a series of unique adaptations which constitute parallel
evolution, in addition to a balance of traits and disciplines already specialized to local conditions.
Nationalism exists in defense of diversity, and localization.

Power

For these reasons, it is clear that a Nationalist government transfers power from a central authority to a
series of local ones, and rather than decreasing diversity, increases it by allowing the constituent parts of a
diverse system to remain unique. Further, by associating people by culture and not political or geographical
abstraction, Nationalism provides a firm basis for justification of rule by society as a whole, limiting the
influence of bureaucratic government. Any pragmatic future civilization will take into account Nationalist
principles, even if it is not by nature "Nationalist" itself.

The recommendation of this author is that the racial issue not be ignored. There are solutions to its
quandaries, and inspirations toward better forms of rule, that can be found by reading the whole of the
ethnic-racial issue. A practical government needs not adopt an explicit racial platform, but should not
construct itself so as to exclude race patriotism and Nationalism from public discourse. Groups such as Black
Panthers, Aztlan, and Nazis can be understood as different flavors of the Nationalist idea, and as capable of
coexistence, since although they represent different constituencies they argue for the same type of social
order. If a future government does not explicitly outlaw them, it facilitates the creation of local communities
according to these principles among others, and thus gives its citizens the greatest degree of flexibility on
the issue.

September 26, 2005

Stereotypes
Are stereotypes really as wrong as implied? We are told by our omniscient media and peers that
stereotypes are wrong because not everyone in a group resembles them. But could it be we are
misinterpreting stereotypes -- that instead of trying to summarize individuals, they symbolize the meaning
of a group?

For example, Nationalists. Our perception of the nationalist is a tattooed soccer fan whose main activities
include brawling, offending people, and periodic hate crimes after bouts of alcoholic madness. These people
tend to be socially oblivious and paranoid, fixated on conceptions of a conspiracy and mainly inclined
toward offending others with their opinions, then accusing them of failure to comprehend. For them,
generally, everything of their race is OK and every other race is garbage if not outright evil. Most come well
informed with diagrams of skull shapes, crime statistics, intelligence and of course, the all-knowing veil of
history. Why do people not consider Nationalist parties? Because the stereotype of the Nationalist conforms
to what they see on TV, and is reinforced in real life whenever they meet a Nationalist. "Come, join the
party of angry losers!"

Another great example are Greens. Our public perception of them is Birkenstock-wearing, long-haired,
slightly stinky people who go around tightening water faucets to shut off excess lossage, recycling tampons,
and shouting angrily that the world doesn't understand their crusade. They view the rest of us as
unenlightened and selfish, pursuing the almighty dollar and first world lifestyle when if we all just returned
to the trees, things would turn out just fine. We need to stop eating meat, testing on animals, and driving
SUVs. This stereotype, like that of Nationalists, doesn't apply to every individual who is Green, but it sure
does symbolize the group: social dropouts without any broader solutions, but plenty of irritatingly involved
band-aids which while not fixing the problem will occupy our time and give us something to talk about
while drinking ethical organic coffee from non-authoritarian regimes.

We have a similarly bitter stereotype for Democrats, and it's just as accurate. They tend to be from East or
West coast cities, and be hipsters in that they dress trendily and spend their time in coffeeshops or reliving
the greatness of 1970s rock; they usually work for big industry, but that's okay because they complain
loudly about it so no one things they are with the conspiracy. And for them, just as with Nationalists, there
is a conspiracy: a vast right-wing conspiracy that not only unites secret elites at Bohemian Grove and the
Bilderberg conference, but inducts new members in Skull and Bones so they can someday join the Carlisle
group. Of course the VRWC forged 9/11; they also killed Christ, undoubtedly. Democrats are unique for
their dedication to personal wealth, comfort and socially hip position while talking a good game and yet
doing nothing about it outside of the voting booth. This is why for generations they've been called
"limousine liberals": wouldn't it be great if someone helped the poor, if someone stopped genocide in
Darfur, if someone helped the spotted wood-owl... I'll sign a check, but you won't find me wasting my time
with political activity; that's for underlings, and I'm an assistant manager!

Stereotypes give us a cariacature of a group through its individuals. They are not meant to be universally
accurate, but they summarize what the group means to us in daily life. Nationalists beat people up and do
nothing; Democrats whine and buy lattes; Greens use energy-efficient microwave ovens and live in hovels.
Why are these stereotypes accurate? None of these groups have a solution, and thus stand out as
delusional social failures. If for every minute they spend talking about the "conspiracy" or how people "just
don't get it," they spent enhancing their own balance, they would go much farther.

All of this just puts into context the remark of Mahatma Gandhi that "You must become the change you
seek in the world," but that's only part of the story. You must find rational changes in the world and not
become a social dropout fixated on one hot issue; then, you must put those solutions into action instead of
becoming another modern bigmouth "activist." I suppose that is why sometimes articles on this site are
delayed because our writers are out there collecting trash, starting businesses, publishing books and
participating in community activities that reinforce healthful values. We'll never be popular, but we might be
effective.
May 2, 2006
Israel
Probably enough has been said about Israel, but little of it concerns common sense. People are too busy
defending their allegiances -- or their cash supporters -- to mention the obvious: decaying empires love
foreign wars to distract their populations.

Everyone can get behind a foreign war. "Go get the bad guy! He threatens our freedom!" -- so we troop off
to Afghanistan, to Viet Nam, to Iraq, to Cuba, to Grenada, to Lebanon, or wherever. Flags come out,
patriotism blares over the radios, and we consider it a great victory when political objectives are achieved.

Yet the situation itself never changes. Soon a new war is needed.

Israel's policy has been for some years now to hold off its Arab nations with two powers: its submarine-
delivered nuclear missiles and the military might of the United States. Jews and Muslims know their faiths
are incompatible and that one alone can rule the Middle East.

An intelligent policy for Israel would be to admit that only ethnic Jews belong in Israel, and to exclude all
others and cease trying to influence broader policy in the region. This contradicts the Western mandate of
multiculturalism and would make Israel an obvious "bad guy" according to centuries of Judeo-Christian
thought, so this cannot be publically admitted. A grotesque compromise results.

When Muslims look at the United States, they see a country that elects exclusively church-going leaders.
They see a right wing dominated by radical Christian interests, and a left predominantly financed and driven
by radical Jewish interests. They see AIPAC, the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, be accused of
stealing state secrets and exeuting phone taps, and no vast action being taken.

It is no surprise that when Osama bin Laden refers to America as "the Crusaders" he is given rounds of
applause. He predicted that combined Jewish and Christian forces would attack Islam, and with the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq he has been proven right. Furthermore, he is about to be proven right again, because
there will be no resolution to the current Israel-Lebanon "crisis."

A world without either Jews or Muslims would be a form of poverty. Both groups have made immense
contributions to culture and learning disproportionate to their numbers (for the record: so have Europeans,
to a wider degree). Both have respectable traditions of learning and culture and religious discipline that are
admirable on every continent. Both are incompatible with the other.

Islam is a religion of self-negation; Judaism is a religion of self-affirmation. Islam is a religion of struggle for
the higher soul shared by all life, where Judaism is a religion for struggle of individual definition. While once
ethnically similar, the two groups have diverged -- Jews have become increasingly European in character,
where Muslims have become increasingly Asiatic. Compatibility is not an option.

Jewish populations have thrived in some Muslim countries, thanks to tolerant leaders and the tendency of
those populations to keep to themselves and avoid offending local conventions (sensible behavior for any
long-term guests). The same cannot be said of Israel, but this reflects the split between Jewish and Muslim
populations: Israel has pursued modernity and technological wealth, where Muslims have pursued tradition
and religion. Thus in Israel the role of Muslim is most commonly similar to that of Mexicans in the United
States, as imported browner labor to which a pittance is paid.

This is a situation that, despite its popularity with voters, will not end well. The proverbial power keg has its
fuse in an ashtray used by every group with popular support in the entire region. The only reason it hasn't
gone up is that they are not yet stressed enough to smoke excessively, so the ashtray is only half-full. O
fortune!

The West will be asked in upcoming months to either send more support to Israel in the form of weapons
and advisers, or to contribute troops outright including UN "peacekeepers" and American "support
personnel." We will be told that this is the way to prevent further loss of life, but in reality, we will be doing
two things: distracting ourselves with a foreign war and supporting a situation destined to fail again and
again -- a bad design.

The situation never changes. Soon a new war will be needed.

Let's put this in historical context. The expanding West left behind its technology in colonial empires, and
these are now outbreeding it at a fanatical rate. They all want the luxuries of a first-world existence in a
world that cannot support it. Energy, water, food and space are in short supply. World War III will not be
Europeans against each other, but first world nations against a starving third world suddenly dispossessed
of its dream.

And our leaders? The right is obsessed with evangelical Christianity, which desires among other things to
bring about a final war that signals the arrival of armageddon and thus rapture when we are all magically
transported to heaven. The left is dependent upon Jewish support, and Jewish support demographically
(but not all individuals) favors Israel. Both groups are suicidal.

This situation will not end well for Jews. Much as happened in 1930s Germany, their nepotistic manipulation
of press and culture and certain industries will be noticed, as will their support for political activities that
harm the native populations. As the West lurches into World War III, there will be plenty of blame for Jews.

But lest this be thought of as an anti-Semitic tirade, note that the same fate awaits evangelical Christians .
Christians have undergone persecution each time their suicidal quest for "moral right" to replace reality has
brought doom onto the surrounding population. How many of European internecine wars would exist
without Christian agitation? The Nazis persecuted Jehovah's witnesses and other evangelicals; that will
occur again when the results of disastrous Jewish-Christian left-right collaboration is seen.

This mess is not without solutions. It makes sense that Israel exist so that Jews may exist, as land -- a
"place of our own" -- is essential for culture. Israel however must admit that its government must be a
form of National Socialism (Nazism) in order to survive, in that it must place its culture first and exclude all
others, including all Muslims. "Tolerance" is an illusion. Israel must stand on its own.

Conversely, the United States needs to stand on its own as well. It is well and fair for us to defend any
nation hit with an unprovoked attack, thus guaranteeing that no nation will invade Israel and Israel will not
invade Lebanon, but our policy cannot be one-sided. We must expose our radical right-wing Christian lobby
and the radical left-wing Jewish lobby with which it collaborates. Religion must remain a personal choice
and not state policy.

Luckily these changes are very possible given the mess that could easily be unleashed at any moment. Per
history, Israel will attempt to clear a border zone of thirty to fifty miles by destroying all Islamic
settlements; they will succeed to a point and then, having proven the radical pronouncements of some
Islamic leaders correct, will antagonize the politically moderate Muslim population to the point that a surge
of young men with AK-47s and RPGs will counter-assault. Arab losses will be heavy, but Israeli losses will
mount and they will pull back.

This situation would be less troublesome if it weren't for the already extant American invasions of Iraq and
Afghanistan, the former of which many see as motivated by Israeli interests -- after all, the Americans still
aren't sure if they attacked to end terrorism, stop WMDs, create democracy, ban drugs or have cheap oil.
As the war in Iraq continues to go badly as any occupation without a decisive leadership victory must
always be, the powder keg increases in pressure.

What could radicalize this explosion is the overall progress of technology. The third world being partially
enabled, it demands more oil and resources; the first world is inundated with visitors and experiencing
economic instability of its own as it is assaulted by the new economies. A 1929-style depression in the first
world (not unlikely) coupled with climate-induced economic stress, plus the excess population of the third
world dependent on technology and foreign aid, could well trigger our World War III.

The advantage to World War III is one of population regulation. In the West, useless people would
suddenly be seen as the liability they are and handed rifles and tickets to the front; in the third world, not
war itself but the accompanying disease and famine would deplete excess populations. All sorts of Western
institutions -- radical Jewish-Christian lobbies, mass media control of the electorate, foreign aid policy --
would become open to vituperative critique. Change could occur.

Our leaders know this and for that reason alone are seeking to downplay the events in Israel and Lebanon,
hoping not to set off this charge. They know a direct attack on Islam will provoke response, and are hoping
to dupe Muslims into attacking first so the West-Israeli axis can claim to be a wounded party, invoke
charges of Hitlerian genocide, and then counterattack with culturcidal aims. Thanks to the masses who vote
according to what they see on television that provokes their emotions, they may succeed.

The situation will have changed but be unchanged, and future wars will await.

August 1, 2006
Environmentalism Contra Democracy
A smart writer once observed that philosophy is a product of sick times. Healthy generations do not need
reminders of what is right, but inherit those inclinations through blood and culture. When culture
fragments, or wavers near disaster, philosophers become more than teachers of structured knowledge: they
become those who can look through the forest of abstraction to capture a vision of reality.

We are on the verge of environmental crisis. Although the television networks now babble neurotically
about global warming, that is one aspect of the problem caused by human growth and technology. The
fruit of our oceans is decreasing; we are using too much land to have forests renew the oxygen in our air.
So much of our land is covered in concrete and so many of our rivers polluted that fresh water is getting
scarcer; land animals and plants are being squeezed out of comfortable habitats and into such small
numbers that inbreeding and sickness are wiping them out, thanks to human division and settlement of all
open land. We're about to commit ecocide.

Thinking non-selfishly for a minute, we should look at the consequences of natural loss with a poet's eye:
we are about to lose an amazing creation of great beauty and inspiration, and thus not only damage our
souls, but be responsible for an act of crass destructiveness with no equal in history. The sack of
Alexandria, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide -- these all pale in comparison to reducing our
environment to parks, gardens and lawns. Which is what will remain: we will have squirrels and sparrows
and lawn plants, but the more complex parts of our ecosystem will not remain. Our political leaders will be
able to claim less of a crisis because it isn't all dead, but converting a world of billions of species into an
extended, homogenous backyard garden is like trading Beethoven for repetitive techno.

The kind of mean mentality that allows us to create this ...wreckage... is appropriate to an outwardly
satisfied but inwardly self-hating time such as our own. We hate our ugly cities, our tedious jobs that
produce nothing of practical value, our prima donna spouses, our moronic coworkers and neighbors, the
violent inner cities, the numbingly normative suburbs... yet we are sure there is nothing that can be done.
How do we explain to the average person that they must give up that new car, house or child because if
everyone has those, a distant future disaster awaits? Democracy rewards action on immediate crises, or
granting of new "freedoms" or wealths to its population, but it does not reward the kind of leadership that
staves off distant apocalypses.

Our politicians are "leaders" only in name, because one might expect a real leader to take care of
constituents regardless of that constituency's desires for short-term rewards. Our leaders tell us what we
want to hear, and rule by popularity instead of sense. Reality is a distant world. We create our own "reality"
because with our technology and our social agreement we can live in illusion and defer consequences. In
this kind of system, there can never be a reversal of what makes people wealthy or happy no matter how
destructive it is; democracy is the triumph of people preferring illusion to reality.

But we are taught democracy, capitalism and liberal civil/women's rights together comprise "freedom," and
that anything but freedom is "bad." So what can we do? We shrug and watch the ongoing travesty, certain
we cannot with these hands and these minds do anything to reverse the course toward total destruction.
After all, this path to death runs parallel with "progress" and "freedom," which are bringing us an
enlightened time, free of wars and want -- or is that too illusion? We wonder, and do nothing. There is
nothing we can do ...or is there?

The current problem with environmentalism is environmentalists. For the most part, these are silly people
who, rich on a first world lifestyle, want some kind of "cause" to distinguish them from the masses. They
want an identity. They want a reason to be right where others are wrong, and they want to use this for
social prestige. "I'm really into environmental issues" is conversation, not activism, but conversation is what
motivates the environmental "movement."

These are the people after all who are famous for boycotting proposed buildings after the plans have been
approved, for coming in to yell at developers of new housing long after such a need was inevitable, for
protecting the most rare species while ignoring the receding hairline of forest... they want you to eat bean
sprouts, to stop having Christmas trees, to use lights too dim for your eyes, to concentrate on turning off
taps and appliances. Environmentalists are useless because they do not focus on the problem as whole: too
many people, and too many of them using technology.

Why are they so afraid of this obvious truth? It's political suicide . It makes bad conversation to tell people
accustomed to getting what they want that we need to cut back, and therefore that not everyone can have
their "freedom" and in fact we need to take it away from a good many people. Even further, this brings the
question of how to allocate resources to the forefront. Do we spend money on handicapped retarded
orphans or on breeding smarter, healthier people? Oh no: this reeks of fascism, evil empires, Satan, etc.

Thus environmentalists make good conversation and hinder untold millions while ignoring the basic issue.
Even worse, since they are "The Environmental Movement," they look to most people like responsible adults
in control while simultaneously obstructing others from taking charge of this problem. The environmental
movement is like a corrupt politician, damaging both in what he does do and what he does not do while
keeping others out of office who might do something. The environmental movement is a clog in the pipe of
advancing environmental causes.

Because they cannot address the actual problem and thus find a solution, the environmental movement
specializes in crippling non-solutions. They antagonize those trying to earn a living while failing to stop the
onset of environmental disaster. They like to think, fond of themselves, that they are "educating" people
toward a better future. But after forty years, they have nothing of import to show for this strategy. The loss
goes on and environmentalists are busy recycling diapers and going to cocktail parties.

Let the Power Fall

...what appeals to all of us about anarchy is the idea of having space. We would be able to do what we
needed to without nosy neighbors or obtrusive governments stopping us. After all, we walk a fine line: we
are afraid of strong government, which has a tendency to appoint bureaucrats who destroy our dreams, but
we're also afraid of our opportunistic and predatory fellow citizens, who if not restrained by government
tend to wreck our dreams as well. Anarchy sounds so simple. We do what we want, and if someone
intervenes, ...well, one might suppose we simply shoot them and move on.

Therein is the problem with anarchy. If surrounded by people like ourselves, who want simple healthy
things in life and have no intention of disrupting others, we'll be OK. But get one parasite into an anarchy
and deeply disturbing situations result, especially if this parasite can defend himself. A simpering clerk who
wants to steal is easily dealt with in an anarchy; but what about a predatory criminal group whose goal is
to steal? Ah, then we're back to militias and posses shooting it out with the bad guys in the streets of our
cities, while little Suzy and young Billy get dropped by ricochets in the midst of their Latin homework. Not
quite a solution, either.

What appeals to people about anarchy is not an ultimate state but a transition, a dissolving of the
blockhead bureaucracy that constrains us and a freedom from the disapproval of our neighbors and
thousands of special interest groups who will hold us back because we do not honor Christ, the Holocaust,
Black rights, Women's rights, anti-drug policies, corporate welfare, animal sodomy, etc. Anarchy would be a
giant disconnecting, a liberation of ourselves from the gelatinous obligations of society, and we see it rightly
as a transitional state.

After all, only an idiot would want to live in anarchy (the inexperienced are idiots by ignorance, not by
ability, so we forgive the many young and distracted people who champion anarchy). When people talk
fondly of anarchy they are not speaking of the chaotic state of existence where the law of the jungle
returns, but in Sex Pistols terms, of tearing down a dysfunctional society and thus escaping it. We know in
practice anarchy would work about as well as government by dice-throwing.

Our environmental crisis is brought on by our aversion to unpopular facets of reality. We cannot solve the
crisis until we admit that:
 1. There are too many goddamn people.
2. To cut back, we are going to have to violate some "freedoms."
3. When we do cut back, we should pick the best among us to breed.

These are common sense plans, when one is freed from the constraints that "freedom" and popularity put
on us. After all, if we were marooned on a jungle island of small size, it would not be an insane command
to breed the smarter people so that in the future a micro-civilization could exist which would make wise
decisions. And before we get into the illusion of equality: no one is so insane as to insist that some are not
smarter than others, better looking than others, or nobler in character than others -- if it were so, why
would it be that only some become professors and writers and actors? -- we can only delude ourselves into
blaming "oppression" for so long, since history is replete with examples of those who rose above adversity
to succeed.

These future changes would require violence. A few generations of sterilizing criminals and retards, paying
the less intelligent not to breed, legal abortion with tax breaks for those of lower intelligence, some small
land wars and an end to third world aid (the area where the population is growing -- Europe and Europeans
in the Americas have long stabilized their populations).

Jobs could be re-interpreted to require real brains and real work, filtering out both the low intelligence and
the kind of "thin intelligence" that bureaucratic paper-shuffling and marketing reward. No permanent
welfare would force the unable to go elsewhere in order to raise their abundant children (statistically,
welfare families are more likely to have more than two children, while stable households are more likely to
have two or fewer children). These are all peaceful, un-destabilizing methods which could bring about these
changes within generations.

Trees or Happy Masses?

Yet we balk. It's not fair... not everyone gets the same chance... the burden falls heaviest on those in the
intersection between categories dumb, poor and socially insignificant... it's oppressive... we would prefer
anything, even suicide, to such injustice. In fact, that is our choice: we either restrain ourselves now, or we
self-destruct into archetypal third-world societies living under environmental duress. A few will rule from air-
filtered artificial dwellings, and a mass of 90 IQ lumpenproles of no determinate heritage will labor in the
wasteland, dying of cancer at age 35 and breeding with no higher evolutionary purpose in mind. Humanity,
the failure. And as it went down, as if out of sheer spite, it tore apart its environment and left a barren
planet as if determined that, having suicided, it would prevent any other species from having a chance at
the stars.

In modern times, we are ruled by the Crowd. Coarser, simpler minds are always out there to promise
unrealistic solutions in exchange for power; they sell illusion and deliver, years distant, disasters that most
people cannot conceptualize as they cannot predict anything past their own next pay period. The Crowd
does not mean badly, but it destroys nonetheless, and it is the incapability of that nobility of emotion and
self-sacrifice that characterizes real leaders, who wish to avoid disaster both in the present and future. The
Crowd wants what it wants, which is pleasant illusion and wealth and "freedom," and the cost -- they don't
even think that far ahead.

Those of us who are not fully delusional want to change our modern time because we smell disaster on the
wind, but we don't know how. If we look at single issues, like abortion or gay marriage or the whit-tufted
weeblesparrow becoming extinct, we have no solutions. If we look at the whole of the problem, and see it
in the context of history, the task suddenly becomes easier:

1. Wrest power from the Crowd.

2. Cut back our population.
3. Create better people than any that exist now (the overman of Nietzsche).

Overmen should be our goal because only a sick person wants to be the height of all time; we always want
to get better, both personally and as a species. We can get better. We can make a humanity that is better
than any humanity before. We do not do this by "freedom," but by quality control. The Crowd will never
deliver us to higher states, but to lower, by insisting on tangible immediate rewards instead of hard work
toward time-distant greater heights. The solution begins with removing the power of the Crowd.

Democracy as Replacement Reality

Why to detest democracy: all governments are best at making themselves the dominant means of control,
and democracy is no different. Masses do not study political theory and could not comprehend it if they did;
they understand the last thirty years of history in simple terms, but are lost as to the two-thousand year
picture. The masses are easily controlled with democracy because they both (a) believe themselves to be
free and (b) vote according to what they see through a news media controlled by relatively few people.
Whether that news media is public oration, as in ancient Greece, newspapers as in turn of the century
America, or televisions and Internet funded by six ultra-wealthy corporations as in the modern time, the
masses respond to what they see because it provokes them emotionally.

Thus democracies sway between Evil Villains and Helpless Innocents, but understand no shades of grey.
The masses, in "freedom," pick extremes through statistically predictable means. Control is easy because it's
invisible, and so while the public show of "government by the people" burbles past our ears, in private
groups of wealthy people decide what to fund and through that how people will vote. This isn't conspiracy
thinking; these wealthy people desire nothing more than to neutralize society from doing anything that will
threaten their wealth, and to guide in profitable directions. They're simply enjoying their freedom, and if the
rest of us pay for it, it's only because we're too silly to have a more comprehensive direction than individual
material accumulation.

Democracy rewards those with low self-esteem and low selectivity in their personal choices; these are
people who find the most reward in social recognition. They like to believe in public image because when
they look too closely at reality, they see things they do not like about themselves, in the same way the most
vicious anti-smoker is an ex-smoker and the most violent racist is someone unsure of her own parentage.
They fear the inner world of meaning, and of significance to life, preferring the tangibles like wealth and
comfort because these are beyond debate, beyond dispute. Too much intangibility they equate with the
presence of death, something they'd rather (and heck, all of us, but if we're brave we do not give in to this
impulse) forget. Democracy is good at rewarding those who run from unpleasant truth, and it feeds them
pleasant illusions in exchange for the ability to manipulate them.

Democracy encourages self-centeredness. "What do you want?" replaces "What is best for us all?" Personal
preference replaces reality. This has gotten to the point that people have replaced objective reality with
personal choices; if you want the inferior logical solution, go ahead, it's your choice. They do not believe
objectivity exists. What stands before us are a series of choices, or preferences, they argue, instead of
objectively-demonstrable better and worse solutions. You like to eat garbage and coat yourself in feces?
Well, fella, whatever makes you happy -- so goes the logic.

Smart people have for centuries puzzled over this, and thanks to a series of mind-bogglingly unproven and
incomplete theories ranging from Christian Heaven to quantum physics and its partially articulated doctrine
of relativity, have convinced themselves this is possibly true. Maybe we do live in a world where everyone
can have a personal reality in which to be a king, and where every preference might work out. It has not
occured to them that nature works by the opposite principle to avoid that becalming of reward to better
choices known as entropy which is brought about when all choices create exactly equal outcomes. Why
choose at all, then? -- which means there are no better choices, hence no evolution or natural selection,
hence nothing ever gets better. But does it get worse? Stagnation usually leads to decay, but we cannot
say that in public anymore as we'll offend someone.

Although you will not see this fact in textbooks, there are no historically successful examples of
democracies : all of them have terminated early, exploding into authoritarian states and then tapering off
into third-world countries with "amazing" ruins lost in the jungles and deserts. Democracy brings about
pleasant illusion and, having hidden reality, is then surprised by it and overwhelmed by consequences --
every time. The only difference now is that thanks to our technology, we're really playing with fire: nuclear
bombs, ecocide, wars so big they boggle the mind. We control the globe and can actually for the first time
damage nature. We've put the whole stack on red 13 and we're gambling with our future.
Democracy is excellent for those who fear the world (reality) and fear its natural selection process. They
are guaranteed "equality" -- freedom from natural selection -- and "freedom," or the ability to live as
weirdly or defectively as possible so long as they make it to their jobs and bring home those checks. For
those who fear the world, democracy is a protective measure, but like all protection rackets, it requires
prompt payment. You do that by tolerating unrealistic decision-making and eventually a lapse of leadership
into happy promises and grim consequences.

This is why all democracies fail at first by sliding into authoritarianism. When reality becomes a distant
world, and decay sets in, the few sane ones left begin to see what's really on the plate and start
screaming. Because the situation is so far gone controlling it is impossible, they slam into a place a strong
reactionary government -- which, alas, is composed of the same defectives who are running the democracy,
and thus either lapses into left-wing errors (kill all aristocrats, dissidents, intellectuals and other necessary
brains) or right-wing errors (embark on endless war and the building of statues). The society that out of
control filled with parasites and useless people responds like a man who suddenly realizes he's on fire,
swatting violently and desperately at patches of flame without realizing that the quickest solution is to drop
to the ground and roll.

And drop to the ground and roll we must -- roll away from the Crowd, from their protective Democracy,
from the big money interests that manipulate us without caring if we self-destruct because enough money
means the elites can live in spaceships while earth rots and burns. No one is in charge here as far as
leadership toward the future goes. We're all complicit in blithely going along this path to doom. If you care
about environmental issues, you will recognize that a transfer of power is needed, and that we need to roll
away from Democracy and then stand up and assert reality instead of fantasy -- and only then can we
avoid planetary ecocide.

August 2, 2006
Cult of the Individual
The individual, destabilized, demands that itself come before all else. For this reason it demands an order
that supports the cult of the individual; a crowd of uniques, a mob of iconoclasts, an army of freestylers.
We refer to "individualism" as the philosophy which (a) puts the individual above all else and (b) interprets
all else through its impact on an individual considered alone and isolated from all other factors.

The individual wants first of all recognition: the individual wants to be told that whatever its physical or
mental failings, it is just as important as any other individual and just as likely to succeed. The individual
wants to be judged on its personality, not physical factors like strength, intelligence, health or ability -- and
yes, these are physical factors, since they are determined by the brain and body in design. You can educate
a moron but he will still be a moron. You can exercise a cripple but he will still be a cripple. So the
individual wants to be judged -- well, they don't want to be judged at all, but since it's inevitable -- they
want to be judged by their personality and their hairstyle and their possessions: all things they can
regulate.

The individual next wants reality to work his way or her way. Individuals, if the choice was up to them,
would all be kings, although the best king would be one who rules not for individual reasons but for the
best of the country -- people, land, customs, values -- as a whole. Every individual a king, and since we
cannot rule other individuals or they cannot be kings, we want to be in our own island kingdoms, isolated
from all else. If we need other people, we will pay them, and so convince ourselves that we are not
intruding upon their kingship (it's only fair that we all work and earn money to be kings; money, like time
spent at a job, is equally accessible to all king-individuals).

The individual wants gratification of desires in such a way that does not intrude upon this kingship. There
should be no critique of gluttony, because a king does not deserve critique. Similarly, no one should stop us
from accumulating whatever possessions we desire, whether shiny new objects (for the less wealthy) or
objects of cryptic nostalgia value (for the bored middle classes). We want drugs and if those are evil,
alcohol and cigarettes, and we want sex in such a way that there's no obligation -- best of all is for every
king to be a slut also, so that sex is available without any feeling that maybe our time would be better
vested in longer-term relationships or loves.

The individual wants "freedom," so that his or her choices cannot be critiqued as being selfish, insane,
corrupt, or inane. This helps the individual hide where it is broken and disguise that pathological behavior
as a "choice," when in fact it is the acting out of past trauma. I am not having group sex in my own feces
while being whipped by midgets because I was raped as a child, King Individual proclaims, but because I
want to! People living in mediocre cities with mediocre jobs and mediocre friends can use this cognitive
dissonance to argue away the thought, mostly in themselves, that they could with some effort have a more
fulfilling life.

The individual wants no reminders of mortality or its extended process, natural selection. We do not
mention our deficiencies or physical deformations, or how plain and boring we are with sunglasses and
trendy clothing and haircut removed. We do not want to be placed into any competition where our inherent
abilities are revealed, because this reminds us too much of natural selection. We want an end to all rank, to
all hierarchy, so that our deficiencies are masked behind the equalizing factor of recognition. I will never
die.

It is the collective need of individuals for these rules to be upheld that bonds them together into a mob,
and removes their individualism in favor of adherence to the dogma of individualism, like someone
confusing the signal of an event for its reality. The individual, in knowing only itself and interpreting all
reality through itself, not only destroys itself but obscures reality behind unrealistic rules and seeds the path
of our collective destruction.

August 6, 2006
Creating the African Superman
Bill Cosby absorbed quite a bit of flak for criticizing the media creation of "black culture" for
endorsing gangsta behavior, obscenity, laziness and selfishness. Far smarter than the
average person, Cosby represents the prototype of a new African-American: the intelligent
and mobile critical thinker.

Suppose for a moment that Bill Cosby used his millions to buy up a cable network and create
a new kind of black fascist propaganda. "We will create the African Superman," Cosby says,
with a nod to F.W. Nietzsche and Margaret Mead, "who will replace this tedious gangsta rap
baggy-pants culture with something better."

Overwhelmingly, he is elected. His first move is to seize all black press establishments and entertainment
outlets. "Only the best media for our youth," he says to wild cheers. "We're going to keep the poisonous
usurpers out." Next he takes over the educational system, designing a uniform and challenging curriculum
for black schools.

Cosby socializes most industries among the African-American community. His lieutenants fan out and take
over hiring and firing, making sure that every smart and healthy young black person can rise as high as
their ambition allows -- and the black press eggs them on with positive slogans like "You can do more than
be successful -- you can make every African a Superman!"

Cosby is a pragmatist. He knows that once things get good, he'll be voted out of power by some idiot who
promises to use this new wealth for bread and circuses. He abolishes elections and executes dissidents.
Fifty Cent is gassed in Detroit; over six million gangsta rappers, pimps and drug dealers die of dysentery or
rifle execution in Belsen, New Jersey. "The gangsta -- with his lazy ways, his sleazy culture and his Marxist
rhetoric -- is the scourge of Africans everywhere." Kids move their baseball caps forward and start studying.

The black-suited Cosby men are everywhere. Black businesses that sell destructive products like sprays
designed to make hair appear "white" are shut down and their owners taken to nearby fields and their
brains erased with gunfire. Ghetto alcohol joints are shut down and their proprietors vanish on cattle cars.
Thousands of Africans in black suits march down the streets, crushing dissidents under iron boots.

Now having the power he needs, Cosby moves further: he sets up a list of "positive Africans." On it, he has
each local leader, or Gauleiter, list all African-Americans who meet three criteria: over 130 IQ points,
physically healthy and athletic, and noble life-affirming outlook. He gives these people special badges that
resemble either Stars of David or the Sheriff's star, depending on which way you look at it.

With lightning speed, Cosby's lieutenants execute the rest, leaving only his special badged-group of "proto-
super-Africans," as he calls them. "Ladies and gentlemen," he says, "Any asshole can lead a country to
health. I'm going to create the Superman -- Nietzsche's concept, not Hitler's -- out of Africans and we are
going to become the predominant race on this planet."

World outcry is drowned out by world sarcasm. "Yeah, right," says a wise young
Russian. "These guys are gonna get bought out like anyone else. Once we get
some big-screen televisions, quality sinsemilla, video games and interracial porn in
there, they'll become like us and turn back to a liberal democracy. Capitalism will
fix them, because everyone likes to be able to get ahead, and when they have
'freedom,' they're going to overthrow Der Huxtable and have open elections."

But this is not to pass. First, Cosby ensures that dissident networks are allowed to
develop -- and then their progenitors are rounded up and put to work in
concentration camps making ammunition and clothing. Most starve or die of
dysentery in the cramped, unsanitary barbed-wire enclosures. "Gotta break some
eggs to make an omelette," Cosby says.
What is most interesting however is that there are few dissidents. Cosby has
taken the African-American population down to under a million (2.5%), but each
of these is a success story: intelligent, athletic and known for wisdom in both
gentleness and aggression. The men as well as women fit the perfect African ideal in appearance and
action. For the most part, they seem to agree with Cosby and be glad those of lesser ability aren't around
to screw things up anymore.

Dictator Cosby knows he is mortal, so he sets up his society for the next thousand years. Within his party
he purges everyone he suspects of letting personal ambition come before doing what's right for the
community, and encourages his Gauleiters to do the same among their staffs. Only a few thousand need be
killed. Then, he gives the Gauleiters remarkable freedom to run their own mini-nations within the African-
American Superstate, or "Reich."

These Gauleiters frequently disagree on borders or rights to coveted fields or women, and Cosby
encourages warfare -- but limits it to hand weapons. He knows this will make the best warriors
predominate, and sure enough, after a few generations the African warrior will be known for prowess with
sword and hand-to-hand combat, as well as intelligence in battle. Cosby is creating African-Americans who
hybridize the best of Vikings and Mongols in their fighting ability.

African-American youth are taught a different philosophy in school from what they previously learned. The
individual, they are told, is part of a larger family called the African-American nation, and the individual
feels most alive when working for the community in some challenging task beyond their comfortable ability.
"Stretch yourself and reach higher than you know you can go," says Cosby. "And you'll get there eventually,
or die trying and be a hero."

A thousand years pass.

What steps out of the future to our stunned eyes is an African Superman. Tall in stature, highly intelligent
and both warlike and capable of great compassion, this creature represents the highest powers of all
humanity. With an average IQ of 140, athletic build and no congenital disease, as well as a world-renowned
noble countenance that dispenses good to the good and death to the evil, the African Superman is a
wonder to behold.

And in the meantime, what happened to the rest of the world?

Asia, eager to cash in on Western technology, grew so fast that she became
awash in people. While they were glad to receive $2/hr from Western
companies, this worked, but as soon as technology and wealth spread, Asia was
wracked by ideological, religious, ethnic and class warfare, ending in the creation
of a pacifying democracy that gave each citizen enough money to care about
nothing. Then the economies collapsed and Asia regressed into the third world
yet again.

The white people from North America to Northern Europe felt the grip of panic
 as their own nations collapsed from within in the middle 2000s. At war with
terrorists everywhere, they were divided so much internally that soon no
consensus could be reached, and their governments spend themselves into bankruptcy trying to please
enough special interest groups to stay in power. In the midst of this chaos, a new leader emerged: a White
Nationalist named Glenn Covington who preached a starkly divisive ideology.

Covington knew he needed many people behind him, so he became all-accepting. If you were white, you
were in his movement, and by golly he'd smite anyone who came in your way. Covington's National
Christian White People's Front (NCWPF) crushed its enemies and clawed its way to power, and quickly
removed enough industries -- pornography, drugs, gambling, luxury products -- to restore economic power.
Covington created a meta-state for white people worldwide with the intent of increasing numbers and
waging racial warfare.

Of course, he did not change society or government much. Elections were abolished, but he only had so
many cronies he could appoint and so government was always short-staffed. He accepted every single
white person however and made sure money went to them for the breeding of new millions of whites.
When a country was flagging in whites, he imported them from another white nation, usually in
overpopulated zones like Eastern Europe or Ireland.

While he did greatly increase the number of whites and their military strength, his government remained a
capitalist one. Money was the motivating force for most people, as was being recognized for their
contributions to the Great White Struggle (sometimes called "Moby-Dick" by cynics). People were still
basically selfish. They acted first for their own glory or wealth, including public recognition, and only after
that did anything for the good of the nation as a whole.

Consequently, after the thousand years have passed, the average white in Covington's meta-state is of
average IQ 102 points, of average build and not generally athletically competent, and is motivated solely by
him or herself and "getting ahead." White society -- while full of clever people and technologies -- cannot
unite, and therefore embarks on a series of disastrous foreign wars before its government, manipulated
from within by oligarchies of the wealthy, disintegrates and lets it fall into a third world state.

In the meantime, Cosby's African Supermen forge ahead in art, war and wisdom. They rediscover the
philosophy of the Greeks and Arabs and Chinese and push these to new heights of interpretation, as well
as inventing new technologies. As this millennium closes, every ethnic group but the African Supermen are
in complete decline and eventually, out of compassion, are enslaved by the Supermen so the slaves have
something to eat since by themselves they will starve.

A new era has come.

August 17, 2006

The First World War
Before we become depressed by the horrors of our time, let us imagine it -- from the perspective of the
natural world...

Of all the birds, Rock Dove remains a mystery. His spirit is elusive, and any time a rock dove is seen, you
can feel that he is winking, sharing a mystery. And here is his story.

Long before the dominion of humans, birds ruled the earth because of their powers of flight. The first birds
took advantage of this and were fierce, giant predators that descended at screaming speeds to carry off
their crying victims, as all knew that once in the air even escape meant death by falling.

Over time, some of these vicious predators started wanting the easy life, and living off fruit and nuts like
the infinite tiny mammals they plundered, and these grew numerous because it is far easier to find seeds
and berries than it is to hunt all day for several moments of howling pursuit in which the small creature
chased is often blessed by a nearby hole in the earth.

From these birds came the pigeons, and from a particularly freewilled tribe of otherwise cowlike pigeons
came the spirit that became Rock Dove. Like his pigeon cousins, Rock Dove liked the easy life, but as if
recalling some lost ancestor, his spirit loved the thrill of pursuit. As rock doves are smaller than hawks,
however, this time the thrill was in evasion.

Rock Dove was a powerful spirit, and engendered many birds, but at first they were far from inspiring:
black, bold pigeons with broader wings. Rock Dove, when he dreamed, dreamt of more powerful wings and
faster flight, and over time all the new rock doves in the world had these bigger wings. This started the
first world war, as we know it today, because this made them bigger and more visible targets for eagles.

From his roost in the darkness of the aether, Rock Dove saw the daily fight when eagles dropped from
above on silent wings and carried off another bird with plaintive creel. The others huddled closer on their
branches, but Rock Dove went deeply into his dream. In his dream he saw thinner bodies with the same
proportion of wing, and as the new generations of rock doves were born, this came about.

Now faster than most birds, rock doves could dive under the eagles in pursuit and make it to earth where
eagles were loathe to dive (you try rushing at a small target among spiny cacti or sharp dry twigs; your
own weight becomes an enemy if you so much as touch a splinter at that speed). In his timeless sleep,
Rock Dove grinned. On flat rocks and empty limbs across earth, rock doves sent forth their humming song.

Far above, the Eagles also dreamed, and the war went from a sitting combat to active. "We'll take them at
their roosts," voiced the Eagle-spirit. "They're sitting ducks, if you pardon my pun." The next morning rock
doves everywhere pecked at food and were taken -- from the leafy twigs of trees, from their resting places
on the rocks and amidst the pebbles. Rock Dove frowned in sleep.

The losses were massive -- or magnificent, if you were an eagle. Blood stained the flat rocks and vacant
limbs of the prairies. In darkness Rock Dove grimaced. He had lost a generation, at least, of his best, sent
to their deaths against something they could not have expected. His claws tensed on the branches of earth.
While his heart was sick, his spirit was not, and Rock Dove dreamed again -- a dream of fighting.

Thus was the first race for military technology born. The few remaining rock doves huddled in safe places,
hatching eggs that brought forth brown and then tan and then light grey-tan offspring. These were thinner,
faster and lighter than their parents, and best of all, they were hard to see.

Rock Dove knew in his dream that our eyes -- any ideas -- must be designed to grasp the gist of a situation
without getting enmired in detail quickly, or they are useless in a world of fast-moving prey and predator
alike. When an eye looks at the mottled surface of rocks, or the speckled skin of trees, it sees the pattern
and not every detail. And now, as he dreamed it, rock doves fit into that pattern.
Above eagles crowed in victory. "We have obliterated the enemy," said one triumphantly. But their
celebration ended early when they found rock doves no longer easy to catch, and had to move on to other
birds and tiny mammals. These in turned dreamed in fathomless sleep and began to change from their
bright colors into the dusky spectrum of earth. It was no longer easy to be an eagle.

Rock Dove remains in his sleep, watchful but aware there are some things he can only outlast but not
directly fight. So it is with war. But in the first world war, he had triumphed despite defeat, because his
spirit did not give in where his heart was weak. So it is with all wars: your losses will be sorrowful but if you
stay on the path of your dream, your victory -- even despite defeat -- will be eternal.

Suddenly it is clear not only how to dry our weary eyes, but what we must do in the future...

August 27, 200

Mr. Meek
For Mr. Meek, most days are average days. Unless someone dies or he is promoted, he does what he must
and is thankful for it. Meek is not stupid enough to think positively of the world, because he knows that
most people out there will take his money and hide his body if given a chance. He knows this in part
because whenever he can, Mr. Meek will "beat the system" -- adjusting a price tag, sneaking into a movie
theatre, raising prices at his shop, taking extra deductions on his taxes.

He would never, however, assault someone and directly take their money.

Meek is reasonably good at what he does. He might be a bank manager, or run an auto parts store, or be
a lawyer or doctor or plumber or even police officer. His job roughly matches his vision of his abilities,
which is somewhere in the middle between the drones who can do nothing but rote tasks and those he
admires as geniuses who make tons of money, invent things, or become Hollywood stars.

In Meek's view, modern society is the only way to live: in the past there was no technology, no medicine,
and what existed was a feral society in which people were as likely to assault one another as collaborate.
Humankind has raised itself from a primal past toward a better future that is ongoing, because if we spread
the wealth opportunities and freedom of modern society, all people worldwide will become civilized and
non-violent like Mr. Meek.

As a result, Meek does not have strong political allegiances. Most commonly, he is conservative when it
comes to foreign policy: get those little Hitlers and Stalins and crush them. Domestically, he tends to be
liberal, because he wants to spread wealth and freedom to all peoples. He enjoys different cultures and
likes to be able to on his days off go downtown and try different foods, entertainment events and boutique
art objects from all over the world. Convenient they're so close by.

Meek also tends to be concerned about environmental and civil rights issues. He does not want to destroy
the planet, and he believes that granting equal freedoms to all will bring peace; in his view, the violent
ghetto will become civilized when it too lives a comfortable middle class existence. The keys to this, as he is
fond of saying, are education and opportunity. Give them education and give them good jobs, and they'll
stop drinking, taking drugs, raping, shooting each other, and threatening the comfortable middle class
existence and property values of Mr. Meek.

He favors sexual liberation too. To Mr. Meek, life is best when one can have as much sex as comes one
way before marriage, but after marriage, the contract is sealed and the partners have purchased one
another. This way, he thinks, women have the same opportunities as men and will join them in equality
and the tension between the sexes will decrease. They can consensually have sex in whatever ways they
want and then go back to jobs and eventually marriages.

Mr. Meek tends to be bearish on drugs. These he associates with crime, degradation and low salaries, so
he supports a strong crusade against these. Drugs lead to nothing productive, he thinks, and threaten us all
with a false spirituality. He does not mind when entertainers mix themselves up in drugs, but he is less
inclined to buy their product after that. Mr. Meek believes in the counterculture, and its statement that
normal life is boring, because by living normal life he knows this is true, but he only supports the parts of
that counterculture that can be integrated into normal life.

When we examine Mr. Meek's worldview, it can be summarized as this: civilize the world, and pacify them
with wealth and opportunity and education, so that the Mr. Meeks of the world can live without interruption.
He after all just wants his simple life -- he knows he has no chance of greatness -- his goal is that house in
the good neighborhood, the family, the comfortable retirement and all the comforts of modern life.

He will compete for the trendiest neighborhoods but if he cannot get them, will comfort himself with a
pessimistic philosophy: only the aggressive really win that, and he's comfortable as he is. He both scorns
the more competitive, and praises them, because he wishes he was that way. Yet when success does not
come his way, he congratulates himself for not being a manipulator, not living that crazy life, and falls back
on his justifications for existence: comfort and morality.

Yes, Mr. Meek is a moralist. Not the po-faced reactionary kind that shrieks about premarital sex and loss of
cultural standards, mind you, because Mr. Meek's about a bit of fun too and detests established, stuffy
institutions. He's not fond of hereditary aristocrats. Mr. Meek has a modern morality. He is not concerned
with Victorian hangups about sex, or antiquated notions of culture or ethnography, and sees these as part
of humanity's dark morbid past. His morality serves his purpose in life: to live unmolested by those who,
lacking comfort and education and opportunity, might get violent and take it from him.

This leads him into endless paradox. He sympathizes with the natives who want to keep their culture, like
the Islamic nations, but won't support violent terrorists; he may acknowledge, with a chagrinned smile, that
without that terrorism he never would have heard of their struggle. Similarly, he likes African-Americans,
but not dangerous organizations like the Nation of Islam or New Black Panther Party. He believes American
Indians are the only legitimate natives in North America, but he's not about to move. After all, he bought
this house.

And what is the root of Mr. Meek's morality? He wants to live uninterrupted by primal chaos, for sure, but
he also needs a way to think of himself as something more than a drone: his morality. I'm a good person,
he thinks, no matter what happens with my life. I am equally important and I bring that equality to others.
I am what civilizes society even if I do almost nothing to that end. Mr. Meek is devoutly moral in a secular
sense, because it gives him a justification for his existence...for Mr. Meek is, in his heart of hearts, afraid of
being insignificant.

Yet his job and his membership in a vast crowd of people doing exactly the same thing do mark him as if
not unimportant -- well, if he dies tomorrow, what changes? What is lost? He needs some reason to feel he
has value and cannot base it on traditional means, like membership in a community. After all, he is
somewhat anti-communitarian: other than his votes and his donations to non-profit organizations, Mr. Meek
does nothing for his community but live the good life in his own house.

Some call this "cognitive dissonance." Knowing that he is not important, Mr. Meek naturally invents a
different realm of competition in which he is. This is the justification for his existence, and even more, his
justification to himself as to why he should keep living and breathing when his mode of living is in fact
quite selfish. Mr. Meek needs to invent a reason why he is important even if that importance does not
manifest itself in the physical world.

If Mr. Meek is in the dead social middle, we can find his cousins on either side: those who justify
themselves by being more successful than he, and those who shrug off success in favor of social
importance. We call these people Mr. Competition and Mr. Hip.

Mr. Competition is Mr. Meek in disguise: he has narrowed his field of vision to see only how to achieve
success, and he goes for it aggressively. He wants to be the top dog and watch everyone else work for
him. He usually does this to fill a hunger in himself, whether left by poverty or childhood beatings or a
woman lost to a richer man, and he's going to quash that, by God. Mr. Competition ("Compete" to his
friends) is not troubled by morals, because he has delegated those to The Rules. If what he is doing is
legal, or plausibly legal until he is told otherwise, he's good with that because The Rules state that
ignorance isn't a crime.

Mister Hip is Mr. Meek in social camouflage. He's smart enough to know that being with the system isn't a
hip idea, but being anti in any form is sure to draw him followers. Being with the system is a big target, but
by being anti, you're showing them you stand out. You're unique. An iconoclast. Mr. Meek becomes Mr. Hip
when Mr. Meek decides he cannot compete on a monetary level alone. He may have a decent salary, but
there's someone richer, always. So out comes Mr Hip, for whom money and social prestige are secondary --
his goal is social prestige in those who are self-declared black sheep. The herd looks up to that, sorta,
because they're all sick of being the herd. But like Mr Compete, Mr Hip is still Mr Meek.

And so, you might ask, what does this mean? After all we each have a right to live our own lives; after all
what do we expect him to do, save the world? -- the world is composed of individuals. Together, what they
do is civilization. Individuals together create our future. But what if they are like Mr. Meek? Secretly
underconfident, secretly compensating for their dronelike lives, they are easily manipulated -- and unlikely
to take the crucial steps toward change, as that change would violate the ability of others to live just like
Mr. Meek!

When we anticipate our future, we should look toward a change from Meekness. This does not mean that
we shoot Mr. Meek, or that we degrade him, but that we recognize his leadership ability: zero. Liberal
democracy and its fusion with industrial capitalism, modern society, depend on Mr. Meeks to keep living
and voting as selfishly and underconfidently as they do know.

And what has this brought us? Climate change, a planet covered in concrete; boring jobs where we tolerate
others more than respect them; a hierarchy that rewards weirdness and greed. A future of constant war
with now nuclear-equipped nations. Cities that rot from the inside out. When one reverts into the self, the
world outside decays, and it is these insular atoms like Mr. Meek who bring it about when they are in
power.

August 30, 2006

Extremism
A world of memes comes crashing down on our shoulders: peacemakers versus terrorists, freedom fighters
versus extremists, progressives versus what we assume to be regressives. It's important to remember that
a word has no meaning unless it is the true name of something; someone referred to as "evil" may be
anything but. The most dramatic term of our time is "extremists," so we should inspect and see what it
actually means.

An extremist, in the current parlance, is someone who disagrees with "modern society": the combination of
industrial capitalism and personal liberty in democratic systems that defines the progressive West. All of
Europe and North America and most of their allies have some variation on this type of system. Even
further, it is upheld as the reason to support the West in its crusades: we bring you "freedom" and a nifty
product-oriented lifestyle.

However, such modern society is by definition very popular, because it tells everyone they are liable only to
themselves and their own interests, and that there is need for no other social involvement. Do what
benefits you personally, both materially and in social status. Most people do not understand why anyone
would oppose this, thus "extremists" tend to work through that form of guerrilla warfare native to our time,
sometimes called "terrorism."

After all, when you are outnumbered not one hundred to and not a thousand to one but more likely a
million to one, your methods become extreme by definition and therefore there is little point in not striking
decisively by any means necessary. An extremist is someone who believes that the path most follow leads
to doom, and for that reason is inclined to urgent action.

What unites extremists is their refusal to give in to the popularity of an idea they believe will lead to a bad
end, even if that end is far off. Like most politicians, they realize that the average person knows little more
than what happens between paychecks. They know that on average and as a group of averages, people
tend to be selfish, short-sighted, and emotionally manipulated by both pity and aggression. Extremists
disagree with modern society because it preys on these tendencies and does not address long-term
problems.

Since most people do not understand how liberal democratic society can lead to doom, let us walk through
the paces: liberal democracy is the joining of democratic society and industrial capitalism, which provides
both political/social and economic freedoms for its populations. In order for this freedom to exist, money
must be used to regulate the population. What one can afford, one can do. This means in turn that every
piece of land, every tree, and every natural resource is seen only in terms of its monetary value.

(Liberal democracies are famous for giving political voice to those who oppose this, like environmentalists
and religious groups. But let us ask: what over the past fifty years have these groups accomplished that is
of strategic importance? They delay some construction, bust a few polluters, convince the middle class to
recycle, etc. but have not delayed or misdirected the widespread expansion of humanity to the point where
unbroken natural land is a rarity. Religious groups have not protected their own members from what they
see as immoral tendencies in society. There is no victory in a battle of endless details and no decisive
strokes.)

Here is the future of our society: immensely popular, modernity will spread worldwide. Soon every nation
will live as Americans do and will have all of their powers, including nuclear energy and nuclear bombs.
Since there are more people, more housing will be built, and the only remaining wild land will be small
national parks. As population density increases, houses with lawns and gardens will be replaced by
apartments. Since most people shop compulsively in modern societies, malls and large department stores
will be built every three miles, as they seem to be in American cities.

All these new mouths to feed -- what will they eat? Fish is the obvious source of protein, but even now
ocean fish is too full of mercury to be healthy more than once a month, and supplies are dwindling.
"Supplies" of course is our silly abstraction for living populations that must renew themselves and do not
magically appear in amounts we request, like burgers at fast food joints. These people will also need fruits
and vegetables, but these will be increasingly expensive because land for corporate farms is limited. See, a
person is not just the space required for an apartment and parking space, but the several acres of land
needed to feed them.

A person is also water required for drinking, cooking and bathing. Our freshwater supplies are already
limited, but for now, they're only expensive. In the future they will become selectively unavailable. The
problem with population is not where to put the people in question, because if it was just a matter of space
for individuals we could cram fifty billion onto earth, but where to put the systems they need to survive:
fresh water, food, exercise space, shopping space, worship space, workspace and on and on.

As the great naturalist John Muir said, the problem with capitalism is that it puts a price tag on everything -
- and thus nothing is revered for its sheer effect and non-material contribution to life. A beautiful
mountainside can become a resort, but there is no logical pathway in democratic society for making it a
mountainside appreciated by those nearby. Unique forests and animals? Well, what are they worth? Show
me the money, the people say, and unintentionally, create greed through their combined voices.

So: as population increases, so does loss of space. Furthermore, so does pollution, since all of these people
will be driving cars and buying products that generate toxic waste. Will government stop them? So far, the
most legislative government in history, with the world's largest prison population, has failed to stop toxic
dumping or the driving of "smokers," heavily polluting cars. How will the rest of the world fare?

Even more is the effect on culture. High culture -- classical art, literature, music, theatre -- has been
sustained by its popularity among the educated and those who have inherited money. It is not as popular
as rap music, rock, or mindless pop, so those will earn more money and eventually push it out of the
picture. Traditional ways of living? According to modern society, it's all about me and my power. Earning
power. Sexual power. Social power. There is no room to care about ways of living that have worked for
generations.

(As a wise man once noted, to find happiness you cannot directly pursue happiness: you must pursue
fulfillment, which requires that you accept life despite its miseries and inequalities, and build a firm
foundation -- family, personal achievement, a solid steady income and not a flash of wealth -- because
through that, you will have done well by all that life offers and will find happiness in the completeness of
your life -- fullfillment. The other option is to separate life into "fun" and "not-fun" and pursue the fun, but
then have nothing of practical foundation for a future life. Is that happiness?)

As seen by someone thinking in terms of millennia, modern society is a process of devolution and
corruption, a loss of all the subtle things that might not be "fun" but makes us happier in the long run.
Surely it is more "fun" to buy plastic junk than to meditate on meaning in life, and it is more fun to hear
mindless pop than classical symphonies... but is it truly rewarding, or an empty pleasure that passes
quickly? It's more fun to get drunk than to build a family and family business that can be passed down to
descendants, and it's more fun to have quick sex than to work on a relationship. And who can be against
fun? ...Unless, of course, fun now leads to misery later -- which is what extremists believe.

No one in modern society seems to think critically on this issue, which reinforces the sense of extremists
that their concerns are not and never will be addressed by society. Because our media inundate us with
constant most-exciting, most-dangerous, most-important-ever stories, our memories are short. We think as
a result that "extremist" and "terrorist" means "Islamic terrorist." We forget that society has other
dissidents who, because their views were not popular, became seen as extremists.

There's Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomer," who recognized that liberal democracies were self-congratulatory
and self-reifying dogmas that would never stop themselves from expanding to consume all natural areas of
earth. Malcolm X recognized that African-Americans could be handed political rights but would never own
themselves as people until they had a separate nation. The New Right in Europe looks at the loss of culture
and heritage in Europe and sees that unless this changes, the future of Europe is as a third-world colony
not unlike parts of the middle east. Interestingly, "radical" Islam sees the same thing: selfishness knows no
bounds, and when you admit modern liberal democracy to your nations, you become exactly like the
Americans: thoughtlessly manipulative and destructive and neurotic, but willing to wage war against anyone
who symbolizes an alternative to their own system -- liberal democracy -- and its fate.

Others were simply writers and thinkers. Socrates pointed out the democracy leads to selfishness, and that
then, people are manipulated by pleasant images while oligarchs run society for profit. Neither group thinks
of the future and so together they go oblivious to their doom, although generally oligarchs are such empty
connectionless people that loss of nation, culture and family means little to them. Joseph Conrad illustrated
the lack of spiritedness in Europeans and therefore, their manic pursuit of wealth; we don't trust each
other, so we try to afford getting away from each other. F.W. Nietzsche made his stand against "slave
revolt" by which he meant seizure of power by slave-minded people, or those who saw only material
comfort and political-social prestige, but might miss the beauty of a mountain or a heroic act or even an
ascetic one.

These are all "extremists," and they comprise some of the smartest people our human species has
produced. Perhaps it is wise we listen? But we are afraid -- and how can you be afraid when you have
"freedom" -- because such ideas are radically unpopular and can cost us jobs, friends, security at home and
potential mates. "He has bad ideas!" the crowd screams with pointed finger, and the mob rushes forward to
quash the dissident, whether actively or passively, by simply denying that person opportunity. Extremism is
limited by this crowd revolt as well as its nature as a philosophy for thinkers of the long-term, not short-
term pleasure seekers. The former is radically, extremely outnumbered by the latter.

If one must write a thesis on extremism, the wisest thing to say is: extremism is produced by what modern
society denies and the vision of those who wish to avoid it. Extremists may kill a few thousand of you here
and there, or may destroy some of your overpriced office real estate, but in the end they are doing what
they believe is best for all of us. And who are we to deny them this "freedom"?

August 30, 2006

Act
Failing societies create a unique depression. It is not like personal depression, where one is dismayed over
loss of lover or desired goal, but a far more subtle and difficult to recognize kind. In fact, those who are
depressed rarely know they are. They concentrate on the task of existence and adapt as they can, and tend
to withdraw into themselves.

Anyone who can think beyond the immediate situation can see this society is failing. Many of us grew up
leftist and believed that, with universal rights and a sharing of the wealth, everything would turn out OK.
After all, wouldn't everyone be happy? Happiness eliminates conflict and aggression and ideologies that
place one group or person above others.

The problem with focus on the immediate is that it removes all but the tangible here and now; it is
deconstruction without re-evaluation and moving forward toward new challenges. Deconstruction of this
type is like morality: it marks a whole bunch of stuff as "bad," and has us try to find meaning in whatever
is left to be "OK," while there are a few dogma commands that are "good."

In the West, we have deconstructed ourselves in the search for universal rights and a sharing of the
wealth. This leaves us as compliant beasts more concerned with avoiding bad than finding good, and it
depresses us. What also depresses us is the dual state of continuing decline and a seeming total lack of
solutions. We can see the problem, but do not have the tools to fix it.

Our depression is further entrenched by the remote nature of these problems. We know eventually we must
face them. We can buy that house in the nice neighborhood, get the comfortable job, and distract ourselves
with hobbies, but outside of our immediate consciousness, we know the decay is lurking. Crime increases,
as does ethnic and religious and cultural discontent, as does the power of the elites who rule us through
the power of media.

We are exhausted by methods that do not work but are the only socially acceptable means of making
change. Our entire society is beating a dead horse by, when our methods fail, insisting that if we apply
them more radically, they will succeed. They tell us: if we civilize everyone, and give them universal rights
and wealth, we will all be happy and our problems will cease. Yet the opposite seems to be happening.

Our exhaustion leads to depression because any other solution is shouted down, if not by the moral
majorities by one special interest group or another, thus we cannot actually touch the problem. We cannot
seem to act decisively to fix these plagues and thus they come to live amongst us as parasites, tolerated
but taking their toll.

Even our fellow citizens depress us. When the television comes on with a sexy ad, they buy the product;
when the ad appeals to strong emotions, either strong (war/conservative) or weak (compassion/liberal),
they vote for it. But what about changing our direction to something better? No one is talking about that.

There are miles of blogs and citizen's action groups and other people taking advantage of democratic
"representation," but each of these attacks a detail that is created by a defect in the larger design. These
amount to creating a holocaust of noise and conflict that leads nowhere, in part because these people are
not interested in changing the larger design.

For example, if you oppose crime, you are caught between groups wanting a police state and groups who
want to through welfare and education magically transform criminals into solid citizens -- both are
unrealistic. If you oppose immigration, you are sandwiched between people who want xenophobia and
people who want to obliterate our culture by letting anyone and everyone in. There are only extremes,
because the only practical extreme -- changing the larger design -- is off-limits.

Together these factors create a subtle depression. The world is going to shit, there is nothing you can do
about it, and so you adapt and compensate and buy off the parasites as best you can, but you have in your
soul a sick sinking feeling: this will not end well. Even if it does not blow up in your lifetime, it will get
worse. This is the fear that has replaced our terror of instant nuclear death or Fascist/Communist invasion.

So we become meek. We tolerate, and to compensate, we get our revenge by going deeper into our own
pleasures. Screw the world; I've got IM and cable and beer and sluts or prostitutes as necessary. Yet there
is no spirit in this, no challenge and no thrill of accomplishment, so as we regress further into ourselves we
become more subtly depressed.

There is only one solution: to act in such a way that one targets the larger design of the system. With this,
one feels healthier; no longer naked, energy is going toward something instead of into a void of hours
spent pleasing the self. The world is slowly getting better. Truth is rising above ignorance. Depression is
melting because you are doing something about the problem.

If we open up this point of the conversation we, writer and reader, are having, it becomes a harangue of
dissenting opinions and gab expressing indecision over what to do. Most people will join the smallest cause
they can, whether local or personal, and try to back out that way -- but they back out into depression. If
you tackle the problem head-on and work with others thinking along the same lines, you feel better;
otherwise, it's back to being drunk and subconsciously miserable as you try to forget.

CORRUPT is dedicated to the idea that change can be had, but only by targetting the larger design, which
is corruption itself. We don't believe there are conspiracies, only that our desire to make a uniquely better
world has collapsed into our "logical" thinking that spreading wealth and universal recognition will pacify the
problem. This alone is the source of our misery, and while unintentional, it represents corruption.

Nietzsche wrote of the "slave revolt" in which the West was gripped by its lower-quality people
overwhelming its higher, but for now, we find it useful to say that we are gripped by a revolt in slavish
desires. People no longer want to do what is right, or better; they want to please the mob and get popular
and wealthy. Selfishness creates personal worlds in which we regress, subtly depressed, as a result of this
impetus. We cannot buy each other off. There is only one solution, and it is a better design.

The internet, as a medium like television or print, gives us a voice; through this, we can organize what is
not ruined and put it to service making more of itself. We can grab the people who can understand this,
and there are more than one might think, and move forward to physical interaction with our political
system and becoming the one, sane visible voice in a forest of shouting lunatics.

When you find yourself with a choice between spending your time on selfish pursuits that do not really
make you happy, or putting that spare time toward change, you are deciding your own future as much as
that of our world. You are shutting out depression by acting toward a better future, and this is the only
cure for what you barely recognize makes you sick.

The Next Stage

"Never pick an argument with a man who owns a printing press." - H.L Mencken

"If you want to change the world, get a bigger printing press than your enemies have." - J.L. Roberts

Our goal begins with domination of internet media. We will do this through repetition of message, and
creation of compelling statements that can reach both voters and lone wolves. Our method is not to dumb
down our message to reach people, but to hammer them with the truth of our message, because we are
closer to the truth of reality than any other source.

Let me call your attention to the difference in acts:

1. Spending time in a chat room is diluted socialization. You send messages, sometimes people reply, but
since there's no topic and everyone is half-distracted, what is best are silly little statements that have
no meaning relative to reality. You're there to distract each other and pass the time, waiting for death
in a painless way.
 However, when ten chat rooms full of people whiling away the hours until demise are hit with the
same message, the perception is of a sea change: the same idea is cropping up everywhere, and so
works its way into conversation. Much as people talk about the same ideas because they've seen
them on the same four or five TV shows, most people will pass on ideas they see if they show up
from enough sources at once.

2. Forums are much-maligned. Most get lured into cyclic conversations because they have one topic in
common -- sex, death metal or race relations -- and thus soon a group attracted to that theme arrives
and begins recycling ideas. Nothing much is gained. You can fire off a few posts here and there, but
you're basically spending time on amusing others. They see one opinion out of many and,
overwhelmed, dedicate their time to shouting out their own contributions. Nothing is gained.

On the other hand, when a person visits three or four forums relevant to their lifestyle and sees
discussion of the same thought, they take it into their vocabulary of topics. They do this because they
perceive the same sea change: this is the idea being offered up by the world. Much as if one is driving
and sees at five different intersections a certain kind of sign, the message gains credibility with
repetition.

3. Everyone has a blog. Most people have a small group of internet acquaintances who visit their blog as
if it were a public newsletter, e.g. see what's going on with Joe. As a consequence, the millions of
blogs out there have diluted any power their voice might have. The dedicated bloggers swap
information but most blogs are simply filling time.

On the other hand, some blogs stand out above the rest when they have quality information or attract
a larger audience. These are suddenly a way to make change, to influence other people. When four
or five of these are hit with the message, the perception is that the people who know what's up are
familiar with these ideas. Again, the concept of sea change is present here: when people see many
details reinforcing a whole concept, they assume it is "what is happening" and not only talk about it
but act on it.

We have the potential to re-program the internet's people with our ideas and through their real world
interactions, to pass those ideas on to others. This will, much like television ads or influential books or
magazines, cause these ideas to prime people for how they should act. As more people doubt official news
sources, this is essential.

As we re-dedicate ourselves to a new future under CORRUPT, our goal has changed. Where ANUS gathered
people of like mind to talk about their like-mindedness, that is not enough; it was a good first stage but
we're moving on. Our next stage is to effect change, and that begins by getting ourselves the proverbial
"bigger printing press."

August 31, 2006

Arbitrary

"As one judge said to another, 'Be just and if you can't be just, be arbitrary.'" -

Naked Lunch , William S. Burroughs

A discourse on the place of accepted conflict as perpetuator of distraction in modern politics, and hence the
need for intervention by extra-political means.
Arbitrary - Part I: Mechanism
If you want to render a population neutral, divide them along lines they cannot help but feel within
themselves. This enables equal groups to oppose each other and thus cancel out their influences, all while
believing that what they do is "natural." Although it sounds like conspiracy fodder, this practice most
commonly happens through a process like that of erosion: successive similar actions produce radical, almost
grotesque, results when each individual action is as non-threatening as pouring water.

Our modern populations are conveniently divided among those who feel and those who judge;
conveniently, these groups are not only the two largest on the Meyers-Briggs personality assessment but
correspond, through balance of hormones, to female (inductive) and male (deductive) approaches to logical
process. Just in case you're like most modern people and cannot tell the difference between categorical
logic as demographic and categorical logic in an absolute and religious sense, this does not mean all males
behave one way and all females another; it states that the archetype on which males and females are built
has this general structure, and while it can be modified, the overwhelming tendency is toward this
behavior. (Most of you are inexperienced enough with logic to think that because something is a member of
a category, that implies it is a rigid duplicate of the archetype of the category -- if you think about this for a
minute, you'll see that this kind of categorical logic reflects mechanical-material thinking and not logic and
you'll grow out of this practice.)

How this process of erosion happens: we're all in a room arguing about how to put out a fire. All agree the
fire must be smothered. One person suggests water; another suggests sand. The room is divided into three
camps now, which are water, sand and neither/undecided. In the meantime, the goddamn fire is getting
bigger . So, smart Politician from the water group realizes he must do the same thing advertising execs do,
which is to make sure his viewpoint is distinctive . Where once upon a time his slogan was "Water --
smothers better than sand," he's now catchily humming a new jingle, "Water is the opposite of fire." The
sand camp reacts in horror, and releases their own little bombshell, "Sand is rock and rock isn't changed by
fire." Where they formerly agreed on 80% of the task -- smother the fire -- and differed only on the
materials used, they now agree on nothing and have constructed two radically different approaches. This is
a simplified version of the erosion that in every democracy creates a radical-ish party and a reactionary-ish
party to oppose one another; ideas, distinct narrowly at first, are by thousands of repetitions of this
differentiation process made into extreme opposition for the sake of currying votes.

Dysfunctional, isn't it?

In the status quo, we have two major poles -- right and left -- and variants inbetween. The left is united by
its intent to feel (empathize) its way through existence, believing that if we are compassionate to every
individual we will achieve justice and thus an end to strife; the left feels strife rewards the stronger, and
that the stronger will then abuse the weaker, and that this is inherently terrible. The left stretches from
neo-conservatives to Communists, with its moderate element being the American Democratic Party or in
Europe, the Social Democrats. The right judges more than feels, but its judgment eschews the individual to
avoid being bitchy and thus tends to rest on natural law, or the idea that the smarter get ahead and the
slower, more criminal, stupider are deprecated. The right extends from some neoconservatives to John
Birch Society style radicals, with its moderate arm being the American Republican Party. At its most
extreme, rightism is a philosophy more than a political action, and can be expressed best in the work of
Aristotle and (contiguously) F.W. Nietzsche -- of course, in one of the great paradoxes of history, modern
rightists are in bed with the Christians who fear excessively that their dualistic religion might be made-up
nonsense and thus are very, very, very, very sensitive to any critique, and thus force rightist parties to
reject Nietzsche (a form of ideological suicide none of them have yet been intelligent enough to recognize!).

We say these right/left splits are arbitrary because they serve no purpose in getting us closer to the truth.
From all indications, one or the other wins and, having a partial picture of what must be done, is replaced
by the other. And the changes? With the right you get an explicit link to heavy industry (Reagan) but with
the left you get a clandestine assumption of the necessity of the entertainment media (Clinton). The right
tends to focus on foreign policy/defense, cultivating industry and protecting families; the left will explore
civil rights, welfare and protecting individualism. The arbitrary swing factor that causes these paths to
differentiate themselves in order to market themselves becomes influential here, and we see areas where
these ideas overlap ignored in favor of dramatic conflict. They both play the roles: the right as the towering
Authority Figure come to drive away evils, and the left as the slightly-hip older brother who hangs out with
black people (knows the "secret handshakes") and offers a clumsily rolled joint when the parents are gone.
We say the result is arbitrary becomes one comes to power, cancels out what the other did, and then is in
turn replaced. The result is schizophrenic policy: we can expect no consistent leadership and each side has
items it will not change, taboos not because of fear of consequence but fear of public image: if the left lets
off of its civil rights agenda for one moment, it will be seen as less lefty and lose many constitutents; if the
right accidentally cheered a gay pride parade, many of its constituents would pull back. This is not a
response to logic, but to image, and this is the root of the exaggerated division between the political
houses: we must appear unique and as alternatives to whatever is in power.

If you've grown up with the benevolent words of government and hysterical words of mass media in your
mind, this is alien information. You have been brought up to believe that democracy solves all ills, and that
the triumvirate of "freedom" -- democracy (political freedom), capitalism (economic freedom), civil rights
(personal freedom) -- is somehow not only inseparable but is the only option to both godless Communism
and Jew/Negro-hating Nationalism. You run (don't walk) to the self-erasing system of two oppositional
outlooks because you are conditioned to think that without constant conflict, you will fall into the hands of
egregious Control... not yet aware, perhaps, that control can happen obliquely. If all one must do is
convince a crowd of people to vote for something -- well, salespeople do it all the time, as the procession of
defective cars, slow computers, ugly clothing, disgusting foods, etc. attests. People make bad decisions. In
fact, they do it more commonly than they make good decisions. Yet we do not consider this a form of
control; we consider it "freedom" from control. Even working through this series of thoughts is beyond most
ordinary citizens. Unlike philosophers, they deal in tangibles or things that sound like them. They can
identify an invader, decide drugs are generally bad, or ban personal nuclear weapons, but beyond that,
they are driftwood in a sea of equally incomprehensible ideas.

But even more than allowing a kind of passive control, or authoritarianism by keeping the citizens distracted
and operating behind the scenes with the legal favoritism of business contracts and other rewards for
silence, this type of system guarantees us a headless control: it has no goal and no controllers. Anyone
who learns to use the system is able to influence it, and thus society at large wanders without direction
while people inside find a way to make themselves a retirement income and retreat to mountain homes in
Aspen. The poor rise to become rich, and the rich might get richer or rub themselves out with distractions,
but the fact remains that society is not something with a purpose to it; it is carcass off which we feast
because we lack a forward direction that might provide nutrition. We do not look forward to great deeds, or
to a society that existentially and qualitatively rewards us with a higher type of living; we carve up the
wealth of the past, and fight endlessly over how we distribute it. Both left and right are complicit here: the
left wants more equal distribution, where the right wants to reward the most productive. Yet neither
criticizes the overall direction of society, something that author Tom Wolfe refers to as "cynicism": a hard
look at, behind the rhetoric, what a system is designed to achieve. If I set up a prison camp where the
most violent offenders are given their own cells and televisions, it enforces a type of "natural selection" that
promotes only the most violent; the camp, whether deliberately or not, is designed to produce a stream of
aggressive people because it rewards aggression. Cynicism is a look at this design behind the marketing,
propaganda, pleasant speeches and social conventions of a society.

As we have established, the left/right divide obliterates its own leadership, removes our focus on leadership
at large, and obscures the inner workings of society and thus makes image more important than reality as a
means of political control. It is superior to dictatorship for the purposes of control because it contains all
dissent within its process, innoculating itself against the threat by weakening it through committees, public
debate, and of course, absorption by the two-party system. How can you rebel against a system that gives
you the right to start a political party of your own and run against it? On paper -- according to the rules
and statements of its public agencies -- the system is perfect. In reality, and behind the scenes, it is ruled
by money: your political party needs a half-billion dollars in order to influence enough voters to stand a
chance of election, assuming that you can convince them your message is more important than the endless
stream of platitudes from right and left. The public show of elections and debates is entirely irrelevant,
because its goal is not the finding of direction but the maintenance of directionlessness; its purpose, in the
design of our society, is to allow those with money to distract the voters with pleasant fictions while
carrying off more wealth, consuming more natural resources, exploiting more workers... in short, the
dominant theme of our society is individual profit at the expense of the whole, and the two-party system
facilitates it by distracting us with a plausible but unlikely scenario for change.

October 13, 2007

Arbitrary - Part II: Values
Politics happens to us like the sky. Far away, options occur; we hope for one or the other, but then we take
what falls. While the formation of left and right parties may be motivated by pure behind-the-scenes
manipulation for profit, the emotions and ideas that draw individuals to these parties are worth exploring.
Both sides have some merit and some incoherence; like halves of a puzzle, they only make sense in
combination.

When we look into not what parties state are their ideals, nor what people who have absorbed propaganda
as well as criticism claim to think, we can see the emotions and germs of logic that motivate people to pick
one or the other. As with all things in life, it is a chaotic spectrum, and although each party has a dominant
outlook, people choose them for many reasons. If we look at the desired outcome of those reasons, we can
break down the partisan illusion and see what is of importance to those who become politically active.

If the fundamental principle behind conservatism is that tradition must be upheld, the quasi-opposite
principle of liberalism is that the order of things has excluded people from its benefit without reason.
Conservatism reasons that the order of things has purpose, where liberalism emotes that it is unkind. This
leads to further schism in that while conservatives discuss values, liberals are more concerned with a
change in the distribution of wealth as the result of a values shift.

Since neither of these doctrines upholds any more dramatic change that the introduction of compensatory
influences favoring the doctrine, it is fair to say that they are united in their approval of modern society as
the chassis upon which politics operates. Yet if we read more closely into each doctrine, there is a
compelling sense of an underlying desire for vast change -- a complete alteration in how we view civilization
and our roles in it.

Conservatives in their hearts of hearts want to throw out what they see as an immoral and directionless
system, and liberals want to tear down the world and replace it so that the poor are equal to the rich. It is
almost as if each partisan vector has become stalled by its need to make its offering palatable to politics as
a mass phenomenon, and thus, each has neutered its fundamental impulse. To look behind that veil is to
see that underlying both systems is the recognition that our functionalist, materialist, utilitarian modern
society has lost sight of values in favor of a pragmatic adaptation to itself. (As Plato was wont to note, each
political system excels at one thing -- furthering itself. William S. Burroughs would refer to this tendency as
"the control virus" based on "the algebra of need.")

Liberalism

Let us then for a moment praise liberalism. The stories of factories run by greedy manipulators who
gleefully pay their workers whatever minimum is currently acceptable, without a concern for how those
people turn out, as well as contemporary experience with the ruthlessness of moneymakers should show us
there is some sense to the liberal -- or more properly, socialist -- impulse. Why are we willing to let people
be used by their jobs, taxed by the government despite their poverty, and then made bankrupt by their
own uneducated and inept spending?

It is not as if our system, despite being called "Social Darwinism," is using this as a mechanism of
eliminating these people; they are kept alive, and kept doing the low-paying but profitable jobs like working
in fast food, mall shops, factories, security guards, and the like. Liberalism asks, rightly: what is our intent
regarding these people, both as function in society and as individual lives? Where other systems may appeal
in sterile terms to our functional minds, liberalism address our hearts.

Most sensible people recognize that the denizen of an organized civilization, or one where division of labor
requires power structures and economics and forms of mass control, walks a fine and dangerous line
between being restricted by government and being restricted by the flaky, criminal, predatory, parasitic or
simply selfish behaviors of fellow citizens. Liberalism focuses most intently on the abuse of power by
centralized authority, and as such is inherently both anarchistic and anti-money.
These are admirable tendencies even if for now we do not have to consider them as in themselves
solutions . They touch something in all of us: to love justice is to hate injustice, and to love people is to
hate the idea that they can be used by some crazy abstract system like industry, government or even the
social pressures of the mob. We want to stand up for all of us to be sure that our sacrifices and labors
mean something and come to a good end, and that in the process we are not treated like rapidly-
obsolescing equipment.

Liberalism is also critical of situations where one ethnic group is the slave-crop of another, or where women
are given no recourse against being essentially sexual vassals, and any case where personal ability to
choose lifestyle or belief is regulated. Does it make sense, a good liberal asks, that a wealthier nation beat
up a smaller one? Or that women have a career choice of "wife" or "courtesan"? Or that every black person
in a large nation is impoverished and futureless while the children of fat imaginative white bankers have any
option open to them?

Belatedly, the left has added environmentalism to its list of concerns (until the mid-twentieth century, it was
exclusively a conservative position) -- delaying in part because to make any choice in favor of the
environment is to deny some individual something they would prefer to have. It is a paradox of freedom
that often its preservation requires its denial, but we'll come to that in a moment. This cuts a paradox into
the core of liberal values: we have compassion for the environment as well as for people, but their needs
are in conflict.

Look to your inner feeling. It is unlikely you want to live endorsing a system that ruthlessly makes much of
its population into pack animals for the wealth of others, or keeps one group hopeless while another
prospers. Whatever your opinion of the leadership abilities of women, it is doubtful you want to see them
confined to an abusive cycle. If you have any sense at all, you will recognize the constant threat of allowing
any central control or power regulate what is acceptable behavior, as this empowers the small cranial
capacity bureaucrats to impose punishment for their own masturbatory sense of strength.

No one wants to endorse a society of legitimized bullies, or an unspoken economic war against a certain
ethnicity or gender. It is this feeling that sweeps people up into liberalism, and means that despite bluster
in other areas, it remains a partisan force for (a) civil rights and (b) wealth redistribution or class warfare.

Conservatism

At the same time, even the most die-hard liberal has to admit something beautiful about the ideal of
conservatism: we know that without a traditional culture our values become replaced by what is profitable.
No one argues that radio pop music is superior to Beethoven. Most of us if we search our souls will admit
that we want some higher value to step in and stop the construction of yet another mall or fast-food
restaurant or ugly factory.

We would like a governmental force that blocks entities which although profitable for their owners create a
socialized cost distributed to the rest of us -- whether that cost is pollution, crime induced by predatory
activities, imported labor to pick chicken cheaply or simply completely ugly cities covered in advertising.
This our mind, and not heart, speaking; if we define conservatism, it is as a response as much exclusively
logical as liberalism is exclusively emotional.

Conservatism is based upon the concept that, whether determined by relativity or not, our world operates
consistently and therefore some values are both universal and eternal. These values, in the conservative
mind, are not preferences but mathematical optimizations of human behavior based on the most powerful
responses to the mechanisms of nature -- physical reality, genetic reality, personal decisions -- as have
been discovered through the history of humanity. These values are eternal in that no matter what changes
in our abilities or society, they are enforced upon us by existential conditions -- mortality, scarcity of
resources, the need for leaders.

What is inspiring about conservatism is that underneath its quasi-reactionary exterior there is a profound
love of normal life. Not the extreme pleasures, but the mundane happiness found in doing good work in
which one believes, having friends and family and local community, and finding some spiritual (although not
necessarily Christian: many of the greatest conservative writers have loathed Christianity but praised
spirituality) connection to the mechanism of life, e.g. finding a way to value the end product of life so much
as to "forgive" and overlook its dark and morbid side. This transcendent ideal is at the root of conservatism
as much as compassion is the root of liberalism.

Sex is understood with the knowledge that no matter how advanced our technology, those parents who are
more sexually selective and lead normal balanced lives and have a few children and invest heavily in them
will turn out happier, more productive offspring. Conservatism recognizes that for each person with whom
one fornicates the potential for romance becomes more calloused. Conservatism recognizes that life is a
long and winding journey of which one of the greatest joys is a family, and a family is best based on
(relatively) chaste parents who express stability by making that most powerful of decisions to opt for a
lifetime partner.

These high-investment chances require the decisions behind them to be thoughtful and balanced, the
produced of a mentally and spiritually and socially balanced personality. Conservative views on intoxication,
on laziness, on criminality and useless activity (television) reflect this core impetus: those who find a way to
accept life and live out its processes in the fullest are the stablest and most apt to become not only "good
citizens" but contributing people. They are balanced by the nature of their lack of struggle against the
constraints of reality and their consequent determination to turn these to the best advantage.

Although our postmodern view of conservatism is colored by the somewhat useless and fun-dampening
right wing parties of our time, it is important to remember that these are both hopelessly reactionary --
believing the cause to be at some level lost -- and manipulative, in that when conservatism abandoned the
aristocracy for voters it had to find some way to pander, to make its "serious" outlook on life palatable to
the average person. It did so through moral superiority and a kind of condemnation/reaction that has
conservative parties today picking targets before they pick goals.

Contradictions

Of all the people out there, only a few are actors on the political stage. The reasons are simple: the poor
are too busy being destitute and intoxicated and lack the education to act; the rich do not work within
politics but in economics and manipulation of public perception. The lower middle class, while often the
most politically active, is accustomed to a partisan "ground-holding" mentality often defined as much by
their professions as neighborhoods.

Throughout all of history, it has been the upper two-thirds of the middle class who have been the political
fulcrum of each nation. Hard-working but with enough leisure time to read and with jobs that do not
require exhausting physical labor and leave them still energetic at night in the time of solitary thinking, the
upper-half-middle-class have the education and career tendencies to organize, to motivate disparate groups
of people, and to find complex design solutions.

Although this group has the greatest political potential, they also face a great pitfall: decadence. Anyone
can make fun of soccer moms and guys in fantasy baseball leagues, but often the middle class tendency is
to "stay occupied" and then, in guilt at being somewhat inactive, to leap toward emotional rather than
pragmatic political solutions. These fail because the motivation behind them is a social gesture and not a
design decision. In times of cataclysm, however, these same people leap toward crises with a kind of joy in
having found purpose that is otherwise missing from most administrative and professional careers.

When we look at this group, excluding those with resentments (abused children, marginalized groups like
homosexuals or BDSM participants, genteel alcoholics) we find a cross-section of our society evenly divided
between the two political camps. On economics and foreign policy they tend to be liberal because to them
rapid growth is not important; they know a comfortable life can be had and are more interested in raising
families, furthering their own career accomplishments and having healthy local communities.

On social issues and domestic rule they tend on the whole to be conservative, wanting to preserve the
family-friendly nature of their neighborhoods and make sure society's institutions stay intact so their own
youth can take advantage of them. They vacillate here in that during times of wealth, they relax into
liberalism because there seems to be some slack in the system that can be used to pacify other groups;
they do not appear to honestly believe in eradication of poverty or world unity except when listening to U2
albums.

They have had enough experience in the world to know the poor usually stay that way for a reason, and
that the world is always in some kind of disaster that is best ignored unless one wants to get saddled with
stewardship and then blamed by all parties involved for its imperfections. Their goal is to provide quality of
life for themselves and as much justice as they can afford for others, with the overall goal of having a
stable society.

If they have a failing here, it is in attempting to buy off other special interest groups by sharing some of
the wealth, not realizing that this falls under the same problems of stewardship mentioned above. They are
polite but self-serving, having found out long ago that carrying the weight of the world does nothing for it
or the self, and mean well but temper that with a certain pragmatism that believes in elbow grease,
(relatively) clean living and meritocracy: the best rising to the top.

That this group swings between left and right with the flavor of elections can be explained by the cycle of
conservative and liberal power. Conservatives tend to build infrastructure, and liberals use that
infrastructure to increase the possibilities of the average citizen, but by overpromoting individualism create
fragmentation. This splintering causes social problems, so the conservatives are called in during the next
election to get back to basics. Liberalism is a nurturing psychologist but conservatism is a gruff architect.

The problem with this system is rooted in that inconsistency.

The policies of one group, obliterated by the next, are later reinstated and similarly erase the changes of
the last group. Since absolute power does not exist, this constitutes a compromise of a compromise of an
originally compromised idea, and soon the parties are reduced to inching forward without effecting any real
systemic change. On top of this is the dirty secret of democracy, which is that while all citizens have the
"freedom" to vote, most lack variability in their thought process and pick comfortable symbols and
emotional responses from their television screens and conversations with neighbors.

In addition to compromise, democracy further adulterates clear action by running every proposed idea
through this "popularity filter" which requires ideas both not offend and provoke some kind of simple
feeling in their audience. You cannot simply go to war because it's a good idea; you have to invent a devil
and pursue him to an ugly end. Social problems cannot be simply a "good idea" to fix, but there must be
helpless innocents ravaged or other mournful disaster. Every single decisions becomes threatre in which
good symbols combat bad, with the idea that the direction of a liberal democracy (the term for modern
democracies, independent of the term "liberalism" for our argument here) is the best and we are enforcing
a "progress" which is inherently not only beneficial but morally right .

This brings us to a series of contradictions.

We want to treat people well, but we know from experience and history that most people treat themselves
badly and make poor decisions (buying color TVs instead of investing in retirement funds). They would be
better off with many of these decisions not being theirs to make. We can educate them, and give them
welfare, but ultimately they determine their own path through decisions that are often quite poor.

We want freedom, but too much freedom for destructive-minded people results in all of us suffering more,
paying more, and living in alienating and dangerous cities. Destructive people can be criminals or predatory
businessmen, and may "intend to" be destructive or not: what matters is their effect, and whether it acts
by creating junky strip malls and tearing down trees or by stealing car stereos for meth money is
immaterial. They destroy. They are either held back or we absorb not only the financial cost but the cost to
our way of life.

We want traditional values but do not want them imposed upon us. The idea of some government
bureaucracy, and we know from experience that bureaucratic power draws its share of small-minded
people who experience a nearly sexual thrill from exerting that power of negation on others, telling us
when to fornicate, where to go to school, etc. terrifies us. It is for this reason among others that modern
citizens are adamant about separation of church and state; we know that even if it is stamped Benevolent
Government or Benevolent Church, power can attract abusers who will wreck us if given the chance.

We want the ability to succeed economically but we do not want such excessive competition that we are
forced to become predators or be assimilated as choiceless labor. We like the idea that we can with a
reasonable amount of effort walk into a decent living, and that if we have a need for more we can within
reason attain it. We fear the super-equalization of Communist Russia but also would rather not live in a
world where literally everything is for sale (images of opium dens and brothels flash through our minds).

Although it will never be said in these terms, we want natural selection -- but not by money or obedience
to dogma or any other mechanically linear path. We like the idea of living in a system where those who live
sanely prosper more than those who are destructive, knowing that with even a little nudge the lesser
elements can be induced to not breed more of their type. No one with experience is fooled into thinking
you can educate out small-minded tendencies; they have to be bred out, and the best way to do that is to
ensure that the small-minded find it even slightly less inviting to survive and breed.

Most of all, we want a social order that we feel is working for the "good people" among us. While we are
not against subsidies for those who have falle on hard times or are "disadvantaged" in some way or
another, we want our resources to go toward those of basically sound character, mind and body. This
might be pure aesthetics, but to live among healthy fit and intelligent people is preferrable to the other
option, unless one is so underconfident or deviant that it becomes an appealing camouflage . Drug-addicted
child molestors prefer oblivious neighbors, but happy homesteaders like alert responsible people around
them.

When we get over our tendency to group positions by political polarity, and thus stop categorizing as
left/right and us/them proposed ideas, we can see how simple our actual desires are. Each includes a
benevolent impulse with a caveat that abuses must be prevented, albeit by some system other than abuse-
potential-high government. And if it's this simple, why do we not have such a system? That answer rests in
the methods by which our society regulates political power.

Conclusion

Looking into the hearts and minds of the healthy among us, we can see that all of us on some level want to
replace modern society. We are exhausted with the constant infighting and manipulation by special interest
groups that democracy creates, and we are drained by the constant questions of regulating economic
selfishness in a system based on economic accumulation for the self. We are caught in the middle between
two extremes that have been artificially enhanced by the need to create democracy-friendly alternatives.

None of us are pure liberal or conservative, and the positions liberals and conservatives embrace flip-flop
enough to show us how futile it would be to try to define ourselves as such. Our real focus is less on
idealistic concerns and dogmatic divisions but on how well life treats us, because we're busy -- busy
creating art, busy raising families, busy discovering that next important iota of research or rule of law. We
like life and we like living well. This for the most part is why we are inert to anything but looming disaster;
why rock the boat?

However, we are also depleted by that same impetus. Each broken thing we see wears us down and makes
us expect more. Each frustration -- some insane bureaucrat, the ghetto invading our neighborhoods, a war
that seems right until it blows up in our faces, global warming coming "out of nowhere" into our collective
consciousness -- drains us further. We feel a subliminal dread that not all will work out alright, and that we
are like passengers in a boat piloted by committee, careening down rapids while votes are taken and
arguments are placed about whether the upcoming waterfall is "a real threat." We fear for our children.

Immanuel Kant, that sage among philosophers, wrote that evil is not a diabolical, intentional force but a
consequence of ignorance. He believed it takes a conscious effort to recognize evil, and that the only
redemption is to turn from it and to begin doing good without feeling guilt for the past. No doctrinal
conversion can achieve this, nor can any charity -- only a thorough changing of our daily behavior. Kant
stressed the mundanity of evil and its prevalence. In his mind, most people exist by error and in fact, the
way most live engenders a form of unexciting but destructive force that creates long-term decay. As Kant
saw it, evil never showed its face as a demon, but as a slightly lazy easy choice because "everyone does
it." Evil is not intention, but a lack of intent to do better.

When we contemplate the horrors of the past century and the fact that they show zero signs of abating in
the future, we have to ask ourselves: it is possible that our basic assumptions of what life should be lead
us to a form of evil? That despite our good intentions, both compassionately liberal and architecturally
conservative, we have strapped ourselves into a system that does not do enough to seek a better path and
thus leads us through the rapids of mundane evil? ...we fear for the distant consequences of our actions,
and suspect in invisible paranoia that perhaps without change our future will be one of "a whimper and not
a bang" slowly grinding our society and world into a wasteland from which no future greatness, or even
normal health, will emerge.

We are right to have these fears. The divisions of democracy enslave us with false symbols; the method of
democracy encourages us to be isolated agents of selfishness; the very "freedoms" we praise give rise to
horror; the freedoms we have relinquished are tools we badly need. After years of being able to deny it, we
are finally seeing that our path is a mundane evil that will end inevitably in error.

Also we finally notice that our assumptions (of what is "good" but might actually be "evil") prevent us from
changing from this path. We are given choices of right and left but neither fits. We cannot find a popular
candidate who will speak more than popular illusions. The solution is to be fearless and redesign society
toward what in both heart and mind we know is right.

October 13, 2007

Arbitrary - Part III: Conversation
They: "It's disgraceful the way Bush has embarked upon this war in Iraq, justifying it with lies and all that."

Me: "I think he's a democrat in disguise. He's setting us up so we run screaming into the arms of the other
party."

They: "Why would he do that?"

Me: "He could make a lot of money, among other things. If he knows the Democrats are going to win, he
can have his stock portfolio bought in advance. And who's the Democrat candidate going to be? Probably a
former business partner or his. He's set."

---

They: "The city must not care at all about its gardens. Look at this damage!"

Me: "Gardens don't win elections. Large masses of illiterate people who want new pickup trucks do."

They: "Well, that seems uncharitable. I like to place trust in my fellow humans."

Me: "When you go to a mall, you ignore most people because you wouldn't want them as your friends. In
fact, for a hundred people who pass you, probably only two or three interest you. If you're like almost
everyone I've met, you think most of the people who pass you are stupid -- you have a kind of distaste for
their ostentatious dress, their ignorant conversation, their bad personal hygiene or other signs of less than
sterling intelligence. But all one hundred vote. And the 97 you don't like have more influence than the three
who do."

They: (expletive)

Me: "Didn't we just get a new sports stadium this month? Oh, and tax breaks for oil companies. I'd like to
be a shareholder at one of those. Maybe I'll buy some stock and get rich so I can run away to the hills and
laugh at this disaster from a distance."

They: (expletive)

---

They: "I'm glad President Clinton has improved race relations."

Me: "He's certainly got all of government working hard to promote minorities. The problem is that this takes
away their authority over themselves as a cultural group, so you get people who are going to resent those
they see as having done this in the future. We're going to have to pick a culture as a nation and even if we
choose a hybrid culture, we're cutting them out of the equation. So they'll be pissed."

They: "Well, at least now they have jobs... they're going to have more money and that will end the
epidemic of inner city poverty. We don't have any more race riots."

Me: "We've deferred the issue. Through all of history, can you name a single place where different ethnic
groups coexisted peacefully? At some point, decisions need to be made, and they're going to end up
favoring one group or another, so ethnically-mixed places collapse in warfare."

They: "Well that's just racist."

Me: "It's practical. I haven't said I don't like minorities. I've said that ethnic groups don't mix. Whether
that's two white ethnic groups or a darker and lighter one is academic. I notice you haven't provided a
historical counterexample. Is that because one does not exist?"

---

They: "They made a record drug bust last night. I'm glad they got those creeps off the streets."

Me: "More creeps will come, because drugs are a hot commodity. People want to pay money for them, so
someone will provide them, and then we'll call them a creep and put them in jail and they'll be replaced."

They: "Good people don't use drugs."

Me: "That's irrelevant -- someone is paying for them and someone will rise to the occasion. That's
capitalism. In fact, it's even a form of democracy. Voting with dollars. Your fellow citizens want drugs, but
somehow we're afraid to admit that as a society. Why are we so dishonest?"

---

They: "These gay rights groups piss me off. They want to make marriage legal between two men, or two
women. That entirely violates the sanctity of marriage."

Me: "Why is government involved in legislating marriage, if it's so sacred? You're letting some bureaucrats
determine the bond between two people in love? Maybe it's a terrible idea to mix government and religion.
Or even culture and government. Heck, maybe government isn't the solution after all. If government wasn't
involved in marriage, your church could decide who was eligible to get hitched."

They: "But then in some places, gays could get married..."

Me: "That has always been true. Just keep them out of your community."

They: "But that would be intolerant!"

---

They: "I don't understand why these slimy, conniving conservatives are trying to make abortion illegal.
That's going to put us back in the dark ages."

Me: "You're right -- it's a stupid idea. They should just outlaw excessive sexual relations like was done in
traditional societies."

They: "But what about our freedom? That will make women vassals of the kitchen... slaves to the stove...
our careers, our freedom would be gone."

Me: "What does sexual freedom have to do with your ability to get a job? And how many sex partners do
you need? Look at what feminism and sexual liberation has gotten us: a higher divorce rate, fewer smart
people breeding, and most of our women ending up divorced lonely and self-hating in their forties. That's
progress?"

They: "Without sexual freedom, we might be limited in our choices, and that would be bad."

Me: "Is that a single choice or fifteen dozen choices? People aren't making choices. They're settling for
convenience in lovers like they are in everything else. They've made love a joke by making sex a
commodity. Are we really happier? You think you think you want freedom -- but are you really thinking?
You want a good life, a sane life, but that requires fewer random choices and more thoughtful ones. Did
you want to date, childless, for the rest of your life or be an irresponsible parent? Admit that you're going
to die and at some point it makes sense to settle down and have some kids. If you're going to do that, you
want family built on something better than wondering which of your spouse's 500 previous lovers he or she
is thinking of when they choke out a name during orgasm."
---

They: "Environmentalists are preventing Global Oil from building the new plant. That's terrible because it
would have created 30,000 jobs!"

Me: "You're right. They shouldn't be preventing the factory now. It should be built into the system from the
start that we respect nature and don't do anything destructive. Global Oil has been planning to build this
plant for five years, and only now have the environmentalists spoken up."

They: "But what about the 30,000 jobs?"

Me: "There's always plenty of jobs for people who have a brain. This plant is not creating new jobs as
much as transferring them here. And how many of those who are hired will be local people?"

They: "Well, they'll spend their money at local stores."

Me: "How important is that in exchange for altering your community? These people come from all over, and
they're going to hang on to their ways of doing things. Soon this place will no longer be its own thing, but
a collection of people and ideas from elsewhere."

They: "Oh, well it's always good to get new ideas."

Me: "New ideas? No, these are ideas that have been in place in other places for a long time. In fact,
probably since time began. There are no new ideas, only new combinations, when you think about it. We
haven't invented a new system of government, philosophy or language since the time of the Greeks --
we've recombined what we have. All we have now is new technology. But I've got to ask: do you care more
about new ideas, or the profit these jobs are bringing in? We should figure out whether we're talking about
getting rich or what's best for the community here."

They: "New ideas, new faces, new money will help the community!"

Me: "By replacing it with the same stuff every other city is made out of. Great. Now, instead of being a
place with its own character, its own culture, and its own way of life, we'll be like a little chunk of New York
or San Francisco. Except we won't be those places, so we'll always be second rate. Living in a second-rate
town to which you've got no allegiance... well, let's just say we're not giving our citizens any incentive to
behave themselves. It'll become another trash dump like any other."

They: "Well, some people will get enough--"

Me: "Some people? I thought we were thinking about what's best for the community. Who cares about
making a few people rich? Think about all the good people you know: they want steady jobs and a
comfortable living, but they're not addicted to money. They found a way to make enough and have time for
their families and non-job pursuits like learning, being outside, experiencing life, growing spiritually. Isn't
that more of a foundation of a healthy community than a few jerks getting rich and us importing 30,000
dummies to work dummy jobs?"

They: "The people have voted--"

Me: "The people are thinking just like you: they see money coming in and they salivate Pavlovian. They're
not thinking about the good of the community, or the future, or even whether this is actually going to
benefit them. They see dollar bills and assume it will come to them. Weren't you saying earlier today that
most of the people you meet are stupid? That's who is voting. And you want to trust that?"

They: (unintelligible)

October 13, 2007

Depression
One common way to take out computers on the internet is the denial of service attack. It is very simple:
you flood the machine either with raw data, as in mail and port bombing, or you hit it with hanging
questions that force it to think. Each one is no big deal, but when a hundred thousand of them hit, the
machine becomes neurotic and cannot tell real data from garbage. As a result, it slows all data down
(equally, thank god!) and for all practical purposes goes offline. Something similar happens to both humans
and our species as a whole with depression.

First, we deny depression as a species. We are obsessive about diagnosis, analysis, documentation and
medication of our problems. Even obscure maladies like anal warts receive reams of focused attention by
high-trained and high-paid specialists, conjecturing and thinking and experimenting. In this we can see the
old truism "less is more", because the storm of interest in depression in industrial nations has, like a wind
blowing papers in a constellation of chaos, ignored what's at the center of the event: depression is brought
on by feelings of disconnection from the world.

We know almost nothing about depression and how it can afflict populations as a whole. We do not know,
for example, that depressed people often exist by having such lowered expectations that they are able to
tolerate mediocrity as a positive. A society that is depressed influences every individual life within it with its
depression, but because that depression is accepted, does not provide a pathway for noticing or critiquing
this depression. A common resopnse: "How can a society be depressed?" -- or more likely: how can a
depressed society have any values?

Societal depression remains a large influence on our modern lives, as many suffer from it and many more
exhibit a subtle and pervasive form of it that never hits extremes but remains constant like a droning
background noise. The only way for something this widely distributed to go unnoticed is if it is so widely
distributed that it appears "normal." (Looking for normal is dangerous thinking, because normal is third
state to reality and observer, where if one looks for logicality in behavior, that which does not fit a norm
can be seen to be healthy and unhealthy norms can be noted as undesired. Alas this thought is far from
our mental worlds in the status quo.)

Second, we deny depression as individuals. Depression is brought on by feelings of not having a place in
the world, and these occur on two levels: (1) the degree of personal organization in an individual enabling
them to do whatever it is that will make life so meaningful it seems a fair trade for death and (2) the
degree to which the human world reflects what one sees of reality. A world that is too much real becomes
boring, and one that is too much unreal becomes frustrating in its insistence on self-destruction. The two
levels influence each other, in that an unstable person will see the world as threatening where it is not, and
a threatening world will destabilize the balanced person but go unnoticed in the already-destabilized person,
because they are too caught up in their own drama to accurately assess the world.

A common depressed person response is to disclaim the ability to involve themselves in any form of
change. "So why should I care about the species, after all? I'm going to live my nobody life, have a few
pleasures, and head to the hills in some ignominious and/or biologically repellent death, so why should this
concern me?" When one thinks only of one, there are no answers for this question that are satisfying. Of
course all you should do is ensure that there is enough space for you to have your pleasures before dying.
But do we respect anyone, and think highly of anyone, who holds such a view? When we spell it out in
those terms, we realize that to think that way would classify us in our own view as selfish wastes of
oxygen, much less in the view of those we respect.

This shows us the "deepening cycle" of depression: the depressed person by nature of being depressed
rejects all those solutions of the category that might solve the depression. Societal depression causes a
sense of futility, which causes people to become more self-obsessed than before, and upon noticing that
self-obsession, they begin to think badly of themselves. This engenders further depression and low self-
esteem, which ironically might be the cause of the problem: societies do not become depressed without
first become schizoid by insisting on the "reality" of a preferred view of existence (morality, futurism,
socialization) that by the nature of its inaccuracy causes endless frustration because in public, we must act
on it, even if we know it is not accurate. People suffering under societal depression chase solutions in
themselves, and thus make the malady worse.

Depression at this point forms an excuse for giving up. We withdraw into our negative self-image, reward
ourselves for small things, and do not change our behavior. As we notice more dysfunction externally to us,
the cycle of our internal dysfunction and self-blame worsens. We make life easy for ourselves with our
justifications, and then because those justifications are on a level of self-serving function, loathe ourselves
for being so short-sighted and selfish. The result gives the cycle momentum and depression increases. At
this point, depression also becomes a useful excuse: "I would do something, but I am dysfunctional, so I
am not ordained by the gods to be able to do anything."

Soon people may understand that humanity is not yet doomed, although if we do not alter our course, it is
clear that we will face a slow erosion into a former republic, a powerless and unproductive state in which
no ideas lasting more than ten minutes are produced. Examples of this type of fallen society cover the
earth, having dropped out of history when their input became irrelevant or communications lapsed, and
now undoubtedly pleasant places to live where no greatness has a home. Futility and dysfunction go hand
in hand. With the advent of globalism, however, we are no longer speaking of a single society fading to
such a state, but all of humanity.

Yet our prediction of doom keeps us depressed. We can codify this cycle in three steps:

1. Comfort zone: the depressed person isolates himself or herself from everything but those things
known to be inoffensive and non-contradictory to their (depressed) worldview. These comforting
things invariably have nothing to do with the world outside the self, and take the form of "small
comforts": food, drugs, sex and purchased objects as "rewards" for enduring a world already seen as
terrible on such a pervasive level that it cannot be changed.
2. Poison the Well: feeling as if there are solutions threatens the depressed person because it implies
that they can do better. If one has an option, and doesn't take it, one is a dumbass; if there is no
option, one has done all one can and could not under any circumstance have done better. This is why
worldwide you see groups and people finding conspiracy theories to blame. "I would have been a
superstar, but whitey's racism kept me down" is the exact same mentality as "I would have changed
society, but ZOG oppressed me" and "I would have saved the forests, but the vast right-wing
corporate conspiracy made it impossible." The idea that nothing is impossible destabilizes a depressed
person, or a depressed society. When people embrace defeat, or say things like "Yeah that's not likely
to happen" or "That's not how society works," they're poisoning the well to avoid facing that they
could live better.
3. Moral pretense: when a group of people who are depressed or underconfident get together, they
make a treaty between each other to not exceed the bounds of dysfunction that they share in
common. They know subconsciously that if any one rises, the others will be revealed as deficient in
relative measurement, and therefore such rising must be avoided. This is why alcoholics give quitting
alcoholics alcohol, why small-towns welcome back anyone who fails outside, why gangs punish those
members who fill out college applications. Misery loves company, and it will enforce it; when it
reaches critical mass, it becomes a revenge impulse that tears down any who are not mediocre,
because only the mediocre does not offend the sensibilities of the depressed crowd.

If we accept the premise that our society is depressed because its individuals are depressed, we must then
ask ourselves if this can be reversed. The shockingly obvious truth is that depression is a brilliant liminal
state because it is so easily reversed; a sequence of even small victories turns it around. And is our society
depressed? Ideas like original sin, like the monetary equivalent in capitalism, like morality which seeks to
protect individuals more than it seeks to do what is right by all, a species so deranged that it will pollute its
only environment, and a society that rewards money (tangible) over character (intangible) -- these are all
symptoms of an evenly-distributed, pervasive, entrenched depression.

Those who become aware of this fact literally have a binary choice: move forward past the depression, or
stagnate in it. When we stagnate, we do not confront the depression head-on and thus assimilate it into
our personalities, making it invisible to us as we get increasingly bitter. It becomes a part of us, this
depression, and we are then unable to get a handle on it or even track its progress until a friend tells us
we're looking better or worse than the last day they observed us. Moving forward past depression, like
accepting mortality and natural selection, is the fundamental elective that confronts the modern adult. All
greater learning and profundity of thought requires getting past this barrier.

Interestingly, those who choose to move past the depression experience an almost super-human increase
in internal strength. They know that their cause is probably lost, but that if a butterfly's wings can cause a
storm off the east coast, the power of a human's ideas and efforts could have vast implications. We who
adopt this viewpoint are victors in our resistance because as long as we live, dissent and thrive, the crowd
cannot claim (in its depression) that its ideas were "the only way" and it's too bad it didn't work out, but
(shrug) what else could they have done? We ruin their ability to claim that they had no other choice. We
thwart the uniformity of their social vision by reminding people that there is another way, and thus we dare
to rise above like Icarus, and are hated by those who wish a hostile sun would melt our wings.

We are victory because our resistance is a refutation of the inevitability argument of those who, in the grips
of depression, want to export that depression to others. Why do failing societies invade nations like Iraq in
order to bring "the good news" of liberal democracy and capitalism to them, even though it wrecked the
host nation? Why is it that religious proselytizers announce "the good news" and then talk about death?
These are people who have become depressed, recessed into their own self-identity and egos, and
therefore are committed to destroying all others who aren't afflicted by that addiction. We are victory when
we refute this by existing, and by producing a vision of life that even as it accepts the worst life can offer is
NOT depressed but instead constructive and formidable in its hopeful vision of future, even if nurture and
murder are equally represented in its palette.

On this site, the Crowd and its machinations are often discussed. But properly, we can see these people as
caught in a cycle of depression that keeps them from seeing the simple reality of life. They have become
destructive because inside of themselves they see only destruction, and the way out of that destruction
requires going through the morally threatening world of assessing difficult solutions and possible futures
outside of what they know. They must cast aside the familiar in order to escape depression, but they fear
the unfamiliar (and failure) more than they are willing to escape depression. With this view, we can extend
compassion to them, although we know that we will not hesitate to kill them and oppress them as
necessary. They have a better future outside of depression, even if only a few survive!

Our depression originates in this schizoid reailty: we have a technological-consensual "truth" upon which we
all pretend to agree, and then an underlying actual truth which we can see in mathematics, physics and
philosophy. That truth however requires concentration, intelligence and devotion to finding out the real
answer, which is not something our society values, since it is based on an ethic of convenience in which
what individuals prefer is more important than its consequences in reality. Like our depression, this worsens
the more we try to fix it, because to act against this illusion requires we leave the "comfort zones" of what
we know and move into uncharted territory.

It requires we give up a comfortable but depressing existence and pick something with challenge to it,
which naturally seems "illogical" because in functional terms, of course, we all desire safety and wealth. To
cure our depression requires we look at intangibles, not material or personal ideas, and that requires we
venture into a symbolic "Land of the Dead" where the symbols of our dreams and nightmares and hidden
inner life are explored. This is the area we fear because, being depressed, it is the source of our instability
and threatens our fragile function. Is it possible that the simplest solution cures depression, which is to go
into our fears and address them, instead of containing them in mental symbolism that ultimately enslaves
us? Like a corrupt priest, it offers to take away our fears -- by making us addicted to its weekly pep talks
and small symbolic rewards.

We are victory by resisting this, but before an individual can claim to be resisting, he or she must do two
things: (1) fix depression and consequent bad thinking within his or her self, and (2) work with others on a
solution. It is not enough to have a blog, to be a coffee house activist, because these roles do not involve
leaving isolating within self behind; on the contrary, they increase this state of mind and thus maximize
depression. The individual must heal the self and then work toward establishing this healing as part of the
design of a system, which is the opposite of exporting it to individuals because it lays a groundwork instead
of forcing conversions. Only the combination of these things offers the experience of dissecting depression
and conquering it, as an individual, and reconstructing society to avoid societal depression; since both
individual and societal depressions afflict the person in this society, only tackling both of them is the
escape.

Our time may still be doomed. Humanity has not yet accepted that it is still in mortal struggle for survival,
no matter how powerful its technological world seems to be. We have skated to the edge of doom with
global warming, pollution, overpopulation, and cultureless mass media and culture-destroying speculative
commerce without looking back, a suicidal series of acts which suggests an underlying depression so vast it
is invisible. Even in the face of doom however we may raise victory by not giving in and becoming yet
another person capable of critique and not action, lost in the wilderness of their own boredom and
insecurity, and by moving ahead we not only save ourselves but greatly increase our chances of change.
Depression means no action means certain defeat.

If you are smart enough to recognize what's wrong with this world, you are smart enough to help fix it.
Almost everyone around you will try to discourage you and to convince you to join their loser group of
people who await collective suicide because any other course of action is unfamiliar and scary. Others will
tell you that your course of action will "oppress" those who are depressed by denying them depression,
and/or life and limb. These are voices worth ignoring. Your smaller fight is to fix the world around you;
your bigger fight is to overcome depression and negativity within. When you do this, the world will never
look the same again, and you will see the inherent wisdom of working where others predestine themselves
to failure.

May 25, 2007

To Reign in Hell
As is known to those who take the time to think on such esoteric topics, it is impossible to know the good
without the bad. There is a middle state, without judgment, where nothing much matters, but too much
lingering here and one discovers a kind of personal entropy: since all decisions are equally of this middle
state, there's no point making any decision. Linger in the stream and let it pass. Of course, in that state,
there is also none of the reward of accomplishment.

Making choices after all defines us. From the simplest satisfactions when we choose to clean our homes or
organize our lives in a better fashion, to the greatest choices, when we stand our ground for a principle or
ideal, choice makes us feel alive because in it we are exercising the capacity of life. This capacity is at its
simplest level motion, and at its most complex motion through the world of ideas. We feel alive when we
encounter a choice and make a good one. We feel dead when we shirk from these choices, even if we're
"comfortable" with our warm homes, cars, video games, pornography and serving-size packaged
prefabricated foods.

Excepting such a middle state, we live for making choices toward what is good and avoiding what is bad. As
with all judgments and categories, these exist in a spectrum from simple goods like a clean house being
superior to a filth-hole, to complex ends where we prefer a society that is not failing to one that allows us
excess of comfort. Our choices are informed by our knowledge of what is good, or what ends in an order
that is beneficial to us, and what is bad, or what results in less organization and less beneficial aspects.
Disorder is another form of entropy, one that is fatal to individuals and societies alike.

Our knowledge of good and bad is entirely dependent on experience, although we come pre-programmed
with some knowledge. Snakes are for the most part bad, in our genetic heritage, and depending on where
our families originated, there may be other primal fears and primal desires. Germans seem to like order and
cleanliness over all else, where to an Italian, a warm house full of good food takes precedence. What we all
share that is not learned is a knowledge that some things will end well, and others will not. If we are
attuned to ourselves, we become uneasy deep in our gut when we are part of a course of action that we
suspect will not end well.

We wonder if indeed our universe learned by the same method, since our thoughts and their maturation so
resemble the processes we see in nature whether planets forming from circling gasses or species adapting
general principles to specific environments. Our furthest conjecture might envision a nothingness so
absolute it is not even an empty space, only an absence in totality, which at some point through a routine
error was able to recognize two parts of itself as distinct, and thus created "space" so both could exist. Is
the universe made of thoughts? It certainly seems as if it acts that way.

In John Milton's "Paradise Lost," the most beautiful of angels so made Error and rebelled against an all-
seeing God, and was thus cast into a Hell, dividing existence between Heaven and Hell and their mediate
zone, this mortal space of time and body we know as "life on earth." Satan, cast among the wreckage with
his fellow rebels, reflects on his fate with the stolidity of a Greek tragedic deity: It is better to reign in hell,
he surmises, than to serve in heaven. From error comes new life, and from Satan's fall comes what we
know on earth as the significance of choice between good and bad. With only heaven, there was no need
for such choice, and through error, the universe expanded.

When we return from our spacy conjecture to the reality of our present time, we can see a parallel
construction: without certain knowledges, we are unaware of how what transpires will end. A child will not
be concerned when people around him or her are taking methamphetamine, because that becomes in that
child's experience "normal"; in the same way, a child can be inculcated to live around any population or
behavior, but this does not mean such behaviors will end well or poorly. In the same way, we who grow up
in a certain society know it as "normal" and must actively assess its tenets and actions as to how they will
end.

But our experience limits us, and in this we see the wisdom of hell. Most grow up in the normalcy and do
not second-guess it, but accept its failings as a matter of course and do their best to dodge them. Fewer
than one percent of all people question the actual direction of society or its future impact. Among those,
only a few have either sought or seen hell and remained mentally intact enough to process it.

Of course, hell takes many forms. Some find hell on the battlefield, others in a broken home, and still
others in crime or economic desolation. Others find it more subtly in the interactions of people. Win an
award, get a promotion, make a work of art, or get famous, and suddenly you find that your friends are
retaliating against you. Or sniping, expecting you to pick up the check and not care about the damage they
do to your house. In the quiet moments after such events, when the puzzled mind attempts to diagnose
the situation... and one realizes that other people can be motivated by revenge, small-minded envy, and
even a simple parasitic desire to steal.

Having seen hells created by humans, or even the hell that a solitary human can bring to us, we become
more critical of any potential action. Our sphere of good expectations has been violated, but much as Satan
in discovering hell found a certain liberation, we find that we are disassociated as a result from an illusion.
We no longer believe that all is well no matter what we do. Through the impact of horror, and by seeing
the empty and false motivations of others, we realize not only that we are in the driver's seat of our own
lives, but that there is no guarantee things will work out alright on their own -- more likely, they'll turn out
terribly, since many of the people in command have the same revengeful outlook as the others in whom we
discover anew hell.

In the same way an inexperienced Satan could not know the power of his own choice, because he never
had the chance to screw up and get thrown into hell, modern people are inexperienced and know not hell.
They are virgins of true depression, true fear, and true horror because they have surrogate experiences of
pleasure and pain within a system that doesn't vary -- although it postpones all of its biggest disasters
much like it puts its trash in landfills, criminals in prisons, toxic waste in oceans, incompetents in
government. They get excited by a change in job, and get depressed by a broken car. But do they face real
horror or victory, the chance for change not in an event within their lives but the form of those lives
themselves?

Until one knows hell, one cannot look into the structure of things. Behind the visible, behind the immediate,
there is the way elements of a situation interact to perpetuate it. To see hell is to realize how those things
bring about negativity. To see hell is to wish to know the only way to avoid it is to tackle these difficult and
complex but rewarding invisible structures. Any idiot can bash an attacking wolf on the head, but how
many can realize the misdirection of an upstream tributary disrupted a hunting ground and brought on the
wolf? Or spotting an error that does not attack like the wolf, but leaves out necessary things, laying the
groundwork for future failure. To see hell is to realize, like Satan did, that the visible is only part of what
must be considered.

To realize hell is to see that the invisible world must be tackled. We cannot exist in the solely visible world,
where tangible concepts are presented to us and we vote upon them or buy them but never change the
structure of society. The visible world is what humans create for one another, with words and symbols and
flags. The invisible world, more than what they say they mean, is the future results of their actions as
designed. The invisble world is what will determine the difference between heaven and hell long before the
impact of decisions past makes those states come about.

Critical thinking, or the ability to analyze complex structure where there is no single supporting idea
(linearity) but a balance of all points balancing all others (architectonic), is the rarest of abilities in our
world. It requires thinkers who dedicate time and energy to understanding, but it also requires a vision of
enough hell to desire heaven. It is not surprising that our best thinkers, writers, leaders and artists warn us
that our society is a path to hell, and most repeat those words and change nothing of their behavior or
political outlook. They haven't seen hell, because hell is invisible until its consequences are felt. For those
who can predict those consequences, hell arrives early.

The ancients considered critical thinking to be intelligence. They knew that with enough practice and
indoctrination, marginally intelligent people could be made "intelligent" in a narrow field with few tactics
that need applying. You can teach almost anyone to be a computer programmer, because most of the
"thinking" is responding to variants on already-known scenarios and memory work to find the right
matching piece in response. It's like fitting shaped blocks into holes. Our smart people today are singular
function linear thinkers, of a partial intelligence that allows them to excel in one area without an ounce of
critical thinking, and for this reason they do not recognize hell. They must be shown hell, and this is why
our authors and thinkers try increasingly to represent it.

Yet for those who can make the trip from a heaven of ignorant blithe oblivion (modern living) to a
realization of not just personal tragedy but the poor design of a civilization leading to inevitable future hell,
the experience is life-changing. Small cares fall away. The yawning gap between perception and reality that
will swallow us becomes apparent in all that we see. When this wears off, we become accustomed to
enduring situations that are so poorly designed it is clear they will end badly, but most people blithely
march onward into them. They are ignorant of hell, visible or invisible.

In contrast to our product-oriented media, which tries to make different hells (war, ghetto, sodomy, drugs,
AIDS) seem appealing because of their lack of rules, those who have experienced hell have a different look
in their eyes. They want to get away from it, because they realize that while the experience of hell is
revolutionary, living in hell is not -- it is tedious, both in daily endurance and in knowledge of its certain
failure. People who have seen hell tend to find wisdom in traditional family roles, in intangible pleasures like
creativity and learning, and in removing themselves from the city to contemplate insignificance under a
boundless night sky. They have seen hell, and realize that our modern heaven on earth leads to it, and
they must escape.

But of course for most it is too late. They don't have the time, and they don't have the brainpower at hand,
or the learning, to see hell, much less the invisible hell. This is why in our society, 90% of the people are
oblivious and 8% are busy profiting from hell while only 2% are actually worried. Hell is easy to avoid, now,
because they are worried about visible hells like war and anarchy. Our society of course as an all-inclusive
place is bias against genius, because not only do they not need including, but they resist efforts toward
norming. It detests those who rise above the crowd as they are both socially and bureaucratically awkward
to explain to others. This is why few voices speak out about what hell awaits us, but these tend to be the
smartest and most experienced voices.

When one has experienced hell, the world expands most prominently into two options: the choice to
continue on a path to hell, or the choice to head elsewhere. For those who have not seen hell, the idea of
hell -- "freedom" to a teenage self-indulgent Satan in Heaven -- seems appealing. But to those who have
seen it, hell is not only not appealing but not rare. It is mundane. The freedom of hell and the oblivion of
heaven lead to the same place, which is failure, and the determination of the experienced is to avoid both.
Much as the universe recognized its own emptiness, and Satan saw his own failing as liberation, we can
find liberation in looking unblinkingly into hell, and then steeling our resolve to choose another path.

October 11, 2007

Imprisonment
Staring Down an Icon
I noticed something today among the holiday decorations being thrown out. It was a floral arrangement
with evergreen and these weird red apples, quite small, on stiff wire. On closer inspection, they turned out
to be plastic, and having melted a bit in the heat next to the stove, were in fact losing their outer plastic
skin. The red plastic skin had bunched, leaving ugly veins across the surface as if the apples were
decaying.

I peeled. Underneath the skin was styrofoam, and a green plastic "leaf" concealing the stiff wire used to
stab them into the foam center of the piece. I thought for a moment: this decoration, bought for $0.75 and
used for three or four days of holiday "cheer," is now waste that will never compost into fertile soil like a
real apple. A real apple will rot, stink, and vanish within weeks, leaving behind either happy plants and
animals or those and a new apple tree-in-training.

It will decompose into toxic byproducts and stick around for a few dozen of my lifetimes, then become
some kind of oily sludge staining the ground where it lay. That is assuming it doesn't sit in near perfect
stasis in a landfill for a few thousand years, which is most likely. When I throw this thing out, since no one
knows how to recycle it, it gets crushed into junk by a passing garbage truck and thrown into the big
landfill north of town, where they're burying trash seventy feet deep and covering it with clay. Should keep
it better than a museum for whatever visiting aliens conduct a postmortem on humanity.

Looking at this thing, this fake apple that designed to be appealing ending up grotesque, brought on that
vague form of depression that comes with tolerating broken-ness around oneself. Dysfunction in the self is
depressing, but at least the solution is straightforward; if you're fat, stop eating so much and go for a walk.
If you're lonely, do something, even casual crime, that helps you meet people. If you're dying, think
positive so your last days aren't all bad. But when confronting a piece of trash whose existence is owed to
the decisions of those around you? It will depress.

Why do we, as humans, make these things (disposable ornamental plastic reproductions of natural objects),
when they have one sorta-good consequence and many bad ones? I suppose it's not fair to say they should
be banned, because I will ruin someone's livelihood and possibly shatter their dreams, but when the
consequences are this bad and unnecessary , maybe it is better to shatter dreams than to tolerate
destructive ideas. After all, we take them into our hearts, and we become depressed by the knowledge that
we're passing along this destructive buck and powerless to remove it.

As I contemplate the object, I see all the reasons for its use: it is cheap, it doesn't rot, it is brightly-colored,
and any idiot can recognize what it is because it's an idealized design, not one marred by worms or
misshapen or not the ruby red that screams "this is an apple!" to even the totally braindead. And then I
wonder about the one good reason for not having it, which is that it depresses us to know we are so
destructive, and leave the world in worse condition than we encountered it. Banning plastic waste would
remove some jobs, would shatter some dreams, and might cause inconvenience, but wouldn't it be better
to have healthier... souls?

We All Want to Live in Texas

One fundamental truth that I encounter as I get older is that we humans are like turtles. We like having our
comfortable shells, but we're always craning our necks to get out of them, to see what's on the other side.
We suffer for being too clever. We find out what hurts or kills, and we in our big-brained wisdom can keep
it away, but then we wonder if we're missing anything, like Rapunzel in a tower made of red plastic-
styrofoam apples melting together into impenetrable goo. She can't even let down her hair, because she's
not insured against falls.

Our society keeps us apart from nature. I can, if I so choose, live my life so I never have to see a snake or
encounter a mosquito. I'll get that downtown apartment, keep the air conditioning running, and when I go
on vacation, go to another city. I can structure my life so that I never see more than four trees at once,
and my deepest experience of nature is that downtown park that's more landscaping to avoid leaving dark
recesses where rapes can happen than it is "nature," whatever that is.

But from inside that turtle-shell, unless I'm totally brain-dead (maybe the TV breaks for a week, and my
brain freed of propaganda seeks answers), I'm going to wonder about my world. It's natural for any
thinking being to wonder, because those thinkers that do not wonder are basically limited to repetition of
past impetus. They cannot create a need for a new direction by dreaming and wondering. It is probably the
intellectual equivalent of being a kitchen blender or washing machine.

When you go to places far away, and talk to people as best you can, usually because they speak your
language because it is associated with commerce (and you blame the Jews for money-culture, when all
money speaks English these days), you will see through what lens the world views your homeland.
Generally, responses to Americans are hesitant; people are somehow aware that the wrong comment might
bring bombers and an army of yahoos hellbent on killing for democracy to their doors. They loosen up a bit
when you say "Texas," and then you see it -- just for a moment, a fragment of a glimpse -- that far-off
look in their eyes, like remembering a dream.

They're dreaming of Westerns, and old-time tales. They're dreaming of homesteads in lands unexplored,
lands without law, and loves so eternal that two people might face the wilderness together. They're
dreaming of how Texas used to be, and an image it retains, not through reality but through the power of
our wishes. We want Texas, and Australia and other romanticized places, to be this way forever. We want
that frontier, that lack of law and safety regulations on every single thing you pick up, that sense of
indefinition. We want the adventure. Outside the shell, it might be there -- but we're too scientific, too
practical and too used to Microsoft Excel spreadsheets to take that tradeoff, so it remains a far-off dreamy
look, and then is replaced by that normal "snapped back to attention" gaze we use in conversation and
staff meetings.

We all want to live in Texas -- that old Texas. At least, some part of us does. It's so romantic, human
against wilderness, or maybe in concert with it by struggling against it, since everything struggles a little bit
in nature against nature to survive. Even the lowly fungus would cease to exist if it didn't thrust back
against the forces that from gravity to the trampling feet of mice (herds, when you're .5mm tall) tried to
beat it back. And so it is with our vision of Texas: that homestead on the prairie where a wild-haired
woman takes the hand of her powder-burned man at the end of the day, and they look out over their
meagre homestead, full of dreams of its growth and their own. They know this lawless land will possess
them, even kill them, but there's this sense of a power in doing what they do, in thrusting themselves
forward against the resistance and making something of it, even not minding its imperfect -- like a sense of
meaning in the lexicon where a struggle returns a feeling of accomplishment.

That's the Texas we want, and that we keep in our hearts, even those of us who live here. It's what is
missing from modern society, where we have idealized symbolic apples instead of the real partially-rotted
malformed and often blurrily colored thing. It's not nature we want, it's not danger, it's not even the space
and "freedom" of that open range. It's the challenge. It's the fear, and the beating it back day after day.
It's the conquering of doubt, the whole world against us as we and the beloved head off to the homestead.
It's the shaking of our fist in those sagely nodded heads and murmured voices under conservative beards
that say, "You won't make it that far from civilization -- one season, at the outside."

We don't want to fight cougars, but we would. We're not doing it to shoot back at raiding war parties.
We're not enamored of outhouses, or sweating through a fever without penicillin. No doubt it's easier the
way we do things now. And more comfortable. Less risk. But what's missing, in our lives and in all of
modern society, is that we only see the end-product, the tangible and material and human(ist), but we've
left out the experience of life. That experience includes taking something on and making it work, or dying
in the process, knowing we're not cowards in our turtle-shells. That's what Texas is, as a symbol of our
hearts quite different from an idealized plastic apple, and Texas is the antidote to every one of the fears
we're too practical to voice.
October 11, 2007
Bullfight
Someone writes down an idea in the words we all use. This is how things are communicated, since there
are too many people to shout or gesture with rapid hand motions. Ideas take the form of equivalencies,
where one thing is said to resemble another, including the nearly mystical form of metaphor. Equivalencies
can be stacked in containership arrangements, where several ideas are associated with an equivalency. It is
not unlike our databases, where many "x=y" formulations are arranged to portray any number of data
types.

The rest of us must act on this idea; after all, it is now in the public eye, our reality over reality in which
ideas take precedence over tangible objects and sensations. If it is said a large storm is coming, we need
to know to protect our families, after all. But the idea as written takes precedence because it is a
prediction, and because we know the others will respond. Even if a storm is not coming, we should stay
extra hours in the shop and sell supplies, or go home early because everyone else is. There is something
lemminglike to civilization itself in this regard.

Unlike our observations of the tangible, the idea as written can take many forms, including those that are
extra-factual or include judgments and opinions, that vague area of idea classification which includes wants,
preferences, and moral ideas. None of these extra-factual thought items are intended to correspond as
exactly to reality as a pure statement of fact, such as "A storm was sighted off the cost moving inland at
five miles an hour." For example, noting that the storm is probably the revenge of the gods, or that we
should be ready to care for those who cannot afford to escape the storm.

When we read ideas as written, we would be more cautious, except that our daily reliance on them makes
them larger than life -- more important than what we immediately know to be true, such as winds whipping
our face as a funnel cloud darkens over the city. Even more, we are subjected to so many of these ideas
from so many voices that we shrug off the burden as long as the day of filtering them into clarity and
obscurity, mostly-true or partially-true. We will never find the full truth in ideas as written, because the only
truth is what happens tangibly, but we live by the ones we find mostly-true, although this often happens
after the event.

Yesterday we -- and by that I say the end results of the long process of our sainted Democracy, the United
States and its allies among the liberal democracies of Europe -- we executed a man who is listed in our
media as a tyrant, a despot, a dictator, an ethnic cleanser, a brute and a monster. We are told this is
necessary, but that thought-idea is not so much factual, because the world would clearly have gone on had
he lived, but judgmental. It was determined he was a threat, like the never-ending sequence of enemies
our liberal democracy seems to generate.

Like a red flag before us, the accusations were raised. He genocided a small ethnic group unlike all of his
neighbors, we're told, but the fields of bodies reported early in the media ended up being ambiguous
evidence. He ruled by brutal force, we are told, in a region where such things are required -- and where we
now rule by brutal force, including the use of high explosive in population centers. He was a small Hitler, a
petty Stalin, a Machiavelli without conscience, and he either pursued nuclear weapons we cannot find, or
used gas we have no evidence was used. The red flag waves; the equivalency determines his name equals
bad; and we charge forward, and kill.

It is unclear what leaders do not rule by force and brutality. The American republic was born from a brutal
revolution which involved the deaths of many participants and the starvation of civilians. Every firm foreign
policy stance we've taken since has been backed up through force. Even more, it's questionable that
politics can exist without brutality, since every single person never agrees on the same issue nor can be
swayed by propaganda, necessitating force. Much like the mechanics of the universe itself, the mechanics of
humanity abhor a vacuum and love decisive action, in which we are little more than material swayed and
often blasted into oblivion by its mechanism.

When we wave the red flag over Saddam Hussein, or Adolf Hitler, or Joe Stalin or Kaiser "Bill" von
Hindenburg, we classify them as evil with our red flag as represented in the word equivalencies in our press
with which our leaders seem to agree. Government and our media and our citizens somehow reach the
same general conclusion which then bottlenecks and streamlines into a concrete decision. This red flag
signals us to charge forward under the reasoning that by eliminating evil, we institute instead what is good,
which resembles our liberal democracy where -- unlike in the evil empire -- we have freedom and prosperity
and justice.

In the aftermath, we discover tangible things that make us regret how solid-sounding that red flag was in
the first place. There is a lack of WMDs, or the recognition that Hitler's elimination of the Soviets would
have made Europe and the USA more stable, or even recognition that many of these evil leaders stabilized
unstable situations, much how Saddam Hussein defended the third world against the first by unifying Iraq
and insisting on a fair price for his country's oil, making all of his citizens better off even if ruled with a
strong hand by an educated minority. Uncertainty grows and we question too deeply our own stability and
lack of evil, but as that thought lapses into memory, the red flag waves again.

Michael Crichton wrote in his best-selling "State of Fear" that the media and government conspire to
generate a never-ending series of apparent threats. He reasons that they do this for two reasons: first, the
media must generate some compelling news-entertainment content, not unlike a new sequel to a popular
theme, and second, that government benefits best from the events that mobilize nations along a singular
path of action: either threats of enemies, from the right, or the ability to big-heartedly give to the
unfortunate and thus feel fortunate, on the left. The carrot and the stick, fear and warm fuzzy feelings of
goodwill and self-importance, constitute the most effective way of controlling any population.

When our great-grandfathers went off to fight the first World War, they were assured it was a "war to end
all wars" and that once the dastardly Hun, portrayed as impaling babies on bayonets and burning whole
towns alive, was conquered all would return to normal. Instead they embarked on the most costly war in
European history, destroyed cities and savaged the life of the best of their generation, while vast profit was
made by those who sold material and services to the war machine on both continents. Two decades later
almost exactly, the process repeated again over the unfinished business of the first, and it was once again
the "free nations" against the "oppressor."

Ever since then, a sage observer might note, our wars fit the same pattern: a demon emerges and is
assumed to be doing what he does from purely evil reasons, as if he just "likes" genocide and mass murder
and mayhem, with no interpretation of the reasons why this person might act as they do -- it's enough for
us to know he limits freedom, and since we're the freedom people, we don't like that. It's an easy sell to
claim that freedom perpetuates itself, and there is never a need for strong leaders, and therefore that any
leader who is strong must be destroyed. And so we troop off to fight in Cuba, in Viet Nam, in Korea, in
Panama, and in Iraq. When we cannot directly fight, we send in the CIA or cruise missiles.

In each case, as with Saddam Hussein, we see on close examination that we are fighting symbolic enemies.
While there was reason for the United States to retaliate against someone after the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001 in order to show a lack of weakness, we picked someone with ultimately no connection
to those acts. We bullied a nation we could fight instead of the enemy we could not. Before the first bombs
fell, our media and government were screaming forth categories of negativity in which to confine Hussein,
to dehumanize him and to remove any consideration of the reasons why he might act as he did. Hussein
was the red flag, not an actual storm. The storm is elsewhere.

To use that convenient equivalency known as metaphor, we can compare this to a bullfight. We the citizens
act based on the information we receive and try to do what we consider right. This means slashing back at
evils, and promoting goods. It means charging at the visible portion of those evils, which we see as a red
flag. And once the flag has whipped through its arc, and we have charged upon the symbol of evil and
driven it down, we get stuck in the back with lances that drain our vitality. Our casualties, our ruined
economies, our shattered faith in nations and each other and a pervasive depression stay with us. With our
lifeblood draining, we look up wearily, and the flag is there again, and we charge to repeat the process.

This cycle will not cease until we end it by stepping outside of the bullfight and confronting not that
matador, the elected symbol of our path, but those who have set up the stadium and take the ticket profit.
We cannot end this cycle by using the means granted to us, by charging at red flags or goring the matador.
We, the people, must choose an end to the bullfight as an institution. This starts by not charging at red
flags, which begins in us understanding that what others designate as a symbol may not represent the
reality of the situation.

Ancient philosophers warned us about democracy, saying that while it provided a comfortable living, it
separated reality from "public appearance," or a world of symbols which are easily manipulated by others
for purposes of control. While we depend on these symbols for warnings of storms, we must educate
ourselves to realize that the symbol is not the storm, and if red flags keep appearing in front of us, we are
being used as beasts of burden for the slaughter -- and someone else is profitting. That profit does not
reflect our interests, or our continued well-being. It is our doom, much as a tired bull festooned in lances is
eventually drawn to a last charge so the sword may show its mercy.

In the final count, our symbols which once warned us of storms of evils have become our greatest
confusion. They hide the biggest storm of all, because it is not a tangible object but a wave of unsettled
fear and insecurity within us. This storm that brews is our collapse from inability to govern ourselves. It is
easier to charge at symbols, and trivial to manipulate symbols for profit, but this means that our leadership
has been replaced by a cycle of flags and no one is watching the storm. While we are distracted with a
reality of our own creation, reality is surging from outside -- and within -- to overwhelm us.

October 11, 2007

Pariah
It occurs to me that you cannot put a dollar value on truth. People pay for "information," which is true
knowledge, but not for a sense of truth itself, that is to say, an assessment on a situation that cannot be
solved by raw information itself. What about a column of numbers can solve the questions of life, or invent
where there was nothing before? Truth is not information, which means it must compete with news-
entertainment. News-entertainment has no obligation to truth, as its goal is to interest people not educate
them, thus truth is entirely cut out of our modern equation.

This is probably for the best. No one wants to be caught "selling" truth. Psst, buddy, wanna buy the secrets
of life? Interestingly, this would probably be an optimum way to hide the best truths we have, as only
those to whom no one would listen would buy truth from a streetvendor in a trenchcoat. Truth is effectively
reduced to this level anyway, since spending time caring about truth instead of what sells puts you at a
disadvantage. The only space our society has for truth-seeking is as a hobby. Yes, in your spare time, hunt
down that truth. In the meantime, people want televisions with genital-activated remotes! This Is
Important.

We don't know what nature is. To some it means green ridges of trees outside the subdivision. To others
it's wide open spaces somewhere they still have such things, like in Africa or Appalachia or on the moon
maybe. Still others use it scientifically to refer to "nature" as all those wild and wonderful chemical
reactions that somehow result in things as varied as bacon for breakfast and the emotion we call "love"
(note: love can also not be sold, only the symbols of it, in which a brisk trade has been flourishing since the
dawn of humanity). Nature if you really think about it means the universe all together, as this big
mysterious process that has somehow brought us into existence from the void.

Nature, as this big process, is better understood by us as "rules" or tendencies than as a physical thing.
How do you fist fight the universe? It's not going to come if you challenge it. It's already there. Nature in
this sense stops for no one, because all things are governed by its rules, much like we cannot help that we
act sometimes like our parents, even if we drink until we slur our words. Fight nature is like challenging
language to a debate. Nature stops for no one and will just as happily roll over us like a Sherman tank as it
will bless us with long and happy lives.

What decides who lives, and who dies? Gruff scientific types bark out something about "Darwinism" and the
Christians, holding their severed genitals in latex-gloved hands, sing in angelic voices that God decides
everything and we can just go along with it, hum a favorite tune, think of England and enjoy it as best we
can. What decides who lives or dies is how well that someone is adapted to nature, or the universe, or
reality, or truth, if you want to get picky about language. Whatever it is - it is what is - and those who
figure it out live and those who don't die or have other bad consequences. Another way to put it is that if
you smear bear pheremones on your ass and bend over in front of a grizzly, don't be surprised if you get
sodomized.

Each of us has a world in his head. This world is like our outside world, but it is our memory and
perception of it, and like a photograph of a summer day it captures a certain angle of gist of reality but not
reality itself. That world is the conduit through which we experience reality, because the instant that passes
must be stored as knowledge, and all our knowledge comes from our senses as filtered through our
judgment. So life becomes a process of having a more accurate world in one's head (truth) or finding a
world one prefers, whether drugs or television or religion or incoherent, neuter-positivist thinking
(everything will work alright if I just get a Gold Card). Our internal worlds all have different degrees of truth
to them.

When an internal world moves far away from rationality, the mind does not have a problem with it. Only
later when the physical body has to deal with the negative consequences of an irrational approach to life
does the mind get reminded that it was off-base. If someone neglects to prepare for winter, they cannot
will their way past a lack of firewood or food. They die. Similarly depart people who try to find buried
landmines with sledgehammers, feed bears raw steak, or smoke while filling up their tanker trucks. When
people lament the inundation with functional morons that is a hallmark of modern society, it is too easy to
point out that getting a job, credit card and apartment is much easier than surviving a night in the forest,
and quality of humanity has declined inversely to the rise of technology.

To be a pariah, in this time, is to assert the kind of truth that can kill people who do not understand it. If
you see a room full of people confronted with a new baffling object, many will pretend to understand it,
others will pretend to be disinterested, and still others will actually investigate it. The last group is the
smallest. These are the ones who act deliberately. Deliberate people are not surprisingly unthreatened by
the idea of reality existing and themselves having the possibility of assessing it incorrectly and thus being
penalized. Those who are not deliberate, and are not sure their vision of reality is accurate, are threatened
and simultaneously invent fantasy worlds in which to mentally reside and become underconfident.

It is this conflict of worlds-within-worlds, or mental visions of the world at large, that humanity finds itself
stranded, because with the enhanced capabilities of intelligent life comes great demands for accuracy in
perceiving the world at large. It is a race for the intellectual ability to see life as it is, and while the winners
do not get rewarded at the instant they complete it, they gain an endurance which far outstrips the ability
of those who are in denial (fantasy worlds) or shirking the task (underconfidence, laziness, dishonesty). The
winners become pariahs in the illusion-worlds of others because to have a winner present who can remind
them of reality is offensive, and they see truth itself as intolerant, elitist, even hateful.

So for now society is upside down, because the winners are pariahs and the losers are kings. The people
who live a lie find it easier to adapt to this upside down world because they don't expect truth or logic in
the first place, and are generally so negative and underconfident they gladly settle for a few basic things
crowned with gaudy distractions. These pariahs are the ultimate realists, and they laugh at the losers. You
think you've stolen my power? they say. You think your fantasy world somehow changes the fact that the
world is out there, and for all the theory we can concoct about relativity or ideals, it is acting as it normally
does? Reality is on my side.

I am the laughing amoralist, our pariah says. I am the one who not only understands reality but likes the
way it operates, having looked far enough into the levels of its complexity to see why it does what it does,
and to realize that in the long term that type of order is better than our human wishes. Morons would make
the world out of dessert foods and gold, and then lapse into an entropy of ambition because their
imagination ends with riches and sugar. Pariah-realists are glad for the coldness of winter, the difficult of
valued tasks, the rarity of good things. I am the laughing amoralist, our pariah says. You think you've got
me cornered in your illusion-world, but really, all you're doing is digging your own grave.

The summation of this situation is a cascade of summations which add up to a great weakness: a species is
born, becomes powerful, and drifts into illusion that lessening its power at the same time the forces it set
into motion with its wealth become dangerous. It has exported its strength to its external mechanisms,
where machines or learning written down or social constructions, and now what is inside has atrophied and
become flabby. The force of will and self-discipline and confidence that is needed to create in this life is
draining away, being replaced with a short-term-cycle of desires counterpointing fears leading to a will only
toward escape, distraction and other activity that dissipates focused energy. It is a path to doom, for those
who take this illusion as reality.

When all the lights are extinquished, and when there are no frontiers toward which one can run, the
illusionists will have to face what the pariah has long kept inside, which is the nature of the beast which
affirms the need for conflict in life and for predation and struggle. We accept reality and its adversity, us
pariahs, because we know that the machines and mass media and popularity contests of society made it
easier to pick illusion over reality. Our endurance builds and we grow stronger, while the illusionists become
more dependent on the illusion. The illusionists see only their machines and social order, and beyond it,
there is the monster and the beast within. Pariahs have the beast within and so do not fear the forest,
whether outside or in our souls.

For those who uphold the illusion, time is running out as the impact of humanity's changes on the planet
and on itself are being seen. The illusion is flickering as if its projector was short of oil or dropping a
bearing; the illusionists themselves are losing strength, and have no way to regain it, since the illusion was
always untrue and waited only time to reveal its transparency. And the pariahs, long kicked around and
denied because they saw a world outside that world on which others agreed, aka the social illusion, are
gaining power as consciousness of reality comes back.

The pariah, the laughing amoralist, turns to the illusionist and says, Well, you've had your run, and it's not
coming back for awhile, because it's now apparent that you've blown it. Just like George W. Bush had
presidential power unchecked until he made a disaster out of that power, the illusionists have had their
day, and through their own actions and not those of another have proved themselves incompetent and
destructive. Reality has always been there and it gains strength, showing us that the laughing amoralist
pariah was right the whole time. Seeing that, the pariah says offhandedly, "And you want to be nice to us,
for we are the ones who will make your graves, now that winter has come."

October 11, 2007

Pathological
During some events in your life, you will encounter pathological behavior. Like most tendencies in human
experience, the concept comes before the action. Pathological behavior can be defined as any action of a
method whose goal is not achieved by that method, no matter how many times it is repeated. Pathological
behavior occurs when the concept behind an action is erroneous, and the individual deciding how to act
does not recognize this fact.

We see pathological behavior in many ways every day. The people who buy lottery tickets and never win,
or the lonely souls who carry someone home from the bar to wake up lonely, or even the endless get rich
schemes of the masses who chase wealth and, failing, enrich the scammers and frauds of our modern
world. All of these pathological behaviors have two components: a flawed conception of the world that
unites an unrealistic worldview with an expection of certain result in reality.

The problem with pathological behavior in a social system is that a form of inductive capacitance can be
measured in human beings. When two wires are run parallel, current sent through one can be measured in
the other. By a similar principle, if two human beings exist in social parallel, they absorb the nervous energy
- a sort of essential simplification of idea - in the form of half-understood concepts and desires. As if by
osmosis, people grasp the essence of an idea and it becomes the ideative portion of their pathology. "God
will save us" and "The state will find a solution" are scarcely removed as concepts in this pathos.

It's not easy to recognize this. Our civilization has become complex and interdependent enough, and the
normal person is so overwhelmed with needs and desires, that it is impossible to point to proof of its failure
-- but more importantly, it's equally impossible to point to proof of its success. Many people note the
increasing problems (crime, corruption, pollution) and correlate it to a lack of great achievements (art,
music, philosophy) but two things hold them back: first, the system seems to be working, and it puts food
on the table, so don't rock the boat. Second: we are still so awed by our technology that we put unlimited
faith in it, as well as our technology of mind, which has us supposing that educators and psychologists will
find a way to make us all productive citizens somehow.

Yet there's nothing obvious we can point to (like a clock counting down the sky) and claim it is proof for all
to see that our society is failing. All will never see, even if a giant rubber monster attacks North America,
because they will revert to non-logical behaviors; this is the brain's way of avoiding kernel panic and
shutting down in disbelief (interestingly, many who faint at disasters first become irrational). They turn to
religion, or focus on irrelevancies, and this enables them as peaceful a demise as can be engineered. But
the demise we face is not a fast one, but a slow decline into irrelevance, and it is both far off and close by
in that we are now in the last few decades in which we can reverse it.

Societies that collapse slowly do not explode. They stagger, through a series of failures and incompetent
compensations, into a third-world state where a mass of lumpenproles -- dumb, grey/tan, and devoid of all
higher culture or philosophy -- are ruled by a pompous elite who got the position through a single
qualification: immense wealth. Eventually this decadent elite consumes itself through infighting and
inbreeding, and what is left is a burned-out shell of a society staffed by dumber, fatter, sicker, more
generic versions of its previous occupants.

There is a point where this course cannot be reversed, because culture has been destroyed and the elites
are too powerful and the masses too dumb to oppose them -- usually distracted by "panem et circenses" or
technological equivalent (fast food, TV). At that point, there is so little consensus among the people that
they can literally be bought off for a single issue: gay rights, legal marijuana, recycling, more churches. We
are not yet at that point but it approaches rapidly, and if "the people" were able to unite behind a single
impetus toward change it would be easily reversible. However, they seem more concerned with "personal"
issues, meaning political change that benefits them and to hell with the rest, than they are with holistic
fixes to an otherwise suicidal system.

This condition arises because just as most people are specialized to a certain level of thinking, few are
capable of using what F. Scott Fitzgerald reference to as "cynical" thinking but which might be better called
by the name used in American colleges before it became taboo: "critical thinking." Critical thinking means
the ability to compare a stated goal to the method used to reach it, and to separate the actions which will
be successful from those that are pathological. Critical thinking allows one to predict enough of the levels of
consequence of any one method to project its effects in the future, no matter how popular it is, and critical
thinking is a rarity in society today.

Sage observers refer to modern society as pathological because despite knowing that much of what we do
is wrong, we persist in repeated patterns, if for no other reason because because we're overwhelmed. Still,
it is not logical behavior, and should be seen as on par with children who refuse to eat their vegetables
because they prefer ice cream. Not everything we do in life corresponds to our wishes. Much of it is a
matter of "work," or overcoming resistance to put things into a better organization so they function
beneficially.

If we are to trace the roots of this pathology we will find a simple root cause. After sorting through all of
the details and problems and intermediate causes, we come to an original error: what philosophers call
"consequentialism," or the idea that what most people think they prefer is the best course of action. This
can be seen in our democratic system of leadership, our belief in personal ownership of stock and
businesses, and our social system that replaces culture with what is popular to the mass taste. All of these
ideas, which we disguise with materialist and humanist rhetoric, originate in the idea that what we prefer as
a group is the best course of action.

Anyone who has chaired a committee, or tried to achieve consensus even in a small group like a family,
knows that a direction can only be found when every individual considers it not in context of themselves
but in the context of a task which includes them but is not limited to them. If left up to their own concerns
alone, individuals pick what benefits them, and since the rest of the question -- overall direction for all
individuals -- is a distant second, they consider it barely and conclude it will be addressed by what they
summarize in partial witticisms and homilies. "It's all good"; "It'll work out"; "The People will rise up and fix
it."

However, the middle class in America and Europe is beginning to see that they, the professionals and
leaders of the layer beneath politicians but above workers, have become an endangered species. An influx
of cheap labor has made the rich richer, and products cheaper, but the socialized costs of a society without
consensus as to direction (something achieved through agreement on values, which are passed down
through generations in a form we call culture) make it harder to find respite from the madness. The middle
class sees a future in which more money is required to have homes away from the ghetto, more time must
be spend on the road commuting, and more effort must be spent in bypassing now-ruined public services
for private offerings.

And the workers? Most of these will acknowledge some degree of incompetence in managing their own
affairs. Fodder for the workplace, they either walk the straight and narrow or try a way around and in all
cases but a few get busted and re-introduced to society as even cheaper labor. The stockholders and CEOs
laugh and dumb down the job requirements, making them as simple as pressing buttons on different
machines, but the group of violent, stupid, alienated people grows and with it the costs to the middle class.
Who gets penalized by crime and unrest? Not the elites behind private security walls. The middle class and
the working people pay the price for society's decay.

In a sensible system, it would be recognized that true leadership (and not just parroting back what the poll
figures suggest will be popular) is as rare as the ability to design rockets, do higher math, write philosophy
or compose symphonies. A leader is one who intervenes between what the people think they want and
what they must do, and either explains to them the logical course or forces it upon them. Whether
justification or oppression is used is irrelevant, because if what is logical becomes law, the people are better
off even if they had to sacrifice some personal demands for the whole. When the whole becomes sick, we
all pay. When we sacrifice for a better whole, we all benefit.

None of our current political solutions are sufficient. It is too easy to promise a pleasant illusion and ignore
real problems or opportunities, and so our leaders do it. They, after all, only want to crawl their way out of
the morass of poverty that is ensnaring the middle class. Even non-mainstream political solutions fail. While
the environment is part of what must be addressed, it is not all of it, and so Greens are left as partial
solvers of a detail whose root is the cause described. While a failing of traditional values is part of the
problem, it is not all of it, so Conservatives become marginalized with the religious fanatics in a mire of
abortion, gay marriage and drug laws. While racial decline and loss of homogeneity are part of the
question, they do not complete it, which leaves nationalists further isolated from a solution.

The answer is relatively simple: there is one truth, and we call it reality. Many voices describe it and in any
genre there are those who understand most of it, but to see it requires putting our personal interests and
egos second to finding truth and enacting it. None of us are god; all of us have some position in the
hierarchy of nature, and not all of us can lead and thus not all of our opinions are important in a leadership
context. But when we stop concerning ourselves with consequentialism, and look instead toward finding a
correct path, we are suddenly less likely to lead ourselves down a path which destroys the whole. As the
whole is the provider for the fulfilment of individual wishes, at that point, we also lose our personal
concerns.

What we think we desire is contingent upon a healthy whole. When you ask a group of people their
concerns, they will pipe up about details, but it is unlikely they will focus on that whole. For humanity to
survive as something other than a degraded society where the rich rule the stupid, we need to instead find
consensus by targetting reality in recognition of how nature, a healthy civilization, and culture as a reservoir
of social learning are essential to our individual futures. Should we wish to survive, and all healthy people
do, this is the time to set aside our personal fears, selfish desires and confusions and to enact, finally, a
better system of human self-government -- before it is too late.

October 11, 2007

Unreal
With apologies to William S. Burroughs and Jonathan Swift

An idiot twitches on the sidewalk: he could not predict that antifreeze is not the soothing lime soda that it
resembles, but he saw the TV ad. Limited intelligences narrow the world through simplified interpretations
that often result in such "unpredictable" conclusions.

On a hypothetical island, the Crowd surges forward with a morbid demand to have what the wealthier do,
much like we give children toy kitchens and firetrucks. They bring in exchange a dubious gift: unreality
considered to be real because the limited world of inaccurate symbols is easier to understand than the
whole of reality.

Punji is a small island in a vast ocean with a single large city upon it. The inhabitants make their living by
harvesting the delicious meat of the giant aquatic centipede, which requires submersible diving platforms
hand-cranked by five people.

A common lament of employees: "If I could just get a five-hundred dinar submersible, man, I'd be set."

One season Roger Employee -- a young man with a curious blank stare -- does exactly that. "I've
connected the innovative engine of Professor Gottsteinblitz, that runs on human flesh, to an inverted
chrome toilet. Five hundred dinars and it'll take you up and down; the rest is up to you."

The population of people so simple they had been used for daily tasks raises its collective head. Five
hundred dinar -- wow, I could afford that. The next day no one shows up at work. They're all proud owners
of their own submersibles.

Former owners centipede-diving teams, now obsolete, retire to sprawling mansions in the hills where they
concentrate on being rich and marrying off their children to inoffensive, useless people (usually genteel
drug addicts and clergymen).

Great Aunt Martha dies, and her niece, Angie, starts the Five Hundred Dinar Loan agency, becomes rich as
a king and retires to the hills with a drug addict. A cottage industry in servicing the five-hundred dinar
submersible springs up around the city.

Of course, the idea of a cheap submersible has some flaws... like leaking and in its quick dives, giving its
operators a subtle form of the bends that doesn't kill them but gradually erodes their minds and leaches
calcium from their bones. Hunched, incoherent cripples swarm the island with mumbled curses.

A new deluge of Doctors rush to the island to treat this new gold rush of patients. Of course, there's no
cure, only symptomatic treatment, but that's actually more profitable. Quack remedies and voodoo charms
are sold to the remaining divers who awake with teeth grinding at night in fear of the "brain bends."

Overnight the economy redefines itself. Its previous slow, ponderous motion guaranteed the worker a
decent but sparse life, but now there's the chance of -- like winning the lottery -- getting rich. Many do, the
rest become a permanent underclass who and thrown from job to job like rag dolls.

Businesses last like cut flowers. One day successful, the next day worthless. Citizens in paranoiac neurosis
shuffle between investments with the fear that they could lose it all, and consequently, keep their criticisms
to themselves. Wouldn't want to miss out on that next insider trading tip and end up in the poorhouse.

Government throws out its grandfatherly wise men -- philosophers, shamans, old warriors -- and replaces
them with a hair-gelled salesman. "We can have it all," he says, "and we can have it cheap. It's the Five-
Hundred Dinar Regime and it will last forever." The voting card each election has five options for what will
cost five hundred dinars, and "immortality" and "beauty" always head the list. "Haven't figured that one out
yet," said Professor Gottsteinblitz, laboring with fingernail scissors on a nuclear reactor.
Mr. Employee sells his stock and flees to the hills, where he lives alone in a grotesque mansion of clashing
colors and gold leaf. When he dies, his money goes to a foundation that teaches quantum physics to the
retarded.

Taxes are lower than ever. The government has become part of the marketplace. Products are also cheap.
What's not are the services which absorb the costs of these discounts: education, medicine, construction.
Watching another house made from popsicle sticks and plaster of paris go up in the ruins of the old, one
wise citizen exclaims to another: "Sure is good we have these five-hundred dinar houses... don't know how
people did it in the old days." They replace them yearly after the rains.

Corporations (the only people with enough money left to do anything big) buy up the entire centipede
industry, bcause it takes big money to prospect for these increasingly rare creatures. In fact, the population
is declining, having fallen below replacement levels. "The concept of centipede depletion is liberal
nonsense," proclaims the president. "There's plenty more hiding under whale turds out there." He bows his
head. "Let us pray."

The nearby island of Ganji, whose inhabitants are known for being lazy and smoking the flower of the
polyglot hibiscus, is tapped for its reserves of human flesh to run submersibles. At first, they buy up the
retards, pedofiles, and cripples to grind up in the machines, but soon more is needed. "How am I gonna
pay your taxes when I can't run my sub?" goes up the cry, and Punji goes to war against Ganji, quickly
subjugating its opponents with superior firepower. Now they feed them wholesale into the machines after
war crimes trials conducted using bingo cards.

"You, Marko Vesuvius -- or however you primitives say it -- are charged with willfully firing on the
peacekeeping force with intent to kill," says the judge. "Harrumph. Sentence: guilty. Immediate execution."
He keeps a boombox blasting Eminem to drown out the cries of the families, who he notes snidely, are also
guilty via section 666fu(k). "Justice...is...served," he bleats between lines of cocaine.

Most Ganjis are simply hired as discount labor, which makes cheaper products. "Delighted!" screams the
bored housewife, entering her security code to lock the house against intrusion by impoverished, angry
Labor. Her husband, bored and depressed from a day of moving piles of paper between inboxes, grunts and
reads his newspaper.

The needs increase, and the population of wealthy and poor alike breeds constantly, necessitating a series
of foreign wars. Since taxes cannot be raised, they are funded by selling bonds made of human skin. "Used
to be I had to plough a field," says one sharp young businessman. "Now I move one fund to another, pick
up an interest loan here and there, and -- well, it's a Punji success story." He drives his BMW to his
mansion in the hills, finds his cocktail-waitress wife boning the pool man, shoots them both and then
himself. "Maybe the other side has some prospects," he says. "Sell reincarnation insurance to wandering
souls."

Indeed most of the population now make their money from owning things. They import cheap labor from
Ganji and breed it with their children: "With their laziness and our smarts, we'll produce the perfect
businesspeople." Then they go back to worrying about which investments will retire them and which will
make them part of the permanent indebted illiterate underclass.

A young activist ponders that, if the smarter elements of the upper middle class were simply to agree on a
course of action, they could buy out government and stop the insanity. He is shot in the forehead by an
anarchist with sharpened teeth: "Can't have him wrecking my garbanzo bean futures" (the garbanzo bean
market, like every other on the island, varies entirely with the fortunes of the harvest of near-extinct
aquatic centipedes).

Nationalists shoot Ganjis outside churches and then turn guns on themselves, liberals educate morons that
laziness is evil and then hire them at minimum wage, preachers shrilly dictate how love will bring us
together or at least sell enough books so that the question is moot for them personally. Nuclear silos and
prisons decorate the hills.
At night the entire island vibrates with the grinding of teeth. The philosopher sips hemlock at a cocktail
party. "Dunno," he said. "The truth -- words representing reality -- aren't popular these days. Are you sure
you haven't conquered yourselves?"

A visitor five hundred years later finds an island packed with starving illiterate people, their eyes curiously
blank, amidst the ruins of a great enterprise for harvesting extinct beasts. These visitors do what is natural
when encountering lower intelligences, which is to subjugate them and use them for menial labor.
Eventually their society, too, collapses, and with it the world economy; when aliens arrive five hundred
years later, they find a planet packed with starving illiterates, and harvest their flesh to feed the
intergalactic engines of their spacecraft.

July 11, 2007

Taken for Granted
Uncharacteristically, I watched "60 Minutes" last night and got to observe the brain stem activity of my
fellow citizens. I say brain stem because their thinking was localized to replication of existing events, with
some comparison to previous results but not much. The scope of their thinking never made it past that
repetition. This reminds me of drunken people trying twenty times to insert a key in their door before the
occupant behind the door patiently reminds them they're at the wrong house.

The subject was politics, one that I'd like to enjoy if it were not so repetitive. To some degree, once you've
done your research, thought about the topic, and come up with solutions, there's not much to debate or
talk about. Yet these people natter on as if discovering that a fetus can fart at 3 months will somehow
mystically debunk abortion, or that scientists think we're 99.6% genetically similar to chimps instead of
99.3% somehow makes us all the same.

And so the chatter goes on about the election, but very rarely do you see deep engagement of brain -- it's
unwise to do that in public, because it reveals how smart you really are, having to actually think on your
feet like that -- and so the answers are like hands of cards dealt at a poker game: recombinations of what
is expected, with some pattern or another hinted at and so we hang our hopes upon it. At some point, I
wandered outside for an extended break and was glad for the lonely silence, because at least it was not
innocently deceiving.

My point of view at this point in my life is that most people are misguided, and because their brains are
overwhelmed with the sheer amount of data and emotion that modern life generates, they are unlikely to
out think that misguidance. They are able to look at ten sheets of paper on a desk and pick the right
solution, whether a software implementation or purchase of a new car, but beyond that they drift inward to
a place of stability. This place is insulated in repetition, and usually consists of enough ways to bolster their
self-confidence so they can make it through the day. Constantly assaulted by demands, and questions
beyond their scope, they revert to what they know and take it unseriously, because to really get involved
with it on an intellectual level would reveal limitations.

There are exceptions, of course, but when one lives in a time where popularity is more important than
intellectual accuracy, politics becomes a necessary defense. For this reason smart people chip away at the
truth through oblique angles and the management of details, ensuring that their work is rarely interpreted
in anything approaching the scope it deserves. It's hard to blame them when one sees what happens to
truly controversial college professors or corporate leaders, and the witch-hunt mentality that is used for
those who violate society's sacred taboos. And the list of those is lengthy, and not relevant to this article.

When dissidents squawk that society is headed in a bad way, the underlying assumption they're addressing
is this lack of ability to face the truth. We live in a schizoid time. One level of "reality" is the publically-
accepted truth, which suffers under two faults: (1) finding consensus among people of varied inclinations
produces a lowest common denominator compromise and (2) given a choice with no immediate
consequences, most people choose what they would like to believe over what they fear to be true.

The other level of reality, the world as an interconnected and functioning phenomenon, is never fully
experienced or understood because we are in it and part of it and so can only know what we perceive. But
when we compare what we perceive to the results of tests we design to verify the accuracy of our beliefs,
the response from "reality" or "the universe" or "the world" is consistent. So to what detail do we need to
know it to know what is right? Even knowing little, if we work upward from the verifiable principles we
discover, we can know enough to predict our future. That knowledge is what we in the vernacular call
"reality," and although it is not reality, if the data is close enough, it is for us as accurate as it needs to be.

But in a time where popularity, and by extension product-buying perception and democratic voter
perception, are more important than accuracy, the value of truth is questionable. This op-ed calls into
question our valuation of truth, and points out a simple fact: truth is unimportant until you stop taking
survival for granted, and realize that statistically our species is more likely to fail and die out than to survive
and go on to greater heights. "Who wants truth?" a philosopher once famously asked, in his way of saying
that we cannot "prove" truth to people not inclined for it, so stop wasting the effort and start applying what
we find beautiful, which since we are born of a mathematical universe often corresponds to the union of
form and function that we call beauty.

We live in a schizoid time because what people think they want is more "real," in our interactions with
others, than reality. Our current dysfunction originates in this attitude, which comes about when a large
numerous group overwhelms those of higher intelligence and, thanks to the head start and infrastructure
set up by those of greater ability, is able to rule itself for some time before decay catches up. We can call it
crowdism, or selfishness, or even mass revolt, but at its core the crowd is composed of individuals sharing
this same delusion: that what we want to be true is more true than what is true. Does humanity's error
come down to a simple lack of maturity, like a six-year-old confronted with a choice of dinner between
broccoli and ice cream? Nature does replicate its structures.

What allows us to continue is that we take our survival for granted. We see this vast society around us,
with its machines and sciences, and we assume that it can never fail. What is left to do but divide up the
spoils, and to argue endlessly over who gets what while the few who don't care about such moral concerns
amass great fortunes at our expense?

We cannot take our survival for granted, and stagnate, without facing problems when the events set into
motion by our (in)action culminate. These things take time, and over the past centuries our great-
grandparents and beyond have been content to ride out the problems, brushing them off with the
knowledge that facing the music was far off. It is no longer so far off. In the past century, as technology
has expanded beyond Europe to the world, the population of the globe has shot skyward with few
breakpoints in sight. The stakes are further raised by the environmental damages created by this
technology and the new weapons it allows. Our problem, environmentally, is not a place to put all these
people but the space and resources required by the support systems needed for them to have modern
lifestyles. And of course the waste it generates: landscapes of compressed discards decaying in the slow
abrasion of time and corresopndingly leeching breakdown products into the soil.

It is pointless to complain without a contrary vision in mind, and what forms as concept after thought is
what might be called a naturalist futuristic society: a civilization that recognizes technology as a tool and
not a goal; can differentiate between wants and needs; separates tokens from reality carefully. Such a
civilization will inevitably be opposed by those it would save from themselves because it imposes limits upon
their economic and social freedom, including their ability to buy and discard technological junk. Instead of
being based on the idea of consequentialism, a big brother to utilitarianism which supposes that the actions
which most people think make them happy are the best for society at large, this society would be based on
leadership. In doing so, it would fuse the wisdom of the past with the abilities granted us by technology.

Imagine a small town in this society, which would probably have more small towns and fewer large cities.
The goal of a job is to be a contributing member of a community, and to get home as soon as possible.
Consequently, people work harder and faster, and are often done in six hours or fewer and home with their
families or out with friends. The inside of their homes are mostly wood, cloth and stone. Technology might
be visible, a computer in the corner and a few electric appliances, but the general rule is that there's not
much of it. Devices like clocks or cooking implements are made of metal and glass and designed to last a
lifetime. There is no car, but there might be a golf cart. Air fresheners, televisions, plastic packaging, digital
displays and things that beep have gone the way of the Dodo bird.

Naturalist futurism is so called because it does not give up on technology and return us to mud huts. It
simply seeks a place for technology, and recognizes this happens through the death of preference-based
reality. It would resurrect the ancient Indo-European concept of vir , or seeing more than individuals a single
consciousness of which we are all vectors, and thus in unhesitant love for the whole not hesitating to
nurture or prune where a higher level of organization could be offered. Naturalist futurists do not bulldoze
forests, but build selectively in them. They do not blindly slather the world in iPods, billboards, screaming
cars and televisions, but find the function of each device and apply it -- or deny it.

They tell us, these modern sages with the intellectual responsivity of brain stems, that people are made
happier by our society but I have yet to see the evidence of it. They are made wealthier, surely, and life is
easier, but surveys routinely return a majority who would opt for a simpler less lucrative lifestyle if they had
more time for family and other pursuits. The reason more do not pursue this is as simple as the reason it
cannot be discussed: what motivates normal people toward wealth is fear. Fear of having a home
enveloped by ghetto. Fear of not having health insurance, of being broke in the face of legal problems, of
being unable to buy their children the luxury day care and private schools required to keep them out of the
morass of hopelessness. Fear of not having money and being old, in the ghetto, surrounded by toxins with
no money for cancer care or even euthanasia.

Yet when people are given space to talk where the taboos are not so vicious, and prodded as to the things
that they value in such an idealized state that we modern functionalists categorize them as (waking)
dreams, the answers are similar, if the people are of reasonable intelligence. They speak of romantic,
idealistic, hopeful things. Marriage is dead, yet everyone dreams of that perfect match and a life mostly
happily ever after. Fidelity to friend or nation is dead, but something stirs our soul at the thought of a cause
worth dying for. We speak of the death of culture, and its obsolescence in a time of instant messages and
500 cable channels, but hearts melt when they speak of rituals of grandparents, ancestral lands, things we
value... in a time where preference is king, and disposability the norm, people long for something that
motivates them more than convenience alone. When asked bluntly if we want convenience or reality, we
stumble, because the question in itself is like a machine: input/output. Given a chance to draw outside the
lines, people give us not just wants but soul-desires.

Now that the path on which humanity has embarked makes clear its endpoint in ecocide, culturecide, urban
decay, endless petty wars, loud cancerous cities and lonely isolated paths apart from others who
understand our dreams, people are reconsidering this modern society option. Perhaps there is a way to
retain the benefits without the ills, they are thinking, because modern society is more a "design" than it is a
tangible thing. We can motivate ourselves another way. It is fortunate they do this, in the last pit stop of a
race to head off our corruption before it becomes final, because with the realization of what we desire
instead of want, we have the potential for change. Someday people may understand; humanity is not yet
doomed. Despite all the negative signs, and the presence of mostly talking brainstems, I see a new future
unfolding: one where do not take survival for granted and struggle instead for dominion over ourselves
before the world.

November 19, 2006

The Big Silence
It would be convenient to have a rug under which to sweep Cho Seung-Hui, preferrably a metaphysical one
so we could banish the image and significance of what the 32 dead at Virginia Tech. We could then go on
with our distracted, neurotic lives and salve those nerves with television news about people faraway dying
and how our way is right, because we're bringing them freedom, the same freedom that hippies and large
corporations alike endorse.

Most of us have already swept him under a carpet of oblivion, and we peek under it only when a news
agency grateful for a story that's "significant"-sounding -- weepy, angry, indignant or cloyingly uplifting --
pumps it through the incessant firehose of mass media. Since media is a product, they have to keep the
machines running, and if the soup is thin, we can add chicken fat and stale grain until it thickens. Next up:
an interview with Cho's boyhood pet dog.

Our nonsleeping back brains keep us from entirely sweeping him away. Some of our best thinking goes on
there, because we're accustomed to a society where reality is split from public reality, and so we cynically
consume media but get our most valid data from trusted friends or sage commentators. It resembles our
jobs where bosses assign work based on the published capabilities of products, and we have to patch it
together in the real world with duct tape and spit. We receive grand proclamations from government and
media, and translate them through a filter of lowest common denominator motivations: business as usual,
each person claiming whatever it can to enrich itself.

In these ancient animal parts of our brains, where survival calculations occur that are so fundamental even
a media onslaught cannot fully dim them, we are aware of a fundamental archetype that Cho fits. We see
him outside of the hand-wringing moralizing of our liberal TV anchors, outside the fat flaccid contentment
of our wealthy overlords, and outside the scientific salad of psychological phrases that makes it seem like
his condition was diagnosable, and not the choice of a desperate man. We realize he is the predator that
arrives when the prey-species becomes too fat.

Much as in nature, when a species becomes prosperous and overpopulates an area to the point where it
cannot feed itself, and predators arrive, when humanity has grown past all logic and is heading for a
massive fall, the predators like Cho appear, driven by the rage of immersion in too many useless people.
We bemoan how humanity is the only species that makes war against itself, but a phantom thought flits
through our brain: if we are not pruned, might a worse fate await?

Cho's predation is distinctive in that he was not hungry physically, but metaphysically. He was far from a
culture that understood him. He had been denied the status others had, told to "go back to China" when
he was young, and found himself in a school surrounded by the idle children of America's middle class. This
middle class is composed mostly of people who rose from poorer origins, found a way to take wealth out of
society with some business or another, and now live in comfortable oblivion because they lack the foresight
that people of education need.

They're fish out of water as much as Cho was, and their indolent drug-abusing, product-buying,
promiscuous and vapid behavior disgusts us when we see it -- but they count on us not seeing it. This is
why people are secretive, knowing a back-brain shame not from moral reasons but from awareness that
their behaviors and lives are products of inertia and nothing useful, when they commit their little sins. They
seem brazen, but they're counting on us defending their freedom to act stupidly and our constant
distraction so we do not add up all the incidents. Predators like Cho did the math however.

Perhaps this is the reason that so few acted against him. One student barricaded a door with a table, and
was called a "hero" for what other healthier generations would consider the minimum acceptable response
to the situation. No one challenged him. When the cops arrived, they took their time to clear the scene
before moving in. No one wants to get killed for what is just a job, and what makes it just a job is that we
distrust our weak and vapid fellow citizens. Would you die for an idiot?
The yammering voices of media and neurotic, empty-headed people will fill the next few weeks with
"insightful" hand-wringing over the event but come up with no answers, because the real answer is so
obvious it both does not need saying and is violently taboo. They will talk about how he was depressed, or
perhaps psychologically unhinged, but if we look at humanity like a natural species, we see the situation
was one of too many sheep and not enough wolves. Sometimes the sheep birth a wolf among them at such
times.

It might be preferrable to have honest predators again. A predator knocks down your door and consumes
you to feed a normal amount of children. A parasite worms its way into your life with kind words and
marketing diagrams, then sits at your table and takes a little every day, but breeds an exponential amount
of parasites. Predators are fast kills, and parasites, a slow death. We are surrounded by parasites who use
social abstractions like economics and morality to contribute nothing but take wealth and energy out of our
civilization. Predators trim these, just as in nature they remove the old and sick.

Of course, no one wants to see it this way, and admit we're organic (thoughts of death and defecation ring
in the mind). They would rather blame the gun lobby, who are up in arms about this shooting claiming that
people kill people, not guns. They're right. Guns just made it easier. The gun lobby's dirty secret is that in
their back brain they know a government of the people can't be trusted, because most people barely have
the judgment to live as individuals, and in a group, they make the worst kind of well-intentioned poorly-
designed committee logic decisions that mainly help to suffocate independent thinkers. They want guns so
when the time comes they can defend themselves against the dictatorship of the masses.

Koreans are afraid that retribution will occur. They are probably remembering the response of black and
Latino communities in Los Angeles during the riots, who instead of marching on their wealthy overlords in
the Hollywood hills, attacked their local convenience stores because the prices were high. Their biggest
political statement was to loot recklessly. The high prices came from high insurance costs owed to the
people in the hills, but that did not make it into the mind of the angry crowd armed with fire.

The Korean community should probably worry, but not about this incident, since our media has explained
to most Americans that to be a good and fair person means not blaming the community for what one of its
members did. That alone is fair. It's not like Koreans are conspiring to produce excellent school shooters so
they can claim the highest body count (remembering No Gun Ri, perhaps). The Korean community should
worry because history shows that no multi-ethnic nation has ever emerged with a culture intact, and all
have immediately descended into third-world status. Their choice is to be a target or be assimilated in a
once-wealthy nation whose future is much less profitable.

And the usual pundits in Washington and New York are afraid that somehow, despite our elaborately
concocted mechanism of morality and the "official" psychological studies that followed it, we cannot fully
explain what happened at Virginia Tech. They're right: psychologists have offered scenarios and conjectures
but no clear reason why. We fear what we cannot explain away, because it implies that those cracks in our
sciences might extend to our society itself. Given how useless our response to it has been, that looks very
likely.

In the meantime, the slow gradual decline that has been evident since the Roman empire continues. We
stopped trusting our genetically-capable leaders, natural geniuses like Socrates and Aristotle, and began to
define our lives in material terms for the convenience of the individual. Truth vanished because we could
choose whatever truth we wanted, if we could afford it. After our species labored for millennia to get to a
point of wealth and comfort, those who came along for the ride used that wealth and comfort to secede
into personal worlds, and used political force to make sure that rule applied.

Consequently, we get dumber and not smarter as the years pass, and more complacent because our lives
lack any real meaning. We are here to make ourselves comfortable, and to create a comfortable
metaphysical reality, not to explore the world and challenge ourselves. We are prevented from pointing out
stupidity by the rules of the herd. We expand recklessly, while the population of intelligent people
proportionately (and literally) decreases. Humanity is a headless stomach eating up earth and propagating
itself in dumbed-down, vapid form.
This is why we get predators, and why when you turn on the news lately it is full of endless debates about
the obvious. Global climate change may or may not be true, but it's obvious that if you cover a planet in
concrete and fences, you kill its natural life at a time when you can't replace it with something better. Our
brief detour into humanistic justification has been replaced by a grim reality of future ethnic, religious and
territorial conflicts. We're returning to what we were, as if nature just rebooted to see if it couldn't get rid
of the junk in memory.

Cho Seung-Hui is part of this rebooting. If we knew what was good for us, as a species, we would clone a
hundred thousand Cho Seung-Huis and let them loose on society at large. Maybe we would give them
hammers instead of handguns, but we would let these predators claim those whose vapidity precludes any
real direction in life and thus endows them with a lack of will to live. They will preserve themselves
passively if given the choice, but lack the creative ability to struggle for survival. Put in unbroken forest
overnight, they would starve and freeze because their personal lifestyle choices don't lend themselves to
the hard work of making fire and finding food.

The mindless chatter comes from such voices who are afraid that the obvious might be seen, and those
who still have the potential for wolfhood might wake up to see how many need cleansing. If we want to
avoid this kind of incident in the future, we need to stop blaming Cho and analyzing him with effete
meaningless rhetoric, and look toward why this happened. We can ban all handguns, cover the world in
padded foam, and put warning tags on every door, but we cannot escape the inertia within. As we escaped
reality, we brought it back on ourselves, and if we do not face it with a bolder and braver outlook, soon it
will consume us.

April 22, 2007

A History of Greatness
Literate people need something to read, and it pays, so we get a series of books like Jared Diamond's
Guns, Germs and Steel to try to summarize history into a simple thesis. This enables us to look at it, find a
nifty mental container for the horror and struggle, and then go back to some "progressive" sense of
denying the obvious. Diamond isn't new; for thousands of years, people like Buddha and Jesus Christ and
Robespierre have been trying to ultra-simplify the obvious.

Disturbingly, these histories don't make us happier. They tell us to keep plodding ahead along a moral
path, using symbolic containers and easy explanations buried in tens of thousands of words of "proof," even
though that path correlates closely to the path toward a more violent (frustrated), corrupt (truth-avoidant),
commercialized (leaderless), vapid (polite lowest common denominator) and cheesy (pandering) way of life.
It's a pathology that shows up in some extremist groups as well, but with the assent of the mainstream, it
is considered sane.

We get depressed because a non-solution means more grinding work toward a goal we suspect won't fix
the problems we'd like gone, or at least addressed. We also get moribund because they explain our past in
negative terms, painting everything from natural selection to genius in terms of moral disapproval. But we
keep reading, because in this time of little shared consensus among people, we'd like a clear path. We'd
appreciate a sense of moving from something to something else, hopefully better, and the "progressive"
logic makes us feel better. We can pat ourselves on the back, and keep grinding.

And then the news chimes in with its litany of murder, rape, pedophilia, war, pollution, mutation, corruption
and stupidity. Well, keep grinding on -- someday, that chunk of coal will be a diamond, so keep polishing it.
You're doing what's right because after all we all agree it's right. It's similar to a room full of opium addicts
agreeing that they're all just going to do one more hit, and then clean up and go on to become church
deacons and Mother Teresas, but after that hit, of course.

As our oil runs out and our climate heats up, we get nervous. Nevermind that global warming is a simplistic
distillation of the idea that you can't take a highly complex machine like an ecosystem or a factory, hack off
1/4 of it and still expect it to work. Pollution, land overuse, the paving of our planet, and our fencing and
consumption of everything we can reach create a bigger problem than "global warming," but we'd like to
think that we can drive hybrids and turn off televisions for an hour each day and everything will be just
fine. Keep grinding toward "progress."

What I'd like to do in this column, instead, is focus on the positive by looking at a history of greatness, both
in the individual and in groups. You may not know this, reading all that depressive stuff, but humanity has
produced many great thinkers and groups and continues to do so, where it's still possible. These individuals
and groups have one thing in common: they forsook the socially-accepted and comfortably easy path, got
away from the masses, changed their behaviors and in doing so, changed themselves both mentally and
biologically. Eventually the cultural/mental and biological fused and they became a new more powerful
version of what they had been.

This has happened in every culture on earth, in every ethnic group, and on every continent. It has not
always lasted; much as great people tend to produce massive works and then fade away, over time entropy
claims civilizations and well, and drags them down into their origins, which are the repetition of known
"safe" behaviors and an intolerance of the desire to rise above, do things differently and in doing so,
become something else -- something better.

If you want greatness in life, your first action, which I call nihilism, should be to calm your mind and
remove from it all of the unnecessary assumptions that keep you repeating actions that do not bring
success. For example, watching television has never brought anyone success. Eating junk food constantly
hasn't either. Nor has going to some safe job, thinking the "progressive" thoughts that everyone else does,
and emulating their lifestyles. Those who rise above first discard unnecessary actions and beliefs, and then
reinvent their lives.
The second step to greatness is this re-invention. What is life? If it is not television, junk food, buying
plastic junk and caring about some recombinant "career," it might be focusing on the basics of life itself.
You must survive, and you don't need much of what others seem to believe they do. You need a creative
outlook, some way to lavish love on the world, whether by creating a community coffeeshop or by writing a
symphony. Not everyone can write a symphony, so most of us have to do simpler things. But outside of
sustenance, and some task at life that challenges you and makes you better and fufills you in this cycle of
challenge and overcoming, you need nothing.

You do not need social approval, especially when you see how it is based on the psychology of mutual
affirmation, where people see others doing something and figure it is "safe" and easier than forging their
own path. You do not need entertainment, or excesses of material wealth and possessions, because if you
have an actual cause or path in life, you will spend your time pursuing that and in the off hours, taking
care of the mundane details of life or socializing. The last thing you need is a hefty government with tons of
rules, and a social climate of intolerance toward creativity, because your expression of that creativity,
whether a coffeeshop or symphony, is how you bond yourself to life and find a reward that balances the
inevitability of death.

People around you will exist in that psychology of mutual affirmation, and if anyone rises out of that
lockstep, will challenge that person, because by providing an alternative that might be more successful,
that person challenges the assumption that "safe" behaviors are enough. That person, more powerfully than
talking about theory or morality, demonstrates that there is another way and it can not only be as safe, but
more rewarding. The mutual affirmation society will fear that person and oppose them, and perhaps even
try to invent a law or moral that will keep that person down. They know when they're about to be
replaced!

Great societies have arisen in the same way. A small bunch of people, usually under the command of a
leader who understands that sometimes love includes hatred of that which challenges a loving vision, break
away and wage war against any who try to bring them back. They discard old safe behaviors, and
assumptions, and replace them with a shared vision or values consensus (what we call "culture") that
rewards them in pursuit of a new goal. And then they break away, usually to some place where common
sense has it no one can live, and they build a thriving society. They get away from the others in mind, body
and spirit by doing this, and it enables them to become more than those who don't challenge themselves.

You are currently surrounded by depressed people who fear change because it might show them how their
"safe," "progressive" lifestyles come up short. Using your inner nihilism, or peace of mind that eliminates all
but what is realistic in design and holistic concept, discard that which is not necessary. Remove the fears,
rote behaviors, assumptions and superstitions of the symbolic mind. This task is harder than any other, as
you have no guide but yourself and your understanding of logic, but it rewards you with more power the
further you go into it. When you have reached a state of understanding reality, you are ready to begin
reconstruction.

The depressed around you will be busy moaning over global warming, budget deficits, Iraq wars and other
really temporary crises. They do not realize their path is one that is always declining, because they are not
rising higher, but falling lower through their reliance on what is safe and not what is hoping to reinvent
itself in a better way. They will, from fear of life and doubt of themselves, stay hidden in mutual affirmation
even if it leads them back to mud huts and stick warfare. You, if you pursue this path, will bypass even the
tedium of being an "elite" (better adapted to a failing situation) and will become something new.

In time, you will see others break away as well. These people have something more important than brains.
They have creativity and most of all, they have bravery. If one thousand people around them are living one
way, they will live not a "unique" "different" way, but will invent a sensible way to live and will not even
think to compare it to others. They are not guided by reference to the others, but by a realistic design. As
the past fails and drags itself down with the problems it is too fearful to escape, a new future is born. This
is the history of greatness, and this is why you should not despair but look positively toward a future filled
with chaos, uncertainty, doubt and horror.

July 14, 2007

Blackwater
When you were a kid, you may have been fortunate enough to have one ofthose tedious, blown-out old
guys down the block who would always compareany current event to some distant dusty greyed-out
happening in ancienttimes. "You know kid," they'd rasp in those death warmed over voices, "Every time
they raise gas prices, it reminds me of the Punic wars!"

Your job as a child was to make fun of them of course. That's howyou do what all children need do, which
is differentiate yourselffrom your parents, because this is how children become self-conscious.They need
that self-consciousness so that they can master it, and ifthey go far enough, discard most of it except the
useful factual parts.

When we learn things, we have to go overboard first, and then find amoderate ground, upon which we can
then heap more learning. Crotchetyold men are on the far side of this cycle, which is that they sit on aheap
of learning and are trying to remember back what it was like tobe trying to build that mountain of
knowledge. They're upset you don'tunderstand how the Iraq war re-iterates things we in theory learnedas a
species during the Punic Wars.

They're right but presenting themselves badly, because a raspy figureof death does not communicate
reliability to the young. It communicatesfear. What is missed in this lost chance for communication is a
building block of understanding your world so profound that it changesthe way you will view politics and
society entirely. When children, weview our world like ourselves, as a linear history from birth to
eventualdeath, and presume it to be inherent and unchangeable, a product of nature.When we get more
experience, we stop seeing history as a timeline andstart seeing it as a cyclic process which occurs in the
linear spacewe call time.

Much like our own lives have birth, life, and then death, history containssimilar cycles, but does not itself
have them. Time is eternal. But for each entity in history this cycle persists. When we know this, we are
nolonger fooled by the heady propaganda from our governments, media, and moronic social partners that
we are somehow "evolving" as a society. Weare advancing through a lifecycle which ends in death. The
only thing thatevolves is the design of individual humans and of course, the design ofspecific functions
within a society.

Left to its own devices, the averagecivilization will cycle through its lifespan over a couple thousand
yearsand then depart into physical, biological and intellectual ruins thatresemble the results of at least a
thousand years of dumbing down,compromise, palliative social placation, and of course, commerce
dominatingvalues. Is it any wonder the globe is covered with civilizations wheredirt-covered people labor in
ignorance at the bases of vast, impressiveruins? The original inhabitants are gone, both departed and
absorbedinto the remainder population.

This is what the old would tell the young if they could. It is also whatgreat philosophers have attempted to
tell us for aeons. Before we begincongratulating ourselves on one mechanism or another we have adopted
todeal with the ongoing decline, we should ask ourselves: are we experiencingdecline? Smart leaders and
strong-willed populations can overcome thislife cycle or prolong it, just like smart human beings can
exercise andeat right and not become walking ruins of humanity before their time todepart this earth.

In movies it is popular to zoom out of a scene, show its larger context,and then return, with the
juxtaposition (a product of time) showing how thesmall events of our lives are both iconic indicators of the
larger cycleand contributing to it. Now that we have zoomed out from the events ofour day, let us return to
the Punic Wars, and the Blackwater scandal currently fading out in Iraq. What the media and government
and well-meaningbloggers see is abuse of a system by a rogue mercenary company; whatpeople with
historical context (zoom enabled) see is the inevitable productof a declining empire forced to rely on
mercenaries, who by definition sharefew of its actual values.

The real transgressions of the Blackwater people, it turns out, are morethan one incident. Where US
soldiers tried to blend with the population andreinforce a positive presence, for Blackwater, their contracts
are a job andIraqis are just in the way. Think of the killing of millions of buffalo, thewholesale removal of
trees for replacement by concrete, or the billions ofpounds of paper not recycled by businesses every year.
When you're on a job,you tacitly recognize it's a form of control and resent it, because you're notthere as a
result of agreeing with the mission. You are there for the moneyand because, since you're forced to get
money, you picked the least offensivecareer for you. But resentment is the periphery of that focus.

People at jobs (in my experience) tend to carry that chip on their shoulderin a barely-hidden way that
makes it even more present wherever they go. Theydo not act out overt aggression, but instead make
thousands of tiny acts ofsabotage. They borrow your stapler and don't return it. They leave messesaround
the office. They accomplish only what exactly is stated in detail forany assignment, and ignore obvious
implications. Job-logic is what gets uspeople being wasteful, and then running home without a care. Job-
logic iswhat causes sloppiness that reaches epidemic proportions at the bigcorporations.

Job-logic is someone painting a floor, then storing flammablepaint next to a water heater because it's
conveniently close to the doorand no one told them not to. We joke at our jobs about how much we
likeweekends and can't wait to escape, but under that joke is a simmeringresentment which expresses itself
in, "I will do what you tell me to, andnot a god damn thing more," which creates a kind of obliviousness.
Ourproduct works OK but breaks after a few months, or dumps oil on the floor?Well, we did what it said
here in the Working Specification.

When an empire has to hire mercenaries to do the work that its Army cannotfor political or logistical
reasons do, you know the end is peeking aroundthat next corner, and he's winking. You know the game, he
says. You feardeath and death comes for you, but if you're so goal-directed andconscientious that you seek
an ideal more than you fear death, death cannotcatch up to you until you are so old your body simply gives
out. Our societyhas not found such a goal and has instead focused on making its memberscomfortable via
material wealth and social esteem, which has made them fat,neurotic, emotional and ineffective. All they
know how to do now is hire others to take care of them.

That old guy in the corner is telling you about the Punic Wars becausethe same thing happened to
Carthage. While Rome was a virile and youngcivilization bustling with blondes and redheads and auburn-
haired people,Carthage had become a marketplace for the dramatic international jet-setterswho follow
money but have no use for culture. They were a Semitic culture,formed from the intersection of Berber and
Asian and Caucasian societies,and according to some accounts dyed their hair and painted their faces
toexcess. Carthage was like Los Angeles at its worst: ostentatious, but quickto humble someone else by
pitying them and tossing aside a pittance of alms,and completely useless except for paper-shuffling, re-
financializing moneyshuffling, desk-bound "earning money" without making anything better. In other words,
a society in its final years, when it no longer has any idealsto live for.

Rome called their bluff. Unlike the Carthaginians, called Punic from theLatin term for Phoenician, the
Romans were united by a common goal ofpower according to their ideal, and spreading that ideal through
an empire.They were conditioned to practical labor as much as theory, and theirtheory was not landlocked
by social constraints like marketing, as theCarthaginian theory was. They were rising, and Carthage was
falling, and overthe next three Punic Wars they proved it to the world, eventually laying siegeto Carthage
and literally erasing it from the map. Of course, that was beforetheir own civilization aged, lost its
consensus of ideals, and collapsed.

Despite the cries of media charlatans, Blackwater's recent Iraq debacleis a small detail. Some guns for hire
screwed up because in their job capacitythere is no requirement that they care about the broader
implications ofwhat they do. So it is with all jobs, and jobs as labor without the contextof ideals are a
product of dying civilizations. The media is performing itsjob by whipping a detail into a frenzy, and at the
same time, overlooking theinevitable truth of our decline. We're all just doing our jobs, but no oneis
watching the overall direction on which we're going. We can fool ourselves for a litle more time by calling
this progress, and in that timewe can make some money and hopefully get away from the mess, so we will.

What it comes down to, when you look at civilizations as life-forms inthemselves, is that there are two
stages of society. In one, normally theyouthful stage, the society is organic, meaning that consensus of
valuesmotivates its people toward accomplishment in accord with the ideal thatrepresents the mental
derivation that produced those values. In the otherstage, usually the later, the society has become self-
conscious but hasnot transcended that self-consciousness, so it imposes Control upon itselffrom some
presumably absent but always oligarchically-controlled leadershipfaction. Conservative societies rule with a
top-down order, emphasizing theproduction of a leadership caste, and liberal societies rule with a bottom-
uporder that seeks to neutralize leadership castes by empowering those atthe bottom.

Both are methods of control that because they are imposed,create a job-mentality, and so do not fit the bill
for saving a civilization.If we want to thrive, there is only one way, and that is by starting at theorigin of
leadership in a successful society, which is a mental and moralconsensus according to some ideal that
transcends self-consciousness. We mustshoot for something that is not within the self, and is not defined
withinthe society itself. It must be an ideal. Without such an ideal, we arelike the Blackwater people just
fulfilling rather frustrating jobs, and sometimes we too will freak out and shoot up the innocent from what
mightbe sheer boredom.

October 6, 2007
Society Blames Others For Its Illness
Yet another teenager today tried to awaken a numb world with the sacrifice of himself and several other
students, this time in southern Finland for that country's first school shooting 1 . He opened fire at his high
school, killing eight people and wounding ten, before police surrounded the building and presumably took
him out.

You are expected to stand there open-mouthed and wonder aloud, "But how could anybody do this? Why
would they do this?" but this feeble cover is really no longer anything but transparent. We know why they
do it: teenagers are the people who have not yet inherited an adult world that is totally dysfunctional, and
so they often reject it through suicide and/or removal of a few of the most troublesome obstructions they
encounter.

When Pekka-Eric Auvinen shot up his high school, he was sending a message
with his self-sacrifice. It's a message that adults should heed, since ignoring
problems has gotten us global pollution, climate change, political instability,
ghettoes, a culture dominated by moronic television and music, constant ethnic
strife, and so on. The list goes on. It's no wonder teenagers don't want to join
your world that by virtue of its insistence on obliviousness produces completely
retarded results consistently.

The teenager had warned that he was discontent with an adult world, and was
recommended anti-depressants by a disinterested YouTube moderator 2 , despite
the lack of conclusive proof that anti-depressants stop the cause of depression,
which has been increasing in the modern time and is the leading cause of disability in industrialized
nations 3 . While most sources look for treatment, few ask the obvious question: is it possible that
depression has an external cause, like our society being ugly and/or heading into Rome-esque failure.

We know from our mass media that he was misanthropic, disliked the direction society was headed, and
felt himself drawn to extremes to break through the fog of delusion in which most people move. For
example, he admired extreme leftist and extreme rightist leaders alike 4 and called himself a "social
darwinist" and admired "natural selection." (He may have confused "social darwinism," or the theory that
linear competitive systems like capitalism and academia produce humanity's best, with Darwinism applied to
society.)

Let's do what no one else will do, and read his manifesto and his own words, so we can see what this
individual really believed and what drove him to do what he did, which we will view as a political statement
instead of an insane act, because to do otherwise would be to deny his individuality and that for which his
victims died:

I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit,
disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.

You might ask yourselves, why did I do this and what do I want. Well, most of you are too arrogant and
closed-minded to understand... You will probably say that I am "insane", "crazy", "psychopath",
"criminal" or crap like that. No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident.5

He makes it clear that he takes an aesthetic viewpoint on humanity, dividing us

into the beautiful and ugly, and sees no point to the ugly, stupid, deformed,
parasitic, etc. While this reeks of national socialism in addition to the natural
selection he so admires, let's look at it from an environmental perspective. The
reason for our environmental decline is too many people, and too many stupid
people, because even if we each use the minimum amount of resources and land
possible, we will still overrun earth, and if the current generation doesn't the next
will. Who breeds the most? The lowest-IQ people in the first and third worlds.

Pentti Linkola elaborates on this:

A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life are been
organized on basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her...Just as only one out
of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of
managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole...In this time and this part of the World we are
headlessly hanging on democracy and parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless
and desperate experiments of the mankind...In democratic countries the destruction of nature and sum
of ecological disasters has accumulated most...Our only hope lies in strong central government and
uncompromizing control of the individual citizen...We still have a chance to be cruel. But if we are not
cruel today, all is lost.

Our helpful mass media tells us that the school shooter read history and philosophy 6 , which are known for
having a perspective than transcends individuality. It is the type of discipline that tells us whatever we think
we want as individuals, the progress of history and the rules of the natural world remain immutable. It
reminds us that worrying too much about what we want, who we are, what our social status is, and so on,
is delusional karmic drama that keeps us from seeing the reality of life itself: it is a struggle to perfect
ourselves, and create societies and people of beauty, or we become entrenched in a socialized depression
and "tolerance" of mediocrity that ultimately kills us.

With that in mind, we can see this school shooter and extreme right/left wing dictators as what they really
are, which is a force of natural renewal much like the forest fire that kills off the weak trees and lets the
others divide up the resources so they can create a stronger, better, more uniformly healthy forest. What
we call tolerance is too often an excuse to tolerate the parasitic, criminal, stupid and ugly, and guys like
Stalin, Hitler, Linkola and this school shooter show us that reality.

Society will strike back with passive aggression, because that is the only option left to people shocked out
how rudely they are yanked out of denial7 . To be passive aggressive, blithely assume that you are right
while forcing other people to conform to your needs, all without directly striking them. Go ahead, set up
that anal pornography shop across from the church. It's your right. They don't have a right to not see you
or interact with you. Force them to tolerate you. If they object, call them insane and put them in jail.
That's what this society does to any dissident with a chance of making change, which is why some kids get
frustrated and shoot up their schools (others are insane, but not all).

Our modern society of shared denial fears the truth and so we

suppress it, which is why school shootings get responses of outrage
and disbelief. Don't let the propaganda fool you. We are all
disconnected from any context but our own selves, and so focused on
our wealth and status that we're oblivious to the world, or the
intangible values of life which our materialistic society denies. The only
disbelief here is the shock of being caught in a daydream that we
pretended was reality, and this is why we have such outrage against
this school shooter, who in a healthier time might be known as a hero
for his extermination of false authoritarians, weak people and other
stooges of human delusion.
November 7, 2007
Fantasy
When artistic genres set out to re-awaken our sense of fantasy, they immediately rush us headlong into
semantic confusion. Fantasy, as most of us know it, means thoughts that are not real. In such thoughts, we
envision what we would like to be real instead of what is real, or go into worlds where the impossible is
possible.

As we make our way through a world where people are either rich, or will face ugly facts about survival,
and either have power, or are literally ignored, we often find fantasy to be useless. We clutch whatever
security blanket is at hand, either trying to join the power or rejecting it in favor of humanism, but no
blanket works. Each blanket is its own orbit and there is no singularity of them which can change what our
fantasy would will otherwise.

Like most things, the truth of fantasy -- by which I mean its effects in reality if we analyze it and reality,
and look for correspondences between the two -- is dual, because it depends on the duality of our
knowledge of both self and world. Fantasy trapped within us becomes nothing, but fantasy can guide us
toward a clearer view of what might replace this network of drifting security blankets and no security.

Taking our fantasy from inward to outward states requires we understand the difference between fantasy
that is a closed circuit, or locked entirely within us, and fantasy as a way to view the world. The lens
through which we view the world can waver between closed-circuit and open depending on how in touch
with reality we are. The distinction is for that reason not categorical so much as a measurement of our
intent, and our psychological health.

Closed circuit fantasies abandon hopes of realism. It is like they have rejected the world by saying the
good, the object of the fantasy, cannot happen there. You may note similarities to pornography, drugs and
fanatical religion in this observation. These are not fantasies as much as they are palliative treatment for
souls weary of a dying world, and those who have lost the will not to fight as much as to create a better
alternative.

Fantasies in this sense are like chaos. Some chaos is lively, birthing stars and universes. Other chaos is
dead, entropic, a lack of organization so profound that all becomes grey and listless because there are no
decisions of consequence left to make. In this sense, there is an order to chaos, like there is an order to
fantasy that is open to the world. Active chaos, and open fantasies, are a source of life, while their closed
variant are an introversion that invariably proves nullifying.

As a viewpoint, fantasy is a matter of scope. To have any fantastical thoughts, you must be willing to cast
aside the cants/wonts of our current time, and seemingly impossible physical barriers, in order to see what
would be beautiful, epic, amazing, or significant. These measurements are not like measurements of the
physical world, because they measure not only more than one thing at a time, but assess the juncture of
those things into something that stands on its own. It is its own reason for existing.

It would take this kind of thought for slumbering chaos to create a universe. It might take this kind of
thought for a slumbering species to re-introduce itself to glory, creativity, honesty and realistic idealism.

Like the worldview of Romantic poets, fantasy is a portal of organizing thoughts. You do not look at the
individual. You do not look at one single generation. You do not look at the practical. You do not look simply
at the aesthetic. You unite all of these things into the inspiring. It is a thought process like religion, without
the dogmatic surrogacy of reality that we associate with modern religion.

Arthur Schopenhauer wrote about the necessity of idealism, or realizing that thoughts matter more than
reality, because the universe acts as if it was composed of thoughts, and thoughts are how we see our way
past seeming barriers that have nothing to do with the actual creation of greatness. A moron sees the
unyielding soil; a genius sees the field of crops or great city that can spring from it. Idealism unites
imagination, creativity and knowledge of the world, or philosophy. It is perhaps the highest state of the
human mind.

The people who have invested themselves in doubt because they are afraid of hope will have a problem
with this. They say: what if I am stupid or psychotic, is not my idealism then a bad thing? They would like
to imply that all idealism is categorically bad because one person's idealism is insane. A smarter view is that
an insane person will screw up anything they touch, but idealism like a mattock is a creative tool in the
right hands and a destructive tool in the wrong ones. But there is a partial truth in their statement.

That partial truth is that we must find a way to determine honest idealism from closed-circuit fantasy, or
"crap" in the parlance of philosophers. Using the same lens that shows us beauty, we can see that honest
idealism unites all things in consciousness and physical reality alike, where dishonest idealism is based on
unrealistic outcomes. Our scientific method becomes a test here, but we cannot apply it linearly, as if
searching for one category to label negative and thus reject the whole (reminds me of the logic of suicides:
today, I cannot eat cake, so my life is lost, adieu!).

Immanuel Kant provided an answer, and F.W. "Fred" Nietzsche fused that with the work of Schopenhauer
to give us a coherent statement. Viz:

"There are ages in which the rational man and the intuitive man stand side by side, the one in
fear of intuition, the other with scorn for abstraction. The latter is just as irrational as the former
is inartistic. They both desire to rule over life: the former, by knowing how to meet his principle
needs by means of foresight, prudence, and regularity; the latter, by disregarding these needs
and, as an "overjoyed hero," counting as real only that life which has been disguised as illusion
and beauty. Whenever, as was perhaps the case in ancient Greece, the intuitive man handles his
weapons more authoritatively and victoriously than his opponent, then, under favorable
circumstances, a culture can take shape and art's mastery over life can be established. All the
manifestations of such a life will be accompanied by this dissimulation, this disavowal of
indigence, this glitter of metaphorical intuitions, and, in general, this immediacy of deception:
neither the house, nor the gait, nor the clothes, nor the clay jugs give evidence of having been
invented because of a pressing need."

We must look into our intuition, Nietzsche argues, because only there are we freed from the terrible
rationality that forces our thoughts into primitive linear algebra. When we make ourselves intuitive, we
overcome the trapped-ness in our selves that fantasy makes us escape by looking at the wide open fields of
battle and ancient kingdom; it is a view inherently outside the individual, but incorporating the individual
who yearns to participate in something beautiful that leads to greatness. It is a gateway to the frontier of
heroism.

Intuitive people (can't forget the ladies) are in short supply these days because the algebra of basic thought
appeals to the largest masses, and the categorical logic that accompanies it makes it easy to reject
anything which requires we leave ourselves and our closed-circuit pleasure-seeking materialism. If you are
afraid you do not measure up, or know you're stupid compared to history's heroes, the last thing you want
is to rely on intuition. You fear what crawls in the back of your brain because it is destructive, because it is
self-serving and closed-circuit, so its only goal is domination of the outward world to bolster a flagging soul
within. (The suicide thinks: if I mail order a cake, I will have a reason to live, not knowing that the selfless
moment of enjoyment of cake is what he seeks, not the cake as thing-in-itself!)

When we get ahead in this society, and we'd better succeed because without two million in the bank your
kids go to the useless public schools and your medical care is second rate and you live near the ghetto and
you retire to poverty and you have no power to change anything except the channel on your TV, we do so
by appealing to the algebraic masses. No one got rich saying religion is a complex subject that demands an
intellectual and moral elite to apply it. They get rich by telling you that you, too, can have God next to you
on the sofa, and he wants you to buy that new pickup truck with the built-in DVD player and GPS.

The intuitive person is entirely contrary to this modern, or to be accurate we should call it "end-stage
civilization," disease. The intuitive person sees fascination with the paradoxically temporary material and
social power as missing the point, which is that with ideals we reach toward the future, but with
materialism, we divide up the now and move back into the past. We regress because we have lost a sense
of momentum and with it, have lost our values, so nothing but decay into entropic chaos awaits us.

The others fear the intuitive person because in that person they see the end of the dream, which is that
they can exist apart from reality and still be as important to themselves as they always imagined
themselves to be. Morons believe they cannot make positive change, so they fear those who have that in
their eyes. Fearful people follow the morons, and even smart people get brainwashed because all of their
friends, neighbors, coworkers and religious leaders bleat the same hopeless, suicide, algebraic logic into
their heads.

They hate you, intuitive person, because you are the end of their illusion. Do people like illusion? All
animals do. If there is a snake curved above you, venom dripping idly as it searches, you do well to go into
denial because to run is to die. There's a chance then that it will overlook you. We evolved denial as
honestly as breathing. A human being living on the open ocean in a boat that leaks, but not so much it
cannot be bailed out at night, may stare fondly at the sound boat fifty yards away. But such a risk -- fifty
yards of open ocean -- that could be sure death, while in the leaky boat, it's slow death, waiting for the day
when one is too sick, tired or drunk to bail, and the water rises too high to be countered.

In the infinitely wise design of our spirits, this is why we have realistic fantasy. It stirs in us a longing for
the ideal of crossing that open ocean so profound that it sickens us not to have it, and if we choose not to
introvert, we will act on it. All of the best of humanity came from this impulse, from making fire to planting
fields to inventing language to organizing thought. It is yearning. It is romantic. It is a bonding to life that
can only be called love, because for a moment you forget the negative and concentrate your entire will on
its transcendence through achievement of a real goal.

When societies die, it is because their intuitive people dwindled in number because it is not profitable
enough to be intuitive that one stays out of the ghetto, and can have a healthy family, or live well at all.
The masses cheer at the death of the intuitive and then fall silent as they do when a cloud slides across the
sun. Random chance, or the angel of death? The invisible world of predicting reality is a mystery to their
algebraic brains, but not to the intuitive person who considers all factors at once, and the masses hate the
fact they cannot see this as well. They transfer this hate to the messenger, and will crucify him or declare
him a monster.

They create their doom by forcing every single person into a reality so literal it reduces life to individual
competing against all others for dwindling resources. They remove all idealism, thinking this cuts them free
from obligation to act outside of themselves, and by doing so introduce so many equal and opposite
counteractions that soon their society is awash in decay. They think they have made the world safe for
humanity by eliminating anything that could cause any one person to leave their personal illusion, but by
doing that, they detach society from reality and it heads down the path of civilizations failed, as many have
in the past.

Civilizations are born from active chaos and fantasy, and they die in entropic chaos, when all decisions are
going through the motions in order to crawl above the rest, and soon only the vicious triumph over the
masses, and then the masses get that same gleam in their eyes and vanquish their overlords. It is like the
suicide who by giving up on the potential for good things in life, gives up on herself, and so dies not from a
vicious self-hatred but from a lack of anything else to do or anywhere else to go. Entropy wins at a crawl.

We are now seeing the culmination of this mess in the West. If you are not a coward, and you love life, you
will want to counteract this, but you can only counteract chaos by giving order, not by slicing at heads of an
infinite hydra. The people around you will almost all lapse into closed circuit fantasy in a desperate attempt
to ignore the obvious, but to do so is to go slowly into doom and not avert it. You will want another
solution.

Nihilism is like fantasy a portal, but it is a more literal one. For your fantasies not to be closed circuit, you
need them to correspond to the mechanism of reality, and for that, you need to clear your head of all the
extraneous garbage that has been thrown into it by drowning monkeys seeking any justification they can
find for remaining in denial. When you look at the literal reality, you can understand the design of the
universe as a whole intersecting, and from that you can construct an intuitive, beautiful future.

This is the language of honest fantasy, and when it awakens mortals, the times of greatness return
through the acts of heroes. If not, maybe the lizards will evolve intelligence enough to replace us.

January 25, 2008

Gleeful
Cue typical American public radio broadcast:

Once this pleasant, sunny courtyard rang with the cries of children at play. That was the week before
disaster struck, and began a process that we know only too well.

(Audio: birds singing, children playing)

As the first tendrils of disaster touched this happy community, residents rallied together, and declared their
intention to fight disaster with the bonds of a community -- love, sharing, forgiveness and a helping hand.

(Audio: "I know this is gonna be hard, but I'm here for the long haul," gruff voice of local longshoreman, or
maybe a painter. Someone who is not a radio-employed intellectual from New York, please. We have
empathy for the other half living.)

But as the disaster deepened, those strong voices dropped out one by one. First the busy bus depot flooded
in warm blood. Then people began to abandon these homes they worked for over long years of struggle.
Finally, the children disappeared.

(Audio: sad music, preferrably a minor key modulating to a lower key still in the minor, with a two-note
pattern of bright incidentals for contrast.)

Now this once-happy community is all but abandoned. Buildings rust next to burnt out cars. The
government promises aid, but it comes slowly. We all know the rest. And even though we give, we cannot
stave off this aftermath of disaster.

We can see radio programs as a pattern, much like patterns exist from which we cut clothing, design
furniture, or write computer code. The pattern of this radio program is repeated not only on government-
funded public radio, but also on privately-owned big media channels, and even more alarming, on the indie
stations. Monkey see, monkey do, and this successful product format can be emulated to share in the
success.

Looking behind the visual and political cues, and the putative content of the program, we see the emotional
content of this pattern. It both memorializes tragedy, and seems to affirm its inevitability, while offering
token methods of resistance. This in turn creates a psychological pattern: the sense of living with constant
small tragedy and being impotent to change it, and finding solace not in fighting that impotence, but in
accepting it and sharing emotions with others.

This pattern can be found other places. The best spot to locate it is a drug and alcohol rehabilitation
center. People stand up, say they've screwed up their lives and cannot manage their own lives, and so they
need someone to tell them what to do. God, the law, morality and economics all get mentioned as part of
the same process (revelatory). What is the psychological pattern? Submission to negativity through
acceptance of the negative but endurable.

"I get raped nightly," said one slave to another. "But there's always food afterwards, and it's not as bad as
the guys in the field have." The other shrugged. "Share some of that food with someone too ugly to be
raped, whyncha?"

When we look at the logic of submission, we see a convergence of human psychological factors. The
"Stockholm Syndrome," where captives bond with captors, is part of the same psychological pattern that
has beaten wives clinging to their abusers, or anally violated children defending their parents. Yes, the
situation is bad; however, we can't face what we have to do to fix it; therefore, we endure and find some
way to make our sadness into proudness. Although our lives are meaningless, and we fail daily, we are the
greatest martyrs of all time.
This psychological pattern is a subset of all cognitive dissonance patterns. In these, reality is painful, so
people invent justifications and use them to supplant measurement of reality. We could use the old cliche
of an ostrich hiding its head in the sand, but only if there's a television down there, dramatizing the
sadness. It is an inversion of art: instead of singing the beautiful, we find praises for the ugly and disguise
it as beauty, because we have lost belief in beauty.

As good nihilists, we note that this loss of belief in beauty is vested more in belief than beauty. We have
made beauty contingent upon so many moral justifications that it is socially taboo to note beauty without
somehow tying it to the plight of the disadvantaged (morality for dummies: when we fear for ourselves, we
want to find someone in a worse position than ourselves and demand they be protected, like a human
shield; this unites individuals into crowds determined to destroy anyone who might not need the protection
of the crowd, like a populist Mafia). What a beautiful vista -- we can build public housing here.

Through this process, what was once adaptation becomes a perverse addiction to failure and ugliness, so
long as we find some hip new way of presenting them on the radio or television. You can see it in the irony
of the hipster, who if his band sucks, will tell you all about how using a tuba to blast jazz riffs over indie
rock guitar makes them unique and different and worthy of your attention. The question of "Is it good?"
has been replaced by the question of "Do we do ugly, boring and failing well?" It's like a yard sale of used
colostomy bags.

Cognitive dissonance, by the nature of denying reality, puts us into dangerous territory. It is spread easily
through social expressions because if our good buddy Joe30AF0B18 comes up to us and tells us that his
job failed, he has AIDS and his children are mentally retarded, we want to say something nice to him to
make him feel better. So we tell him that Jesus loves him, or he's unique, or that we've never heard such a
moving story and he should call public radio. In doing so, we take some of the need to justify misery into
ourselves.

What is enduringly positive about nihilism is that we cut ourselves free from this nightmare of justification
and socialized praise of death, and instead, look toward the actual design of reality. People with no goal in
life want to turn nihilism into fatalism, so they have an excuse to sit on their fat asses pleasing themselves
but yet can justify it with competing moral logic. "All is lost," they wail. "Oh well, might as well tuck into
this pizza that just arrived... and there's Madden on the PS3, soooo..."

Nihilism can be more coherently expressed as the scientific method with a desire to remove the scientist.
We look at reality, its repeated patterns, and note them in a mathematical sense. We then remove the bias
of the scientist not by erasing it, but by putting it into context, as in "you are a person within a world" and
not "the world is the expression of yourself." We look at structure because it is consistent and in a sense is
more real than tangible, physical factors. We can make a chair out of feces, wood or egg whites, but the
only way we can recognize it is by its form serving a function made obvious by the needs of those who
would sit, so even if it is without any conventional "this is a chair" cues we can recognize it.

As good nihilists, we look askance at this world of weepy public service announcements because it is not
real. We see that reality exists in parallel everywhere at once, and so inevitably there is tragedy
somewhere. What does it matter to us? We cannot change it, and might not be advised to do so, especially
if the tragedy was a community built on a floodplain or supported by a degenerate industry. We can do
what we must do, and the only ultimate measurement of that is what we create in the physical world. Our
thoughts die with us, as do our emotions. We lose out when those emotions are repeated mass media
indoctrinations.

What is real is the knowledge that, as one old empire (the global economy and moral world government)
begins to find out that its design is inferior, a new empire rises for those who want to grab it. If 99% of the
people on earth are incompetent morons and/or are delusional and weepy, that means those of us who cut
ourselves free from the old and dying emotional pattern are able to create and enjoy ourselves -- and
succeed while doing it, meaning that we inherit the future.

The people who uphold the dying empire, even by criticizing it and creating endless radio shows that fit this
maudlin pattern, show themselves to be not only obsolete but unable to see beyond appearance. They cling
to the feelings they can derive from the pattern of praising dysfunction by mourning its consequences but
not looking deeply into its structure, and in so doing, approve of their doom. Laughing at them lessens any
guilt you might catch from them like a pesky cold in a crowded office.

Most people you meet in life who claim to be outsiders to the dying regime are physically outside of it, but
mentally and morally inside of it. This includes the "nihilists" who want an excuse to do nothing and sound
smart for having figured out the futility of it all. This also includes the smart, shapely, young, attractive,
compassionate and blonde radio hosts who want to get all weepy over whatever vestigial limb of the
human amoeba just got its ass handed to it by nature, economics or logic. These people are caught up in
the emotional pattern that is opposite to nihilism.

They, like most people who are addicted to these negative emotions, are hoping to share their misery with
us and neutralize us, and drag us down with them. Misery loves company, as the cliche says, but even
more, miserable people are threatened by anyone who emotionally or physically might escape their debacle.
They don't want to save themselves because it's easier to weep than take action. But they do not want to
see anyone who might not have their disease, because that competition will best them, and they hate that.

Honest nihilism liberates us from that dying cycle. Nihilism eradicates morality as it is practiced, and gives
us space to re-invent a civilization that is not based on pacifying the masses with morality, but on working
together to build something beautiful. Our goal is not to praise the darkness, declare all is lost, and go
home to our pizza sofa video game klatches. Our goal is to transcend this mess, and then put our ideas
into action so they persist in physical reality.

The first step we must take is rejection of the weepy mentality. We do not need depression for there is no
reason to be depressed. Yes, humanity is destroying its world, but that is already written in stone and
cannot be changed until our numbers are reduced. Yes, most people are stupid, but they will be unable to
resist that reduction. Let the dying face the fate it has chosen, especially since it considers itself so clever;
we don't need its addictive, negative emotions dressed up as some hip radio program.

Look toward the future with a smile. Underneath that smile, make sure there's a grin of determination and
playfulness. What collapses around you has been fated to die for centuries if not longer, because its design
is adapted to human emotional neediness and not reality. As it falls away, spaces open for us to create
something new and better.

March 5, 2008
Forgiveness
Although the idea of the individual, judged by morality and beholden to others for the form of being human
and not the degree of striving toward a goal of greatness, remains filthy and horrible underneath its coating
of cupcake-frosting sentiment and submission to the winds of life, there is one area where a nihilist could
look Jesus Christ in the eye and tell him his doctrine succeeds: that of forgiveness.

People come into this life like drunken men caught by an ocean current, bewildered at these new shores
and saddened by the paucity of life to be found there. The past is either barbaric natural selection, or a
series of good intentions that bulked our species up like fat men, bulging with emotion but devoid of
passion for a real sense of right in the only sense that matters, which is carving from the pattern language
of life a beauty which transcends the ugliness, as the universe has been doing since its inception,
converting void to light.

Politics is either authoritarianism or anarchy, if you take each thought to its logical extreme (as the years,
and iteration of failure and dramatic action, will take it). We are born bitter or we check out early, and
become doers of the rote action, evaders of the doubt and death through preoccupation with things we do
not care about in the inner parts of us that can think of more than one thing at once and construct from
them beauty or emotion. The solutions given to us are bad, and our ancestors, afflicted by the same things
that will soon imprint us, have treated us like possessions and left us to the wiles of a world motivated by
fear and thus greed, control and snide witty remarks to conceal an inner hollowness.

At some point, those who still have red healthy blood become possessed by a desire to take the fight to the
enemy and leave scars of mortal wounds across its jaws. But who is the enemy? In a metaphysical
"Where's Waldo," we're left stranded in our angst to try to locate the source of all of this bad, and we
always come up short or pick targets that occupy us but obscure what we really want to change. The
enemy is no one, or it is everyone; it could be ideas, but even those "isms" we learn in college eventually
decompose into simpler thoughts, or rather biological impulses misdirected by illusions so basic we cannot
even construct dogmas of them, and there is no way to take an axe to the intangible.

We have reason to be bitter not only from the past but for the future. Since our fellow citizens are checked
out of reality, and we need consensus to address a problem, we see them as our obstruction because they,
selfishly, refuse to see reality because it is more convenient to remain in denial. We see them as pigs and
whores and we would like, if we search our hearts, to murder them all so the few who have chosen to face
reality can move forward to do something better with our time than the cycling exhibits of rote-task jobs,
shopping malls, traffic-choked streets, news reports of random shootings and government offices where we
always are one triplicate form short of what we need. Our reality is hell, unless we have made ourselves
oblivious like most have chosen to do.

In the state of oblivion, it is impossible to recognize fault with the design of a system. The patterns we live
by are invisible, as are the larger patterns around them, which are invisible because they are mathematical
and informational, not tangible. Oblivion makes us see life as being always this frustrating, and the goal of
oblivion means that we are busy stuffing our minds with garbage, and occasionally, bad and terrible things
happen and we do our best to forget them immediately. One reason we may not see UFOs filling the night
sky is that all civilizations face this threshold, and either surrender to oblivion and self-destruct, or
reorganize themselves through great effort. Distant stars may harbor only ruins and bitter, devolved apes
flinging broken circuit boards at each other.

This balance would make anyone uneasy. It might make them sick. Do we live for the now, and try to keep
our minds distracted, or do we do what might make us feel whole, and struggle for clarity, knowing that
others will be alarmed that we interrupt their oblivion and slash at us with their words, their money and
their censure? What a feast of bitterness -- what a tragedy of inattention -- what a horror, through that
inextricable process of nature that kills things that have lost the will to live, all without flashing a neon sign
in their faces saying OBLIVION REACHED: DOOM AHEAD, PREPARE FOR GALACTICA FAILURE. It is no
surprise so many smart people either outright kill themselves or live increasingly recklessly until drugs,
alcohol, disease or pimped-out ghetto dwellers finish the job for them.

Most people take a middle path. They try to live as best they can, and to push those bad (but real)
thoughts away behind the TV shows and CDs and shiny new gadgets, and try to live inside themselves as
much as possible, while making some concession to the need for ideology. These people -- 99% of those
who aren't so incapacitated by congential stupidity, poverty, self-abuse and/or power that they still notice
things -- will choke us with their sad paradox. They know a need, but in an effort to balance it with
themselves, they have reversed the logic. Instead of doing what is right, they go through the motions of
doing what is right to make themselves feel better about being alive, and to hold up a rhetorical sword to
others: "I am on a mission! I have a goal! Where you, grey lumpenprole of the cascade of Rome's future
failure, may endure only for your sofa and television, I have a cause !"

One reason the internet is disgusting is that all of those who find life frustrating, but cannot yet commit to
doing something about it and possibly giving up the little they have, come to it with their supposedly
unique personal philosophies to wage war on us in a desperate attempt to prove they are right and we are
wrong (nevermind that they have misunderstood the relativity equation, and assumed that a drowning man
can rise by pushing down others to drown faster: the water level remains the same!). They bloviate
violently, they cajole us for not seeing their point of view, they act like petty philosophers and tyrants -- in
fact, their actions are indistinguishable from honest ideologism until we look deeply into them, and see the
logic is reverse. They do not act toward a goal.

They act toward themselves, and use the goal like those little crabs who glue shells and sand in a clump
around them for camouflage. They hide behind "activism" so they do not feel the cold hard fear for this
time, for the past and for the future, and realize how tenuous their own grasp on wanting to exist in it can
be. Haven't we all felt that touch of cold night, a velveteen breeze with the promise of dew, sneaking in
that window we must have forgotten to close and stroking us with a scent that touches on the beautiful
freedoms of childhood, and so in contrast to the present, pointing out what we're missing and converting a
thing of beauty into the touch of death, fear, horror and failure? When we are blocked by anger and
frustration, things of beauty become hateful, because they are not what we have, and they remind us of
our two options: go into denial (anarchy) or force ourselves ahead through personal fascism
(authoritarianism) even though it means our whole lives will be unrelenting work.

Forgiveness intrudes into this state of mind, and gives caesura, because like all states of transcendence
("grace" in the Christlexicon) it reminds us of the goal as a pattern in a pattern language of reality, placing
the tangible aside so that we can see what complements our souls and completes us as people. This
completion is not individualism, which means "placing of the individual before everything else," but a
transcendence of both individualism and the Crowd around us. It is a clarity of mind through beauty, and
one of the few times in life we can think clearly of more than one thing at once, because we have woven
all into an upward current like the thermals of a fire, the sinuous waves of an ocean storm, or the image
left in our mind by a treeful of leaves where we cannot see any one but can see all as a ragged, beautiful
shape.

We forgive those who abused us as children, or did stupid things to us during the day, not because we care
for them, but because we want to free ourselves from them, and by freeing both parties from the
resentment that keeps us earthbound, return focus to the goal. Some say it is better to light a candle than
curse the darkness, where others say it is better to forgive the darkness, and light a candle so you can
read, or cut some pushups, or ignite your own flatulence and send a blue flame into the night proclaiming
"I am alive!" Forgiveness is giving up on the treacle of what has failed and moving toward that which is
more ideal. It takes us from a negative logic of detesting something, to a space of emptiness, from which
we can reconnect with creative logic and instead of acting out our fears of the negative, reach toward what
may be beautiful. (Most people fear emptiness too much to let go of their hatred and impotence, because
at least it's something tangible. It will be there tomorrow. It seems immortal. The more miserable it gets,
the more immortal it seems, which is why people love to suffer -- so long as they can bore us with the
details.)

I encourage us to forgive on several levels:

* Forgive the idiots around you. It's not that they don't know what they do; it's that they're designed to not
even consider knowing. They can do no differently. This is why in greater civilizations, they were told what
to do and removed if they could not do it.

* Forgive the past. Let go of the old symbols, of the "Lord of the Rings" style visions. That which is truly
eternal will be recreated if you act logically according to the pattern language of life. By holding on to
images, you reverse your logic, and act so that the goal leverages you, instead of leveraging yourself
toward the goal.

* Forgive the future. It looks horrible, doesn't it? It's an illusion. Nature's mathematics are designed with
strict boundary functions that regulate systems so that a small amount of abuse makes them apocalyptic,
but that gives them the ability to right themselves quickly. The idiots will plough ahead like lemmings and
at a future moment, in free fall over the churning surf, will whip out Wiley E. Coyote styled signs saying
"WTF FAIL," and then plunge into the abyss. Mourning them and cursing them are less productive than
eating your own waste. Move forward toward the creative goal.

* Forgive the bloviators. They are your future allies, once they accept that trying to uphold themselves as
the universe, with all else (in backward logic) a leverage toward the self. They bloviate because they need a
cause so they do not feel doubt, and through this process of cognitive dissonance, where the individual
invents an alternate reality to compensate for lack of importance or satisfaction in the one ultimate reality
which may not be fully material but converges on materiality, they create "activism" of improbable things.
The more improbable the better, because when one leverages activism to justify oneself, the goal is not to
achieve a better state, but to have a cause for existing. So try to find those unicorns and sodomize God,
because it'll keep you busy until you're too old to take yourself so seriously, and can look forward to
coasting into an oblivious death.

Forgiveness is a form of nihilism that cuts us free from an obligation to consider this time sane, and the
actions of insanity which adapt to its lack of sanity, important. Forgiveness slices it away from us so we can
use our real powers to make changes to the design of reality, reflected in its pattern language, and allows
us to use the principle of nihilism: believe in nothingness, and use that nothingness to remove the
unimportant, which is that which does not have a necessary causal relationship to the interconnected
design of the cosmos. Act not for practicality, but beauty, because what is practical is illusion, and when we
forgive it, we give up on it in the one positive context of giving up -- we move past the dying to the living.

If you take a reverent attitude toward forgiveness, and forgive this world and its people for their illusion, a
stillness will settle over your soul. You will feel the past leave you like a headache at dawn, and leach out of
you like an illness fading away. You will feel silence in your mind and soul, and what is not silent will be
possessed with contemplation of a goal, which in a non-linear fashion involves combining all of the factors
of life into a holographic rope fashioned from the pattern language of the universe. You will feel power as
you see what you can do to move past the confusion and horror of recent history, the lies of others, and
the bloviation of those stranded in not forgiving these lies.

This stillness will be followed by action, but -- not yet. Wait for another moment. In this new stillness, you
will for the first time experience the reverence for the universe and the grace that mystics speak of, where
its beauty will return. Yin and yang, darkness and light, anarchy and clarity, chaos and order... they form
something that is like a warm hand, cuddling you its child. Somewhere a voice like the hum of the earth is
encouraging you to go onward, to create, to make beauty wherever whatever exists. Nihilism has removed
both hatred and apathy. And as you think this, the cold air of the night -- reminiscent of those rare
moments of freedom in childhood when you forgot the rules, and played fearless in the darkness -- intrudes
on you in your lonely room with a hint of dewfall, and you feel a love for the universe that you can craft in
seed and sword, for as long as you live.

April 27, 2008

Face Value
You know the score: you're hanging with some friends, the night is winding down and groups have
separated, so a few pull away from the eternal kitchen confab (kitchens are, apparently, the place for
candid dialogue in modern society) and plump up the sofa for some video entertainment. "Let's try a
foreign film someone says," and you, camping out to rest those feet for a few before checking out the
porch scene, groan inwardly and think, I hope to forsaken gods that it's not British.

Oh, but it is. "Look, it's a bomb," mutters the disillusioned-and-so-realistic detective. "No, it's macaroons!
The package says macaroons!" nasals the authority figure protagonist. Huge explosion, ceremonial gardens
ruined. Someone actually does groan, which stirs you out of mentally composing Why I Hate British
Cinema: An Ongoing Meditation (Book 71). These characters are plastic cut-outs, heck, the whole society
seems to be.

To Americans, British people in television and film seem to be so nerdly and useless we can barely watch to
the halfway point as they struggle with the obvious. Things aren't what they appear to be, so we have to
go talk to everyone who vociferously insists they are, and finally a crack appears, and the mystery unravels
and it's time for tea and another endless talky scene to make sure we understood that, in this movie,
things are as they appear to be. Americans can't believe how proper, how stodgy, and how endlessly nerdly
the British seem to be.

What is it about nerds and the British that make them almost conflatable? If we fall into the trap of the
movie, we try to look at their external appearances and derive formulas based on clothing, tea, prancing
gaits and pinchy-nosed dialects. But really it's the outlook on life that sees reality as even divided into
square blocks, equals signs, and paths of proper behavior from which deviation cannot occur. Nerds get
sand pushed in their face by jocks because a true nerd never quite gets it ; he's always trying to take
something or another at face value, and so confronts reality with an awkward akimbo mentality that makes
us all inwardly shudder.

If you ever wonder why software sucks, and most of it really does once you push it beyond the most
standard use cases, you see this mentality in action. There is a specification, which in order to communicate
between people, makes generalizations and then makes rules based upon them. Then they pass it to nerds,
who generally use computers for nothing but nerd-tasks, in which there is always an archetype and a
response in the code. These then create software that works great if you use it in laboratory-conditions
isolation with perfect data, which almost never occurs in the real world.

They are afflicted further by marketing types, who whether the software firm is for-profit or not, want to
promise everything to everyone, because if The People see it says it can do something on the box, they buy
it -- they want their macaroons to be XML-compliant. So features creep in, and nerds plop them into the
software, without concern for the ecosystem formed of operating system, other stuff running on the
computer, and the user. They ship it out to the world, crashes occur, and phone support people are left to
tell us that they "didn't consider that situation."

Nerdism (and Britishdom) if you look at it carefully is a product of the modern mentality of "ground-up"
construction. Ground-up is the idea that you make little parts interact, and then an order forms itself.
People love ground-up construction because it is the fastest and easiest way to answer that one question or
demand, right now, without having to fix integral problems with the ecosystem in which they're building.
The principle of ground-up construction is that you ignore the ecosystem, and you ignore all consequences
beyond the immediate a + b = c of your plan, so that you deal with the smallest set of data and let the
system build itself.

This idea gets applied universally. In literature, it's the workshop method: you start with a character, invent
one aspect of a scenario, and let the interaction between character and scene create a story. In software,
you reduce your problem to the simplest set of use cases, build categories and build objects to address it.
In society, you find a popular consensus on a problem and create a bureau to handle it. All of these
responses work great, if we only look at the problem in that arbitrary form of abstraction which removes
context; once we open our eyes to reality, and look at the whole, we see we're creating rigid rules that
contradict each other and ensure that our nerdly, proper solutions clash with reality in a collision between
tangibly solid, square thoughts and an organic, gritty reality.

Nerdism is one of those great emergent properties of life that doesn't happen, if we supposed life took itself
as face value, with the creation of a law or a social policy. It's a mirror of society itself. Nerds get it first
because they are shaped by the machines they use, and can either struggle mentally against the
disorganization or accept it and succeed; the British are infected by the class conflict of their small island
and the desire for social climbing it creates. When society wants to destroy its elites, it first creates false
elites through external appearance. They, and everyone else who wants to succeed, behave rigidly
according to that appearance.

These two groups are similar because they are both people who have adapted to rigid social constructs
which reward ground-up construction because they fear leaders. Technology grows rapidly when there are
only a few loose standards, and then rapidly diverges into many incompatible standards, until some
massive force like Microsoft unifies it through smart business logic. Then that big force itself becomes
confused, because its goal has occurred, so it seems defunct, but now as market leader must spend more
time defending itself -- and there are many attackers, and one defender. Rome in the burning mist? Nerds
succeed by acting like this situation and not pointing out its many flaws, because you make more profit by
lying about a product than by pointing out what it can't do.

In the UK, similarly, a populist rebellion took over the country through politics and created an environment
where anyone could be whoever they appeared to be, and so acting properly, and having the right nasal
accent and correct method of pinching your scones as you daintily munch them, superseded having a clue
about reality outside of these social constraints. In both technology and the UK, a consensual reality based
on the appearance of life to a disorganized group of others emerged because of this ground-up
construction. Say what you want about the caprice of kings, but they are good at setting goals and
standards.

The consequences of this mentality of ground-up construction (not design) for both nerds and the British
has been a waste of their best energies. They follow a society that itself is following a notion based on the
appearance, and not actual use, of its products; they have marketed themselves into oblivion and now find
it hard to reconnect with reality. This is why societies go through spasms of revolution in 1968 or with the
open-source movement: people are aware that reality is far away, but have no idea to reconnect with it
because, like revolutionaries, they know they want something different but use the methods of the past and
so arrive at their own version of the past, not a new society.

Of course, with humanity there's a catch, and that is that we listen to each other and in a flexible society
where everyone is competing to be popular, get rich and retire, it's hard to find any thought-leaders. Even
worse, because thoughts that are unpopular get smashed down, most thought leaders stay very quiet, until
you get blatant suicides like Jesus who are so frustrated with the tedium they'd rather die as a big middle
finger on a cross. Ground-up construction is popular, unlike top-down design which requires a consensus
and hard work to make every part of the system work together, because it is accessible to everyone.

However, since ground-up construction works with the rigid square boxes of one problem at a time, it
inevitably causes chaos, which in turn strengthens the governments and corporations who remove that
chaos through blind illogical (and profitable) force. Freedom makes oppression, because freedom creates
pleasant illusion which creates problems that require oppressors. We as individuals are our own worst
enemy when we are interpreted through the filter of many individuals at once trying to agree on some
order (like "freedom" and other ground-up constructions) that will protect us individually.

None of us like the cruelty of jocks, and in this country, jocks are generally idiots who are oblivious to
everything but the social pecking order. Yet in us as we grow frustrated there's something of this mentality,
which is an urge to smash every bureaucrat and marketer who tells us that a turd is a macaroon and we'd
better like it or we'll end up in the jobless line. These people are acting innocently to advance themselves,
but the order that permits that advancement is destructive, and until we create a contrary impulse by
smashing a few faces, it's going to ride us until we quite properly die wondering why the macaroons are
ticking.

July 15, 2008

The Shrug
What makes mental patients fascinating to observe is their delusion: they will act on something that is not
there as if it were, and will even do so when reminded of its nonexistence. It might be that insanity is a
hyperextension of the human ability to operate in a state of paradox to the point where no two conflicting
pieces of data can be wrong.

As we gear up toward elections in the USA and Europe, we are reminded of the continuing collapse of the
West because no public voice is acknowledging the obvious. We fight and spit over elections, write endless
paragraphs about one side or the other, and then note offhandedly the increase in problems. More internal
violence. Less agreement. More parasitic and predatory behavior. More pollution.

All of these are symptoms of a great disorder originating in a poor design of our civilization as a whole, and
that they are increasing should signal to us a general timetable. But we hear nothing of tackling the
problems. Instead, we have reached a point in society where our population is divided into small camps
that each pursue their own partial solutions. There is no chance for consensus on any direction, since each
group is addicted to its own incompatible partial "solution," and therefore the real problem - the problem at
the root of all others - is not addressed.

When this situation is named and described to the above-average person, the response is recognition and a
shrug. What am I gonna do about it? It seems irretrievable, so we resist passively and negatively, trying to
slice heads off the Hydra fast enough to preserve what little we have left. This time of rearguard action will
delay the end but not steer around it, because it does not have another action.

This Oedipal tendency - we kill our impotent fathers, and try to crawl back into our mother's wombs - is
natural to any psychology, not just human, which feels it has been born into a dark and pointless time. Yet
to steer around this mess we need not only to recognize the dark, but to create a light, a different
(although not "new") direction. We must rediscover what has always been true and give it a new face.

If we do not take this path, we face more of the shrug.

During the late 1980s, before the collapse of the USSR, I had a chance to speak unguardedly to several
Soviet emigres. Each was proud of his or her nation, but each also expressed reservations. "It is a great
nation, in bad times, but so few see this," they would say. "So we carry on, and hope--" and then it came,
as unpredictable as a stormfront on a sunny day: The Shrug. The sentence ended before its end. The
thought ended before its conclusion. Where there might have been a course of action, there was only The
Shrug.

Let me make it clear for you: no partial solution will work. Another election with a new outcome will not
work. A race war will not work. Our empire is decaying from within, and there is no one to blame nor any
need for blame, so long as we correct it. If we can build even a partial consensus among the intelligent and
capable, this change will happen easily, as society depends on such people for its daily operations. We are
in a time when the horse is heading toward the barn door and we have a chance, perhaps a decade or two,
in which to lock it. We are in a time when such consensus is possible simply because of the ominous
horizon facing us.

It is the tendency of all things in nature to regress toward a mean as a way of stabilizing them. Higher
intelligence entities are willing to try more ways of tackling a problem, but with that comes an instability,
and so nature surges forward first, and then drops back. What emerges is more stable and less highly
articulated (genius) than what was earlier. However, it is equally "natural" for smart things to preserve
themselves and to resist this change. All of the greatness of humanity has come from this resistance, and it
takes the form not of holding back but of surging forward, of creation an option to the regression. The best
resistance is a positive offense. This is the metaphysical opposite of The Shrug.

We cannot depend on our leaders because they do not lead. They adhere to a philosophy of
consequentialism, which roughly translated is "Whatever most people think they want is best for the
nation." It is illusory because the nation is not an individual, although it is composed of individuals, and the
tendency of individuals to not see the whole picture and do only what benefits them personally can
endanger the nation. We are bound to our nation as much as ourselves, but most will not see this.

Lacking the experience for judgment as much as the capacity, because they have not had the years and
overlook to witness large systems rise and fall, the average intelligent person is as misguided as the
average moron. They are not wrong, in the sense of having a defect, but they have picked the wrong
conclusions. They try to patch up the system they have while doing what is in their own interests and when
things get out of hand, they pick a strong conservative leader or a liberal revolution. Neither helps.

Both strong conservative leaders and liberal revolutions attempt to fix problems by weeding out the bad
and replacing it with a blank slate that they hope will restore the best of the previous system in a new
form. The problem is that they do not understand architectures, and therefore are unaware that they are
trying to build a skyscraper on the foundation of a cottage, and are amazed when the system breaks down.
Depression then reigns, and an embittered population essentially suicides by choosing fanatical tyrants who
promise order and deliver conformity.

In this depression, you hear two dominant voices: those who believe they can buy off the disaster and
those who are sure they will personally survive it. The placators want to spread the wealth evenly,
assuming that this will solve the problem, but thanks to the judgment skills of most, this ends up simply
redistributing wealth to the more parasitic and destructive personalities in the system. The "strong survive"
types are oblivious to the concept of multiple generations and the effect of time, and do not recognize that
while they, personally, might survive, anything of greatness they achieve, including their descendents, will
be wiped out.

These failing attempts parallel the problem itself. Most people will overlook the obvious (empire decaying) in
favor of detail management (stop drunk driving) because it is easier and cannot destabilize themselves
personally. Even the liberals have a variation on the "strong survive" virus in this: the whole thing might be
going down, but somehow, I will prevail, and that's what is important. It is not surprising that every
declining society in history has been remarked upon by others to have a startling degree of egomania.

When we look deeply into egomania of all its various types, we see beneath the bravado a simpler
mechanism. It is a turning away from the obvious decline, much as foregoing notice of the decline in favor
of petty partial solutions is; what separates the two is the degree of imminent collapse. Our refusal to see
the problem, recognize its inescapability, and act upon it with a positive different direction is not logic, but
an ancient signal of failure: The Shrug.

October 11, 2007

Things That Are Burned, And Things That Are
Living
The mania for the new bleats from every news source and gaping mouth: the old has failed, let's find
something new, and maybe it will wrap up all of the trendy memes -- in self-help books, on talk shows, in
politics -- into some convenient handle so we can tell people, "Well I believe in X," and then go about doing
what we were doing.

In a time where ideas are defined by who participates in them, the past is burned, and all the past labels
for things are burned. You're a libertarian? Like those other guys? Well... not really, but kind of. That
invites the other person to one-up you with some new and trendy thing, even if they make it up on the
spot. "How quaint. I'm an anarchosyndicalist Raelian." Much more unique, much more important; clearly
this is the superman walking the earth.

We burn labels as we wander through them, no more sincere with the next than the last, because like
pilgrims we're looking for the hand of God to reach us through a Word and somehow deliver us from a
primal state of ignorance. We all see the situation is calamitous, but how to put a solution in a few words?
Give up, and find something that sounds good instead. "I'm a revolutionary phrenologist."

My cynical conservative friends call such thinking New Age because it's like soup. You pick and mix and
match from some existing beliefs, rope them together with a universal ("all you need is love," "life belongs
to the aggressive") and then use it as a self-empowering, or if we're honest, self-justifying, mantle of
authority. I am right because I am something new, something that bypasses all these old burned things...
I'm a transcendental alluviator.

Things that are burned:

"Think for yourself." What a nice sentiment... and that is all. The average Homer Simpson thought this
made a greater justification for being selfish, and took the exhortations of every speed metal band from the
1980s to heart. Now he does the same things but has a handy retort to critics.

"Think of others." It's a great idea if you like tokens. In our inner hearts, most of us are sick to death of
others. They crowd us, most of them are stupid, and the ones that aren't are so manic with a desire to
escape that they'll push us under to get a few inches above. But, if once a month we think of others by
working at a soup kitchen, we feel vindicated in continuing our slothful, selfish, slovenly behavior the other
29 days.

"Think of the children." The only people who really take this to heart are the pedophiles. It's a great way to
force other people to be sympathetic to whatever you're doing. We need nuclear weapons -- think of the
children! Like pointing out someone's fly is open, it only functions to take wind from their sails, not goad
them to something productive.

What never gets burned are the things you can't sum up in a catchphrase. Like thinking of what is realistic
and pragmatic. Thinking of what will be true in all situations. These things don't burn because they aren't
tangible and yet open-ended at the same time. They require interpretation, and that interpretation is not
universal, so they're garbage as memes. But as guides to life, in a time when everyone else is drowning in
the burned-out? They're superior.

July 21, 2008

Cheer the Fail
We know from our whizbang science that light travels 186,000 miles a second. If we multiply that number
by four for a rough estimate, we have the distance to the nearest star, as our science knows it. Outside of
that star cluster, the next is a multiple of five, then seven, then nine, then eleven, and then numbers so big
we don't normally consider them.

Just as our bodies are mostly water, our universe is mostly space. Quantum physics tells us this space (and
time, related to space by the change of events) bends with the objects in it, but the physical realities
indicated by this patterning remain. If life is mostly emptiness, on an existential level, it is only an echo of a
cosmic consideration, where so much is left uncreated as we see it in this moment -- and for the purpose of
the cosmos, our species' endurance so far has been a moment.

As individuals we wander through space and time combined. The blue eyes of an old man light up when he
realizes that, under all the new concrete and those trendy internet cafes his confounded grandson
frequents, the intersection at which he sits is where he saw first a lady with peacock feathers in her hat.
Peacock feathers -- he thinks of a dance when he was a young man -- a war passed -- then he was
married, and time folded up quickly as he busied himself with earning a living, getting the kids through
school, then burying his wife. Now there is only time, a memory of then as real as now, and his eyes cloud
again.

Almost three days ago I descended into a bookstore. Two generations ago it was a thriving practice; now,
in a battered house in a neighborhood that will in five years be a rocket of gentrification soaring to the
upper echelons of income, it is haphazardly administered by a granddaughter who spends most of the day
clicking. Click to ship. Click to sell. Click to buy. Click to file taxes. The innards of the house predeceased
the forward arc of the business, and now it is ceiling high rough bookshelves piled with books from
antiquity to yesterday, decorated in mouse droppings and the reflexive pulsing of roaches dying in the heat.

Light creates triangular shadows from each book cover across its compressed pages. You can run your
hand over the spines as you step over the artifacts of disorganization caused by time -- not enough minutes
today to alphabetize, so the box plops down, or a sheaf of magazines laid across the tops of books -- and
marvel at the human race. The conquerors of the universe, with their many volumes of wisdom. But this
facade, too, collapses as you spend minutes marveling. What seemed like innocent science fiction is a
second-rate Crichton imitation; that book about submarine warfare, as you read the precis on the back, is
actually a Clancy clone, overboiled.

Even others shock with their flat-earthy misdirection. Books pop off the shelves with theories that are not
so much outdated as always a stab in the wrong direction, hyped with religious fervor by someone who saw
this idea as their path to the salvation of publication, a mutual fund and press currency to the brand that is
their name. Authors whose names remain unknown are there with their mediocrity in plain sight: a grand
unification theory that turned out to be a math error, a historical re-narration of humanity that ended up
being unpopular, a series of essays in an old school format no one reads (and shouldn't, if the content is
any indication).

What made this place spectacular was its failures, because it is an eddy pool of them. In come books from
estate sales as the older generation gasp out finality in hospital beds and at the eighteenth whole; onto
eBay and Amazon go the databases; out via express mail go the few hits, the 1-5% of each collection that
has real value because it's still relevant (a stab at defining that vital but slippery term: connected via chains
of causal interpretation through a knowledge of repeated, originless patterns). And the rest stay behind, in
faint air conditioning bleating over warping plywood.

The place literally rang with the drama of individuals, each struggling to be heard in a crowd that babbles
like drunk people herded into lifeboats near a vortex of black water, or maybe of time. Each voice calls a
name that rings out for a moment and then is subsumed into the whirlpool of names, as you read
sequentially down each row. Here are those Victorian novels that during May of 1968 seemed to be the
next big thing, or that promising science fiction author who died of cocaine overdoses, or any number of
important scholarly academic intellectual analyses that now no one has heard of, since the same climate of
desperate trends that produced them buried them under more of the same.

It is a graveyard -- with longer epitaphs -- of human ambitions based on a delusion, which is that one can
create eternity out of the current. The idea that you can summarize a trend, or even worse make another
instance of it that has a catchy line here or two, and in doing so connect to the time that flows past like
water or air, as a motivation, fueled the creation of these many books. And how many do we need now?
Out of 90,000 books on the premises, perhaps one or two thousand are of any use -- any relevance.

It is an epitaph for human failure: the drama of individuals culminating in a flood of opinions that cannot
distinguish themselves, so each becomes as likely as any other. Heat death results: we cannot choose
because there is too much to choose from and because of the chaos, each seems as likely as any other.
Like cancer cells, the individuals that choose to make themselves the focus instead of the body or
civilization multiply and demand attention, but they are not self-sustaining. Because seeing themselves as
what they are would invalidate them, they instead deny reality, and cheer the failure around them because
it obscures their crime.

If we read carefully, we will see we are repeating a pattern slashed out in these very books. We found we
could make ourselves sound knowledgeable by mastering the symbols of our time, deconstructing them and
cutting them loose from meaning, so we can re-arrange them and can give them that gravitas of not
relevance but something like it, perhaps currency with a deep and abiding knowledge of the patois of
scientific and cultural concepts in which we construe our micro-era.

The 1970s colored jacket encloses a book about the greatest moment in sports of that decade, and now,
why would we care; same with the 1980s cocaine-fueled CEO who promises a grand theory of everything
business. We can't even find him in the digital card catalog at our local business library. Lest we thought we
were immune, there's that book from the late 1990s about how the internet will be expressed in sound and
smell, and just coming in the door, a book from last week that was read and discarded immediately,
covering how the Wikipedia model applies to small arms.

A walk through the halls of failure and irrelevance in a used bookstore like this helps us rediscover our
cynicism. Although most people use the word to mean pessimism regarding our future, it has a simpler
definition: belief that human individuals are self-serving, and that this is what defeats us as a species. The
opposite of cynicism is not positivity, in the bizarre ways of the winding logical chain of justification, but
self-hatred.

Humanity is probably the most self-hating species in the universe because its members recognize how far it
falls short of its promise, and rather than becoming cynical, they write themselves and their species off with
self-hatred: "oh well, we're a failure anyway" with the implication of there's nothing we can do, we're
deterministically verified as a failure.

When we declare our species a failure, we're giving up on the whole thing including all individuals.
Paradoxically, maybe, it is egalitarian, because everyone is treated exactly the same way, and since we're a
mixed bag, that requires us to descend to the lowest common denominator and declare ourselves a failed
species because most of us are unexceptional, and so have no positive ethics (I construct things) but cleave
quickly to negative ethics (I fight against inequality). Cynicism allows us to keep the ability to act.

Cynicism lets us look at most people and separate the good from the mediocre and/or bad, which causes
panic among those who have committed no positive ethical acts because such acts are inconvenient if
you're busy pleasing yourself. Most humans would rather that we each write our own mediocre books, than
that a few rise above the rest, because that is least harmful to that vector of human knowledge, the
individual, through which we experience reality. Are we a means to the end of life, or vice-versa, that life is
a means to us as an end?

Unlike cynicism, self-hatred does not disrupt The Big Illusion: we aren't in control, history doesn't repeat
itself, we cannot control our future, we cannot look at the patterns of reality and find a way to make them
work for us, it's not may fault, i'm not selfish, etc. This big illusion is a smokescreen for the unpleasant
reality that the root of our problem is a repeated pattern in which individuals demand exclusion from
judgment, and in doing so, obliterate our chance of having a goal or a consensus, because either one of
those can be compared to individual actions and show the individual is coming up short.

The root of this human desire to protect the individual at all costs from judgment -- a sociopathic tendency,
because it demands absolute withdrawl from any desire to cooperate on collective acts, which leaves
society stranded in an entropy of being unable to make vital decisions, and thus incurring massive social
costs for its intransigence -- originates in the low self-esteem that causes individuals to be afraid of coming
up short. If we are judged, goes the thought, maybe I will be insufficient, so I will strike back against all
judgment, and if I have to destroy society by destroying consensus to do it, oh well; at least I am not
threatened, or rather, at least my self-image is not threatened.

The essence of being cynical, instead of self-hating, is to realize that if we see our only method of self-
governance as our institutions and external categorical groupings (like government, Blacks, Whites,
Christians) we will never solve our problems, which deepens the whole of self-hatred. Cynicism allows us to
see that the root of most problems is the behavior of individuals, and that when enough of them
misbehave, they force others to compete by indulging in similar behavior (think kids cheating on a hard
test; if enough kids cheat and raise the curve, you need to cheat to get that A you deserve) and so society
unravels.

Cynicism allows us to see that the predominance of human political thought is argument for a lack of
personal accountability and, as a side effect, a desire to make institutions and other external, symbolic
representations of humanity accountable while the bad behavior of individuals is excused. If we excuse bad
behavior in others, we can expect the same treatment ourselves. Since people fear screwing up more than
they anticipate success, this rewards the low self-esteem and flies under the radar of the high self-esteem,
whose only interest in error is brushing past it.

In this time of self-hatred, cynicism allows us to get our sanity back. We can look at each new book that
comes out and squint, frown and put it down. All of its drama and theatrical self-importance can be seen
for what it is, irrelevant, and we can gauge its actual worth through its actual relevance to truth,
something we can only derive from observing reality. In other words: does this book pass on wisdom? If
not, no point paying it attention, because it is a small blip on the radar before disappearing into dusty,
roach-strewn stores that peddle failed books.

Rejecting the blanket absolute of self-hatred lets us hope again to fix the problem. It helps us get outside
the ultimate baffler of the human intellect, which is that all we know is relative to our own perspective, and
as a result we transcend ourselves and through the nihilism that negates the self, see the world as it is, a
vast grandeur in which our part is insignificant. We can then look at human not as a moral construct, but an
aesthetic one, and ask ourselves what might make it more beautiful, as if we were pruning a garden. And
then we realize: we are the pruners of the garden, because most sleep, and would prefer to let it grow wild
because they are afraid that their one weed is not the whole of the garden.

Our cynicism helps us throw out that which has lost relevance. The past; the human condition; all the
excuses made by others to justify their own failure and so the ongoing failure of our species; the fond
illusions that are used to manipulate the masses -- these are all dead books on a shelf of obscurity. In each
book we can see the same error, which is a fixation on a part and not the whole, and as a result, a desire
to promote the self that overtook sense and so produced more transient non-ideas to toss in the landfill
with humanity's other justifications, deceptions and fond illusions. We can throw that out, too.

When we step back and gain this perspective, we are finally free from the fear and paranoia of the self,
because we have given up on controlling our destiny by recognizing our tiny place in the world. Looking at
the garden that is humanity we see no reason to give up in self-hatred; rather, we see what fits in with a
vision of where in the future we'd like that garden to be, and what needs to be trimmed and in some
cases, what needs to be dug up and have something else planted in its place. Our inner monkey squeals at
first at this idea, because we're not emotional about it, nor are we looking out for ourselves. That's right --
we have surpassed our fear of death with a positive, forward-thinking desire to make the beautiful instead
of fixating on the fearsome end which inevitably awaits us all.

Our selves, through which we know the world, can only make sense to us if we recognize them as the
messengers and not the reality they describe. Our most outraged "activists" complain that dictators use
humanity as a means to an end but they readily defend ourselves using life itself as a means to an end of
its smallest part, which is our individual selves. Our fear that somewhere, someone else is getting away
with something we don't have, as an extension of this grasping self, motivates us to act in ways that tear
down the whole so no one has a privilege we do not. Self-hatred of our species is part of this.

If the camera pans backward, and we see ourselves as each one plant in a garden that as a whole forms a
beauty we find transcendental, we can free ourselves from the racheting fear that comes with each
fluctutation in the sun or rain. We can see how the legumes feed the daisies, and the cycling of the
seasons, and of death, keeps the garden strong. We can see how coming over a hill on a misty morning the
garden must appear to be alive with beauty itself, and we can also see how it is pretty in each season, and
a slate on which to carve for the next.

August 26, 2008

The Small World
There's an old expression which reveals the degree to which we as individuals have no faith in your society.
"Keep your head down," our grandparents told our parents, meaning: work hard and ignore the rest.

This fascinating statement suggests first that minding one's own business is necessary to escape a dog-eat-
dog world, and second, that this world needs escaping because there's no point observing it -- like trying to
find reference points on the shore while being swept downstream by a river of chaos, it is disorienting, even
terrifying.

A generation or two later, however, we can see the problem with this kind of anarchic, live and let live
statement. If you don't provide guidance to society at large, it as a collective heads toward the lowest
common denominator, and you awaken from your slumber of work in your 60s to realize that your country
has veered toward the third world. How did that happen? Head down means no awareness of anything but
oneself.

Currently, cynicism apexes as our society insists on shouting its failures from the highest of mountains. We
are looking for saviours, or someone else to care, unaware that a recipient must understand the importance
of a message before he or she will look for it.

We, the undeluded, are exhausted like the rest but for different reasons. We are tired of seeing the bad
guys always win while pretending to be good. We are tired of seeing the mob favorites crowd out the better
option. We are spent with the tedium of finding a society in constant motion, and constant competition,
without ever producing clarity .

Most people are sick of this, too, and so they turn to negativity. They speak nasty things about their
countries, their ethnicities, their families, themselves and their species. They feel powerless to change, so
they give up. There are infinite ways to give up, but the biggest are suicide, self-destructive behaviors, and
a prevailing negativity that leads to chronic low self-esteem.

Media helps urge this process on. Bad news sells better than good because who's going to pay attention to
an all clear notice? We respond to threats more than positive affirmation because threats warn us we could
lose it all. Positive ideas, including possibly better choices, are risk without certain reward, where what we
have now is certain reward.

Now that media has been democratized, we have added more billboards and bullhorns to blast jumbles of
confused symbols into the fray. Your average blogger, like the average hip guy at a rock show or big man
on campus, makes his or her status by telling people in superlatives what they want to hear. We should
rename blogs "blovs" because they're all bloviation, or breathless abundant speech with very little to say,
repeating memes that excuse us from fixing the problem by blaming someone else.

Consequently, we are a species very divided against itself, a civilization that hates itself, and individuals
who perceive a religious clarity to negativity as strongly as they perceive their own lack of efficacy. All we
can do, boys, is keep trying the same damn thing that didn't work the last 6 million times we tried it, but...
try harder!

As this crescendo of daily negativity assaults us, we engage in a behavior as instinctive as eating: we look
down. We in effect create a small world composed of our desk, what we're reading, our computer, our
plate, our knees as we sit on the toilet. We keep our heads down so we don't have to try to orient
ourselves while looking at the whole.

We have in effect made small worlds of all the things that we can control, and have ignored the big world
in which all causes are connected to effects, in a cascade of consequences. We have seceded from reality
into a space defined by the self. It is no different than an ostrich hiding its head in the sand, or a child
diving under a blanket to avoid seeing a scary movie.
Some people like to pretend they're aware, and cool, and they express this through (a) a detachment from
the big problems of the world and (b) coming up with "solutions" that they think make them look cool. This
belief, Crowdism, is a multi-millennial trend that represents the decay of society from forging new ground,
to bickering over the spoils.

These people embrace ideals that are unrealistic because these ideals can never be realized. Even if they
are "activists" who spend all their time blogging and protesting and washing out green(tm) condoms, they
do not expect their activity to be productive. It's a lifestyle.

The furthest extension of this, the hipster, sees this trend for what it is, a social accessory or fashion, and
treats it accordingly. They talk about ideology like they talk about music and clothes; they're hermit crabs,
building a house of justifications and trinkets around them in a "unique" order, to justify their personalities
to you, so you might help them be popular.

It further depresses smart people to see this mass, which seems to grow because it offers easy, pleasant
illusions. Everything this mass touches becomes inauthentic and collapses from within. These same people,
who seem to care about how the bad guys always win etc., are actually the source of bad guys always
winning, because they're thoroughly insincere and easily manipulated.

To win at their kind of society, you come up with an opinion that restates the popular opinion -- always
variants of "keep your head down and make yourself more popular/rich" -- and state it in some unique
way, in the same type of unique approach to surface appearances that makes a gaudy hipster seem novel.
They feed off each other, like a cancer, and contribute nothing important. Even they know it, which is why
they are manic to have "new" things to celebrate every day.

Enduring truth has no place with such people.

The remaining people who have a grip on reality find these people depressing because they seem to be
winning the war of numbers. This is not quite true; just like most people are not committed to one political
ideal or another, but pick the least bad of several bad options, there is a silent majority that has not joined
this trend.

This silent majority contains a group of smart people who are working hard but also keeping their heads
up. They tend to be depressed because they see how numbers trump truth, and how their position of
appealing to other smart people will always put them in the minority. Most readers of this article will come
from this group.

If you pull back from the small world, you should also pull back from the consensual reality layer
manufactured by those who want to keep everyone in their small worlds as a means of control. This control
group, formed of predatory businesspeople as well as parasitic hipsters, wants us all to ignore the collective
direction of humanity. They profit when we sleep.

However, their victory is strikingly temporal, as is any victory when the overall path is downward. Many
wars have been decided after one side, winning most of the battles, realized its position in the war was a
losing one. Most of the successful people in life endured multiple defeats before finding a way to express
the idea that brought them victory.

What is happening now is the precursor to a population bottleneck. Bottlenecks occur when all but a small
group of the best are destroyed or cease breeding. In an odd way of inverting the small world, bottlenecks
enforce the big world on a big group, and those who are not oblivious to reality -- entrenched in small
worlds -- prevail.

This process is as much mathematics as "nature" in some romanticized sense. Certain patterns prevail in
how data points are distributed, as influenced by boundaries. Periodically, those boundaries, influenced by
the pattern within them, redistribute, and they constrict, forcing the scatter pattern to find a clearer,
simpler shape.
As our species nears total domination of nature, it also suffers from a lack of internal consistency. There is
no political consensus, no values consensus, no lifestyle consensus, and very little quality control, especially
as modern states create Nanny State and Welfare programs to help every clueless idiot join in the numbers
game.

The response from our world will be one of gradually mulching most of humanity into a previous
incarnation, or driving them down the evolutionary ladder toward apedom. Those who behave like apes --
screwing anything that moves, drinking and drugging and also doing nothing productive, amusing
themselves while the world around them goes to rot -- will become apes over the generations. Let the
hipsters lead their so-cool lives, because they're powerless against this trend bigger than their trend.

Many will fail to make meaningful connections with others, will fail to breed, and will end lonely granular
people washed out of the gene pool. As the effects of the instability they create spread, countries will fail,
and even more will be washed out in the ensuing chaos, war, anarchy, bloodshed, disease and corruption.
It may not be elegant, but it solves the problem.

As you can see, there is no need to be depressed about our human future. All you need to do is work for
the positive, instead of getting negative and reverting into small worlds like the hipster. Build up your local
community; enrich yourself; make great art and literature; make yourself stronger and better educated in
the things that really matter -- study of reality.

The bottleneck is coming and while it seems like the jerks who enforce their dogma of the small world upon
us, obscuring the big world, are winning, they are not. They're just reaching a peak of activity before they
get washed out. Avoid depression, further yourself and the truth, and as sure as the sun rises, you -- and
all realists -- will win.

September 5, 2008
Intransigence
Life would be easier if society did not ignore geniuses. People can choose to ignore wisdom, and if they
decide that the source threatens their own self-image, they will ignore the message along with the
messenger. This is why politicians love to be humble and periodically have "human interest moments," like
mispronouncing a word (USA) or showing some cleavage (DE).

This weird kind of passive revenge is empowered by our ability to, using our very big brains, shut off any
input we do not like in the world around us. We can create a false symbolic world as a result, false because
it does not accurately represent reality, and symbolic because it shows us only a partial representation but
represents in communication the whole.

Psychology gives us, in true deconstructionist style, a multitude of justifications or diagnoses of this
condition, but we can be plain speakers and call it delusion. The root of this delusion is an emotional
stubbornness that comes not from fear of change but from fear of the world, and consequently, preferring
the "controlled" world of our own false symbolic worlds.

We call this delusion intransigence, a word that means stubbornness with undertones of delay, selfishness
and inability to act when required by the reality outside the self. Its roots in the vernacular meaning of
"unwilling to compromise" suggest its psychological pattern: people become unwilling to adapt their inner
mental vision of the world to data from the world.

This narcissistic -- isn't that what it is? loving self-image over world -- outlook affects people in any
situation where it is easy for them to have enough wealth, where they are distant from activities they
nonetheless are called to comment upon, and where they are empowered by the fact of civilization
supplanting nature to deny reality some or all of the time.

A truly psychotic person who cannot tell reality from fantasy could be seen as being fully intransigent,
where the alcoholic who ignores how pursuit of drink ruins her life is moderately intransigent, where the
suburban mom who wants to vote for a new candidate bringing "change" in the hopes that all problems will
go away is mildly intransigent.

But the disease of intransigence spreads through multiple contacts, because people are not like animals,
and we can hide our emotions and thought, so we're constantly talking to each other trying to figure out
the other's intent. In the course of these conversations during an average day, many people express the
idea that intransigence is OK in many ways.

You wanted a drink at lunch? Aw, screw it, the experts are wrong, go ahead. That little slice of cheesecake
surely won't make you fat. This new candidate will fix everything magically. You are worried that this
product will not address your needs? Trust me... you don't need to worry... would a traveling vacuum
cleaner salesman lie?

In our modern way of batting aside all abstract problems with very earthy responses, we might ask why
this is important. After all, society is there to make sure the greatest number of individuals get to
experience the greatest good, which is fulfillment of some mystical mission of purpose in life that somehow
few seem to find.

But we can't question their possibly insane paths because we don't want people questioning our possibly
insane, selfish, deceitful acts. It's personal detente: we tolerate intransigence in others because of our own
intransigence, and this turns all of us from thinking individuals into a mob that wants the simplest, most
removed solution from us personally possible, which is always a non-solution that will cause collective
problems, and demand more government control.

Intransigence is what connects personal selfishness to collective psychological failure to descent into third-
world oligarchy. "It's not my fault, I just wanna do what I wanna do" -- the mantra of the intransigent -- is
the rallying cry and death knell of humanity, and it's how all great civilizations decayed into third world
status.

Thinkers like Jesus Christ tried to show people that if we love each other and suspend judgment, we can
escape the cycle that creates intransigence. All others, wanting to justify their own intransigence, saw was
the conclusion: love and tolerate everyone and judge nothing, so we can all be intransigent.

Like most moral questions in life, intransigence is a choice inherent to the human condition. We have brains
that build mental models of the world, and then observe models of ourselves acting in them, and we use
this process to assess how our actions will play out in the world around us ("I imagine myself throwing an
anvil at him... and then cops swarm in. No, instead I will use the infamous Strongly Worded Letter with
Hints of Legal Repercussions.")

You can see intransigence in children:

Mom: OK, kids, we've got to leave McDonald's now.

Kids: But I don't wanna!

Mom: We need to leave NOW and I'll explain later.

Kids: But I don't wanna! I don't wanna go!

Gunman: (Has been hiding in corner, twitching, noticed by Mom. Finally makes his move. Corpses of
mothers and children alike fall, a reminder to all of us that morality is situational -- sometimes the right
thing to do is chloroform the kids and save their lives by disrespecting their personal autonomy.)

You can imagine that this has shaped us as a species:

Mother: Children, it is time for us to walk all night, for the fire comes o'er the crest.

Children: Mother, we do not wish to. We do not want to go.

Mother: See yonder crescent flame of ochre and crimson? It is our death.

Young girl: It won't be here for some time. I don't want to go now.

Understanding the destructive aspects of intransigence requires we understand how this universe works. It
functions by having objects move in relation to one another, which causes the whole of its situation to
change, and this iterative process drives the formation of time and space. Even at its stillest, this universe
is very far from still.

Consequently, life is moving all around us, and in the way mathematical distributions tend toward either
entropy and an increasingly simplicity, which like a fractal pattern finds the most optimal shape for a
scenario and then reproduces it in different locations, creating an entirely different effect, life is refining
itself -- including us.

As a result, if we do not keep getting better at who we are and what we do, we start sliding backward. It's
nature's way of taking out the trash, or at least, downgrading it to ape status in third world republics where
anyone with any knowledge is called a witch doctor and crucified.

Relativity shows us that the world keeps moving "forward," or walking through permutations and creating
new spaces and new needs. The intransigent however prefer their comfort zones: I know how to do this, I
feel success at it, I'm comfortable doing this, it doesn't challenge me, I won't ever come up short by being
incompetent doing what I know I can do, so I'm not leaving it. This keeps them feeling warm and secure,
but invisibly, the world around them makes them obsolete.

Think of it this way: if after five generations, a species of bird was doing just what it always did without
improving, we would consider that species to be either (a) in a dead-end cycle toward irrelevance or (b)
having found a niche, in which it will be comfortably mediocre until something else finds that niche, and
because it's hungrier, evolves faster and wipes out the complacent, intransigent original species.

If after a decade of working in a field, you were no better at doing what you did when you started, you
would be frustrated. But intransigence conveys you toward that state by convincing you to satisfy yourself
with Pleasant Illusions, and not reach out into the world where you might guess wrong and encounter
Failure or other Difficult Realities.

As the movie Apocalypse Now points out, a wealthy nation can wage wars in foreign lands, but because its
troops will go home to safety, they can afford to be instransigent, and so they get beat by the more
motivated rebels. In Brave New World , Aldous Huxley pointed out how the pursuit of pleasure, a type of
intransigence, dooms a society to manipulation by cynical witless leaders.

Other nations fight harder because they have no choice. It does not mean they are better, and in fact, they
may be worse on the whole, and may have only figured out how to fight better. They may win, and then
create societies that are even more doomed than what they replace. History suggests this is the most
common pattern.

The intransigent doom wealthy nations, but those who get past this intransigence discover that there is
always another Renaissance waiting to happen. Always another breakthrough. We can only get better at
being what we are, if we overcome our fear and are willing to try to make things work in the world outside
ourselves.

The ancients knew this. Among others, the Hindus warned us in the Bhagavad-Gita , which could be seen as
a screed against intransigence and for, instead, love of the world and its mechanisms in a transcendental
state. The Hindu religion may be the oldest wake up call that says "ignore the world of yourself, and look at
the world around you, and only then look at yourself but look deep within, instead of paying attention to
the part of you that looks like the world, past the surface elements that others want to use to claim
brotherhood with you."

Hinduism is so beyond the pointless division (because power, like all tools, dictates how you must use it)
between liberalism and fascism. It has melded the two extremes into pure common sense, if the sensor is a
super genius. It is identical to European paganism, the animistic polytheism of the Greeks and Romans,
even the conqueror religions of the Aztec and Maya. These religions -- if read as philosophies -- are
identical in form, because we share a world, and certain ways of responding to it always turn out better
than others (if you don't believe that, create a religion centered around surviving in the Alaskan forest
without making a fire).

As religious symbolism goes, the Battle of Kurukshetra is one of the clearest symbols in all of history. It
reminds us that it doesn't matter if some people are our friends, or our personalities like their personalities,
or we think we need them or they seem to be our brothers. If they're intransigent, they're delusional and
withdrawn from reality, and we must destroy them for the health of our species!

Deep inside nature there is a feral, primal, hateful fascist that wants to see that child's -- the one above
who didn't wanna leave just because a forest fire was coming -- charred skull resting in the roots of an
ashen tree. This same force, as old as the universe itself, works by finding what patterns fit into a situation
so flawlessly they can simplify it. It is the genius of a relative universe, and the great-grandfather of natural
selection.

Intransigence is a human response to the primacy of this force. It threatens us, personally, in our weakest
moments, so we're tempted to get just powerful enough to deny it, and then we'll feel safe. But this safety
is like the warm feeling that comes with hypothermia: it's our bodies administering palliative, symptomatic
treatment -- making us feel happy and warm before death rips us from this earth.

September 10, 2008

Oncology
by Vijay Prozak

Imagine lying asleep in your house, dreaming of something pleasant. Unknown to you, your house is on
fire, but this is an invisible fire that leaves no traces others can see. You wake up, certain the house is on
fire, but everyone else in your family insists that everything is fine. A paralytic indecision results.

The change in attitude from being in the modern dream to opposing it can only be described as an
awakening. While in the modern dream we labor for a laundry list of "issues" and "concerns," the
awakening launches us into an awareness of one solitary issue, which is survival. When the root of your
civilization is rotted, the only concern can be fixing it.

For those who do awake, a baffling decision awaits: we live in a time of trends, when getting enough
people to buy/vote/repeat a meme determines whether we succeed. But re-inventing a civilization requires
more depth than that, and is not as easy as a revolution, where you unite people by a negative mantra and
have them form a military lynch mob to overthrow your leaders.

The task before you is to make a society based around a singular principle, which leads to a goal, values
system and culture in common. Our society as it stands now is composed of the exact opposite principle:
no goal, but we facilitate any idea except that which opposes our society's design. These two are opposite
extremes and as time goes on, we see how our current civilization's design brings out viciously enduring
problems, like a cancer.

Because people in this time think in terms of "issues" and "concerns," and not a single idea which informs
all issues as older types of civilizations had, they're going to object to any instance of this universal
principle of a healthier society. Obviously, since racial issues are as taboo as any issue has ever been in a
civilization, the instant race is mentioned a binary category is created: racist/non-racist.

This kind of "my way or the highway" thinking is common to a time when people can barely string two
thoughts together. Modern people are incoherent because they are overloaded with bureaucratic jobs,
probably disastrous marriages and families, and neurotic from a lifetime of television, social pressures and
advertising talking in their brains. You will have to argue your point without letting them define you in these
narrow categories.

Instead of getting sidetracked into a discourse over racism, which fits into the preconceived media narrative
that is spoon-fed to most people, look at this problem as a doctor would: our people are ill with a
cancerous idea that eats away at their minds, and this idea is transmitted through memes that create a
modern mindset, and that -- not race, not economics, not the culture wars -- is our real target.

We are the oncologists (those who remove tumors) of the future. We must identify the tumor, find its
cause, fix the cause and then remove the tumor. When you view the problem through this metaphor,
instead of the conventional political idea of "fighting" another side, you see how easily it can be
accomplished. This isn't a question of beating anyone, but restoring a body (the West) back to health.

As good tumor removal experts, we want total clarity on the cause of this tumor. The founding concept of
the modern time is the death of God (and His Kings), and with Him, centrality and hierarchy. These have
been replaced with as many tiny Gods and Kings who insist upon their own autonomy, "freedom," and a
lack of interruption by the things leadership-minded people understand, with the same panache with which
a child demands a favorite blanket or toy.

From this individualism -- and in the oldest sense, this is what it is, "a placing of the individual before else"
of the same category of -ism that "racism" belongs to, meaning a preference of one race before all others -
- come two basic memes: guilt and oblivion, or by their more technical terms, competitive altruism and
narcissism.
 Guilt: in our symbolic world, we like to show others that we're good people. This makes them feel
good about helping us with the tasks that they do for us through specialized labor. When the
hardware store guy likes us, we get good service and avoid conflict. Conflict is what puts us out of
jobs, scares off potential mates, and makes people not rent to, sell to or work with us. The type of
natural selection found in civilizations favors those who offend none and flatter all, and this creates a
type of competition for altruistic acts, or symbolic acts in which we do nice things for others.
Symbolically, the greatest advantage is to be had in helping those who are most miserable and
helpless: cute bunnies, the poor, or underdogs of any kind.
Oblivion: because we want people to let us be individualistic, or as it manifests itself, to let us do
whatever it is we think we ought to be doing, we extend the same favor to others. This requires us to
ignore socialized costs and collective problems that occur when people of inequal judgment have
equal freedoms. When our neighbor builds a giant basement and talks excitedly about enslaving
young girls in it, we tend to ignore the situation until proof slaps us in the face -- because that way,
we're blameless socially. If we intervene, and don't "mind our own business," we're automatically the
bad guy -- the cop, the fascist, the busybody and the controller. So we develop a polite oblivion to
whatever stupidity goes on around us, and use guilt to make others extend the same to us, which is
why we got into the oblivion game in the first place. The result is people who are narcissistic, or self-
obsessed, because to collaborate on any shared goal is to be not minding our own business.

These memes arise from good intentions. Like obesity, they're the result of a good thing -- too much of a
good thing. We want to be polite to others, so we create a neutered society where each person is an island
(a King or God in their own right), and as a result, we cannot work together to solve problems because
that would step on someone's toes.

A defining factor of many individuals united into a mob demanding individualism is politics. The effects of
our actions don't matter so much as how they appear to others. We each become politicians trying not to
offend any constituency: is our idea good for midgets? For necrophiliacs? For left-handed people? We tie
ourselves down with too many demands, and then re-order our priorities from "effective acts" to ones that
look good to a crowd.

Like most processes, it is likely that this bad psychology originates in pity. We feel bad for others, so we
flatter them. We feel bad for ourselves, so we demand flattery. Soon we have become a group of addicts
who agree on one thing only: that we can stop any time.

If you have ever wondered why it is so difficult to unite people around realistic ideas, this is the reason.
People are not interested in reality. They are interested in a social reality in which appearance matters more
than effects, gloss more than substance, and whether people like something more than whether it's good
for all of us as a whole -- the type of organic human collaboration known as a civilization.

Our only real enemies are ideas, and they exist in our heads. Speaking of heads, we cannot fight them by
slashing away at instances of them, like heads of a Hydra. You may be tempted to take up the crusade of
race, biological determinism, traditional values, conservative economics or even the aristocracy, but what
we need is all of these explained as manifestations of one big idea. We need to take on our degeneracy as
a whole instead.

That big idea, for Western culture, is a goal, values system and vision that unites us. Something we'd give
up our individualism somewhat for, or even die for, in times of war or great danger. Some call this
"transcendental" wisdom, in that it doesn't promise 77 virgins in Heaven, nor earthly riches, nor even
popularity in high school. It does promise the glue that holds a civilization together, and ensures that if we
act well, we are rewarded with the honest gratitude of the type of people we'd like to know.

Every known philosophy and spiritual discipline explains this moment of clarity. Zen has its satori;
Christianity has grace; the pagans have reverence and the hominid had the delirium and exhaustion of
trance-like ritual dances. When we work ourselves through the chaos of our minds, we can see life as it is
and can stop existing in the world of worrying about what others think, how things look, or how to
symbolically communicate.
These philosophies all degenerate when faced with the virus of pity, including its individualism leading to
narcissism, its competitive altruism leading to social status and guilt, and its desire to deconstruct every
idea into granules because this virus lacks a single big unifying idea. While we regroup to try to retake our
future from this tumor, we should think about what we really fight for, not whom we fight against.

January 31, 2010

Belief in Nothing
by Vijay Prozak

Nihilism confuses people. "How can you care about anything, or strive for anything, if you believe nothing
means anything?" they ask.

In return, nihilists point to the assumption of inherent meaning and question that assumption. Do we need
existence to mean anything? After all, existence stays out there no matter what we think of it. We can do
with it what we will. Some of us will desire more beauty, more efficiency, more function or more truth --
and others will not. Conflict results.

Nihilists who aren't of the kiddie anarchist variety tend to draw a distinction between nihilism and fatalism.
Nihilism says that nothing has meaning. Fatalists say that nothing has meaning, so nothing will have
meaning for them personally. It's the difference between having no authority figure to tell you what's right,
and giving up on the idea of doing anything since no one will affirm that what you've done is right.

What is nihilism?
As a nihilist, I recognize that meaning does not exist. If we exterminate ourselves as a species, and
vaporize our beautiful world, the universe will not cry with us (a condition called the pathetic fallacy). No
gods will intervene. It will just happen and then -- and then the universe will go on. We will not be
remembered. We will simply not be.

In the same way, I accept that when I die, the most likely outcome will be a cessation of being. I will at
that moment cease to be the source of my thoughts and feelings. Those feelings having only existed inside
of me, never did "exist" except as electro-chemical impulses, and will no longer be found when I am gone.

Even further, I recognize that there is no golden standard for life. If I note that living in a polluted
wasteland is stupid and pointless, others may not see this. They may kill me when I mention it. And then
they will go on, and I will not. Insensitive to their polluted wasteworld, they will keep living in it and
suffering under it, oblivious to the existence of an option.

A tree falling in a forest unobserved makes a sound. The forest may not recognize this as a sound because
a forest is many life forms interacting, not organized by some central principle or consciousness. They just
do what they do. In the same way, playing Beethoven's Ninth to a bowl of yeast will not elicit a response.
The insensate remain unobservant, much like the universe itself.

Many people "feel" marginalized when they think of this. Where is the Great Father who will hear their
thoughts, validate their emotions, and tell them with certainty what is true and what is not? Where is the
writing on the wall, the final proof, the word of God? How do we know for certain that anything is true, and
if it is true, that it's important?

Meaning is the human attempt to mold the world in our own image. We need some meaning to our
existence, but feel doubt when we try to proclaim it as a creation of ourselves. So we look for some
external meaning that we can show others and have them agree that it exists. This forces us to start
judging every idea we encounter as threatening or affirming of our projected external meaning.

This distanced mentality further affirms our tendency to find the world alienating to our consciousness. In
our minds, cause and effect are the same; we use our will to formulate an idea and it is there, in symbolic
form. When we take that idea to the world and try to implement it, however, we can estimate how the
world will react but we are frequently wrong, and this causes us doubt.

As a result, we like to separate the world from our minds and live in a world created by our minds. In this
humanist view, every human is important. Every human emotion is sacred. Every human preference needs
to be respected. It is us against the world, trying to assert our projected reality where we can because we
fear the lack of human-ness in the world at large.

Nihilism reverses this process. It replaces externalized meaning with two important viewpoints. The first is
pragmatism; what matters are the consequences in physical reality, and if there is a spiritual realm, it must
operate in parallel with physical reality. The second is preferentialism; instead of trying to "prove" meaning,
we pick what appeals to us -- and acknowledge that who we are biologically determines what we seek.

In rejecting anthropomorphic pathetic fallacies such as inherent "meaning," nihilism allows us to toss out
anthropomorphism. The idea of an absolute morality, or any value to human life, is discarded. What
matters are consequences. Consequences are not measured by their impact on humans, but by their impact
on reality as a whole. If a tree falls in a forest, it makes a sound; if I exterminate a species and no human
sees it, it happened anyway.

Your dictionary will tell you that nihilism is "a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and
especially of moral truths." It's not a doctrine; it's a method, like the scientific method, which starts by
crawling out of the ghetto of our own minds. It is a quieting of the parts of our minds that want to insist
that our human perspective is the only real one, and the universe must adapt to us, instead of the sane
alternative of adapting to our universe.

In this view, nihilism is a gateway and an underpinning to philosophy, not a philosophy in itself. It is an
end to anthropomorphism, narcissism and solipsism. It is humans finally fully evolving and getting control
of their own minds. As such, it is a starting point from which we can return to philosophy and re-analyze it
all, knowing that our perspective is closer to that of the reality outside our minds.

Spiritual Nihilism
Although many interpret nihilism to negate spirituality, the only coherent statement of nihilism is that there
is a lack of inherent meaning. This does not preclude spirituality, only a sense of calling it inherent. This
means that nihilist spirituality is exclusively transcendentalist, meaning that by observing the world and
finding beauty in it, we discover a spirituality emerging from it; we don't require a separate spiritual
authority or lack thereof.

It is incorrect to say that nihilism is atheistic or agnostic. Atheism is incoherent: claiming an inherent
meaning to the negation of God is a false objectivity just like claiming we can prove there is a God.
Agnosticism makes spirituality revolve around the concept of uncertainty over the idea of God. Secular
humanism replaces God with an idealized individual. These are all pointless to a nihilist.

In the nihilist view, any divine beings would exist like the wind -- a force of nature, without moral balance,
without any inherent meaning to its existence. A nihilist could note the existence of a god, and then shrug
and move on. Many things exist, after all. What is more important to a nihilist is not inherent meaning, but
the design, patterns and interconnected elements of the universe. By observing these, we find a way to
discover meaning through our interpretation.

This in turn enables us to make unforced moral choices. If we are relying on another world to reward us
where we don't get rewarded here, we are not making a sacrifice. If we believe that a God outside of the
world must exist in order for it to be good, we are slandering the world. Even if we think there is an
inherent right way of doing things, and that we may get rewarded for it, we are not making moral choices.

Moral choices occur when we realize there is no compelling force on us to make that decision except our
inclination to care about the consequences. That in turn is contingent upon us being hardwired with enough
intelligence to revere nature, the cosmos and all that has brought us consciousness. Indeed, the only way
we will have such respect for the world is if we view consciousness and life as a gift, and therefore choose
to enhance and complement the order of nature.

In a nihilist worldview, whether we live or die as a species has no inherent value. We could stay, or blow
away like a dead leaf, and the universe doesn't care a bit. Here we must separate judgment, or caring
about consequences, from the consequences themselves. If I fire a gun at someone and he dies, the
consequence is his death. If I have no judgment of it, that means nothing more than his permanent
absence.

If the universe has the same absence of judgment, there is nothing more than his absence. No cosmic
conclusions, no judging by gods (even if we choose to believe they exist), and no emotion shared by
everyone. It is the event and nothing more, like a tree falling in a forest when no one is around to hear its
crash.

Since there are no inherent judgments in our universe, and no absolute and objective sense of judgment,
what matters is our preference regarding consequences. We may choose not to survive as a species, in
which case insanity and sanity have the same value level, since survival no longer has a position of value
for us. Our survival is not inherently judged to be good; it's up to us to do that.

In nihilism, as in every sufficiently advanced philosophy, the ultimate goal is to make "everything just what
it is," or to decipher enough of our consciousness that we do not confuse the instrument (our minds) with
its object (our world). To a nihilist, the greatest human problem is solipsism, or a confusion of the mind
with the world; our solution is to point out that the human values we consider "objective" and "inherent"
are only pretense.

Nihilism conditions us instead to actualize ourselves. It denies nothing of the lack of inherent meaning to
existence, and does not create a false "objective" reality based on our perceptions of what we wish did
exist. Instead, it charges us to choose what we wish existed, and to work toward making it occur in reality.

The fully actualized human is able to say: I studied how the world works; I know how to predict its
responses with resonable success; I know what cause will create what effect. As a result, we can say, I am
going to pick a certain effect I desire that is coherent with the organization of our world, so it will succeed.

This returns us to the question of whether beauty is discovered, or invented; some suggest that beauty is
inherent to certain approaches to organization of form, while others think we can invent it of our own
accord. A nihilist would say that the patterns that define beauty are not arbitrary, therefore have a
precedent in the extra-human cosmos, and that our artists create beauty by perceiving the organization of
our world and then transposing it to a new, human form.

Through the embrace of "ultimate reality" -- or physical reality and the abstractions that directly describe its
organization, in contrast to opinions and judgments -- as the only inherent constant to life, nihilism forces
humans to make the ultimate moral decision. In a world that requires both good and bad for survival, do
we choose to strive for what's good, even knowing that it may require us to use bad methods and face bad
consequences?

The ultimate test of spirituality in nature is not whether we can proclaim universal love for all human
beings, or declare ourselves pacifists. It is whether we can do what is necessary for survival and
improvement of ourselves, as this is the only way to approach our world with a truly reverent attitude: to
adopt its methods, and through an unforced moral preference, choose to rise and not descend.

We must make the leap of faith and choose to believe not in the existence of the divine, but in its
possibility through the merging of our imagination with our knowledge of reality. Finding divinity in the
venal and material world requires an epic transcendental viewpoint that finds in the working of an order a
holiness, because that order provides the grounding that grants us our own consciousness. If we love life,
we find it to be holy and become reverent to it, and thus as nihilists can rapidly discover transcendental
mysticism and transcendental idealism.

From this viewpoint, it's easy to see how nihilism can be compatible with any faith, including Christianity. As
long as we do not confuse our interpretation of reality ("God") with reality itself, we are transcendentalists
who find our source of spiritualism in the organization of the physical world around us and our mental
state, which we can see as having parallel and similar function. When people talk about God, a nihilist
thinks of the patterns of trees.
Practical Nihilism
How does a nihilist, or one who is beyond morality and the sanctity of human life and illusions, apply these
principles in everyday life? The short answer is "very carefully." Human history provides one story after
another of how a few smart people started something good, then parasites encrusted it, and eventually
formed a political movement to murder those who knew better, thus plunging that something good into
disrepair.

The essence of nihilism is transcendence through eliminating a false "inherent" meaning that is a projection
of our minds. When we have cleared away the illusion, and can look at reality as a continuum of cause and
effect relationships, we can know how to adapt to that reality. This gets us over the fear of reality that
causes us to retreat into our own minds, a condition known as solipsism.

This in turn leads to a kind of primal realism that rejects everything but the methods of nature. These are
inherent to not only biology, but physics and the patterns of our own thoughts. We need no inherent
meaning; we need only to adapt to our world and, from the palette of options offered, choose what we
desire. Do we want to live in mud huts, or like the ancient Greeks and Romans strive for a society of
advanced learning?

Most people confuse fatalism with nihilism. Fatalism, or the idea that things are as they are and will not
change, relies on an inherent "meaning" being denied for its emotional power. Fatalism is a shrug and a
wish that things could be different, but since they are not, we will ignore them. Nihilism is the opposite
principle: a reverent acceptance of nature as functional and in fact genius, and a determination to master it.

This is not a philosophy for the weak of heart, mind or body. It demands that we look clear-eyed at truths
that most find upsetting, and then force ourselves past them as a means of disciplining ourselves toward
self-actualization. Much as nihilism removes false inherent meaning, self-actualization removes the drama of
the externalized self and replaces it with a sense of purpose: what quest makes meaning out of my life?

Unlike Christianity and Buddhism which seek to destroy the ego, nihilism seeks to remove the groundwork
that makes the ego seem like all we have. It negates both materialism, or living for physical comfort, and
dualism, or living for a moral god in another world that does not parallel our own in function. Any spiritual
realm will parallel this one, because since matter, energy and thoughts show parallel mechanisms in their
patterning, any other force would do the same.

Further, ego-negation is a false form of inherent meaning. A meaning defined in negative terms flatters the
object as much as its positive counterpart; to say I'm anti-vole is to affirm the need for voles. The only true
freedom from the ego consists in finding a replacement object, or ur-consciousnessness to reality, to
replace the voice of personality which we often mistake for the world.

Our human problems on earth do not distill to simplifications like the narratives offered by the press
because they are popular: we the people are exceptional, except when oppressed by kings, government,
corporations or the beautiful people. Our human problems begin and end in our inability to recognize reality
and enforce it upon ourselves; we instead opt for pleasant illusions, and generate the negative
consequences one might expect.

If we do not get rid of our fears, they rule us. If we have created a false antidote to our fears, like a false
sense of inherent meaning, we have doubly enslaved ourselves to those fears: first, the fears persist
because we have no logical answer to them, and second, we are now indebted to the dogma that
supposedly dispels them. This is why human problems have remained relatively unchanged for centuries.

As a philosophical groundwork, nihilism gives us a tool with which to approach all parts of life and make
sense of them. Unlike merely political or religious solutions, it underlies all of our thinking, and by removing
false hope, gives us a hope in the work of our own two hands. Where others rage against the world, we
rage for it -- and in doing so, provide a saner future.

March 23, 2010