The Great Rock ‘n Roll Swindle

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.

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 paraphernalia, 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.

Nobody Wants Your Apocalyptic Hate Cult

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.

Caste

prole_takeover

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.

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.

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.

Guess who’s coming to dinner?

liberal_zombie_ritual

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.

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 turkeyA 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.

society is a turkeySo 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.

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.

How does a nihilist live?

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?