Archive for August, 2005
Wednesday, August 31st, 2005
History may run in cycles, but each era has its distinctive flavor, and those form the methods by which its part in the process of history is fulfilled. In our modern time, we have uniquely united the world through centralized media, by which someone in one location produces what comes to be known as the official “truth,” and it is then distributed throughout the globe almost instantly. The people of earth, conditioned to require the absolute “truth” from central agencies on matters of commerce and governmental regulation, promptly extend the same courtesy to political and social truth as conveyed by the “official” media.
The result of this is that a small group of people create our public perceptions of events; the events happen, and the rest of us, who are fated to find out about them second-hand in any case, rely on the descriptions of those events relayed to us by this centralized source. In such a climate, it is not surprising that there are errors in our perception of reality, as all that is required is for those in the “official” truth-telling capacity to miss a detail or, more likely, be convinced for social reasons that they need to hush that detail. It will put people out of jobs; it will make people feel bad; they don’t need to know what they can do nothing about; it will not benefit your (you, personally, the guy responsible for putting out the news) career.
Who Owns Truth?
Another way of saying this is that if fifteen people witness an event and give roughly similar testimony, barring any prior agreement to collusion among them, it’s a lot more accurate than if there’s only one eye-witness who also has a vested interest in how the outcome is viewed. If the landlord of a building is the one person to witness its burning, and he claims it was the reckless conduct of the tenants and not shoddy construction that allowed the blaze to devour the complex entirely, how likely are we to wholly believe him? After all, he has a reason to lie that directly benefits his livelihood. The same can be said of our media, who eat based not on the degree of truth to their stories, but the degree of human interest. They sell drama, but not difficult truths, as those will make one unpopular enough to be bankrupt.
For this reason, it has been very slowly that discontent has built in our society, because for most people, there was never any reason to trust the official version of events until now. We were told foreign dictators were bad, so we all banded together and crushed them. We were told that we needed to buy certain products, so we did, hoping to keep our families safe and futures secure. We were told that it was important to believe certain things, as they were ideologies of the future, and through this “progress” we got to a better life; who doesn’t want that? Most of us live in small worlds, focused around family and friends and local social community, and we don’t want more than that. Nothing is more admirable, since this is a view of life that negates fear of death and embraces what life offers the individual outside of social and monetary absolutes. It’s a healthy, normal existence.
Yet these small worlds have been shattered, as despite our armies of scientists and reporters and researchers, these problems crept up on us: global warming, terrorism, mass immigration, economic collapse. It’s well and fine to have missed a few fragments of information here and there, and to be surprised by a shortfall in a government program or a new population trend, but how does something as big as global warming sneak up on us? That’s like getting ambushed by a glacier. Undoubtedly, the thought that hit many minds when after years of fighting the story, our news media and politicians finally gave in and said, “Aw shucks, this global warming thing is real,” was quite simply that either we’re being told a partial story or, more ominously, that these people do not care enough about reality to get the whole story. This puts an image in our minds of, instead of diligent and honest guardians, profiteers running the show who leave it to us to survive as we can.
With this sudden distrust of the “truth” upon which our society is based comes another sobering thought: for things to get this out of control, where we are controlled by predators who seem oblivious to our future, something must be fundamentally wrong about the way we’re governing ourselves. As said before, most people are content to lead local lives, but our world is now so interconnected that government rarely stops at the town, city, parish or county. If people in distant nations screw up and dump uranium into our oceans, we get the cancers here just as fatally as anywhere else. Should negotiations fail and nuclear war rain death upon us, our localities – which have been quietly going about life – are no longer autonomous, but targets belonging to whatever political entity incurred ire. Our lives are bound up in the fortunes of the collective, and when it errs, we are the ones who pay. How do you hold a government, or a corporation, or a world governing body responsible? You can haul out the people in office and shoot them, but that is little recompense for the vast amounts of good things destroyed by the errors of such leadership entities.
If we follow this chain of thought to its logical conclusion, then we are – as a species – ruled by distant forces who have little accountability for the decisions that affect us, and may be motivated by self-interest more than the best interests of the species as a whole. Modern people are so used to long strings of words that mean nothing, so this is restated in the vernacular: you are under the control of people who are leading you to their profit, not yours. Even more, if you resist, other people – well-meaning, normal, healthy people – will do their best to kill you, believing that they are destroying a dangerous deviant and not someone with a rational objection to the system as a whole. In other words, the world is turned upside down; truth has become a fabrication, the predators are in control, and dissent is not tolerated in any way that will have actual effect. If one were paranoiac, it would suggest an evil force in control of this world.
Yet it is the demonic nature of this process alone that provides us a clue to its origin. No human organization in history has been so well-managed that it could pull off a conspiracy of this nature without revealing itself or collapsing in infighting. Whatever engendered this particular mess did not have a leader, or a central organizing principle, although it has manifested itself in centralized authority. A systematic change to this kind of order comes through a shared assumption, much like when a group of friends, upon perceiving their favorite bar is closed, meet at the next most likely place without having to communicate the name amongst themselves. More than a leaderless revolution, it was an unconscious one: those who brought it about had no idea they shared an ideology, or no idea what its name might be, or even why they did it. They simply did it because it was natural to do, and because nothing has since opposed it, it continues to this day in grossly simplified form.
We are tempted by the opposite conclusion, because if we were able to find a single easy cause, like removing a jam from a machine we could yank it out, and by mathematical simplicity, would have all of the good in society with the negative removed, thus an all-good society. When was the last time life was that simple? Any infection on the level of our assumptions has pervaded our society at its lowest level, that of its values and worldview. We could blame language, or x=y thinking, or sin waves of emotion, or any of the other detours that have absorbed our best liberal thinkers looking for a symbological fix to our problem, but really, these are just the devil’s messengers. What’s wrong isn’t us; it’s what we think we believe, and even if we say we want to fix it, our minds have become mesmerized by a certain outlook on the world and are unwilling to leave it. Thus our disease remains, since even when trying to excise it, we re-affirm the infection by assuming the necessity of its component parts.
It’s like the mafia boss who’s determined to root out the informer in his organization. He and his personal secretary interview all of his department heads, and after some theorizing, they put the worst of them into the bay. But the next time a bust happens, the boss realizes he’s still infected. He goes after every person he can think of, but can’t ever clear himself of the informant, until one day he’s put into jail. You can imagine his shock when the star witness comes out to confront him: his personal secretary! In our case, as moderns, the disease is worse than an informing secretary; it’s within us. There is no clearer evidence of this than our mania for deflection. Is it the Communists? Then the other side whispers: it’s the Capitalists. Is it the drug-users? The hackers? The terrorists? The Nazis? Who else can we blame – what do we do when we finally run out of people to blame? (It’s not fair to let the right off the hook either: it’s not the Negroes or the Jews that are the root of your problem, although their presence can be argued to be a symptom!)
All of these futile attempts have failed, since even when these demons have been exorcised, the disease has remained. That is not to say that these attempts have not improved the situation, only that they haven’t gotten to the core of it. Think for a moment: what sort of problem is it that one cannot identify and root out? The simple answer: one you cannot tell to another person, and therefore, even if you know it, no one else can work on the problem – and in modern society, every problem is too big for one man. Imagine working with another police inspector on this case. You can tell the guy everything except that which might potentially hurt his feelings. So the investigation goes on, and despite your partner being slower than you are, he puts his heart into it. At the end you have no answers, because both of you don’t know the answer, even though it’s in your knowledge.
The dirty little secret of the West’s collapse is that it has come from within. The extent of our modern disease is revealed by the fact that when we think this, we immediately try to blame either everyone, or no one. We are afraid to blame a process and implicate certain people as its methods. And why not? We’re not passing moral judgment, claiming them to be the spawn of Satan, as our leaders do to enemies during wartime. All we are saying is that they, by what they do, have caused a massive problem. The real social taboo broken here is the unstated obvious: in order to fix the problem, we have to limit their sainted “freedom.” Nevermind that few people actually need freedom. What they want are normal, comfortable lives, without other people intruding in upon them and telling them what to think. That’s not freedom; it’s common sense and common decency. People like to conceive of “freedom,” however, as a limitless absolute. “I can do anything I want,” they say, forgetting that most of what they actually want falls within the narrow sphere of what benefits them in a practical sense. You could make sculptures out of your own mucus… but do you need that “freedom”?
Yet any person who advocates breeching that “freedom” is portrayed to be a bad guy, which is interesting, since in times without freedom, there was not such widespread deception where a few people could control “truth” for an entire planet, even if through the quasi-voluntarily methods of television and entertainment media. To a thinking person, the fear of losing “freedom” is another type of deflection: finding something irrelevant to the cause to blame. It’s psychologically very easy, actually: to blame something external divides the world into two segments, the desired and the undesired. In actuality, it makes no sense to divide things that already exist into desired/undesired, because the only thing that can be desired is an outcome and by definition anything but that outcome is undesired – yet outcomes usually occur in partial degrees, or with modifications, so that kneejerk response makes little sense. When manipulating the masses, however, it makes sense to tell them that the world is divided into “freedom” and those who hate freedom, as they react more quickly to the positive feelings associated with “freedom” and only more slowly to the logic trap into which they fall. Heart first, then brain – even with very smart people.
This emotional process of trying to solve logical issues is obviously paradoxical, but it is the foundation of our modern morality, which is derived in part from Christianity but has previous antecedents; this means that while Christianity (as practiced by most, not the happy few who’ve made a real religion of it!) embraces this ambient quasi-ideology we are describing, it is not the sole origin of it. Rather, morality of this type has been with the world since its earliest days; it is not a new invention, merely a less successful one, thus one that was until recently alien to our societies because many generations ago we transcended it. It is a belief system based on appearances: emotions come before logic, personal boundaries come before the necessity of doing what is right for all, and abstract divisions of “good” and “evil” regarding intent come before a realization of the effect of any action. In short, this is a belief system which manipulates by preventing certain actions rather than by recommending others, and it attacks before any action is ever committed.
When we remove all the irrelevant theory, what becomes clear is that this is a belief system designed to protect a type of person; that is why its negative, preemptive assessment. It does not have a goal. It does not have an ideology. It is wholly negative in nature, in that it identifies certain things that are destabilizing to those who find it important, and it attempts to censure and criminalize those. It in fact replaces the idea of having a goal with the idea of not doing wrong, and thus restricts what can be done to those whose actions might be so selfish that any sort of goal would conflict with them. These sort of people might be described as passive criminals, then, since what they do is not outright criminal, but by being what is done instead of pursuing a healthy goal, and by requiring a morality that prevents others from interrupting it, it supplants the seeking of a healthy goal. It is thus a crime of omission if nothing else.
Another way to look at it is from this angle: imagine that something needs to be done for the good an entire community. Healthy people are willing to make sacrifices for this. But some would prefer to rigidly negate that proposal because it interferes with their personal fortunes or convenience. By doing this, they are dooming the community in the long run, even if it means they get to keep whatever it was they desired in the short term. These people need some kind of protection that, no matter what the overall goal is, justifies their selfishness. Even better, it should eliminate the concept of overall goal, and focus only on the individual. To do that, a morality was created which banned actions and not goals, effectively hobbling any goal-setting because any real change will always infringe upon someone’s little world. Morality is the assertion of personal reality as a higher value that physical, this-is-the-real-world-pay-attention reality.
We can diagnose it: solipsism, or perhaps a low grade sociopathy, or even in the simplest terms, selfishness. It could even be described with fancy academic terms like materialism, meaning a focus on material comfort that places all ideological concerns at distant second, or absolutism, meaning a creation of a false abstraction that governs how we see reality. What reveals its nature the most however is understanding the type of mentality that produces it. To do this, we must go to folk wisdom, in which it is recognized that what people would not do as individuals they will do as a mob. Under social pressure, people will take drugs, torture one another, steal, lie, cheat and delude themselves. If they internalize that social pressure, they will do these things without the presence of others because they are aware of the eventuality of having to interact with those others. In this sense, the mob mentality can extend to those who are alone, because in their minds the rest of the mob is always there.
This behavior transcends ideology. One can as easily assume the identity of a Green, or a modern Republican, or a radical neo-Nazi, or a harmless Democrat, and still wield this belief system. It can strike any social class, any intelligence, at any age, although it tends to be supported among the lower middle class young of moderate but not genius intelligence. It does not require awareness of its own presence; those who are its carriers never would know it by name, and most commonly believe they are fighting for something else when they strike out with it: justice, “freedom,” equality, love, peace, happiness, wealth. Even more tenacious, it is based in the emotions of the individual, so it does not succumb to rational argument. It is there because it is the intersection of a person’s emotional need and their lack of higher reasoning to keep it in check. In this sense, it is part ideology — and part pathology, or disease.
It makes the most sense however to give it a unique identification, since it is so prevalent that any other reference would be ambiguous: Crowdism. The belief, whether known in language to its bearer or not, that the individual should predominate over all other concerns is Crowdism. We name it according to the crowd because crowds are the fastest to defend individual autonomy; if any of its members are singled out, and doubt thrown upon their activities or intentions, the crowd is fragmented and loses its power. What makes crowds strong is an inability of any to criticize their members, or to suggest any kind of goal that unites people, because what makes for the best crowds is a lack of goal. Without a higher vision or ideal, crowds rapidly degenerate into raiding parties, although of a passive nature. They argue for greater “freedom.” They want more wealth. Anything they see they feel should be divided up among the crowd.
Crowdism strikes anyone who values individual comfort and wealth more than doing what is right. People of a higher mindset leave situations in a higher state of order than when they were found. This requires that people form an abstraction describing how organization works, and create in themselves the moral will to do right, and thus embark on a path that is not accessible to everyone: the smarter and more clearsighted one is, the greater likelihood exists that one is realizing things that an audience of average people have not yet comprehended. For this reason, Crowdists hate people who leave situations in a higher state of order than when they were found. These people threaten to rise above the crowd, and thus fragment the crowd by revealing individual deficiencies again, and that steals the only method of power the crowd has: superior numbers and the illusion that everyone in the crowd is in agreement as to what must be done.
In short, a crowd does not exist except where underconfidence unites people who, being unable to lead on their own, find solace in the leadership and power of others. They want to be in control, but they are afraid to lead, and thus each person in the crowd delegates his authority to others. The crowd therefore moves not by choices, but by lowest common denominator, assessing each decision in terms of what all people in the crowd have in common. Predictably, this makes its decisions of such a base nature they can be guessed in advance. A crowd derives its momentum from the need of its members coupled with their fear of their own judgment. Taking impetus from the need, it asserts itself violently, but because its only mechanism of decision-making is radical compromise, it moves passively toward predictable resolutions.
Crowdists love “competition” of a fixed nature, where a single vector determines the winner. They do not like real life competition, including evolution, as it assess the individual as a whole and does not simply rank individuals by ability. For this reason crowds love both sports events and free market capitalism, as each allow people to gain power according to a linear system. The more time you put into the system with the sole goal of making profit, excluding all else, the more likely it is that you can get wealth – and it can happen to anyone! That is the promise that makes crowds flock to these ideas. It is like the dream of being a rock star, or a baseball hero, or a billionaire: what makes it attractive is the idea that anyone can do it, if they simply devote themselves to a linear path of ascension – one that is controlled by the whims of the crowd. The crowd decides who is a baseball hero, or what to buy and thus who to make rich. Control without control.
Of course, since the crowd has disclaimed all true idealism, its only ideology is that of personal gain. It is by nature opposed to culture, since culture establishes a values system against which one can refer any potential choice to determine its viability in the community’s preference. Crowdists like to replace culture with the grandfather of multiculture, which is the idea of a facilitative society, or one in which the only goal is to satisfy its members. In this vision, a common goal or even standard of society is not needed. Society exists for its members to fulfil their personal needs, and it explicitly disclaims the ability or need to oversee those, unless they violate the basic tenets of Crowdism, of course. Crowdists naturally embrace both internationalism, which denies local culture in favor of an international culture of novelty, and multiculture, which mixes cultures with nothing in common and claims to be satisfied with any result. Crowdism is not a decision any more than cancer is a design for a new organism; it is the lack of decision, of goal, of design. It is not random, however, so unlike chaos, it is a predictable and rarely-changing order. Some would call it entropy.
Any ideology is automatically dominated by Crowdists. They were at home as Marxist radicals, but equally happy as conservative American capitalists. Crowdism is not an ideology, but an emotional response. They view any ideology as a means to an end, and that end is Crowdism itself, although Crowdists cannot put this in words – they’re part of a Crowd, remember, which means they don’t make choices as much as force compromise, and by the nature of something akin to dialectical materialism, compromises always move “forward” although toward eternally the same goals. They will dominate any democracy, and turn it away from encouraging excellence toward subsidizing weakness. They will dominate a totalitarian state, humbling it by making its appeals to its proletariat and winning their allegiance through unreasonable concessions. They will use corporations to dominate a culture, producing products that reward those of a Crowdist mentality, while ignoring the needs and desires of those of a higher mentality. Even a non-ideology will be dominated, as Crowdists will use social pressure where there is a lack of decision-making.
Among all human phenomena, Crowdism is unique in that it turns timorous individuals into a dangerously assertive group. Crowdism appeals to those who are underconfident. They’re unsure of their abilities and fear that, in a competition like that of evolution, where many factors at once must be measured and one’s judgment and character are essential, they might not come out ahead. In fact, they have a sneaking suspicion they’ll come out behind. This is only logical, since those with such abilities have no need of a crowd, and therefore only very rarely become Crowdists (usually in cases of: drug addiction, child abuse, mental illness). The average Crowdist needs a crowd to do what he or she could not do alone, including not in the least the process of making decisions. The crowd provides anonymity and the illusion of a cause. Crowdists are underconfident, thus incapable of the kind of assertive and creative action by which one glances at a situation and calls the shots; therefore, all of their modes of action are passive. They cannot strike without first having been struck, but it’s perfectly acceptable for them to provoke others with a thousand small irritations until the other responds, then to retaliate with full force. Notice how America has entered her wars: placing ships within range of Spanish saboteurs, sending passenger liners full of weapons to be torpedoed, cancelling steel shipments while giving a fortune in weapons to an enemy. It is a brilliant strategy, in that one never has to make a decision: one is always the injured party and therefore justified in responding, even if it ends up being to one’s advantage.
Crowdists have a great fear of mortality, which is linked to their fear of evolution. They do not have a value higher than their own lives; there is nothing for which, unbidden, they will give their lives (although they will gladly give them, in anger, when having provoked an enemy, they are able to embark upon their “justified” response). This shirking personality and lack of self-confidence manifests itself in a form of cognitive dissonance that creates an inverse response to the failings of confidence: the less the person feels confident, the more egomaniacal they are, at the expense of being able to accurately perceive external reality. As a result of their need to supplant underconfidence with ego, they turn off any external feedback which could prove critical of their selves, and therefore lock themselves into a world composed entirely of the self. This creates a crowd of little queens. They demand “proof” – someone must hold up something tangible and show it to them, and have it be simple enough that everyone in the crowd yes even the deaf mute hunchback can appreciate its significance; this is why crowds do well with butchered babies, torpedoed ocean linears, gas chambers and gassing Kurds, but do poorly with concerns about global warming, genetic fragmentation, or pervasive ignorance. In fact, they seem to treasure their ignorance in the same way that higher people treasure their innocence. Crowdists like to keep things simple so as not to distract from the basic focus (themselves).
The term “lowest common denominator” has almost become a cliche in our society in that it explains so much. A group of people – an electorate, a committee, a mob – gets together, and soon a once-promising idea has through compromise and censorship (the removal of that which might offend, or shock, or be contrary to already-well-established tastes) become distilled down to something completely acceptable to every member of the crowd. The only problem is that, in the process, it has come to resemble every other action that the crowd has been known to take. No matter – the same old thing dressed up as something new serves a dual function, in that it both provides novelty and, by virtue of being essentially similar to everything else, avoids presenting people with stimulus they cannot recognize and thus immediately know they can handle. Low self-confidence reveals itself in situations where the unexpected occurs. Crowdists like to minimize that by dumbing everything down to the lowest common denominator, at which point they feel they dominate it and in that state of control are no longer threatened by it.
The paradox of crowdism is that because these people refuse to have a long term vision, they have nothing worth dying for, and therefore their lives are empty of meaning and they respond with the hollow attempts to control that comprise Crowdism. It is as a pathology much like overeating, in which case one confuses the signal for being full, which eliminates psychological doubt, with the process of eating, and hopes that by eating again and again to banish doubt (which increasing doubt in direct proportion to girth!). If they had faith, or belief in doing something which does not immediately reward them, or the vision to see the benefit in doing things which help the community as a whole but in the distant future, they would not have this gnawing emptiness. Civilizations in the past saw fit to make such people into serfs and servants, such that others could give them causes, and they could both be kept from being destructive and given a raison d’etre which would sustain them for their natural lives. Crowdists will never admit it, but secretly, they have a desire to submit to authority because they do not trust their own judgment.
Indeed, there is somewhat of a sadomasochistic nature to Crowdism. For every crowd that exists, there will be some who manipulate it expertly; as in a microprocessor, most of the circuits do the mechanical work of computation while a few are responsible for at key moments switching the flow of data. Such is it that some of the voices who shout out at opportune times are to redirect the crowd, such as the classic “He’s getting away!” screamed by an anonymous crowd member and provoking a stampede to bring down the suspect. Others simply profit from the crowd. By far the best way to profit from a crowd is to pretend to be its servant, as its memory is short and being underconfident it loves to be flattered, and therefore rarely notices that its servants are robbing it blind until it is too late for anything but revenge; the thief is killed, yes, but the money has been spent, and the crowd feels even less confident when its blunder comes to life, so it rages on to the next event in a search for something of substance to occupy it. Always eating and never full. But the manipulators of a crowd eat well.
If one were to divide up a population according to “Crowdist theory,” there would be many sheep, a few born leaders and a larger group of shrewd people who lack the capacity of a true leader, but are mentally agile enough to manipulate the crowd and make a profit from it. These are your Josef Stalins, Ken Lays, Ivan Boesky, George W. Bushes. They are cynical enough to realize that the “ideology” of the crowd is nothing but lies, and its actual agenda is power. They recognize that the crowd loves gaining power through revenge on those with more talent, intelligence, beauty and character than itself, and these manipulators create bogeymen and justifications faster than the crowd can decode them. However, to be a manipulator in a crowd is to be acutely conscious of belonging in the crowd; after all, if one did not need the crowd, something else would have been the path. Thus manipulators both love and loathe the crowd, appreciating it for being the vehicle of their own greatness, but hating it for being necessary and thus constantly forcing them into the role of gentle servant when their inner wolf-personality seeks to escape and manifest itself. Manipulators are like drug dealers: they realize too late that their profession will consume them by forcing them into a function, and thereby eliminating any hope they ever had of making decisions about their own lives. They follow the function, and therefore, all of their choices are reactions; there are no independent choices to be made.
The dominant characteristic of a crowd, as mentioned by F.W. Nietzsche, is the desire for revenge: they detest anyone gifted by nature with more than they have, whether it is wealth or natural traits. Much like ancient tribes who believed that eating the organs of an enemy would transfer his power to the eater, Crowdists believe that destroying others raises the Crowdist’s own stature. Their primary weapon is equality. By insisting on one level for all people, they have an excuse to curtail the higher abilities of those who rise above the crowd. Further, they have the ultimate weapon, in that since equality sounds good on an emotional level, it is perceived as a good, and thus anyone who resists its advance (“progress”) is automatically a bad guy who has transgressed, and thus against him or her retaliation can be launched. This is the ultimate threat of a crowd, which is expressed in a simple syllogism: I. Our way is the path of good intentions, equality. II. If you are not for our path, you are against good intentions and will attempt to destroy us. III. Because you will attempt to destroy us, we will destroy you first. It is a mental trap of epic proportions: if one joins the crowd, one has agreed to limit one’s own abilities to the lowest common denominator; if one resists the crowd, one is styled as the aggressor and destroyed by direct force. At the point when the question of with-us-or-against-us has been asked, the battle is already lost, as the Crowd have gathered behind the questioner with torches that could just as easily be applied to the dwelling of the questioned as toward a feast in her honor.
The effects of Crowdism take many generations to fully permeate a society. Indeed, Crowdism is like the effects of aging on each of us: we start aging the instant we are born, but at some point, the effects of years have piled up enough to carry us off. Crowdism exists in every society, but to varying degrees, and as societies age, it increases. Almost all societies on the brink of death are totally dominated by Crowdism, which helps carry them off as it paralyzes the decision making capability; if your population sees only its own gratification, who is going to mobilize it to fight an enemy while the enemy is still distant? By the time the Vandals reach Rome, the battle is lost, but the Crowd will never respond until directly attacked, so will blissfully ignore the assailants until the battle has begun. Disorganized, the crowd responds slowly and then panics, abandoning the empire to its lessers, who promptly destroy it. It is for this reason that everywhere a great society once stood, there is now a barely technological, semi-literate society distinguished mostly by its lack of ambition. These are people soul-weary with combat and with power, and they have opted for the stage after Crowdist, which is a form of highly granularized apathy. (There’s no point studying this in America until after the Chinese, sensing our distraction and inner weakness, invade and crush our centralized authorities, at which point those less-fortunate populations within and surrounding us will consume the spoils.)
In fact, throughout its life span, Crowdism promotes apathy by forcing inane decisions on people and threatening them with passive aggression if they refuse. This could be seen most clearly in the former Soviet Union, where people quietly worked around any number of absurd proclamations and dysfunctional government agencies. They realized that things were hopelessly broken, but that the first person to speak up about it would be torn to pieces by the crowd, thus these things had to be tolerated. And what a disgusting word “tolerance” is – it means to recognize something’s inaptitude, but to ignore it and even accept it. Accept mediocrity. Accept failure. Accept the lack of a goal. This beats people down into a state of submission which periodically polarizes itself and becomes violent, as if all of the psychological energy kept suppressed when given an outlet explodes to the surface in a form beneath rationality or even an organized emotional state. It is this form of passivity that is idealized by religions such as Judaism, which clearly arose in a civilization which had already reached this degree of apathy, and therefore was little more than a survival guide. Some would say that Asia went down this path thousands of years before the West, and thus through submission achieved the uniformity for which Asian culture is famous.
The “morality” of the Crowdists affirms the importance of the individual over doing what is right. A society based on this lack of choice, and lack of goal, is inherently frustrating, and thus breaks down all but that which Nietzsche called the “last man.” The last man is someone who cares about nothing but his own material comfort. Does he have an expensive car? Enough to watch on television? Get to go out to the clubs that others covet? And have a trophy girlfriend? — if so, he is happy. No plan for the future, and no significance to these things, other than that he owns them and therefore can construe his personality – that externalized “ego” that we insist is a social construct, a form of personal marketing – as a success as a result of them. The last man does not fight the good fight; he instead does what benefits him. He looks upon ideological conflict as silly, because he is inherently submissive to the external order and thus never thinks of changing it. His revenge upon it is to profit from it, and to consider himself smarter and better than all the others for not having been fooled by value, and possibly having given up his life or his career in some crusade to do what is “right,” instead having been more competitive and shrewd and enriched himself while others fought ideological battles. The last man is an opportunist, a profiteer. He is like a Satanic Zen monk, in that none of his energy is wasted on emotional display. It all goes toward The Bottom Line, a.k.a. making him feel better about himself (an intangible state) through an increase in tangible things like wealth, prestige, and power.
Last men are the type of people who are manipulators of the Crowd, only a more advanced version than the somewhat masochistic “leaders.” A last man simply takes and has no emotional reaction. Where a leader like G.W. Bush or Kim Jong-Il is cynical, and kleptocratic, he still has some degree of emotional response in him; in contrast, a Stalin is without emotion entirely and feels no reason to respond to his changing fortunes, as he is busy focusing on the only thing which matters, which is increasing them. When things go badly, he schemes for recovery, wasting no time on reaction or indulgent displays of emotion. A Bush might have some days of depression, or stumble in public, but a Stalin remains impassive, his iron grip unchanging, knowing that only discipline and a lack of emotions will restore his power. Over time, the last men rise in power through their lack of response, and those with emotional excess descend through an inability to stay focused on the goal. When one descends, one becomes part of the crowd. We call those who have descended Undermen, because they have viewed the challenges of life on several levels and opted to run away or take a course of profiteering, yet have not succeeded even in that through their lack of discipline, which is essentially the ability to see that events distant in time are as important as events proximate in time, because time is continuous and for plans to succeed one must unite the moments in an ongoing series of planned developments. Undermen do not plan. They do not think. They react; where the last man is deliberate, the Underman is impulsive and fired with a consumptive desire for revenge, since to an Underman the world is grossly unfair: because his reactions are out of control, he cheats himself out of everything good that comes his way, and therefore always feels that others have been gifted where he is deprived.
Undermen are sabotage incarnate. Like other Crowdists, they are passive in nature, and therefore will never directly assault an enemy. To live among them however is to constantly clean up after them, and to double-check anything they do, knowing that more often than not they will subconsciously leave things in defective and dangerous states, hoping in their inner minds that others who are more fortunate than them will be destroyed. Where true last men plan their pillaging and execute it with detail, Undermen execute clumsy and violent thefts. Undermen like to live in their own filth and keep others out of the clubhouse of their filth, associating around them others that they can dominate. Undermen exist at all stages of the Crowdist process, but it is most revelatory to point out that a successful Crowdist revolt will after many generations have converted the entire population into Undermen, and thus have plunged the civilization into disorganized, self-afflicted third world status for the next thousand or more generations. Undermen are saprophytes. They compensate for lack of higher function in themselves by destroying those who do have it, or the works of those who did, under the assumption that if it cannot be seen it will not exist to remind them of their essential spiritual hollowness.
Back to Now
The Crowdist dilemma puts us modern humans in a bad situation. As the reader may recall from the first paragraphs of this document, we are manipulated by centralized reality representations that are subject to the same influences Crowdism places on all other reality. The weapon of Crowdists is passivity; if they are “offended,” their retaliation is justified, because they are the blameless ones bringing us the progressive and superior doctrine of equality. Equality of course does not allow us to tolerate offense, because if anyone feels less than equal, the crowd falls apart and cannot protect equality. The logic behind crowdism is like a musical scale, in that if one starts on any note and runs through the logic, soon one has followed the scale back to its origin in a repeating, endless pattern. The crowd in its view is always right, and its goal is to remove those who would prove it be a paper tiger, e.g. only a crowd of underconfident people and not the ultimate authority on morality it would like to pretend to be.
Looking at our situation practically, we who are not yet absorbed by the Crowd are in a rough place: we cannot strike out against the crowd, and yet we cannot continue to tolerate it, or it will eventually reduce our civilization to third-world status through backhanded destruction of all things higher than its non-goal intentions. Even more, as it has crept within our society, it has spread its agenda of destruction against any higher ideas or ideals. Crowdists triumph through greater numbers, and with each generation of Crowdist control, more people submit out of exhaustion, and thus swell the numbers of Crowdists. It is not a conspiracy; it is a cancer. Since Crowdists have the purchasing power in our society, and the popularity, they ignore any higher visions. A product designed for those who are not Crowdists will not be boycotted, only bypassed. Those who speak up about the truth of the situation, or any of the details associated with the truth that can be construed as offensive (women and men are not equal, races are not equal, individuals are not equal, decisions are not all equal) will be branded a heretic and, while no overt action is taken against them, they will passively be denied opportunity until they accept their destiny as a janitor or in rage against the injustice lash out, become an aggressor and are killed. Remember, Crowdism is negative logic. It does not set out to establish an ideal as much as remove those with ideals, as those conflict with its paradoxical worldview, which is that of facilitating individuals rather than uniting individuals with a goal. Crowdism is anti-aspiration, and anti-organic. It only approves of systems where one individual is in power, or all are equally in power, and thus nothing gets decided.
Yet society continues its decline, and with the appearance of Really Bad News like global warming and economic instability, there is again chance for change. During the Great Depression, America could have easily swung into a Communist state; during the Viet Nam war, political instability led to directional changes (unfortunately, both options were and are Crowdist to the bone). We are heading toward another such nodal point in the neural net of details that determine whether our civilization heads in an ascendant way, or descends back into third world status, from which we all came and toward which all societies fall. With each failure of our trusted information sources, and with each incontrovertible proof that our “truths” are not reality, we get closer to radical alteration in course. The problem is of course that, as in most revolutions, ours is mostly likely to take with it the assumptions of its previous masters, and thus to re-create their reign with new faces. This is why accurate diagnosis of Crowdism is essential. One can switch to Communism, to Tribalism, or even to Anarchy, but as long as the assumptions of Crowdism remain, the path is barely altered and the end result is the same. If we wish to transcend Crowdism, we must first restore our heroic outlook, by which there are things for which we’re willing to die, ideals we hold more precious than life itself. By thinking in parallel, and not in terms of organizing everybody as equals to undergo the same mechanical process and thus cure us all at once, we can move the best people among us to greater heights and slowly bring the rest of us to our respective places. We can deny equality in all of its forms, as it is a crazy doctrine that ends in the norming of us all. Localizing government and turning away from single points of informational “truth” helps as well. Even more, we can finally break the taboo barrier and tell individuals that they cannot have it their way and also participate in a non-failing society.
All of these methods will help defeat the Crowdist disease, but it is not defeated by method alone. It requires that we take on a reorganization of our own minds so that we avoid falling into the underconfident, anti-heroic thoughts of Crowdist. It requires that we value actual truth above any socially convenient illusion, or friendly distortion of the truth. We must face facts and stop taking them personally. To an awakened mind, our faults and strengths are visible, and so what we think of as hidden will soon be no secret to the post-Crowdist people who will rise if we succeed. For this reason, we must transcend our personal pretense and ability to be offended. The truth will set us free – perhaps not, but the pursuit of truth for its own sake will free us from the cancerous plague of Crowdism and its millennial reign over our society.
Monday, August 22nd, 2005
Pacifism may well be one of the most ludicrous doctrines ever created. Not that giving up one’s life for an ideal is bad, but that the ideal – peace and not constant conflict – is insane. It presupposes a world where everything is done right the first try, which if you think about it, is a world where there is no chance for change, since there are never empty spaces which need filling with new actions. Pacifism hopes to still change, and it generally does it out of fear. It should not be confused with sacrifice, which is what happens when one decides there is no way to avoid dying in a situation but that the situation is worth dying for, and thus one elects to give up one’s own life as a means of forcing change. That in turn should not be confused with being a drama queen, which is what most prophets do when they commit suicide-by-reigning-authority-of-the-time.
However, there is some truth to pacifism, in that often people confuse retribution with warlike action. Retribution in and of itself is not warlike, as it is fundamentally passive; the aggrieved party feels that a wrong has been committed, and demands “equal” suffering to “repay” that wrong. The warlike alternative of course is to conquer the offending party, because that ensures that the problem will not happen again and honors those who were aggrieved by making their suffering significant; suddenly, they have suffered not for no reason but as part of the long chain of events that culminated in the glorious conquest, massacre, rape and defilement of a worthy enemy. That’s healthy thinking. Retribution is self-pity unless it takes this warlike form.
In our modern society, we have plenty of opportunities to see retribution at hand. Like most forms of passive action, it targets the symbols of certain problems instead of the problems themselves, and thus it makes most people – the undifferentiated mass who are part of such an entity because they possess no unique skills or gifts, no higher consciousness or greater moral awareness, and no desire to have anything but a part of what already exists; they are not creators nor conquerors, but turnip-pickers and past and future slaves to the brighter ideas of others (if they’re well-behaved, we call them thralls, or laborers; if they’re mailicious and resentful, we call them undermen) – “feel good” about the situation without having achieved anything. This their favorite state of mind: all self-image, no sacrifice or action required, with the illusion of emotional change “just like in Braveheart.”
Retribution, in short, is the metaphysical equivalent of taking drugs because your life sucks. Woe is me, etc. etc., and therefore, I deserve something to make me feel better, although no word on how that actually solves the problem. When the drug wears off, the life still sucks, and so more of the drug is needed, since the problem itself is well on the way to being rapidly insoluble. Target the image, not the reality. Focus on the manifestation, not the structure. Look toward the animal feelings and sensations, not the metaphysical and the psychic reward of accomplishment and creation. This is the descendant path, and it ultimately leads to untermenschenheit, or the state of being an underman. It is also by far and above psychologically easier than trying to do anything important with your life.
What has retribution wrought upon us here in modern society, and is it really as addictive as crack cocaine with frosty chocolate toppings? We have a war on drugs that results in our children being body-slammed by cops in full military gear who descend on them from armored vehicles. Despite thirty years of this escalating retribution, the drug problem is still in full flower, and shows no signs of abating. Politicians look for an answer and, finding none, elect to appear “strong” instead and thus vote for a succession of more extreme sanctions against drug lords, drug users and the like. The result is more people in jail with more lives irrevocably destroyed, but drugs continue their steady march toward victory. All because we address appearances and not reality. (The reality is that people, made slaves to industry without a culture that rewards them psychologically for doing well on a metaphysical level, experience great restlessness and often self-medicate; some are hopeless fools, and others are actually normal, healthy people on a depressive kick.)
The same thought might be extended to terrorism. We rolled over some people, long ago, and they lacked the weapons to fight back in kind so started blowing up our planes, killing athletes, and the like. Did we attempt to understand their motivations, e.g. the structure behind why they do what they do? No; we preferred to demonize them, and escalate immediately toward more brutal sanctions. The problems that cause them to be terrorists remain, and now they’ve got proof that we’re bad guys, since we not only ignore their side of the issue but attempt to bomb, arrest, sanction and invade them into docility. Retribution has not worked here either.
There are mundane examples too. Every year the fines for moving violations in cars increase, yet the violations themselves do not. If someone ever studies this issue in depth, they will probably find that the more we punish and fine and arrest those who speed or run red lights, the more they find themselves alienated from the idea of being law-abiding. Tell someone they’re bad, and strike hard at them for a minor and forgivable infraction, and use it as a cheap excuse to take your money, and they no longer feel guilty – they hate you and think your law is a lie (and they’re probably right). Soon it is no longer a question of responsibility to a public standard of good faith behavior, but a question of avoiding yet another scam even if it comes from governmentally-endorsed, uniformed fraud artists. And what about spam? More laws, resulting in more expense and restrictions on our email, but does the problem go away? (Here the solution is simple: we don’t need defective people who are so insecure they fall all over themselves buying penis enlargers, viagra, porn, etc.)
And then there’s corporate regulation. Every time there’s a blow up and some lumpy CEO is found guilty of absconding with billions so he no longer has to deal with the rest of us, there’s a cry for action, and retribution it is! Laws are written that require more paperwork, more bureaucracy and ultimately more expense that is passed on to the taxpayers and those who must deal with the corporations in question. Often it is not monetary cost, but increased time spent dealing with rank and file tedium. Does it make our lives better? Does it solve the problem? Inevitably, the laws are circumvented or outright ignored over time, as they have become hated for in 99.9% of all situations doing nothing except increasing cost, boredom, annoyance and wastepaper. If you have recollection beyond the memory hole, wait five years and you’ll see Enron, Worldcom and the like being played out all over again with a new set of actors. “How could this happen?” politicians will wail.
There are abundant examples of retribution failing. It’s an emotional response, not a logical one, and thus is doomed to fail in any situation. However, it’s a crowd-pleaser. This tempts us to take retribution on the crowd, and to attempt to punish them and to make them suffer for what they’ve done, but history teaches us that the best revenge is success. For that reason, our only recourse is to stop the culture of retribution by ceasing our attempts to find crowd-pleasing responses, and instead, by taking on the difficult questions of motivation and cause to solve the problems that initiate the symptoms that prompt retaliation. We don’t need to punish the crowd, but as soon as we stop thinking in terms of public image and making people feel better instead of fixing bad form in our social design, we will have replaced the culture of negative retribution with a positive, forward-thinking outlook.
Wednesday, August 10th, 2005
At some point, the West decided it would rather roll over and play dead than deal with the existential stress of having to constantly assert it. To be top dog means you have to act like one, and fight off all incomers, and at some point, people opted for personal comfort instead of being assertive. They justified it of course by saying they weren’t interested in “just image,” sounding of course like the exculpatory defensiveness of a stoned teenage metalhead explaining why he is, in fact, doing nothing with his life. Sour grapes, as the saying goes.
In the west, there was knowledge of what it was to keep up an empire. It had happened for centuries at that point, since the people of Central Europe went into the far north and thus rid themselves of any genetic strains that could not handle waiting a long time for gratification, and doing what raises one’s environment to a higher degree of order regardless of the costs. They had during that expansion merged with the lower white races who had not made that pilgrimage, and picked up remnants of the collapsing Asian and North African and Semitic empires into parts of their bloodline. What it was to be European was changing.
Because they had decided to be pacifists, and not warlike, there was no overall challenge made to this. Anyone who did challenge it was seen as intolerant and mean, and un-Christian, and just downright terrible and unsociable. This caused others to have a second thought about speaking up; most of them turned in bitterness and said, “Well, it’s your funeral, but I’m going to have my life and you can’t touch me as long as I don’t violate this taboo.” The undermen – the only people who are ever threatened by anyone have higher-than-mediocre standards – rejoiced, for they knew that in time, they’d take control.
The undermen of course, come from within, and they’re very present with us today. There are plenty of Indo-Europeans. The problem is the quality of today’s Indo-Europeans. They tend to be small, snivelling people who are good at having office jobs and not offending anyone at parties, thus taking home enough bucks to buy their way out of the ghetto, to get their kids to college and have enough medical insurance to survive the inevitable cancers. If it came down to the line, they’d rather not miss a meal than take on a heroic quest. Although some of them are quite healthy, that number declines every year.
Indo-Europeans at this time tend to be people of mixed tribal heritage, more and more, and they are slowly (1%) beginning the infiltration, again, of bloodlines of other races. Consequently, we’re getting even more weird looking people than ever before, because as is obvious, if you mix two differently specialized things, you’ll get a weird offspring. We have one Halle Berry for how many million mixed race people? And there you go. Even more, look at the average “100% white” person in America. A mishmash of English, Slavic, Irish, German and French, ending up with something of uncertain origin and purpose. We’re making generic people. The undermen love that, as it gives them a good hiding place.
Undermen come about anytime there is a lack of heroic challenge, and therefore, people who cannot act heroically and think holistically are allowed to breed. Traditionally, these people breed more than heroic people, because they are scatterbrained and invest less effort into each offspring. Why are they scatterbrained? Because they have no complete logical philosophy with which to guide themselves. They’re bullshitting their way through with bits and pieces there. You can hear these people everywhere talking about philosophy as if it were shopping: “Well, I liked this from that, and that from this, so I put them all together and I’ve got my own unique incomparable special philosophy” — no, enough with the idiocy. You’ve got a philosophical soup that doesn’t stand up to inquiry. (Of all the people I’ve met of this nature, there was one who came close to having a unified outlook, and he flaked out after the second round of analysis.)
Yes, pacifism. Isn’t it nice to stop trying – to give in – to relax, to just stop worrying? No longer stressing yourself, not striving for anything, not fighting for anything – it’s so easy. Just let it all go away. Stop trying to do better than average; just do what’s enough. Why push yourself so hard? Girlfriend, you’ll be all stressed out if you do that. Chill out with your bad self. Maybe do some things for The You so you feel good. Go shopping, get yourself a new DVD (that movie where George Clooney saves the AIDS victims from Iraqi Nazis in the Florida Keys) and maybe have a Frappucino. Life’s made to be enjoyed.
When you don’t fight, you’re not testing yourself. When you’re not testing yourself, you’re not striving for anything greater. Doesn’t it make sense that each generation should be better than the last? That we should push ourselves, and grow, so we don’t have a constant void of meaning inside? If you think about it, and think you might be able to pull it off, it does. If you’re a creeping Underman (or – oh so PC – “underwoman”) you’ll hate this idea. What? Your entire life – all its meaning – might go away! You could die, or be embarrassed, or be ostracized! Oh noes!
Our ancestors believed in a world beyond the material. It wasn’t a tangible world like the Christians believed, but it was far from the negative viewpoint of the Jewish faith, in which there is nothing but the material so you might as well be comfortable. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are all of the non-materialist nature, with varying degrees of adaptation. Those religions represent an advancement over the primal and go-nowhere, know-nothing nature of Judaism. And what has happened?
(The ancient Indo-Europeans considered it positive to be “warlike.” That meant taking an active, aggressive role in solving problems, in leaving in every place a higher order of organization than had been there before. This sometimes required brutality, as when slaughtering and raping lesser tribes, but in fifty years, those tribes were twice as adapted as they had been previously. Evolution is an example of this warlike belief in action. In order to take on this heroic view of the world, one must acknowledge that the individual is a transient state, and that when death occurs, if a higher level of organization was achieved, that is more important than the individual’s suffering or death. It’s a self-negating, but whole-life-affirming, philosophy. It requires one to look at the big picture, namely an order on the cosmic level, so that one can place oneself within it and not have one’s world be limited to one’s self. This is how idealism becomes realism and then returns to idealism; the world operates like our thoughts, pushing down the weaker and accelerating the more adapted. If the world works this way, we must put it to use in the physical world and acknowledge its operation – that’s realism. When one has achieved this state of realism, it is celebrated by a return to idealism, in which one sees the cosmos as a giant mind calculating optimal order. But this philosophy is not for Undermen, who are so underconfident they only accept philosophies which glorify the physical self, its comfort, and its whining drama. What did the ancients seek? A higher order. In everything. And what do we seek now? More cable channels, and better treatment of retarded obese lesbians?)
We’re sliding backward, through pacifism. People don’t believe in striving for anything, thus over time, natural selection rewards the most pacifistic, and we get short, dark, squat, dumb, passive, sheepish, chronically ill people. This is fine for industry; all it needs are people to pull levers and file reports. But what about our future? Love adversity and love aggression, especially against yourself by challenging yourself to greater heights. Anything else is just an excuse.
Friday, August 5th, 2005
What is the problem with Indo-European society? Oh, don’t bore me with your socially-acceptable excuses. The problem is too many lower quality people and, out of deference to them, we’ve given up on evolution. The Jews? The Christians? The Negroes? Fix your own house first, white man.
On Jews, Aryans and Entropy
The Immortal Blemish
We’re only science
On Jews, Aryans and Entropy
“DEATH TO THE JEWS” – Alex Linder1
All great things perish from their own strengths. It may be, as Alex Linder — and he is quite a smart fellow — says, that the Jews are responsible for much of it. But to me it seems there’s a more likely explanation, but like most obvious things in complex situations, it hides behind several levels of interpretations. These levels compensate for time and the independent reaction of autonomous beings to the effects of the previous level. When we peel away these levels, we’re left with a simple truth that flowered into a complex downfall – as are most things in nature.
Indo-European society also grew in several layers. On top of a series of stone-age populations, groups of northern people, both proto-Celtic and proto-Nordid, emerged from the climactic extremes of Scandinavia and Russia and made their way into the rest of the world. These people were strong in a way that physicality cannot describe – they had spiritual strength, which translated into both amazing physical feats and a relentless creative genius that found them positions of power among the people they encountered. Was it that they were conquerors? In part, but the more likely explanation is simpler: they were better leaders, and therefore were accepted as a gift.
These peoples had subjected themselves to the most rigorous conditions of survival yet seen by any human population. Going to the far North, where winter is long and resources are few, they had to be adaptive and physically tough in order to survive. Even further, and here’s the real test, they had to have an overpowering sense of spiritual positivity and strength to thrive in an unforgiving and bleak, grey climate. Their sunlight was within for most of the year. In those regions, suicide is common, as those who lack the inner compass toward belief in the positive become depressed and collapse.
The prevailing belief was something like this: everything that happens has reason, and therefore, we adapt as we can because we believe in life – no matter how bleak it now seems. This was a spirituality of willing hands and warlike determination as much as any New Agey positivism. It was one of the first forms of what we now call cosmic idealism, in that it placed all physical suffering and loss secondary to the achievement of the utmost goal, which was the transcendent appreciation of life and understanding of the cosmic order so not only to endure in it, but to continue its work of ever-higher evolution and greater achievement. This was the great strength of these people, which kept them moving forward despite grievous losses and foreboding circumstance.
As a result of this conditioning for many generations, when they spilled out of the north they were as the earliest Greeks, Romans and Indians were described: fine flaxen hair, radiant blue eyes, tall and with an uncanny inner perception. People from the post-Stone Age tribes who witnessed them described them as gods because wherever they went, barrenness was turned into fecundity, sorrow into joy, confusion into order. This was their inner light; their inner sun. They had a spiritual certainty that made it easy for them to be nurturing when it was time, and to kill without any kind of moral compunction when appropriate.
They had no excessive urge to kill, nor any response to it. To them, death did not change the sum total of energy and complexity in the universe, so if the death was compatible with the cosmic order, it was not a loss or a gain. They even viewed their own deaths this way, praising the heroism of those who fell, mourning them with a reserve tempered by joy at the achievements of those brave warriors, even in death. Their spiritual view was best summed up perhaps by those who created an offshoot of this culture in India:
Arjuna:…Killing these Must breed but anguish, Krishna! If they be Guilty, we shall grow guilty by their deaths; Their sins will light on us, if we shall slay Those sons of Dhritirashtra, and our kin; What peace could come of that, O Madhava?…
Krishna: Thou grievest where no grief should be! thou speak’st Words lacking wisdom! for the wise in heart Mourn not for those that live, nor those that die. Nor I, nor thou, nor any one of these, Ever was not, nor ever will not be, For ever and for ever afterwards. All, that doth live, lives always! To man’s frame As there come infancy and youth and age, So come there raisings-up and layings-down Of other and of other life-abodes, Which the wise know, and fear not. This that irks– Thy sense-life, thrilling to the elements– Bringing thee heat and cold, sorrows and joys, ‘Tis brief and mutable! Bear with it, Prince! As the wise bear. The soul which is not moved, The soul that with a strong and constant calm Takes sorrow and takes joy indifferently, Lives in the life undying! That which is Can never cease to be; that which is not Will not exist. To see this truth of both Is theirs who part essence from accident, Substance from shadow. Indestructible, Learn thou! the Life is, spreading life through all; It cannot anywhere, by any means, Be anywise diminished, stayed, or changed. But for these fleeting frames which it informs With spirit deathless, endless, infinite, They perish. Let them perish, Prince! and fight! He who shall say, “Lo! I have slain a man!” He who shall think, “Lo! I am slain!” those both Know naught! Life cannot slay. Life is not slain! Never the spirit was born; the spirit shall cease to be never; Never was time it was not; End and Beginning are dreams! Birthless and deathless and changeless remaineth the spirit for ever; Death hath not touched it at all, dead though the house of it seems! 2
What is important to these heroes is not that death occur, but that it occur in such a way as to complement the transcendent structure of the universe; to them, the entirety of the universe is an organism, and it is healthy when its cells are arranged in an intelligent design. The lives of the cells themselves are transient, and the consciousness they feel is a property of the universe itself, thus neither they nor it lose anything by their deaths, but if the universe gains a greater degree of order, entropy is postponed and any deaths incurred were worth it. (This is not a philosophy for beginners: most have to meditate frequently for several years to see the value of even what is carefully worded in this paragraph.)
The appearance of these people into the post-Stone Age communities of central Europe took a group of people about as intelligent as the average white farm laborer in the mid-1800s and transformed them into one of the world’s most vital societies. Europe was already ahead of the game, as far as certain realizations of intellect and emotion, but only after the appearance of these higher-caste populations did it truly take a lead over the East and Middle East, rapidly outpacing them in every area of civilization. What made these people so powerful was the universal order they worshipped: by confronting adversity without fear, they had shaped themselves into a stronger population, and after many generations, had risen impressively in every area of ability.
An important side note here is that the history of Europe provides only one slice of history; presumably, similar populations were created in Asia and Africa, but those may have been many years before, and it would be hard to compare their abilities to those of the Northern dwellers. Comparisons aren’t important. What is important is the principle that those who subject themselves to the greatest rigor, the greatest discipline, and the most comprehensive long-term plan are those who evolve most favorably. But as is commonly said, that which goes up must come down, and starting only a few thousand years after the great Northern expansion, Europe began to decay.
By the time of the late 1800s, it was clear that the decay had manifested itself and taken over. Like a forlorn rearguard, the best artists and philosophers of the day summarized remarkably coherent worldviews and carefully committed them to record, as if unsure that such thinkers would come about again. Through circumstance, both Christianity and the industrial revolution were in full bloom, and those two entities – one an absolute spiritualism, the other a resolute materialism – distracted the European people from the basic question of their own health as a popular, in terms of the inner strength that had brought them so far.
At the present time the decline is rampant. Most Euripids have no idea what propels their lives, so they settle for “filling” their time with pleasant things – whether merely material or not, they are usually analogues of some form, such that even if they are abstract pleasures, they are taken in the same way one would a physical pleasure: consumption without integration into a larger form. Although we’re all familiar with the picture of the average American – couch-sitting, TV-watching, in a desperate marriage or neurotically single, going to work for ten hours a day and then trying to find ways to evade death for a few hours before sleep – the same situation has come to visit Europe, where people work less and focus more on life but still have that nagging inner voice that suggests emptiness. There may be nothing for which they would gladly give their lives, supposing it bettered the order of the World!
We can perform any kind of diagnosis we want, but without the spiritual certainty of having some fully coherent world-order in our minds, we will only be “sure” of its accuracy when it’s a postmortem. We have forgotten the philosophies that connect our world to our actions and our values, and therefore, we are simply guessing at what the causes might be, because we have no firm starting point – no conception of world-order – from which to make our diagnosis. It is for this reason that modern people are obsessed with deconstruction, supposing that if they strip away all that they know, they can start from square zero and form a complete picture of the workings of their world. They can, but only the best among them, and then only if they dedicate their lives to that task.
There is no question that Alex Linder and Adolf Hitler are genius intellects. Likewise, there is little doubt that Aristotle and Nietzsche were anything less, and it is widely known that Arthur Schopenhauer is perhaps the smartest man on record within recent centuries. All are highly intelligent malcontents who upon perceiving the structure behind the world of appearances in the society around them, saw a great sickness, and became its antagonist, giving their lives to change it as they saw best possible. The question before us now is whether they did enough, or whether they put the puzzle together enough – no, that’s not the question. The question is whether or not we can put together the puzzle they have carefully prepared and, more than knowing, act upon it.
What they perceived cannot be summarized by Mr. Linder’s statement “Death to the Jews,” but clearly none of them were positive toward the Jewish people or Judaism. Schopenhauer saw Judaism as a filthy faith fit only for used car salesmen and insurance frauds; to his mind, it justified such behaviors, and therefore only people so inclined would find it fulfilling. Nietzsche carefully praised the Jews backhandedly while pointing out their permanent spiritual deficiencies, concluding by through his praise appealing to values they would find wholly alien. Having learned from the exampe of Wagner, Nietzsche saw no need for a head-on assault against Judaism when it would result in defeat, because passive people are experts at appearing the victim whenever criticized. Hitler and Linder, being masculine characters, have no need for delicate footwork, and simply advocate removal of Jews and Jewish culture from European lands, preferring to relegate the camel-traders to Israel.
However, these solutions are alarmingly physical, meaning that while they remove the immediacy of a perceived problem, it’s unclear as to whether or not they fix the underlying weakness that allows such a thing to take root and manipulate the spirit of a nation. Further, it’s not clear that the Jews are cause of our misfortune, or simply leeches on a wound, and while their removal clearly will aid the healing of that wound, it in and of itself cannot achieve that healing, and runs the risk of making us feel an oncologic solution to the problem has cured us entirely, when in fact a longer-term course of therapy is needed. It’s too bad, in a way, as it would be handy to blame the Jews, gas them all, and then move on to a better future. Clearly in the West that would improve our lot, but it would not heal what ails us.
At this point, we must ask the two questions fundamental to any medical practice: What went wrong? and How do we fix it? These questions require us to look deeply into the natural patterns that occur when a strong force becomes sedentary, and to overlook for a moment the more complicated answers and the overly simple ones, instead favoring the answers that are plausible in terms of natural entropy: how things fall apart, with no one’s fault but time and the steady creep of disorganization that goes along with it. When we reach this mindset, we have come to the first stage of the mental clarity necessary to conceive of what must be done – and to carry it out, although it would shock us, were we to retain the trained mentality common in society at this point in history.
The Immortal Blemish
I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty — I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind… – F.W. Nietzsche
This article is not written to exonerate the Jews, or more insidiously, Christianity. For while Jews were outsiders, the Christians arose from within, and took their time destroying many of the greatest aspects of Europe, replacing them with a sheeplike dependence on a public pronouncement of something being “good” or “evil” – wise heads will ask, according to whom? Yet neither is the purpose here to indict Jews, or Christians, because as shortly seen, they are not causes but vanguards of the decay here.
Lest the outrage be lost, as nothing provokes greater horror these days than “anti-Semitism,” it is important first to note that there is nothing agreeable about Judaism or Jewish culture. Some individual Jews are fine people, albeit ones who carry within themselves, no matter how sublimated, the odious Jewish culture, like a gene for retardation or cancer hidden behind a pretty face. Yet recognition of forensic data is a far cry from passing judgment in the form of blame.
To keep up that “anti-Semitism” charge, however, it’s important to ask simple questions: if anti-Semitism is so obviously false, why must laws be made against it? If it is such a brazen lie, why does it recur, again and again, while other lies perish young? And finally, we must ask, if Jews are so wonderful, why have the fortunes of Europe and America waned after their acceptance into society? But still, you must trust your author here – even recognizing these truths, and far worse ones about populist Christianity, does not mean we’re pointing the finger. Merely it means we recognize reality as it is!
If our problem were as simple as “the Jews” or “the Christians,” it would have been solved long ago, as such things, while unpopular, can be recognized when the enemy is an active force – of course, both Christians and Jews prefer to operate passively, so there’s a possibility this would never have been noticed, once the pacifying effects of Christianity took hold. However, one still must ask: could it be that simple? This does not negate the importance of carefully questioning these faiths, and the presence of ethnic Jews, although it does suggest that such blindside taboos on criticism of Judaism as our fear of anti-Semitism be banished.
Our problem is slightly more complex. Only slightly, because it is a level deeper in the hierarchy of confusion, but deeper enough that it has been dismissed as a subtle distinction and missed by the action-hungry crowd. In the West now we’ve gone through several changes of political system, and an equal number of philosophical changes, with one crowd – the counterculture, the reformers – crowing that their ways will make everything better, while those who oppose them prefer a return to something from the past. Yet both groups make the same mistakes and have failed, when given power, to render a better system. Could it be that the problem, like a virus, has infected at a lower level than that of a tangible idea?
We make a solid distinction between active and passive for a good reason when speaking about evils. An active evil is obvious; hitting someone on the head. A passive evil can take place over decades or centuries, and usually does not leave a bloodied victim but many people inconvenienced or deprived of wealth over time. When a landlord “saves money” on construction of new apartments; the disaster is not known until a fire hits, and the building collapses ahead of schedule. Or more likely, the cruelty is felt in the daily deprivation of those who live there of slices of their time, which is wasted in “working around” the defective assemblies.
The difference between active and passive is as follows: it is one thing to state a reason for doing something, and another thing entirely to have that reason be the actual motivation. An active crime is outright doing wrong; a passive crime is a lack of doing right, and thus allowing a subtle wrong, while maintaining a justification through reasons unrelated to the actual motivation for actions taken. It is this sort of crime that can remain unnoticed through the ages, especially as its cumulative effects result in a numbing and norming of the population.
For this reason, the problem before us has two aspects: first, a philosophical deficit at such a low level of cognition that it infects all levels above it; second, a physical effect on the population that both brainwashes them and, over the generations, breeds them into compliant ruminants. This means that not only is our infection insidious, but it is also nearly indetectable, since our population and its expectations are literally shaped by it. We face an ugliness of profound jurisdiction in this one.
And what of Mr. Nietzsche’s comments about Christianity, much like Mr. Linder’s earlier cited comments about Jews? If we must indulge a pathology of blame, let us include everyone. The third world populations blame Whitey; the liberals blame corporations; the far-right blames Jews and Negroes; the moderates blame dishonest politicians. Nietzsche in part blames the Christians, and many selectively blame “fundamentalists” or “organized” religion, as if it matters whether a corrupt philosophy has a formal entity behind it or not. Can all of these people be wrong at once? Or more importantly: can they all have a glimpse of the same truth?
Christianity remains one of the more enigmatic ideas to blame, although we will take each of these in sequence, for it has a mixed record. Indeed, as Nietzsche said, it did bring about a “slave morality” in the West, where those who were our leaders began to enforce an egalitarianism upon us that led to an ultimate decline in both our expectations and the quality of our populations. Christians perpetrated most of the great crimes of Western history, as well, whether the Children’s Crusade or the hunting of “witches” (a fancy term for “independent thinker” or “atheist,” depending on your view). However, many great people throughout history acted on their own interpretations of Christianity to create awesome works and deeds, and many have been comforted by this religion.
It’s clear that there are problems with Christian theology. First, it explicitly divides mind (soul) and body, and promises along the same lines a second world to this one, which like a Platonic thought-impression is a pure world, without the ambiguity of this one. Further, Christianity provides a Jewish sense of binary morality, where there is an absolute “good” or “evil” classification imposed upon each act by an unerring power, a singular Perspective that dominates the universe without prevarication. Finally, as a result of this morality and its emphasis on emotion/thought over pragmatic recognition of reality, egalitarianism is fundamental to most interpretations of Christianity.
This division arises to the largest degree from a division between proto-Greek and proto-Vedic thought in Christianity. As the Greek empire was swallowed up by Asiatic and Persian elements during its dying days, much of Greek thought influenced the new scholars of independent Jerusalem. They extracted from Greek ideology a sense of the ideal, but translated it into the literal sense classic to Judaism, which ended up being materialism. Consequently, they had to form a pseudo-dualism based on the will of a deity as contrasted to the will of nature. Judaism thus had an original bias against nature’s devices, which is expounded upon in their concept of “Tikkun Olam,” or “repairing the world.” Only something broken needs repair.
On top of this thought a half-breed prophet (son of god = son of the godlike race, that is to say, Aryan Romans) named Jesus Christ layered ideas he retrieved from his time studying with the Buddhists of India, where he was known as Issa and well-esteemed. From this ancestor of Vedic thought, Christ extracted a sense of idealism, or of a truth larger than physicality which related to the mechanism and not texture of physicality. In other words, a death may be unpleasant, but if it allows some positive change in the workings of nature and the world, it is positive – a parallel for this can be found in evolution, where the deaths of individuals strengthen both predator and prey species alike. This idealism hybridized unsteadily with Judaic thought, creating instead a duality between pure (mind) and impure (physicality).
In Christianity’s favor, it overcame the crass materialism of Judaism, and returned toward a proto-idealistic system. To its discredit, it retained the binary morality and thus egalitarianism and duality of Judaism, which is the belief structure that had Nietzsche and others seeing it as a revenge of the weak. “Weakness” in this case refers to a spiritual weakness which prevents its bearer from acting directly, and requires him or her to instead snipe underconfidently through passive actions; it is not a physical weakness, nor an intellectual one, but a weakness of character. We can see in this weakness a fear of idealism, and in parallel, of evolution, by which the underconfident individual seeks to make survival egalitarian and thus “defeat” (“repair”) death.
Because of this dual nature, Christianity was preferrable to Judaism, and in fact, many European Christians used it as a weapon against Judaism not from a Biblical command to avenge Christ, but because on a theological level, they saw materialistic Judaism as an undoing of the selfless, meditative and idealistic aspects of Christianity. In this they were right, and not surprisingly, the list of proponents of this idea includes some of history’s smartest people: Arthur Schopenhauer, Martin Luther, Adolf Hitler. While some deride Europeans for re-interpreting Christianity, arguing that such acts obliterate its original significance, others acknowledge that its original clarity was lost but partially restored through European intervention.
Seeing Christianity in this light demonstrates to us how it alone cannot be culpable for our downfall, as like our own decay, its character demonstrates not only duality but the marks of a similar force. Blaming Judaism for this is only partially right, because, as we shall see, the same force was active upon Judaism, and shaped the people who are today’s Jews. One might wonder where else such a force was active, casting a glance to pre-Buddhist Asia as apparently a turbulent place divided against itself. And what of the origin of the Jews?
History here is somewhat hazy. What we do know is that the original Jews were a Semitic population who over time became almost exclusively a trading population. Their origin was primarily Caucasian, but included a large degree of Asian and small degree of African admixture, suggesting to us that they were indeed the ultimate hybrid of all three races. The only sort of population at the time which would have all three races present and breeding, and be based upon commerce, would be one like our modern state: multicultural and egalitarian, motivated by individual wealth. Not surprisingly, a materialistic (meaning: concept of reality constrained to the physical) religion with a legalistic morality might be appropriate for such a tribe!
It is then possible, if we are willing to look at history poetically and not get caught up on the details – details of which our present conjectures are unreliable, and may never be fulfilled – that Judaism and the Jewish people were shaped by the same forces that we find working on ourselves now. In that light, we start to see these forces not as something with a foreign origin, but of a nature endemic to all peoples if allowed to flourish. A good comparison would be the tendency of committees, no matter how smart the people on them are, to destroy any forward motion and replace it with compromises: too many voices ruins any clear idea of what must be done.
(People now will protest this, of course, but they would rather object to a detail and thus remain unchanged in what they’ve been taught, primarily by their televisions, than admit that the overall shape of change throughout history supports this proposition. No matter – anyone thinking in such poor state of mind will not comprehend anything herein, and instructions for dealing with them will be found at the end of the third section. The fact remains that history is a logical progression, and therefore there are causal reasons for what happens, no matter how we try to explain them away as instantaneous emotional outbursts or financial schemes that somehow lasted for centuries and appeared in many locations.)
Boldly making the assumption that this is correct, and a disease is shared between the West and ancient Israel, we must then turn to this ailment, which must be of a vastly covert nature to hide from all of our efforts to excise it. One might see the modern fascination with deconstruction, and with a series of theses blaming everything from gender to language for all of our woes, as an attempt to claw past the surface and get at the tumor which, having infected the blood, can move freely and resist any attempt at removal. Remembering that this disease is not only philosophical, but also affects our breeding by its selection of who is favored and thus outbreeds the rest, we must look deeply into the major philosophical events of our history.
We’re Only Science
“Well, there aren’t so many patterns in life, you know. One recognizes patterns as they come up. It’s like a book on knitting. About sixty-five different fancy stitches. Well, you know a particular stitch when you see it.” – Aunt Matilda1
The progress of this article so far will offend and disturb people from both sides of the political spectrum. For the right wing, it will fail to condemn traditional targets (Jews, Negroes, Atheists) and for the left wing, it will fail to exonerate them. Reality is a difficult thing to portray, and it rarely fits into Hollywood-movie-perfect categories, where you can look at a character and say, “He’s from this group, so he must be good.” Indeed, this article will offend most white people by pointing the blame squarely where it belongs and calling for immediate and effective action against it.
What makes this article instantly relevant to any thinker is that not only does it not deny a long-term crisis in the west, but it notes the subtlety of that crisis, and eschews the kind of blundering drama that will only worsen the disaster. Nor does it sugarcoat what needs to be done. This is not an article which panders to popularity, because people are inherently either able to accept it or already lost to its observations, at which point, it’s for the best they get offended and run off screaming. It is not intended for mainstream publication because the only reason things get published is to make money, and difficult truths which apply only to the creative, strong-willed, morally sound thinkers of a society are not very popular nor profitable.
Such ideas are relevant because, to anyone with half a brain, it is clear that something has gone wrong in the West. The great artistic works of the past have been replaced by dramatic statements in plastic that ultimately leave us unchanged. The great leaders are gone, and instead we have a series of pandering indistinguishable goons who seem to do little more than enrich themselves in office while bathing us in pleasant but unrealistic visions. Our science which once made great gains is limping along, and nothing it produces seems to work consistently. Even our computers crash constantly. And the quailty of our population? There are fewer beautiful, noble, intelligent people than before, but we now have an endless supply of people who behave like animals who have adapted to survival through money and supermarkets. Only those who aren’t already subsumed into such a lumpenproletariat will notice the truth of this observation. Those who have nothing better to recommend them than the ability to get a job and buy things will find this article offensive.
This kind of widespread decline does not happen because of a single political system, because we’ve tried several (although we have not questioned the nature of political systems themselves, and whether or not there’s a better way). It does not happen because a single group controls society, because if they did, they would no longer require the profit that even seems to motivate them – whatever has infected us, has also diseased the “power elites,” whoever they are this week. Even more, this kind of decline does not happen in an election cycle, or decade cycle, or even within a handful of centuries; this is the kind of failure that is so subtle and slow-working it takes millennia to fully bloom, and since it moves at an infinitessimal pace, is impossible for the average person to observe. Only those who try to summarize all of history in large mental constructions will spot it, and they have, through the centuries – Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kaczynski, Linkola, Hitler. (Oh! Did I say a forbidden name? That this “free” society even has forbidden names, or concepts that subject you to social isolation, should have you striking the word “free” from its description, post-haste!)
And who is behind this decline? Who has brought it upon you, whether willingly or not? Soon you will know. In the meantime, it’s important that we again address Mr. Linder’s idea (“DEATH TO THE JEWS,” remember?) and question whether or not the Jews are responsible for our plight. It seems unlikely, since their appearance is relatively late in the cycle, and they don’t yet control everything, although certainly their prominence in the news-entertainment media, finance and government is troubling. This article isn’t an apologetic for the Jews; clearly they do not belong in Western culture, as their values are entirely foreign to ours – their materialistic dualism does not match with the healthiest of European beliefs, cosmic idealism, and is in fact diametrically opposed to it, to the point that whenever a Jew opens his mouth to speak “ideology” you should be assured it is harmful to you – and should be ejected by any means necessary. It’s definitely not an attempt to praise them, since while they’ve done many good things, this is in part a result of their having relentlessly self-promoted and passed over capable goyim, such to the point where it’s natural they have accomplished some good things, because they hold disproportionate amounts of the positions required. But on the whole, have Europe’s fortunes raised or lowered because of the Jews? Greater divisiveness, neurosis, infighting, and ugly hook noses – Europeans are becoming Jews, from the looks of things!
Nor is this article here to excuse Christians. Those who have infused cosmic idealism into Christianity have made from it the best religion on earth since the original Vedic belief, but not all Christians follow this ideal, and since most cannot figure it out on their own and Christianity has a misleading character, it is commonly destructive. Indeed, throughout the Western world, we see Christians acting against nature and helping the helpless, importing third worlders into European populations, subsidizing the dysfunctional at the expense of the functional. Such Christians are criminally insane, and that their religion is delusional does not excuse their behavior. Christianity can be fixed, but it requires an iron hand – and a healthier (morally) population. Nietzsche referred to Christianity as the “immortal blemish” of mankind, and from a technical view of Christianity as a philosophy, he is correct: its tendency toward pity and individualistic morality is sure to restrain the strong so that the morally weak, mentally defective and unhealthy can achieve a plurality in any society. In fact, from an outsider’s perspective, Christianity acts like a classic computer virus in that it appears safe until activated, at which point it systematically defuses defenses and implants its own logic where once more creative, independent thought reigned.
We could even be good liberals and blame corporations, or if we’re smarter than the average liberal, money itself. Yet corporations have only been around for the past 25% of the death cycle of the West, and while money has been misleading and is a bad primary motivator for any society, money has always been with us, without causing damage this widespread. Something else crapped in the soup first, friends – something more powerful than the lure of money, which seems to appeal to those of a lower mindset, the same kind of underconfident and morally deficient people that use Christianity as their chosen drug and masturbatorily consider themselves “good” for having pitied others, even if the end result of their pity is destructive – such as encouraging the breeding of the lesser, while demoting the stronger, as if planned as an antidote to evolution! (And who fears evolution? Do strong, healthy, morally strong people worry that they might be unfit?…you’re catching on here, if you follow this point: who benefits from a moral system that promotes the weak over the strong?)
Who is holding you back, Western human? What’s the poison in your wedding cake, the landmine in your playground, the flea in your jockstrap? The far right immediately screams that it’s racial degeneration (true) and then points to Negroes and other third-world groups, less favored races on the evolutionary chain perhaps, but is it their fault? Their intent? And why are they here in the first place, if they’re such a bad deal for us all? The left sees far right conspiracies in anything more organized than a picnic, but if one looks at the actions and rhetoric of modern governments, they clearly follow a liberal democratic agenda, not a far-rightist one, so you have to be somewhat insane or mentally dysfunctional to see that logic as sound. One tragedy of modern time is that we’re all taught to talk and write without necessarily having mastered the logical skills necessary to assert a sensible proposition, or even test one, thus we have an abundance of highly literate gibberish and very little clear, plain thought. Why is it that common sense is dead? Could it be that we do not (even among whites) share the same common sense?
There are only so many patterns in life. It’s doubtful that we’ve found a new one for our decline, which means that it is something easily recognized, as much so as becoming tired and falling asleep during a long drive home. Further, it is not complicated, as to engineer failure is a simple task, even when a cryptic one. It is something literally staring us in the face, but we keep asking the wrong questions and getting the wrong answers, thus instead of starting the process over and asking new questions, we beat ourselves senseless with our lack of answers… why is that? Could it be that the right answers are somehow unacceptable? — another way of saying, to whom are these answers so offensive that they would hold all of us back?
Let’s do a postmortem, before the decease, since for those who have the foresight to see that history is an ongoing process and its results occur because of our choices, and vary with the different possibilities offered to us, i.e. are not random as many would like to believe, will see that our process is one of inevitability. Didn’t T.S. Elliott say something about this? He recognized that the most likely form of collapse occurs slowly, and is not so much a big bang, as a lapsing away… a slow drop into failure, at which point an equilibrium of failure is achieved, and no one thinks to say aloud that failure has occurred. Only change, and we all know that newer ideas are better than old, right? (Nod for tax deduction.) In fact, if we observe the third world, even Africa, we see the remnants of once-mighty civilizations that have collapsed into a comfortable mediocrity. It wasn’t a disaster. Just a slow lapse of forward motion, followed by an unending stasis in almost-was could-have-been status. That’s our future. But it isn’t here yet, so let’s look at what caused this disease.
It seems that first we lost our philosophy. We no longer shared basic values in common. Then Christianity arose, and immigrant populations – at first, Jews and Gypsies (Roma) – came into our countries, and interbred among us. Then we stopped caring about ancestors, and interbred freely. In the meantime, our commerce had grown like wildfire, and so we took over the world, basically – yes, you, Western man – and then turned that same intelligence toward making money. We found we could do it better with first slaves, and second cheap labor, who are incapable of inventing our methods and machines for themselves. Soon these slaves became part of our populations. Our aristocracy died out and were replaced by rock stars and people who made themselves fabulously wealth; these were our new heroes. Finally, we reach the stage of pluralism, where we believe that the best method of governing is not to agree on anything at all, which forces our leaders to construe any obstacle as not just an impediment – but a mortal enemy who attacked us first, who hates our “freedom,” etc etc. We’ve gone from being active people who did heroic things and established great civilizations, to being passive people who have to convince themselves they’ve been wronged before they can attack. How disgusting, and how dishonest. It seems there’s been a failure of quality control in the West!
One reason most people will not join “pro-White” or “White Nationalist” parties is that most of the dickheads and criminals and passive jerkoffs they meet in daily life are “white.” Another reason the historically educated will never join any idiot “White Nationalist” undertaking is that they recognize all white people are not the same. The Irish aren’t of the quality of the Germans; many Italians are barely first-world quality; almost all Slavs are remnants of a slave population that specialized in running water supplies past open sewers and getting gang-raped by Mongols! You do not want to breed your Germans and Scandinavians into your Slavs and Southern Europeans, or you will handily destroy the best among whites. This is only part of it. Another reason many of us will not join “White Nationalist” parties is that we perceive them to be violent bigots without a solution, and we do not wish to engage in “hate” to motivate us – it’s passive to have to hate something before you can act on it; it’s pathetic and destructive to one’s moral character. (I’ll note exceptions: Alex Linder is a National Socialist, as is Bill White, and the NSM and LNSG – these organizations have at least an ideology that isn’t some idiotic “Pan-Aryan” excuse to feel better about ourselves by construing ourselves as superior to other races! — as if there’s that much difference between your average Southern Italian or Slav or low Irishman and an Arab or Jew or Mexican, anyway.)
Our problem is a far more subtle one.
A troubling symptom is that white people are for sale, these days. Whatever makes money, they go with, and they’ll argue for it on TV or in front of Congress. They no longer seem to think about the long-term consequences, or even the reality of an action; if it’s socially acceptable, and makes money, they go ahead and do it, with a few exceptions who abstain from behavior outside their character and thus are punished in earnings potential and thus breeding potential, slowly squeezing them out of the gene pool. While this behavior is very clearly a problem, most white people will not argue against it. The far-right ones are so afraid of Communism they’ll never slander their precious earning potential, and both sides agree that it’s good to be able to chase the almighty dollar, as it levels the playing field for all of us. Economic competition is part of that individual “freedom,” and if there’s one sacred cow in this society, it’s that everyone should be able to do whatever they desire – and can afford, of course.
Even more disturbing is that white people seem to trust their society, its new-entertainment media, and its figureheads. They’re like sheep. Stamp “evil” on something and they run for it; stamp “good” on something and they go off to war to fight for it, never mind how many of their European brothers they murder. They refuse to act on anything which is socially unacceptable, or “offensive,” to others, and therefore routinely bypass truthful answers and workable solutions for illusion and passive, ineffective action. The disease is within white people, then. They cling stubbornly to high-minded ideals like “freedom” and “justice” and command themselves to be blind when the failures of those big spacy abstractions are revealed. They willingly set their children down in front of televisions for four hours a day so the parents can have time for their personal agendas. They hate their jobs, detest the amount of time they have to spend waiting in lines, etc., but as soon as the day is done, they’re gloating about how much farther ahead they are than their neighbors. These are no Aryans.
(We could be good brain-dead Buddhists/Scientologists and start ranting on about how “the ego” is to blame, and how when we get over the ego, we can congratulate ourselves for being smarter than others, for by spending all our time negating the ego, we have disciplined it… nothing could be farther from the original intent of Buddhism. The ego isn’t the problem – the socialized ego is a symptom of looking for an external absolute, as in a dualistic system, and leads to passive action mentalities. Modern Buddhism has been absorbed by the same disease as Christianity, and some smart entrepreneur figured this out and hybridized the two to create Scientology. There’s a saying in computers: “GIGO,” or garbage-in, garbage-out. In the case of religions, if you run inferior people through a religion, they will convert it into an inferior religion.)
The West has a basic philosophical deficit that is so pervasive among every area of its thought that it is literally invisible to even trained people looking for it. It is an assumption on such a basic level that all other thought is predicated upon it, and therefore, it infects everything, invisibly, and makes each person taught in any one of these disciplines its carrier. An ideal virus, isn’t it? One wonders if it serves nature like disease, by carrying away that which is past its prime and lacks the will to recover. This virus can be explained through bullet points, since that’s all the modern ape understands anyway:
- Our society is built in a contra-evolutionary direction. Instead of hoping to make stronger people, we want to accept all people.
- We do this because at some point, political power was given to the masses, who are composed of mostly mediocre people.
- Consequently, they insisted on egalitarianism, or the view that every individual has identical rights and obligations.
- In order to support this, they invented individual economic mobility, which granted us “freedom” but encouraged people to value money above all else.
- At this point, money has replaced evolution, and as a result, we are breeding people who respond not to reality-as-whole but to economic reality.
- Consequentially, we are devolving as a species, and producing people of lesser quality.
How did this process start? The stronger among us are the more tolerant and fertile, and therefore are accustomed to moving independently without being concerned by those around them, unless they outright attack. They easily forget that mediocrity is a greater evil than malevolence, because while malevolence manifests itself through active antagonism, mediocrity patiently chips away at higher standards, gradually bringing everything together into one lowest common denominator norm. It eats away from within, like a cancer; the broken cells form tumors, the tumors demand equality, and soon healthy tissue everywhere is replaced by tumor. At the same time the mediocre are demanding power, they’re unable to handle it – while their brains can grasp linear thought, or simple value trees, they cannot handle holistic or transcendent thought. It’s beyond them. They prefer to have things spelled out in external absolutes, like a big sign painted with a list of things that are “good” and things that are “evil,” and in doing so, they obliterate the need for people who – having higher intelligence and moral character – can innately tell the difference. Mediocre people fear these higher people, who we’ll call the aristocracy, using the older meaning of this world (before it came to mean, in the British sense, those who are simply wealthy). Mediocre people are anti-aristocratic, and thus they always demand egalitarian principles. Drag down the strong – as they’re outnumbered, and even God himself cannot outdo the millions of squalling voices – and remove their privilege. Take away what nature has given. The mediocre cannot bear the thought that any would rise above the crowd, as that splinters the crowd into individuals who recognize their own shortcomings. It’s a bad comedy – insane people who are incompetent to rule grabbing power so they feel better about themselves, but all that can really make them feel better is to improve themselves from within, which may take many generations of positive breeding – and the possibility of (oh God no) death, as death is the sculptor’s tool in evolutionary systems.
The crowd relies on what can be “proved” to the crowd. Complex postulates annoy them, as do ambiguous statements. They want clear good-vs-evil, profitable-vs-unprofitable, popular-vs-offensive style statements. Anything that requires more interpretation than that grants value to the higher man, and the crowd wants nothing more than to revenge themselves on the higher, and to destroy them. Why is this? The mediocre want power, but they lack the inner strength that is required with power, so they become neurotic, and desire to tear down anything that reminds them of their mediocrity. Complex rules give the advantage to smarter people. Destroy the complex rules, then – they want nothing that places some naturally above others. Let them all fight it out in some nice easy linear game, like making money, so that those who do not mind giving up the rest of their time to slave away for tokens get ahead. Let me ask, dear reader: do you think the people most motivated to money are the best among us? Quite clearly not – they’re the least confident, the least complete as souls and beings, among us. They have a hunger within that they try to fufil externally. And this leads us back to the loss of philosophy in common in the West. Once – perhaps during the time of the Rig Veda – there was a philosophy in common, and it was a heroic one. It denied the individual as anything more than a fragmentary manifestation of universal consciousness, and thus placed emphasis on the vehicle of the individual, namely the physical body. All is physicality, it proclaimed. There is order, but it is intermingled with the physical world, and thus there is no duality. One world; no heaven, no hell, except as states of mind. In this philosophy, what was rewarded was work on the inner world: gaining more intelligence, more physical beauty and strength, and more moral character.
Aha! says some modern, fancying himself to be clever. “But strength is external!” No, no, no. You do not understand. External is the world beyond the body. Strength and beauty can only be shaped by evolution, as can intelligence and moral character. Think about it: 80% of your being is defined by genetics, and the remaining 20% is the swing vote. If you act heroically, and overcome your fear of death and do what is right, you gain power, internally. If you shirk from any real challenges, and opt for a comfy materialistic life, you don’t gain anything over your initial 80%, and you may in fact decline a bit with atrophy of your powers. Imagine a family that for ten generations in a row improves itself in each generation, and – regardless of what your science has taught you – imagine that even half of those new acquired traits are passed on through breeding. What do you have? A much better animal, in terms of its design, as measured by intelligence, strength and moral character.
That right there is the internal strength that mediocre people fear. It requires they use self-discipline, accept their lot in life, and be willing to give up their lives or comfort for some far, far, far away long-term improvement to their genetic line. Mediocre people being dumb, and therefore selfish, will rarely act on such a thing. They will see only the next two weeks and the coming baseball game and all the cool things they could buy, but they won’t see the long term. At least, most of them. Some, like our ancient mediocre caveman ancestors in Africa, kept going. Instead of taking the easy way out, they challenged themselves. They rose above the crowd, and got away from it, by running to the far north. There, in peace, they began to change. And from that came Caucasians. This knowledge is essential, as Nietzsche points out with his nasty crack about there being “no pure races.” Each race arrived from the same origin, but now they’re radically different; the Asian will never be Caucasian, nor the African. This isn’t a reason to be mean to or denigrate Asians/Africans; there is some overlap, and the best among them are quite good people. We should accept them, love them, learn from them and esteem them – but not breed with them, because as any idiot can see, to breed with another tribe is to obliterate your own by changing it from being a unique thing into being a mix of things, which is a less organized system and thus more prone to entropy. It is for this reason that no mixed-race, mixed-culture empire has existed long in the annals of history, and that all of them have collapsed into mediocre third-world nations ruled by a pretentious crowd of crass linear thinkers.
Schopenhauer spoke about the tendency of people who have lost personal initiative to want to breed back to lower levels of humanity, to become more primitive… it’s like a drowning person making the choice to give up and go under: at some point, the mental stress of continuing exceeded their capability of tolerance, and thus they collapsed under the load, and regressed. This is evolution. The mouse that stops struggling feeds a hawk. The Caucasian that stops struggling for a higher state becomes – a third worlder. However, first there’s the step above, namely mediocrity. In societies that breed for money, a majority of mediocre people is produced rather quickly; these people are capable of holding jobs, even “inventing” things by combining known parts and following known process, and they can be “smart” in a linear sense, but never genius. They are morally defunct, in the same way Jews are, because they have no higher ideals than their own comfort. They can be criminally insane, the way Christians and liberals are, in that they consider their own self-image before the effects of their deeds; they’re solipsists who ultimately care little for their effect on the world, because the entirety of their consciousness is devoted to themselves as an externalized, social image. These are the mediocre people, first by the mindset they produce, and then by the terrible breeding they encourage. This is the crowd. These are the revengeful masses. These are – well, to coin a term from Nietzsche – these are Undermen.
Like the Last Man, they believe in nothing but the material. They hate those who have more ability than themselves, even if they’ll never admit to it publically; no, better to look good and praise this person, while in secret moments admitting their true emotion: hatred, fear, a desire for revenge. They detest aristocracy and genius, things they can never have within this lifetime. They are pleased by anything that panders to them, because in their simplistic minds, it seems to be acknowledging their equality (when in fact, like pity, it is acknowledging their inferiority, but with a smile – and that makes all the difference). Undermen are like rats in that they are only happy when they are in a nest of filth, because there is nothing that is above them, and thus for once, they feel perfectly in control of the situation. If they drag everything down to their level, they will be in control, their primitive (not much more advanced than a chimp in their conceptual abilities, although they’re better with tools and language) minds reason. In short, Undermen will destroy anything of the higher or finer values in life, because they cannot perceive these values, and they will drag down anyone who is rising to greater heights than they have achieved. Undermen are like the anti-evolution; they’re against setting high goals and striving, because striving means possibly losing, and that will threaten their fragile world composed of a desire for power they cannot handle and a consequent lack of self-confidence. Undermen will take any decent society and slowly, inevitably, over thousands of years, drag it into the third world.
A small clarification needs to be made here: Undermen does not mean simply dumb, in the way an IQ test would measure. IQ tests measure linear intelligence. There are good people — well, take this example. Joe P. is a plumber. Joe didn’t set out to be a plumber, but he got into it, and during those moments when he’s looking over a job he did well, even if it’s just a toilet installation, Joe is glad to be a plumber, and he likes it, and he’s proud of what he does. Joe leads a basically moral life. Sure, he hauls off and gets drunk with the boys on the weekends – but that doesn’t have much to do with morality, does it? Morality determines the direction of your life, how you conceive of yourself in the world, and what heroisms you’re willing to enact. It has very little to do with avoiding “evils” like drunkkenness and lust, although one rises to a higher level by not engaging in such behaviors – the path to becoming more than you are is a high degree of selectiveness, in how you spend your time, in your sexual/breeding partners, in the thoughts you allow into your consciousness. Self-discipline makes higher people. Joe doesn’t have rigorous self-discipline, but he tries to do the right thing, and holds himself back from some actions as a result. Joe is probably not going to advance a level on the karmic wheel, but he won’t fall back one, either. Thus Joe the Plumber is not an Underman, and he should pray he is never recognized as such, or Undermen will have their revenge, and it’s what they do best.
Similarly, some among the wealthy are not Undermen. Fearing society (rightfully!) they undertook to earn enough money that their families could navigate around it. Depending on the duration one wishes to avoid society, this can mean hundreds of millions of dollars. At some point, however, these rare wealthy people opt to do something else with their time, and rarely is it the crowd-pleaser of handing out condoms in Africa or building latrines in Central America. No, they aim higher than that; why devote time to life’s failures, when instead you can create victories? These are not Undermen.
When we look at the West with this knowledge – that it’s being eaten from within by Undermen – we can see the wisdom of our greatest writers. Elliot saw hollow men digesting our moral core. Faulkner saw white trash taking over through economics, and replacing grandeur with store-bought interchangeability. Fitzgerald saw a country motivated entirely by personal wealth, bringing boredom to those who had it and an amoral viciousness to those who desired it, a viciousness that soon became the standard of behavior. Hemingway saw people obsessed by their own drama, unable to realize their own Underman behavior was what was dragging them down to the level where they would be replaced by others (even Jewish boxers). Conrad saw a Europe giddy over money and popularity as a result losing its inner strength, and descending to the level of savages, or even lower, perhaps, because it lacked the ability for non-passive action. In philosophy, Nietzsche saw revenge by the undifferentiated masses as destroying the aristocratic tradition and thus breeding increasingly complaisant sheep; Aristotle saw the same. Plato saw a crowd easily distracted by a show, thus allowing hidden oligarchs to manipulate it for profit. Marcus Aurelius saw a loss of the quietude that brings heroic spirituality, and Schopenhauer and Eckhart echo him in that observation. The West’s disease is not unknown. It is undermentioned, however, because it is not popular with the Undermen, and they current constitute the largest portion of our population.
It’s a mistake to blame Jews and Negroes for our downfall. They’re here because we’re falling apart. That they should be sent away, along will all other non-Caucasian races, is not in doubt, nor that we should never accept immigrants from Eastern Europe or other already-collapsed white empires; this is merely common sense. Equally commonsensical is that we should breed better people wherever we can, and that we cannot do it via administrative means like IQ tests or linear-thinking eugenics, but that we must find among us those who have a balance of intelligence – strength – moral character that permits heroic action, and breed more of these, to drown out the Undermen. But alas, the mistake has already been made – by the Undermen – of breeding far too many Undermen to the point where they immobilize us politically, unless, of course, we’re willing to step aside from politics. On a planet that can support a half-billion, if we want such nice things as unbroken forests and unpolluted oceans, we have seven billion. The largest portion (90%) of these are useless, worthless, blockheads – Undermen.
What must we do?
It is simple, really. Alex Linder’s quote started this article, and that quote (“DEATH TO THE JEWS”) is admirable because it doesn’t beat around the bush. It goes right for the assertive, warlike, masculine and powerful action that he sees as what must be done. Consequently, the author here will coin his own:
DEATH TO THE UNDERMEN – Vijay Prozak
We have too many people. Most of them are mediocre. If we don’t cut back now, we’ll overpopulate and consume all the resources on earth, committing ecocide and destroying the best people among us. Thus it is time to act. Death to the Undermen. If one hypothetical non-Underman handed a sword to each non-Underman he met, and they each did the same while slitting the throats of all Undermen – man, woman and child – that they encountered, the process would quickly reverse itself. Political objections can easily be neutralized by buying off the foppish and ineffective leaders, and murdering any businesspeople or news-entertainment media figures who intervene. Undermen act brave in crowds, but when the crowd’s power is broken, they cower and run in disorganization. it will be easy to hunt them down and slaughter them. Their bodies will help nourish future forests.
This isn’t to say that killing the undermen (“DEATH TO THE UNDERMEN”) is the only solution. Clearly we must outbreed them – killing them helps that, y’know. But there’s also the need to find quality people and get them to breed. Even more important however is resurrecting evolution. Bring back adversity, and stop making daily life so safe. Let death take the unwary, the perverse, the delusional. Let the non-insane Christians separate from the rest, and have their own elite churches, where no apologies are made to the poor and retarded and Undermenschish. Nature rewards long-term thinking, such as preparing for winter or breeding selectively or developing inner strengths, so let us resume a society that does that. Anyone who pursues money as a goal above all else is an Underman – THEY MUST DIE. Anyone who objects to this platform is an Underman – THEY MUST DIE. Anyone who squawks “How dare you?” or starts talking about equality is either an Underman, or rapidly descending to be one – THEY MUST DIE. THEY MUST DIE NOW. Mercy is pretense, pity is egoism – you do not need these illness, or you will become an Underman as well.
Whether we sterilize the Undermen, or by some mathematically impossible deed outbreed them, or we kill them all with axes – the outcome is the same: we will destroy them and restore evolution. This is the only positive solution. To claim that pacifistic breeding-out is “better” than murder is nutty, since the result is identical; do we really need the pretense that says those who do not lift a blade are better than those who do? Whoever wrote that clearly cared more for his own ego than the future of his people! Undermen do not desire sensible world orders. Like Jews and insane Christians, they are morally empty, because they are so fixated on their own lack of self-confidence and their own neediness, a need for reinforcement, that they’ve forgotten about the world. They will not mean to destroy it, but destroy it they will – it’s one of Agatha’s simple patterns, like a cross-stitch, that shows up in every population. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The only way to transcend hell is to aim for higher goals; to recognize reality, and act heroically upon it. Undermen oppose this. Unless they are eliminated, they will destroy us all, and our planet besides. THE UNDERMEN MUST DIE. Every generation in every population, no matter how wonderful and high quality, will produce some experiments that fail – mediocre is worse than evil, and if these mediocre are tolerated, they will soon become Undermen. THEY MUST DIE. To love life is to remember its primal rule, which is that without evolution, a backward process begins. Life as a whole, as an organism, is more important than the loss of individual lives. We must produce better lives or we will fail, evolutionarily, and will regress toward mediocrity. To praise life is to praise necessary death. By doing what is necessary, we will grow stronger. Those who oppose us are the Undermen. Those who brought this upon us are the Undermen. The only solution is to remove the Undermen. DEATH TO THE UNDERMEN.
DEATH TO THE UNDERMEN – Vijay Prozak