Archive for November, 2005
Thursday, November 17th, 2005
Plenty of people out there would like you to believe that there’s a binary distinction in quality of people. Those who earn money, idealized liberal politics, are white or black, or straight or gay, are seen as the Chosen Ones who can do no wrong, and the rest of us are lesser. This kind of clubhouse mentality appeals to the Crowd best of all, since if there’s an elect who will solve all of our problems, the rest of us can go back to slacking off and watching TV while they fix things.
Quality is an illusory concept in some usages, but a fundamental one. Consider that even among a highly-refined Nordic population, such as in Scandinavia, there are vast differences between individuals. Some are geniuses, some are superior warriors, and some top out at being short order cooks who can drink entire bottles of vodka. These are different qualities between people, but does this mean we can put them on a linear spectrum? After all, much as a body needs a stomach (dumber than a brain), nervous system (weaker than muscles), and muscles (less durable than a stomach), doesn’t any healthy society also need genius leaders, brave warriors, and durable artisans and laborers?
Within any population, there’s a great deal of diversity. Consider your friends, or at least the people who are dear to you — undoubtedly, some are smarter, some are stronger, and some more steadfast in day-to-day tasks. Geniuses make poor short order cooks, as their attention tends to wander and they want to “innovate” with each iteration of the process, which is moronic if you want a traditional omelette (did it really need raisins and cilantro with avioli sauce? probably not). Each friend has different strengths, and together, they work in parallel to form a healthy friend group. You don’t hold it against big Ed if he’s not as smart as Stan the computer geek, because you care about him for other qualities.
Such is the case also with human populations. At some point, tolerance and intolerance merge, and this is along the mental creasing point of parallelism: there are different societies, localities, groups and even people. Together they can form larger and more flexible structures, especially if they do not try to linearize – or become one single entity, under a single set of rules. This doesn’t mean it’s not time to thin the herd; there are plenty of people who are extraneous, even if we decide they have some positive qualities. The bottom line is that with fewer people, our ecosystem can continue to operate autonomously, which requires 3/4 of earth’s space for it and 1/4 for us, which requires fewer people living less “first world” lifestyles. It does mean however that we can understand each other without being “equal” and without comparing ourselves by the same yardstick.
In this thought, the greenest hippie and the most diehard National Socialist converge: they believe that local communities should rule themselves, avoiding the creation of a linear society that, lacking any goals outside of its own growth, cancerously expands until it threatens the very system that birthed and sustains it (“nature”). Even some fag-hater like Rev. Fred Phelps and an ACT UP activist can agree that not everywhere on earth needs to tolerate blatant homosexuality, and that not everywhere on earth needs to be ruled by the Iron Hand of interpreted Christ. Perhaps some communities will choose to live that way, and some will be like the Montrose in Houston, so gay friendly that the parking meters make kissing noises. Perhaps some communities, even nations, will be happy under future Hitlers, and others will be perpetual Clintonites. Can they coexist? Definitely; the only thing keeping them from doing so is the idea that we need large centralized republics like the USA, EU or China to unite us.
There is an inverse relationship between leadership capability and the number of people trying to make a decision. In most cases, an individual will arrive at some “work in progress” decision when confronted with a problem, and by developing their response, eventually solve it. Two people take longer, especially if they have different goals. When you get to a decent-sized committee, it’s more likely that they will reach a compromise that takes no decisive action, unless the problem is so obvious that response is more reaction that considered design (giant rubbery monsters attacking Tokyo require dramatic response). When you get to the point of a nation with 300 million people all voting on the same issue, some with the wisdom of genius leaders and others with the knowledge limitations of fry cooks, there’s no chance. They are doomed by the very act of trying to find one rule that fits all of them.
No clearer example of this problem occurs than in American politics. The big cities on the coasts have one outlook on the world, which is a liberal democratic cosmopolitanism, but the other states – where actual work gets done (just kidding, sort of) – have an entirely different pragmatic traditionalism. Both groups get yanked around by politicians who do their best to appear to be one thing, while continuing business at usual behind the facade of token issues (abortion, civil rights, evolution in schools, drugs, homosexuals in military). Did George W. Bush really represent Texas, for example? Or Clinton really represent liberalism? These guys are showmen, and they’re not evil; they’re earning a living like the rest of us, but by being public symbols. This system created them and perpetuates them.
You’d never think that hippies and Confederates would walk on the same path, but what’s come out of the sensible extremes of leftism, especially where it converges with environmentalism, is an emphasis on localization. Not coincidentally, the more traditional elements of American society (almost exclusively in the South) came up with the same idea some centuries ago, realizing that a federal coalition of self-ruling, independent States made more sense than a monolithic federal entity. What’s true in Georgia might be irrelevant in New York, and vice versa. If we overcome our balkanized identification with a political outlook, left or right, we can see that above those divisions common sense alone is king, and that common sense says we are different in local community as much as in individual spirit. We can work in parallel, but only if we accept our differences, and the way to do that is not to force “tolerance” on everyone (thus asking them to give up their own character) but to tolerate differences between communities, and to sort according to that agenda. If people really want to be stoners, they can go to California; extremist Catholic communities that don’t want abortion do not have to have it.
That’s individuality. You can either accept it or freak out about it, but one thing’s for sure: modern society crushes individuality and parallelism by forcing us into linear, gigantic, one-size-fits-all conglomerations that by representing “all” of our interests, represent no one, unless you can find a person who naturally is an average of all other people. Nature’s order clashes with the rigid binary logic of humankind, but is that kneejerk logic really natural to us, or is it a pit stop through history caused by democracy and the corresponding consumerism and egomania of a group of individuals trying to find one standard for all? Think each, not all. Individuality – whether of belief, behavior, race, sex preference or regionality – is superior to creating a vast machine and forcing us to conform to an average. It’s the only way to preserve our unique roles and through them, the overall quality of our species.
Wednesday, November 16th, 2005
Numerous people come across various items on this site and come away with the ignorant opinion, “OMG those guys are Nazis – they’re bad.” It’s funny to watch, since their intolerance is both shocking and misguided. They see only what they want to, according to narrow categories artificially defined by their own lock-step dogma, and as a result are much like the conservatives and reactionary racists they claim to despise. Even if your dogma is 100% against something, if your methods and values are the same outside of that, you are what you despise.
While we support Nationalism and the Indo-European tribes, the members of this site have nothing to do with neo-Nazi, White Nationalist, or White Power groups. And this isn’t because of social taboo: we agree with said groups on many things, most fundamentally that Indo-Europeans (“Caucasians”,”whites”) have the right to establish nations where no other races are welcome as residents. This is nationalism, by its very definition (nation = a people), and in my belief it should be extended to every ethnic group, from Basque to Eskimo.
However, speaking both for myself and other members of this site, that’s where the resemblance ends; “White Nationalists” and others who are basically hate groups in disguise piss me off because they’re incorrect in their philosophical assumptions and method. It’s well and good to stand up for your tribe, but don’t expect me to embrace everything that looks white and lump it all together into one ethnic group. That’s insane talk, and when it’s coupled with hatred for other races, you can count me out.
First, I don’t buy into the idea that I should accept someone as a comrade because he or she is “white.” The majority of the “white” race needs nothing better than a bullet in the head; they’re people of substandard intelligence, character and strength, and eliminating them would make each tribe stronger. When you go to a mall and see the fat, slow-moving, greedy, sloppy people who buy products for entertainment and work like slaves at moronic jobs, enforcing that same moronic standard on the rest of us, think of this statement.
That isn’t to say that I “hate” those people; I simply want them removed, for the greater health of all of us. There is no ethnic group that doesn’t benefit from eugenics, as for each weaker person that you eliminate a stronger one takes their place. It isn’t a moral judgment on these people of “bad” or “good” but a simple recognition of their genetic value relative to other potential people. If, hypothetically, you had 100 places on a spaceship and could have no more, every retarded person or lazy person or child molestor or fat freak you let on would be excluding someone better from having their place.
It’s in everyone’s interest to simply put a bullet in them and move forward with healthier breeding. I don’t trust any government or central bureaucratic agency to do this, so instead I favor smaller tribes who have the ability to exclude anyone they want, without some idiot bureaucrat coming in and crying foul over the person’s race, color, gender, sexual orientation, weight, etc. Discrimination is a fact of life, and it should be encouraged. Not every person belongs in every place. In whatever town John F. Kerry finds ideal, for example, I wouldn’t be allowed, nor would I want to live (same goes for many other politicians).
I don’t hate them, but I don’t want to tolerate them. In my local group, “white” or not, no one who is grotesquely fat, dependent on viagra, prone to idiotic actions, or unable to self amuse would be tolerated. If they didn’t leave, they’d get a hollowpoint to the forehead. On our little spaceship, the 100 places would each go to people of high ability and character. This wouldn’t be some absurd interpretation that only permitted people who looked like celebrity models to exist, but a pragmatic one: find the better people and breed them while quietly ushering the weaker ones to elsewhere. This gives the next generation of children a fighting chance by making them better and stronger than those who came before.
Most “white” people wouldn’t make the cut, for me, and White Nationalist/White Power types would immediately call me a blasphemer for this. I would not tolerate insane Semitic religions like Christianity, either, nor would I tolerate people from outside of my tribe. Races are the major divisions: black, white, asian and various hybrids. The smaller divisions within each race are tribe, such as French, German, Russian, Welsh. Within each race there are castes, but that’s a complex matter for a different essay.
White Nationalists tend to believe that if “we just offed all the Jews and muds,” the world would be a perfect place. I don’t. I believe the white tribes have been in decline even before Christianity arrived. Christianity made the situation vastly worse by destroying most records of pre-Christian times, slaughtering those who wouldn’t convert and encouraging people toward blind obedience of central one-size-fits-all issues (these are similar to the moral commands from the Jewish god of Christianity). If you kill all the non-whites, the white tribes will still be in the same deep doo-doo; that others appear in our midst is a sign of the degeneracy, not its cause.
White Power freaks also tend to embrace Christianity alongside a virulent anti-Semitism, which is insane to me. I’m against Semitic religions in Indo-European countries, and Jews by their nature as hybrids originating in the middle east would not be welcome in our tribes. I support the idea of Israel, however, as in my view each ethnic population should have a state. This isn’t to say that I don’t find Jewish values, and Jewish culture, repugnant. They are passive aggressive parasites with a sick god complex as manifested in Tikkun Olam, their doctrine of “repairing the world,” and to my mind that makes them fit for a mental institution, but outside of Indo-European society standards are different and it’s not my business to police them.
Christianity is the single most destructive religion I can imagine, and despite its origins in Judaism and Buddhism, it is more destructive than either because of its blind supernaturalist and absolute dualism. It literally promises immortality to those who do its bidding. This fits my definition of an insane virus, and barring any reason to believe there’s a god in a perfect world commanding this one in the first place, I would never even consider taking it into my head. This isn’t to say that I’m against gods, because in the ancient sense of Hindu and Pagan gods, the gods were part of this world and were not as much supernatural as they were supermetaphorical.
White Power, and “White Nationalism,” both resemble religion more than reality. They have little in common with National Socialism, which was Adolf Hitler’s attempt to resist (a) rampant Communism which did things like turn Russia from a cultured civilization into a third-world country, (b) rampant Industrialism which overconsumed land as was pollution Europe, and (c) admixture of third-world blood into European society, destroying native European ethnic stock. I don’t have any beef with Adolf Hitler, and I believe he has been slandered. Those who died in his concentration camps in Germany died of disease, although those who were outside the country were killed, often by the natives of various countries who understood the Jewish connections to Communism. His wars were fought with honor, and all of his killings had purpose, unlike those of the Soviets. However, his modern day disciples understand neither his principles nor sense.
Beating up immigrants, and “hating” entire races, is not only stupid but ineffective. If you want non-native groups out of your natively ethnic society, be strong about it and simply say: we must preserve our ethnic consistency in order to avoid being bred into hybridization, which destroys us. You don’t have to pass moral judgment over these people, something especially dangerous since not every society shares the same values. Cite statistics to me all day about how black people commit more crime; this is “crime” as defined by Indo-European society, and the same rules don’t apply in other cultures. Let them have their culture, and you can have yours.
Further, “white power” people want to accept all “whites” as being of the same tribe, which is error. The French are distinct from the Germans and Scotts for historical reasons, and the differences which define them as a tribe are important to preserve in each case. Any “white nationalist” who endorses mixing Indo-European tribes clearly doesn’t understand nationalism, which is the independence and isolation of every ethnic group, not their mixing because of nearby ancestry. I view mixed “white” people as English, and you can find these populations in the majority in the UK, US, Canada and Australia. If these Alpinized Germanocelts wish to create their own ethnicity, they can, by eugenics, eventually define themselves ethnically as well as politically.
I could go on. White nationalists don’t understand caste; they believe in societies without distinction. While I’m no fan of class, which uses the insane doctrine of social Darwinism to rank us by “ability” according to how much money we’re willing to earn, “caste” makes sense to me. Some were born to be warriors, some to be priests, some to be leaders, and some to be cooks. Each job is vital and none is more important than the others. Mixing those together produces people with no specialization who are thus incompetent at any and every job they undertake.
It’s clear to me that in nature, nothing is equal. No tribe is equal to another, no race is equal to another, no individual equal to another. Thus any doctrine of equality, even including Hitler’s casteless society, is insane bureaucracy in my eyes. White nationalists are weenies who want all “white” people to be made equal because of their general ethnic heritage, and accepted for that reason, but to my mind that’s destructive. It’s better to enforce Eugenics of even a positive, non-violent kind in all of the “white” populations than it is to embrace everyone, thus breeding weaker people.
I’m no liberal either. I recognize that injustice, murder, war, ethnic hatred and genocide are not just permanent fixtures of our world, but are necessary methods for evolving better human beings. Trying to get rid of these things in order to create a Utopia is an insane practice that will lead us further into illusion and make the name of that Utopia the banner under which we kill, much as occurred during the Crusades. Incoherent minds would have you believe that if we cease certain behaviors, the world will be perfect and everyone will be equal, but to anyone who has spent time in a forest, “perfection” is a misplaced goal as it is the unbalances and inequalities of life that drive the natural system toward greater heights of evolution and efficiency. There is no end, and it is flexible in any situation, thus more perfect than any Utopian order.
I don’t trust the “science ueber alles” types either. Sometimes these blockheads deny that race exists by using artificially narrowed definitions of race, which they argue against sagaciously as if others were actually using said definitions. Often they remark, wittily, that soon we’ll understand genetics and will be able to create perfect beings. My response to this is that we’ll soon be able to create beings that look perfect from their collection of outward traits, but that genetics is literally a history of the decisions made by each bloodline, and science will never be able to fake this. Nature literally is far more complex than we’re going to be, and if we fake it, we once again chase illusion to our doom.
Even more disturbing are the “White Supremacists,” whose vision of “whites” at the top of a mythical food chain is a sleight of hand redefinition of stewardship. I don’t want any group with which I’m associated to be worldwide bureaucratic administrators; I want us to have our own society, and our own culture and customs, independent of Christianity, centralization, bureaucracy, morality and other fabrications of a modern kind. While I recognize that there’s an evolutionary chain, by which some groups adapted to more complex survival parameters than others and thus developed more general intelligence, strength and character, it isn’t my concern to pass this on to the rest of the world or to, like Jesus Christ, hold it up as an example for others.
Sounding a bit like a cheesy liberal here, I like diversity. I like that you can go to another country and have it be completely friggin’ different in every way possible, even down to genetics. Go to Bosnia and there’s a certain look, behavior and feel to the people; go to Nigeria, and it’s another. That’s true diversity. No culture survives interbreeding, because the genetic histories of the newcomers and the natives are merged, resulting in a chaos which settles on the lowest common denominator. This is why mixed societies inevitably turn into trading centers and mercantile republics.
It’s worth adding here that I’m proud to have friends with other races and, while I will never breed with them or assimilate or be assimilated by their culture, I don’t “hate” them or their races. The mixing of races I might “hate,” were I prone to emotional outbursts, but I don’t hate them. That they are here, and that our society is collapsing, are symptoms of the same cause: modernity, and its bureaucratic attitudes. They have as much to lose as we do. Thus I refuse to indulge in mindless bigotry against them when I care about them, and view them as allies for the eventual quest of Nationalism to overtake the world.
I don’t like democracy. I don’t believe everyone has equal aptitude for the kind of decisions required to run a nation or even a town, and thus I believe most voices should be silenced on those issues. Every person has some area where their judgment alone is supreme, and only reality judges whether they succeed or fail (for some, such as bomb defusers, the judgment is swift and absolute). I don’t believe all “whites” should somhow be lauded just for having a certain amount of heritage; that’s democracy. If we breed the best of each white tribe and throw out the rest, we increase the aptitude of those who remain.
People act like politics is rocket science, and that it’s a raison d’etre for their individual lives as “activists” or “compassionate, forward-thinking people,” but really that’s a hoax. Politics has never changed. The crowd always wants power, and with that power, they’ll destroy any who rise above the lowest common denominator. Each people (nation) needs its own place, because without it, their unique culture and contribution to learning is lost. I would grant each its own space, and send the mixed race people to the Middle East, as traditionally has occurred. There, they will produce their own society, one that will undoubtedly resemble Judaism, itself a product of cultural and racial and caste-mixing.
Clearly I’m a fascist. I’ve spent enough time on this world to realize that most people will, without meaning ill, do what is selfish unless coerced otherwise. Whether by money, or the barrel of a gun, their will shall be denied in certain areas; and what of it? The reality is that life isn’t found in having the ability to live anywhere you want, or in having the biggest pickup truck on the block, or in being able to watch gay porn and smoke crack cocaine all night. It’s in finding your own character and developing it to the fullest, so that you are a hero in your own life, no matter what that may be.
This concept applies to all people and all races, and while I agree with White Nationalists that the Indo-European race is under assault and will soon be bred out of existence by hordes of invading immigrants, I see this problem as a symptom of general degeneracy in modern society. We’ve come to trust our technology and believe that newer is better, and to follow centralized commands instead of our internal voices, and we’re products of bureaucratic, cosmopolitan living who are steadily lapsing in the ability to have independent thought. On this front, Malcolm X and Adolf Hitler, Rabbi Meir Kahane and Cesar Chavez, Moses and Chuck D are all in agreement.
So if you’re looking for a witch hunt, which is what the crusade against “racism” is, take your little hateful plans and bail out. I recognize you for the broken, low-self-esteem cowards that you are, and I don’t see you as any “better” than the neo-Nazis you despise. If you’ve ever joined an Antifa group, you did it because you want to consider yourself better than other people because you believe in something that raises your self-esteem by making you feel like you’re gifting the world with tolerance. Forget it. You’re crazy and I’d have you shot.
“Racism” only exists in mixed societies. It exists where groups side by side must compete, and therefore learn to detest one another. Unfortunately for White Nationalists, most of them have discovered “racism” and not true nationalism, and therefore are total failures, since they descend into hatred, name-calling, cowardice and bigotry without any hope of achieving their aims. I and most other sane people want nothing to do with you losers because unlike you, we’re not caught up in our low self-esteem like some broken antifa liberal, but we believe in a positive future for a humanity that overcomes modernity.
Tuesday, November 15th, 2005
Whispered in alleys: (The aristocracy is the root of our problems; they became decadent, and could not defend us, or do right. It was the upper classes, actually, which have always been a shill for the aristocracy. Well, perhaps it was all white people, because they represent a meta-class to all the world’s people. I consider it also important that we address the role of men over women, as they have dominated women of all classes and races for time immemorial. You value your heritage, but what does it mean? Your ancestors aren’t you, and you’re using heritage-worship to cover up for the fact that you haven’t achieved anything that important. Oh yeah? If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?)
These words mark our lives. Our lives pass in their shadow. We are told they are solutions. Every solution we try turns to disaster. Only a few can see this disaster, and the rest are happy if they can afford color televisions. The greed of the masses drives the manipulation of the elites!
Daily we are offered a number of “solutions.” Some are lefty, some are righty; none are effective. Why? The fundamental beliefs of our society are so rotted that we have forgotten what we lack to tie it all together, and we dumb it down for the crowd and thus make it further into mush. You don’t make a rule that says “All people must equally…” to help the lowest, but to hold down the greatest. Well, that’s a problem. But it’s not the root of the problem. What is?
— For some years, the West has been in decline. There are symptoms – Christianity, corporations, crowd revolt, miscegenation, drug use, child molestation, demagogic leaders – but these are just symptoms. What happened? Our spirit collapsed, as happens to all at some point in middle age. Because we are a fecund race, when the spirit collapsed, it had repercussions as every level of society struggled to master it. Most cannot and never will be able to, even if you send them to Harvard (they lack the goddamn wiring, man). Our spirit went into a dip, a midlife crisis, a depression — and we have not yet recovered.
But we can.
The beliefs you are offered today have several things in common, but the most fundamental is that they are all passive. Together we will eliminate some wrong – Nazis, negroes, elites – and we will be left with the purest of rarified butter, the ghee of a gleeful new future. We will not move forward until we overcome this passive mindset, and look instead of toward ideal social orders toward a purification by testing ourselves. Oh no! That would involve deprivation and for many of us, losing… possibly losing our lives. We cannot do that! — the previous statement is the essence of passivity: have government do it, apply an order equally and through bureaucratic means upon the world, and then things will organize well by magic. The invisible hand? We’ll have an army of them.
Passivity infects all belief systems in the modern time. Look at what happened to National Socialism. Its current caretakers are total failures at interpreting it correctly. Their complaint is legitimate: that modern society wishes to eliminate white people, and infest America and Europe with foreigners. Clearly that is true; anyone who objects there has his or her head in the sand. But is this the primary goal of some conspiracy, or a side effect of a lack of values? Look at France: businesspeople brought in Arabs and Negroes to be sources of cheap labor, and the population likes being French, so they don’t hire them. What’s the solution? In my view, let the riots continue, and if the French have enough strength, they’ll grow up and realize the world isn’t all peaches and cream and that one cannot solve problems by making laws, and they’ll get shotguns and pitchforks and baseball bats and drive the invaders out, murdering as many as they need to. If they cannot do this, maybe it’s time for France to fall, so the Germans can invade, kick out the interlopers, and set up a superior society.
But most of us just mince along, content to look at society as something that will someday, magically work. That’s kind of like hoping a rapist will get bored and not bother with the task at hand, isn’t it? Our society is structured on a profit basis, and profit supersedes all other concerns, so culture and heritage and values themselves even are on the auction block. Most people don’t want to think about this, so they passively go into denial, and pretend that’s not the case, thereby ensuring that the problem not only persists but has a home among them. Their women especially are guilty of this, but it’s a paradox of life that women can be both wonderful and absolutely useless in politics. Shouldn’t vote, shouldn’t participate, shouldn’t have opinions on it: they fail universally, with the possible exception of a few great women of genius. One can always make exceptions for the five politically capable women throughout history, and keep the others out, so they don’t pacify us with more rhetoric of doing nothing about subtle but evident problems. Women encourage us to simply gain enough money that we can go around the problem, giving it a permanent home in the neighborhood. Equally guilty are the bean counters and bank presidents and lawyers who always have passive solutions. Their job is not to fix problems, but to bill hours dealing with perpetual problems. Yes, invite the Devil in! they chorus. We can make a year’s income just hiding him from the view of paying customers. That’s the face of passivity. If some businessperson did it, well, it earns money, so it’s okay. If some impoverished shithead did it, well, he’s trying to better himself, so it’s okay. The Germans have a word for this kind of attitude: Sitzpinkel, or sitting down to urinate as a male. Emasculation: a lack of the active principle, vir, what makes a man feel a man, more than cheesy false machismo or one night stands with giant-racked thluts can do.
Sitzpinkel defines our modern political outlook. There can be no order; everyone can have it their own way (pluralism). We will not lead by picking the best course, but by picking the most popular one, which is inevitably the one that enriches the largest segment of society (democracy and consumerism/these are conflatable terms). We are afraid of the differences between us, so we normalize everyone by restricting their abilities (equality), and we think that if someone is good at a certain job they should rise above others, no matter what spiritual qualities they lack (meritocracy). Best of all, we’re conditioned to think that if we just pick one of the above solutions, all will be okay, because by picking the best method, we’ve somehow cured the problem. Wrong. The problem is within: a dead, passive spirit, and the antidote to this rot occurs in few and in different degrees; we cannot all be the heroes here. Forget the image put into every movie, book, etc. that praises democratic thinking, in which at the end the entire city/village/race realizes its error and together comes to fix the problem. Symbolically that might produce happy feelings and sell tickets, but it’s not reality. Can you understand that? You’re lying – only 2% of you will be able to, at most, and the rest of you are faking.
Passivity is an outlook on the world that transcends politics, philosophy, even religion — by modern standards that makes it “good” because everyone, no matter how drooling retarded or spurtingly depraved, can participate! — because it is a way of thinking and not a goal in itself. You might proclaim yourself a pacifist, which invariably means you’ll fight to keep others from fighting, so you can dominate them, but you wouldn’t proclaim yourself an advocate of passivity. Where’s the “American Passivity Party”? It’s more subtle than that: it’s a social attitude, and because it is a declining and aheroic one (as well as completely without poetry, or higher spiritual belief), it is very popular with the proles. Ask yourself: what have the poor and the working people done for any civilization, besides serve in their positions? Answer: NOTHING. They do best when they focus on what they know and of course, when they have enlightened leaders. They don’t have the brains, the strength, or the spiritual outlook to lead, thus when they do, they always fail. Do we need bring up the facts that Communist Russia’s mass revolt took a wealthy country and converted it permanently into a third world shithole, or that Christianity so weakened Europe it could barely resist the Great Khan, being more interested in internecine squabbles and fighting over riches? The Church hovered in the background, like a doctor waiting his payment at a deathbed, because whether Europe rose or fall, the Church would still be powerful! That’s the essence of passivity: opportunism by encouraging a dysfunctional order which one hopes to survive because one is already dysfunctional. Crowdism is an offshoot of passivity; for the Crowd, no real changes will ever occur, because their lives will always be either disorganized or rigorously scheduled by needs. Therefore, their desire is to tear down those who have risen above that state, and they are willing to sacrifice entire civilizations for it, because a Crowd member is in the same fix whether a Mongol or a Jew or a Christian or a Democrat: they will always be serving an order they don’t understand, doing a relatively limited range of tasks, and quite probably, disorganized at a personal level.
There were some who rose high above passivity. In ancient India, these were called “Arya” (noble), but in modern times, we often refer to them as Hyperboreans, meaning the Nordic populations who came out of northern Europe. They had discipline, and were benevolent, but were not afraid to kill, especially to kill defective people. If you want one reason to praise Genghis Khan (and this is about the only one), it’s that he slaughtered useless people. The idle rich and disorganized poor alike got stuffed into mass graves. That’s the kind of order we need, but it of course needs to come without the rest of Khan’s poisonous plan, which produced an empire that cruised on inertia before coming apart abruptly because it had an essential lack of ideas. The National Socialists in Germany believed in killing the useless and throwing all of their weight behind the strong; this was the best part of their own agenda. In America, many of the rural populations started to take on similar beliefs, and as a result resisted the idiocy of modern times far more than the cities. But passivity grows each generation, and thanks to America’s post-WWII wealth, she has led the world on a course for passivity. We can no longer blame the Church, the corporations, etc. It is a spiritual feeling all of us in the modern West share, and if we wish change, we must as Gandhi says “become the change we seek in the world.” If we fix our own spirit, it spreads like a virus and soon others share the same belief, and changes occur. We cannot make laws to fix our spirit, nor can we create an economic system that avoids spirit. This war is within ourselves. If we conquer our fears and come out on the side of bravery, we will prevail; if not, hopefully the Chinese will invade so that we have an enemy to unify us.
Many of us detest White Nationalists because they are the fake solution that takes the place of the real solution in public perception. This isn’t about your race. “White Nationalism” is a clubhouse of people who want to believe that if they exterminate the Negroes, everything left will be just fine; no, no, no, you blockheads. Negroes don’t belong in America and Europe, much as no races other than European belong in Europe, but that’s part of Nationalism, and extends to tribe; Russians don’t belong in Germany either, and the Germans should feel free to slaughter them. Nationalism is confused, by “White Nationalists” and clueless liberals alike, with the issue of population quality. We’re not saying that Negroes are crap, or inferior, only that they don’t belong here. Confusing the two is to play into the liberal ideal that we’re all of equal quality, and the idiots will trot out some quasi-scientific “science” to “prove” their point, nevermind that three years later we’ll all find out the research was faked, the conclusions logically unsound, or the scientists simply biased (or Jewish, same difference). People want Nationalism to be as simple as hate, but it has nothing to do with emotional reactions or population judgment. It is simple: exclude that which is not your tribe, or your tribe will be assimilated and its days of greatness will be over – if you don’t believe this, name a mixed population that has achieved anything great. Get it? Mixing is the enemy, not Negroes. Other tribes are incompatible with your own, and while you might make pluralism work for a few generations, it will destroy you. The people who insist otherwise are misinformed, or as is more likely, Crowdists who are also misinformed, but fundamentally hampered in that their brains cannot grasp the complexity of the situation. Crowdists and White Nationalists alike are passive.
Conservatives are also passive. They want to maintain a system of economics that, in theory, rewards the best among us. But what is so “best” about earning a ton of money? It requires a few skills and passes no judgment on the fitness of that person as a leader. In fact, it helps us pick the worst among us – the unbalanced, sociopathic, of low confidence and low moral aptitude – because these are the sort of people who are driven toward lots of money. Normal people want a good living and a job they don’t mind, but are not driving maniacally toward the accumulation of wealth. When you see someone whose life is wholly devoted to earning excess wealth, you have to ask: what’s this person’s defect? They are as defective as the lazy urban poor, who have no motivation toward self-sustenance whatsoever. The two are opposite ends of the same defect. As much as conservatives are passives for relying on this idiotic system, liberals are sitzpinkel for believing that they can tear it down, leaving a giant void, and have accomplished something. Their entire goal can be described in two words: “class revenge.” Tear down the better, exhalt the poorer and weaker and sadder, and hope that somehow we have evened the scales and we can all exist like robots in the exact same form. What’s a worker’s paradise? All of us in apartments, none in houses, and no geniuses, only loyal workers – each of which, despite lacking the brains for the task, considers himself or herself an expert on politics. Ah, yes, what a moronic fantasy.
Ancient Europe was strong because it had constant conflict, both within and without. Not organized into countries, it could afford internal warfare for the sole purpose of keeping its aristocrats strong; it battle-tested their leadership. Then in came the goddamn church and suddenly that was out, since the Church unified most of Europe. So some aristocrats became fat cats who were useless. The next centuries were busy with “democratic” and “egalitarian” ideas, slowly crushing any remains of belief that suggests some people are better designs than others for certain tasks – and that no amount of education or scientific intervention can change that. You either have the type of mind and spirit that can rule a nation, or you don’t. You cannot purchase some equalizing product to make you into something you are not. After democracy and enlightenment and all that overhyped stuff whose praise somehow resembles that of starlets for their latest Hollywood film? Oh my god, the same problems remain, and they’re worse. Good work, guys.
There is a better way, but to break from passivity, we cannot use the methods of passivity. There cannot be a Fuehrer, or a bureaucratic government, to deliver us from it, although we’ll need some kind of political system to stop our enemies from crushing us. The change is occurring gradually, but people – the 2% who can do anything complicated in the first place – are realizing that our entire drift toward the global liberal agenda (democracy, consumerism, equality, shopping malls) has been a giant disaster and that we need something more like the ancients, but that to get to that point, we need to return to the heroic spirit. When we understand the spirit of what we desire, it will be easy to see what fits into the picture and what needs to be eliminated. And I mean eliminated – we’re overpopulated, so any killing you do today is empowerment for the earth and for all of us who want to survive in some place where we can eat the fish, drink water from the streams, etc. Passivity tells us “thou shalt not kill” and therefore, that any life lost is a problem, but the more lives we have, the more we must pollute and use land and energy, rapidly consuming nonrenewable resources. That no one has violently and visibly noticed this paradox is the final proof needed that rule by the Crowd is at best incompetent; at worst, it’s a suicide pact (“let’s let the retard lead, and we’ll be dead in no time”).
You will undoubtedly argue for other paths, at least 98% of you will, probably more. You will believe like Carl Sagan that all we need is science, forgetting how easily science is swayed as it has no founding philosophy; you may argue that more tolerance, democracy, and equality will do what 2,000 years of it so far has failed to do. You might even go completely off the chart and gap about some faith in politics, religion or technology that’s unfounded. Go ahead and talk. You’re just proving why you’re unfit to rule.
You might find my methods unsound, or horrifying, or other adjectives to cover up your inability to apply them and your fear for yourself. Relax – what matters is the health of the whole. If your life is lost, it will be a glorious sacrifice (we must hearken to the wisdom of the Aztecs, who told unwanted people they were “beloved by the gods” and cut their hearts out in a ceremony which unified the population around, among other things, a lack of passivity). If you cannot do what I recommend, it is further proof that you are to be ruled and not to rule. You get my drift?
You might make up a fantasy world where everything works out okay, and suggest that we emulate your unicorns and gremlins. But this isn’t very practical, is it? You could demonstrate that your world is structurally similar to ours, and thus convince us that it will fit into reality, but instead you talk in the accountabilityless abstract of “should” and “ought.” Fuck you. You’re crazy, and this is proof you’re unfit to rule.
You might talk about how you’re entitled to certain things, or how the poor/Negroes are, but again, you’re veering away from reality into fantasyland. We’re all in this mess; our society is failing, and we’ve poisoned the oceans so much we cannot even safely eat fish. Are you fucking nuts, worry about your entitlement? You’re selfish and it makes you crazy. A mass grave is your future.
When we get past the insanity – democracy, consumerism, Christianity, Crowdism, Judaism, pluralism, but most of all, passivity – we see that there is a single solution: we must become active, and the philothophical term for that is “heroic.” We want to see the spirit of the Odyssey, Illiad, Aenaeid… that of settlers coming to the New World… of stormtroopers slaughtering moronic Soviets by the thousand… of intrepid artists and thinkers like F.W. Nietzsche or Ferdinand Celinne. Only this returns our red-bloodedness, the opposite of sitzpinkel, our bravery and our determination: this is what we need. As said, it is coming, because already the cracks in the wall of our current social order are evident to the first few. As more oceans are poisoned, more air becomes toxic, more food becomes prohibitively expensive, it will be clear to others. The bad guy is our own spiritual weakness. This lets the masses create stupid needs that crafty and dishonest elites fill, and keeps the rest of us too passive to change it until it wrecks our world. People are getting sick of this, however, because the daily frustration, impotence and most of all, futility of suggesting otherwise, is enraging them. They want solutions, not just talking about modifications to the existing order.
I have no doubt that massive social change is coming. However, experience in history shows us that most revolutions end up replacing a destructive social order — with a virtual identically social order, except owned by the former revolutionaries. Serfs became comrades in Russia, and we executed the educated and upper classes – oh glorious day!, but why are we still starving, illiterate third-worlders? Notice that this condition continues in Russia to this day. Yes, Slavs are not Germans, and therefore are more prone toward submissive orders, since they did after all accept their instructions from Mongols for most of their existence, but Russia was quite a nice place… the Crowd came in and murdered its enemies, and now Russia is a fecal nightmare. But they were promising to deliver us from that! Words are cheap, kid. Revolution without understanding of the complete change that must occur is disaster.
We are renovating our spiritual outlook, and it does not limit us to one issue (environment, race, sex, drugs) but to all issues. We must reinvent our society. We do it first by achieving spiritual coherence, and we do this by making in ourselves the type of order we’d like to see, instead of trying to create in society an order based on what society’s interpretation of function “should” be. How do we bring heroism back into our blood? We start by believing in things enough to die for them: our individual lands, our people, our culture, our languages, our philosophies. If you’re a Zulu, kill the white man in your lands and leave nothing of him. If you’re an Aztec, kick out the invaders and the Negroes. If you’re a European, slaughter all non-Europeans and torture their leaders, so they know to never come back. The ultimate penalty is the only convincer. And yes, many of you will die in this, but the result will be that many more live in a sensible social order.
Passivity has us by the balls, and it will never let go, because like a cancer, it is defined not by having an intent but by having no intent except to consume and grow (cancers would not be a health problem if they did not grow). Science and technology won’t save us, democracy won’t save us, nothing will save us – we must do it for ourselves. Heroism grows out of idealism, or the knowledge that there are things worse than dying, and that to die upholding a concept of a better life is more noble than finding comfort and blowing off the process. Judaism says comfort is greater than ideals, and funny thing, capitalism and democracy and consumerism suggest the same thing. Are you hearing me? Wake up! These are your fucking enemies. Both tradition and super-modernity, or what’s coming after post-modernism, are achieved by spiritual awakening from passivity and a heroic assertion through idealism. History is a loop, even if time is linear, and we’ve come full circle. The next thousand years are ours, if we choose to make our spirits pure so we avoid repeating the errors of past, and if we’re ready to both love and kill with the same ferocity. Death to passivity. Death to the Undermen. Hail the future!
Wednesday, November 9th, 2005
Wander down the road with me aways. You will be breathing exhaust, mostly invisible and indetectible except for the drying of your lungs and throat. This road was once smaller, but now it’s needed to carry people out of the cheap apartments into the major arteries of the city. Occasional diesel trucks you can smell; that exhaust is the most carcinogenic. So you walk past a convenience store, a donut shop, a hair care salon, a record store. Now you wait at the intersection – so many cars! They pass.
You walk across the rubble of two curbs and into the parking lot. Cars are here, poised, and there’s some guy sitting in his with the engine running and loud violent music playing. Pass him by and go into the store. A woman in an employee’s uniform is exiting, carrying with her a case of Miller Lite. If you drink that stuff, it’ll give you cancer for sure; it’s tapwater with beerishness injected, to keep it as cheap as possible. She paid $10 for it, but it cost $0.40 to make. Good beer might cost $4.00 to make, so the guy who came up with Miller Lite – and the $0.20 per case of advertising required to get generic people to buy it – must be a genius.
Inside you look for bread. No, there is no bread. What do you mean? There’s a shelf of bread. I mean there’s no bread with the ingredients in healthy bread: flour, water, eggs, milk, yeast, sugar, salt. All the bread has ingredients lists longer than this article. So no bread, unless you want that to give you cancer as well. Of course, there’s plenty of stuff here that will kill you. The catfish fillets are on sale, but catfish sop up industrial fertilizer and pesticides like sponges; do you really want to eat that? The ocean-caught fish is full of mercury, dioxin and who knows what else.
So you go to get something simple, like maybe, onions. There is no price marked on them. They are, for the most part, small. You can pay twice as much for the organic onions, but there are fewer of them. So you’ll be coming back, soon, unless you’re cooking a small amount. Pass rows and rows of food in boxes. Note that even the tortillas have extra ingredients you remember from a high school science class. What happened to flour, lard and lime? They’re low-fat now, but you have to ingest three preservatives and several artificial flavor agents to get that low-fat buzz. Cancer, while thin. Progress.
There’s a lack of any good looking tomatoes. Only the $3/lb “organic” ones look at all appetizing. You either buy those, or lump it with the rest, and who knows what’s been sprayed on them? By the time the tumors carve you up, it’ll be too late to blame anyone, least of all the poor guy who’s just trying to make a buck selling cheap tomatoes. On to meat, for the same situation. There’s cheap red meat everywhere, just above $2/lb, but you don’t know what’s in that. Do you trust these people and their judgment of what hormones will kill you, and which won’t? Well really, they’re not thinking about it; it’s not their job. Their job is to sell meat.
They’re playing sad love songs again. Some chick who got paid handsomely is droning on about how she believes in love. Repeat it another time, maybe you’ll believe it. Angry minorities walk past, wearing ethnic gear like do-rags and Pancho Villa tshirts. Not all of them feel this way, of course; there are ethnic minorities doing their best to act like the balding white manager. Their friends back home see them as sell-outs. Do you? Well, no matter – you couldn’t bring that topic up in conversation without alienating people, and if it got back to your employer – well, good luck finding a new job, because gossip travels between jobs.
In aisle five, there’s a device for sale – $20 – that’s shaped like a plastic onion. The idea is that you put a special type of onion in it, and you can cook it in your microwave really easily. You know you’ll get one at Christmas, and like everyone else, throw it out in June. But there they are, next to essentials like fruit and vegetables, so the guy who invented it must be making some real money. Important invention. He must be a genius.
Wander out the checkout. The guy putting stuff in bags is stoned. Give him a friendly grin, because he has another six hours on shift, at which point he can take the $40 he earns after taxes and put it toward – something. The guy doesn’t have the brains to invest it, doesn’t have the education to understand it, and will probably spend it on pot and beer anyway. His kids will also be stuffing bags in supermarkets, but that’s better than people of that level of intelligence having more complicated jobs, as in the case of the manager, who clearly should be doing nothing more than picking turnips. His name is O’Shannon or Yablonski. Take your pick.
You’d have to be an idiot to buy most of the stuff in that store. Then again, people keep buying it, and there are far more of them than you, so who cares what you think. Workers are smoking cigarettes near the door as more angry minorities wander in from the project-apartments to the south. They think they’re moving up, shopping at the white folks store. But all the white folks who could moved out of here two years ago. In fact, you’ll have to reconsider that decision to take the less stressful job over the one that makes more money. You’re going to need it to rise above this shit. In the future, it’s only the proles and the ultra-rich, and if you’re not the latter, well, get used to cancer, crime, ignorance and a future stuffing grocery bags.
Back down the street. Wait at the stoplight: most of the cars around you are SUVs with giant engines, mainly because people fel safe behind all that steel. How can you not? And it’s good to be locked inside one, because the people wandering around here vary a lot. There’s some like you who won’t cause any problems. Then there’s that guy rambling to himself; maybe he has a knife, or will simply reach out and take what he will never have. And a lot of these guys coming home from those boring jobs are drunk as ass, and they might plough into you at fifty, so you better have a big vehicle to take the hit. And who’s that crazy fuckup walking down the street? Doesn’t he know…? — they mean you.
Speaking of jobs, you’ve about had it with those. There’s a task, but then there’s the additional task of not pissing off your bosses, who tend to be unstable people because, who wouldn’t be, given the paradoxical goals they have before them. You have to do your job well, but not so well that you minimize profit, so everything’s a rush. Your coworkers have more personal problems than you can count, so you’re always stepping in to fill the gap where someone is hung over, strung out, depressed or simply delusional. About half of your bosses have some grasp of the task, but the rest are in their jobs because they’re friendly and play by the rules, so who can fire them? Oh, and then there are the affirmative action appointees, and women; they can’t be fired, either.
Whores above, and whores left and right. You were late last week and someone – no one knows who, of course – let the higherups know and you got called on carpet. You can just about hear the snicker when you cross the workfloor. Gotcha! They probably feel better about it, and if you asked them at a bar, they’d shrug it off. It happens to everyone, and higherups promote snitches, so… wouldn’t you? Your job also requires a lot of busy work. It’s there to make everyone think what you’re doing is important. Keep the bosses thinking you’re working hard, and keep coworkers thinking the field is open for them. Who are they kidding? Most of them go up three pay grades during their career, and the divorce, medical, psychological, and car payments eat up most of that. They’ll end up with a modest retirement. Hope they spent their money on catastrophic insurance.
You drove home down another street. It’s lined with plastic, glowing signs. Every single building on this street is a business. Not all of them do obvious things, either. There are many places to buy entertainment, or go out to eat; you know that your coworkers spend most of their money at such places, if they don’t outright run to titty bars for the promise of a quick fuck that never materializes, to the point that they owe on their credit cards. Oh well – can’t squirrel out of that with a personal bankruptcy anymore. Five percent will avoid that trap, and the rest will be in debt until they die, at which point the debt will be sold to a collection agency that will pass it along to their “heirs,” whether they inherited anything or not.
After work is done, you can go out with the girlfriend on Saturday night. Buy, buy, buy. Either you go to a bar, or a coffeeshop, or a restaurant, or a movie, or some combination thereof. You will buy things for her, and she will consider herself taken care of. You would be buying sex, but she’s a feminist now, so she knows that she is not required to give you sex for money, unless she chooses to, at which point she should liberate herself from sexual fear and simply be a prostitute, because it pays better and dowdy academic feminists everywhere will cheer her. Jews are like women, retards, minorities and gays because all of them are assumed to be on the bottom. Strike out against one, and you’re the problem. They can strike you, though, and they should.
So your date, or night out with the wife or girlfriend, doesn’t end in sex but that’s okay because most of your male coworkers spend 2% of their income on porn, anyway. That’s about a grand per year for most people, since you wouldn’t socialize with anyone earning less than that; if people at the office found out, they’d think you were leading a sleazy double life or possibly a Communist, or even worse, a Nazi. Those are the only people stupid enough to care about those who’ve failed in this world. Your girlfriend, of course, will hold it against you if you earn more or less than she does, and she will suspect you of manipulating her like all goddamn males do. There’s some truth to what she says, but it will motivate her to get some of her own on the side, like the guy from the finance office she’s screwing, and if you’re smart, you’ll do the same with an attractive girl of your own. By the time you die, you’ll have slept with 171 different women, and the only memorable experience will be the first one. After that, most people are too cynical to put energy into sex, either going about it like dead fish or being so professional and adept at it that any authenticity or nuance is dead. Might as well get out the Vaseline and www.blacksonblondes.com.
When you’re done with the date, you can go home and watch television. You probably spend about twice what you do on porn on cable, the physical TV, and renting movies, alone. More for video games. If you buy books – weirdo – that’s even more. It’s better to watch something than try to tolerate conversation about jobs and friends, both of whom exhibit painfully bad judgment that is depressing to hear about, or to try to decide on music. Hah! You told her you liked Beethoven once, and with scorn, she said, “Classical music is for rich people.” That leaves you with anything below that level as your options, and nothing too angry, please, because it’s antisocial and might damage your job prospects. How about some relaxing hip-hop, the music of the oppressed working classes?
She gets on the phone. Go into the kitchen. The water coming out of your tap smells strongly of chlorine. Better buy a filter for that too. Buy a bus ticket home, or buy a car, or call a cab. Buy, buy, buy. Spend, spend, spend. You can see the grateful faces as you do, because their income is now assured. No more thoughts of you, or anyone else. Did they come this way, or did we make them this way? Possibly it’s a bit of both. They’re just as desperate as you. The rich climb there either because they need wealth to feel whole, or because they’re just as afraid of the consequences as you are. Everyone is afraid of the ghetto, except the people who live there already, because they’ve given up hope. Ah-ha. That’s why people refer to hip-hop as America’s only authentic art movement.
Light up that forbidden cigarette – if there’s anything in it but tobacco, you’ll lose your job; if they catch you smoking too much tobacco, you’ll just lose your health insurance – and think for a minute. It is a bleak existence, outside of the parts that would be good in any society, that is the parts that have nothing to do with the design or operation of that society: the personalities of other people, the joy of children, the beauty of nature (a small park near your house), or intoxication with learning, specifically those books – weirdo – you found at a garage sale, back from when books were supposed to do more than only amuse. In those books you learned many things, but one important thing: it wasn’t always this bleak.
Pollution, poverty, violence, instability and boredom hover at your door. The radio blares encouraging commercial messages every six minutes, as does the television. After hearing them for more than a day, you start to believe, even to listen, because it’s easier than resisting. When you wake up in the middle of the night, in a cold sweat, you sometimes think there is no light at the end of this tunnel, that only oblivion awaits and it will never change. It can’t go on forever. Sooner or later, there will be no more land or oil, and the air pollution and cancers and wars will get so bad we’re paralyzed. But only losers think of that. Winners get ahead.
Your thoughts drift to something you read long ago. Consumerism, it was said, was not motivated by the desires of the wealthy. They didn’t need it, after all, as they already had everything they needed. And while consumerism created a boom in technologies, it’s not clear that these technologies weren’t going to be invented anyway, albeit not in such stimulating ways as plastic shells to cook onions. The rich don’t need consumerism. It’s those who want to be rich who do. In the past, one was rich because one owned land, which was granted to the family by the king, in recognition for great deeds. That must have been inefficient, because now to get rich, you must undertake a stroke of genius such as selling pornography, or making plastic shells in which to microwave onions. Now, we’re all free to get rich, as long as we don’t mind doing nothing but that for our lives. What kind of empty person needs only wealth to feel sufficient? It’s enough to make you convert to a negativistic philosophy like Judaism, which states that physical comfort is all that matters, and all ideals and thinking of the whole and not the self come a distant second. That kind of belief system could be fine solace in this society!
No, you think, the rich didn’t need consumerism. What has driven us into this mess and keeps it in place are those who couldn’t get rich under the kings, and now want an equal share of the pie. Nevermind that the knights and kings built this; they see the spoils, and they want their parts. It reminds you of all the faces in those SUVs and cars that pass, endlessly, while you’re walking down the road. They’re all gunning for their share, and they won’t give that up. No way can you snatch victory from their grasp like that! Of course, they will destroy the planet and all good things about humanity, and only 1/100th of 1% of them will get rich, but don’t tell them that. It’s the lottery of life, man, and they’re going to have a go at it. The fact that they cannot think far ahead enough to exceed the next pay period – 14 days – and that they’re oblivious to the indirect consequences of their actions, out of sight out of mind, might have a lot to do with this.
The crowd wants its piece of the spoils. It wants revenge, in this way, since it cannot be contented with a normal existence, but has to gun for the big score, being wealthy. They’re not demanding that a wrong be righted, but that they get a chance at unmitigated greed. If others can, why can’t they? And don’t tell them any of this shit about the difference between individual humans, and how having the brains to see beyond the next period and into indirect consequences of one’s actions is rare, and should be a trait of our leaders – you’re trying to keep them down, you fucking Nazi!
They believe they deserve that lottery (and in a sense they do, since so few of them will win). According to their morality, everyone is equal, and therefore, they should get what the rich have. Well, maybe just a chance at it. Nevermind that no one gets to have a comfortable existence because we’re all fighting each other. Nevermind that they will obliterate the helpful leaders and replace them with whorelike demagogues. Nevermind that, if we all get to live the high life or some cheesy Wal-Mart approximation of it, the mathematics are bad: we all breed, all of our children breed, and so on, with each generation taking up more resources than the last until we’ve exhausted the planet and left a pollution ruin to be fought over by the remaining humans. Nevermind all that. What matters, the crowd says, is when do I get mine and how do I keep anyone else from stopping me?
The less competent have surged in, outnumbering the more competent, and formed a society based on revenge and greed. Why doesn’t anything happen? Well, for starters, our leadership is divided into Left and Right. The Right fears the judgment capability of the crowd, recognizing quite properly that very few people have any wisdom at all, and the Left fears what the crowd has done. If Right and Left got together, they might see that the crowd revolt is the root of their problem, not whatever showboat issue they’ve been parading today (abortion, drugs, hackers, civil rights, school prayer). Because Right and Left are divided, rule by the crowd continues, and those who profit from the crowd keep getting rich. After all, like all of us competing against every other one of us, Right and Left are competing like businesses, trying to get their own people rich. There is no unity. There is only individual profit, and God Damn the costs to our environment and, less visibly, our selves.
Our morality is based upon not violating the space and “rights” of others. This started in Judaism, but really gained popularity with Christianity, because it wasn’t just limited to people of Jewish ethnicity (smart marketing, Christ). No one can second guess their choices, because after all they are theirs, and it’s their right to not be stopped – for example, show a crowd member this article, and they’ll snap back, “It’s my prerogative NOT to read it!” – and since the only way to stop them is force, they’ll consider you amoral and dangerous and gang up on you. They outnumber you 1000 to 1. Good luck! In fact, anyone who tries to establish a plan other than rampant greed disguised as individualism is going to be seen as amoral, and even worse, trying to place themselves above others. One can only act on those below oneself, not try to rise above, because then – popular wisdom goes – you’re trying to be better than others, as if you deserve more than the rest of us for having a right answer. The crowd together will chant for your blood.
Because you cannot stop someone else from doing something destructive, you become an outsider the instant you criticize their intent or its outcome. You can only judge their means of achieving what they do, not their goals. So if their goal is greed, you can only complain when that greed violates the rights of another; but that’s hard to prove, and besides, there are plenty of unethical things that are not illegal (Goedel would assure you it’s hard to list everything that’s destructive, and even harder to get a vote taken on it). You cannot strike at those lesser than yourself. You cannot tell them what they are doing is insane. You would say “the ends justify the means,” but they would be horrified by this. For them, there are only means, as they lack the intelligence to see that it is a question of “ends” that determines whether we live or die. It is beyond their conceptual understanding that a society might elect to not commit environmental and personal suicide through greed, pollution, boredom, etc.
This is why some people – usually Nazis and Communists – strike out against Christian morality. The idea of morality based on means, designed to protected the lesser from the stronger, prevents those who have better ideas (by definition: the stronger) from ever reigning in the illogical impulses of the lesser. The lesser are kings, and all of us must suffer for their judgment, because they are in control. Even many Christians have at this point figured the truth of this situation, and realize that Jesus came not in peace but with a sword, but what are they to do? 1000 to 1 odds means that unless every smart person on earth joins hands at once for a final battle, the lesser are going to win simply by numbers. Killing 999 of them each will not be enough to triumph.
Yet we either crush them, or continue this long sick march of death to oblivion. We will consume all of our resources. We will pollute all of our habitat. And we cannot stop it because to try that would be to violate someone’s rights, probably those at the bottom, since the wealthy aren’t the ones doing the violating; they’re the ones providing the products, and demand for those products creates the violation. See, it’s no one’s fault. But no one is driving this vehicle hurtling out of control down a darkened road, and for those who are not lesser, it becomes a matter of concern. With these idiots in charge, we and our children and our culture (including Beethoven) are doomed. But by definition, to the lesser, this isn’t a problem. The Christians call it a “holistic” view to look at the entire situation, including environment and humanity as a single entity, instead of the individual. Philosophers call it idealism, but it’s 8 AM again and if you get caught reading that shit at work, you’re fired and blacklisted. Welcome to the ghetto by 9:30.
We cannot move ahead until we fix this problem. We will forever be making “progress” – civil rights, women’s rights, abortion, gay rights, drug rights – but this will not affect our ultimate destination. We will continue this march of death toward oblivion, and no amount of handing rights to gay black coprophagic pot-smoking women will stop that. The conservative businessman and the liberal activist alike agree that our current system is the way we must go, and they have only token changes. All they do is promote the same agenda that is the status quo, with modifications to deliver more profit to their camp, in the meantime ignoring the problem: our existence is bleak until we rise above this assumption (“Crowdism”) and change it.
Saturday, November 5th, 2005
When I was young, I rapidly learned to hate conservatives. They were bloated people of rigid minds who devoted their lives to earning money and owning things, and they had a little list of what was OK and they lashed out against anything that was not visibly on it. In fact, what bothered me the most was their categorical mindset. They had no flexibility of thought. You either taught Creationism, or you were a devil; never mind that evolution could be proof of the infinite genius of their God. You were either married, or a slut; you were either Christian, or a heathen. Not to imply that they should have seen middle ground – after all, that is in itself a complete fabrication in matters of ideals – but that they did not see the whole of the order of the universe. They had an invariant, one-size-fits-all outlook that was convenient for condemning others. It was like a sick little clubhouse.
Fast forward some years. I’ve now learned to hate liberals. They are not bad people, as conservatives aren’t bad people, but they are misinformed. Even worse, they are motivated by emotion and not holistic thought, and their responses are as kneejerk as those of the conservatives. Either a certain belief is on their whitelist of accepted ideas, or they lash out against it. They cannot see how traditional lifestyles fulfil much of the liberal dream: local communities, ruled by leaders selected for wisdom and not (George W. Bush) popularity with the lowbrow crowd, and a furtherance of culture, justice, knowledge and art. In fact, liberals are willing more than anything else to destroy, even destroy all hope, so long as their one precious hot-button issue is preserved: revenge against those who have more than others through equalization and subsidization of the less-capable. They want to even humanity out into a race of clones, so that none are above others.
This leaves me even more of a misfit than before, and unlike those who see politics as their personal identity (most people from New York or London), I don’t want a political identity, least of all misfits. I am not concerned with the label of ideas, but the ideas themselves, and more importantly, the structure of belief systems into which these ideas fit. There is no place for such thinking except in philosophy, and it like all other aspects of Western culture, is steadily being absorbed by those who have the disease liberals and conservatives have in common: rigid categorical thinking, based mostly in a desire to justify their own lifestyles and empower their own self-image, e.g. “I am right for thinking this, and everyone else is wrong, so whatever I want to do to them is justified.”
I have more in common with the average people of the West than most politicians in that I seek not power, not identity, but a practical lifestyle. Those of us with enough experience and mental focus to think through the questions of life have long known that the flashy lifestyles of the city and entertainment culture are meaningless; what matters in life are the intangibles, like friends, family and personal experience, especially in achieving triumph over that which we fear and through that, ascendancy to a higher state of mind. They used to call this transcendent thought, and all the writers and thinkers I’ve ever loved have idealized this state of mind. Interestingly, so did the knights of ancient Europe as well as the Zen monks of ancient Asia.
When we think in practical terms, it no longer makes sense to passively look for a side to join and hope that They will figure it all out through some mechanistic process. Wouldn’t it be nice if life came down to selecting one of two choices, and everything got basically peachy after that? Reality is more complicated: both right and left are rotted like a gangrenous limb, and there is nothing we can do to redeem ourselves by blindly supporting them. The only path is to pick the values we find meaningful, to envision a better society, and to support that through any and all agencies that make themselves compatible to its aims. With this in mind, it’s hard to want to be a conservative, or a liberal.
Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Ronald Reagan, recently took aim at the war in Iraq. “We ought to make it our duty to help make the world friendlier for the growth of liberal regimes,” he said. What he’s referring to is the same thing Francis Fukuyama referenced in his book The End of History and the Last Man, in which he suggests that the final state of human history is one of liberal democracy, human and civil rights, and free economic enterprise and personal economic competition for all. Fukuyama and Scowcroft (and Bush and Reagan and Clinton and Carter) repeat basically the same doctrine: we have found a Utopian “progressive” design, and that is the society driven by equality of individuals and their competition in open markets, open social situations, and other linear challenges. Like the conservative Christian moralists, they see one way to redemption, and anything not on that holy ordained list is “bad” or “evil” and must be crushed. This is the crux of modern Western thought, which combines the idealism of the past with a focus on the individual and material comfort derived from Judaism, coming up with a belief system that is anything but holistic. When we’re feeling nice, we call it “anthrocentric.” When we’re not, we say it’s a kingdom of individual pretense that has no leadership, but is a circle of sheep chasing each other in an attempt to manipulate popularity for personal profit.
History tells us that this revolution has been ongoing for two thousand years in the West, and that identical breakdowns have happened in every great society, most notably that of the Greeks, who collapsed shortly after discovering populist democracy and international trade. The individual – all individuals – became kings, and thus, there was no consensus, and shortly, the mechanisms of society broke down and the weakened civilization degraded itself to the point where it was quick work for foreign conquerors to destroy it. This revolution has gained momentum since World War II, when superpowers competed on the basis of which was morally more “progressive” than the other, and conservatism comprises one half of its pincer attack. Like a wrestling match, the outcome is fixed, and the “competitors” bought, but they make a good show of it because, win or lose, they’ll take home a ton of money from keeping the proles amused.
Now we get into difficult territory: liberals allege that recent conservative electoral wins (George W. Bush) have made some kind of vast difference. They haven’t. Bush and Clinton are brothers in advancing the agenda of worldwide liberalism, even if George W. Bush cloaks his agenda behind mumblings to the evangelicals and traditionalists, and Clinton hides his own impetus behind platitudes to civil rights and “freedoms.” They’re the same animal, because they’ve been produced by the same system and the same assumptions, and therefore are not independent thinkers/leaders but those who fulfil a role. Their job is to make money for themselves and their allies, and whatever window-dressing they use to obscure their actual intention is fine, as long as it is popular. As a consequence, they’ve neatly paralyzed the electorate by dividing it into two camps who form personal identities based on their political orientation, and forget the underlying values and lapse in keeping their leaders accountable for upholding those values. (It’s redundant to point out that populist democracy, which hands the vote to any unqualified person over a certain age, is destined mathematically to failure by the inability of that group to make decisions of the complexity required. It’s for this reason that history shows that every populist democracy ever created has rapidly collapsed into selfishness, infighting, bickering, theft, graft and deception, then been conquered by more literal minded – did I say The Chinese? – neighbors.)
How could such a system take place – is it a vast conspiracy? I’ll say, firmly, it is not. People can collaborate unconsciously if they work toward the same ends, or uphold the same basic outlook. For example, there was no conspiracy to build housing, yet every early human group figured out how to do it. There is similarly, no conspiracy here; what we are seeing is an emotional reaction that is inherent to any human group, and its triumph over the past two millennia has been a product more of its simplistic, lowest common denominator message – and swelling numbers of people who can live well within civilization, but lack the discipline to survive in the wild, a product of civilization’s strength in increasing ease of access to food, shelter, medicine, and “learning” – than any grand plan. In fact, we could call it the “anti-plan.” Instead of providing an ideology for the future, or a holistic vision of how we could live better, its impetus is a gesture as old as humanity: dividing up the spoils in such a way that every member of the crowd is satisfied. It is pacification.
The disorganized, anti-plan, anti-conspiracy movement has triumphed through something I call the voodoo doll approach. When you are faced with an enemy that unifies its constituents through a belief system, there is one way to take it down that works every time. You build a replica of that belief system, but you change a few things so that like a Trojan horse it slips into the population and like a virus, begins infecting others with the changed outlook. It may take centuries, but gradually it will gain power, because most people cannot tell the difference between it and the real belief that enabled the society to prosper. Even better, sweeten it a bit and appeal to cognitive dissonance – tell people that they’ve been wronged, and they deserve something for nothing, and they will rapidly fall in line behind the new belief. One can only imagine that cancers in the human body act the same way, appearing to be normal cells but having an agenda of reckless growth (the “anti-plan”) which is not discovered until too late. Yet no one calls cancer a conspiracy.
Conservatism is the voodoo doll that emulates traditional beliefs, but sells them out at its core. It is not radically different except that its philosophy incorporates a different scope, and thus creates a changed motive in those who uphold it. Where traditional societies were idealistic and holistic, meaning that people did what was right by the whole of the society and its environment, instead of trying to do right by the individual, modern societies are individualistic: their goal is to gain wealth and political equality for the individual above all else, including all holistic concerns. The individual does what benefits him or her, and lets someone else worry about the consequences. Conveniently, no one is worrying about the consequences – where’s the personal profit in that? – which makes it a perfect system for those who wish to accumulate wealth, especially through means that while not illegal are, in a holistic sense, unethical. I include pornographers, politicians and sellers of plastic garbage alike in that indictment.
Where tradition proposed a complete design of civilization, conservatism is a rider to the general agenda of mass empowerment that is the revolution described above that has been consuming the west for two thousand years (the West has died hard; it has taken a long time for this concept to have any momentum; luckily for those who push it, they have no other options, and thus will attempt it perpetually). Conservatism says, yes, let’s go forward with the liberal society, but let’s make our personal list of what is approved include only things that sound like traditional values. But, of course, in a society of mass revolt, the list needs to be something even an idiot can understand. So it is dumbed down, and then made even dumber, until it reaches the point of being a list of categorical knee-jerk responses. At this point, it makes perfect fodder for the wrestling match of politics, in that its categorical responses are blind to reality, and therefore it constantly fails and gives its twin, liberalism, a chance to get in a few shots. The “voters” – a term that implies that they make actual choices when casting votes – are bewildered and baffled, and thus become increasingly balkanized, clinging to political symbols and emotions with which they can identify. (It’s only fair to mention again that populist democracy casts the responsibility of rule on those who are inherently unable to do it; while they are fine people in everyday life, and it is not a character defect of theirs, they are as out of luck as a car mechanic attempting to perform brain surgery. It’s an entirely different task from everyday life to lead a nation, or to pick a belief and political system which benefits it holistically. Thus the voters do not even attempt it, and vote selfishly, casting their society into an early grave through the resulting internal division, graft, etc. that this engenders.)
The Neoconservatives – mostly Jewish intellectuals and evangelical Christian drunkards and cocaine addicts like George W. Bush – have formalized this membership. Conservatism is liberalism. Like mint iced tea, it’s still liberalism, just flavored with a sprig of token traditional values. If you don’t believe this, ask what conservatism has done for traditional values lately. Abortion? Banning abortion has not stopped the problem of desperate people, trashy casual sex, and thus unwanted babies. Drugs? People are miserable and bored and find their lives pointless, thus take drugs excessively. Conservatism hasn’t addressed that issue at all. What about crime? Depending on which way the wind blows, the statistics claim it’s up or down, but that does not change the base reality that it’s out of control and impacts our lives negatively. What about corporate power? A decline in culture? Lack of shared cultural values? Conservatism has failed on all of these issues, and always will, because conservatism does not take the stance necessary to control these issues: we need some form of society other than the mass individualized kleptocracy of liberal democracy.
Consider another issue: women. We are divided, permanently and inextricably, between feminists and conservatives. Feminists want women and men to share a role in equality, have abortions and lifestyle flexibility, and generally, to treat each other like commercial products in a jockeying for power. Conservatives lash out with a doctrine that translates similarly into ownership of women, but this time, in theory, women are given to men, who must then serve them and their corporate overlords alike in tedious, conservative jobs. It’s clear that feminism is deleterious to women, in that in the name of avoiding a minority of marriages that were abusive and unhappy, it has converted women into a zombie army of faceless single dropouts in their 30s and 40s, burned out sexually and emotionally and romantically by a series of failed relationships in which both parties fought to keep power and, in the grand tradition of crowds, shouted each other down and obliterated any possible direction. Feminism is crowd revenge – equality – for women. It’s not really any different than “White Supremacy,” which supposes that if one is mostly white one is entitled to rule over the other races of earth, except that it address only women.
Feminism has destroyed what made women unique, and what gave ancient cultures the ability to see them as having a unique and invaluable role, and has made them more grist for the mill of commerce, throwing them into careers like men and thus keeping both sexes in competition. Who benefits? Those who use them for labor, of course. Did women benefit? There are all these rules about equality now, and a literal smorgasbord of rhetoric, but in the end, what has happened now is that most of them are ending up in unhappy relationships and the graces of femininity and its unique place in the universe are destroyed. Once again, the crowd clamors for equality and thus destroys quality, dragging us all down to the lowest common denominator. But when the choice is seemingly between blockhead conservative ownership, and blockhead liberal ownership, are women given much of a choice? Not bloody likely.
Tradition saw no one-size-fits-all role for anyone. Women were not equal to men, but men were not equal to men; each person was seen as having unique strengths and weaknesses, and thus a permanent position in a social hierarchy. There was not economic competition, but this meant that people worked less and spent more time developing themselves. There were unhappy marriages and abusive husbands, but those were in the minority (and, amusingly, they still exist, showing us the complete failure of liberal feminist rhetoric). Women had a role which was granted to them by nature and which could never conform to the demands of ownership. It was not a function; it was not based on external traits alone; it did not assign them a linear value through “competition.” It granted them something that has been so wholly taken away few now would even recognize it.
In the traditional worldview, one must look at the world as whole. All of us, and all of the elements of our environment, work together to provide a singular reality which is seen as the greatest form of holiness possible. It transcends the difference between gods and humans, as it includes both, and it is more than mere ideas or mere physical reality, but an order which encompasses both. In this context, you did not own a woman, nor did you compete with her as an “equal” as fodder for the capital machine. Men and women together created something holy, which was the family and continuation of the species, and were not obligated to each other but paired as a matter of opportunity (note to feminists: there have always been single women and lesbians living out quiet lives, through all of history, and for the most part, they were unmolested). A woman was something that graced one’s life, and a partner in a lifelong quest to continue that which made a life that not only created both partners but had treated them well. A woman and man were the basis of a family. You did not “own” your woman, nor did you serve her, nor did she serve you; it was an attitude of mutual worship grounded in worship of the whole, which was seen as greater than the individual. Women had a unique place and were respected for what made them different, not what made them workers like everyone else who could be owned by some dollars-and-cents business. What we’ve lost in modern times is this reverence for life, and this mutuality, whereby a man and woman could see each other as gifts to each other from the gods. Contrast that to “Sex and the City” and you’ll see how shallow modernity really is.
I call the mass revolt, the equalization, the pity culture, and the Jewish “individualism” by a more rightful name: Crowdism. It is giving power to the crowd, and excluding the individual, most specifically an individual who wishes to live on his or her own terms and be valuable for achievements, having beaten fears and conquered doubt, and having sculpted out of raw existence a life which is rewarding. Crowdism fears those who might be satisfied, and its solution is that we all – “equally” – are dissatisfied, and forever snapping at each other and competing in trivial ways. The only people it makes happy are those who do not and cannot think about the consequences of their actions, as they are simply glad to have revenge over those more gifted by nature, and feel that this compensates somehow for their failings. Crowdism is cowardice, because it denies to all of us the need to assert ourselves as individuals, conquer our demons, and create in ourselves and our communities a sense of benevolence and higher order. Not everyone can do that, and out of deference to those few (and a need to use them as footsoldiers in the revolution), Crowdism wishes to drag us all to that unsatisfied, self-doubting, paranoiac level.
There are multitudinous other examples of why conservatism is garbage. It denies that the environment is part of our whole existence, and wishes to sell it, also, to the machine. It denies the differences between individuals and the fact that it’s a stark choice between raising up the lowest, or promoting the highest; with the latter, a civilization always has new mountains to climb, but with the former, the mountain is reduced to a foothill so that everyone can climb and thus feel good about themselves. It’s an illusion within the human mind, an anthrocentricism so crass that it motivates people to treat their world and each other with a subtly disguised form of scorn. Conservatism even fails in Iraq, where under the guise of bringing “progress,” we bring death and Coca-Cola, and absorb an ancient culture into our economic machine whereby we all serve the low-brow interests of the Crowd. But hey, at least their women have “equality,” so they can now be single and bitter in their 30s and 40s while patting themselves on the back for having been handed their new rights.
The Crowd reminds me of an unstable family, where regardless of the consequences, it is felt that if everyone is doing the same thing, “control” is in place and therefore, it’ll all work out okay, somehow, sometime, somewhere. The Crowd therefore has as its first tenet equality and the enforcement of one-size-fits-all logic, and for that reason justifies that logic as “progressive,” even if these people under freedom seem more neurotic, single, desperate, sad and lonely than ever before. The Crowd doesn’t care; it is motivated by fear, not a desire for higher things. Those who have not been infected with the dogma of the crowd think in a holistic sense, and realize that “One law for the ox and the raven is tyranny,” and that, much as there are many different species in nature, there will be many different types of humanity. It is entirely OK for the women of Iraq to live as they have according to their tradition, and for some parts of humanity to live according to the liberal-consmopolitan rhetoric that Judaism and liberalism endorse. The holistic doctrine suggests that in different places, different orders will prevail, but the corollary to that is that they will achieve different results. The Crowdists want a lowest common denominator, and the conservatives want a form of that Crowdist logic, but me, I want it all. I want a society that constantly rises to higher orders, based on reverence and mutual rhetoric, and I both desire and work toward that end. For this reason, I’m a traditionalist. Conservatism is a subset of liberalism and I want nothing to do with either of those revengeful, petty, blockhead doctrines.
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005
Sometimes it helps to have a few basic terms spelled out in the simplest form possible. While this article does not attempt to dumb down any of these ideas, it does give you the elemental structure, although you – the reader – will probably have questions owing to the elusive nature of many of these concepts at initial contact.
Removal of value that is not directly relevant to reality. We exist in the same world, and interact in ways that can be predicted, given a study of repeatable actions and responses. Therefore, while we can noodle on about whether or not reality is “real,” it is for all intents and purposes as real as anything can be. Nihilism is a belief in nothing, which if you unpack it linguistically, means a positive belief in the value of nothing. Nothingness can be applied to all of our neuroses, fears, impressions, and the illusions produced by poor interpretation of our own senses. What is left is a clearer view of reality. We may never have 100% clarity in viewing our world, but the closer we get the more powerful we become. Thus nihilism strips aside anything that comes between us and a perception of structure and context in the world. Most of these “preprocessor directives” originate in our emotional and socialized responses to the world, which demands we categorize certain actions as “good” or “bad” for the sake of keeping all of us here in the crowd on the same page. Nihilism is not a belief system for followers, although many followers claim to believe in it. It is like Zen consciousness: a removal of illusion, a focus of the perception facilities, and a joining of the imaginative and analytical minds. In doing so, we transcend our position as individuals and mortal beings, and are able to see the world as it is, infinite and continuous and extending far beyond our own lives.
This term is almost indefinable, but it refers to the internal relationship of parts that forms a whole to any given thing, and the transfer of energy or support of form therein. When we speak of a chair, its structure can be summarized as a certain number of legs supporting a platform which in turn supports a chairback; no matter what the chair looks like, this physical relationship will be expressed. Structure does not exist; it is our perceptive mind finding common relationships between objects; however, structure also quasi-exists in that its functional relationship is essential to the existence of objects or events. Structure is what we see in abstraction when we look at things in our physical world. While anyone can call something a chair, it takes mental energy to understand what makes a chair a chair, and how to build one. Theory is the study of structure. Plato suggested in his famous metaphor of the cave that we see shadows cast by a fire as our metaphorical reality; outside the cave, there are objects, and in our minds these leave silhouettes which are structure.
All things are relative, and all things are relative to the whole. The interaction of different relative parts produces context. Context is surroundings and natural forces.
That part of the world which is external to us, and consistent, and provides sustenance to us and takes our lives as it sees fit. Specifically, its description as physical objects or structural concepts with immediate correlation to physical objects. (Translation: the world outside you, minus your thoughts and emotions and blue book valuations, et cetera.)
When one looks at life analytically, it is clear that it has many different parts which operate best in certain contexts; to think non-linearly is to understand that each has its place contributing to the whole, operating in parallel. Crowdism is the desire expressed by the greatest number of us, who have no facility for leadership and no ability to think past the direct consequences of their actions, for linearity, so that none are above or below others. It is an emotional response to the inequality of nature, and is oblivious to the fact that in nature equality is achieved through the singular beauty of life which can be experienced by all. Crowdism is a revenge impulse which wishes to destroy those who have exceptional abilities or who have risen above the crowd; it is the ultimate in-group, out-group response. Crowdists by definition do not think of long term implications to their potential actions, and thus are terrible rulers, but as they think emotionally and their thinking is limited to their own desires, they wish not to have any above themselves as they find it insulting to their generally low-self-esteem personalities. While anyone who is incapable of seeing beyond the immediate consequences (linear thinking) of their actions is an Underman, Crowdists are those who take being an Underman and make it into a political statement: tear down the superior, exalt the inferior, and we’ll all be “equal.” Unfortunately, emotional reactions fare poorly in the real world, as it is much more carefully constructed than some out of control cognitive dissonance resopnse, and therefore, as history shows us, Crowdism destroys every civilization where it gains predominance. However, it seems Crowdism is a part of the life span of every civilization, usually immediately preceding its demise into third-world status, because as civilizations grow their citizens take them for granted, and seek to “improve” upon a model they do not understand as they have not known struggle. Crowdism, then, is like getting fat: a result of idleness and lack of clear view of reality. Crowdism can take on any host, whether Communism or National Socialism, Greenism or Christianity. The only response to Crowdism is an insistence upon meritocracy, including of bloodlines, so that one can create a leadership caste which sequesters the detailed knowledge necessary for rulership. However, the only kind of society that can maintain such a caste is one with a rigorous ascetic tradition, and a desire to remove the excessive mediocre people who will otherwise gain a numerical majority, demand “democratic” representation and thus overrule those better suited to lead. The previous sentence is a servicable description of what has happened to the West, and why it is now in crisis.
This term is misunderstood: in the philosophical sense, it means a belief that the physical world is all that exists, and all that is valued. Interestingly, this precludes idealism, because in a materialism view, nothing can be higher than material good/bad, thus comfort is more important than some ideal or abstract goal. Materialism is the belief of cosmopolitan (no inherited culture) and Judaic societies worldwide. It has never been adopted by any group with a clear ethnic lineage and connection to land and a form of universal spiritual belief.
The belief that life operates much as our thoughts do, and that it is likely they have a common ancestor; this opens the door to analysis of the mathematics behind existence, which at its most abstract level is the foundation of metaphysics. Idealism as a prescriptive belief places a higher value on correct thoughts than on material consequences; it is the opposite of materialism. As a descriptive belief, it affirms that evolution and our own scientific method of thought have similar origins and function. Idealism is the one truly masculine belief system, in that it operates as follows: 1. Analyze world. 2. Determine optimum structure. 3. Impose it upon physical reality. 4. Death is no defeat. It suggests the possibility of a higher plane of continuous structure to reality, whereby our thoughts join with the thoughts of the world, in a combination between analysis and imagination. Interestingly, European knights and Zen masters and quantum physicists all seem to stalk this same plateau of understanding.
Undermen (if you’re an Underperson, you’ll demand we use that gender-neutral term) are those who resent others and believe we should all be equalized. They do not recognize that every state in life is holy, and that the collaboration of these states produce the whole. They have the idea that somehow rats are evil, the anus is evil, death is evil, etc. without realizing that these things are essential to the survival of something better than good, which we call “meta-good,” a state that requires both positive (good) and negative (bad) elements in order to keep going. Without death, life would be endless pointless time. Without defecation, more eating would not be so beautiful. Without rats, the forest would clutter with waste. To be beyond good and evil is to recognize this relationship, and to embrace your life whatever your stature – wealthy businessman, plumber, janitor, soldier, or homeless crack-addicted bum. Undermen come from every social class, every walk of life, and every persuasion. It is an attitude. Higher-bred Undermen are more capable, and thus more destructive; Undermen are produced through tribal mixing, as it shatters the contiguous evolution of a specialized value system in the individual, and leaves them to invent their own, which, unless they’re a philosophical genius with lots of free time, usually ends up being some form of Crowd revenge or another (Jesus Christ, V.I. Lenin, George Bush: high-bred, mixed-breed Undermen). Those who accept their stature in life without revenge and look upon life as holy are not Undermen, even if they’re impoverished crack-addicted homeless bums. Those who wish revenge and resent those who have better abilities or traits than themselves are secretely revengeful against nature and life’s order itself, as they distrust and fear evolutionary process, and they are Undermen, even if they’re fantastically wealthy, good-looking and surrounded by admirers. For the observant, this is nature’s justice: character and internal will are the only judgments of worth that matter, because all else is window dressing.
Any belief which externalizes its structure of advancement, which by the nature of external things as unpredictable, requires it have a single layer of approval. Any organization, church, or social club where if you walk in the door and sign on the dotted line and are considered a member, by its nature, is exoteric. It is a linear form of belief.
Any non-linear belief system, such as one that internalizes its structure of advancement. These systems tend to be open to all, and recognize that only inside of the individual – heart and mind – can advancement be made. They are direct opposites to exoteric systems.
The knowledge that there is no single linear “right way” of doing things, but any number of approaches to a problem, and that they can exist if segregated, as they do not mix. What may be right for one group is evil for another; what may work for one person is evil for another; what may be perfect at one moment is destructive in another. For some people, living like reckless hedonists and dying young is the perfect fulfilment of existence; for others, living conservatively and growing old surrounded by family is. In Israel, Judaism and the Jewish ethnicity are perfection; in Germany, they are destruction. It is for this reason that ethnic groups do not combine, social castes do not combine, and some individuals will never understand others. What is important is recognizing that working in parallel, we achieve the perpetuation of this amazing, beautiful world.