In our New Agey and left-leaning time, people look toward justifications for their beliefs. The core of almost all of them is altruism or egalitarianism, which holds that we achieve the best social order by lifting up the lower so they are “equal” to the rest.
Notwithstanding the grim fact that equality appears only in mathematics and never in reality itself, this belief — which is likely merely marketing of oneself through a process like advertising through highly public good works to conceal private acts of selfishness — often seeks justification through the “golden rule” as in theory formulated by Jesus Christ and later Immanuel Kant. Usually this is described as “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself” or a similar reflexive self-referential, and thus modifiable, standard.
That simplistic look, like most simplistic looks, misses several important distinctions between these two formulations and conceals the greatest secret of all, which is that the golden rule is not the “golden rule” as interpreted by most of the ham-fisted narcissistic self-interested manipulators out there.
Kant’s statement occurred in three different formulations, the second two clarifying the first as is the tendency among philosophers:
Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 422
Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 422
Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 429
The immediate difference that leaps to the eye here is the first statement, which does not say “treat others as you would like to be treated” as widely assumed, but speaks of “universal law.” In other words, as the second statement clarifies, treat others how you think nature should treat them, i.e. according to behaviors that you think should be defaults and constants of the world, like gravity, temperature and the like.
Kant being somewhat more aware of how easily language is misinterpreted than Christ, but not yet to the point where he recognizes that a rabbinical or monastic tradition is the only defense of any language against the tendency of the herd to project themselves into it and corrupt it for their own ends, does not speak of a self-reflexive interpretation “as you would like to be treated.” He knows that this will rapidly devolve to changing preferences about how the individual wants to be treated, adjusting expectations to fit reality instead of holding higher standards. Refining this to a law of nature removes the personal utilitarian interpretations.
On his third formulation, Kant introduces one of the questions that lives with us today on a regular basis: means versus ends. He states a parallel between the individual and other individuals, and suggests that they be treated as ends alone. This does not, as widely assumed, suggest that treatment be equal or that it facilitate what any individual does; this statement exists within the context of universal law, and so becomes convergent on Plato’s “good to the good, and bad to the bad,” because a universal law would not allow bad to be done to the good, thus must dissuade and remove it with an equal and opposite reaction.
At that point, Kant has moved very far from the populist statement of the golden rule, which is “treat others as you would want them to treat you” and yet has amplified it greatly, by adding the corollary “such that this treatment would be fair to anyone.” The populist golden rule takes a self-referential look, which makes it a matter of “subjectivity” (a fancy term for adjusting expectations to results). The Kantian formulation speaks instead of to the individual to fairness itself.
As explained long ago by a college professor, the classic test of the categorical imperative is when the secret police of the State knock on your door at night. “Is Dave here?” they say, and you know that they mean to haul him away and imprison him. In the nitwit populist viewpoint, the golden rule has you saying “No, Dave isn’t here” and shutting the door, because you (the glowing, golden ego composed of yourself as seen through the eyes of others) would not wish to be revealed in that situation. But Kant adds another wrinkle: what is fair? For example, if Dave ran into your house after a night of rape, murder and mayhem, it might be a horrible idea to shield him. Then again, if he was raping, murdering and beating horrible people, perhaps it is best to shield him because what he did was in fact good or at least permissible.
The Bible establishes a similar clarification but phrases it in entirely religious language, which makes it inscrutable to most:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. – Matthew 22:37-40
Translated, this says, “What you wish others would do to you, do to them.” This formulation phrases the question in reverse from the populist rule which begins with the act of doing and extends it to the reflexive “as you would have them do to you.” As a result, this formulation reads more like a general prescription than a reaction to the necessity of another acting on your person. It is clarified by the second set of statements, which refer to it in the context of loving God; Christ draws a parallel between the two but places the first as supreme. Loving God with “all thy heart/soul/mind” leaves no room for loving self, and suggests as an addendum that one should also love the neighbor in the same way. In other words, be selfless and treat them as if they were selfless too. This reverses the self-full populist golden rule which seems like a mandate for generous treatment, and restores it to the Kantian domain of universal roles, but transfers the ends from human beings to God. For those of us who see God as more of a natural order and divine pattern underlying all of existence, this means to honor the order of reality more than the human wishful thinking perceptions of what it is.
In this light, Kant’s statement looks like typical Enlightenment fodder: remove the focus from the patterning of the world, or its mechanical and informational order that makes it function as it does, and shift it to human preference. He puts a band-aid on that with his own references to natural law (universal maxim of nature) but leaves judgment of it in the hands of the individual. The Christ message starts instead by affirming natural law through God and demanding that all humans serve the same role underneath it, which is not a description so much of method of treatment as of treating humans according to their place in this divine order. In that formulation, it is a maxim to minimize the human ego, not enhance it like the populist golden rule by giving domain to the ego.
What is fascinating about this comparison is that it occurs between three versions of what is “in theory” the same idea but turns out to be radically different. Here is the populist conception of the golden rule:
Treat others as you want to be treated.
This places moral authority in the individual, who can simply say that he prefers anarchy where people steal whatever they can find and that he prefers this because it is reality and thus what he accepts and has adapted to, therefore his theft is not only permissible but moral! A fascinating inversion but entirely predictable giving the vesting of the moral choice in the ego.
The Kantian imperative counters this with the idea of universal law, so that it is no longer a question of how you want to be treated but what humanity would look like if this rule applied to all people everywhere. We are now approaching the domain of the wise Moms who, when their offspring justify an infraction with “But Johnnie did it first!” will say wisely, “If Johnnie jumped off the Empire State building, would you follow?” In this case, the question is whether an individual preferring to jump off the Empire State building — “as you would like to be treated” — should apply to all others and the finding is that common sense (a surrogate for natural law) should trump personal preference.
At the end of our investigations, the Biblical interpretation of this law takes this natural law predominance even farther. Love God; be selfless, and treat others as selfless. In other words, entirely cut out the dated and moldy Enlightenment-era advertising and go for the order that has worked for time immemorial and always works because it is logical, instead of what you or someone else wishes were true. Together these formulations provide a fantastic contrast to what is popularly regarded as the golden rule and reveal it for the masturbatory excuse and justification for bad behavior that it is, cloaked behind a masquerade of warm fuzzies and happy feelings.
What process kills every civilization? Degeneration, or the genetic adaptation to lower conditions by its population, precipitating a collapse into third world status. Too much inclusivity normally causes this, which leads a civilization to value its least productive and moral citizens along with others, and that quickly leads to disastrous policy including unnecessary wars and diversity.
Every effect has a singular cause, however, and the cause of too much inclusivity is a lack of direction. Without purpose, societies become subsidy engines through easy work, producing hordes of parasites who think that by showing up to a job and reaping the benefits, they have participated in society. The “bourgeois” attitude of more than laissez faire but “out of sight, out of mind” applies there.
Lack of purposes emerges from an unwillingness to strive for more than the material. In turn, that originates in a lack of belief in the physical world and withdrawal into mental worlds, including personal religion. When people reject the goodness of our world, they reject a purpose to life itself by passing off their human judgment as absolute truth, which then creates a ghetto where only human desires, judgments and feelings are accepted as real, which creates a very real neurotic hell.
Darwin rightly points out that degeneration occurs naturally to any population without the strength to resist it:
Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan,19 they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are born by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts—and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ‘struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.” — Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Evola shows, in turn, that degeneration arises from lack of purpose toward the transcendent:
If we look at the secret of degeneration from the exclusively traditional point of view, it becomes even harder to solve it completely. It is then a matter of the division of all cultures into two main types. On the one hand there are the traditional cultures, whose principle is identical and unchangeable, despite all the differences evident on the surface. The axis of these cultures and the summit of their hierarchical order consists of metaphysical, supra-individual powers and actions, which serve to inform and justify everything that is merely human, temporal, subject to becoming and to “history.” On the other hand there is “modern culture,” which is actually the anti-tradition and which exhausts itself in a construction of purely human and earthly conditions and in the total development of these, in pursuit of a life entirely detached from the “higher world.” — Julius Evola, “On the Secret of Degeneration”
Conservatism is what conserves. What is conserved? That which is excellent. Conservatism has two prongs. The first is consequentialism or measurement of all things by their effect in reality in full scope, meaning for all time and in all contexts. The second is transcendental purpose to life itself, based in — if nothing else — our ability to establish an order above the default, and achieve “the good, the beautiful and the true” and “the perennial things” (Huxley) or “Tradition” (Evola).
We define ourselves by that toward which we strive. With a physical goal, we become more physical things; this includes physical goals like equality and pacifism. With a transcendental goal, we push ourselves toward what is not just reacting to life, but what is enhancing it, and in that power we see the reason to ascend to greater clarity of consciousness and through that see the wisdom of nature and any gods in which we believe.
Until that point is achieved, all discipline is “outward in” meaning manipulating manifestations in appearance of inward tendencies, not the tendencies themselves. Very few humans achieve this point, and only later in their lives, and even then they see in varying degrees. This is why the ancients put their best people into aristocracies and kept them in sheltered, introverted, and meditative states of contemplation and surrounded them with other wise people, to produce leaders who were fully aware and capable.
Without leaders of this nature, we succumb to degeneration because of the inevitable compromise and eroding of standards and through that purpose over the years, and so we end up degenerating within and having that manifest itself in declining genetics. At that point, our civilization becomes moronland, the outright stupid and thoughtless becomes the approved norm, and anyone with a brain flees to the hills, leaving behind a third world level of disorganization and venality.
If I had a billion dollars sitting in a bank account, I would buy up a small town in middle America. Someplace green, with fresh air and clean water, and well out of the way. Far from major freeways and big cities. Isolated.
There I would build normal-sized houses and invite people I esteem to set up home life. Money could purchase new infrastructure and set up businesses for them to have jobs. The town could quietly incorporate and stay out of the news.
There, their children would grow up in normal homes on normal streets. Dads would be home in mid-afternoon and not much of anything would happen. People would live in a silence of themselves and the woods, and have to invent their own fun and purpose in life.
But what they would have would be the ultimate wealth: healthy normalcy. They would grow up without doubt, seeing the best of life, and by the abundance of unstructured solitude they experienced, they would come to know themselves and their world in a depth that has not been experienced by more than a handful of people in centuries.
Their lives would be filled with beauty and not the ever-present self, like a cancer demanding to be so important the world must retreat to a place within the self, like a small ghetto where every concept is reduced to bright primary colors, simple numbers, and yes/no judgments of its safety.
Most would not say that this is wealth. To them, wealth means living in the downtown of a big city, in a condominium or urban house, without much exposure to nature or anyone but those like them. In this life, the ego takes center stage by being important, but health and knowing oneself, much less knowing the world, take a distant secondary importance.
We have many wealthy people, but few have actual financial power. They have a position that they rent with their time in order to maintain a lifestyle, and they are dependent on that lifestyle like an addict on heroin because it supplies their self-esteem.
In the meantime, out among the birds and trees, others live normal lives and are richer than any of the suited charlatans and credentialed miniature kings that are held up to us as an ideal by those who benefit from our conformity.
Over the years, a historical cycle tends to resemble a spiral as it extends toward one direction or the other. Just like the primeval chaos of the beginning of time of all times, the end of our world must be chaotic, dramatic, and devastating to start the wheel turning once again. We exist in an eternal circle of life and death, creation and destruction, originating in an aeonic passion coming from the nights of ancient times and expressed fractionally in every night since. Thus it has always been and always will be.
No eternal law may be violated without causing an imbalance, much as no imbalance can be eternal. Because of this, there is not such thing as an eternal chaos or an eternal order. The Trotskyist conception of “permanent revolution” is contrary to a transcendental worldview of historical order and natural hierarchy, which is the opposite of blind obedience and submission to the unworthy. A constant, eternal revolution without any meaning than chaos and no raison d’etre other than being the earthly/human dual perception of the universe is full of emptiness, its meaninglessness originating in our humanity vanity.
Within that cycle we can witness the revolution of the inferior, that is, the revolt of those who don’t dare to wage wars, and who are afraid of life and death. This kind of revolution is the one belonging to all those who exist because of random birth and dedicate their lives for begging for humanity and privileges. A pathetic cattle hungry for victim rights because it has nothing else to offer but guilt, manipulation and parasitism. These are the agents of the decay-cycle.
When matter has saturated all possible and still unknown future spaces and times, carnivorous individuals within the herd of sheep tend to punish their own herd. This mob-like group is comprised of individuals defined by the fact that none of them ever departs from the rest, and all use the rest ot justify and defend their vices, since they need the approval of the masses to feel comfortable about themselves and defend them — in the name of human rights — against those who might know better.
They rule a decadent world with an even more decadent power. Such is human nature: looking for a God anywhere possible that is convenient for the individual to see, usually in himself. Such people inevitably enthrone themselves by means of the approval of their peers, exhibiting a dubious superiority that by its lack of natural purpose shows the vulgar inferior nature of such people. Actual superiority shows itself in actions; false superiority arises from wealth, popularity, and earthly power, but has no basis in spirit, or greatness, that distinguish the best of humanity throughout history.
The herd are content with being the privileged majority, finding in that group welfare the meaning they need to fill their miserable lives. But it also happens that other individuals, those who deviate from the crowd, jaded the earthly passions and vernacular vices, decide to strike the face of this world with their own truth, which they derive from the natural state and not power achieved through popularity. No matter the ramparts they need to storm to achieve their goal, nor the parameters they need to blow up the conformity into pieces, or the knowledge that the masses oppose them, these people struggle onward knowing that their past is doomed and their present an endless struggle.
And yet they do not need your compassion because they do not need any consolation at all: they know the future is entirely theirs as the cycle returns. Those who base their power on illusions lack the natural ability to administer that power, and so they create social chaos and cause total breakdown, and in that chaos the strong rise once again.
Overpopulation is the West’s fault. Although controversial like any apocalypse theory, overpopulation occurs when we have too many people to take care of them all. With so many starving and resource wars breaking out on a regular basis, we are clearly above our carrying capacity. This leads to the question of how this condition occurred and what can be done about it. The first part is easy: overpopulation is taking place exclusively in developing countries, and it is the direct result of Western policy toward these countries.
Sometime during the last century, the West out of a misguided white guilt made it a priority to create genetically-engineered crop strains bred to withstand harsh conditions in “developing countries,” which is a shorthand for countries which have always been third world and did not magically hop on the technology bandwagon like whites and Asians. The West gave advanced agriculture to people who could not have developed it for themselves, and not only did not understand it, but had no reference point or ability to understand the type of social, political and economic infrastructure necessary for first-world societies.
Western people saw African babies covered in flies on television, and demanded that a solution be found immediately. Western politicians, always eager for a distraction from our ongoing collapse, quickly leapt at the chance to send everyone off on a new crusade that would keep them from looking at the decay at home. They funded and encouraged the “Green Revolution” which started in the 1960s and resulted in third-world countries being able to feed themselves more efficiently, to which third world countries responded with rapidly increased breeding as the exponential nature of r-theory genetic reproduction revealed itself. Countries that had a few million starving now had tens of millions who would rapidly starve. The West redoubled its efforts in response.
While the West — occupying itself with careers, social status, education and other individualistic traits — not only kept its breeding in check but in fact reversed growth and experienced a population decline, the rest of the planet began breeding like yeast. With the Green Revolution crop strains, the internal combustion engine, and the work of Western medics and aid agencies, these populations bloomed to new levels far beyond what is sustainable for those land areas. Westerners, who devote much of their time to wondering whether their cars and lunchmeat are “sustainable,” never gave much thought to the effect of dropping masses of food into already unstable populations.
This process is reminiscent of another natural phenomenon, the algal bloom. When fertilizer runoff or other raw nutrition makes its way into ponds and lakes, it has the effect of dumping food aid on the local algae, who promptly breed out of control. They then choke the life in the pond, cutting off the food sources they need as well as all other species, leaving behind a dead pond with rotting algae on top. This is similar to how bacteria will expand in a Petri dish to consume all the food and, after limited success consuming each other, die off in near-unison. Similarly humanity has dumped food on itself, causing its population to skyrocket with no end in sight and no mechanism by which it can be checked, which awaits just one tragedy before self-consumption and die-off.
The white race is Prometheus who stole the fire of Mount Olympus to give it to mankind, except while Prometheus was sentenced to be picked apart by vultures for all eternity, we get to sit and watch the whole earth swell, burst and finally rot away in a great Malthusian Holocaust of our own making. We have created populations dependent on us who live hand-to-mouth. They are one crisis away from experiencing a mass population collapse. When that tragedy hits, they will first deplete their own resources, then blame us for not giving them more than we already have. After that, it will get ugly. They have someone to (accurately) blame for their predicament and will turn on that group with larcenous vengeance.
When the food wars hit, then the water wars, and then finally the hordes of starving third worlders are pounding on your gates demanding food, water and shelter that they have no idea how to make for themselves, Western society will finally re-assess this program. The ugly truth is that we caused a world population explosion in the name of pacifying our own TV-watching consumer-oriented voters, who do not understand that just because someone will provide a service for money does not guarantee a lack of consequences of that service. As the third world explodes into the first, cannibalizing families just to fend off starvation for another week, the West will finally see that through our own short sighted foolishness and “good intentions,” we brought this on ourselves.
It is a scientific fact that 99.9999% of all life forms will be eaten alive, or will eat someone alive…Life is a struggle for survival. — Ren Höek, “Life Sucks,” unpublished episode of The Ren & Stimpy Show
Despite the unorthodox nature and complete lack of scientific rigor to the quote above, it provides a useful reflection of the reality of life through a reductionist, realist perspective.
Avoiding the type of pleasant motivational platitudes that show up in personal development courses and self-help books, the truth is that life is a constant struggle against death, an eternal battle that both the individual as well the species have lost before they started to fight.
Both individual and species struggle to extend their lives into the immensity of death, from which there is no way to escape, but only the ability to prolong the duration of survival. The individual may obtain a few more years, and the species, if it manages to adapt to its environmental conditions, thousands of years.
Materially — i.e. in the realm of the tangible and verifiable — there is no probability that eternal life can be achieved, and life in itself is nothing more than a flash in the blackness of the eternal night sky, virtually insignificant in geological and cosmological time scales of which man cannot perceive even their minimum expression.
In the same way, human creations are even more ephemeral than life itself, and the pathetic attachment of modern humanity to everything what gives it comfort, tranquility and satisfaction is the anchor which binds it to the deciduous and empty: the illusory emptiness that seeks to hide the endless Void from which nothing escapes.
“It’s only after we’ve lost everything that we’re free to do anything.” — Tyler Durden, Fight Club
Durden talks about the meaning of freedom, which is the life liberated from the chains of social norms, from the respect for rightness and from the absurd network of cynical morals that tie humans to an idealized vision of reality.
Nature, being manifested fleetingly through life, lacks all sense of piety and goodness. It simply exists, with no other objective than being. Nihil verum nisi mors.
This essay is titled this way not due any kind of plaintive emotional manifesto of a teen idol, but it should be taken literally: life stinks. It stinks of death, since the death of one’s life is necessary so the life of another one can challenge, for a moment, its own inevitable death. Despite the horror of some people facing the death of individuals of other species, death cannot be avoided at any level, because, even in microscopic form life constantly perishes for the benefit of others.
Today, when the most of traditional religion has been surpassed by the indifference of consumer society indifference, as it has been subjected to the rigor of scientific research, it seems surprising that the Sacrifice (the offering) transcends the merely religious and it is manifested at all levels of life: from cell to organism.
Is it not a sacrifice that a plant has to perish so an animal can live? The ancient cultures offered smoky sacrifices to their gods in a reflection of what is happening at all levels of the food chain.
Life stinks of death, and wherever life is found, will be surrounded by the insistent and constant threat of an implacable death. It is man against the abyss.
Whether he has to confront the void with or without a blindfold in his eyes, it will depend on him. Only him.
And the will therein lieth, which dieth not. Who knoweth the mysteries of the will, with its vigor? For God is but a great will pervading all things by nature of its intentness, Man doth not yield himself to the angels, nor unto death utterly, save only through the weakness of his feeble will. — Joseph Glanvill
That which has infinite need will consume infinite amounts of what is around it. Not only black holes but many objects in your life fit this criterion. Alcoholism, rage, misery, self-pity… the list goes on. But the most common void is the self.
When leaders proclaim equality, they have created a cause. A cause then in turn creates effects. The effects of declaring equality are the destruction of any common social standard between people and as a consequence the opening of the void of the self.
Before equality, each person had a part of the team as a responsibility and received reward to the degree that they were able to administrate it. Someone has to be quarterback, and some have to be linemen, and there are more of one than the other, so it receives more reward. But the reward alone was not the focus. The part they played was.
With equality, government basically says, “Do whatever you want, and we can’t tell you it’s wrong unless it violates equality itself — you know, murder, rape, kidnapping, assault type stuff.” They cannot tell you that the way you are living your life is wrong even if it is wrong as measured by its negative consequences on society at large. This re-assures many people who are uncertain of their own role or abilities. For them, life represents a fearful place where others might disapprove. They dedicate most of their energy to being approved.
Equality means everyone is approved. Nothing is wrong. Thus the self directs the self. With most things, this would not be a problem. But the self is infinite void. You can throw everything that exists into it, and it will still want more. More distractions: products, politics, sex, drugs, alcohol. More power: social power, money, job titles. More attention drawn to itself. And yet nothing will be enough, so there is nowhere to go but down, but only after you have created a mountain of landfill and failed interpersonal relationships in your wake.
Ancients knew better than us how to avoid emptiness so profound that it draws everything else in. For them, the self was a means to the goal of living life well, which did not mean merely materially but something akin to being an example among all humans. They saw their lives, not themselves, as a form of art. Themselves they were glad enough to cast aside for the right moment that gave epic significance to the act.
When we lost that sense of forward direction, we came to a standstill. And then we looked for a new goal, and looked within. We have found only emptiness and no amount of throwing products and sensations at his has done anything to fill it. Thus like zombies we wander the land, desperate for something to eat but “equally” certain we will never be satisfied.
Conservatives must feel the temptation to join the religious movement opposed to modernity. It withdraws from the world, has unity and a clear purpose. Many are tempted to state that the origin of conservatism rests in religion.
I discourage this approach and encourage instead that we remain secular. Secular, in the oldest sense, means simply “religion is not required.” It does not assess the truth-value of religion at all, or encourage anything less than full acceptance of it. But it does say that you do not need to be religious to participate.
This approach is distinct from that of atheists, who take the position that religion is illogical, and agnostics, who believe in the possibility but not certainty of a metaphysical presence.
A workable conservative position needs to be proved via common sense, fact and observation of the world through history and human nature. It cannot rely on religion. To do so not only excludes many good people, but creates a single weak point of attack. That encourages people to flip polarity when they have doubts and turn on the whole package.
Instead, conservatives should make the point that religion and common sense agree: conservatism is the most realistic response to life. It not only provides true answers, but provides a way to produce a society that rises above functional to levels of beauty, awe and goodness.
Any other basis puts us into the camp of manipulators and clubhouse doorkeepers. People can join us simply by understanding reality and applying what they learn. We are those who conserve: learning, culture, heritage, nature, values and spirituality. We do that by not requiring spirituality first.
History is our laboratory. We have 6,000 years of human nature on record and every type of government that can be invented. We have studies of great personalities and philosophy that analyzes moral questions. What we need is well known, it is simply denied. The only way to crush that denial is to go to the root of the issue, which is that conservatism is realistic and everything else is wishful thinking.
This does not say that we should be hostile to religion. Rather, we should be welcoming to it. However, if we make it a requirement for our belief, we enfeeble conservatism and replace it with a social group. That will inevitably lead to small-mindedness, self-enforcing dogma and circular firing squads.
I have a simple formula for man: if you want to gain something, you must lose something. For thousands of years man’s entire life revolved around gaining. One could not gain enough food given the uncertainty of the future. Now obesity is the problem, not starvation. Thus we do something that is completely at odds with thousands of years of human instinct: turn down food. The result creates a case of doing by not-doing. For thousands of years health implied eating; now health implies not-eating!
In the past, gaining awareness was important. Now people think religiously that obliviousness is bad and awareness is good. The way I see it, one will always unavoidably be oblivious towards something. They say multi-tasking is doing several things poorly; similarly, there is a limit to how many things a person can be aware of at any one time. If there is such a thing as perfect awareness there would actually be much that was ignored, which is also doing by not-doing.
And yet the propaganda of awareness proves effective time and again. Like our hard-wired instinct to hoard food, we now hoard information. The awareness campaign uses our instinct of gaining against us.
I believe there is a value in being oblivious. You can either be oblivious to the details, or you can be oblivious to the big picture. When you focus on the big picture, you lose the details; when you focus on details, you lose the big picture. Awareness campaigns work on the assumption that to be oblivious is to be oblivious about details. Awareness campaigns work to actively obscure the big picture by claiming awareness of details and minutiae.
What looks like lack of awareness is actually obliviousness towards details but a strong awareness of the bigger picture. In the final analysis, information is meaningless in and of itself. If I hoarded thousands of news articles from around the globe, what would I actually know? The idea that awareness provides an absolute good ignores the fact that for every gain there is a loss. To be aware is to blind oneself to the context in which that awareness might have meaning, and to focus on the surface appearance of meaning instead.
Think about how the human body works. The most important part is not what it takes in, but what it gets rid of. Visualize the digestive system and the immune system. The body must err on the side of eliminating waste, not keeping it around on the outside chance it might prove beneficial. Same thing with the human mind: what matters is what you retain, not what you are presented with. We ought to choose “ignorance” and “obliviousness” as a default position and err on the side of ignoring superfluous information rather than indulging the outside (and probably nil) chance of it being meaningful and important.
Anyone who has ever had to move a full house, and spent moments puzzling over why this particular broken cell-phone charger was kept for the last decade, will understand how vital the discarding can be. In the world of awareness campaigns, all information must be processed just as all opinions must be heard. However, a standard trope in literature is conflict based on false information. Othello comes to mind. Although we can blame the producer of false information, Iago, a subtler reading also implicates Othello and his desire and eagerness for more and more information.
When we are told “not to give up,” what does this amount to but saying ignore failure? In this sense, ignoring is good, not noticing is good. You succeed because you are almost too dense to give up. Quintessential awareness, like quintessential knowledge, is impossible. A “best possible awareness,” would, according to a standard and every-day definition of “awareness,” be considered oblivious or ignorant as its broad view would render details insignificant. We kid ourselves that what we need is more knowledge, more awareness. They say the devil is in the details, if that is so, then God must be in the big picture.
Considering the death knell of civilization sounded here on Amerika, it may seem paradoxical that what we really want is in fact civilization itself.
The paradox is only skin deep, however.
What we are pointing out is that what we have now in the modern West is in fact not civilization at all but the empty husk of a once-great one. The soul has left the body and maggots are consuming the corpse from within.
For a civilization to be alive and well, a goal is needed. The goal is to create and nurture a soul. It is what separates the living from the dead, and the rising from the falling. And the downfall of our civilization is at the most basic level a matter of the vanishing of a great goal.
It is like a once bright and shining star, that has collapsed into a black hole. Where there used to be light, now there is all-consuming darkness.
Once upon a time, the individual was nothing separate from the family, the family nothing separate from the community, and the community nothing separate from civilization as a whole. This order wasn’t enforced by rules, ideology and self-important governmental propaganda — it simply Was — in such a natural way that no one would even consider to question it.
To even think of criticizing this order would have been as useless and foolish as shaking your fist and yelling angrily at the sun.
He is blind who does not see the sun, foolish who does not recognize it, ungrateful who is not thankful unto it, since so great is the light, so great the good, so great the benefit, through which it glows, through which it excels, through which it serves, the teacher of the senses, the father of substances, the author of life. — Giordano Bruno, Explanatory Epistle, “The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast”
But alas our sun has collapsed. What used to be an outpouring of light, love, energy and truth has become self-absorbed, voracious and inward looking.
In the place of a goal, we have an anti-goal which is called by many names: equality, liberalism, solipsism, leftism, consumerism, radical individualism and fatalism. These are nothing but different aspects of the same beast, a terrible dragon with seven heads.
The dragon lives by dragging down. Everything, that was once high must be made low, as a sacrifice to the anti-goal.
In return it promises satisfaction. All your desires will be fulfilled. Your wildest dreams will come true. You too can become the untamed, unrestrained, all controlling One. But only if you pay the dragon its due.
When our goal collapsed, everything was inverted. All that was once recognized by everyone as the good, the true and the beautiful became cursed with the outward appearance of evil. And in turn, all that was once recognized as evil was made to look attractive and self-evidently good.
As a result, the masses, who never wanted anything but to live for the simplicity of life itself, guided by the ever apparent light of the goal, not questioning, simply following, have reverted from the steady pulse of a life of duty and day-to-day joys to an uninhibited life of impulse and desire.
Where they once were humble cells in the civilizational organism, animated by the soul of the whole, working for themselves for the benefit of all, they have become a self-referential, cancerous forces of destruction, guided by nothing but unquenchable, indefinable desire and the restless rush towards the next temporary fix.
And so civilization itself must be sacrificed for the sake of community, community sacrificed for the sake of family, family sacrificed for the sake of the individual, until, finally, the individual must sacrifice himself to the dragon of desire, realizing at last the true nature of the dragon: death is the only thing, that makes us all equal.
Recognize the anti-goal for the transition that it is. A black hole is a gateway to a new universe: a passage between dimensions.
What we are seeing now in the great civilizational collapse is that there was always darkness hidden within the light of our once shining, life-giving goal, just as death has always been at the end of life. Those who look to the past with the humble attitude of understanding what made it great will at some point realize that there is also light hidden within the current darkness.
The body dies, but the soul lives on in a new form, as surely as the corpse that is put in the earth will eventually dissolve into nutrients for bushes, trees, flowers and grass and thus in death sacrifice itself to life. Before religion dissolved into empty ritual and symbology, this was the center of spiritual awareness: a realization of the nature of reality itself. It is not religion, nor politics, nor philosophy. It is all of the above and infinitely more.
This is why we here at Amerika do not concern ourselves strictly with ‘issues,’ but with spirituality as well, because we are seeking to cultivate a spirit that strives beyond itself, and reaches towards the dawn of a new sun.
In this striving we must realize, that the great goal may have all but vanished from civilization, but that it lives on inside of us as a drive to reach beyond ourselves. Not inward, but outward, towards the greatest challenge of all: Laying the foundation that will at some point support civilization yet again. It is impossible to realize this journey, without at the same time realizing, that this future goal has always been what we were working towards, even in our darkest, most pessimistic moments, where we were most doubtful about whether it could ever be.
The slow collapse of society may have forced us, the individuals, to withdraw, and to look deeply into ourselves. Why did we reject what society at large propagated as ‘good’? Because it wasn’t right, as we deep inside knew the good to rightly to be. It was so far removed from that magical something, which we clearly recognized in the remnants of ancient cultures, that simply giving up and accepting ‘what everybody knows to be true’ wasn’t an option.
We have taught ourselves as we went along, becoming evermore certain that there was something missing today. And the final realization of this indefinable something is, that this something had been teaching us. Something called soul or spirit. Something to be found within — but which, once found, transcends the individual — that and makes him or her something infinitely greater than this perishable vessel of flesh and blood.
The dragon itself is nothing but the spirit of collapse. It is evil; true. But rightly realized, it will become a guide, that will eventually lead beyond evil, just as the faint light of the morning star, that the Christians called Satan, the father of sin and death, is also a messenger of the coming dawn. The dragon, like tornadoes and epidemics, is beyond good and evil. It is the last step, and the first step toward what comes next.
Those who do not see the dragon for what it is will ultimately give their lives to something unfulfillable, namely their own desires, or what they think that they want, thus having led meaningless lives. And that those of us who do see it will, by the ego-crushing immensity of it all, develop an inner certainty, that makes life a joy and a challenge. We will rediscover a purpose and a soul as we create the civilization of tomorrow.
This is our goal: To nurture the soul. To rise above the dead and the dying, by joyfully sacrificing our own desires on the altar of everything there is – and thus to affirm the ever turning cosmic wheel of reality itself. To encourage others to do the same. And thereby to strive towards transcendence, with every living breath. We want life and we choose it with every breath. They fear death, and their breathing is nothing but buying time, before the inevitable. We are as different from them, as day is from night.