Burying the past and discovering the future


When I look over vast mistakes, the great question is Where does it all begin?

However, I think this is a mistaken way of looking at the situation. Most great errors are always with us, and can be entered upon like a path. You can begin walking at the start of the path, or halfway there, and thus the distance between you and oblivion is variable.

I base this on what I’ve learned of evil. Most people want to externalize evil into a scapegoat, like Satan, the Rich, the Jews, the African-American, the Conservatives, drugs, alcohol, PTSD. But evil is a choice. It is a choice to deny reality for the benefit of the self. It is a denial of consequences or of their importance. Evil does not occur because we intend to do evil; evil occurs because we stop trying to avoid evil, believing that it isn’t within us.

But it walks besides us like a shadow and is attached to us, because any decision we make that is evil results in evil. Nietzsche’s point, in attacking good/evil, was that these are externally defined things much like Satan himself. Instead, we should look at the consequences of our proposed actions, and think whether we would consider the result an evil or not.

Contrary to what the crowd thinks, this is not a mystifying assessment. We do not lack compassion, nor need it. The question is logical: did this outcome make more of the good, the beautiful and the true in life, or did it reduce that amount? Sometimes, seemingly evil acts — taking of a life — result in greater beauty. It may be that if we knocked every hipster to the floor and suffocated them with greased sofa pillows that life would be more beautiful, good and true, and at that point, it’s hard to argue with killing as an act of good, because its consequences would be good even if its method was evil.

People will be talking about Hitler on this day because he went down a path beyond good and evil. To him, the only good was a stronger Germany without Jews and Bolsheviks; he ended up causing the deaths of Germans by the millions, forcing Bolshevik rule on Germany and leaving a people wracked with guilt over mass murder of Jewish men, women and children. Men, women and children… whole families… where have I heard of that before? Oh yes, it was the French Revolution, where for the non-crime of being aristocrats, whole families were beheaded to the cheering of the crowd. That is not beyond good and evil. It is an externalization of evil, or the bad choices we as a society have made, onto a small group so that like the scapegoat we can drive them over a cliff and declare ourselves 100% pure and moral.

As we look back over history, I suggest we stop. Stop looking for the origin of all that went wrong. Realize that what goes wrong is with us always. It manifests in liberalism, but its origin is in the moral choice of individuals to deny reality as a whole in order to focus on the desires, judgments and feelings of the individual. When individuals get together in groups to demand this “right” from society, they form a mechanism known as Crowdism which uses passive aggression as a weapon. By declaring itself good, in that it creates equality and brotherhood among men, it styles anyone else as the enemy. It then destroys them so it can grow like a cancer, making kings out of peasants and hateful tyrants of us all.

Noted British philosopher Roger Scruton wrote about this recently. He has come to realize, as have others before him, that the crisis before us is not the outsiders, but the insiders. It is the Crowdism elites and their support from the groundlings that allows this phenomenon to snowball, crushing all who dare object in the name of common sense. As Scruton writes:

No one could possibly want to attack us, the liberals insist, since we are so obviously nice – at least, the liberals among us. Our enemies are not those who threaten Western civilisation, but those who defend it, since their words are a ‘provocation’ and their presence an affront. Thus is blame redirected from the aggressor to the victim, and the duty to defend our inheritance turned into a duty to reject it.

Amerika.org has pointed out since its inception that our problem is not the scapegoat of diversity, which would be the minority groups among us, but diversity itself. Further, that diversity is part of the Crowdist impulses to destroy any majority culture or shared values system or heritage that exists, so that individuals have more license and are not constrained by any social order. The enemy is intangible. We must be beyond good and evil, but that is useless if we externalize. This demon cannot be killed. We must reach into our souls, cast it out, and then bring to others the possibility of life without the tyrant within.


  1. LoreTek says:

    Everything the liberal does is out of fear. Fear of appearance. They remind me of a high schooler doing whatever it takes to fit in with the popular group.

    It’s strange that their view of popular is the rampant insanity and not a wholesome, strong and lasting culture that will shine on.

    If they need to feed the basal human emotions. Why not feel contempt for the third world people they are not letting immigrate into their countries willy nilly. Why not feel pride in a nation that is making tech and medical advancements. Why not get that “elitism” feeling from a country that you can look around and know that it is working towards being truly elite. Instead of tricking yourself into thinking you are better than those that want to conserve their country, culture, and natural beauty; your country culture, and natural beauty, why not make the popular thing be to actually do those things? And as a country become something better than yourself, instead of showing the world you are willing to throw it away.

    I think it can be.

    1. AFaulit says:

      You are right. I also think that unfortunately many people who would otherwise have conservative impulses allow themselves to be put off by this same fear of sticking their head out and getting crucified for it. They are potential allies but turn into de facto liberals.

    2. crow says:

      You’re becoming a mystic. That is to say, your idealism is becoming modified, little by little, with something else. What that something else is, is a mystery. but it is certainly mysterious.
      When the mystery becomes mysterious enough, one’s only recourse is to become mystical.

      I, for example, am beginning to see a mystical correlation between the ever-increasing amounts of pollen that trees are producing, year upon year. In the past, their pollen was almost unnoticeable. Now it covers everything in visible blankets of yellow and green. This is death to oxygen-breathers.
      Trees eat carbon dioxide, not oxygen. Oxygen, to them, is a waste product. As more and more trees are cut down, burned, decimated by air-breathers, they do the only thing they can: sabotage the ability of air-breathers to breathe air.
      Even woodpeckers are wrecking live trees, hunting for fewer and fewer insects. Trees fight back by suffocating their foes, to the point of clogging up machinery as well as lungs, and poisoning water supplies with decaying organic bacteria.

      The balance of things has been upset. By humans. The consequences have been a long time coming, but now they are accelerating. When man becomes the mortal enemy of the planet, the planet ceases its leisurely slumber, and girds itself for war.

      Mystics see these connections first. And nobody listens. Far later, vast sums of money are expended upon think-tanks, to discover what the mystic has known forever.

      1. The consequences have been a long time coming, but now they are accelerating. When man becomes the mortal enemy of the planet, the planet ceases its leisurely slumber, and girds itself for war.

        Another way to view this is that the life on this planet is protecting itself against a parasite growing out of control. To kill a tumor, you cut off its glucose feed; to kill off a human parasite, you reduce its oxygen and/or evolve into ambulatory trees that can attack it.

        1. crow says:

          Passive-aggression, tree-style. It’s awesome. And shockingly effective.

  2. Ripple Earthdevil says:

    I’ve been reading this site for awhile and you have some very thought-provoking insights into the lunacy of the modern world. But then I read Crow’s comment and your response and it doesn’t sound different from the anti-human, Gaia-worshipping, climate-alarmist crowd. Not quite sure what to make of that.

    1. the anti-human, Gaia-worshipping, climate-alarmist crowd

      How can one be anti-human? You’re either in favor of human evolution, or prefer that humans have no quality control and thus expand recklessly, essentially destroying the species.

      Many conservatives are “crunchy” or environmentally aware. This means we’re not going to be in favor of industry over trees on every occasion. But it’s for different reasons than those of the leftists, and with different methods.

      Gaia is itself a transparent attempt to make a God out of Earth. In the cosmology practiced around here, God is a part of reality, not an opposition to it but also not symbolized by any portion of it. Thus I think the Gaians would find us not to their liking.

      Regarding climate alarmism, I agree with Michael Crichton: it’s bunk. However, humanity is overpopulated, and crisis threatens from that angle. “Carbon awareness” is a proxy for dealing with that problem i.e. an avoidance of the actual problem. When we cover the world in concrete, eliminate more forests, and continue polluting, yes, then we’ll have a problem. I doubt it will be climactic. More like unpredictable local weather and extreme toxicity.

    2. crow says:

      Misunderstanding is what people do best. Judgmentalism is a close second. We try not to do that here, notwithstanding the fact that we are not, and never will be, equal to each other.
      I prefer trees to people, generally. Both slowly murder me.
      I’d rather die by tree than by socialization.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.577 seconds