Posts Tagged ‘anti-liberalism’

Democracy is the assumption of guilt

Sunday, November 8th, 2015


Democracy is a variety of individualism, and individualism itself — which prioritizes individual impulses above feedback from reality — is a variety of fatalism. In each of these, the assumption is made that the world is a terrible place and it can only be corrected by making a human substitute for reality.

This human substitute for reality is a weird twist of our psychology. The thinking goes that life is bad, and death is too scary to contemplate, so in the meantime we will create a warm room filled with interesting people and focus on that. There we will find meaning. There, in other humans, lies the only goodness in life.

From that type of fear and trembling comes the idea that since life is bad, we must spend as much time as possible on ourselves. We do not want culture, values, heritage or religion restricting us in any way. Those things limit what we can do, and we want to have no limits, because we are — well… — desperate in the face of death.

One of the many problems of diversity is that this negativity carries forward in the assumption that all individuals are victims of life and that the only solution to that victimization is for all of us to join together in a warm room and act to save them. Even if they have done nothing to save themselves; in them, we see ourselves, and we fear that we might be similarly adrift and lost, absolute to be swallowed by the black void of non-existence.

For that reason, before the question is even asked in a democracy, the answer is known: give more rights and benefits to anyone who does not have them; let the guilty go free; always destroy anything more powerful, more beautiful and more intelligent than we the herd.

In a democratic time, because people are primed to see badness in life itself, they are always in need of enemies. Dissidents who offer actual alternatives to democracy are thus hunted to extinction by people who, giddy with fear and delight in their own power, see in those victims a chance to advance themselves. This is why the enduring symbol of democracy should be Guillotines and Gulags as these are necessary parts of its psychology. You do not have Stalin, Hitler, 1984 and Brave New World without democracy to create them!

This quest for enemies guarantees conformity among the herd, and so, many decisions down the line, people have done what dogma says is right and imitated past successes so that the agenda never changes, but the franchise always expands. More people will always be democratized. First it was class, then sex, then race, and now it must cross borders or — well, who wants to be the next to face the guillotines and gulags gang?

A chain of events such as that produces the time of sheer comedic horror we see in Europe and the USA today:

Unlike those in other European countries, far-right parties in Germany have had little success in national elections and have been rejected by the overwhelming majority of Germans.

Reinhold Schlemmer, a former Communist who served as the mayor here before and immediately after the collapse of East Germany, said people like Niemann would “have been put in prison right away” during the communist era.

“Now they can stand up and preach,” he said. “People say this is democracy, but I don’t think it is democracy to let Nazis say what they want.”

Under democracy we must have enemies, and that wide and nebulous category quickly expands to mean anyone who is not preaching the dogma. Remember, democracy needs enemies, so they do not have to be actual threats so much as opportunities for punishment and through that, re-assertion of The Narrative.

This assumption of guilt means that no matter what we do, we are always to blame and need to subsidize those who are struggle, because under the democratic assumption of equality, there can be no reason for their suffering except that someone removed them from a position of equality. The guillotines and gulags gang always needs a scapegoat!

Even in legal form, this approach manifests in the presumption of majority guilt whenever a minority flounders:

In the case of Griggs Vs. Duke Power, the SCOTUS found that Duke Power’s policy of only hiring employees with either a highschool diploma or who had received a particular score on an IQ test was racist because it disproportionately affected blacks, who are more likely than whites to drop out of highschool and score worse on IQ tests.

The doctrine of “disproportionate impact” shows the assumption in full play: if blacks are not performing up to white standards, the cause must be white racism and the solution, white subsidies. (Never mind that this is essentially telling black people, “Oh, never mind. You’re incompetent. We’ll give you free juice and cookies so you don’t mind being treated like retards.” This is why some of the most intelligent black thinkers, like Marcus Garvey, Osiris Akkebala, Thomas Sowell and Malcom X have rejected the devil’s bargain that gives blacks two ways to be dependent on whites.).

If any broader point can be abstracted from this situation, it is this: democracy is tunnel vision. It sees only its own assumptions and uses confirmation bias to make them come true. It refuses to see any other point of view because its paranoia and scapegoating converts all other points of view into opportunities for attack. Once you go down the route of democracy, there is no stopping point, only increased levels of democracy and hence, dysfunction.

A sensible plan involves the remaining adults in the West to agree on a single thing: end liberalism, which requires ending democracy, diversity, globalism, the welfare state and the nanny state. So far, people have been unable to achieve this unity because they are stupid simians who are more interested in self-expression and appearing “different” than concentrating on hard solutions. But as the disaster worsens and their pretense cheapens, many will be tempted toward this new way. We only need about 1% of the population that, if they could be as motivated as liberals, would tip the balance toward a revolution against the Revolution. By any means necessary.

In the meantime, I suggest a simple decision tree — to be applied to absolutely everything:

  • If it’s liberal, destroy it. Fire it, expel it, evict it, stop stocking it, stop buying it.
  • If it’s conservative and incompetent, destroy it.
  • If it’s conservative and competent, promote it.

When you settle for merely conservative you end up with incompetent conservatives because the competent ones, who are rarely as good at manipulation as the incompetent, never enter the picture. Without enforcing Darwinistic selection on ourselves, we get nowhere.

By conservatives, I mean all of us realists who also realize that we need some kind of transcendental goal. Realism leads to transcendentalism because to be a realist is to eventually see the beauty of the design of our world, and to start to live for those more interesting goals like beauty, truth and goodness. We are the option to liberalism, because anything which opposes liberalism and does not call itself conservative gets rapidly absorbed. And we have a world to save, because we all know where the tunnel of democracy ends.

Our era is doomed to ignorance

Friday, September 26th, 2014


The truth is never completely pleasant, and therefore is socially unacceptable.

Leaders embrace truth and rush at it whenever we find it. This includes scientific and historical truths which are taboo at this time, psychological truths which unnerve us, and most of all, the idea that “other worlds” whether religious (heaven) or secular (morality, “progress”) are bunkum.

In doing so however, those who pursue truth by Archimedean displacement attack the illusions most people use to keep themselves from becoming more neurotic. These illusions generally are variants of the idea that everything is fine and that “wishing makes it so” or that intentions, desires and judgments are more important than real-world consequences.

The primary unpleasant truth is that liberalism — a philosophy based in the idea of universal equality — is worse than wrong: it is nonsense. Literal gibberish. Based in a logical fallacy, which is that we can apply a mathematical operator to remove conflict and thus achieve Utopia, liberalism in fact represents a power grab by those who cannot make a decent life for themselves from those who can.

As liberal democracy spins into the same failures it usually experiences, the post-war order of globalism, diversity and quasi-socialist consumerist Western democracy also collapse. When collapse occurs, unpopular truths appear as more truth than unpopular, and the wheel of history rolls over those who support the illusion.

The Map and the Territory by Michel Houellebecq

Monday, February 27th, 2012

The Map and the Territory
by Michel Houellebecq
269 pages, Alfred A. Knopf, $16

In The English Patient, Michael Ondaatje uses the map as a postmodern device, a type of meta-plot to a novel that then contorts the character-related plot around its metaphor. This is what distinguishes postmodern novels: the metaphor leads the characters, instead of the other way around.

However in The Map and the Territory, Houellebecq — a more mature and yet more emotionally coherent writer — shows us instances of maps, symbols, sensations and notions replacing actual experience. His point makes itself as his characters scramble to keep up with the metaphor, revealing that beneath all of the formalism and bluster of the human experience, there is a human experience we cannot communicate in public and it is lost to us when we let the public view of experience (the map) replace our actual knowledge of life (the territory).

Writing in the grand tradition of French literary provocateurs like Louis-Ferdinand Céline and Gustave Flaubert in that in order to explore pleasure, he first explores misery, and then like Socrates finishing his dialogue, points toward the empty space indicated by the limits of all that has been discussed. Houellebecq crafts an uneven storyline in which sudden leaps occur through the impulsiveness of the characters, but this saves us his readers from extensive exposition of an ultimately unimportant nature, and delivers us instead on a wild ride that more resembles a descent into madness than the urbane novel of modern sophistication that his writings initially pretend to be. Where the postmodern novel is about an idea, Houellbecq’s novels are about characters reacting to an idea which is incomplete. They are tormented by what is promised but not evident.

This might categorize his work as “black comedy,” or narratives where awful things are described as absurdist and amusing. However, an underlying sense of emotion guides this process, such that the dark humor is a layer of surface on top of an emotional narrative. This does not fit into the modern literature rubric which like the work of Ondaatje combines the “workshop school” with the emotional demands of commercial television and the need for the work to have a semi-technical metaphor; in the workshop school, the writer develops a situation and fills in generic characters who are defined by their reactions, and the film-style emotional ending closes out the book rather abruptly, while metaphor gets layered over the top as a kind of narrative describing the narrative. Houellebecq takes another approach, which is to work from an idea outward to characters and then to put them in a situation that reveals their inner worlds and not just their knee-jerk reactions. The result will seem uneducated to the half-educated modern reader with his heady expectations, but unlike a typical book is not linear, but like an unfolding flower.

For the enfant terrible of postmodern literature, Houellebecq is at his mellowest on this book. The hyperbole is mostly tuned down, replaced with a kind of surreality to events that should reveal an underlying confusion but instead gesture an emptiness. Without giving away too much of the plot, this book can be described as the survey of a photographer who is fascinated by the objects of meaning in life: tools, professions and maps. Each of these implies a certain degree of purpose and selectivity, yet in the artist’s life as well as those of the other characters, what is demonstrated is generally mere reactivity, or finding life as it comes and tossing back a visual approximation of a response to it. Through these he builds a theme of the book, which is the confusion of the tool or labor with the meaning that is conveyed by the sacrifice made for it, a theme echoed in the protagonist Jed Martin’s labors as an artist.

It was then, unfolding the map, while standing by the cellophane-wrapped sandwiches, that he had his second great aesthetic revelation. This map was sublime. Overcome, he began to tremble in front of the food display. Never had he contemplated an object as magnificent, as rich in emotion and meaning, as this 1/150,000-scale Michelin map of the Creuse and the Haute-Vienne. The essence of modernity, of scientific and technical apprehension of the world, was here combined with the essence of animal life. The drawing was complex and beautiful, absolutely clear, using only a small palette of colors. But in each of the hamlets and villages, represented according to their importance, you felt the thrill, the appeal, of human lives, of dozens and hundreds of souls — some destined for damnation, others for eternal life. (18)

Like Scott Fitzgerald before him, Houellebecq receives criticism for the compassionate and yet disinterested way he portrays the collapse of society around him. People stand revealed for what they are, in the overlap of stereotypes and archetypes that most people use as cloaks of personality, and the result is a lifelike impression of modern life. It does not need judgment: like most things Houellebecq, a projection is made an an absence is noticed, like negative space used in a painting of a landscape at night. The empty spaces are both lack and possibility, since they await these characters to wake up and fill them with something meaningful, a light or life.

Translator Gavin Bowd maintains the unique rhythms of Houellebecq’s prose, which is Gallic to its core and in its pacing, but seems “English-aware” such that it seems alert to what will happen in translation. Unlike previous Houellebecq novels, The Map and the Territory replaces much of the quirky and fragmentary prose with solid paragraphs that rise and fall like sand dunes viewed from an airplane. The rhythms are designed to be easy and hypnotic, such that the author can introduce us to new strange worlds and then leave in our minds the barest seed from which revelation will spring. These seeds occur in each quadrant of the novel and are layered with addtional meaning, leading to a spring forth of impressions that are not stated. This allows the postmodern metaphor of the novel to remain mysterious and yet achieve clarity.

For two minutes he went through the owner’s manual of the Samsung ZRT-AV2, nodding his head as if each of the lines confirmed his dark predictions. “Ah, yes,” he finally said, handing it back. “It’s a beautiful product, a modern product that you can love. But you must know that in a year, or two at most, it will be replaced by some new product with supposedly improved features.

“We too are products,” he went on, “cultural products. We too will become obsolete. The functioning of the system is identical – with the differences that, in general, there is no obvious technical or functional improvement; all that remains is the demand for novelty in its pure state.” (105)

Like many of the books we review here, Houellbecq’s latest is not intelligent in the sense of adapting to its surroundings and profiting from them, as he easily could by writing a Barbara Kingsolver or Jodi Piccoult style novel: an enigmatic setting, fractured characters defined by their need, and a bittersweet story with an uplifting and yet moral (or politically correct) ending. While in this book Houellebecq provokes obvious scared cows and taboo gateskeepers less than ever before, the cynical view of modern society as based on lies touches every aspect of the world he portrays, and so little must be said. This is not an intelligent book; it is a genius one, and not for its “intellect” so much as its honesty, and its willingness to speak of the portion of our lives we cannot put on a map, which is the yearning of our souls for purposefulness and meaning in the midst of a modern wasteland.

Ted Kaczynski

Saturday, September 26th, 2009


Allegedly, Theodore Kaczynski, a noted mathematician at Berkeley during the 1960s, was the man the FBI codenamed “UNABOM” who killed three people and wounded 23 since 1978 using mail bombs and other handmade, untraceable explosive devices. He was only caught when his brother turned him in after the publication fo the “UNABOM/FC Manifesto” in major American papers; they only conceded to the deal when the unabomber offered to stop blowing people up if his words were published.

His first bombing was in 1978, at Northwestern University; it was unsuccessful. Many bombings followed, targetting engineering/math/science professors, logging company CEOs, airline executives, technological advocate writers and other propagandists for industry. The FBI declared him one of America’s most dangerous domestic terrorists.

Although the FBI profile did not fit the Ted Kaczynski, he remains the primary suspect. Growing up in suburban Chicago, he was a baby born during the last half of WWII. His abilities in mathematics and scholastic pursuits were visible early, and Ted graduated high school at age sixteen and packed off to Harvard University. From there he went to the University of Michigan, where he got his PhD in mathematics, and then took a job at the University of California, Berkeley, as an assistant professor of mathematics. Two years later, he suddenly dropped out and headed to a cabin in Montana, equally disgusted by industrial society as he was by the leftist political dogma that in his mind replaced effective action.

“Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF…”

“Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. .. [they hate] America and the West because they are strong and successful…”

“We use the term ‘surrogate activity’ to designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the “fulfillment” that they get from pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person’s pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity. …”

“The leftist is oriented toward largescale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left like ‘racism, ‘ ‘sexism, ‘ ‘homophobia, ‘ ‘capitalism,’ ‘imperialism,’ ‘neocolonialism ‘ ‘genocide,’ ‘social change,’ ‘social justice,’ ‘social responsibility.’ Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist.”

Ted Kaczynski receives over 50 letters a day and takes
the time to respond personally to each.


Clearing the Modern Mind

Sunday, September 25th, 2005


The modern mind is fundamentally divorced not only from reality as a state, but as a motive. In its delusional state, the brain frenetically confirms its own hypotheses because it cannot compare them to reality and thus determine how fit they are as solutions. For this reason it has nothing to consider but its initial assumptions, which it soon begins to defend vigorously. As a result, any ideas that contradict these are seen not as ideas but as acts of aggression against it, and the bearers of the modern mindset lash out at them.

It is for this reason that thinkers attempting to escape the modern have hit on a new hypothesis: our worldview is broken, not our methods. Most systems until this point have tried to regulate method, by changing economic or political systems, or trying to re-educate our language or visual preferences. While these efforts have each changed some traits of our societies, they have not changed the basic trend, which remains consistent. For this reason, liberalism has failed; conservatism has failed; even reformers have failed. Politics cannot save us, nor can economics, nor can military might. We must rethink our psychology.


Although studies about the effects of living under a clear dominant authority, such as totalitarianism or the Stockholm Syndrome, are familiar, few have studied what happens under passive authority. Passive authority is created by an assumption that defines reality, and because its power is predicated on that hypothesis, a tendency to punish those who contradict that worldview. In passive authority, those who deviate from unstated rules are punished, where totalitarianism relies clearly states its rules and punishes those who oppose them. Passive authority is a superior mechanism for control because it does not act aggressively against detractors without first having construed them as the first to act with aggression. It is always the victim; always the well-intentioned parental figure, abused by its offspring, and thus justified in punishing them. Since its power relies on its assumptions regarding reality, anyone who differs with those is the worst kind of ideological criminal.

This leads us to the interesting condition called “Post Tramautic Stress Disorder,” or PTSD. It occurs frequently whenever there is a disturbing or violent even that shapes the life of its victim, but it almost always happens when there is such an event and no way to reconstruct the self afterwards, such as by justifying the event as necessary or good. Most of us are familiar with the high rate of PTSD in returning Vietnam veterans, but a lack of corresponding rate in soldiers from the second world war, despite in many ways a more horrifying experience. Many theorize that the reason is very simple: veterans in the 1940s came home to congratulations, while Vietnam vets never had a clear positive consensus coming back to them from society. As a result, they were forced into the role of “bad guy” by the passivity of a society which would send them to a war and then, as a result of its own indecision, blame them for its extremity.

PTSD describes most of the people in modern society on a day-to-day basis. Although they are functional, they are in shock at a sublime level, such that most of what they do is part of a cover story that affirms their sanity and self-worth. Like secret agents in the field, they use their cover story to reinforce their sense of self, which is actually defined in a completely different way, since their internal agenda does not match the goals they would reveal in conversation. They are secret agents for their own safety and fulfilment. They can never tell their actual motivations to those around them.

This is a consequence of passive unreality. When we are all expected to silently agree on something that is not real, those who speak out for truth are the aggressors, and the passive society retaliates against them (ostracization, boycott, crucifixion). For this reason, those who dare glimpse the truth are traumatized by realizing that the knowledge upon which we need to act is the very knowledge that we deny, and they spot then not just an error in our society, but a fundamental corruption so vast that it will if not destroy us turn us into creatures of servitude to the most base and boring existence possible.


Another area in which the passive society dominates: we live in a time where people cannot tell the difference between a disadvantage and a failure. A disadvantage is a negative consequence of some act when the act still attains its goal; for example, if I need to put wood on the fire but I bark my shin on the woodpile. In that case, it’s illogical to say “I can never build a fire again, because I must bark my shin” – the fire must be made, so the possibility of barked shin is taken as a disadvantage. On the other hand, a failure is when an act cannot achieve its goal. If my goal is to make a fire, and I attempt to do it by machine-gunning the woodpile, then I have failed (there may also be disadvantages).

Lashing out against disadvantages supports a passive society. First, assume that the status quo is a working solution which will always get better – people who feel that modern society is fixing the past fall into this category, one which is “progressive” in that people believe we’re on the path to progress and therefore, even if things are bad, they will get better because we are on the path of progress. Second, take any argument against the status quo and find a disadvantage with it, thus discard it. If we make our fires outside, the thought of making them inside is immediately discredited because we might bark our shins. This argument against disadvantages is passive because it denies the disadvantages brought on by the current system, and essentially demands a perfect, Utopian, flawless solution in order to change course – and when we drop that pretense, we see it’s all a big logic trap designed to reject any course but the present. You might even call it inertia and not be wrong. This passive view of the world is fundamentally negative, in that it assumes there is only one solution, and we already have it, thus we must accept what is wrong and not seek to change it, because any change will bring about some disadvantages. People even argue this in terms of lives lost; we cannot have change, as someone might die, even if that person is crazy and dies because of his or her craziness. Therefore, they rigidly stick to a failing course of action and lash out at anyone who proposes something different, as those disadvantages might not only inconvenience them, but might illustrate the complete illogical farce that is modern society.


Our society is passive because it defers to the judgment of individuals. It defers to the judgment of individuals because, lacking a common cultural or philosophical goal, it unites itself through the power of vast crowds of individuals who, as granular political entities, want nothing more than an increase in personal wealth and power and social prestige. The Crowd is formed of those who cannot lead, so their agenda is to destroy leaders, and then to drag down standards for earning wealth and gaining power and achieving social prestige, so that even idiots can do it. The Crowd likes the kind of system that rewards you for spending the time, not doing something genius or unusually powerful.

This makes for a brainless society. Our opinions depend on the opinions of others, which means that no one is leading, because the way one “leads” is to figure out what other people are thinking. We’re all asking each other what we should think and, since there’s no way to get a clear thought of that process, always concluding that we should keep on roughly the same course and beat down anyone who threatens it. To liven things up, we rename our course and re-construe it as something new, but it has basically been the same for at least 2,000 years. It has been and is the process of making the rule of the Crowd stronger, under the guise that this will empower the individual (and it does, in the short term – it’s just the long term where the individual must pay the price).

How does this brainlessness manifest itself? We no longer have any clear path from the current time to a better state except for our assumption. We assume that by continuing the process of equality, of “freedom” and economic empowerment, we will arrive at a Utopia, but have we seen any signs of that yet? Things get worse, but because we exist in a passive society where teh assumption of “progress” is a sacred cow, we take no clear action. Instead, we allow ourselves to be led: we are led by the economy, by popularity, or by “surprise” disasters for which we cannot prepare. We have no sense of design; our cities are a jumble of different functions that collaborate reasonably while we have cheap transportation, but reflect no particular order. Our lives are empty because there is no purpose other than self-gratification. Our hands are tied at the elbow in thousands of ways, where we reach for something that seems intuitively to be a better future, and then are reminded that it is unacceptable: we will cut someone out of the picture, cause a retarded orphan to cry, offend the sensibilities of some political entity. In short, we will transgress against the passive ones, and thus, the Crowd will rise up and smite us.


It is almost impossible to explain to someone why passivity is destructive. After all, it is like a form of pacifism, and if conflict is eliminated, we tend to think a situation is under control. Peace is the absence of war. However, it can also be the absence of something necessary that some call “change” but to my mind is more fundamental: doing what is necessary to maintain a social order headed to ever-higher heights. If we make peace our goal, instead of doing the right thing, we have no way to get ourselves back on track once we drift toward mediocrity. We have no way to forcibly say NO to someone who is doing something retrograde and destructive. Passivity ties our hands, except for in one special circumstance. When someone violates passivity, even if for a higher goal than is currently being pursued, they are crucified, because we value peace more than we care about being on the path to something better.

Terms like “truth” and “right” and “justice” and “freedom” have become our enemies. They are too easily twisted with implication, and inevitably, those who do the twisting run off to make great profit behind the scenes while their civic-minded neighbors fight it out over the definitions – ultimately concluding nothing, because few of them understand enough philosophy to make sense out of the question. We cannot say we desire truth, because some clever nitwit will say, “Well, whose truth?” implying that we live in different worlds and therefore there is a different assessment of truth in each. We cannot say “x is right and y is wrong” for the same reason. We have lost the sense of cultural and social consensus that allows us to agree on reality not in a descriptive sense, e.g. “The tree is green,” as much in a valuative sense, as in “It’s more important to have written language than hedonism.” It is this consensus that allows civilizations to arise where none previously were, and when the consensus aims toward a higher standard for the civilization, it is what allows great civilizations to arise: Rome, Greece, India, Germany.

Our modern passivity comes about because we became distracted by wealth and power; the ones who were distracted were those who did not have wealth and power, and thus made a collective crusade out of it: this was the Crowd. Those who had self-confidence, noble bearing, and intelligence had these things already, or had no need for them, much as a Zen monk desires neither Cadillac nor CEO position. When the Crowd overwhelmed the leaders with its superior numbers, the leaders tended to fade out of the spotlight and try to survive as best they can. However, no person is an island, and when your society is run by people driven insane by greed and mortal fear, soon you too will be working for their causes and not your own. As it is today: cost of living is high and everyone works/commutes for ten hours a day. You either join the procession, or you starve in obscurity, and if you fight it, you have offended Passivity and will be beaten down as an enemy of the state.


If a cyclic view of history is adopted, the solution to this mess has already been present in the past many times, and will return when the Crowd finally screws up to the point of wrecking things, allowing some of the smart people to manipulate others into creating a civilization around a concept other than those which motivate failing civilizations (egodrama, materialism, equality of Crowd members). One thing that can be hinted at is the need for a different morality in two key ways. First, it will not be dualistic. Second, it will not be individualistic, at least in the populist sense that places the individual before all else, even sense.

When we speak of dualistic morality, we are describing the source of moral judgment in the moral system. Dualistic morality requires an absolute reason for judgment external to the reality in which we live. This can be a god, or an abstract concept, like equality, or simply a conception of “truth” which exists independently as opposed to exists as interpretation. When someone says “The truth is…” they are on dangerous ground unless they understand the alchemy of truth; it is an assessment of an action or idea in the context of the ultimate “truth” of existence, which is existence itself – otherwise known as “reality.” To say something is true is to say that it corresponds approximately to a prediction of how an action or idea will translate into the world. This is why we can say that “You will survive a ten story fall” is NOT true, unless there are mitigating circumstances. Truth is a way we interpret our thoughts alone; when we speak of things external to our thoughts, truth is a tautology, since because they exist, they are true. There is no way to encapsulate truth outside of this formula. Dualistic truth attempts to do exactly that. If we are to move forward from our current disease, as a species, we must find our truth in our thoughts as they adapt to our reality, and not try to create some Truth which we can define somewhere and force upon the Crowd, because they cannot figure it out themselves.

And what of the individual in morality? Our current morality is that of the Crowd, because we believe that preservation of the individual is the highest goal we can have. Our commandment is not “Do what is right,” but “Avoid doing what is wrong.” Do not kill. Do not offend. Do not brush aside the “rights” of another. The only exception is the primal one, which is that one may kill or offend or deny rights when the person in question has transgressed against society; can you see how passivity comes into play here? Society sets the rules, and those who disagree have no option, because their opinions themselves are even an offense. They must either find a way to frame their ideas in terms of Crowdist doctrine (not possible) or they must be silent, lest they transgress and the injured party, Society at large, take its turn to crush them.

For these reasons, when we speak of “morality” now, what we are talking about is an abstract concept with no relation to practical, here-and-now existence, and it is based in the individual, as none wish to find themselves inconvenienced by the need to do what is “right”! What we have created is the greatest illusion that any thinking being can undertake, which is the supposition that our thoughts are reality, and that we exist independently of our external world (including death). In this light, the environmental destruction by humans is entirely too clearly revealed as more than gross ignorance; we had to destroy the environment to “prove” to ourselves that only our thoughts dictate the world. Why is our society such a mess? We are distracted, all of us, by following our personal vision – to the point that we do not consider that it is contained in, and dependent on, a whole. The modern human is oblivious to the fact that his consciousness merges with a larger awareness. Therefore, he sees nothing but himself and his own desires.


It is impossible to both live now, and be aware of the whole; one who attempts a “holistic morality” whereby one thinks outside the individual and instead asks, “What is the best order for all of this – nature, humanity, and cosmos?” will surely go insane. Daytime is occupied by function, whether in job or family, and in fending off the handful of thoughts that are repeated a million different ways by almost all of the voices around us. It’s hard for people to realize how pervasive our media is, but think about it: of the people you talk to on a daily basis, how many got their information either from product-media (meaning: media that sells stories as a product, so that truthfulness is secondary) or from someone who did? Even if you live in academia, or the rural areas of this continent, the answer is likely 75% or more.

We live in a time of inferior minds masquerading as benevolent leaders; we have eliminated the independent, realistic thinkers or driven them into hiding; we are motivated by profit and equality, which are one and the same impulse, thus we keep ourselves from rising to the real challenges that can select better minds among us. Our society has not made a bad choice of political system or economic system, but a bad choice of its most fundamental value: it has elected for Crowd domination, and from that all else has come. (Money is popular, especially among the poor, for the same reason the lottery is: one can dream that one will climb the ladder that way, and it’s an easier and more likely dream than gaining traits like nobility, intelligence and beauty. The Crowd loves easy ways to get ahead.)

And there is no escape. Society is global. It poisons air, earth and sea, so even running away to a faroff land will not stop the problem. People have tried various solutions and each has failed, depressing us further. Those who can even understand the issues in question are the smallest minority of all minorities in society. New types of government, “new” ideas about language or values, and new economic systems or new areas to make wealth are all failures. The disease is within. To fix it, we must reprogram ourselves.


To change the world, we must first become what we wish it to be, and the first step in that is to think positive. The apocalyptic agenda of various political groups – leftists and far-rightists in particular – is destructive in that it is anticlimatic. They will encourage you to take desperate action because if you do not, right now, the cause will be lost. They do this because they respond to very simple emotional symbols, and to desperate situations, much like bad movies always feature lost orphans and murdered puppies and other heart-tugging symbols. This mentality is part of Crowdism. Discard it. There is time for us to act, and our actions do not need be hasty. Think positive: the world is good, and what we are going through now is one part of its cycle, and therefore, we shall be delivered from it as inexorably as we came into it.

Positive thinking takes many forms. Just saying to yourself that there is a solution will free you from the PTSD that afflicts our smartest people, who go through life tortured by the knowledge of the death-march upon which our species has embarked. Set that out of your head. If you think positive, you can see another way and act accordingly; even a small percentage of people doing this are important, because they put the lie to the Crowdist doctrine that there is no other way, and they fragment the Crowd by making its members distrust its conclusions. Positive thinking crushes fearful thinking, which is all that binds a crowd together. They’re afraid that they cannot stand alone, and cannot face the consequences of their choices, so they form what is basically a large street gang, even if they call it liberal democracy and stamp UN and ADL logos all over it.

Positive thinking delivers you from frustration and depression. It also gives you focus to work on positive things. One of the many reasons that White Nationalism is a failure doctrine for utter morons is its inherent negativity; White Nationalists are by definition people of mixed Irish-Slavic heritage who would rather sit around complaining about African-Americans that doing something positive for white people. Furthermore, they’re afraid to admit that even among white people there are divisions, and that some are better than others. That is Crowdism, and its roots are in depression and fear and underconfidence. Positive thinking builds confidence. Wherever you are in the hierarchy of life, even if you’re a paraplegic AIDS-ridden slave, if you act according to positive principles, you will not only be doing right but you will be feeling better about yourself for doing it. Positive thinking followed by positive action drives away underconfidence.


Once you have a positive outlook, you can look into changing the psychology of our times – in yourself. Observe what the Crowd believes and how it manifests itself. Realize it is a deficiency. Then, act without that deficiency. Where others have individualistic morals, think in a holistic moral sense, where you do what is right by an external order no matter who is inconvenienced. Although people on the Internet (generally oversocialized, underconfident losers) will tell you otherwise, if you have some brains and think positively, you will rapidly get to positions of power where you can exercise this ability. Do so. You will inspire others and show how the Crowdist doctrine of “the individual ueber alles” is false.

It’s too much to outline a complete solution in this article, and no thinker worth his or her salt will do so, because once you set it down in black and white, the Crowd immediately emulates it as an unconscious attempt to discredit it. But what should be clear here is that by leaving passivity behind, you become a creator and a lover instead of a destroyer and fearer; those who claim not be destroyers, not to be afraid, to embrace difference, etc. are the ones with the greatest amount of fear, and that’s why they preach doctrines that are accessible to the biggest sheep among us. When you think positively, and outthink Crowdism, you lay the foundations for getting past this bad period of human psychology. In that is something greater than defeat of the Crowd – it is victory for all of us.

Frustration with Politics

Wednesday, June 22nd, 2005

Societies are large, and within them, we use means of communication to organize ourselves so we can act as a single entity. This is the founding principle of civilization: division of labor and delegation of both control and function. The people allow themselves to have leaders; the leaders, who would normally follow the old saw “If you want it done right, do it yourself,” have to content themselves with allowing others to do many of the basic functions of collective existence. Societies use politics, or public discourse over the means and direction of collectivism, to negotiate how they will act together.

Politics is both a fascinating study, and a frustrating one. Like most tools or activities, it carries with it the danger of replacing its own goal. In the past, our societies have had strong leadership and not much internal political dialogue; currently, there is a high amount of political wrangling, and very much a lack of a clear goal. At this stage politics ceases to resemble a tool for organizing ourselves, and begins to look like neurosis: a confused mind fighting itself over every move, always unsure, and consequently overcompensating and then making itself more neurotic.

One reason for our political decline is that the smarter among us have for several centuries now abandoned politics, as to them it seems like a gibbering monkey which turns and spits on anything that threatens its sense of self-esteem. We can reference witch-hunts all we like, but the basic mechanism of recent politics has been to establish a public belief, and then to impose it by filtration, cutting down those who do not conform and thus leaving only those who do.

Personal Experience

Our loss is compounded by the political organizations which would ostensibly speak up against this method, as they, too, have fallen into its sway, and offer us only a different appearance to the same failing. And here, if you’ll pardon me, I have to wax personal.

When I was younger, I was a Marxist. The simple reason was that Marxists, like the most vicious capitalists, recognize that “time is money,” and I felt it a travesty that we all worked such long hours, waited in line at businesses and governments, and had too little time for our families. Most of my young friends were accustomed to Dad being something that showed up late, left early, slept until noon on the weekends and, if you were lucky, had an hour or two on Sunday for a game of catch or zoo visit. Some also had Mom in the same situation, and grew up in front of televisions, since there were no parents to ask those all-important questions.

The other reason for my Marxism was simple: I wanted a system of power that, while not totalitarian, wasn’t afraid to enforce certain rules absolutely, to the point of machine-gunning those who transgressed them. This arose from the irrefutable experience of seeing the suburbs expand, plouging under the forest and erecting row after row of look-alike houses. As a child, I had a few close friends but spent over half of my time alone, wandering in the woods or playing with the toys I had found I respected most: batteries, light bulbs, gears, fireworks (oops).

I knew that if there wasn’t a strong hand to stop that expansion, the suburbs would eventually cover the earth, paving it with concrete roads and at every subdivision, a network mini-mall with lots of concrete parking and boxy plastic-windowed stores. To my mind, this was a loss of complexity and beauty, because the forest wasn’t all flat, had thousands of different trees and animals, and little brooks, occasional caves, old gnarled trees and patches of fresh ones. There were hiding places and open spaces, ponds and thickets.

I didn’t have a problem with some of it being replaced so kids like me could have houses in which to grow up, but I had come to know adults, and realized that there was no one in control. As long as there were more people, and they had money, the suburbs would keep expanding. There was no stop point – it was like an unguided train rushing down the tracks. For this reason, I began to be queasy about adult motivations and what the future held.

There were other factors as well, but as a youngster, I didn’t know how to put these into place. One was that adults were alarmingly fake. They made fake smiles, weird small talk, and told “little white lies” to cover up each other’s failings. You couldn’t talk about age in the context of adults, and never mention death or defecation, which to me seemed like a bizarre religious doctrine. They also tended to bathe themselves in strange scents, use lots of little products to cover up their natural faces, and do wasteful and strange things with their purchasing habits. I rapidly came to trust not only their motivations, but their judgment skills.

Alarmingly, no one seemed to notice what I was seeing, and no one – I mean no one – would talk about it. People seemed happy to get in a car at seven in the morning, go into work until nine at night, then come home and watch television, get in a fight with their spouse and then put the kids to bed, warning them that if they didn’t study hard, they wouldn’t be able to have such wonderful jobs someday. It seemed they were sending us to the same enemy that had stolen their own souls.

I read widely as a kid, and like my fear of adult motivations, this knowledge lingered in my brain, but I had nowhere to put it. In high school, the world was simple: there were people who wanted to restrain our freedom, and those of us who wanted to reclaim it. I identified with the founding fathers, and felt that if I could just “educate” people, I could stop them from creating an endless row of suburbs occupying all land on earth. My heroes were the people who opposed this insensitivity, mostly writers: Conrad, Emerson, Faulkner, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Nietzsche, Fitzgerald, Williams, Joyce.

As I went through high school, in the late 1980s, change was afoot. Reagan was out and in the void of his cult of personality, Bush senior was president. My most immediate concern was not getting drafted into Iraq, as I anticipated the kind of Vietnamesque guerrilla warfare that is our current war in Iraq, but those concerns passed. My world was divided between the people who accepted freedom and a lack of rules, who were liberal educators taking lower salaries to fearlessly bring enlightenment to us, and those who opposed that, namely the wealthy and Christian and conservative folk who seemed to run the government. It was a nice, clear, easy worldview, a tool for filtering out the bad and seeing the good.

This changed when I went on to college. At this point, Bush senior was replaced by a man with more personality – the charming and fearlessly independent Bill Clinton. At first, I was cheered by this, but over time, I began to loathe the man. He hadn’t done anything to stop the expansion of humanity; in fact, he encouraged it. He did nothing to end the tedium of our lives spent driving to work, putting up with other people, and then coming home to go shopping or spend money in bars. He not only wanted the suburbs to keep building, but he wanted to put more people into them, mainly because those people had traditionally been poor and of another color. And at college, I saw a different side of liberalism.

My first shock was realizing that among those of a leftist persuasion, I was one of a few who cared first about stopping human overexpansion; those who were “environmentalists” inevitably mated their ideas to a civil rights agenda, and therefore were not actually opposed to stopping the expansion, but wanted all of us to stop leaving lights on, take navy-style showers and drive smaller cars. I had no objection to any of those cutbacks, but I didn’t see how they were going to solve the problem.

More alarmingly the leftists were occupied entirely by egoism. They wanted to feel good about themselves, thus they took the side of the underdog, and were swallowed up entirely by a class revenge and civil rights agenda. Having come from a city with healthy but separate black and homosexual and hispanic districts, I didn’t see the urgency of this task, as to me it was a distraction from the basic task: make society saner, and everything else will fall into line, as the only reason it’s out of whack now is that we’re living insane lives. No one would follow me there, so I became quiet on this topic.

At that time, I became heavily involved with the subculture known as death metal. It taught me a few vital things. I learned first of all that most of the people in death metal were just as thoughtless and crude as the rest of society, and that it was important to neglect their opinions, or they’d fill the world with simplistic, plodding, stupidly violent music and ignore the better, subtler stuff. Second, death metal reawakened my reading of the Romantics, as the imagery and ideas were roughly the same. Wordsworth, Keats, Milton, Blake, and this leads back to Nietzsche.

By the time I left college, and was thrust into the world of working nine to five and then coming home to pay bills, go shopping and buy drinks in bars, I was thoroughly disillusioned with politics. While the bickering continued, I reasoned, nothing was being done about the basic issue – the insanity – and no one would even ask the questions. These people were not out to fix problems, but to win, meaning to score a victory for their side. The tool of politics had become a goal in itself, and no matter who won, society would still be as acephalous and directionless as it had always been in my experience.

Seeing my coworkers fall time and again for the same stupid ruses, whether political or the time-honored scams that businesses offer under the guise of contracts and promises, made me tired. These people were like bluejays, easily distracted by shiny objects, and therefore would make a token political stance, but once they’d gotten whatever it was that occupied their little minds for that month – a new car, a color TV, a faster computer, heroin – they were inert and content to see the system keep churning. Left and right alike, once they had what they wanted, tended to regard everyone else with scorn, as if they’d proved themselves to be superior and the rest inferior.

After some years of this, and reading increasingly alarming long-distance environmental projections, I returned to my basic concept: most people have the judgment skills of gnats, and what is needed is a direction and those with the will to enforce it. I knew I couldn’t trust either political wing; the conservatives had lost and didn’t seem to know it, because traditional values and society had collapsed, and they were fighting to hold what space they had, but could easily be sidetracked by issues like abortion or school prayer or flag burning. Symbols meant nothing to me; reality meant more.

I didn’t trust the liberals either, least of all from recent experience. A liberal to me had become not the fearless Marxist proletarian insurgent, but someone who talked a good game about helping the poor and other races, then went off and got a corporate job and drinked themselves into oblivion every night – or simply smoked weed, but they smoked it like weekenders; they didn’t want a psychedelic experience, with its cycle of euphoria and fear and death and rebirth, but they wanted detachment. To a person, they were neurotic, deeply insecure and constantly making bad decisions, then inventing excuses and justifications. There was always someone else to blame, and wasn’t it clear that we the oppressed suffered under the other side? No more, said I.

At this point, something vital happened: a man named Ted Kaczynski had been arrested as the Unabomber and went to trial. I read his manifesto, and was amazed at how much it resembled (a) the works of Nietzsche I’d been sifting through (b) my own notes regarding political philosophy and (c) many of the opinions of the best of the writers of the 1920s and 1930s. What was even more astounding, I found out, was how much it resembled what was written in the only legitimate candidate for “banned book” during our lifetimes: Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler. I started reading more National Socialist, Nationalist and traditionalist philosophy.

What shocked me here was the universal knee-jerk response I witnessed in others to National Socialism: they didn’t react with intellectual curiosity, or even benign tolerance, but outright condemnation. I saw the witch-hunt mentality in full progress. Well, wasn’t this interesting. The closest thing to this I had ever seen was the War on Drugs under Reagan, but it wasn’t even as absolute as the fear and hatred of Nazism. Having learned well during childhood that any taboo covers either a great error (pedophilia) or great knowledge (drugs/literature), I followed this path more attentively. However, over time, I became disillusioned here.

Neo-Nazis and Nationalists, it seems to me, are just as paranoid and isolated as the American conservatives. They act as if they’re defending something that is still there, namely traditional civilization, not realizing that long ago it was obliterated by modernity and that only remnants exist. The average neo-Nazis thinks that, if we just kick out or exterminate the Negroes and Jews, everything will be peachy. Even if the suburbs keep expanding, the pollution keeps piling up, and there are no trees left; even if we all still pack off down the road every morning to a boring job surrounded by mentally defective people, and then come home to buy things and watch television, it’ll all be OK if we just follow that bigoted and moronic program. As far as I could tell, their agenda had nothing in common with Hitler’s, and they were acting out the image of “neo-Nazi” as they saw it on TV and in the movies.

Onward to frustration: during these years, I had kept active, mainly by reading as extensively as I could, remembering Faulkner’s advice (“largely uncorrelated reading”). I had moved from idealistic materialist philosophy of the Nietzschean type to a cosmic idealism like that of Arthur Schopenhauer, and through his work and that of Julius Evola, had discovered the values of ancient Hindu and Buddhist thought. These religions were not like the effete Christian and Jewish faiths that preached preservation of the individual at all costs; they glorified an ideal, or having a goal and a direction, no matter what the cost, and sang their losses as well as their victories. This was a sensible mindset.

Even further, unlike any religion or political philosophy I’d seen in the world, the ancient ways were full of praise for nature and for humankind existing among it, not as dominator of it. Like the Romantic writers and the death and black metal that reinvented their ideas, this was to me, a very healthy philosophy. It did not waste its time with hatred, but suggested a way of life where we find ultimate beliefs and work toward them, knowing that they apply in any situation. It was honorably warlike, and also addressed the existential issue: life is a gift, enjoy it and do what makes it most intense and beautiful. No hours of commuting or sitting in committees, there.


Evola, through Guenon and Nietzsche before him, suggested a new paradigm: all of our political actvity of the last thousand years has been of the same nature, namely revenge by the masses against the elites, and its consequence has been the creation of the headless and greedy society we know as “modern.” Judaism, Christianity and liberalism were the same creation, as they had the same basic ideal. Their method was a kind of paradox: a fantasy that claimed to produce magical results in reality (interestingly, all swindles and false promises can be described this way). They were anti-reality, and hence, anti-nature. They believed in saving every life, but that every life should be equally wasted in servitude to modern lifestyles.

In this I found a vehicle for my beliefs, which are as follows:

  1. Environment

    There is nothing holier than our natural environment; it is a thing of beauty worth preserving in itself. As it is a giant ecosystem, it needs more space than we do, and thus humans should take less than a quarter of earth’s land for their influence, and leave the rest untouched. The primary threat to our environment is overpopulation, and the ability of individuals (of varying judgment skills) to do reckless things. The only way to save and protect our environment is a quasi-totalitarian system whereby excess population is curtailed, and the “rights” and “freedoms” of individuals that are destructive are removed.

  2. Existential

    We are our time of life; our lives are not tangible entities, but a number of days we have on the planet. You can never be young again, nor redo the past, so there is no time to waste. As a consultant, I found that most jobs could be done in four hours a day with only minimal efforts put into making them more efficient; with a semi-radical redesign, our society could have us working only three days a week. Further, our experience should not be tedious and depressing, as waiting in lines or buying things in corporate bars tends to be. We should not be restrained by fear of offending the less capable among us, as that creates an environment where we all tolerate the same stupidity. Finally, we should be able to surround ourselves with pleasant things, as life is constant conflict and when we are not fighting, we should be enjoying.

  3. Eugenics

    People are born with their abilities. You can educate them, and develop their abilities to a maximum, but the raw material is basically what you get. An idiot will never be a research scientist, and a plumber never a philosopher; confusing the two leads to democratic systems where the lowest common denominator predominates. When we allow everyone to breed, and make the requirements for life as simple as getting a job and buying things, we devolve toward a race of monkeys and not humans. Instead of creating societies that are designed so that everyone can survive, we should design societies around our best people, so that we’re always breeding to a higher standard. Who knows – in five hundred years, perhaps we’ll have a species of highly intelligent beings.

  4. Karma

    The Easternists rail against the ego, but to my mind, the problem is not ego but self-image. People like to think of themselves as self-created entities distinct from the world; this is the root of the individualism, or placing the individual above all else, that in the West originates in Jewish thought (the Jews, as a race of traders and salespeople, needed such a belief). A healthier way to view life is to see ourselves as manifestations of some will that is shared by all things; in this view, the individual is not an entity removed from the world and has no reason to be excessively prideful in itself, as all of its gifts – intelligence, strength, character – are given by the will which is shared among all things. Further, we can look at the world in terms of karma, which is a mixture between evolution and morality. Those who gain ability and push themselves to not just greater extremes of strength and intelligence, but moral character, evolve upward in the cycle; those who behave as degenerates move downward. The system of karma shows us why we advance the best, but view their abilities as inherent and possible for all things, given enough time acting in a healthy way.

  5. Race, Ethnicity, Heritage

    There is no crime in saying that one prefers to live among one’s own race, unified by the culture shared naturally among members of that race; this belief is separate from racial hatred and bigotry, and does not necessarily involve the use of force or gas ovens to achieve its goals. One wishes to live among one’s own race for the purpose of preserving that race, because no race can exist when it is mixed with others; it becomes something else, and not something new or better, as mixed-race civilizations have existed for centuries without producing a greater civilization. However, this issue cannot be analyzed in terms of its practical value, as the goal is to preserve what is unique in nature; one cannot sensibly argue that traits be borrowed from another race to create something “better,” as there is no definition of better in nature. Rather, we must bravely face the fact that healthy people are most comfortable among others of their background, ethnicity and culture, and that it is racial bigotry to deny them this right. (There is a subsidiary argument to this as to whether or not a racial hierarchy should be instituted for the purposes of better leadership, as was done in ancient India; I am selfish enough to say that separation is an answer, and let other races fend for themselves as they will.)

  6. Idealism

    Any society without a goal becomes neurotic. Our goal should be centered around our cultural and ethnic heritage, but aim at forever developing these ideas further. There are no “new” ideas in the world, only (a) past ideas aesthetically disguised as something new and (b) better versions of ideas that exist. Our world has not changed, and will not change, as far as the essential forces that shape our lives are concerned; we will always be mortal, and have to exist by adapting to our environment, and govern our own minds as well as our collective civilizations. Thus our society does not need “new” ideas, or a progressive agenda that supposes that, through caring more about individuals and less about having a goal, we are approaching Utopia. There are no Utopias. There are only societies with greater and lesser degrees of sensibility, and when sensibility itself declines, the society begins a slow descent into oblivion. Idealism in this usage means the recognition that every action or structure in the world expresses an idea, and that by striving for changes in these ideas, we manipulate ourselves and the world toward a better degree of the same order. We do not intend to remake nature, or create a moral government. We wish to create a practical civilization in which individuals have the discipline and foresight to achieve the most they possibly can. Idealism replaces materialism, or belief in only the material and thus a motivation by individual comfort and desire, and is the only possible end to domination by corporate or governmental entities.

These beliefs transcend politics, which is a tool that has taken the place of the quest for civilization itself. In the current time, politics does not serve us; we serve it. And furthermore, it completely divides us. Liberals and conservatives have not only balkanized our political spectrum into discrete and uncompromising identities, but they have each failed to maintain the original ideological thrust of their movements.

Liberalism vs Conservatism

Liberalism originates in the idea of making society a better place for the normal working person, but instead liberalism has become a quest to earn money and become powerful in order to subsidize those who cannot or will not help themselves; it is a thin disguise for revenge against those of higher class, caste, ability and beauty of others. This revengeful nature makes liberal policy a consumptive ideal when introduced to any society, dividing it against itself and leading to a disorganized and devolutionary civilization. It is for this reason that liberals are satired as “limousine liberals,” or wealthy people feeling better about themselves by “helping” others, when their real intent has nothing to do with helping those people but relies on using them as a weapon against those who might rise above the herd. Liberalism is egoism, and a deep sickness.

Conservatism fares not much better. Its original concept was that of preserving traditional culture, and allowing the best to rise by keeping them independent of too much entangling government and obligation, but it has been sidetracked into the party for defense of wealth, coupled with a narrow reactionary view that rejects deviation from the type of conformist behavior that adapts people to commerce. As a consequence, it, too, has lost its way and become a form of egoism that allows people to congratulate themselves as “superior” for having had the desire to have wealth as an end in itself. It is bankrupt of actual values, and therefore finds itself obsessed with symbolic issues that relate minimally to the course of civilization. Conservatism is reactionarism, and because it defends something that no longer exists by asserting its nominal aspects and ignoring its ideals, it is both destructive and an obstruction to those who would wish to resurrect those values.

Clearly, another path is needed. Modern people are trained to have considered all past ideas as defunct, and to therefore believe that there are no options left. This is a consequence of modern people getting their opinions entirely from television, either directly repeating what they’ve been told or seeing what they are expected to see from a selective and small sampling of the data shown. Those who do not directly witness these things on television usually socialize with people who will repeat these ideas to them. For this reason, modern people are accustomed to disliking their government but feeling that no other options exist, or that “new” options are needed and have yet not been invented. The opposite is true: the right way to rule a civilization has never changed, and its principles can easily be adapted to our current time.

Third Way

Third way politics are so called because they represent a middle path that incorporates the sensible parts of both liberalism and conservatism, although the whole of neither. It is another angle in that it cannot be classified as either or the other, and is not “both” in that it does not take the whole of either, but it is also a third way in that instead of taking a political approach, it recognizes that politics should be a means to an end and implements philosophy as a way of understanding politics and grounding it in a values system so that politics does not become divorced from its essential function. In this change more than anything else it resembles nothing currently found in the political spectrum.

Others refer to this ideal as “Tradition,” in that it refutes the progressive argument and says, in effect, that there is one way of conducting a successful civilization, and implementations of that with varying degrees of adaptation to reality. In this view, liberalism and conservatism are both aspects of the revolution of the masses that led us away from the way civilizations were run for centuries without the problems we now experience. From this mass revolt we learn that, while every individual might think his or her views should be respected absolutely, only a few people of specialized intelligence are suitable to run a society and their opinions must take precedence over those of the masses. Another way to say this is that the average person will fulfil his desires by buying large cars, dumping toxic waste and cutting down trees to make concrete lots, but that same person will not understand why this is destructive; those who do understand must oppress this person to prevent such problems from occurring.

When we recover from the revolt of the masses that has created the modern theory that we should be able to do whatever we desire, without care for the collective consequences, we return from a temporary illusion to the traditional methods of civilization that always have worked and always will. In this type of civilization, the specialization of labor includes those who retain wisdom, and rule, and thus have more power than others. It also includes limits on what all people can do, and regulates social mobility through karma – how well in intelligence, strength and moral character they have advanced – instead of monetary success. It is not something that exists within our current political system, or can, because it transcends politics in favor of a philosophical outlook.

National Socialism

Widely misunderstood, the Nazi regime’s problems are compounded because (a) its would-be followers pay more attention to Hollywood media than Mein Kampf and (b) postwar propaganda has done everything possible to vilify the Nazi state and its leaders. Experienced people immediately discard both Hollywood and postwar propaganda, knowing that each are popular ways of gaining control of the minds of a people without having actually convinced them of a truth. The most important element forgotten in this process is that the Nazi state, like most things, was a means to an end: it was a transitional government between the flawed modern liberal democracy, supported by economic incentive, to a government by ideal, in which the philosophy and culture of a people, including defense of their ethnic uniqueness, was the primary goal.

Hitler portrayed himself as an impassioned and often demonic presence, but his behavior speaks otherwise. He carefully resurrected the German economy based on the productivity of its workers, and instituted policies to protect them and allow them to live better and more honorably than before. He swept out the distracting propaganda of modernity, including its degenerate art and lifestyle choices, and isolated the German population demographically by clearing out anyone of 3/4 or more foreign blood. Despite occupying many foreign nations, including some African ones, he did not institute genocide on non-whites there, but was content to cooperate with them and to honor them as brothers in Nationalist struggle – them standing up for their ethnicity, and Hitler his own.

Legend in America has it that he refused to shake Jessie Owens’ hand when the latter won medals at the Olympic Games in Berlin, but Owens’ widow recounts that the opposite is true; Hitler shook his hand. While he crusaded to remove jazz and other foreign elements from German culture, he allowed artists who were of non-degenerate behavior to continue their work in those fields. Hitler’s supposedly reckless warlike expansion was not random, but designed to contain Communist-friendly elements in Europe, and had it been allowed to persist, would have saved the world from a destructive and paranoiac Cold War. He was unstinting in his support for Nationalists in other countries, and aided them in fighting for their own freedoms as ethnic-cultural entities.

Modernity as Paralysis

It is possible to turn National Socialism, or “neo-Nazism” as it is now called because it is so widely interpreted in the vernacular, into a modern crusade of balkanization potential much like the liberal-conservative split, but this is productive only if one wants a political identity and not transcendence of politics itself. What must be extracted from National Socialism is its implementation of the transitional political-economic system that can deliver us from modernity, and its ideals, which are correspondent to those of Traditional civilizations in ancient Greece, Rome, India and Europe.

These ideals can be upheld in any form, and it is necessary to think of them in this manner, because in a modern society we are overwhelmed by information and thus find it difficult to make decisions. Most of this information has some degree of propaganda in it, and therefore directly influences us for each second we spend watching TV/movies or reading newspapers or popular literature (or rather, each second you spend: I do not indulge in those activities). For this reason, most of our population is polarized to reject any message other than the basic message of modern society, which is that individual “freedom” (and economic mobility) is the ultimate goal of our society and that anything which limits it is unacceptable. We like our ideal of no restrictions and open competition, because we have been taught to think only this is fair.

However, when one limits thinking to that narrow range of thought, the only system of government that is not immediately rejected is that of the modern, capitalist liberal democracy and corresponding quasi-socialist welfare state. The latter is necessary because with economic mobility comes disposability of the worker, and the tendency for those with absolute allegiance only to money to get ahead, leaving the rest of us vulnerable. When social mobility is replaced with a sane economic situation that guarantees employment at good wages, as was had in traditional societies, the preconceptions of the modern state will be discarded.

In the meantime our problem remains, in that our population is mostly paralyzed by a flood of biased information, and we must make the transition to another type of civilization. Luckily, we do not need to convince all of them. In any population, there are many people who lead normal lives, and a large group in the middle – called the “Silent Majority” – who contribute the creative ideas and constructive practices that make life better for the rest. This group are not necessarily rich, but they are not poor, as they are inventive types who create a good living for themselves but generally abstain from politics. They see politics as demagoguery, and thus realize they cannot compete in this field, so they try to stay out of the way of authority while going about what they always do: small businesses, the arts, public service and craftmanship.

Soft Racialism and Holism

Recently, British National Party politician Nick Griffin made a speech to American racialists and Nationalists in which he condemned the direction Nationalism in America is taking. He argued that extremist groups have the wrong approach, in that they appeal only to those who are already alienated, and have neglected the Silent Majority in favor of those who are loudest and angriest. In short, Nationalist groups are their own worst enemy, because they project themselves as terroristic bigots who wish to offend, and thus have a political identity, more than they seek to achieve anything. The tool has become the goal.

“The [Nationalist] movement in the broadest sense of the word in America, is riddled with lunatic casual extremists who wreck your cause in the eyes of ordinary people. And also, it’s dominated right throughout all areas of it (including people in this room) with people who put up with casual extremism…if you want to be seen by ordinary decent Americans, the people you have to have on our side, as we break into the next sections of the population, then you have to look at the things which people in or claim to be in our movement do and you let them do by not calling them up on it, and you have to say: do these things actually help, are they actually necessary, do they hinder us? And if they are not necessary and they hinder you, then you have got to work to get rid of them, not put up with them for the sake of being polite.” – Nick Griffin, BNP

Griffin is not telling us simply to dress differently, or to disguise or intentions. His message is far clearer: get rid of the extremist reactionary thought and those who espouse it. Extremism is a dead-end position, in that it alienates those who are not interested in violent revolution and, by its own momentum, will deny us the chance to re-organize civilization and will instead accelerate its destruction. Griffin is not asking us to back down on any of our ideals, but to reorganize our thinking about how to implement them, and to appeal to the Silent Majority instead of alienating them by being parade-ground Nazis who accomplish sound and fury but achieve — nothing.

I would like to go even further. No one is born a Nationalist, although most healthy people are born with a natural tendency to stick to their own group. Nationalists have always come from other political backgrounds, and have come to Nationalism because they recognize the imperative of cultural preservation. However, I believe our focus in Nationalism has become misguided. We look too closely at the race issue, in part because it is the one that sends our opponents into paroxysms of vitriol, and do not focus on political ideals as a whole. My proposition is that we replace pure Nationalism with a traditional outlook toward civilization, and use Nationalist parties as a means to that end but not that end itself. Again, the tool has replaced the goal, and now our goal is an idealless dogmatic and violent extremist upholding of that tool.

The concept of holism is useful here. In contrast to modern political thought, holistic thought says that we must address all issues and not specialize on certain issues, as liberals have specialized in civil rights and class revenge, and conservatives have specialized in cultural censorship and economic mobility. Nationalism alone does not address all of these issues, although it hints at them. What we must do is transcend contemporary Nationalism, and allow Nationalist parties to organize people via appeal to their ethnic-cultural unity, but to have as part of our platform a greater remaking of society as part of a long-term plan to escape modernity and restore Tradition.

In doing so, we are dropping extremism but also dropping the pretense that we can make one change – race – and thus fix all of the problems of our society. Race is a problem because our society decayed through the influence of mass revolt, and thus left us open to immigration from other countries because it benefitted parasites among us (most of whom are of our own ethnic groups – neurotic, underconfident people arise in every population, and use political power to bolster their internal doubt and fear). We need to get more extreme; race is not the only issue. We must address the environment, and the fact that our society is motivated by economics alone, and the tedium of our daily lives in jobs and bureaucracy. When we turn to such a broad spread of issues, we become something unknown in all of modernity: a political movement with a holistic philosophy of what civilization should be.

This will appeal to the Silent Majority because, especially as our environmental troubles and internal turmoil increases, they feel the threat of both instability in our society and the tendency of our civilization to nose-dive into third world standards from lack of internal unity. They want a political movement that can address all of these problems, as they believe these problems are serious and can see that neither liberal nor conservative movements are going to come close. They are ready for a different way, and as they see how bad things can come, an extreme makeover of our society, but they will not accept extremism because they recognize it for what it is: negative thinking, and radical reactionary desires for revenge and destruction, that will only hasten our demise.

During the final decline of ancient Greek civilization, a similar idea was reached: Plato and Aristotle both agreed that a time of philosopher-kings was needed, in which ideals and not manipulation of a political or social system would guide the population. The simple reason for this is that when shared values exist, a society stands resolved to have a goal; when individualism and mass revolt predominate, the demands of the individual take the place of shared values, and thus the only thing held in common is the lowest common denominator, self-interest, in the form of economic mobility and freedom from interference. In this diseased state societies no longer make decisions, but become fully reactionary, and thus slip into an extremism of their own.

I now have a number of years of political and philosophical thinking and observation under my belt. I’ve given this issue several years of thought, and have explored every avenue from Marxism to Nazism to Greenism. While I am convinced of the superiority of National Socialism, and refuse to compromise my beliefs on that front, I see no need for extremism and correspondingly, a need for a holistic system of thought to enable us to move forward. I don’t want a political identity; I want solutions, so I can go back to enjoying the forests and friends and music and other delights of life.

Over years of attention, I have seen that healthy people everywhere uphold a philosophy, very much akin to that of Romantic literature, that what matters in life is not some “progressive” hocus-pocus but having a solid, heroic civilization upon which to build greatness. While it may take many generations for us to reverse the damage we’ve wrought, and get back on course, I believe it is a worthwhile goal, and dedicate a fair amount of my time to it. I am frustrated with politics as it is, whether liberal, conservative or “White Nationalist.” I see a need for a third way, as a tool to achieve what is an eternal ideal.

In this my goal is to reverse modernity itself, which is a case of the tool replacing the goal because the goal was fragmented by too many different motivations and nothing in common but greed and revenge. Modernity is a sick thing. Money was a method of meting out resources, but now it is our only goal. Technology which was supposed to empower us now has us working longer to support it. Democracy which was supposed to guarantee equality has become a distraction from the actual issues, and a means by which the numb masses dominate the few intelligent ones. The tool has replaced the goal. The only meaningful goals are perpetuation of nature, and continuation of life itself, with us striving to become ever-better as individuals and civilization. Anything else is a distraction that will ultimately lead to this same frustration with politics.

Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism

Wednesday, June 1st, 2005


One lesson we should all learn early in life is that if what you’re doing is not working, consider another method. This does not mean at the first sign of negative feedback, give up and do something different; it means that, if over time, what you are doing is not producing the desired results, change strategy. Square peg not fitting in round hole? You may have to think outside of your immediate task (cramming square peg in round hole) to the larger task at hand (which pegs go into which holes). This sounds so basic and fundamental, yet it is forgotten by most.

No clearer example of this can be felt in politics. Extreme leftists rant and cry in public, but in private spend much of their time bemoaning that few are involved, and wondering how to compel people to get involved. Environmentalists are known for being maudlin drunks who break into tears at the thought that most people don’t care at all about the environment, with their proof for this supposition being the lack of mainstream involvement in their effete and radicalized groups. Similarly, what’s left of conservatism – not bloody much – tends to wring its hands over the absolute disinterest that youth have for the conservative agenda.

Another potent example within politics is white nationalism. The WNs crowd around the fire, proclaim loudly their dogma, and then wait for the crowd to fall into step behind them for the final glorious race war. And why are they still alone, these brave WNs? The answer is quite simple: like liberals, they’re a one-note party, and while they understand their own dogma, they don’t understand how to apply it. The result is a radicalized, paranoid group of people who have no practical plan, and cannot even organize their own minds in order to organize their own political actions. (There are three real exceptions:, Vanguard News, and the LNSGP, out of thousands of WN/NS groups.)

From my perspective, it’s a pathetic state of affairs that both those who uphold our traditions and those who wish to protect our environment are afflicted by the same mental disease. When one looks at the ideals of environmental and white nationalist groups philosophically, it’s clear that they are the two most related forms of belief out there today. Both are preservationists who seek to limit the selfishness agenda of modern society, and replace it not with bureaucracy but with a values system – a values system we share in common, in dramatic contrast to pluralistic systems, where the only shared value is a belief in pluralism. Both of these genres of politics could be easily drawn back from failure if they were willing to acknowledge what they lack.

As said above, it’s simple: one has to organize a clear political platform that includes all aspects of the political system, and then organize one’s agenda so as to contribute to society while reshaping it into something better. This means that one cannot speak up for green agendas alone, or ethnic preservation agendas (of which white nationalism is one) alone, but one must find some comprehensive way to remake society into something saner. One such method is to re-group white nationalism and environmental protection into the most time-proven system of governance we have, which is described as “tradition” because there is no other word for it. It’s a viewpoint that is outside of the modern viewpoint, but since the modern viewpoint could be summarized as cramming square pegs in round holes, we might characterize tradition as a broader mindset in which one can correctly identify what shape of peg goes into what hole.

Tradition refers to the ways in which our societies (in this case, Indo-European; the author is Indo-European) have existed for millennia, and is an all-encompassing viewpoint. It is not just political, or philosophical, or economic, or religious, but all of these. Its genesis is an awareness of humankind’s position not in a physical-economic order, but in a cosmic order, or in the patterns of life we find both in nature and in our own minds. In philosophical terms, traditionalism is a form of cosmic idealism, which means that it is a belief system where design-change in the external world (winning a battle, creating an idea, composing a symphony) is more important than personal comfort or survival; cosmic idealism is a dramatic contrast to Judaic moralism, as found in Christianity and liberalism, in which personal comfort and survival are more important than anything else (the one exception being, of course, when one fights for the “right” to live according to Judaic morality, at which point suicide and vengeance are celebrated as positive values).

Radical Traditionalism is a view of tradition from within a modern time. It recognizes that, in order to escape the modern crisis, we must first escape the modern mindset; this is the “radical” part, which means a total divorcing of values and expectations from what modernity has to offer. Radical in this context does not (necessarily) mean extremist action, but it means thought extremely removed from the norm. For most people living in a modern time, the concept of tradition is not one that makes sense on the first read, or the second, but sometime in the days following a reading after those. This is the barrier that radicalism is designed to transcend. As a natural consequence of this, Radical Traditionalist belief may seem “radical” to those in a modern time because it is far beyond what they are trained to comprehend.

Radical Traditionalism is a good solution because, unlike other political agendas which hope to make a few small alterations and then declare victory and go home, Radical Traditionalism recognizes the need to start thinking much differently about how we do things. It would take the entirety of our modern world and remake it into something more sensible, without abandoning our technology (although certainly limiting its use). Furthermore, Radical Traditionalism doesn’t confine itself to race, although race is an inseparable part of the ideology. It doesn’t confine itself to environmentalism, although concern and nurturing for our environment is an essential part of Radical Traditionalism. It is a holistic philosophy in that it addresses all human endeavors, and does so not from the perspective of the individual or of the collective, but of the whole: it places human individuals, collectives, and even our planet into a greater cosmic order.

This cosmic order, unlike those of humankind, is based upon pre-existing patterns found in nature. It is not arbitrary, like communism, nor of a one-track mind, like capitalism or any other state based on economic competition. It is not founded in the concept of dominion by the self over nature, nor does it pit humanity against its natural world. And, unlike white nationalism, its view of race is flexible; Radical Traditionalists believe races should be preserved, as racial differences are manifestations of a cosmic order called “karma” by some which is a spiritual approximation of what we know as evolution. Unlike moderns, traditionalists see evolution as a two-way street: one can evolve toward something higher, or devolve toward something more base and less noble. Naturally, they see the modern time as an example of the latter, and most credible evidence agrees with them.

Ultimately, however, despite its focus on cosmic ideals, Radical Traditionalism has a big leg over modernity in that it focuses on reality. Not simply physical reality, meaning the tangible things in front of us, but the reality of how our universe and physical environment operates. It doesn’t substitute spacy “ideology” for knowledge, and it doesn’t sidetrack itself into fighting for equality among people of varied abilities. Modern belief systems tend to take the form of “we should do (action) because (ideal),” but in tradition, the ideal is life itself, and what should be done is what is effective given how this order of life itself operates.

In this, Radical Traditionalism is similar to one type of nihilism. Since the word “nihilism” means different things to different people, it is important to define this type of nihilism as an outlook and a perceptual tool, not a conclusion or an ideal. Those who hold Nothingness up as an ideal, and as an assessment of life itself, are probably better referred to as “fatalists” because they do not believe any value can be found, and therefore believe their choices are irrelevant (a fancy way of giving up). Outlook nihilists believe nihilism is a way of removing illusion and looking into reality itself, from which we are separated by the frailty of (a) our own perception and (b) the errors of our interpretation of external reality. Where conclusion-nihilists take up nihilism as a means of ending further analysis of their existence, outlook nihilists use it as a means to look deeper into existence.

Nihilism of this form could be expressed this way: Upon waking up, I realized that nothing had any inherent value except for its presence as part of reality itself, such as a chair being useful for sitting upon, or food useful for eating because eating prolongs life and thus perception. While I was tempted to stay in this valueless state, I realized that to uphold a valueless state was in itself a value, therefore a valueless state cannot exist for long. For this reason, instead of rejecting reality, I rejected values outside of reality, and now try to see things only for what they are. This is the outlook nihilism of an experienced person.

Fatalism, or conclusion-nihilism, is solely the realm of life’s failures. People who cannot make heads or tails of life, and have failed to find a place within it, find refuge in claiming that it never made any sense anyway and therefore they cannot be expected to participate – as if some cosmic parent were watching over them, trying to force them into it. People of this mindset are clearly quite lost, as they have not realized that their lives are their own and exist without need of interpretation, and furthermore, they’ve lost the ability to see the world beyond their own little existence. It may be that not all of them are stupid – most are simply misguided, and young, and underconfident, if not outright deficient. Those who haven’t grown out of fatalism by their thirties are probably mental defectives.

When we look at nihilism and radical traditionalism, what jumps out at us is that both are ways of negating the values we have in a modern time and returning to a cosmic order based on the actual function of our reality. There is no morality in either that places the individual higher than a noble task; the opposite is true, since a nihilist recognizes that morality is not inherent and basically wishful thinking by those who fear they might succumb to violence. Radical Traditionalism, like nihilism, emphasizes a quieting of the internal dialogue over how to value life, and takes life at face value: things are simply what they are.

These forms of thinking are far more advanced than what most believe in a modern time. Most of the trousered apes of modernity have been taught that, thanks to technology and morality, we are slowly leaving a dark age behind and coming into a utopic state. This kind of worldview is called a “progressive” one, in that it believes in progress from a bad state to a good state. Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism shrug aside such concerns by recognizing that the basic dimensions of life remain as they always have been, and no new choices outside of technology have been presented to us. Evolve or devolve. It’s all a factor of reality, no matter what moral excuses or numbers on spreadsheets we construct to support our own desires for what reality “should” be.

These beliefs are of the type that will dominate in the future. Humanity has had a thousand year hiatus from reality, first in the form of revolt by the masses, then via religious delusion and Judeo-Christianity, and finally through our economies, free enterprise, suburbs and wealth derived from fossil fuels. However, true to form, the delusional system of modernity brought us to a number of bad mistakes, and the end result has been the squandering of our fossil fuels and continued degeneration of our societies. Therefore, as the illusion ends, we return to common sense. If we want this common sense to succeed, we need holistic ideologies such as Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism to take the place of one-note philosophies like White Nationalism and Environmentalism, as they only increase divisions among us.

Recommended Reading