Posts Tagged ‘compassion’

Standards Kill Parasites

Friday, July 21st, 2017

Do you believe in miracles? I believe they are possible, but I’ve studied just enough about quantum physics to learn how bloody (expletive) unlikely that is. I can accept God acting outside all physical law, but within the realm of the material, I squint double-hard at miracles.

Thus, I think National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd is exaggerating a tad when he says that morale is at a 20-year high. In the grand tradition of recent American politics, this sounds more like he is “showing results” by showing emotional effects on others.

I did not vote for Donald J. Trump in expectation of miracles, or even few solid and amusing plagues straight from the Book of Exodus. I expected him to get results because he understands what a standard is, and how enforcing those standards prevents exploitation of what the standards protect. He has established a standard that our laws are real, and foreigners can enter the country only in accordance with those laws.

He is securing our borders in order to ensure that those laws are enforced and in turn, is putting pressure on the citizens to change those laws if the results are bad. It turns out that his approach works spectacularly. Here is what happens when you set a standard.

The large drop in apprehensions of people illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border is “nothing short of miraculous,” National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd said on Monday. “If you look at the rhetoric that President Trump has given, it has caused a number of illegal border crossings to go down,” Judd told C-SPAN. “We have never seen such a drop that we currently have.”

Standards kill parasites. Standards make people actually put some skin in the game and commit before they get gimmedats. When people think they can use a resource free of consequence, you get the Tragedy of The Commons. When a good or service comes at a price, the ones too lazy or too dysfunctional to pay are excluded from depleting it. If there are no standards, each person exploits what is there and everyone suffers as a result.

This observation repeats with regard to SNAP enrollment in Georgia as well. Make people work and the ones allergic to that sort of thing will dissipate. They move to places where the pickings are easier.

Work requirements have halved the number of single adults receiving food stamps in Hall County and in 23 other counties. The number of able-bodied adults without dependents getting food stamps in Hall County fell from 529 people in 2016 to 264 at the start of 2017, according to the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services.

If you don’t want your peace, your finances and your environment destroyed by a horde of parasites, commit to standards. Commit to demanding something out of everyone that comes to feed. Apply the John Smith Rule. “He who does not work, does not eat.” States under budgetary pressure are looking to expand it to Medicaid as well as SNAP.

Indiana could become the first state to require some Medicaid recipients to work but it is facing a flood of opposition from health groups, advocates for the poor and others. Public comments filed with the federal government have been overwhelmingly against the idea even as Congress debates whether to give states more leeway in running their Medicaid programs, along with a lot less funding. Other states in various stages of pursuing permission for work requirements include Kentucky, Arizona, Arkansas, Wisconsin and Maine

Standards are the answer to the weight of the poor. Demand more than other, more socialistic places, and the worst of humanity will leave you. This means that the people in your society who are actually contributing are the ones who stay, which means that everyone benefits as contributions increase. Defend the normal, healthy and sane and you get more of it; focus on pitying those who are failing, and you get more of that at the expense of the normal, healthy and sane.

Compassion means saying “No.” Compassion means rewarding those who contribute to a community and banishing those who do not. Standards are the cure to Modernity. Is it any reason why they are so frequently condemned as “Racist,” “Classist,” or just plain “Evil”? Standards threaten the Left, which wants to destroy the normal, healthy and sane so that the insanity will be accepted as normal.

The hordes of parasites that empower the Left are not sustainable without unconditional altruism, which if you decode it is really a type of advertising for individual called “virtue signaling.” The people who talk loudest about The Poor™ care the least about them; what they care about is appearing to be more virtuous than you, while not investing the hard work in actually being, you know, virtuous.

When you think about it, the opposite of good is not “evil” per se, but everything that insists good is not necessary. When we give up on standards in favor of the appearance of altruism, we are relying on a miracle. When instead we demand standards, we are acting from sanity and will achieve the best results possible on this Earth.

Why Democracy Always Fails

Wednesday, May 31st, 2017

Human behavior boils down to only a few things. On the plus side, there is transcendence and ego-death; on the negative side, there is projection, transference and tunnel vision arising from solipsism, or the process of staying confined within our minds and the minds of those who share our immediate fascinations.

The grim truth of this is that it may not be all that human so much as the result of cognitive limits. People need to be able to come to decisions quickly that, while not perfect, form a working model upon which more can be built and greater detail ascertained. This requires avoiding imminent pitfalls while keeping as many options open as possible.

Unfortunately, that kind of thinking works poorly for leadership, aesthetics and moral questions. Its speed and simplicity makes it an ethic of convenience which evades entirely larger questions and long-term needs. In this way, our evolution which is so brilliant defeats us.

Some are able to escape this trap. They tend to have higher intelligence and be concerned with accuracy, namely how closely the impressions and predictions in their minds match the working of reality outside of the mind. They also have a moral sense which is not, in the herd style, a defensive morality aimed at avoiding loss of life, but a creative morality which strives to improve the quality of life as an existential experience.

Those are rare, however, and when the vote is taken, there are fewer of them than homeless guys voting for free toilet paper in every election, and so they are statistically eliminated early in the process. On top of that, however, we can see another reason why democracy always fails: voters choose appearance over reality.

One of the successful metaphors describing the mind is a ‘cognitive miser’. When we need to make a decision, particularly when we have little knowledge, we rely on shortcuts: hunches, ‘gut’ responses, stereotypes. We use shortcuts because it is easy. We are ready to leap to conclusions, especially when we are too lazy or busy to look for hard evidence. And most of us are cognitively lazy or busy some of the time. When it comes to decisions about strangers, the easiest, most accessible shortcut is our first impression. Unknowledgeable voters go for this shortcut.

Do the effects obtained in contrived lab demonstrations make a difference in the real world? In close races, unknowledgeable or ‘appearance-based’ voters can sway the outcome of the races. Lenz and Lawson estimated that candidates who appear slightly more competent than their opponents can get as much as 5 per cent more votes from unknowledgeable, TV-loving voters. Recently, Lenz and his students conducted experiments with voters in California and 18 other states. In the two weeks before an election day, voters were shown the ballots either with pictures of the candidates or without pictures, and asked to express their intention to vote. Depending on the race – primary or general – when the voters saw the pictures, the best-looking candidates got a boost between 10 per cent and 20 per cent over the appearance-disadvantaged candidates.

Attractive people and interesting, charismatic actors will always win over competent but less exciting candidates. This is no surprise to those of us who are lifelong democracy foes, because we realize that voters choose appearance every time in a more fundamental way: they pick the candidates whose platforms virtue signal, promise pacifism, or give the voters a feeling of confidence or the sensation that society is sympathetic to them (this is what modern people call “empathy”: the thought that if society cares for its most miserable, it also cares for everyone else, especially the individual talking about “empathy”).

Voters follow a hedonistic imperative when it comes to voting. They want to feel good. Things that make them feel good are forms of compassion that make them feel powerful, much as the guy handing a dollar to a homeless person feels a sense of wealth, power and moral superiority. They like pacifism because it makes them feel safe since it promises to neuter the powerful, even if on their own side, mainly because that is the only group of powerful people that voters have control over.

They like to act generous and tolerant because they are LARPing at being kings, even if they do not understand the root of constructive generosity. And so on: a group of talking monkeys with car keys posing and preening chooses whatever candidate it feels makes the best adornment for its personal narratives. People choose candidates like they buy clothing or movies.

For example, a person will select a romantic comedy (ugh) because they want to “feel good” about their position in the world. They watch sad movies when they are sad, goofy comedies when they want to be happy, and “serious” documentaries when they want to impress their friends with how deep they are. Everywhere, monkeys are acting out their emotional needs on the world, and seem not to care that their votes have effect.

As the bloom fades from liberal democracy in the West, and we tally the dead and destroyed from our campaign to make it work by squashing anyone who disagreed with it, people are speaking out more about the failures of democracy. These failures occur at such a fundamental level that there is no way to fix them, as the failure of the US Constitution to belay mob rule indicates.

White People Show Symptoms Of Abuse Pathology

Saturday, February 4th, 2017

Advanced civilization runs into a problem: the capable must take care of the incapable, since they have both been born to the same civilization. Instead of adopting the elitism that would keep the incapable in check, the capable make themselves into servants of the incapable by “managing” the inept, sloppy, oblivious and narcissistic.

This creates a sense of futility in society, starting from the top-down. Who dares hope for a good outcome when stupidity always wins, and when the intelligent are required to work long hours to keep the insanity from overflowing? Society can either exist as a top-down entity, where the intelligent rule, or it is ruled from the bottom-up by the stupid, who then oppress the intelligent and make them de facto slaves.

You undoubtedly have experienced this reading the newspaper. Story after story describes idiotic and incompetent people doing moronic things, and then at the end you see that they will become wards of the state or otherwise continue. There seems to be nothing you can do: you are outnumbered by fools and, because “society” wants to help them, they win — while you labor away and try to be responsible to pay for it and manage the chaos.

People in Western Civilization probably identified with Jesus on the Cross because of their own martyrdom in this way. Where once they directed others toward creating positive results, they became glorified babysitters once those efforts succeeded and resulted in a vast population of less competent people. Day after day, they were exposed to the ugliest and most desolate of human behavior.

Consider the manager in a small firm. He does not expect his employees to be geniuses when he starts working there, but over time, he comes to see them as an adversary. If not constantly told what to do, they just screw around… with no thought about what is needed for the sake of the business. They will overlook jobs that need doing as a result, simply because they were not instructed every minute of the day.

Even more, they tend to be flakeouts. They will do a job halfway, and then wander off toward something else. Count on them to fill out paperwork wrong, to take sick days whenever they can, to steal items from work or just to do everything poorly because they can get away with it. They have no sense of purpose in the job.

The manager does what everyone must do in such a situation: he cracks down. He enforces work hours more rigidly and puts in place checks and balances and paperwork to force people to do things the right way. They then find ways around that. He redesigns. It is a constant battle, a Tom and Jerry style slapstick comedy, with the workers apparently dedicated to creative ineptitude and laziness.

All of us have experienced low-level jobs where this was the norm. For those from upper-half-of-middle-class backgrounds, it was usually an eye-opener to realize that not everyone cares about getting the job done, and seeing how management are essentially slaves to the complete lack of dedication of their own workers.

This outlook shows what exhausted the West: we became babysitter-managers instead of conquerors.

We can see the results of this today in the behavior of Western people. We like worn-down middle managers, always having to acquiescence to “whatever the herd is doing,” and never able to create sanity in our own lives.

Witness this ultra-cucked guilt blitzkrieg on the topic of immigration from people in denial that business requires a stable civilization:

Rather than return to such a policy targeted at a new group of persecuted people, the United States should continue to accept humanitarian immigration, not because refugees can improve local economies—though they can—and not because they can provide tangible intelligence against ISIS—though they do—but because getting out of the way and allowing people to escape violence is the bare minimum of moral decency.

America may have no moral duty to put out fires around the world, but it does have a moral duty not to block the fire exits.

Translation: if other people are having a problem because of their own incompetence, it is your job to take them in and manage them so that you can get brownie points for being such a nice white knight.

No wonder white Americans are dying out. Sure, the middle class salaries and top-notch shopping are nice, but this provides no future other than being a glorified janitor who does not even get the respect that the guy who cleans the toilets gets. Instead, we know the drill: import Other group, have what we offer be not enough, and get spat on while we struggle like salesmen to make it right even though it never can be.

Diversity occurred in the first place because of this lack of social order. Social order occurs when — as naturally happens in the military, athletics and business — there is a strong hierarchy. Those on the top are there for reason of greater competence, and they tell the others what to do. But we interrupted that with the doctrine of equality, itself a descendant of the idea that we must manage our low-skill citizens.

Instead of having the intelligent making decisions, we had a large contingent of poor people who simply refused to do their role. And so, we imported the Irish to replace them… then the Poles to replace them… then the Italians to replace them… and since then it has been a Ponzi scheme to bring in new groups of third-world people who are not yet ruined by our lifestyle based on individual rights which allows the weak to the command the strong.

That is the real reason for immigration, after all. Unions, worker’s rights, riots and revolts… these meant that, to the bourgeois middle class, it was impossible to do anything but pander more to our low-skill people. Business shrugged and took the money it blew in a year on lawyers to keep the union menace at bay, and threw it into pro-immigration lobbying. Finally it could turn a profit again.

You did this to yourselves, idiots. You, the voters, who are afraid of strong power, opted instead to defend the weak, which made all of the existing problems weak and launched new ones. You cannot blame The Rich,™ The Jew,™ or even business itself. You the voters did this. You refused to fight back against the ongoing creep of the managerial state, and now you are all miserable because of your bad — no, let’s call it what it is: stupid — decisions.

That tolerance for stupidity (the opposite of tolerance is not intolerance, but having standards) caused an abuse pathology in white people: we are abused by those who use our guilt against us and demand we take care of them, even though they have little to offer. I am thinking mostly of dumb whites here, but we have now expanded the franchise… white people live in a constant miasma of Stockholm syndrome, PTSD and neurotic delirium.

As a result, you will exterminate yourselves by failing to breed, which is consistent with being miserable because your lives are spent babysitting lazy, oblivious and deceptive fools that you rely on for labor:

Every time a story like this is published, its comment section predictably devolves into a digital screaming match — on one side are parents and would-be parents espousing the primal human instinct to reproduce, and the folly of denying that drive. On the other side are activists who, like Kelly, believe the way to best protect our children is by not having more. Or, put another way, if you want to preserve the planet for future generations, shoot the stork. Caught in the middle? Twenty- and thirty-somethings torn between the desire to start a family and guilt over doing so.

…“We have a generation of people whose decisions are deeply and painfully complicated by climate change,” Josephine Ferorelli, co-founder of the nonprofit Conceivable Future, which frames global warming as a reproductive justice issue, told Salon. “There isn’t a correct answer here — it’s an impossible choice. So we’re trying to refocus the conversation to something larger.”

If any of these people were not stupefied by their own propaganda, they would realize that having first-world high IQ babies is always preferable. The world is drowning in people and will do so regardless of what we do here in the first world, but we could stop our role in the problem by ending immigration and sending back the people we have now educated here.

Nope, we cannot do that. The role of the manager is always to sacrifice himself because there will always be more clueless people who need being told what to do. Seduced by the power and salary, he nonetheless becomes a slave, bending his back to solve problems of an obvious nature and as a result being distracted permanently from any creative, forward-looking and eternally-valid solutions.

Shoot the stork? Shoot the stupid. Humanity has since its earliest days been awash in incompetents. They may be perfectly nice, pleasant and compassionate people, but they are incompetent. As a result, they destroy anything they touch, either directly by making “decisions” involved with it, or indirectly by passive-aggressively enslaving their betters to become watchdogs over the herd of sprawling ineptitude.

Future historians of the West will record that its decline began with the idea that everyone who was born within a society had created an obligation for that society to take care of them. Better is the rule of nature, where the wolfpack kills or leaves behind the inept wolf, not from a moral judgment but from a sense of self-preservation. Elitism and aristocracy are right; humility and compassion are wrong.

Liberalism is inhuman

Tuesday, August 18th, 2015


Good advertising pitches a simple formula: use this product and be successful. Liberalism promises a similar process, but in its case, social success is what is sold. Use the product named liberalism, and you will be popular or at least, fit in.

Unfortunately — as is well known — advertising does not equal reality. In fact, most advertising is strategically vague lying. Much is the same case with liberalism, which makes grand promises based on its intentions, but does not care to assess its intent relative to reality, which will show the results of those intentions. As Lloyd Marcus writes:

Liberals wrongfully get high marks for compassion. The truth is real compassionate leadership makes wise responsible decisions. Liberals define a compassionate nation as how long that line is of people showing up for their daily allotment of free fish. In America today, 94 million Americans are unemployed. And yet, they have all the necessities and many of the luxuries of working Americans. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. Millions of capable Americans are receiving disability.

Conservatives define compassion as liberating citizens from government. Government handouts are always accompanied with government dictates and controls. There ain’t no free lunch.

Real compassion consists of achieving good results, not good intentions. After all, as our grandparents knew, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” This leads us a to further conjecture: advertising induces us to buy products in lieu of fixing bigger problems in our lives. What is liberalism distracting from?

A short list: ecocide by humanity, the declining amount of open space balanced against our rising population, the decay of our civilization, the foolishness of voters as individuals and as a mass, the rising third-world which wishes to exterminate us, a decaying infrastructure, corruption infiltrating our institutions, and visual pollution in addition to noise pollution and litter, toxins and rotting abandoned human settlements strewn across our natural land.

Those are actual problems. Liberalism presents distractions.


Saturday, August 1st, 2015


A potent liberal mode of attack is to accuse conservatives of a lack of compassion. This occurs because liberals and conservatives have different definitions of compassion. For liberals, it is an emotion and an intent; for conservatives, compassion is measured in terms of results both immediately and in the future.

For example, we see people starving in the street in a city.

The liberal says that we must have compassion for these people and feed them, house them and give them medical care. Even more, we should set up institutions dedicated to helping them, and systems of welfare to subsidize them if they are unable or unwilling to work. This method appeals to our emotions: we see ourselves starving on the street, because humans project themselves into every other living being they see, and we become afraid. We ally our fears for ourselves with policy regarding the starving.

A conservative will ask what the cause->effect relationship is, and tend to shy away from broad categorical declarations in favor of looking at individual cases. If a person is starving because of a single sudden incident that was not of their own doing, we tend to think that local charities should address this, and conservatives — who give more than liberals on average — have no problem opening their wallets and donating their time to help.

Conservatives oppose the direction solution of finding everyone who can claim to be starving and giving them food and care. This is not from fear of cheaters so much as it arises from the knowledge that, without finding the actual cause, we are setting up a feedback loop that rewards poverty. Be starving, get money. This encourages society toward a role where survival and happiness are not duties of the individual, but a duty of society which it can never fill. Human misery is infinite; when this task is passed on to society, it will extinguish itself trying to meet an infinite need.

Further, society can never really address that need, because a chronically starving human is that way because of some underlying cause: depression, insanity, incapacity, or some other dysfunction. At least until society becomes so dysfunctional that being homeless is preferable to a “normal” life. A conservative would aim to address that root problem rather than its symptoms. Liberal compassionate care reminds me of palliative care for terminal patients: keep them comfortable, drug them with television and alcohol, and wait for the inevitable end.

In my mind, the greatest question would arise from this one: is society fair? That is, does it give good things to good people and bad things to bad people? This is both Darwinian and compatible with religious morality, which hold that the good should be something we all aim toward and the bad sent away. Society needs to establish a feedback loop where good receives good or it has created a negative influence which rewards badness and thus, will get much more of that instead of good. Liberal compassion tends to, by being a projection of the emotion of the liberal and not a reflection of the situation out there in the world, increase badness.

Empathy versus sympathy

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

Empathy and sympathy overlap, but I will use “sympathy” here to mean “blind compassion,” or feeling something that you shouldn’t be feeling in the first place, just because you weren’t even a part of the circumstances or situation that affected the party in suffering, but by golly, you feel bad for some reason!

Good old fashioned pity.

Sympathy in that manner is the disease of liberalism; for example, “We feel bad that we see those homeless people on the street, and we can’t do anything about it directly, but let’s toss a few bucks their way so that we don’t have to feel guilty about how much more well-fed and better off we are than they are anymore.”

This is the pity that Nietzsche once talked about that makes people feel good about themselves. It’s the pity that fuels liberalism.


[T]he intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.


[T]he fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, esp. in sorrow or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration.

It doesn’t solve problems, it merely creates the illusion that it does, as if the problem itself only existed in the mind. It’s a process of solipsism, as if it were just an issue of bad feelings that needed to go away, like a little bedtime tummyache.

It only perpetuates the inability to detach and analyze the hows and whys of the emotion we’re feeling, and what we can do to effectively handle the issue that stirs up these kinds of feelings.

I like to think of being “empathetic” as being a detached understanding of the how and why behind the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of others without the solipsistic pretenses of suffering in their exact situation; for example, “Those homeless people seem to be living a tough life.”

“It must really suck to be dirty, wear ragged clothes while trying to stay warm and dry. We could try to help them out by giving them some money (and feel better about ourselves for doing so), but they probably ended up that way because of the circumstances they were born into, and the decisions they made early in life, and there’s nothing I can do right then and there to fix that. We’d only be prolonging his own unfortunate suffering, that would be very selfish of us to do that.”

Depending on who you are, empathy in this sense might seem harsh. I can empathize.

(Un)fortunately, this is the only way to help alleviate all of our collective suffering: by not letting our emotions get in our way so that we can help ourselves help others more effectively and with better prejudice. It makes little sense to have a rationale guided by emotion, compared with emotions guided by rationality. The former is a very infantile mind; the latter is mature.

To those who can’t help but sympathize with every victim of everything: Stop feeling, and start thinking about your feelings. Why do you suddenly care that a bunch of people you never knew died in Haiti, or died starving in Africa today, and what’s it going to change if you do care? It’s too easy to play the generous, benevolent type when you have money to throw at starving, downtrodden people.

If you want to fix problems to end suffering in the world, why not start with yourself?

To quote Mohandas Gandhi (in this tired old cliche): “We must become the change we want to see in the world.” It rings true, time and time again.

It probably seems contradictory and solipsistic, too, to not want to help someone! How arrogant, right?

It seems more arrogant to want to help out a homeless stranger when you’ve got your own share of issues to worry about, like a family who you need to feed and take care of, or a country that’s being inundated by people who don’t even care about the place. We shouldn’t squander our emotional energy on things that won’t come to fruition for us, or even on things that could possibly kill us.


Wednesday, March 5th, 2008


Cue typical American public radio broadcast:

Once this pleasant, sunny courtyard rang with the cries of children at play. That was the week before disaster struck, and began a process that we know only too well.

(Audio: birds singing, children playing)

As the first tendrils of disaster touched this happy community, residents rallied together, and declared their intention to fight disaster with the bonds of a community — love, sharing, forgiveness and a helping hand.

(Audio: “I know this is gonna be hard, but I’m here for the long haul,” gruff voice of local longshoreman, or maybe a painter. Someone who is not a radio-employed intellectual from New York, please. We have empathy for the other half living.)

But as the disaster deepened, those strong voices dropped out one by one. First the busy bus depot flooded in warm blood. Then people began to abandon these homes they worked for over long years of struggle. Finally, the children disappeared.

(Audio: sad music, preferably a minor key modulating to a lower key still in the minor, with a two-note pattern of bright incidentals for contrast.)

Now this once-happy community is all but abandoned. Buildings rust next to burnt out cars. The government promises aid, but it comes slowly. We all know the rest. And even though we give, we cannot stave off this aftermath of disaster.

We can see radio programs as a pattern, much like patterns exist from which we cut clothing, design furniture, or write computer code. The pattern of this radio program is repeated not only on government-funded public radio, but also on privately-owned big media channels, and even more alarming, on the indie stations. Monkey see, monkey do, and this successful product format can be emulated to share in the success.

Looking behind the visual and political cues, and the putative content of the program, we see the emotional content of this pattern. It both memorializes tragedy, and seems to affirm its inevitability, while offering token methods of resistance. This in turn creates a psychological pattern: the sense of living with constant small tragedy and being impotent to change it, and finding solace not in fighting that impotence, but in accepting it and sharing emotions with others.

This pattern can be found other places. The best spot to locate it is a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center. People stand up, say they’ve screwed up their lives and cannot manage their own lives, and so they need someone to tell them what to do. God, the law, morality and economics all get mentioned as part of the same process (revelatory). What is the psychological pattern? Submission to negativity through acceptance of the negative but endurable.

“I get raped nightly,” said one slave to another. “But there’s always food afterwards, and it’s not as bad as the guys in the field have.” The other shrugged. “Share some of that food with someone too ugly to be raped, whyncha?”

When we look at the logic of submission, we see a convergence of human psychological factors. The “Stockholm Syndrome,” where captives bond with captors, is part of the same psychological pattern that has beaten wives clinging to their abusers, or anally violated children defending their parents. Yes, the situation is bad; however, we can’t face what we have to do to fix it; therefore, we endure and find some way to make our sadness into proudness. Although our lives are meaningless, and we fail daily, we are the greatest martyrs of all time.

This psychological pattern is a subset of all cognitive dissonance patterns. In these, reality is painful, so people invent justifications and use them to supplant measurement of reality. We could use the old cliche of an ostrich hiding its head in the sand, but only if there’s a television down there, dramatizing the sadness. It is an inversion of art: instead of singing the beautiful, we find praises for the ugly and disguise it as beauty, because we have lost belief in beauty.

As good nihilists, we note that this loss of belief in beauty is vested more in belief than beauty. We have made beauty contingent upon so many moral justifications that it is socially taboo to note beauty without somehow tying it to the plight of the disadvantaged (morality for dummies: when we fear for ourselves, we want to find someone in a worse position than ourselves and demand they be protected, like a human shield; this unites individuals into crowds determined to destroy anyone who might not need the protection of the crowd, like a populist Mafia). What a beautiful vista — we can build public housing here.

Through this process, what was once adaptation becomes a perverse addiction to failure and ugliness, so long as we find some hip new way of presenting them on the radio or television. You can see it in the irony of the hipster, who if his band sucks, will tell you all about how using a tuba to blast jazz riffs over indie rock guitar makes them unique and different and worthy of your attention. The question of “Is it good?” has been replaced by the question of “Do we do ugly, boring and failing well?” It’s like a yard sale of used colostomy bags.

Cognitive dissonance, by the nature of denying reality, puts us into dangerous territory. It is spread easily through social expressions because if our good buddy Joe30AF0B18 comes up to us and tells us that his job failed, he has AIDS and his children are mentally retarded, we want to say something nice to him to make him feel better. So we tell him that Jesus loves him, or he’s unique, or that we’ve never heard such a moving story and he should call public radio. In doing so, we take some of the need to justify misery into ourselves.

What is enduringly positive about nihilism is that we cut ourselves free from this nightmare of justification and socialized praise of death, and instead, look toward the actual design of reality. People with no goal in life want to turn nihilism into fatalism, so they have an excuse to sit on their fat asses pleasing themselves but yet can justify it with competing moral logic. “All is lost,” they wail. “Oh well, might as well tuck into this pizza that just arrived… and there’s Madden on the PS3, soooo…”

Nihilism can be more coherently expressed as the scientific method with a desire to remove the scientist. We look at reality, its repeated patterns, and note them in a mathematical sense. We then remove the bias of the scientist not by erasing it, but by putting it into context, as in “you are a person within a world” and not “the world is the expression of yourself.” We look at structure because it is consistent and in a sense is more real than tangible, physical factors. We can make a chair out of feces, wood or egg whites, but the only way we can recognize it is by its form serving a function made obvious by the needs of those who would sit, so even if it is without any conventional “this is a chair” cues we can recognize it.

As good nihilists, we look askance at this world of weepy public service announcements because it is not real. We see that reality exists in parallel everywhere at once, and so inevitably there is tragedy somewhere. What does it matter to us? We cannot change it, and might not be advised to do so, especially if the tragedy was a community built on a floodplain or supported by a degenerate industry. We can do what we must do, and the only ultimate measurement of that is what we create in the physical world. Our thoughts die with us, as do our emotions. We lose out when those emotions are repeated mass media indoctrinations.

What is real is the knowledge that, as one old empire (the global economy and moral world government) begins to find out that its design is inferior, a new empire rises for those who want to grab it. If 99% of the people on earth are incompetent morons and/or are delusional and weepy, that means those of us who cut ourselves free from the old and dying emotional pattern are able to create and enjoy ourselves — and succeed while doing it, meaning that we inherit the future.

The people who uphold the dying empire, even by criticizing it and creating endless radio shows that fit this maudlin pattern, show themselves to be not only obsolete but unable to see beyond appearance. They cling to the feelings they can derive from the pattern of praising dysfunction by mourning its consequences but not looking deeply into its structure, and in so doing, approve of their doom. Laughing at them lessens any guilt you might catch from them like a pesky cold in a crowded office.

Most people you meet in life who claim to be outsiders to the dying regime are physically outside of it, but mentally and morally inside of it. This includes the “nihilists” who want an excuse to do nothing and sound smart for having figured out the futility of it all. This also includes the smart, shapely, young, attractive, compassionate and blonde radio hosts who want to get all weepy over whatever vestigial limb of the human amoeba just got its ass handed to it by nature, economics or logic. These people are caught up in the emotional pattern that is opposite to nihilism.

They, like most people who are addicted to these negative emotions, are hoping to share their misery with us and neutralize us, and drag us down with them. Misery loves company, as the cliche says, but even more, miserable people are threatened by anyone who emotionally or physically might escape their debacle. They don’t want to save themselves because it’s easier to weep than take action. But they do not want to see anyone who might not have their disease, because that competition will best them, and they hate that.

Honest nihilism liberates us from that dying cycle. Nihilism eradicates morality as it is practiced, and gives us space to re-invent a civilization that is not based on pacifying the masses with morality, but on working together to build something beautiful. Our goal is not to praise the darkness, declare all is lost, and go home to our pizza sofa video game klatches. Our goal is to transcend this mess, and then put our ideas into action so they persist in physical reality.

The first step we must take is rejection of the weepy mentality. We do not need depression for there is no reason to be depressed. Yes, humanity is destroying its world, but that is already written in stone and cannot be changed until our numbers are reduced. Yes, most people are stupid, but they will be unable to resist that reduction. Let the dying face the fate it has chosen, especially since it considers itself so clever; we don’t need its addictive, negative emotions dressed up as some hip radio program.

Look toward the future with a smile. Underneath that smile, make sure there’s a grin of determination and playfulness. What collapses around you has been fated to die for centuries if not longer, because its design is adapted to human emotional neediness and not reality. As it falls away, spaces open for us to create something new and better.


Friday, March 4th, 2005


It is difficult to imagine a bigger pile of excrement than the concept of “progressive.” It is used to describe “new” ideas, which to the young and other ingenues, seems like something possible. Let us correct that misconception immediately! There are “new” technologies, but they are variants on past technologies recombined in new ways; there are “new” events, but they repeat the patterns of history. No two events or technologies are identical, but their abstract forms are so similar it’s silly to try to differentiate them. We have “new” ideas if we find new ways to express an eternal truth, like writing a new book or a symphony, but will we invent a “new” way of writing music? Not really, except in an academic sense, and with the untold billions of songs played through history, it’s likely that our “new” idea was hit upon by someone else at random. Thus the idea of progress is foolish, because what is true will always be true, and one cannot find a higher form of truth through some “new” concept. But why is the idea of progressivism so favored? It allows couch-sitting idiots to sit back like fat kings on a throne they don’t deserve and demand “new” ideas to solve problems that are only problems because of our disorganization and selfishness. As always with humanity, deny the elephant in the room and focus on the details, as it allows us to continue existing in our private universes, free from caring about reality. At least until pollution, war, disease, famine and discontent of our own making either wipes us out or breeds us into an elaborately complicated variant on the chimpanzee.


The root of all the West’s problems, at least, is individualism. By this we mean putting the individual before all other factors of decision making. A common misconception of course is that by being an individualist, the person somehow gains a greater uniqueness or bravery in asserting their own beliefs (which they invent in order to assert them, in a parody of logic). Nothing could be further from the truth! The individualist has created a false god, a worship of self, which is like saying that in the world we will pay attention only to things that come in threes. There is more to the world than the individual, but we choose to focus on the individual instead of the whole; what could motivate this except fear? Fear that the individual does not measure up? Consider this: if herds of sheep united against their attackers, they would never lose a member. Instead, they panic as a group and determine their paths individually. It seems paradoxical, but the greatest herd-mind is that of the individualist, because they are afraid to embrace the world as a whole and do what is right, which actually takes bravery as it may require individual sacrifice, and it takes actual knowledge to know what is right. Interestingly, individualism requires neither of these, nor has ever produced a single viable solution through history. Bleat yourself into a corner; be an individualist.


Listen, I — I don’t know how to tell you this, but it’s one of the most important things you can learn: there’s a lot wrong in this world, but not with this world. The same nature that produced us and refined us to the degree that we can understand philosophy, architecture, art, science — this is a wonderful gift from the void of the universe. The basic order of life is sound, benevolent, and godlike in its gifts. Humans may be screwing up, but from every error there is learning, and life will reward that which is true to eternal principles, because life is a higher order than humanity — everything humans do is regulated by life, much as the weak among us would like to convince you otherwise!

Most people who get involved with any form of social critique give themselves over to a negativity that believes not only that things are wrong with society, but that humanity and by extension life itself is somehow broken. This is an error that assumes our current human society determines more than the passage of a few centuries, which to my mind is error. That which is well-designed will persist; that which is poorly designed may take long to perish, usually because it is parasitic, but eventually is relegated to a lesser role. Where is the Soviet Union today? Pol Pot? The Spanish Inquisition? All these things lived off the excess of others and when forced to make a way for themselves, could not: all they could do was react and parasitize, and they failed to create.

Creation is a positive sensation, although it involves destruction, but there is a form of destruction not only without hate but without love that is merely a practical matter. If love is in your heart when you conceive a design, but the design requires the removal of people or things, you destroy them without any emotional response because your emotions are reserved for the goal at large. You want to make something better, and all of the tasks leading to that betterment are blessed by a fullness of spirit, but it does not mean that one reacts to a necessary death any more than one reacts to the cleansing of a bathroom. Life has its ugly and its beautiful, but together they serve a more sedate kind of beauty, which is the eternal renewal of nature and the cosmic order.

I will not lie to you — our society now is misbegotten, it is destructive, and it is a path to death. But it is only one force at play on the battlefield of life. You and what you do with your life are a force beyond society and its moral rule, and the instant you realize that society makes rules for itself only, you are liberated to see the whole picture. It is transient. That which is eternally true is not. If you joyfully labor according to the latter, and not the former, you will rise above the mess and become a force contributing to creativity. Most people, whether punkers or metalheads or bitter bartalk liberals, get immersed in the negativity and use it as a shield, justifying their own lack of accomplishment (whether in a social sense — $$$ — or not). There’s more that you and the other people who are not drawn into this mess can accomplish.

Negativity as an emotion will corrupt and poison everything it touches, much as decay spreads from rotting corpse to dry wood in a coffin. It is an error because it is an emotional reaction to the world as a whole in a binary sense, such as “Either I’ll like it or hate it, but either way, I’ll have some clear-cut indisputable way to explain my position in it.” Undermen are those who are consumed by negativity, although they are specifically those who use popularity as a tool of revenge against reality and natural selection. There are those who claim to be on the opposite side but are actually in the service of negativity, and if you question them, you will find they lack any intent of making things better. They want to complain and if given a chance, to slit throats and help themselves to the riches. Your average neo-Nazi and Democrat are the same in this sense, because they are propelled by this desire for revenge. All of this originates in an underconfidence that can only be assuaged by some statement that sounds like the word of God, e.g. “The world is evil and I must destroy it” or “The world is good and I must submit to it.” What is the world, in that view? — They are confusing the world with the social world, and forgetting that the social world is a phantasm of our own minds, untested against nature on the scale of thousands of years which will prove its fitness.

No matter how much the world appears to you to be horrible, to suck, to be beyond redemption, look at the facts: the error is in human society and in particular, this type of human society; it is not this period in history itself, but the fact that during this time of history, we have opted for this type of society, this type of philosophy, this type of fundamental motivation. All of our errors can be cured in the mind. The first step to this is purging oneself from good and evil, positivity and negativity, holy and profane… removing all arbitrary distinctions that allow us to classify the whole without looking simply at the task. When one looks at the whole picture, often what is good is revealed as evil, and likewise — therefore it makes less sense to do that than it does to think of a design we desire, and work toward it with a subtle positivity and love in our hearts, but no emotion in our fulfilling of its tasks. This is the path beyond negativity, self-hatred, underconfidence and other useless time-wasters that vitiate most people on earth and turn them into useless slaves to bitterness.

Recommended Reading