Right now, the predators and parasites are swarming. The voters clearly want Donald Trump as the president, and he has united groups on both left and right toward this end. The perception is that “business as usual” has become corrupt.
If our elites were anything but stumbling incompetents, they would go forth first with an agenda that does not include confirming that fact. But one succeeds in liberal democracy by being a salesperson, which demands a quasi-aggression that involves never considering anything but your own needs. And the GOP Establishment is acting by its needs.
Those who are currently in power in “conservative” politics know that a usurpation is coming. If Donald Trump wins, he proves not only that they were wrong, but that they were not trying for a good outcome. This implies that our current GOP Establishment has no intention of achieving conservative results, but wants to play-act at being conservative so that the money keeps rolling in.
Being a controlled opposition party pays well, it turns out. Politicians can make money by consulting or giving speeches; lobbyists, lawyers, consultants and all the staffs do well also. This is the difference between seeing politics as goal-oriented, and seeing it as a job or career. The GOP Establishment elites are careerists, and that involves working within the system and getting along with everyone more than getting anything done.
If Trump gets elected, the risk is not that he will fire them; it is that all of us will have been shown, clearly and dramatically, that we are getting nothing for our donations and votes to the GOP. Voters will demand replacement of anyone who has prospered in this system.
The GOP Establishment is going to block Donald Trump and in doing so, will make him more powerful than ever before.
They are the gatekeepers, and they will find ways to keep him out. There are thousands of rules, laws and regulations which could conceivably either frustrate his nomination, invalidate his election or form a lawsuit which could sabotage the campaign. They will use something clever, not something smart.
In doing so, the idiot elites will prove what Trump was saying all along: the GOP does not want to win; it wants to stay employed.
The next step from this, fortunately, will be the removal of all GOP elected leaders as their voters sleep in on voting day, and in the resulting liberal turmoil, massive discontent with liberal democracy itself.
For the first time, our people may see the actual problem instead of the proxy, the cause instead of the effect, and act on it. Not all of them — of a hundred people, one can understand the issues required. But people fortunately act with a herd instinct, and when the sheep walking point sniffs a wolf, they all panic together.
Imagine you are three cocktails into a good party. What seems wise at any moment in that time is what makes people laugh around you, increases the uproar, and convinces the pretty girls (or boys, if you are of the lady persuasion) to like you. Then the morning comes. Hangover passes, and you consider your actions.
At that moment, what seems wise is that which both (1) avoids useless risks and (2) plans for the long-term. For example, you do not want all of the girls (or boys) to like you; you want the ones you understand as “good” — a function of your intelligence and moral integrity — to like you. The uproar has passed and revealed itself as temporary. Laughter is also insincere, having been designed to amuse for the moment and then moved on. What remains are the human connections you make, the truths you discover and the future you invent.
In the sudden clarity of the morning after, you notice a separate between what really matters and what is merely an artifact of last night. This causes you to re-assess the time-scale of your consideration of your own actions; those which last for only four hours on a raucous Friday night become less valuable than those which project your intent for days, months, years, decades, centuries. This transition alone moves you from what is socially approved to what creates desired effects in reality, because social approval is like the wine you have drunk merely a temporary effect.
According to the poll, 52% of adults had a favorable impression of George W. Bush, 43% unfavorable. When Bush left office in 2009, only about a third of Americans said they had a positive opinion of him. In a February 2009 poll conducted about a month after he left office, Republicans were the only group among which a majority said they had a favorable view of Bush. Even among self-described conservatives, only 50% had a favorable take on the former president and champion of “compassionate conservatism.”
George W. Bush was mostly conservative. As a neoconservative, he championed liberal goals — equality — through conservative methods. Conservatives, being lowercase-c conservative, view such compromises as sound investments. This means that he was not even full conservative, but it has only taken eight years to revive, restore and expand his reputation. Why is this? Liberal policies sound good in the year that they are made, but decline in importance after that, much like the fourth cocktail the night before. They were temporary feelgoods but nothing else. Conservative policy sets a steady groundwork.
Now… GWB will not be a favorite around here because he was a mixed bag. Not conservative enough, he made several liberal errors, including the occupation (versus merely defeat) of Iraq. But the point remains: over time, the wisdom of conservative ideas is revealed, and the appeal of liberal ideas lessens. But in the moment, liberal ideas always win. This is something to think about as we make decisions for the future.
I am fortunate to be able to announce that a piece of mine, “Civil Rights Fatigue” has been accepted at anti-modernist blog Alternative Right.
While the right-wing underground divides itself on many issues, it agrees on more than it does not: mass democracy fails, ecocide is real, nationalism keeps a nation happy, and we do not need liberal ideological government at all.
Since we are in agreement on the big issues, I have been reaching out to notable right-wing blogs in an attempt to draw us all closer to the point of action. Alternative Right, on which I have been gratefully published for several years, has kindly printed me alongside other right-wing, new right, identitarian, neoreactionary, radical traditionalist and dark enlightenment luminaries.
Think about your ideal conservatives. They would be like wise elders. They would be stable. But they would be positive, always seeing the best in life and determined to bring it out.
Now look at today’s “conservatives.”
In the public sphere, we have a group of liberals who believe in balanced budgets, capitalism and strong defense. That’s a better direction than the liberals will take us, but one that leads back to the same state as liberal government creates.
In the underground, we have alienated angry people who cannot even admit their philosophy, if they developed it to its logical extent, is conservative. Nationalism for them is a goal in itself, and so they make it fanatical and discard everything needed to support it, to make it meaningful and give it context.
The point of being conservative is to conserve. The past offers us wisdom; it offers us a model of civilization that actually, you know, works. It’s worth preserving civilization because life is a gift, and making life more functional enhances that gift.
What we are fighting for is literally a choice between a heaven and hell on earth. Conservatives believe in innocence, purity, loyalty, honor and a sense of all life being sacred. Liberals are so blinded by their quest to make everyone equal that they deny the presence of reality itself. Denial like that creates deathbound societies which cannibalize all good things to feed their need for every increasing numbers of warm bodies.
Since the French Revolution, the West has torn itself apart with ideological quests for a workable form of liberalism. All have failed. Currently, the debt bomb that Western governments have created by buying votes with entitlement programs is poised to explode. The atmosphere in the city is grim; people are nervous, forget things, can’t sleep, and charge forward with manic energy but thoughtless acts. They are insectoid now, almost pure reaction to stimulus, the mind canceled behind the wild eyes.
Conservatives need to step up and make themselves an option. This is not formed through new movements, but through concentrating all of our different movements into one solid offering that is unafraid to offer actual alternatives to liberalism. That is, unlike today’s conservatives, it cannot be liberal. Most people are afraid of social censure and so they will not do this. But the future belongs to those who can.
As one in favor of the reality-based narrative, I tend to talk a lot about the necessity of paying attention to reality. This is the basis and beginning of any sane philosophy.
However at the same time it is a mistake to become “pragmatic” in the vernacular sense, meaning one who is oriented toward compromise and accepting the condition of things as they are. This is the opposite of the conservative goal, which is forever rising upward — a radical contrast and opposite to the liberal notion of forward motion as “progress.”
These are more than differences in direction. When leftists say they want to move forward, they are implying that history has a clear linear path from primitive to some ultimate state of civilization that is externally imposed. This is like saying that there is an intrinsic answer to life, and when we discover it, we’ll use government to apply it to everyone. In their view, what we essentially are and were is bad and will be replaced with something better.
Conservatives on the other hand view life as a process of self-refinement, or movement up a hierarchy of behavior. This is analogous to the process of maturation itself. As we become more mature, we move up the latter not to a different type of existence, but toward a better version of our own existence. Like moving up the ladder in ability or competition, we’re becoming better versions of what we always were.
American conservatives have gotten sidetracked by the proxies we use for conservative activity. Reagan fought communists with capitalism and freedom, and made drugs harshly illegal, so we follow that pattern. This isn’t to say that doing so is wrong. It’s just that it is not the essence of conservatism. The essence of conservatism is refinement of the individual by following the path to “the good, the beautiful and the true” which are what T.S. Eliot called “the permanent things.”
This corresponds to moving up the ladder. We know what beauty is in the world, so we strive to cultivate it in ourselves. This can’t be done externally; it has to be done in our souls, and then applied to our animal bodies and inclinations via self-discipline. Then we encode it in culture, and make it into a values system such that we each know how to rise if we are inclined to perceive, understand and apply.
That was the old order. Some are realizing that, for all that it “seemed” unjust and inequitable from a distance, it was actually a maintenance of this standard of moral behavior, self-discipline and steadily rising personal refinement. It was an order based on nobility, like many hereditary orders:
So dominant was WASP culture that some wealthy families who didn’t qualify by lineage attempted to imitate and live the WASP life. The Catholic Kennedys were the most notable example. The Kennedy compound at Hyannis Port—the sailing, the clothes, the touch football played on expansive green lawns—was pure WASP mimicry, all of it, except that true WASPs were too upstanding to go in for the unscrupulous business dealings of Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. or the feckless philanderings of him and some of his sons.
That the Kennedys did their best to imitate WASP life is perhaps not surprising, for in their exclusion, the Irish may have felt the sting of envy for WASPocracy more than any others. The main literary chroniclers of WASP culture— F. Scott Fitzgerald, say, or John O’Hara—were Irish. (Both Fitzgerald and O’Hara tried to live their lives on the WASP model.) But the pangs weren’t limited to the Irish alone. To this day, the designer Ralph Lauren (né Lifshitz) turns out clothes inspired by his notion of the WASP high life, lived on the gracious margins of expensive leisure.
The point of this ancient order was to promote the noble to the top of the stack. What is nobility? Moral rectitude, both in passive (“do the right thing”) and active (“act aggressively to put all in order”) modes. This type of morality consists in giving, as Plato might say, to each as they deserve: good to the good, and bad to the bad. Nobility is not just a behavior, or an outlook, but a character inclination to preserve social order.
As the article linked above illustrates, we have replaced this with meritocracy. Meritocracy is the idea that we can make standardized tests and that the people who do best on those are our new elites. Thus we offer complex educational options that reward spending 50 hours a week studying, and we promote those people to positions where they can take advantage of natural developments in technology and society and profit handsomely from them.
Yet as David Brooks illustrates in his excellent BOBOS in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, these new elites are not maintaining social order like the old ones did. They are however profiting and engaging in activities that make them look good and make them feel good about themselves; charity isn’t so much effective for its objects as it is in making us all look good for participating.
Somehow our culture has persuaded itself that the naked quest for financial gain, often through the devising and trading, on monstrous amounts of (very low interest) borrowed money, of what Warren Buffett has called instruments of mass destruction, is a more urgent and honorable calling than the passionate pursuit of truth and beauty.
I’ve tried to suggest that at least a portion of that pursuit can have gratifying economic results. (Plus it will not plunge us into an endless recession!) But that’s not really the point. The point is truth and beauty, without which our lives will lack grace and meaning and our civilization will be spiritually hollowed out and the historical bottom line will be that future epochs will remember us as a coarse and philistine people who squandered our bottomlessly rich cultural inheritance for short-term and meaningless financial advantage.
If, as Plato suggested, the form or idea of an event must occur before its material counterpart, then for us to understand our future requires we first know what we desire. A good starting point is picking what is equally true in past, present and future, which is that if we want a better life, we must move upward by refining what we have. In other words, we must take the mundane and elevate it to the good, the beautiful and the true.
Plato might argue that this positioning of idea over material is essential because only idea can organize the material into a useful form; the converse, of material organizing itself, is clearly not true. Thus all that is left for us is to decide what sort of idea we desire — forward or upward? — and to organize our thinking toward that end.
What a fortunate time in which we live – it is a terrible age, where error is called truth and truth is excluded, but as every action has an equal and opposite reaction, what comes in this very time (we are the pivot) is an upsurge of momentum to change this illusion and replace it with something meaningful. This momentum is quite powerful, and it marks the full circle of a process upon which we embarked some millennia ago, in that those who wish to uphold our culture as Indo-Europeans have moved from a focus on involution, to a will toward evolution.
These terms sound like clever wordplay, but they represent polar opposites of the process of growth. Evolution is greater adaptation to the external world, where involution is a focus on our internal world, and as is a natural consequence of that focus, a passive means of applying it to our environment. Evolution occurs when people do not fear death, and heroically seek to achieve regardless of the cost, but involution occurs when people are so afraid of death and failure that instead they prefer inaction, or action of the meekest type such as voting, protests, flag-waving and the like. Involution is decay to a healthy soul which, fearing nothing and seeing nature not as some divine Judgment but as an ongoing process of, among other things, making better heroes, does not fear dying in the quest of something essential.
Those who defend the traditions of our culture are, in the current time, called conservatives, but conservatism has come full circle as well and, with the ending of its orbit roughly where it started, will now reconstruct itself from a movement that defends a decreasing amount of tradition against assimilation by a hostile world, into a movement that boldly asserts its values onto the world and justifies them to no one; it will cast aside politics as a game of pleasing the masses, and move to politics as the science of picking what is right for the whole, no matter who is inconvenienced and thus less likely to vote for it in the future. As an old saying goes, you can’t appease Satan; if there is a great wrong, it cannot be bargained with, or reasoned with, but must be conquered and banished.
Of course, to people of this time these words seem extreme and terrifying. They are more concerned with the politics of involution, which require that one find some very basic, dumbed-down idea that most of the deluded fools out there can concentrate on for long enough to check the box marked YES/SI. Since only the issues that please those who fund our political process make it to the voting booth, it is unlikely that this strategy of evolution will do anything but slowly become assimilated by its enemies, thus proving again that appeasement fails.
Old-style conservatism hopes to preserve certain aspects of culture by using the means of its enemies, but this will change; populist democracy is our enemy, because it leads to an involutive focus, by which we shuffle tokens in our society for the benefit of the individual, ignoring the consequences for the whole. We’re about to commit ecocide and genocide the Indo-European race through admixture, but what passes for politics is: Have we empowered disabled lesbian eskimos yet? No? Well, that’s an action item, then. This type of politics by its nature will assimilate all tradition and destroy it, unless we remove it from existence – which we can do, if society lasts so long, via democratic change. However, we must become organized, and we must become assertive.
Evolutionary conservatism, called “traditionalism” or “integralism” by most, no longer aims to rope everyone together and find something they can agree on, as that involutive process is passive by its very nature and destructive to any architecture of truth or overall consensus to civilization. Unlike its predecessor, evolutionary conservatism is not afraid to step outside the way things are done in liberal democracies and proclaim broadly its views, but first it must agree on the essence of those views, without fighting over the details that can easily be resolved later; only truly useless people fight over tiny details and thus miss the whole picture, thus dooming themselves to never make the choices over which they are fighting.
To find this consensus, we have to look toward the essence of traditional Indo-European culture.
Upheld in art and philosophy as something called “Romanticism,” traditional Indo-European values emphasize an integration with nature and an evolutionary impetus within society toward the best individuals it can produce, valuing individual experience above individual political participation. It tends to take a hardline look at death, and see it as inevitable and thus, instead of trying to explain away death or minimize its spiritual importance, it accepts death and resolves to find in life things so important they offset the inevitability of the end. It is worshipful of nature, and understands nature’s will as larger than humankind’s, and thus does not attempt to re-organize nature or “repair the world.” It is not constrained by moral law, as for it, the goal is always more important than the method. It is emotional and effusive as opposed to being stoic, although it is disciplined, for it recognizes that nothing can remove suffering from life thus, like death, suffering must be made important through a counterbalance of meaning in life itself.
This philosophy is unique to the Indo-Europeans, and any future conservative movement for that group must insist on making it the founding and unitive principle of civilization. Removing any of its elements will cause it to lose structural integrity and fail, so even the unpopular parts must be upheld; to make this rational, we will say that any who are not of Indo-European heritage must rule themselves elsewhere, as we have no desire to force our system upon them. For our own people however we choose this system, regardless of what they think their individual preference is, because we recognize that most people don’t know what they need, couldn’t figure out what they needed if it was on a multiple choice test, and will always select the “conservative” option – what they see as immediately in the short-term being of greatest financial or social benefit to them. This leads to destructive politics, and should not be tolerated.
Instead, our new conservatism will aim to solve all of the issues of modern politics by presenting a single idea: we are an ethnic group that operates according to the principle of doing best for the whole, because long-term planning is what has shaped us and is that for which our minds are optimized. In modern terms, this translates into:
Environmentalism: consistent with Indo-European Romantic views of naturalism, we believe in nature as inherently a positive thing no matter how bloody and brutal it appears to us, therefore we will never endanger our ecosystems, even if it means reducing our numbers and our lifestyles.
Ethnoculturalism: culture is race, and race is culture; without both heritage and culture, an ethnic group ceases to exist. For this reason, we choose to separate from others without passing some kind of judgment over them. We do this for us, not them, and we believe we do them no injury in this act.
Organicism: evolution is what makes better humans, thus we fear death less than becoming mediocre, and always breed ourselves to produce better, smarter more honorable people by exclusively honoring those characteristics – not money-making ability, or “success” in a world dominated by technology. Further, we are oriented toward families, and do not desire to polarize the sexes against one another, as they are each essential parts of the family unit, which is ultimately the most rewarding goal an individual can have.
Feudalism: beyond socialism or capitalism, we believe in a system which rewards the most competent, not those who find a way to get the most people to buy some plastic piece of junk, and we also believe that those who are not incompetent should have a comfortable living without being forced to compete economically, as this distracts time from family, culture and nature.
This is both a new philosophy, and an ancient one; it is a modern restatement of values that, although found in the ancients, will apply to any culture that wishes to be inwardly as well as outwardly healthy, as it forms a rewarding psyche by which one does right to all involved parties, achieves a balance with nature, and has sensible biological and real-world achievements such that anything gained can be said to be exclusively a product of the individual and the tribe. We owe nothing to others, and deprive ourselves of nothing, because all that is done is done for a better whole, on the level of our race, our environment, and our individual psychologies.
This natural and logical system removes the illusion under which moderns labor and replaces it with a pathos of the whole. We are part of the whole, but indivisible from it. We recognize our individual limits, and strive to be better, so that everything we have are victories we have earned honestly and independently. We reject fear of death, and embrace life, and in doing so adopt a philosophy which makes for a healthier balance between individual and world. As a result of these tendencies, this new belief system is not merely political; it is culture, philosophy, society and politics all in one, and thus can only be called “tradition.”
We can achieve this new vision in part because current society is failing, but also because it is the only sensible approach to human reality, and will always be. No matter how much technology we develop, we will be mortal, and will not be able to replicate in the lab the complex natural process of evolution, which does not just add one trait to an organism but balances all traits into an enduring design. No matter how much we attempt to empower people, it is still more sensible to rule for the good of the whole, and to give the individual a new kind of freedom by exempting them from a mundane and futile political process.
Our vision will be terrifying to most modern people, as they are both conditioned to see the current way as the only way, and lack self-confidence that they will have a place in such a society. Their fears are unfounded, because not only will they have a place, but they will have a place in a healthier society that will guarantee them and their descendants more balanced, logical lives. Unlike involutive political movements, we do not seek their approval, however. We know what is right, and we shall do it.
Each person who sees the wisdom of this philosophy becomes a warrior for our cause, regardless of their membership in organizations that support it; ultimately, what will bring this about is for those who can lead to adopt these ideas, and not allegiance to some form of political brand. Through self-discipline and visionary thinking, they will apply these ideas in every decision of their lifestyle and public careers, realizing that it will inevitably take hold and create a better society. This is conservatism coming full orbit: from an organized pandering to the mob, to a self-assertive belief system that appeals to those who can recognize the error of our modern time, and independently, take steps to correct it.
These columns are written for strong people. By that I don’t mean physically strong. I mean that, if I wanted to write for the undifferentiated mass who think newspapers are a source of what’s actually happening of interest in the world, I’d write like Ann Coulter: demonize a clear enemy, make some jokes at their expense, and then assert the ego of the individual as being supreme for having a certain set of widely-publicized beliefs. I write these instead for those who create, whether civilizations or art, depending on your specialization.
In past times I’d say these columns are for strong men, but I don’t feel it fair to give slight to women, given the expectations of feminism instilled in them: there are strong women too, and on the frontier these were expected to be defenders and rulers of the house, and not too feminine to pick up a bow and arrow or rifle and do away with raiders, fighting in concert with men. However, men – the male, assertive, action-oriented mindset that is instilled in a human during fetal development by hormones – are a different creature than women, and I say long live the difference, as it makes for a system of checks and balances which is necessary for civilization. Men err toward the active; women err toward the passive. Together there’s a future. But those must both be strong, which does not mean a dissolution of the feminine or adulteration of the masculine.
Because I write for strong people, I’m given the trivial grace of saying things you can’t yap about in public, and the much more potent one of being able to take on difficult topics without having to put them in linear terms for the crowd, thus losing subtlety. Since this is mine to dispose, today I write about racial loathing: the impulse of strong people to draw swords and slaughter those of other cultures and ethnicities, recognizing these as alien to their own and thus an inherent struggle between their own culture and the cultural invaders. My advice regarding racial loathing is simple.
First, recognize that there are many weak people you loathe, many among your own race and tribe. While your response on seeing these may not be as visceral as that of seeing a true alien in our midst, when they are recognized – through their political actions, or social actions, or other activities revealing of character – it should be stronger, because these are as close as you’re going to get to a true enemy: they’re the Trojan horse inside your gates, and they walk among you freely because they look just like you. Be ready to draw swords and do what is necessary.
While alien people, bearing with them DNA specialized in ways optimized for their foreign cultures, and attitudes bearing the ideas of foreign cultures, many of them which have already failed and thus preach only disease to strong people, are indeed a symptom of the decline, they’re not the cause. Furthermore, the cause is far more widespread than the cure, and it is borne by many who are crypto-enemies because their beliefs are basically destructive to all that strong people hold dear; however, they also far outnumber you. For this reason, it doesn’t make sense to draw swords against the symptoms, but to recognize the cause — and then things get complex.
One doesn’t defeat a cause by preaching against it alone; there is a certain amount of railing and doctrinizing that must occur for it to be widely recognized among the strong, who are otherwise interested in their “real world” lives apart from politics and the futures of masses of people (this is, in fact, healthy, as you will see later in this article). But to react too clearly to something is to set yourself apart in a specialized camp of “not-cause,” and thus to be only able to preach against it; it’s more important to counteract it, and one does that as one creates a civilization: by forming something better and promoting it at the expense of all things of a weaker will.
Clearly our current society is in deep doo-doo. Its overpopulation and endless consumption and waste alone will doom it, but even further, it lacks heroic and creative spirit, and thus is given to endless internal debate which obscures any real meaning and any real chance at change. When ten thousand people fill a hall, each screaming his or her own theory of what is right and wrong, what ends up occurring is noise, not signal, and not reason. Therefore it is better that a select group move outside the hall of discourse, and through action establish a civilization-value-system and worldview that is not only contrary to that of the screaming crowd, but demonstrates through its existence a healthier life.
This amounts to a change not on the political or social or academic levels, but on the most practical level there is: values. Most people will spend their lives focused on themselves and their families, but will apply their values to what they teach their children, and, more importantly, how they choose to live, setting an example not only for children but for neighbors and friends. This is how influence actually spreads; we all look toward those who have what we would like to have, and if we’re not parasites, we seek to emulate it on our own terms instead of taking it from them via subterfuge or violence and claiming it as our own. This is important because unless we have some understanding of it, stealing it will make it last a generation, but it will then be lost, since the object or basic behavior will not translate across times and individuals.
It is fortunate that most people are thus fixated on individual lives, because values are the only way to spread meaningful change. Politics in a democracy is option A or option B, but rarely a chance to define your own; the closest it gets is analogous to a buffet or salad bar, where you have a finite number of ingredients but you — in your fortunate “freedom” and “liberty” — get to choose which percentages of each you put on your plate. From this we get Communism (egalitarian totalitarianism), libertarianism (conservative anarchism), conservatism (liberal tradition-oriented reactionarism), and so on. None of these will do anything but reshuffle the cards in the deck already dealt to us, and thus no meaningful change will come of them. Values, on the other hand, permeate the daily lives of individuals who make things happen, not the stuffy boardrooms of government or the spacy, distant halls of academia.
When you see alien culture invading your own, or alien people in charge of (for example) your media and government, it’s important to recognize that this could not have occurred without significant internal rot in the values of your society. Parasites fail attacking the strong, but when something with wealth shows signs of weakness, they’re at the door with carpet-bags in hand. If there’s aliens among you, it’s because cultural values didn’t exist to prevent that, or more likely, values became so degenerate that people began doing things for individual gratification alone, having nothing of a higher nature for which to live. This is the enemy, not the symptom: the alien you see walking past, or the people of your tribe with alien values, although the latter should be snuffed for being failures of good breeding.
If I could say one thing to the strong, and one only, it would be this — attacking the rot is a failing strategy, so instead, assert that which is strong and never give assent to the weakness. There are enough of us still left, despite centuries of genocidal breeding and passive middle eastern religions (Christianity, and to a smaller degree, Judaism), that we can by doing what is right avoid what is wrong. When enough people have achieved consensus of what is right, the basis of a new civilization exists, and this can be asserted purely through will: This is what I choose. From that point, the trivial tasks including clearing from among us those of alien values will be a corollary, and a natural inclination arising from the values already achieved.