Posts Tagged ‘death’

The Necessity of Evil (In Avoiding Dark Organization)

Friday, July 15th, 2016


At times, our hearts weaken when we look at this world, for two big reasons that are so terrifying that it seems gauche to mention them.

First, there is the nature of nature as “red in tooth and claw.” Predation occurs, and often it is the sweetest and cutest bunny that gets ripped apart before our eyes by a hawk, which seems unconcerned with the question of whether its prey had a soul, a personality, or sensation. As an extension of this, we can be victims of predation or (more likely) our own error or warfare, and will be left insensate dead to be laughed at by others.

Second, there is the fact of decline itself. Everything we create will have a life cycle from birth to death, but even worse, we cannot imagine it being any different. We know ourselves how experience goes from new to mundane, and how we are constantly seeking new stimulus to avoid this cycle, so tend to have few enduring favorites.

We cannot step in the same river twice, and we cannot go home again, because the experience has changed for us internally and independent of the world. The first time one samples a delicacy, or the first time one is well and truly drunk under a midnight moon, can never be equaled. What defines them is not the external object, the delicacy or purloined case of beer, but the newness to us.

In a sense, the universe is driven by novelty as well, since repetitive events lead to entropy. As a cycle repeats, it becomes predictable, and margins loosen, introducing gradual leaks of energy and information. Over time, the leaks take over from the main, and soon all energy dissipates. This is similar to how civilizations fall, where energy is transferred from a focus on goals to the disparate desires of citizens.

As one poet wrote, “Nothing gold can stay.” Like death, this loss of intensity of experience seems to be the core of tragedy in life.

But what if these methods represented a better option to what otherwise would be logically necessary? Perhaps logic itself is inherent to existence, and as a condition of existence, the form that existence takes must be logical and not arbitrary according to its own needs. That alone is galling, since as part of existence, we want what we want to take precedence over all else, although this tendency leads to individualism which is a form of hubris, the root of all evil (if one accepts the pagan “good to the good, and bad to the bad” and not the “good to everyone” of Crowdists).

The struggle of existence in logical terms, which underlie the physical but are not discernible in appearance from it, is to avoid becoming repetitive because this is what creates the next stage in the cycle: a lack of energy created by the increasing entropy of repetition. No creature can survive by being entirely static, and no civilization can survive when it has a “system” which mandates repetition of the same ideas, even if those are merely “universal” or applied equally (be sure to genuflect to a stature of Karl Marx when you read that word) to all people.

But, then, we might ask, how do creatures in nature avoid stagnation? After all, sharks and cockroaches have been with us for hundreds of millions of years. To understand that, we must return to the wisdom of Ptolemy:

The Ptolemaic model accounted for the apparent motions of the planets in a very direct way, by assuming that each planet moved on a small sphere or circle, called an epicycle, that moved on a larger sphere or circle, called a deferent.

The importance of epicycles is that they move contrary to the dominant motion of the cycle, which keeps internal variation within that cycle, approximating motion at the level of detail instead of falling into trope with the larger motion. It is the same way with nature: species go through birth-midlife-aging cycles on the level of individual generations, but do not themselves complete the cycle to death, because in every cycle there is a contrary movement which keeps ambiguity alive as to the end result.

This is like the universe itself: to avoid entropy, it ensures that the answers are never known until they happen, which keeps an information potential of ambiguity present at all times, avoiding the repetition that accelerates entropy. If the answer is known, there is no point doing the calculation, and on an informational level — independent of time — the end-state and the starting state collapse because they are one and the same. This is how entropy accelerates.

For this reason, formalization is the enemy of survival, because it creates a dissipation of energy that leads to dark organization within a human group. Its opposite, or informal order, calculates itself on the level of detail in each epicyclic generation, and so avoids the wide margins and repetitive structures that accelerate entropy. This requires internal conflict, like anarchy plus medieval knights raging all over the place, that much as “the exception proves the rule” by the constant fighting to assert principle, re-establishes the rule.

The ancients knew that evil must exist for this reason. Evil is the exception that proves the rule, and unless allowed to gain the upper hand, serves a vital role by keeping the good in a state of constantly asserting that outlook, much as predation forces prey animals to be clearer about their own purpose. Without evil, one does not have heroes, and without heroes, the principle of heroism is lost to degeneration, a form of entropy.

And so, you may ask, why death? It is clear why there must be predation and warfare, but why is death inevitable outside of those things? The answer is that experience over time hardens the mind into conclusions, and those can then become repetitive in all but exceptional individuals, at which point it is time for a long sleep to refresh the capacity for learning. This is why the ancients possessed a complex view of death, in which most dwelt in a static state after the end, but many either ascended to heavenly realms or re-incarnated. They were bits of code that needed rebooting, having proved its utility, where those who were irrelevant (no informational utility) could simply pass into ash and dust.

Our modern morons — whatever cretin taught you in kindergarten is at the head of the list — teach us to value balance, harmony, and equilibrium by implying that those are “peaceful.” They look at a field of flowers for ten minutes and consider that nature is peaceful! In fact, they have seen effect and not cause; the cause is the endless predation, warfare, storms and chaos that rage through as epicycles and by doing so, in converse application, strengthen the deferent.

For the same reason, people should be wary of external stimulus like social media, television, socializing, and trends. These not only put people in trope, where they are all thinking and doing the same thing at the same time, but interrupt the internal process of renewal which is necessary. Our minds function best when they are mostly closed, or at least closed circuit, and we spend time studying and analyzing what we know to find new dimensions in it. This keeps our knowledge from calcifying and allows us to avoid slipping into the repetitive mental cycle of senescence.

The reason that conservatives prefer principles and flexible structures like caste, race, religion, and hierarchy to universal systems is revealed in this knowledge. In addition, we can see how our society has chosen to kill itself the way every other society kills itself: by finding the “right” method, and applying it universally, we eliminate ambiguity but accelerate entropy, hastening our rush to the end — when if we acted otherwise, we could avoid it indefinitely.

Danse Macabre

Monday, December 22nd, 2014


Ob arm, ob reich, im Tode gleich. – Totentanz

Our world suffers a surplus of billions of people. I do not mean this from a materialistic and utilitarian perspective, but an ecological one, meaning that we have imposed upon our ecosystem a pernicious overload.

Planet Earth probably possesses enough resources to keep the current population alive, but a healthy ecosystem does not present such a low richness of species. As human habitation expands, we find we are left with cities, developed rural areas, and a few national parks to preserve natural land for human enjoyment. As a result, the only creatures we see on earth in the future will be humans and those that depend on humans, like the ever-present rats and pigeons of the city.

The alarming increase in population growth of humanity also suggests an unhealthy ecosystem. This is a threat not only in terms of quantity but through an unprecedented influence over the environment that goes far beyond what any Paleolithic man could have imagined. Certain human populations grow fastest because they rely on r-selected reproductive strategies, which emphasize survival through high birth rates. Combined with low mortality rates in first world countries, this creates a condition where human numbers always increase and would require a world cataclysmic event — comet strike, nuclear war, fatal pandemic — to decrease population by a statistically measurable amount.

The world has moved towards an almost absolute imperialism of exploitation activities, where what is not considered as urban, by default, becomes rural, but it is always an economically feasible resource. The mass migration to urban centers has resulted in population explosion and urban expansion, plus the desertification of soil surrounding urban centers, while rural life has been relegated to a simple activity for the exploitation of agricultural resources. The areas that do not show any human intervention are very few and in danger of extinction as the population expands, because each person added requires not just space to live but resources for the food, water and products necessary for survival.

Despite the many environmentally-friendly alternatives proposed throughout the decades, sustainability has revealed itself as a myth in the process of disintegration just like democracy and equality. We cannot “sustain” a reckless population that has no reverse gear and no off-switch. The idea that all of us can crowd into this planet and drive Priuses, eat tofu and live in 200 sq ft micro-houses misses the point that it is our need for resources and public spaces that crowds out nature.

The earth as an organism will survive us. We are in geological time a blip and as with most species, we will statistically be inclined to exceed our carrying capacity and eliminate ourselves through our inability to regulate our numbers. Life becomes a Moloch that demands death when the life that occupies earth serves no purpose other than to grow and feed, destroying the natural balance and diversity required for ecosystems to keep life as a whole — including non-human life — alive.

Is there is a vital balance if death is not present? If death is the absence of life, then death is the default condition of all, and in order of a balance to protect life, death must be accepted as part of the universe. Death is part of the life cycle, and the fact that life is a struggle against death that can be stopped only with death itself makes death something natural, normal, and necessary. And as we see that the absence of death leads to death for all, we realize the wisdom of this natural design.

Long Live Death!

Death Metaphor Deconstructed

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

Following the death of Senator Ted Kennedy earlier in the week, one writer used the event to deconstruct one of the most ludicrous metaphors surrounding death: the idea of “losing a fight with cancer”:

The fighting metaphor, especially when applied to cancer, drives me nuts. Cancer is not a war or a football game. It’s an involuntary dance with a partner you didn’t choose. The fighting metaphor is insidious because it not so subtly implies that if you fight, you can “win.” And that if the cancer takes your life, if you “lose,” it is to some extent your fault. It’s not only patients and their loved ones who fall into this battlefield thinking, but doctors, too, who often see death as a failure. Their failure.

In truth, cancer doesn’t care whether you fight or not, whether you win or not. It’s simply there, just like all the other horrible, debilitating, scary, painful, life-wrecking chronic diseases that millions of Americans deal with every day.

The challenge, it seems to me, is to do precisely what Ted Kennedy did. He sailed his boat. He spent time with his wife and kids. He found good doctors, and trusted them. And he kept doing the work he loved, right up to the end.


kennedyWhatever your feelings on the now deceased Senator, if it’s true that he accepted his fate and spent his time settling up his estate, sailing his boat, and spending time with family, the man at least had a decent attitude toward death. Then agan, doesn’t this just go to show that people don’t live full lives until they’re given a death sentence by a doctor?

The writer of the op-ed raises some good points above: other people treat death as something that’s not inevitable until the bitter end, so we like to label a body’s battle with cancer as a fight that can be won instead of embracing the reality of death and moving on from there. There are walks with pink ribbons dedicated to this idea: find a cure. Everyone has a story; my mother, her sister, that guy’s aunt all died of “Cancer Of The [fill in the blank]”, and can somehow try to change that by walking a few miles and raising money to give to a research institution. I’m more interested in why the person who is given the death sentence suddenly lives a full life when they should have all along.

Since most people know that hardly anyone truly lives a full life these days, we consider it more tragic if someone gets hit by a bus and is otherwise young and healthy when they die, vs. having brain cancer at an old age and suddenly becomes enlightened during those six months to one year when one has time to plan the closure of one’s life.

If there’s time involved, we can call it a fight, we can hope for a miracle; we can melodramatize about death and call someone who accepts it a valiant man of honor, and that makes us feel good about our own mortality – if briefly. In reality, death doesn’t discriminate, so we get upset when it strikes unexpectedly. Death will take you any time, and the best thing you can do is to plan ahead for your family’s future while living the fullest life you can with them today.

This would include, perhaps, an estate plan, life insurance, a trust fund, and other measures to ensure your legacy – meaning your family and loved ones – are protected in Gravestonethe event of death. In our modern society, unfortunately, the government will absolutely rape your estate clean if you’re caught without a safety net after death, so this just makes common sense.

Live the year that Ted Kennedy just lived, but earlier in life, by planning for death if there are people who depend on you, and it won’t matter whether you’re hit by a bus or have slowly growing cancer in your brain which gives you just enough time to set up an estate plan and “sail your boat”. Then, if you do happen to become stricken with a fatal disease which gives you time to reflect before death, you can laugh at people who don’t see any change in your demeanor as you tell them, “I had great perspective all along – or didn’t you notice?”


Sunday, October 23rd, 2005


Listen to the night, the next time you’re up when others are asleep. Everyone has gone to a grateful sleep after whatever they believed would fill their days. Cars go by as others rush to amusement, but the traffic is slower than in daytime, and therefore it is fitful, spurts of lost souls racing over the concrete desert in search of – something: who cares. It is now you alone with the night, with the emptiness, with the lack of certainty, and with that, your future death.

When you are young, of course, it is less present on your consciousness. I’ll die, some distant day, you think. Or maybe beneath the level of consciousness that puts things into words you don’t believe it will happen to you. That’s what goes on with old people, you think, and I’m not old – I have no signs of aging. Perhaps this is why young people like John Keats, afflicted with the certainty of fatal tuberculosis, or those who go bald or grey prematurely, have a wisdom that others do not: they’ve already seen the death curve and know their time is marked and running out. Slowly, however.

This is not to believe in the fear of death, but to remember to tell death to fuck off via the only means you have of understanding it: recognizing its certainty, and since there is no way of stopping it, finding something to make life worthwhile. To recognize death is to praise life. To feel the emptiness of the night and its lawlessness stir your soul is to accept what you want in the daytime, or that you might have the same things in the face of night: after all, you are the captain of this ship you call your life, and being a good nihilist, you recognize that your life won’t mean anything to anyone but you. If you get famous, they remember a name, but they will not know your consciousness. They may remember your art or deeds, but how much of that is you? No: you pass on to dust, as does all knowledge of you. The consciousness that is you literally disappears, or ceases to be.

These morbid meditations will free you, however, in the only sense of the word “free” that is meaningful. You will not gain some absolute freedom, or immortality, as in Jewish-Christian fairy tales, but you will “free” yourself from the mental hell that comes with illusion and denial. Want to beat death? There is only one way: accept death by realizing how much death is needed for life to have meaning. Eternal life… what would you do? You would follow pleasures, or maybe learned pursuits, but either way, your life would have no shape, no form. It would be a series of days. There would be no sweetness in a young love affair, or a family, since that could happen at any time. You’d have innumerable affairs, do uncountable things, and at some point, would face your boredom and find some excuse to die. I didn’t notice it was loaded, honest!

It’s the temporal nature of life, in part, that makes it sweet. Your time is unique. The choices you make in spending it are delicious. There is a world of conquest in saying “I will do this, but not that.” When you make such divisions, you are lord of your own world, in a way that places everything else secondary to you. There is no certainty, but you make a decision anyway; you are telling the world that for your own purposes, you are better informed than they are. And you will not make every decision correctly, but that makes the winning ones far more treasured than a random win, as in a lottery, could ever be. Everything that you have in a metaphysical sense will be things you have built for yourself. Can one imagine a greater poetry than this? The infinite void spans dimensions we cannot even visualize, and yet, somewhere in the midst of it, there is a center of warmth and light that is one’s own personality, one’s will, one’s choices and joys.

We fail to understand the universe because we approach it from a linear, rational aspect. X +/- Y = some tangible result. What if the universe operated emotionally instead? Its goal is not to churn raw materials into product, and to call it “progress” and congratulate itself on being enlightened – its goal is experience, and the feelings that motivate a desire for the same. Why else would life exist? Surely not from some chemical necessity. More likely, there is a consciousness to (but not outside of and controlling) the universe, a unifying principle in the cosmos, and it loves the poetry. It delighted in the sensual contrast of the big bang, between a void so profound it extended to a lack of matter, and then the sudden impulse, the orgasm of exploding data becoming for the first time (this iteration) somethingness. There was that moment of shock where nothingness realized its lack of something, and that very realization created a somethingness, since to know that something can exist is to have made something out of that very thought.

When we look at this poetic universe, we understand the beginnings of idealism. Life is this giant gift that kisses us with its shock of discovery, like a love affair in the teenage years a balance between good and terrible, the goods being so amazing that we cannot describe them, and the lows so profound that our souls shudder and tear at the thought. The contrast is like freefalling in infinite space, or even the lack of space; much as on a painting the brightness of colors is defined by the difference between all colors on the contrast, instead of an absolute, in our lives experience is defined not by some absolute (“good”,”best value”,”evil”) but by the stream of experience and the differences between its parts. Meaning “is” not; meaning occurs in our minds as a response to what we have known, and we must know something before its opposite has sense. Without pain, pleasure would be a mediocre sensation.

Our world works like our thoughts. Our thoughts are a product of the world. Without our world, our thoughts would have no context or meaning. Without our thoughts, our world would go unnoticed and thus all of our days would have the same impact upon us, leading to a mundane sort of boredom which, if we look at it critically, would be as much of a hell as a heaven where nothing could go wrong and therefore we would exist in a state of perfect tedium in stasis, forever and ever, amen. These permanent beingnesses would bore us to tears, and thankfully, they do not exist – it is instead our poetic one and only life that grasps us, and gives us meaning between the dark and the light, such that we have a situation forced upon us in which we either make meaning or drown from the lack of it. Can you feel its beauty?

Now, it makes no sense to wax spacy about all of this. Idealism is well and good, but it has two components. The first is that both reality and thought have a common ancestor or thread, and the corollary to that says that if we wish our thoughts to become known, we have to carve them out in what we know as physical reality. Your thoughts are profound? Make them so: the world is thought, but thought is of the world, so you must create it by action. “Action” does not necessarily imply the typical idiocy advocated by the Internet people – not just people using the Internet, but people who thrive on the virtuality of the experience, “the Internet people” – of the form of demonstrations, or terrorist acts, or pointless attempts to call attention to ourselves with a narrow guise of ideology as camouflage. Action can mean planting a garden, or starting a war, or writing a book, or cutting a CD, but it only applies when this virus or creation is successful and perpetuates itself. Another bedroom CD-R of music “that matters to me, even if no one else wants” – who cares? If you really felt that way, you would have hummed it to yourself; instead, your excuses are all too visible as the product of a lack of confidence and a fear of rejection. If you make music, thrust it into the world, such that the world changes from its touch. That alone is action.

Our deeds are thoughts, insofar as for the world to think, the ideas must leave the individual and be communicated through space and time and other beings in order to become manifest, to become incarnate, to become corporeal. And what greater way to increase the poetry of existence? To die with a pure thought of realistic poetry on one’s lips, even if dying in defeat, is to be achieve a metaphysical victory beyond the bounds of those who never tried; it is greater to die having achieved victory, and knowing that one’s idea and contribution is spreading like wildfire across the dry surface of earth. The idea is greater than the life, as the life is a product of the idea – that concept should perhaps be allowed to ferment in the partial form whereby herewith it is expressed. Life is poetry, and poetry is ideas in contrast with nothingness, a perpetual restatement of the process that brought us somethingness in the first place. The big bang? Or the big Eureka!

When you have accomplished the thoughts necessary to digest the above, come back down to earth: nihilism alone is real. Nihilism is the process of removing illusion and staring straight into the world as it is. You cannot will it to be your personal reality; the world is “objective,” oh yes, in that it is consistent regardless of your desires for it. “The world is my representation” does not mean “the world is as I desire it,” only that world is known through our thoughts of it. And our thoughts can be misinformed, or inaccurate. The smaller the degree of inaccuracy, the greater our success in manifesting our ideas. Sound familiar? It is similar to the scientific method, but where that is linear, this formulation remains open-ended, because life as we experience it is far from linear. Nihilism is a removal of all human artifacts from thinking. It reduces belief to perception, social pressures to observation, and emotion to assessment.

How can the world be both ideas and physicality, outside of the grim fact that ideas (the product of a electrochemical reaction called a brain) are part of physical reality? One example is biology. We are genetics, but our thoughts influence genetics. If we choose to attempt greater acts, we have a higher chance of losing our lives, but if we succeed, greater influence and wider breeding. If our thoughts lead to higher actions, we play higher stakes, and if our thoughts are disciplined, we might win out. In this way thoughts become not only actions but a genetic heritage by which one’s offspring are more likely to behave in similar ways. The crowd would like to believe that at least – at least – 80% of our actions are not determined by genetics, but that’s the usual wishful thinking for an equality to obliterate the differences in ability and appearance between us.

Life ain’t fair. Intelligent people accept that. Creeping, craven, lying, cognitive dissonance cases and parasites cannot, so they snap back with what they think are convincing arguments. Of course, since most of humanity is brick stupid when it comes to structural argument, most people accept these ideas. However, that in itself is proof of the genetic argument: most people are undifferentiated fools because their ancestors have had little clarity or consistency to their breeding, and thus, are the ones nodding their heads sagely when such foolish lies are presented. Genetics is not “fair” when you compare it on the level of the individual, but it’s much better than fair when one looks at history over time. Those who may not have been given the most comfortable place to live or easiest path advance by making intelligent, disciplined decisions, and this equalizes the natural disparity between someone living in a jungle (easy food, warm) and someone living in an icy forest (hard to find food, freezing). In this light, genetics is not only fair, but it’s an ingenious form of long-term RAM: if people’s genetics encode decision trees, it enables evolution to over time produce individuals with highly abstracted decision-making skills. DNA reflects design, which is an abstraction, but it is encoded in a firm and tangible method. Thoughts form reality; thoughts form reactions which through natural selection, eventually form this code – closer to thought than anything else – which forms reality.

In the same light, we can look at culture and history and see how these are similar methods of encoding thought into physicality. Culture reflects the shared values of a population as established over many generations. Those within a culture succumb to evolution according to its design. Those who naturally live well within that values system, and find it to help their lives, will breed more than those who do not (at least in healthy times, unlike the present, where any idiot who gets a job can breed as much as he is able to tolerate filling out welfare forms). Values systems come into conflict throughout history, and while at first it seems that popularity – lower taxes here, laxer laws about drugs, more whores – will predominate much as climate influences genetics itself, what ultimately determines the difference between a “great” civilization and a merely servicable one is value systems. Great civilizations push themselves, and push their citizens to act not just for the collective but for an abstract ideal which is more universal than the problems in which it will be applied. These civilizations develop more thoroughly and thus, while they’re always susceptible to being outnumbered and slaughtered, when it comes to achievement and leadership they dominate. Thoughts become value systems become culture, which is then used to shape genetics, and thus exists as a physical pattern alongside another physical pattern, which is the course of history, in which those with more stringent value systems rise above others. Thoughts compete in a form of evolution like that we encounter in reality. They are then transferred into pattern design which influences reality, and eventually, becomes part of it.

The third form in which it is imperative to study thoughts becoming reality is intellect itself. Our thoughts do not occur in a vacuum, but built upon other thoughts. In order to reach this state, through time we approach any question or problem by attacking its biggest questions first, and drawing conclusions from them, and then building conclusions onto those conclusions until we finally have a tower of logical relations. Since we manage not a few thousand details but millions, when one considers the actual likely number of factors in any multilayered contemplation, it soon becomes necessary to re-assess one’s entire concept of the world according to this pyramid of related ideas. In that impulse, these ideas switch from being observations to being valuations, and at that point, the pyramid reflects a method of assessing and analyzing reality as whole; by the very nature of our minds, in which methods of analysis occur before the subject being analyzed, it is thus that thoughts about something become more real than the thing itself, since our perceptions, after all, are only thoughts themselves. Our active thoughts become our assumptions, which then become the mental image of the world (how one knows, without direct experiment, how to predict the response of reality toward any given action). We act upon this image, and thus our thoughts become reality.

If thoughts dictate reality, and reality represents thoughts, then clarity of thinking is of the ultimate importance (hence some of us being zenlike nihilists).

To my mind, what has happened with humanity is no different than what happens to an untended garden: weeds crop up, order is lost, and thus there’s no efficient breeding. Unlike a forest, it was never good for this kind of order, therefore is a mess. If the land is forest, it is okay. If it is garden, it is okay. In a state in-between, there is nothing but breakdown. Such is the occurrence of humanity now. All of its problems relate back to a lack of order. We are ruled by the crowd, and through their need for competition, consumerism, and thus our values decay. But what caused this crowd rule? A lack of agreement on leadership and, simply put, the weeds outnumbering the gardeners. That is also why “nothing has been done.” If 2 people out of a thousand can understand the problem, they face 998 people they either have to manipulate, murder or drug before they can make any positive change. The six thousand people who can figure it out in the USA, for example, have no desire to take on a losing battle, as the braver National Socialists in Germany and ultra-brave Ted Kaczynski did. They’re going to live the good life if they can, and get ready to abandon the rest of these morons the instant the Chinese attack. They hate those morons because morons enforce upon us a collective version of reality, based in artificial anthrocentric values and perceptions, as only that makes them feel immune to death and to the inequality of nature.

People love the artificial human reality because it is equalizing and it is safe. No reason for complicated thinking or doubt; it eliminates ambiguity and makes mortal questions (real reality) secondary to our shared worldview and values system. God, money, products, dogma: these are tangible and yet universal, as we see them. They are safer than death. The Crowdist is one who is unstable without this ambiguity crusher, thus one who is dependent on the Crowd for a vision of reality. This is the source of Underman philosophy: a fear of the real world, and therefore, a retreat into a world of what we all agree are comfortable, easily digestible, non-threatening “truths.” The more radically reality threatens to intervene, the more extreme the Crowd becomes about imposing this “truth” upon its world; it is classic cognitive dissonance at work. Ambiguity is the dark side of the infinite, and the Undermen values fear more than ambition, and therefore would suppress the Infinite so that the Safe can prevail.

These Undermen form a vicious little community which is, in fact, the majority, because it appeals to those with no skillsets beyond the immediate. Undermen can be rich or poor; undermanness is determined by spiritual attitudes. They can often be found referring to movies as if they’re something important you should know about, or talking knowingly about different restaurants and amusements in town. They’ll discuss ideas they consider important and imply you should, too. Their single weapon: “the rest of us know this,” and it’s not that they make it as a promise, more of a passing reference. Guilt. Passivity. Parasitism. Conformity. “Authority.” Commerce. Bureaucracy. These are all weapons of the Undermen, as they are weapons which are not even considered by those of leadership capacity; leaders are too busy trying to change reality to use a fake reality to manipulate people radically dumber than themselves. Undermen, however, need a palce to hide.

There is no doctrine to which you can run to escape Undermen, nor any doctrine which encompasses Undermandom. Most Christians are Undermen, but many are also not; it depends on how you interpret Christianity. If you’re an Underman, you’ll interpret it as Underman dogma, where a healthy person will view it from the standpoint of healthy person dogma, and thus see it as a subset of that. Some things are clearly tools of Undermen – democracy, in its populist sense – but this does not mean their creation was designed to empower Undermen. It was probably a benevolent gesture which was blind to the depravity of most people, something which arises from their fundamental ability to make long-term decisions. The only doctrine which explains Undermen is the psychology of Undermen itself. Where the rest of us explore the idea that thoughts influence physical reality, Undermen look for a “safe” form of this and translate it into the idea that socially-acceptable fantasies are equal to reality. That is illusion, and as illusion always leads to failure, a diseased mental state. Next time you look up at the night sky, and reflect on the poetry of life, resolve to pursue the healthy mental state of realism – even with all of its horrors and beauties, the contrast forming poetry – instead of succumbing to the brain-numbing, soul-killing, logic-ablating virus of Underman dogma.

Recommended Reading