The Wump World by Bill Peet


The Wump World (1970)
by Bill Peet
Houghton Mifflin, 44 pages. $9

On the surface, this serves as a parable for children about the environmental damage that humans can do. Underneath however as in most of Bill Peet’s work another agenda is at play, which is a confrontation between humanity and the doubt, emptiness and fear that makes the empty pursuit of status and material prestige seem a tempting option.

The Wump World features a planet inhabited by Wumps, who are friendly capybara-like animals who are not particularly exceptional. Like Hobbits, or most people, Wumps specialize in nothing in particular except existence itself. They munch the sweet green grass and frolic in the sun and probably think very little about the big questions of life. Like small children or other innocents, they are still somewhat in love with life itself and concern themselves with nothing greater.

A spaceship lands and discharges a new species, called — in the kind of dead-hand obvious imagery one can use in children’s books — the Pollutians. They have come from a “worn-out world” and are glad to have found a new one for their use. In short order, they tear down the trees and rip up the grass and replace them with concrete, on which they build giant cities complete with “hundred-story skyscrapers.” They are noisy, frenetic, and dump trash in the rivers and fill the skies with smoke.

The Wumps retreat to underground caves where they cower and await deliverance. In the meantime, the cities expand to cover the entire world. The Pollutians work hard at this transformation, but also bicker among themselves and generally seem aimless outside of their hard work in transforming the new world. In the meantime, their own pollution makes the world uninhabitable for them, so they declare it worn-out as well and seek another one. Spaceships explore and find a new place. Then the Pollutians leave.

The story is unexceptional and obvious, even manipulative at its core. To most of us, it seems a preachy parable of environmentalism and nothing more, about what we might expect from the late 1960s and the hippie era. But there is more to this than meets the initial eye. The story of the Pollutians is not so much the external effects of their actions, but the internal hollowness which propels them. These are people without purpose for whom consumption and destruction have become a life quest, even if a suicidal one.

Within the bright colors didacticism of this story lurks the story of emptiness in the soul. The Pollutians have no depth to them and no concern for anything but their own comforts and wealth. This void propels them forward into outer space as it sucks them into inner space, turning them into a type of yeast which consumes all resources and then either moves on or dies. They are their own self-destruction but, unable to suicide, they perpetrate that destruction on others.

For those of us who grew up in Generation X, both stories were familiar. We saw firsthand as our childhood play areas were consumed by an endless procession of condominiums, apartments, factories and skyscrapers. We were told by well-meaning but fatalistic adults that this was simply progress, or humanity advancing, and that all these new people needed places to sleep, work and live. But it also rang hollow, because we saw the haunted looks on the faces of adults going to work and the misery and rage they took out on us after another fun day at the office. Soon it became clear that the plan was no plan except more, more and more of everything to conceal our lack of direction and even more, our absence of a Wump-like innocence and enjoyment of life. It was as if the curse of Eden’s apple finally bit us back.

This book remains vivid in the imaginations of those who read it because it perfectly diagnoses our modern morass, which begins in the soul and not the fingertips. We have no purpose. Lacking any motivation for something larger than ourselves — something for which God is a surrogate, since to know God we must first love the process of life itself or we are simply projecting self-interest into the realm of the spirit — we have fallen into our inner voids and like Stockholm Syndrome victims, have embraced that dark emptiness and now wield it as a sword, consuming all that falls under our control and replacing it with literal garbage as if in the image of our discarded hopes. The innocents, children born into this age, have carried this burden for too long. Either we end it or it ends us, but not first before purging all goodness and innocence wherever we go.


We’re all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We’re all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika

And you’ve been watching those Alex Jones videos, you know, the Obama conspiracy ones, and thought that the “New World Government” is a Socialist totalitarian system…

Some thought again, and concluded that the New World Order was not Socialist but instead Fascist. Fascist in the sense of: corporate control – business and government being in bed with one another. However Fascism has a cultural/spiritual goal for society and is pragmatic in how it conducts economic policy towards this goal: mixing up market competition with planned economy, depending on the spur of the moment. Read Mussolini for instance, who wasn’t convinced there ever was an eternal answer to every question, so held instead that the economy should be used in whatever way worked to solve an occurring problem.

The “New World Government” however, is run by managers with no principles and vacuous agendas, merely looking to make a quick buck.

Professor Pim Fortuyn described in his book Against The Islamisation Of Our Culture that in the 20th century it was the Socialist laboring-class that struggled for internationalism, and was oriented on uniting all of the workers regardless of national or cultural differences. The bourgeois, by contrast, had stronger sentiments for their national ancestral history.

Fortuyn also remarked that in the 21st century, however, the reverse became true; it was now the lower classes who were mostly focused on preserving their national culture, and it is the captains of industry, the managers, who move their companies around from Washington to Amsterdam to Taiwan. Hiring and firing personnel as they go, with no patriotic loyalties attached. Ironically, however, Fortuyn was later assassinated by a left-leaning environmentalist fanatic.

People like Ayn Rand obsessed over economic autonomy (she even went as far as to preach for a complete detachment of government and economy). Truth is, however, that the more commercial a thing gets, the more its cultural value and depth diminishes. This we see in music, websites, and even video games. The free market doesn’t produce Richard Halley’s fifth concerto. What it does produce is Rebecca Black.

A man such as Hank Rearden (a character from Atlas Shrugged) would be valued by Übercapitalism, but only because his products allow the daily life to be lead in greater convenience. The progress he creates translates into convenience-worship, which will eventually completely dominate life, until Ephialtes outnumbers Daedalus. That would be the end of man as a ‘Heroic Being’.

What’s the point in preaching economic freedom if that’s the flagship corporations sail under to make maximum profit satisfying the current consumer trends, so that we have little to no resources left for tomorrow? Or do you want to buy into the fiction that when most of the Indians and Chinese drink Coca Cola and eat microwave food the world will be a better place?

We’re all living in America,
Coca-Cola, sometimes WAR,
We’re all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika

Conservation and Conservatism

Environmentalism has failed to achieve its goals because it has become distanced from its roots, which are in conservatism. Conservatives preserve and nurture what is natural, whether it is culture, heritage, or natural surroundings. Liberalism rebels against nature and replaces it with a human concept, called “ideology,” rooted in the notions of the individual that the individual should be “equal,” or rather independent of restriction.

It is taboo to say this because the environmental movement feels like it is on the verge of success. In a bold political move, greens/environmentalists joined up with the left, and so were able to appeal to all of the loquacious useful idiots who believe that Marxist politics and only Marxist politics are the cure for humanity’s ills. They feel this because they have low self-esteem and low achievement in life, and so use Marxist ideas as cognitive dissonance to explain away their feelings and justify their desires to have what others have produced.

Other than the obvious social problems of this alliance, the most vital problem is that it destroys what environmentalism has for its goal. Instead of trying to save and nurture the environment, the hijacked environmental movement has become a vehicle for leftists to advance their agenda of class warfare and equality, which occurs only through the expense of nature, because equality and class warfare require a large underclass, which in turn requires no (zero) restrictions on the individual and her desire to buy property, start businesses, consume goods and do other things that damage our environment.

Today’s environmentalism is as much a victim of the contemporary cult of utility as every other aspect of our lives, from science to education. We are not environmentalists now because we have an emotional reaction to the wild world. In this country, most of us wouldn’t even know where to find it. We are environmentalists now in order to promote something called “sustainability”. What does this curious, plastic word mean? It does not mean defending the non-human world from the ever-expanding empire of Homo sapiens sapiens, though some of its adherents like to pretend it does, even to themselves. It means sustaining human civilisation at the comfort level which the world’s rich people – us – feel is their right, without destroying the “natural capital” or the “resource base” which is needed to do so.

Environmentalism, which in its raw, early form had no time for the encrusted, seized-up politics of left and right, offering instead a worldview which saw the growth economy and the industrialist mentality beloved by both as the problem in itself, was being sucked into the yawning, bottomless chasm of the “progressive” left. Suddenly people like me, talking about birch trees and hilltops and sunsets, were politely, or less politely, elbowed to one side by people who were bringing a “class analysis” to green politics. – Open Democracy

The paradise envisaged by Marxist ideologues is one in which the worker rules the world. However, this means that a worker can do whatever he or she wants, even if it is damaging to the environment. Workers comprise the greatest segment of the population and are rising in number. If each one has the freedom and the re-distributed wealth to pursue a middle class lifestyle, that means every one of the seven billion people on earth with want an American-style house with a white picket fence, a double refrigerator, two cars or trucks, and luxury goods and services like shopping malls, hair salons, and disposable products.

When environmentalism existed in its “raw” state, it was not an ideological movement. However its ideals were closer to those of the right than the left. Environmentalism exists to make hard choices about limiting human growth, regulating industry and restraining individuals from making poor choices that have bad impact on the environment. These are all inherently conservative positions. If we did not know they belonged to early green parties, we would imagine them being from American conservatives in the 1920s or European conservatives in the 1880s.

The World Bank has warned that rising food prices, driven partly by rising fuel costs, are pushing millions of people into extreme poverty.

World food prices are 36% above levels of a year ago, driven by problems in the Middle East and North Africa, and remain volatile, the bank said.

That has pushed 44 million people into poverty since last June. – BBC

When you do not limit the freedom of individuals, they all do the same thing: buy things, try to afford houses of their own, and have families. The result of this is that more land is used not just for the houses but for the vast infrastructure required to support their lifestyles. This in turn destroys the habitat of animals and plants, which destroys surrounding ecosystems, and all of that in turn prevents natural filtering and renewing of air and water.

Each additional person is a load on the environment. Each additional person past a certain threshold is an act of violence against the environment. We either choose who are the best people among us (a conservative position), or we drown the world in us (a liberal position). Already we have passed the threshold and are beginning to consume the environment we need to sustain us. This is evident not only in the impact on our natural world, but in our own unstable economies which cannot support their growth-oriented Ponzi scheme that grants them value through the anticipated future purchases of consumers.

Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record.

The bad economy, an aging population and a plateau in women working are contributing to changes that pose serious challenges for financing the nation’s social programs. – USAT

In our manic rush to make every person equal, we are required to have constant growth to provide for these people. This constant growth is not sustainable. It is based upon the original notion that we would have infinite land, animals, wood and water to exploit. We could take mineral or organic wealth from the earth, convert it into products and sell it to other humans, and make money that was valuable because other humans wanted it. However our free ride has come to an end. We are out of land to exploit. The rich land belongs to industry or is now developed.

Liberals are wrong about environmentalism. They cannot achieve environmental nurturing without adopting conservative goals. But sadly conservatives are also wrong about environmentalism. American conservatives in their zeal to defend capitalism have written off environmentalists, and European conservatives are too focused on trying to make peace with liberal elements in their own parties to admit environmentalism as anything more than not repealing existing laws.

It is sad to watch such confusion because environmentalism is fundamentally a conservative idea. In the conservative world view, the individual is part of a larger structure or hierarchy. This opposes the liberal idea of the individual as an autonomous cell of equal stature. The real heroes of the struggle to prevent humanity from destroying nature are the conservationists. Every person who sets aside acres of land for natural species, or works to preserve an animal or plant species, is a real environmental hero. They alone are effective, while the “environmentalists” are still at Hot Topic discussing class warfare while they purchase trendy “green” jeans made in China.

This is not surprising to see. The original environmentalists were the royalty of Europe, who carefully seized the best forest land and kept it as hunting preserves, using maybe a few percent of the land in any given year and allowing the rest to exist in its natural state. The proles did not understand why “the king’s woods” were off-limits and thought it was arrogance. Maybe the opposite is true, and it is arrogant of us to think that everyone and anyone should be allowed access to the woods, because the result is that the trees go away, a strip mall takes their place, and then it starts selling “green” products to the chattering classes.

Jacques Cousteau


Among advocates for nature, underwater explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau remains a perpetual favorite for his embrace of natural species without moralizing their predatory and often dangerous ways. He steered people past fear to appreciation for the world beneath the waves.

He also made a number of statements which left and right alike recoil from in horror. The foremost is reproduced here:

Our society is turning toward more and more needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer . . . . Should we eliminate suffering, diseases? The idea is beautiful, but perhaps not a benefit for the long term. We should not allow our dread of diseases to endanger the future of our species.

This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it. – Interview with Jacques Cousteau in a 1991 UNESCO Courier

Like other ecologists of note, he sees past the convenient lie which is that by buying “energy-efficient” dishwashers, we in the West can solve the crisis of ongoing human ecocide of our environment. Instead, he points the finger toward the likely culprit: overpopulation.

With enough untouched natural land around us, our impact is minimal. But with each human we add, we need more land for human use only. This land comprises not only habitations, but farming, roads, factories, hospitals, schools and other things we traditionally consider “good” but ignore how they displace natural ecosystems that renew our air, water and food resources.

Like bacteria in a petri dish, humans on their current course will absorb all nutrients and use up all space, then begin a die-off as they run out of resources and are poisoned by their own waste. This pattern is consistent with many species who self-destruct, and those who explore nature have seen it many times.

Cousteau claims he is “an ecologist for the people” in the “Obituary of Jacques-Yves Cousteau,” New York Times A p. 1 (June 26, 1997). He is thus both an advocate for nature and humanity, who only by linguistic convenience exclude themselves from nature, as both will be doomed by the same process.

This gentle, thoughtful and fearless man showed us with passion the intricacy of the world’s oceans as a form of wonder and reverence. His attempts to do the same for human population control have met with mystification, but his same insight propels both observations.

Pentti Linkola

“We still have a chance to be cruel, but if we are not cruel today, all is lost.”

Pentti Linkola writes about the apocalyptic climactic changes that will soon effect us here in humanityland, but he doesn’t take the easy way out that most authors do.

Most “environmentalists” (greens, conservationists) emphasize a strategy of limiting first-world consumption and reproduction. This ignores the vaster problem underlying our environmental dilemma, which is that every human requires a certain amount of land which displaces the natural systems that replenish air, water and food sources.

Instead, Linkola chooses to be brutally honest and suggests that we’ve already missed our chance to curb our damage of the world, so what we must do is to begin the elimination of human and technological excesses now by limiting population and opulence worldwide.

This naturally clashes with the ideology that has assimilated the environmental movement, liberalism. Instead of shying away from this conflict, Linkola styles himself as an ecofascist, or one who would impose unpopular truths on a population addicted to pursuing popular illusions and deferring consequences until later.

“What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat.”

“Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth.”

“The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity bring enjoyment and happiness – even though all the proofs in history have shown that only lack and attempt cause a life worth living, that the material prosperity doesn’t bring anything else than despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks.”

“That there are billions of people over 60kg weight on this planet is recklessness.”

Linkola adopts a number of controversial views for how to save our environment — and ultimately our own future as a species — such as:

If the present number of Earths population is preserved and is reduced only by the means of birth controll, then:

  • Birthgiving is licenced. To enhance quality of population , genetically or socially unfit homes will be denied offspring. So that several birth licences can be allowed to families of quality.
  • Energy production must be drastically reduced. Electricity is allowed only for the most necessary lighting and communications.
  • Food: Hunting is made more efficient. Human diet will include rats and invertebrate animals.
  • Government: There would not be any democracy anymore. More power to government would allow it to restrain the population, and laws would reflect need and not want. Individuals would not be allowed to make some of their decisions for themselves.
  • Agriculture moves to small un-mechanized units. All human manure is used as fertilizer.
  • Traffic is mostly done with bicycles and rowing boats. Private cars are confiscated. Long-distance travel is done with sparse mass transport. Trees will be planted on most roads.
  • Foreign affairs: All mass immigration and most of import-export trade must stop. Cross-border travel is allowed only for small numbers of diplomats and correspondents.
  • Business will mostly end . Manufacture is allowed only for well argumented needs. All major manufacturing capacity is state owned. Products will be durable and last for generations.
  • Science and schooling: Education will concentrate on practical skills. All competition is rooted out. Technological research is reduced to extreme minimum. But every child will learn how to clean a fish in a way that only the big shiny bones are left over.
  • Mass immigration is terminated.

“The biggest threat to life is too much life,” Linkola has famously said. Expressing sentiments similar to those from Ted Kaczinski, Linkola says that industrialization has been a disaster for planet Earth and its inhabitants. “The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity bring enjoyment and happiness — even though all the proofs in history have shown that only lack and attempt cause a life worth living, that the material prosperity doesn’t bring anything else than despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks,” he writes.

“Employment isn’t a good reason enough to explain some projects that are going on. We could employ all the people in Finland and over the world to dig a tunnel under the ground to China. The problem isn’t about employment and unemployment, the question is, is it mindless, unnecessary or harmful. Unemployment is always better than doing harmful work.”

Not a fan of the inclusive society, which he sees as conducive to both growth and lowered quality of humankind, Linkola dislikes liberal democracy. “The US symbolizes the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom,” he writes.


From  (

Expandable polystyrene (EPS) is a petroleum-based product that is frequently used for food packaging purposes. This material is currently non-recyclable and non-biodegradable (i.e., unable to decay into constituent substances). Because of its inability to decompose, food service EPS waste is consuming an ever-increasing amount of space within landfill facilities. Moreover, EPS waste products are detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public, as well as the ecosystem, for reasons which include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) EPS litter is capable of lasting indefinitely within the urban landscape, thereby contributing to urban blight; 2) EPS that enters the ocean, through both direct and indirect means, deteriorates the quality of ocean waters and adjacent beach areas, which in turn endangers public safety, discourages tourism, and jeopardizes the local economy which depends on tourist trade; and 3) EPS threatens the fragile ecological balance as marine and terrestrial wildlife often perish after ingesting EPS products.

Hmmmm, this doesn’t sound like a beneficial product. Why is it permitted?

Some speculate that because EPS merely breaks down into smaller pieces, rather than its constituent parts, that EPS litter in land and marine environments may actually persist for thousands of years.

For that amount of long-term harm, someone must be making a lot of money.

Alternative products, which are biodegradable, reusable and/or recyclable, are readily available at reasonable cost. Research to date indicates that alternative products cost an additional one to five cents per unit.

Oh good! One to five cents per unit. Good job making money from poisoning the environment needed to sustain life. That’s smart thinking the stockholders can all appreciate!

Environmentalism Contra Democracy


A smart writer once observed that philosophy is a product of sick times. Healthy generations do not need reminders of what is right, but inherit those inclinations through blood and culture. When culture fragments, or wavers near disaster, philosophers become more than teachers of structured knowledge: they become those who can look through the forest of abstraction to capture a vision of reality.

We are on the verge of environmental crisis. Although the television networks now babble neurotically about global warming, that is one aspect of the problem caused by human growth and technology. The fruit of our oceans is decreasing; we are using too much land to have forests renew the oxygen in our air. So much of our land is covered in concrete and so many of our rivers polluted that fresh water is getting scarcer; land animals and plants are being squeezed out of comfortable habitats and into such small numbers that inbreeding and sickness are wiping them out, thanks to human division and settlement of all open land. We’re about to commit ecocide.

Thinking non-selfishly for a minute, we should look at the consequences of natural loss with a poet’s eye: we are about to lose an amazing creation of great beauty and inspiration, and thus not only damage our souls, but be responsible for an act of crass destructiveness with no equal in history. The sack of Alexandria, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide — these all pale in comparison to reducing our environment to parks, gardens and lawns. Which is what will remain: we will have squirrels and sparrows and lawn plants, but the more complex parts of our ecosystem will not remain. Our political leaders will be able to claim less of a crisis because it isn’t all dead, but converting a world of billions of species into an extended, homogenous backyard garden is like trading Beethoven for repetitive techno.

The kind of mean mentality that allows us to create this …wreckage… is appropriate to an outwardly satisfied but inwardly self-hating time such as our own. We hate our ugly cities, our tedious jobs that produce nothing of practical value, our prima donna spouses, our moronic coworkers and neighbors, the violent inner cities, the numbingly normative suburbs… yet we are sure there is nothing that can be done. How do we explain to the average person that they must give up that new car, house or child because if everyone has those, a distant future disaster awaits? Democracy rewards action on immediate crises, or granting of new “freedoms” or wealths to its population, but it does not reward the kind of leadership that staves off distant apocalypses.

Our politicians are “leaders” only in name, because one might expect a real leader to take care of constituents regardless of that constituency’s desires for short-term rewards. Our leaders tell us what we want to hear, and rule by popularity instead of sense. Reality is a distant world. We create our own “reality” because with our technology and our social agreement we can live in illusion and defer consequences. In this kind of system, there can never be a reversal of what makes people wealthy or happy no matter how destructive it is; democracy is the triumph of people preferring illusion to reality.

But we are taught democracy, capitalism and liberal civil/women’s rights together comprise “freedom,” and that anything but freedom is “bad.” So what can we do? We shrug and watch the ongoing travesty, certain we cannot with these hands and these minds do anything to reverse the course toward total destruction. After all, this path to death runs parallel with “progress” and “freedom,” which are bringing us an enlightened time, free of wars and want — or is that too illusion? We wonder, and do nothing. There is nothing we can do …or is there?

The current problem with environmentalism is environmentalists. For the most part, these are silly people who, rich on a first world lifestyle, want some kind of “cause” to distinguish them from the masses. They want an identity. They want a reason to be right where others are wrong, and they want to use this for social prestige. “I’m really into environmental issues” is conversation, not activism, but conversation is what motivates the environmental “movement.”

These are the people after all who are famous for boycotting proposed buildings after the plans have been approved, for coming in to yell at developers of new housing long after such a need was inevitable, for protecting the most rare species while ignoring the receding hairline of forest… they want you to eat bean sprouts, to stop having Christmas trees, to use lights too dim for your eyes, to concentrate on turning off taps and appliances. Environmentalists are useless because they do not focus on the problem as whole: too many people, and too many of them using technology.

Why are they so afraid of this obvious truth? It’s political suicide. It makes bad conversation to tell people accustomed to getting what they want that we need to cut back, and therefore that not everyone can have their “freedom” and in fact we need to take it away from a good many people. Even further, this brings the question of how to allocate resources to the forefront. Do we spend money on handicapped retarded orphans or on breeding smarter, healthier people? Oh no: this reeks of fascism, evil empires, Satan, etc.

Thus environmentalists make good conversation and hinder untold millions while ignoring the basic issue. Even worse, since they are “The Environmental Movement,” they look to most people like responsible adults in control while simultaneously obstructing others from taking charge of this problem. The environmental movement is like a corrupt politician, damaging both in what he does do and what he does not do while keeping others out of office who might do something. The environmental movement is a clog in the pipe of advancing environmental causes.

Because they cannot address the actual problem and thus find a solution, the environmental movement specializes in crippling non-solutions. They antagonize those trying to earn a living while failing to stop the onset of environmental disaster. They like to think, fond of themselves, that they are “educating” people toward a better future. But after forty years, they have nothing of import to show for this strategy. The loss goes on and environmentalists are busy recycling diapers and going to cocktail parties.

Let the Power Fall

…what appeals to all of us about anarchy is the idea of having space. We would be able to do what we needed to without nosy neighbors or obtrusive governments stopping us. After all, we walk a fine line: we are afraid of strong government, which has a tendency to appoint bureaucrats who destroy our dreams, but we’re also afraid of our opportunistic and predatory fellow citizens, who if not restrained by government tend to wreck our dreams as well. Anarchy sounds so simple. We do what we want, and if someone intervenes, …well, one might suppose we simply shoot them and move on.

Therein is the problem with anarchy. If surrounded by people like ourselves, who want simple healthy things in life and have no intention of disrupting others, we’ll be OK. But get one parasite into an anarchy and deeply disturbing situations result, especially if this parasite can defend himself. A simpering clerk who wants to steal is easily dealt with in an anarchy; but what about a predatory criminal group whose goal is to steal? Ah, then we’re back to militias and posses shooting it out with the bad guys in the streets of our cities, while little Suzy and young Billy get dropped by ricochets in the midst of their Latin homework. Not quite a solution, either.

What appeals to people about anarchy is not an ultimate state but a transition, a dissolving of the blockhead bureaucracy that constrains us and a freedom from the disapproval of our neighbors and thousands of special interest groups who will hold us back because we do not honor Christ, the Holocaust, Black rights, Women’s rights, anti-drug policies, corporate welfare, animal sodomy, etc. Anarchy would be a giant disconnecting, a liberation of ourselves from the gelatinous obligations of society, and we see it rightly as a transitional state.

After all, only an idiot would want to live in anarchy (the inexperienced are idiots by ignorance, not by ability, so we forgive the many young and distracted people who champion anarchy). When people talk fondly of anarchy they are not speaking of the chaotic state of existence where the law of the jungle returns, but in Sex Pistols terms, of tearing down a dysfunctional society and thus escaping it. We know in practice anarchy would work about as well as government by dice-throwing.

Our environmental crisis is brought on by our aversion to unpopular facets of reality. We cannot solve the crisis until we admit that:

  1. There are too many goddamn people.
  2. To cut back, we are going to have to violate some “freedoms.”
  3. When we do cut back, we should pick the best among us to breed.

These are common sense plans, when one is freed from the constraints that “freedom” and popularity put on us. After all, if we were marooned on a jungle island of small size, it would not be an insane command to breed the smarter people so that in the future a micro-civilization could exist which would make wise decisions. And before we get into the illusion of equality: no one is so insane as to insist that some are not smarter than others, better looking than others, or nobler in character than others — if it were so, why would it be that only some become professors and writers and actors? — we can only delude ourselves into blaming “oppression” for so long, since history is replete with examples of those who rose above adversity to succeed.

These future changes would require violence. A few generations of sterilizing criminals and retards, paying the less intelligent not to breed, legal abortion with tax breaks for those of lower intelligence, some small land wars and an end to third world aid (the area where the population is growing — Europe and Europeans in the Americas have long stabilized their populations).

Jobs could be re-interpreted to require real brains and real work, filtering out both the low intelligence and the kind of “thin intelligence” that bureaucratic paper-shuffling and marketing reward. No permanent welfare would force the unable to go elsewhere in order to raise their abundant children (statistically, welfare families are more likely to have more than two children, while stable households are more likely to have two or fewer children). These are all peaceful, un-destabilizing methods which could bring about these changes within generations.

Trees or Happy Masses?

Yet we balk. It’s not fair… not everyone gets the same chance… the burden falls heaviest on those in the intersection between categories dumb, poor and socially insignificant… it’s oppressive… we would prefer anything, even suicide, to such injustice. In fact, that is our choice: we either restrain ourselves now, or we self-destruct into archetypal third-world societies living under environmental duress. A few will rule from air-filtered artificial dwellings, and a mass of 90 IQ lumpenproles of no determinate heritage will labor in the wasteland, dying of cancer at age 35 and breeding with no higher evolutionary purpose in mind. Humanity, the failure. And as it went down, as if out of sheer spite, it tore apart its environment and left a barren planet as if determined that, having suicided, it would prevent any other species from having a chance at the stars.

In modern times, we are ruled by the Crowd. Coarser, simpler minds are always out there to promise unrealistic solutions in exchange for power; they sell illusion and deliver, years distant, disasters that most people cannot conceptualize as they cannot predict anything past their own next pay period. The Crowd does not mean badly, but it destroys nonetheless, and it is the incapability of that nobility of emotion and self-sacrifice that characterizes real leaders, who wish to avoid disaster both in the present and future. The Crowd wants what it wants, which is pleasant illusion and wealth and “freedom,” and the cost — they don’t even think that far ahead.

Those of us who are not fully delusional want to change our modern time because we smell disaster on the wind, but we don’t know how. If we look at single issues, like abortion or gay marriage or the whit-tufted weeblesparrow becoming extinct, we have no solutions. If we look at the whole of the problem, and see it in the context of history, the task suddenly becomes easier:

1. Wrest power from the Crowd.
2. Cut back our population.
3. Create better people than any that exist now (the overman of Nietzsche).

Overmen should be our goal because only a sick person wants to be the height of all time; we always want to get better, both personally and as a species. We can get better. We can make a humanity that is better than any humanity before. We do not do this by “freedom,” but by quality control. The Crowd will never deliver us to higher states, but to lower, by insisting on tangible immediate rewards instead of hard work toward time-distant greater heights. The solution begins with removing the power of the Crowd.

Democracy as Replacement Reality

Why to detest democracy: all governments are best at making themselves the dominant means of control, and democracy is no different. Masses do not study political theory and could not comprehend it if they did; they understand the last thirty years of history in simple terms, but are lost as to the two-thousand year picture. The masses are easily controlled with democracy because they both (a) believe themselves to be free and (b) vote according to what they see through a news media controlled by relatively few people. Whether that news media is public oration, as in ancient Greece, newspapers as in turn of the century America, or televisions and Internet funded by six ultra-wealthy corporations as in the modern time, the masses respond to what they see because it provokes them emotionally.

Thus democracies sway between Evil Villains and Helpless Innocents, but understand no shades of grey. The masses, in “freedom,” pick extremes through statistically predictable means. Control is easy because it’s invisible, and so while the public show of “government by the people” burbles past our ears, in private groups of wealthy people decide what to fund and through that how people will vote. This isn’t conspiracy thinking; these wealthy people desire nothing more than to neutralize society from doing anything that will threaten their wealth, and to guide in profitable directions. They’re simply enjoying their freedom, and if the rest of us pay for it, it’s only because we’re too silly to have a more comprehensive direction than individual material accumulation.

Democracy rewards those with low self-esteem and low selectivity in their personal choices; these are people who find the most reward in social recognition. They like to believe in public image because when they look too closely at reality, they see things they do not like about themselves, in the same way the most vicious anti-smoker is an ex-smoker and the most violent racist is someone unsure of her own parentage. They fear the inner world of meaning, and of significance to life, preferring the tangibles like wealth and comfort because these are beyond debate, beyond dispute. Too much intangibility they equate with the presence of death, something they’d rather (and heck, all of us, but if we’re brave we do not give in to this impulse) forget. Democracy is good at rewarding those who run from unpleasant truth, and it feeds them pleasant illusions in exchange for the ability to manipulate them.

Democracy encourages self-centeredness. “What do you want?” replaces “What is best for us all?” Personal preference replaces reality. This has gotten to the point that people have replaced objective reality with personal choices; if you want the inferior logical solution, go ahead, it’s your choice. They do not believe objectivity exists. What stands before us are a series of choices, or preferences, they argue, instead of objectively-demonstrable better and worse solutions. You like to eat garbage and coat yourself in feces? Well, fella, whatever makes you happy — so goes the logic.

Smart people have for centuries puzzled over this, and thanks to a series of mind-bogglingly unproven and incomplete theories ranging from Christian Heaven to quantum physics and its partially articulated doctrine of relativity, have convinced themselves this is possibly true. Maybe we do live in a world where everyone can have a personal reality in which to be a king, and where every preference might work out. It has not occured to them that nature works by the opposite principle to avoid that becalming of reward to better choices known as entropy which is brought about when all choices create exactly equal outcomes. Why choose at all, then? — which means there are no better choices, hence no evolution or natural selection, hence nothing ever gets better. But does it get worse? Stagnation usually leads to decay, but we cannot say that in public anymore as we’ll offend someone.

Although you will not see this fact in textbooks, there are no historically successful examples of democracies: all of them have terminated early, exploding into authoritarian states and then tapering off into third-world countries with “amazing” ruins lost in the jungles and deserts. Democracy brings about pleasant illusion and, having hidden reality, is then surprised by it and overwhelmed by consequences — every time. The only difference now is that thanks to our technology, we’re really playing with fire: nuclear bombs, ecocide, wars so big they boggle the mind. We control the globe and can actually for the first time damage nature. We’ve put the whole stack on red 13 and we’re gambling with our future.

Democracy is excellent for those who fear the world (reality) and fear its natural selection process. They are guaranteed “equality” — freedom from natural selection — and “freedom,” or the ability to live as weirdly or defectively as possible so long as they make it to their jobs and bring home those checks. For those who fear the world, democracy is a protective measure, but like all protection rackets, it requires prompt payment. You do that by tolerating unrealistic decision-making and eventually a lapse of leadership into happy promises and grim consequences.

This is why all democracies fail at first by sliding into authoritarianism. When reality becomes a distant world, and decay sets in, the few sane ones left begin to see what’s really on the plate and start screaming. Because the situation is so far gone controlling it is impossible, they slam into a place a strong reactionary government — which, alas, is composed of the same defectives who are running the democracy, and thus either lapses into left-wing errors (kill all aristocrats, dissidents, intellectuals and other necessary brains) or right-wing errors (embark on endless war and the building of statues). The society that out of control filled with parasites and useless people responds like a man who suddenly realizes he’s on fire, swatting violently and desperately at patches of flame without realizing that the quickest solution is to drop to the ground and roll.

And drop to the ground and roll we must — roll away from the Crowd, from their protective Democracy, from the big money interests that manipulate us without caring if we self-destruct because enough money means the elites can live in spaceships while earth rots and burns. No one is in charge here as far as leadership toward the future goes. We’re all complicit in blithely going along this path to doom. If you care about environmental issues, you will recognize that a transfer of power is needed, and that we need to roll away from Democracy and then stand up and assert reality instead of fantasy — and only then can we avoid planetary ecocide.

Frustration with Politics

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

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

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

Personal Experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

  1. Environment

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

  2. Existential

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

  3. Eugenics

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

  4. Karma

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

  5. Race, Ethnicity, Heritage

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

  6. Idealism

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

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

Liberalism vs Conservatism

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

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

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

Third Way

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

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

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

National Socialism

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

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

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

Modernity as Paralysis

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

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

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

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

Soft Racialism and Holism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The pragmatically extremist core of the green movement has never been compatible with the mainstream of the same. Where middle of the road greenism is basically an extension of the democratic party, “extremist” (read: realistic, if we want to solve the problem) greenism has never fit into the leftist family of brands. Part of the reason for this is that, like the right, “extreme” greens refuse to praise the worker, the common man, “the people” and assume that, if power is simply turned over to these unfairly oppressed people, all things will turn out for the best. The assumption is that an elite of moneyed psychopaths holds us all hostage, and if we just overthrow them, the workers will do what is right.

Pragmatic greens recognize, like far-righters do, that in the past millennium what we’ve seen most commonly is not domination by a cruel elite, but the creation of cruel elites to control the mob that, having dominated the select few who can think, now cruises without a clue – and that always brings out the demagogues, in the same way that fresh blood in water attracts sharks. What, you have no direction? Not to speak too forwardly, but I’ll help – for a fee. And absolute allegiance. Those words, fifty years later, turn into the ruins of Soviet Russia: a once-cultured nation, now bereft of its genetics and values system, turned into a conformist machine which impoverished its population and killed the best of them. While there are signs that Russia is returning to health at the hand of Mr. Putin, there are also signs that something is missing – something which can never be recovered, a certain European-ness and also moral concept of civilization that is forever lost. It is perhaps true that Russia has forever joined the third world, not as much externally, but internally, as its own attitudes have come to have third world expectations and, lacking discipline, needs for third-world-style authoritarian rule.

It goes this way with every mass revolution. Some wise guy stands up and says, “It’s them” – the wealthy, or powerful, or good-looking, or gifted; take your pick, or combine – “they live well, while we starve. They oppress us! If we crush them, we will live in paradise!” And so the mob surges forward, and while they certainly murder a few people who deserve it, like decadent nobles and sex predator clergy, for the most part they exterminate or disable the few people with the brains to help them. Keeping your thumb on the fast-forward switch, you can see how in another generation, when the impetus of the revolution has run down, there are no more spoils left to divide, and no more excess wealth upon which one can feast. The nation is collapsing, and the revolutionaries are betraying each other in a desperate attempt to keep a grip on not wealth itself but the slippery concept of how to produce it on a consistent basis. At this point it becomes clear: being able to work a farm or factory does not imply being able to run one, from a design and decision perspective. Since the people are without direction, the demagogues rise, and soon authoritarian rule prevails.

Rightist authoritarian rule tends to be idealistic, and thus susceptible to problems because only a few people can actually understand the whole of its reasoning, thus underlings are without a clue how to make decisions until a generation has passed; mass revolts produce a different kind of authoritarian rule, close kin to “power for power’s sake,” but something closer to “power for paranoia’s sake.” When civilization comes unknit, and the rule of strength prevails, those who wish to endure take one of two courses of action: (a) hide or (b) gain more power than anyone else, and subjugate them, eliminating the constant threat. Hiding leaves one open to random predation, but becoming strong enables the group to not only survive but have a sense of planning for the future as well. It is this benevolent impulse that produces a climate of vicious leaders, and the generations shaped by this become true sociopaths, caring not about power for the sake of avoiding predation, but wielding power like a sick joke, pursuing it for the thrill of it and oblivious to consequences. When such men kill, they do not do so to make things better, as ideologues do; they do so to keep themselves from being bored.

Of course, these scenarios are extremes; what about mundane sorts of government, the day to day stuff we find ourselves dealing with in times of peace? Ah – like most mediocre things, they are hard to diagnose, as they give us few truly offensive statements and most of their incompetence is covered up by the time required for it to take effect. Much as when one works in the fields, a simple error is revealed in minutes, but a fundamental hour might not come to light until the next season, modern governments make a multitude of understandable tiny screwups and a few assumptions that create infinitely greater damage in the long term. By that time those who remember the decisions being made are dead, and the new generation knows only that something difficult happened, and endures it. There is no recollection of “we could have done it another way.” This is where one encounters the conflict that divides the green movements worldwide: they realize fairly radical changes need to be implemented to prevent the train wreck that is industrial society’s exploitation of its environment, but they also realize these changes will not fit into the realm of mundane decisions which governments and voters expect. How does one make a law that says we must expand no further, and must make thousands of decisions across the board in favor of the environment, for once?

For this reason, the greens are – like the rest of Europe and America, at least – divided by philosophy. One philosophy is the dominant one now, which says we must look after the interests of people and never curtail their rights, their desires, their hopes and dreams. The other, which is popular only in extremist circles, says that we must look not at individuals but at the effect of the whole of humanity, and only in that mindset can we see the damage and plan to control it. In this second mindset, instead of seeing uncountable individuals, we see one individual, divided up into many small organs. We don’t wish to destroy any organs that we need, but ultimately, what matters is the health of the whole, not the health of any one given organ. Organs are a means to an end, and that end is the whole. Thus individual organs are expendable, if expended to preserve or strengthen the whole. This type of thinking is completely alien to our modern society, and thus is also foreign to the mainstream greens, who are notable both for their opposition to it and their total lack of success in delaying environmental apocalypse. They won’t cross the line of the individual, and thus they cannot restrain humanity as a whole, since it is composed of – nay, driven by – individuals each seeking their own wants, desires, hopes, dreams.

The “extremist” greens have thus stumbled across the most important barrier in the modern time: like right-wing parties, they are willing to curtail the rights of the individual for the health of the whole. Further, like right-wing parties, they recognize that the worker would be something other than a worker if he or she knew anything significant about government; thus simply handing society over to “the people” is a recipe for continued selfishness, and not its abatement. They’re in a tough place, these greens, since they’ve seen enough to realize what must be done, but have no idea how to advance their political agenda. Mainstream right- and left-wing parties capitalize on this by accusing greens of having a lack of political vision. And in some ways, they’re right. Greens have an environmental vision, but in order to get to the place where they can put it into operation, they have to add to it a political vision, namely a plan for how the whole of society operates such that it can find reasons to want an environmental policy, and thus act on it. There’s another problem, too.

This problem is broader in implication and easier to trigger. It’s that one gets called a “sociopath” for endorsing any type of action that, in order to make the whole healthier, is willing to limit what any given individual can expect. If you suggest limiting population, you’re a sociopath. Euthanizing the elderly, the retarded, the hopelessly criminal – you’re a sociopath. Even telling people they cannot have giant cars, or oversized houses, is viewed as socially defective, violent, psychotic reasoning. This is how prevalent the barrier of the individual is. It does not apply to any known individual, but the idealized individual, meaning any of us and all of us. Bizarrely, the prohibition does not address outcomes but intentions; you are seen as sociopathic if you desire to use a certain method, because it is a banned mode of thought, regardless of what positive outcome it will produce. It’s blasphemy to even speak it. Naturally, in such a situation, most people give up on broader change and focus on having enough money for a house in a gated community, with air and water filters, radiation sheeting and health plans for the inevitable cancers. That is “survival,” and it’s the softer option than dominating one’s opposition, which is nearly impossible since their numbers are so great. That is, if one assumes that the rest of society is one’s opposition, something that to this writer does not seem entirely accurate.

The slur “sociopath” operates by the same principle as the terms atheist and theist: if you are not one, you must be the other, since they are opposites – correct? Nevermind that pantheists and polytheists exist, as we can group those under “theist”; this dichotomy does not admit any variation in the definition of God. If your god(s) require no belief, then you’re an atheist; if you believe, but not in gods, then you’re an atheist. In short, either believe in the singular God of the dominant religion, or be lumped in with the “non-believers.” My way, or the highway. They’re either with us, or against us. A binary worldview – this also extends to sociopathy, which is the opposite of being a good citizen. Nevermind that there are reasons to criticize society; it recognizes only one definition of good, which is its own, and any methods or ideas outside of its own method are thus seen as deviant. In our society, the founding principle is that the individual is supreme. Therefore, anything which seeks to limit the “freedom” and “needs” of the individual is sociopathic, fascist, amoral, etc. Anything which is not what already exists is by predefinition an illness which requires diagnosis and excision. For this reason, the term “sociopath,” normally applied to those who feel no concern for the consequences of their actions, is applied to those who feel so much concern for the consequences of our collective action that they are willing to limit our abilities as a whole. It makes more sense to say that the people who believe individuals should never be limited, even if they are destroying the world, are sociopathic, but no one will mention that on television.

Where did this kingdom of the individual start? To see this, we have to look not only at belief systems, but the sociopolitical shifts behind them. Clearly the highest degree of value is placed on the individual in non-idealistic, materialistic (meaning: addresses only physical reality, not a second spiritual “world” like dualistic systems) religions like Judaism, but the point of this exercise is not Judaism but the behavior of placing emphasis on the individual. It’s likely that as Christianity expanded in Europe, Judaic ideals went with it, encouraging a focus on individual drama, personal relationship to God, and expectation that if one acted well reward would come. However, this is only part of the picture, because simultaneously, other revolts were occurring. Ever since the domestication of livestock, technology had been allowing human beings to magnify their own ability through the use of tools, equalizing the war-strength of a hero to that of the hidden sniper taking aim at him. Arrows, guns, the internal combustion engine… and finally, as all open land ran out and it become required to get all items of sustenance from others, money. Each of these means narrowed the gap between the genius and the idiot, the priest and the con man, the warrior and geek. If in any society there are a fortunate few of high ability, and a large mass of those with lesser ability, this technological progress amounts to a rebellion of the many against the few.

It is the order that these people created that calls “sociopathic” anything which limits the abilities of the individual; this is because a crowd is formed only when every person thinks only for their own self-interest, and thus dumbs down the intent of the crowd to the lowest common denominator, causing it to act as if of its own accord. Crowds demand rights of the individual, because each wants to be able to hatch whatever scheme or indulge whatever weakness she is keeping hidden behind social politeness. Crowds demand democracy, because each wants to feel important but is dependent on others for his source of power, therefore gladly grants others the same rights and plans in secret to manipulate them. Crowds insist upon “proof,” that being the demonstration of something to the point where every idiot gets it, requiring that the questions to be proved be re-adjusted to deal with simpler topics. Crowds love public image displays, because every single person can see the “proof” offered by image, and agree, which allows those who can to manipulate behind the scenes. Interestingly, Plato offered this diagnosis among the ancient Greeks: democracy breeds self-importance in every individual, and thus they act as an unthinking mass, responding only to public image and demagoguery. For this reason, they’re easily manipulated, not by a conspiracy, but by the invisible but pragmatic bribes of an oligarchy of the wealthy. When the two candidates you see on TV differ by inconsequential but dramatic “beliefs,” and when all the newspapers report the same basic news, but you feel something is missing, remember Plato – he realized quickly that “sociopathy” is how a crowd labels behavior that will take away its power.

Returning to the question of environmental politics, it’s clear that there is no way to “prove” that our damage to the earth is worsening; those who don’t want to believe will pull out some “study,” however flimsy or lacking any grasp of the meaningful questions that would solve the debate, and loudly proclaim that the study has not been “disproved” and therefore the debate is open. This passive tactic is designed to outlast an adversary by insisting upon the impossible: change my mind, and then I’ll stop resisting your attempts to change my mind by reason. Because people are persistent, and act for individual reward, this behavior nullifies debate on the issue time and time again by dragging it into a standoff. And with a standoff, those who favor no radical change rule over those who do. Why? Because to brush aside the passive tactics of those who desire no change is “sociopathy,” of course.



The first casualty of any populist system is the ability to exist in a non-partisan activity. Since your power results from marshaling together a group and getting them to exert the weight of numbers, you have to dumb down your ideas to the point where a group can accept them and agree on them. Since the society as a whole exists to please the individual, individuals are cultivated to be “different” and thus they will come to the table not willing to agree but to assert each and every one that difference, thus narrowing the focal point of the group. As a result, one has the modern partisan decision-making process: complex ideas are distilled into simple points around which groups rally, forming oppositional camps, and somehow (it is supposed) they will arrive at the truth.

As anyone who has suffered through the decisions of a committee, or any other partisan political process, can attest, the result is that any change occurs in incremental steps around the most obvious conclusions. If a giant rubbery monster is attacking the city, it’s easy to agree that something must be done; a problem without immediate manifestation in a way visible equally to all, however, is much harder. It is for this reason that societies collapse from within from lack of consensus, which means that when the rubbery monster does finally surge from the sea spouting fire, no one can even agree that they give a damn enough to save the city, and most of them, enwrapped in the fatalistic guilt of awareness of how much they’ve given up control to crowd pleasing, feel it is divine judgment that they be destroyed.

With my primary issue, namely allowing our natural environment to enslave the human onslaught, this phenomenon is observable to tragic degree. Most political parties, sensing that they can appease the guilt of some with a few token bones tossed in their direction, and thus can possibly gain votes, have a token environmental policy that, while it addresses a few symptoms, will do nothing to correct the problem. This grim comedy was most evident in the debate during the last election over drilling for oil in national forests; while this might indeed be an issue, it is a convenient emotional and symbolic issue that allows everyone to bypass the issue as a whole and go about business as usual.

There is even a Green party! We would be fortunate if such a thing were actually politically viable. However, the Greens have made themselves into an extreme form of the same practice, by which they address only environmental issues, sniping from the sidelines, and have no practical plan for society as a whole. For this reason, they get dismissed by many as airy idealism (vernacular, not philosophical, usage), because they want to stop certain symptoms, but cannot address the causes, and have nothing to replace those causes even if they can stop them, leading to a total social breakdown as vital organs are ripped out of the society and a void left into which (if history is any yardstick) anarchy, depression, chaos and unwelcome sodomy will fall.

Thus, while there is activity in the name of Green (and here we don’t mean the usual green that comes pre-printed with denominations redeemable in future value, assuming there’s a future, and you’d better or you’ll be short groceries and health insurance today) there is no activity with a viable political future going on to address the question of Green, which for you late-comers and back-of-the-classroom types I’ll reiterate: stopping overconsumption of natural resources, overutilization of natural space, and the vast amounts of pollution (waste outside of special containers) and landfill (waste, garbage, toxins and discarded plastic inside special containers) that humanity generates. Although this situation in itself is crisis, there’s a further dimension, and one that is familiar to any observer of falling empires: the most necessary changes are profoundly socially unacceptable to discuss, because they go against the moral fabric of our slowly but surely collapsing civilization.

It is inconceivable that, in a utilitarian society, there could be a higher priority than the individual; after all, political power in utilitarian systems is derived by getting most people to agree that a certain action or activity roughly pleases them. This is the definition of utilitarianism, and from this idea – pleasing most of the people most of the time – we get our vaunted “modern” and “progressive” institutions of democracy and individualism. Individuals, indeed, are the core of a utilitarian system, because gaining agreement rests not so much in addressing their actual needs, but in getting them to agree that their needs are being met; this is primarily achieved by not offending sacred cows, inevitably by addressing certain high and lofty concepts that every individual feels benefits himself or herself. In a utilitarian society, the individual is king, but paradoxically, rule occurs through the mass. All liberal democracies fall until this framework.

For this reason, a fundamental realization is avoided: that humanity grows daily because populations expand exponentially, and that no population checks itself until it runs into a fatal regulatory factor. This means that human populations will continue to expand a tier every generation, and that by the time this population so poisons itself that decline occurs because resources are limited, resources will already have been pushed to the breaking point, and there will be no unoccupied land masses to which the few sane ones can run while the others die in their own waste. In short, it’s a race to the cliff-edge, and most people upon recognizing this have decided it’s better to go first over the cliff than get sodomized by the losers at the rear of the pack.

This dual force, on one side the social and political taboo of mentioning the problem, and on the other the emotional and psychological futility associated with it, guarantees that the name of the primary cause of all of our Green worries cannot be mentioned, no matter how many seals we save or whether we forbid all drilling in national forests. The ugly name of this grotesque problem is Overpopulation, and for this I advance a new definition: having too many people to allow natural habitats to exist in their native format, which requires more land than humanity does. It does not mean, as some wish we would suppose, having too many people to fit on earth, because at that point the cause is lost. Nor does it mean having too many people to feed, or to fit in our current land occupation; we’re already taking up too much space, consuming too many resources and producing too much waste.

Overpopulation refers to the unchecked growth of humanity. We have no natural predators, so for example an alien observer might suppose that we’d come up with some Design to regulate our population before it reached the point where, inevitably with the growth of generations, it would consume all free-standing resources and force the conversion of the remaining open land into space for the production of food in order to “save lives.” Overpopulation is not a static figure, but the ongoing process of having no plan and thus expanding in all directions without regulation, including in such a political system where we cannot mention the need to curb growth, because that will deny to someone the ability to have a big house and family and produce tons of waste, and thus is the exact opposite of trying to “save lives.”

Before you throw up your hands in hopelessness at this neurotic delirium, and put a bullet through your own skull, let me say that it’s easy to solve. But first, I’ll address another misconception: that if we “just” recycle enough, ride bicycles to work, wear sweaters and wash out and reuse our condoms we’ll be fine. What a happy illusion! Even if I smoked a grip of crack, I could never believe this will work, because the only people who are going to voluntarily adopt such standards are those who are already wealthy enough to have the luxury of doing so. Further, and most comical, is the knowledge that even if every person on earth were to do this, they would still be expanding as a population and thus would commit the same mass destruction as the path we current follow will, albeit maybe delaying it by up to a decade. Thus the traditional Green concept of being an ethical consumer, while a good idea in its own right (what kind of psychotic asshole would not recycle?), will not solve the problem; it does not address the situation; it is a total failure.

There’s another wrinkle here, which is that populations lacking natural regulatory factors breed out of control both outwardly (sheer numbers) and inwardly, which refers to the quality of their populations. Contrary to popular belief, predators are lazy, so they carry off the malformed, mentally and physically defective, diseased and weak before they even think of assaulting an animal in its prime. Humanity has no such regulatory factor, and if there’s one thing for sure, it’s that the stupid and defective breed more than those who are strong and thus have the foresight and ability to breed only in replacement numbers, which tends to be two parents = two children, and no more.

Before the propaganda of utilitarian society rises in you, and you rebel against me here and call me Satan or Hitler or some kind of thug, realize that if you put any person on earth into a private room and ask them, with the knowledge that the answer will be kept secret for all time, what the human problem is, they’ll mention in as many words, “There are too many stupid people.” For many of them, nature’s sick joke will be that they are stupid, but you’ll hear the same answer from a genius or a healthy religious leader as well, so it’s not only stupid people who suggest such an idea. Rather, it’s a commonly accepted truth that most human beings are fools who, while they can function fine in bureaucratic jobs, are useless for long-term planning or appreciating the subtle beauty of a forest. Their interest is wealth and entertainment, and as long as they can buy food, they don’t give half a shit about the demise of our natural habitat, although they may pretend to for the purpose of gaining votes or appearing “noble” to their neighbors.

The vast majority of the human population on earth is under 100 IQ points, and while the IQ test is far from ideal, it gives a general idea of intelligence, and no person under 100 IQ points has the intelligence to check their own behavior, thus is useless for any kind of society that has no natural predators – in fact, they’re more than useless, as they’ll continue to breed more stupid people who will never check their behavior, and thus will clamor the loudest for more products, wealth and landfills. These people can be sterilized, or killed, but it amounts to the same thing: natural selection being imposed from within. If we lose the three billion or so of these, it’s a good start, but there’s still too many people. Lest you think this is a polemic against the third world, which is admittedly the biggest polluter (mainly unmeasured, since it requires wealth to take correct measurements), I’ll go further.

Most people in the industrial, liberal democratic societies of America and Europe are also fully useless. They can read newspapers, watch TV, and fill out forms and make conference calls at work, but that’s about it. They don’t care about the environment. They care about more food, more wealth, and better entertainment. They are in fact devoid of all awareness whatsoever of the importance of any long-term action. If our society is going to self-regulate, as it must since it lacks predators, these people need to go away, whether by sterilization or murder. “Murder” has bad constructs, but we don’t think of it as murder to kill killers, while it is – “murder” is a positive thing as long as the person, in the words of many a cowboy, “needed killing.” Killing is the only way you ensure these people will not act out their diabolical agenda of stupidity and short-term, self-pleasing thought.

Since I’m breaking taboo here, and all of the people who fit this description have stopped reading long ago (and you thought that opening lengthy sentence was for show? silly you), I’ll say this: we must consider eliminating our population of under roughly 125 IQ points, since that’s about the threshold for those who can make long term plans and those who cannot. IQ is fallible, so I suggest looking at people’s deeds so far; no point telling them they must shape up, and then sparing them when they do, as they lack the native ability and inclination to do so. A society of geniuses is probably not our goal, but a society of people who can agree on the most basic long term actions like “don’t shit where you eat” and “don’t destroy your environment” is necessary, and those who cannot make that leap of cognition are those who will always work against it; let’s remove them. Did I mention that ill-bred people also require constant medical care, generating more mountains of waste? Healthy people spend little time in hospitals, until the end, at least.

Oh, the voices would be wailing now, if any of them could understand this far. It’s terrible you do this! Our goal is to save lives! My goal is to save life – that is, life a a whole – and some lives impede that, thus they need to be eliminated. Further, some ways of thinking impede that, such as the idea that we should be able to do whatever we can afford to do with no thought to the whole, thus that must be eliminated also. Luckily, this can be done within a democratic process, by creating a feudal civilization in which an elite of long-term thinkers rules, and there is a higher value than money and a consensus that civilization should grow by natural selection toward ever-increasing heights, not stagnation. With even a small portion of the intelligent population agitating for this, as it will make their lives better by not condemning them and their children to future apocalypse, it will occur by democratic means within our very society. And while this future society comes bearing death for some, consider the option: death for all, and our environment that has taken billions of years to evolve.

In Vedic mythology, the oldest and most advanced spiritual system on earth, life runs in cycles which roughly correspond to humans mastering their environment and, lacking predators or a consensual goal, become bloated and fat like couch-dwellers, thus overpopulating and creating degenerate, failure-oriented societies. At the end of these cycles, certain mythological figures appear, and if you pay attention closely to your dreams, you will see their symbolism as wisdom. One such figure is Kalki, who appears astride a white horse bearing a sword, clearing away the excess life so that life itself can thrive again. White horse = rare in nature, but true to the method of nature, created by nature for a specialized purpose, and surviving by its fitness above others. When you see a society that is unable to recognize its certain doom, that has made discussion of the actual problem taboo and thus contents itself with frivolous self-gratifying talk of symptoms, realize that death is here to save life – and in your prayers, look toward Kalki, death on a white horse, and say to yourself, that alone is our salvation.