Posts Tagged ‘integralism’

Is Europe Christianity, Or Is Christianity “Europeanized”?

Wednesday, September 21st, 2016


The Alt Right contains multitudes — Traditionalism, Nationalism, Identitarianism, Theocracy, National Socialism/neo-Nazism, Libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Social Conservatism, Neoreaction and the New Right coexist within it — all of which contribute to its character, but each Alt Righter finds one dominant over the others in his own thinking.

On the Theocratic side, the Orthosphere and others borrow much from the Traditionalist perspective, and essentially desire a civilization renewal through mass devotion. This causes clashes with other aspects of the Alt Right cluster of beliefs, as can be seen in this erudite article about the new Alt Right logo:

However, the penultimate sin of this artistic foray by Spencer et al. is its imposition of a wholly non-historical, secular, and privately-conceived image upon a decentralized movement designed to defend hundreds of millions of souls descended from millennia of historically and religiously-rooted European history.

In other words, this Alt Right logo does artistically what the European Union’s constitution does legally – it erases European history and replaces it with an abstract, de novo interpretation of who we are to become. It is wholly utopian and idealistic. But that is no surprise considering whence it came.

This illustrates why the Alt Right is composed of an intersection of those many impulses above: any “one right way” approach to restoring Western Civilization tends to become a special interest that eclipses all other needs, resulting in a single change to the status quo that leaves the bulk of the decay intact.

One Right Way philosophies include White Nationalism, which wants to eject or destroy some Other groups but not all, and then merge all white people into a vanilla milkshake under the current democratic regime. This fails because it leaves the conditions which will re-create our present state intact, and by focusing on a scapegoat (Others) instead of actual problems like Western Decline, democracy and individualism, strengthens those forces.

Theocracy/Orthosphere in its purest form is a One Right Way philosophy — ironically, one that is endorsed by many American Republicans. In their view, we need everyone to convert to Christianity, and everything else will work itself out. For most, this is simply an excuse for inaction. With a respected source such as Faith and Heritage, more is at work, but the problem still remains.

For the F&H guys, European = Christian. For them Christianity came first, the people and their culture second. This quixotic miscomprehension is their perpetual downfall. The understanding that Christianity took hold in Europe because it was compatible with the European mindset is incomprehensible to them.

In other words, they have it backward: Christianity did not make Europe, but when Europeans “Europeanized” Christianity, they made it into a religion that could unite Europe. It did not not through Christianity itself, but through the expression of the European mindset through Christianity.

This clashes with the modern view of Christianity, which is that Christianity is the tool of producing civilization. In that view, everyone is capable of becoming Christian and being saved, and this “system” in turn saves the society around it. Not only history but common sense suggests that is not so.

Repeat after me: people are not equal. (It almost rhymes.)

People are not equal. They have different capacities for understanding. If you follow Human Biodiversity (HBD), you know that intelligence fits into a Standard Distribution where only the far-right side is capable of in-depth understanding of the complex history of a people and its relationship to God found in the Bible. This is why we have clergy; they are learned, elite interpreters of the holy Book.

Rejecting equality means that not everyone is capable of being Christian, of being saved, and that doesn’t jive with the feel-good understanding of God that modern Christians pursue. It just does not compute that God would create people who cannot be saved (even though this is Biblical).

Let us look at the scripture:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. – John 6:44 (ESV)

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. – John 15:16 (ESV)

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. – Romans 9:16 (ESV)

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. – Romans 8:29 (ESV)

The above passages are traditionally used to support Calvinism, or the notion that human beings are born good or bad and cannot be molded from one into the other. This is highly controversial in our egalitarian times, since it implies that human intention is less powerful than the world of nature and God, which contradicts the individualism incipient behind our modern democratic beliefs.

Romans 8:29 makes this clear: God makes people who are receptive to Him, and by the reflexive principle, not all people are receptive, and the ones who are not are hostile to God. Those who are receptive to Him are so because of the way God made them.

Much like the question of Christianizing Europe versus Europeanizing Christianity, this question hinges on causality. The ability to receive God must exist before a person can receive God, as in the esoteric “Traditionalist” view; this rejects the idea that receiving God creates the ability to receiving god, in the exoteric and democratic convention.

That ability to perceive and receive is the essential component and must come first. Without it, there is no belief in God, only superstitious peoples like in the third world and Western New Age cults. The other verses support this view: God installs in some of us the ability to perceive God.

From an Alt Right view, this means that we must have a hierarchy, and raise those who understand God/nature/logic above the rest so that the best can rule the rest. It may also imply that those who oppose God, because they cannot be “fixed” or “educated,” must be sent elsewhere so they do not threaten the society of those who receive God.

Europeans have a tendency toward ability to receive God, but not all of them can do it. In the past, whether in pagan societies or Christianity, Europeans have sought a transcendental worldview and a metaphysical understanding of their world. This separates them from other groups, and shows why it was Europeanizing Christianity and not Christianizing Europe that is responsible for the positive contributions of Christianity in Europe.

The Post-Reactionary Society

Thursday, July 28th, 2016


What made Neuromancer, the 1984 sci-fi book by William Gibson, stand out was its ability to visualize what a network-enabled world might look like. Despite some anachronisms, the book showed us how it would look if people were cruising around cyberspace, and launched a whole flotilla of imitators.

In the same way, it is important that we are able to visualize what a Reactionary — for the sake of clarity, let us put together philosophies that are more similar than they are different: Reaction, Alternative Right, Neoreaction, New Right, Paleoconservative — society might look like.

A good start can be found in my distillation of the Right, or at least of the non-Leftists out there who tend toward realism, with the four pillars:

  1. Rule by culture. Government and police are inferior methods compared to citizens who view society as a cooperative endeavor toward a goal, according to principles held in common. These are a product of culture. To defend culture, all who are not of the ethnic group must be excluded; this is a principle called Nationalism. With nationalism, government is deprecated and day-to-day order is kept through use of shame, ostracism and exclusion to keep outsiders and saboteurs at bay.
  2. Hierarchy and excellence. Society can either take its rich and powerful and assume they are good, or find those among its people who are excellent — superior in ability, leadership, intelligence and moral insight — and give them the wealth and power to use well. 99% of humanity will make these decisions wrong, and all people in groups will choose to avoid facing real issues. We need those who do the opposite to have power and wealth to ensure that it is used well, much as (in theory) we entrust nuclear weapons only to those of excellent character.
  3. Positive reward systems. Again we face a primary division: we either force everyone to conform and look for anomalies to punish, or we diligently reward those who do well so that they ascend to positions of leadership. A heroic culture does some of this, but on a more practical level, so does capitalism: it rewards those who find opportunity and meet needs, as kept in check by culture and hierarchy.
  4. A transcendental goal. No healthy society has merely material goals. It aims to achieve the impossible so that it can constantly improve, such as the motives of ancient societies to achieve balance, harmony, equilibrium and excellence. Religion is part of this, but not the whole. We must collaborate toward a goal again and have it be more than tangible, but eternal.

But what would this look like to an average person? In my upcoming book, Parallelism, I describe more, but here is a basic illustration:

America has become a nation again; all those who were not Western European in blood, or who could not pass for that and demonstrate a majority of Western heritage, were repatriated with reparations to their home continents. Ireland in particular was thankful for the reverse in its population crash and new blood of the many German-Irish hybrids sent back.

The big cities suffered crashes as a result. This provided a convenient excuse to gut them and relocate their populations to a network of smaller cities, each under fifty thousand people. These are separated by extensive farmland and wild land, with the proviso that 50% of all land must be kept in a natural state, unvisited by humans except for maintenance purposes.

A network of aristocrats has cropped up, with most serving as local lords. These positions go to lower aristocrats, and the young of higher aristocrats, so that they may learn how to lead. These local lords serve as judge and jury, leader and advisor in their communities, both telling people what to do and making helpful suggestions.

They are aided by, in each town, a team of wise elders. These men have survived into old age and also are valued for their judgment, so now, they convene every afternoon to advise their local neighborhoods, villages and quadrants of cities. They have the ability to dispense payment of some funds, and to exile people.

Beyond that, there is not much law enforcement. Those who transgress are exiled instead of being jailed. This means that some people lose their citizenship for something as simple as smoking a joint or getting drunk and beating on a wife. The wise elders and lords know that Darwin is still with us, and in a healthy Darwinian cycle, much of each new generation is pared off because it does not meet quality control standards.

In this society, “Good is the enemy of perfect,” and the leaders fear most of all that they will unwittingly enact a half-solution and let problems ferment under cover of time. As a result, despite their merciful nature, they tend to be free with their demands for exile, sending away the foolish, retarded, criminal, incontinent, unchaste, corrupt and parasitic. Perhaps a fifth of each generation is sent to the lands to the South, for nature to remix their DNA into the third world brew and stabilize it.

Unlike previous societies, this society idealizes laziness and pleasure. Its goal is to get through its required tasks with as little fuss as possible and to then spend most of the day in enjoying life. This way, people do not live for false goals such as ideologies and trends, but see life itself as timeless and participate as a means of being excellent versions of what they were born to be.

Jobs have been scaled down. Each person has a social rank based on what roles their ancestors serve, and they serve those same roles. Apprenticeships take care of most education except for the upper castes, who hire private tutors, as do small groups of people who want their children to have formal education. This provides essentially unlimited labor for any college graduate. There is no public education; apprenticeships, journeymen, homeschooling, and private education have taken over. Similarly, there are no “rules” about jobs. People are offered work and can take it or not. The rest is up to them.

Laws are almost nonexistent. The courts and lawyers cost too much for any normal person to get justice, inverting their own function. Now all cases are heard in front of a lord and, if a local lord fails too many times, his fellow lords may intervene. Sometimes they do not, recognizing that all but a few complaints are individuals projecting their failure onto whoever is in power at the time.

As a result however life is more relaxed. With countless legal costs and expenses from government regulation cleared aside, living is far cheaper, as is food. Most people work a few hours a day, then come home to spend their time with family, books, games, loafing and playing instruments. There is no desire for novelty or uniqueness because these things failed with the collapse of the last regime.

Lords can order executions. A murderer is normally ordered to pay restitution to the family of his victim, and will spend the rest of his life doing so; if he fails, a posse is summoned and they take him to a place of execution and kill him in the traditional way with a spear through the eye. No one much cares, because to get to that stage you have to really screw-up, and this society is more focused on defense of the healthy normal than the screw-ups.

Local business exists in pretty much the same form as now. Grocery stores and other vital suppliers maintain the techniques that made them highly efficient but, in the absence of regulation, are able to lower costs. They also fear less for the ability to hire and fire at will because the employees have no recourse, but in a cheaper society, have a few months to cruise if they just save a little money. Charities exist in a private sense only, and churches routinely help those who encounter life’s little speed bumps.

The Lords tend to divide people into three groups: contributors, destroyers and grey people. Contributors are those who have since an early age shown a pattern of doing good, or at least attempting it, in the mundane sense that gets no reward but is noticed by others. When another contributor testifies for an individual, he is seen as a contributor as well, and if he fails, the one who testified for him will experience doubt regarding his contributor status.

Contributors will find their interests defended. A grocer whose store is vandalized will be attended to. Other types of business have disappeared because none will defend them. For example, a strip club that burns to the ground will find no contributors willing to vouch for it, and so no one opens strip clubs. Similarly hair salons and manicure shops find themselves without defenders, and quickly fade away.

At the edges of the civilization are anarchy zones, where there are no rules and decent people refuse to set foot if they can help it. Many exiles end up here, but generally, these communities are unstable and frequently break out in violence and disorder. As a result, they are not permitted near the rest of civilization, nor is backflow allowed. What happens in anarchy zone stays in anarchy zone, as does everyone involved.

America has its first monarchs, and they tend to be descended from the Anglo-Saxon tribes. At the top of the pyramid of aristocrats are those who could be in line for the monarchy, and they choose among themselves who will attain that role. Most of them hope to heck they never have to do it, because it is a job with zero vacation, zero hours that are truly off, and a term for life plus penalty of death if the nation fails.

Technology persists and its results are everywhere, but on a slower scale, because people realize that greater efficiency leads to greater control, and that it is usually better to be slightly less-efficient and to have more relaxed lives. A cultural revolution has occurred where people no longer look to external social factors for guidance, but have turned within, to look to what they can know so that they may understand the world in a transcendental method. This is a more religious society, without an official religion.

This has changed what people value. Where in the past, they thought of themselves, now they think of where they fit in an order, including that above material and beyond our world. People seek to improve themselves, and this is seen as the activity of life, in addition to just mucking around and having a good time. Life moves slowly and people find themselves, against what they thought would be the case, more fulfilled and less neurotic.

Critics of the Reactionary society said that it would never work, but what they really meant was that it would not work for them, and so many of them have voluntarily relocated to “free” societies in the third world. The rest are focused on the activities of humanity for time immemorial: learning, growing, enjoying, appreciating family and knowledge, and being active outside. As a result, a great relaxation has set in where people are content to simply be themselves.

Perhaps at the end of all of this experience what humans have learned is that humanity itself is a prison. Our drive to control, perfect, make uniform and refine leads us to self-destruct, and it did in every society on earth but ours. Instead, we stopped doing what “everyone” agreed was right, and struck out for what we could verify in reality was good for us. It has made all the difference.

Generation Identity: A Declaration of War against the ’68ers by Markus Willinger

Monday, July 29th, 2013

Generation Identity: A Declaration of War against the ’68ers
by Markus Willinger
103 pages, Arktos, $16

generation_identity-markus_willingerHow do you mobilize a large number of people to act against what they’ve been taught is the only “logical” course of action? First, you appeal to that which is (sensibly) beyond logic, emotion and aesthetics. While this book tackles a great number of political issues, its biggest strength is in its ability to channel emotion.

In particular, it is worth paying attention to the term “68ers” which appears in the subtitle. While this term specifically refers to the hippie wing of the Baby Boomer generation, it also adequately describes any modern progressive. They are a fusion between Social Marxist ideals, eternal liberal values as applied by a modern bureaucracy, and a certain amount of personal desperation.

Against these people “Generation Identity” marshals the formidable forces of desperation, loneliness and alienation and attempts to channel them through hope. Willinger acknowledges the problems that plague millennial generations — alcoholism, promiscuity, drug use, apathy — but points to them as a symptom to be overcome, not a desirable end-state.

Where this book triumphs, as where many great works of literature have triumphed, is in encapsulating a spirit. That entirely vague term refers to the outlook and motivations that combined form a type of life-force. About half of the book is devoted to refuting 1968, but the other half is a call to action for the disillusioned later generations, and a pathfinder for an antidote to their fears and boredom.

The spirit of Generation Identity as Willinger sees it is to entirely reject the quasi-Socialist Utopia of the 68ers, and instead to turn toward things that through time immemorial have sustained human life at a higher level than subsistence. In particular, this manifesto targets multiculturalism, atheism, sexual liberation and the death of the family, and monetarism, which is that focus on commerce first that is shared by both socialist and capitalist systems.

The critical minds among us were the first to see through your smokescreen. We listened sceptically to your hollow phrases about tolerance and emancipation, and yet we didn’t let your wishful thinking throw sand in our eyes. Our gaze penetrated the obscuring fog of your mental confusion and saw things as they are.

We watch as your dead ideas and laughable hallucinations writhe on the ground, gasping for breath, waiting for someone to deal them the mercy blow.

We’re glad to assume the task, and to finally bring peace, to you as well. (33)

Generation Identity: A Declaration of War against the ’68ers uses this targeted response to dismantle the 1968 generation’s ideas by illustrating how the supposed benefits of these Utopian ideals did not come to pass, and instead, what we got was dysfunction. Willinger repeatedly notes how Baby Boomer programs are deep in debt and dysfunctional, leaving a mess for subsequent generations.

Interestingly, this book hints at the cause: a fundamental desperation brought on by post-WWII hopelessness. In my view, it could go farther, and point out how 68ers are fundamentally suicidal in that their programs are not designed to produce Utopia, but to destroy civilization itself so that with the deaths of the 68ers, all else is killed as well. It’s a social murder-suicide.

However, the point of Generation Identity: A Declaration of War against the ’68ers is to bring about this spirit that unites new generations against the bad ideas of the past. Getting lost in theoretical or practical arguments would obliterate the point that is being made, which is that when you look at society as a whole, the experience of it has become miserable under the 68er regimen.

As a result, Generation Identity is a new voice rediscovering old truths but putting them into a new context. This enables understanding by those who otherwise would not see the reason to abandon our bad habits, change our outlook and work toward fixing society. For this reason, Generation Identity: A Declaration of War against the ’68ers is more of a bridge than final destination, and more of an art than a science.

For example, this book talks about democratic values. Most of us by now have seen that democratic values place the individual before truth itself and thus are inherently bankrupt. But a bridge must be made. Similarly, not everyone needs to justify their opinion that multiculturalism has failed. It simply has. However, these are small quibbles.

You attacked the world’s cultures and nations by creating multicultural societies.

You attacked the notion of hometowns by trying to make all cities the same. Homogenisation and standardisation are truly the most powerful weapons in your struggle against identity.

For decades, you attacked all identities and tried to artificially overcome all your own contradictions. You fought this war savagely, with all means, and yet you have lost.

Your struggle against identity was in vain from the very beginning. The desire for one’s own homeland, demarcated by borders, is stronger than everything else. (83)

On the whole, Generation Identity: A Declaration of War against the ’68ers succeeds in the way many great books do, which is that it establishes a new direction and purposefully leaves it vague. This allows others to construct their own visions in the house that this book has build. In turn, that process is how we will go from “spirit” to implementation.

Willinger shows us the big picture by using our emotions. What would a new society feel like — what does the old society do to us inside — why we should care. These are the targets of this book, and it not only paints them well, but gives us a new direction in which we can create our own visions for our future.

Integral culture

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012


The Idea of Integral Culture
by Stephen Edred Flowers

I. Introduction

Our culture is sick. It has been undergoing a process of disintegration for a number of centuries now. Its various constituent parts have progressively been scattered and disconnected from their natural or organic moorings. Such disintegration can only be rectified, healed, as it were, by integration, or reintegration.

The word “culture” has somewhat irritated me over the years.

People seem to use it in a vague and ambiguous ways. When I began teaching world literature in translation at the University of Texas in the fall of 1984 I undertook a more detailed study of the term “culture”, with the intention of using what I found in my lectures. What resulted was the discovery of the “culture grid.”

Culture is made up of a minimum of four different categories, each of which is essential to the whole idea of culture, and none of which can be ignored when trying to describe a culture in its entirety. These four categories are: ethnic culture, ethical culture, material culture, and linguistic culture.

In most previous discussions of these cultural categories, the emphasis has been laid on the existence of the four categories, and the necessity of each to a description of the whole.

This emphasis was good as far as it went, but it was rather static. In fact, what occurs in dynamic cultures is that the categories of culture are all constantly interacting with one another. There is a constant ebb and flow and interweaving of the categories, each of which serves to reinforce the others.

Our first task is to identify the constituent parts of culture, i.e., of the complete map of human experience and action. Then there follows the imperative to develop each of these categories intensely and to the best of one’s ability. Finally it becomes necessary to complete the circle by reintegrating the component parts into an organic and vital whole in which the individual will stand as a culturally authentic man. More importantly, the process of “completing the circle” serves to reinvigorate the culture itself.

This organic process is achieved by a conscious effort to integrate the cultural categories and thus reconstruct an integral culture. This must first be done on an individual basis before it can be transferred to a collective level. Cultural reintegration begins within.

At the conclusion of this article it will become apparent that if one is able to agree that the ideal culture is an integral one, and that individuals are really only truly free within the context of an integral culture, then a whole series of personal and collective imperatives follow. These imperatives generally run counter to the trends of modern life, which tends to disintegrate culture in favor of the apparent interests of the isolated individual. This individual, separated from his culture, then becomes an easy target for promoters of various transitory interests. These interests could involve a political notion, or a new consumer product, or any one of a billion other things. He disintegrated, atomized individual, cut out of his organic cultural context is relatively more susceptible to these suggestions than someone firmly rooted in a set of objective and conscious cultural values. Real cultural values of this kind cannot, however, be manufactured artificially. They must grow from deep historical soil.

II. Culture

In order to develop more fully the idea of integral culture, a more global understanding of the categories of culture must be attained.

The so-called culture grid appears in the illustration below. This grid shows the four cultural categories arranged in a way that suggests more meaning than the mere listing of them can convey.


The two on the left side of the diagram are primarily material in nature, while the two on the right side are mainly symbolic. While the two on the top tier might be considered to be primary, the two on the bottom tier are secondary.

All categories of culture involve contact between two or more humans. Ethnic culture is rooted in the sexual connection between a man and a woman which leads to the production of children.

The product of this union is the bodily vehicle for culture to manifest itself in the material world. Without this reproductive activity – the literal incarnation (embodiment) of culture – obviously no culture is possible. The body itself, in the form of DNA, is thought by many to encode certain cultural patterns, and it is also true that cultural data absorbed by the developing human (especially during the first few years of life) actually results in permanent physical changes in the brain. (See Brad Shore’s ‘Culture in Mind’, Oxford, 1996.)

The link that living individuals have with their ancestors is not only a symbolic one. It is also physical. The entirety of the bodies of our ancestors constitutes a sort of cultural hyper-body for us. Ethnic culture is embodied culture.

At the other end of an apparent spectrum is ethical culture. The ethos of a culture is its symbolism or ideology. This is perhaps the part of culture that most interests us, as we are usually most fascinated by the ideas of our own culture and others. This si the part of culture that contains structures, patterns, and myths (or meta-narratives) made up of symbolic ideas.

The words “ethnic” and “ethical” are chosen here, although other terms might have been used, to demonstrate the archaic link between biology and ideas.

To the ancient Greeks the ethnos or tribe was determined by the gods to whom one sacrificed, and hence from whom one got one’s values. Greeks were those who sacrificed to the Greek gods, spoke Greek language and perpetuated the Greek ethos biologically.

A similar pattern of belief can be detected in other Indo-European branches of the tradition.

Symbolic, or ethical, culture is entirely invisible and super-sensible. We know about it through its manifestations in the other three branches of culture: ethnic, material, and linguistic.

The symbolic culture is most perfectly encoded in the linguistic culture. This amounts largely to the language code spoken and understood by the members of a given culture. But the linguistic code, its phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics also constitutes a complex semiotic code by which members of the culture understand the world and express themselves to other parts of the world. Without such communication between humans, and meta-communication between humans and other parts of the cosmos, humans would be impotent in the world.

Material culture is easily seen. It is made up of everything a culture produces, i.e., all the physical objects made by members of that culture. This could be a flint arrowhead, or a skyscraper. These are the objects made by the human and after having been imagined by the human heart. In other words these objects are artificial, i.e., “made by craft of man.” It is often the case that all we know of an archaic culture is is summed up in the objects it left behind. But from these objects we can often reconstruct the culture’s values. If modern culture were to be evaluated by its material culture alone, I am not sure what the archaeologists of the future would make of it. They would certainly find it titanic, but perhaps also sterile and empty.

One thing that should be obvious is that these four components of culture are not discreet and isolated categories. Rather they are four poles of manifestation which belong to a larger whole. Each category interacts with the other three in a lively discourse. Linguistic culture crosses the material in the form of writing, inscriptions, books, computer software, etc. Symbolic culture not only provides forms for the production of material objects (such as temples and sculptures), but also usually determines the nature of the physical reproduction of human bodies in the form of laws and customs surrounding marriage and child bearing and rearing. (The current general chaos and breakdown in these customs is just as much a statement on this topic as are the most traditional customs found in former times or in other cultures.)

The four basic categories of culture intersect and influence each other, and no one of them can exist without the other three. Changes in one will inevitably lead to alterations in the other parts. Vitality in one will help invigorate the others, while weakness in one will just as naturally result in the spread of this weakness to the rest of the whole.

In our current state of cultural fragmentation, this sense of the integrated nature of culture has been lost. The root cause of this fragmentation should also be apparent. One of the most effective ways in which to revolt against the modern world is to undertake the (re)integration of culture, to realize a personal and cultural synthesis – or “bringing together” – of the various categories of culture.

In order to undertake this revolt, one must begin with one’s self. The synthesis of the cultural categories within should be a harmonious one. That is, although humans are in a practical sense free to “mix and match” cultural elements, only fools would seriously suppose that they themselves were wise enough to design such a synthesis before they were virtually finished products of culture and character. It would be like asking a child to design its life when it was eight years old! In such a case we would not wonder at why a such person would be very unhappy at twenty years of age. One’s individual cultural synthesis theoretically exists in potentia. It is the work of the individual to realize this, to make it real, to actualize the potential.

This pre-existing cultural synthesis, to which we strive to return on a higher octave, can only have its in a time when an integrated whole was in evidence. This is why individuals interested in cultural authenticity so often yearn for a pagan or archaic times. It is not so much a longing for “paganism” per se, as it is a longing for the wholeness and integral nature of the self and culture which is possible in such societies.

On a personal, individual, level it is the practitioner of integral culture to discover and then to harmonize the contents of his body, brain (mind), tongue (language) and his deeds or daily actions. Each part of life takes its clue from another integral part of that multidimensional life. The body contains a code which bears the essential story of all of one’s ancestors. One’s cultural myths articulate these, and these myths are re-encoded in actual tales expressed in often archaic languages. These codes bear the blueprint for inner action which can lead the individual back to an integrated state of being. This is how they functioned in former times, and this is how they can function today. Merely reading and thinking about these patterns is usually not enough. Other techniques designed to imprint the codes on the conscious mind must be experienced. High levels of repeated, concentrated, ordered and intense thought must be experienced. This is not the place to enter into these techniques.

An essential part of the process of culturally re-integrating the personality involves conscious interaction with others belonging to that culture. Culture is, in the final analysis, always about interhuman contact. Isolated individual experience is a form of mysticism, but not a manifestation of integrated cultural activity. One must determine for oneself how one can best contribute to the task of cultural integration, or allow it to be determined by others. Some will provide strong human bodies for the future, others will create institutions that will re-invigorate and carry culture along, others will teach the lore and languages of the culture, others will shape and craft the artistic and practical tools that bear the culture materially. Some noble souls will be able to contribute in more than one of these areas. But all of these realms are necessary; no one is really more important than the others. They must all be seen to work together as a whole.

It might be noted that all of the ideas of culture are seem to be somehow rooted in the “past”. In order to understand the idea of the “past”, the idea of history itself must be examined.

III. A “History” of Ideas

Depending on how it is understood, the concept of “history” can either be irrelevant or essential to the idea of integral culture.

If by history one means an objective string of events progressing from the distant past to the present moment and endowed with “cosmic” meaning and significance, then “history” can be dismissed as “bunk”. History has never been, nor will it ever be, some sort of scientific pursuit limited the “hard facts”. History is what it says it is: a story. All stories are narratives. To have any meaning at all they have to have certain characteristics of morality, tension, and most especially certain “plots” which are inherently interesting to the listener or reader. These latter characteristics show just how much “history” is only mythology recast in a secularized mode. There is nothing wrong with this, aside from the deceptions that might be fostered if people were to believe otherwise – which of course most people do. This is due to the fact that the myth, or meta-narrative, of the modern world within most people live today has as one of its mainstays the idea of an “objective history.” (This is a meta-narrative inherited from Judeo-Christianity, which was the first ideology to sacralize mundane historical events and endow them with cosmic significance.)

On the other hand, if by history we mean a synthetic view of myths, structures, and ideas as well as various events viewed over time, then “history” is fundamental to culture.

Mircea Eliade never tired of pointing out that myth seeks to destroy history. That is, myth is eternally true and recurrent, due to its inherited structural characteristics. History, as commonly understood, however, was supposed to be provisionally true, inevitably open to various interpretations, and fundamentally chronological and progressive. Myth is eternally true, whereas history is often a celebration of the absurd. French thinker and critic Alain de Benoist, among others, have pointed out that the past, present and future are not, in reality, a linear progression, but rather three entirely different dimensions of human existence. Other ideas, such as those of Oswald Spengler, emphasize the “morphology of history” and see cultures are organic subjects of “history” bound by cyclical laws of birth, life, and death.

Although it is most certainly a meta-narrative, or myth, in itself, it is nevertheless useful to review the ordinary historian’s idea of the progression of epochs in the history of European ideas.

The time prior to the advent of Christianity is lumped by historians into a period they call “ancient”. They don’t know what to do with it in the larger sense, as these is no one overriding myth or general theory in terms of which it can be understood. The Indo-Europeans (and all their cultural branches) had their own set of values, the Egyptians theirs, the Chinese theirs, and so on. An intelligible plurality reigned and ethnic labels sufficed to differentiate cultures in a more general sense as well: We can speak of Germanic people, religion, art objects, and language as a more or less coherent and integrated whole. The same goes for the Greeks, or Celts, or any of the other branches of the Indo-European tree. Of course, it is equally true of all other “ancient” cultures. We confront a curious situation, however, when we examine cultures of continuous authenticity: be they found in India, or elsewhere. Certain cultures suffered no major breaks between their archaic pasts and their present states. However, the majority of cultures have endured major disruptions in symbolic continuity.

This disruption is identified at the points the ruling paradigm shifts from the particular and culturally authentic one to a more generalized (international) one. This generalized paradigm is most often characterised by monotheism, e.g., Christianity or Islam. With the advent of this paradigm in a culture, no matter how partial and imperfect the advent was, it is said that the culture has entered into a new phase. In Europe this new phase subsequently came to be called the “medieval” period, or the “Middle Ages”. Anything in the middle comes between two things. In this case these two are the “ancient” and the “modern”. The Middle Ages were dominated by the myth of faith as institutionalized in the Church. This is not the place to discuss the merits of this myth. It is only important here to realize that the various plural and nationally determined mythologies were at least partially replaced by a single and “international” one. Although much is often made of the transition between the medieval and the modern period, the differences between medieval and modern mythologies are not nearly as great as those between the ancient and either the medieval or modern.

Modernity merely replaced one monolithic myth with another. Instead of faith and the Church being the highest arbiters of the truth, reason and science took the helm. Often medieval “religious” values were merely secularized and repackaged “political” models. The Church promised the salvation of all of humanity through faith, whereas scientism, humanism etc. promised the same sort of universal perfection through the progressive application of reason.

Those who criticize the monotheosis of both the medievalist and the modernist, those who see malevolent foolishness in the promises of both faith and reason – as embodied in the ideologies of the Middle Ages and the “progress” of modernity – can be called “postmodernists.” It should be noted that the term “postmodernism” has generally been hijacked by campus Marxists and crypto-Marxists to further their own agendas (which are usually related to their own career advancements at universities, not the last bastions of the Marxist faithful). For this term it is difficult to use the term without invoking alongside it a whole host of “politically correct” fables.

IV. The Idea of Integral Culture

In the context of modern meta-narratives the most effective revolt would be one which challenged the the modernistic atomization – the splitting up of all integrated units into their smallest parts for the sake of homogenizing them politically and/or economically – by promoting a reintegration of cultural elements or categories in a harmonious and authentic whole. From what has been said perhaps a good idea of how this can be done has already been understood. However, in conclusion, I would like to be more specific.

There are certain pathways or paths of action toward integral culture. These are not alternatives or options but rather things which must be, to one degree or another, integrated in one’s life. The first is tradition, the other personal authenticity, and the third cultural action.

Tradition is that which has been handed down from time immemorial along various pathways: genetic, mythic, linguistic and material. The subject, i.e., doer, of this kind of action must discover the tradition, myth and school to which he or she belongs.

This is not a “choice” in the sense of being something that is entirely arbitrary. It is a realization of a truth. Once this authentic choice has been made, which can just as easily be seen as an “election” by some aspect of that tradition, one can never go back or waver from the implications of that realization.

The reason for this is that it is a matter of personal authenticity. Modern people seem to think that they can choose to become something which they are not in reality, e.g., an Amerindian shaman, or a Kabbalistic mystic. But one can never truly become that except in one’s own imagination, (and perhaps in the imaginations of others). In truth, we can only, to paraphrase Fichte, become who we are. Within that realm of possibilities is an infinite number of directions, but the tradition is a fixed one. The modern world makes the path of discovery of an authentic tradition almost impossible. Yet a few have persevered, in hopes that some day the door will be opened for the many. One must simply ask oneself: “Of what can I be a ‘first class’ exemplar?” Can I be a first class Amerindian shaman? No, an Amerindian can be that. Can I be a first class Kabbalist? No, an orthodox Jew can be that. The positive answer to this question can be many things. But in one’s own heart, if the honesty of that answer is complete, the authentic awakening will be unmistakable and irrevocable in life. The true path will be opened, but it will be far from accomplished.

The third component in the path toward integral culture involves interaction with others. One must participate actively with others within the same school or tradition, with others who have similarly discovered their authentic path. Being taught by others, teaching others, creating in cooperation with others, and in general interacting in any and all ways possible with others from the same tradition forms the quintessential laboratory not only for broad cultural action, but inner personal work as well.

This approach to individual development necessarily takes more into account than one’s momentary and transitory desires. It views the individual in his or her true context, as a being that exists in many dimensions, past, present and future simultaneously. The individual has a history, in the sense that the individual only exists as a part of a stream of culture which cannot be understood apart from its constituent events and structures. The reconstruction of culture on the model of a healthy, integrated view of society could not help but have a beneficial effect on interpersonal relations, and hence on all aspects of culture.

The deep and subtle malaise of the modern world has its roots in disintegration and promotes it at every turn. Such rootlessness is marketed under noble terms like “freedom” and “individual rights.” But once the tree has been uprooted and killed by the onslaught of progressive modernism, and by the time those living in the tree have realized what has happened in the name of “individual freedom,” it is already too late. The eternal good of the whole has been sacrificed to the ephemeral appetites of the individual. How then can the individual mount a revolt against this modern world?

Cultural disintegration is countered by cultural re-integration. The return pathways to this level of being are marked with the signs of tradition, authenticity, and action.

Without these no effective revolt is possible.

Sic semper tyrranis!

Tyr: Myth, Culture, Tradition vol. 1

The Eternal Circle

Monday, September 19th, 2005


People in modern times are conditioned by buying products. First, you invest nothing in the product but your money; you are not required to thrust forth energy into understanding it or comprehending its context. You need a vacuum cleaner – locate; buy; read instructions. Second, they are accustomed to selecting from interchangeable philosophies. A vacuum cleaner does not demand that you re-interpret your other philosophies of cleansing, or that you find a broader framework of understanding why to clear. You match problem (dirty carpet) to solution (cleaning machine) and plunk down the credit card, ready to go.

For this reason, when people schooled in a modern way of life attempt to approach philosophy, they almost always make a mess of it by falling into a kneejerk pattern of trying to match “issues” to solutions that are disconnected from a systemic approach and therefore, as philosophy, fail. In fact, most of what people would call “philosophy” is a grab-bag of caveats, self-conceptions and homilies; there is nothing that unites metaphysics and epistemology and ethics within it, for example. It is this type of person who approaches the writings here and, not wanting to admit the logical connections are lost to them, declares them to be “ranting” or “incoherent” or that old standby of the embittered, “it’s just a bunch of big words to make you seem smart.” Crowdism there, indeed.

However, if one is willing to not read between the lines, but look at these philosophies as logical tools much in the same way different pieces of software make up an operating system, it reveals the function behind what otherwise seem as rootless pronouncements coming out of the void. In this article, we look at four major components of the beliefs expressed here, and illustrate how they are connected and thus what implications for the whole can be drawn from their presence.


The initial confusion here is that idealism in the populist vernacular means any kind of belief in a progressive or utopian sense, and when we speak of “idealism” we generally refer to someone who screws up reality for some starry-eyed optimal ideal. In the philosophical sense, “idealism” means a belief system in which the cosmic order is composed of, or acts as if it is composed of, thoughts. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy expresses it well:

“The philosophical doctrine that reality is somehow mind-correlative or mind-coordinated — that the real objects constituting the ‘external world’ are not independent of cognizing minds, but exist only as in some way correlative to mental operations.” – Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition

There are two components to this belief. First, we understand the world only through the process of thought. Second, the world acts much as our thoughts do, and because all of our actions thus affect the design of the external world, our actions are like thoughts: a series of reasonings which are by process of elimination filtered into an answer. This answer is the working hypothesis upon which the next level of thought is built.

Idealism is important because it navigates a path between materialism (belief only in material value) and symbolic-literal thinking, in which individual thoughts are more important than reality. Idealism joins human thought and the working of the world by pointing out they have a common mechanism, and thus a common end. It is not dualistic, nor is it solipsistic; idealism is like a highest-level abstraction that explains the motivations of both humankind in world in evolving the design of their thoughts to greater levels of discipline, clarity, and interconnectedness.


In other words, for the world to think, it is required that we act; our actions, by changing reality, change whatever thoughts correlate to or cause changes in our physical environment. In this sense, much like an inventor with a blowtorch, our actions are the process of designing or redesigning our world, and the reason we act is to achieve change in the design of external reality, or an abstraction of its function. The design may actually exist, like DNA does, or it may merely be our method of understanding how the world can be predicted through consistent tendencies inherent to its operation (some call these “natural laws”). By altering reality through our actions, we alter the design of our world and if we do so in accordance with natural laws, enhance its function or our position within it.

What is essential for perceiving this design and its changes is a sense of “realism,” or a taking of changes in our physical world to be the totally of existence. This separates our thoughts and feelings from our recognition of changes in our external world, and allows us to point clearly at something known as “reality,” even if we later interpret it as a process of thought which we change with our deliberate actions. Since this later interpretation will be exacting, and will require us to perceive patterns in our world and then anticipate them with our actions, we call this belief in the primacy and consistency of the external world “realism.”


If we are to act on our world and change its design, we must do so with a clear understanding of how it works, and not act on thoughts which are solely confined to our internal design, and are not shared by the external. This requires that we clear our minds of illusion and tighten the correspondence between our perception of events and the actuality of what occurs, so that we might predict as exactly as possible our actions to manipulate our world. Nihilism is the process of clearing away all belief and preconception from the process of perception, so that we see simply what is and do not encumber ourselves with illusion, or emotionalism, or other pitfalls of consciousness.

Nihilism is controversial for many as they confuse it with an utter lack of belief in anything, or in the effectiveness of anything. This highlights the difference between a belief that colors interpretation, and a belief in value, in that values beliefs do not affect how we see the world but they influence the choices we make as to how we change it. A nihilist may hold deeply-felt beliefs, but will cease to be a nihilist the minute he or she allows these beliefs to intrude upon a realistic perception of the cosmic order. Values are not to be used to interpret the world, but are something that we act upon it so that in the changing of its design we bring them closer to manifestation.


These philosophies imply a framework that embraces all of them. Nihilism allows for perception of reality, and realism means that we accurate see its design, while translating that into a thought process of the cosmos through idealism. All of this so far has been operational, in that it describes the workings of the world and our means of interpretative it; none of it has been prescriptive, or instructive of a values system which suggests what we should do with this system. To address this need we have integralism.

Integralism posits a unity of human and external events and thoughts. From comparison of our own intentions to the operations of this cosmic order, we determine how well-adapted our ideals are. This allows us to understand what a higher value might be: a more elegant, greater adaptation which increases the quality of our lives in harmony with the order of the cosmos. It is the achievement of these higher values that is the core belief of integralism, and its prescriptive goal as passed on to any adherents: discover your world, get a clear picture of its design, and work to complement that design, as the same language which describes external design also describes internal adaptation, e.g. the beauty found in thoughts and imagination.


William Blake once said that “If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.” When we unite our imaginations to the process of the universe, as is found in the belief system of idealism, we have opened up that continuity and are now closer to accepting our mortality as part of that larger plan. In this we have found perhaps the one bliss that exists for thinking creatures, and we have done it by entangling ourselves with that which we fear most (nothingness) and finding a sense of order not within it but that includes it. It is this inclusion that forms the basis for our believe in turn in continuity, as we see that all dark things lead to light, and vice versa.

Philosophy does not succumb well to a product-oriented outlook. It is something that does not mix and match well. Regardless of the point of entry chosen, the beliefs of the individual must eventually resolve into a comprehensive worldview, or be seen for what they are: scattered borrowings with no unity. While this makes it difficult to initially comprehend the worldview espoused on this site, it makes it far easier, once one has accepted its genesis in ideas, to explore its breath and find from it an explanation of and response to our world.

Why did you name it ‘ANUS’?

Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004


My friends have a blast flacking me about my hidden life as an infotroll on the data stuporhighway. One common question is, “Why did you name it ANUS?”

I have long observed that two worlds exist on earth, as they do in the theology of the Christian religion, where there’s this imperfect world contrasted by a perfect Heaven-world where things are exactly as they seem (sounds boring to me). The two worlds on earth are reality as it exists, to the best degree that we can perceive it, and reality as a psychological construct projected onto the world.

In the former, we see a car accident and can’t be sure if the grey car hit the white car, but we know there was a collision and people were injured.

In the latter, we’re caught up in the chain of thoughts that says the white car was going what looked like five miles over the speed limit, so was probably the instigator, and we’re wondering what the intent of that person was. Did they mean to be evil?

Believe it or not, most people live in that latter world, and usually justify it with the former. Life is unclear, ambiguous, so they impose an Order upon it. Although analysis of the former should convince them of the illogic of absolutes, they prefer their world of simple certainties.

The concept of the ANUS, or a form of naturalist nihilism, is a removal of the latter world and an embrace of the former, including its ambiguities. The world created by humans considers only the human perspective; something is needed that includes the whole. To get to this world, we have to first strip back the illusions we have and then look at what exists in the objective.

Our perception of this will be “subjective,” but to varying degrees. In the case of the best minds, enough of the objective will be understood, even if imperfectly, that it can be acted on for ongoing evolution and growth. This is natural in the finest sense of the word, meaning what is intuitive to those of high intelligence.

The latter world, which could be described as a socio-emotional construct, is comprised of our reactions to our world, which occur in the form of mental judgments. Death = bad, feces = disgusting, violence = bad. While death, violence and feces may have negative effects on our lives, we’ve confused the human perspective with the perspective of the whole.

Consider for example the mass murderer. Without ideology, or plan, he kills to feel the power of control over another (this same phenomenon can be observed in bosses, high school principals, and authority figures across America). If death is brought to the mass murderer, should we feel it is “bad”?

To obsess about his death would be to fixate ourselves on the isolated perspective of the human, and not to look at the whole, which is just fine without him and moving on, with someone of potentially better caliber taking his place. This concept shocks most people, because they are somewhat depressed and have low self-esteem, thus automatically assume that any competition or predation would eliminate them.

When the organization A.N.U.S. was formed, it was named after something you can’t mention in polite conversation: that we defecate, disgusting as it may seem, and that from defecation as much as consumption we derive life. Breathe in, breathe out: the CO2 you exhale is a poison, in enough concentration, but it’s a useful building block for plants. As is feces.

To recognize this nature of the ANUS, as being the “dark side” of the mouth, is to recognize life beyond the human perspective. This is the essence of nihilism, or a reduction of all value except the inherent and holistic. “Disgusting” is not important; the function of the world and the human body is.

Escaping absolutes in this way requires a good deal of thought and an inspirational symbol, something which will forever be “banned” in the sense that most people will find it repulsive in some way or another. Like punk bands, we named the organization for what is denied in the “real” world.

By naming that which can not be named, we break through the line between what is publically recognized by humans, and that which is reality as whole. Anuses, death, violence, predation and the fact (not opinion) that some humans are more intelligent, stronger, etc. than others are all threats to the human-only mental reality.

It doesn’t need to be a religious experience, but it usually is, to realize in any small or large part this awareness. It’s like a meta-sorting: suddenly you are given a tool to literally divide your world into real and not-real, and to discard the not-real. You can then focus on the real, and rebuild.

What is it to “rebuild”? First, you will need to replace the mental constructs which were supported by the unreal world. You have to reinvent your own ethics, and your values (preferences for one type of outcome over another). You have to reinvent your own sense of personal destiny and mission. It’s scary, like being alone for the first time on a strange street on the first cold night of winter.

But it’s also a sense of self-ownership. The hand that swung you is gone, and you are now both hammer and anvil. There are no barriers to the world as it is, and you know how it can be operated and have preferences that you have derived, using only your brain, which you hope to fulfill. Everything you earn and create is yours and yours alone.

The major questions of life still remain, at least initially. Why are we here? Is death as real as it seems? Does anything matter? You are approaching these as a nihilist, however, and so the confusion caused by an illusion and your reactions to it are eliminated. For this reason, you can observe the natural world and develop some working hypotheses.

Since any vision of reality only works insofar as it doesn’t run into contradiction, the human fantasy world requires finite, absolute answers to these questions for which there may be no immediate answers (or at least not answers we in human form are ready to perceive). Nihilism avoids contradiction by not creating symbolic answers to such questions.

This allows nihilism to avoid the problem of the modern world, namely passivity. When you generate an absolute and objective substitute reality, the process of thought in life goes from “what must I do to achieve” to “what must I do to not offend the Gods” (or analogues thereof). This psychology is responsible for the passivity of the modern time, which cannot admit outright disagreement or difference between people, and thus tries to norm them with religion, politics and social factors.

This in turn creates the environment where to talk about a fact of life, such as an anus, is “offensive” and therefore taboo. Society retaliates against those who cross the line between social illusion and reality.

When one takes the narrow bridge of nihilism, a perilous crossing in which the long fall into endless despair funneling toward death is present on both sides, one reaches a point where acceptance of this new philosophy is possible, and values can be reconstructed. Where the previous social illusion depends on forcing its values on the world (through passive means), the nihilist path involves accepting the world and working with its methods.

In this nihilism is far healthier, as one accepts the world as whole and nothing is offensive, or taboo, or shocking. This doesn’t mean that one blindly accepts destructive or stupid behaviors – in fact the contrary, a consequence of having an active and not passive philosophy – but it does mean that one is free from fearing things which would draw the social illusion into contradiction and thus shatter a worldview, and with it, a world as known.

ANUS promotes this bravery, as it involves leaving behind all that is familiar and venturing into a frightening world where there is no “follow this cycle and you will be OK until you die of old age”; there is error, and horror, and loss. Overcoming this separates the individual from the illusion of prejudgment and lets growth begin again.

Many of the most controversial aspects of this site begin at this point after acceptance of nihilism and traversal of the abyss created by the lack of inherent meaning, mainly because unlike modern passive views these controversial views are heroic. They advocate an order similar to the one observed existing, and cease to wish to change its fundamental tendencies.

The biggies are:

  • Race. People freak out about this topic because since 1945, the prevailing dogma in the United States has been that all people are equal in ability and temperment and should exist in a “multicultural” society. Astute observers notice that this means all of our many diverse races get combined into one average. That’s destructive in our view. It makes more sense to preserve diversity by preserving populations, and to let those who wish to mix races do so in places such as Mexico or the middle east or Brazil where such things already exist. We support the concept of “localization,” which means that when one has ancestral connection to a land and a culture that culture survives, but if that chain is broken the culture dies (causing a lack of diversity). Modern society spouts on about “equality” and “diversity” but what they really mean is averaging. Every culture, every “nation” (tribal-ethnic group), has the right to exist on its own and to exclude those whose values don’t jive with what’s already there. Our concern is not in proving a hierarchy among races, or in encouraging one race to rule the others, but to gain space for our own races to exist apart from others. The alternative is one world culture being forced on us all, and if this culture is like the averages we’ve already seen, a big no thanks. Of course, simple minded people from both sides wish to assault us for this. Those who enjoy feeling power over others by accusing them of taboo violation and thus, presuming to have the “right” answer, by “correcting” the situation, will accuse us of “racism” and complain that we’re the worst ever. Others may feel disappointed that we don’t buy into their brand of “beat up the other ethnic groups” thuggery; we have no love for National Socialist thugs, although we are very friendly to National Socialism and any other system which affirms an ecofascist, Romanticist, natural order. If you can’t handle this, ask yourself why you’re trying to push your values on us, and what you’re afraid of. Your values are from the past, a society that’s already dying. We are both the future and the distant path, times in which people of higher intelligence discover the order inherent around them and work with it instead of trying to supplant it with social illusion.
  • Environmentalism. Our attitude is that the basic problem that causes human destruction of the environment is that there are too many of us. Every person must eat, must defecate and have a space to live. There’s only so much land we can use before we destroy the ecosystems around us, which although they don’t contain people are intricate machines containing parts, all of which need space. Humans should use 25% or less of the land deemed “acceptable” for human use. This requires a world population of under a billion. Since we have nearly seven billion people now, there’s an ugly truth coming up: most people on the planet will be either killed or stopped from breeding. If we’re going to take such a drastic step, the most important thing is to select the best humans for breeding: the smartest, strongest, and of highest character. Some people would rather we be “fair” by having some kind of lottery instead, but to anyone who sees all life as continuous, this is insane. It’s better to pick the best so that the next generation is stronger. With a sane population, humans can live comfortably, but here is where the other part of our environmental aspect comes into play: we deny the importance of a consumer society. “Need” is too strong a word for luxury items and the endless shelves of plastic at Wal-Mart. We can live more efficiently, and less destructively.
  • Values. This term is almost impossible to define, but “generalized preferences according to choices available to us” might be a start. Our society is failing not because the Masons or Jews or Nazis infiltrated it (pick your conspiracy), but because its values rotted from within. This happens when one takes a bad turn and it spirals out of control. It isn’t a moral judgment from a God in a distant perfect world. As with any error, you pick yourself up, dust off your pride and you TRY AGAIN. That’s the path a hero takes, and that’s the path we advocate. Our values are rotten, and have been for thousands of years. The same excremental values that currently have women warring to be “equal” at the expense of family and home were also behind the laws that allowed men to beat their wives with a stick no thicker than their thumb. The same rotten values that allow giant companies to buy and sell and destroy our world at random are the rotten values that allowed the Church to burn as much of the knowledge of the ancient world and middle ages as they could get their hands on. Our values have become passive, but passive values don’t always express themselves passively; they justify themselves with something passive, like a public moral code, and use that to compel people to force that dogma on others. Passive thought therefore requires absolutes, like “Women must serve” or “Nazis are bad” or “Nature is here for our use, only” – these are a degenerate way of thought. Anytime a society gets to the point where it has to write such kneejerk reactions into public standard, the battle is already losing, and it’s time to admit it was a failure and start a new battle. A creative battle. We don’t need “equality,” nor do we need “rights,” because these are absolutes that naturally come into paradox, but we need good values so that we can trust our society and work with it.
  • Religion. You don’t have the “right” to believe in whatever you choose. Some beliefs are insane, and insanity is destructive when placed in a position of power. Dualistic religions, like Christianity and Judaism, tell us that there is an absolute truth outside of the mechanism of this world, and that if we follow it in this world, we get rewarded. This is a fancy form of mind control, but it’s very popular owing to the low quality of biological intelligence in humans as a whole today. In any healthy society, all such beliefs are approached with skepticism, and they’re unprovable and thus open the way to dangerous conjecture about subjects for which there is no answer. A universal God could be watching over us, but it’s just as likely that the universe was started from the guano of a universal Bat who eats dreams like insects. When you get into this silliness, there’s no way to objectively disprove it, but there doesn’t need to be, because there’s no reason to start believing it in the first place unless you’re schizophrenic.

The above are part of our belief system, described in detail here. It’s not left or right, or even in the current political spectrum. It isn’t an easy thing for someone steeped in the culture of modern free enterprise populist liberal democracy to accept. But we have to acknowledge that despite the shiny objects we have, and our wealth, our society is failing. Global warming, internal tension, lack of consensus and general decline in intelligence are killing it. When you strip aside social illusion, and make the passage through nihilism, both this fact and solutions to it become clear.

Recommended Reading