Posts Tagged ‘materialism’
Friday, December 9th, 2016
The important thing about the Alt Right is that — contrary to appearances — it shows the right growing up and merging its two threads, opposition to delusional Utopianism on one hand, and its resistance to “modern society” on the other.
Few are willing to mention the truth about the West, which is that it is soul-killing. Jobs are spirit subjugation; the cities are ugly; all of our products are designed to take advantage of us and deprive us of the function of that product. What kind of rising technological empire cannot make a refrigerator that lasts longer than ten years?
In the hands of the proles, the vote went to the people, and this seems to empower whoever wants to treat the population as a cash cow and milk it for all that it is worth. Governments are self-interested businesses, but so are regular businesses. All want to extract the most cash out of the population through deliberately broken policies, which then require more money to try to make them work, and planned obsolescence. The reason for this that these organizations are comprised of people, and each person wants a job forever and more money and power, and they are given an aegis of public interest behind which to engineer theft.
In social situations, people do the same thing. The name of the game is to take all that you can and externalize the costs. People are inept and do sloppy work, knowing someone else may have to clean it up. The ultimate modern symbol is litter because the citizen who enjoys his pleasures and then leaves behind a mess has externalized the cleanup, making him seem victorious for having taken more than he has given. All of these problems arise from a lack of purpose to society, which leaves it as a group of conflict special interests warring it out for power at the expense of the normal working population who just want stable lives.
We like to talk about how democracy freed us from insane wars and totalitarianism, but we live under “soft totalitarian” circumstances where the wrong opinion means losing jobs, home, family and friends; we also have under democracy embarked on two World Wars and many proxy conflicts in which nothing was permanently resolved. Our future is one of endless war in which those who fail to affirm the Narrative and its ideology are treated as enemies of the state, enforced through fear of collective punishment in which others shun the heretics in order to avoid being associated with heresy. Our modern life is more controlled than life under fascists or National Socialists, and seems to have replicated the conditions in the Soviet Union, albeit with better shopping and slicker products that nonetheless break after a few years.
In this modern totalitarian state, we live in misery. Jobs are jails because there is no focus on the end result, only appearances. This puts vicious manipulators in charge and marginalizes those who try to be efficient and do their job and get out with more free time. Those who spend the most time at the job succeed, even though this by definition implies inefficiency and ineptitude. The person who designs a product which is cheaply made and heavily advertised wins, because the highest margin of profit is achieved, while quality products are beaten out of the market because it is always easier to find ten idiots willing to buy junk than one person who values performance over price.
Most people are insane as a result. In order to handle a necrotic society of this nature, they must rationalize it as good, which means accepting dysfunction as function. This makes them prone to spend even more time on pointless activity and to resent those who do not, against whom they retaliate. Their search for some substitute for purpose and meaning causes them to become perverse and fetishize all sorts of broken behaviors just so they can feel important and that their lives are worth living, which furthers social decay.
The core of the revolution against modernity is realizing that our thinking is backward. Instead of finding positive goals and directing economics and society to achieve them, we work by attending to demotism — consumerism, democracy, popularity — and assume that it finds the right answers. Instead, it discovers inferior substitutes and makes them mandatory norms, which ensures that most of our time is wasted fighting back against the vast waves of dysfunction around us.
We need to discover values and purpose again. This requires identity, which is the core of Spencer’s speech: Amerika is not great because it is rotting from within, and the core of that rotting is the herd of cultureless, purposeless, and raceless grey lumpenproletariat that Leftism manufactures. We have no goals, nothing to strive for, and it is killing us. We either discover identity — which requires the most basic foundation of identity, which is race and ethnicity — or we are doomed to be nothing but servants to an ideological empire which values mediocrity and compliance over life itself.
In ideology, life is a means to an end, which is ideology. This circular reasoning turns us into “free” slaves toward the Utopian ends of our leaders, which are in public expressed as egalitarianism, but in private the profit taken from pitching an ideological product that people want, and from that, by achieving power and wealth as career criminals like the Clintons, Obama, Merkel and others demonstrate. Our leaders do not care about the results of their actions, only appearances, because like corporations selling planned obsolescence products, they are shilling a cheap substitute that the herd will buy in order to take profit out of the civilization.
We are ruled by parasites, and by our own hand. Who has sympathy for the worker? Any time a “free” government program, union benefit, or socially dysfunctional reduction of standards comes along, the workers vote for it because they perceive it to be in their interests. They are shocked and amazed when the free stuff turns out to have costs, and those costs make workers too expensive, so business offshores and outsources as a means of avoiding the parasitism. They blame business, but in this area, business is innocent; the parasitic nature of the voter/worker has driven them away in order to remain competitive.
Under the publicly permitted dialogue, we cannot say that we lack purpose and allow economics, politics and popularity to lead us around like a domesticated animal. After all, what is popular is perceived as us, but this fragments when we look around and see how we have little in common with others. That leads us to realize that we either choose values-first, or we end up with methods-first, which is the type of “means over ends” analysis that is favored by both the Left and people who fear that having goals will make them appear as having fallen short.
Spencer pointed out the root of this mentality:
America is not great because in my lifetime, America has lost an essence. It’s lost a people, it’s lost a meaning. You listen to presidential inaugurations, these are these times when presidents will go up and tell us “what this is really about” and get everyone fired up, they don’t talk about America as an historic nation and a people with a story, as the product of a race, of a worldview, they basically talk about America as a platform for all of humanity. They talk about America as an economic system, effectively.
He identifies the failing of the Right in America as occurring sometime over the previous century when it shifted from a perspective of “a people” to the notion of “an ideology,” but instead of accepting Leftist socialism, made capitalism the root of its belief. That created a permanent fusion between Left and Right because they both agreed on ideology over realism, and within that, wanted a hybrid of the capitalist state and the liberal social programs of Europe and the East.
That in turn represented a shift toward the herd mentality of the third-world and especially Asia, as exhibited to the West first by the Mongols. Third world societies tend to be defined by a lack of social order, and instead a need for strong power and granular power, usually a matriarchy. This enables them to hold themselves together despite having no unity, but the cost is that exceptional leaders and innovators are scarce if evident at all. This keeps them in the stage of doing the same things over and over, not improving.
This trend fits within the general path of the West for the past thousand years. With fixed civilization and excellence, people began to thrive, but this created a population bloom in which few had the aptitudes of the founders that enable them to collaborate. Western Civilization began splitting into different Special Interest Groups a thousand years ago, and with The Enlightenment,™ formalized this to the level of the atomized individual. With that, the roots of a rootless time were formed.
Modernity is thus not so much a technological level, but any time based on the intent of the individual instead of a collaborative will to thrive. Paradoxically, the intent of individuals forms a herd where collaboration does not, simply because groups of individuals converge on a lowest common denominator, which like the third world consists of everyone doing what they want except when it comes to whatever principle holds the society together like a fence around chickens, and that becomes sacred in a way that nothing else does.
That foundation of Control creates people who are incapable of independent thought and dependent on the herd for guidance, and creates an unhealthy focus on popularity and emulating others as a means of being included in the group. It is a pre-civilization state, not like hunter/gatherer wanderers, but like a civilization that has given up on the principle of civilization, which is working together to make life more pleasurable, intense and sacred. Not surprisingly, the flight from civilization ultimately manifests in a selfish mob manipulated by cruel parasites.
Americanization, in this worst possible sense of the word, this is what Hillary Clinton was talking about when she said she wanted a “hemispheric open market.” This is what George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg want. They want an undifferentiated global population, raceless, genderless, identityless, meaningless population, consuming sugar, consuming drugs, while watching porn on VR goggles while they max out their credit cards. Don’t deny that that is the kind of passive nihilism that so many in the elite class actually want. They want a world without roots, they want a world without meaning, they want a flat grey-on-grey world, one economic market for them to manipulate.
With this, he positions the Alt Right against Modernity, which is what Right-wingers have been wanting for centuries. We dislike the industrialization of the countryside, the concentration of people into cities, the loss of traditional virtues and knowledge, and the rootless modern city where people are dedicated to self-pleasure that makes them miserable through its lack of meaning.
Modern society can then be described as meaningless because there is no purpose to civilization, and without that, each person is an island in himself. This in turn reverts human behavior to that of monkeys, self-interested to the point of excluding everything else, and gives us with no way to “reach out” to things of importance, including excellence in the physical and metaphysical realms. People will not give up the pretense and rationalization that this is good, because it gives them a sense of power — think of the One Ring in Lord of the Rings — but become existentially miserable.
The Right has traditionally espoused time-proven types of social order, heritage/identity, hierarchy, transcendental visions of nature and religion, and a pursuit of excellence as means toward not just functional society, but human thriving. These give us firm guidance and a sense of some things as immutably important such that we do not mind sacrificing for them, even before we realize how important they are to our own happiness. This is how to build a civilization, and with our retreat from it, we have failed; however, we can rise above that state.
This leads us to wonder what the soul of the West actually is. Some say it is conquest and aggression, others piety, and still others mention a sense of order, balance and harmony within a natural golden chain of being. All of these are true, but in my view, the root of the West is that it is reflective: we stop to reflect on life, and require meaning from it, because that is how we motivate ourselves to survive the difficult and rise above challenges.
Western man, by virtue of being reflective, discovers all these other aspects of life as parts of a natural order which make life significant to us. It is more than “human nature”; it is the mathematical structure of life itself that requires a center, constant struggle to affirm principles, and a hierarchy in which those who are best rise to the top so all may benefit from their insight. This in turn leads us to an understanding of an order to life, the interconnection of its parts — structure, design, form — as being more important than material, and that leads us to spiritual and mythic understanding.
Spencer has in the past pointed to the root of our downfall as “individualism,” against which he posits an aggressive realism. We must not project ourselves onto the world, but accept it as is, and then we see what we can do with it, instead of creating fantasy worlds of Utopian ideology and then insisting that others treat them as real.
This leads to a riff from Bruce Charlton that is both not quite correct, and more importantly, a good guide for the future. In his view, the Alt Right must tackle spirituality:
I don’t see it as plausible that there can be any fully-Christian mass movement from where we are now – which is a situation in which public discourse does not admit the objective reality of anything at all outside the material realm – everything else is psychological, subjective, labile, and manipulable.
Thus a secular Alt-Right will inevitably be simply a different version of Leftism; a Leftism which has different materialist priorities, and panders to a different set of subjective emotions as a means to that end.
(Indeed, my impression is that most of the Alt-Right are exceptionally materialist, positivist, anti-altruistic and reductionist in their outlook – taking a positive delight in simplification of politics to their own power, security and well-being — only to be shared, grudgingly, with those who directly assist this agenda.)
The idea of the Alt Right as materialist only makes sense when one takes into account that political learning is an arc and not a binary where one steps over an exoteric threshold and suddenly understands everything. The Alt Right is a bewildered people emerging from the Utopian dream of Leftism to realize that they had been seeing the world in symbols alone, and realizing these are empty, attempting to find the hidden meaning in reality. This is why some of us suggest the black pill as a means of removing the illusion which is communicated like a virus through social contact, and from that position of absolute emptiness, rediscovering reality.
These are all thoughts for the future. As Spencer pointed out, the Alt Right arose from the Leftist assimilation of the Right, causing those focused on sanity to reject the Right and Left alike and look toward a new beginning. That new beginning means that the Alt Right is nascent even as it appears to have certain conventions graven in stone, and that it has a future to discover through recapitulating the history of reaction, ancient conservatism and traditionalism.
On our way back from the event, we stopped in Brenham, Texas to visit the tobacco barn and enjoy some of the local scenery, despite discovering how much modernity has ravaged this isolated outpost of beauty. Of course, no Texas road trip is complete without a stop at Whataburger (pronounced roughly as “water burger” by locals). One does not have to believe in signs to imagine that the universe was winking at us.
Friday, January 16th, 2009
As our modern society continues to implode on both an organizational and emotional level, many of us seek other answers. One popular one is Traditionalism, which posits that a universal integral order exists between nature and man based on role and context more than “thing-in-itself” logic including individualism and materialism. While this is a great start, it also opens a doorway to great ignorance for those who partially understand these concepts. Such people, called “Tarditionalists,” have hopelessly confused the genre for most by making it into metaphysical drama and theatre.
The solution to ignorance is not to fight it, but to construct a counter-ignorance platform, and so here we introduce several resources that can quickly and easily get you up and learning traditionalism.
While you read, I suggest you keep in mind a single principle: that the scientific method implies that reality operates by consistent principles, and that if we create adaptive responses to these that are accurate to the consistent principles of the world, we fare well; if we do not, we fail. In this light, we can see how all of history is a process of smart people sticking to reality, and others following a fashion or trend to deny reality in favor of a “social reality” which seems to work for awhile then fails because, having drifted far from a response to reality, it is unrealistic. The natural order is not just outside of us, but within us, much as patterns emerge in diverse media with similar but not necessarily visually similar configurations.
Traditionalism is the original idea: that our actions correspond to adaptations to nature both within and without, so there are eternal truths to life. This is in direct contrast to the view that morality or technology have changed the rules of the game. Anyone who has ever been in a relationship, or faced a great fear, knows how eternal the real experience of life can be.
Aldous Huxley – The Perennial Philosophy
This book is the best all-around guide to all philosophies other than modern. Huxley took his favorite resources, and quoting from them, wrote a narrative that stitched together all the pieces. He also gives a great prismatic view, as fans of the ancients tend to like to, by picking multiple points of view and showing their commonality. This is one of the drier resources on here, but if you read it first, everything else fits into place.
Plato – The Republic
In a famous remark, A. N. Whitehead said that the development of Western philosophy could be seen as a series of footnotes to Plato. Like the Hindus, Plato got there first, and put down his ideas in a concise form through dialogues between arch-provocateur Socrates and people who represent psychological archetypes you can represent today. In particular, Plato showed how the world of appearance and the world of structure are incompatible, with only the latter approximating reality as the product of interconnected natural/physical forces, and methodologically debunked the “wishful thinking” that underlies the illusions politicians still use to pander to us. Master this, and you’ve mastered the game.
Long ago, the ancient Hindus formulated their versions of the truths that every other society before or since has discovered, at least where there are smart people. Technically, Hinduism is “transcendental idealism,” or the belief in striving for abstract goals as a way to achieve good as an end and get over fear of good/evil as methods or conditions of life. I find it very cheerful, but unlike most holy books, it doesn’t pander to the sheep who want to hear that love will save the day. It’s about spiritual war to better yourself and save your society from intellectual entropy, commonly known as “stupidity.”
Evola – The Doctrine of Awakening
When most people think of Traditionalism, they think of Evola, because he was the first to unite Nietzschean pragmatic idealism with the ideas of the ancients in an intelligible form, and he was savvy enough to defer religious thinking in favor of psychological and epistemological depictions of reality. This book is about Buddhism, but in it, Evola articulates his basic thought at its clearest.
Friedrich Nietzsche – On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense
At a time when most Western philosophy had become irrelevant, fighting over definitions because social pressures prevented discussion of actual issues like, say, the ongoing parasitism of Western civilization, Nietzsche sliced in with a dual attack: one one side, he was passionate realist who saw how social reality obscured truth just as Plato’s world of appearance replaced intelligible design; on the other, he believed that life was best lived in striving joyfully for something difficult, and that complacency was both the enemy of sense and of fun. In this formative writing, Nietzsche separates human “knowing” from reality and points out how our desire to pander to others with socially succinct synopses dooms us to exclude the vital “mythic imagination” that allows us to bond creativity with analysis and appreciate life in a poetic, yet realistic, fashion.
Max Weber: Readings And Commentary On Modernity
Where others looked at society through a critical eye, Weber analyzed its mechanisms and mathematics, and used them to derive a clear view of its psychology. In creating this new sociology, he showed how psychology in a demographic sense determines the “behind the scenes” operation of society in a way that tangible institutions, laws, bureaucracies and public statements could not.
Gottfried Leibniz – Discourse on Metaphysics and Other Essays
Through this collection of both early and mature analyses, Leibniz argues for a redirection of our thinking from the categorical to the descriptive as a means of perceiving a whole reality. Radically simple as that sounds, it sparked dissent for centuries. In these thoughts, Leibniz invents the methodology that Traditionalists later used as a framework for their ideas.
Rene Guenon – The Crisis of Modernity
Basing his work on the arguments of Gottfried Leibniz, Guenon argued that modernity is divided between external manifestations and an inward state of mind that seems to correspond to Nirvana. Thomas Pynchon told us similar things, but then made an error by insisting the division was between symbol and idea; Guenon points out that the division is between judgment and experience. Heavy on bloviation but has good content.
Evola – Revolt Against the Modern World
Making explicit the promise of his more abstruse works, Evola targets modernism as the clueless reliance on external appearance and denial of interconnected, polycausal reality that it is. He shows how the mechanistic material outlook of modern society not only dooms it internally, but also causes a proliferation of problems externally that cannot be addressed because the very constraints of modernist logic exclude such thinking.
Frithjof Schuon – The Essential Frithjof Schuon
Shorter essays allow Schuon to target specific examples of what he believes and avoid the bloviating vagueness common to many neo-Traditionalist dilettantes (we call them Tarditionalists) who like to throw around abstract language as a means of excusing their inaction and or inability to find meaning in life. Schuon systematically analyzes medieval and earlier values and points out their scientific value from an informational and sociological context, showing the mathematics of human populations and the contrast between dogma and demography.
Mary Shelley – Frankenstein
In the allegorical dream-language of literature, Shelley portrays modern man as what he is: a creation of technology now trying to discover his origins in order to find meaning in the continuation of life itself. Carefully disguised as a horror story, this novel also innovated the format used by horror movies today, which is a situation in which the individual must see technology fail him in opposing the supernatural or super-organizational, and also, fight others who refuse to recognize the obvious, before he can face an enemy he has no knowledge of how to defeat.
Conrad – Lord Jim and Heart of Darkness
The first of these books is a meditation on courage and how retreat from facing the need for courage creates emptiness that is worse than death; the second describes how the obsessive compulsion to pursue social symbols of power has weakened Western civilization by making it unable to recognize reality which is, in contrast to our neatly quantified social systems, a chaotic and lawless place designed to make the most realistic prevail.
Tom Wolfe – I am Charlotte Simmons and A Man in Full
Wolfe’s characters discover themselves in a modern time ruled by competition for status, since caste structures no longer exist, in which the essential values that can make people like themselves are forgotten. In confronting their own fear of being inadequate, these characters shuck the modern neurosis that had them worrying in the first place, and bond exoteric to esoteric by acting instinctively — and to their surprise, that turns out to be a wiser course than the ethic of convenience which dooms other characters in these insightful novels.
Michael Crichton – Congo
Humanity confronts its nearest ancestors in this book about how the pretense of knowledge that separates us from apes in fact makes us inferior to them in situations where realistic action is called for. In addition, Crichton assaults all forms of socially-accepted but delusional knowledge, targeting scientific arrogance and mass media with the same motion he uses to assault people who place personal careers and pretense of importance over collective and realistic action.
The insurrectionary (but not revolutionary) arm of Traditionalism, radical traditionalists are those who believe we can put Traditionalist principles in practice and reverse modernism. They tend to have less use for the bloviation that marks theoretical traditionalism, and focus more on the design-level practicality of the Traditionalist idea.
Tyr defines Radical Traditionalism by the following ideals:
- Resacralization of the world versus materialism.
- Natural social hierarchy versus an artificial hierarchy based on wealth.
- The tribal community versus the nation-state.
- Stewardship of the earth versus the “maximization of resources.”
- A harmonious relationship between men and women versus the “war between the sexes.”
- Handicraft and artisanship versus industrial mass-production.
Michael Moynihan and Joshua Buckley – Tyr: Myth-Culture-Tradition
Radical traditionalism gained a new voice with this collection of essays that rediscover the ancient world through modern methods and an open-minded, liberal study of the past that does not seek to condemn it for the convenience of our mechanistic, commercial and populist empires. Topics range across the board but articles all seek to explicate through concrete example the dual spiritual and practical benefits of a radical Traditionalist outlook.
Deep Ecology – Mission Statement
This radical environmental movement blames “The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance.” They then give us practical solutions: localize, downsize, and lower population.
Stephen Flowers – The Woodharrow Institute
If your ancestors are from central Europe, the UK or the United States, chances are good you have a German in the family. Flowers explores traditional thought and iconography through a study of traditional Norse-Germanic practices and emphasizes the wholesome, spiritual and intellectual values of this approach. In his view, as that of many other scholars, organic cultural preservation is the one force that can restrain the reckless expansion of commerce and by its hand, mass culture.
ANTI-MODERNISM, NEO-TRIBALISM AND ANTI-GLOBALISM
Ever since ancient philosophers observed that as soon as sea trade was established, and the polyglot language of cities solidified into a single language — commerce –, culture failed and with it institutions became corrupted, the idea of opposing the common factors among commerce, modernity, single-factor thinking, and what we now call globalism has been on the tips of many tongues. While these philosophies are not labeled with the Traditionalist category, they use the same logical foundation to point out how far we have drifted from reality — by drifting away from our inner selves.
The Prince of Wales – The Modern Curse that Divides us From Nature
Start here for a simple and forthright assessment of how a lack of harmony with our world has made us into monsters who hate themselves. Assaulting architecture, pollution, culturelessness and commerce at once, one of the last surviving members of the aristocracy points out in clear and enigmatic language how foolish and misleading the modern dream is, and how it has brought us into increasing disorder with promises of “freedom” it has not delivered.
Brad Blanton – Practicing Radical Honesty
Dishonesty, like cracks in a wall, can only spread as the convenient practice of telling partial truths or outright misleading is applied to everything, even our knowledge of our world and ourselves. This book provides a battle plan for stopping the practice of gentle lying in your life, and as a result, conditioning your brain to face each situation honestly without necessarily submerging itself in negativity and depression.
Paul Woodruff – Reverence
The question of how to connect our knowing, judging minds with a reality that passes before we can parse it remains the focus of most esoteric religions. In this short and informal philosophical discourse, Woodruff shows us more than tells us, through a process of saturation in anecdote and observation, how rediscovery of our ability to revere nature and the beauty of life by putting off our fear of it can, through conditioning us to see the whole picture, re-sacralize the reality which we inhabit and escape the smaller, boxlike world creating by our judging minds.
Love and Nihilism: A Parallelism Primer
Written by the same author as the piece you are now reading, this philosophical treatise invents parallelism, which is a way for us to learn to appreciate the interconnected forces that render reality, and stop paying attention to appearance so we can start paying attention to Plato’s “intelligible” or design-based view of reality. If you like what you’ve read so far, this short piece may direct you toward other areas of practice through its information-based analysis of reality.
Monday, June 19th, 2006
The suburbs, if we read history, are not a new phenomena. Anywhere civilization has expanded dwellings of their nature have arisen and for the same reason: the newly-wealthy merchant class, the last to arise because merchants unlike farmers or artisans have no direct connection to the production of goods or services but are resellers and marketers by nature, wish to be like the rich and have houses in the city, but as in all cities land is at a super-premium, cannot and so settle for outer rings of houses paradoxically away from both rich and poor.
Interestingly, this is not the foundations of the middle class; the middle class arises from those who perform functional jobs in some leadership capacity but are not rapacious enough to be profiteers. The merchants are a hybrid between middle-class and profiteers; where the middle class traditionally is familiar with wealth, and thus avoids get-rich-quick marketing scams, those who are new to wealth rise by becoming merchants, resellers, advertisers, spammers, etc. The middle class is entrenched in professional function, but the merchant class are basically unspecialized labor with an inclination toward profit.
Of course, over time the suburbs become accepted, and thus since most people want to buy a house in the suburbs they crowd out other markets and soon if you are between poverty and riches you buy a suburban house. Thus the middle class gets blamed for the suburbs, and for the “bourgeois” mentality following, when really, it’s a consequence of newly-enfranchised people seeking to assert their wealth. Unfortunately, the bourgeois rapidly develop political opinions as well: at first they are conservative, because they are self-congratulatory about their new wealth and wish to assert social darwinist rhetoric (conservativism is a liberalized adoption of the ideas presented by aristotle, and as such has no legitimacy to a philosopher).
Think about life from the perspective of the new generation, those who have grown up in and know no other reality than the suburbs: everyone you see is about of the same ability, and is making a living in fields that are “easy” because they do not involve physical work; they’re desk jockey jobs. As a consequence of having nothing substantive to do, a process which only gets worse as the number of desk jobs proliferates and thus competition equalizes them to a lowest common denominator, the suburbans have a unique morality: they believe that all people are equal because to them all functions are equal, performed equally by those of mediate ability but not exception or decreased faculties, and in their boredom they assume everyone is like them (boredom, paradoxically, gives itself to less in-depth study of a problem, as to be bored is to be accustomed to unsatisfying distraction, thus one gives every idea a singular glance and moves on).
The suburbs thus invent their own morality not out of any special purity of the heart or mind, but out of the kind of boredom that comes from utilitarian, interchangeable tasks. Further, they treat all problems like those encountered at suburban jobs, namely ones where a change in method can produce better results. How many movies/books from the 1900-1950s rise of the new merchant middle class in America featured a hero who found a new method of separating corn, or of knitting socks by machine? The merchant middle class approaches morality the same way: everyone I see is of equal ability in equality simplistic jobs, therefore we must all be equal.
Note that the honest worker revolts do not embrace equality until some college-educated suburbanite slips among the darker, dirty-shirted forms at a meeting and begins speaking in that clear accent… “I lower myself to your level to help you, because it’s the right thing to do” — but inevitably that suburbanite has had a failed marriage, is impotent, is perverse, is addicted to drugs, and is thus not raising the lower so much as raising its own lowered self. They are fallen angels making themselves feel better by “helping” others. But the normal worker revolts have a simple demand: they are being mistreated, and they want better working conditions and more money. “Equality” to the worker makes as little sense as depending on angelic aid, because they are aware of their own failings and limitations. It’s only when some suburbanite descends and makes itself feel like an angel by raising their expectations that they get the notion of “equality” at all.
Suburbanites embrace equality because they assume that method will make us all function the same. Surrounded by wealth, they look at the poor as a question of our method of dealing with them, and by that very “us” and “them” dichotomy designate the poor as non-autonomous, something we the “us” — with power, good graces and wealth — must act upon because they cannot act for themselves. Suburbanites embrace equality, in other words, because it affirms their power and leadership. Equally importance in their embrace of this illusory idea is that surroundings in which it is created: suburbanites work in jobs that involve manipulating other people, socialize in unrealistic circumstances centered around money, and have goals that are entirely realized externally to the individual but internally to the socialized mentality of the individual, e.g. society at large. This unreality created the suburbs, and the people who adapt to the suburbs thus in turn pass it on.
Think about what people, black and white and yellow and red, have done when they’ve gotten into the suburbs. They buy a house, and immediately become interested in defending their own interests against those of all others, because to have something in this world is to immediately become a target for parasites. After fighting off the scam artists, the realtors, the tax men and the school board, they’re sick of the goddamn world and assume it is always wrong and they are always right. And why wouldn’t they? Next, they cluster in social groups where the goal is never to offend, because these social groups exist to perpetuate advantages at the job or in the business. So they talk about things that are horrifying but cannot be fixed.
Soon the paranoid suburbanite is buying insurance and scrambling for more wealth. Since they talk about wealth anyway, and pass on opportunities to one another as a means of socializing, this rapidly translates into a fixation on wealth at the expense of others. However, this is far away from home, and thus whether both partners work or not, they begin to view the world differently, from home: with pity. They see their own wealth and the poverty of most, and because they exclusively watch and listen to and read emotionally-wrenching material from Disney movies to newspaper exposes to books about death, they feel a leaden guilt… so they make a sacrifice to that guilt, and give away not more than one-tenth of their income.
Do they give it to effective causes, like finding a saner path for humanity? Heck, no. They’re doing this to make themselves feel better, so they give to visible charities with heart-wrenching causes, like disabled orphans or African-American Republicans. In doing so, they usually make the world worse off, because these charities are parasitic; their goal is to perpetuate themselves, which does not involve solving the problem. And so on — on and on, South of Heaven (and east of the Beltway).
The suburbs, like other examples, show us that modern society is a mindset more than a tangible entity. Thanks to our wealth based on the inventions and struggles of the past, and the passive imperialism of world capitalism, we can live in luxury in exchange for working most of our free time on jobs where most of our work is not only not essential but devoid of actual, Realistic value. It is simply pushing papers around and “generating” wealth. Recognizing our uselessness, and feeling guilt, we diverge further from reality.
If we had to summarize this process, whether modernity or the suburbs, we would say that convenience and socialization obscured realism while technology equalized the lowest with the highest, and the result was a civilization without leadership that rapidly consumed its resources and sank to a third-world level. The suburban mentality, like modern society, is a method of control dependent on this unreality subsidized by technological equalization, and like all illusory things, leads to eventual destruction. But that’s getting ahead of ourselves, and you can bet it won’t be mentioned in the suburbs until it’s too late.
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005
Sometimes it helps to have a few basic terms spelled out in the simplest form possible. While this article does not attempt to dumb down any of these ideas, it does give you the elemental structure, although you – the reader – will probably have questions owing to the elusive nature of many of these concepts at initial contact.
Removal of value that is not directly relevant to reality. We exist in the same world, and interact in ways that can be predicted, given a study of repeatable actions and responses. Therefore, while we can noodle on about whether or not reality is “real,” it is for all intents and purposes as real as anything can be. Nihilism is a belief in nothing, which if you unpack it linguistically, means a positive belief in the value of nothing. Nothingness can be applied to all of our neuroses, fears, impressions, and the illusions produced by poor interpretation of our own senses. What is left is a clearer view of reality. We may never have 100% clarity in viewing our world, but the closer we get the more powerful we become. Thus nihilism strips aside anything that comes between us and a perception of structure and context in the world. Most of these “preprocessor directives” originate in our emotional and socialized responses to the world, which demands we categorize certain actions as “good” or “bad” for the sake of keeping all of us here in the crowd on the same page. Nihilism is not a belief system for followers, although many followers claim to believe in it. It is like Zen consciousness: a removal of illusion, a focus of the perception facilities, and a joining of the imaginative and analytical minds. In doing so, we transcend our position as individuals and mortal beings, and are able to see the world as it is, infinite and continuous and extending far beyond our own lives.
This term is almost indefinable, but it refers to the internal relationship of parts that forms a whole to any given thing, and the transfer of energy or support of form therein. When we speak of a chair, its structure can be summarized as a certain number of legs supporting a platform which in turn supports a chairback; no matter what the chair looks like, this physical relationship will be expressed. Structure does not exist; it is our perceptive mind finding common relationships between objects; however, structure also quasi-exists in that its functional relationship is essential to the existence of objects or events. Structure is what we see in abstraction when we look at things in our physical world. While anyone can call something a chair, it takes mental energy to understand what makes a chair a chair, and how to build one. Theory is the study of structure. Plato suggested in his famous metaphor of the cave that we see shadows cast by a fire as our metaphorical reality; outside the cave, there are objects, and in our minds these leave silhouettes which are structure.
All things are relative, and all things are relative to the whole. The interaction of different relative parts produces context. Context is surroundings and natural forces.
That part of the world which is external to us, and consistent, and provides sustenance to us and takes our lives as it sees fit. Specifically, its description as physical objects or structural concepts with immediate correlation to physical objects. (Translation: the world outside you, minus your thoughts and emotions and blue book valuations, et cetera.)
When one looks at life analytically, it is clear that it has many different parts which operate best in certain contexts; to think non-linearly is to understand that each has its place contributing to the whole, operating in parallel. Crowdism is the desire expressed by the greatest number of us, who have no facility for leadership and no ability to think past the direct consequences of their actions, for linearity, so that none are above or below others. It is an emotional response to the inequality of nature, and is oblivious to the fact that in nature equality is achieved through the singular beauty of life which can be experienced by all. Crowdism is a revenge impulse which wishes to destroy those who have exceptional abilities or who have risen above the crowd; it is the ultimate in-group, out-group response. Crowdists by definition do not think of long term implications to their potential actions, and thus are terrible rulers, but as they think emotionally and their thinking is limited to their own desires, they wish not to have any above themselves as they find it insulting to their generally low-self-esteem personalities. While anyone who is incapable of seeing beyond the immediate consequences (linear thinking) of their actions is an Underman, Crowdists are those who take being an Underman and make it into a political statement: tear down the superior, exalt the inferior, and we’ll all be “equal.” Unfortunately, emotional reactions fare poorly in the real world, as it is much more carefully constructed than some out of control cognitive dissonance resopnse, and therefore, as history shows us, Crowdism destroys every civilization where it gains predominance. However, it seems Crowdism is a part of the life span of every civilization, usually immediately preceding its demise into third-world status, because as civilizations grow their citizens take them for granted, and seek to “improve” upon a model they do not understand as they have not known struggle. Crowdism, then, is like getting fat: a result of idleness and lack of clear view of reality. Crowdism can take on any host, whether Communism or National Socialism, Greenism or Christianity. The only response to Crowdism is an insistence upon meritocracy, including of bloodlines, so that one can create a leadership caste which sequesters the detailed knowledge necessary for rulership. However, the only kind of society that can maintain such a caste is one with a rigorous ascetic tradition, and a desire to remove the excessive mediocre people who will otherwise gain a numerical majority, demand “democratic” representation and thus overrule those better suited to lead. The previous sentence is a servicable description of what has happened to the West, and why it is now in crisis.
This term is misunderstood: in the philosophical sense, it means a belief that the physical world is all that exists, and all that is valued. Interestingly, this precludes idealism, because in a materialism view, nothing can be higher than material good/bad, thus comfort is more important than some ideal or abstract goal. Materialism is the belief of cosmopolitan (no inherited culture) and Judaic societies worldwide. It has never been adopted by any group with a clear ethnic lineage and connection to land and a form of universal spiritual belief.
The belief that life operates much as our thoughts do, and that it is likely they have a common ancestor; this opens the door to analysis of the mathematics behind existence, which at its most abstract level is the foundation of metaphysics. Idealism as a prescriptive belief places a higher value on correct thoughts than on material consequences; it is the opposite of materialism. As a descriptive belief, it affirms that evolution and our own scientific method of thought have similar origins and function. Idealism is the one truly masculine belief system, in that it operates as follows: 1. Analyze world. 2. Determine optimum structure. 3. Impose it upon physical reality. 4. Death is no defeat. It suggests the possibility of a higher plane of continuous structure to reality, whereby our thoughts join with the thoughts of the world, in a combination between analysis and imagination. Interestingly, European knights and Zen masters and quantum physicists all seem to stalk this same plateau of understanding.
Undermen (if you’re an Underperson, you’ll demand we use that gender-neutral term) are those who resent others and believe we should all be equalized. They do not recognize that every state in life is holy, and that the collaboration of these states produce the whole. They have the idea that somehow rats are evil, the anus is evil, death is evil, etc. without realizing that these things are essential to the survival of something better than good, which we call “meta-good,” a state that requires both positive (good) and negative (bad) elements in order to keep going. Without death, life would be endless pointless time. Without defecation, more eating would not be so beautiful. Without rats, the forest would clutter with waste. To be beyond good and evil is to recognize this relationship, and to embrace your life whatever your stature – wealthy businessman, plumber, janitor, soldier, or homeless crack-addicted bum. Undermen come from every social class, every walk of life, and every persuasion. It is an attitude. Higher-bred Undermen are more capable, and thus more destructive; Undermen are produced through tribal mixing, as it shatters the contiguous evolution of a specialized value system in the individual, and leaves them to invent their own, which, unless they’re a philosophical genius with lots of free time, usually ends up being some form of Crowd revenge or another (Jesus Christ, V.I. Lenin, George Bush: high-bred, mixed-breed Undermen). Those who accept their stature in life without revenge and look upon life as holy are not Undermen, even if they’re impoverished crack-addicted homeless bums. Those who wish revenge and resent those who have better abilities or traits than themselves are secretely revengeful against nature and life’s order itself, as they distrust and fear evolutionary process, and they are Undermen, even if they’re fantastically wealthy, good-looking and surrounded by admirers. For the observant, this is nature’s justice: character and internal will are the only judgments of worth that matter, because all else is window dressing.
Any belief which externalizes its structure of advancement, which by the nature of external things as unpredictable, requires it have a single layer of approval. Any organization, church, or social club where if you walk in the door and sign on the dotted line and are considered a member, by its nature, is exoteric. It is a linear form of belief.
Any non-linear belief system, such as one that internalizes its structure of advancement. These systems tend to be open to all, and recognize that only inside of the individual – heart and mind – can advancement be made. They are direct opposites to exoteric systems.
The knowledge that there is no single linear “right way” of doing things, but any number of approaches to a problem, and that they can exist if segregated, as they do not mix. What may be right for one group is evil for another; what may work for one person is evil for another; what may be perfect at one moment is destructive in another. For some people, living like reckless hedonists and dying young is the perfect fulfilment of existence; for others, living conservatively and growing old surrounded by family is. In Israel, Judaism and the Jewish ethnicity are perfection; in Germany, they are destruction. It is for this reason that ethnic groups do not combine, social castes do not combine, and some individuals will never understand others. What is important is recognizing that working in parallel, we achieve the perpetuation of this amazing, beautiful world.
Wednesday, August 10th, 2005
At some point, the West decided it would rather roll over and play dead than deal with the existential stress of having to constantly assert it. To be top dog means you have to act like one, and fight off all incomers, and at some point, people opted for personal comfort instead of being assertive. They justified it of course by saying they weren’t interested in “just image,” sounding of course like the exculpatory defensiveness of a stoned teenage metalhead explaining why he is, in fact, doing nothing with his life. Sour grapes, as the saying goes.
In the west, there was knowledge of what it was to keep up an empire. It had happened for centuries at that point, since the people of Central Europe went into the far north and thus rid themselves of any genetic strains that could not handle waiting a long time for gratification, and doing what raises one’s environment to a higher degree of order regardless of the costs. They had during that expansion merged with the lower white races who had not made that pilgrimage, and picked up remnants of the collapsing Asian and North African and Semitic empires into parts of their bloodline. What it was to be European was changing.
Because they had decided to be pacifists, and not warlike, there was no overall challenge made to this. Anyone who did challenge it was seen as intolerant and mean, and un-Christian, and just downright terrible and unsociable. This caused others to have a second thought about speaking up; most of them turned in bitterness and said, “Well, it’s your funeral, but I’m going to have my life and you can’t touch me as long as I don’t violate this taboo.” The undermen – the only people who are ever threatened by anyone have higher-than-mediocre standards – rejoiced, for they knew that in time, they’d take control.
The undermen of course, come from within, and they’re very present with us today. There are plenty of Indo-Europeans. The problem is the quality of today’s Indo-Europeans. They tend to be small, snivelling people who are good at having office jobs and not offending anyone at parties, thus taking home enough bucks to buy their way out of the ghetto, to get their kids to college and have enough medical insurance to survive the inevitable cancers. If it came down to the line, they’d rather not miss a meal than take on a heroic quest. Although some of them are quite healthy, that number declines every year.
Indo-Europeans at this time tend to be people of mixed tribal heritage, more and more, and they are slowly (1%) beginning the infiltration, again, of bloodlines of other races. Consequently, we’re getting even more weird looking people than ever before, because as is obvious, if you mix two differently specialized things, you’ll get a weird offspring. We have one Halle Berry for how many million mixed race people? And there you go. Even more, look at the average “100% white” person in America. A mishmash of English, Slavic, Irish, German and French, ending up with something of uncertain origin and purpose. We’re making generic people. The undermen love that, as it gives them a good hiding place.
Undermen come about anytime there is a lack of heroic challenge, and therefore, people who cannot act heroically and think holistically are allowed to breed. Traditionally, these people breed more than heroic people, because they are scatterbrained and invest less effort into each offspring. Why are they scatterbrained? Because they have no complete logical philosophy with which to guide themselves. They’re bullshitting their way through with bits and pieces there. You can hear these people everywhere talking about philosophy as if it were shopping: “Well, I liked this from that, and that from this, so I put them all together and I’ve got my own unique incomparable special philosophy” — no, enough with the idiocy. You’ve got a philosophical soup that doesn’t stand up to inquiry. (Of all the people I’ve met of this nature, there was one who came close to having a unified outlook, and he flaked out after the second round of analysis.)
Yes, pacifism. Isn’t it nice to stop trying – to give in – to relax, to just stop worrying? No longer stressing yourself, not striving for anything, not fighting for anything – it’s so easy. Just let it all go away. Stop trying to do better than average; just do what’s enough. Why push yourself so hard? Girlfriend, you’ll be all stressed out if you do that. Chill out with your bad self. Maybe do some things for The You so you feel good. Go shopping, get yourself a new DVD (that movie where George Clooney saves the AIDS victims from Iraqi Nazis in the Florida Keys) and maybe have a Frappucino. Life’s made to be enjoyed.
When you don’t fight, you’re not testing yourself. When you’re not testing yourself, you’re not striving for anything greater. Doesn’t it make sense that each generation should be better than the last? That we should push ourselves, and grow, so we don’t have a constant void of meaning inside? If you think about it, and think you might be able to pull it off, it does. If you’re a creeping Underman (or – oh so PC – “underwoman”) you’ll hate this idea. What? Your entire life – all its meaning – might go away! You could die, or be embarrassed, or be ostracized! Oh noes!
Our ancestors believed in a world beyond the material. It wasn’t a tangible world like the Christians believed, but it was far from the negative viewpoint of the Jewish faith, in which there is nothing but the material so you might as well be comfortable. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are all of the non-materialist nature, with varying degrees of adaptation. Those religions represent an advancement over the primal and go-nowhere, know-nothing nature of Judaism. And what has happened?
(The ancient Indo-Europeans considered it positive to be “warlike.” That meant taking an active, aggressive role in solving problems, in leaving in every place a higher order of organization than had been there before. This sometimes required brutality, as when slaughtering and raping lesser tribes, but in fifty years, those tribes were twice as adapted as they had been previously. Evolution is an example of this warlike belief in action. In order to take on this heroic view of the world, one must acknowledge that the individual is a transient state, and that when death occurs, if a higher level of organization was achieved, that is more important than the individual’s suffering or death. It’s a self-negating, but whole-life-affirming, philosophy. It requires one to look at the big picture, namely an order on the cosmic level, so that one can place oneself within it and not have one’s world be limited to one’s self. This is how idealism becomes realism and then returns to idealism; the world operates like our thoughts, pushing down the weaker and accelerating the more adapted. If the world works this way, we must put it to use in the physical world and acknowledge its operation – that’s realism. When one has achieved this state of realism, it is celebrated by a return to idealism, in which one sees the cosmos as a giant mind calculating optimal order. But this philosophy is not for Undermen, who are so underconfident they only accept philosophies which glorify the physical self, its comfort, and its whining drama. What did the ancients seek? A higher order. In everything. And what do we seek now? More cable channels, and better treatment of retarded obese lesbians?)
We’re sliding backward, through pacifism. People don’t believe in striving for anything, thus over time, natural selection rewards the most pacifistic, and we get short, dark, squat, dumb, passive, sheepish, chronically ill people. This is fine for industry; all it needs are people to pull levers and file reports. But what about our future? Love adversity and love aggression, especially against yourself by challenging yourself to greater heights. Anything else is just an excuse.
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005
Modern politics by nature is a science detached from the actual function of society. It deals in abstractions, or concepts that exist by themselves and refer to the ways we organize those things that provide for our survival. These concepts are powerful, in that they allow us to make changes to the system as a whole, but also dangerous, because if they no longer accurately represent the actuality of a situation, they can be misleading.
Before modern politics, humanity was divided into glorified tribal groups. These “nations” signified people of common values and culture who ruled themselves according to these ideals, and therefore could not be grouped with others. As culture is both created by and influences heritage, these nations were also of similar ethnic heritage. This does not mean they were races of clones, but rather, that each nation directly represented the interests each population had in common.
With the rise of the modern state, “countries” were no longer grouped by national heritage, but by political expediency, and thus the former method of politics was considered obsolete. In order to motivate people to act for the continuance of each society, their leaders organized them around abstractions, such as “freedom” or common religious interest, and assumed it would operate as well as politics previously had.
Failures of Modernism
However, now that our society has gone down the road of time a bit further, we are seeing some fundamental flaws in this outlook. Our societies have lost the ability to say “no” to destructive ideas, and as a result have been unable to avoid disasters such as overpopulation, pollution, crime, drugs, and the like. Where previous societies could point to a common cultural standard and say, “We are not interested in behaviors that deviate from this,” modern societies try to be all-embracing.
The root of this view lies in the need of modern society to produce laborers for its machines and wars. For this reason, modern societies treat all individuals as abstract entities which can be shaped into whatever is needed through training and laws. We can call this view utilitarianism or decentralization, but it started in a far more innocent idea: that a society based on economic competition of the individual treats its workers most fairly.
When we start building a society around the abstract “individual,” and assume all are the same, we apply a greater normalizing force that had previously been at work throughout history. By the very nature of such an idea, it both liberates the worker to make more money, and constrains all who would rise above a crass lowest common denominator; it is therefore both freedom and oppression at once. In order to keep the workers appeased, such a system normally has grand rhetoric about “freedom,” and pledges to support whatever each individual desires.
This facilitative view of society is therefore by nature without leadership, as it exists only for the individual, and because it has no goals in common, does not grant the individual the ability to work for something larger than the self. It also has a “dumbing down” impulse, because if any one of the people to whom something is shown cannot understand it, the unity of divergent interests is lost. In political terms, it is more like herding cattle than achieving a clear goal for the benefit of a population.
The consequence of this illogical design is that civilization, while busy harvesting its workers for the work value they provide, is also active in uniting them around ever-simpler political goals. Since there is no goal in common but the continuation of facilitation of the individual, its political objectives normally involve greater “freedom” and fewer restraints that might lead toward a common goal. In such a system, any individual attempting to participate in something larger than themselves does so at their peril, as there are always competitors who conserve that energy and apply it toward self-interest.
As a result of this process, developing over centuries in every-increasing intensity, we have the modern society, which is such a permissive place it has outlawed any area, no matter how localized, from making choices about who it admits to its membership. While this is undoubtedly well-intentioned, it is destructive, as it constitutes a normalization of the population and a reduction of the freedom of the individual to live as they would desire. For most, their desires do not include any form of collective activity, or any particular culture, and thus those that desire such things are at an economic and social disadvantage.
Such a tendency is common at the fall of civilizations. Greece, Egypt, Rome and ancient India went through the same process, first losing a sense of values in common, and then becoming cosmopolitan, multicultural societies united by nothing greater than a desire for commerce. As a result, both their cultures and heritages were eroded, causing them to weaken from lack of collective resolve. When trouble finally did come their way, it crushed them easily, as they could not unite to take action against it.
We are now observing the same things in our modern system. Not only is it bad for the environment, and for our cultural-ethnic groups, but it is destructive to our souls, as it detaches us from the collective process of striving and from a sense of community, leaving us as abstract, idealized, individual workers who are valued only for their labor. For this reason, many now not only have fears about the direction of our society in the real world, but they also have a spiritual and philosophical void caused by the lack of any cause except self-fulfillment.
The development of nationalist parties came about shortly after the creation of the modern nation state, which as mentioned above is categorized by political belief and not desired way of living. Where modern societies try to out-compete each other with abstract rhetoric, such as the Communism versus Capitalism drama of the Cold War, nationalist parties appeal to the simple triumph of leaving behind empty abstractions and embracing reality.
Reality is that, while many want to deny this, we are our bodies; our brains are functions of our physical selves and the design of those selves. For this reason, much of what makes us comfortable revolves around the kind of cultural values that shaped our ancestors, and the type of living they would find fulfilling. Inherently, we prefer to live around those who look like, think like, and have similar preferences to ourselves.
A further dimension of reality is that, all political abstractions aside, what makes a citizen happy is how well he or she lives. This includes the basics, such as food and shelter and medicine, but even if the citizen cannot articulate this, extends to larger concerns such as the health of the local community and the ability to contribute to its collective welfare. Most people are well-intentioned, and would like to help out their neighbors and have a social system tailored for the type of people they are.
Nationalism addresses these realities by grouping us according to heritage, and then representing the interests of that heritage not be engaging in abstract international politics and finance, but by ensuring that its citizens have a good quality of life and a traditional style of living. This way, they always have a place, even if there is less radical economic mobility for the most monetarily competitive; they are understood by those around them, and have the ability to contribute to a community at large.
Most importantly, nationalism rejects the idea that a working society can be formed of people with fundamentally different interests. Its goal is not, like those of the grand ideologies of Communism and Capitalism, to take over the world with a one-size-fits-all abstract political ideal. The goal of nationalist societies is to take care of the people within them, and to allow those people freedom from constant economic worry so that they can concentrate on being better at what it is that fulfils them: artists creating better art, farmers growing higher quality crops, plumbers displaying the finest workmanship possible in their task.
In this type of society, unlike all modern societies, money and politics are returned to their role as functions for achieving the goals of the population. They become a means to an end, instead of the end in itself. A facilitative society is based on the opposite principle, namely that there is no end, and therefore the means – money, comfort, political prestige – are achieved for their own sake. Nationalist societies recognize that abstractions cannot be sought for their own sake, as only life itself has that position in a healthy existence.
Nationalist societies empower better life. They do not attempt to take everyone, or to take over the world for some abstract ideal that “seems to” be better, or start wars because people “hate our freedom.” They exist to benefit their citizens and help them grow as a culture, a heritage, and as individuals.
When one accepts the wisdom of nationalism, the next task is to apply it. Nationalism’s focus on reality creates a real community, and places focus on culture and people, instead of creating bureaucracies that try to fit every disparate individual into a cookie-cutter mold labeled “Individual.” Even further, it withdraws from international politics by avoiding pursuit of money or abstract ideologies, and turns its focus inward on its citizens.
Stating a belief in nationalism itself is only a start, because nationalism is also a means to an end (the people) and must be further interpreted in every issue that confronts us. As it has, unlike modern political systems, an overall organizational principle of a practical nature, this is not a difficult task, but it is important for nationalists to quickly overcome the difference between nationalism and modernism and focus on the practical issues that threaten our stability as cultures.
Fortunately our societies still retain much of their traditional cultures, although another few generations of modernist politics may obliterate that in a flood of mass-culture products. We must replace the euphonious but empty abstractions of modernity with a focus on daily life, which requires that we give up the right/left divisions assumed as necessary in contemporary politics. After all, we no longer have allegiance to a political entity, but to a practical one: our people as selected by culture and heritage.
In this state of mind, we can actually confront the things that threaten us, including the need to find new energy sources; the imperative of restraining our reckless growth; the necessity of cleaning up pollution so we do not all die of cancers; the demand for stable, reduced crime cities where families can have normal lives without having to constantly be on the defensive. These are the ultimate goals of a nationalist party, as these are what our citizens need, but our outlook is not limited to that.
If one uses nationalism wisely, it is not only to stave off disasters, but to encourage growth of a society. Our culture has taken a back seat to television and pop music; our people have become seen only for their profit potential to industry. This has happened because we have refused to find a commonality in preferences, in part because we’re unwilling to group nations by culture and heritage. Nationalism reverses this entire trend in history, and therefore, represents the best hope of humankind.