Posts Tagged ‘modernism’

Why The Drugs Are Winning The War On Drugs

Thursday, May 18th, 2017

We were promised a drug free America. The Amerikans demand their free drugs now. According to Quest Diagnostics Cocaine, Mary-Jane and Meth Abuse are on the rise. It’s Reefer Madness, Baby!

Well, we can probably filter out Da Ganja. Colorado and several other states no longer criticize it, cuz they done legalized it and they want to tax the addicted consumers instead. But nobody who actually pays for the merchandise they carry out of Walmart or Dollar General is in favor of legalizing Meth. Cocaine isn’t high on any doctor’s list of potentially beneficial pain relievers. However, the marching powder is making a comeback and I don’t mean BC.

“This year’s findings are remarkable because they show increased rates of drug positivity for the most common illicit drugs across virtually all drug test specimen types and in all testing populations,” said Barry Sample, PhD, senior director, science and technology, Quest Diagnostics Employer Solutions. “Our analysis suggests that employers committed to creating a safe, drug-free work environment should be alert to the potential for drug use among their workforce.”

So why the abuse of terrible, life-wrecking drugs? Because many Modern Lives are already pretty much wrecked. These people are headed to the Chemical Exit and I’m not going to go full Church Lady and blame them. If you set a world to deliberately immiserate your citizens, they will wind up puking their guts out in Hogarth’s Gin Lane.

I’m not averse to the occasional dose of reality abatement. I brew my own as a hobby. The old stoner maxim goes that life is a waste of time. Time is a waste of life. So let’s get wasted and have the time of our lives. Is a mind a terrible thing to waste or is waste a terrible thing to mind? I’m not sure what to think, but a lot of people around us think they’ll just have another one.

It happens when people are all medicating a creepy sense of ennui. To win the War on Drugs, win the war on pointless despair and despite. If reality around us is deliberately enstupidated to the level of the booger-snaffeling moron, it will be the default state of the poor losers who can’t handle their drugs.

As The West Swings Rightward, A Need For Greater Clarity

Friday, November 25th, 2016


In the 1990s, Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington battled for the future theory of Western Civilization. Fukuyama believed that liberal democracy was the ultimate evolution of humanity, but Huntington saw the chaotic formation of groups based on religion, culture, and ethnicity warring against each other for dominance.

As it turned out, Huntington was right and Fukuyama got the “also ran” award. The point is that there is no perfect society, only a clash between approximations. People fight over the possibility of identity, which is an intersectional hybrid between ethnic group, religion, political group and social caste. There are no easy answers.

The “clash of civilizations,” Huntington’s vision in which identifiable groups separated, won out over the “end of history,” in which we all ended up being safe and uncontroversial by joining the trend of liberal democracy. Fukuyama’s vision was safe; Huntington’s, disturbing and as lawless as the American frontier.

As the dust settles, it becomes clear that Huntington won. Fukuyama predicted a future of endless liberal democracy, and bravely revealed the emptiness of this option; Huntington, as if anticipating this, projected a future of endless warfare in which group identity would be more important than individual identity.

Time passed. “The end of history” (sensu Fukuyama) gave way to the Huntingtonian vision of world tribalism with the rise of terrorism and clash between West and Islam. This new tribalism invalidated old concepts, like liberal democracy, equality, diversity and the nation-state.

“The end of history” was, after all, a hopeful vision. Perhaps we could stop struggling and see a certain form factor as the basis for politics forevermore. But that made no sense. Nature abhors a vacuum and it also hates the static. Instead, we have endless conflict, from which clarity emerges, much as it does through Natural Selection.

The world is far from static. Instead, constant conflict allows the sanest among us to suppress the rest so that the minority viewpoint of sanity can prevail above the usual monkey dynamics, drama, neurosis, attention whoring, victimhood pimping, passive aggression and other distractions.

In this new reality, the humans who have some sense of reality are looking toward avoiding the nonsense warfare of those caught in symbolism, and instead are hoping to find a pragmatic balance where even the isolated can have political interests simply by standing up for what they want, outside of the public drama.

This creates not a void, but a momentum which demands that clarity arrive. The Alt Right has triumphed with the election of Donald J. Trump, but where to go from here? Clearly the candidate needs support but the public is at a loss for how to articulate what is needed.

Fellows at Alternative Right give us, as always, a clear direction where the rest of media is fetishing choas. Their outlook sees a the Alt Right as one step toward an ultimate evolution of politics, one in which clarity needs to beat out trends for a sense of direction and purpose:

Also remember this: the Alt-Right can inspire its chosen and future audience—and also trigger its opponents—simply by focusing on moral and mature European identitarianism and Western traditionalism, and by addressing the awkward issues of race and excessive Jewish power in a spirit of honesty and humaneness. Our opponents are so extreme that we can trigger them merely with our common sense and moderation.

The point is this: end the Enlightenment™ notion that good intentions are good policy, and replace it with the core of the Right, which is uncompromising intense Realism that urges us to find transcendental goals above focus on human egos and intent. Speak that in plain language, and apply it in every policy question, and people will find themselves drawn to it.

Realism works. The policy of “good intentions” does not. If we speak this in a neutral and informed way, for example saying “Diversity does not work because it denies each group the ability to set standards and values, creating a constant conflict over that topic,” instead of ranting on about inferior races that we hate like Hollywood Nutzis, then we crush illusions and convert people.

There it gets more complex however. The Alt Right is an ecosystem. This means that instead of all of us doing the same thing, like cogs in a machine or Communists marching in uniform, we all have unique roles and we exist as a “big tent” with much internal variation so that we do not need external critics to keep ourselves consistent.

For that reason, we obey a “no enemies to the Right” motto which means we allow people to be themselves in our big tent, and express whatever extremities they wish, as long as those extremities serve in some what to advance the “transcendental realist” outlook of the Right. Let the left attack them, but we should not be attacking those who are helping us to advance our ideals, whether they are mass murder fetishists or just 400 lb naked basement trolls.

This does not mean we must endorse their viewpoints, or claim that they speak for us. We can criticize those viewpoints, and this is commonly done by pointing out the inconsistencies in those philosophies. It is also fair game where certain beliefs have been tried to bring up the past and infer a connection between philosophical inconsistencies and bad results in reality. This can be done without attacking any person as the Left does, even when quoting them and disagreeing; such behavior is part of informed debate and is how the Right thrives. We need constant inner war to clarify where our values overlap and where we should be advancing in order to keep consistent with those most basic shared values.

This gives at least two fronts. On the facing end there is the responsible Alt Right:

People who come to the Alt-Right (if I’m any indication) are usually a bit uneasy at first with ideas they have been taught to despise their whole life. Months ago, when I first started exploring these new ideas I was still cautious, and seeing Spencer yelling ‘Hail Victory’ back then might have turned me off. While I had been questioning what I had been taught about race for some time before coming to the Alt-Right, it took a while for me to get comfortable with my own thoughtcrimes. Normies have to be eased into this.

On the back end however, we need more of the “bad boy” appeal that made the Alt Right so powerful during this election. In the West, we have a mythos of informed outsiders telling us the plain truth that cannot be spoken in society, so has been forgotten. Whether that truth-teller is Beowulf or Zarathustra, we are accustomed to civilization inserting its head in its posterior and becoming oblivious only to the vital facts it needs to know.


This rowdy and uncivilized behavior — including trolling, provocation, mockery and irreverence — is what allows the Alt Right to keep widening the Overton Window and going beyond it. The goal of this type of behavior, including edgy Hitler references at NPI conferences, is to force acceptance of previously taboo ideas. This aims to throw away the Overton Window entirely, to finally end World War II by terminating the guilt and shame heaped on the losers, and to allow us to once again openly discuss previously censored ideas like eugenics, nationalism, the different IQ levels of different social castes, the failure of liberal democracy and other topics that were commonly discussed before WWII but not after.

What is vitally important is that this second wing not disrupt the first. Many who were advancing the “Alt Right = White Nationalism” trope allowed this symbolism to become a replacement for ideation and direction. This is symbolism, and we need to approach it as being only what it is, which is putting certain previously-taboo topics back on the table so we can finally figure out what we think about them.

Huntington, Nietzsche and Houellebecq should probably be named patron saints of the Alt Right. Huntington told us that nationalism was going to emerge naturally, not through ideology, as the world linked up. Nietzsche told us that a morality of pacifism, equality, tolerance and non-violence would make us weak and existentially miserable. Houellebecq pointed out that Western Civilization is falling apart because we have made life an ugly and overly-sensualized obligation, removing any sense of pleasure found in the natural process of living itself.

This is the direction the Alt Right now needs to push: nationalism from Huntington, a new morality from Nietzsche, and a renovation of joy in life itself from Houellebecq. We must cross another taboo barrier, which is the taboo against Social Conservative ideas because anything which does not encourage constant sex, drugs/drink and media consumption must be un-fun. The problem is that while “fun” might be had in the short term with the constant prole party atmosphere of the dying West, it also crushes us inside, and so makes us weaker and ultimately, self-hating.

We need to turn this society around. Trump/Brexit was just the first step, peeling the outside layer of an onion composed of many layers. At the heart of the onion is this: societies that succeed lose their sense of purpose because they have achieved the goal of creating civilization. Then, they allow too many less-useful people to breed while the wealth empowers people to become special interest groups who do not view their future as bound up with that of the civilization. This produces an alliance between the wealthy and the proles to essentially abolish all laws, standards and morality, replacing them with “anarchy with grocery stores” so that profits can be high and behavior low. The problem with this type of society is that it immediately reverts to third world levels.

The raging egomania of this time was caused by allowing people to have power outside of the hierarchy or in opposition to the goals of that society. This in turn is caused by lack of a purpose outside the reactive, a type of stasis where we assume that everything is basically right except for small problems that then can be fixed with direct action. This has us reacting to material details, instead of noticing patterns, and so decline sneaks up on us.

To escape this pattern, we need to restore the notion of civilization having a purpose again, so that instead of reacting we have inner momentum toward a semi-attainable but ultimately never fully attainable goal, such as the transcendentals (goodness, beauty, excellence, virtue, truth/realism).

This is what Bruce Charlton explains as a struggle to find a will toward goodness in our hearts which is the basis of the revolution against modernity:

To analyse Life (including politics) in terms of power-differentials, economics, nationalism, racialism, or sex-politics is objectively and historically Leftism; hence the Alt-Right are (merely) Leftist heretics – and this can be seen by the clear motivation of the movement to take-over The State Apparatus in order to sort-out the economy, harness and encourage national pride, reverse the racism and sexism of the Left and so on.

It’s not that these objectives are bad, actually or necessarily, but that these are all Leftist objectives which merely tweak the system without reversing its direction – all of them were historical objectives of radical political movements, mostly in the 18th or 19th century, and all flowed-into modern New Leftism (political correctness, SJWs) for the simple reason that they are this-wordly and gratification-orientated and justified (i.e. utilitarian).

…Perhaps/ Probably we cannot at this point and from here, go directly to Christianity (although that is the eventual goal); but at least, and as a first-step, we absolutely-must reject the materialism, scientism, positivist, hedonic focus of modernity; and restore spiritual objectives as the natural and universal focus and motivation of human life.

Another way of phrasing the above: modernity — and this is what we are warring against, the civilization created by The Enlightenment™ after years of decline — consists of purely material reactions because it has negated the ability to have a purpose.

The philosophy written about on this site, parallelism, emphasizes an opposite to rationalism, or the tendency to zero in on a single attribute of a situation and to derive a cause that will create it. Parallelism instead uses cause-effect reasoning in a historical sense as a means of understanding the likely consequences of any given act, and suggests that we pay attention to patterns, especially those that manifest in parallel in multiple areas.

Now this is where it gets interesting.

Wanting a spiritual revival makes sense, but we will achieve it indirectly. We cannot demand the effect we want directly and have it occur because we will not have done the groundwork for it. Instead, we need to awaken the desire to do good in a general sense, and have that manifest in parallel in politics, culture, religion and socializing. That will produce an emergent spiritual revival as we innovate new methods for achieving the changes we desire, including simple ones like Nationalism.

In other words, we cannot have a spiritual revival by working directly toward one. Instead we need a mentality that understands why a spiritual revival would be a good thing, and by implementing that across the board in society by demanding realist programs that achieve good results, instead of merely good intentions, we will awaken that revival.

This comes at a time when the Alt Right is wavering in its purpose because having achieved one big goal, its consensus is now fraying. This can be stopped with a simple prescription: we want to end Modernity because it is an existential horror that has caused our people to stop breeding, and implement a society free from policies designed around anti-realist thinking.

It is fortunate, too, because the Left will retaliate as they usually do. For them, equality is Utopia and any means to that end is a morally good act, even if the method is immoral like guillotines, gulags and concentration camps. This Utopian ideology makes them willing to go to greater extremes, ones that the Right generally cannot comprehend because they are corrupt and destructive. As Matt Briggs writes, the Leftist counterattack will be an attempt to silence us:

The Left has already purged all mainline offline institutions, and so it was natural enough for them to move online.

Yet all their efforts online would if not abetted largely come to naught, because the (Alt) Right adapts as quickly to the tactics of the Left as the Left moves to attack. If unaided by external forces, the Left would at best come to a stalemate, if not endure outright losses, as they have with Brexit, Hungary’s reform, the success of Marie Le Pen, the rise of Trump, and other versions of elite-rejecting “populism” (losers in democracies always call their enemies populists, but democracies by definition are populist).

…The effect will be twofold. Governments themselves silencing critics, and companies using stringent interpretations of government rules and laws to increase banishment. The Internet itself is (more or less) in the hands of the United Nations, and if there is one consistency of the UN since its inception, it is that it uses its powers to stifle dissent.

He makes a good point. Already the Leftist press is beginning the witch hunts. They will not stop at a single event, but keep pushing until they are able to once again destroy lives as a warning to others: conform or be shattered.

In response to this, it seems that there is only one reasonable response: counterattack!

The positive reason is that if we press the attack into real-world arenas, we cannot lose! Let that sink in. If we establish a beachhead in meatspace, then two things happen. One, our various enemies, both organizations and individual ideologues, will be forced to divide their efforts between attempting to squelch an online community and attempting to stop it from growing further into the material plane, which will only become more and more difficult as our numbers increase. The second effect is a reciprocal one; those who join the alt-right as a result of real-world actions will participate in the online community and vice versa. Note that the first and second events here show us an even larger feedback loop.

This process requires a singular step: we must legitimize all political ideas and all methods so that they can be discussed without the willingness to take up the topic being seen as proof of being evil like Hitler. When the Alt Right desensitizes this world to Hitler-like behavior, and if it does not get absorbed by its own symbolism, its victory will be that we can finally talk reasonably about these ideas, and not be forced to swing toward Hitlerism because it is the only zone where such things are acceptable.

Marginalizing the Right has created that type of dichotomy, between mainstream cucks who will not mention anything smacking of these things, and an underground drugged on ideology who talks only of these things. The Alt Right has begun to end the marginalization of the Right, and in its place will come a newly liberated dialogue.

Bruce Charlton again, with perhaps most important advice for the Right, which is to be obstinate in asserting that what we see is real, and what they say is all lies, so we cannot back down. It starts, for him, with accurate perception of Reality, i.e. realism:

Perhaps the most important thing we can do, is not to do – to cease to help, to stop actively assisting the false-reality Matrix in its interaction with the false-selves of the mass of people. Being reasonable helps The System – while being un-reasonable, ceasing to fear, being uncompromising in of personal support of The Good so far as we understand it… all such helps Reality, which is divine, and operates by many, including unknown, pathways.

Also – our main ‘act’ in this world is thinking – I mean conscious thinking that comes from our real selves: that is the primary act; without which no behaviour, words, nothing can possible be of positive value.

The Alt Right needs to clarify its position. We hate Modernity. It is all lies. It starts with Enlightenment™ thought in recent history, but really, anything which reeks of individualism (intentions of the self > reality) is toxic. We aim to defeat these things and restore Western Civilization, and it begins with being able to be introspective enough to know our intuition, despite living in a civilization that is addicted to distraction for the very purpose of crushing any introspection or intuition.

With that in mind, we are fortunate that Richard Spencer and the NPI decided to push harder and invoke the Hitler taboo instead of pretending to be respectable and getting co-opted that way. Much of the Alt Right is now being forced into virtue signaling its disapproval of Spencer, and this has forced upon us the need to figure out what we stand for — and quickly.

Mr. President, Tear Down This Pathology

Thursday, November 10th, 2016


The election of Donald J. Trump reaches to areas beyond politics. It shows a cultural shift against globalism and the farther-Left-than-moderate neoliberalism which drives it. It also shows a population adapting to the diversity agenda of post-WWII by formally adopting identity politics, decoupling self-interest from altruism.

First it makes sense to clarify what the election was not. It was not the election of a radical conservative ideologue. Nor was it a vote of confidence in the conservative parties who first opposed the nomination of Mr. Trump in favor of more moderate, neoconservative candidates. This was a man seizing an opportunity that was undervalued:

But Trump’s win was no fluke. He has been talking about running for president since at least 1988, but never pulled the trigger. This time around, he saw the opportunity and went for it. A shrewd entrepreneur, he saw a vast sea of unhappy voters who wanted fundamental change to the status quo—particularly on trade, immigration, and interminable foreign wars, and he was able to disrupt politics by re-segmenting the political market to serve it.

Over the past thirty years, conservatives have been unwilling to attack the core of Leftism as expressed in its class warfare and diversity programs. Leftists want to create an egalitarian Utopia, and to do this requires mobilizing every person by ideology.

That in turn requires eliminating any competing values systems such as the family, religion, heritage, culture, class and national identity. They are fanatical on this point because Leftism is fundamentally unstable, and so any competing — even non-hostile — belief must be subverted and dominated. Leftism pursues power fanatically because the more Leftism penetrates, the less it can hide the failure of its policies, and needs an army of ideological zombie useful idiots and authoritarian leaders to enforce itself.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Leftism took a new turn: it decentralized and hid its power so that to an observer, it seemed as if society were sliding inevitably Leftward as a result of Leftist ideas working when in fact they were failing. When Barack Obama said that Angela Merkel was “on the right side of history,” this is the myth he was exploiting.

This Leftward shift occurred invisibly because of the rise of neoliberalism, or the use of market forces to force implementation of Leftist ideas:

Neoliberalism is a kind of statecraft. It means organizing state policies by making them appear as if they are the consequences of depoliticized financial markets. It involves moving power from public institutions to private institutions, and allowing governance to happen through concentrated financial power. Actual open markets for goods and services tend to disappear in neoliberal societies. Financial markets flourish, real markets morph into mass distribution middlemen like Walmart or Amazon.

This definition is my paraphrase of Greta Krippner’s “Capitalizing on Crisis”, a pretty good book about what happened from the 1960s to the 1980s in terms of financial politics. Her thesis is that the liberal democratic system was dismantled because it was too explicit about who was making choices. People would get mad at politicians when they didn’t have, say, mortgage credit, or when the price of milk went up too high. The answer came to be neoliberalism, or creating a veil of financial markets to make all those decisions seem apolitical.

Conservatives were caught unaware by neoliberalism because it seemed as if market forces and social change were driving what were actually changes initiative by government, its NGOs and corporate friends, and supported by the news-entertainment media and its cadre of celebrities who never fail to get out there and echo the narrative.

Neoliberalism began to collapse because of the weakening of media caused by the internet, not so much through greater competition but the loss of revenues from advertising and the tendency for readers to get their news directly through statements from the people involved in an event, posted to social media for the world to see.

This happened simultaneously with a backlash that had been steadily gaining steam since WWII against the erasure of our national cultures by diversity and globalism. As NWO propaganda organ The New York Times tells us, the Trump win was a backlash against multiculturalism and globalization:

The triumph for Mr. Trump, 70, a real estate developer-turned-reality television star with no government experience, was a powerful rejection of the establishment forces that had assembled against him, from the world of business to government, and the consensus they had forged on everything from trade to immigration. The results amounted to a repudiation, not only of Mrs. Clinton, but of President Obama, whose legacy is suddenly imperiled. And it was a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters who felt that the promise of the United States had slipped their grasp amid decades of globalization and multiculturalism.

Even from this source which is hostile to conservatives, the truth emerges: the Establishment was forcing an agenda of globalization and multiculturalism which was not only not working, but also destroying the lives of ordinary people. Our new elites, who are ideological elites like the Communists, used the markets to deplete the populations of the nations they infested, and used that wealth to put themselves into positions of power.

Mr. Trump did not present an alternative plan to this threat. Instead, he simply proposed that he treat it like any other business question and eliminate that which was not working and replace it with things more likely to work. This provoked an outcry that veered quickly into the absurd and histrionic.

The outcry misses the point: Mr. Trump is not a radical. Even more, he has suggested nothing extreme. What he has said is simply that we should stop stumbling down the path to doom, and his method of doing that is to go back to the type of thinking that a moderate or independent would have found appealing in the 1980s.

People protesting in the streets or wailing about how Trump is “misogynistic,” “racist,” “homophobic” or otherwise evil have missed the point. He is none of these things, but the protesters are so far gone into radical Leftism that they cannot recognize a normal, middle-of-the-road viewpoint when they see it.

This permanently divides our country. On one hand, with have the Historic American Nation (HAN) which generally takes a Trump-style moderate position; on the other, the new Red Guards composed of angry students, alienated single women, ethnic minorities, unsubtle Leftist homosexuals, and other people who totally oppose anything like a normal lifestyle based around the nuclear family, tradition and morality as was the group that built this nation from nothing.

We see the same thing in Europe. Neurotic Leftists and non-natives gather to oppose national culture, religion, identity, history, culture and language. They want to turn every place into the same thing that happens everywhere else: an open air bazaar with no heritage, culture and identity uniting it.

In other words, these are the people of decline. They exist only to further decline. They are incompatible with the natives not because we are bad, or even extreme at all, but because we are not going along with the decline agenda, which is to destroy all normalcy and goodness so that only ideology remains.

The psychology of these people — which, since it occurs without regard for the results it achieves, should instead be called a pathology — is fascinating. They do not feel good about life, and only induce themselves toward feeling good through the sense of power and righteous anger they find in ideology. This is how they bond with one another, all they have in common, and how they feel better about their lives, which are empty not so much through lack of success as lack of any permanent purpose, or bond to life itself. These are rootless, alienated, isolated, lonely, unhappy and ragingly angry people.

When someone pursues power for its own sake, independent of what is right or sensible, and is motivated by an impulse to destroy, this reflects a deep detachment from life. They hate the order of nature and any hierarchy which conflicts with their own desires. This makes them agents of destruction, and by doing so, they serve evil.

Bruce Charlton offers more on the conflict behind the conflict, in which we are battling not just another party but the growth of evil within our civilization:

By this, Trump will be just another mainstream secular Leftist politician – better than his evil, incompetent, warmongering and dementing opponent; but not a positive good.

However, the unleashed forces that brought Trump to power… well they do fill me with both hope and also a dash of optimism!

He expands upon this with a view from the perspective of a member of the Leftist elites/Cathedral in which we can see how their existential despair drives their destructive agenda:

But think of how things are from the perspective of a typical elite Westerner:

You personally regard the universe as a meaningless collection of random events; you regard your own life as a brief interlude between an emergence from chaos and a descent into oblivion.

…How they have rejected marriage and family, how even their best human relationships are little more than temporary and expedient mutual exploitation; how their goals are limited and only possible with self-blinding – how the whole charade is kept going by holidays, treats, drink, drugs, medications, sexual fantasies (and how the reality of these things never remotely matches-up).

How for them life is only about hopes of pleasure and money, fame and status – and an awareness that these never last, and are never enough…And how there is nothing else: this stuff is the whole of life; and the expectation is even worse (unless death and presumed oblivion comes quickly).

The West entered death because of its own success. Its lower orders revolted after its leaders could not stop several unstoppable tragedies whose root really lay in the sudden growth of the West since its superior social order allowed those to survive who otherwise would be unable to.

As in the movie Idiocracy, we see that we get more of what we tolerate. Since we tolerated excessive peasants and fools, we got more of those, and they quickly overwhelmed common sense. In doing so, they created a society which was evil at its core and has been eliminating the good and promoting the bad since.

Events like Viktor Orban in Hungary, Brexit and the election of Donald J. Trump show a gut-level revolt against the steady encroachment of hopelessness in our society. The Crowd is always wrong, and the Crowd desires evil camouflaged in millions of different ways, all aiming at the same result.

This will surprise no one who has spent time among humans. We are self-destructive creatures, prone to spin out of control when our emotions conspire with our tunnel vision oriented perceptions caused by the greater strength of mental impulses about ourselves than knowledge of the world around us. We become solipsistic easily.

Mr. Trump has kicked loose a landslide, as he has created a symbolic barrier to the advancement of the people of destruction, aided by parasitic faux elites who merely want personal profit before they leave to find another place to attack. He represents the West finally working up the courage to confront this evil.

For those of us on the Alt Right, the time has come to refocus. The backlash has become, but most reactions like this peter out when they accept a substitute for total victory. For us, total victory must be achieved, or this evil will eliminate us forever.

With that in mind, the Alt Right needs to look to its roots. Our beliefs are a collection of negations of the building blocks of modernity — equality, sexual liberation, diversity, democracy — but we have never given them the synopsis they truly deserve.

The Alt Right stands against modernity itself.

Modernity is not our technology, which was inevitable since we began making fire, and required only social organization to take hold. Nor is modernity a $current_year range. It is a mentality, and it begins with egalitarianism or the notion of universal inclusion, or that society should be forced to accept the good people along with the bad so that the average individual does not feel threatened by having to live up to a value system, goal, purpose or other restraint on that individual’s whims.

All that we recognize as threats, such as diversity and democracy, are a natural outgrowth of the idea of equality. Equality is the method that evil uses to force acceptance of itself upon our society, and then to take over. Diversity aids equality by abolishing culture, values and standards so that evil is more accepted.

While breaking out the Scotch and cigars over the Trump victory is in order, what we must do now is redouble our efforts and push harder for the end of modernity as a pathology. Our enemies will not rest, so neither can we. Most of humanity wants to tear down what we have built and replace it with disorder, and our only salvation lies in beating them back and then reversing the evil that rots our core.

Below: typical American street scene after Trump election.

The Anti-Society: The Alt Right Is Tired Of Living In Mordor

Monday, August 29th, 2016


As the Alt Right reflects on its recent rise to prominence, a battle has emerged for defining the group. Its constituent components — white nationalists, libertarians, conservatives, traditionalists — are each asserting their beliefs in an effort to shape the understanding of the Alt Right.

The problem with this approach is that it fights on the surface, and fails to look at the motivation behind the rise of the Alt Right, and more importantly, its acceptance outside the margins of political discussion.

Racial problems will not go away, Leftists will not stop until they go Full Communist, and the media cabal running our nations intends to harm us.

From a thirty thousand foot view, the rise of the Alt Right is not perplexing: Leftism had seventy years in the time between the end of World War II and the present day to make good on its promises. As the economy, hampered by undue regulation and a massive subsidy state, cratered in the 2000s, normal people who previously had accepted the high costs and mounting red tape because they did not impact daily life, started to get nervous.

We could afford to buy off minority grievance groups, deal with the government-created positions like diversity officers, and shoulder the extra expense of buying homes in gated communities, paying for private security and medical care, and the lowered wages that come with distribution-oriented states.

We could grumble and throw vegetables at the television (do not waste pizza pockets expressing discontent; they are more valuable than cigarettes in prisons, rumor has it) when the latest Leftist outrage explodes across the screen. These things seemed like small outrages that were irritating but did not obstruct our quest for happy, fulfilling lives.

At this point, however, we have seen enough of the path ahead to realize that it heads down the mountain and not to another peak. Racial problems will not go away, Leftists will not stop until they go Full Communist, and the media cabal running our nations intends to harm us. “Normal” life is actually toxic.

When that realization hits, people can no longer just float along and go with the flow. Instead, they face a choice between becoming complicit in the destruction, and resisting, which involves being called lots of nasty names by PC SJWs and their analogues in media, government and industry.

Once the individual has made it to that point, suddenly the whole ball of rationalizations and justifications that allows the modern time to exist will unravel. We start realizing how much this society is unlikeable, but we are afraid to criticize it because everything else seems so much worse. And who says so? Oops: that media cabal.

At this point, however, we have seen enough of the path ahead to realize that it heads down the mountain and not to another peak.

The grim truth is that the reason European-descended peoples are not reproducing at replacement rates is that life in the West has become horrible, and it has been that way for some time. T.S. Eliot told us when he wrote “The Hollow Men” and Wild Bill Faulkner revealed the decay in books like Sanctuary. Scott Fitzgerald demonstrated the breakdown in Tender Is The Night, and Ernest Hemingway pulled back the curtain on existential misery with The Sun Also Rises. Even recent books like Don Delillo’s White Noise, or movies like Fight Club and Melancholia, show us what we know in the gut but cannot articulate: living in this world is a soulless hell where most people behave like passive-aggressive demons, cloaking cruelty and a lust for power behind political correctness and politeness.

Every aspect of this society is designed to break out spirits and make us into zombie automatons:

  • Jobs are jails. Jobs have two disturbing characteristics: first, you are judged by appearance, which mostly works against you; second, all but a very small portion of what you do is unnecessary, pointless, CYA, pro-forma, make-work or otherwise nonsense. You are being cucked every second of the day as they force you to do useless stuff and be judged for it, with the people who gladly gulp down the most feces being the ones they promote. On top of that, the workplace is a Petri dish for bad behavior, including snide passive aggression and sadistic peer pressure to conform to a lowest common denominator that is not only stupid but boring. Jobs wreck souls. Jobs instill hopelessness. Jobs make dads come home and pound on their kids.

  • Cities are miserable. Cities are the tragedy of the commons: they reward those who externalize negatives and take as much as possible for themselves, then retreat to gated communities where they ignore their neighbors. Cities are isolating, and anonymous, which encourages bad behavior by removing responsibility. Cities have a culture of the ego because nothing else remains: God, culture, heritage, community and intellect have been removed because they are impedients to equality. This leaves only a giant shopping mall where people have nothing in common but a desire to find the best price before anyone else does.

  • Assumptions rule us. In order to make other people think positively of us, we must adopt and promote certain assumptions that are chosen because they inspire the group to stay together and behave less sociopathically than normal. These assumptions — equality, diversity, sex parity, the importance of each and every one of us as a special snowflake, the basic goodness of people — go against both observable reality and what we can learn from history, as well as the conclusions of most great literature and religious texts. We are living inside of a lie and if we admit that the Emperor has no clothes, we will be destroyed by public opinion in a modern-day version of a witch-hunt. This also destroys people by cucking, forcing them to accept lies as truth and then to wave the banner of submission to these obviously nonsensical ideas.

Cities have a culture of the ego because nothing else remains: God, culture, heritage, community and intellect have been removed because they are impedients to equality.
  • Horrible aesthetics and ergonomics. Modern architecture is ugly. All modern design — known as “utilitarian” — is, because it aims at the lowest common denominator of human experience and tries to reduce costs while remaining impervious to the constant crime, vandalism and abuse that objects and buildings suffer in a modern society. Everything is dumbed down so that its audience potential widens. Our mass culture is complete garbage, not just licentious and idiotic, but also boring once one gets past the gee-whiz factor of car crashes, promiscuous sex and violence. Our politicians and pundits repeat obvious one-dimensional lies, and people feel witty for choosing one lie over the other. People dedicate huge parts of their lives to purposefully meaningless activities like watching sports and playing video games. The void is all around us, but we have invited it in.

  • Crushing guilt. This does not refer to the false guilt over civil rights events from a century ago, nor interpersonal guilt that crops up now and again and might be taken seriously if we thought other people were in any way sincere. We have actual guilt: for being useless and purposeless, for growing our population to the point of threatening our natural world, for extinction of species, for constant pollution that does not break down, for all the lies we tell and all the actual issues we duck by using those lies. Most of all, we do nothing that makes us actually respect ourselves; people do not take risks, in an actual sense, and they achieve nothing of positive change because their hands are tied by precedent and appearances. We are useless fat blobs sitting on sofas and clicking like/dislike buttons on our glorified televisions.

In short, we are living in Mordor: a concealed wasteland that we do not recognize because our hearts are as ruined as it is, ruled by overlords obsessed with power for its own sake, fighting wars to destroy the remaining good in the world because just seeing it makes us feel terrible about ourselves. We live in an age of insanity, where existential stress is the norm as we try to rationalize our pointless and psychologically miserable lives, enduring tedium, ugliness and stupidity for the sake of “succeeding” at a game where no one wins but the pathologically vicious and parasitic.

In short, we are living in Mordor: a concealed wasteland that we do not recognize because our hearts are as ruined as it is.

That is what the Alt Right rebels against: we want a different society; perhaps one with meaning, purpose, reverence and some sense of the sacred. We want to live for something more than material convenience; we want our deeds to matter, and our moral character to be important. None of this can happen under the current society because it has obliterated the concept of inner differences between people through the dogma of equality.

From this perspective, we can see that the political agenda of the Alt Right is just the vestibule. A vast citadel lies beyond, with a penetralia composed of a desire for a life of significance, elegance and strong existential orientation toward the good. We are tired of living in Mordor, and we aim to peel it like an onion, starting with the outer political layers and working inward to culture, philosophy, religion, and the concealed soul of our people.

The rise of the Alt Right is not just a significant event in Western politics, but a turning point for Western society. What looked like Heaven has been revealed to be in fact, Hell, and we want no more of it. The only way to escape Hell is to point ourselves toward Heaven, and stop asking what we can get away with, but embark on a plan to bring out the best in everything all of the time.

Hail Satan

Saturday, December 17th, 2011

You yawn awake at the same time every day except weekends and holidays. By the time your new digital TV turns on to the weather channel as instructed, you’re in the shower. A stainless steel coffee machine on a timer begins spouting brew into the carafe.

At the back door the dog is MIA. Everyone else has dogs who go missing for days at a time. You push away the briefest thought of a cold lonely creature in a strange place wondering if its adopted human family actually gives a damn. The farthest thing from your mind is the mythological brightest of angels who rebelled against the cosmic order and so was granted his own greatest wish and greatest prison, independence in a dominion where he alone was law. Freedom in a cage. Cursing, you dump dog food into the bowl. It’s the dog’s fault for obstructing what you need to do.

The TV says today will be sunny but with a 30% chance of rain. Why can’t they all be sunny days, like the days in those car commercials (or antidepressant commercials) where people are happy together and spend more time on work-life balance than simply trying to make it through? Maybe science will fix it.

At this point, you take an important step: you obtain consent from yourself to get in the car, muddle through traffic to work, tolerate whatever stupidity occurs at work, achieve minimal results, and then come home to have a few hours of home time before you do it all again. You don’t want to, but this is the life everyone leads, trading time for a salary so you can be more like those people in the commercials and less like those under the bridges you drive past.

Hail to the guardians in the corners four,
Hail to the spirits of north, east, west and south,
I summon the powers of the world beyond
Master, I invoke thy name in sacrifice.

At your cubicle job you do the usual hour of effective work, then settle in for a day of answering emails, going to meetings, filling out paperwork, calming superiors on the phone, and fascinating activities like organizing your files and going to a continuing education seminar on how to use the new voice mail system.

The kid phones halfway through the work day. Apparently there are bullies at the school who are beating on your kid. You sigh, feeling the pain of Christ on the Cross. Why do you have to solve these problems? You only wanted a kid that would be like you and succeed in the ways you are succeeding. You did not want these little glitches. You tell the kid that it’s not their fault and then call the principal. He will ignore the problem too, probably. But it shouldn’t be your problem. Other people have kids without problems. Why are you the victim here? Pure dumb bad luck.

That thought disturbs you. The idea that there is some Order to this world that does not fit the transactional nature of things, where both sides are equal and make a trade for mutual and uniform benefit, disturbs you. It is uneven, unpredictable. Even Satanic, uncontrollable. You roll mental window blinds over that thought and turn back to your Excel spreadsheet.

Lord of the pit, listen to my prayer
Abyss lord, hear my supplication
Carry my will on your dark wings
Hear the will of your servant

But everyone does it. That is the catch, isn’t it? Everyone has two kids, two dogs, a big house and a job they hate. Everyone wants their kids to succeed. Cram them forward, make them yield, force them to obey. That is what you feel you need: a greater force, like a bigger screwdriver. Make things turn out all right. Or, if you search your soul, make them turn out as you want, regardless of what “all right” is.

Mid-afternoon and no call from the spouse. It’s OK; most marriages end in divorce. It is no one’s fault. People become incompatible because it’s too much work to compromise and reconcile when you know what you want and no one else should tell you that you cannot control your future. Except your job. You need it for money to spend shopping, which is what you’re doing, since almost everyone else is asleep or unproductive.

Prop up a big book of important-looking stuff on your desk, sigh and announce how much work you have to do, then set yourself up to shop on the web. It’s not theft since you have barely any time outside of work anyway. Find something you like to make you feel better about the kids getting beat up, the absent spouse, the missing dog, the computer crashes and the even the crappy construction of your office. Click to buy. Forget about it; it will arrive in a week, be a topic of conversation for a day or two, then be obsolete and go into the landfill. Do you even remember what it was?

Then you get coffee from the cafe downstairs, taking your order from someone who doesn’t speak English and is clearly from far away without documents. You fake a big tip by folding a couple bucks once you see two co-workers watching. They nod approvingly, both acknowledging your power and their power to judge you. You feel that victimhood again, at having to show others that you are a good person in order to feel justified in doing what you want.

At the altar of power and the throne of might
Satan, master, demon lord and soul possessor
I swear my allegiance to the Abyss and its Worm
Forever entwined in blood, no will before thine

In your hazy mind stupefied by end-of-day concerns, you remember a sunny afternoon way back in college when you were forced to read Kant. Kant said that evil was not ensconced in some mythological figure like Satan who was the cause of all evil on earth. Rather, he thought, it was the result of our choices. Do we act on reality, or construct a hypothetical pseudo-reality and act on that because it’s more convenient for us? Even more troubling, Kant said that among us lurked a real evil called “radical evil,” which consisted of the everyday decisions of ordinary people that created bad results, but no one questioned them because it was what everyone else was doing.

You wonder why that thought comes back to you now.

You have a future ahead: more scintillating work days like this one, paying more of your salary to a government that does “good” things in your name, hating your family and loathing your own situation. But then again, you wanted it this way. Based on all the movies you saw and pop stars whose interviews you read, the primary goal was after all “freedom.” Freedom from rules, hierarchies, and uncomfortable truths that might be true, but could just be how other people want to control you.

Warlock of the seven gates
Lord of demons from the pit
I pledge my blood allegiance
To feel your power within me
No gods, no truth, no power, no kings
I alone am in control
To reign in hell…

You don’t want an Order around you. You want an order of yourself. For that you need freedom. Freedom means you must have no one around you who can tell you what you are doing is right or wrong. No culture, no leaders, and no real insight into your motivations. You want lots of people you can fool by folding two ones to look like a wad of cash. Then they back down; they see you are powerful with money and generous. You have more power than they do.

For freedom you need a job, and a big powerful state to rein in all the chaos around you that occurs when other people get upset about their pointless jobs and mundane lives. All of this exists so that you can be in control.

You point the car toward home. You have learned something today. You do not serve others for their own sake. You serve them for you. The perfect house, the normal kids, the spouse and job, just like in those antidepressant ads. It’s all about you. In the clouds above, batlike wings unfold as a demonic laugh fills the air.

The split between responsible and irresponsible

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. – Neil Postman

You have to be aware of passive aggressive types. They tend to assert that a condition is true, and then if you don’t go along with it, condemn you for reacting against “what everyone else knows” or a social common standard.

Bums capitalize on passive aggression quite a bit. See a young man with a girl? Watch the bum: he’s going to hit up the young man — not the girl — because the young man has a choice: either give the bum money, and look like a Good Guy, or turn him down and introduce the doubt that he may be possibly heartless. So over comes the cash.

Check out passive aggression here — the writer is capitalizing on the known urban versus rural conflict:

When Barack Obama ended the Bush stem-cell policy last week, there were no such overheated theatrics. No oversold prime-time address. No hysteria from politicians, the news media or the public. The family-values dinosaurs that once stalked the earth — Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and Reed — are now either dead, retired or disgraced. Their less-famous successors pumped out their pro forma e-mail blasts, but to little avail. The Republican National Committee said nothing whatsoever about Obama’s reversal of Bush stem-cell policy.

Americans have less and less patience for the intrusive and divisive moral scolds who thrived in the bubbles of the Clinton and Bush years. Culture wars are a luxury the country — the G.O.P. included — can no longer afford.

In our own hard times, the former moral “majority” has been downsized to more of a minority than ever. Polling shows that nearly 60 percent of Americans agree with ending Bush restrictions on stem-cell research (a Washington Post/ABC News survey in January); that 55 percent endorse either gay civil unions or same-sex marriage (Newsweek, December 2008); and that 75 percent believe openly gay Americans should serve in the military (Post/ABC, July 2008).


This man is a slick manipulator.

He knows that every person on earth prefers the illusion of personal autonomy, and so they resent any attempts to control them outside of the most basic parts of the social contract: no murder, rape, pedophilia, and so on.

Unfortunately, that sort of logic places us between worlds. We’re obligated to the collective that is civilization, but acting as if we’re free agents outside of a civilization. That means that huge costs for our reckless behavior, and the social resources to save us, get passed on as “socialized costs” that we collectively pay. This means the smart become obligated to the dumb.

Rural people tend to have conservative logic, and that’s a lowercase-c conservative. If your science doesn’t understand it 100%, don’t jack with it. Stick to traditional moral values because those produce healthy generations. Don’t be afraid to kill your enemies, even if they call you names and say you’ll be unpopular. People need guns in the home in case lunatics show up. And the big taboo: not everyone can figure out how to run a farm, and some people are just born bad, like some piglets in a litter are just born weak and angry. Drowning time.

That sort of logic shocks people in cities. They don’t do anything with their hands; their labor consists of moving around symbols in order to make other people do things. Their wealth is paper wealth, which is why they suffer the hardest numerical losses during a recession. But they don’t understand the process by which we get steaks on the table, and they don’t want to know. Because they thrive by moving symbols around, they also thrive by being polite: pacifying others, complimenting them, getting along with them at all costs, and so on. Urban people are a nation of salespeople.

Let’s look at another vision of this same conflict:

Mr. Rogers, whose previous political involvement amounted to little more than writing a check to a favored candidate — has suddenly become a leader in a secessionist movement bent on cleaving California in two.

“Those Hollywood types don’t have any idea what’s going on out here on the farms,” said Mr. Rogers.

Frustrated by what they call uninformed urban voters dictating faulty farm policy, Mr. Rogers and the other members of the movement have proposed splitting off 13 counties on the state’s coast, leaving the remaining 45, mostly inland, counties as the “real” California.

The reason, they say, is that people in those coastal counties, which include San Francisco and Los Angeles, simply do not understand what life is like in areas where the sea breezes do not reach.

“They think fish are more important than people, that pigs are treated mean and chickens should run loose,” said Mr. Rogers, who said he hitched a ride in 1940 to Visalia from Oklahoma to escape the Dust Bowl, with his wife and baby son in tow. “City people just don’t know what it takes to get food on their table.”


The point that’s important here: there’s two economies at work, and two cultures have grown up around them. In the city, there’s a salesperson economy and culture. In the country, there’s a producer economy and culture. While in the city people can bundle together in groups and use the weight of their opinion, and passive aggression, to force others to act, in the country it requires people to engage with the problem head on and come up with some sort of solution, even if it’s not socially acceptable or polite.

Of course, not every person in the city is fooled, but the human illusion that we all have free will and kinglike pick our ideologies is just that, an illusion — we pick ideologies like we pick clothing, to cover up our weaknesses and adorn ourselves, for the most part.

We can frame this conflict to include both the city folks who agree with the country folks and the suburban folks I have not mentioned. People in the suburbs generally are more successful than other groups, and have made the commitment to sacrificing things like being near downtown and its shopping/”culture” in order to raise kids in a safe place. (That’s the case for nice suburbs. There are many suburbs in sprawling cities like LA that are just repositories for those with no other direction.)

If we include these groups, we rapidly see the approach of a divide between the responsible and irresponsible. Responsible people have the producer mentality; irresponsible people are used to angling for what they need by getting it from other people, usually by convincing them with a shell game of symbols. Irresponsible people solve problems by clumping together like dough and using their collective weight to force other people to give them things… and if that causes socialized costs down the line, well, they’re not thinking about that.

Here’s an instance of this kind of thinking:

Emboldened by a new leftist constitution, Bolivia President Evo Morales on Saturday handed over ownership of farmland seized by the state from wealthy estate holders to poor indigenous people.

Morales handed out around 94,000 acres of lands recently confiscated from five big ranches in Bolivia’s wealthy eastern lowlands, a stronghold of his conservative political opponents. The ranchers have been accused of employing workers in conditions of semi-slavery.

“Private property will always be respected but we want people who are not interested in equality to change their thinking and focus more on country than currency,” said Morales, flanked by military and police personnel.


When I lived among the surly urban poor of Los Angeles, I learned one thing that I have seen confirmed time and again about poverty: its origin is in cluelessness, disorganization and lack of impulse control, not oppression.

A friend of mine in Austin who grew up in a trailer park because his parents were alcoholic pointed this out to me, saying that despite his liberal beliefs, he knew why the poor were poor: “Everyone in that trailer park belonged there.” They were unable to stop drinking or taking drugs, having children or flaking out on work. They were chronically disorganized, so that when they got that job, the car had been taken apart for the fuel pump to be used to clean the kitchen sink that they meant to unclog last week but just hadn’t gotten around to it.

In his eyes, the place was hell. I’ve since heard the same from many friends, whose parents followed the baby boomers to their doom but didn’t realize it was a scam and pull out in time to become bankers. I’ve seen the same in impoverished places on three continents.

Ask yourself: if the poor are poor, why do they always seem to have $5 for cigarettes, $5 for the lottery, $5 for alcohol and $25 to watch the sports event or rock concert du jour? Why do you see people wearing $200 tracksuits and $200 shoes walking around the ghetto?

To be poor, you need to be irresponsible. Spend that $400 now on flashy things instead of on building infrastructure; spend $40 per day on cigs, lottery and booze instead of infrastructure; even more, with what you have, junk it and don’t care for it, and don’t keep it organized, so that whenever opportunity does come you’re unable to take advantage of it.

The single mother of six children said when she saw the pitch for the adorable puppies last summer on the popular classified ad site Kijiji she was excited to welcome the brother and sister dogs named Nelly and Kelly into her home.

St. Amand says she sent upwards of $2,000 for the dogs she is yet to see except for photos sent to her by email.

St. Amand is on welfare, and along with her children ages two to 11, shares her home with her boyfriend and six pets – including two mixed breed dogs.

Money in St. Amand’s household is so scarce she was going to have to pawn two small rings to come up with the gas money to have a relative take her to the airport to get the dogs.

Canada East

(I can’t tell what’s more appalling — that she performed the ultimate act of stupidity in sending her welfare money to get these dogs, the way she lives as a six-child welfare mom with a boyfriend on welfare and four dogs, or that she was willing to admit this to the world via the press. If this family dies in a fire, we can all agree that the gene pool will be clearer.)

The poor in Bolivia live in near-slavery conditions because when given wealth, they squander it. They will squander this gift too. And instead of concentrating power in the hands of people who could get responsible, their president is now declaring dominion of the irresponsible over the responsible. (This is the ultimate state of Crowdism: when the irresponsible, produced by the wealth created by the responsible, band together to take that wealth from the responsible, and thus kill the goose that laid the golden egg and plunge themselves into a third-world military junta dark ages.)

And yet another example:

A former busker, Aubrey Meyer, thought up what is increasingly regarded as the long-term solution to global warming – and, through relentless campaigning, he has managed to get his idea adopted as policy by many governments, especially in developing countries. Dubbed “contraction and convergence”, it starts from the principle that everyone on Earth is entitled to emit the same amount of carbon dioxide. It then determines the level of emissions low enough to avoid dangerous climate change. The total amount put into the atmosphere worldwide each year must then be made to “contract” until it reaches this point. Simultaneously, the totals of individual countries have to “converge”, so that each emits the same amount for every one of its citizens; rich countries would have to reduce their totals very heavily, while some poor countries could actually be able to increase theirs. Most experts agree that it is the fairest framework. Persuading Americans to agree to emit the same amount as Ethiopians is another matter.

Felling forests, especially in the tropics, is the second biggest cause of carbon dioxide emissions after burning fossil fuels, accounting for a fifth of the world’s total. But people and governments have no incentive to leave them standing when they can make money by selling the timber, or farming the cleared land. Now international negotiators are beginning to work out how the world as a whole could compensate them for setting aside the chainsaw. In practice, of course, the money would end up coming from rich countries.

The Independent

The passive aggression assumption here: technology does not require wastefulness. We can limit the waste and pollution generated by technology, but on a practical level, there will be CO2 emissions no matter what we do.

Curiously, while the first world can measure its CO2 emissions, the third world cannot, so we do not have figures for slash and burn agriculture, torching garbage, running primitive equipment without catalytic converters, etc. — even though the third world outnumbers the first world nine to one, and so if they produce one ninth the emissions, they’re on par for the problem.

The right distrusts global warming because all of the solutions end up being like this: penalize the first world, and thus give a giant free gift of money, power and technology to the third world, even though their greater numbers means they’ll be a climate wrecking ball unlike anything before. Never mind that the most atrocious uses of power in the first world involve the activities preferred by the working classes and lower middle classes, like fast food restaurants, big engines, cheap consumer products, disposable goods, and so on. The wealthy don’t screw around with those things. They appeal to those for whom “good deal” is like a light to a moth; they can’t think past the next two weeks, so always buy the cheaper gadget and then throw it out, even if the gadget that cost twice as much would have lasted ten times as long.

This is why the smartest people among us are turning to whole or organic ideologies that include knowledge of the inherent hierarchies among humanity. They’re allying some goofy ideas together in order to do it so that we get the concept of whole. Whole means every factor at once, not one factor — who has money and who doesn’t — at a time. That’s why, for example, many environmentalists are embracing alternative medicine:

Environmentalism is, or should be, a movement led by scientific findings. I see the role of environmentalists as being to explore and explain the implications of what the science – whether on climate change, habitat loss, biodiversity, fisheries, pollution or resource depletion — is saying, and how this should translate into public policy. We should try at all times to be rigorous. And we should kill our darlings – our enthusiasm for solar panels, for example, or our rigid opposition to nuclear power — if the facts demand it.

This doesn’t mean that we have to be motivated by the science. My environmentalism arises from both a deep love of the natural world and a strong sense of the injustices done to vulnerable people: it’s an emotional impulse, in other words.

The Guardian

He’s not listening to Prince Charles. The Prince of Wales is pointing out that modernism, or the assumption of linear rationalism, is the root of our problem.

If we’re going to get environmental, he thinks, in order for us to succeed we must fix our thinking first. So — alternative medicine — why? It embraces a simple concept: holism. Where modern medicine tries to find a symptom and hammer it, alternative medicine tries to put the whole system in balance.

And that’s Prince Charles’s message: put the system in balance, in harmony, as a whole. Do not just hammer a problem and ignore the consequences. Do not be blind to context, or to reasons for things like poverty versus wealth. Take in all factors at once and come up with a balance solution. Yes, it’s intellectually harder — but it’s a longer-term fix to the ongoing human problem of modernism as described by Huxley: overwhelmed with too much information, we pick an ethic of convenience that leads to a celebration of the trivial, including ourselves as individuals with no cause for said celebration.

Here is why:

“He sold his boat for me.” These are my six words. He sold his boat and it was a lifetime ago, ancient history now. And it was a little boat. But it was a big act of love that I didn’t recognize for a long, long time.

For the boat was just a boat in my eyes. But in my husband’s? He could tell you the horsepower and the color of the seats and how many people it held and how much he paid for it and how much he got for it – because it was his youth, his plumage, a speedboat that he hitched to the back of his shiny GTO. It turned heads. It made girls notice him. He was 19 and he liked that.

He was 24 and I was 23 and we had an 8-month-old whose bedroom had been our family room. I said, “We need more space.” And he said, “I’ll sell my boat.”

And that was that. He never moaned about giving up something he loved, and I never said, “Don’t” or “Are you sure?”

Everyone who is married or living together or just going together started off sweet-talking. What do you need? How can I help? I can do that. No problem! Flowers for no reason. Poems. Chicken soup when you’re sick. Ice cream just because. Phone calls that are more than traffic reports.

It’s all sunshine and roses. Until it isn’t.

That’s when it’s important to remember the beginning.

“He sold his boat for me.” This was my beginning.

The Boston Herald

That’s holism in action: realizing what is more important than immediate needs, transcending the individual and reaching for a greater future state, even if it is not recognized right away. Not demanding the money of others. Not farming out your selfishness as a socialized cost to the rest of society. Not calling folks ignorant for wanting to keep traditional values. Not living by selling people short-term illusions and pleasing symbols; instead, embracing reality good and bad alike, and as a painter with a canvas and paint, making a beautiful future of it.

Bring back the Aristocracy

Friday, November 28th, 2008

From the Prince of Wales:

Gandhi realised that humanity has a natural tendency to consume and that, if there are no limits on that tendency, we can become obsessed simply with satisfying our desires. The desire grows ever more potent as we consume ever more, even though we achieve very little of the satisfaction we desire.

{ snip }

I’m sure that many people know it is wrong to plunder the Earth’s treasures as recklessly as we do, but the comprehensive world view persuades us that such destruction is justified because of the freedom it brings us, not to say the profits. Our tendency to consume is legitimised by a world view that puts humanity at the centre of things, with an absolute right over Nature.

{ snip }

The movement responsible for the imbalance – it is often called “Modernism” – rose to dominance at the start of the 20th century.

{ snip }

“Modernists had a Utopian desire to create a better world. They believed in technology as the key means to achieve social improvement and in the machine as a symbol of that aspiration.”

{ snip }

Modernism fuelled a fundamental disconnection from Nature – from the organic order of things that Nature discloses; from the structure and cyclical process of Nature and from its laws that impose those natural limits which Gandhi was at such pains for us to recognise.

As a result, our perception of what we are and where we fit within the scheme of things is fractured. This is why I consider our problems today not just to be an environmental crisis, nor just a financial crisis. They all stem from this fundamental crisis in our perception. By positioning ourselves outside Nature, we have abstracted life altogether to the extent that our urbanised mentality is out of tune with the key principles underpinning the health of any economy and of all life on Earth. And those principles make up what is known as “Harmony”.

{ snip }

In cutting ourselves off from Nature we cut ourselves off from what we are; from our inner selves.

{ snip }

All I am saying is that we simply cannot contend with the global environmental crises we face by relying on clever technological “fixes” on their own.

The Times

I agree with this article entirely, except that blaming Modernism is too shortsighted. It’s convenient, however, and the Left will like it.

But I think the disease runs deeper than that, and goes back to the revolutions we had in 1789 or so: the idea that the individual is superior to the order around them, and that we should re-order the world around human individuals, not ideas.

As Aldous Huxley pointed out, that’s a one-way path to the pursuit of convenience and ignorance of anything more complicated. Materialism comes from individualism.

While historically this problem may have exploded in the 1700s, Plato tells us that it happens to every civilization. They have a birth-death cycle: when new, they are run by strong leaders, then by the military elites, then by oligarchs, then by democracy and finally, anarchy leading into tyranny.

We either fight the attitude that the individual is King — which brings with it materialism, Modernism, disconnection from Nature — or we fall prey to that which has brought down innumerable civilizations before us.


Wednesday, April 6th, 2005


There can be nothing more frustrating than trying to explain something to someone who cannot perceive it. It is not that they will not; if they had that kind of decision on their hands, they could understand. Not did not; they simply lack the ability to, now or forevermore, process the kind of detail required. This type of thinking is not detail-obsessed, but it require that one build a mental picture of the future based on many tiny details, because, and I hope this isn’t a news flash, life rarely spells out its plans in big bold letters on the wall in front of you. All myths to the contrary, life is plenty happy to let you wander right up to disaster and linger by it for awhile until, figuring the coast is clear, you take one too many steps and BOOM, it comes crashing down on your ass.

When I tell people that modern society has a great and pervasive disease, the common response is either (a) I don’t see it or (b) well, I’m doing okay, so why would I worry? The former is at least honest; the paradoxical bitterness of relativity is that it doesn’t excuse one for not seeing the truth, but admits that most people literally have limitations as to how much complexity they can handle, and thus what they can perceive. An idiot sees a house on fire; a genius sees a fire extinguisher in one corner. The second group of people need more analysis, as they claim to have knowledge of impending doom, yet paradoxically, claim it does not affect them. A genius sees a house on fire and gets the fire extinguisher; an idiot simply closes the door to his room – out of sight, out of mind.

So here we are in the world where no one can perceive how deeply screwed things may be. There are thousands of details that must be correlated to see the whole picture. Most people can’t drive a car through an intersection in a timely manner, or figure out routine transactions. They are distracted by their own drama, and thus they screw everything up and take forever, then get weepy if confronted. The streets are lined with giant, ugly buildings in which impersonal agencies dole out rigid policies and god help you if you’re an exception. Government takes in money and sends out fines and prison sentences for gross violations. Those who are smart avoid the law while ripping people off, legally, and thus have the best of both worlds.

Few notice, but we’re steadily consuming more nonrenewable resources. There will be no more gasoline; there’s a finite amount. Most people cannot even comprehend that sentence to understand its implications. There is no more land that is going to be created; there is only so much land, and we use more of it each year. Everywhere one looks, the signs are there, if one knows what to look at. Jobs are hilarious shuffling of papers and conning of fellow humans into believing one illusion over the other and, thus approved, transferring one sum of money into another. People live for empty, pointless lives. The highpoint of their day is often television, or consumption of products. Interpersonal relations consist of attacking others and trying to drag them down to make yourself feel better. What kind of life is this?

One thing that astounds any sane observer is how people are isolated mentally in modern society. For example, today I saw some guy in a wheelchair selling candy at an intersection. He’d pull up right beside cars and sell you M&Ms for a couple bucks, a 100% markup for the size, and made his living that way. What was worse was that people would stop and buy candy, holding up everyone behind them in line – while they had a green light. It must be amazingly peaceful to be aware of nothing but yourself. And this same critique undoubtedly applies to people who cut down ancient forests to make clones of apartments that exist in ten thousand other locations, or people who dump toxic waste in rivers or junk in empty lots, or people who write those clever cellular phone contracts that ensure that no matter what you do, it’s wrong but there’s an extra charge that will make it all right.

This is the face of modernity. There’s no way to tackle a specific issue in it, because the whole thing is wrong. Sure, we could make rules about stopping at intersections, but then you need a cop in every intersection to enforce that rule, or people learn they can get away with it, most of the time, thus they don’t change the behavior. Similarly, we’d have to assign an infallible cop to every single person out there to prevent littering, toxic waste dumping, or sodomizing rape. Even worse is that no matter how many rules we write, there are always new ways to do something that is technically legal yet completely devoid of moral consideration for society and nature as a whole. You can make sodomizing rape porn illegal, but someone else will find something legal that’s similar and will market it, and they’ll be cheered on by those around them because hey, everyone loves money.

Modernity is the cause of this. We often think that our time suffers because it has no unifying philosophy, but the situation is even worse: our unifying philosophy is one of making no decisions. Instead of having a government you trust, you have the “freedom” to escape actions by your government, since it is assumed that you and the government will never come to accord on a sane way to live. You wanted a sensible job? Too bad – it’s more important to have competition so that if your job sucks, you can devote the next month to finding a better one. Let the jobs that suck continue to exist, so long as we have the freedom to choose a lesser degree of suck. We’re so afraid of legislation that we resist any restrictions on development, so if people destroy your neighborhood by covering its forests with concrete, your can move to a less-destroyed neighborhood.

Inevitably, such systems spiral out of control, because of two principles: relativity, and time. Relativity is a problem in that you can find something that sucks less, so you pick that instead instead of fixing the problem. Time compounds that by introducing a succession of greater suckstates, and you keep picking the lesser suckstates, until at some point the less-sucks sucks as much as the original, and you still have no recourse to change it – you’re looking for something that sucks less, instead. Everything affected by this model is a vortex of decreasing standards that eventually culminates in either apocalypse or third-world-style anarchy. But remember, you need that “freedom,” because instead of fixing the problem and creating a sensible government, we want you to be able to defend yourself against all governments.

This is clearly diseased reasoning, if looked at from an architectural perspective, but since such things don’t pay, no one does. No one is willing to target the whole of modernity, for at least the simple reason that it makes change a seemingly large task. I think it makes it a simpler task, as when we’ve found out where we went wrong, we can systematically replace those beliefs with something healthier. But in a modern time, we’re used to external ways of change. Use money as a carrot, and the law as the stick; “educate” (brainwash) people, or make them sign off on decisions like bureaucrats. We understand force, and treating humans and nature alike like machines, but we don’t understand internal motivation, or how we could actually make people understand what they do and why. Reversing this attitude would alone undo modern society, and would give us a clear and relatively easy path of change.

William Faulkner treated this subject tangentially in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech way back in 1950:

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat…Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands…I decline to accept the end of man….I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet’s, the writer’s, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past.

The gestalt we find by combining the many details of society’s failing shows us that things are not well; things are diseased and destructive. We are oblivious to them not because we ignore the details, but because we pay attention only to certain details, and we do this because modernity more than being a “thing” is a state of mind. We look at the external forces we can impose, the qualitative measurements we can use, or the ways we can manipulate each other and thus feel clever about ourselves. These are passive ways of looking at the world, and as they don’t encompass all of it, they constitute only a certain segment of its detail, and leave us oblivious to the larger picture.

It’s time we stop shying away from declaring war on the modern world. The effete greens demand we recycle more, and stop drilling in national wildlife refuges, but that won’t stop this tide. The neo-Nazis tell us to kick out all other races, but that won’t fix the problem itself. Democrats wail on about social issues and wonder why no one takes them seriously except in boom times, and Republicans periodically give lip service to traditional values so that their weapons sales and oil profits can be unimpeded (Democrats seem to have no problems with these profits, either). None of these groups offers a comprehensive solution, because none of them will say the obvious: the system of thought known as modernity has failed, and over the last 400 years, has increasingly led us into a disaster from which it’s hard to extricate ourselves, because the illusion upon which that disastrous system is founded now controls our thought process, and thus has us asking the wrong questions and missing the obvious.

The war in the human soul is not being fought over specific issues, or political allegiances, but over the courage to take on this task; the courage to start seeing our society for the sham that it is. What happens when an individual picks up on this process is an avalanche of increasing disbeliefs. Suddenly, the saccharine feelgood messages of commercials and government announcements are seen as what they are: distractions from reality. Issues like abortion, Terri Schiavo’s right to live, and civil rights are seen for what they are: smokescreens to distract from the big picture. All of the drama of our personal and work lives, which fills our hours so thoroughly we’re always “too busy” to read Aristotle or Faulkner, is seen as the emptiness masquerading as meaning that it is, and we realize that the reason we pursue it so fanatically is the same reason a heroin addict chases the next fix in desperation: once the illusion is gone, we need more, or we have to face the naked reality of our lives.

Running from fear never got us anywhere as a species, or as individuals. If we face this fear, and conquer it, we can start attacking the real enemy, which isn’t Republicans or Negroes or Corporations, but our own lack of a meaningful philosophy. We can throw out the empty philosophy of modernity and instead achieve something greater. This would end our isolated personal worlds in which we alone matter, but those haven’t brought us joy – have they. They’ve clearly brought us greater environmental destruction, more tedious jobs, and more interpersonal politics of a revengeful and snipish nature. So what we’re losing, that reality which is comfortable because it’s familiar, isn’t anything to be mourned. With modernity falls the illusion, and to fill that space, we need to return to a life based on meaning. Step up to that challenge and declare war on modernity today.

Spiritually Healthy Attitudes Toward Dissidence

Monday, January 31st, 2005

If you are of reasonable intelligence, you can plan ahead, and in fact favor thinking toward the long term for any big decisions. For this reason, you recognize that our society is slowly heading toward self destruction as it consumes irreplaceable resources and ecosystems while expanding at no particular level of merit; the piles of waste, and shattered cultures, that it leaves behind are a result of this obliviousness to long-term thinking. Of course, that leaves you in a pickle: you’re the long-term thinker who realizes this is a suicide march, and you would like to do something about it. “But what? Right now!” shrieks the voice of neurotic panic in your head.

Some will immediately screech at you to begin flyering every available surface, or to stand in some kind of silly rally out in the rain, but really, these activities only make the participants feel good and are generally ignored by everyone else. Others will talk about the necessity of immediate violence, or of making inflamed and bigoted speeches, or of finding some way to get onto the news for your twenty seconds before they switch to a story about multicultural hemorrhoids. To my mind, it seems as if these are spiritually unhealthy means of being a dissident; mainly, they focus on making you feel better, but by applying a palliative like a drug, they momentarily suspend reality with illusion and then return you back to it with twice the force.

The main problem afflicting us now is that no one agrees on how to proceed past the current quagmire of monetary values dominating all else, and a moral passivity having settled over our people. Thus, to my mind, the first task is to become clear in your mind on what you desire; simply saying “I want this to burn” or “I don’t want this population living among us” is not enough, as that is not a direction but a complaint. What makes more sense is to understand, on whatever level you philosophize, what sort of thing you would desire. In other words, for everything that sucks, there are untold numbers of possible ways around it. This isn’t to bleat “Invent something new!” like the most hopeless of the disenchanted, but to suggest that if you want change in the world, make it in yourself first.

To look at the situation analytically, not much has changed since the birth of humanity. We are on this planet as one species of many, and our goal is to find a life for ourselves in balance with our environment that delivers some kind of meaning, as we alone among the species, apparently, have the ability for long-term reasoning and thus can envision our own deaths and thus demand something of “meaning” from life: something so significant it balances out the prospect of not being for all time after our deaths. It’s not enough to think of death as being in a lightless room; one is not even present to observe the lightless room. One is simply, like unicorns or the tooth fairy, not there. A good nihilist understands as the basis of his or her philosophy that recognizing death is to recognize life, as anything not death is at least the ground of life. Defining those slippery terms “meaning” and “significant” of course become difficult.

However, there is an easy way around this one. We are what we have experienced, both through genetics and personally living through situations, so we apply our minds to these memories and find we like some more than others. What made those important? — especially in the context of eternal nothingness. When one looks at life from the prospect of eternity, the movies we watch, the fancy cars we drive, the homes we own and the video games we play are second to the moments of significance, or moments that made us feel most alive. For me, those moments include time among friends and family, great epiphanies of learning, hours spent wandering in the forest and any activity in which I have made something better for those around me.

To recognize nothingness is to realize that nothing endures permanently, and there are no absolutes to cling to, thus what matters is entirely “subjective,” but paradoxically, this subjective is objectively defined: because our world is consistent, the same values apply to all who are in human form, whether or not they recognize them. Some will wittily say that since value is subjective, they believe that playing video games or shooting heroin is the most important (to them), and therefore that is an absolute right. This is poor thinking, if we look at life’s consistency, in that we see that it rewards the same general types of activity: building a home and having family and friends and a culture of learning around you will always be rewarding, where shooting heroin will always lead to evasion of reality. Life is real, and when we mature enough to get over the subjective/objective split, we see that while we define our own meaning, that definition is entirely shaped by our environment. Thus we dispatch with the triviality of personal preference as “subjective meaning.”

Our world rewards abstract achievement in the same way it rewards physical achievement. If you are alone in the forest, you must find food and shelter, maybe warmth, and do it before night overtakes you and ice forms on your limbs, dragging you into the heroin-like warmth of hypothermia. Similarly, in your mind you must find sustenance and peace, maybe even joy, before boredom and depression carry you off to the land of catatonia or suicide. This is what we mean by spiritually healthy, and having recognized the fallacy of “subjective meaning” for what it is, we can see that spiritual health is a universal thing among all living beings of a human intelligence level. Not all individuals will see it, but many of these people will either be incapable or so destroyed they cannot, and thus, why trouble them with it? Death is all that remains for them, even if in the living form of an existence so boring and eventless that television is, like, a really cool thing.

Of course, weakness is among us; when the last ice age ended and the people who had been brave enough to endure the ice left their caves and came south, our modern political time began, and immediately the decay set in. Among those who were then, there were some who were so afraid that they would be judged inferior that they set upon us a morality of utilitarianism, by which the individual as abstract concept was so rigorously protected that society as a whole was paralyzed, since to make any choice meant leaving some individuals behind, to rigid death in living form. There was so much fear of personal ability in some that they demanded society sacrifice itself for their needs, much as a drowning man will in panic drag down his rescuers, and over time, since such behavior was encouraged, more people came about who followed such a pattern. This utilitarianism is the root of all modern error, including democracy, equality, free enterprise and the idea that it’s OK to cut down an ancient forest if the mall that replaces it brings someone profit. This is the triumph of the weak.

Those who have these beliefs are weak not in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense: they are of such low-self esteem, and thus afraid they can do nothing to balance death, that they would drag all of us down to a lowest common denominator rather than risk one of them being seen as less-capable, less-desirable, and therefore less externally important than others. This occurs because if one is inwardly lacking confidence, external affirmation is all one has; this kind of weakness causes them to insist on the individual as beyond criticism, because that way whatever they fear in themselves will not bring them censure, and thus to condemn us all to being part of a mob: a group of granular individuals committed to not doing anything to upset each other, thus incapable of selecting a goal. In short, the mob forces us to serve the aberrant. This is the situation a modern dissident encounters.

It is tempting to pick an issue and to begin fighting for that, hoping to stave off the doom. Unfortunately, doom has many heads and one body, thus to slay a head may delay the onset of collapse, but it cannot stop it; the only thing that can stop the destruction is to find something to replace it that is not destructive. For this reason, jumping onto extreme right or left bandwagons, or running into the arms of religion or some universal good like “I believe in love,” is destined to failure. You cannot stop the downfall of a civilization by banning corporations, or by writing more equality legislation, or by murdering all of an ethnic group, or by legalizing marijuana. You have to fix the design of the outlook and worldview of the civilization so that you replace the root of its behavior with something more positive.

In my view, the first step to this is cultivating a spiritual peace in oneself, but there is a pitfall here, which will be explained in a minute. Spiritual peace gives you the state of mind to make real structural change to your world. If you are hysterical, or depressed, or out-of-control angry, you will not accomplish change, although you may accomplish revolutionary acts. Look at the nature of revolutions: they transfer power from an existing structure to that which claims to be its antithesis, but they use the same mechanisms of control and organization as the past system, thus while they may delay the collapse, they don’t prevent it. In the meantime, fighting for control results in the deaths of many of the best people in the society. For this reason, it seems to me that revolutions are just highly-organized temper tantrums. They do not accomplish structural change.

Spiritual peace allows you to organize your own mind (and perhaps, soul) so that you know exactly what values you must have, and you can apply these with patience and diligence. Instead of running up to a head of the beast and slapping it, you are instead working on the ground beneath the body, gradually changing it so that it rewards something different, thus making the body of the beast obsolete. Spiritual peace means that you organize your own thoughts and emotions so they do not obstruct you, but also so that you may instead of focusing on your enemies, who are many, focus on the single and unique thing that you desire, which is your goal. Cultivate the ground of your goal and you make your enemies, who by being defined as anyone who opposes your goal, are infinite in potential number, less relevant. They will go elsewhere, or perish in the forest — it doesn’t matter to you. What matters is the goal.

Spiritual peace will also help you avoid self-destructing. If you are raging about in anger or confusion or depression, most of your energy will be dissipated, and your enemies will laugh at your ineffectual tantrums. If instead, secure and self-confident in what you want and how to achieve it, you move methodically and joyfully, you take pride in your accomplishments and realize what you are doing is not the product of an alienation from the world, but a love for it. You are not destroying, but sculpting, taking away some here and adding some there, making a new shape out of reality that you would like to eventually predominate. When you have achieved this shape in yourself, it is second nature to apply it externally, and you do it without thinking — in everything that you do.

When I look at the youth of the Indo-European tribe at this time, I see either people who are glum and pragmatic, having accepted that they’re beaten and thus turning to serve, and then an opposite extreme. This opposite extreme consists in those who recognize that fatality of our current direction, but because it upsets them, they are ineffective in opposing it and their enemies laugh at them. One might guess that there was laughter at Jim Morrison’s suicide, or Timothy McVeigh’s execution, or even the Unabomber going to jail. This laughter is cruel and full of revenge, and it comes from those who have already given in to the weakness and thus lack self-confidence, and fear change, even if change to something which has been eternally true in every “subjective” interpretation. Only success matters. When you have a goal, anything that is not the goal is an enemy, but you no longer see your enemies as controlling your life; they are like wrong paths taken through a forest, namely, they are ignored when you know the right path.

There is a pitfall to spiritual peace, and we see it in what is left of the great religions of Asia and in Christianity, both of which are broken interpretations of the original Vedic truth concocted in India many millennia ago. Spiritual peace does not mean passivity. Passivity is when you believe that life is beyond your control, and that vast forces manipulate it, and that you should not take action outside of yourself, because your only goal is cultivating spiritual peace. If that really is your only goal, I suggest heroin: it is a superior agent for that changeless, careless state. To my mind, the only reason to cultivate spiritual peace is to be able to act, because we are the only agents that will act in this world; the universe is beyond time and does not intervene to save us or destroy us, but if it does view us, would view us as a colony of ants — an interesting observation in the afternoon sun of a summer weekend.

This pitfall of passivity is common all around you. People who see nothing but the ego can be either vicious corporate barons replacing forests with shopping malls, or Buddhists meditating on their navels and unable to change the world except to protest the deaths of dissidents. This is error. We are here to change the world, and if we do it according to the principles of the world, good things will result; if not, we perish, and the universe goes on without shedding a tear for us. Spiritual peace means peace of mind, not being so “peaceful” you are afraid to force change upon the world, even if it offends others or costs them their livelihoods or lives. Do what is right for the whole. Only when you have inner spiritual peace will you have the confidence to do this.

Recommended Reading