Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘nihilism’

Interview With A Nihilist

Sunday, August 20th, 2017

Sometimes people wonder how it is possible to be a nihilist, conservative and transcendentalist in one. The answer is that one thought leads to another, starting with a quest to understand reality that makes one appreciate the qualitative dimension to all things. That in turn opens other doors.

This morning’s email brought a few short questions, and the answers are a quick insight into this mindset of naturalistic nihilism, so they are presented here. When man seeks to be above beast, he loses himself; when he encounters his inner beast, he can again see himself and context, and for the first time know what he is, and what is a truth beyond and above him.

What do you think about veganism?

To be honest, I do not think much about it. For most people, it is merely a social pose. As a former vegetarian, I understand some of the impulses behind it. What changed my mind was recognition that there is a natural order, and some animals are basically prey much as they are in the wild, and that with more traditional forms of farming, these animals have good lives and their species are perpetuated by humankind. In a broader sense, I think humans have taken up too much of the world, when we should at most have a third of it and leave the rest wild, but that requires fewer humans, which requires applying a quality filter to humans.

Are you determinist?

Yes, insofar as abilities go. You are born to be of a certain level of intelligence and moral character, and nothing will change that. More specifically, there is a natural hierarchy where everyone has a station based on those dual attributes — intelligence and moral character — and no one can rise above where they were born. Proles cannot be kings, and merchants cannot be geniuses. That can be complicated by caste-mixing, but offspring play a lottery as to which traits they inherit, and someone who is intelligent without moral character is a form of blight to both civilization and self. On top of that natural order, we have moral and realistic choices to make; we do not have “free will,” which implies unlimited choice, but like a computer we can process what is front of us based on what we know and the limitations of our circuits. Meaning: your grandmother’s 1995 laptop is not going to suddenly become an AI with godlike intelligence, but some computer out there might. For us to thrive, we need to find the best computers — geniuses — that we can and enlist them in planning and executing our future.

If nothing matters… why do you live?

It depends on the term “matters,” there. Obviously, reality is what it is, and in itself, that makes it important. Nothing “matters” in a universal sense, meaning that everyone can understand it, but there are things worth doing and fighting for, so those are important as far as I am able to discern. You may be looking for fatalists, who argue that no matter what choice we make, we are either doomed or it is all pointless anyway. A nihilist simply recognizes a lack of inherent meaning or universal truth. A nihilist also defaults to a natural view, which is that life may not have an innate truth or universal value to it, but it is something that exists for a purpose of its own, best approximated by what Schopenhauer calls the “Will.” With that in mind, we can see ourselves as what we are: animals attempting to survive, as part of the scheme of the universe to expand and become more complex, and through it derive perhaps not truths, but wisdom.

Nihilism As A Management Theory For Human Organizations

Tuesday, July 11th, 2017

Over the last few decades, the gradual build-up of an insecure and even chaotic environment suggests that the world does not operate as humans think it does. Our predictions are incorrect, and so instability results we keep plodding forward based on illusions instead of a realistic understanding of the underlying structure of our world.

Welcome to the frontier of nihilism. Humans have their fantasies about how the world works, and if not restrained, these become accepted as truth which leads us into collision with the actual workings of nature. These workings are not so much material as informational or mathematical, such as the hidden patterns of standard distributions or golden ratios, but our human mindset is to ignore them and focus on what people want, how they prefer to behave, and the types of mental conveniences that they will support in political, consumer and social popularity spheres.

This is compounded by the fact that we cannot trust ourselves, at least as far as anyone who is publicly accountable goes. Lacan pointed out that any sponsored research creates ascriptive output because no sponsor wants to admit chaos, since this could be seen as self-incriminating in a lawsuit. In addition, there is no money or power to be found in telling people complex truths; they prefer pleasantly simple lies that confirm their own biases.

These dual factors lead to the behavior for which corporations are famous, namely “socializing risks while privatizing profits,” which means that they avoid engaging where society is delusional, and simply take advantage of the disaster and leave a mess behind while extracting profit. Then again, what else are they supposed to do? Human history provides a long list of grave sites of those who challenged the wisdom of crowds.

Nihilist states that there is no universality. Reality is seen to different degrees by different people, and natural ability and character determines how far — to what degree of accuracy — each person sees. Much like the Right represents order into which the individual fits, while the Left represents an order comprised solely of the individual, into which reality fits, the human struggle to avoid chaos is a balancing act between nihilism and humanism.

Looking further into chaos, it becomes clear that its impact is felt by ordinary people but that it originates mostly from organizations such as governments or businesses. Right now we are in the midst of a populist cultural wave against globalist governments, but no similar movement has emerged against business, which is the actual driver of the globalist agenda.

Ordinary people would welcome a counter-reaction to the domination of business over their lives. Marx anticipated this, but his solution was incorrect: the same mob rule that propels democracy also propels business, and the “populist” wave is in fact driven by the middle class, who know enough to see that globalism and rule by finance are bad for the future of our people.

Since business is a natural part of human life, the question becomes not pushing back against business per se, but against bad practices in business, which leads us to nihilism. Business risks do not address fake information; in fact, they ignore it.

However, for us to escape the pattern of human entropy, we must separate real information from the fake, which requires denying what humans believe to be true and instead focusing on radical realism and consequentialism, which look at results in reality instead of emotions, rights, feelings, judgments, desires and other human motivations.

Results are a better way to assess our actions than what is popular, and what is popular reflects motivations, not logical choices based on results. We can see this through several examples:

  1. Education. Students go to college in part for the experience of activism. When they arrive, they find that major issues are ignored in favor of those that are instantly polarizing, like the recent crusade for transgender bathrooms. This occurs because despite wanting to be politically active, the only risks that most students are aware of are STDs and student debt. The people who are charged with activism — the students — lack the experience to know what to be active about.
  2. Design. Aircraft designers undertake extensive risk-assessment activities to ensure safe passenger flight. But there are things they cannot address such as “fake data” including hoax bomb threats. These risks are typically categorized under the heading “operational risks” and ignored by designers with the assumption that each airline will figure out its own solutions. This endangers airline design itself, because if these operational risks are not managed, it could result in decreased demand and thus industry collapse, at which point no one would need airplane design.
  3. Industry. A Canadian CEO takes a job in South Africa where there is political pressure to increase the percentage of ethnic African people in senior management. He order this increase, relying on the notion that the Quality Manager will cover the risk of under-performing employees in general, and therefore will do so with affirmative action employees as well. However, since the goal is to get more black faces into the high offices, the CEO does not performance manage his black appointees. The result is that there is blind risk with these new employees, and since no one is overseeing it, losses pile up before anyone notices. The company goes bankrupt, and all employees including black ones find their jobs at risk.

In each of these cases, a “fake risk” is addressed while actual risks go unnoticed as part of the process of externalizing risk to others (non-students affected by student activism, airlines, and the employees of a firm) and internalizing profits. Donald Trump provides a classic example of a manager who quickly separates fake risk from operational risk and focuses on the latter while his competition waste time with the former.

That however flies in the face of politics itself, which demands a dual-risk assessment that looks at both operational risks and political risks, sometimes referred to as “optics.” In South Africa, this has resulted in a redundant management structure where South African corporations typically have two CEOs, one managing risk upward (operational) and the other downward (political).

Dual management however introduces neurosis and an inability to act where operational and political risk are not in unison. The task before any organization which wishes to survive is to solve the unintended problem of unrealism versus realism — or to separate the “fake news” from the real news — as a means of separating real risks from fake risks, and managing both with a priority on the real.

The emphasis on real risks as a priority above fake risks could be described as the nihilist mindset, and it has its own school of management theory in which nihilism is the first step in any process. The manager separates real from fake, then acts on the real and later attends to the fake, instead of making himself neurotic by trying to balance the two, which results in the fake taking precedence over the real because it can thwart the real if the two are not in unison.

Risk management is unique among management theories because it is not prescriptive; it does not tell you what to do, and instead only identifies risks. Nihilism suggests that “unpopular risks” be compartmentalized and addressed as risks to the organization itself, while “popular risks” — the “fake news” variety — should be considered as possibly raising or lowering the public value of the organization, but generally not threatening its destruction.

Managing risks is what Mother Nature expects us to do, failing of which, we will simply die off like the Egyptians, Athenians, Aztecs, Maya and Romans. There is no morality in Nature. Nature is the real news and the real risk, grounded in consequence and not human motivations, and when we fail to grasp its primacy, our organizations self-destruct and pass into history.

Nihilism As A Necessary Mindset For Human Organizations (And Human Survival)

Sunday, July 9th, 2017

In a chaotic world, we find that successful humans adopt a mindset to establish order. A mindset is not just a set of assumptions or a way of thinking, but an approach to life that emphasizes necessary strengths as the order for thinking.

Mindsets are effective. When you are thinking through the aid of mindset, it is easy to visualize goals and be effective. But then black swan events occur, or fragmentation of the power structure happens and everybody is thrown back into chaos.

Thinking the nihilistic way, a manager would divide his risk into two categories:

  1. Risks in the world as it is (reality)
  2. Risks in the world as we experience it (organization)

Organizations are a simulation where humans try to model order as it is found in nature, and especially its invisible portions like logic and human politics, in order to live a little longer and to reap a little more of our enormous potential.

But do we really have that potential, or is it just a figment of our imagination? After all, there is no real proof that humans won’t destroy themselves. In fact, they like doing it.

Clearly there is something wrong with the world as we experience it. In other words, there is something wrong with the basic mindset which requires the intervention of an advanced technique such as nihilism in order to solve a reality deficit in our thinking. In other words, we are not modeling order as it is found in nature, or not doing so accurately enough.

Nihilism tells us what we do not acknowledge, which is that the world as we experience it is fake. In other words, we can quite easily die from going to war based on ideological pretense, fake pretexts or just bad data -– like Iraq’s WMDs — in a situation where we are responding to the world as we experience it, including the organization, but have failed to ensure that those assumptions correspond to reality outside of the organization, human socialization and our own memories and conclusions about the issue from the past.

We might see all human failures as a type of “tunnel vision,” where an assumption is made from an initial read on the data, and we keep pursuing this idea and organizing all else we learn around it. We then deceive ourselves. If we assume that Iraq has WMDs, then any information we get will be interpreted from the perspective that those WMDs indeed exist.

And so when we see trucks moving objects to a remote facility, we assume that these are WMD parts and bomb it, not realizing that we just shattered archaeological treasures with a JDAM. If the enemy launches a missile, we assume it is a WMD attack and may respond in kind. Only when we update our thinking with new data, and change the paradigm through which we are processing all other data, can we start to see glimpses of reality again. Our big brains mislead us.

It has been reported that mankind’s greatest threat is his social organization, or the way humans in social groups pass along information and frequently manipulate each other by doing so. Despite experience over millennia, we still do not recognize this threat of fake data.

To counter this, nihilism suggests that managers should recognize the innate fake-ness of their organizations, and the “realness” of individuals. Instead of opting for control, where we set up a central command and have it micromanage others, we delegate goals and principles and let each person do what they can, promoting the best because their superior ability helps everyone keep their jobs.

We cannot write enough rules to keep institutions — a type of organization — from going bad. People are self-deceiving and self-destructive, and being clever little monkeys, excel in manipulating one another. Any organization will acquire people within it whose general agenda is to deceive so that they manipulate others into doing what benefits the manipulator at the expense of the organize.

This has become more visible since 2016 as we observe that the mainstream media is getting worse by the day. People lose their jobs and livelihood because of this; the President literally tells listeners that the media is fake. But in human organizations, like a civilization, people rely on organizational reality — such as by trusting the media — and this crowds external reality from their minds.

Perhaps one in twenty humans has the capability to be a manager, or one who keeps organizations organized and pointed toward a goal. If managers want to solve the riddle of organizational deception, they will adopt nihilism as a mindset because organizations are actually mankind’s greatest asset if managed correctly, but tend toward deception much as our world always cheats toward entropy.

But to be honest, the odds are against you.

Operation Mockingbird Reviews Nihilism

Sunday, June 4th, 2017

The cerebral dissident podcast Operation Mockingbird has featured Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity on the most recent show, following a great interview on the show. Host Joe Arrigo shows an uncommonly penetrating insight regarding the book, digs deep into its concepts, and brings out related ideas through a very balanced and philosophical review. Thank you, Joe, for reading so intently and appreciating what is being communicated by this fairly difficult subject matter.

Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism by James Theodore Stillwell III

Thursday, May 18th, 2017


Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism
by James Theodore Stillwell III
88 pages, Bookemon, $30

Nihilism attracts much confusion because it is an entirely different way of viewing the world. It is the direct opposite of the universalism of this time, which states that there are universal truths which can be discovered and spread to other human beings. Instead, nihilism advocates a hard realism in which aspects of reality are discovered, but not preserved or communicated.

James Theodore Stillwell III enters the fray with Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism, a short book which affirms a Nietzsche-Redbeard view of nihilism as the need for the individual to not be ruled by the herd, and find meaning where it is relevant to the individual. This “might is right” expression of nihilism conveys many benefits, but also might need further development.

The book affirms the basic idea of nihilism through a study of morality which it rightly views as conditional. That is, if someone wants to survive, they must eat; however, there is no universal commandment that all must want to survive. With that in mind, Stillwell dispenses with the idea of objective and subjective morality, and focuses instead on the morality of survival and self-expression.

Morality doesn’t state ‘If you want to achieve X you ought to do Y.’ Rather, it says ‘Thou shalt not commit murder!’ regardless of whether you are concerned about facing the death penalty or not! It is this kind of imperative the moral skeptic rejects because outside of the context of punishment and reward there can be no motivating force to propel one to act in a certain manner. After all, if I want to perform X and am immune to penalty why ought I not do X? Because it’s ‘wrong’? What does that mean? Hence the nihilist contends that only hypothetical imperatives are tenable. Every prescription not based upon a value premise (a goal) raises questions such as a ‘According to whom?’ and ‘Why not?’ because every imperative logically implies a subjective aim. Therefore the Categorical Imperative is nothing but moral mysticism dreamed up by moralizing sophists! (32)

His vision is to restate morality not as a normative commandment, or that which tells people what they should do, but as an gesture of will: people are different, and some who wish to break from the herd find a morality in asserting their will upon reality and need no reason to do so. This instinctual morality fits within a naturalistic analysis, where humans are Darwinian creatures struggling for survival.

Onto that, Stillwell grafts a bit of Nietzsche — “Nietzsche defines a healthy society as not existing for its own sake, but for the sake of a higher type, that is the ‘value creators'” — and argues essentially that these cannot sensibly obey herd morality and must do what they must, in full barbarian bloodlust, because like the natural selection in nature this produces higher proficiency and therefore, better results for humanity.

This combines with his individualist theme, and ultimately masters it, somewhat to the surprise of the writer. Stillwell correctly intuits that higher men cannot live by the rules of the herd, but then posits that they should live for their own instincts, when really his writing verges on the idea of instead having them act toward the value creation process, i.e. a transcendental outlook that values supremacy, proficiency, excellence and creativity above the usual rote labor-by-the-pound of the herd.

The slavish herd animal lives a pessimistic and fearful existence. He is timid and uncertain of himself. This type of man lacks courage, he attempts to make virtues out of his weakness and cowardice and ‘to make the best of a bad situation.’ He elevates those virtues which serve to alleviate his suffering. He honors virtues such as pity, empathy, compassion, patience, humility, and equality, for to him these are the most useful qualities. Slave morality is essentially that of utility. Such ones tend to demonize and resent the powerful, the virile, the egoistic, and self-assertive. Such lowly specimens are often pessimistic concerning the human condition, and some even find themselves gazing into the abyss of anti natalism. (73)

In this, Stillwell also reveals a flaw in Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, philosophy resolved into a type of artistic idealism whereby the individual struggled for beauty in a fusion of the Romantic and ancient ideals. The nihilistic perspective on this, however, is twofold: first, it is esoteric and most people cannot visualize it, so teaching them individualism works against it, as individualism re-invents the values of the herd. Second, it is a goal higher than the individual which requires subsuming the individual to its direction. A nihilist must be nihilistic about all things, including the self.

Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism does an expert job of introducing all these ideas efficiently and compactly within a small package, and opens more questions than it offers answers. Mainly it demystifies and debunks most modern illusions and introduces readers to a world where reality is only known by some humans in varying degrees, and there is no “us” or universal right way of doing things.

Stillwell writes in an open style, merging contemporary idiom with philosophical language, that allows the book to introduce a dense concept and then breathe as it explores its depth at a more leisurely pace. Citing extensively from philosophers including Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism provides a doorway from kiddie nihilism of the anarchistic revolutionary type into the full moral ambiguity of the real deal.

The Roper Report Links Balkanization And Nihilism

Wednesday, May 17th, 2017

Billy Roper (interview) stands out among nationalists because he has been active in promoting sensible ideas for a long time, and during that time, has developed and refined his philosophy to combine history and politics into a vision of the inevitable future and how we can redirect the failing of Western civilization into its rebirth.

In other words, he accepts all of the dark and bad, and instead of becoming depressive and self-destructive, points to the opportunity that this gives us: when a rotted order falls, we can create in its place a healthier Western Civilization than can exist at all under the current form of society that we have chosen over the years of decay.

On the most recent edition of The Roper Report, Mr. Roper talks about “the black pill,” or nihilism, and how it is useful for us to accept the enormity of our situation and the corresponding intensity of what we are called on to do. This is “do or die” territory, and most people are looking for a reason to choose a “good enough” placebo solution instead of the good solution that is actually required.

From there, Mr. Roper and his guest Cantankerous Ordo — a well-spoken fellow with depth of insight — investigate the Alt Right and how it navigates between virtue signaling and purity spiraling in an attempt to enforce internal integrity and prevent “frenemy entryism,” which is what I call the situation when people who want to take part end up accidentally bringing their Leftist ideas or broken behaviors into the wider cultural wave, corrupting it and eventually inverting it.

The whole thing is worth listening to, complete with a mixture of music and commentary. It includes a discussion of how the fragmentation of the West guarantees that Balkanization, or the break-up of nation states into individual ethnic and cultural groups, will end the travesty that is the fallen West.

For those who enjoy what they hear, the book by Mr. Roper entitled The Big Picture provides more essential thinking material. Thank you to Messrs. Roper and Ordo for discussing the Black Pill and presenting such an interesting podcast!

A Monist Interpretation Of Ultimate Reality

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

Among philosophers, there are some who extend the Kantian idea of intuition as the root of all knowledge to suggest that instead of pursuing purely analytical thought, which tends to be derived from the visible, we must pursue an ultimate reality in which the world is comprised of ideas, and the most compatible ideas shape our future.

There is no denying that the world appears to objectively exist, and for all intents and purposes, it does objectively exist, yet it is easy to see that it is nothing more than an apparition. It is similar to the way the sun appears to rise and set each day. We might directly experience the rising and setting of the sun with our own eyes, so to speak, yet the whole thing is an illusion produced by the rotating earth. It is an experience which is constructed out of our perspective as beings situated on the earth. In the same way, our experience of the world as an objective entity is a mirage generated out of a particular perspective, one that is centred around a belief in the self and reinforced by habit of thought. The objectivity of the world appears real on the surface, but it disappears the moment you begin to approach it.

This struggles with the same question that Schopenhauer introduces, which is that if life is comprised of cause and effect, the cause of materiality will be more complex than materiality itself, indicating the presence of additional dimensions to our world, or that our world is the result of long chains of causes that begin in an entirely different medium. This is German Idealism, also called “transcendental idealism”:

Kant’s idealism is, perhaps, the most moderate form of idealism associated with German idealism. Kant holds that the objects of human cognition are transcendentally ideal and empirically real. They are transcendentally ideal, because the conditions of the cognition human beings have of objects are to be found in the cognitive faculties of human beings. This does not mean the existence of those objects is mind-dependent, because Kant thinks we can only know objects to the extent that they are objects for us and, thus, as they appear to us. Idealism with respect to appearances does not entail the mind-dependence of objects, because it does not commit itself to any claims about the nature of things in themselves. Kant denies that we have any knowledge of things in themselves, because we do not have the capacity to make judgments about the nature of things in themselves based on our knowledge of things as they appear.

Schopenhauer elaborated on this by making it clear that there was no knowledge of things in themselves, but that in fact the perceiver creates the perceived object from external reality plus a perceptual filter, which shows us that the entirety of reality as we know it is relative to the individual, which is to say relative among individuals, with some perceiving more than others:

Schopenhauer holds that “no truth is more certain, no truth is more independent of all others and no truth is less in need of proof than this one: that everything there is for cognition (i.e., the whole world) is only an object in relation to a subject, an intuition of a beholder ” (WWR, §1, pp. 23–4). This simple and perhaps inescapable thought may be regarded as the most fundamental motivation for any form of epistemological idealism.

These ideas, at first, are shocking because they navigate between two human illusions: (1) the external world is evident and universal and everyone can perceive it and (2) people live in their own worlds, determined by their intent and desires. Neither are true, but both are partially true. People interpret an objective world as best they can, and end up with a version of it filtered through their own perception and, most importantly, ability to accept what they are seeing. People in denial see less of the world than others.

At a basic level, this idea suggests that the universe is relative, which means that any object is known through its relationship to other objects and not to some universal center. We know light through darkness, not through some middle level of partial light, and we know cold through hot, death through life, truth through untruth, and many other variations of this idea.

Bruce Charlton argues for a variety of this theory:

In the beginning Men were merely primordial selves immersed in the ocean of universal consciousness; and the history of everything has included the progressive and incremental separation of these selves from the universal primary reality.

We began as immersed in universal reality – joined with everything, and everything joined with us – with permeable selves… We end with a Self that is aware of its own separation from things, from other people, from memories – and even from its own thoughts…

This separation of the self can [be imagined through] a biological analogy; as development. A baby lives at first in the ocean of amniotic fluid, inside the mother; and only gradually, incrementally, does the baby’s self become separate from the mother’s self – first by birth, then by development and increasing independence… but only in adolescence does the child at some point become existentially separate – an agent.

The concept of ultimate reality — called “universal reality” in the quotation above — is that our material world is the effect, and not cause, of the world as it actually is. This makes sense to some degree, but could benefit from an upgrade to monism.

Monism is the notion that there is no division between physics and metaphysics; the two play by the same rules, which we might refer to as “information science” because reality behaves like ideas, according to logical principles, more than arising from the properties of material itself.

This can have an agnostic version, which is that this function can exist independent of a god or enduring metaphysical reality, but appreciating the wisdom of the design of existence leads to a recognition that the world exists like a calculator, refining itself toward some ongoing state of higher complexity or qualitative improvement.

If the world acts like a calculator or mathematical equation, it possesses some form of consciousness or tendency. Much like natural selection, this tendency engages in purposive calculations much as natural selection does, resulting in a greater degree of efficiency or function.

This implies a basic consciousness, like that in a computer that is aware of itself without having a centralized and self-aware ego. Life merely does what it does, but in doing so, it creates a product that is like thought itself. It forever refines what it has into something more advanced, and in doing so, comes to know itself.

For humans, this provides the basis of understanding the world beyond the material but without venturing into dualistic theories where an external controlling force is assumed. Instead, the world itself is its own force, without a need to articulate itself. This shows us where we fit into this order.

In such an order, whatever advances complexity and organization rises above the rest, even if through the most primitive methods possible. This occurs because this order is a self-refining system, which means that it aims toward qualitative improvement constantly, instead of simply expanding outward into every possibility, which would be quantitative expansion.

Naturally, such an order points upward toward some centralizing force or at least, the highest apex of qualitative order. This implies that something God-like exists within the world. If the world is idea, then there is some ultimate direction or purpose to the calculating state of those ideas. If there is a purpose, there is a source of direction or fulfillment of goal in an apex.

This view shows us the universe as a giant calculator or computer. It churns through endless calculations, finding better answers all the time, and then integrates those in order to discover what principles it may. Those are regulated by some sense of logic or

If something acts like a calculator, meaning that it transacts computations, it has some kind of consciousness. Our universe clearly engages in purposive calculations like natural selection, gradualism and organicism. This reveals its basic level of consciousness.

Our universe clearly engages in purposive calculations like natural selection, and this means that it has some basic form of consciousness. It aims to improve itself not in quantity, but in quality, which is metaphorically equivalent to getting a more exact answer.

With that in mind, we see that it does not have fixed “purpose,” but rather a mechanism by which it gradually advances the more-complex over the less-complex. This is nihilistic: it does not judge by whether the outcome is good, only goes through the calculations without emotion.

At this point, we see the universe as nihilistic or without judgment of our human desires. It is merely functional, entirely logical, and separate from any particular form or direction.

This inhuman nature provides stability. It means that the universe reaches its conclusions without considering the emotional affect of them, and so can act independently from any central control least of all that by a thinking, judging perspective.

From this, we can see the emptiness of the universe. It does not assess good or bad; it merely functions. We are alone, actors within a complex schema, trying to find what produces the best results — “good” — among infinite options for lesser success, a.k.a. “bad.”

Dualism posits that there is a perfect order in another world, and that we emulate it in this world as a means of being “good.” Monism recognizes only cold, hard logic, and sees no human role in it except as deluded monkeys with car keys attempting to rationalize their fate.

However, the positive factor of monism is that it suggests that the universe is consistent. There is no judgment at all, or personality involved, only the mechanistic actions of cause and effect. This liberates us from the superstition of trying to guess what a personality in control of us intends, and shows us life as a logical construct, independent of our emotions.

That mentality leads to transcendentalism. We see the world as a perfect order, working blindly and independently, and so instead of trying to influence it with our emotions, we discipline ourselves according to its wisdom. In doing so, we adapt to it, and improve our own thinking to be more realistic.

At the end of the day, this is all we have ever had: a consistent universe and our ability to understand it. If metaphysics is out there, it is consistent like the rest. Everything else is human projection and must be avoided, unless we — like so many others — want to delude ourselves and fall into oblivion.

Confronting Inequality

Tuesday, May 9th, 2017

Almost no one understands what “equality” means. To the man on the street, it signifies that he can do whatever he wants as long as he can pay for it. In politics, it means subsidizing those who are not thriving. In reality, it has a more significant meaning.

Our nervous minds seek ways to make the world feel safe. They do this by creating symbols that make the world seem simple and easily manipulated. The primal archetype of this is to treat the world as one single thing, with a personality that we can reason with, and which will reward us if we do what is sociable, pacifying that personality.

Every primitive superstition involves appeasing a blood-god, and this might be the most honest form of this widespread human pathology. In modern times, we use “equality” to render the rest of humanity into a single entity that we can control with language and symbol.

The pathology of equality treats other humans as a fungible commodity which can be commanded to do what is necessary. If humans are regulated solely by external forces like incentives and punishments, the individual ego can feel safe that it can manage other people, without having to get into the nitty-gritty of how they are different and what actually motivates them.

One might term this a “consumerist” view of the world because it treats other people like products, machines or objects on a factory assembly line. All of the troublesome detail of life is left out, replaced by the self versus a world of identical people who can be controlled.

If equality has a founding myth, it is the notion of universal human reason, an idea which comes to us from The Enlightenment.™ They are manipulated by their reason, because they rationally respond to incentives and punishments. This requires us to assume that all people think alike and understand exactly the same thing from our words and symbols.

Consider a typical misunderstanding of Fred Nietzsche:

Nietzsche has been blamed for a more silent disaster: the rise of relativism and the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth. Seldom now, especially in academia, do you now read the word ‘truth’ written without those doubting – and even contemptuous – inverted commas. One of the most resilient doctrines of our times is that all knowledge depends on who is saying it and for what motive. This relativism is invariably traced back to Nietzsche.

This is largely to do with French philosopher Michel Foucault’s rehabilitation of Nietzsche. Foucault’s writing on power and knowledge in the 1960s and 1970s, which has been widely disseminated in society ever since, drew upon quotes from Nietzsche that ‘truth’ stems from the desire for power and has no eternal objective foundation. In his landmark lectures, ‘Truth and Juridical Forms’, delivered in 1973, Foucault said of the myth of ‘pure truth’: ‘This great myth needs to be dispelled. It is this myth which Nietzsche began to demolish by showing… that behind all knowledge [savoir], behind all attainment of knowledge [connaissance], what is involved is a struggle for power. Political power is not absent from knowledge, it is woven together with it.’

As the author of a book on nihilism, it behooves me to offer a comparison to the definition of nihilism:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

For convenience, we separate this into three parts:

  1. All values are baseless
  2. Nothing can be known
  3. Nothing can be communicated

How do we reach relativism, or the idea that all truths are relative to the individual, from this? We filter it through equality. Equality demands that we affirm that what each individual sees as true is actually true, so instead of rejecting that, we say that they have truths which are true to them.

A more sensible version would be esotericism, which would say that truth is discovered in degrees according to natural ability and how much of the cumulative underlying truths one has discovered so far. In other words, reality is real, but people are discovering it like a detective uncovering a mystery, with some getting farther than others. But that is anti-egalitarian.

Back to the topic, what Nietzsche affirmed is the end of equality: all “truths” are symbolic manipulation expressed in self-interest, but those of the highest type of human tend toward being as accurate as possible because their intelligence allows them to see the value of accurate information.

This follows from his statement “there are no truths, only interpretations” and his comments in his initial work that defined the scope of what was to come, On Truth And Lies In A Non-Moral Sense (more accurately translated as “On Truth And Lies In A Sense Outside Of Morality”).

So, now we see the modern time as a struggle between relativism and esotericism. In one, everyone is equal and everything is true; in the other, truth is a question of degree that varies with the observer, much as it does with the quality of instrument such as microscopes, which come in varying degrees of magnification and lens acuity.

This means a number of things, including that we cannot have a society without caste, because if we want good results, we have to put those who are more sensitive instruments at the top of the hierarchy. We also cannot have democracy, because the “reason”-ing ability that people use to vote is actually a rationalization of whatever they think makes their lives seem perfect and reasonable, a measurement of appearance and not actuality.

Tom Wolfe described this mentality as the fiction-absolute:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world–so ordained by some almighty force–would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.

Through that lens, we see not reasoning man, but rationalizing man. If you want to know why society is inverted, or that its most fundamental terms seem to mean the opposite of what they should mean if used descriptively, it is that human thinking movies backward from conclusion to reason why. Cause and effect are reversed in order.

Lawrence Auster, one of the bright lights of modern conservatism, described one instance of this pathology as the unprincipled exception:

The unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that liberals use to escape the inconvenient, personally harmful, or suicidal consequences of their own liberalism without questioning liberalism itself.

Alternatively, the unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that conservatives use to slow the advance of liberalism or to challenge some aspect of liberalism without challenging liberalism itself.

Brainwashed by the notion of equality, conservatives see hypocrisy in it. But really, it is another self-interested animal rationalizing its choices by what makes it “feel” comfortable in the life it has chosen. This is a moral challenge; individuals are not just arguing for their own wealth, but that their choices were right by others, by logic, by any gods they believe in.

A Leftist (liberals are one variant of Leftist, or those who endorse egalitarianism, but it a matter of degree, much as Libertarians and Communists both agree on equality) will enact Leftist policies in order to gain wealth and power, but also to justify lifestyle choices made by the Leftists and previous Leftist policy, even if it has turned out poorly.

In turn, conservatives — who are those who accepted the new order, and by doing so were able to sit on the right side of the National Assembly in post-Revolutionary France — by the virtue of having accepted equality, cannot act in any way other than to affirm equality, which forces them to thwart the oncoming decay as much as they can but never attack its core.

Its core is the concept of equality.

With that in mind, we on the Alt Right must look toward the future: the decline of the West, as Plato tells us, began when people became more interested in wealth than in doing what is right by civilization alongside natural and divine order. The philosophy of prioritizing short-term self-interest over the need for logical planning for the future is known as individualism, and it afflicts high-IQ societies through rationalization, or the inverted and backward thinking caused by relativism.

Let us look at how this confusion afflicts even underground conservatives like the Alt Right:

The recent defeat of Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election has predictably triggered yet another tidal wave of haughty pronouncements by Alt Right adherents scornfully rejecting elections as a means of achieving our goals. “We’ll never vote our way out of this!” “Elections are a waste of time!” “Democracy doesn’t work!” The same chorus of noisy negativity broke out into mournful song the instant Trump began to cuck for the establishment last month.

This is a perennial phenomenon among the Alt Right, or I should say within the so-called white nationalist movement. We try to win through elections, we get our hopes up, we work our asses off, we get defeated – and we immediately begin wailing, gnashing our teeth and shaking our fists at the heavens as we swear off elections forever.

Let us first look at where this writer is correct: on the Right, we get our hopes up before elections, and then when the herd follows its usual mix of self-interest and “don’t rock the boat” complacency, we become enraged that we were betrayed again, as we have been by every election in varying degrees since those elections in Athens so long ago.

After that, he loses the train of thought.

His statement divides the questions of goal and method. As far as methods go, he is correct: when one lives in a democracy, it makes sense to do as much as possible with democratic methods. They involve little bloodshed, are relatively civilized, and can be influenced by a cultural wave such as the Alt Right.

However, in terms of goals, we must admit that the core of the Alt Right, which is a desire for Nietzschean traditionalism instead of a modern System that we think will swing our way, rejects egalitarianism. There is no human equality. All people and groups have different degrees of accuracy regarding the perception of reality, act in self-interest, and rationalize the result with abstract theory.

Our goal is to replace democracy with kings, an egalitarian social order with hierarchy, regulated markets with competition limited by culture, and diversity with nationalism. We are anti-egalitarian. If we try to escape that, we become mainstream conservatives and will invert our most sacred values through relativism.

Any deviation from this clear goal will guarantee our defeat. We must, as Bruce Charlton says, first become clear in our minds about what is logically true, and after that, make our way toward it, learning as we go.

How Nihilism Can Help Conservatism

Monday, April 24th, 2017

We live in a fantasy world of our own projection, formed of our desire to escape the needs of adaptation. Humans are self-deluding based on our need to feel that we are “in control” of the world we perceive, when in fact we are small parts of it subject to its whims.

The contrary impulse to this behavior, nihilism, starts by rejecting all human perceptions except those which can be traced to a source outside the human. In a world of cause and effect, nihilism sees causes as being mostly external to the human, and the human as merely reacting and rationalizing that response.

Nihilism negates the fundamental human idea which is that “the world is as I perceive it” and that this personal mentality can be shared with other people, especially using language and social cues. Instead, nihilism suggests that we are all alone, with our perceptions being unique to us.

This naturally terrifies people because it invalidates the feeling of “togetherness” or “we are all one” that is a type of pacifism, or a refusal to fight for clarity and quality of perception because it is more convenient to focus on a lowest common denominator in common.

Sometimes — frequently — we see conservatives who should know better getting confused on this point:

Parker spoke about “superior” British values and “regressive Islam”, as well as the “multiple incidents of grooming and rape-gangs, made up almost entirely of Muslim men, targeting women who are almost entirely non-Muslim and girls”.

As long as we remain trapped in this intellectual ghetto, we will never understand what we must do. The fact is that values reflect genetics, and Muslims — a code-word for North African and Middle Eastern people — act out the genetics that have survived in their societies for centuries.

We got into this multiculturalism illusion because we believed that cultures were universal, much as people were presumed to be “equal,” which meant that a Muslim was removed from an Englishman only by a tan and lack of education in English values, customs and wisdom.

Now these well-meaning UKIP speakers are compounding the issue by insisting on the same scale. They believe that if Muslims just quit acting like Muslims, and start acting like English people, somehow integration will occur and everything will turn out fine.

We must escape from this insanity and realize that equality is an illusion formed of human desires, pretense and mentally-convenient rationalizations. Nihilism debunks equality as well as every other human conceit. It can help conservatives in three crucial ways:

  1. Assimilation. Nitwit conservatives believe that we can integrate foreign populations. A nihilist realizes that this is impossible because these populations are too genetically distinct. Related Western European populations can mix and be somewhat stable, but the more distance between the groups, the less cohesion there is. The other thing about assimilation, sometimes called integration, is that it is genocide. The new mixed group replaces the old. Humans are afraid to think about this because they do not want to admit that genetics creates most of their behavior, because this minimizes their control. But genetics is all.
  2. Objectivity. There is no objective truth, nor any subjective truths. There is simply reality out there and we can each see it to varying degrees, with the best of us seeing the most as it actually is in reality. For this reason, there can be no laws which everyone understands the same way, nor anything as silly as democracy. Instead, we should always pick our best minds and let them decide. This also implies a hierarchy within humanity, both by individuals and by general bands known as “castes.”
  3. Goals. The individualistic human mind is full of fond notions of what society “should” do. It thinks of morality, pacifism and accommodating others. However, in reality the question for both individual and civilization is one of health. A healthy organism adapts to its environment, reproduces and lives well on an existential level, meaning that it has belief in the goodness of life because it understands how reality works as a higher order than its own desires. For humans, civilization is necessary for our mental and physical well-being. That offends us, to feel so dependent, but it also frees us from the illusion of being entirely self-directed and self-regulating.

The grim fact is that since our ideas are based in humanity and not reality, all of our thinking is backward. We think of what we wish were true, and that others want to believe as well which gives it the power to manipulate, and declare it true because it is popular. This tears apart every truth.

This includes what UKIP is tackling in the UK. Assimilation will never work, nor will diversity, because they are logically unsound as concepts and in application, reveal the consistency of that logic in pointing out their failure. They have always failed wherever tried for this reason.

Instead of trying to tell the world that our values are better, we should instead admit the obvious, which is that every group needs its own space and the ability to pursue its own goals, because those goals are never the same. Only social chaos comes from fragmented goals.

We can finally free ourselves of the nonsense under which we have been living where we must assume that every person is logical, reasonable, realistic, sensible and belongs anywhere they want to be. We vary by race, ethnic group, caste, family and individual. There is no equality. Nihilism crushes it.

Culture Over Commerce

Friday, February 17th, 2017


by D.A.R.G.

I. Some comments on NPR1

I was delighted to listen to the first episode of Nationalist Public Radio and to find a circle of notable individuals with different areas of expertise that are not just smart enough to excel in their areas of thought, but to know how to be flexible to try and understand each other. The conversation was smooth, the density of the content was high, the waypoints were made and advanced was both natural and rich.

There were a couple of points that appeared excellent prospects upon which to start a topic relevant to this point in time. That is, if we are going to take the reins of our evolution or if you are just going to allow Leftists to crash land this ship anywhere for the sake of their feelings; and if so, what is the most sensible and reasonable way of going about doing this.

There are four particular comments in this first episode that are of interest here. The first was the idea of tracing our steps back to when humanity took a wrong turn for the worse. I assume this means investigating and studying it, so we can know how to advance somewhere whence we can correct the situation. Reversing is not only practically impossible but seems like a most inefficient way.

The second was a briefly-discussed question regarding being on the right or bad side of history. This is a question of whether or not you care more about results or about your reputation with whatever kind of status quo reigns the future of humans. That is the only thing that decides whether you are on the right/good or wrong/bad side of history; usually, those who are losers at a given time are seen as being on the ‘wrong side’ of history sooner or later. The case is obvious for the three German Reichs; it is less obvious for Europe today (which is ‘defeated’ ideologically from inside as if by a cancer).

A third comment referred to the ability of those with a higher level of general intelligence to self-program, to enforce self-discipline and so change themselves. This is a great comment that should be remembered when discussing and taking policy. For it is through evaluation, will and action that we can become better; this is something to which we will come back in detail in this article.

Fourth comes something I am in strong disagreement with: the idea proposed during the radio show that those who amass wealth tend to be intelligent, conscientious and generally not physically violent. These three are patently false and could stem from someone who happens to come from a nice family that was able to amass a certain (or a considerable) amount of wealth.

In our kind of society, one does not need intelligence to become wealthy; one merely has to keep the goal of being rich in mind and work steadily towards it as a priority. This is why many people with a robot-like mentality, that sacrifice themselves six days a week and place the idea of wealth and affluence as the sole thing to fill their empty lives, become rich in under a decade, and rather wealthy in a few.

This, rather common, kind of wealthy people are rarely, if ever, conscientious about anything but what pertains their self-assurance in wealth. Many, are actually prone to violence, but are ‘smart’ enough to keep it in when it is convenient to do so, and then take it out in one way or another —including actual violence inflicted on less powerful individuals, with a variation on the kinkiness factor.

Shaping Our Evolution

As was mentioned by one of the speakers, natural selection does not really care about anything; it is incorrect to talk about good or bad in terms of it since it is only determined by who lives enough to reproduce itself. That means that evolution could go in any direction, irrespectively of what we as sentient beings with a certain ‘moral’ predilection think or want.

It could go full Idiocracy, that painfully illustrative movie; or it could also go full Iron Gates, that sadistically painful and illuminating pulp fiction novel by Martinet Press. It will definitely not stay the same or become as most innocent sheep in society want it just because they wish it were so.

If we did plan on taking a manner of control over this evolution, to make it a conscious change rather than one subject to all kinds of forces but our own, we would have to ask ourselves just what traits do we desire to see grow and develop in future humanity. Some may simply elect to justify themselves egotistically and claim that it is just natural to want to see your own genes spread. This latter is an animalistic mentality without what the ancients would consider noble. Do we, rather, want an all-around better species? If so, what is “better”?

Some of us would propose taking the image of perfection — as per classical antiquity — as emanating the ideas of a hypothetical Golden Age. This entails striving for a balance of body and mind, which is a goal that is not necessarily achieved by everyone but is recognized as the ideal. It involves an improvement of all abilities to the maximum, which shows and promotes character and endurance, themselves crucial in the upward scaling of the higher exponents of humanity. Apart from this is respect and conscientiousness for what is deemed to deserve respect on nihilist-realist grounds.

To these ends, a new culture must be developed and promoted. It must be decided if this is to be a matter of politics or of spirituality. The answer is probably the latter, since spirituality is always a part of the culture, while politics are usually specific decisions that arise from the time-specific needs of the people based on their culture. Apart but related to this is whether we just want to develop a culture that can nurture us towards a better future or if we want to improve genetic predisposition (this is where the question of some kind of eugenics comes into play). These are, of course, matters of concern for realists that can see the needs of a better, happier and more full humanity, rather than succumb to the pity for the tears of those too lazy to exert themselves beyond their present comfort.

To conclude, we may notice that this will entail a discussion of an ends versus means issue. In it we must recognize that there is no absolute freedom to be found anywhere; rather, there is only a choice in whether we submit to this or that idea or authority. You may decide you want to bow down to conformity and compromise the future for the sake a momentary commodity; or you may give your life purpose in the name and direction of excellence and high ideals.

In reality everything and anything must be achieved; nothing is awarded as a gift or title in exchange of sycophancy or money as it is in the illusion promoted by a decadent human society.

This propels us to the fundamental question of human society: do we do what needs doing for a transcendental goal, or do we respond to what most people reward, and assume this has a transcendental quotient based on an assumption of an attribute of “humanism” to its function?

For example, consider the problem of jobs:

Livingston directly confronts the issue of socially necessary work with what he calls socially beneficial work, a somewhat slippery concept The former faces the same forces of routinization, speed-up and, finally, elimination like many jobs, whereas the latter retains its desirability – as meaningful work – even though it is often valueless as a source of compensation.

The ultimate question for Livingston – “Why can’t we stop working?” Or, to rephrase it, why can’t socially beneficial work become dominant?

Livingston approaches this question by extending the discussion beyond jobs to define the larger issue here: what do we need to live full lives? He begins by referring to Freud’s statement that to be fully human we need love and work.

There are two models here:

  1. Traditional. We decide what is right according to the order of nature, transcendental values, and then apply material resources to achieve it, in a qualitative sense, meaning that we never fully achieve it but always get closer.
  2. Modern. We decide what is materially convenient and flattering to the individual, and then argue that it is a transcendental value or a substitute for it, called “ideology.”

Jobs should be a means to the end of the transcendental: we do what is necessary in the material to make our vision of what is excellent become real.

Instead, we have made ourselves instead slaves of what is convenient; commerce and popularity dominate culture, instead of the other way around. This is a path toward the destruction of ourselves as a civilization.

Again I say:

That is, if we are going to take the reins of our evolution or if you are just going to allow Leftists to crash land this ship anywhere for the sake of their feelings; and if so, what is the most sensible and reasonable way of going about doing this.

The first path leads away from this, but the second leads toward it. Knowing the difference is the choice between suicide and rising to new heights in evolution, morality, realistic adaptation and mental clarity.

Recommended Reading