Posts Tagged ‘parallelism’

Parallelism And Excluded Middles

Thursday, June 8th, 2017

As longtime readers may know, I began writing about philosophy in the early 1990s first on USENET and bulletin boards, and finally on a series of websites whose political and philosophical writings are updated on Amerika. This created a path through Western knowledge which led to some surprising conclusions.

This path began with an attack on universalism as a human construct, with a preference instead for the universal of reality itself, in which we can find a pattern order which is more accurate as a predictor than material analysis. This led to a study of patterns and the order in which they moved.

From this came a philosophy known as parallelism, or the notion that patterns exist in parallel between material, energy and information. This in turn caused a delving into Vedic and German Idealism, or the idea that reality behaves in a thought-like matter or is composed of something like thought.

Parallelism also suggests a handful of other applications: human efforts are best in a decentralized way, with different ideas and groups being tested independently to find the best results; that metaphysics and physics are parallel, or obey the same logical order and pattern language; that actual diversity requires separation and exclusion; that future, past and present are iterations of cycles, not distinct gestures arising from themselves.

To read more, you will have to search out my second book, when it hits print.

In the meantime, parallelism can be introduced through an analysis of an essay by Joseph Kerrick:

The logical system of what has become a global culture began with (or at least was first formalized by) Aristotle. He said:

A is A; A is not non-A.

That is, given any hypothetical object ‘A,’ our choices of observation about it are that it’s either ‘A’ or ‘not A.’

Sounds obvious, doesn’t it? A self-evident truth, just like the observation that the Earth is flat and the Sun travels around it.

The flaw in the argument is the concept of “either-or.” It makes the distinction between ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ totally absolute. In this axiom, which forms the foundation of Western logic, there is no room for the equally logical (if less plausible) assertions that the object is:

Both A and non-A
Neither A nor non-A.

And furthermore, there is not even space for a scale of gradation between ‘A’ and ‘non-A.’ If ‘non-A’ is ‘B,’ this may seem eminently plausible; but if it’s ‘C,’ then it becomes apparent that something is missing, and even more so if ‘non-A’ is ‘Z.’ Thus this axiom of Aristotle became known as “the law of the excluded middle.”

In this, we can see the essence of the parallelist attack on universalism: human universals do not reflect the order of nature, which is nuanced and overlapping.

Technically, we can solve for Aristotle by proposing a cascade of inheritance: category A thus becomes the smallest distinct category of objects, and there are other categories which are associated as hybrids or partial participants in A. This creates a “cascade,” or series of enclosing concepts from broadest to narrowest, with A being narrow.

Another way to tackle this is to look directly at his objections, and see where they are wrong. If an object is “both A and non-A,” the category is malformed and indicates human projection. In other words, for something to be of category A, it must have traits that exclude everything else.

Similarly, the attack on Aristotle misses the point of objects which are “neither A nor non-A.” This presupposes that non-A is an opposite and not merely an exclusion. These objects are non-A because they are not A, not because they are its antithesis.

For example, category A is airplanes. We define these with the usual traits. Someone invents a boat with wings, and says that it is both A and non-A, when in fact it is a new category with some hybrid aspects of A. And then there are automobiles, which are neither A nor anti-A, but this has no bearing on A; automobiles are non-A just like chickens.

However, the real point of his essay is to discuss gradation, as follows:

For indeed, the blackest black in real life contains some white, and vice versa. Even the dead “void” of deep space contains a wild atom or two per cubic meter. Nothing is ever really completely ‘A’ without a little ‘B,’ ‘C,’ ‘Y,’ or ‘Z’ mixed in – i.e., ‘non-A.’ In the garden of earthly realities, is there ever a red that blooms completely red? Doesn’t even the reddest rose have a subtle hint of magenta? Was there ever a violet without a wisp or two of blue? The “middle” (viz., the quantum of otherness) arbitrarily excluded by Aristotle’s law is substantial indeed – yet the whole of Western mathematics and science is founded upon the fantasy that it does not exist.

He is looking for human categories to be absolute and to contradict the nature of reality. When we refer to space as a void, we are using shorthand; when we describe it, our definition is an array of negations, namely that it is a space which does not contain certain objects we recognize. This does not mean that we analyzed for all objects, and so to proclaim it an absolute void is to make the same reversed cognition error that most humans do, namely to select facts that fit a theory instead of finding a theory to fit the facts. We are instead saying that for the array of objects we recognize, they are not present in the void, so we use the shorthand to reflect what we do not know about it instead of what we might.

In the same way, he is demanding that “red” be an absolute color value, like an RGB triple, instead of seeing that red is a human category used to describe the predominant trait of the flower. In a parallelist view, we say that the flower is red but add modifiers: it is a deep red, an orange red, a bluish red (that is the magenta). If there is more blue than red, we say the flower is blue, but then add the modifier that it has undertones of red. This should tell us the simple truth: language is not category, and category is not designed for single attributes alone, but to reflect a pattern.

For example, a species which produces red flowers may have some flowers that are magenta, but on the whole, the species produces flowers that are mostly red, so this is the perception closest to our perspective as individuals in the field, and we use it as shorthand.

Where categorical logic fails, and this is what Kerrick is hinting at, is a tendency to be ahierarchical. This is where the cascading view of categories used in parallelism comes in; objects can be in multiple categories at once, with multiple attributes and modifiers. In other words, there is no universal context. In a laboratory, we can define red as a certain wavelength on a spectrum; in the context of the field, a flower is red if it is more reddish than not. The category here is not designed to operate in an absolute and universal space like the solipsistic human mind.

Furthermore, parallelism recognizes the multiple categories and hierarchical levels of any object. It may be a plant, and also a medicine; humans may be incarnate, and also metaphysical; we may exist in time, and also outside of it. The misreading of Aristotle is improved by a motion toward Plato, who relied less on such absolutes and more on description of patterns as inter-related balances of internal tendencies. These are the parallels of any object; it has multiple attributes, held in balance by a common function it serves, which implicates a hierarchy. For example, a chair exists to support a human, and thus its legs can be of varied height or shape so long as they achieve that role. A stump is still a chair, if one is able to escape universalist categorical thought.

This may clarify the parallelist analysis of categorical language and its limitations, but also the necessity of categorical analysis in pattern order as a means of discerning one form from another.

An Alt Right Goal

Wednesday, March 8th, 2017

As the news struggles to accept the suddenness of vast change forced upon it, the Alt Right has faded into the background hum a little bit. Part of this is that the Alt Right seems confused as to its own actual goals, or in other words, what it proposes instead of the failing system we have now.

What makes the Alt Right fascinating is that it arose organically in parallel between several belief systems — libertarians, human biodiversity, nationalist, deep ecologists and the new right — and then lived on through what was found in common between them, pushed to an extreme by its irreverent, absurdist troll culture.

But a different view would be that these different belief systems were not the cause of the Alt Right but rather a vocabulary through which it could spring up. Instead, the Alt Right came from a yearning for something so simple and powerful that it was nearly impossible to articulate. It is something one assumes, not speaks.

And yet, those of us who have grown up in a failed civilization and who have realized that this was the case from an early age have always yearned for something like the Alt Right. We were born depressed, have lived in ambivalence and alienation our entire lives, and finally found a voice and animated it however we could.

While the Alt Right proposes many related ideas — nationalism, anti-egalitarianism, post-democracy, futurism — the root behind them is a simple desire: we want to escape civilization collapse. We know that most societies collapse, but that someone can beat the odds and rise to a greatness merely dreamed of by the rest of humanity.

One cannot escape civilization collapse as one dodges a bullet. Instead, civilization collapse is like a path in a forest that leads to a large pit. The only solution is to get on another path that both (1) goes away from the pit and (2) goes somewhere good, so that one does not die the slow death of purposeless wandering until entropy becomes victorious.

This leads us to our goal: restore Western Civilization by giving it a purpose unrelated to individualism, equality or any of the impulses that cause fragmentation in a society. The Alt Right is our desire to be a great civilization again and to live our lives with meaning, instead of in service to consumerism, democracy and social popularity.

We want order. We want a path. We want meaning. That requires values, customs and something worth sacrificing for so that we can bond with life itself. We wish to see the infinity open before us and to become an eternal civilization, exploring the stars and establishing new great civilizations, with intricate histories, triumphs and tragedies.

This is what we are. We are the reflective people, or those who contemplate life and search for meaning not in ourselves but in the universe around us. From that we can bond our intuition to that of the cosmos, and from that, discover a way of life that fits who we are. We do not expect it to be universal; it is enough that it fits Us, and that is all we need.

The first step on this path is clear thinking not about what we hate, but about what we desire. We must visualize the future we see for ourselves, and make it become incarnate by sorting the data around us through our choice. This fits within the informational substructure to the universe that encloses our physical reality:

Perhaps the most renowned of its mysteries is the fact that the outcome of a quantum experiment can change depending on whether or not we choose to measure some property of the particles involved.

…The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: “observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position.” In other words, Jordan said, “we ourselves produce the results of measurements.”

…Whenever, in these experiments, we discover the path of a quantum particle, its cloud of possible routes “collapses” into a single well-defined state. What’s more, the delayed-choice experiment implies that the sheer act of noticing, rather than any physical disturbance caused by measuring, can cause the collapse.

Our job is to notice our present options, and then put our focus into those which offer us a future of restored Western Civilization. In doing so, we make them more likely to become incarnate, much as our noticing can render light into particle or wave. We then become sorting engines within the calculation machine that is the cosmos, a pattern-based reality which constantly self-evolves.

The act of observation links the observer and the observed. This implies an informational basis to reality, as if it were composed of patterns that manifest in materiality, and shows us that we wield a force greater than materiality in the focus of our minds. When we create links between ourselves and ideas, we manifest them, albeit not directly like material force.

When Nietzsche said, “God is dead…and we have killed him,” what he means is that we have failed to rediscover things such as “God.” These are not innate to the universe because they are not universally accessible. Only those who forge their thinking into directed noticing can access these ideas, and their effects will remain invisible to others much as most truths are.

We know from Darwin that the whole universe acts as a calculating machine, forever refining its objects into a greater balance and efficiency. Our thoughts act the same way — this is one of the precepts of my upcoming book Parallelism — and so we see that our first task is to visualize and thus “attract” what we desire.

While that may not be known in precise visual terms, it can be known in general direction. We can stop reacting to what is happening as if we are trying to save a miserable society that makes people bored and frustrated. Instead, we can escape the loop of trying to salvage the dead and focus instead on rising again.

If the Alt Right has a goal, this is it. We want to restore Western Civilization by aiming for greatness. We wish to embrace excellence in our future and to use that, and not reacting to material problems, as our guide. It seems too New Age for us right now, but once upon a time, it was accepted knowledge, and perhaps deviation from that is responsible for our current downfall.

Understanding The Traditional, Or Eternal, Civilization

Friday, September 16th, 2016


Bruce Charlton proves worth reading for anyone who is not onboard with the mainstream-sanctified descent into social breakdown. Even if his words do not resonate as true, his centering of the issue will, in a time when almost all news sources, including underground blogs, distract from the actual issue.

He takes on the Alt Right by proclaiming all material politics to be Leftist, and suggesting an Orthosphere-style root of society as religion:

A nation is either run with a religion as the bottom line, and politics, economics, law, the military and police, education, science, health the media etc – all other human activities are ideally and ultimately subordinated to that goal. Religion is the organising principle…

Or else there a nation is run on Leftist lines with ‘mortal utility’ as the bottom line – that is the utilitarianism of mortal life under the assumption that nothing else exists, or matters.

A nation can be run on Religious lines (as all nations were in the past, and many still are); or else it can be Leftist – which means it pursues mortal utility

Another way to view this problem is through the transcendental lens that has been applied in this blog: there are not separate dualistic worlds, but one world spanning the natural and the supernatural, and therefore, both metaphysical and physical concerns are parallel in importance.

That concept of parallelism, about which I have written a hopefully-forthcoming book, applies to many areas. Parallel castes, working toward the same goal. Parallel nations, each with its own standards. Parallel measurement of truth, so it is consistent across all factors and not a cherry-picked few as in rationalism.

In the transcendental view, societies exist in through parallel implementation of the same truths. That is, a union of race, culture, religion, values, philosophy, economics and leadership; this occurs instead of the modern method of linearity, or choosing one to lead the rest: a democratic society, a capitalist society, or a theocracy as we see in the Middle East.

This is not to say that Charlton is wrong, because his statement as translated into parallelism states that civilizations must have a goal above the material; in the philosophical lexicon, we call this idealism, which refers to the idea as being more important than the matter in which it is found as a pattern, and therefore, that civilizations thrive by organizing themselves using better ideas (quality) not more material (quantity).

However, that transcendental goal is not limited to religion, but must be found in all areas. The natural and supernatural are parallel; so must our approach be. The idea of a mass religious revival alone is impracticable, but “bootstrapping,” or using political power to strengthen culture and religion alike so they can then grow in parallel, is realistic and desirable.

Only through this bootstrapping process can we rise to end the decline and fall of Western Civilization. We must address politics and the supernatural together, but as Charlton suggests, do so in the name of a transcendental goal, or looking toward a long-term improvement by arranging ourselves according to patterns that are eternal, or have worked since the dawn of time and will work in any age of humankind or other intelligent species.

Around here, we call the plan for bootstrapping the four pillars and show how it will nurture the type of society in which religious thought can shine. First we must awaken our will to survive and thrive by achieving excellence; next, we must remove obstacles; and finally, we can march into an ideal state where all institutions march in parallel to the same eternal truths.

This parallels the fundamental idea of Traditionalism, which is that history is not linear but circular, because some methods are eternal and any society that uses them will rise to greatness. In the Traditional view, all religions and philosophies describe the same Reality with varying degrees of accuracy, and so improving the quality of our perception leads us to these eternal truths.

Charlton brings up an important point: that we cannot solve problems of idea with material. The rejoinder to that is that in our existence, ideas are expressed in material, and we need that expression to parallel our metaphysical understanding so that all works in unison, harmony and balance as classical civilizations did.

Seven Layer Dip (An Explanation Of Parallelism As Applied to Politics

Saturday, July 30th, 2016
Photo Credit: "Dishin' With Di Recipe #42"

Photo Credit: “Dishin’ With Di Recipe #42”

Seven Layer Dip can be found at quality parties throughout the American southwest. Layers of cheese, meat, guacamole, salsa, bean dip, sour cream and vegetables are stacked and eaten with corn chips. However, it also provides a potent metaphor.

In the forthcoming book by this author, Parallelism1, the text describes a philosophy where all factors are considered instead of only those factors which the human notes because they are convenient for his thesis. Where modernity operates through the method of quantitative change, or selecting one element among many, parallelism takes the opposite approach and considers all elements at once.

When we talk about how to revitalize the West, this comes into play. Some say we need a renewal of religion, others want an end to democracy, still others demand hierarchy, some want race war, and some say we need rigorous capitalism to burn out the parasite infection. None of these are wrong, but all are incomplete.

Restoration of the West will require a combination of extrinsic and intrinsic factors. The intrinsic factors are a change in our attitudes and cultural outlook, but the extrinsic factors are what protects and nurtures the develop of those intrinsic factors. Liberalism is a lie; there is no “single idea” that can fix our problems, but a cluster of related notions united by principle.

For example, if our principle is the idea of an ascendant society, we can choose to orient that society toward existential well-being, or people feeling safe and secure. That requires in turn a stable type of society, which will correspond to the four pillars: methods which have worked since the dawn of time and will work for any intelligent species at any time.

In this way, our restoration plan works like the seven-layer dip. Religion, race, culture, values, government/anti-state, economic system and intrinsic renewal leading to attitudinal change work together toward the same goal. All are there, in every bite. This is the only sane model and those who reject it are focusing too much on what cultivates an audience, and not enough on what works.

1 — Looking for publishers at this time. Rejected by the big three. Too controversial, or just too inept?

The Origins of Cuckservatism: The Slow Retreat, The Benedict Option and “Exit”

Sunday, April 10th, 2016


What went wrong with conservatism? It has opposed the Left for centuries and yet been defeated to the point where, before the rise of Donald Trump at least, all visible conservative politicians endorsed Leftist ideas and all the “extremists” wanted Left-hybrids of a more totalitarian sort.

The term “cuckservative” irked the political establishment because it revealed how conservatives have compromised the ability to be anything but captive opposition doomed by changing demographic trends. With soft genocide, or demographic replacement, the option for anything but flavors of populist Leftist leaves the building.

As Occam’s Razor would point out, the most direct explanation is that conservatism shares an origin with liberalism. I identify this problem as individualism, or thinking in terms of the individual only and not as part of a larger organic structure. Conservative individualism consists of the idea that the individual doing right (and “working hard”) somehow makes society work out okay.

From this notion comes the conservative concept of retreat. That is, society itself is a dead loss because — as we all know, if we search our intuition — groups of humans turn toward delusion. For that reason, conservatives retreat and keep doing what they see as right, but in so doing they do two crucial things that are highly destructive:

  1. Concede. That which is not challenged because the standard, not just physically but culturally. This is how Leftism has steadily infiltrated every area of society and become seen as the de facto “moral right” approach.
  2. Subsidize. Conservatives retreat to their farms, businesses and jobs but keep pumping money into the liberal state, usually while throwing vegetables at their television screens before stomping off to bed with a glass of warm milk.

The conservative retreat takes many forms. The three divided extremes which no one can seem to unify on the right are:

  1. Religion. Conservatives retreat to a religion-oriented view that seems to desire a theocracy. This misses the need for religion and reality to be synchronized, or religion becomes ideology and pragmatism becomes immoral.
  2. Economics. The libertarian movement is a conservative retreat into a hybrid of Leftism. The idea that if everyone just does what is profitable, a good result will be achieved, is another restatement of the democratic principle because much as individuals do the voting, they do the buying.
  3. Demographics. Some conservatives notice demographic replacement and class warfare and resist those. They have trouble connecting this to other areas of politics however.

I propose a simpler model which is the organic theory of civilization: our goal is to have a civilization and to make it thrive. This requires treating it as an organic whole, or a living body with parts of many different functions that must work together unequally. It also requires that the three planks above work together instead of becoming, like Leftist ideology, causes in themselves toward which we are means to an end.

Conservative retreat — and cuckservatism — begins with the idea that we cannot fix civilization and must rationalize the decline, or “lie back and think of England” as it happens, as the saying goes. Instead of fixing the problem, conservatives propose we compensate by defending our individual right to stay outside of the decline.

Unfortunately, this approach totally fails for several reasons. One, stated above, is that Leftism then replaces culture and turns everyone into a zombie. The second is simple economics: Leftist societies impoverish themselves while simultaneously forming mobs based on the idea of their own entitlement. If there is a wealthier community or wealthier individuals nearby, those will be raided and assimilated so that the Leftist mob can keep itself from starving.

Conservatives have never really grasped the fact that in Leftism, competence and success are the enemy. Those who succeed are presupposed to be morally bad, which means that those who are naturally competent — and thus prone to succeed — are bad news. The Leftist denial of race, genetics, IQ, and HBD through the “blank slate” phenomenon finds its roots in this psychology.

Let us look at the conservative disease in its most admirable form: the Benedict Option.

What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament. We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another—doubtless very different—St Benedict.

The “Benedict Option” refers to Christians in the contemporary West who cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of American empire, and who therefore are keen to construct local forms of community as loci of Christian resistance against what the empire represents. Put less grandly, the Benedict Option — or “Ben Op” — is an umbrella term for Christians who accept MacIntyre’s critique of modernity, and who also recognize that forming Christians who live out Christianity according to Great Tradition requires embedding within communities and institutions dedicated to that formation.

One might view this as a hybrid between monasticism and bourgeois hopes that working hard, getting good grades and a good salary, and then going to church and raising moral children “is enough.” Like that option, it fails because it refuses to tackle the actual problem, which is civilization in decline and the tendency of its leaders and popular opinion to enforce that decline on all dissenters and non-conformists.

The important part there is that both dissenters and non-conformists are targeted. A dissenter is one who disagrees, but a non-conformist is one who merely fails to agree enough to get with the plan. The conservative view is both dissent and non-conformity, but there is no lesser punishment for the latter.

The gay cake dilemma illustrates the methods that are used to subvert conservative communities. If you set up your nice conservative community, a couple of gay people who want attention will drive a few hundred miles to go to your community to demand their gay wedding cake or some other offensive idea (a pederasty children’s party, a sodomy-themed church, etc). If not gays, it will be ethnic outliers or angry blue-haired feminists.

What that does is create a pretext. Society at large intrudes on the non-conformists and, because it demands the unreasonable which it insists is reasonable, provokes a reaction, which then makes society at large see itself as a victim. At that point, retaliation is warranted, and it will come through seizure of the bakery, church and eventually local government. Then the Leftists will “re-educate” everyone starting with the young and assimilate that community.

Conservatives love the idea of dropping out into alternative societies however because it is easier than taking on the task of civilization decline, which is the elephant in the room in the West and the issue that no one wants to tackle. Here’s another fond view:

But we must not think that the state is the only institution, or even the most important institution, that shapes culture and impacts our lives. There are other divinely appointed institutions with their own scopes of authority. The family, churches, private associations, and local government structures also have “legitimate roles to play in a justly ordered society.”

Chuck Colson championed the importance of these other institutions, which Edmund Burke referred to as “little platoons.”…And so, one of the best things Christians can do in this election cycle is to spend ample energy on rebuilding those “little platoons” that are upstream from politics and that strengthen civil society. After all, the best way to have a healthy state is to have a healthy culture. And the church and family are best suited for that.

The problem with strengthening civil society is that it stabilizes the dying patient so that the dying process can continue in a prolonged and more miserable form.

In addition, this approach creates targets. Those churches, private associations, local governments and even the family become identifiable outliers, and the Leftists will systematically exterminate them.

It is not surprising that conservatives have utterly failed to resist Leftism. Their methods are paradoxical to the core.

Unfortunately, these methods are also popular, and as history shows us, what is popular always wins — until the result collapses and everyone blames something else. Viewing history as a geographic process is a type of fatalism because, without intervention of sane leaders, everything always fails. To be “on the right side of history” is to support decay.

Reversing decay is easy: stop doing the stupid and illogical stuff we have been doing. That starts with every well-meaning, bourgeois/prole endorsed institution and program based in the idea that equality is the source of moral good. Instead, we should see equality as what it is: entropy.

There are even more interesting and cryptic statements of the retreat notion:

The basic idea of Patchwork is that, as the crappy governments we inherited from history are smashed, they should be replaced by a global spiderweb of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of sovereign and independent mini-countries, each governed by its own joint-stock corporation without regard to the residents’ opinions. If residents don’t like their government, they can and should move. The design is all “exit,” no “voice.”

…The essential inspiration for Patchwork is the observation that the periods in which human civilization has flowered are the periods in which it has been most politically divided. Ancient Greece, medieval Italy, Europe until 1914, China in the Spring and Autumn Period, and so on. Burckhardt once observed that Europe was safe so long as she was not unified, and now that she is we can see exactly what he meant.

We should call this “the Amish model,” and point out that the reason the Amish and Mennonites are tolerated is that they come across as total lunatic religious fanatics and so few people want anything to do with them. But when a group goes outside the Amish model and becomes prosperous, the nearby parasite community will assimilate it, probably by sending in a gay black orphan to get a patently offensive cake made, then invading in the name of equal rights.

Moldbug also misses the crucial ingredient in the success of these divided groups: those that lasted for any length of time were unified by culture and race, and often if not religion itself, a perception of common values with the dominant religion. Those that seemed to thrive, and then collapsed, missed this vital factor.

This shows us that the three conservative platforms of retreat — religion, race and capitalism — cannot be considered alone but are each important. In other words, we cannot deconstruct the process of civilization into a singular method that, in emulation of the Leftist ideological model, orients everything else around it.

Until now. In my forthcoming book, I propose a new idea, parallelism, which includes the notion that civilizations are organic wholes and therefore, must find a way to synchronize different platforms like religion, race, culture, capitalism and leadership around a central set of values. This originates in culture, but must have some aspect of the transcendental to it, or it equates the symbolic with the literal in the way of Leftism and signaling replaces understanding.

We live in exciting times. Liberalism/Leftism — they are degrees of the same thing — has won because “the right side of history” is always with inertia, which among human beings is the illusion of equality. However, because it has succeeded, it now has no victimhood strategy except of course wiping out non-conformists. But without a big enough scapegoat, it cannot explain its failures.

And so as the West settles into a disaster created by democracy and consumerism and other forms of egalitarian mob rule, Leftist ends its arc yet again. (Like all evil, or illusions, it is reborn anew every time someone needs a scapegoat to blame for their own failure).

With Leftism ending its arc, we have both a need and an opportunity to re-create our civilization in a way that does not fail. I suggest conservatism as principle, which is distinct from conservatism as an organize group (Republicans) or individualistic notion (Libertarianism). This idea instead suggests treating society as an organic whole and fixing it instead of retreating from the disaster and hoping enough of us survive to say “I told you so” among the smoking ruins.

With this, our civilization quest comes full circle: we are facing the same task we did before civilization was created, which is to come up with a way to live together. Egalitarianism does not work, and retreating from egalitarianism to let it destroy society also does not work. The four ideas suggested in parallel — nationalism, aristocracy, capitalism and transcendental goals — do, and if we refuse them, we are choosing retreat and doom.

This blog would be a lot more popular if it offered up easy non-solutions which consist of clever ways of rationalizing decline and thus avoiding the elephant in the room. Most who offer these are well-intentioned, meaning that they are hoping against hope that the task is not what it seems. But it is, and we either rise to the challenge or fade away into the dustbin of history.

Nihilism, conservatism and parallelism

Thursday, May 14th, 2015

From an interview several years ago…

Nihilism, in a nutshell, argues that life is without objective purpose or value. This philosophy is something that has always seemed to cause controversy, as it seems society has always a some sort of fear when it pertains to Nihilism. Briefly describe what Nihilism means to you, and its relation to Parallelism.

What is Nihilism?

Nihilism is a philosophy based on the idea that reality alone is important. It rejects belief, faith, wishful thinking, ideology, morality and socialization as in any way a form of reality and/or “inherent”; these are human projections. All potential actions are choices we can make. However, nihilists are not relativists. We do not say all choices are equal, because equality is also a human projection. All choices are simply whatever their results are, because intentions exist only within the human mind and are not important.

Most people want to read into nihilism the typical kiddie-rebellion fatalism that infects the industrialized nations: “Nothing matters, so do whatever you want!” This is broken, because nihilism eschews the yes/no question of “matters,” since even having something matter at all is a choice. Nihilism also avoids the “do whatever you want” because to prescribe that is to give it a value. The only statement nihilism makes is that nothing is real except reality. Human projections are irrelevant because they are unrelated to outcomes.

Every action we undertake on earth is a choice. Do I eat the red-spotted mushroom? The utilitarians will say that if most people like eating them, you should do it; the formalists will say that if it’s socially approved, you should do it; the instrumentalists will ask if the goal of eating the mushroom is moral; the materialists of course will say that it depends on what comforts or wealth it gets you. A nihilist says to use the scientific method and look at what the whole of the results are. Will it poison you? Will it mislead others? Will it harm the forest? Will it bring about any gain of any kind? These are all choices, and must be considered in turn.

Nihilism is not a morality. Morality is what comes between humans and making choices. I can choose to commit crimes, but if morality exists, I will be reacting to the moral judgment of right/wrong instead of the consequences of my actions. This puts us back to measuring our acts by intentions, when we really should instead look at what the results will be. We then have to confront those results and say, “The result of this crime is that I’m going to force this person to work another 40 hours to pay for what I took, and my reward will be 10% of the purchase value, and it’s likely that more people will follow my example and commit crimes.”

That sort of measurement is emotionally heavier than saying some action is bad or good. If an action brings about good results, we can talk about those anticipated results by looking at past similar actions and pointing out the similarity. In the same way, if a proposed action is likely to bring about bad results, we need to only compare it to past events. “Last time we lit our cigarettes off the propane tank, we blew up three houses and a dog. Is that the result we want again?”

Nihilism is not negation. If there is religion in a nihilist world, it is esotericism, or the discovery of religious principles from patterns in our environment. If there is morality in a nihilist world, it is unceasing awareness of consequences. These things can exist, but they, too, are choices. However, as mentioned above, nihilism is not relativistic, so “it’s a choice” doesn’t mean “it’s accepted” as it does in pluralist moralist societies. It means instead that the burden of consequences is upon the person who makes a choice.

Nihilism is also not anarchy. Anarchy is a moral judgment that a leadership structure should not exist. A nihilist will reject the idea that a State is necessary, but by recognizing that leadership is a choice, forces us to consider the consequences of types of leadership versus no leadership. Nihilism does not choose what “ought” to be; it chooses what works. And so the first nihilist question to an anarchist would be, “Where can I find a successful anarchist community?”

Unlike ideological political systems, nihilism does not view wishful thinking — what “ought” to be, what society “should” do, or a moral jihad for equality — as useful. It questions causes->effects and by looking at effects, chooses to pick the corresponding cause (action) that can be undertaken to achieve those effects. As a result, it is pragmatist, or non-utilitarian consequentialist. This makes it more like the paleoconservative right and less like modern post-1789 state/ideology-based systems.

As a philosophy, nihilism recognizes that rejection of all values negates itself because it is in itself a value. Instead, nihilism views all values as choices. When these values are based on aspects of reality, they are nihilistic, but the creation of values like morality is dangerous because it removes us from thinking about reality and instead has us thinking about the words, symbols and relationships that comprise those values. A nihilist would suggest that the healthiest human system is one where we look at consequences alone.

Nihilism is ultimately a philosophy of affirmation. When we clear the human projection out of our heads, we are like children again, and can instead of reacting blindly to social projections, choose what we want out of life. As a conservative nihilist, I choose what Plato found to be the apex of human existence: the good, the beautiful and the true.

Why society fears Nihilism

I no longer believe that society exists. I should say instead that it’s a moving target. Societies have a life cycle just like humans. If you take care of your society, it can last for a really long time. If you do not, it self-destructs quickly. The remnants of destroyed societies are what we call third world nations. In each of these, there was once a prosperous society led by intelligent and noble people. These people pitied others, and so made life more hygienic, safer, abundant and easier for them, which resulted in incompetents outbreeding competents and dooming the society to failure.

During the early days of a civilization, there is no need for formalization. People recognize a shared purpose and set of values to achieve that purpose. It can be as simple as adaptation to a geographic area, but only if it includes an added dimension, which is the desire to not just survive but to thrive. Essentially, the best human value is laziness, because it causes us to want to improve our knowledge and self-organization such that we have more time to relax, ponder, create music, wage war, fall in love, etc. You know of Mazlow’s pyramid of needs; in my view, civilization begins in the upper parts of this pyramid where emotions and the need to use the mind like a weapon are found.

Unfortunately, over time, the aforementioned process of “helping others” leads to a proliferation of incapable people. These people do not mean badly, but they have a fatal flaw, which is that they are thoughtless. They will either overpopulate their geographical area or cause some other tragedy of the commons (an event where a public resource is exploited unto destruction because its cost to each individual is free) and as a result, will find themselves starving, diseased or in wars they can’t win. At that point they turn on their leaders, who are usually the people who had been trying to stop the decay and getting beaten back by the crowd of people who want to believe in what they wish were true, not what they can discern is true.

As a result, wishful thinking predominates up until the very end, where there is a sudden and conclusion confrontation with reality itself, and the civilization falls apart. It doesn’t just explode, but all the levels of civilized behavior drop precipitously until it is corrupt, dishonest, whorelike, ugly, dirty, commerce-ridden, violent, and directionless. It is usually ruled by warlords or a military junta because such disorder requires authoritarian government to keep it in line.

During this process people attempt to enforce their wishful thinking because (a) they want to stay in denial about the collapse and (b) this enables them to control others and get ahead through manipulation. As a result, they invent the myth of inherency. These words we use to describe things are not just token symbols we exchange in their view, but are the actual names of things. Our religions are not interpretations of metaphysics, but the whole truth. Government and collective approval are the only legitimate ways to make decisions. Good is a certain list of things; bad is anything that opposes it. Soon we are living in a world of “inherent” symbols that are human-created and often either arbitrary or deliberately controlling.

This is the origin of modern control. Unlike ancient control, which was cooperation based on having a hierarchy, or a decent authoritarian state, which is essentially paternalistic pragmatism (a form of consequentialism — the idea that we measure our actions by their results, not their intent — that, unlike utilitarianism, is based on reality for society as a whole and not the approval of a majority of its members, a subjective…or should we say “wishful thinking”….measurement), modern control is individuals controlling one another to keep any of us from upsetting the fragile balance created by a civilization dedicated to equality. In practical terms, “equality” means pluralism or that there is no right/wrong except for what is proscribed by the dominant ideology which we see as giving us equality and thus “freedom.” To a modern person, freedom and equality mean the same thing, which is pluralism or no social standards, which is naturally extended to diversity/multiculturalism/internationalism (these terms mean the same thing) and approval of every underdog group that doesn’t violate social/political norms.

Nihilism shatters this control by attacking inherency. As a nihilist, you realize that everything is indeed a choice. You can choose to deny reality. You can choose to eat feces. You can choose to shoot yourself in the head. All of these are possible choices, and there’s only two ways to make such choices. The first way is wishful thinking; the second way is reality-based thinking. Since we know wishful thinking varies with the quality of the individual, and it can be easily observed that most individuals (I’ll add the Southern hybrid between good-will and pity, “Bless their hearts!”) make most decisions poorly, it makes zero sense to pick wishful thinking, or a subjective standard. Instead, it is logical to pick a reality-based standard. The prole has trained themselves to say “but who decides?” and the answer to that is obvious: we pick the best among us. However, to a non-nihilist, that answer seems dangerous. Someone is more than equal? There are differences between people? But you can’t say that in polite conversation! You will never get laid!

This is why nihilism is controversial. It destroys control, but unlike anarchy, does not affirm the necessity of control through picking an opposite model. Instead, it tells us we have choices. We can choose a rising society, or by making a different decision, choose to have a dying one. The results of our decisions are clear because similar types of decisions have been made in the past, and we can compare cause->effect and see what effects our actions are likely to have. Most people get freaked out by that “deterministic” view of life, so choose to believe that they can choose an effect, and then assign to it any cause they want, thus they can do whatever they want and claim they “intended” to have a certain effect. Tee hee, aren’t they clever! Logicians will know this as a B->A error: If all A->B, then all A are B, but not all B are A (B->A). Mistaken cause->effect reasoning is the foundation of our declining society today.

On a simpler level, nihilism is controversial because people prefer pleasant/easy lies to complex/difficult truths. They want to hear absolute and universal guarantees, like the talismans of an ancient religion: just slaughter a lamb to Baal, and you will get rich. Don’t worry about your decisions, and trying to figure out if you do the right one; get the right symbol on there, and everything will be OK. Social decision-making works this way, interestingly enough. If I say nice things to my friend, and then answer with wrong information when she asks me a factual question, I don’t get blamed or seen as having failed because the link in the friendship is the social kindness, not accuracy. People want that level of acceptance-without-challenge extended to all portions of their lives.

What is Parallelism?

Parallelism is a solution to linear thinking. Nihilism has us thinking in terms of choices; parallelism has us realizing that to make these choices, we need to compare more than one factor out of many to consider the before-state and after-state of our decision. Humans tend to project their own arbitrary choices onto situations by choosing one factor out of thousands or millions to look at when evaluating a decision.

For example, “Will this new car produce more or less carbon output than my old car?” If you look only at that one factor, you’ll go buy a Prius, but then there’s the question of what environmental damage is caused by the batteries in the Prius and the energy required to make it. There are other questions to be asked as well: am I more likely to be in a wreck, and thus send both cars to the junkyard? Will this be as reliable as a “regular” car? Is a better use of the money required to pay for its higher cost to simply purchase a few acres of forest land? Can I drive less with my existing car? These questions involve the assessment of environmental impact only.

Parallelism suggests that decisions are made according to indicators found in parallel between multiple factors. This reduces the arbitrary nature of linear decision-making. As a corresponding notion, parallelism also suggests that structures exist in parallel throughout the universe. This includes the vertical dimension of complexity and the possibility of metaphysics. “As above, so below,” would be an expression of parallelism; another way to view it is that there are no structures in the cosmos which are radically incompatible with any others.

As such, parallelism is an attack on how most people conceive of religion. The average person is either (a) a materialist, believing that there is nothing but physical matter and thus enhacing physical comfort for people is the best goal (utilitarianism), or (b) a dualist, believing that there is some “other side” where all things are pure and clear and people will live in perfection in the order of God or gods. Parallelism suggests instead that any additional metaphysical dimension will resemble what is here, because in all aspects of reality, nature uses mirrored structures to create an architectonic or self-balancing order. The greatest is found in the least and vice-versa. It is a perfect design.

In addition, parallelism points out another structure in nature, which is a natural selection-like mechanism that is found in nature, but also in mathematics and thought. Roughly speaking, for any possible action there are many parallel impulses, and each one reflects a certain degree of maturation toward completeness of organization. The most organized tend to form a parallel harmonic level — imagine the parallels themselves as verticals, and a horizontal line being drawn where completeness of order occurs — and thrive, while others go away. Our thoughts are like this: we have many impulses in response to stimulus, and our brain selects those which are the most complete and which do not trigger any negative feedback loops.

Parallelism also has political implications, notably that it’s nonsense to base a society on a single arbitrary idea (equality, finance) when many other things need to be considered. We need to consider happiness, and more importantly, being a rising society where we’re constantly getting better at what we do, instead of a declining one. Physical health needs to be considered as well, as does environmental impact, as does social consequence. There is no “freedom” from any of the consequences of our actions.

Further, parallelism suggests that different civilizations go through the same patterns if they use similar forms of organization. This ratifies Plato’s “civilization cycle,” by which nations are born, age and die. Every nation that undertakes the attitude and organization typical of a senescent nation will become senescent; any nation that adopts the attitude and organization typical of a new nation will be reborn. Further, parallelism suggests that the fortunes of our societies are not caused by geography, but by where in the cycle we choose to put our effort. In addition, parallelism would have us thus separate these societies so that each can evolve according to its choices.

A parallelist worldview also includes that idea that we cannot divide leadership by separating it into different subject matters. For example, financial decisions have effects on the same things that legal or social decisions do, but so also do non-government actions like those of the media, religions, social groups etc. It makes more sense to organize government by the things upon which we are having effect, than by the flavor (religious, economic, social, political) of activity undergone.

As such, parallelism is an entry point to the birth stage of the cycle of civilizations, called Tradition, and is utterly incompatible with modernity. However, since parallelism is reality-based, it explains the consequences of choices rather than formulate an ideology toward their ends. For this reason, it is a useful tool for diagnosing modern stumbles and finding ways to work around them.

What are some important figures in history that have shared the same viewpoint, to some degree?

Every great leader in history has recognized these principles to some degree. Nihilism belongs to strategic realists like Niccolò Machiavelli and Kautilya, but also to clear-minded thinkers like Siddhartha and Eckhart. Parallelism has to my knowledge never been articulated as such, but was an understood (which is better than written down — it lives in the culture and, as culture shapes its population through natural selection according to Race-Culture Theory, becomes part of the genetics of that population) part of ancient cultures.

Because these viewpoints are more descriptive (analysis of cause->effect decisions) than prescriptive, or ideological and moral values imposed on a population to control it, they do not comprise an ideology per se but are methods that can be applied by anyone. Josef Stalin can be said to be a nihilist with his pronouncement “no man, no problem”; then again, Bill Clinton also displayed nihilistic thinking when he adopted the practice of creating his current political platform by reading the polls and selecting any idea that polled highly as something he would support. However, none of these consciously adopt a nihilistic or parallelist viewpoint.

I would imagine that artists share a good deal of these philosophies because artists are naturally outsiders, since their job is to notice what society cannot. Further, artists are naturally realists, because in order to portray life accurately, one must notice how it functions and not the type of social statements that can be made to gloss-over that or make it sound appealing. Finally, art is inherently meditative; meditation is the root of all understanding, since it calms the mind and allows exploration of all factors at once. To be an artist, you must find what is hidden in plain sight and style it so that it and any solutions needed to it are appealing, making people want to engage with it. Artists fight back against numbness induced by social conformity of behavior which in turn exhausts the mind of any possibilities other than obedience and reward.

Brett Stevens interview at the Association for the Protection of the Lebanese Heritage

Monday, April 22nd, 2013

association_for_the_protection_of_the_lebanese_heritageConservatives preserve the permanent things by holding on to that which not only works, but creates a transcendent beauty in life. This is why we idealize “the good, the beautiful and the true” and is why we conserve these things where we find them, resisting a tidal wave of human individualism and short-sighted solipsism.

The seeming paradox of this outlook is that, unlike modernism, it does not prescribe a single standard for all people; rather, it says that local standards should prevail. Unlike pluralism however it does not suggest many standards coexisting in the same place, but that they exist in parallel; this is the philosophy of parallelism espoused on this site.

As such, we who strive for the transcendental ideal are brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, and cousins and colleagues to all who uphold tradition, values, art, beauty, religion and the human soul worldwide. Ours is not a universal language, but it is a universally applicable principle that benefits all civilizations that adopt it.

What makes this difficult is that, unlike modernism, our view is not centered in the individual as an oppressed antagonist of society at large. Instead, it sees civilizations as organic wholes in which each person serves a different but necessary role. There is no equality; better than that, there’s exclusive necessity.

All of this is a way of providing you an introduction to an interview done with myself by the good people at the Association For the Protection of the Lebanese Heritage (APLH), who have published the most recent edition of their newsletter which includes some words from myself toward all transcendental conservatives worldwide.

While you’re at it, you might want to prowl around the site. In particular, the projects page and gallery are worth perusing for ideas for practical intervention in your own community to prevent its decline.

A parable

Friday, September 25th, 2009


Arminass stepped out of his ship. Unfortunately it was ruined. He set the self-destruct mechanism and walked toward the break in the trees.

The people of the village found him very strange, but eventually came to accept him. In his third week there, the entire village went into an uproar. A girl was pregnant with a young child that had no father.

“Kill it,” said Arminass. “Don’t make the mother a slave to it, or it a slave to life.”

“You’re insane!” said the Priest. “Its life is precious too.”

Arminass pulled back his sleeve and sliced open his arm. Blood flowed freely. “Material is the means, not the end,” he said. Then he asked for a glass, and holding it with his bleeding arm, urinated in it.

Then he drank the urine.

“The world is one continuous thing,” he said. “My urine is not poison, nor is my life the only one. Truth is a way we describe accurate predictions or observations of this world. An unwanted baby is extra flesh. I am not concerned with the individuals, or the whole.”

The town hipster sauntered over. “Well why don’t you kill yourself then?”

Arminass sliced the hipster’s head from his shoulders. “I would rather kill you,” he said. “I can do useful things besides dying.”

Two days later the town was attacked by bandits. The town elders said a defense had to be raised. “I can’t do it,” said a young man. “I can’t kill.”

“You are not killing,” said Arminass. “You are pruning leaves from a tree, and the tree still lives.”

An old man tottered over. “I am so afraid to die,” he said. “It hides on my shoulder like a vulture.”

“It is better to die for something, than simply to die. And what has your life meant?” said Arminass.

“I’ve been the head rear-left-screw-tightener at the factory for 41 years.”

Arminass handed the man a sword. “All your life people have told you what to do. Now you must tell yourself what you care about enough to die for.”

The bandits were beaten back and the dead buried. The Priest was drenched in tears at the sight of so many coffins. “Oh, what a tragedy is war!”

Arminass stabbed the Priest and let blood flow freely. “Without war, we never would have defeated the bandits, but they would have lived among us like parasites. With war, the town is healthier, we survive and move on! More will be born to replace those.”

Sure enough, in some years there were more born.

Arminass worked at the library shelving books. People said scornful things to him because he did not earn much money.

One day there was a nuclear war. The banks collapsed, the government went away and anarchy reigned over the land. “Now I earn as much money as any of you,” said Arminass, laughing.

When bandits attacked again, he told the town elders: “A gun makes any man likely to be victor, because if he shoots enough, he will hit someone. When they come with swords, let us fight with swords!”

In the next battle over half of the town was killed. “What ill advice he has given,” murmured one woman, her face hidden behind a veil.

“You won’t know that until you see what the future holds,” said Arminass. “We have lost those who could not figure out how to fight off starving, illiterate, not very bright bandits. The half we have left is the better half.”

The people of the town came to trust Arminass more and more. He told them when to plant, what to plant, and stopped them from giving away food to wandering mendicants. He made sure they killed all of the people who lived nearby who could not make a town as well functioning as their own town. Some of the women cried, but others looked at Arminass and said, “This is a Man.”

The next generation of the town was fruitful, and two decades later Arminass faced the best army in the country.

“We are so powerful, we do not have to engage the others,” said one man.

“But we will,” said Arminass.

“Why?” cried the daughter of the Priest.

“Because we represent a better order. Look at these people. They strip the trees bare, they live in filth, they have no letters or music to speak of.”

“But that’s how they want to live,” she shot back.

“It’s not how I want this country to be,” said Arminass. “And since I trust myself, I will do everything I can to crush them.”

The people of the town waged a brutal war against the enemy, and when it was over with, there were many casualties but the town controlled the country.

“What do we do now, Arminass?” said the people of the country.

They fixed everything as it was, and got the machines running again and sent people to work. Soon most people had food, shelter and some money left over for entertainment. They began to grow complacent.

“Now it is time for war,” said Arminass.

“War against whom?” said the grandson of the Priest.

“War against ourselves,” said Arminass. “Modern society has brought you no happiness. We were told the machines would make it so we have to work only three hours a day, but instead we work ten. We were told having a big society with people from all over the world would bring us interesting other cultures, but most are happy with our own. We shall wage war against this stupid system.”

“But it is a just system!” said the daughter of the Priest.

“Kill her,” said Arminius. “Justice accomplishes nothing. War and planting-time accomplishes something, and if it is not just, the world keeps turning. But we are frozen in time when we worry too much about whether our actions are just.”

“We will work with you toward a solution,” said the bureaucrats. Arminass had them killed.

“We will work with you toward a solution,” said the politicians. Arminass had them killed.

“Together we can make a change,” said the religious leaders, before they were killed.

Arminass called the working people together. “The old way does not work anymore. We do not need a society where we fight each other for the privilege of wealth. Our bureaucrats make sure we all have ‘justice,’ but the price is that we spend longer at work while people fill out paper.”

The bureaucrats were all fired and sent to work on the farms. Most died of exhaustion, heat prostration, or medical ailments they did not know they had. Arminass lined them up and asked who had complaints. They all did, except for a handful of people who were suntanned and happy. Arminass had the rest killed.

They took the machines to one part of the center city. Those machines ran all day and all night, with people working four-hour shifts and then going home. “Get to know your families,” said Arminass. “None of us knows how much time he has left.”

He took all of the costumes, novelties, finery, and entertainment products to the town dump, and burned them. “We do not need these things,” said Arminass.

He and his disciples went to those who sold things and destroyed all the products which did not have a survival function. “Meaning is not found in coins and what they can buy,” said Arminass.

The disciples went far and wide through the land and counted the people. “We have many people now, Arminass,” they said.

“How many are smart enough to understand what we must do?” he said.

“Only about one for every ten,” they said.

“Take this knife,” he said to each disciple. “Go to those who do not understand and promise them free beer for the rest of their lives if they will let you sterilize them so they cannot breed. Take the chronically poor, the criminal, the drug addicts, the priests and the perverts and drown them in the swamp.”

They smashed every television and cash register, and took the plastic toys away from the children. All empty buildings were destroyed, and any roads that were not necessary were replanted with trees.

“Our government is nearly bankrupt,” cried the elders.

“Good,” said Arminass. “We do not need an economy. From now on, we do things because they must be done to keep our society going.”

“But what will we do with our time?” said the people. “There is no structure to our social lives.”

“You will do whatever you need to,” said Arminass. “You will meet some people, and you will find friends. But ultimately you should realize that you are alone in this life, and socializing will not substitute for having something that makes you feel your life is worth living.”

Arminass fixed the people with a fierce stare, and suddenly they fell into a trance.

A warrior was standing nearby. “You are a warrior,” said Arminass. “What do you enjoy?”

“I like to climb trees,” said the warrior. “I like to walk on the beach with my wife. I like to play with my children, and build furniture for my neighbors. And I like to be a good fighter.”

Behind him was a grocer. “What do you enjoy?” said Arminass.

“I like to know what is good meat, and what is bad. I like to pick out the good vegetables and throw away the rotten. I like to make sure that the people who come to my store go home with good food. I like to go to the beach, and I like to tend to my garden.”

Next to him was a leader. “What do you enjoy?” said Arminass.

“I like to know the reasons why things turn out the way they do. I like to find out why people act the way they do. I like to solve problems, and have people come to me when they need me to do that. I like to play music, and take my family to the forest where we camp and look up at the eternal stars.”

Arminass looked over the people. “As these are, so are you all. What you do for all of us is part of what you do for yourselves. That makes sense, since you are part of the group that is all of us. I want you do to what you enjoy, and thus not require money or my sword to motivate you.”

The people went back to their homes, stores, fields, pubs and posts. Except one.

“And what do I do?” said the surly voice of the small man. He was short and stout, was not very smart, not very good looking, not very good at anything, so he did odd jobs around the grocer and the town square.

Arminass poured two beers. He handed one to the surly small man. “You work odd jobs, and do what others tell you to do, and do not worry about the problems of this town,” said Arminass.

“That’s what I always did,” said the small man. “You’re just like the rest of them, keeping me down. If it weren’t for you, I would be rich.”

Arminass pointed across the square. “That grocer was an orphan who had no money, but now he has a store. Did you have two parents?”

“Yes,” said the small man.

Arminass waved to the town policeman. “That man started out life as a small baby, fighting for life, blue in the face. Were you born normally?”

“Well, yes I was,” said the man.

Arminass thought, told the man to drink his beer, and then pointed to a woman who was tending small children. “Her husband died and left her with no money, but now she has her own store of metalworks and a healthy family. Is your wife alive?”

“Why, yes she is,” said the man.

Arminass turned to him and said, “You can see there is a reason why you are what you are, and it is not that I kept you down, or anyone else did. You are at the position life has selected for you. What you should do is rejoice in your freedom from having to worry about the complications of life, and spend your time enjoying it. In fact, I suggest you drink and be merry.”

The man drank. “Why are you not drinking?” he asked.

“I must consider the safety of the town,” said Arminass. “If tigers show up and I am drunk, I cannot stop them. If a fire breaks out and I am drunk, I cannot smother it. If bandits appear and I am drunk, I cannot fight. This is why you should be glad not to have to serve as I do.”

The man considered Arminass. “But isn’t that boring?”

“No. It is what life made me to do, and I find that while I would like to be drunk sometimes, I feel better if I am doing what I am made to do, so that my life may have meaning.”

The grandson of the Priest came up to Arminass. “You are right on time,” said Arminass.

“Why is that?” said the grandson.

“There is no perfect town, nor would we want there to be,” said Arminass. “A healthy town needs no Priests, but it needs for there to be error at every step. When the town ceases to be healthy, that error rears its ugly head, and the generation at the time takes care of it. If at some point the people are too weak to overcome it, the town has reached old age and must die.”

“That’s a lie,” said the grandson. “There could be a perfect town.”

“There could,” said Arminass. “But then it would fall apart inward, since there would be nothing to strive for, no reason for exchange of blows or leaders.”

The grandson stabbed him and Arminass coughed blood. “That is your purpose here. It is now time for me to die,” said Arminass.

“But what are we to do for a leader?” said a town elder.

“One will come along,” said Arminass. “And if he does not, the town is old, and like me, must die.”

Arminass died.

Love and Nihilism: A Parallelism Primer

Friday, September 25th, 2009


As social animals, we get our information from others. This includes morality, or a group behavior code based on a sense of value and purpose inherent to humanity.

In contrast, nihilism denies value and purpose and in turn, denies any special role to humanity. Like emotions, value and purpose are human judgments which do not exist in the outside world.

By denying value and purpose, nihilism forces us see physical reality as a mechanical process in which our part is small. When we are walking in winter, falling snow appears to be coming toward us, but in reality we are moving forward as it falls.

Where morality deals with how things appear to us, nihilism addresses reality as a design and encourages us to learn how to adapt to it. Morality is withdrawal from natural selection; nihilism embraces it, and describes the world as a complex machine.


We frequently talk about “human nature.” It’s more sensible to talk about the challenges facing any animal with higher intelligence. Any smart animal will face the same challenges using roughly the same methods.

While having a big brain is an asset, it is also a liability, in that if a big brain has to re-analyze its surroundings, it will move very slowly. Instead, big brained animals analyze once, create a mental “map” of their world, and update as needed.

In theory, we update our maps when new data comes about. But if this data is incorrect, our knowledge of the world gets corrupted. We act expecting certain outcomes and are stunned when things do not go as planned.

What corrupts our minds is when we reverse the causal process of understanding. Instead of looking to the world, making conclusions and updating our maps, we update our maps based on what we wish were happening — or what others tell us.

If we withdraw into our own maps, and change those instead of reality, we can no longer predict reality. This is a problem because we are responsible for our fate. If we screw it up, no one else is going to bail us out.


Values and purpose are human inventions designed to be shared between us. Like language, values and purpose only work if we all know and agree on what they mean. They are easily manipulated by changing meaning without changing the symbol for it.

The world around us is consistent and non-judgmental. It functions and leaves thinking to us. If we do not make sense of it, the response will be bad. If we adapt to it, the response will be good.

Individuals using goodwill as a cover story have re-defined our values and purpose. They do this to benefit themselves, but as a result, corrupt the realistic outlook of society around them. This process takes centuries to fully show itself.

We cannot see evidence of our corruption in a single fact, but can measure it from multiple points of view and find what they have in common, like we triangulate to find radio signals. Our measurements are:

  • Ecocide. Our inability to constrain our numbers and our desires has resulted in human expansion which eliminates natural habitats, and both pollutes the environment and takes resources from it beyond what it can replenish.
  • Boredom. Society and jobs cater to the lowest common denominator, and so lapse into a utilitarian modernism that produces ugly architecture, mind-numbingly micromanaged tasks, disorder and dysfunction.
  • Selfishness. A culture based on individual desires makes it easy to manipulate one another, but produces no great art, and leaves us with commerce and political dogma that constrain not liberate us.
  • Neurosis. Value and purpose, when used to convince others that we are altruistic, good people, create a social reality that steadily drifts farther from the many factors of reality into a single, social or commercial factor. Our minds split between social reality and physical reality.
  • Depression. We compensate for a failing civilization through surrogate activities. These are ineffectual symbolic acts that we do not expect to make change, but they “uplift” us for a few moments so we feel better about ourselves.

2400 years ago Socrates recognized that individuals prefer how things appear — or can be made to appear — to their intelligible form, which requires knowledge of their context and consequences. Appearance is tangible and public.

Civilizations have a life cycle from birth to death. Each stage in this cycle has a distinct philosophy and psychology which corresponds to the type of government people in that time believes is best. These united patterns are “designs.”

From the day a civilization is founded, it drifts farther from reality and further into the world of appearance. People manipulate each other to get ahead, and the side effect is a corrupted image of reality.

People use wishful thinking to manipulate each other. Wishful thinking pretends that humans are omniscient and not part of nature. It avoids all mention of death, conflict, unequal abilities or eventually, reality itself.

Nihilism can restart the life cycle by removing wishful thinking. Seeing reality more accurately changes our assumptions, and from that like a row of falling dominoes our institutions and values change to be more realistic.


The opposite of nihilism is modernism, which is our name for the later stages of a civilization if it also has advanced technology. Modernism is defined by the use of linear logic and the belief in technological progress overcoming nature.

The last thousand years of Western civilization have been defined by a steadily-increasing modernism, and the previous thousand were expended on conflict allowing that modernism to happen.


The philosophy that came to be called rationalism emerged from our use of tools. Where previously we had to seek out a situation that matched our needs, now we needed only a single factor: the tool.

For example, instead of finding a location where fruit trees grew, one hauled out the plough and made a field, then planted the trees and later harvested the fruit.

When someone does a new task for the first time, they work from cause to effect, and figure out how the process works. Another person seeing them sees the result first, and only later figures out the steps involved — or uses a tool instead.

This linear logic, that lets us work backward from desired result through our tools, convinced us that we had conquered nature, which we saw as an external thing independent of us. It also simplified our thought process.

Modernism would not exist without linear logic. Linear logic is the idea that in a complex situation, a single factor can be extracted and manipulated, achieving a desired result. All other factors become ignored details.

Instead of killing a creature for food, and taking the skin for clothing, we would kill a creature for its skin — and write the rest off as details.


This thought process became an underlying assumption of all of our logic. In politics, we assumed that whatever most people thought was good was right. In economics, whatever made profit. In social situations, whatever was popular.

More importantly, we externalized ourselves by making ourselves dependent on what others agreed was the truth. This meant that appearance took precedence over reality, because if enough people were fooled, others would act as if it were truth.

In every situation, linear logic was used to extract an “essence” or “truth,” and all other factors are denied as details. This is convenient since some people can read those details and see imminent disaster others cannot, causing conflict.


As part of the process of specialization of labor, we must make others understand why our needs are important, so they can help us. In order to convince them, we use externalized social pressures to make ourselves look good.

Rationalism tells us to pick a single factor with which to measure a situation. In social situations, we choose self-preservation, and in order to achieve it for ourselves, we demand it for all people equally.

We demand the same rights for others just as ourselves because of the specialization of labor. When you must convince others that you ought to be helped, you need to first show them that you have goodwill toward them — without judging them.

The best way to do this is to suggest that the human form, and not the unique abilities of the human, makes this person entitled to being treated well. This way, no matter what they think of you, they will feel good for helping you.

We achieve this false goodwill through altruism, or the belief in helping all others universally and without judgment. We call this an absolute context, because it is the rationalistic single factor we choose in all situations.

In this, we have applied our backward logic to getting ahead in life: we must convince others through appearance that we are good, and that like a tool will achieve the results we desire. We convince others by pretending wishful thinking is reality:

  • Equality of all humans
  • Ability for anyone to do whatever they want
  • Peace, nonviolence, tolerance are good
  • Freedom from criticism on the basis of reality

In a rationalistic outlook, if social instability is bad, then social stability must be achieved — and we do not consider any secondary consequences. As a result, we make aggressive behavior taboo and reward those who avoid conflict.

To avoid conflict, we must compromise any idea where others will object to it. We ignore the consequences of our actions and focus instead of showing goodwill, which eliminates conflict, but causes us to compromise.

Since these compromises must avoid that which will cause conflict to any one person, we create a lowest common denominator response to reality of the inoffensive, benevolent-sounding, and easy, and ignore reality.


Since linear logic convinces us to pick one factor of many in our thinking, when approaching the question of life itself we pick a single factor: ourselves.

In order to make ourselves more powerful, we act so we appear altruistic, but we also act to appear independent and unique so we attract others to our personalities. This causes us to act entirely through social thinking.

Through this method, individualism creates a “social reality” or a conspiracy between people to manage reality with social factors. Since we need others, thanks to specialization of labor, we use this more than reality itself.

This has two effects: first, we become neurotic because we see reality in the details but are encouraged to ignore it; second, since social reality ignores secondary effects, disorder spreads and the cost is passed on to us.

This in turn encourages us to try to break away from social obligation, since we feel it is parasitic to us, and so we break away using more individualism. This does not work, so we turn to our leaders and ask for more control.

Control is the external imposition of what some people agree is true. Unlike an organic order, or one arriving from agreement and cooperation among people, it requires force and small rewards to function.

In this way, we can see how individualism leads to disorder which requires more control, in a process and cycle that gains intensity over time, causing civilization to collapse.


The public display of altruism became a powerful tool. It could get you elected, or make others follow you as a leader, or make them work for less money. It could get you ahead at the expense of others.

Civilization through its wealth makes it possible for us to be far enough removed from nature that we pretend there is no reality except human reality. We withdraw, and we do so in a group which defends itself against critique.

When illusion is rewarded and realistic ideas punished, the bad guys always win. The crowds, accustomed to being manipulated, run between one abuser and another, always believing the promises but then forgetting conveniently so the lie is not revealed.

This triumph of unreality brings consequences but because it is anti-social to mention them, those who bring them up are ostracized and kept out of jobs, relationships, friendships and public favor. The dogma overrides reality.

Since the dogma reaches deeply, to the level of our assumptions, children grow up brainwashed in this ideal and are afraid to consider any other possibilities. Those who tell the truth become “bad” and the lies become “good.”

At this point, the tail wags the dog. We no longer do things because they are realistic actions. We do them to make ourselves look good, so that we can leverage services out of others with our perceived altruism.

This is how civilization destroys itself. Modernism is this self-destruction process, couched as “freedom” and “justice,” but really a slow decay while those few cynical enough to know it’s a lie and still lie make record profits.

Because the civilization is based on the idea of individualism, or each person being able to do whatever they think is right, it soon becomes utilitarian. “What most people think is best is best” defines utilitarianism.

The social institutions designed to implement our grand plans are always failing because the plans are unrealistic, so we blame them. A perpetual struggle between people, markets and governments manifests itself in increasingly rare consensus.

Like a society of drunks, civilization gets ugly but it is not permitted to notice. Behavior is disorganized, and the only plan is one based on linear logic, or removing the “bad” and assuming what’s left is the good.

The only things people can agree on are that they want to be able to earn money, and that they do not want other people interrupting them. They call these agreements “freedom”,”equality” and “justice” and crush any who oppose them.


We are all acquainted with centralized authoritarianism. More scary is the tendency of crowds, through constant rebellions for more “freedom” which cause negative social consequences, requiring more control, to create totalitarian states.

The first part of this process is “distributed” totalitarianism, or the tendency of crowds to enforce dogma by ostracizing those who do not repeat the dogma and depriving them of the benefits of specialized labor.

In this stage, individuals gain power by pandering to the desire of the crowd to see appearance triumph over reality. Individuals can find others lacking in altruism, point it out, and be rewarded with higher social status.

The second, when disorder rises enough at the same time the civilization becomes more disorganized, is where the oligarchs who have profited from its decline choose a tyrant to enforce a brutal, simplistic and effective order.

This is how freedom, equality and justice create tyranny through control. Because they are imposed orders, derived from linear logic which picks one factor of many to be absolute, they conflict with reality and require more not less power.


Reversing this process of decay is surprisingly easy. We need to change our assumptions and method of thinking. Nihilism will change our unrealistic thinking and lead us to another philosophy called parallelism.

Parallelism replaces linear logic. Where linear logic says to pick one factor of many, parallelism says we consider all factors at once and look at their impact.

In parallelism, instead of killing a buffalo for clothing, we determine how many buffalo we can take without destroying the herd, and figure out how to use and store their products so we are efficient.


Most political control structures create a partial truth of reality, define obedience to it as good/evil, and rapidly control people using that. The dogma of equality, freedom, peace, tolerance and nonviolence is no different.

Parallelism reverses this pattern by forcing a description of reality as a whole, and then pointing out what actions will bring negative consequences from reality itself — with no need for the evil/not-evil artificial reality of control.

Unlike idealistic and utopian systems, parallelism recognizes that there is no way to avoid tragedy, conflict, horror and decay, but that they can be limited if people are vigilant toward keeping each other on track toward reality.

Where most political systems define what is bad, and assume the rest to be good, parallelism defines a goal and works toward it through whatever methods work. We call it a “whole” philosophy since it does not divide the world into bad and good.


Parallelism recognizes that bad and good do not exist, but are our judgments of outcomes. It also recognizes that the ultimate outcome of life, its perpetuation, requires both good and evil, so we call it “meta-good.”

Once we see reality as meta-good, we do not need false positivity and false inherency as offered by other “worlds” created through human judgment. Whether secular (social reality) or religious (heaven), these other worlds corrupt us.

Denying inherent value and purpose removes this false positivity and with it the means of mental control of individuals that in turn empowers the control of the state. When the good symbol appears, people rush toward it, into their doom.

When the thought process of justification is reversed, people stop looking for inherent or social reality proof, and instead turn to the scientific method — observing reality, and testing their knowledge of it, to see what patterns emerge.


By denying the inherent, nihilism orients itself toward patterns that emerge from situations. This moves away from universal or absolute truths. Patterns do not exist, but every time certain conditions are met, “emerge” in different forms.

Emergent conditions require an entirely different type of logic. While we could call it non-linear, it more accurately resembles many linear logics — for all factors of a situation — considered simultaneously. We call it parallelism.

One aspect of parallelism is noting that patterns occur in parallel between the forms of matter, energy and thought. Patterns are a type of design or organization which can appear in all three of those forms.

Where linear logic and control structures demand a single absolute path, in parallelism, nothing is absolute. Objects and situations do not have inherent, fixed properties. What makes patterns appear is the organization of many factors.

Parallelism arises from nihilism because in order to deny value and purpose, one must have a logical basis for doing so, and in order to show they are not part of reality, we must know how reality assembles itself and what its parts are.

Philosophers describe emergent properties as “immanent,” or distilling out of a situation rather than being inherent to one of its parts. While inherent properties are products of judgment that must be absolute, immanent properties are neither.

We can describe immanent properties as “organic,” because like life itself, they grow from a few conditions into a diversity of objects formed from similar patterns under slightly different circumstances. Control, on the other hand, must be imposed.


Because nihilists believe neither in religious other worlds (heaven) or secular other worlds (morality), we are independent from the principle of absolute and universal dogma that denies the importance and beauty of reality.

As a result, nihilism can be said to be a transcendent philosophy. Values and purpose are things we impose based on our observations of what will succeed in adapting to reality, and yet also give us a sense of “meaning.”

Meaning is interpreted by the individual but derived from reality, so realistic individuals have similar ideas of what is importance. Meaning reverses withdrawl by connecting us with the world around us.

Philosophers call this transcendental, from the Latin “climb over,” because it encourages us to accept reality including its negative aspects. Instead of denying the negative, we find a greater positive goal in reality itself, the “meta-good.”

When we transcend, we no longer need false absolutes. Instead, we delight in reality because it is a space of potential. Good and bad are methods we can use to make that potential happen.


Since nihilism is ultimately an affirmation of the scientific method and the need for logical decisions, we can act outside of morality to see what is the best adaptation to reality a civilization can offer — and pick this design for our own.

We do not have to like the answers we find. These are not choices, preferences, or beliefs; they are deductions from using our logical skills. They are too complex to be “proved” by experiments, but our sense of logic can help us see truth in them.


Every civilization needs a narrative. This consensus describes the origins of the civilization, its ongoing but unattainable goal, and what its values and methods are to achieve that.

The best goals are not tangible ones, but goals that can grow over time, like we compete against ourselves with our personal goals. For most, the goal is tied to a land, a worldview, a values system and people like themselves.

Immanent goals are patterns which naturally make sense given a certain situation. These do not change over time because humans do not change. When these occur as a part of the growth of a civilization, we call them “organic” goals.

Organic societies are logical responses to their environments. They exist on a “whole” level, or one that considers all factors at once. They are the opposite of linear modernist societies, which consider only one factor at a time.

Where control societies encourage us to think in terms of one condition being true at a time (logical OR), parallelism encourages us to see how many can be true at once (logical AND). Organic societies are cooperation, not control, based.

Parallelism tells us there is no one way all people should live, but that different societies should use different methods toward the same goals. Those that adapt to reality using their specific method will thrive over time.

Further, parallelism does not attempt to repeat the past nor does it throw away learning. History is our laboratory and science is our method. Parallelism encourages us to accept modern society, centralization, technology — and use them wisely.


As parallelists, we believe that we can establish a handful of principles that modify our current liberal democratic capitalist society, and that these will “organically” grow into a whole concept:

  1. Localization. We do not need to live in big cities, and are happier in small communities. These can manage their own affairs, and an overlapping hierarchy of county, state and national governments can address bigger issues.
  2. Culture before commerce. If we change our outlook to think in terms of cultural demands which commerce should serve, instead of the other way around, our society will have more consensus.
  3. Organic, whole society. In everything that we do, we consider whole factors. It may benefit a few factors to have another McDonald’s on a busy street corner, but we must think of all factors and make decisions accordingly.
  4. We have a clear consensus and everything else is permitted. We can approach values two ways:
    1. use negative logic and try to avoid evil, which implies that everything else is good, leading to lack of direction;
    2. use positive logic and try to achieve good, which implies that all not leading to that goal is not useful.

    We should approach values through method (b), as it means that more things are permitted.

  5. Direct our resources toward constructive goals. We can spend our time, money and effort on fears, or we can build up the best hopes we have. We should do the latter.

These attitudinal changes alone will produce a parallelist society from what we have. They are easy to implement and require only the agreement of minority of people in society who are leaders in their communities.


The possibility of action confounds the modern person who does not want to engage in “activist” politics, or those which empower certain groups at the expense of the whole. How to change a society dedicated to distraction?

Among us, there are 2-5% of people in our society who are leaders in a practical sense. This means that whether they have an official title or not, they lead the community in business, spiritual, community, academic or social settings.

These are the people that your average person trusts. They trust information from these people more than from the government, their televisions, or casual friends. They respect the judgment abilities of these people.

Our goal is to inform these leaders of our values, get them to form consensus that these should be adopted, and then send them forth to implement these values in all that they do and to demand them from politicians.

This occurs in three steps:

  1. Identify, brand and promote an ideology via the internet.
  2. Bring the discussion of this ideology to mainstream media.
  3. Unite the people who find it meaningful to aggressively push it to others.

In modern societies, having a large number of vocal supporters counts, but you do not need “most” of the population or anywhere near it. Successful revolutions are generally championed by 1-2% of a population. That’s all we need.

As we approach step III, it makes the most sense for us to find candidates to take local offices and show that our ideas can succeed, gaining more trust from the general population. Ours is not a revolution but a peaceful transition.

You can help by joining us, and convincing others who are leaders in thought in your community to take a look at what we have to offer.

A parable.


Wednesday, November 2nd, 2005


Sometimes it helps to have a few basic terms spelled out in the simplest form possible. While this article does not attempt to dumb down any of these ideas, it does give you the elemental structure, although you – the reader – will probably have questions owing to the elusive nature of many of these concepts at initial contact.


Removal of value that is not directly relevant to reality. We exist in the same world, and interact in ways that can be predicted, given a study of repeatable actions and responses. Therefore, while we can noodle on about whether or not reality is “real,” it is for all intents and purposes as real as anything can be. Nihilism is a belief in nothing, which if you unpack it linguistically, means a positive belief in the value of nothing. Nothingness can be applied to all of our neuroses, fears, impressions, and the illusions produced by poor interpretation of our own senses. What is left is a clearer view of reality. We may never have 100% clarity in viewing our world, but the closer we get the more powerful we become. Thus nihilism strips aside anything that comes between us and a perception of structure and context in the world. Most of these “preprocessor directives” originate in our emotional and socialized responses to the world, which demands we categorize certain actions as “good” or “bad” for the sake of keeping all of us here in the crowd on the same page. Nihilism is not a belief system for followers, although many followers claim to believe in it. It is like Zen consciousness: a removal of illusion, a focus of the perception facilities, and a joining of the imaginative and analytical minds. In doing so, we transcend our position as individuals and mortal beings, and are able to see the world as it is, infinite and continuous and extending far beyond our own lives.


This term is almost indefinable, but it refers to the internal relationship of parts that forms a whole to any given thing, and the transfer of energy or support of form therein. When we speak of a chair, its structure can be summarized as a certain number of legs supporting a platform which in turn supports a chairback; no matter what the chair looks like, this physical relationship will be expressed. Structure does not exist; it is our perceptive mind finding common relationships between objects; however, structure also quasi-exists in that its functional relationship is essential to the existence of objects or events. Structure is what we see in abstraction when we look at things in our physical world. While anyone can call something a chair, it takes mental energy to understand what makes a chair a chair, and how to build one. Theory is the study of structure. Plato suggested in his famous metaphor of the cave that we see shadows cast by a fire as our metaphorical reality; outside the cave, there are objects, and in our minds these leave silhouettes which are structure.


All things are relative, and all things are relative to the whole. The interaction of different relative parts produces context. Context is surroundings and natural forces.


That part of the world which is external to us, and consistent, and provides sustenance to us and takes our lives as it sees fit. Specifically, its description as physical objects or structural concepts with immediate correlation to physical objects. (Translation: the world outside you, minus your thoughts and emotions and blue book valuations, et cetera.)


When one looks at life analytically, it is clear that it has many different parts which operate best in certain contexts; to think non-linearly is to understand that each has its place contributing to the whole, operating in parallel. Crowdism is the desire expressed by the greatest number of us, who have no facility for leadership and no ability to think past the direct consequences of their actions, for linearity, so that none are above or below others. It is an emotional response to the inequality of nature, and is oblivious to the fact that in nature equality is achieved through the singular beauty of life which can be experienced by all. Crowdism is a revenge impulse which wishes to destroy those who have exceptional abilities or who have risen above the crowd; it is the ultimate in-group, out-group response. Crowdists by definition do not think of long term implications to their potential actions, and thus are terrible rulers, but as they think emotionally and their thinking is limited to their own desires, they wish not to have any above themselves as they find it insulting to their generally low-self-esteem personalities. While anyone who is incapable of seeing beyond the immediate consequences (linear thinking) of their actions is an Underman, Crowdists are those who take being an Underman and make it into a political statement: tear down the superior, exalt the inferior, and we’ll all be “equal.” Unfortunately, emotional reactions fare poorly in the real world, as it is much more carefully constructed than some out of control cognitive dissonance resopnse, and therefore, as history shows us, Crowdism destroys every civilization where it gains predominance. However, it seems Crowdism is a part of the life span of every civilization, usually immediately preceding its demise into third-world status, because as civilizations grow their citizens take them for granted, and seek to “improve” upon a model they do not understand as they have not known struggle. Crowdism, then, is like getting fat: a result of idleness and lack of clear view of reality. Crowdism can take on any host, whether Communism or National Socialism, Greenism or Christianity. The only response to Crowdism is an insistence upon meritocracy, including of bloodlines, so that one can create a leadership caste which sequesters the detailed knowledge necessary for rulership. However, the only kind of society that can maintain such a caste is one with a rigorous ascetic tradition, and a desire to remove the excessive mediocre people who will otherwise gain a numerical majority, demand “democratic” representation and thus overrule those better suited to lead. The previous sentence is a servicable description of what has happened to the West, and why it is now in crisis.


This term is misunderstood: in the philosophical sense, it means a belief that the physical world is all that exists, and all that is valued. Interestingly, this precludes idealism, because in a materialism view, nothing can be higher than material good/bad, thus comfort is more important than some ideal or abstract goal. Materialism is the belief of cosmopolitan (no inherited culture) and Judaic societies worldwide. It has never been adopted by any group with a clear ethnic lineage and connection to land and a form of universal spiritual belief.


The belief that life operates much as our thoughts do, and that it is likely they have a common ancestor; this opens the door to analysis of the mathematics behind existence, which at its most abstract level is the foundation of metaphysics. Idealism as a prescriptive belief places a higher value on correct thoughts than on material consequences; it is the opposite of materialism. As a descriptive belief, it affirms that evolution and our own scientific method of thought have similar origins and function. Idealism is the one truly masculine belief system, in that it operates as follows: 1. Analyze world. 2. Determine optimum structure. 3. Impose it upon physical reality. 4. Death is no defeat. It suggests the possibility of a higher plane of continuous structure to reality, whereby our thoughts join with the thoughts of the world, in a combination between analysis and imagination. Interestingly, European knights and Zen masters and quantum physicists all seem to stalk this same plateau of understanding.


Undermen (if you’re an Underperson, you’ll demand we use that gender-neutral term) are those who resent others and believe we should all be equalized. They do not recognize that every state in life is holy, and that the collaboration of these states produce the whole. They have the idea that somehow rats are evil, the anus is evil, death is evil, etc. without realizing that these things are essential to the survival of something better than good, which we call “meta-good,” a state that requires both positive (good) and negative (bad) elements in order to keep going. Without death, life would be endless pointless time. Without defecation, more eating would not be so beautiful. Without rats, the forest would clutter with waste. To be beyond good and evil is to recognize this relationship, and to embrace your life whatever your stature – wealthy businessman, plumber, janitor, soldier, or homeless crack-addicted bum. Undermen come from every social class, every walk of life, and every persuasion. It is an attitude. Higher-bred Undermen are more capable, and thus more destructive; Undermen are produced through tribal mixing, as it shatters the contiguous evolution of a specialized value system in the individual, and leaves them to invent their own, which, unless they’re a philosophical genius with lots of free time, usually ends up being some form of Crowd revenge or another (Jesus Christ, V.I. Lenin, George Bush: high-bred, mixed-breed Undermen). Those who accept their stature in life without revenge and look upon life as holy are not Undermen, even if they’re impoverished crack-addicted homeless bums. Those who wish revenge and resent those who have better abilities or traits than themselves are secretely revengeful against nature and life’s order itself, as they distrust and fear evolutionary process, and they are Undermen, even if they’re fantastically wealthy, good-looking and surrounded by admirers. For the observant, this is nature’s justice: character and internal will are the only judgments of worth that matter, because all else is window dressing.


Any belief which externalizes its structure of advancement, which by the nature of external things as unpredictable, requires it have a single layer of approval. Any organization, church, or social club where if you walk in the door and sign on the dotted line and are considered a member, by its nature, is exoteric. It is a linear form of belief.


Any non-linear belief system, such as one that internalizes its structure of advancement. These systems tend to be open to all, and recognize that only inside of the individual – heart and mind – can advancement be made. They are direct opposites to exoteric systems.


The knowledge that there is no single linear “right way” of doing things, but any number of approaches to a problem, and that they can exist if segregated, as they do not mix. What may be right for one group is evil for another; what may work for one person is evil for another; what may be perfect at one moment is destructive in another. For some people, living like reckless hedonists and dying young is the perfect fulfilment of existence; for others, living conservatively and growing old surrounded by family is. In Israel, Judaism and the Jewish ethnicity are perfection; in Germany, they are destruction. It is for this reason that ethnic groups do not combine, social castes do not combine, and some individuals will never understand others. What is important is recognizing that working in parallel, we achieve the perpetuation of this amazing, beautiful world.

Recommended Reading