Posts Tagged ‘peer pressure’

Control Makes People Broken

Monday, October 31st, 2016


Ye are not other men, but my arms and legs; and so obey me. — Captain Ahab, Moby-Dick

As societies mature, they need methods of holding people together so they can cooperate toward goals, which express purpose and values in tangible form. They have lost their original goal, which is to have civilization in the first place, because they have achieved it.

At this point, the growing civilization faces a more difficult task than ever before: it must unify its citizens toward purpose, including self-discipline to uphold moral standards, without a pressing threat. It is easy to unite people when famine or invaders threaten, but otherwise, people default to the Simian “everybody do whatever they want to.”

The only way known to make this work, throughout all of history, is to make citizenship contingent upon people being useful and understanding the purpose.

Since this is not only true but obvious, a movement immediately forms in every society like mold on cheese. This is compromised of individuals, acting in their own self-interest, who desire to be included despite lack of contribution or purpose, and they form a collective to use peer pressure to enforce their inclusion under the guise of universal inclusion.

This usually follows a diversity event, or interaction with other cultures such that sufficiently different people are included in the society. Once the people are markedly different, one can no longer point to the values of that civilization as absolute, but most widen values so that all can be included. At that point, the values seem arbitrary and people agitate against them because they secretly desire “everybody do whatever they want.”

At the moment that a society accepts universal inclusion, it commits itself to control, or the habit of having (1) a centralized authority that demands (2) uniform, or “universal,” obedience to the same rules. Purpose has been replaced by rules, which are a proxy or symbolic substitute for purpose. Rules are popular because they can be easily gamed, or subverted in intent while staying within boundaries of the rule as written.

Control is destructive because it forces people to externalize the process of making decisions to the rules. People no longer think about the consequences of their actions; they think about the rules, and whether they will be seen as good or bad for their attitude toward the rules. Authority and leadership are replaced by power.

In long term physical consequences, control creates societies that are destructive for the same reason that red tides — algal blooms that absorb all the oxygen and choke all life in ponds and oceans — are devastating. With no need to be focused on purpose, people expand in every direction chaotically, and this encourages reckless growth in order to sustain the vast number of people doing nothing particularly important.

The greatest damage however is done inside of people. When they defer responsibility to external forces, they lose the ability to make decisions. This in turn savages their ability to understand what is important, and what their own values are. Soon only two things exist: against-the-rules and permitted by dint of not being prohibited. This fosters random behavior, perversity, parasitism and other human ills that civilization needs to keep in check.

People in such societies are made neurotic. They no longer know what is real, only what is rewarded with popularity. Like lemmings, they would march over a cliff by following the person in front of them. They are entirely regulated by social control, or what others think of them based on appearance, and so “reality” becomes alien.

For this reason, they never know what the outcomes of their actions will be, and start to become conformist or prone to negatively restrict their actions to what has become popular in the past. This creates a herd instinct that focuses people on trends, panics, fads and precedent and punishes any who deviate through social censure. That in turn creates a headless society, like a circle of people each following the other.

At this point, people begin to feel pretty bad at an existential level, or the depth at which one considers the meaning of life and the value of existence. Nothing they do that is good will be rewarded, and any attempts to break out of groupthink will be punished. A dark organization has arisen that opposes creative and realistic thinking.

The only way out of the ensuing death spiral is to effect an artificial bottleneck, or filtering of the population for its most fit, in this case those that still understand the purpose. Either that group must leave and set up a new civilization, or it must exile the purposeless.

Among diseases, the spread of this mental virus is unique because it attacks the strong. Civilizations that rise above the minimum now must contend with a threat from within, and many people are frightened of the type of strong authority — with consequences of potential exclusion — that this return to health requires.

In the modern West, we have needed such a purge for some time. It is not because these people are bad but because their purpose is elsewhere. If we want to restore the greatness of the past and rise to new greatness in the future, we need a civilization unified on that purpose.

Election 2016 presents a moment ripe for such a decision. Half of the country wants a third-world style socialist government, and the rest wants something going in the opposite or, better, a healthier direction. Whichever side wins will destroy the other, so the bottleneck is coming whether we like it or not.

The big world out there

Sunday, September 14th, 2014


Most people live in very small worlds. These worlds consist of their social group, people at their jobs, and their families. Beyond that, they know little — and they do not care.

Their goal almost universally becomes to have an identity within this small social group. Here they can be either the big cheese, or the person who is an expert in a certain area, and thus always be needed.

Entry by any new party, or arrival of a new group that makes the old group look as small as it is, will provoke energetic response. They want their identities left alone and kept in perpetuity.

In the old days, these groups could be satirized as a competition for who bakes the best crumb cake in the PTA, or which lady at church has the best finery on. In contemporary society the competition occurs over Facebook and Tinder and consists of who gets the most attention from others.

As the small world expands, the complexity of its choice decreases because the competition becomes more anonymous. Soon all that differentiates someone is novelty, promiscuity and outlandishness. The small world remains small because it chooses people based on these social criteria and the broader awareness of consequences beyond what other people think remains mysterious.

It is possible for humanity to be globalized, connected up to the second, and part of the same political movement and still to be a small world. In fact, most political movements are small world gestures: defend your social group, your status, or your pretense of who you are as a person.

Small worlds force competition between people for place. In doing so, they create an identity which replaces moral identity (“I do what is right”) and broader social identity, like national identity. Small worlds want to break people down into granular beings so that no index of selection exists except social popularity in the small world.

When people choose a small world, they create actions which have effects in the big world. All of our choices lead to action; all actions have effects; those effects are not limited to us because they reach beyond us. Small world choices tear down big worlds.

The big world has one essential component: what is called “natural law,” or the order of the cosmos as understood through science, philosophy and religion. Unlike small worlds, it is not based on emotion and social popularity (a form of transmissible emotion). It is reality as we best know it, and a record of what has worked and what has not during our 6,000 years on this planet.

People in small worlds will find big world people impossible to comprehend. Big world people look to the future, and look toward many effects at once, comparing them always to a goal for an “optimum” or “best case scenario.” Small world people look to the immediate, the emotional and the social only.

As we conduct a postmortem on the most recent civilization to collapse into third world status, namely Western liberal democracy, we might begin our inquiry with: were they thinking in terms of big worlds, or were they limited to small worlds?


Thursday, October 6th, 2011


One fine fall day, a massive grumbling from the stomach split the silent morning. The cells on break time were hanging loose at their favorite watering hole, a looped vein near the pyloric sphincter that tended to accumulate abundant nutrients. And, as usual, the talk turned to the lack of a comfortable living in the support tissues.

“I’ve really had it with all of this,” said an epithelial cell. “We do all the hard work, and the heart and brain are just kickin’ back and living the fine life.”

“It’s true,” spoke up a swarthy intestinal lining cell. “Who picks the nutrients out of the food? Me, all day long. And I see none of it.”

“You guys think you have it bad,” said a muscle cell. Muscle cells generally did not grumble as they tended to get more oxygen than organs. “I used to have a steady flow, every day. Now some days, I’m gasping.”

A lone nerve cell sparked up a cigarette and tossed in her two cents. “There hasn’t been as much food lately,” she cautioned. “Everyone gets less. The brain is trying to find us more food.”

A hubbub bubbled up and drowned her out.

“More food?” raged the intestinal lining cell. “We’ve got enough, we just need to spread it around a bit more. The brain is 2.8% of the body weight, but uses 20.37% of its energy. That’s just too much.”

“You know, you’re right,” said a pancreatic cell. “If we divided up the nutrients evenly, there would be no more strife. No more wars. No more social classes. We could live in harmony forevermore.”

A roar of approval shot forth from the undifferentiated tissue.

“What a paradise it could be,” said a comely young liver cell. “Everyone living for love, living in peace, doing what they need to do, you know, discovering themselves.”

Suddenly the cells felt themselves being crowded. An armored line of immune cells faced them down. “Break it up! Go back to your places!” megaphones boomed.

“Fascists!” screamed a longhaired prostate cell, flinging intracellular waste at them. The immune cells wrestled him to the ground and punched him repeatedly.

The lead immune cell faced the crowd. “Listen, we’ve got a social order here. If you break it, chaos results. If you make it too lenient, everyone works more to accomodate everyone else. We have to all work toward the same goal or civilization falls apart.”

Two surly and bearded kidney cells detached from the back cell wall and began to wander among the crowd, murmuring. One of them sold out copies of his magnum opus, “Harmonistics: Vector Analysis of Class Disparities and The One True Solution, Equiveinous Unitivism.” Silently they tossed droplets of adrenaline among the angriest, thinnest, meanest and dumbest cells.

Soon pancreatic cells were squirting insulin into the crowd, inflaming the mood. Someone blasted loose a packet of sex hormones and the crowd went wild. The immune cells were quickly overwhelmed and disarmed.

“The revolution begins today,” howled a scruffy adrenal cell. “For too long, the 2.8% has dominated the rest and made us its slaves.”

The crowd cheered.

“For too long, the 2.8% has divided us by organs and tissue types. They have divided us against each other! For the truth is, we are all brothers and together we can make a new and better life.”

The crowd cheered.

“For too long, the 2.8% has made us unequal, which is unnatural. We are known only by our homeostatic function, and that ranks us for nutrients. In our new world, we will be individuals of no cell type and no rank. We will all be equal. The brain cell and the liver cell shall come together and not be nerve cell and smooth cell, but a new type of cell, the undifferentiated cell, a citizen at large.”

The crowd cheered.

“For too long, the 2.8% has denied that we are individuals. Without our cell types, and our homeostatic rank, we will join hands in equal brotherhood. We are here because we are individuals, and as individuals, we want to be equal. Are you individuals?”

“YES, WE ARE INDIVIDUALS,” the crowd roared.

The kidney cell cast a sly look at his cohort, who nodded. Sales of the pamphlet were going well. Whatever happened, these two kidney cells were going to retire to luxury on desireable bloodstream-front property in the appendix, the most desired neighborhood.

“Onward with the revolution!” he shouted.

The crowd surged forth and made good on their plans. First, they set up a space in the prostate for a prototype of the new society. They called it the Free Zone. There were no rules. Everything was divided equally. People worked when they felt like it. For a few months, it was ideal.

Over time, however, the cells began grumbling again. It seemed that not all cells wanted to work at all, and some cells just made a hash of it when they had to do certain things. But every time the grumbling reached a peak, the kidney cells were there, tossing free nutrients into the crowd.

“We don’t need leaders,” said a scruffy kidney cell. “We’ll just vote on what we want to do.” It was hard to get consensus, because almost everyone had a suggestion, and soon there was chaos. The kidney cells never seemed to mind. It was as if they encouraged the crowd to get louder, and more disorganized, and then laughed and disappeared when the votes turned out inconclusive.

Soon the Free Zone grew. The new cells abandoned their tissue types, and shared DNA freely with each other. They became individuals, which from a distance looked like cells with no particular purpose, or undifferentiated tissue. Everyone loved the Free Zone because there were no rules. Soon it grew and grew.

At this point, the revolution spread to other organs as well. Free Zones began cropping up in the liver, the pancreas, the intestines and even finally, the brain. Throughout the body, the old way — having leadership and hierarchy — fell in favor of the Free Zones and their new way of doing things.

The young liver cell was ecstatic. Finally, they had crushed the oppression that had kept her and her family down for all these years. They had broken the barriers between tissue types. Everyone was equal. Everything was perfect.

But problems remained. The Free Zone in the intestines was blocking the absorption of nutrients, so there was less to go around. A vote was taken, and it was decided to cut back the amount of food the brain received. This seemed to work for a few days, and then the number of injuries skyrocketed, as if the brain was completely out of its mind.

“The brain has declared war on us,” raged a kidney cell. “We have been attacked and must defend ourselves. And while we’re at it, we should just replace this brain with elections. We don’t need a brain anymore. It’s no smarter than we are. Because we are individuals! Are you individuals?”

“YES, WE ARE INDIVIDUALS!” shouted the crowd.

The Free Zone in the brain expanded until it took over most of that organ. The injuries stopped almost entirely — in fact, it was as if the body were not in motion at all. Nutrients arrived on a regular basis, as did pleasing television and morphine.

“We’ve really got it made now,” one of the intestinal cells jostled his comrade, as they made the long walk around the Free Zone that now took up most of the intestine.

Only one disturbing event marred the solicitude of the new perfect empire. An injury that was totally unexpected occurred; the nerve cells were on drugs of some kind, and didn’t do their duty reporting back. “Whatever, we’re all equal now,” they called back. But the Free Zone in the liver was almost totally destroyed!

“This is the work of the brain’s lackeys,” said the kidney cells. “We honor our fallen comrades. Now, who wants some more free nutrients?”

The attacks continued however. One day they all awoke from a drugged stupor and found the original Free Zone in the prostate had been destroyed. A few days later, the muscles reported new toxins in the bloodstream.

Again the cells gathered in the looped vein and started their angry chatter. “Why aren’t our leaders doing something?” asked an epithelial cell.

“We have no leaders,” said an immune cell through a drugged haze. “We vote now. We’re all equal.”

“What should we do?” said the young kidney cell, who found herself alone again, her latest beau having not stayed because, all things being equal, he’d found a comely young hair follicle cell who was giving herself away.

The grumbling continued until finally the cells turned to an immune cell and demanded he bring the people accountable to justice. Shrugging, he grabbed a few of his old mates from the precinct, and they vanished. A few minutes later they returned with the bearded kidney cells, who looked hung over and like they’d been asleep — asleep in the middle of the day? — surely not.

One kidney cell looked out over the angry mob and fled immediately. The other one nervously smoothed his hair, then took the podium.

“Brothers and sisters,” he said, “You may think we are in dire straits, but we are at the moment of our greatest triumph. This morning, advance units of our revolutionary guard have stationed themselves in the heart and the remaining unconquered areas of the brain.”

The crowd murmured.

“This has been a long war, a hard war. The lackeys of the brain and heart have destroyed many Free Zones, and we have suffered under their injustices many times. But those were the last times. Today, we take total control.”

The murmur intensified.

“We are no longer separated by tissue types. We are all equal. And with the Free Zones, we are more than that. We are individuals. This means that we do not think of ourselves by our rank in the body, and indeed we don’t have one. We are a new type of cell, an undifferentiated cell. And this means that we are all one.”

The crowd roared.

“Yes, my brothers and sisters, we have finally brought justice to this body. Say it with me: we are all one.”

“WE ARE ALL ONE,” the crowd shouted.

The kidney cell paused for dramatic effect. “We have overthrown the illegitimate power over us, and brought about a new age of peace and prosperity. We are all one!” Someone brought out a guitar, and the comely liver cell began a strip-tease dance on the stage behind the podium.

“WE ARE ALL ONE,” the crowd shouted, but a new noise began to drown them out. The regular beat of the heart had become erratic and confused. Shocked looks filled the crowd. At the front, however, the most popular of the cells — the teachers, the singers and actors, and the politicians — kept up the chant:



And then, the beating stopped.

“Looks like this one’s a goner,” said the doctor, removing his glasses. “We did everything we could.”

“It’s a shame,” said his partner. “Oh well, let’s clean up and get out of here. There’s an election tonight. I hope the new Equality Amendment passes.”

They left the room, silent except for the hum of a disinterested lamp.


Saturday, May 13th, 2006


The term “bourgeois” was used by Marxist theorists to refer to the complacent middle classes who, in pursuit of the comforts that moderate wealth could provide, neglected all ideological concerns. The bourgeois attitude became characterized by the idea of “don’t rock the boat” and a benign form of Social Darwinism that figured if people did not have money, it was because they did not want it or were defective in some way (true in 99.4% of poverty cases; the remaining 0.6% are philosophers, artists, dissidents and orgone scientists). Where Marxists found the most support in the West was among the intellectuals who, terrified by the drugged attitude that wealth defines aptitude prevalent in their societies, wanted to find something to break the money yoke. Unfortunately, the only contrary instinct among the left has been a tendency to equalize income, which still relies on income.

After the second world war, and the world silent conflict known as the Cold War, communism proved its untenability for this reason to the middle classes of the West even if not to the academes who eschew normal life in favor of the subsidized, accountability-less lifestyle of the professional theorist. Watching a succession of countries be devasted culturally, economically and socially by the dogma-heavy class-revenge agenda of communism made us skittish about it. For this reason, the word “bourgeois” fell out of favor except with self-parodic student “activists.” Yet the word is making a resurgence today to describe the egalitarian distribution of its disposition.

Near A.N.U.S. HQ there is a public park that, unlike most shared spaces in cities, was created from undeveloped wilderness; such a thing is rare since most cities expand first and then find reasons to dedicate recreation centers from the flattest land available, and usually begin by razing all existing wildlife and replacing it with orderly lawns and public restrooms. The park in question in this article was preserved by accident of legislation, and initially, was unregulated public space populated with trees. The rarity of such a place within driving distance of a skyscraper made it immediately popular.

Initially, its fanbase was formed of the outdoorsy types who wanted to wander through trees and see butterflies and rivers and marvel at the thousands if not millions of species of flora and fauna accessible to those who could still their neurotic need for “activities” long enough to observe them. It was a great place for a walk or to simply meditate in a natural setting. This was not to last long.

First, the “sportspeople” spoke up: they wanted to be able to ride their bikes through the underbrush, so needed paths. This naturally led to conflict with those who walked through the forest, and led to bans on such things as BB guns and tents.

Next, the suburban walkers and cell phone users spoke up: they wanted to be able to take nice genteel strolls without having to interface with the bugs, snakes, poison ivy, thorny undergrowth and fallen logs that are part of any successful forest. Government, always eager to curry votes, leapt into the fray and put down a paved path which — of course — required at least twenty feet of shaved earth made into boring lawn on either side.

Well, at this point, you’ve invited in the general population, so what happens? Crime! Soon, police patrols were needed, and since crimes happen at such distant intervals, they brought with them a horde of regulations to justify their existence. Soon rules about leashes, skateboards, sleeping outdoors, and a pooper scooper patrol came about. In order to patrol in their motorized carts (most efficient!) of course, they needed more forest shorn and replaced with grass.

Not surprisingly, all this lawn created further needs. It had to be mowed, and the most efficient way to do that is with giant riding mowers, so “obstructions” had to be removed and straightaways and turnarounds created. Exit more forest.

Of course, when you break up forest like that, you ruin its ability to exist as contiguous space and thus some parts of the ecosystem die and breed certain creatures, like mosquitoes and rats, disproportionately (generalist species such as rats, squirrels, sparrows, raccoons and cockroaches exist at a ratio of five times normal in suburban spaces because specialized species require unbroken terrain, where things that eat anything and breed recklessly fit in anywhere). This in turn required clearing of forest floor detritus, which eliminated whole ecosystems and in turn created other needs to clean up after their death and the leaves, logs, roots, and bug carcasses that otherwise would have been composted by nature.

Finally, the civic groups got involved. What was left was small trailings of forest shot through with smoothworn bike trails, surrounded by lawn and wide patches of open dirt where detritus and other forces of nature had been removed. It was boring. It was ugly. It did not look like a park in a major, important city, but an open lot with forest like acne shot through it. So what does a government that wishes to be popular do? It landscapes the damn thing.

There’s still forest left, and for this reason, the area is still more popular than other parks in the city. However, this forest is not like the wild, but is closer to a kept garden which is allowed to walk a little on the wild side, and you cannot go more than five feet in it without encountering some human-regulated space or leavings. What has happened to this area? It has been overcivilized, or made safe for so many interests that it has lost its original purpose and appeal, which was as natural space in a city where people are sick of managed, civilized spaces.

It used to have snakes and bugs and things that could kill you; it had neat geographic features like escarpments and copses and dropoffs and underground rivers. All of these however can result in injury and lawsuits, so they had to go. Even more, it had to fit into the exercise and recreational expectations of city people, so anything which obstructed that had to go. In the process of making it fit the diversity of expectations, we changed it into the same kind of space we find elsewhere in the city, but decorated like a forest. Civilization proved its own worst enemy again.

What we see here is, to borrow that Marxist word, the influence of bourgeois tastes — but in this case, we cannot blame the middle class. The suburbs are home to people of all economic grades, all ethnic groups and backgrounds, all genders and sexual inclinations at this point. No one is not guilty.

Restricting “bourgeois” to middle classes alone was step-on-a-landmine wrong and a product of the burning resentment and desire for revenge inherent to all leftist movements, who fearing the greater competence of the middle class of that of the worker, seek to destroy both middle and upper classes and replace them with an “equality” of generalized, reduced competence. This is one reason why all leftist societies collapse inward; it is not the lack of competition, but the tendency to cannibalize, endanger and shout down above-average citizens that crushes them.

In the context of public spaces, the mixed attitudes of the citizenry conspire to enforce a bourgeois taste rooted in the idea that we can provide what all people think they want (utilitarianism) and via this total lack of plan, come up with something that will please the average and thus suffice, nevermind that it adulterates into nonexistence the original intent of a space or idea. It’s no different than your favorite band turning into radio rock to sell more records, classical music being used to sell tennis shoes, or politicians and civic leaders backing off of “daring” proposals to cede power to innumerable special interests groups and thus aquiescing to the default direction against which their original plan was a deviation.

What is this default? It is the idea that all of us can have what we think we want. That default concept is opposed to any kind of leadership, any kind of specialization, any kind of purpose… it is death to unique and the enforcement of a universal norm not because of some decision toward that angle, but because many small decisions whittle away at any unique concept and gradually convert it into the Same Old Thing no matter what its original intent was. Where the original bourgeois attitude was that of middle and upper classes preserving wealth, the fully-matured bourgeois attitude is that of overcivilizing from the pressures of all groups wanting to secure their own lifestyles and individual preferences. The poor are as guilty as the rich.

We can see overcivilization in society at large. Because we focus on pleasing the individual, we institute a dominant course toward overcivilization in all things which, since opposing it is difficult and will eventually be reduced by thousands of small compensations into the Same Old Thing, creates a de facto liberalism in outlook in all things we do. Liberalism is, for those who study history and philosophy, any system of politics based on satisfying the individual — in philosophy it is called consequentialism, which is a fancy term for utilitarianism, or figuring that the best solution is what most people identify in polls and votes as what they desire. Such systems measure the intent of people, and never the outcome of events, because you cannot have a vote to decide whether or not a plan worked… you propose an alternate plan. And then come the special interests, civic groups, injured individuals, dogmatic bureaucrats to whittle it away until it resembles every other plan.

The postmodern bourgeois corrupts all it touches, and turns politics into a vast distraction that raises endless hue and cry but in essence never varies direction, because its assumptions of the means of power determine its outcome: any civilization regulated by individuals alone has not one direction but thousands of tiny limits to direction. The only system that supports such constant conflict and ultimate directionlessness is liberal democracy, as it encourages that concept of living by placing emphasis on not what is good for the society at large but what the individual desires. And given that almost every citizen agrees most of the rest are misinformed, it’s clear that misinformed and stupid decisions will be the order of the day.

We can see this bourgeois attitude in what “popular culture” has done to art: turned it into entertainment. Although we now have niche markets for every conceivable type of art, these end up being variations on the same old type of art, since it fits the same need as this park — to be everything to everyone. For gay literature to be understood by the masses, it must conform much as the wilderness is forced to so that it accomodates the individual impulses within the gay community. Thus, not surprisingly, the difference between gay literature and teenybopper romance novels is the gender and vocabulary of its characters — the Same Old Thing dressed up in pink lace and buttless chaps.

Entertainment is bourgeois “art” because unlike art which has a distinctive plan or idea to communicate, entertainment pleases people with a lack of specialization so everyone can participate. Entertainment starts the reader or viewer out from a point of view that accepts the direction of society as the best, shows them fantasy worlds and car chases and sex scenes, and then returns them to a point of view that affirms the dominant direction of society at this time not as much explicitly as by method: if “art” is created about individuals fulfilling their desires and damn the collective consequences, like a park it will be shoehorned by a thousand competing voices into something that offends no one and facilitates all, thus is a massive averaging of artistic ideas into something that no matter how bizarre is milktoast in its content. Its goal is to suspend disbelief for a few hours and then reinforce acceptance of the world as it is so people can go back to their jobs without being threatened or challenged.

This concept in art and politics and philosophy is one of nullity because it has more “don’ts” than “dos.” You cannot offend the walkers, or have dangerous snakes, or have unsightly forest, or have a lack of bike trails… you have to facilitate what everyone wants, in every situation, exactly the same. The only area for difference is in where you set it or the outward details of the characters, so you get supernatural thrillers where lesbian tuba-playing Sudoku experts take on half-amphibian eco-Nazi Scientologists, but the bad guys are all about ending individual desire and the good guys are all about affirming it. The story never changes.

This nullity allows the process of overcivilization to go on unabated by not challenging its basic assumption, which is that we can take any idea or chunk of land or artistic work and have it be all things to all people without losing what makes it distinct. By not challenging that assumption, we allow the default to continue and in fact gain strength, which furthers this process to the point where we cannot revoke it. Liberal democracy, the culture of diverse critique, marches on and by eliminating the distinctive creates an ever-increasing crowd of generalist whose political instincts are a mix between Communist (class revenge) and Capitalism (competitive altruism, or getting everything you can for yourself and making token gestures of guilt and subsidy for those unfortunates below you, while feeling good about yourself for gifting them from your lofty position and thus making yourself necessary in their world).

As our society decays, “smart” people can be heard asking where our plan went wrong. The answer to them is simple: we had no plan, but we allowed the process of planning to continue anyway, and in the process, we have overcivilized every aspect of our life into the exact same type of thing hiding behind transparent “diverse” facades. We are normalizing ourselves, much as we wrecked the forest park, and that is the ultimate failure of modern society.

Future Past

Wednesday, September 28th, 2005


Divisions among humans are common, but one enduring selection that will forever separate people is their view of the past. In essence, some revere the past and others consider it a horror, a bad memory, and congratulate themselves on being part of a superior time. This continues even to the ludicrous degree of denying that older societies had learning, were attractive or intelligent people, and knew things that are now dead to us. It is a form of religion, denying the past, and it is comforting because it makes us feel like the present is a road to a better future, even if many signs point in the opposite direction.

If one discounts the past entirely, or sees it as a primitive time of failure and filth, then by process of elimination the modern time seems a blessing and gift. This seems like a natural view based on our own lives, where we move from childhood to adulthood and in the process learn a great deal and become “fully aware” as people. Applying this personal metaphor to history, it seems plausible that the past would be childhood and, now that we are awake, we have the modern day environment as a testament to our maturity. Much as adults are more disciplined than children, and more inclined toward conflict avoidance, our current society is pacifistic and orderly compared to the past. They had wars, we have courts and laws.

However, there are flaws with this vision of society as an analog for personal mortality. If the past was childhood, and present adulthood, then old age and death come soon, and while that might not matter to someone exclusively obsessed with the individual, it does signify the destruction of civilization as a whole. As a civilization should outlast its citizens, this form of apocalyptic thinking is too passive and accepting of self-destruction for the tastes of this author. Further, it seems to legitimize a projection of individual psychology onto society as a whole, an arrangement that produces neurosis if nothing else.

Even more disturbing, it is a theory based entirely on the appearance of the modern time as more civilized than the past, when there’s no clear indication this is the case. The ancients did not struggle with an internal lack of meaning, as we do; they had clear values systems and a culture that was more than a marketplace, as all of the modern West at least seems to be. They had a purpose, where we have no purpose but our own wealth and through that, “happiness.” Some are satisfied, and many are resigned, but who is “happy”? The modern time may appear more mature, but it is questionable as to whether this is so.

From the opposite perspective, those who venerate the past are happy people. They bypass the external – our technology, our wealth, our morality and our all-powerful death-denying governments – and look instead to what makes the soul grow and develop. Their outlook is one of internal quality, and of striving against themselves to become better through achievement and struggle; it is heroic, and it is ideological, but it is also the purest and most commonsense view of life. Be good at being you and take on the vast struggle – is there a more profound statement that includes not only the individual, and not only the collective of all individuals, but also the collective of individual and individuals and earth, sky, water and animals? We are one part of the vast ecosystem, and by balancing our own needs with it, we fully adapt in a way that those motivated only the individual or the collective cannot.


The goal of recent articles on this site has been to break up bandwagon tendencies. No, we do not blame our readers for this, nor do we particularly notice a rise in it. It has been observed however that in the modern time, especially after television and the internet, any good idea is converted to a bandwagon-friendly marketable concept, and then it is mobbed and devalued by reduction to lowest-common denominator. The bandwagon will assimilate any idea, even apparently elitist and other anti-populist ideas; the bandwagon knows no sense, since its only goal is social and self-esteem driven. Our goal here is to present ideas for independent action, not foster a bandwagon.

We could easily have converted this into a “movement” whereby people can buy into it and become active in it, but this is to our minds a case of becoming part of the problem, not its solution. There are in this society about 2% of its members who are capable of independent thought and action, and we want to reach them, and offer them thoughts. Beyond that, we simply must trust in nature to convey our ideas and others toward a sensible conclusion. Those who need to “join” something should pay attention to our variant of that concept, which is independent action that contributes to the collective.

So far, this approach has worked reasonably well. Even further, we have avoided assimilation by the various bandwagons – anarchist, racist, leftist, Linux, anti-Christian – and continue to present a site that baffles all but those who are of a natural inclination toward this method of doing things. Our goal is not allegiance to a symbol, or to a doctrine. It is an awareness of what is needed to create a post-modern Traditional empire on earth. When we say traditional, what we mean is a society like that of the ancients, with heroes, kings, warriors, thinkers, etc. all in constant struggle for the dominion of neverending light (improved design) over earth, which as a means of self-regulation has tendencies toward a telluric, inward-focused, passive and death-embracing side to all of its creatures.

Everyone wants a bandwagon, but bandwagon-jumping destroys any ideology.

The Mathematics of Time

In each generation, the question of evolution arises and people find themselves baffled by it. This is because for the most part they live in a world of intent: things are created by mental will. How is it, then, that nature can simply “arise” by the product of some detached, invisible hand? The answer is simple when we consider time, which is generally absent from human consciousness not owing in the least part to its reminder of Death. Evolution is the mathematics of time, meaning that what survives over a particular period is compounded by the same process being repeated infinitely, each time contributing a tiny amount of what some might call “intelligent design” and others might call “prevalence” or survival of the fittest.

Fittest according to what? — adaptation to the whole: the entire environment of nature around the organism, including its internal environment and mindset. Survival of the fittest is more emphasis on survival, and healthy survival, than on “fittest” in the modern sense of best football player, guy who wins a single fistfight. Yes, the people who clean rifles by looking down the barrels, cross freeways without checking both directions, and steal gasoline by torchlight are eliminated from the gene pool. But they are a small subsection of what natural selection does, because in life, the obvious cases are few and the questionable cases are many. For the most part, “survival” means prevalence of traits achieved by greater breeding – and greater adaptation of those ensuing organisms to life. In other words, even if one is a higher degree of ability, if one abuses or ill-prepares one’s offspring, they will probably not survive.

We, the moderns, like to think that we’re past all that icky stuff like evolution where we are mortally judged as inferior or superior and there is a “plan” to life itself. We’re not. But evolution is not a contest. It is a simple matter of seeing what is left after years of testing the design against its environment. Instead of thinking of gladiators at war, imagine a tomato garden. If five plants produce the biggest and healthiest tomatoes, they get replanted in greater abundance the next season. And the next. And so on, until they have outbred every other plant, and thus have introduced their traits – biggest and healthiest tomatoes – into all other plants. Evolution is both removal of that which does not work, and promotion of that which does, and in a balanced view, it is the latter that takes up the largest part of the equation.

Pre-Destined Failure

Plenty has been written about the recent hurricanes, but what is needed is less ink and more words on the actual topics of importance. These are the scope of the disaster in New Orleans, and the role of global warming in producing super-hurricanes. Outside of the blizzard of “evidence” and commentary, what has been forgotten here is common sense.

First, superstorms hit all over the world, and not every population reacts as did those in New Orleans. Despite their poor wisdom in building a city below sea level right next to the sea, New Orleans would have had a better time of things had there not been rampant criminal behavior throughout the entire ordeal. Even the normally reserved people of Indonesia and Britain were driven to comment on the rapes, murders, drug use, theft of televisions, etc. that occurred in New Orleans. It was a subtle form of comedy for those who could observe it. Snipers firing on their rescuers? Armed gangs patrolling at night? The media now says reports were exaggerated, but what’s to embellish about a city ruled by the lawless and predatory?

This is not a racial comment, necessarily, although someone else will undoubtedly want to weigh in on that (although they should remember that the majority of New Orleans’ African-Americans left town in advance, along with its white and Asian populations). It is a comment about delusion. You can outwalk a hurricane by getting on a road and going north at a normal, walk-around-the-mall pace. Hurricanes move at 10-15 miles an hour and start out over 500 miles away. If one is marginally attentive to the news, it’s easy to outwalk one even as it is very close at hand. Should one decide to stay in a city marked for destruction by its proximity and reduced stature to the sea, it is common sense to find high ground of any kind and to stay there. And while no one misunderstands “looting” of perishables and other necessities such as food, spending one’s time raiding electronics stores is clearly not very rational.

A city hit by a storm is one thing. A city hit by a storm where the residents use the lack of deterrent by force as an excuse to begin criminal activity is another. We saw the latter in Louisiana, and whether these people were white or black or otherwise, it is clear from their behavior that they are destructive and pointless people without whom we would be better off. A society that lasts is not founded upon people who, if unsupervised, turn to self-destructive behavior. It is not founded upon people who are so helpless that they need the care of others to survive relatively mundane traumas. Yes, it was a disaster, but let’s not go too far: it would not have been as much of a disaster had it been a better population of people who were affected.

On top of this comes the global warming debate. One side suggests that global warming is a hoax, and the other insists that not only is global warming a problem, but that it was directly responsible for Katrina’s excessive wrath. Interestingly, the first side can often be spotted attempting to conflate “global warming” with all of humanity’s effect on its environment, which is far from the truth (there are many more forms of pollution and environmental effect than the excess of CO2 that produces the global warming effect). We should not bicker over these trivialities. Regardless of global warming, having an ever-increasing human population means that we will eventually deplete natural resources and consume all the land on earth, if unchecked. Since we know that some acres of trees are needed to offset the effect of even a single human being, it is clear that we should perhaps use no more than a quarter of earth’s usable land for ourselves and leave the rest in its natural state. Without that, we have no guarantee of the quality of life of our ancestors.

Looking at the problem from this angle, it becomes unimportant whether Katrina was the direct product of global warming or not. Most likely, there is a natural cycle which has made temperatures rise and storms proliferate, but there is also an added global warming modifier that makes the process worse. However, to dwell on these issues is to lose sight of the common sense mathematics here: for every added human being, there is less land and more pollution and fewer spaces for unbroken natural habitats. We must regulate our own population, and we are already overpopulated. Whether we’re feeling the effects of this now, or will in fifty years, does not matter; an insane plan always produces destructive consequences. The media and robber barons of industry want you to fight over “global warming” as if it’s the whole of our effect on the environment. It’s not. You don’t need facts and figures, but you do need simple math. Ever-increasing human populations in a finite world will poison and deplete that world. That alone is the issue, and almost no one will say so.


When Nietzsche says we must get beyond good and evil, what he means is that we must not look to good and evil as existing, external forces. Rather, they are ways we describe our own behavior. Evil is not some force that exists in the world, but a state of mind, and that state of mind is selfishness. This self-centeredness arises from an inability to see the world as a great and beautiful continuity, and thus a mortal fear for oneself, as if all one knows of the world is the self, mortality is a terrifying End of the World scenario. Therefore, if we must assign evil to anything, it is a pervasive form of ignorance by which one denies the continuity of existence and simultaneously does oneself harm by acting selfishly, which results in short-term reward (free hubcaps) but long-term, holistic disaster (everyone in neighborhood now fears for their hubcaps).

Evil does not exist, but evil can exist within us, just as our thoughts exist only as electrochemical impulses until we act on them and make their concept part of life’s grand, infinite design. Just as not every thought is correct – “I thought I left that pen on the desk, but here it is in the hallway” – thoughts which do not take into account continuity of existence are blind to time, and thus to long-term consequences, and therefore, wall the individual into a Hell formed by the boundaries of the individual itself. Life solely for yourself, and soon you are confined to the self, and then there is nothing to live for but gratification, physicality and wealth, and over time, none of these are as comforting as one might expect. Evil is the absence of continuity in our thinking, and thus, a death of our belief in the infinity and goodness of our world.

Taking out the Trash

As modern neurotics, we look to fill our lives, because we fear those spaces on nights without plans when we are alone in the house and have to listen to the ticking of the clock and wonder if we are truly on a sensible path or not. If we have families, we fear their absence and long for its return, as that distracts us from the inevitable narrowing of our time and worse, of our ability: we become frail and old, we sag or go bald, we must not venture too far from a toilet. Consequently, we see before us the void of death opening like a flower of misery, and realize that there is no holding it back, and nothing that can be done to delay its inevitability. Worst, it invades our thoughts, so that we are aware of it when it would be more pleasant to be, like animals, unaware of its approach until its victory is certain.

In those silent moments, we resolve to stuff more things and experiences into that void, in the hope of balancing death with our lives. “I had a good life,” said the relaxing old man, “and therefore, I do not mind dying now.” We all hope for this sort of spiritual calm (which is often as not brought about by endorfins in the bloodstream). We all hope to act for it. But what plagues us in response is a proliferation of semi-meaningful things. Most people run to jobs to be around others, but then find they are surrounded by mostly fools, and thus feel sinkingly within the pit of their stomachs a fear that their time is wasted. Activities are fun and wonderful, yes, but they also have their downside, including the knowledge that most of the people involved view this as something little more advanced than television watching. We even like being so busy we’re distracted, running in thousands of directions, but in the end this only fragments our consciousness for enjoying the moments of peace and satisfaction that we do have.

To these busy moderns, a Traditional thinker would say: just throw out the trash. Do not try to fill your mind, as there is no escape from the inner awareness, but instead, pick the things in life that are meaningful and pursue them, and do not fear those sleepless late-night hours of isolation when death steals upon you. There is nothing to be done about this awareness. You cannot fill a void, as it is infinite. What you can do is construct a world around that which you value. In the experience of this author, that is found in friends, family, serving a holistic cause (nation + nature) and the joys of the mind. Everything else – going to bars, table hockey, jobs, etc – are a means to an end, and that end is meeting the people who share your values. Trying to put significance into your life on the basis of these activities alone is like trying to find spiritual divinity by eating more sugar: hollow, and ill-advised.

Why White Nationalism Fails

This article will need a disclaimer to offend all of those readers who are still unclear on the issue of race: race is heritage, and heritage is how nature passes along the important traits, and thus race is one of the more important considerations in one’s life. Race is not just “white” or “black,” but what tribe – what mixture of racial subgroups later shaped into something unique by geography and culture – comprises one’s origin. Race is the measure of empires, and the only continuation of a people (German-speaking people of mixed-race aren’t Germans, but German-speakers). Race is the only way that memory and values are preserved through the ravages of time. Race is also taboo in the modern society.

Why is it taboo? Briefly: we are in the final days of a mass revolt, by which the crowd of laborers rose up against the aristocracy and replaced their quality-based system of rule with a quantity-based system that focused not on the holiness of the task as a whole, but the holiness of the individual as an atom. It was a switch from top-down to bottom-up rule, and while it resulted in some positive things, it has also created the greatest disaster in human history, which is our overpopulation and a massive decrease in the quality of our population. Race is one aspect of this crowd revolt, as the crowd likes to use race and any other tool possible to break up bloodliness and force us all to be “equal,” which is the natural state of people in a crowd since few of them are good at anything but being a member of a group.

Before one approaches this issue, it’s important to see with clarity its framing. There is not a conspiracy on the basis of race against races; rather, there is an underlying tendency toward the type of society in which we live to crush those who are different and possibly better at something or another, and to value linear quantities – money, popularity, power – more than internal qualities, such as those which permit selective breeding to produce better humans in every race. Because we are ruled by the crowd through implements such as democracy and economic competition and product popularity, every idea that is publically advanced to us will be a solicitation for the popularity of the crowd. For this reason our politicians and social leaders are exclusively in denial about race, because to deny someone anything on the basis of inherent traits is to deny the primacy of quantity over quality.

It is the belief of this writer than Traditional nationalism is the best system of government for any race, and for all races together. It allows the individual to live among similar people who share values systems and therefore intuitively get along and can work toward shared, higher goals. It gives an identity to land, and gives people a reason to believe in things larger than their own lives, including the surrounding ecosystem and the culture as a whole. It is the most positive system of government that exists, in contrast to the selfish modern governments that indulge the whims of the individual while attempting to shape him according to a centralized program of “good” intentions. Nationalism is also localism, as it means that smaller communities police themselves and handle their own trade, shying away from large corporations and central governments. Nationalism is diversity; Nationalism is flexibility; Nationalism is natural.

However, “white nationalism” is a populist (crowd revolt) interpretation of nationalism, and it needs to be destroyed for two reasons. First, it takes the place of a meaningful nationalist movement, and sucks people up into its vortex, burns them out, and then spits them out, at which point they will normally have nothing further to do with nationalist ideas. Second, it is ineffective and because of the cycle of cognitive dissonance entered by those in the grips of its ineffectiveness, tends toward violent and destabilizing acts that achieve nothing. White Nationalism is pro-white crowd revolt, and it will increase and not decrease the underlying problem that has caused our racial problem in the West to date. In place of white nationalist movements, it makes sense to have groups based around national ethnicities in monocultural (Germany, France, Zimbabwe) areas and to have nativist movements – based on the identity, culture and heritage of the original settlers of these lands – in mixed countries (USA, Canada, UK, Latin America).

The essence of nationalism is that each race be distinct from all others, and each tribe as well, and that together they form an order which is opposed to internationalism, or the cosmpolitan mixing of races and cultures for the purposes of commerce. Nationalism is a higher value than mindless self-indulgence, or profit, or any of the other ways in which we gratify the individual at the expense of nature, humankind and the soul of the individual. Nationalism is not a modern function, although it can adapt to modernity and indeed be a vector of changing modernity from soul-killing function toward a qualitative, spiritual existence. Unlike modern political systems, it is not an excuse to unify disparate people under some banner of “self interest” based on sketchy, spacy, academic concepts in politics. It is a blood and soil, practical as a good shovel, both-feet-on-the-ground view of politics as an agent to serve civilization, as seen in the unbroken heritage of the local population.

“White Nationalism” is a modernist solution to the situation nationalism addresses. Its goal is to round up all whites, form a single population unified by being white, and then to wage race war and violent, bigoted exclusion against other groups. This author has no problems with violent exclusion, as any population that does not practice violent exclusion will be bred out within a few generations, unless it is so impoverished that no immigrants are attracted. However, White Nationalism does not solve the problems it identifies, and will bring about many more problems owing to its delusional and modernist nature.

  1. White Nationalism does not fix the problem.Banding together all whites, including those with Eurasian or Semitic admixture, will simply produce a generic, cultureless race of whites who will then be much easier to assimilate than today’s national groups.
  2. White Nationalism makes whites neurotic.First, it makes people feel bad about themselves for adopting such doctrinaire and violent outlooks. Second, it is an apocalyptic belief system that makes whites feel that if they do not act now, violently and dogmatically, the entire cause is lost and all will be fecal. Further, it shows them a world in terms of whole loss or whole salvation; either all whites are “saved” and the Great Race War occurs, or nothing happens and we’re all horribly doomed immediately. (This author does not attempt to discredit the idea of inducing Race War, as among other things, it would reduce the population of useless and stupid people of all races.)
  3. White Nationalism creates pointless enmity toward other races.The problem is not Them. The problem is that they’re here, where we need to be. Clearly they need to be removed, but that does not mean we have to kill them, hate them, slander them, or otherwise speak the negative, both true and untrue, of them. What we want is for us and not Them. We want our land for us, and therefore we kick out anyone who isn’t us. We can be polite about it. White Nationalism should just rename it after their favorite slander for African-Americans, as it seems to be all they talk about!
  4. White Nationalism lowers our level of heroism.White Nationalism is a defensive philosophy. It is reactionary. It is panicked, and it portrays whites as victims. What is needed is a calm voice of reason and masculine assertion of what is right, not a reaction to what is wrong. There are infinitive wrongs in life, and the only way to triumph over them is the success of what is right.
  5. White Nationalism does not address internal quality.In addition to failing to draw distinctions between radically different populations such as Germans and Slavs and Venezuelans and Italians and Irish, all of whom may claim to be “white” but each of whom has a distinct heritage and culture that will not mix with others unless averaged into a lowest common denominator as seen in many parts of the USA and Canada, White Nationalism attempts to gloss over internal caste divisions and quality control in the white races. Simply put, in a fair world, most white people would be killed for their gross stupidity (as would most people regardless of race; stupidity has triumphed in modernity). Further, not all white people are equal, and within each tribe, we want to breed the best to lead. White Nationalism is a form of racial Marxism that hopes to mix all whites into a generic melting pot and then eliminate caste and class divisions so that the lower can triumph over the higher; in this way, it’s no different than crowd revolt, populist Christianity or Communism. White Nationalism is another modernistic “quantity over quality” idea.
  6. White Nationalism is a revolutionary ideology.The concept of revolution is that a grassroots group overthrows ruling elites, and puts into place a better system of leadership. In practice, however, what happens is that a few vicious souls appeal to the sympathies of a grassroots cause and maneuver themselves into power, at which point they murder anyone smart enough to oppose them and then begin ruling in exactly the same way their predecessors did. Communism starved more than the Tzars; the French Revolution murdered an aristocracy and then returned the people to exploitation after years of political unrest; the American revolution separated a colony from its parent country so that it could assume its “world policeman” role. Did anything positive come of these? Perhaps the American Revolution did for the simple reason that it detached a colonial territory from unwieldy central rule. Otherwise, no, and all of these revolutions brought with them the exile and murder of high-quality people for having the wrong opinions.

    There is no need to abandon our society. There is good among the garbage. Build up the good, and throw out any garbage in your way, and you will have a healthier future than that of some apocalyptic, violent, paranoiac, inflexible “revolutionary.”

  7. White Nationalism addresses only race and ignores other issues.Unlike National Socialism, which did include economic and green issues, White Nationalism focuses only on race. After the Great Race War and revolution, White Nationalists reason, they will build a perfect society by virtue of its being white. Yet they mention no changes except racial ones. What about pollution? What about overpopulation? What about the fact that we all work long hours in boring jobs for minimal pay? White Nationalism falls into the traditional trap of “left versus right,” something which occupies the population with a political dog-and-pony show while the real power exchange goes on behind the scenes.
  8. White Nationalism forgets that nationalism is good for every race.For years, insightful minds have suggested that White Nationalists pair up with nationalists from other races. They have not. Why is this? For the most part, it is because they are violent bigots seeking to make themselves feel better for being “white.” Many of them are from the lower strata of the white race, or from mixed tribes like Irish or Italian or Russian, and their goal is to try to become part of the favored Northwest European races (German, English, Dutch, Scandinavian). They want to have equal status. This requires not that they take a sane look at Nationalism, but that they find some way to argue their own superiority over other groups simply by virtue of their being white. This in turn requires blind, idiotic bigotry. It’s true that the races aren’t equal, and that we’re different levels of an evolutionary ladder, and that some are above others – this is simply history and science. But one does not have to make a big deal of this; what is important is that our own tribes separate, and be able to breed within themselves to produce the best humans possible. White Nationalism obscures all of this with repetitive, violent ranting.
  9. White Nationalism denies the good among Black, Brown and Asian races.They aren’t us. They will never be welcome among us. But many of them are good people, and people who have found friends among whites. Do we have to be haters in order to stand up for our own race? White Nationalists would like to think so, thus including anyone sane or compassionate from pro-white political activity, and alienating the rest of us from it. Normal, sane, decent white people will respond to a political initiative that says (sans violent ranting) that we must build a positive culture for white people to exist by themselves and for themselves. This is what most people want. They won’t vote for it if it is presented in the White Nationalist way, however, because no one wants to deny the importance of people of other races to us. Many of us, in the way one loves friends (non-sexual), love these people and care about them. We want no part of some ranting organization that sees all Black, Brown or Asian faces as The Enemy. Pro-white is good politics, but pro-bigotry is a failure. That White Nationalism exists permits our overlords to group all pro-white activity with ranting bigots, and thus White Nationalism ensures that no nationalist movement with a chance of success will ever exist.
  10. White Nationalism doesn’t address the ego problem.The major problem in the West is that people are fixated on themselves and their self-image. A crowd is, paradoxically, made of individuals, and what they want is protection of the individual above all else. Therefore, crowd revolts breed egomania. Most white people now are disconnected from anything beyond their own jobs, wealth, homes and affairs. This leads to a general breakdown in community, a loss of culture and heroic values, and a replacement of all our motivations with selfishness, i.e. commerce, as is favored in Middle Eastern nations. White Nationalism has no plan for this.
  11. White Nationalism creates a false positivity.“Feel good about yourself because you’re white!” – this is a false and addicting premise. One feels good about oneself for achievements, including but not limited to those of one’s ancestors. And one must find an active reason for feeling good about themselves, such as achievements or personality traits. Quality not quantity – but White Nationalism hates this idea, and wants only quantity of whites.
  12. White Nationalism is confused regarding Jews.No other culture belongs in one’s own. For this reason alone, Jews need their own nation, as founding Zionist Theodor Herzl noted in Der Judenstaat. In 1930s Germany, Jews were the foremost and most successful immigrant group, owing largely to their own racism against Germans and diligent nepotism which allowed them to always hire and promote their own people over Germans. Jews are not unique, not as a people (Semites, of mixed Asian, Black and majority Caucasian descent) and not as a culture, in that their morality is typical crowd revolt mentality. Most likely, they’re the remnants of an ancient culture that underwent what the West is undergoing now: crowd revolt, a loss of culture, and the eventual ascendancy of commerce as a replacement for culture and national identity. Jews are not the identity and, while they have clearly disproportionate influence in politics and industry and media, the underlying problem is that white people are susceptible to these ideas because they have no better ideas presented to them. You cannot blame brainwashed masses watching television on Jews; you have to at some point realize that it’s more profitable for someone this way, and thus perhaps that the profit motive – a replacement for culture caused by crowd revolt, as the crowd loves quantity instead of quality, and profit is a measurement of quantity – is our downfall and Jews, among other internationalist groups, are merely its enablers.
  13. White Nationalism does not reform Christianity and liberalism.For centuries now Christianity has dominated the West, and while there are highly enlightened (Schopenhauer, Blake, Emerson, Eckhart) Christians, populist Christianity has combined crowd revolt ideology with the dualistic obsession of Christianity. This results in people who think in terms of abstract, absolute symbols like “equality” and “good” and “evil,” but view this fantasy world as more important than reality. It is this perverse belief, manifested in both populist Christianity and populist liberalism, that has destroyed our world and contributed greatly to the racial problem. There are sane interpretations of Christianity and Liberalism that do not involve taking on the populist or crowd revolt dimension, and any sensible plan for white people should involve converting these beliefs to healthier form.
  14. White Nationalism does not increase culture or values.In fact, it is opposed to culture and values, as it wishes to mix all whites (including those with admixture) into one giant melting pot, and pull from it generic White Culture, which we assume is something derived from the Cleaver family on television. You can have German culture; you can have French culture; you can even have nativist American (English-German) culture. You cannot have generic white culture without destroying what makes each nation great. If you want better whites, separate out other races and tribes, and then breed each nation for its best people. It has been too many years, and too many different experiences and varied fortunes, for whites to be re-integrated into one large group. Trying to commit that integration is a political delusion, and not a practical or beneficient plan.

And this brings us back to:
1. White Nationalism does not fix the problem.

Despite claims to the contrary, White Nationalism will not make life better for whites. It will force them through another insane revolution and class conflict. It will destroy their culture and replace it with commerce. It will cause untold carnage, destruction of learning, and will probably result in the killing off of our upper castes, slaughtering good along with bad and thus weakening us overall. White people do not support White Nationalism in droves not because they disagree with the idea of “white nations for white people,” but because they disagree with the idea of bigotry, the idea of generic white people, the Marxist racial agenda and the utter lack of plan beyond race war inherent to White Nationalism. White Nationalism is a device of our enemies; it replaces political success with clubhouse-mentalitied, backroom resentment and plotting paranoid revolutionaries. This will never succeed among the healthy and normal whites. For whites to succeed in politics, and for them to get national independence and freedom from the intrusion of other races and cultures, White Nationalism must be obsoleted.


Wednesday, August 31st, 2005


History may run in cycles, but each era has its distinctive flavor, and those form the methods by which its part in the process of history is fulfilled. In our modern time, we have uniquely united the world through centralized media, by which someone in one location produces what comes to be known as the official “truth,” and it is then distributed throughout the globe almost instantly. The people of earth, conditioned to require the absolute “truth” from central agencies on matters of commerce and governmental regulation, promptly extend the same courtesy to political and social truth as conveyed by the “official” media.

The result of this is that a small group of people create our public perceptions of events; the events happen, and the rest of us, who are fated to find out about them second-hand in any case, rely on the descriptions of those events relayed to us by this centralized source. In such a climate, it is not surprising that there are errors in our perception of reality, as all that is required is for those in the “official” truth-telling capacity to miss a detail or, more likely, be convinced for social reasons that they need to hush that detail. It will put people out of jobs; it will make people feel bad; they don’t need to know what they can do nothing about; it will not benefit your (you, personally, the guy responsible for putting out the news) career.

Who Owns Truth?

Another way of saying this is that if fifteen people witness an event and give roughly similar testimony, barring any prior agreement to collusion among them, it’s a lot more accurate than if there’s only one eye-witness who also has a vested interest in how the outcome is viewed. If the landlord of a building is the one person to witness its burning, and he claims it was the reckless conduct of the tenants and not shoddy construction that allowed the blaze to devour the complex entirely, how likely are we to wholly believe him? After all, he has a reason to lie that directly benefits his livelihood. The same can be said of our media, who eat based not on the degree of truth to their stories, but the degree of human interest. They sell drama, but not difficult truths, as those will make one unpopular enough to be bankrupt.

For this reason, it has been very slowly that discontent has built in our society, because for most people, there was never any reason to trust the official version of events until now. We were told foreign dictators were bad, so we all banded together and crushed them. We were told that we needed to buy certain products, so we did, hoping to keep our families safe and futures secure. We were told that it was important to believe certain things, as they were ideologies of the future, and through this “progress” we got to a better life; who doesn’t want that? Most of us live in small worlds, focused around family and friends and local social community, and we don’t want more than that. Nothing is more admirable, since this is a view of life that negates fear of death and embraces what life offers the individual outside of social and monetary absolutes. It’s a healthy, normal existence.

Yet these small worlds have been shattered, as despite our armies of scientists and reporters and researchers, these problems crept up on us: global warming, terrorism, mass immigration, economic collapse. It’s well and fine to have missed a few fragments of information here and there, and to be surprised by a shortfall in a government program or a new population trend, but how does something as big as global warming sneak up on us? That’s like getting ambushed by a glacier. Undoubtedly, the thought that hit many minds when after years of fighting the story, our news media and politicians finally gave in and said, “Aw shucks, this global warming thing is real,” was quite simply that either we’re being told a partial story or, more ominously, that these people do not care enough about reality to get the whole story. This puts an image in our minds of, instead of diligent and honest guardians, profiteers running the show who leave it to us to survive as we can.

With this sudden distrust of the “truth” upon which our society is based comes another sobering thought: for things to get this out of control, where we are controlled by predators who seem oblivious to our future, something must be fundamentally wrong about the way we’re governing ourselves. As said before, most people are content to lead local lives, but our world is now so interconnected that government rarely stops at the town, city, parish or county. If people in distant nations screw up and dump uranium into our oceans, we get the cancers here just as fatally as anywhere else. Should negotiations fail and nuclear war rain death upon us, our localities – which have been quietly going about life – are no longer autonomous, but targets belonging to whatever political entity incurred ire. Our lives are bound up in the fortunes of the collective, and when it errs, we are the ones who pay. How do you hold a government, or a corporation, or a world governing body responsible? You can haul out the people in office and shoot them, but that is little recompense for the vast amounts of good things destroyed by the errors of such leadership entities.

If we follow this chain of thought to its logical conclusion, then we are – as a species – ruled by distant forces who have little accountability for the decisions that affect us, and may be motivated by self-interest more than the best interests of the species as a whole. Modern people are so used to long strings of words that mean nothing, so this is restated in the vernacular: you are under the control of people who are leading you to their profit, not yours. Even more, if you resist, other people – well-meaning, normal, healthy people – will do their best to kill you, believing that they are destroying a dangerous deviant and not someone with a rational objection to the system as a whole. In other words, the world is turned upside down; truth has become a fabrication, the predators are in control, and dissent is not tolerated in any way that will have actual effect. If one were paranoiac, it would suggest an evil force in control of this world.


Yet it is the demonic nature of this process alone that provides us a clue to its origin. No human organization in history has been so well-managed that it could pull off a conspiracy of this nature without revealing itself or collapsing in infighting. Whatever engendered this particular mess did not have a leader, or a central organizing principle, although it has manifested itself in centralized authority. A systematic change to this kind of order comes through a shared assumption, much like when a group of friends, upon perceiving their favorite bar is closed, meet at the next most likely place without having to communicate the name amongst themselves. More than a leaderless revolution, it was an unconscious one: those who brought it about had no idea they shared an ideology, or no idea what its name might be, or even why they did it. They simply did it because it was natural to do, and because nothing has since opposed it, it continues to this day in grossly simplified form.

We are tempted by the opposite conclusion, because if we were able to find a single easy cause, like removing a jam from a machine we could yank it out, and by mathematical simplicity, would have all of the good in society with the negative removed, thus an all-good society. When was the last time life was that simple? Any infection on the level of our assumptions has pervaded our society at its lowest level, that of its values and worldview. We could blame language, or x=y thinking, or sin waves of emotion, or any of the other detours that have absorbed our best liberal thinkers looking for a symbological fix to our problem, but really, these are just the devil’s messengers. What’s wrong isn’t us; it’s what we think we believe, and even if we say we want to fix it, our minds have become mesmerized by a certain outlook on the world and are unwilling to leave it. Thus our disease remains, since even when trying to excise it, we re-affirm the infection by assuming the necessity of its component parts.

It’s like the mafia boss who’s determined to root out the informer in his organization. He and his personal secretary interview all of his department heads, and after some theorizing, they put the worst of them into the bay. But the next time a bust happens, the boss realizes he’s still infected. He goes after every person he can think of, but can’t ever clear himself of the informant, until one day he’s put into jail. You can imagine his shock when the star witness comes out to confront him: his personal secretary! In our case, as moderns, the disease is worse than an informing secretary; it’s within us. There is no clearer evidence of this than our mania for deflection. Is it the Communists? Then the other side whispers: it’s the Capitalists. Is it the drug-users? The hackers? The terrorists? The Nazis? Who else can we blame – what do we do when we finally run out of people to blame? (It’s not fair to let the right off the hook either: it’s not the Negroes or the Jews that are the root of your problem, although their presence can be argued to be a symptom!)

All of these futile attempts have failed, since even when these demons have been exorcised, the disease has remained. That is not to say that these attempts have not improved the situation, only that they haven’t gotten to the core of it. Think for a moment: what sort of problem is it that one cannot identify and root out? The simple answer: one you cannot tell to another person, and therefore, even if you know it, no one else can work on the problem – and in modern society, every problem is too big for one man. Imagine working with another police inspector on this case. You can tell the guy everything except that which might potentially hurt his feelings. So the investigation goes on, and despite your partner being slower than you are, he puts his heart into it. At the end you have no answers, because both of you don’t know the answer, even though it’s in your knowledge.

The dirty little secret of the West’s collapse is that it has come from within. The extent of our modern disease is revealed by the fact that when we think this, we immediately try to blame either everyone, or no one. We are afraid to blame a process and implicate certain people as its methods. And why not? We’re not passing moral judgment, claiming them to be the spawn of Satan, as our leaders do to enemies during wartime. All we are saying is that they, by what they do, have caused a massive problem. The real social taboo broken here is the unstated obvious: in order to fix the problem, we have to limit their sainted “freedom.” Nevermind that few people actually need freedom. What they want are normal, comfortable lives, without other people intruding in upon them and telling them what to think. That’s not freedom; it’s common sense and common decency. People like to conceive of “freedom,” however, as a limitless absolute. “I can do anything I want,” they say, forgetting that most of what they actually want falls within the narrow sphere of what benefits them in a practical sense. You could make sculptures out of your own mucus… but do you need that “freedom”?

Yet any person who advocates breeching that “freedom” is portrayed to be a bad guy, which is interesting, since in times without freedom, there was not such widespread deception where a few people could control “truth” for an entire planet, even if through the quasi-voluntarily methods of television and entertainment media. To a thinking person, the fear of losing “freedom” is another type of deflection: finding something irrelevant to the cause to blame. It’s psychologically very easy, actually: to blame something external divides the world into two segments, the desired and the undesired. In actuality, it makes no sense to divide things that already exist into desired/undesired, because the only thing that can be desired is an outcome and by definition anything but that outcome is undesired – yet outcomes usually occur in partial degrees, or with modifications, so that kneejerk response makes little sense. When manipulating the masses, however, it makes sense to tell them that the world is divided into “freedom” and those who hate freedom, as they react more quickly to the positive feelings associated with “freedom” and only more slowly to the logic trap into which they fall. Heart first, then brain – even with very smart people.


This emotional process of trying to solve logical issues is obviously paradoxical, but it is the foundation of our modern morality, which is derived in part from Christianity but has previous antecedents; this means that while Christianity (as practiced by most, not the happy few who’ve made a real religion of it!) embraces this ambient quasi-ideology we are describing, it is not the sole origin of it. Rather, morality of this type has been with the world since its earliest days; it is not a new invention, merely a less successful one, thus one that was until recently alien to our societies because many generations ago we transcended it. It is a belief system based on appearances: emotions come before logic, personal boundaries come before the necessity of doing what is right for all, and abstract divisions of “good” and “evil” regarding intent come before a realization of the effect of any action. In short, this is a belief system which manipulates by preventing certain actions rather than by recommending others, and it attacks before any action is ever committed.

When we remove all the irrelevant theory, what becomes clear is that this is a belief system designed to protect a type of person; that is why its negative, preemptive assessment. It does not have a goal. It does not have an ideology. It is wholly negative in nature, in that it identifies certain things that are destabilizing to those who find it important, and it attempts to censure and criminalize those. It in fact replaces the idea of having a goal with the idea of not doing wrong, and thus restricts what can be done to those whose actions might be so selfish that any sort of goal would conflict with them. These sort of people might be described as passive criminals, then, since what they do is not outright criminal, but by being what is done instead of pursuing a healthy goal, and by requiring a morality that prevents others from interrupting it, it supplants the seeking of a healthy goal. It is thus a crime of omission if nothing else.

Another way to look at it is from this angle: imagine that something needs to be done for the good an entire community. Healthy people are willing to make sacrifices for this. But some would prefer to rigidly negate that proposal because it interferes with their personal fortunes or convenience. By doing this, they are dooming the community in the long run, even if it means they get to keep whatever it was they desired in the short term. These people need some kind of protection that, no matter what the overall goal is, justifies their selfishness. Even better, it should eliminate the concept of overall goal, and focus only on the individual. To do that, a morality was created which banned actions and not goals, effectively hobbling any goal-setting because any real change will always infringe upon someone’s little world. Morality is the assertion of personal reality as a higher value that physical, this-is-the-real-world-pay-attention reality.

We can diagnose it: solipsism, or perhaps a low grade sociopathy, or even in the simplest terms, selfishness. It could even be described with fancy academic terms like materialism, meaning a focus on material comfort that places all ideological concerns at distant second, or absolutism, meaning a creation of a false abstraction that governs how we see reality. What reveals its nature the most however is understanding the type of mentality that produces it. To do this, we must go to folk wisdom, in which it is recognized that what people would not do as individuals they will do as a mob. Under social pressure, people will take drugs, torture one another, steal, lie, cheat and delude themselves. If they internalize that social pressure, they will do these things without the presence of others because they are aware of the eventuality of having to interact with those others. In this sense, the mob mentality can extend to those who are alone, because in their minds the rest of the mob is always there.

This behavior transcends ideology. One can as easily assume the identity of a Green, or a modern Republican, or a radical neo-Nazi, or a harmless Democrat, and still wield this belief system. It can strike any social class, any intelligence, at any age, although it tends to be supported among the lower middle class young of moderate but not genius intelligence. It does not require awareness of its own presence; those who are its carriers never would know it by name, and most commonly believe they are fighting for something else when they strike out with it: justice, “freedom,” equality, love, peace, happiness, wealth. Even more tenacious, it is based in the emotions of the individual, so it does not succumb to rational argument. It is there because it is the intersection of a person’s emotional need and their lack of higher reasoning to keep it in check. In this sense, it is part ideology — and part pathology, or disease.

It makes the most sense however to give it a unique identification, since it is so prevalent that any other reference would be ambiguous: Crowdism. The belief, whether known in language to its bearer or not, that the individual should predominate over all other concerns is Crowdism. We name it according to the crowd because crowds are the fastest to defend individual autonomy; if any of its members are singled out, and doubt thrown upon their activities or intentions, the crowd is fragmented and loses its power. What makes crowds strong is an inability of any to criticize their members, or to suggest any kind of goal that unites people, because what makes for the best crowds is a lack of goal. Without a higher vision or ideal, crowds rapidly degenerate into raiding parties, although of a passive nature. They argue for greater “freedom.” They want more wealth. Anything they see they feel should be divided up among the crowd.

Crowdism strikes anyone who values individual comfort and wealth more than doing what is right. People of a higher mindset leave situations in a higher state of order than when they were found. This requires that people form an abstraction describing how organization works, and create in themselves the moral will to do right, and thus embark on a path that is not accessible to everyone: the smarter and more clearsighted one is, the greater likelihood exists that one is realizing things that an audience of average people have not yet comprehended. For this reason, Crowdists hate people who leave situations in a higher state of order than when they were found. These people threaten to rise above the crowd, and thus fragment the crowd by revealing individual deficiencies again, and that steals the only method of power the crowd has: superior numbers and the illusion that everyone in the crowd is in agreement as to what must be done.

In short, a crowd does not exist except where underconfidence unites people who, being unable to lead on their own, find solace in the leadership and power of others. They want to be in control, but they are afraid to lead, and thus each person in the crowd delegates his authority to others. The crowd therefore moves not by choices, but by lowest common denominator, assessing each decision in terms of what all people in the crowd have in common. Predictably, this makes its decisions of such a base nature they can be guessed in advance. A crowd derives its momentum from the need of its members coupled with their fear of their own judgment. Taking impetus from the need, it asserts itself violently, but because its only mechanism of decision-making is radical compromise, it moves passively toward predictable resolutions.

Crowdists love “competition” of a fixed nature, where a single vector determines the winner. They do not like real life competition, including evolution, as it assess the individual as a whole and does not simply rank individuals by ability. For this reason crowds love both sports events and free market capitalism, as each allow people to gain power according to a linear system. The more time you put into the system with the sole goal of making profit, excluding all else, the more likely it is that you can get wealth – and it can happen to anyone! That is the promise that makes crowds flock to these ideas. It is like the dream of being a rock star, or a baseball hero, or a billionaire: what makes it attractive is the idea that anyone can do it, if they simply devote themselves to a linear path of ascension – one that is controlled by the whims of the crowd. The crowd decides who is a baseball hero, or what to buy and thus who to make rich. Control without control.

Of course, since the crowd has disclaimed all true idealism, its only ideology is that of personal gain. It is by nature opposed to culture, since culture establishes a values system against which one can refer any potential choice to determine its viability in the community’s preference. Crowdists like to replace culture with the grandfather of multiculture, which is the idea of a facilitative society, or one in which the only goal is to satisfy its members. In this vision, a common goal or even standard of society is not needed. Society exists for its members to fulfil their personal needs, and it explicitly disclaims the ability or need to oversee those, unless they violate the basic tenets of Crowdism, of course. Crowdists naturally embrace both internationalism, which denies local culture in favor of an international culture of novelty, and multiculture, which mixes cultures with nothing in common and claims to be satisfied with any result. Crowdism is not a decision any more than cancer is a design for a new organism; it is the lack of decision, of goal, of design. It is not random, however, so unlike chaos, it is a predictable and rarely-changing order. Some would call it entropy.

Any ideology is automatically dominated by Crowdists. They were at home as Marxist radicals, but equally happy as conservative American capitalists. Crowdism is not an ideology, but an emotional response. They view any ideology as a means to an end, and that end is Crowdism itself, although Crowdists cannot put this in words – they’re part of a Crowd, remember, which means they don’t make choices as much as force compromise, and by the nature of something akin to dialectical materialism, compromises always move “forward” although toward eternally the same goals. They will dominate any democracy, and turn it away from encouraging excellence toward subsidizing weakness. They will dominate a totalitarian state, humbling it by making its appeals to its proletariat and winning their allegiance through unreasonable concessions. They will use corporations to dominate a culture, producing products that reward those of a Crowdist mentality, while ignoring the needs and desires of those of a higher mentality. Even a non-ideology will be dominated, as Crowdists will use social pressure where there is a lack of decision-making.


Among all human phenomena, Crowdism is unique in that it turns timorous individuals into a dangerously assertive group. Crowdism appeals to those who are underconfident. They’re unsure of their abilities and fear that, in a competition like that of evolution, where many factors at once must be measured and one’s judgment and character are essential, they might not come out ahead. In fact, they have a sneaking suspicion they’ll come out behind. This is only logical, since those with such abilities have no need of a crowd, and therefore only very rarely become Crowdists (usually in cases of: drug addiction, child abuse, mental illness). The average Crowdist needs a crowd to do what he or she could not do alone, including not in the least the process of making decisions. The crowd provides anonymity and the illusion of a cause. Crowdists are underconfident, thus incapable of the kind of assertive and creative action by which one glances at a situation and calls the shots; therefore, all of their modes of action are passive. They cannot strike without first having been struck, but it’s perfectly acceptable for them to provoke others with a thousand small irritations until the other responds, then to retaliate with full force. Notice how America has entered her wars: placing ships within range of Spanish saboteurs, sending passenger liners full of weapons to be torpedoed, cancelling steel shipments while giving a fortune in weapons to an enemy. It is a brilliant strategy, in that one never has to make a decision: one is always the injured party and therefore justified in responding, even if it ends up being to one’s advantage.

Crowdists have a great fear of mortality, which is linked to their fear of evolution. They do not have a value higher than their own lives; there is nothing for which, unbidden, they will give their lives (although they will gladly give them, in anger, when having provoked an enemy, they are able to embark upon their “justified” response). This shirking personality and lack of self-confidence manifests itself in a form of cognitive dissonance that creates an inverse response to the failings of confidence: the less the person feels confident, the more egomaniacal they are, at the expense of being able to accurately perceive external reality. As a result of their need to supplant underconfidence with ego, they turn off any external feedback which could prove critical of their selves, and therefore lock themselves into a world composed entirely of the self. This creates a crowd of little queens. They demand “proof” – someone must hold up something tangible and show it to them, and have it be simple enough that everyone in the crowd yes even the deaf mute hunchback can appreciate its significance; this is why crowds do well with butchered babies, torpedoed ocean linears, gas chambers and gassing Kurds, but do poorly with concerns about global warming, genetic fragmentation, or pervasive ignorance. In fact, they seem to treasure their ignorance in the same way that higher people treasure their innocence. Crowdists like to keep things simple so as not to distract from the basic focus (themselves).

The term “lowest common denominator” has almost become a cliche in our society in that it explains so much. A group of people – an electorate, a committee, a mob – gets together, and soon a once-promising idea has through compromise and censorship (the removal of that which might offend, or shock, or be contrary to already-well-established tastes) become distilled down to something completely acceptable to every member of the crowd. The only problem is that, in the process, it has come to resemble every other action that the crowd has been known to take. No matter – the same old thing dressed up as something new serves a dual function, in that it both provides novelty and, by virtue of being essentially similar to everything else, avoids presenting people with stimulus they cannot recognize and thus immediately know they can handle. Low self-confidence reveals itself in situations where the unexpected occurs. Crowdists like to minimize that by dumbing everything down to the lowest common denominator, at which point they feel they dominate it and in that state of control are no longer threatened by it.

The paradox of crowdism is that because these people refuse to have a long term vision, they have nothing worth dying for, and therefore their lives are empty of meaning and they respond with the hollow attempts to control that comprise Crowdism. It is as a pathology much like overeating, in which case one confuses the signal for being full, which eliminates psychological doubt, with the process of eating, and hopes that by eating again and again to banish doubt (which increasing doubt in direct proportion to girth!). If they had faith, or belief in doing something which does not immediately reward them, or the vision to see the benefit in doing things which help the community as a whole but in the distant future, they would not have this gnawing emptiness. Civilizations in the past saw fit to make such people into serfs and servants, such that others could give them causes, and they could both be kept from being destructive and given a raison d’etre which would sustain them for their natural lives. Crowdists will never admit it, but secretly, they have a desire to submit to authority because they do not trust their own judgment.

Indeed, there is somewhat of a sadomasochistic nature to Crowdism. For every crowd that exists, there will be some who manipulate it expertly; as in a microprocessor, most of the circuits do the mechanical work of computation while a few are responsible for at key moments switching the flow of data. Such is it that some of the voices who shout out at opportune times are to redirect the crowd, such as the classic “He’s getting away!” screamed by an anonymous crowd member and provoking a stampede to bring down the suspect. Others simply profit from the crowd. By far the best way to profit from a crowd is to pretend to be its servant, as its memory is short and being underconfident it loves to be flattered, and therefore rarely notices that its servants are robbing it blind until it is too late for anything but revenge; the thief is killed, yes, but the money has been spent, and the crowd feels even less confident when its blunder comes to life, so it rages on to the next event in a search for something of substance to occupy it. Always eating and never full. But the manipulators of a crowd eat well.

If one were to divide up a population according to “Crowdist theory,” there would be many sheep, a few born leaders and a larger group of shrewd people who lack the capacity of a true leader, but are mentally agile enough to manipulate the crowd and make a profit from it. These are your Josef Stalins, Ken Lays, Ivan Boesky, George W. Bushes. They are cynical enough to realize that the “ideology” of the crowd is nothing but lies, and its actual agenda is power. They recognize that the crowd loves gaining power through revenge on those with more talent, intelligence, beauty and character than itself, and these manipulators create bogeymen and justifications faster than the crowd can decode them. However, to be a manipulator in a crowd is to be acutely conscious of belonging in the crowd; after all, if one did not need the crowd, something else would have been the path. Thus manipulators both love and loathe the crowd, appreciating it for being the vehicle of their own greatness, but hating it for being necessary and thus constantly forcing them into the role of gentle servant when their inner wolf-personality seeks to escape and manifest itself. Manipulators are like drug dealers: they realize too late that their profession will consume them by forcing them into a function, and thereby eliminating any hope they ever had of making decisions about their own lives. They follow the function, and therefore, all of their choices are reactions; there are no independent choices to be made.

The dominant characteristic of a crowd, as mentioned by F.W. Nietzsche, is the desire for revenge: they detest anyone gifted by nature with more than they have, whether it is wealth or natural traits. Much like ancient tribes who believed that eating the organs of an enemy would transfer his power to the eater, Crowdists believe that destroying others raises the Crowdist’s own stature. Their primary weapon is equality. By insisting on one level for all people, they have an excuse to curtail the higher abilities of those who rise above the crowd. Further, they have the ultimate weapon, in that since equality sounds good on an emotional level, it is perceived as a good, and thus anyone who resists its advance (“progress”) is automatically a bad guy who has transgressed, and thus against him or her retaliation can be launched. This is the ultimate threat of a crowd, which is expressed in a simple syllogism: I. Our way is the path of good intentions, equality. II. If you are not for our path, you are against good intentions and will attempt to destroy us. III. Because you will attempt to destroy us, we will destroy you first. It is a mental trap of epic proportions: if one joins the crowd, one has agreed to limit one’s own abilities to the lowest common denominator; if one resists the crowd, one is styled as the aggressor and destroyed by direct force. At the point when the question of with-us-or-against-us has been asked, the battle is already lost, as the Crowd have gathered behind the questioner with torches that could just as easily be applied to the dwelling of the questioned as toward a feast in her honor.


The effects of Crowdism take many generations to fully permeate a society. Indeed, Crowdism is like the effects of aging on each of us: we start aging the instant we are born, but at some point, the effects of years have piled up enough to carry us off. Crowdism exists in every society, but to varying degrees, and as societies age, it increases. Almost all societies on the brink of death are totally dominated by Crowdism, which helps carry them off as it paralyzes the decision making capability; if your population sees only its own gratification, who is going to mobilize it to fight an enemy while the enemy is still distant? By the time the Vandals reach Rome, the battle is lost, but the Crowd will never respond until directly attacked, so will blissfully ignore the assailants until the battle has begun. Disorganized, the crowd responds slowly and then panics, abandoning the empire to its lessers, who promptly destroy it. It is for this reason that everywhere a great society once stood, there is now a barely technological, semi-literate society distinguished mostly by its lack of ambition. These are people soul-weary with combat and with power, and they have opted for the stage after Crowdist, which is a form of highly granularized apathy. (There’s no point studying this in America until after the Chinese, sensing our distraction and inner weakness, invade and crush our centralized authorities, at which point those less-fortunate populations within and surrounding us will consume the spoils.)

In fact, throughout its life span, Crowdism promotes apathy by forcing inane decisions on people and threatening them with passive aggression if they refuse. This could be seen most clearly in the former Soviet Union, where people quietly worked around any number of absurd proclamations and dysfunctional government agencies. They realized that things were hopelessly broken, but that the first person to speak up about it would be torn to pieces by the crowd, thus these things had to be tolerated. And what a disgusting word “tolerance” is – it means to recognize something’s inaptitude, but to ignore it and even accept it. Accept mediocrity. Accept failure. Accept the lack of a goal. This beats people down into a state of submission which periodically polarizes itself and becomes violent, as if all of the psychological energy kept suppressed when given an outlet explodes to the surface in a form beneath rationality or even an organized emotional state. It is this form of passivity that is idealized by religions such as Judaism, which clearly arose in a civilization which had already reached this degree of apathy, and therefore was little more than a survival guide. Some would say that Asia went down this path thousands of years before the West, and thus through submission achieved the uniformity for which Asian culture is famous.

The “morality” of the Crowdists affirms the importance of the individual over doing what is right. A society based on this lack of choice, and lack of goal, is inherently frustrating, and thus breaks down all but that which Nietzsche called the “last man.” The last man is someone who cares about nothing but his own material comfort. Does he have an expensive car? Enough to watch on television? Get to go out to the clubs that others covet? And have a trophy girlfriend? — if so, he is happy. No plan for the future, and no significance to these things, other than that he owns them and therefore can construe his personality – that externalized “ego” that we insist is a social construct, a form of personal marketing – as a success as a result of them. The last man does not fight the good fight; he instead does what benefits him. He looks upon ideological conflict as silly, because he is inherently submissive to the external order and thus never thinks of changing it. His revenge upon it is to profit from it, and to consider himself smarter and better than all the others for not having been fooled by value, and possibly having given up his life or his career in some crusade to do what is “right,” instead having been more competitive and shrewd and enriched himself while others fought ideological battles. The last man is an opportunist, a profiteer. He is like a Satanic Zen monk, in that none of his energy is wasted on emotional display. It all goes toward The Bottom Line, a.k.a. making him feel better about himself (an intangible state) through an increase in tangible things like wealth, prestige, and power.

Last men are the type of people who are manipulators of the Crowd, only a more advanced version than the somewhat masochistic “leaders.” A last man simply takes and has no emotional reaction. Where a leader like G.W. Bush or Kim Jong-Il is cynical, and kleptocratic, he still has some degree of emotional response in him; in contrast, a Stalin is without emotion entirely and feels no reason to respond to his changing fortunes, as he is busy focusing on the only thing which matters, which is increasing them. When things go badly, he schemes for recovery, wasting no time on reaction or indulgent displays of emotion. A Bush might have some days of depression, or stumble in public, but a Stalin remains impassive, his iron grip unchanging, knowing that only discipline and a lack of emotions will restore his power. Over time, the last men rise in power through their lack of response, and those with emotional excess descend through an inability to stay focused on the goal. When one descends, one becomes part of the crowd. We call those who have descended Undermen, because they have viewed the challenges of life on several levels and opted to run away or take a course of profiteering, yet have not succeeded even in that through their lack of discipline, which is essentially the ability to see that events distant in time are as important as events proximate in time, because time is continuous and for plans to succeed one must unite the moments in an ongoing series of planned developments. Undermen do not plan. They do not think. They react; where the last man is deliberate, the Underman is impulsive and fired with a consumptive desire for revenge, since to an Underman the world is grossly unfair: because his reactions are out of control, he cheats himself out of everything good that comes his way, and therefore always feels that others have been gifted where he is deprived.

Undermen are sabotage incarnate. Like other Crowdists, they are passive in nature, and therefore will never directly assault an enemy. To live among them however is to constantly clean up after them, and to double-check anything they do, knowing that more often than not they will subconsciously leave things in defective and dangerous states, hoping in their inner minds that others who are more fortunate than them will be destroyed. Where true last men plan their pillaging and execute it with detail, Undermen execute clumsy and violent thefts. Undermen like to live in their own filth and keep others out of the clubhouse of their filth, associating around them others that they can dominate. Undermen exist at all stages of the Crowdist process, but it is most revelatory to point out that a successful Crowdist revolt will after many generations have converted the entire population into Undermen, and thus have plunged the civilization into disorganized, self-afflicted third world status for the next thousand or more generations. Undermen are saprophytes. They compensate for lack of higher function in themselves by destroying those who do have it, or the works of those who did, under the assumption that if it cannot be seen it will not exist to remind them of their essential spiritual hollowness.

Back to Now

The Crowdist dilemma puts us modern humans in a bad situation. As the reader may recall from the first paragraphs of this document, we are manipulated by centralized reality representations that are subject to the same influences Crowdism places on all other reality. The weapon of Crowdists is passivity; if they are “offended,” their retaliation is justified, because they are the blameless ones bringing us the progressive and superior doctrine of equality. Equality of course does not allow us to tolerate offense, because if anyone feels less than equal, the crowd falls apart and cannot protect equality. The logic behind crowdism is like a musical scale, in that if one starts on any note and runs through the logic, soon one has followed the scale back to its origin in a repeating, endless pattern. The crowd in its view is always right, and its goal is to remove those who would prove it be a paper tiger, e.g. only a crowd of underconfident people and not the ultimate authority on morality it would like to pretend to be.

Looking at our situation practically, we who are not yet absorbed by the Crowd are in a rough place: we cannot strike out against the crowd, and yet we cannot continue to tolerate it, or it will eventually reduce our civilization to third-world status through backhanded destruction of all things higher than its non-goal intentions. Even more, as it has crept within our society, it has spread its agenda of destruction against any higher ideas or ideals. Crowdists triumph through greater numbers, and with each generation of Crowdist control, more people submit out of exhaustion, and thus swell the numbers of Crowdists. It is not a conspiracy; it is a cancer. Since Crowdists have the purchasing power in our society, and the popularity, they ignore any higher visions. A product designed for those who are not Crowdists will not be boycotted, only bypassed. Those who speak up about the truth of the situation, or any of the details associated with the truth that can be construed as offensive (women and men are not equal, races are not equal, individuals are not equal, decisions are not all equal) will be branded a heretic and, while no overt action is taken against them, they will passively be denied opportunity until they accept their destiny as a janitor or in rage against the injustice lash out, become an aggressor and are killed. Remember, Crowdism is negative logic. It does not set out to establish an ideal as much as remove those with ideals, as those conflict with its paradoxical worldview, which is that of facilitating individuals rather than uniting individuals with a goal. Crowdism is anti-aspiration, and anti-organic. It only approves of systems where one individual is in power, or all are equally in power, and thus nothing gets decided.

Yet society continues its decline, and with the appearance of Really Bad News like global warming and economic instability, there is again chance for change. During the Great Depression, America could have easily swung into a Communist state; during the Viet Nam war, political instability led to directional changes (unfortunately, both options were and are Crowdist to the bone). We are heading toward another such nodal point in the neural net of details that determine whether our civilization heads in an ascendant way, or descends back into third world status, from which we all came and toward which all societies fall. With each failure of our trusted information sources, and with each incontrovertible proof that our “truths” are not reality, we get closer to radical alteration in course. The problem is of course that, as in most revolutions, ours is mostly likely to take with it the assumptions of its previous masters, and thus to re-create their reign with new faces. This is why accurate diagnosis of Crowdism is essential. One can switch to Communism, to Tribalism, or even to Anarchy, but as long as the assumptions of Crowdism remain, the path is barely altered and the end result is the same. If we wish to transcend Crowdism, we must first restore our heroic outlook, by which there are things for which we’re willing to die, ideals we hold more precious than life itself. By thinking in parallel, and not in terms of organizing everybody as equals to undergo the same mechanical process and thus cure us all at once, we can move the best people among us to greater heights and slowly bring the rest of us to our respective places. We can deny equality in all of its forms, as it is a crazy doctrine that ends in the norming of us all. Localizing government and turning away from single points of informational “truth” helps as well. Even more, we can finally break the taboo barrier and tell individuals that they cannot have it their way and also participate in a non-failing society.

All of these methods will help defeat the Crowdist disease, but it is not defeated by method alone. It requires that we take on a reorganization of our own minds so that we avoid falling into the underconfident, anti-heroic thoughts of Crowdist. It requires that we value actual truth above any socially convenient illusion, or friendly distortion of the truth. We must face facts and stop taking them personally. To an awakened mind, our faults and strengths are visible, and so what we think of as hidden will soon be no secret to the post-Crowdist people who will rise if we succeed. For this reason, we must transcend our personal pretense and ability to be offended. The truth will set us free – perhaps not, but the pursuit of truth for its own sake will free us from the cancerous plague of Crowdism and its millennial reign over our society.

Recommended Reading