Recently John Rivers described the “grand (elite) plan”:
Import millions of Muslims.
Install police state for our protection.
Exempt Muslims from police state to cause Islamophobia.
This is not a parody because it is really happening. So it’s more like a jester warning the Court of a danger using humor because after all, some things can’t be discussed (directly) as Trump so eloquently stated.
However, a “plan” suggests that there must be something else, such as a conspiracy, or alien leader, with a specific goal in mind. This reminded me of the book The Goal written by Eliyahu Goldratt and Jeff Cox in 1984. Mr. Goldratt was educated as a physicist but made a name as a business consultant because he developed the “Theory of Constraints.”
Where most managers would increase production to make more money, Goldratt suggested that a company can do it by removing “constraints,” such as to improve “throughput” by for example optimizing bottlenecks. But the focus is not on the one bottleneck, it is on all the bottlenecks at the same time, because that is the “goal”.
It is therefore important for a company to keep its “goal” in mind because changing it requires a change in the mathematics of the entire production line.
It has become glaringly obvious that NWO politicians do not have a goal, or something like a better civilization or improved trade that can be used to develop a “mathematical” plan. This is why the court jester had to suggest a “plan” in a wry sense of “goal” humor.
It is possible at this point to digress and write about development plans for cities, or countries or even the United Nations. It is also possible to digress into analyzing leaders and their ships. But it is more expedient to simply jump the grade and write about the real elite, because they have a simple goal supported by a simple plan.
According to the book The Richest Man in Babylon written by George S Clason in 1926 (and even though the book is in front of me), I am not going to recite it, but in short; the goal is to make money and the plan is to:
Find a target.
Invest spare money.
It is almost similar to Warren Buffet’s goal where he stated: “I never sell”. Recently I read that he is looking for people that “are spending money.” Obviously he is out of targets. This made me wonder why on earth Buffet supports the grant-giving, immigrant-buying Clintons. The answer in this context would be that he is just the same as Facebook, Apple and other tech people wearing out the White House carpets. The market is not consumers anymore; it is the parental politicians treating consumers like (their) children.
At this point one reaction will be to think that it is obvious that rich people want to make money. However, it is more than that, it is just money meaning there is absolutely no race, religion or ideology involved. Slowly it becomes clear that the real elite’s goal, is just (more) money.
So what is their plan? The concept for this, apart from investing as described above, is not to invest, but to subvert “people” towards a point where “wealth” is simply transferred. The subversion process follows the same technique that a politician would do to a competing politician, political assassination. There are many cases in the current year where an “assassination hit” was called onto a “hurdle”. In the case of money, it is called an “economic hit.”
The best book to read here is the Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins in 2004. He was himself an EHM (Economic Hit Man) and writing the book in 1982 he intended to title it “Conscience of an Economic Hit Man.” Clearly he was the “do-er” and not the “investor”. He updated this book to the title “The New Confession of an Economic Hitman” and even has youtube and a website. Now in 2016 he states that “they are coming for your democracy” in an article by Sarah van Gelder.
Clearly there are many “stories” that should now be told, but suffice it to say that many countries were targeted, one of which was Greece. Another target was the mineral rich South Africa. The entire “democratization” so much lauded in the international press via Hollywood films and Nobel Peace prizes was a front duping people into do what they were told, while the gold reserves were shipped away and cash moved through the back door.
This ability to destabilize countries for some strange benefit has been going on for quite a while now, even implicating Hillary Clinton in Honduras. The point is that the elites doing this are gaining experience, allowing them to optimize their own production “throughput.” South Africa was a spectacular financial “bloodless coup” (for the elite) and many techniques used to subvert the conservative population, is now used on American conservatives, such as firing conservative military and police officers, guilt-ridden education and media-of- fear.
One technique they routinely apply is to corrupt an internal “elite” inside a target country. The amounts of money is jaw-droppingly large for these “small” politicians, but provided with the right amount of moral egalitarian motivation such money is greedily accepted “for the common good”. Examples of such corrupted small “elites” can be readily found because they literally do the same things such as:
Write a “book.”
Become part of the “after-dinner” club.
Sell “connective” information.
Set up a “charitable” foundation.
During the economic hit on South Africa this “small” elite was not readily identifiable as is now the case in the United States. The emergence of “Cuckservatives” allowed easier identification of the subversive small elite club eying enormous riches after giving up their country for adoption because it’s “the right thing to do.”
Race, religion and ideology have nothing to do with it. But the elite will use whatever is necessary to advance towards his goal. For example they can use blacks to destabilize whites on racial grounds, they can use Islam to destabilize Christians and they actively use liberal-democracy as their preferred ideology because it plays into their hands. In the US it’s the Lutheran Church apparently deciding where what immigrants go.
So, essentially the entire “hit” is not a conspiracy, it is simply a process put into place that allows unfettered access to convenient players at a lower level, such as Black Lives Matter, without them even knowing about it. Even Church leaders may express their support for activities not knowing what really is behind it, such as the Anglican Church harboring terrorists in South Africa (and proud of it today). All the “elitist” will do is to remove “constraints” while encouraging those participating idiots such as SJW’s or journalists to produce the required narrative that may allow changing of laws etc.
In fighting this dys-civilized scourge (not un-civilized), new warriors are needed, because we are in a sense fighting against ourselves and that include all races, religions and ideologues. These warriors will have to help us prioritize the “enemy” and help us focus on the low hanging fruit first, so that we can get our own processes in place.
On a personal note: Dr. Nicholas Samuel, who just published a book visible at www.unendingrecovery.com agree with my pinned tweet that “the evolution of the market has thrown up pseudo markets that weaken the middle-class backbone.”
If we don’t establish an own goal of fighting greed, civilization will last a little longer, but only for those hiding behind security and guns. Ask any expat in Africa.
There is a song which the Dropkick Murphys, a silly Irish beer punk band, covered called “The Green Fields of France” (originally by John McDermott). It is a good song, worth listening to:
If it makes you feel better, everyone and their dog has covered it, and it may be the most popular “statement music” about the First World War that has ever existed. Rank it right up there with All Quiet On The Western Front and “In Flanders Fields” for the type of emotional reaction most people have to that war.
(That useless, pointless, suicidal, fratricidal, misbegotten, hateful, vile war.)
But it loses the train of thought right here:
The sun now it shines on the green fields of France
There’s a warm summer breeze makes the red poppies dance
And look how the sun shines from under the clouds
There’s no gas, no barbwire, there’s no guns firing now
But here in this graveyard it’s still no man’s land
The countless white crosses stand mute in the sand
To man’s blind indifference to his fellow man
To a whole generation that were butchered and damned.
Same basic theme as “In Flanders Fields,” but with less patriotism. However, the point where it loses its train of thought is here:
The countless white crosses stand mute in the sand
To man’s blind indifference to his fellow man
Of all the lessons one could take from the First World War, this is the last one a sensible person would take.
Indifference? War is indifference. We hate wars when they go badly or, as in the case of the First World War, they utterly fail to resolve the conditions that created them. The First World War went so badly that it paused for a generation to refill the armies of Europe so they could attempt suicide again in a paroxysmal tantrum of self-hatred at the utter futility of trying to exist as modern societies.
In the nearer term, it is obvious what caused the First World War: democracy did. The First World War was a repeat of the Napoleonic Wars, in which the democracies of Europe made war on the monarchies. The monarchies defended themselves many times over that century, and by the early twentieth century, had formed unstable alliances in order to fend off the various enemies who were circling like hyenas or vultures.
But democracy screwed them. It betrayed them all, as it always does.
First, democratic societies cannot make decisions. For this reason, politicians picked unstable alliances — because they were easy, and got more approval from the idiot voters than the more complicated task of fixing the problem would — and set themselves up with suicidal “entangling alliances,” as George Washington would have called them.
Second, democracy must always make war on non-democracies because democracy is a parasitic virus. Or rather, the idea of equality is. Equality is magic and kryptonite to humans. You mention it and women coo and men head to the bar. Everyone feels good. The reason for that: they are feeling, not thinking. Whether or not they are morons, they have made themselves into morons at that moment, and the results are predictably stupid. However, those warm feelings go away if anyone anywhere anytime succeeds with some alternate method, because that provokes cause/effect thinking instead of the emotional, egotistic and defensive thinking that humans indulge in (and which we inherited wholly from our Simian forebears). For this reason, Leftists always — because they are compelled to, in order to defend their sacred illusion — make war against anyone who is not-Leftist and democracies make war against those who are not democracies. You do not have to oppose Leftism or Democracy, only fail to be them — and they are one and the same — because if you live differently from them, you are competition, and that makes monkeys angry.
This led to a horrible war with no clear purpose except some nebulous thoughts about “the war to end all wars,” implying that when democracy conquered the world — other names for this: globalism, the NWO, internationalism — all humans would live in brotherhood forever like in the lyrics to Beethoven’s 9th. You can tell that democracy had already made people morons because they accepted this crock of stupid without murdering the people who repeated it at them, but again: feelings. Women swoon. Men glow. People love illusions that make them feel happy because they can use those to shut out the actual fears, starting with death. You talk about pacifism, or everyone being included in the group, or equality — these are all the exact same concept — and you are the star of the show. People just float around you and make happy lovey gooey stupid faces at you. It’s retardation, but it will make you rich and powerful.
After the carnage was over, the people who wanted those swoony feelings back needed something to blame. They could not blame democracy, because that in turn fingers equality, and to say equality is wrong is like going up to each individual in the group and screaming “YOU’RE INFERIOR!” to them, even though that is probably correct and would help them by encouraging them to improve themselves instead of stagnating. If you can’t blame the actual cause of the war (democracy) then who do you blame?
Oh, we found a good one… get this… it’s inhumanity.
What does that mean?
You know, inhumanity. The failure to engage in those swoony feelings and to spread the happy illusion to others so we can all be harmless, neutered, oblivious, blithe happy idiots together. We can become like a single brain cell, thinking of love and peace, instead of paying attention to reality — and, hiding in the back corner of our scared monkey brains: death.
“In Flanders Fields” came up with similar nonsense:
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Here the problem is the Foe. Gotta kill them Germans, even if the real enemy here is an illusion. If we kill all the Germans, we do not have to notice that we are in the grips of illusion, and we can go back to those happy swoony feelings. (Alert readers will notice that this is classic scapegoating, seen in our society most with those who finger The Eternal Jew™ as the source of our downfall instead of blaming democracy, or blame The Rich™ instead of blaming the low mental and moral quality of most humans which is the actual cause of their poverty. Both of these are odious in themselves because they lead to murder, but that is not why they are bad; they are bad because they are moronic, and they are moronic because they scapegoat the wrong cause, which lets the actual cause — democracy and dysgenics — run free to do more of its vile destructive work).
But no one is going to identify the actual cause, which is complex and nuanced, although that is not why they refuse to identify it. Yes, there is a tendency among humans to prefer pleasant illusions to complex truths, but very few truths are actually complex! What they are is offensive to the human individual and its pretense, because if you tell a monkey that it is not equal, man, it will feel terrible and start screeching and flinging poo, even if you were just pointing out that equal=mediocre like all averages and means, and so we need to beat that standard, not adopt it as dogma. The problem is this pretense. This pretense caused democracy and leftism, and through those, caused the First World War. Plant a poppy on the grave of democracy and equality, and only then have you honored the war dead. Everything else is just monkeytime, distractions from the real problem.
How did everything get so backward, or inverted in altright lexicon? There are two issues here:
Why do humans tend toward this illusion?
How did it take over Western Civilization?
The answers are evil and entropy, in that order.
Evil — a suspect term because of its centralized, manipulative power — generally means the type of error that arises from selfishness or a refusal to see the obvious because of a fear for the fragility of one’s own mental state. Evil is ego-driven stupidity, in other words, because short-term solutions always create havoc and destruction to things we care about, and people who care about nothing must be boring and stupid to find themselves so fascinating.
Entropy on the other hand is the natural process by which, as options proliferate, it becomes less likely that any one will be chosen, which is said to make the pattern more “random.” That is debatable, but in human societies, entropy is the background hum of doubt that occurs when one no longer knows by rote or by immediate inference (“intuitive”) what the right thing to do is. At first, it is clear: by any means necessary, establish civilization. Once civilization has more options, people mystify themselves with questions which magnify details because the bigger aspects of the civilization question have been answered by the establishment of that civilization.
This is why all high-IQ societies seem to die out: they grow, become powerful, lose sight of their goals, and then orient themselves toward tolerance as a means of avoiding dissolution, which results in their inclusion of non-contributing dependents (parasites), fools, con men, etc. and eventual obliteration in this wave of bad genetics and sociopathic chaos.
How do they lose sight of their goals? Civilizations succumb to a lack of awareness because they use a type of proxy warfare as a means of coordinating their citizens. The simplest example of this is ideology; when not enough people understand the goal of civilization, “smart” and “clever” people then distill it down to a few emotional and symbolic principles. This allows all of the people who do not understand the concept to act as if they understand the concept, at least until the meaning of those principles is hijacked, corrupted, altered, or eroded by entropy.
Proxy warfare exists, as Fred Nietzsche told us, in the terms “good” and “evil.” Yes, we all know what they mean, but they are a lazy shorthand that uses categorical logic instead of looking at what actually makes an event good or evil, which is the consequences in reality that it creates. By relying on these categorical terms, we shift the focus from consequences to the categories, and then our logical thinking becomes reversed or inverted because we see the category as the cause of its members, not the other way around.
Another form of proxy warfare can be found in the scene-policing of various political genres. Are you a true anarchist? Are you conservative enough? Even the alt right, which normally seems highly realist, has taken to scene policing by enforcing its borders through symbolic, highly visual issues. This weakens the alt right as focus moves away from the question of the issues, i.e. the goal, and is transferred instead to appearance, much as democracy always does.
One thing from “Green Fields of France” is for certain. Humans make the same mistakes over and over again because they cannot overcome the pathology of desire. This inverts their big brains by creating a kind of “tunnel vision” where the human fixates on one aspect of reality, and uses it to explain the rest because it is what they desire and they are unaware of how their individual perspective is not the “whole” perspective of a situation. The only way to get that whole perspective is to analyze structure and pattern, and most cannot do that. Thus, as the song says:
The killing and the dying were all done in vain
For young Willie McBride it all happened again,
And again and again and again and again
Modern politics by nature is a science detached from the actual function of society. It deals in abstractions, or concepts that exist by themselves and refer to the ways we organize those things that provide for our survival. These concepts are powerful, in that they allow us to make changes to the system as a whole, but also dangerous, because if they no longer accurately represent the actuality of a situation, they can be misleading.
Before modern politics, humanity was divided into glorified tribal groups. These “nations” signified people of common values and culture who ruled themselves according to these ideals, and therefore could not be grouped with others. As culture is both created by and influences heritage, these nations were also of similar ethnic heritage. This does not mean they were races of clones, but rather, that each nation directly represented the interests each population had in common.
With the rise of the modern state, “countries” were no longer grouped by national heritage, but by political expediency, and thus the former method of politics was considered obsolete. In order to motivate people to act for the continuance of each society, their leaders organized them around abstractions, such as “freedom” or common religious interest, and assumed it would operate as well as politics previously had.
Failures of Modernism
However, now that our society has gone down the road of time a bit further, we are seeing some fundamental flaws in this outlook. Our societies have lost the ability to say “no” to destructive ideas, and as a result have been unable to avoid disasters such as overpopulation, pollution, crime, drugs, and the like. Where previous societies could point to a common cultural standard and say, “We are not interested in behaviors that deviate from this,” modern societies try to be all-embracing.
The root of this view lies in the need of modern society to produce laborers for its machines and wars. For this reason, modern societies treat all individuals as abstract entities which can be shaped into whatever is needed through training and laws. We can call this view utilitarianism or decentralization, but it started in a far more innocent idea: that a society based on economic competition of the individual treats its workers most fairly.
When we start building a society around the abstract “individual,” and assume all are the same, we apply a greater normalizing force that had previously been at work throughout history. By the very nature of such an idea, it both liberates the worker to make more money, and constrains all who would rise above a crass lowest common denominator; it is therefore both freedom and oppression at once. In order to keep the workers appeased, such a system normally has grand rhetoric about “freedom,” and pledges to support whatever each individual desires.
This facilitative view of society is therefore by nature without leadership, as it exists only for the individual, and because it has no goals in common, does not grant the individual the ability to work for something larger than the self. It also has a “dumbing down” impulse, because if any one of the people to whom something is shown cannot understand it, the unity of divergent interests is lost. In political terms, it is more like herding cattle than achieving a clear goal for the benefit of a population.
The consequence of this illogical design is that civilization, while busy harvesting its workers for the work value they provide, is also active in uniting them around ever-simpler political goals. Since there is no goal in common but the continuation of facilitation of the individual, its political objectives normally involve greater “freedom” and fewer restraints that might lead toward a common goal. In such a system, any individual attempting to participate in something larger than themselves does so at their peril, as there are always competitors who conserve that energy and apply it toward self-interest.
As a result of this process, developing over centuries in every-increasing intensity, we have the modern society, which is such a permissive place it has outlawed any area, no matter how localized, from making choices about who it admits to its membership. While this is undoubtedly well-intentioned, it is destructive, as it constitutes a normalization of the population and a reduction of the freedom of the individual to live as they would desire. For most, their desires do not include any form of collective activity, or any particular culture, and thus those that desire such things are at an economic and social disadvantage.
Such a tendency is common at the fall of civilizations. Greece, Egypt, Rome and ancient India went through the same process, first losing a sense of values in common, and then becoming cosmopolitan, multicultural societies united by nothing greater than a desire for commerce. As a result, both their cultures and heritages were eroded, causing them to weaken from lack of collective resolve. When trouble finally did come their way, it crushed them easily, as they could not unite to take action against it.
We are now observing the same things in our modern system. Not only is it bad for the environment, and for our cultural-ethnic groups, but it is destructive to our souls, as it detaches us from the collective process of striving and from a sense of community, leaving us as abstract, idealized, individual workers who are valued only for their labor. For this reason, many now not only have fears about the direction of our society in the real world, but they also have a spiritual and philosophical void caused by the lack of any cause except self-fulfillment.
The development of nationalist parties came about shortly after the creation of the modern nation state, which as mentioned above is categorized by political belief and not desired way of living. Where modern societies try to out-compete each other with abstract rhetoric, such as the Communism versus Capitalism drama of the Cold War, nationalist parties appeal to the simple triumph of leaving behind empty abstractions and embracing reality.
Reality is that, while many want to deny this, we are our bodies; our brains are functions of our physical selves and the design of those selves. For this reason, much of what makes us comfortable revolves around the kind of cultural values that shaped our ancestors, and the type of living they would find fulfilling. Inherently, we prefer to live around those who look like, think like, and have similar preferences to ourselves.
A further dimension of reality is that, all political abstractions aside, what makes a citizen happy is how well he or she lives. This includes the basics, such as food and shelter and medicine, but even if the citizen cannot articulate this, extends to larger concerns such as the health of the local community and the ability to contribute to its collective welfare. Most people are well-intentioned, and would like to help out their neighbors and have a social system tailored for the type of people they are.
Nationalism addresses these realities by grouping us according to heritage, and then representing the interests of that heritage not be engaging in abstract international politics and finance, but by ensuring that its citizens have a good quality of life and a traditional style of living. This way, they always have a place, even if there is less radical economic mobility for the most monetarily competitive; they are understood by those around them, and have the ability to contribute to a community at large.
Most importantly, nationalism rejects the idea that a working society can be formed of people with fundamentally different interests. Its goal is not, like those of the grand ideologies of Communism and Capitalism, to take over the world with a one-size-fits-all abstract political ideal. The goal of nationalist societies is to take care of the people within them, and to allow those people freedom from constant economic worry so that they can concentrate on being better at what it is that fulfils them: artists creating better art, farmers growing higher quality crops, plumbers displaying the finest workmanship possible in their task.
In this type of society, unlike all modern societies, money and politics are returned to their role as functions for achieving the goals of the population. They become a means to an end, instead of the end in itself. A facilitative society is based on the opposite principle, namely that there is no end, and therefore the means – money, comfort, political prestige – are achieved for their own sake. Nationalist societies recognize that abstractions cannot be sought for their own sake, as only life itself has that position in a healthy existence.
Nationalist societies empower better life. They do not attempt to take everyone, or to take over the world for some abstract ideal that “seems to” be better, or start wars because people “hate our freedom.” They exist to benefit their citizens and help them grow as a culture, a heritage, and as individuals.
When one accepts the wisdom of nationalism, the next task is to apply it. Nationalism’s focus on reality creates a real community, and places focus on culture and people, instead of creating bureaucracies that try to fit every disparate individual into a cookie-cutter mold labeled “Individual.” Even further, it withdraws from international politics by avoiding pursuit of money or abstract ideologies, and turns its focus inward on its citizens.
Stating a belief in nationalism itself is only a start, because nationalism is also a means to an end (the people) and must be further interpreted in every issue that confronts us. As it has, unlike modern political systems, an overall organizational principle of a practical nature, this is not a difficult task, but it is important for nationalists to quickly overcome the difference between nationalism and modernism and focus on the practical issues that threaten our stability as cultures.
Fortunately our societies still retain much of their traditional cultures, although another few generations of modernist politics may obliterate that in a flood of mass-culture products. We must replace the euphonious but empty abstractions of modernity with a focus on daily life, which requires that we give up the right/left divisions assumed as necessary in contemporary politics. After all, we no longer have allegiance to a political entity, but to a practical one: our people as selected by culture and heritage.
In this state of mind, we can actually confront the things that threaten us, including the need to find new energy sources; the imperative of restraining our reckless growth; the necessity of cleaning up pollution so we do not all die of cancers; the demand for stable, reduced crime cities where families can have normal lives without having to constantly be on the defensive. These are the ultimate goals of a nationalist party, as these are what our citizens need, but our outlook is not limited to that.
If one uses nationalism wisely, it is not only to stave off disasters, but to encourage growth of a society. Our culture has taken a back seat to television and pop music; our people have become seen only for their profit potential to industry. This has happened because we have refused to find a commonality in preferences, in part because we’re unwilling to group nations by culture and heritage. Nationalism reverses this entire trend in history, and therefore, represents the best hope of humankind.
Philosophy is a convoluted world. Writers try to find some central theme to their writings, and through that unify a system of belief, but since reality doesn’t fit under any heading in an outline except “reality,” these end up being contorted organizations. Despite thousands of people working in this field over the past centuries, not much of a definitive nature has been produced. One of the great classics, and one that best formulates the “transcendental idealist” position on philosophy, is the work of Arthur Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer wrote his classic “The World as Will and Representation” to express two basic ideas as indicated by the title. The first is the one grasped by almost everyone out there; that the universe, like individuals, is not purely rational but is more like a personality, in that it is like individual animals motivated by an attachment to life, or “will to live.” The second idea is more important in a broader context, and relates to the first; much as Plato saw “objects” and “shadows of objects” in his metaphor of the cave, Schopenhauer separates the world into its essential force (Will) and its forms, which are a human Representation based on sense-data of the world as is.
Unlike many who followed Plato, Schopenhauer avoided the trap of dualism, in which one would say that there is a pure world and it is mirrored in our physical reality. Will is a force that animates the world, and there is something like a representation generated from it, which we can’t know as a “thing in itself” because we are included in it and its scope is too broad for us to comprehend in a linear thinking system. The representation in Schopenhauer’s works was a revolutionary concept: he said that humans never know the world as it is, but only know a representation of it, formed of their interpretation of sense-data and memory.
These were revolutions to a philosophical world which had so far operated in the Christian tradition of an Absolute, believing there was a dual world (or an abstraction that constituted a pure and singular form) which was the blueprint from which the world of appearance is made. This is one viewpoint on the classic division of philosophy: what is the world, and what is the human, and how can the latter best approximate the former? The question “Why do we suffer?” even has its origins in this, as to the world, the suffering of humans is inconsequential, but to a human, individual suffering can take up most of his or her awareness.
Although all of these ideas had vast political and social effects, what this article targets as its topic is something else: the addition of another Representation to Schopenhauer’s list. This is not an addition to his actual cosmology, but a political notation. It is that in a modern time, when we have no uniform religious tradition and are accustomed to devotional belief as our means of finding truth, we view government and media and organized religion as sources of truth or at the very least, information about reality. This comprises an additional representation that a modern must address.
This representation is not unique to a modern time; we are always influenced by others, and there have always been doctrinal headlocks by various sources. However, in the age of technology, which asserts concepts as “scientific” and “proof” in an absolute sense, it takes on enough political and social importance that it’s worthwhile to comment on Schopenhauer’s philosophy and point out this additional cause of confusion. In the most rigorous academic sense, it would not be included in Schopenhauer’s description of reality, as that is analytic of process and not situation. But for moderns, for the purpose of this article, it bears commenting.
Nihilism by its very nature negates this social representation. Most people confuse nihilism with fatalism, which is the belief that one can’t know any truth or do anything about it, even if one could find out. However, nihilism is purely this: a negation of value in any sense removed from the inherent. It is not a negation of reality, but the values which are associated with a value-representation of reality, and while it removes that which exists, it does so to enable the individual to analyze reality and from it derive values on the terms of the individual in the context of a task, not an absolute. Fatalism says there is no ability to interpret, value, perceive or think; nihilism says that such thinking must occur outside of what humans have already projected onto their world.
Of course, reinterpreting this through Schopenhauer, we can see the reason for nihilism existing within the individual: the individual knows the world through his representation, and therefore, can act only on that data according to his degree of will. There is no absolute to which the individual can appeal, but there is grounds for “truth” or at least accuracy in statements about the nature of reality if the individual interprets it according to its structure. In turn, this interpretation is only allowed by nihilism, which by removing values outside of the inherent de-emphasizes perception of what something is, and turns the mind to focus on its importance in the context of a task or goal.
There are two ways to interpret Plato’s cave. The first is that there’s a pure world, and physical objects are shadows of it; this presupposes that we know physical objects as they are, instead of as data from our five senses. The second interpretation is that there’s a physical world, and it casts shadows on the cave wall that are what we know; these are the sense-data perceptions of physical objects, and this view presupposes that we can know our own representations fully. However, it is more logical that we can master thought than that we can achieve perception of things beyond our knowing, and for this reason, nihilism is the only sensible gateway.
It is a rejection of the artificial world imposed upon reality by the additional representation mentioned here: the social and economic reality that is trumpeted in our ears and eyes daily by any number of technological devices. It is repeated in newspapers, on television, on radio and on the Internet; government leaders and news/entertainment people give basically the same view, disguised as oppositional theories. All of these debate things that are not immediately important for the long-term triumph of replacing the reality we perceive, a representation of our world in our own minds, with another representation, that of a collective reality based on social values.
One thing that can oppose this mindset is nihilism, but it does not exist as a philosophical system as much as a method of liberating concentration to be able to apply other methods and intellectual systems. The basic idea of nihilism is accepting ultimate reality – the physical world that surrounds us and, whatever it is made of, is consistent in effect upon us all – and discarding all inference-information from others; it rejects both the absolute and the ultra-subjective, and replaces them with subjectivity as contingent upon an initial goal of valuation, such as a task. Although this is more complex than what most embrace, it clears the part of the mind that values to consider life anew without being unduly manipulated.
Undoing the best efforts of philosophers, there is no central concept or theme to life, except life itself. It is its own goal. Schopenhauer gave us some basic tools that can help us understand our relationship to the world, but there is no complete, single answer – only a series of starting points. The individual can use these starting points successively as the changing basis of a goalset, with each realization leading to something new. But that path begins with something like nihilism, or the mind is awash in the absolute representation of the herd.