The chicken-and-egg question of civilization decline dogs us repeatedly. Which came first, democracy or breakdown? The answer may be shocking: the tendency of humans toward individualism, manifested in both bourgeois oblivion and prole present-tense me-firsting, overcomes societies once they succeed.
From Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs:
The Divisionists occupy a mid-way position, could in fact be termed moderates…. They are called Divisionists because they literally divide. They cut off tiny bits of their flesh and grow exact replicas of themselves in embryo jelly. It seems probable, unless the process of division is halted, that eventually there will be only one replica of one sex on the planet: that is one person in the world with millions of separate bodies…. Are these bodies actually independent, and could they in time develop varied characteristics? I doubt it. Replicas must periodically recharge with the Mother Cell. This is an article of faith with the Divisionists, who live in fear of a replica revolution…. Some Divisionists think that the process can be halted short of the eventual monopoly of one replica. They say: “Just let me plant a few more replicas all over so I won’t be lonely when I travel…. And we must strictly control the division of Undesirables….” Every replica but your own is eventually an “Undesirable.” Of course if someone starts inundating an area with Identical Replicas, everyone knows what is going on. The other citizens are subject to declare a “Schluppit” (wholesale massacre of all identifiable replicas). To avoid extermination of their replicas, citizens dye, distort, and alter them with face and body molds. Only the most abandoned and shameless characters venture to manufacture I.R.s — Identical Replicas. (81)
The more important question with this in mind is how to resist it. So far the best resistance has come from aristocracy, but aristocrats tend to sacrifice themselves in battle, lessening the ratio of intelligent leaders to unpunished herd. And worse, when the intelligent are made into babysitters, they tend to self-destruct.
Compounding this is the tendency for human beings, even intelligent ones, to create a false social reality in which human intentions and feelings matter more than reality. Socializing reprograms our brains to defer to other people, not reality. On top of that, symbolic reality is more powerful to us, including the approval of others, because it creates a stronger signal in our brains.
If any human society survives in the future, it will do so through a dogmatic elitism and strict attention to morality of thriving in all areas. Ugliness will be banished, and the one-fifth of every generation that are born neurotic, resentful and oblivious will be dispatched to other lands. This seems harsh, but like nature, its harshness will result in better outcomes.
For those who imagine golden fields surrounded by happy people, this may be the price necessary to pay. Good to the good, and bad to the bad, in all things with an eye toward biology, namely that allowing the bad to persist endangers not just other people, but the shared effort toward which we give our lives in cooperation that takes up our irreplaceable time.
Fred Nietzsche is probably right in that currently, humanity is in the saddle between ape and greatness, and what holds us back is our fear for ourselves that has us resisting commitment to greater things than our own desires. And yet as the last century has shown us, a society dedicated to human desires becomes ugly and corrupting for all.
When on the Right, it helps to remember that everyone else wants to steal your legitimacy, assimilate your ideas, and then use you as a cordycepted zombie to serve their own goals. As a result, you will see many people pretending to be “more Right than thou,” usually by adopting extremist ideas tinged with racial sadism, and these will then serve as an entry point for others who will subvert, co-opt and redirect the movement.
William S. Burroughs — a writer every conservative (realist/physical consequentialist + transcendentalist/Germanic idealist) should read, despite the disturbing amounts of drug use, sex and murder — shows us exactly how these false flag entryists operate through the parable of Clem and Jody:
Clem and Jody, two oldtime vaudeville hoofers, cope out as Russian agents whose sole function is to represent the U.S. in an unpopular light. When arrested for sodomy in Indonesia, Clem said to the examining magistrate:
“‘Tain’t as if it was being queer. After all they’s only Gooks.”
They appeared in Liberia dressed in black Stetsons and red galluses:
“So I shoot that old nigger and he flop on his side one leg up in the air just akicking.”
“Yeah, but you ever burn a nigger?”
They are always pacing round Bidonvilles smoking huge cigars:
“Haveta get some bulldozers in here Jody. Clean out all this crap.”
Morbid crowds follow them about hoping to witness some superlative American outrage.
“Thirty years in show business and I never handle such a routine like this. I gotta dispossess a Bidonville, give myself a bang of H, piss on the Black Stone, make with the Prayer Call whilst dressed in my hog suit, cancel Lend Lease and get fucked up the ass simultaneous…. What, am I an octopus already?” Clem complains.
They are conspiring to kidnap the Black Stone with a helicopter and substitute a hog pen, the hogs trained to give the Bronx cheer when the pilgrims show. “We try to train them squealing bastards to sing: ‘Three cheers for the Red White and Blue,’ but it can’t be done….”
…They unload a shipment of condemned parachutes on the Ecuadorian Air Force. Manoeuvres: Boys plummet streaming ‘chutes like broken condoms splash young blood over pot-bellied generals… shattering wake of sound as Clem and Jody disappear over the Andes in jet getaway…
These guys are hired by the Soviets to discredit Americans, so instead of presenting themselves as Russians and attacking Americans directly, they dress up as Americans and behave like utter horrible boors as a means of getting the herd to hate Americans.
In the same way, there are some on the alt right — of both cuck and sperg varieties — who are sheep in wolves’ clothing: they want to appear to the world as the alt right, and then use their resulting ridiculous behavior to discredit the alt right.
On that level, it is impossible to mention the “1488” types without mentioning the “alt lite,” since they are both the same thing. They are parasitic opportunists who hope to use the alt right to advance their own agenda, consuming the alt right in the process.
When people indulge their personal intent instead of paying attention to the world, they create small bubbles around themselves of the world they recognize, having filtered out all information that contradicts their personal illusion. This separates a space of information from that of the cosmos, and subjects it to repetition, since it lacks enough variety to be anything but repetitive.
The writer William S. Burroughs wrote about this in his epic Naked Lunch, talking about the downfall of a society through its refusal to withdraw from the need for manipulation or control:
The black wind sock of death undulates over the land, feeling, smelling for the crime of separate life, movers of the fear-frozen flesh shivering under a vast probability curve….
Population blocks disappear in a checker game of genocide…. Any number can play….
The Liberal Press and The Press Not So Liberal and The Press Reactionary Scream approval:
“Above all the myth of other-level experience must be eradicated….” And speak darkly of certain harsh realities… cows with the aftosa… prophylaxis….
Power groups of the world frantically cut lines of connection….
The Planet drifts to random insect doom….
Thermodynamics has won at a crawl…
Within the human mind, a smaller pattern takes precedence over the larger, and because this is too small to maintain internal variation, it becomes fixed and repetitive even if it seems to take many forms. As a result, change slows… each option becomes about the same as any other… heat death, or the state of futility of choice, predominates.
This is what awaits humanity under individualism. The individual chooses to deny the world, and so becomes sealed in himself, at which point the mathematical limitations of that state become revealed. As each person becomes atomized, these people draw energy from the world and segregate it in individuals, at which point the whole slows down.
Control creates this situation. Each individual desires his intent to rule over the more complex world of nature, and what results is a standardization of others in order to conform to that intent. In doing so, this process of uniformity destroys the internal variation that keeps the world from collapsing in on itself through repetition.
This is the future under The Enlightenment.™ In it, each person becomes powerful enough to shut out the world, and as a result, dooms themselves to a closed-circuit feedback loop in which variation dies. And then, predictably, the world recedes and the individual suffocates from a lack of internal variety. And yet, they maintain the illusion of control until the end.
William S. Burroughs famously said, “Language is a virus.” It seems that social science has finally caught up with him, and the idea of mental viruses spread by social contact has gone mainstream:
We are used to the idea that diseases can be passed down from person to person. One gets ill and gives the sickness to everyone he meets, and so on till you have an epidemic. But what about ideas? Can ideas infect societies like viruses?
“Memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically,” writes Dawkins in “The Selfish Gene”. “When you plant a fertile meme in my mind, you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme’s propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn’t just a way of talking — the meme for, say, ‘belief in life after death’ is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of people all over the world.”
The important idea here: the virus makes you like it because it seems to make you look good in a social context, but it is using you for its own ends. Its goal is to live on.
There are interesting metaphysical implications here as well. If ideas live on beyond us, do they live on beyond humans? At some point, if enough people believe something, does it become incarnate? Or if the right people believe it? Woolgathering for future meditation.
In addition to William S. Burroughs and Richard Dawkins, noted cultural commentatory curmudgeon Tom Wolfe has also spotted language as a virus, or at least a nexus of control:
Evolution came to an end when the human beast developed speech! As soon as he became not Homo sapiens, “man reasoning,” but Homo loquax, “man talking”! Speech gave the human beast far more than an ingenious tool. Speech was a veritable nuclear weapon! It gave the human beast the powers of reason, complex memory, and long-term planning, eventually in the form of print and engineering plans. Speech gave him the power to enlarge his food supply at will through an artifice called farming.
…One of Homo loquax’s first creations after he learned to talk was religion. Since The Origin of Species in 1859 the doctrine of Evolution has done more than anything else to put an end to religious faith among educated people in Europe and America; for God is dead. But it was religion, more than any other weapon in Homo loquax’s nuclear arsenal, that killed evolution itself 11,000 years ago. To say that evolution explains the nature of modern man is like saying that the Bessemer process of adding carbons to pig iron to make steel explains the nature of the modern skyscraper.
Language is power, and language is seductive. It knows no master but itself. We have all been warned. Not only that, as Immanuel Kant would note, we now know what evil is and the burden has fallen on us to avoid it. Perhaps the greatest evil is to tell a lie or a partial truth, knowing that the words used will program someone else, and lead to consequences in physical — and perhaps metaphysical — reality.
Let us advance a sensible rule regarding Leftists and their prevarication about the distinctions between shades of Leftism such as democrat, Communist, socialist, cultural Marxist, liberal democrat and the like:
Given enough power, over time, all Leftists become Stalin.
The root of Leftism is ideology, or the notion of what “should” be rather than what works and what is. This means they are pushing against reality. For them, victory is to beat back the order that produced us and replace it with an order that flatters the human ego. This requires destroying all that is natural.
They are zombie-robots, slaves to their own need to be “in control,” and the part of their brain that demands that human intentions be more important than reality eventually wins out over the rest. It is like the act of normal cells becoming cancerous, or independent organisms becoming viruses: a part takes over the whole.
William S. Burroughs provides a potent metaphor for virus/control/ego behavior in Naked Lunch:
Did I ever tell you about the man who taught his asshole to talk? His whole abdomen would move up and down you dig farting out the words. It was unlike anything I ever heard.
This ass talk had sort of a gut frequency. It hit you right down there like you gotta go. You know when the old colon gives you the elbow and it feels sorta cold inside, and you know all you have to do is turn loose? Well this talking hit you right down there, a bubbly, thick stagnant sound, a sound you could smell.
This man worked for a carnival you dig, and to start with it was like a novelty ventriloquist act. Real funny, too, at first. He had a number he called “The Better ‘Ole” that was a scream, I tell you. I forget most of it but it was clever. Like, “Oh I say, are you still down there, old thing?”
“Nah I had to go relieve myself.”
After a while the ass start talking on its own. He would go in without anything prepared and his ass would ad-lib and toss the gags back at him every time.
Then it developed sort of teeth-like little raspy in-curving hooks and started eating. He thought this was cute at first and built an act around it, but the asshole would eat its way through his pants and start talking on the street, shouting out it wanted equal rights. It would get drunk, too, and have crying jags nobody loved it and it wanted to be kissed same as any other mouth. Finally it talked all the time day and night, you could hear him for blocks screaming at it to shut up, and beating it with his fist, and sticking candles up it, but nothing did any good and the asshole said to him: “It’s you who will shut up in the end. Not me. Because we dont need you around here any more. I can talk and eat and shit.”
After that he began waking up in the morning with a transparent jelly like a tadpole’s tail all over his mouth. This jelly was what the scientists call un-D.T., Undifferentiated Tissue, which can grow into any kind of flesh on the human body. He would tear it off his mouth and the pieces would stick to his hands like burning gasoline jelly and grow there, grow anywhere on him a glob of it fell. So finally his mouth sealed over, and the whole head would have have amputated spontaneous — (did you know there is a condition occurs in parts of Africa and only among Negroes where the little toe amputates spontaneously?) — except for the eyes you dig. That’s one thing the asshole couldn’t do was see. It needed the eyes. But nerve connections were blocked and infiltrated and atrophied so the brain couldn’t give orders any more. It was trapped in the skull, sealed off. For a while you could see the silent, helpless suffering of the brain behind the eyes, then finally the brain must have died, because the eyes went out, and there was no more feeling in them than a crab’s eyes on the end of a stalk.
The metaphor works two ways: first, the ego takes over the soul; second, the Leftist takes over society, and because Leftist ideas are fundamentally — mathematically, logically, biologically — unrealistic, the only way to do so is by force. It must take over the body and seal off the brain, so only speech remains.
All Leftists tend toward Stalinism because that is the degree of force required for them to implement their vision. Unrealistic ideas always require total control. This is why tyranny grows out of democracy; democracy encourages non-truth to be seen as truth (equality) and then, produces a need for its unreal ideas to be forced on others.
Once you step even just a toe in the waters of Leftism, and start considering that all people are “equal” or that pity is more important than protecting the good, you will go down a path which does not end until Stalin is reached, and after him, it will never reach any great heights again.
Is that the legacy you wish to leave for the future?
“The end result of complete cellular representation is cancer. Democracy is cancerous, and bureaus are its cancer. A bureau takes root anywhere in the state, turns malignant like the Narcotic Bureau, and grows and grows, always reproducing more of its own kind, until it chokes the host if not controlled or excised. Bureaus cannot live without a host, being true parasitic organisms. (A cooperative on the other hand can live without the state. That is the road to follow. The building up of independent units to meet needs of the people who participate in the functioning of the unit. A bureau operates on opposite principle of inventing needs to justify its existence.) Bureaucracy is wrong as a cancer, a turning away from the human evolutionary direction of infinite potentials and differentiation and independent spontaneous action, to the complete parasitism of a virus…Bureaus die when the structure of the state collapses. They are as helpless and unfit for independent existences as a displaced tapeworm, or a virus that has killed the host. (67)
Why does democracy shift Leftward, inevitably and consistently? Democracy must create the State, because it has displaced leadership and at the very least needs an authority to administer elections. This creates bureaus, or managerial institutions composed of file clerks applying rules made by leaders. These tend toward an extreme egalitarian premise because the very nature of the bureau is that it knows nothing about the people who come in the door, so it treats them as anonymous citizens, i.e. equals who must subject themselves to procedure in exchange for results. This causes the bureau to act in loco parentis and therefore, to start demanding that everyone get along, always by protecting the clueless, weak, foolish, insane, etc. against the normal. From this comes a mentality of victimhood, and this encourages government and citizens to shift further Leftward.
Thirty years ago, William Gibson wrote a series of cyberpunk stories — visual counterparts to the theories of Burroughs and Pynchon — which suggested a reality “underneath” the world of appearance and human “face value” assurances in which most of us live.
A terrible movie was made some years later to translate that simplification into an even simpler version. Called The Matrix, this movie gave the Hollywood treatment to cyberpunk but also gave us a powerful metaphor: the red pill.
In The Matrix, the protagonist was given the choice between a red pill and a blue pill. The red pill would make him see reality as it was, underneath the appearance; the blue pill would make him expert at the false reality. (Distracted observers may draw comparisons to the ring of Gyges from Plato and not be wrong).
While this movie was a fantasy, and its vision of actual reality in fact a false reality that scapegoated a centralized force instead of the decentralized decay we are experiencing, the metaphor sticks. Some people embrace the unpopular and unpleasant truths of life, where others just want to become good/successful at the illusion.
Some years later, my esteemed colleague Colin Liddell unleashed “The Black Pill”:
The Black Pill is the least dialectical of the three. It leads from actual inferiority back to actual inferiority. It is nihilism, but nihilism made flesh calls forth absolute egoism, a sense of the self detached from wider contexts and responsibilities—it is this that makes it evil and murderous.
The inferior person can either accept context and therefore inferiority, or fight it. The Blue Piller rejects his future inferiority by retreating backwards into illusion. The Red Piller rejects his present lack of superiority by marching forward through positive consciousness and action to redress the situation. The Black Piller, however, chooses neither the palliatives of illusion nor the challenge of positive action. He stares into the abyss—passively because his actions will never be capable of changing it—and, as Nietzsche so pertinently observed, the abyss stares back.
For almost thirty years, I have written about nihilism as a philosophy. In my view, nihilism is the gateway to all useful thought. It clears aside the human pretense and solipsistic illusion and replaces it with a cold, unflinching, logical and realistic look at our world and our place within it, including the Darwinian need to adapt. More disturbingly, it shows us that the standard of life is not how to explain away our failings, but that each time we observe a better method than our own, we will be dissatisfied and self-hating if we do not adopt it.
Without nihilism, religion becomes obedience out of fear, not a choice to seek out possible metaphysical dimensions to the universe. With nihilism, science becomes applied logic; literature becomes communication; art becomes Jungian symbolism. It is a gateway to a kingdom of darkness in which suddenly, the photonegative of normal human life — invert by social impulses, which are individual fears amplified and then placated by collective illusion — is negatived again, revealing that what we call “light” is darkness and vice-versa. Illusions fall in cold white flame.
In my view, nihilism is the black pill. It is not egoism, because nihilism denies the notion of humanity and the individual being the center of the world. In nihilism, as in the universe, the self is a tiny portion of a great vast space that is mostly emptiness. Nihilism is mostly negation, or destruction of human illusions and plans that turned out to be unrealistic. That process begins by attacking the deception of the mind by itself.
The black pill provides a gateway into an entirely different way of seeing the world. Where most people live in a purely social world, where they assume the goodwill of others, black pilled people see a natural struggle every bit as violent and constant as that experienced by a common mouse. Predators surround us and parasites infest us unless we actively and aggressively remove them without mercy.
In the black pill world, government is nothing more than a parasite. Salesmen are predators, hoping to convince you to pay high prices for something that is easy for them to acquire. Police and taxmen are parasites as well, looking for some way to justify taking money and time from you. Most people are parasites and predators alike who want to use you as a means toward their own aggrandizement. In addition, all but a few people — one in a hundred, maybe — are delusional to the edge of clinical insanity.
This is a new view of reality that has a tendency to snap into place suddenly so that thousands of details make sense at once as if aligned. It is a more realistic view, and statistically more likely true, than the happy world of “love and trust” (dependency and subsidies) erected by democratic society. It points out the obvious: humans are still mostly the same filthy little beasts that crawled out of the primordial ooze, and those who have risen above that state are targets of the rest.
Vice: First of all, could you explain what you mean by the term progress and why you think it’s a myth?
John Gray: I define progress in my new book as any kind of advance that’s cumulative, so that what’s achieved at one period is the basis for later achievement that then, over time, becomes more and more irreversible. In science and technology, progress isn’t a myth. However, the myth is that the progress achieved in science and technology can occur in ethics, politics, or, more simply, civilization. The myth is that the advances made in civilization can be the basis for a continuing, cumulative improvement.
This exchange is classic black pill. “Progress” is a myth told by salesmen to customers. The reality is that absent evolution or eugenics, humans do not change, and in fact have zero incentive to because they have made society parasite-friendly through egalitarianism. The myth exists only to justify the parasitism. “Progress” is like fashion in that it argues for something new you must buy or be inferior socially and (implicitly) evolutionarily.
With the impending election, the futility of our lives becomes even clearer with one salient point inescapable: It doesn’t matter who wins. The underlying issues destroying our society will never be dealt with under our current democratic system. Voting is pointless. The only possible utility voting possesses is the potential to vote for the worst possible candidate in order to hasten the demise of this broken society. There is nothing to preserve, conserve or improve. The only way forward is to destroy the corpse so something better can take its place.
As long as civilizations make intelligent or semi-intelligent decisions, they thrive. When people start making stupid decisions, as has happened for the past thousand years, it means both that the future will be bad and that the past was bad, since no society gets to the point of making stupid decisions without somehow putting the stupid in power.
Once a civilization falls into decline, far more decisive action is required than its political, social and economic system allows. It requires the intervention of strong power to remove the rot and send it far away, then rebuild institutions around good people who can make the complex decisions that rules, elections and markets cannot. This means that many dreams will be smashed, and all parasitic people need to be disenfranchised if not outright removed.
These are hard truths. They are also a source of great joy for those who discover them because that revelation lifts the burden of having to uphold illusions and fantasies as reality. It also shows a path forward out of a situation where everything we do is bound to be adulterated and fail, and allows us hope for a better future through our own hands, not government or “We The People” surging in like the cavalry to save the heroine at a movie’s end.
The modern world is based on rationalism, or the idea that we can understand our world using logic independent of direct experience. It tends to overlap with empiricism, or the idea that replicated results are the highest form of sense-experience.
From the opposite side of the debate comes the older view: human reason is misleading unless it is deeply intuitive and guided by morally honest, self-disciplined character. Our logical deductions often reflect more of the chaos of our own minds than the world around us.
In practice, rationalism means the assumption of equality a.k.a. “universality.” This thinking assumes that all objects sharing some attribute belong to the same category, and they behave the same way. It allows those objects to be treated as generic, and without any changes to our logical approach for their type versus another.
This reveals the human projection behind rationalism: we want the world to be uniform for the convenience of our thinking, which does not want to know particulars. It wants to make broad conclusions and apply them mechanically to achieve magical results. That provides the maximum convenience and ego-flattery for the individual.
Rationality starts with deduction, and ends with broad almost religious conclusions, but in the middle there is the imposition of assumptions about logic. Rationalists tend to assume that the boundaries of a category are more important than its center, in the same way the nuances of words in interpreting law has become more important than the spirit of the law. “Technically correct” is the hallmark of rationalism.
The utility of rationalism is found purely in material sciences. Technically, its results are correct, although there are always externalities and imprecisions that somehow were never noticed, and they are usually not mentioned.
If you wonder why our society is so advanced and yet so incapable of getting basic things right, you are seeing this rationalistic approach in action. When Microsoft Word glitches constantly and does by default some very stupid things, rest assured you are seeing the remnants and externalities of rationalism at work. People looked at the details and treated them as universal, instead of seeing how the parts connect up.
Rationalism has one sole advantage: it extends analytical thinking, or a bad analogue of it the way Budweiser is technically “beer,” to people who are not geniuses. The Crowd can participate if they memorize enough equations, rules and methods to be able to have some way of breaking apart a problem. But as with all things modern, the deconstructed is never assembled again into coherence, spreading entropy and misery alike.
Philosophy consists more of vectors than arguments, sort of like the “angle” to a good human interest story: approaches, and framing of both goals and points at which arguments become incoherent, that in turn reshape the issue from what we might think to what we recognize as structurally sound and consistent with all else we know.
In my wanderings, I have borrowed basic analysis from Plato and Schopenhauer; political analysis from William S. Burroughs (“Control”); civilizational analysis from Nietzsche and Plato; and my most basic approach, from the Bhagavad-Gita, the Odyssey and the Bible, which see the root of human error as hubris or self-important solipsistic delusion. These pieces fit together better than one might expect.
In doing so, I have refuted some parts of the philosophies of all of my heroes except Plato. I disagree with Fred Nietzsche that the root of liberalism is Christianity, since the actual root is hubris brought on by overpopulation of our lower classes thanks to the successful social order of our aristocrats. I see Schopenhauer as missing the political and metaphysical implications of Germanic idealism, where Kant was closer to accurate on the latter. Burroughs is often caught in a victim narrative that externalizes evil. And so on.
But let us return to that study of evil, because in this distinction, I see the most basic approach to philosophy revealed: one either wishes to know the truth of reality and see the beauty in it, which corresponds to the realist and transcendentalist prongs of conservatism, or one wishes to deny reality in favor of human feelings, judgments and desires. Throughout all of human history, all human actions have fallen mostly on one side or the other of this divide, because it reflects whether we are able to perceive the world (good) or are dedicated only to ourselves and our illusory power (evil).
Another way to see this distinction is that good means acting within a whole order, or one that incorporates all parts of the world. Evil means acting for yourself alone, which usually requires looking at only some parts of natural order, or cherry-picking what reality you notice and then justifying/rationalizing from that point of view. We see people do this all the time when they see an action in one context, and repeat it in another as if it were some universal solution, when really its success depended on the action plus the context.
But what is most interesting about evil is its desire to conceal — including through use of distraction. The following two examples show how evil works by hiding its actual intentions and then distracting observers with fake symbols of good intentions that exist merely to deceive.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
— The Bible, John 3:19-21 KJV
The evil hates the light, and so it hides its deeds; the good comes into the light, so its deeds may be seen, because the good does not fear judgment. This view sort of represents a “first take” on evil, because once the above has been said, evil — which is not stupid in the short term — will begin to disguise itself. This is why evil appears seductive, even beautiful, throughout the Bible and classical literature.
Plato expands on this concept:
Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point.
And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another’s, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another’s faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.
— Plato, The Republic, Chapter III
The good will hide his good deeds, and let his bad be seen; this is equivalent to the good coming into the light from the Biblical passage.
The bad will hide his bad deeds, and let his good be seen; this, if anything, is the crux of Plato and later Nietzsche, which is that we should be wary of human symbols, intentions and displays/signaling as they are always corrupt (and seem to work, year after year for eons, on the clueless herd).
The above are in parallel to Plato’s classic formulation of justice, which is “good to the good, and bad to the bad.” In other words, give to people what they are, so that you get more of the good and less of the bad. This also fits with a Darwinistic interpretation.
Old-school conservatives began their study of humanity with evil, and extended this into political philosophy, mainly because when you combine the Bible and Plato you realize that most people are both deceptive and bad, and that we either put the good ones in charge of the rest, or the rest will rule us and destroy us with their solipsistic evil.
Most people are denialists who lack the spirit to oppose the ongoing degeneration of our civilization. They compensate for this by picking “surrogate” activities and beliefs that symbolically substitute for effective counteraction.
Almost all political philosophies fall into this camp because to do otherwise is to contradict the founding myth of our current civilization and thus to break taboo and not only be ostracized, but be unpopular because most people are compensators not concerned with the truth so much as what makes their choices in life seem correct.
The problem faced by the right is that over the years, we have seen too many apologists and compromisers who serve as an entry point for compensators into the right. Our goal is not to find parity with modernity, which formalized itself in 1789 with the French Revolution, but to oppose it.
That situation leads to a fracturing of the Right where the mainstream right is exclusively compromise-oriented as a means of “keeping the shop open” or working with others much as one would in any office, which results in perpetual compromise shifting incrementally to the left. On the other hand, the underground right tends to emulate the left and adopt an ideological dogma as its sole agenda. This then also drifts to the left.
The philo-Semitic “New Right” writer Brett Stevens offers a typical Cain-critical hack job in his neoreactionary rant “Serf’s Up!” at Amerika.org:
Fact is, modern man, you were so clever — you saw what the lord of the manse had, and you desired it, like Cain viewing Abel naked in the shower, resplendent in a natural glory you are in your Gollum-like ugliness not given, resplendent in a natural intelligence that in your Goliath-like stolidity you are not given — cheated! — like Esau viewing Jacob the future inheritor, like a dark-haired girl looking longingly on a blonde until longing turns to hate. You saw what those gifted by nature had and you determined you’d take it. You gathered all you knew and said, now we rule — and you did. You overthrew the Lord of the Manse, you married and impregnated his granddaughters, and now everything’s equal. Yet there’s a new Lord of the Manse and it’s not one person, but millions, hiding behind your credit cards and your house payments, parasitically wanting exactly what you do which is more money all of the time, and thus we all prey on each other, parasitic brothers locked in arms as we descend the whirlpool of our feedback loop rotting society for our profit — but surely it was worth it, because you’re free?
His attitude toward Cain, moreover, is of a piece with his dishonest and belittling attitude toward racialist politics. Zionist rodeo clown Stevens, who claims that “Hitler’s goals are near realization” and that “Jews are under attack and now are not protected by the liberal media establishment”, argues in his mean-spirited hit piece “Destroy White Nationalism”, that “white nationalism is an underconfident teenager” who “sulks in its bedroom, takes its toys and goes home, refuses to play nicely with the other kids, passive-aggressively throws spitwads at the African-American kids and takes candy from the Jewish kids (at least until it needs a doctor or lawyer).” What Stevens really believes, however, is that racialist identitarianism – nationalism writ large – violates the Jew-god’s insecure and incessant demands for humility and its enviously infantile prohibition of “idolatry”.
Stevens instead suggests that conservatives should “celebrate” the degenerate pederast, ethnomasochist, heroin addict, and murderer William S. Burroughs as one of their own. “Shoot the bitch and write a book. That’s what I did,” conservative Burroughs flippantly said of his 1951 murder of spouse Joan Vollmer. “When all the cards are counted,” Stevens writes, “Burroughs will be remembered as one of the good guys.” “That their children’s children’s children might be a different color is something very alarming to them,” this “good guy” literary celebrity said of white nationalists; “in short they are committed to the maintenance of the static image. The attempt to maintain a static image, even if it’s a good image, just won’t work.” Stevens, then, by his endorsement of Burroughs as a model conservative, must believe that miscegenation represents progress – the mule’s vibrant dynamism as opposed to the thoroughbred’s monotonous stasis in genealogical symmetry.
This same “conservative” wise man, Stevens, in tweeting a link to an Aryan Skynet post about Francis Parker Yockey, dismisses white nationalism as “ethnic Bolshevism” – the idea of the qualification being that historical, Jewish-financed-and-administered Bolshevism was somehow notethnic? He characterizes white identitarianism as “fake nationalism” – as opposed to the “revitalized mainstream [i.e., kosher] conservatism” he extols – because of what he claims are white nationalism’s “emotional outbursts of racial hatred and paranoid anti-Semitism”, which, one assumes, include the telling of inconvenient facts about 9/11. Merely to speak the inviolable name of Larry Silverstein in vain and in lieu of its tetragrammaton is to murder Abel all over again in the Stevensian contribution to Talmudic theology.
“As is normal in a civilization that is collapsing from within, all of our words have become mis-defined for the political convenience of our rulers,” Stevens writes, and he would know this, considering his own services rendered to “our rulers” in perpetuating their historical distortions and misappropriating the concept of ethnonationalism as a label for psychotic maladjustment, paranoia, brutish behavior, and rabid calls for the resuscitation of some mythological program of genocide – a vast multiplication of the purportedly evil act of Cain.
As for Bolshevism, it is important to note that Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov, the embodiment of that Judaic plague, is remembered principally, in addition to his political destiny, murderousness, and personal dynamism, for his pragmatism – that and the fact that his party won. Lenin’s biographer Robert Service describes him as “an improviser” who “worked by instinct as well as by doctrine” – a man not willing to sacrifice a victory on ideological grounds. There are lessons in Lenin’s life for whites who would revolutionize their people. White activists might lack the deep New York pockets that Lenin had at his disposal, but can still benefit from a study of the Bolsheviks’ pragmatic approach to the tasks of strategic subversion. Allies change with political winds, as should political programs and propagandistic exigencies. Let whites dispense with Bolshevism’s more obviously Jewish aspects – the mass executions, contempt for tradition, and service to the Zionist banking complex – and embrace its flexibility and its pagan versatility.
The Babeuvist Conspiracy of the Equals failed, as did the Paris Commune; but this did not prevent Lenin and his supporters from learning from the mistakes of their less successful forebears within the revolutionary tradition. Racialists have their own rich heritage of failed experiments – and, to this extent, there is a grain of truth in Stevens’s nasty characterizations – but, like Marxism, white nationalism cannot allow itself to rigidify, stagnate, and become overly patterned and doctrinaire. When classical, economically fixated, and insurrection-oriented Marxism failed to produce the Western European revolutions its theorists and propagandists had prophesied, the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt School reinvigorated the movement by changing its arsenal, image, and tactics, if not the ultimate target of its perpetual onslaught. While recognizing and honoring the triumphs of nationalisms past, the white nationalist of today must choose either to look to the future or else relegate his cause to nostalgia fetishism.
Nietzsche “would remind us, too,” Stevens writes in his essay “Morality”, “that it’s important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because you don’t like herd morality doesn’t mean you get all Sandusky on some kids” – unless, of course, one is as staunch a reactionary as William S. Burroughs. Racial solidarity being as noble a cause and commitment as any, should whites jettison identity and group interest – and throw their babies out with the bathwater, as it were – only because the moral herd happens to have frowned upon some of their forebears’ fashion sense?
I am thankful to Aryan Skynet for introducing the many topics which are considered above, and for having read so deeply of the articles on this site.
However, I disagree with their conclusions and can point to a few errors among their assumptions as well.
Civilizations die where there are too many conflicting loyalties for them to be united. They literally fall apart because they no longer reflect a group of people inclined toward the same purpose or social standards.
Identitarians like myself suggest that identity — comprised of the triad culture, heritage and values — is the only method of avoiding this collapse. It forces the majority to declare the social standard to which it is otherwise blind, and forces those who are incompatible with that to leave or form their own republics elsewhere.
We tend to favor strong action to establish that state, and then no action; the strong action was like our response to an earthquake or hurricane an emergency measure.
The advantage of identity is that it restores the idea of social order. Instead of simply having government administer rules which make everything turn out OK, the nebulous concept of social order includes social roles, caste distinctions, and cultural standards as well as a tendency to promote the best leaders to leadership roles independent of whether most people — who lack leadership ability — can make the leadership-level choice to decide who should be leaders.
White Nationalism, like leftism, is the idea that racial ideology alone can fix a problem. It emulates the 1789 masters by proclaiming an ideology and demanding that it be the method of fixing society, which not only imitates the methods of its enemies but their goals, namely a civilization without social order. They want government and dogma in place of social order.
Conservatives like myself see it the other way around: government is limited in what it can do. It can write rules by the tens of thousands of pages (in fact, it has) and then enforce those, but only after a tragedy has occurred. Further, its enforcement relies on bureaucrats, courts and police who are not present everywhere nor would we want them to be. Thus most infractions get missed and many thousands of people are involved who can easily be bribed to simply look the other way. Government as a solution to human problems is a failed model.
Instead, we propose that every citizen be a police officer, compliance specialist and intervention expert in their own right. With cultural standards, we apply standards on each other by having ideals that we aim for, and having no-fly zones that we seek to avoid. This is not a single level of rule, like laws and regulations, which only specify a no-fly zone; it also includes the goal, which tends to be an ongoing standard like morality itself, which is both timeless in that it applies in every age and evolving in that as a society gets healthier, the moral standard raises and becomes less rigid.
Most people missed the salient argument of the book The Bell Curve, since the denialists and compensators on the left had a huge tantrum about it and one chapter in which it discussed race. The real argument of the book was that the Standard Distribution applies to all population groups. Whether that is a group of white-haired Nordics or spear-holding Bantu, within that group intelligence and other traits will break down according to the standard distribution, with most in the middle (the “bell curve” shape) and some outliers on the right who are excellent. This is evolution in action; healthy evolution takes the far-right (heh heh) group and promotes it above the rest, as monarchism, aristocracy and identitarianism did in the past.
Liberalism opposes this because it wants equality, or the notion that people in the middle of the bell curve are equal to those on the far right and that — this thought is created backward in order to justify an argument for equality — there are no special abilities to those on the far-right. Any person can judge with “common sense” or better, be “educated” in the right ideology and science and make the decision. This turns out to be nonsense, since leadership intelligence which the far-right excels at requires consideration of many factors in a particularized, context-dependent and non-universal way, which clashes with the exoteric/universalist ideas of education, ideology and equality. Liberalism perpetuates a denial of evolution in order to argue for equality, which while it is enforced by a mass, herd, mob or crowd is actually an individualist idea, which is the individual and his ego wanting to be the center of his own world and not contradicted by reality, social standards or awareness that he is anything but the apex of humanity.
All of this states that leadership is rare and we need social order to promote those who can lead to the top, because there is no way we can design a “system” to replace the ability to understand particularized (context-dependent) problems. Universals do not work because these are false abstractions which assume that context can be equalized and that all cause-effect relationships consist of a single step, which is obviously false.
With that in mind, let me answer the charges laid at my door:
I do not support White Nationalism for two reasons. First, it is racial Marxism that seeks to abolish social order for the purposes of equality, and thus will fail and destroy the host civilization like all parasitic liberal governments have since their birth in ancient Greece over two thousand years ago. Second, it equates nationalism with racism, which is not so. Nationalism is the idea that identity is required for social order and that culture is better than ideology, thus each ethnic group — defined by culture, heritage and values simultaneously — needs its own space and self-rule. While nationalism does not rule out noticing racial differences or the biological root of race, it tends not to focus on such things because much as people are different, ethnic groups will be different, with each working to evolve or become the best version of itself that it can be. A highly-evolved African kingdom like ancient Ethiopia will be radically different from a highly-evolved European or Asian one; we are different peoples and have different fundamental structure to our beliefs, needs and ideals. Nationalism is a workable way to address this situation, but White Nationalism is not and is often correctly categorized under the Hate Group tag. Most conservatives do not mention this since we do not believe in circular firing squads, but since it has been brought up by others…
As to “philo-Semitic,” I stand accused. I support Israel and the ability of the Jewish people to have nationalism, which is described by the phrase “Zionism.” I think the Holocaust was disgusting and horrible and shocked our people, and makes us think less of ourselves. We have moral standards and one is enslavement of enemies, but this is generally for a temporary period and does not involve mistreatment. The Holocaust is actually two things, the first being the use of Jews as slave labor in Germany and Poland, and the second the field executions that generally occurred in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. I recognize that Jews in Europe occupied two ugly roles, the first as perceived nepotistic wealthy merchants and the second as overrepresented in the Communist Party. These two factors contributed heavily to their genocide and any ethnic group should learn from that and avoid both of those perceptions if possible. But this does not justify or excuse genocide. If you endorse the quest against the Jews, you will first make yourselves into craven murderers, no matter how good your intentions, and second expend your energy fighting the wrong enemy. The enemy is an idea, liberalism with its roots in individualism, and the solution to it is social order with social roles, rooted in identitarianism.
Beyond that, I cannot offer much other than to point out that William S. Burroughs, like many of us, has his scars as well as his victories. Among other things, he was a heroin addict for most of his life and a marijuana farmer during his thirties just outside Houston, Texas. Let’s look at that quotation again:
That their children’s children’s children might be a different color is something very alarming to them…in short they are committed to the maintenance of the static image. The attempt to maintain a static image, even if it’s a good image, just won’t work. – William S. Burroughs
He is not saying “go miscegenate” here; he is talking about methods and not goals. The point is that we cannot defend our goals by looking backward and saying “change nothing,” but that we must find ways to keep that society alive. He outright says that the image “is a good image,” implying approval of the idea of having children of the same heritage. He says however that the right will not succeed by pointing to a static image, a form of ideology, and implies that there must be another way. (This makes sense given his life interest in semiotics and criticism of static symbology as having parasitic aspects, which he attacks among the left — for whom Divisionists may be a metaphor — as well as the right in Naked Lunch.)
Those of us who are not in denial or compensating recognize that our civilization is in decline and that we would like to not only reverse the decline, but have a sense of pride again derived from the legitimate tendencies of a civilization toward higher levels of its own evolution. White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism will not deliver us there and, like liberalism and other denialist and compensatory mechanisms, seeks only to distract us with false promises and illusory solutions while we wait for the inevitable end.