Most people when confronted with the question of acting on their supposed beliefs will do one of two things: first, they will criticize anyone who takes action as not doing enough; second, they will claim nothing can be done. This document points of the errors of psychology that keep them misinformed, and gives the anti-modern-society activist a starting point to do something effective instead of symbolic. Its ultimate goal is to teach a new form of activism that will remake modern society into something which rewards inner abilities instead of external ones. That process will restore nobility and sensitivity in perception to the human race, abilities which will help us avoid quandaries like our current mess, which cannot be linearly “proven” to be wrong but when considered by a noble and sensitive mind is clearly a dead-end path that, no matter how long it takes, will end in disaster (much as our current society is, after hundreds of years, finally showing its true and malicious colors).
The first barrier to activism is that most people are lying about their motivations and capacities. Modern society has conditioned us to live through social appearance, as that is how we market ourselves, and thus to invent all forms of clever justifications for inactivity. People have inertia. They like to sit on their asses and do nothing, but to preserve their self-image, they need to justify this inaction. We can see this in the two cases illustrated above:
In fact it seems that almost all people in modern society are fakers, poseurs, liars and other dysfunctional types who will speak a good game but do nothing about it. This works OK for those who are supporting Democrats or Republicans, because all that is required for them is to put the correct bumper sticker on the car and to click the right lever in the voting booth. This allows them a passive attitude, but in exchange, they get the same old thing every time because no matter how much the two major parties do battle, no one ever wins, so every four years there’s a change of leadership that undoes whatever the previous four-year king created. Self-defeating? Quite – and that’s fortunate for those who hope to make money, as it means nothing will ever come between them and the ironclad law of modern society, “if it makes money, it’s God to us.”
Those who would change society have a problem in that much as the category “artist” includes both geniuses and idiots pretending to be artists so they can be lazy, the category of “activist” includes mostly people who have no desire to do anything but make themselves look better. If we had a dollar for every leftist moron who has a bigshot political opinion in the coffeehouse or in conversation, but does absolutely nothing, we’d be wealthy, right? It’s the same on the right – grumbling conservatives – and in the third front.
Why are people such shit-talking morons? Most people have political opinions not from an honest desire to do right, but from a desire to appear wise for having answers – and this desire is best served by finding answers that cannot be achieved, because that way, they get to look good without doing anything. To actually work for change requires getting off the fucking internet and doing something. It requires giving up a chance to sound important by having all the answers, and getting one’s hands dirty. Has it struck anyone else as odd that everyone on the internet has all the answers, yet almost none of them do anything about it?
Yeah, they’re poseurs. Look at it this way: nature creates a spread of different people for different tasks. Most people are created by nature to pick turnips, herd sheep, clean toilets, etc. They don’t have the brains for anything else, even if they seem functionally intelligent; they are monkey-see, monkey-do and thus can program computers, make graphics, type long messages on the internet, etc. but they cannot emulate what they do not understand, which is logic. Thus their “logic” is almost always designed to hide some psychological dysfunction, which is why their “political opinions” and “social ideas” mean nothing. They are using these ideas to make themselves sound good, and to justify their lack of doing anything. It’s like someone waiting for a perfect world. “Yeah, I’d do something with my life, but the world’s imperfect, so instead, I’ll watch TV.”
Almost all of the people on the internet fit into this loser mentality. The worst are those who claim that some idea is offensive and therefore must be banned; they are passive and portray themselves as wounded, “offended” or shocked, and that’s their “logic” for why something must be banned. That’s like pointing out a mountain and saying, “That bothers me, so it should be dynamited.” It’s not logic; it’s psychological dysfunction. As you may know, it’s fairly easy to set up a computer script that spits out sentences that look like they mean something, but on analysis, do not. Why do we assume that most of our species, who we know are good for nothing better than picking turnips and watching TV, are different?
Almost all of people in life fit into this loser mentality. There are a few who snap out of it, usually through good breeding, but most will be dragged down into it. Then again, fewer than 2% of society know enough of the words and grammatical concepts necessary to understand this article, so that 98% of people are “talking monkeys with car keys” (from a Kam Lee interview) should not bother us. 98% of society exists to clean toilets, pick turnips, etc. and has no capacity for logical thought, political or otherwise. This is one reason why democracy is insane. What is important is to quickly recognize those who are making excuses as distinct from those who are able to do something, and then, to use guilt, violence and implied self-importance to con the 98% into actually doing something useful, as they will never, ever do anything of value of their own impetus.
Most people make excuses. “This organization doesn’t do enough” and “There’s nothing that can be done” and “We have to wait for violent revolution” are the biggest, easiest lies out there. Does it surprise anyone that both teenage anarchists and meth-addicted homeless white nationalists encourage us to wait for revolution? Of course not: that attitude both makes them sound smart and justifies their inaction, so they can keep sounding smart, of course. They want to find “logical” reasons for doing nothing; their “political ideas” are only an excuse to that end, and have nothing to do with fixing humanity as a whole. For them, the entire process is one of entertainment and self-image cultivation, and they care not at all (0) for an effective solution, or even recognizing the right problem. They want to sound smart. They want to do nothing. Everything else is an excuse.
Almost all of the people I encounter on the Internet or at real-life political events are there to show off their own egos, and have no intention of being effective. They are trapped in a drama of self-identity, and will buy endles bumper stickers and talk about “the big issues” into the small hours of the night, every night, but will make excuses in lieu of taking action (mainly because to take action ends their comfortable world of feeling important for being right without having done anything to merit it). Excuses have nothing to do with logic unless we mistake them for logic. When you have gotten proficient in sorting excuse from logic, you can go on to the next stage: making a difference.
Finding out that you dislike something is only a small part of the journey. Although modern people tell us that “admitting you have a problem is the biggest step,” this is a complete lie designed for neurotic morons in denial that they’re addicted to drugs, anal sex, money or lying. The biggest step is finding out what you would rather have in place of the current system, e.g. a complete design to replace what we have now, and to work toward making it exist within the present. If it comes to exist within our destroyed modern society, it will take over from within. Your other option is violent revolution, which usually kills the good intellectuals along with the bad and plunges your country into permanent third-world status, as happened in Soviet Russia (violent revolutions also completely fail to replace what they find antagonistic; note that Soviet Russia is capitalist today). France had a populist revolt which took her from being one of the preeminent military, social, cultural and economic powers of the day into being irrelevant in all those categories, and essentially a brand category for frilly shirts, creme pies, and toast. Revolutions destroy. Only pro-active replacement design works. As Mahatma Gandhi, an exceptional thinker marred only by pacifism and racism, said: “You must become the change you seek in the world.”
As usual, the dreaded “most people” want immediate violent revolution or to decide they cannot do anything about the situation, and therefore can go back to their coffeehouses and chat rooms to talk about how terrible it is. As usual, most people are not only wrong, but misleading. No great change happens overnight, and it never happens through the single stroke of a sword. If it did, our world would be so unstable we would not have even made it this far, because as soon as one deranged, misinformed, delusional or underconfident person got ahold of a sword, everything would change to some random order fitting their random and dysfunctional psychology. Most people get it wrong because they have no background in logical debate, philosophy, or structured politics outside of a single system (“democracy,” as they bleatingly teach at universities). They are simply not capable of making the decisions in question, and, as shown above, they are not concerned with making the decision; they’re concerned with making themselves sound good. Remember this: most people = making themselves sound good. Kant would call that a hypothetical solution to the questions at hand, but sager, meaner thinkers like myself call it totally fucking irrelevant.
To fix this world, you need a slow virus that will seduce its occupants away from the easy lures (money, tits, beer, drugs, TV) of modern society toward a higher state of mind and thus living. The greatest majority will never understand this, as they’re simply not smart enough (average IQ in America is 103; while IQ is not a perfect measurement, this suggests that fully half the people here are too stupid to have any opinions that matter outside of their daily job-function) and simply not noble enough – they’re self-serving fucks like the rest. You’re not targetting them. You’re looking to influence the people that are basically competent, and know where their own sphere of ability ends; plumbers who are happy being plumbers and have few political opinions, lawyers who limit themselves to the law, computer programmers who do not pretend to know anything about philosophy, etc. Among us perhaps a tenth of a percent of the population can handle the kind of thinking needed for leadership, and fewer than half of them have the noble outlook which will make them anything but authoritarian servants of the great pointlessness. Normal people who are functional and happy are your goal. Do not make the mistake of the Republicans, and target only the wealthy, or the mistake of the Democrats, and target the downtrodden. Target the functional middle classes. These people respond to pragmatic solutions first of all, and only distantly second to ideological concerns; it is worth noting that you’re looking more at the opinions of heterosexual men here because women and homosexuals, in their biological position as nurturers, make a different sort of decision, one that is out of place in politics and philosophy. There will be exceptions, and those should be cherished for having the foresight to overcome what they are for long enough to address a different kind of problem.
Frequently I have rebutted people who screaming in to the ANUS about how we must take action now, decisive action, there is no time to lose, etc. These people have usually been reading the site for only a short period of time and have latched on to one aspect of its thought, whether anti-dualistic-religion or nationalism or ecoterrorism, and want us to commit ourselves to becoming suicide bombers for that task. Funny thing is: they never have any idea what form this action will take, but they are sure it must be extreme, and extremely soon, or we’ll all die horribly kthxbye. Well… most of these people are simply the dysfunctional type described above. About a fifth of them are informers and agent provocateurs; governments get rid of threatening underground movements by sending in cheerleaders who urge everyone toward some extreme and illegal action, at which point they all get arrested and the movement dries up. I don’t think it’s “conspiracy logic” to say this. Sending in informers is a time-proven method that predates Biblical times in its use and utter effectiveness. In modern society, if someone screws up once, they may be given a chance to regain their lives by informing on others. It’s a business transaction, not a conspiracy, and it has helped our government rid this society of many useful movements as well as many dangerous and psychotic groups that I would equally erase.
The stage of planning requires you avoid all these pitfalls and have a clear impression of what you desire. It is beyond the scope of this document to design a replacement system for modern society, but here is the crux of it: replacing external measurement with internal. We must be driven by values, not money; we can use money, but there must be some higher value than it. This requires that we consider something outside the individual at all times; we have to look at the world as a whole comprising not only individual and collective but also natural order, and what we do must be in harmony with that order as it is our origin and sustenance, no matter how advanced our technology becomes. Because we are outside questions of the individual alone and money alone, we can no longer rely on bureaucratic systems, which process well things which need by considered by a linear, single-factor determination. We need local governments where culture, and not authority, regulates behavior; further, we need to allow natural selection, so that people act as is inwardly appropriate to them and we exile those who do not meet local standards, while rewarding disproportionately those who are examples of excellence according to the local definition. As part of our breeding people for higher purposes, we need a caste system to replace our money-bound class system, so that we can over the course of generations concentrate those traits which specialize in certain tasks. It takes one lineage to be a king, and another to be a plumber; although in our modern, individualistic, greedy, dramatic selves we think a plumber’s kid should be able to be king, in reality, that kid is going to lack the abilities he needs and therefore although he may be able to handle the tasks of kingship, his judgment and nobility will be unequal to the role, and therefore, bad long-term consequences will await even if all the plumbers out there do not notice them in the short term. Further, we must end the endless warring between right and left, male and female, race against race; this is accomplished by terminating the concept that constant competition and struggle brings any kind of answer; we will find an answer, and develop it toward a better version of itself, but we will not engage in “Democracy-style”(tm) constant banter and debate that is never resolved because all parties have a personal interest in remaining discrete, marketable factions. The solution to feminism is to realize that men and women serve different roles, and rarely cross over; the solution to racial antagonism is to realize that each race needs autonomy and freedom to pursue its own culture, as cultures and bloodlines do not mix; the solution to right versus left is to realize that right and left are, at this point, different versions of the same idea, and in our society we will replace them with common sense.
Got all that? Good; there’s a lot of thinking there. If you want a primer, try reading Industrial Society and Its Future by Ted Kaczynski, then Politics by Aristotle, then Men Among the Ruins by Julius Evola, then finally Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Fred Nietzsche and The Fourfold Root by Arthur Schopenhauer. It might not hurt to throw in some friggin’ hobbits, too:
“I’ve never thought it an accident that Tolkien’s works waited more than ten years to explode into popularity almost overnight. The Sixties were no fouler a decade than the Fifties — they merely repeat the Fifties’ foul harvest — but they were the years when millions of people grew aware that the industrial society had become paradoxically unlivable, incalculably immoral, and ultimately deadly. In terms of passwords, the Sixties where the time when the word progress lost its ancient holiness, and escape stopped being comically obscene. The impulse is being called reactionary now, but lovers of Middle-earth want to go there…[Tolkien] is a great enough magician to tap our most common nightmares, daydreams and twilight fancies, but he never invented them either: he found them a place to live, a green alternative to each day’s madness here in a poisoned world. We are raised to honor all the wrong explorers and discoverers — thieves planting flags, murderers carrying crosses. Let us at last praise the colonizers of dreams.” – Peter S. Beagle, introduction to “The Hobbit,” 1973
If you want to read literature on this topic, it exists in abundance. Try Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway; don’t miss The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald or Look Homeward, Angel by Thomas Wolfe; there’s The Wasteland by T.S. Eliot and Naked Lunch by W.S. Burroughs. It wouldn’t kill you to read The Bhagavad-Gita and the Bible, either; there’s a lot of information about how societies thrive versus how societies fall apart in both. In fact, who really cares what you want; read the above to be informed, because you either make yourself stronger or join the problem by being selfish and individualistic (“individualistic,” in a philosophical sense, means placing the individual above all else; it has nothing to do with conformity except that, because it is a predictable form of selfishness, individualism is the ultimate form of conformity; paradoxical, it seems, but think about it; it’s true). These books can show you the accumulated wisdom of people who have spotted modern society and its turbulent, ugly failings, and have suggested alternatives or methods of diagnosis regarding its crisis.
There is a duality to your task: you both want to create a new society, and fix the damage wrought by the old. For example, this world can comfortably support a half-billion people and at most two billion without corrupting its natural ecosystem; we have seven billion. The math isn’t complicated. There are millions of miles of ugly concrete, backlit plastic signs, asphalt parking lots and strip malls that need to be bulldozed and recycled. Not to mention thousands of acres of landfill and numerous toxic waste sites, including most of the former Soviet Union.
Many of those detractors who have claimed that various groups do nothing or not enough would be disappointed by the public face of effective activism. The activism that is truly helpful is more along the lines of supporting cultural activities, encouraging learning, poking holes in the illusions of modernity, and supporting local communities including but not limited to family and friends. This is not to be confused with the non-activism of modern leftists, which in environmentalists manifests itself in reams of paper being wasted on pamphlets about turning off lights, unplugging televisions to make sure they don’t waste power, recycling tampons, and reusing teabags. This form of system-friendly activism is designed to break no laws, ruffle no feathers, and give the average idiot something they can do without materially changing their lives. It is ego-delusional like all other things in modern society, and makes the “activist” feel important without having done anything of any importance. Another aspect of this are the people who write rigid right-wing dogma into violently bigoted newspapers and flyers and hand them out to people who don’t want them; screaming propaganda that assumes the listener/reader already accepts its precepts is not effective except at turning people away from your dogma (of course, this is what they want: they are more “unique” and “individualistic” if others don’t agree, and it spares them the obligation to do anything). Activism is neither non-activity or dramatic but ineffective activity; it is community- and values-building because these things exist at a more fundamental level than political or social constructs, and thus will replace them when they fail – and can be induced to speed up the process if existing sociopolitical constructs are found to be wanting!
For that reason, the remainder of this document is two sections: first, effective methods of activism; second, a universal standard that can be adopted by organizations, individuals, businesses and leaders to build consensus.
Most of this stuff will sound weenie to those who want big dramatic action, but if they want to grab rifles and run screaming at the capitol, that’s fine by me – except those people never seem to actually take that step. Our goal is building values, and through values community, and not to take on the rotted and corrupt political or economic systems directly. Change what people want and expect out of life, and show them a better way, and they will adopt its values and thus know at every level of the process how to make it. If you know what a chair is, you can make one even if you know little of woodcutting, carpentry, seat-weaving or finishing; you know the theory and general design of the end product, so using that as your “to do” list you can figure out enough of what must be done to get something resembling a chair made. And if the first one you make sucks, you can always add knowledge to your basic plan; the concept of chair remains the same and you have organized your intent around creating something that fits that design.
In your local community, there are numerous places you can begin helping. Your goal is twofold: you want to work hard to make the task succeed, but you also want to inject your knowledge of post-industrial society and its values. You are an ambassador for this belief system, and if you do well and people respect your actions, they will also come to respect your thoughts. Here are some places to work:
No one of these methods is the answer, and they are all in addition to the basic task of living a good life according to the post-industrial (“traditional”) principles that you desire. We say traditional because before modern society, there was function; that is tradition, not something from the 1950s or even 1860s. When the industrial madness is over, our eyes will be cleared – if we survive – and we will return to an eternal order, that of tradition. “Progress” is an illusion, a marketing scam. Live according to tradition, promote tradition in all that you do, including your job, and add to it one of the above and you’re on the course to making a change. It will not be an overnight change, but those don’t work anyway, so why worry?
A note on charity: don’t. Helping the poor, the retarded, the drug addicted, those in jail or in insane asylums makes you feel good but it doesn’t change the direction of society, and if statistics can be believed, doesn’t help the poor or retarded or criminal; there’s more of them than ever, and most who are “saved” go back to that same situation. Most of us are leery of Christianity because its individualistic moralism suggests pity, and makes people feel better for treating the downtrodden with affection, but misses the point that they are downtrodden for a reason. Poverty doesn’t just happen; in every period of history, smart and organized and hardworking people find their way out of it. Insanity doesn’t just happen, nor does drug abuse and prostitution. These people are fucked up and “helping” them will not fix their primary problem, which is being broken people, nor will it change society. It will make you feel better but if that’s your “activism,” you’re a masturbator and should do us all a favor by shooting yourself in the face. If you work within Christianity, find a sect/church that embraces holistic and not individualistic morality – they’re out there, mostly in the traditional (Catholic/Methodist/Baptist) sects.
“Personal activism” is also a lie. When I lived in Austin, the extreme leftist part of Texas, I found that there were many coffeehouse activists. Interestingly, they have the exact same mentality as people in internet chatrooms. They want to talk, and be heard talking, and have people listen, but they don’t want anything to change as that way, they’ll have nothing to talk about. These people are broken. They are underconfident, and this is the root of their “activism” and “beliefs,” which are as insincere as they are transparent. These people need to be told what to do with the barrel of a gun, as left to their own devices they are nothing but destructive.
Other than these traps, you have clear passage to make a change. Your goal is to nurture the local community like a garden. Reinforce traditional values and most importantly, the reasons behind them (chastity = experience numbs you to existence, thus more sex creates less receptivity; sobriety = alcohol creates a fantasy world that is easier than reality, so you live in it and do not make a life for yourself; nationalism = each race gets to keep its own autonomy which would otherwise be erased by compromising the different values of groups to find a “norm”). Your goal is to give each person a unique place in a social order, instead of having us all be “equal” bodies for the machine to masticate. Develop values, not symbols or dogma (repeated slogans, yes/no responses to complex issues). Stimulate creativity and a desire for meaningful experience among people. Show them something better than television; taking a kid out to the forest to shoot guns at cans is more real than television, and more effective than screaming “TV is teh debbil” at them 100,000 times.
Our most immediate problem is that there is no agreement on what should replace modern society. If there were an easy option in the lections, such as “punch this hole to tear it all down and go back to Middle-Earth,” undoubtedly anyone with an IQ over 100 would be hammering the damn thing. But life requires we make our own path, and we’ll be stronger for it.
The Covenant of Traditional Values (CTV) is an enumeration of the highest level of description of traditional and post-industrial beliefs. It creates this design-oriented nutshell view so that citizens can find unity around a platform, and so that governments and businesses and non-profit organizations can proclaim they support this whole agenda as necessary; this helps them escape criticism of tackling any one point of the anti-modern agenda, because all of it will offend someone. The CTV will offend them, too, but there is no single point on which they can hammer to divide us. It is complete and whole and gives its own reasons.
When you are being active (what an activist does), present this to people and organizations and ask them if they support it or are opposed to it. Most will try for a middle ground answer, at which point you can tell them that if they support it, they’ll gain the votes of people… like those in your church group, or classes, or environmental organization. The CTV does not work without some context of your own leadership and community to anchor it.
The Covenant of Traditional Values
Whereas, modern society (defined as the collusion between consumerism, democracy, and capitalism) as a design theory and not simply a physical entity has shown its unfitness through long term problems including but not limited to pollution, land overuse, rampant cancers, crime, urban blight, worthless plastic products, meaningless functional lifestyles, and so forth, we the undersigned commit ourselves to a new system of values that will be the underpinning and abstract description of the design of a society to both replace modern society and restore our ancient traditions and ways of life.
Our goal is not to replace our leaders, or to transfer wealth within our economies, as revolutions do, but to create an entirely different society which is not prone to the failures of modern society. Only structural change will accomplish this. We must both remake little of society, in that our changes will leave most of daily life and most people undisturbed, and we must remake all of it, in that we need a new design philosophy for society and a new way of living.
Modern society is defined by its preference for quantities, based on the form factor of the individual or the material worth of each unit, instead of internal traits. We assume that because something is defined as a tractor, it will work like all other tractors; we extend this same logic to humans and, needing to justify our absurd assumption, use bureaucratic averages to create expectations of a generic human being with generic behavior. This not only fails to predict our actual needs, but works to shape us as docile and whorelike people of limited personality.
Our platform contains a handful of major changes in our outlook and methods of civilization:
- Leadership by Intelligence and Not Popularity. Modern society is based on a greed empowered by individualism, or the placing of the individual above all else; this is the result of underconfidence on the part of a large number of our people, and their political empowerment allowing them to misappropriate resources to ensure individualism takes precedence over any other thought or value. Consumerism, democracy, and media/popularity are the means by which we make decisions. For the future, we want to have intelligent leaders chosen by a subset of our population that comprises the intelligent and capable in making leadership decisions; instead of democracy, and the consumerist ideal that whatever idea makes money is the best, we would like a community of leaders picking leaders based on what is the best course of action for our society, no matter how unpopular it appears at first (most great ideas are initially opposed by most people, so it is unreasonable to expect that because most people do not like the sound of an idea, it is bad).
- Not Equality, but Guaranteed Positions in Social Hierarchy. We are not interested in equality, as with it comes necessary economic and social competition and the resulting instability, because if we are all equal there is no way to stand out except by dominating others. We prefer a good living according to our abilities, such that except in cases of gross incompetence, we are able to work in the positions given to our ancestors and to gain a better living if we are dramatically more competent than others. However, the basis of our new social view is that each person is unique, and we cannot compare a plumber to a bank president and conclude that because one makes more money he is superior; we must each take our position in life and do with it what we can, but not attempt to draw moral decisions based on income and therefore force all of us into a vicious competition that eventually consumes us all. Competition leads to a lack of lowest public standard, in that whoever cuts the most corners wins, and impoverishes more people than it makes rich.
- Our Natural Environment is Not a Resource, but a Living Entity of Parallel Value to Our Own Lives. Our environment created us and nurtures us and will remain important no matter how good our technology gets. Its survival is as important as our own. We must cease to see it as raw materials for a society, and see our world as civilization and nature coexisting. To this end, we need to end the cause of all of our environmental woes, which is overpopulation, and to cease dumping toxic effluvia and chemicals into our environment.
- Natural Selection Must Regulate Us. Both as individuals and as groups, we need regulation by an external force. We must re-design society so that it disproportionately rewards those who have the balanced traits of intelligence, beauty/strength, and an inherent nobility to their moral thought such that they consider the whole over the individual and do what is right according to the balance of the cosmos. Further, we must enable natural selection to eliminate any community that is so unable to run itself that it perishes from natural (famine, war, disease) causes.
- We Must Have Higher Values, Not Inclusive Ones. A fundamental trait of modern society is compromise; we value making sure everyone is heard, that every opinion is aired, and that all people are represented over doing what is best for the world as whole. It is this logic that leads to our unhealthy fascination with the individual, and hence popularity/profit. Our goal is to have higher values so that we constantly envision a better design of not only civilization but an idealized human, and strive toward it. Heroism, natural beauty, transcendence and harmony with nature are more important than any kind of equality or compromise or social popularity. By having higher values, we are always pushing ourselves toward a goal that will make us healthier, smarter and more noble as people. Through this mechanism, we offer people something better with each passing generation, and each set of parents can look on its offspring with pride in both their abilities and the world they will inherit.
Modern society is based on the individual because the individual is a useful unit for counting power. We do not seek the best answers, but the most popular. Because even a group of highly intelligent people will have contrasting opinions and thus will only be able to find an inclusive opinion that is a lowest common denominator, modern society through democracy and consumerism erodes every good idea into the same old thing. It is incapable of changing itself. It is up to us to change it. By these concepts and actions we, the undersigned, swear.
Most people are liars. Society is delusional. The average person will prefer to live in his own fantasy, the subjective, than deal with reality, all while claiming that he or she has found his or her “own truth,” forgetting that truth itself is an objective property. There is no way to debate the moderns, nor to prove them wrong, as they are so far from sense that all their definitions are artificial and all their ideals are lies. For those who have realized how vast this error is, it becomes incumbent to act as socially-acceptable, positive-contribution activists; any who do not find solace in this path are just making excuses, and should be excluded if not completely ignored for being mentally incompetent.