View Full Version : Modernity/What I Desire/Distractions vs Solutions

Wednesday, April 6th, 2005, 07:47 AM

There can be nothing more frustrating than trying to explain something to someone who cannot perceive it. It is not that they will not; if they had that kind of decision on their hands, they could understand. Not did not; they simply lack the ability to, now or forevermore, process the kind of detail required. This type of thinking is not detail-obsessed, but it require that one build a mental picture of the future based on many tiny details, because, and I hope this isn't a news flash, life rarely spells out its plans in big bold letters on the wall in front of you. All myths to the contrary, life is plenty happy to let you wander right up to disaster and linger by it for awhile until, figuring the coast is clear, you take one too many steps and BOOM, it comes crashing down on your ass.

When I tell people that modern society has a great and pervasive disease, the common response is either (a) I don't see it or (b) well, I'm doing okay, so why would I worry? The former is at least honest; the paradoxical bitterness of relativity is that it doesn't excuse one for not seeing the truth, but admits that most people literally have limitations as to how much complexity they can handle, and thus what they can perceive. An idiot sees a house on fire; a genius sees a fire extinguisher in one corner. The second group of people need more analysis, as they claim to have knowledge of impending doom, yet paradoxically, claim it does not affect them. A genius sees a house on fire and gets the fire extinguisher; an idiot simply closes the door to his room - out of sight, out of mind.

So here we are in the world where no one can perceive how deeply screwed things may be. There are thousands of details that must be correlated to see the whole picture. Most people can't drive a car through an intersection in a timely manner, or figure out routine transactions. They are distracted by their own drama, and thus they screw everything up and take forever, then get weepy if confronted. The streets are lined with giant, ugly buildings in which impersonal agencies dole out rigid policies and god help you if you're an exception. Government takes in money and sends out fines and prison sentences for gross violations. Those who are smart avoid the law while ripping people off, legally, and thus have the best of both worlds.

Few notice, but we're steadily consuming more nonrenewable resources. There will be no more gasoline; there's a finite amount. Most people cannot even comprehend that sentence to understand its implications. There is no more land that is going to be created; there is only so much land, and we use more of it each year. Everywhere one looks, the signs are there, if one knows what to look at. Jobs are hilarious shuffling of papers and conning of fellow humans into believing one illusion over the other and, thus approved, transferring one sum of money into another. People live for empty, pointless lives. The highpoint of their day is often television, or consumption of products. Interpersonal relations consist of attacking others and trying to drag them down to make yourself feel better. What kind of life is this?

One thing that astounds any sane observer is how people are isolated mentally in modern society. For example, today I saw some guy in a wheelchair selling candy at an intersection. He'd pull up right beside cars and sell you M&Ms for a couple bucks, a 100% markup for the size, and made his living that way. What was worse was that people would stop and buy candy, holding up everyone behind them in line - while they had a green light. It must be amazingly peaceful to be aware of nothing but yourself. And this same critique undoubtedly applies to people who cut down ancient forests to make clones of apartments that exist in ten thousand other locations, or people who dump toxic waste in rivers or junk in empty lots, or people who write those clever cellular phone contracts that ensure that no matter what you do, it's wrong but there's an extra charge that will make it all right.

This is the face of modernity. There's no way to tackle a specific issue in it, because the whole thing is wrong. Sure, we could make rules about stopping at intersections, but then you need a cop in every intersection to enforce that rule, or people learn they can get away with it, most of the time, thus they don't change the behavior. Similarly, we'd have to assign an infallible cop to every single person out there to prevent littering, toxic waste dumping, or sodomizing rape. Even worse is that no matter how many rules we write, there are always new ways to do something that is technically legal yet completely devoid of moral consideration for society and nature as a whole. You can make sodomizing rape porn illegal, but someone else will find something legal that's similar and will market it, and they'll be cheered on by those around them because hey, everyone loves money.

Modernity is the cause of this. We often think that our time suffers because it has no unifying philosophy, but the situation is even worse: our unifying philosophy is one of making no decisions. Instead of having a government you trust, you have the "freedom" to escape actions by your government, since it is assumed that you and the government will never come to accord on a sane way to live. You wanted a sensible job? Too bad - it's more important to have competition so that if your job sucks, you can devote the next month to finding a better one. Let the jobs that suck continue to exist, so long as we have the freedom to choose a lesser degree of suck. We're so afraid of legislation that we resist any restrictions on development, so if people destroy your neighborhood by covering its forests with concrete, your can move to a less-destroyed neighborhood.

Inevitably, such systems spiral out of control, because of two principles: relativity, and time. Relativity is a problem in that you can find something that sucks less, so you pick that instead instead of fixing the problem. Time compounds that by introducing a succession of greater suckstates, and you keep picking the lesser suckstates, until at some point the less-sucks sucks as much as the original, and you still have no recourse to change it - you're looking for something that sucks less, instead. Everything affected by this model is a vortex of decreasing standards that eventually culminates in either apocalypse or third-world-style anarchy. But remember, you need that "freedom," because instead of fixing the problem and creating a sensible government, we want you to be able to defend yourself against all governments.

This is clearly diseased reasoning, if looked at from an architectural perspective, but since such things don't pay, no one does. No one is willing to target the whole of modernity, for at least the simple reason that it makes change a seemingly large task. I think it makes it a simpler task, as when we've found out where we went wrong, we can systematically replace those beliefs with something healthier. But in a modern time, we're used to external ways of change. Use money as a carrot, and the law as the stick; "educate" (brainwash) people, or make them sign off on decisions like bureaucrats. We understand force, and treating humans and nature alike like machines, but we don't understand internal motivation, or how we could actually make people understand what they do and why. Reversing this attitude would alone undo modern society, and would give us a clear and relatively easy path of change.

William Faulkner treated this subject tangentially in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech way back in 1950:

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat...Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands...I decline to accept the end of man....I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past.

The gestalt we find by combining the many details of society's failing shows us that things are not well; things are diseased and destructive. We are oblivious to them not because we ignore the details, but because we pay attention only to certain details, and we do this because modernity more than being a "thing" is a state of mind. We look at the external forces we can impose, the qualitative measurements we can use, or the ways we can manipulate each other and thus feel clever about ourselves. These are passive ways of looking at the world, and as they don't encompass all of it, they constitute only a certain segment of its detail, and leave us oblivious to the larger picture.

It's time we stop shying away from declaring war on the modern world. The effete greens demand we recycle more, and stop drilling in national wildlife refuges, but that won't stop this tide. The neo-Nazis tell us to kick out all other races, but that won't fix the problem itself. Democrats wail on about social issues and wonder why no one takes them seriously except in boom times, and Republicans periodically give lip service to traditional values so that their weapons sales and oil profits can be unimpeded (Democrats seem to have no problems with these profits, either). None of these groups offers a comprehensive solution, because none of them will say the obvious: the system of thought known as modernity has failed, and over the last 400 years, has increasingly led us into a disaster from which it's hard to extricate ourselves, because the illusion upon which that disastrous system is founded now controls our thought process, and thus has us asking the wrong questions and missing the obvious.

The war in the human soul is not being fought over specific issues, or political allegiances, but over the courage to take on this task; the courage to start seeing our society for the sham that it is. What happens when an individual picks up on this process is an avalanche of increasing disbeliefs. Suddenly, the saccharine feelgood messages of commercials and government announcements are seen as what they are: distractions from reality. Issues like abortion, Terri Schiavo's right to live, and civil rights are seen for what they are: smokescreens to distract from the big picture. All of the drama of our personal and work lives, which fills our hours so thoroughly we're always "too busy" to read Aristotle or Faulkner, is seen as the emptiness masquerading as meaning that it is, and we realize that the reason we pursue it so fanatically is the same reason a heroin addict chases the next fix in desperation: once the illusion is gone, we need more, or we have to face the naked reality of our lives.

Running from fear never got us anywhere as a species, or as individuals. If we face this fear, and conquer it, we can start attacking the real enemy, which isn't Republicans or Negroes or Corporations, but our own lack of a meaningful philosophy. We can throw out the empty philosophy of modernity and instead achieve something greater. This would end our isolated personal worlds in which we alone matter, but those haven't brought us joy - have they. They've clearly brought us greater environmental destruction, more tedious jobs, and more interpersonal politics of a revengeful and snipish nature. So what we're losing, that reality which is comfortable because it's familiar, isn't anything to be mourned. With modernity falls the illusion, and to fill that space, we need to return to a life based on meaning. Step up to that challenge and declare war on modernity today.

April 6, 2005


Wednesday, July 6th, 2005, 07:55 AM
What I Desire

Arguments go through stages, when they're held under the guise of politeness, and because everyone is so invested in who they are, what they stand for, what they're worth, etc. they rarely end cleanly, with one side saying, "Aha! I see your point." No, no - instead, they ramble on until they're so muddled that only a draw seems conceivable, or both sides go into oblivious denial of the relevance of the other and start repeating dogma until all observers leave. In some cases, however, people instead opt for a soft landing and deftly transfer the conversation from argument to explanation.

I'm fondest of these. It's not hard to debate someone else into a stupor, or to sabotage every point they make, or even to make them look foolish to the people standing nearby. These things do not take skill as much as persistence and aggression, although some skill is part of it as well. For this reason, anyone with half a brain and determination can clobber someone else with repeated argument corresponding to deconstruction of the other's point of view, and end up with a "win," although most people are too punch-drunk on their own self-importance to ever admit it. But these battles keep both sides polarized; it's better to early in the debate imply a draw, and then explain the advantages of what you have to say. You might not convince anyone but you will at least make their doubt less uniform and foreboding.

When I'm talking to people about things of weight, namely what I believe and the direction in which I hope politics goes, these draws turn to my advantage because instead of talking about what we have now, I can talk about the future. Most people of any quality of intellect whatsoever recognize, no matter how far they hide it behind unconscious desires and thoughts, that there is an order to the cosmos and that we, stumbling human beings, have a piece of its consciousness but know little of the whole. This is the idea that knowledge can be discovered, and even if they cannot articulate it, most of them want - on some level - to know anything that might lead to more of what we call "truth."

After the beers are put down, and the night has grown old, and everyone is tired enough to be honest but too tired to continue a fractious discussion, what usually comes out of the experience is a questioning alone these lines. What is true - and its grandfather question, What is real? We usually get to these when someone, pretending to be exasperated by whatever I've said (usually, "We've got seven billion people - that means 6.9 billion extras"), finally gets down to the question: so what is it that you desire? Translation: what kind of order would you like to see on earth?

I think most people would be initially disappointed by the answer.

I'd like to see peace, so that wars can mean something again. These political-economic wars not only grind us down by slaughtering our professional troops, but they bore us all into tears. We're off slaughtering the latest pretend-Hitler, hoping to fight some evil for as long as it is that we can keep our attention focused on it. These are useless. I'd like to split us up into smaller entities, and have more skillful wars, involving accuracy and hand-to-hand combat, preferrably with swords. That's a ballsy kind of war, a real war, an interesting war, the kind that makes honest heroes. Bombing people from thirty thousand feet or spraying bushes with machine-gun fire doesn't really make for heroism as much as it does the same kind of effective functionalism that keeps a car running, or defragments a hard drive.

I'd like to see an end to our pillage and pollution of our environment. The only way to do this is to radically cut back on our numbers, and cut back on our "freedom" to carry home whatever stack of plastic junk we can afford, only to pitch it into the landfill days later. No more disposable pens, lighters, fast food cups. If you think about it, all of the packaging in our society ends up in the landfill, with the products that come shocking cheap because they're garbage following not far behind. By the same token, but not as a result solely of this reason, I'd junk all the excess paperwork we do that bores us into a reactionary stupor.

I'd like to see freedom from ethnic strife, and my experience teaches me that the only way to do this is to separate ethnic groups. You cannot pretend to be what you are not, and you feel best among those who have for generations been like you. People who have been abused or otherwise have low self-esteem might want to mix racially, but I've yet to find a well-adjusted race-mixer. They're just broken people, like all the girls who end up sluts because daddy raped them repeatedly while saying "good night," or all the boys wearing sailor hats who don't realize that no amount of anal sex can fill a wound in the soul. Our ethnic strife, and our desire to salve it via the passive means of multiculturalism, comes about because we've discarded our cultural-ethnic identities as our societies have collapsed. I'd fix this.

I'd like to see a return to the small community. We move wherever the jobs take us, and thus our friendships, too, are disposable (and please do not be so naive as to tell me that Internet "friendships" are lasting - they're based on being unable to see the less-than-ideal parts of people, where true friendship means accepting them warts and all). When one is inexperienced in the world, a small community becomes boring; when one has experienced enough of the world, it's all boring, and the stability and possibilities offered by a small community are refreshing. They're not disposable. You get to actually know people, and to be important for what you do for a community, not for how much money you give to some ineffective charity.

I'd burn all the singles bars and dating services. These are great places for more hookups that like a television show, pass a few hours comfortably and then end in loneliness as you find out all the illusions were hollow. If you need a whole lot of sex, there's probably something wrong with you, usually a self-confidence issue. It's better to have a place where you can see women in day to day life and realize their strengths and weaknesses honestly, then pick the one that matches you the best. When there is no illusion, love and relationships are founded on reality, where it seems to me modern relationships are like used car sales: cover up the defects long enough for the bill to be signed, and then pray to some nonexistent god to patch up the rest.

I would like to end all of the pointless jobs and mindless labor that people do for the sake of being employed and feeling like full citizens. This is stupid; most jobs could be done in a fifth the time required, and so we could send a lot of people home. Further, I'd like jobs to mean something, instead of being paper-shuffling or elaborate schemes to con fellow citizens into certain actions. Healthy people don't mind working hard if what is achieved is meaningful, but they become depressed deep within when their jobs are bureaucratic creations that have little to do with reality. Even the most boring jobs are tolerable when you know what you contribute to a community, and feel both needed and thankful for others in that role.

I'd destroy the culture of offense, and through it, the concept that people are sacred just because they live. Life is cheap and there's a lot of it. The only things that deserve respect are those that earn it. Unearned respect makes people feel unconsciously greasy, because they're given a cheap gift that does not recognize their own nascent abilities, and does not encourage them to grow. When respect is expensive and hard-won, it means something. Otherwise, it's just words on a form or in the mouth of a television announcer, and means nothing. I would bring back adversity, and the idea of heroism, or doing a task because it needs to be done - regardless of consequences or personal cost.

I'd murder the loudmouths, complainers, whiners, priests and other passive people. They sabotage everything that one does by claiming injury anytime someone else takes action; it's like bin Laden versus America, in that America contentedly bombs Arab lands and then claims injury when the Arabs fight back, using that perceived injury to spur its people on to war. Or the "Holocaust," or slavery reparations, or people who were offended by any number of opinions, symbols, or ideas. Life should be tough and often offensive; at least it encourages people to fight, and not just whine. Even more, however, the culture of offense allows all good ideas to be shot down because someone is offended, and since we're all equal, we cannot point out that that person is a whining idiot and therefore will be offended by any sensible idea and thus should always be ignored.

I would march fat people across America and produce skinny people or corpses, no matter which; in either case, they would have conquered their fatness and thus in part fulfilled a destiny.

All the people who live on constant medication, or otherwise in the arms of doctors, I'd slaughter, along with their offspring. You can fix a car any number of times, but the only way you make one that's fun to drive is by designing a better one, like a VW beetle, so that its owner is free from constant worry, fear, and pain. People who live in that state always make terrible decisions and because they lack self-confidence and health, will sabotage any decision that benefits the healthy.

I would change every form of human organization from a state of mind that everyone must be included to a mindset that rewards excellence, and if some get left out, too bad. We're not all good at everything. Maturity is accepting that, not bending over backwards to make even the retarded kid feel like a star football player, because cheap praise is easy to see through and you make even the retarded kid feel like you're condescending to him. Condescension, guilt, pity, shame, etc. are mental diseases. I would not tolerate them.

There are some obvious targets as well, like televisions and insane religious cults, but these would fall as a result of the reforms I've already mentioned. Even Christianity would lose its nutcase sensibility if put into the context of a healthy society (and selective executions of the most emotionally esurient priests). I suppose it's fair to mention that when I cut the population down, I'd leave the best among us alone, and focus on sterilizing and murdering the people with the least intelligence, health and moral character. Why breed the worst? Kill them, so the next generation are better. When you figure that one out, you will have defeated half of the death-fear that clutches dying civilizations like our own.

Beyond what is mentioned here already, the specifics are hazy, and they don't need to be clear at this time. What is clear from what I've offered is a paradigm shift: from individualistic, economic-competitive individualism to a sense of an organic cosmic whole. In this view, we are not demigods who created themselves and whose word is law, but atoms in the service of a larger order. Over time, we'd come to see this order as holy, again, and we'd cease our pointless infighting and excessive self-indulgence in favor of working for the greatness of our world and our people. For the first time in many years, mental health would come to the population as whole. That's what I desire. And to that end, I write.

July 5, 2005


Thursday, July 7th, 2005, 12:35 PM
Indeed. Good post. The principles on which it rests are very healthy, and the ultimate aims noble IMO.

a paradigm shift: from individualistic, economic-competitive individualism to a sense of an organic cosmic whole. In this view, we are not demigods who created themselves and whose word is law, but atoms in the service of a larger order. Over time, we'd come to see this order as holy, again, and we'd cease our pointless infighting and excessive self-indulgence in favor of working for the greatness of our world and our people. For the first time in many years, mental health would come to the population as whole.

I myself, for instance, have always held my Nation, People, Blood to be of a higher value than myself. I know that I can and would sacrifice, and hold such noble virtues in the highest esteem. But at the same time, I also recognize that people with such instincts as mine are not common, and as such, isn't such a Sermon preaching to the converted in a way? Those of healthy blood and instincts will agree, but they already did, though those who aren't and do not, will simply be alienated even further.

To enforce such a philosophy, one would require Total Control (Absolute Monarchy as of old?) and I think it might be hard to keep numerous small independant communities in line, their value would be focused on themselves, and thus collective effort would be lost (if such independance is what you meant, I was not sure).

Not nitpicking, just trying to provoke further discussion http://www.forums.skadi.net/images/icons/icon14.gif

Saturday, July 9th, 2005, 07:43 PM
I have always held my Nation, People, Blood to be of a higher value than myself. I know that I can and would sacrifice, and hold such noble virtues in the highest esteem. But at the same time, I also recognize that people with such instincts as mine are not common, and as such, isn't such a Sermon preaching to the converted in a way? Those of healthy blood and instincts will agree, but they already did, though those who aren't and do not, will simply be alienated even further.

To enforce such a philosophy, one would require Total Control (Absolute Monarchy as of old?) and I think it might be hard to keep numerous small independant communities in line, their value would be focused on themselves, and thus collective effort would be lost (if such independance is what you meant, I was not sure).

Yes, it is to some degree preaching to the converted. Here's the plan:

1) Get the converted to stop bickering and agree on some basic foundations of ideology.

2) Produce a caste of leaders (analogous to SS).

3) Do away with modern government and international finance through legitimate, populist, public local elections based on the promise of the civilization that the leadership caste will deliver, even though the leadership caste is not mentioned

Democracy - while it's (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted) and (expletive deleted) idiotic - is reality, and we need to work with it, back toward a traditional society.

Interestingly, everyone I've argued with comes to this conclusion eventually, even if they are Black or English ;)

Saturday, July 9th, 2005, 07:46 PM
Solutions vs Distractions

When one does not have life experience, it seems as if concepts define reality; over time, concepts are relegated to a backseat, much like words are even to those who use them well, as a means of describing reality. If humans turned color when this realization occurred, it would be very easy to separate out those who should have nothing to do with politics, but it is not to be so. However, almost everyone recognizes that there are some who should not be active in politics.

(Think about this critically: almost everyone you know bemoans the existence of "idiots" or "evil people" who screw things up. Whether those evil people are morons, or George W. Bush and his cohorts, or the two groups are one, is academic. We all agree that there are some who should not wield power. Even the most benevolent among us acknowledge this as fact, indirectly. Yet none will say it directly, as it violates the basic taboo of modern society, which is the idea that we're not all identical little machines to be used as industry, religion and government see fit, acting in our own "best interests" of course.)

Why should some, and not all, be active in deciding our future? Answer: because abilities vary. In the same way that we do not ask skinny lab scientists to play football, we should not ask those without the mental inclination required to try their hand at leadership. It is a specialized skill dependent on certain inborn factors, including intelligence potential and personality type. If developed, these characteristics qualify one for a leadership position.

However, we do not make such distinctions, in our "enlightened" and "progressive" (not to mention self-congratulatory) age of modern technology and individual empowerment, and thus we are constantly subjected to a flood of opinions and dogma, much of which comes from people who do not understand the structure of political systems. Since they do not understand structure, or how things work together, they focus on changing elements of these systems and hoping for a symbolic victory.

This is the difference between solutions and distractions. Solutions take structure into account, and propose fixes at the level of function, while distractions may make people feel good, but because they don't address the actual problem, they are in fact destructive: addressing the distraction takes the place of a solution, and while everyone's busy feeling good, the problem remains.

The distractions discussed in this article may not seem to have much in common as actions. When seen in the context of what the ideology behind them needs be achieved for fulfilment, however, they can be seen to be symbolic gestures replacing an impetus toward effective change.

Soft Environmentalism

Perhaps the biggest group of nitwits who like to hear themselves talk, and love to stroke themselves with self-congratulatory encomium while doing nothing effective, are the soft environmentalists. These are the people who believe, in radical contrast to available data, that if we "just" live using fewer resources, we will somehow magically solve the environmental problem on planet earth.

Soft environmentalists spend a good deal of time discussing topics such as turning off water faucets while brushing teeth, unplugging appliances from the wall at night to save electricity, buying expensive eco-friendly products, shutting off security lights, using hybrid cars and recycling menstrual pads. While all of these ideas are sound in and of themselves, they do not address the problem.

Suppose, for example, that we all reduced our consumption by 50% - we each halved the amount of energy needed and waste produced. This sounds good, and feels good, but what it doesn't take into account is that if the population of people living first world lifestyles doubles, everything we do is cancelled out. That population doubling has already occurred, and will occur again ad infinitem, as there are no checks on our population's expansion, especially in the third world, where first world technology is encouraging first world lifestyles.

In short, no matter how many taps or appliances we shut off, or how much we recycle, that contribution will be miniscule. Soft environmentalists don't like to think about this. They will ramble on about how if we "educate" the vast majority - that is, force our will upon them under the guise of enlightenment - maybe, just maybe, they'll all change. This would be a great solution if most people responded to education, and if we had the time to wait for them to change. For soft environmentalism, they'd all have to change tomorrow, and our population would have to be declining, not advancing.

Soft environmentalism will be eternally popular, however, because it's extremely easy. Add a few lifestyle changes and you're part of the solution not the problem, and therefore can set aside all your guilt and continue making reckless amounts of money from the up-and-coming third world nations living first world lifestyles. Nevermind that the first world nations have stopped population growth, but that third world nations keep growing. Just turn off that tap and everything will be fine, remember?

The concept of soft environmentalism is one of seeing details, and making symbolic changes, but lacking understanding of the structure of the problem. The environmental problem is a result of overpopulation, not leaving taps running. No matter how efficient we become, the population expands every day and has no means of stopping itself. Eventually, even if we all refuse to bathe or use electric lights, we will consume every scrap of our environment. Soft environmentalists don't like to think about this.

The reason soft environmentalism exists is that people want to be "doing something" about the environmental issue, yet not actually changing their lives much at all. Turning off water taps, turning up air conditioners, and unplugging appliances are all temporary, tiny little fixes - distractions - that miss the bigger issues entirely. Our population keeps expanding, and will eventually use up everything on earth and pollute earth to toxic levels, but they don't want to think about that. They would rather we all buy "environmental" products and do simple rituals involving small changes, because that way not only do we not have to change our lifestyles, but we don't have to break the taboo barrier of individualism, either.

Individualism is the basis of our society. No, not for an ideological reason - because it's convenient. Individualism gives us independence from any kind of judgment over what it is we do, at the expense of having any collective goal. It lets us indulge our selfishness, and excess, and perversion while protecting us from other people pointing out how insane we are. Individualism is the kind of philosophy that emerges from a decaying civilization, and it makes queeny little brats of us all, but because we don't trust one another and have no values system in common with them, the best among us uphold it to protect themselves from others and the worst among us uphold it to protect their own decay from the eyes of others.

The only problem with individualism is that it is incompatible with true environmentalism. If you can do anything you want, it's your choice whether to accomodate the environment or not, but if you are the one who unselfishly gives up the extra profit to be had from developing forest land or dumping toxic waste into rivers, there's nothing to stop some other guy from getting ahead by doing the same. As long as our society is individualistic, it will have this kind of competition, and there will be no way to enforce a solution to our environmental problem. Soft environmentalists prefer to ignore this and, by offering a non-solution as a solution, clog our heads with garbage where we otherwise might see clearly the obvious truth of individualism and environmentalism being irreconcilable.


Another equally ludicrous example of distraction is the hijacking of movements to return us toward a tradition culture by the forces of oversimplification, e.g. racism. Imagine it in dialogue form if you want to see how nutty it truly is:

Person A: Our people hate their own culture, and are chasing frivolous amusement, as a result rarely breeding and more than likely with members of other races.

Person B: It must be the fault of the intruders. Exterminate all the brutes!

That's not a solution - it's an emotional response. However, before I go further, let me make something very clear: for any nationality to survive, it must defend itself both culturally and ethnically. In practical terms, this means excluding outsiders and outsider ideas for the most part, because to bring those in is to hybridize one's culture radically and thus to obliterate its original strain. That doesn't mean you cannot make a curry in Germany, or sing a Chinese folksong in Russia, but that one keeps the ethnic-cultural group alive such that foreign elements are an extreme rarity. Any group that does not do this gets merged into the "no plan is our plan" vein of humanity.

Hybrids are a curious thing. In farming, when one produces a hybrid crop, one destroys all but the strongest and breeds those apart from the others. The reason is simple: you want to keep the original strains alive, even if only for the purpose of future hybridization. In human groups, there is little to be gained from hybrids, as we're complex enough that it takes years of specialized population evolution to produce any distinctive traits that last from one generation to the next. With human populations, the rule is simple: if you become mixed, you cease to exist.

This naturally brings up the question of mixed societies, and what happens to them? Look at it from a natural perspective. Nature respects generalized specialization, such as the species of bird that adapts to mountain climates but does not limit itself to a single food source or method of finding mates. This is flexibility within the context of a specific area. Take that bird to a far different region, like transplanting a pelican to the desert, and it will not fare so well, but any less than cataclysmic change it can take. Breed that bird with another type of bird, and...?

For starters, when you mix different strains of an animal, you lose all of what has been accumulated by generalized specialization and thus, adaptation to certain areas. If some animal breeds for thousands of generations toward a form that rewards certain behaviors, those tendencies are ingrained in its bloodline, as if it were designed around an ideal. When that is hybridized, the result is a loss of that specialization in both parts of the hybrid. It's as if one starts over again with a much simpler animal, thus we call this kind of breeding "devolutionary adaptation," or the opposite of forward evolution - regression. It's fair to mention that the situation is even worse than simply returning to a more primitive type; the hybrid produced has a mathematically random combination of physical and behavioral factors encoded in it.

Any animal is composed of a series of traits. While these are not explicitly linked by the genetic code, as that would make it inflexible, they tend to work together; if a bird has a thick broad beak, it should probably also be able to easily digest the kind of nuts it would crack using such a beak. Mix types of birds, and you get something with a stomach for fish and the beak for nuts - a very confused and possibly starving bird, in other words. It's the same with humans. Some traits from both parents predominate, but since everything in our minds, including our moral character, has its origins in a genetic trait (origins that must be developed by their environment, or their potential atrophies), to randomize traits is to produce, for example, a creature with the mind of a king but the stomach of a barbarian.

Many of humanity's greatest screwups are partially explained by genetic mixing. This genetic mixing does not occur in a vacuum, but usually happens after the society has lost direction, and thus reverts to its simplest behaviors, namely individualistic greed and ego-drama. When a culture devolves, it loses its shared ideals and then through hybridization and generally bad breeding, devolves into a third-world culture of no distinct traits and thus chaos, anarchy, violence, predation, usury, etc.

For the same reasons, inter-tribal breeding is a terrible idea. As Nietzsche pointed out, the English and the Americans lack a single cultural thread that unites them, having to "make do" with recent (and usually commercial or patriotic) inventions like apple pie, the Union Jack, tea-time, baseball and sodomy. When we look at the leading sources of decline in Western society, whether racial mixing or drug use or cheesy music or working slavelike office jobs, they've come to pass in England and America first. Why? Lack of genetic and cultural resistance makes these cultures the easiest to infect, even by weakened parasites that appeal only to self-interest.

The forces of government, religion and industry would love a mixed-race world. Culture impedes commerce, because the kind of products that culture offers - loyalty, devotion to land, simple pleasures, enduring values - cannot be packaged and sold, and usually contradict the best climate for commerce, which is a "Me generation" in which any whim of the individual can be satisfied by a product, as can the consequent neuroses. Government wants mixed race people because without culture, an abstract plan of action such as egalitarian capitalism or communism can be implemented; religion wants total control over values; industry, of course, needs both consumers with no long-term memory for product failure and dronelike workers to keep its machines running.

The only people who resist racial-, tribal- and cultural-mixing are those who actually enjoy diversity. These are the people who notice the subtle factors in life; in fact, they're some of the same people who say we should preserve open natural spaces from human expansion, not for some number on a spreadsheet but "just because." They value the beauty of the world and its diversity and realize that such a thing can only come about if each group stays distinct, or multiculturalism will blend every population on earth into the same mix.

Racism is a distraction, or a symbolic solution to a complex problem. "Kill the other" will not address a disease running far deeper. The problem in the west is that our culture is decaying, and has been dominated by commerce, and as a result of that we experience a number of problems, including loss of racial consistency. This is not to say that we should not preserve our own people, and our culture, in part by isolating others; in other words, by racial separation. But it is a warning that racial antagonism alone will not solve the problem, even if it alleviates one symptom of it.

In order for racial decline to occur, there must first be a state where people are unaware of or indifferent to the need to preserve the ethnic-cultural entity that is the race. This situation arises when people stop finding meaning in their own tribe, or in its uniqueness, usually because its values system has been replaced by commerce. When this happens, higher values cannot exist; all that matters are the lowest common denominator values that can be agreed on by individuals with diverse motivations, such as "we should have the right and freedom to earn money."


Distractions are plentiful, but solutions are few. Where the two issues above find commonality is that they have the same solution: our society has been motivated by money and individual desires for too long, and it is not working. Under the guise of "freedom" and "rights" we have been lured into a situation where we cannot say no to any proposed idea or desire, and therefore we are all held hostage while the system itself runs out of control. And nobody is to blame, since nobody is actually in charge; the system is there to facilitate our desires, not pass judgment.

This is the hard truth of modern times - that to look deep into the causes of our problems is to find that our society is founded upon a series of good-sounding lies (distractions) but that, as a working entity, it doesn't function well in the same way that a forest does. It functions like a business, inefficient and eventually collapsing, but unlike a business, it literally controls our world - our ability to remain living and conscious and perceive life as an ongoing experience. To look deep into this truth is to see what actually needs to be done, and to look past distraction.

July 2, 2005


Saturday, July 9th, 2005, 09:46 PM
are you using the word "individualism"
interchangeably with "anarchism"?

Saturday, July 9th, 2005, 10:21 PM
I believe it is being used more as a synonym for anthropocentrism, the inflation of and concern with the individual's ego, and the consequences thereof (anarchism being one of the many consequences).

Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 05:13 AM
thank you for relieving my confusion.

the conflict of individualism and the environment
was making no sense to me.

it works if you are thinking of that eccentricism
which the french excuse with the label of "individualism".

in the americas,
"individualism" is characterised as rational self-interest
- which obviates any conflict
between self and one's environment:
such conflict would be self-destructive - not self-fufilling.

the last serious attempt
to use that apellation in the french style,
was in the late sixties,
when a coterie of neurotic homosexual drug-addicts
(led by murray rothbard) tried to usurp the libertarian party.

some persons found their writings persuasive,
but the personal repellance of the authors
did vitiate their arguments beyond consideration.

at this point, "mens sana en corpore sano"
became more than it's own reward.

i discovered that exemplarism
is more persuasive than argumentation.
the ostensive truth of one's ideation
is demonstrated through manifold manifestation
(being able to simply point to the products of one's ideas
eliminates any rational disagreement).
explication becomes an act of beneficence.

Wednesday, July 20th, 2005, 01:32 AM
the best among us uphold it to protect themselves from others
because we are, all, born ignorant savages
the "others" will always be the majority.

as a political device of self-defence,
the extension of legally-equal opportunity to life/liberty/property
eliminates any excuse to criticise or attack the natural elite.

the "others" will confuse the legal fiction of "equality"
with ontological truth.
that does away with their excuse for envy
and it's resultant complications.

if, the "others" are "created equal",
"equal in the eyes of the law"
and have "equal opportunity".
what excuse could they have for unacceptable behavior?