Aphorisms and Assorted Writings: Part 2
The Pseudo-Liberty of Capitalism: Assimilation into a Uniform Lifestyle
The ideologues of the right have always created an illusory association between capitalism and individual freedom. They assert that under their own economic system every individual has the ability to pursue his own self-interest within the «free market» regardless of the interests and needs of any wider community and therefore possesses more individual freedom than in any collectivistic or communitarian form of society. However, here their argument relies upon subtle trickery. The individual freedom of which rightists speak is a kind of «freedom» to act within the «free market», that is to say, within their own capitalist market and under its specific conditions. With this kind of «freedom» one is already subjected to imposed restrictions and these are inevitably predetermined by the masters of the system. And what are the specific conditions of this capitalist market in which people are purportedly free to act? They are simply the «freedom» to hoard unlimited property and exploit the labor of other human beings or the «freedom» to sell one's labor to an employer and work for a wage. The truth is that the capitalist system and its «free market» do not really facilitate any kind of true individual freedom. They only serve to atomize all individuals of a community and force them to become the same unvarying economic automaton within the banausic rat race of the nearly omnipresent capitalist market for the benefit of the hegemonic class. The majority of the population is inevitably assimilated into the same lifestyle of relentless wage labor in exchange for survival.
The capitalist elite and its ideological allies want us to believe that their own «free market» is the only viable option for a free society. They do not want us to form our own local economic systems based on communitarian principles and mutual cooperation and independent of their own system of control. Instead they prefer us to be divided and without cohesion, constantly competing among ourselves and toiling in their imposed market. They want us to give our lives to their companies and continue to purchase their overpriced products and validate their financial system. The architects of the system aim to sell us their own uniformized paradigm and so they deceptively associate it with «individuality» and attempt to discredit all cooperative and communitarian ideas labelling them as «anti-individual» or «anti-freedom» or «communist».
True individual freedom is only possible in a cooperative and communitarian form of society provided that its ethos is one of free-spiritedness and laboral minimalism. It is not possible in the context of an industrialistic society in which the greater part of men are forced to subject themselves to strict work discipline and devote the greater part of their waking hours to an imposed economic role. In order to establish a truly libertarian society, many people of common ideals of freedom which include anti-work, automation of labor, anti-authoritarianism and usufructuarianism must come together and create local economic systems that are centered around collaborative public commons and aim to supply human needs in a direct manner without the capitalist market and reduce the need for human labor to an absolute minimum through technology. I consider that our own vision of a post-capitalist resource-based economy (RBE) is an example of this kind of society.
The capitalist notion of individual freedom is totally empty. There is no true individuality in an economic arrangement in which almost everybody has no choice but to submit to a long 40 hour workweek just to survive.
The Phoniness of Capitalist «Competition»
Proponents of capitalism want us to believe that their own system of a «free market» economy is the greatest possible economic arrangement because of its supposed competitive nature. They argue that in a capitalist society the most talented and most productive people will ascend to the top of the social hierarchy and the best products and inventions will dominate the market precisely because of their superior quality, which will in turn give rise to increasing levels of excellence. While this line of argument may seem logical to many people, so much so that most rarely ever question any of its assumptions, the truth is that these assertions are largely ideological and do not often reflect the real situation, not to mention their dubious industrialistic assumption that the profit motive constitutes a good driver of progress.
The capitalist system of labor for income does not usually foster human excellence at all. Rather in most cases it has the opposite effect. Under this paradigm the greater part of the population is forced to choose from a limited variety of monotonous and uninspiring occupations within the capitalist labor market by the universal need for money and the high costs of living. The vast majority of these jobs in high demand take up an inordinate amount of the time and the energy of the individual and require the progressive reduction of those who perform them to the same servile and incomplete head of human cattle often at the expense of their own passions and dreams. People must be made stupid and slavishly obedient in order to become suitable for their assigned role in the division of labor. Some conservatives relate the capitalist labor market with the social Darwinian doctrine of the «survival of the fittest»; however, the notion itself is glaringly false as when an environment favors mediocrity it is the mediocre who tend to get ahead and survive and reproduce with the most profusion. In the capitalist labor market the most servile and the most docile—those who are the most willing to obey and sacrifice themselves—are generally the most successful regardless of their mental and physical constitution whereas the more rebellious and more free-spirited natures—those who would prosper in a freer and more primal world—typically find themselves out of place.
The idea that the capitalist market favors the production of excellent products and inventions through its inherent competitivity is also a disingenuous myth. In reality competitors are not engaged in a competition of excellence but rather exclusively in a competition of profit. Their true goal is to gain as much revenue as possible for the least possible cost of production. This usually means that they will cut corners wherever possible and massively produce an enormous quantity of substandard products in order to make a quick buck and get ahead of rival producers in the market. It is simply not economical to produce goods of the highest quality. Supermarkets sell foodstuffs laden with harmful chemicals and lacking in real nutritional value because it is so much cheaper and more profitable than to produce clean and optimally nutritious products. The consumption of these foodstuffs of low quality is giving rise to an epidemic of obesity and countless other serious health problems. Electronics manufacturers and automobile companies design many deficient devices and individual parts with inbuilt «planned obsolescence» so as to force customers to replace them sooner and thereby spend more money on their own products. Obviously this kind of practice is extremely wasteful in a world of finite natural resources. As though that were not enough, large pharmaceutical corporations will purposely withhold cures for diseases if such action is necessary to avoid a loss of profits for existing treatments and the energy industry will happily suppress new technologies that threaten its own established lucrative monopolies (consider the case of Nikola Tesla). In short, the highly touted «competition» of the «free market» becomes more of an obstacle to authentic advancement than a driver of excellence (this is to be expected in an economic system which raises the pursuit of artificial profit above the satisfaction of real human needs).
Our envisioned post-capitalist communities of collaborative public commons (RBE systems) would be totally different. They would prioritize intelligent cooperation and the direct supply of the material needs of the community over the mindless «competition» characteristic of the capitalist market. We intend to use the most advanced robotic and cybernetic technologies for the deliberate automation of the greater part of the productive operations of our cooperative communities and the subsequent reduction of human labor to an absolute minimum thereby liberating the population from meaningless occupations of drudgery and the division of labor itself and allowing people to pursue more worthwhile activities. We advocate the establishment of community-based systems of production and projects of collaboration in which all productive operations are geared exclusively towards the direct satisfaction of human demands and all scientific endeavors have for their sole purpose the genuine advancement of the human species without the burden of the artificial profit motive of any market system. Our goal is not to remedy the shortcomings of the capitalist market but rather to replace it with a much more efficient and appropriate system.
What form would competition take in the context of a RBE society? Naturally the spirit of the RBE paradigm largely favors cooperative types of behavior but nevertheless there will still exist some competitive aspects of life given that some degree of competition is an undeniable part of human nature. Rather than compete against one and another in a banausic rat race for mere subsistence, people will be free to follow their own passions and dreams and cultivate their own traits of excellence. Artists will create great works of art. Writers will compose great literary masterpieces. Musicians will produce great music. Inventors will discover new technologies. Those who share with their own communities magnificent contributions of creativity and genius will be highly regarded. An aristocratic ethos will take precedence. The development of virtue will be the foremost criterion of human value. As for the more primal forms of competition, combat sports such as wrestling and mixed martial arts as well as countless other sporting disciplines will be more popular than ever. Athletes will face off against one and another in authentic physical contests for glory and status. Sporting competitivity will form an important part of the new cultural climate. In short, in a RBE society competition will take a more meaningful form with an emphasis on constructive competition.
The Modern Workweek as a Source of Inferiority
Take a look at a typical group of «successful» corporate employees. Do they really appear to you as superior specimens of the human species?
Each day countless relatively affluent corporate employees trudge slowly into their place of work wearing a ridiculous suit and tie and then sit themselves down at their desks ready to resume some boring paperwork. Many of them are visibly out of shape with their protruding pot bellies and their poorly defined physiques and would be utterly incapable of any serious physical contest. Their heavy work schedule leaves them with so little time to exercise or look after their own bodies. Few of them know how to fight. Most would simply cower helplessly in the face of a violent confrontation. Many of them are distinctively unintellectual. They have little opportunity to nourish their minds with culture and philosophy. Their lifestyle of continuous sacrifice predisposes them to simple activities of escapism. Virtually all of these glorified slaves spend the greater part of their day sucking up to their corporate superiors and feigning enthusiasm for tasks which in reality they find tedious. They live in constant fear of offending a boss or another employee of higher rank and losing their livelihood or damaging their own reputation as a result. And yet we are supposed to believe that these people are winners?
«The World doesn't owe anybody a Living»—More Rightist Platitudinizing
Rightists often repeat this saying in order to justify the status quo of economic servitude and the tyranny of capital. What they mean by this is that those who do not wish to subject themselves to employment and allow themselves to be exploited day after day in the capitalist system in exchange for a «honest living» are somehow immoral and worthy of scorn. As usual they attempt to moralize the matter.
In reality this is not the case. The framing of industry as a moral duty is nothing more than a pure invention of the capitalist class. The Earth has always given her children an abundance of natural resources free of charge. All men roamed freely through all of her vast lands and sustained ourselves with her bountiful fruits and her ample sources of fish and meat with few restrictions. This same way of life would continue in the continent of North America until the arrival of the European explorers just a few centuries ago. Then one day groups avaricious tyrants emerged. They established their own artificial system of private property and forced all of their subjects to serve them in exchange for money. The greater part of the population would became enslaved to toil.
This empty platitude serves only one purpose. It is the doctrine of tyrants and the creed of slaves.
The Feminist Anti-Beauty Paradox
Radfem ideologues are so vehemently opposed to the concept of beauty precisely because they have so little of it themselves. Rather than accept with honesty that they occupy the lower rungs of the scale of physical attractiveness, feminist wretches prefer to imagine that objective standards of feminine beauty do not exist, arguing instead that all esthetic ideals are socially constructed and imposed upon women in a patriarchal society for the purpose of sexual objectification. In radfem cuckoo-land, beauty is purely subjective and men are supposed to rid ourselves of our «sexist» cultural programming and find beauty in even the fattest and most physically repulsive specimens of the female gender.
However, like all other examples of feminist logic, this attempt to deconstruct the male preference for traditionally beautiful women soon finds itself caught up in an inescapable contradiction. If beauty truly is purely subjective as radfems like to claim; if, for example, it really is simply an artificial valuation born out of cultural programming and devoid of any real biological basis, then surely doesn't that mean that we men are free to deem as beautiful or attractive whatever kind of women we like, including only those with neotenous facial features, a perfect hourglass figure, large firm breasts, a well-built athletic ass and a stereotypically feminine way of being?
Unattractive feminists cannot force us to like them and we have no reason to take them seriously. They are the lowest dregs of the female species with their shameful obesity, their disgusting roles of fat, their unwomanly cropped hair and their hateful personalities. They are pathetic nihilists who abhor life and who seek to destroy all genuine feminine beauty out of hatred and envy.
International Women's Day: More Self-Congratulatory Bullshit
Today is International Women's Day. Television has shown endless footage of feminist marches throughout the world's major cities celebrating the so-called struggle of women for equality in modern society and social media networks are full of posts of female users telling us how great women are and reminding us of all the great achievements of individual brilliant ladies throughout history.
I myself did not go to any marches nor did I log onto the Internet to write messages. I simply attended my wrestling class as always. At the end of the class, while we were cooling down after a hard and productive session of grappling, I glanced across the mats and saw two young girls among the many big strong male grapplers. In that moment I had the following thought: these girls are not on social media telling the world how great they are; rather they are actually doing great things themselves and letting their actions give testimony to their greatness!
In truth, International Women's Day—like countless other self-congratulatory events—is simply an excuse for the mediocre to heap unmerited praise upon themselves and attempt to live vicariously through the achievements of others. Truly great people do not need to go around telling the world how great they are. Truly brilliant souls do not feel the urge to revel in the historical success of remarkable heroes and heroines. The truly excellent simply dedicate themselves to higher pursuits and live their own achievements.
Modern Man: Subsidizer of his own Servitude
In my opinion, the greatest absurdity of modern society is that the slaves themselves are the ones who subsidize their own enslavement. They pay willingly for their own chains. They even take pride in their own diminution. I am more than sure that the depraved enslavers of the ruling elite are often driven to uncontrollable laughter by the sheer stupidity and the boundless dupability of the many emasculated «goyim».
The modern slave finances «progressive education», which was designed by wealthy industrialists for the purpose of producing new generations of docile and obedient workers, through his hard-earned tax money. He literally pays with his own dollars or euros to send his children to authoritarian indoctrination camps which serve to reformat their minds and prepare them for a life of servility, just like his own parents did before him.
The higher slave—he who achieved «good grades» through the passive regurgitation of information (and disinformation) and was deemed «intelligent» as a result—graduates successfully and is then sent off to university. There he accrues tens of thousands of dollars of debt in exchange for a recognized academic diploma which qualifies him for certain occupational positions. He pays a fortune of his own money in order to become a corporate slave in a humiliating office cubicle and a debtor of the bank which offered him his student loan.
Then, once entrenched in the laboral lifestyle, the modern slave continues to subsidize his own servitude in all aspects. The truth is that modern slavery is much more insidious than the traditional slavery of antiquity for the very fact that the modern slave, unlike his ancient counterpart, is obligated to bear the costs of his own accommodation as well as those of his transport to and from his place of employment. The worker often rents an overpriced apartment in the city in order to live closer to his workplace. He often uses an extortionate level of passenger fare in his daily commute to the office or the factory. The modern slave pays in order to work!
Finally, as though all of that were not enough, the modern slave funds many of the apparatus of his own oppression and stultification. He supports through mandatory progressive income tax an unfriendly government that makes hundreds of arbitrary laws that only serve to restrict his freedom. He purchases with his modest wages food products laden with toxic chemicals which only serve to make us sick and dumb us down to the same condition of human cattle. He subscribes to corporate television networks only to be brainwashed by the skewed news stories of the mass media and spends countless dollars on pharmaceutical drugs that alter the brain and kill more people than heroin. He even pays for the government to fluoridate his drinking water.
Modern society is little more than a shocking human plantation. Oy vey! The goyim know!
Atheism, Ugliness and Loserdom
Atheists are people who not only disbelieve in any form of deity but also aggressively deny all aspects of the supernatural as well as all notions of higher purpose. They are the dismissive cynics who reject every idea of the nonphysical, scoff at the concept of the soul and are opposed to any possibility of an afterlife. They are the smarmy pseudo-skeptics who troll internet forums with their negative opinions, assert that all religious people are either stupid or mentally ill and insist that existence itself is ultimately meaningless. Their claim to superiority is their belief that they are supposedly smarter and more rational than everyone else. Their favorite authors are militant materialists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. The atheist is an outspoken zealot of disbelief. His religion is one of physicalist nihilism.
I have known many atheists over the years. I have noticed that most of the atheists whom I have known—particularly the most vehement and pertinacious ones—happen to be quite ugly as well as either partial or complete losers. More often than not they are physically plain or downright unsightly, the men being greasy neckbeards and dorkish incels and the women being overweight and somewhat mannish. In regards to social intelligence the greater part of them come across as socially awkward and semi-autistic as well as overly opinionated and dogmatic. Furthermore, almost all of them are noticeably unathletic and have a tendency to neglect their own physical health. They would rather start online debates with creationists in order to show how «smart» they are or play videogames for hours on end in their mother's basement than play sports or do physical exercise. Worst of all, many of them spend the weekend drinking copious amounts of alcohol and getting shitfaced on all kinds of harmful drugs. They are inclined to mindless escapism. After all, they believe in so little else.
There seems to be a correlation between atheism of the militant kind, ugliness and loserdom. What might be the reason for this?
Atheism as a worldview is attractive to ugly people and losers for numerous reasons.
First, atheism is inherently nihilistic. It holds that the universe is nothing more than a cosmic accident and that life has no ultimate purpose. Many atheists are angry at the world. They harbor a hatred of life. They are resentful of their own ugliness and genetic inferiority. They are consumed by envy towards those who are beautiful and genetically superior. Atheism offers them comfort because it allows them to believe that everything is utterly meaningless and that any distinction between excellence and mediocrity doesn't really matter in the end.
Second, atheism appeals to those afflicted with an inferiority complex. Its followers tell everybody that atheists are the smartest people on Earth and that religious believers are stupid and morally regressive. Therefore, new converts can use the sense of intellectual superiority that atheism affords them in order to compensate for their lack of beauty and their unpopularity.
Third, atheism can be used to justify a lifestyle of loserdom. Losers, who want to spend their lives getting drunk, abusing drugs and playing videogames and who have an aversion towards the effort associated with personal evolution, are able to convince themselves that all higher pursuits are ultimately in vain and that their own lifestyle of mindless escapism is somehow right and logical. Curiously many atheists become emotionally offended even by the idea that this life might have intrinsic meaning or the simple mention of the prospect of an afterlife. The truth is that they want life to be meaningless.
The atheist demographic includes some of the lowest specimens of the human population despite their pretension to superiority. It consists of for the most part mediocre or underdeveloped souls capable of only the basest and most mechanistic modes of thought and totally unable to fathom the higher spiritual dimensions of life. Dogmatic materialists belong to the lower levels of consciousness. They are infinitely inferior to the spiritual types whom they denigrate so relentlessly.
The Decadence of the Western World
Many people like to attribute in an arbitrary manner the historical decline of Western Civilization almost exclusively to the creeping infiltration of leftist thought into academia and public dialogue. They promote the idea that the many social problems and elements of decay which pervade our societies are specifically due to the supposed weakening of capitalism and the gradual undermining of traditional morality at the hands of a new current of Marxist intellectuals and moral nihilists beginning in the middle period of the 20th century. The Frankfurt School with its characteristic brand of «critical theory» is often identified as the foremost root of all Western cultural decadence. However, while it is correct to say that the various neo-Marxist ideologies have served to exacerbate the situation, the stark truth is that Western Civilization was already absolutely rotten since long before the development of any kind of neo-Marxism. I deem that its degenerative process began more concretely with the expansion of industrialism in the early modern period along with the rise of bourgeois values and the same suffocating traditionalism which so many continue to extol so fervently to this day.
The birth of modern industrial society marked the first stage of Western cultural decadence. Despite its central ideal of «progress», the process of mass industrialization would only result in the progressive enslavement and diminution of the human being. With the privatization of a large part of the land on the part of the burgeoning capitalist class the greater majority of the population was forced into a new lifestyle of relentless wage labor in the factories and the warehouses of the growing urban centers where the exploited proletariat would toil painfully for more than 12 hours each day. Gone were the days of community and self-sufficiency. This new culture of inordinate industriousness would naturally require the introduction of strict social mores and uniformized patterns of behavior so as to ensure hard discipline and compliance. The topic of work was moralized with the bourgeois notion of the Protestant work ethic. Many other puritan values began to creep into society ultimately giving rise to the social climate of narrow conformity and countless moral hang-ups which characterizes a large part of the industrialized Western world. Individuality had to be repressed for the establishment of capitalism. All men were forced to become the same unvarying economic automaton.
The neo-Marxist intellectual currents and their radical opposition to established Western cultural institutions marked a successive stage of cultural entropy. A second infection would superimpose itself upon an already infected and undermined host. The unbridled economic exploitation and the excessive moralism of modern industrial society had only served to breed high levels of resentment in significant portions of the population. Many angry, dissatisfied, frustrated and embittered people would come to despise this present form of Western Civilization with all of its oppressive aspects and its manifold neuroses and find themselves drawn to the various radical ideologies which were presented as channels of resistance. Violent leftist movements and militant activist groups began to proliferate through college campuses. Not only did they want to impose their own particular ideals but they also wanted to blame some external outgroup for their own dissatisfaction. Gays blamed heterosexuals and heteronormativity, women condemned men and masculinity and racial minorities held animosity towards the racial majority. A sense of victimhood and a desire for revenge would become the foundation of the identity of these groups. In most cases these movements lacked high consciousness or authentic direction. They would only serve to sow the seeds of greater chaos and social disintegration throughout communities.
Neither one of these paths is the solution. Both are only the source of many longstanding problems. Traditional Western Civilization (i.e., industrialism and bourgeois values) whose preservation or restoration is typically advocated by the ideological right only condemns the greater part of people to an alienating existence of constant toil and makes them increasingly more neurotic through its absurd moralities and its inhibition of individuality and the more recent neo-Marxist intellectual currents only distract the oppressed and the dissatisfied with isolated side issues and conspire to replace the present dystopian system with another one this time based on their own particular ideal of economic servitude and their own version of moralism. The solution which we propose completely transcends this artificial dichotomy. We support the creation of community-based public commons aimed at the direct supply of the needs of the whole community and the subsequent technological automation of all productive operations to the extent possible in order to free human beings from excessive labor and economic exploitation. We envision a return to the strong eudaimonistic values of classical antiquity and the Renaissance and the encouragement of the relative free-spiritedness and the nonjudgmental mindset characteristic of pre-industrial and non-Western societies. With less obligation to work constantly or submit to countless restrictions most people will find a lot more satisfaction in life and will no longer have so much need for radical ideologies.
Let us be honest. Western Civilization has been oppressive and hostile to the human soul for hundreds of years and it was only a matter of time before groups of diverging ideals would oppose it. Indeed, there was already strong opposition to modern industrial society from the very beginning in the form of both social and individualist anarchist movements as well as early socialist manifestations. The later neo-Marxist movements and «victimist ideologies» which many have associated with the Frankfurt School and dubbed «Cultural Marxism» and which continue to exert great influence in the academic world of today have co-opted this spirit of resistance. It is my opinion that many of these groups are simply controlled opposition financed by the corporate elite itself in order to divide the population further through prefabricated polarizing narratives and stir up fears of a «leftist conspiracy» against «freedom» and «Western values» in a significant part of the people thereby garnering popular support for capitalism and its status quo of economic domination. Fear sells. Tribalism (right vs. left) is useful for control. The system always enjoys more popular support when it has its own political boogeyman who unites the populists against a «common enemy» (red peril). This situation is evident given that it is large capitalist corporations that control the most important institutions of higher education in Western societies as well as the fact that none of these currents propose any viable form of change.
The Superiority of Mediterranean Culture
The Mediterranean world is an example of a higher civilization. It reaches the peak of aristocratic excellence. Its people are blessed with an extraordinary spirit of beauty and ingenuity.
In the time of antiquity, it was Greece and Rome that revolutionized the cultural landscape of Ancient Europe and laid the foundations of Western Civilization. The Greeks made great advances in mathematics and philosophy, produced many innovations in art, literature and historiography, created magnificent buildings and sculptures and pioneered one of the first systems of democracy. The Romans, continuing the cultural developments of the Greeks, founded many of the great cities of Europe such as Valencia (Valentia) and Tarragona (Tarraco) in Spain and Cologne (Colonnia Agrippina) in Germany and built many great aqueducts, bathhouses, sewers, theatres, palaces and temples. Another great civilization of the Mediterranean was that of the Etruscans—a highly advanced nation of the central Italic peninsula which preceded the rise of Rome and would greatly influence its Roman successor. The Etruscans were authors of a rich artistic tradition and pioneers of hydraulic engineering and architecture. The Mediterranean peoples have always been ingenious. Throughout most of their history they were considerably more advanced than the other nations.
Many centuries later, during the twilight of the Middle Ages, it was in Tuscany, central Italy—incidentally the historical homeland of the Etruscan civilization—that the Renaissance was born. This movement, brought into existence by the works of various distinguished Italian polymaths, served to revive much of the ancient knowledge that had been lost during the medieval period. There was a great rediscovery of the classical philosophies and a gradual shift towards a humanistic conception of the world. There were also many advances in science, art, literature and music. The obscurantism of the Middle Ages had come to an end. Over the course of the following centuries, the Renaissance would spread into the north of Italy, into France, and then into the northern regions of Europe. The Mediterranean race once again paved the way for the rekindling of European culture.
The modern age witnessed a dramatic advancement of the North and a relative decline of the South. England and Germany, and later the United States, would ultimately rise to prominence and hold great influence in the areas of economy, politics, science and technology. Nevertheless, I affirm that the Mediterranean world still remains infinitely superior, even in spite of these facts.
High culture—Mediterranean nations are deeply artistic and soulful. Their people hold an unusual sensitivity for beauty and esthetics. They have undoubtedly produced a disproportionate quantity of great artists and men of exceptional intellect. Mediterranean cities are among the best in the world. They are well-designed and have excellent layouts. They feature many architectural marvels and countless sculptural masterpieces of sublime beauty that please the senses and inspire awe in the human soul. Mediterranean literature is vast and wonderful. Italy and France have both produced constant innovations in poetry, prose and theatre since the time of the Renaissance and their literary traditions remain strong to the present day. Mediterranean music is supreme and captivating. Italy has given the world opera and many other amazing musical styles. It is impossible to have meaningful conversations about classical music without using words adopted from the Italian language. A love of art is a defining characteristic of the Mediterranean soul. The Italian people in particular are blessed with outstanding creative genius. Anglo-Saxons, on the other hand, are absolute philistines. Their cities tend to be plain and soulless. Their vision of life is for the most part banausic and without beauty. Very few Anglo-Saxons have any true sensitivity for the arts and the intellectual dimensions of life.
Perspective of life—Mediterraneans envision an appropriately balanced life as a noble ideal. They value leisure, enjoyment and self-development. They cherish love, friendship and emotional wellbeing. People exist in order to experience the fullness of existence. They aim to evolve into rounded and complete individuals. The Mediterranean attitude towards life is more holistic and humanistic. This could not be any further from the Anglo-Saxon way of thinking. Anglo-Saxon society is characterized by extreme economic materialism. Pervasive is the disturbing cultural belief that human beings exist only to serve an economic function within the present market system. Anglo-Saxon people are single-minded in the pursuit of wealth and social status to the point of absurdity. They live only to work relentlessly and accumulate material possessions. As a result, Anglo-Saxon people lack inner depth. They have no passions or creative interests. They have no sense of psychological fulfillment and are given over to countless neuroses. As a race of miserable economic automatons and uncultured philistines, most Anglo-Saxons are utterly incapable of understanding the beautiful free-spiritedness and the fervent passion of the Mediterranean world.
Social environment—Mediterranean societies are friendly and vibrant. People are integrated into large extended families and place great importance on friendship and social cohesion. Friends and acquaintances enjoy each other's company in cosy little bars, inexpensive restaurants and outdoor terraces. Strangers often greet one and another and strike up deep conversations in public spaces. The calendar includes many national holidays and people participate in many beautiful festivals. There is a general sense of community. Anglo-Saxon social life, on the other hand, is poor and cliquish. Many people are distrustful and antisocial. Loneliness abounds. Anglo-Saxons are for the most part socially awkward and psychologically repressed. Their «social culture» usually amounts to little more than mindless drinking (i.e., getting wasted). Alcohol acts as their social anxiety medication.
Cuisine—Mediterranean cuisine is among the best in the world. Rich in olive oil, wheat, vegetables, fruits and seafood, and low in meat and dairy products, it is both healthful and supremely delicious. Spain is famous for its paella, Italy for its risotto, pizza and spaghetti, Southern France for its bouillabaisse and ratatouille, and Greece for its moussaka, although these are only the most typical examples and each of these countries has a great wealth of lesser known gastronomical treasures. Mediterraneans eat well and cheaply. It is easy to find good and economic restaurants in places such as Spain and Italy. Anglo-Saxon cuisine, in contrast, is bland and mediocre. People eat only for sustenance, not enjoyment; an attitude rooted in the miserable puritanical ethos of Protestantism. Anglo-Saxons are largely ignorant of the art of gastronomy. Their idea of eating well is to spend hundreds of dollars on fake ethnic food at an overpriced bistro.
Language—The Romance languages—those which are descendants of Latin—are widely recognized as beautiful and poetic. Their phonetic structures are euphonious, being rich in vowels and avoiding harsh consonant clusters; their intonation patterns upbeat and melodious, their grammars expressive and complex, and their wordstocks deep and precise. Each language is highly inflected and possesses an elaborate system of suffixes (diminutives, augmentatives, approbatives, etc.) which express all kinds of emotions and shades of meaning. Portuguese is sweet and mellifluous, Spanish rhythmic and passionate, Italian musical and sublime, and French elegant and sophisticated. The Germanic languages, in contrast, tend to be somewhat crude and discordant. English, the most widely spoken Germanic tongue, is little more than an unsightly hodgepodge of native (Germanic-Anglisc), French and Latin words, mixed together in the most unnatural manners and distilled into an amorphous mess. The lexical makeup of English reflects the mediocrity of the Anglo-Saxon mind; English people often speak verbosely and with much pomp (akin to their own language's vast and pedantic Franco-Latinate loanwords) but say very little in terms of actual meaning. German, however, is a very well-built and precise language (and is lexically much purer than English); the only problem is that spoken German sounds as bad as a malfunctioning jackhammer.
Beauty—Mediterraneans are for the most part beautiful people. They tend to have a healthy olive complexion and a variety of hair colors with dark hair being the most common but not excluding blond hair and light-brown hair. In ancient times, it was widely argued that Mediterranean peoples such as the Greeks and the Romans were an esthetically ideal race because of their medium skin tone, being not too pale like the northern tribes and not too dark like the peoples of Africa. Today Spaniards and Italians are exceptionally attractive peoples. These populations have good genetics and high concentrations of beautiful men and women. Northern Europeans, on the other hand, tend to be relatively plainer. Their skin tone is often abnormally pale and their complexion often lacks radiance. Many Nordics have poor tanning genetics and look as though they never leave the house or spend most of their time in a miserable office. In my view, Mediterraneans are not only culturally advanced but also of a superior physical constitution.
Mediterranean societies may not be as materially wealthy and politically influential as the Anglo-Saxon and other Germanic nations, but they are without doubt many times more evolved culturally, intellectually, socially and spiritually.
Ethnicism: The Recognition of Superior and Inferior Cultures
Today there exists an unwritten rule that says that voyagers and expatriates are only allowed to speak critically of the most trivial matters of our host country such as the weather and the cuisine but never of the culture or the people themselves. Instead we are supposed to believe that people are the same everywhere and that all civilizations are essentially equal. To think otherwise would be deemed politically incorrect and therefore unforgivable.
However, like always, I find that there is a large gap between what we are told to believe and the actual state of reality. People are not the same everywhere. Cultures are not inherently equal.
Societies are like biological organisms. They follow their own respective evolutionary paths and are shaped considerably by their own unique historical events and intellectual developments. Some develop positively and reach high levels of excellence whereas others remain caught up in self-limiting paradigms and simply experience stagnation. It would be only foolish to assert that a highly culturally refined nation such as Italy is equal to an undeveloped thirdworld hellhole in the hinterlands of Africa.
People are largely products of the culture in which they are raised. Some cultures include many beneficial elements and tend to produce greater and more balanced human beings. For example, Italians are sociable and creative and Frenchmen are sophisticated and intellectual. Other cultures are characterized by a prevalence of harmful influences and tend to produce a disproportionate number of people of a lower disposition. For example, Anglo-Saxons are banausic, moralistic and neurotic and the Japanese are herdlike, servile and emotionally inhibited.
Many people will accuse me of making sweeping generalizations about whole populations. They will even argue that I am somehow a racist or a bigot. However, to generalize is simply to identify common patterns within a particular group of people. Generalizations need not be dogmatic and absolute. When I say, for example, that Mediterranean people are beautiful what I mean to say is that there is a high concentration of attractive men and women within the Mediterranean world, not that all Mediterraneans are necessarily attractive; and likewise, when I express that Anglo-Saxons are vulgarian and anti-intellectual, I am simply pointing out a general tendency towards vulgarianism and anti-intellectualism within a large part of that population. I always leave some room for a minority of anomalous outliers.
I recognize that some nations and cultural regions are simply superior to others and produce a significant disproportion of people of high quality. Nevertheless, this posture of «ethnicism» ought not to be confused with racism (in the sense of racial hatred). I do not hate people of nations which I consider inferior. I accept that there are rare individuals of great brilliance in even the crudest and most backward cultures. I do not look down on such people. Rather I feel pity for their having been incarnated into such a mediocre cultural identity. Some souls are much more evolved than the societies in which they find themselves.
Flee the Beehive!
Here, in the advanced economic regions of the northern lands, we are taught from the time of elementary school that our goal in life is to work hard, to build a career, to make as much money as possible, to be «successful». We are told that if we sacrifice ourselves on the corporate altar and acquire large amounts of wealth and social status we will find happiness. We are groomed from an early age by the modern education system to want to be a slave to relentless industry and to money.
Let me tell you the honest truth, my friends. Men of art, of philosophy, of noble spirit and of wild adventure, those of us who are passionate and free-spirited and who long for fulfilling soulful experiences instead of crass economic materialism, will never find spiritual wellbeing in the industrial beehive societies of North America and Northern Europe. We will always be tormented by a dark abyss of emptiness in the depths of our hearts. We will always be captive to a lingering existential depression of the soul.
For us, there is only one viable option: to flee the suffocating beehive of morbid ergomania and emigrate en masse to the wilder, more zestful and more Dionysian regions of the geographical south in search of greater freedom and the true joie de vivre. We must break free from our nauseating office pens and our dreary industrial prisons. It behooves us sell up our property and leave behind the miserable desert of the puritanical and work-obsessed geographical north. Our passionate souls urge us to fly away and take refuge in the few remaining oases of vitality and free-spiritedness: South America, Southeast Asia and the Mediterranean world.
The English Language as a Reflection of Anglo-Saxon Philistinism
It is often said that the distinctive features of a language are a reflection of the national character of its speakers. The euphonious sounds and the forthright directness of the Italian language reflect the artistic sensitivity and the social openness of Italians, the strict sentence structure and the high semantic precision of the German language reflect the unvarying orderliness of Germans and the complex system of honorifics and the indirect speech patterns of the Japanese language reflect the general reservedness and social inhibition of the Japanese. What about the English language? What does it say about the national character of the Anglo-Saxon people? The English are absolute philistines, utterly banausic and without any appreciation of art and philosophy, and this is clearly reflected in the constitution of their language.
The lexicon of English is rather particular. Although English is a Germanic language like German, Dutch and Swedish, its modern wordstock consists of an unsightly hodgepodge of Anglisc, French and Latin roots melded together in the most incongruent manner imaginable. It is reckoned that about half of the language's words are of Franco-Latinate (i.e., non-native) origin. Other languages, in contrast, preserve relatively pure lexicons. German derives the overwhelming majority of its vocabulary from its own Germanic source, allowing for only the occasional latinism here and there; Italian derives nearly all of its terminology from its Latin ancestor with the exception of a few Germanic and Celtic loanwords such as guerra (war: from Frankish werra) and carro (cart: from Gaulish karros); and Arabic is almost entirely Semitic in its lexical makeup. Why then has English turned out so lexically impure? The reason is because the inkhornist intellectuals of England began to flood their own language with thousands of superfluous foreignisms since the time of the Renaissance, viewing Franco-Latinate imports as superior to the original Germanic words of English. In some cases native words were displaced completely (e.g., Franco-Latinate «question» displaces Middle English «fraign») and in others native words and foreign loanwords would coexist as synonyms.
The willingness of the English to adopt foreignisms with such profusion reflects at its foundation their obvious lack of sensitivity for language and all other intellectual dimensions. Their use of so many extravagant synonyms, even without any real understanding of the underlying nuances and etymologies, attests their shortage of true intellectual substance and their general preference for superficial pomp. The English have always lacked culture and philosophical depth; they are more concerned with image and pretense. The English speak verbosely but say very little in terms of actual meaning. They employ many fancy words in order to compensate for their lack of true depth of spiritual insight and create an illusion of learnedness. In truth, the English are such mediocre philosophers; they understand only things of a simple and mechanical nature and rarely ever penetrate deeply into the realm of ideas and the deeper dimensions of existence. Their language is better suited to the purposes of formulaic business transactions and shallow pop culture than to that of genuine philosophical discourse.
In my view, English is little more than a genetic mongrel ruined by excessive miscegenation. It is a shame that such a mediocre language has risen to international prominence. A language such as Latin or Italian would have made for a much better worldwide lingua franca.
The Mediocrity of Modern Man
In all honesty the greater majority of people in the world of today are not particularly impressive or worthy of admiration and even provoke a sense of pity or contempt upon observation. This is largely due to the influence of the industrial society in which they have been educated. The typical modern man has become little more than a weak-willed and gelded naturalized slave who accepts as the only purpose of his own life the pursuit of employment in the pervasive labor market and the acquisition of material possessions and social status within a superficial consumeristic climate and the occasional moment of fleeting escapism. He toils so subserviently in his workplace mindlessly following the orders of so-called superiors who are as visibly unimpressive and unmanly as he himself and endlessly kowtowing to those of higher authority out of fear of losing his livelihood or his reputation. He willingly sacrifices his own individuality—what little is left of it—for the benefit of a private company or the state or some even more obscure abstraction such as the «greater good» without question. Often he defines his own value by this same constant act of sacrifice or self-abnegation. His kind already has no concept of free-spiritedness or spirit of rebelliousness nor any will to develop oneself artistically or intellectually or forge oneself into a more complete being. It knows only simple-minded conformity and contemptible servility and an unnatural disposition to endure humiliation at the hands of an office hierarchy. The distinction between male and female is conspicuously weak in industrial societies and reflects a sad state of affairs. The men are effeminate and submissive and the women are coarse and unfeminine. Both sexes have been engineered into the same homogenized androgynous creature that is optimally suited for servitude in the corporate world. Humanity has never before found itself in such a pitifully diminished condition. Only the rare aristocratic types with their overflow of vitality, their unwavering sense of individuality, their rebellious disposition and their eagerness for personal expansion and unparalleled excellence truly amaze the senses and inspire a deep reaction of awe and appreciation. The human soul should be free, wild, passionate, creative, bold and vivacious. Such is the desire of life itself.
Judaism and the Global Conspiracy
The malevolent actions of the «New World Order» only begin to make sense when one has fully understood the Judaic-Zionist component which lies at the root of the conspiratory plan of the global Power Elite. The current rulers seem to be determined to make life only more brutal and more unbearable for the vast majority of the population, imposing all kinds of draconian laws and bleeding people of everything they can through ever increasing taxation, debt slavery, economic hardship and long hours of imposed drudgery. There is a certain sense of malice and treachery in their governance.
The previous elites (Gentiles) were usually satisfied as long as they were able to maintain their political power and receive a modest tribute from the peasants over whom they ruled. They did not go out of their way to bleed their subjects dry and hang around their necks an ever crueler yoke at every given opportunity. Many aristocracies protected their peasants in times of hardship and aided in the development of the communities under their control. Many slaveholders looked after their slaves well and granted them all kinds of privileges for good service and loyalty. With the notable exception of penal servitude, the slavery of the ancient world was generally much more lenient than the miserable condition of wage slavery and economic exploitation of today.
The Jewish elite, which has become the dominant force in the political, financial and commercial spheres in the last century, is motivated by a particularly perverse ideology of Jewish world domination and enslavement of the Gentile nations which goes back to the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible and the obscene talmudic literature. It sadistically takes pleasure in enslaving and destroying the «goyim» or non-Jews and demands their progressive stultification and diminution, believing that such actions are necessary for the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Messianic Age. The vicious intentions of the «New World Order» are rooted in the bizarre doctrines of a sick and depraved multi-millennial cult. Once acquainted with this disturbing truth, that which normally eludes our understanding suddenly becomes perfectly clear.
Moralism on Crack
When people tell us not only how we should act but also how we should feel.
Moralism as Self-Praise
Moralists always need an immoralized outgroup in order to heap praise upon themselves.
Mental Acuity and Perception of Nuance
Greater minds are able to appreciate nuanced arguments and varying shades of meaning. We understand that everything is a question of degrees and that apparent paradoxes can often be resolved with a deeper understanding of the phenomenon or a slight change of our point of observation.
Lesser minds, on the other hand, have capacity for only simplistic arguments and are unable to perceive the many subtleties of reality. They only manage to see the surface and never the kernel of the matter. They only observe from the conventional viewpoint and never from the more unusual angles. Everything must fit into neatly defined categories and align perfectly with popular stock opinions and artificial constructs, otherwise it becomes a «contradiction». A characteristic of lesser minds is that they see «contradictions» everywhere.
The Selfless Accused
The accusation of selfishness is a medium through which the truly selfish attempt to manipulate the selfless.
The Truth behind the Objection to Privilege
Certain groups of people are so opposed to certain privileges precisely because they themselves covet those same advantageous conditions or beneficial characteristics so fervently. The stark truth is that most of those who impeach the wealthy for their unequal advantage would not hesitate to own the same kind of great wealth if they were given the opportunity to do so and likewise most of those who object to conventional standards of beauty on the grounds that they are somehow sexist or oppressive really desire in the depths of their own hearts to possess those same forms of beauty and all of the benefits which come with them. It is pure envy that is behind most cases of objection to the privileges of others.
The Desirability of Privileges
I must confess that I do not understand the reason why these days so many people talk about privileges as though they were something dirty, undesirable or even sinful. The modern egalitarian spirit has really reached new heights of madness. Is it not better to have been born into a family of wealth and comfort and thereby enjoy a high level of wellbeing and individual freedom? Is it not more beneficial to be intelligent, beautiful, athletic and virtuous? Who would not want these kinds of things which are conducive to happiness and human flourishing?
The Keys to Happiness
One must be born with the following three things in order to be happy in this life: good genetics, a good fortune of wealth and a good dick (or a good booty if the person is female).
Public Commons and Freedom
I am of the opinion that each town or human settlement should allocate a given portion of its land for the creation of its own community-owned cropland or vertical farms intended for the cultivation and the provision of healthy and nutritious foods for the whole community on a collaborative basis and in the fashion of a «gift economy». Such a project of intelligent cooperation would ultimately serve to supply the alimentary needs of the people in a direct manner, eliminate the greater part of hunger and free us from the harmful influence of large commercial supermarkets whose food products are often full of damaging chemicals for the sake of profitability. This kind of cooperative arrangement could be a great source of freedom and wellbeing on a community level. Why is it that we never hear right-wing «libertarians» talking about these kinds of ideas for free and prosperous local communities? Don't they say that they love freedom and prosperity? Well the truth is that right-wing «libertarians» are really at heart apologists for big business and capitalist hegemony and would not like to see any obstruction of corporate profits. They would most likely dismiss such an idea as «communistic». So-called right-wing «libertarianism» has absolutely nothing to do with true libertarianism in the European sense of the term which has always emphasized the importance of community, common property and economic equality.
Thoughts about the World's Oldest Profession
Prostitution in its basic form simply consists of the coming together of two consenting adults for the fulfillment of a natural act in exchange for money or some other resource. It is not at all shameful or immoral despite what this absurdly puritanical society has to say with regard to the matter. The truth is that many attractive women and transsexuals enjoy sexuality and find a significant degree of financial freedom in the profession. They would rather have sex with horny testosterone-fuelled men (some of whom are handsome and virile) for hundreds of euros a hour and even have fun doing so than toil relentlessly as a miserable and unfulfilled corporate slave in a boring office and under a strict schedule for a meager wage. Of course, the profession is not for all and it is fair to say that it takes a woman of a certain kind of constitution to be a lady of pleasure, but many are satisfied with the individualized lifestyle and the material benefits which the profession affords them and do not want to be «saved» (and then sold into servitude) by idiotic feminists and other puritanical moralists. It is the delusional careerist women who are the real whores as their total submission to a corporate hierarchy together with all of its brown-nosing and its sacrifice of individuality could not be any further from any kind of authentic freedom. At least prostitutes can work by their own schedule, travel whenever and wherever they want and live well through their profession. I suspect that many of the feminists who oppose prostitution are in reality envious that objectively more attractive women are able to use their own beauty and sex appeal for substantial personal gain (the same reason for which they also hate beauty pageants, modelling, strip clubs and trophy wives who marry wealthy men). Those same cranks are bitter that they themselves do not possess these sources of feminine power and all of the privileges which come with them.
The Ideal Characteristics of a Language
The human languages which we encounter today are products of a long course of linguistic evolution which spans a period of many centuries. Each one has been shaped by the various selective pressures of its respective history and possesses its own quirks and idiosyncrasies as a result. In light of this recognition of the evolutionary nature of all languages it would not be unreasonable to assume that some are more developed and enjoy a greater amount of beneficial characteristics than others. What are, in my opinion, the linguistic qualities representative of a truly worthy and excellent language?
1) A relatively straightforward phonology with considerable harmony. The best languages are characterized by a basic and uncomplicated vowel system, a minimum of awkward consonant clusters and largely predictable stress patterns and prove to be reasonably easy to pronounce for the majority of speakers. The reason for this is twofold: first, a relative simplicity with regard to the phonological structures of the language tends to translate into a greater level of euphony which pleases the senses and allows for a great intrinsic fluidity (for example, the pure vowels and the lesser quantity of awkward consonant clusters in Spanish and Italian render these languages considerably more phonologically harmonious than English with its frequent instances of vowel reduction or Russian with its recurrent abrasive sound combinations); second, an ease of pronunciation predisposes the language to be a suitable lingua franca to facilitate effective communication between people of varied linguistic backgrounds.
2) A high level of lexical purity. I consider it desirable that the substantial majority of the lexicon of the language derive from an extensive pool of native roots as opposed to a liberal number of foreign loanwords. While the adoption of a few lexical items of foreign origin is to some degree inevitable and there is no need for us to fall into extremes the truth is that a consistent preference for native roots in the formation of new terminology carries numerous undeniable advantages despite the modern tendency to favor a growing quantity of non-native words. First, terms formed from transparent native roots are evidently more comprehensible to the majority of people and truly resonate with the native soul unlike the many hollow and obfuscated words of lexically impure languages. Second, the relative homogeneity of the lexical source of a language is able to ensure the straightforward formation and the predictable spelling and pronunciation of new terms without excessive irregularities. Examples of languages with a high level of lexical purity include German, Latin, Greek and Sanskrit.
3) A wealth of appreciative affixes which express a broad range of subtle nuances of human perception. Some languages such as Italian, Portuguese and Spanish make use of a vast repertoire of diminutive, augmentative and opprobative suffixes which are attached to nouns, adjectives and other parts of speech in a liberal manner in order to modify slightly their original meaning and grant them greater semantic shades or otherwise form a new related term. For example, in Spanish, the suffixes -ito, -illo and -ete indicates a nuance of smallness or affection (niñito «cute little boy», perrillo «nice little dog», guapete «somewhat handsome»), the suffixes -ote and -azo indicate a nuance of largeness, great importance or intensity (brazotes «great big arms», tetazas «huge titties»), the suffixes -ucho and -ejo indicate a nuance of contempt (suelducho «stinkingly meager salary», tipejo «nasty guy») and the suffix -ón indicates the possession of said thing often with an exaggerated size or a frequent tendency (bocón «big-mouthed person», culona «big-assed female», llorón «habitual crybaby», peleón «one who has a penchant to fight»). These suffixes and many others are highly productive and allow for an almost unlimited degree of creativity. I assert that languages that possess this characteristic are objectively more refined than others that are blander and more mechanical and lack this kind of sophisticated shading and flexible derivation.
4) An ease of lexical derivation and the extensive use of compounding. Better designed languages enjoy a great derivative plasticity which allows for the generation of new terms from existing lexical items as well as the intelligent combination of two or more different roots in order to express more complex concepts in a concise and parsimonious manner. In Latin, for example, the suffix -ārium is attached to nouns and adjectives to indicate a place associated with the original meaning (aquārium «aquarium» [from aqua], caldārium «hottest room of a bathing house» [from caldus]), the suffixes -fer and -ger express a sense of «that bears» or «that produces» (aurifer «gold-bearing» [from aurum], fructiger «fruit-bearing» [from fructus]), the suffix -lentus denotes an abundance of said thing (pisculentus «full of fish» [from piscis], sanguinolentus «covered in blood» [from sanguis]) and creative compound words are frequently formed such as regicīdium «the slaying of a king; regicide» [from rēx and caedere], silvicola «inhabitant of the forest» [from silva and -cola], bellipotēns «powerful in war» [from bellum and potēns] and magnanimitās «quality of having a great soul; magnanimity» [from magnus and animus]. Likewise Classical Greek includes a vast number of synthetic constructions from which many of our present educated terms derive such as aristokratíā «aristocracy» [from áristos and krátos], philosophía «philosophy» [from phílos and sophía], polugamía «polygamy» [from polús and gámos] and eudaimoníā «condition of good spiritedness; eudaimonia» [from eu- and daímōn]. Moreover, there exist various modern neologisms which are based on Classical Greek roots such as neologism itself «newly coined word or phrase» [from néos and lógos] and dystopia «corrupt and dysfunctional state of civilization» [from dys- and tópos]. This level of neologizing hyperproductivity which makes use primarily of homegrown roots is the hallmark of a superior language.
5) A broad lexicon which expresses many precise semantic nuances. A lexically healthy language will include a good selection of near-synonyms but only those that represent meaningful differences of semantic shading. For example, woman and wife as well as beautiful and gorgeous are relevant near-synonyms since in the first case woman is a general concept which may refer to any feminine human being whereas wife indicates specifically a woman married to a man and in the second case the two terms are differentiated in the degree of their intensity. On the other hand, there is no real semantic distinction between the synonyms yearly vs. annual, brotherly vs. fraternal, wrath vs. ire, friendly vs. amicable, hearty vs. cordial, hopelessness vs. despair and to better vs. to ameliorate. The first of each one of these doublets is a native word formed from Germanic roots whereas the second is simply a Latinism of identical meaning adopted into the language's lexicon in a superfluous manner. These kinds of redundant synonyms are nothing more than unwanted «bloatware» and should not exist abundantly in an ideal language. My ideal with regard to the lexical makeup of a language combines expressivity and efficiency.
6) A moderate level of morphological complexity. For me, it is better for a language to possess a rather regular grammar and inflectional paradigms that are neither excessively convoluted nor excessively simplistic. Grammatical gender and noun-adjective agreement between gender and number may afford the language certain rhythmic euphony and a greater variety of sound patterns and verb conjugations for person and for tense may serve to eliminate many sources of ambiguity and express a greater number of nuances. However, a paradigm of declension that is overly elaborate and full of irregularities or an excess of verbal tenses and moods will only serve to complicate a language and make difficult its acquisition and its correct use.
7) A small number of homophones and overlapping forms. An ideal language would have very few words with the same sound but with different meanings so as to avoid confusion. Its architects could induce slight phonetic changes in the most recurrent homophones in a deliberate manner for the purpose of differentiating between them. Likewise, an ideal language would have very few conjugated forms that have the same appearance and pronunciation but divergent functions. Examples of these overlapping forms include the plural form of neuter nouns in Latin which typically ends in -a (e.g., atria [from atrium], bella [from bellum]) and thereby resembles the most common ending for the singular form of feminine nouns which is also -a (e.g., fēmina, puella), as well as the identical form between the simple past and the past participle of a great number of verbs (I solved vs. a solved problem) and then the verbal noun and the present participle (a calling vs. the calling voice) in English.
Some languages are more suitable than others. That is an undeniable truth. Languages which enjoy an extremely broad lexical pool that has been cultivated throughout many centuries of intense cultural development and make use of a high level of creative plasticity for the formation of ever more precise terms and a great number of prefixes and suffixes that express various subtle nuances of our thought are objectively more evolved than more primitive languages which have poorer lexicons and less derivative capacity. Any kind of excellence is unequal by definition. Nevertheless, the evolution of languages is by no means static and all languages have their potential for further refinement. The architects of culture should intervene in the evolution of existing languages from time to time and give them minor tweaks in order to maximize their beneficial aspects and amend their defective aspects. Our ultimate goal should be the creation of a perfected planetary language.
Individualism, Collectivism and Free-Spiritedness
The popular dichotomy of individualism-collectivism is nothing more than an illusory construct. Paradoxically many of the so-called «collectivistic» societies prove to enjoy considerably more individual freedom than the so-called «individualistic» societies of the Western world. The truth is that the degree of individuality that is permitted in each culture depends more greatly on another factor which is a lot more fundamental than this artificial dichotomy: a comparative scale of free-spiritedness vs. moralism.
There may exist the following kinds of societies:
1. Individualistic and moralistic
2. Individualistic and free-spirited
3. Collectivistic and moralistic
4. Collectivistic and free-spirited
The archetypal example of an individualistic and moralistic society is without doubt the Anglo-Saxon world which comprises the United Kingdom, the United States of America and other English-speaking countries. These cultures are individualistic in the sense that they emphasize the pursuit of personal profit rather than mutual cooperation and are characterized by weak familial and community ties and little social cohesion and are moralistic due to their historical puritan ethos, their strict social rules, their high level of conformity and their tendency to shame or ostracize those who do not fit into their one vision of the world. Individuals who think and act differently or see the world in another light will be labelled as «strange» and made into the object of mockery. This is not surprising given that Anglo-Saxon societies are industrial cultures where everybody is expected to fall in line and perform a determined function. The truth is that the supposed «freedom» of individualistic societies is nothing more than the «freedom» to be a good homo economicus in their rat race of atomized workers for the benefit of powerful corporate entities. Any authentic manifestation of individuality that does not correspond with established values will be repressed. It is no coincidence that Anglo-Saxon societies tend to be characterized by a high level of hypocrisy and a plethora of cultural neuroses.
Examples of collectivistic and moralistic societies include the Islamic world, East Asian cultures and continental Germanic nations. All of these diverse cultures are collectivistic in the sense that they emphasize the importance of community rather than the will of the individual and favor mutual cooperation and integration into a broader collective and are moralistic since they subject their members to a set of defined social mores as a condition of their membership. Muslim communities are tightly knit and the people help out one and another but there is no tolerance for individuals who dare to question the fundamental tenets of the Islamic worldview or lead a lifestyle that contradicts its established morality. There is no place in this kind of society for people of Pagan beliefs, apostates of the faith, homosexuals or transsexuals. East Asian cultures such as China and Japan promote a strong collective identity and demand the sacrifice of all individuals for the benefit of a greater all. Each personal unit only exists as a subordinate part of a nation, a society or a company. The broader collective is defined by certain unquestionable social rules by which all members are required to abide. Nonconformists will be shamed or subtlely alienated for their nonconformity. Continental Germanic societies are considerably more collectivistic than their bizarre Anglo-Saxon cousin with their more socialistic outlook but at the same time are full of the same moralistic neuroses because of their shared Protestant past. Our sense of guilt plays a central role in these cultures. Those who break detailed rules or do not share the correct beliefs of the community will be vilified as «immoral». These days continental Germanic societies tend to be more liberal than before with regard to social issues. Nevertheless, the same moralism and the same witch hunt mentality remain this time in a different form. There is no other part of the world where political correctness and the dogmatic ideologies of cultural marxism are so deeply rooted.
Examples of collectivistic and free-spirited societies include the various indigenous tribes and certain South East Asian cultures such as Thailand and the Philippines. These peoples value enormously family and broader community given that this kind of cooperative spirit is often necessary for material survival in their unfavorable economic situations but still they are not subjected to a large quantity of artificial moral notions by virtue of being «pre-Western» cultures so to speak. Many indigenous tribes and the Buddhist nation of Thailand have never been infected by the moral authoritarianism of the monotheistic religions and the Philippine people have managed to preserve to a great extent their original mentality of free-spiritedness despite centuries of Catholicism. In these societies there is no kind of guilt or shame associated with sexuality and it is very common to see effeminate homosexuals and extremely flamboyant ladyboys walking freely through all of the streets without anybody saying anything to them. People who are different are afforded their place in the world without others attempting to criticize them or shame them for their unorthodox way of life. These cultures are considerably collectivistic by Western standards yet ironically one will find in them a higher level of authentic freedom and widespread tolerance for the natural idiosyncrasies of people. They enjoy both a great cohesion of the community and a beautiful attitude of free-spiritedness.
And what about individualistic and free-spirited societies (the second kind in the list)? I suppose that this kind of setting is theoretically possible but I am unable to think of any concrete example in this present world. Absolute «individualism» proves to be little more than a delusion limited largely to the Anglo-Saxon world and, as we have seen, its industrial ethos only serves to atomize the individuals of a community and force them to become the same unvarying economic automaton, which inevitably precludes the emergence of any value system based on authentic free-spiritedness. Anglo-Saxon societies are among the least free if we define freedom as the capacity to be oneself without being marginalized for our idiosyncrasies and our different way of life despite purporting to be the greatest representation of freedom and democracy.
The Mystery of the North American Indians
Why is it that the indigenous tribes of the continent of North America had not developed an advanced civilization by the time of the arrival of the European explorers? Many racists of a colonialist mindset asserted and continue to assert that the Indians were savages of lower intelligence and that it was for that reason that they continued to live in primitive tents and chase wild beasts on the Great Plains but their explanation contains a glaring hole. The indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica which were races closely related to their neighbors to the north had built some extraordinary civilizations only a few centuries before and even some North American tribes such as the mysterious Anasazi came to establish sedentary settlements based on agriculture and erect enormous urban complexes made of carved stone. They were not savages by nature or less capable at all. Then what was it that happened to them? I theorize that those noble natives had seen something horrifying taking place in the hierarchically organized societies of their previous environment and because of that chose to lead a more primitive life in later centuries. Perhaps they witnessed the emergence of a condition of unworthy serfdom under the rule of corrupt and power-hungry tyrants and in the end opted for an existence of greater freedom as simple hunter-gatherers throughout the vast lands of the continent. I for one admit that I find great beauty in that idyllic lifestyle of teepees, hunting, fishing and entheogenic ceremonies. It would surely be a hundred times better than any industrial dystopia such as that of Modern Europe. This fugitivist explanation is only a hypothesis of mine but I believe that it offers a logical reason for which they apparently did not advance culturally.
Right-Wing «Libertarianism» and Moralism
Right-wing «libertarians», whose cheap and poorly thought out ideology is nothing more than a blatant defense of capitalist hegemony and unlimited corporate power (i.e., the freedom of the ultra-wealthy to exploit and oppress the poor with impunity), often purport to be opposed to all forms of moralism since these are invariably hostile to the freedom of the individual. They like to imagine that they themselves are somehow radically different from traditional conservatives and the leftists whom they so vehemently denounce as moralistic due to their collectivistic ingroup-outgroup conception of human society or their frequent appeal to spurious metaphysical ideals detached from the natural world. However, the uncomfortable truth is that virtually all of these dishonest pseudo-libertarians are in actual fact absolutely moralistic at the core no matter how edgy and amoral they consider themselves just because they believe that all drugs and prostitution should be legal.
Right-wing «libertarians», far from being anti-moralists and objective realists, unanimously believe in the so-called «non-aggression principle» (when it suits their own status quo) and support the notion that people must «earn a living» through constant toil within the market of the capitalist masters. We true libertarians, on the other hand, do not believe in these baseless moralistic ideals of the ideological right.
First, we recognize violence as a legitimate recourse against oppression and coercion (including that of the systemic kind) and consider that the exploited proletarians should initiate a violent struggle against those who have privatized the greater part of vital resources and force a large part of the have-nots into dehumanizing forms of wage slavery in the face of the threat of poverty. People have no reason to agree to sacrifice their own individuality and their own lives for imaginary concepts such as private propèrty or any supposed moral duty of non-violence. The capitalist class' demonization of any form of aggressive retaliation on the part of the oppressed and the coerced is simply an attempt to dissuade potential acts of insurgency through moral conditioning and maintain its own monopoly on (legalized) violence.
Second, we understand that «work» in the sense of wage-based employment or a 40 hour workweek necessitated by external systemic factors is the true greatest affront to individual freedom (not state authority or taxes or anti-drug laws or any other libertarian side issue) and that any notion of relentless industry as a requisite for the justification of one's own existence in society is nothing more than an artificial value limited to certain cultures and epochs. Our philosophy is much more honest. Not only does it view work as a necessary evil to be reduced to an absolute minimum (i.e., something undesirable) but it also proposes its deliberate minimization through widespread systems of technological automation within the context of community-owned public commons. Such is the basis of a truly free society.
Right-wing «libertarians», like traditional conservatives, are proponents of selective moralism. They make out that their own ingroup (i.e., the ultra-wealthy, the capitalists, the corporate elites, et cetera) is exempt from moral constraints yet at the same time are happy to impose moral absolutes upon the exploited and the coerced. This hypocrisy of theirs is often intentional. Radical leftists such as anarchists and libertarian socialists recognize the subjectivity of the moral values of the rightist worldview and are willing to question whether they are actually beneficial to the greater part of people. In this regard radical leftists are generally smarter and more discerning than rightists who like to present their own ideals as though they were objective, absolute or even «natural law». Right-wing «libertarians» are phonies because they are only opposed to state tyranny while supporting the coercion and the economic enslavement of a large part of the population at the hands of capitalists and vast corporate empires. We true libertarians, on the other hand, are opposed to both state totalitarianism and the exploitative capitalist system.
Rightism and its Mindless Justification of Economic Servitude
Conservatives will often make the glib assertion that employees are not slaves regardless of how dissatisfied they feel because of the simple fact that they are being paid for their labor. They believe that the factor of a wage qualifies the arrangement as non-slavery. However, the exploited and alienated employees who have to perform the same monotonous and mind-numbing tasks in a depressing warehouse or a humiliating office cubicle for the greater part of their waking hours each day in exchange for basic subsistence do not care about these arbitrary definitions of others. The fact is that many of them perceive their own work or even the notion of employment itself as enslaving, degrading, alienating and suffocating despite their monthly paycheck and understand too well that the constant need for a wage (i.e., money itself) is a powerful medium of coercion. I repeat once again: conservatives are utterly unable to fathom that their own moral values are merely subjective assuming them to be objective and absolute. This is either proof of their unbelievable stupidity and solipsism or their blatant dishonesty and willingness to insult our intelligence.
Active Anti-Violence: The Way of the Just
Real men do not «turn the other cheek» or allow ourselves to be mistreated or oppressed. We go to war and seek to bring down and humiliate those who attempt to insult us or abuse us. Any attitude of passive non-violence is nothing more than an ideology of victims and a creed of slaves. Only a honorable stance of active anti-violence (i.e., a martial mindset and a willingness to defend ourselves or retaliate) is able to put an end to a situation of tyranny and oppression and restore justice and a condition of freedom. Christianity is nothing more than a despicable slave religion. Its ilk has been engineered to encourage the mistreated and the oppressed to accept passively their own condition of victimhood at the hands of vicious tyrants and oppressors.
Political Correctness as a Driving Force of Social Disintegration
Political correctness is at the height of its force and yet our societies are more divided, prejudiced, cliquish and hateful than ever. The purpose of this ideology has never been to unite or promote social justice but rather to separate and increase social hostilities.
The Uncritical Conventionalist and his Intellectual Mediocrity
It is so easy to be a supporter of the dominant mode of thought of society. The great majority will always favor your amateurish arguments just because you appeal to «popular opinion» or established notions of «common sense». They will never subject your simplistic assertions to the same degree of critical scrutiny as they do with any form of unconventional thought no matter how much the opinions that you present lack intellectual rigor or substance. It is so easy when practically all of your intellectually lazy remarks will be taken as fact just because they conveniently reflect the prevailing orthodoxy.
Inclusivity and Exclusivity
It is widely known that the social life of Anglophone societies such as America and the United Kingdom is extremely cliquish and exclusive. Those who do not conform to certain narrow patterns of behavior and thought are inevitably rejected as «freaks» and «misfits» and forced to the margins of society. Some conformists with whom I have debated this topic have argued that Anglophone societies have an excellent social life and that if some people are unable to fit in it is because they suffer from some kind of autism; however, for me this is certainly not the mark of a healthy society. A truly healthy society is highly inclusive and seeks to accommodate many kinds of individual differences including those of non-neurotypicals. Everybody has their own recognized place as long as they are respectful to others. But Anglophone societies are not healthy. They constitute a hotbed of exclusivity and all kinds of neuroticism.
Actual Beauty and Potential Beauty
The physical appearance of each human being is largely determined by our genes. Some people inherit natural features that favor a high degree of beauty such as neoteny in women and an angular jawline and highly masculinized body in men whereas other people are born with much poorer natural endowments and therefore deviate greatly from ideal standards of beauty. This is simply a fact that we must accept. However, as with many other aspects of life, here there is a clear distinction between actuality and potentiality. Actual beauty has potential for improvement. We can always make something greater out of what we already possess. The most important factor of both masculine and feminine beauty lies, in my opinion, in the condition of the musculature of the person. Fortunately for most people this is one of the easiest things to change. A lifestyle of gym, healthy living and athletic activities can seriously improve one's beauty even in a relatively short time frame. Scrawny men can bulk up or increase muscular definition through weight training. Overweight women can slim down through aerobics and good nutrition. Even women without the desirable hourglass figure have the possibility to develop an attractive feminine shape through heavy squats and other exercises aimed at the hypertrophy of the hips and the glutes. Esthetic surgeries may also help to improve the physical appearance of some people although they should be used responsibly. A moderate amount of surgical modification often serves to correct certain imperfections or accentuate certain features and thereby approximate the body to its ideal form; however, an excess thereof tends to produce only the opposite effect taking the body away from a previous state of relative perfection. It must be understood that concern for one's own physical appearance is not necessarily the same thing as vanity. Beauty is a quality conducive to eudaimonia in this life and the desire to conserve it or enhance it is characteristically aristocratic.
People and Levels of Intellectual Quality
There is undeniably a great degree of variation in the intellectual quality of human beings. The hierarchy of excellence is pyramidal. There are multiple ascending levels to this variable. Everything is evolutive. At the bottom of the pyramid there are those who are totally materially inclined and unintellectual, that is to say, the consummate boors and philistines. Above them in the middle of the scale there are those who are characterized by basic intellectual interests and a developed yet also rather mechanical form of cognition and then at the higher echelons of the pyramid there are the true philosophers and the noble souls of unusual intellectual sensitivity. These disparate levels are probably intimately related to the present level of consciousness of one's soul.
The solely materialistic and unintellectual types are akin to the hyletics or somatics of the Gnostic philosophical tradition. They are concerned with only the basest and most mundane material subjects and activities such as the pursuit of wealth and status, hedonistic revelry and simple forms of entertainment. They have little desire for anything of an intellectual nature and prefer to keep to the most commonplace topics of conversation. This kind of person is typically into the nonstop party lifestyle and the purely carnal pleasures of life. His taste of music is exclusively some variety of shallow and unsophisticated pop music or rap music with simple lyrics about money, fun, excitement and romance/sex. If he has a hobby it is something totally earthly such as the appreciation of expensive sports cars or the spectation of professional sports or reality television shows. If he were to write a blog it would be primarily about something thoroughly trivial such as the local nightlife, pop culture, cuisine or fashion. Of deep and abstract thought he has virtually nothing.
The common intellectual types are somewhat more psychic (i.e., mentally inclined) than the previous type if we are to use the same Gnostic language as before. They have a greater propensity for the more scholarly and complex areas of reality albeit still of a somewhat mundane and ordinary nature. These include things such as politics, social sciences, history, popular literature, linguistics and natural sciences among many others. This kind of person is the typical professional academic, researcher, journalist, expert or intellectual enthusiast. He is often specialized in one particular area and educated in a specific academic paradigm. Nevertheless, his genus is still very much banausic and utilitarian, a conventional follower of existing trends, a mediocre thinker of little originality, considerably bourgeois in his mindset. It is this kind of relative simplicity of thought and academic specialization that often make him particularly suited to the investigation of simple intellectual and scientific concepts of a more mechanical essence which would likely be perceived as too banal by the more deeply philosophical types. The common intellectual types will often produce quite indepth and coherent analyses of a given usual academic topic but they will rarely ever penetrate into the deeper levels of ideas or originate anything truly unique.
The true philosophers and the noble souls of unusual intellectual sensitivity are of a spiritual nature far superior to that of both the purely hyletic types and the common intellectual types. Some may even possess strong pneumatic qualities. These rare specimens of the human race are remarkable thinkers of great originality who critically examine even the most sacred values and assumptions of society and penetrate into the deepest depths of the intellectual realm and blend together in a natural and almost seamless manner concepts of philosophy, social criticism, science, the arts, futurology, mythology and even esoterism. They are heterodox architects of thought. They differ from the common intellectual types in that they are not followers of fashions but rather distinguished creators of values. This peculiar trait is what differentiates a true philosopher from a regular intellectual or a mere scientist. Higher aristocratic minds are always greatly idealistic and broad-sighted and never banausic or utilitarian. In this regard they are not particularly suited to the somewhat vulgar and mechanical pursuits of regular academia or the natural sciences. This kind of soul is more suited to loftier philosophical and artistic pursuits and constitutes a natural member of the governing class (establisher of values, architect of culture and designer of civilizations) in a healthy, aristocratically organized society. The common intellectual types are simply subordinate workers for his more noble causes.
The Temple of Beauty
Let us suppose that a man discovers a natural cave while trekking through the depths of the jungle. The natural structure might be interesting to explore at first due to its secluded character but its exploration soon becomes rather boring since it is ultimately nothing more than a plain and undecorated formation of the Earth no matter how deep or mysterious it might seem. Then days later that same man this time discovers a sumptuous temple of carved stone and intricate design abandoned long ago by an unknown civilization. He goes inside the artificial structure through the entrance door and begins to explore all of its mysteries. The sumptuous temple is much more interesting than the natural cave due to its many impressive artistic features and its great architectural sublimity. Its great hallways and its magnificent statues and altars awe the senses. Its beautiful structural patterns fascinate the soul. Its enigmatic inscriptions arouse curiosity and capture the imagination. One can explore it for weeks or even months without ever becoming bored. The fundamental essence of civilization itself is to take that which is natural and transform it into something more refined, more beautiful, more convivial and more noble. In this regard many things of an artificial character prove to be considerably better than many of the crude conditions of pure nature.
The Inequality of Opinions and the Inviability (and the Undesirability) of Mutual Tolerance
I readily admit that I do not necessarily respect the opinions or the values of others despite the popular belief that we all should do so. That is not to say that I will not ever respect an insightful and well thought out opinion or observation of somebody of a differing viewpoint (I most certainly do respect many authors of philosophical persuasions which depart from my own simply because their ideas are so lucid and interesting and warrant serious intellectual consideration); however, most people have for opinions only hackneyed notions characterized by an obvious sentimentality and sheer solipsism and more often than not those so-called opinions are not even truly their own consisting of nothing more than vague stock ideas which certain elements of society and the mass media have told them to believe. Evidence for this is the fact that the greater part of the herdlings of society are totally unable to substantiate their own viewpoints with logical arguments or defend them adequately in the face of critical scrutiny and will simply appeal to popular opinion or become emotional or confrontational whenever their simplistic understanding of the world is questioned or opposed. Those same people often demand respect for their own opinions and values but unfortunately in practice that sought respect is only applied to the narrow and largely unyielding viewpoint of the mainstream. Ideas that fall outside of the limits of established orthodoxy will typically be dismissed in a cavalier fashion or subjected to the most unforgiving ridicule. In light of these things we have no reason to respect the opinions of all as though they were all equal. We must discriminate between opinions worthy of consideration and those which are mindless or unfounded or even destructive*. Forget about all of the false tolerance of modern liberal society and especially that of the hypocritically one-sided variety**. Not all people are proficient thinkers (many are severely unintellectual and lack any kind of critical thinking or breadth of knowledge). Not all opinions automatically deserve respect regardless of their relative popularity.
*I personally refuse to respect the opinions of those who believe that people should be obligated to toil on end in exchange for a «living» despite the evident liberatory potential of technological automation (i.e., moralization of work) or support forms of animal cruelty or advocate the oppression of other human beings on racial or sexual grounds. I consider that such people are my ideological enemies and I will not recognize their perverse views as worthy of respect.
**The notion of tolerance itself is often used by those who wish to impose a single viewpoint or mode of thought for the simple reason that it effectively neutralizes all serious opposition to the status quo rendering its doctrines unassailable (any substantial attack against hegemonic values would be an act of intolerance, would it not?). I do not care for this kind of nonsense of Western liberalism. I advocate an attitude of absolute intolerance towards all forms of oppression, cruelty, enslaving values and arrangements of systemic coercion. Resistance is incompatible with universal tolerance.
The Academic Left and its Indirect Support of Corporate Capitalism
It is evident that the bulk of the current ideological left which enjoys a prominent role in postmodern academia is simply a form of controlled opposition within the corporate capitalist establishment. If that were not the case its people would not be permitted to operate in the major universities and research institutes since these are largely controlled by the corporate elite itself (as are many national governments and the greater part of the mass media). The ideologies which are associated with the current ideological left no longer overtly promote a revolutionary overturning of the status quo of political power like the radical leftists of the past. They overwhelmingly prefer government intervention and gradual social change in the context of the existing paradigm. Their proponents generally do not oppose the current situation of economic servitude within the capitalist system or denounce the tyranny of work itself which is by far the worst form of oppression and the greatest affront to individual freedom. Rather they exclusively address more peripheral forms of oppression and social injustice and advocate equal employment opportunities for women and minorities and full incorporation into the corporate workforce (we on the other hand oppose the modern notion of employment as well as the almost omnipresent control of vital resources by large corporations and advocate the minimization of work through generalized technological automation in the context of futuristic systems of direct communal production and the subsequent introduction of a universalized post-work lifestyle in which all people are free from constant toil). Finally, none of these academic leftists will ever criticize Zionism or expose the undeniable Zionist influence in banking, politics, big business and the mass media. They are only willing to attack accepted enemies as per the established paradigm of politically correct thought and blame them for all of the ills (either real or perceived) of Western Civilization. The current ideological left is a creation of the corporate elite. It only serves to preserve the status quo while claiming to fight against it.
Postmodernity: The Path towards the Monolithic Thought and the One Vision
Postmodernity may be seen as a condition of modernity in crisis, modernity taken to its logical extreme or a kind of ultra-modernity. It is characteristically atelic (without defined goals or specific ends), autopian (without utopian aspirations or higher ideals) and anaxiological (without stable values or universals). Most scholars accept that the postmodern condition began at around the midway point of the 20th century. Postmodernity abandons all sense of historicity and the modern notion of «progress» itself. There are no longer commonly accepted goals or collective ambitions. There are few flourishing social trends that truly diverge from the status quo. It is as though humanity has reached the endpoint of history* and all that is left is the individual and his own personal pursuits. In conjunction with this perception of atelicity, postmodernity subsequently relinquishes all previous visions of utopia and even the utopian spirit itself. The Marxist projects of the Eastern bloc evidently failed. National socialism ended in total disaster. Western liberal democracy is held to be the only viable form of economic and political order and its globalization is now seen as inevitable. Finally, in the wake of its perceived epistemological crisis, postmodernity experiences a distinctive breakdown of all previously recognized cultural values as well as all notions of truth or objective reality. It is supposed that everything is subjective. A sense of relativism becomes the norm at least in theory (but not necessarily in practice). This same relativism even extends to the realm of esthetics and gives rise to the anti-esthetics of so-called postmodern «art». In this conceived postmodern age without direction, utopianism or the possibility of objective value judgments it is argued that consumption within the capitalist market and the related pursuit of hedonism become the only logical manner of self-actualization. The postmodern vision is simply a homogenous globalized world of rootless, unidealistic and uncritical worker bees dedicated almost exclusively to trade and industry and in search of little more than material acquisition and fleeting moments of escapism. The assumptions and conclusions of the postmodern paradigm, as we may observe, prove to be conveniently identical to the economic and political interests of the corporate elite which has always sought to reengineer all facets of society for its own benefit. The ultimate outcome of the much discussed relativism of postmodernity is none other than the progressive reinforcement of the pensée unique (single thought) or the acritical non-thought of the neoliberal worldview since if all value judgments are exclusively relative then so are any criticisms of the hegemonic system as well as any alternative ideas. Ironically the same relativistic skepticism is never seriously applied to the prevailing orthodoxy of neoliberalism itself and any intellectual opposition to its established values will typically be met with ridicule and condemnation.
*The idea that we have reached the final developmental stage of history is most notably expressed in «The End of History and the Last Man» (1992) by American political theorist Francis Fukuyama who argues that the present neoliberal order constitutes the final form of government and economic system and then concludes that there can be no further progression from this status quo to an alternative system. I have always wondered about the title of this book and its reference to the «Last Man». Could this be a subtle allusion to the negative ideal of the «Last Man» (Letzter Mensch) as a possible response to modernity's problem of nihilism as predicted by Nietzsche more than a century ago?
A Critique of Nietzsche's Critique of Metaphysical Idealism (Nietzschean False Dichotomy)
Nietzsche denounced the ontological perspective of metaphysical idealism in general and that of Plato in particular. He argued that all conceptions of this world as a derivative or a subsequent reflection of a more fundamental reality of ideas or mental substance or pure «spirit» constitute an attempt of the weak and the defective—those who despise the actual conditions of their own lives and often even life itself—to make of the real world an ephemeral illusion and deny its importance in favor of a fantasy world which becomes more important than the reality of material existence. For Nietzsche, it is through this negation of the real world and the successive condemnation of the life-affirming values of strong worldly men that the sickly priest of the otherworldly religions attempts to assume his own power and exercise his will over others and, as such, spirituality (i.e., belief in a mental or idealistic origin of the world) becomes antithetical to the instinct of the «will to power» of the sound aristocratic types.
My own vitalistic philosophy, on the other hand, observes no intrinsic contradiction between metaphysical idealism or a spiritual conception of reality and the powerful driving principle of vital expansion which Nietzsche so highly valued. I consider that any alleged contradiction is nothing more than a false dichotomy. While it is true that the paradisiacal religions of which Christianity is the most notable have generally served to subject their followers to the will of corrupt priestly classes and manipulate their psyche through promises of «heaven» and threats of «divine judgment» and «hell» at the end of time and continue to produce a sort of otherworldly nihilism in the tired and the dissatisfied, my own «Consciencialist Idealism» asserts that physical reality has emerged specifically for the evolution of consciousness or our individual souls through a plurality of material incarnations and that all of the experiences that we live within the constraints of materiality are essential for our development and allow us to reach higher levels of being. Unlike the anti-material creeds of «sin» and «redemption», this particular variety of metaphysical idealism regards each incarnate life in this world of dense matter as an opportunity for further growth through constant struggles and instances of self-overcoming (a deeply Nietzschean concept) and, as a consequence, such a doctrine of «reincarnative evolution» characteristic of a more elevated genre of spirituality proves to be not only totally congruent with the aristocratic spirit but also conducive to its cultivation. Indeed, my own interpretation situates this conceived reincarnative reality as the true underlying basis of the worldly instinct of the «will to power».
Individualism and the Zionist Infiltration of Society
The individualism of bourgeois liberalism which has been so mindlessly extolled in the Anglo-Saxon world since the time of the «Enlightenment» and exported to many other regions of the planet in the wake of increased globalization has undeniably served to fragment our communities and render them susceptible to the domination of heartless scoundrels who only wish to enslave and exploit. Its cold and ruthless rat race for individual material gain usually at the expense of others and without any consideration for the wellbeing of the broader society inevitably atomizes all people and pits man against man, woman against woman and eventually woman against man. It is this same individualistic atomization of our communities under «free market» capitalism that has allowed the Jewish elite to assume an inordinate amount of economic and political power and subject almost all of our population to its financial tyranny. While the atomized Gentiles compete against one and another in fierce struggles for economic survival and sheer self-interest the Zionist tribe which is extremely tribalistic cooperates with its own kind and conspires to establish its own overwhelming oligarchies in finance and business as well as in the political establishment and the mass media. Our enemy is always able to outmaneuver us through its strong ingroup cooperation and its frequent exploitation of our lack of real community cohesion. Individualism has been the cause of our downfall. It has divided us in the name of a false ideal of freedom and made us much easier to subjugate. The truth is that the Jews are unable to infiltrate and control our societies to any significant degree when we adopt a more communitarian ethos as was the case in the premodern societies of yore. It was only with the later proliferation of the repulsive English ideology of liberalism that the Zionist tribe was able to conquer the world silently and subjugate the nations through usury and financial speculation. The neoliberal world of today dominated by untouchable central banks and multinational corporate entities and populated by legions of rootless and unthinking worker bees and consumers who live only to pursue a livelihood and fleeting moments of vulgar entertainment and possess no higher ideals or deeper spiritual aspirations is the manifestation of Zion or the «New World Order». The Jewish elite which occupies the highest level of the pyramid of control is the priestly caste and the chief herders whereas the toiling «goyim» who live at the mercy of their cruel financial systems and passively obey their laws and customs are their herd and their slaves. This is the nefarious situation which is predicted in the prophecy books of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Isaiah 60:9-14) and then later promoted in the obscene talmudic literature. It is important to understand that the whole eschatological vision of the Jewish religion is nothing more than a conspiratorial blueprint for the eventual Zionist subjugation of the Gentile nations. This is an ideal to which the Jewish elite has aspired for a long time and it has finally begun to materialize in the modern age with the rise of political Zionism and the Jewish domination of finance. But isn't the Zionist agenda one of Gentile enslavement under communism? While it is indeed true that Marxism is a Jewish ideology and a large part of the Bolsheviks who led the Russian revolution were Jews, communism which is in reality a form of state corporatism is simply a secondary ideology or a false antithesis which the Zionists have used in conjunction with their established capitalist financial system for the destruction and the subjugation of certain peoples (especially those with stronger ties to the old regimes). Ideologies themselves do not matter to the Zionists. They are merely tools engineered for more hidden ends. Communism itself would soon outlive its usefulness. Today it is none other than neoliberalism with its cutthroat individualism and its private corporatism that is the dominant economic and political order through which the Jewish elite controls the world. As a matter of fact in most countries this same order is the only game in town.