Sometimes it rains, sometimes it pours. These have trickled in for some time, and needed attention, so here are some brief responses. With these, it almost seems fairest to allow the letters themselves to do most of the talking, since at this point a few words of re-direction are all that's needed to reference what part of the philosophies expressed on this site address the ideas in question.
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Omar Sharif
Subject: constructive response to your writings
Hello! I have been an avid reader of your website for some time now, and agree with much of what you say (while disagreeing with some). I thought I'd share my thoughts with you, and since you seem to be a reasonable thinker, to point you to some literature that I have found rather helpful. Helpful, not simply informative, because one should not read simply to burden the mind with useless thoughts.
I appreciate the maturity of your attitude towards society, uncommon for many "radical thinkers," vis a vis your acceptance that while all people are different, we can tolerate those differences while structuring society in such a way as to minimize the risk of being destroyed by those who are less advanced (for lack of a better word), without necessarily killing them. To paraphrase a favorite author of mine, fraternity is one thing while equality is quite another, and to assume that both are necessary for a healthy society would be a mistake.
Further, I share your idea that nihilism is an excellent method with which to understand the world. However, if one professes to hold this view, one must carry it to its logical conclusion -- a sentiment shared by every true religion in the world. Consider this carefully.
One issue in which I feel you are incorrect is your classification of religion. Ultimately, you are right when you discuss religion (namely, Christianity and Judaism) in the mainstream, acting as an opiate that distracts the majority of the populace from the hard facts of life, while imparting certain values that may not lend themselves to a healthy society. However, these have more to do with the interpretations of certain ideas rather than the ideas themselves. This, of course, was well known by the founders of these religions, who were conscious of the fact that words are a very poor method of conveying the truths they wished to make known, a concept which is beyond the cognition of most.
Convert a savage to Christianity and you convert Christianity to savagery, as Bernard Shaw said, and this is an adequate description of what happens to the words of the Great Teachers when the primitive masses interpret them. Jesus said something to the same effect: cast not thine pears before swine, which quite adequately describes the fact that the way of life he described was not meant for all men, as the majority of "his religion's" current exponents would have us all believe.
Perhaps you would like to know what these truths are, but I am afraid that it cannot be found in words or books: these tools can only point the way. Julius Evola's adherents love the idea of restoring the old monarchies, but tend to ignore the passages in which he describes the Egyptian pharaoh not as simply a great and wise leader, but as Ra, the Sun God himself, endowed with the mysterious quality of "spirit" beyond that of mortal men. Between mainstream religion, so easily expressed in words, and esoteric truth lies an unbridgeable gap.
A word about the ancient religions: they were certainly not constructed to give the same truth to all. Thus the common Jews, who generally held no leadership roles and were usually very simple-minded, would accept the exoteric laws of the Torah literally, and trust that there was a personal God looking out for them. Those who held the leadership roles, alternatingly prophets, priests, and kings, were those who understood the esoteric symbolism veiled behind the Torah's words, but not in an intellectual sense. The truth is not composed of secret words, but of spirit, the most misunderstood of Tradition's ideals. Of course, nowadays exoteric has become "all there is," and the advanced practices of the Western religions are lost to time and social decay.
To put it plainly, your attacks center on a straw man, a vision of religion encased in words and simplistic symbols and rules, that was never meant for spiritually advanced people, as it is very much an unfinished work meant simply to provide guidelines for the common folk and allow them to slowly advance spiritually. Reasonable, advanced men reject such childish notions of personal Gods and fables, and rightly so, because such men were intended to receive a higher truth.
The ultimate question: How does one find this truth? An idea of it may be gleaned from certain, "esoteric"-leaning Indian works such as Ellam Ondre (freely available online), but no true search can end with a verbal conception. (And here I must point out that the same truths found, hidden, in the Western religions are described more plainly in the Eastern. However, they are no different.) The best manual I have found, pointing the way for myself and others that are dissatisfied with this finite world and wish to reach something beyond it, here and now, is Concentration, by Mouni Sadhu. Unfortunately (for some), it will not fill your head with pleasing conceptions of different Gods to be worshipped and items of ritual to be acquired, nor will it attempt to satisfy the ego of the reader by explaining to him that he knows all that needs to be known, and thus he must simply be satisfied with what he observes, for that is "all there is." Further, any verbal "secrets" or "rituals" that, once duly memorized, will grant the reader great powers, are not to be found here.
No, it outlines some historical matters for thought, and more importantly mental exercises for the training of the mind to reach the higher states. These can take years to master (Being in the process, I can attest). Hard work, effort, and toil are the only ways to reach the goal. Aside from Concentration itself, Sadhu has written several other works that are of great interest, namely In Days of Great Peace and Samadhi. However, these are less vital. Also, much of his work is based on the time he spent with the great sage Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, one of the greatest exponents of Advaita Vedanta to have ever lived. An exploration of his teachings may be fruitful, but in truth they are too incomprehensible for most.
I do not desire a response from you, although I do not mind if you wish to send one. I simply wished to make something known to you that I believe you may benefit from. Perhaps you will say, "Writer, I am satisfied with my conceptions of what religion is, and desire not to understand the matter any more fully." If so, delete this message and forget what you have read.
If not, I encourage you to consider the matter…advanced men have the potential to accomplish much, but very little time in which to do it.
A fellow traveller
While there is much truth to what you say, I'm going to defend my position with this: no two faiths are equal, as expressed, and whatever the intention behind them originally was, I will deal with them as a doctrine in the current world, as that doctrine more than anything else presides over the exoteric vs esoteric debate. I don't believe one can pick a religion as one might a product on a shelf, but I think one can identify the philosophical shape of a religion and avoid it if it's incompatible. For example, I'm not convinced there were any profound thinkers in Judaism except by accident; historically, Judaism is a misinterpretation of Greek ideals. Even further, it's from an alien culture, so I see no need to even explore it.
As you know, I'm more liberal on Christianity and Buddhism, but I see them as having some fundamental errors too. I prefer the scientific religions, such as Advaita Vedanta, where the esoterism itself becomes center stage as immersion in the religion requires a series of initiatic steps. There is no hiding the truth behind words designed to pacify the crowd; the crowd is expected to checkmark "Spiritual, but not religious" on their personal ads and leave it at that. I like the idea of distilling religion to concentration and a study of cosmic form. This is the most honest approach, and one that doesn't try to include untermenschen where they're incapable of understanding what is required.
I think your letter makes its points well, but overstates its case with "strawman," in other words. Christianity will be mental blight, except for the few enlightened like Meister Eckhart or Arthur Schopenhauer, because its design is flawed. Whether we blame Saul the Jew of Tarsus for that, or claim it was Jesus running into a bad batch of mescaline, is probably irrelevant. The fact is that here - now - in our physical world, Christianity manifests itself as a certain force, and without design corrections, is destructive.
In this sense, I treat religions as I would any other philosophy, which given the highly spiritual nature of the most esoteric philosophy, is probably the right thing to do. Thank you for your thoughts, and see what you think of mine.
Subject: Corporatism in Fascism
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:07:16 +0000
I have found your writings on politics and philosophy to be fascinating
to say the least. It seems to me that you have clearly identified the
poison of capitalism and the cultural erosion it causes by venerating
wealth as life's sole purpose and moulding the sheep accordingly, yet you
are clearly also partial to fascism. How do you reconcile the corporatism
of traditional fascism with this? Although my studies of Italian and
German fascism during the 30s have admittedly been limited, it seems
obvious to me that there was a strong and clear support of capitalism.
Indeed, fascism seems to be the ideal system for protecting capitalism as
it can do away with the flimsy facades that liberal democracies are
forced to maintain when plying the mindless citizenry and protecting
I anticipate two possible responses from you. One, you could argue that
the corporatism of traditional fascism was tempered by a respect for
other nationalistic/militaristic values which are not present in liberal
democracies, which in turn maintains a more meaningful cultural fibre.
Alternatively you could simply be promoting a qualified form of fascism
which does away with this corporatism (perhaps a misguided appendage of
the past) and instead wholly focusses upon reigniting a more logical and
natural pagan state sans capitalism. They both seem like reasonable
responses, but I am still very keen to learn what your approach to this
Thanks for your time,
Good question. My take on it is simple: corporations reflect the values of the surrounding population. Fix those values, and even corporations become a lesser evil. This isn't to say I'm very hip to the idea of large human committees making decisions from far away; I'm a large believer in communitarian localization, because only the people who belong to a land and have been there for generations can make sane decisions about it (you don't dump toxic waste in your family's ancestral homeland unless you're a sociopath, and those are easily enough identified and quarantined or liquidated).
So when we turn to the NSDAP, what did they do, regarding corporations? They used them. The NSDAP replaced profit-motive as the highest value of German society, and then put to use whatever resources it could to get itself up and working, including corporations. I wouldn't point to those as the source of its downfall; my critique of the NSDAP is that it tried for too much, too fast. After taking some initial outlying areas, it probably would have done better to settle down for several generations and breed better Germans, free of the capitalist neurosis, before taking on a world war. But I digress.
I see "corporatism" as a red herring. The only reason corporations get away with murder is that our society is designed upon a simple principle: reward earnings. It does not have any other shared values except the earning of money. Therefore, how can we criticize someone who makes a few million, even in a corrupt way, with his corporation? We cannot. That's the basis of our system here.
For my ideal society, I would like a return to simpler forms of commerce, simply because I don't see commerce as a major factor in human advancement. In fact, I'd put it in there with defecation and sweating, as simply necessary functions on which we shouldn't spend too much of our time. A population with that kind of values system would not tolerate the corporate abuses even found in 1920s America.
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:39:31 +0200
From: Petar Car
Reply-To: Petar Car
Subject: a nihilist from Croatia seeks correspondence
Hi, Mr. Anus!
I am writing this letter to test my English, but not exclusively, of course. Hailing from a small country called Croatia, I'm not really familiar with the other cultures' opinion about us. However, through the internet I was able to achieve some diverse information about the outside world- for instance your site.
Considering myself a nihilist (thus considering reality in all its available manifestations) and seeing every individual as incommensurably different, I found that you've lost your nihilism in favor of a love for a rational development. I wish I could do that. But, being very confused in a mire of "paths" eager to be followed, I see your suggestion for Preservationism as full of tiny contradictions. These make your theory weak. I am not talking about the ignorable chances of someone (even you) trying to put your theory into practice, but you already know what I'm aiming at.
Let's get back to the bullshit. The main problem with extreme leftist revolutions is the elimination of the people against-, which creates unsolvable problems with the irrational community (not society). I suspect that not all people in the world would agree with your ideas, and many would not agree to the point of sacrificing their lives for preserving their tribe against your Force. I assume you know that most of today's tribes are not of racial origin and at the same time these are more authentic than the (in reality non existing) Nordic Tribe.
Therefore, I belive that the remains of your nihilism allow you to consider your theory as a nice dream indeed, but it's a one that requires a complete recombination of all of the worlds particles (a TOTAL plague, for instance) before The First Move is made. That kind of disaster goes beyond the control of any human, group or humanity itself.
I am European, I have white skin and extremely clean Croatian blood flowing through my family tree. My looks are aryan and I like people with aryan looks, especially my girlfriend. Even when I believed I was an anarchist, I hated Negro music. But I simply cannot think that a nihilist would consider accusing Bush for a hypocritical use of the word "freedom" realism. This is one of the tiny contradictions I've been telling you about.
Your quasi-rigid theory suffers of too many ad hoc solutions, and, unlike Galilei, you don't seem to approve of these as legit. You have goals. I love Burzum, but Ildjarn is more reasonable. I belive you are familiar with deeds of Boyd Rice- he wrote:
"People who recognize the rise of the Dystopia often lack the detachment to accommodate perspective. These individuals believe that if enough people were aware of the Dystopia, then the vermin would disappear, and the downward course of the Dystopia would somehow reverse itself. But the Dystopia is so vast and all-encompassing, it pervades every aspect of modern life. With the Dystopia, the only cure is fatal to all of us.
Hating the Dystopia solves no problems, and doesn't get you anywhere but the insane asylum. One must love the Dystopia. That's right. Love it. Dystopia is your friend. Savor the suffering, take pleasure in the misfortune of others. Become the proverbial one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind. As the world crumbles around us, understand that the streets are paved with gold."
This thoughts are very useful.
I did not write all of this to insult you or to show off through my miserable intellect. I did it to make contact. There is a lot of other things I wanted to write you about, but I'm non-consistent and don't have a lot of time. Hope to read from you soon!
Petar "robespierre" Car (it's pronounced tzar, thx in advance)
I'm well aware of this outlook; my reason for rejecting it is that it turns he who bears it into a celebration of rot, whether he recognizes it or not. I would be willing to bet Mr. Rice has a more complicated philosophy than expressed in that paragraph, but you'd have to ask him. On to your larger question: how do I propose to reorganize a world that seems mostly opposed to this change?
Answer: I don't. Most of the world - the thinking, creative, functioning people - is not opposed to what I say. It's only the underconfident, confused, and special interest groups who fear it. I don't know why, as it would benefit everyone. But my suggestion is that if we change attitudes and laws to allow us to selectively support different ideas than the modernist status quo, we can make this change quite easily.
No matter what choice is made for our future, bloodshed and chaos are inevitable - if we're lucky. If we're not, we will lapse into a corporate welfare society where there are few skilled jobs and unnamed billions of drones who work as unskilled labor so they can keep paying off their health insurance and entertainment fees. That's the future as seen by T.S. Elliot, Philip K. Dick, William Gibson and Slayer (South of Heaven). Nothing but an unending time of slavery, stupidity, failure and mundaity, all for the almighty buck.
Since chaos and suffering and disturbance are inevitable, and since change is necessary, I have no problems advocating things that many people will find difficult. I don't really care what the crowd thinks; I've seen the utter damage that a herd of selfish animals can do, over the past two thousand years. As far as I am concerned, the crowd has lost credibility by steering us all into destruction. What I care about are the thinkers, and the creators, and the fighters.
I'd also like to point out that "white" is a meaningless statement. Aryan was the highest caste among Indo-Europeans, and reflected a lot more than general racial makeup. Croats are a different population than Germans, and we should preserve the differences between the two, not to mention avoid obliterating Germans by breeding them with auslanders. That's life for those brave enough to accept it. So maybe you mean to say that you're a Croat Nationalist, and nihilist? This is wonderful and I praise you for it.
"A blonde" writes:
So you and Linkola see that we are going to hell and that modernity is a huge mistake. Agree with you compeltely, but what are you going to do about it? Demolish some by bombing them dead? So don´t worry, aids and Bush are working on that.
May I just ask in which way are there too many people in the world? Our planet is not capable of nourishing everyone? Bullshit. Haven`t you read your own Frances Moore Lappé and Joseph Collins?
Ok, I`m way behind you both on intelligence and having done my studying. But would you fucking explain to me, in terms that even a blond like me can understand, what exactly is wrong with my values?
I don't think modern methods can solve modernity's problems. I'm looking at a cultural revival and an ethnic upheaval against the system, following by Indo-Europeans dropping out of it. If we refuse to play the international game, and focus entirely on ourselves, we get stronger while others get weaker. They are also deprived of technology that they would otherwise have.
This also allows us to murder all of the mental defectives, meaning everyone from drooling retards to corporate white-collar criminals. We don't need them; they make us weaker. So let's put them in mass graves and move on to the good things in life. With this happening, the average Indo-European will rise in productivity to the point where we'll have excellent lives here and not have to worry about the rest of the world which, not fueled by our reckless growth, will cut back in size.
Bush and AIDS won't do enough. There needs to be a breaking of the back of the modern system. As it is primarily a parasite upon the productive West, if we deprive it of food, it dies like an isolated tumor. All modern methods kill in bulk. What we need to do is raise up the strong so they outbreed the failures (and, since we've got extra, to axe those failures).
I wouldn't waste my time on Lappé and Collins. Sensible people know that a half-billion is the most people this earth can handle without becoming a radically different place and losing much of its natural beauty. Further, we don't need more people than that. So instead of trying to "prove" this, I say simply that's what I prefer, based on a number of factors. You can find any shill to dish out an opinion supporting any point of view, complete with "facts," but without a thorough knowledge of context, those "facts" are useless. So it is with Collins, et al.
Wrong? I don't know, but thinking in terms of right and wrong isn't useful to me. Try looking for practical value and you'll find where your values should be. In my mind, practicality includes aesthetics and preference, such as in (II). If you are of a liberal persuasion, you'll find you have a long ways to go back to reality, but at that point your mind will be at greater rest and you'll be more effective as a person.
A blonde's boyfriend writes back:
Thanks for the reply. Although I think I'll be lined
up with those drooling retards and white collar
I'm curious as to how you reconcile Hinduism with the
values espoused on your website. I've been reading
the Bhagavad Gita in which Krishna proclaims that he
is everywhere and his divine spark and light is shown
in all creatures. How then, if you are at one with
"Krishna", do you have no trouble slaughtering vast
numbers of human beings? The parallels between this
book and the philosophy of the Gnostic Christians
(Meister Eckhart etc.) are stunning. Yet both still
call for obedience and service to a divinity (god).
Yet, from what I can tell, you believe in no such
thing. Neither creeds seem to be in line with your
philosophy. At least upon my elementary observations.
When one sees the entire world as a continuum, it is no longer a mental system crash to contemplate removing some of its members. What matters is the health of the system as a whole; not its members as individual, autonomous units, except fo the homeostatic functions they perform toward the whole. It's why they say knowledge is the Devil's bargain: you get to find out the truth of how all life is interconnected, but you also stop caring about the drama of the individual, as you now have bigger things on your mind.
In ancient Vedic lore, the spark of life was found in all creatures - but it was portions of the same spark. Thus when someone or something died, the energy divided out into its corporeal form went back to the spark of life as a whole, and was distributed. This happened according to a caste system where those who organized their energy intensely were reincarnated in a better version of a similar form, but those who were disorganized became consumed, and did not reappear in an organized state because their energy was redistributed granularly in decay.
While modern Hinduism may be different, in the ancient form, one did not weep over slaughter, as it made the cosmic order - the Idea - above all else rise to a higher state. This may be unfamiliar to you, but the entire Bhagavad-Gita is organized around the question you raise. It begins with a warrior, Arjuna, asking Krishna for advice on the battlefield before combat is joined. Arjuna's point is exactly yours - how could I kill all these wonderful creatures? - but Krisha answers him with the wisdom of a god:
Arjuna:...Killing these Must breed but anguish, Krishna! If they be Guilty, we shall grow guilty by their deaths; Their sins will light on us, if we shall slay Those sons of Dhritirashtra, and our kin; What peace could come of that, O Madhava?...
Krishna: Thou grievest where no grief should be! thou speak'st Words lacking wisdom! for the wise in heart Mourn not for those that live, nor those that die. Nor I, nor thou, nor any one of these, Ever was not, nor ever will not be, For ever and for ever afterwards. All, that doth live, lives always! To man's frame As there come infancy and youth and age, So come there raisings-up and layings-down Of other and of other life-abodes, Which the wise know, and fear not. This that irks-- Thy sense-life, thrilling to the elements-- Bringing thee heat and cold, sorrows and joys, 'Tis brief and mutable! Bear with it, Prince! As the wise bear. The soul which is not moved, The soul that with a strong and constant calm Takes sorrow and takes joy indifferently, Lives in the life undying! That which is Can never cease to be; that which is not Will not exist. To see this truth of both Is theirs who part essence from accident, Substance from shadow. Indestructible, Learn thou! the Life is, spreading life through all; It cannot anywhere, by any means, Be anywise diminished, stayed, or changed. But for these fleeting frames which it informs With spirit deathless, endless, infinite, They perish. Let them perish, Prince! and fight! He who shall say, "Lo! I have slain a man!" He who shall think, "Lo! I am slain!" those both Know naught! Life cannot slay. Life is not slain! Never the spirit was born; the spirit shall cease to be never; Never was time it was not; End and Beginning are dreams! Birthless and deathless and changeless remaineth the spirit for ever; Death hath not touched it at all, dead though the house of it seems! 1
The point here is not that it's OK to kill. The point is that it's neither OK or not-OK to kill; it's situational, as the only moral quest in this life is to do right by the cosmic order, an act which can include self-sacrifice or sacrifice of others. What matters is the idea, the organization... and the continual evolution of nature and humankind. Second to that come all concerns for individuals, for one's self, comfort, etc. It's a noble philosophy that does not always have to be interpreted in terms of battle.
We call philosophies of this type "cosmic idealism," because they're not based on the individual (binary moralism), nor on physical values alone (materialism), nor on absolutes like "good" or "evil" (absolute idealism). They are based on the cosmic order, or the Idea, which as described in the Gita above is a living, ageless, eternal thing. One complements the idea in one's actions in order to make the universe rise higher, to be ever-better, and in doing so, transcends death. It's a very mature religion and thus is declining in popularity.
Advaita Vedanta formalizes certain aspects of ancient Hinduism by eliminating the dualistic mysticism of modern Hinduism as well as the binary, humanistic, individualistic morality of recent Buddhism. It does not fall prey to the individualism and egoism of Christianity and liberalism, nor the fundamentalism and materialism of Judaism or American-style "conservatives." It is a doctrine that has always existed where there were people strong of mind, body and soul to figure it out. Its time will come again.
As far as your own possible execution: does it matter? If you die and the world becomes better, we're all better off (same as if I die, if celebrities guy, your neighbors, etc). The show goes on and the cosmic order keeps moving toward a higher state. That's a wonderful thing - a beautiful thing of great profundity - I'm sure all of us would be proud to give up our lives for that, if the time came. And bringing this back to reality: if something must be done for the better of all, even a few hundred million mistakes don't matter. We have seven billion people and can afford to lose a few!
July 15, 2005