A.N.U.S.

American Nihilist Underground Society

ANUS.COM: American Nihilist Underground Society (A.N.U.S.) at www.anus.com
RSS feed of ANUS.com opinions and news Mailing list:
Search anus.com:

Letters: Environmentalism and Common Sense

My work as an editor of this site is mostly fun and intellectually rewarding. I receive tons of emails every week, from morons who send in their autobiographies of a ghetto-life in the suburbs, to intelligent and honest people who appreciate our ideas and wish to help us out in any way possible. Most of the response I get is wholly positive and that inspires our members to work even harder, to ensure that we remain on top of all the broken oversocialization and global finance that today plagues both the Internet and our modern society. Below are some interesting letters I've received during these past weeks, some of which were of intelligence and honesty, others which gave me a good laugh in between all the editorial work.

- Alexis

From: nik.flegar@xxx.xxx
To: hexen_666@xxx.xxx
Subject: Nik Flegar
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:08:29 -0800 (PST)

After reading many an article on anus.com and corrupt.org, i find that you contradict yourself in some very soft spots.
1) How do you propose a society which is both technologically advanced and naturalistic? For me, it is simply contradictory, since scientific thought discredits religious beliefs of any kind and directly promotes materialism in all but a handfull of people?
2) How would you describe the nihilist forum? the people there (the most) are nihilists/naturalists as much as they are anything else ... it seems to me as though they just happened to stumble upon anus.com before finding egoism.com.
3) This is a tough one. How do you suppose to uphold nationalism and cultural separatism in the face of having to spread your word around the world for it to take effect?
4) What would your solution to all the cities, pipelines, oil rigs, power cables, refineries, factories, regulated riverbeds, etc. be? I mean, how do we get rid of them without causing too much damage and leaving too much traces?

Do not wrongfully assume that I am opposed to you in general. I couldn't be more distressed about what is happening with the world. I just think that the true nature of man and his society has not changed in the least since his appearance. In my view, society has simply grown in scale and man used ever more efficient tools. I also think we are at least a century, if not two, past the point where tools became too efficient for man to handle them individually. Laws have never been a good way of holding people at bay. It is phisical reality that does that.

I really do hope you answer this e-mail and share your extended explanation.

Sincere regards, Nik Flegar

Hi Nik, thanks a lot for these honest questions, I appreciate your sincerity (we see little of this in modern society). I'll just go through your questions here like the structuralist I am:

1) I believe it's possible to maintain a society both through religion and science. Modern scientific thought is, as you say, most times materialistic - this is why most people need something to hold on to besides the good old Big Bang. Religion is a good way of filling this empty void, not only as platform for magic, but as a base for tradition and ideals. Ted Kaczynski would say that technology's like cheap sex or TV shows: once we've had it, we'll be after it again. Only by regulating technology and, like in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", avoiding it becoming the God of our time and thereby enslave us under a system meant to work for us, may we find a possible solution to the dilemma you present.

2) The old Nihilist forum was removed due to various reasons and instead linked to the CORRUPT forum, which is a traditionalist and transcendentalist movement close to the ideas of ANUS. On there you'll find several nihilists but also people with similar worldviews: nationalism, fascism, idealism, naturalism - you name it. What these individuals all share in common, is the belief that modern society is a disease and that tradition and realism can bring us out of that madness.

3) This question follows the same cyclic logic that makes 99.99 % black metal bands horrible. There is no contradiction in universal cultural separatism; we believe different cultures should not discriminate each other by fighting over territory within the same nation. This is achieved by what we like to call pan-nationalism, or that all nations have the right to become independent and nurture their own culture without another one knocking on the door. There will always be similarities and differences between cultures and if we can make nationalism one of those similarities, we're one step closer to the end of racism and beginning of true multiculturalism.

4) This is the sad part of our current situation: the things we've screwed up are permanent. Anything and everything we demolish will leave traces behind. What we must do is to make sure we don't continue this process, but stop it immediately. We can study the ecosystem that was there, reycle human material for use in other areas; one can melt steel etc., but ultimately this is a pragmatic question for building workers and scientists to work out - the solution is there, but the effects are as of now unknown to us.

I agree with you on the development of tools. Keep in mind though that a wise leader would make sure each individual would manage these things correctly; today we have a bunch of people watching TV, eating pop corn, and listening to Britney Spears all day - it takes a fool not to realize the devastating effects of letting such individuals handle important tools, often used for their own enrichment, disregarding environmental impact - "hey, it sells".

I hope this somewhat answered your questions, thanks again for the interesting challenges.

From: Nik Flegar
To: -- Alexis --
Subject: Re: Nik Flegar
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:52:55 +0100

Good day, and an honest thanks for having replied!

If you have nothing against it, I would gladly prolong this conversation for at least another reply of yours. I would like to ask you about something I still find contradictory, has always bothered me and is why I have time and again become desperate.

Before you read on, I would like to say that I find your concept of the world an utterly pleasing one. My only substantial concern is the feasability of such a system.

It is all to do with what I tried to convey in the last part of my email, namely, that the _people_ themselves and their basic way of conduct has not changed troughout evolution and has remanined the same under any regime By this, I mean that people, in their daily lives, generally seek only what they deem good for themselves (which is not necessarilly good for them or for the Whole - Britney Spears and popcorn), for the short, mid or long term, depending on their intelligence, and evade everything that they think would destroy them. I find this to be the main imperative of people, and it is the basis of my whole thought.

If this holds true, and I believe that history and experience tell us it does, then they will always use the tools that are available for their own sake, either disregarding the Whole completely or at least giving it lower priority. Both is obviously a wrong thing to do when wielding such power. How to make them use it the "correct way", as you said? Considering the imperatives I proposed ... the only effective means is totalitarian rule. Which has several weak points: it does not last (democratic people tend to overthrow it), it is hard to establish (with all the international community today ...), and, most of all, it carries the same flaws that modern democracy does, the foremost one being bureaucracy (and useless bureaucrats), which is in itself technocratic. I hence believe that in the phrase "modern democracy", it is "modern" that fails, not "democracy". Ancient pagan democracy worked just fine - it was applied to small groups of people who besides only had so much capacity (read: tools). Which is where I again come to my point that it is essentially the technology that is "corrupting", and not the system (both, of course, have a share).

Well, it was christianity that corrupted the West ... but that would not have happened had the Romans not left a gap in their society which was there for christendom to fill. This gap only appeared among the Romans who dwellt in cities, whose Roman-era size was in turn enabled by technological progress. The rurals were not affected (you know the origin of the word "pagan" ...). In my view, it was essentially technology that allowed a materialistic worldview to spread. It was technology and this worldview combined that produced science. And it is modern science that further exponentiates both of them, quite technocratically indeed. Considering my model of human behaviour, I cannot see how one could shift the course humankind significantly in the long term

I have to say that I am, as you may have guessed, very naturalistic. I firmly believe that it is the natural order of things that checks each species. I also believe that by avoiding the natural order somewhat, nothing much was there to stop us from destroying our planet. But I also believe that laws and regulations tend to fail if they are too radical, which is to say, necessary, since wise people make them, and the lower kind does not see why it should obey them, because it hampers them too greatly from following their imperatives. This lower kind outnumbers the wise ones - which is only normal, and is, actually, something I believe eugenics can not repair, since it is contrast that defines what is better and what is weaker, not absolute measures. I further believe that man can not >express the natural order in his laws as much as he would have to to solve the situation or prevent it from occuring again and again.

In short, I think I am closest to Pentti Linkola in thought. Thank you for reading my email, and I hope you find the time and motive to answer me once more.

"Ted Kaczynski would say that technology's like cheap sex or TV shows: once we've had it, we'll be after it again. Only by regulating technology and, like in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", avoiding it becoming the God of our time and thereby enslave us under a system meant to work for us, may we find a possible solution to the dilemma you present."
"today we have a bunch of people watching TV, eating pop corn, and listening to Britney Spears all day - it takes a fool not to realize the devastating effects of letting such individuals handle important tools, often used for their own enrichment, disregarding environmental impact - "hey, it sells"." I couldn't agree more. May we live long enough to stand on the ruins of materialism with the blood of shortsightedness on our blades! May we see the rebirth of an age that once was - "Det som engang var", "What once was", as Burzum put it.

Nik Flegar

Hi again,

Thanks once more for an interesting reply, apart from what we usually receive here...

You're right about the basic psychology of the Crowd: 97 % or more will always be peasants by nature, that's nothing we can ever change. This is also one of the main reasons to why democracy is so stupid: it assumes that all individuals are able to make independent choices, hitting the right spot through what's popular at the moment, which is an illusion (the truth is that the economic elite is regulating the opinions of the Crowd through massmedia, making sure their wallet is fat, while the people have to pay for it all - that's the kind of "freedom" we're talking about here). Reality tells us that the truth often is uncomfortable for most people and therefore avoided, thus not popular and never brought up as a problem within democracies. Notice how our current democratic societies in the West respond to the climate changes and massively growing overpopulation: "we'll change the light bulbs, praise freeedom, and slide back into the TV-world to catch the latest epise of Seinfeld". No wonder some people think we're heading towards The Armageddon [...]

In a society designed to assign the right people to the right kind of tasks, we won't be seeing these TV-sitters ruling our countries. Intelligent leaders take over the state affairs and the peasants do their work - and that's ALL they have to do. I agree with you to 100 % on the subject of totalitarianism, and while ANUS supports dictatorship, it's leaning towards a cultural regulation of people's behaviour. Why? It's natural, it's nurturing - and, as you say, it beats totalitarianism by far. We can indoctrinate people to follow our ideals but this, at least from my point of view, is only short-term thinking; people need to understand why society should be designed according to specialization, and through symbolism in culture, this is fully possible. The Nordics realized this and maintained a strict caste system based on ancient folklore and myths. I believe more in this form of fascism, than the kind of paranoid totalitarian system that usually debunks itself or becomes overthrown by a mass of morons screaming for free cable TV and sodomy laws.

Why are humanity in deep shit? Democracy? Check. Christianity? Check. Crowdism? Check. We can reverse these by pointing out that they're insane and instead offer a solution, a replacement for these errors with something closer to reality. Nihilism gives us a more realistic interpretation of our situation, realism dictates what's real and what's not, and idealism avoids both the impotence in materialism and the supernatural wish-thinking found in judeochristian beliefs; we're one with our world and nothing will ever change that. As long as intelligent people rule and govern a system of clever design, where workers work and leaders lead, we'll at least be able to keep the morons at bay for another thousand years; nothing lasts forever ;-)

cheers!

From: Chris_Champagne3@xxx.xxx
To: hexen_666@xxx.xxx
Subject: Chris
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 21:49:34 -0800 (PST)

Hi i think you are missing children of bodom and cradel of filth

My God you're right, we totally forgot about those bands (how could we?). I'm not sure, but I think we have a ready answer to your question lying somewhere...here?

From: nofreedom4u@xxx.xxx
To: hexen_666@xxx.xxx
Subject: Erik
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:15:31 -0800 (PST)

Hello Prozak, I just read your artical Beyond Racism: Race is important, Racism is not, and I have a few questions I would like to ask. You say race mixing is insane, Well My balck father and my White(german) mother got married, had sex, and then there I was. Does that make me as useless as they are?I love my father and mother but they mixed races. What do i belong too, the germans, the african-americans, or the stupid "insane" losers along the with the rest of the world. Second question, I find white women atractive as to black women I find a select few atractive. I rarely see any mixed females. What doIdo about that one?I'll stop the bitching and let you go. One more thing, I think there should be more people like you on this planet.

Dear Erik,

Thank you for reading the article and taking the time to write in. I don't think your parents are useless. Race-mixing, and caste-mixing, are bound to occur, and it is in part through this that we get interesting new populations. What is important is not destroying the original population through mixture. So when you think of your parents, what you're seeing is some people going a different way, but detaching themselves from their homelands and histories. This can have various degrees of success, and I wouldn't hold it against them. What I would do is try to find others who are mixed Germanic-African heritage and breed with the best so you can help create a new racial group. Take the best of both cultures, find some place where you can do it, and go for it. However, I'd recommend not sticking with a Germanic or pure-African population (North Africa is home to mixed Alpinid-Negroid populations that will approximately match your genetics, as are parts of the Middle East and Turkey) as you would then be helping destroy them. I think you've got a very mature take on this, and believe that with thoughtful people like yourself addressing this issue, we will find a practical yet compassionate solution to the current lack of national culture that has allowed cultural absorption by multinational corporations and media concerns. I hope you stay active in this area.

cheers

V. Prozak
textarbeiter

From: lbj420guy@xxx.xxx
To: hexen_666@xxx.xxx
Subject: Logan
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:12:26 -0800 (PST)

Is their any charity you endorse such as the world wildlife fund?

As much as I dislike it, there are tax benifits in charity and I would like to help a good cause and agree with alot of what you folks say when it comes to man degrading certain aspects of our sorroundings. such as the fury ones.

hit me back

Hi,

Generally; no, we don't. There are several environmental organizations that do a lot of good job, but what most of them have in common is that they all are humanists and believe that the current economic system is perfectly OK, as long as we regulate some companies and file taxes. The truth is that we're too many people on this earth, consuming way too much resources. From that point of view, charity is useless. We can't take the individual into account if we want to save this planet.

Thanks for your email!

cheers

From: seanmacauley@xxx.xxx
To: hexen_666@xxx.xxx
Subject: sean
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:20:46 -0800 (PST)

Hello,
I am perturbed by a seeming inconsistancy. It seems as though you recognize the existence of a greater cosmic order, yet humanity (ourselves included) seems to be excluded from this grand schema. It just seems that the whole meaning of the ANUS is being reduced to a few token issues. The philosophy lacks context. I mean you produce these ideas

Hi Sean,

In this cosmic order we do include all organisms, humans being one of them, but we do not believe in world views or ideologies that put focus only on one part (individuals, race, capitalism etc.), but instead try to find harmony by establishing a balance with Life as a whole. Our philosophy is built around the concept of holism, and if we present only a few symbols to convey this idea (race, culture, nature) it is to simplify our message. We don't need to write long essays on why we need to save frogs in the rain forest; they're part of what we see as beautiful and worth preserving.

I suggest you read more of our articles from the archive and explore more in depth what ANUS has to say about modern society and traditional values; you'll notice that we are one of the few movements today that, apart from misanthropes who through reactionary thinking, base their ideas on hate for humanity, dare to love all of life.

cheers

December 21, 2006