PhilosophyNihilism Articles Resources
CultureHeavy Metal Heroes Tribes
Frustration with Politics
Societies are large, and within them, we use means of communication to organize ourselves so we can act as a single entity. This is the founding principle of civilization: division of labor and delegation of both control and function. The people allow themselves to have leaders; the leaders, who would normally follow the old saw "If you want it done right, do it yourself," have to content themselves with allowing others to do many of the basic functions of collective existence. Societies use politics, or public discourse over the means and direction of collectivism, to negotiate how they will act together.
Politics is both a fascinating study, and a frustrating one. Like most tools or activities, it carries with it the danger of replacing its own goal. In the past, our societies have had strong leadership and not much internal political dialogue; currently, there is a high amount of political wrangling, and very much a lack of a clear goal. At this stage politics ceases to resemble a tool for organizing ourselves, and begins to look like neurosis: a confused mind fighting itself over every move, always unsure, and consequently overcompensating and then making itself more neurotic.
One reason for our political decline is that the smarter among us have for several centuries now abandoned politics, as to them it seems like a gibbering monkey which turns and spits on anything that threatens its sense of self-esteem. We can reference witch-hunts all we like, but the basic mechanism of recent politics has been to establish a public belief, and then to impose it by filtration, cutting down those who do not conform and thus leaving only those who do.
Our loss is compounded by the political organizations which would ostensibly speak up against this method, as they, too, have fallen into its sway, and offer us only a different appearance to the same failing. And here, if you'll pardon me, I have to wax personal.
When I was younger, I was a Marxist. The simple reason was that Marxists, like the most vicious capitalists, recognize that "time is money," and I felt it a travesty that we all worked such long hours, waited in line at businesses and governments, and had too little time for our families. Most of my young friends were accustomed to Dad being something that showed up late, left early, slept until noon on the weekends and, if you were lucky, had an hour or two on Sunday for a game of catch or zoo visit. Some also had Mom in the same situation, and grew up in front of televisions, since there were no parents to ask those all-important questions.
The other reason for my Marxism was simple: I wanted a system of power that, while not totalitarian, wasn't afraid to enforce certain rules absolutely, to the point of machine-gunning those who transgressed them. This arose from the irrefutable experience of seeing the suburbs expand, plouging under the forest and erecting row after row of look-alike houses. As a child, I had a few close friends but spent over half of my time alone, wandering in the woods or playing with the toys I had found I respected most: batteries, light bulbs, gears, fireworks (oops).
I knew that if there wasn't a strong hand to stop that expansion, the suburbs would eventually cover the earth, paving it with concrete roads and at every subdivision, a network mini-mall with lots of concrete parking and boxy plastic-windowed stores. To my mind, this was a loss of complexity and beauty, because the forest wasn't all flat, had thousands of different trees and animals, and little brooks, occasional caves, old gnarled trees and patches of fresh ones. There were hiding places and open spaces, ponds and thickets.
I didn't have a problem with some of it being replaced so kids like me could have houses in which to grow up, but I had come to know adults, and realized that there was no one in control. As long as there were more people, and they had money, the suburbs would keep expanding. There was no stop point - it was like an unguided train rushing down the tracks. For this reason, I began to be queasy about adult motivations and what the future held.
There were other factors as well, but as a youngster, I didn't know how to put these into place. One was that adults were alarmingly fake. They made fake smiles, weird small talk, and told "little white lies" to cover up each other's failings. You couldn't talk about age in the context of adults, and never mention death or defecation, which to me seemed like a bizarre religious doctrine. They also tended to bathe themselves in strange scents, use lots of little products to cover up their natural faces, and do wasteful and strange things with their purchasing habits. I rapidly came to trust not only their motivations, but their judgment skills.
Alarmingly, no one seemed to notice what I was seeing, and no one - I mean no one - would talk about it. People seemed happy to get in a car at seven in the morning, go into work until nine at night, then come home and watch television, get in a fight with their spouse and then put the kids to bed, warning them that if they didn't study hard, they wouldn't be able to have such wonderful jobs someday. It seemed they were sending us to the same enemy that had stolen their own souls.
I read widely as a kid, and like my fear of adult motivations, this knowledge lingered in my brain, but I had nowhere to put it. In high school, the world was simple: there were people who wanted to restrain our freedom, and those of us who wanted to reclaim it. I identified with the founding fathers, and felt that if I could just "educate" people, I could stop them from creating an endless row of suburbs occupying all land on earth. My heroes were the people who opposed this insensitivity, mostly writers: Conrad, Emerson, Faulkner, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Nietzsche, Fitzgerald, Williams, Joyce.
As I went through high school, in the late 1980s, change was afoot. Reagan was out and in the void of his cult of personality, Bush senior was president. My most immediate concern was not getting drafted into Iraq, as I anticipated the kind of Vietnamesque guerrilla warfare that is our current war in Iraq, but those concerns passed. My world was divided between the people who accepted freedom and a lack of rules, who were liberal educators taking lower salaries to fearlessly bring enlightenment to us, and those who opposed that, namely the wealthy and Christian and conservative folk who seemed to run the government. It was a nice, clear, easy worldview, a tool for filtering out the bad and seeing the good.
This changed when I went on to college. At this point, Bush senior was replaced by a man with more personality - the charming and fearlessly independent Bill Clinton. At first, I was cheered by this, but over time, I began to loathe the man. He hadn't done anything to stop the expansion of humanity; in fact, he encouraged it. He did nothing to end the tedium of our lives spent driving to work, putting up with other people, and then coming home to go shopping or spend money in bars. He not only wanted the suburbs to keep building, but he wanted to put more people into them, mainly because those people had traditionally been poor and of another color. And at college, I saw a different side of liberalism.
My first shock was realizing that among those of a leftist persuasion, I was one of a few who cared first about stopping human overexpansion; those who were "environmentalists" inevitably mated their ideas to a civil rights agenda, and therefore were not actually opposed to stopping the expansion, but wanted all of us to stop leaving lights on, take navy-style showers and drive smaller cars. I had no objection to any of those cutbacks, but I didn't see how they were going to solve the problem.
More alarmingly the leftists were occupied entirely by egoism. They wanted to feel good about themselves, thus they took the side of the underdog, and were swallowed up entirely by a class revenge and civil rights agenda. Having come from a city with healthy but separate black and homosexual and hispanic districts, I didn't see the urgency of this task, as to me it was a distraction from the basic task: make society saner, and everything else will fall into line, as the only reason it's out of whack now is that we're living insane lives. No one would follow me there, so I became quiet on this topic.
At that time, I became heavily involved with the subculture known as death metal. It taught me a few vital things. I learned first of all that most of the people in death metal were just as thoughtless and crude as the rest of society, and that it was important to neglect their opinions, or they'd fill the world with simplistic, plodding, stupidly violent music and ignore the better, subtler stuff. Second, death metal reawakened my reading of the Romantics, as the imagery and ideas were roughly the same. Wordsworth, Keats, Milton, Blake, and this leads back to Nietzsche.
By the time I left college, and was thrust into the world of working nine to five and then coming home to pay bills, go shopping and buy drinks in bars, I was thoroughly disillusioned with politics. While the bickering continued, I reasoned, nothing was being done about the basic issue - the insanity - and no one would even ask the questions. These people were not out to fix problems, but to win, meaning to score a victory for their side. The tool of politics had become a goal in itself, and no matter who won, society would still be as acephalous and directionless as it had always been in my experience.
Seeing my coworkers fall time and again for the same stupid ruses, whether political or the time-honored scams that businesses offer under the guise of contracts and promises, made me tired. These people were like bluejays, easily distracted by shiny objects, and therefore would make a token political stance, but once they'd gotten whatever it was that occupied their little minds for that month - a new car, a color TV, a faster computer, heroin - they were inert and content to see the system keep churning. Left and right alike, once they had what they wanted, tended to regard everyone else with scorn, as if they'd proved themselves to be superior and the rest inferior.
After some years of this, and reading increasingly alarming long-distance environmental projections, I returned to my basic concept: most people have the judgment skills of gnats, and what is needed is a direction and those with the will to enforce it. I knew I couldn't trust either political wing; the conservatives had lost and didn't seem to know it, because traditional values and society had collapsed, and they were fighting to hold what space they had, but could easily be sidetracked by issues like abortion or school prayer or flag burning. Symbols meant nothing to me; reality meant more.
I didn't trust the liberals either, least of all from recent experience. A liberal to me had become not the fearless Marxist proletarian insurgent, but someone who talked a good game about helping the poor and other races, then went off and got a corporate job and drinked themselves into oblivion every night - or simply smoked weed, but they smoked it like weekenders; they didn't want a psychedelic experience, with its cycle of euphoria and fear and death and rebirth, but they wanted detachment. To a person, they were neurotic, deeply insecure and constantly making bad decisions, then inventing excuses and justifications. There was always someone else to blame, and wasn't it clear that we the oppressed suffered under the other side? No more, said I.
At this point, something vital happened: a man named Ted Kaczynski had been arrested as the Unabomber and went to trial. I read his manifesto, and was amazed at how much it resembled (a) the works of Nietzsche I'd been sifting through (b) my own notes regarding political philosophy and (c) many of the opinions of the best of the writers of the 1920s and 1930s. What was even more astounding, I found out, was how much it resembled what was written in the only legitimate candidate for "banned book" during our lifetimes: Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler. I started reading more National Socialist, Nationalist and traditionalist philosophy.
What shocked me here was the universal knee-jerk response I witnessed in others to National Socialism: they didn't react with intellectual curiosity, or even benign tolerance, but outright condemnation. I saw the witch-hunt mentality in full progress. Well, wasn't this interesting. The closest thing to this I had ever seen was the War on Drugs under Reagan, but it wasn't even as absolute as the fear and hatred of Nazism. Having learned well during childhood that any taboo covers either a great error (pedophilia) or great knowledge (drugs/literature), I followed this path more attentively. However, over time, I became disillusioned here.
Neo-Nazis and Nationalists, it seems to me, are just as paranoid and isolated as the American conservatives. They act as if they're defending something that is still there, namely traditional civilization, not realizing that long ago it was obliterated by modernity and that only remnants exist. The average neo-Nazis thinks that, if we just kick out or exterminate the Negroes and Jews, everything will be peachy. Even if the suburbs keep expanding, the pollution keeps piling up, and there are no trees left; even if we all still pack off down the road every morning to a boring job surrounded by mentally defective people, and then come home to buy things and watch television, it'll all be OK if we just follow that bigoted and moronic program. As far as I could tell, their agenda had nothing in common with Hitler's, and they were acting out the image of "neo-Nazi" as they saw it on TV and in the movies.
Onward to frustration: during these years, I had kept active, mainly by reading as extensively as I could, remembering Faulkner's advice ("largely uncorrelated reading"). I had moved from idealistic materialist philosophy of the Nietzschean type to a cosmic idealism like that of Arthur Schopenhauer, and through his work and that of Julius Evola, had discovered the values of ancient Hindu and Buddhist thought. These religions were not like the effete Christian and Jewish faiths that preached preservation of the individual at all costs; they glorified an ideal, or having a goal and a direction, no matter what the cost, and sang their losses as well as their victories. This was a sensible mindset.
Even further, unlike any religion or political philosophy I'd seen in the world, the ancient ways were full of praise for nature and for humankind existing among it, not as dominator of it. Like the Romantic writers and the death and black metal that reinvented their ideas, this was to me, a very healthy philosophy. It did not waste its time with hatred, but suggested a way of life where we find ultimate beliefs and work toward them, knowing that they apply in any situation. It was honorably warlike, and also addressed the existential issue: life is a gift, enjoy it and do what makes it most intense and beautiful. No hours of commuting or sitting in committees, there.
Evola, through Guenon and Nietzsche before him, suggested a new paradigm: all of our political actvity of the last thousand years has been of the same nature, namely revenge by the masses against the elites, and its consequence has been the creation of the headless and greedy society we know as "modern." Judaism, Christianity and liberalism were the same creation, as they had the same basic ideal. Their method was a kind of paradox: a fantasy that claimed to produce magical results in reality (interestingly, all swindles and false promises can be described this way). They were anti-reality, and hence, anti-nature. They believed in saving every life, but that every life should be equally wasted in servitude to modern lifestyles.
In this I found a vehicle for my beliefs, which are as follows:
These beliefs transcend politics, which is a tool that has taken the place of the quest for civilization itself. In the current time, politics does not serve us; we serve it. And furthermore, it completely divides us. Liberals and conservatives have not only balkanized our political spectrum into discrete and uncompromising identities, but they have each failed to maintain the original ideological thrust of their movements.
Liberalism vs Conservatism
Liberalism originates in the idea of making society a better place for the normal working person, but instead liberalism has become a quest to earn money and become powerful in order to subsidize those who cannot or will not help themselves; it is a thin disguise for revenge against those of higher class, caste, ability and beauty of others. This revengeful nature makes liberal policy a consumptive ideal when introduced to any society, dividing it against itself and leading to a disorganized and devolutionary civilization. It is for this reason that liberals are satired as "limousine liberals," or wealthy people feeling better about themselves by "helping" others, when their real intent has nothing to do with helping those people but relies on using them as a weapon against those who might rise above the herd. Liberalism is egoism, and a deep sickness.
Conservatism fares not much better. Its original concept was that of preserving traditional culture, and allowing the best to rise by keeping them independent of too much entangling government and obligation, but it has been sidetracked into the party for defense of wealth, coupled with a narrow reactionary view that rejects deviation from the type of conformist behavior that adapts people to commerce. As a consequence, it, too, has lost its way and become a form of egoism that allows people to congratulate themselves as "superior" for having had the desire to have wealth as an end in itself. It is bankrupt of actual values, and therefore finds itself obsessed with symbolic issues that relate minimally to the course of civilization. Conservatism is reactionarism, and because it defends something that no longer exists by asserting its nominal aspects and ignoring its ideals, it is both destructive and an obstruction to those who would wish to resurrect those values.
Clearly, another path is needed. Modern people are trained to have considered all past ideas as defunct, and to therefore believe that there are no options left. This is a consequence of modern people getting their opinions entirely from television, either directly repeating what they've been told or seeing what they are expected to see from a selective and small sampling of the data shown. Those who do not directly witness these things on television usually socialize with people who will repeat these ideas to them. For this reason, modern people are accustomed to disliking their government but feeling that no other options exist, or that "new" options are needed and have yet not been invented. The opposite is true: the right way to rule a civilization has never changed, and its principles can easily be adapted to our current time.
Third way politics are so called because they represent a middle path that incorporates the sensible parts of both liberalism and conservatism, although the whole of neither. It is another angle in that it cannot be classified as either or the other, and is not "both" in that it does not take the whole of either, but it is also a third way in that instead of taking a political approach, it recognizes that politics should be a means to an end and implements philosophy as a way of understanding politics and grounding it in a values system so that politics does not become divorced from its essential function. In this change more than anything else it resembles nothing currently found in the political spectrum.
Others refer to this ideal as "Tradition," in that it refutes the progressive argument and says, in effect, that there is one way of conducting a successful civilization, and implementations of that with varying degrees of adaptation to reality. In this view, liberalism and conservatism are both aspects of the revolution of the masses that led us away from the way civilizations were run for centuries without the problems we now experience. From this mass revolt we learn that, while every individual might think his or her views should be respected absolutely, only a few people of specialized intelligence are suitable to run a society and their opinions must take precedence over those of the masses. Another way to say this is that the average person will fulfil his desires by buying large cars, dumping toxic waste and cutting down trees to make concrete lots, but that same person will not understand why this is destructive; those who do understand must oppress this person to prevent such problems from occurring.
When we recover from the revolt of the masses that has created the modern theory that we should be able to do whatever we desire, without care for the collective consequences, we return from a temporary illusion to the traditional methods of civilization that always have worked and always will. In this type of civilization, the specialization of labor includes those who retain wisdom, and rule, and thus have more power than others. It also includes limits on what all people can do, and regulates social mobility through karma - how well in intelligence, strength and moral character they have advanced - instead of monetary success. It is not something that exists within our current political system, or can, because it transcends politics in favor of a philosophical outlook.
Widely misunderstood, the Nazi regime's problems are compounded because (a) its would-be followers pay more attention to Hollywood media than Mein Kampf and (b) postwar propaganda has done everything possible to vilify the Nazi state and its leaders. Experienced people immediately discard both Hollywood and postwar propaganda, knowing that each are popular ways of gaining control of the minds of a people without having actually convinced them of a truth. The most important element forgotten in this process is that the Nazi state, like most things, was a means to an end: it was a transitional government between the flawed modern liberal democracy, supported by economic incentive, to a government by ideal, in which the philosophy and culture of a people, including defense of their ethnic uniqueness, was the primary goal.
Hitler portrayed himself as an impassioned and often demonic presence, but his behavior speaks otherwise. He carefully resurrected the German economy based on the productivity of its workers, and instituted policies to protect them and allow them to live better and more honorably than before. He swept out the distracting propaganda of modernity, including its degenerate art and lifestyle choices, and isolated the German population demographically by clearing out anyone of 3/4 or more foreign blood. Despite occupying many foreign nations, including some African ones, he did not institute genocide on non-whites there, but was content to cooperate with them and to honor them as brothers in Nationalist struggle - them standing up for their ethnicity, and Hitler his own.
Legend in America has it that he refused to shake Jessie Owens' hand when the latter won medals at the Olympic Games in Berlin, but Owens' widow recounts that the opposite is true; Hitler shook his hand. While he crusaded to remove jazz and other foreign elements from German culture, he allowed artists who were of non-degenerate behavior to continue their work in those fields. Hitler's supposedly reckless warlike expansion was not random, but designed to contain Communist-friendly elements in Europe, and had it been allowed to persist, would have saved the world from a destructive and paranoiac Cold War. He was unstinting in his support for Nationalists in other countries, and aided them in fighting for their own freedoms as ethnic-cultural entities.
Modernity as Paralysis
It is possible to turn National Socialism, or "neo-Nazism" as it is now called because it is so widely interpreted in the vernacular, into a modern crusade of balkanization potential much like the liberal-conservative split, but this is productive only if one wants a political identity and not transcendence of politics itself. What must be extracted from National Socialism is its implementation of the transitional political-economic system that can deliver us from modernity, and its ideals, which are correspondent to those of Traditional civilizations in ancient Greece, Rome, India and Europe.
These ideals can be upheld in any form, and it is necessary to think of them in this manner, because in a modern society we are overwhelmed by information and thus find it difficult to make decisions. Most of this information has some degree of propaganda in it, and therefore directly influences us for each second we spend watching TV/movies or reading newspapers or popular literature (or rather, each second you spend: I do not indulge in those activities). For this reason, most of our population is polarized to reject any message other than the basic message of modern society, which is that individual "freedom" (and economic mobility) is the ultimate goal of our society and that anything which limits it is unacceptable. We like our ideal of no restrictions and open competition, because we have been taught to think only this is fair.
However, when one limits thinking to that narrow range of thought, the only system of government that is not immediately rejected is that of the modern, capitalist liberal democracy and corresponding quasi-socialist welfare state. The latter is necessary because with economic mobility comes disposability of the worker, and the tendency for those with absolute allegiance only to money to get ahead, leaving the rest of us vulnerable. When social mobility is replaced with a sane economic situation that guarantees employment at good wages, as was had in traditional societies, the preconceptions of the modern state will be discarded.
In the meantime our problem remains, in that our population is mostly paralyzed by a flood of biased information, and we must make the transition to another type of civilization. Luckily, we do not need to convince all of them. In any population, there are many people who lead normal lives, and a large group in the middle - called the "Silent Majority" - who contribute the creative ideas and constructive practices that make life better for the rest. This group are not necessarily rich, but they are not poor, as they are inventive types who create a good living for themselves but generally abstain from politics. They see politics as demagoguery, and thus realize they cannot compete in this field, so they try to stay out of the way of authority while going about what they always do: small businesses, the arts, public service and craftmanship.
Soft Racialism and Holism
Recently, British National Party politician Nick Griffin made a speech to American racialists and Nationalists in which he condemned the direction Nationalism in America is taking. He argued that extremist groups have the wrong approach, in that they appeal only to those who are already alienated, and have neglected the Silent Majority in favor of those who are loudest and angriest. In short, Nationalist groups are their own worst enemy, because they project themselves as terroristic bigots who wish to offend, and thus have a political identity, more than they seek to achieve anything. The tool has become the goal.
Griffin is not telling us simply to dress differently, or to disguise or intentions. His message is far clearer: get rid of the extremist reactionary thought and those who espouse it. Extremism is a dead-end position, in that it alienates those who are not interested in violent revolution and, by its own momentum, will deny us the chance to re-organize civilization and will instead accelerate its destruction. Griffin is not asking us to back down on any of our ideals, but to reorganize our thinking about how to implement them, and to appeal to the Silent Majority instead of alienating them by being parade-ground Nazis who accomplish sound and fury but achieve -- nothing.
I would like to go even further. No one is born a Nationalist, although most healthy people are born with a natural tendency to stick to their own group. Nationalists have always come from other political backgrounds, and have come to Nationalism because they recognize the imperative of cultural preservation. However, I believe our focus in Nationalism has become misguided. We look too closely at the race issue, in part because it is the one that sends our opponents into paroxysms of vitriol, and do not focus on political ideals as a whole. My proposition is that we replace pure Nationalism with a traditional outlook toward civilization, and use Nationalist parties as a means to that end but not that end itself. Again, the tool has replaced the goal, and now our goal is an idealless dogmatic and violent extremist upholding of that tool.
The concept of holism is useful here. In contrast to modern political thought, holistic thought says that we must address all issues and not specialize on certain issues, as liberals have specialized in civil rights and class revenge, and conservatives have specialized in cultural censorship and economic mobility. Nationalism alone does not address all of these issues, although it hints at them. What we must do is transcend contemporary Nationalism, and allow Nationalist parties to organize people via appeal to their ethnic-cultural unity, but to have as part of our platform a greater remaking of society as part of a long-term plan to escape modernity and restore Tradition.
In doing so, we are dropping extremism but also dropping the pretense that we can make one change - race - and thus fix all of the problems of our society. Race is a problem because our society decayed through the influence of mass revolt, and thus left us open to immigration from other countries because it benefitted parasites among us (most of whom are of our own ethnic groups - neurotic, underconfident people arise in every population, and use political power to bolster their internal doubt and fear). We need to get more extreme; race is not the only issue. We must address the environment, and the fact that our society is motivated by economics alone, and the tedium of our daily lives in jobs and bureaucracy. When we turn to such a broad spread of issues, we become something unknown in all of modernity: a political movement with a holistic philosophy of what civilization should be.
This will appeal to the Silent Majority because, especially as our environmental troubles and internal turmoil increases, they feel the threat of both instability in our society and the tendency of our civilization to nose-dive into third world standards from lack of internal unity. They want a political movement that can address all of these problems, as they believe these problems are serious and can see that neither liberal nor conservative movements are going to come close. They are ready for a different way, and as they see how bad things can come, an extreme makeover of our society, but they will not accept extremism because they recognize it for what it is: negative thinking, and radical reactionary desires for revenge and destruction, that will only hasten our demise.
During the final decline of ancient Greek civilization, a similar idea was reached: Plato and Aristotle both agreed that a time of philosopher-kings was needed, in which ideals and not manipulation of a political or social system would guide the population. The simple reason for this is that when shared values exist, a society stands resolved to have a goal; when individualism and mass revolt predominate, the demands of the individual take the place of shared values, and thus the only thing held in common is the lowest common denominator, self-interest, in the form of economic mobility and freedom from interference. In this diseased state societies no longer make decisions, but become fully reactionary, and thus slip into an extremism of their own.
I now have a number of years of political and philosophical thinking and observation under my belt. I've given this issue several years of thought, and have explored every avenue from Marxism to Nazism to Greenism. While I am convinced of the superiority of National Socialism, and refuse to compromise my beliefs on that front, I see no need for extremism and correspondingly, a need for a holistic system of thought to enable us to move forward. I don't want a political identity; I want solutions, so I can go back to enjoying the forests and friends and music and other delights of life.
Over years of attention, I have seen that healthy people everywhere uphold a philosophy, very much akin to that of Romantic literature, that what matters in life is not some "progressive" hocus-pocus but having a solid, heroic civilization upon which to build greatness. While it may take many generations for us to reverse the damage we've wrought, and get back on course, I believe it is a worthwhile goal, and dedicate a fair amount of my time to it. I am frustrated with politics as it is, whether liberal, conservative or "White Nationalist." I see a need for a third way, as a tool to achieve what is an eternal ideal.
In this my goal is to reverse modernity itself, which is a case of the tool replacing the goal because the goal was fragmented by too many different motivations and nothing in common but greed and revenge. Modernity is a sick thing. Money was a method of meting out resources, but now it is our only goal. Technology which was supposed to empower us now has us working longer to support it. Democracy which was supposed to guarantee equality has become a distraction from the actual issues, and a means by which the numb masses dominate the few intelligent ones. The tool has replaced the goal. The only meaningful goals are perpetuation of nature, and continuation of life itself, with us striving to become ever-better as individuals and civilization. Anything else is a distraction that will ultimately lead to this same frustration with politics.
June 22, 2005