The progress of this article so far will offend and disturb people from both sides of the political spectrum. For the right wing, it will fail to condemn traditional targets (Jews, Negroes, Atheists) and for the left wing, it will fail to exonerate them. Reality is a difficult thing to portray, and it rarely fits into Hollywood-movie-perfect categories, where you can look at a character and say, "He's from this group, so he must be good." Indeed, this article will offend most white people by pointing the blame squarely where it belongs and calling for immediate and effective action against it.
What makes this article instantly relevant to any thinker is that not only does it not deny a long-term crisis in the west, but it notes the subtlety of that crisis, and eschews the kind of blundering drama that will only worsen the disaster. Nor does it sugarcoat what needs to be done. This is not an article which panders to popularity, because people are inherently either able to accept it or already lost to its observations, at which point, it's for the best they get offended and run off screaming. It is not intended for mainstream publication because the only reason things get published is to make money, and difficult truths which apply only to the creative, strong-willed, morally sound thinkers of a society are not very popular nor profitable.
Such ideas are relevant because, to anyone with half a brain, it is clear that something has gone wrong in the West. The great artistic works of the past have been replaced by dramatic statements in plastic that ultimately leave us unchanged. The great leaders are gone, and instead we have a series of pandering indistinguishable goons who seem to do little more than enrich themselves in office while bathing us in pleasant but unrealistic visions. Our science which once made great gains is limping along, and nothing it produces seems to work consistently. Even our computers crash constantly. And the quailty of our population? There are fewer beautiful, noble, intelligent people than before, but we now have an endless supply of people who behave like animals who have adapted to survival through money and supermarkets. Only those who aren't already subsumed into such a lumpenproletariat will notice the truth of this observation. Those who have nothing better to recommend them than the ability to get a job and buy things will find this article offensive.
This kind of widespread decline does not happen because of a single political system, because we've tried several (although we have not questioned the nature of political systems themselves, and whether or not there's a better way). It does not happen because a single group controls society, because if they did, they would no longer require the profit that even seems to motivate them - whatever has infected us, has also diseased the "power elites," whoever they are this week. Even more, this kind of decline does not happen in an election cycle, or decade cycle, or even within a handful of centuries; this is the kind of failure that is so subtle and slow-working it takes millennia to fully bloom, and since it moves at an infinitessimal pace, is impossible for the average person to observe. Only those who try to summarize all of history in large mental constructions will spot it, and they have, through the centuries - Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kaczynski, Linkola, Hitler. (Oh! Did I say a forbidden name? That this "free" society even has forbidden names, or concepts that subject you to social isolation, should have you striking the word "free" from its description, post-haste!)
And who is behind this decline? Who has brought it upon you, whether willingly or not? Soon you will know. In the meantime, it's important that we again address Mr. Linder's idea ("DEATH TO THE JEWS," remember?) and question whether or not the Jews are responsible for our plight. It seems unlikely, since their appearance is relatively late in the cycle, and they don't yet control everything, although certainly their prominence in the news-entertainment media, finance and government is troubling. This article isn't an apologetic for the Jews; clearly they do not belong in Western culture, as their values are entirely foreign to ours - their materialistic dualism does not match with the healthiest of European beliefs, cosmic idealism, and is in fact diametrically opposed to it, to the point that whenever a Jew opens his mouth to speak "ideology" you should be assured it is harmful to you - and should be ejected by any means necessary. It's definitely not an attempt to praise them, since while they've done many good things, this is in part a result of their having relentlessly self-promoted and passed over capable goyim, such to the point where it's natural they have accomplished some good things, because they hold disproportionate amounts of the positions required. But on the whole, have Europe's fortunes raised or lowered because of the Jews? Greater divisiveness, neurosis, infighting, and ugly hook noses - Europeans are becoming Jews, from the looks of things!
Nor is this article here to excuse Christians. Those who have infused cosmic idealism into Christianity have made from it the best religion on earth since the original Vedic belief, but not all Christians follow this ideal, and since most cannot figure it out on their own and Christianity has a misleading character, it is commonly destructive. Indeed, throughout the Western world, we see Christians acting against nature and helping the helpless, importing third worlders into European populations, subsidizing the dysfunctional at the expense of the functional. Such Christians are criminally insane, and that their religion is delusional does not excuse their behavior. Christianity can be fixed, but it requires an iron hand - and a healthier (morally) population. Nietzsche referred to Christianity as the "immortal blemish" of mankind, and from a technical view of Christianity as a philosophy, he is correct: its tendency toward pity and individualistic morality is sure to restrain the strong so that the morally weak, mentally defective and unhealthy can achieve a plurality in any society. In fact, from an outsider's perspective, Christianity acts like a classic computer virus in that it appears safe until activated, at which point it systematically defuses defenses and implants its own logic where once more creative, independent thought reigned.
We could even be good liberals and blame corporations, or if we're smarter than the average liberal, money itself. Yet corporations have only been around for the past 25% of the death cycle of the West, and while money has been misleading and is a bad primary motivator for any society, money has always been with us, without causing damage this widespread. Something else crapped in the soup first, friends - something more powerful than the lure of money, which seems to appeal to those of a lower mindset, the same kind of underconfident and morally deficient people that use Christianity as their chosen drug and masturbatorily consider themselves "good" for having pitied others, even if the end result of their pity is destructive - such as encouraging the breeding of the lesser, while demoting the stronger, as if planned as an antidote to evolution! (And who fears evolution? Do strong, healthy, morally strong people worry that they might be unfit?...you're catching on here, if you follow this point: who benefits from a moral system that promotes the weak over the strong?)
Who is holding you back, Western human? What's the poison in your wedding cake, the landmine in your playground, the flea in your jockstrap? The far right immediately screams that it's racial degeneration (true) and then points to Negroes and other third-world groups, less favored races on the evolutionary chain perhaps, but is it their fault? Their intent? And why are they here in the first place, if they're such a bad deal for us all? The left sees far right conspiracies in anything more organized than a picnic, but if one looks at the actions and rhetoric of modern governments, they clearly follow a liberal democratic agenda, not a far-rightist one, so you have to be somewhat insane or mentally dysfunctional to see that logic as sound. One tragedy of modern time is that we're all taught to talk and write without necessarily having mastered the logical skills necessary to assert a sensible proposition, or even test one, thus we have an abundance of highly literate gibberish and very little clear, plain thought. Why is it that common sense is dead? Could it be that we do not (even among whites) share the same common sense?
There are only so many patterns in life. It's doubtful that we've found a new one for our decline, which means that it is something easily recognized, as much so as becoming tired and falling asleep during a long drive home. Further, it is not complicated, as to engineer failure is a simple task, even when a cryptic one. It is something literally staring us in the face, but we keep asking the wrong questions and getting the wrong answers, thus instead of starting the process over and asking new questions, we beat ourselves senseless with our lack of answers... why is that? Could it be that the right answers are somehow unacceptable? -- another way of saying, to whom are these answers so offensive that they would hold all of us back?
Let's do a postmortem, before the decease, since for those who have the foresight to see that history is an ongoing process and its results occur because of our choices, and vary with the different possibilities offered to us, i.e. are not random as many would like to believe, will see that our process is one of inevitability. Didn't T.S. Elliott say something about this? He recognized that the most likely form of collapse occurs slowly, and is not so much a big bang, as a lapsing away... a slow drop into failure, at which point an equilibrium of failure is achieved, and no one thinks to say aloud that failure has occurred. Only change, and we all know that newer ideas are better than old, right? (Nod for tax deduction.) In fact, if we observe the third world, even Africa, we see the remnants of once-mighty civilizations that have collapsed into a comfortable mediocrity. It wasn't a disaster. Just a slow lapse of forward motion, followed by an unending stasis in almost-was could-have-been status. That's our future. But it isn't here yet, so let's look at what caused this disease.
It seems that first we lost our philosophy. We no longer shared basic values in common. Then Christianity arose, and immigrant populations - at first, Jews and Gypsies (Roma) - came into our countries, and interbred among us. Then we stopped caring about ancestors, and interbred freely. In the meantime, our commerce had grown like wildfire, and so we took over the world, basically - yes, you, Western man - and then turned that same intelligence toward making money. We found we could do it better with first slaves, and second cheap labor, who are incapable of inventing our methods and machines for themselves. Soon these slaves became part of our populations. Our aristocracy died out and were replaced by rock stars and people who made themselves fabulously wealth; these were our new heroes. Finally, we reach the stage of pluralism, where we believe that the best method of governing is not to agree on anything at all, which forces our leaders to construe any obstacle as not just an impediment - but a mortal enemy who attacked us first, who hates our "freedom," etc etc. We've gone from being active people who did heroic things and established great civilizations, to being passive people who have to convince themselves they've been wronged before they can attack. How disgusting, and how dishonest. It seems there's been a failure of quality control in the West!
One reason most people will not join "pro-White" or "White Nationalist" parties is that most of the dickheads and criminals and passive jerkoffs they meet in daily life are "white." Another reason the historically educated will never join any idiot "White Nationalist" undertaking is that they recognize all white people are not the same. The Irish aren't of the quality of the Germans; many Italians are barely first-world quality; almost all Slavs are remnants of a slave population that specialized in running water supplies past open sewers and getting gang-raped by Mongols! You do not want to breed your Germans and Scandinavians into your Slavs and Southern Europeans, or you will handily destroy the best among whites. This is only part of it. Another reason many of us will not join "White Nationalist" parties is that we perceive them to be violent bigots without a solution, and we do not wish to engage in "hate" to motivate us - it's passive to have to hate something before you can act on it; it's pathetic and destructive to one's moral character. (I'll note exceptions: Alex Linder is a National Socialist, as is Bill White, and the NSM and LNSG - these organizations have at least an ideology that isn't some idiotic "Pan-Aryan" excuse to feel better about ourselves by construing ourselves as superior to other races! -- as if there's that much difference between your average Southern Italian or Slav or low Irishman and an Arab or Jew or Mexican, anyway.)
Our problem is a far more subtle one.
A troubling symptom is that white people are for sale, these days. Whatever makes money, they go with, and they'll argue for it on TV or in front of Congress. They no longer seem to think about the long-term consequences, or even the reality of an action; if it's socially acceptable, and makes money, they go ahead and do it, with a few exceptions who abstain from behavior outside their character and thus are punished in earnings potential and thus breeding potential, slowly squeezing them out of the gene pool. While this behavior is very clearly a problem, most white people will not argue against it. The far-right ones are so afraid of Communism they'll never slander their precious earning potential, and both sides agree that it's good to be able to chase the almighty dollar, as it levels the playing field for all of us. Economic competition is part of that individual "freedom," and if there's one sacred cow in this society, it's that everyone should be able to do whatever they desire - and can afford, of course.
Even more disturbing is that white people seem to trust their society, its new-entertainment media, and its figureheads. They're like sheep. Stamp "evil" on something and they run for it; stamp "good" on something and they go off to war to fight for it, never mind how many of their European brothers they murder. They refuse to act on anything which is socially unacceptable, or "offensive," to others, and therefore routinely bypass truthful answers and workable solutions for illusion and passive, ineffective action. The disease is within white people, then. They cling stubbornly to high-minded ideals like "freedom" and "justice" and command themselves to be blind when the failures of those big spacy abstractions are revealed. They willingly set their children down in front of televisions for four hours a day so the parents can have time for their personal agendas. They hate their jobs, detest the amount of time they have to spend waiting in lines, etc., but as soon as the day is done, they're gloating about how much farther ahead they are than their neighbors. These are no Aryans.
(We could be good brain-dead Buddhists/Scientologists and start ranting on about how "the ego" is to blame, and how when we get over the ego, we can congratulate ourselves for being smarter than others, for by spending all our time negating the ego, we have disciplined it... nothing could be farther from the original intent of Buddhism. The ego isn't the problem - the socialized ego is a symptom of looking for an external absolute, as in a dualistic system, and leads to passive action mentalities. Modern Buddhism has been absorbed by the same disease as Christianity, and some smart entrepreneur figured this out and hybridized the two to create Scientology. There's a saying in computers: "GIGO," or garbage-in, garbage-out. In the case of religions, if you run inferior people through a religion, they will convert it into an inferior religion.)
The West has a basic philosophical deficit that is so pervasive among every area of its thought that it is literally invisible to even trained people looking for it. It is an assumption on such a basic level that all other thought is predicated upon it, and therefore, it infects everything, invisibly, and makes each person taught in any one of these disciplines its carrier. An ideal virus, isn't it? One wonders if it serves nature like disease, by carrying away that which is past its prime and lacks the will to recover. This virus can be explained through bullet points, since that's all the modern ape understands anyway:
1. Our society is built in a contra-evolutionary direction. Instead of hoping to make stronger people, we want to accept all people.
How did this process start? The stronger among us are the more tolerant and fertile, and therefore are accustomed to moving independently without being concerned by those around them, unless they outright attack. They easily forget that mediocrity is a greater evil than malevolence, because while malevolence manifests itself through active antagonism, mediocrity patiently chips away at higher standards, gradually bringing everything together into one lowest common denominator norm. It eats away from within, like a cancer; the broken cells form tumors, the tumors demand equality, and soon healthy tissue everywhere is replaced by tumor. At the same time the mediocre are demanding power, they're unable to handle it - while their brains can grasp linear thought, or simple value trees, they cannot handle holistic or transcendent thought. It's beyond them. They prefer to have things spelled out in external absolutes, like a big sign painted with a list of things that are "good" and things that are "evil," and in doing so, they obliterate the need for people who - having higher intelligence and moral character - can innately tell the difference. Mediocre people fear these higher people, who we'll call the aristocracy, using the older meaning of this world (before it came to mean, in the British sense, those who are simply wealthy). Mediocre people are anti-aristocratic, and thus they always demand egalitarian principles. Drag down the strong - as they're outnumbered, and even God himself cannot outdo the millions of squalling voices - and remove their privilege. Take away what nature has given. The mediocre cannot bear the thought that any would rise above the crowd, as that splinters the crowd into individuals who recognize their own shortcomings. It's a bad comedy - insane people who are incompetent to rule grabbing power so they feel better about themselves, but all that can really make them feel better is to improve themselves from within, which may take many generations of positive breeding - and the possibility of (oh God no) death, as death is the sculptor's tool in evolutionary systems.
The crowd relies on what can be "proved" to the crowd. Complex postulates annoy them, as do ambiguous statements. They want clear good-vs-evil, profitable-vs-unprofitable, popular-vs-offensive style statements. Anything that requires more interpretation than that grants value to the higher man, and the crowd wants nothing more than to revenge themselves on the higher, and to destroy them. Why is this? The mediocre want power, but they lack the inner strength that is required with power, so they become neurotic, and desire to tear down anything that reminds them of their mediocrity. Complex rules give the advantage to smarter people. Destroy the complex rules, then - they want nothing that places some naturally above others. Let them all fight it out in some nice easy linear game, like making money, so that those who do not mind giving up the rest of their time to slave away for tokens get ahead. Let me ask, dear reader: do you think the people most motivated to money are the best among us? Quite clearly not - they're the least confident, the least complete as souls and beings, among us. They have a hunger within that they try to fufil externally. And this leads us back to the loss of philosophy in common in the West. Once - perhaps during the time of the Rig Veda - there was a philosophy in common, and it was a heroic one. It denied the individual as anything more than a fragmentary manifestation of universal consciousness, and thus placed emphasis on the vehicle of the individual, namely the physical body. All is physicality, it proclaimed. There is order, but it is intermingled with the physical world, and thus there is no duality. One world; no heaven, no hell, except as states of mind. In this philosophy, what was rewarded was work on the inner world: gaining more intelligence, more physical beauty and strength, and more moral character.
Aha! says some modern, fancying himself to be clever. "But strength is external!" No, no, no. You do not understand. External is the world beyond the body. Strength and beauty can only be shaped by evolution, as can intelligence and moral character. Think about it: 80% of your being is defined by genetics, and the remaining 20% is the swing vote. If you act heroically, and overcome your fear of death and do what is right, you gain power, internally. If you shirk from any real challenges, and opt for a comfy materialistic life, you don't gain anything over your initial 80%, and you may in fact decline a bit with atrophy of your powers. Imagine a family that for ten generations in a row improves itself in each generation, and - regardless of what your science has taught you - imagine that even half of those new acquired traits are passed on through breeding. What do you have? A much better animal, in terms of its design, as measured by intelligence, strength and moral character.
That right there is the internal strength that mediocre people fear. It requires they use self-discipline, accept their lot in life, and be willing to give up their lives or comfort for some far, far, far away long-term improvement to their genetic line. Mediocre people being dumb, and therefore selfish, will rarely act on such a thing. They will see only the next two weeks and the coming baseball game and all the cool things they could buy, but they won't see the long term. At least, most of them. Some, like our ancient mediocre caveman ancestors in Africa, kept going. Instead of taking the easy way out, they challenged themselves. They rose above the crowd, and got away from it, by running to the far north. There, in peace, they began to change. And from that came Caucasians. This knowledge is essential, as Nietzsche points out with his nasty crack about there being "no pure races." Each race arrived from the same origin, but now they're radically different; the Asian will never be Caucasian, nor the African. This isn't a reason to be mean to or denigrate Asians/Africans; there is some overlap, and the best among them are quite good people. We should accept them, love them, learn from them and esteem them - but not breed with them, because as any idiot can see, to breed with another tribe is to obliterate your own by changing it from being a unique thing into being a mix of things, which is a less organized system and thus more prone to entropy. It is for this reason that no mixed-race, mixed-culture empire has existed long in the annals of history, and that all of them have collapsed into mediocre third-world nations ruled by a pretentious crowd of crass linear thinkers.
Schopenhauer spoke about the tendency of people who have lost personal initiative to want to breed back to lower levels of humanity, to become more primitive... it's like a drowning person making the choice to give up and go under: at some point, the mental stress of continuing exceeded their capability of tolerance, and thus they collapsed under the load, and regressed. This is evolution. The mouse that stops struggling feeds a hawk. The Caucasian that stops struggling for a higher state becomes - a third worlder. However, first there's the step above, namely mediocrity. In societies that breed for money, a majority of mediocre people is produced rather quickly; these people are capable of holding jobs, even "inventing" things by combining known parts and following known process, and they can be "smart" in a linear sense, but never genius. They are morally defunct, in the same way Jews are, because they have no higher ideals than their own comfort. They can be criminally insane, the way Christians and liberals are, in that they consider their own self-image before the effects of their deeds; they're solipsists who ultimately care little for their effect on the world, because the entirety of their consciousness is devoted to themselves as an externalized, social image. These are the mediocre people, first by the mindset they produce, and then by the terrible breeding they encourage. This is the crowd. These are the revengeful masses. These are - well, to coin a term from Nietzsche - these are Undermen.
Like the Last Man, they believe in nothing but the material. They hate those who have more ability than themselves, even if they'll never admit to it publically; no, better to look good and praise this person, while in secret moments admitting their true emotion: hatred, fear, a desire for revenge. They detest aristocracy and genius, things they can never have within this lifetime. They are pleased by anything that panders to them, because in their simplistic minds, it seems to be acknowledging their equality (when in fact, like pity, it is acknowledging their inferiority, but with a smile - and that makes all the difference). Undermen are like rats in that they are only happy when they are in a nest of filth, because there is nothing that is above them, and thus for once, they feel perfectly in control of the situation. If they drag everything down to their level, they will be in control, their primitive (not much more advanced than a chimp in their conceptual abilities, although they're better with tools and language) minds reason. In short, Undermen will destroy anything of the higher or finer values in life, because they cannot perceive these values, and they will drag down anyone who is rising to greater heights than they have achieved. Undermen are like the anti-evolution; they're against setting high goals and striving, because striving means possibly losing, and that will threaten their fragile world composed of a desire for power they cannot handle and a consequent lack of self-confidence. Undermen will take any decent society and slowly, inevitably, over thousands of years, drag it into the third world.
A small clarification needs to be made here: Undermen does not mean simply dumb, in the way an IQ test would measure. IQ tests measure linear intelligence. There are good people -- well, take this example. Joe P. is a plumber. Joe didn't set out to be a plumber, but he got into it, and during those moments when he's looking over a job he did well, even if it's just a toilet installation, Joe is glad to be a plumber, and he likes it, and he's proud of what he does. Joe leads a basically moral life. Sure, he hauls off and gets drunk with the boys on the weekends - but that doesn't have much to do with morality, does it? Morality determines the direction of your life, how you conceive of yourself in the world, and what heroisms you're willing to enact. It has very little to do with avoiding "evils" like drunkkenness and lust, although one rises to a higher level by not engaging in such behaviors - the path to becoming more than you are is a high degree of selectiveness, in how you spend your time, in your sexual/breeding partners, in the thoughts you allow into your consciousness. Self-discipline makes higher people. Joe doesn't have rigorous self-discipline, but he tries to do the right thing, and holds himself back from some actions as a result. Joe is probably not going to advance a level on the karmic wheel, but he won't fall back one, either. Thus Joe the Plumber is not an Underman, and he should pray he is never recognized as such, or Undermen will have their revenge, and it's what they do best.
Similarly, some among the wealthy are not Undermen. Fearing society (rightfully!) they undertook to earn enough money that their families could navigate around it. Depending on the duration one wishes to avoid society, this can mean hundreds of millions of dollars. At some point, however, these rare wealthy people opt to do something else with their time, and rarely is it the crowd-pleaser of handing out condoms in Africa or building latrines in Central America. No, they aim higher than that; why devote time to life's failures, when instead you can create victories? These are not Undermen.
When we look at the West with this knowledge - that it's being eaten from within by Undermen - we can see the wisdom of our greatest writers. Elliot saw hollow men digesting our moral core. Faulkner saw white trash taking over through economics, and replacing grandeur with store-bought interchangeability. Fitzgerald saw a country motivated entirely by personal wealth, bringing boredom to those who had it and an amoral viciousness to those who desired it, a viciousness that soon became the standard of behavior. Hemingway saw people obsessed by their own drama, unable to realize their own Underman behavior was what was dragging them down to the level where they would be replaced by others (even Jewish boxers). Conrad saw a Europe giddy over money and popularity as a result losing its inner strength, and descending to the level of savages, or even lower, perhaps, because it lacked the ability for non-passive action. In philosophy, Nietzsche saw revenge by the undifferentiated masses as destroying the aristocratic tradition and thus breeding increasingly complaisant sheep; Aristotle saw the same. Plato saw a crowd easily distracted by a show, thus allowing hidden oligarchs to manipulate it for profit. Marcus Aurelius saw a loss of the quietude that brings heroic spirituality, and Schopenhauer and Eckhart echo him in that observation. The West's disease is not unknown. It is undermentioned, however, because it is not popular with the Undermen, and they current constitute the largest portion of our population.
It's a mistake to blame Jews and Negroes for our downfall. They're here because we're falling apart. That they should be sent away, along will all other non-Caucasian races, is not in doubt, nor that we should never accept immigrants from Eastern Europe or other already-collapsed white empires; this is merely common sense. Equally commonsensical is that we should breed better people wherever we can, and that we cannot do it via administrative means like IQ tests or linear-thinking eugenics, but that we must find among us those who have a balance of intelligence - strength - moral character that permits heroic action, and breed more of these, to drown out the Undermen. But alas, the mistake has already been made - by the Undermen - of breeding far too many Undermen to the point where they immobilize us politically, unless, of course, we're willing to step aside from politics. On a planet that can support a half-billion, if we want such nice things as unbroken forests and unpolluted oceans, we have seven billion. The largest portion (90%) of these are useless, worthless, blockheads - Undermen.
What must we do?
It is simple, really. Alex Linder's quote started this article, and that quote ("DEATH TO THE JEWS") is admirable because it doesn't beat around the bush. It goes right for the assertive, warlike, masculine and powerful action that he sees as what must be done. Consequently, the author here will coin his own:
We have too many people. Most of them are mediocre. If we don't cut back now, we'll overpopulate and consume all the resources on earth, committing ecocide and destroying the best people among us. Thus it is time to act. Death to the Undermen. If one hypothetical non-Underman handed a sword to each non-Underman he met, and they each did the same while slitting the throats of all Undermen - man, woman and child - that they encountered, the process would quickly reverse itself. Political objections can easily be neutralized by buying off the foppish and ineffective leaders, and murdering any businesspeople or news-entertainment media figures who intervene. Undermen act brave in crowds, but when the crowd's power is broken, they cower and run in disorganization. it will be easy to hunt them down and slaughter them. Their bodies will help nourish future forests.
This isn't to say that killing the undermen ("DEATH TO THE UNDERMEN") is the only solution. Clearly we must outbreed them - killing them helps that, y'know. But there's also the need to find quality people and get them to breed. Even more important however is resurrecting evolution. Bring back adversity, and stop making daily life so safe. Let death take the unwary, the perverse, the delusional. Let the non-insane Christians separate from the rest, and have their own elite churches, where no apologies are made to the poor and retarded and Undermenschish. Nature rewards long-term thinking, such as preparing for winter or breeding selectively or developing inner strengths, so let us resume a society that does that. Anyone who pursues money as a goal above all else is an Underman - THEY MUST DIE. Anyone who objects to this platform is an Underman - THEY MUST DIE. Anyone who squawks "How dare you?" or starts talking about equality is either an Underman, or rapidly descending to be one - THEY MUST DIE. THEY MUST DIE NOW. Mercy is pretense, pity is egoism - you do not need these illness, or you will become an Underman as well.
Whether we sterilize the Undermen, or by some mathematically impossible deed outbreed them, or we kill them all with axes - the outcome is the same: we will destroy them and restore evolution. This is the only positive solution. To claim that pacifistic breeding-out is "better" than murder is nutty, since the result is identical; do we really need the pretense that says those who do not lift a blade are better than those who do? Whoever wrote that clearly cared more for his own ego than the future of his people! Undermen do not desire sensible world orders. Like Jews and insane Christians, they are morally empty, because they are so fixated on their own lack of self-confidence and their own neediness, a need for reinforcement, that they've forgotten about the world. They will not mean to destroy it, but destroy it they will - it's one of Agatha's simple patterns, like a cross-stitch, that shows up in every population. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The only way to transcend hell is to aim for higher goals; to recognize reality, and act heroically upon it. Undermen oppose this. Unless they are eliminated, they will destroy us all, and our planet besides. THE UNDERMEN MUST DIE. Every generation in every population, no matter how wonderful and high quality, will produce some experiments that fail - mediocre is worse than evil, and if these mediocre are tolerated, they will soon become Undermen. THEY MUST DIE. To love life is to remember its primal rule, which is that without evolution, a backward process begins. Life as a whole, as an organism, is more important than the loss of individual lives. We must produce better lives or we will fail, evolutionarily, and will regress toward mediocrity. To praise life is to praise necessary death. By doing what is necessary, we will grow stronger. Those who oppose us are the Undermen. Those who brought this upon us are the Undermen. The only solution is to remove the Undermen. DEATH TO THE UNDERMEN.
August 5, 2005