End the negativity of modern people

30 08 10 - 12:18

Modern people, projecting their inner fears outward, have made a world of negativity. Those who have seen more of the eternal are going to laugh at their neurotic, domesticated, neotenic, fetal worldview.

The hysteric world view of climate change may be the best thing that has happened to us conservatives. Thanks to it and the social guilt liberals always project unto each other, they've become society's whiny, dogmatic doomsday prophets. People nowadays laugh at those who say we need to recycle everything in sight, that we can save the world if we donate billions to poor children, that a grey race culture can be achieved. Election results across Western and Eastern Europe speak for themselves: people don't buy the shit anymore. - It really is a great world, by Alex Birch

Let's throw out the laughable shit, laugh at it, and move on to better things that are more fun. Zzz to the neurotic, beta-male, whiny-indignant drama of liberals.


29 08 10 - 20:55

Thanks to the hard work of our web team and content team, as well as two of you who really went beyond the call of duty:

http://www.nihil.org/ - The Center for Nihilism and Nihilist Studies

Up and running, with new content plus some old friends. And the worlds' most nihilistic web design to boot!

A Return to Modesty, by Wendy Shalit

28 08 10 - 09:31

A brief excerpt here:

Couples who live together before marriage are much less likely to get married; and if they do marry, they're more likely to get divorced. Yet the vocabulary of modesty has largely dropped from our cultural consciousness; when a woman asks a question that necessarily implicates it, we can only mumble about "space issues."

I first became interested in the subject of modesty for a rather mundane reason - because I didn't like the bathrooms at Williams College. Like many enlightened colleges and universities these days, Williams houses boys next to girls in its dormitories and then has the students vote by floor on whether their common bathrooms should be coed. It's all very democratic, but the votes always seem to go in the coed direction because no one wants to be thought a prude. When I objected, I was told by my fellow students that I "must not be comfortable with my body." Frankly, I didn't get that, because I was fine with my body; it was their bodies in such close proximity to mine that I wasn't thrilled about.

I ended up writing about this experience in Commentary as a kind of therapeutic exercise. But when my article was reprinted in Reader's Digest, a weird thing happened: I got piles of letters from kids who said, "I thought I was the only one who couldn't stand these bathrooms." How could so many people feel they were the "only ones" who believed in privacy and modesty? - Mystagogy

People forget that morality is not arbitrary; it's an adaptation to reality, and not just material constraint but the nature of reality itself. You get one life, and one youth; you probably want those times to be as important, as impressive, and as sacred as possible. Modesty is the gateway to that end, which in turn delivers a more intense experience -- through choice, or quality over quantity -- than ten thousand one night stands could hope to deliver.

See how they spin

26 08 10 - 15:56

How they present it: altruism evolved through natural selection (Headline: "Altruism can be explained by natural selection")

In a second mathematical analysis, the team investigated how eusociality could evolve through standard natural selection. They found that a gene for eusociality could spread readily as long as the advantages it confers — increasing the lifespan and reproductive success of the queen — kick in even for small colonies. So colonies that have as few as two or three workers must provide significant advantages to their queen for the gene and the behaviour to become widespread. - Natur

What it actually means: close kin-ties, like ethnonationalism or racism, evolved through natural selection.

These ants aren't being altruistic; they're helping their own team, e.g. being collectivist.

But they couldn't spin it that way or you'd all go join the Black Panthers or Hitler Youth, and that wouldn't be fair to gay blind Hispanic dwarves.

Four words to save your life

26 08 10 - 10:48

People generally run away from solutions to their problems, because solutions require you get to the cause of the matter, and then make structural changes. It's easier to make changes on the surface or demand a subsidy.

In the case of modern society, here in the industrialized West and anywhere else stupid enough to undertake this goal, we have a problem with lots of people in oblivion because they're justifying their fake solutions. They don't want to stop their lives to take on a real problem, especially an unglamorous one as deep-seated, far-reaching, entrenched problems always are.

They're rather have an easy problem, like another war or recession. These are single factors they can deal with and when they've beaten back the enemy, the problem goes away. But what about problems where the enemy doesn't exist, unless we consider "disorganization","entropy" or "solipsism" our enemy?

They're not so good at tackling those, mainly because not everyone in a cross-section of society can see these problems. In fact, at first it's limited to a few really exceptional thinkers, and only later does it trickle down to people of a normal intelligence range. For those below one standard deviation from the average, it's unlikely that they'll see the problem at all until it explodes in their faces.

I’ve got my own theories about the high rate of suicide in New Zealand (and most of the western world). To my mind we need to address the alienation, the atomisation and the anomie of modern life if we want to get to the roots of the problem. In addition I find it hard to believe that at some level we don’t all feel the ecocide rending the planet. We are part of the fabric of life, despite the illusion of separation, and cannot be mentally healthy while we continue to wreak destruction on ourselves. - 3news

"Firefighting" happens when you cannot address underlying causes, so you tackle surface manifestations. See the image of the enemy? Fire, and hope it's not in a mirror.

The four words that can save your life:

Our civilization is declining.

When your family members invent needless drama, your workplace is ruled by idiots, you can't drive across town because too many fools are causing obstructions, and your politicians are corrupt, don't kid yourself: your society is falling apart. It happens slowly, so people have been saying this for years, and it has been true but it has taken some time to happen. Of course, there are also idiots in any age who claim the sky is falling, but there are also idiots who claim that doing meth is good for you. The problem is idiots, not that their message automatically makes anyone who ever speaks it wrong.

All the people you know are under great stress because (a) they subconsciously know this civilization is falling apart and (b) they lack the guts to confront it, because that means they have to stop being selfish and start a fight involving real sacrifice; a fight that isn't immediately obvious to everyone, like a war or natural disaster. Oops.

In his latest research study, released today by the Center for a Stateless Society, Kevin Carson makes the case for progressives as the bitter-enders of a social project made obsolete by liberating technologies and the production and distribution methods those technologies make possible.

“Thermidor of the Progressives: Managerialist Liberalism’s Hostility to Decentralized Organization” traces the development of managerialism in the political and economic realms, the history of progressive attachment to the managerial vision, and the siege mentality displayed by progressives as they confront what Carson calls the “Network Revolution.”

“For liberals,” writes Carson, author of _The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low Overhead Manifesto_, “the American Golden Age was the ‘Consensus Capitalism’ of the New Deal and the first post-WWII generation. … This general affinity for large-scale organization and hierarchy, more recently, has been reflected in hostility to the new forms of networked organization permitted by the emerging technologies of the late twentieth century.” - C4SS

How did hippies become consumerists, bohemians become bourgeois, progressives become establishmentarians? Their underlying goal was always the same: ignore decline, and to compensate, make good for self. When you're 18, you want free sex. When you're 28, legal drugs. When you're 38-58, you want to keep the stash of income you've made at the job you didn't want to go to but had to anyway, so you might as well get paid (well) for it.

It's a great runaround. No one believes their ideology -- well, except a few. If you remember a bell curve, you see that most people are in the center and very similar. At the edges are outliers, who are either geniuses or retards. The few who believe are the geniuses. Why do people not believe their own ideology? First, most of them are unsuited for having ideological thoughts at all -- they're just not competent at it. Second, their ideologies are usually justifications for their way of life. I love meth, therefore, drugs should be legal. Ta-da!

Among the future consequences of not fixing our national problems will likely be an increase in social unrest and an increase in crime.


Doing nothing is not an option for America. Much of poor America, especially in our major cities, has been Third World America for decades. Soon the urban middle classes and even upper classes will become better acquainted with that world.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/third-world-america-fast-tracking-to-anarchy-2010-8#ixzz0xjeDHOfZ

As we go further into the abyss, we're seeing what people have been denying for 2,000 years -- a long steady decline into irrelevance, narcissism, and negativity. We no longer have a goal, except ourselves as individuals and (a) people are selfish (b) most people are not bright enough to see the consequences of their actions.

We could either man up and face the problem, or keep blowing it off and hoping it detonates only after we die, leaving a disaster where once a near-paradise stood.

Hacking is not information democracy

25 08 10 - 09:46

Let us consider two principles of hacking:

(a) Information wants to be free;

(b) Those who have the skills to use such information should have it.

In an interview with AFP Tuesday, the lawyer also rejected Assange's claim the allegations were part of a plot to harm WikiLeaks.

"This is not a smear campaign," Borgstroem said, pointing out that his clients, aged 25 to 35, had gone to police separately over different alleged incidents and had no links to anyone who would be interested in discrediting the website.

"This has nothing to do with WikiLeaks or the CIA," he insisted. - Swedish Wire

International superstar Julian Assange believes that information should be democratized, or by taking that first principle to the extreme, he offers up to the world what the masses cannot handle and will shortly dumb down into an us-versus-them scenario.

He should have paid attention to the second principle: those who can use information should be the ones to have it, not the clueless and destructive masses.

Why we are nihilists not fatalists

25 08 10 - 07:32

Life is sacred:

As for ethics, they are elemental in Bradbury’s fiction and screenplays, and even in his horror stories (every devotee of ghostly fiction should read his collection of early stories titled The October Country). Moral truths appear not in obvious nuggets, like raisins in a raisin cake, but blended among the basic ingredients.

They bespeak Bradbury’s beliefs that human beings are more than the flies of summer — they are in fact made for knowing beauty, truth, and eternity — and that each movement toward political centralization, materialism, sham intellectualism, and needless destruction of the natural environment endangers all that makes life fulfilling and worthwhile, rendering man little more than a trousered ape. - National Review

Every time we try to reduce reality to convenience, safety, equality and peace, we make a hell of boredom, irreverence, resentment and stupidity.

If parents all around us are clutching their children close, it’s easy to understand why: It’s what pop culture is telling us to do. Stories of kidnappings swamp the news. Go online, and you can find a map of local sex offenders as easily as the local Victoria’s Secret (possibly in the same place). Meantime, if you do summon the courage to put your kids on a bus or a bench or a bike, other parents keep butting in: An unwatched child is a tragedy waiting to happen.


We have to be less afraid of nature and more willing to embrace the idea that some rashes and bites are a fair price to pay in exchange for appreciating the wonder of a cool-looking rock or an unforgettable fern.


When we watch TV, we have to remind ourselves that its job is to terrify and disgust us so that we’ll keep watching in horror. It is doing an excellent job on both fronts.

We have to learn to remind the other parents who think we’re being careless when we loosen our grip that we are actually trying to teach our children how to get along in the world, and that we believe this is our job. A child who can fend for himself is a lot safer than one forever coddled, because the coddled child will not have Mom or Dad around all the time. Adults once knew what we have forgotten today. Kids are competent. Kids are capable. Kids deserve freedom, responsibility, and a chance to be part of the world. - The Week

Everywhere there is fear, there is control.

Control works from the negative -- what is the biggest fear? Who is most likely to screw up and become a victim? -- which turns society inside out.

Instead of focusing on goals and the people most likely to be a credit to our society, we focus on fears and those who are hopeless.

And who are the fear preachers?

Osama abhors the vision of interfaith harmony that the proposed Islamic center represents. He fears Muslim clerics who can cite the Koran to denounce terrorism.

It’s striking that many American Republicans share with Al Qaeda the view that the West and the Islamic world are caught inevitably in a “clash of civilizations.” - NYT

If you don't want us all to be one big happy family, one human race -- then you're afraid. Right? Well, that's what the professional idiots want you to think.

But if you analyze it, the "one big family" and "equality/everyone wins" outlook is fear of life itself. Fear of different abilities, or different decisions.

Given the number of British writers who have been attracted to the camels and tents and desolation of Arab tribal life it is tempting to reduce it to an infatuation with the noble savage. But this is misleading. As Ernest Gellner points out in Muslim Society, it was more often the aristocratic ranking of a feudal order that appealed to those drawn to the Arab world:

The European discovery and exploration of Muslim tribal society occurred in the main after the French Revolution, and was often carried out by men—long before T.E.Lawrence—who were possessed by a nostalgia for a Europe as it was prior to the diffusion of the egalitarian ideal … They sought, not the noble savage, but the savage noble.

That’s an interesting twist. Savage nobles aplenty can be found waving their swords and daggers throughout The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, a work some regard as one of the important books of the twentieth century. - Roger Sandall

The egalitarian ideal means that we must all be forced to be equal, at the expense of all else. Naturally it includes control, because nothing in nature is equal, and humanity won't be "equal" until we're equal in abilities which means either (a) lowest common denominator or (b) let the best beat the rest into submission and rape them.

But we live in a false reality, because our thinking starts with that post-1789 egalitarian-control fiction, so we're completely oblivious to reality:

"If you're a Westerner, your intuitions about human psychology are probably wrong or at least there's good reason to believe they're wrong," Dr. Henrich says.

After analyzing reams of data from earlier studies, the UBC team found that WEIRD people reacted differently from others in experiment after experiment involving measures of fairness, anti-social punishment and co-operation, as well as visual illusions and questions of individualism and conformity.

Others punish participants perceived as too altruistic in co-operation games, but very few in the English-speaking West would ever dream of penalizing the generous. Westerners tend to group objects based on resemblance (notebooks and magazines go together, for example) while Chinese test subjects prefer function (grouping, say, a notebook with a pencil). Privileged Westerners, uniquely, define themselves by their personal characteristics as opposed to their roles in society.

Moreover, WEIRD people do not simply react to the world differently, according to the paper, they perceive it differently to begin with. Take the well-known Muller-Lyer optical illusion, which uses arrows to trick the viewer into thinking one line is longer than another, even if both are the same length. (See the diagram on this page.)

"No matter how many times you measure those lines, you can't cause yourself to see them as the same length," Dr. Henrich says. At least that's true for a Westerner. For some hunter-gatherers, the Muller-Lyer lines do not cause an illusion. - National Post

We see only the surface of appearance, because we're so used to controlling each other socially. Our means of control are guilt, obligation, passive aggression and most of all, punishing those who are not egalitarian. It's a perfect perpetual witch-hunt.

If you want to know why the West is dying, it's this kind of "we must all be one" thinking that prevents anyone from climbing above the mass of clueless humanity. It has made us into a society of obedient sufferers beholden to the lowest common denominator.

No wonder Islam appealed to those who saw what 1789 portended.

Truth elusive in modern times

24 08 10 - 09:01

Man releases secret documents, people get killed, and he tells us that now the Pentagon is coming for him:

After the report began to circulate worldwide, WikiLeaks issued multiple responses via its Twitter account denying the allegations. An early statement said: "We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks'. Now we have the first one." A later tweet, attributed to Assange himself, said: "The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."


The lurid on-again/off-again allegations are bound to fuel the already rampant paranoia of both WikiLeaks supporters and Assange himself, a nomadic figure who associates say is difficult to locate and contact at the best of times. - Some magazine sold for $1

The instant there's a rape accusation, and all the nodding nobodies out there become TOTALLY CONVINCED it's a Pentagon plot. TOTALLY.

Assange had since told Al-Jazeera that Wikileaks was tipped off to the allegation by Australian intelligence officials.

"We were warned on the 11th by Australian intelligence that we would expect this sort of thing," he said.

"They had some concerns that we would have something like that.

"Now we have no direct evidence at this stage that this is an intelligence operation or has been influenced by an intelligence operation but certainly there's some surrounding context [that] is disturbing."

Assange said the "only question is who was involved" but stopped short of any direct allegation, citing a lack of direct evidence. - UpsideDown Newspaper

Then we find out, lo and behold, the person making the rape accusation is a LIBERAL ACTIVIST who is TOTALLY HOSTILE to the Pentagon:

Swedish news website Newzglobe.com named a woman in the scandal as Anna Ardin. Silicon Valley gossip site Valleywag said she was the political secretary and press officer of the Swedish "Brotherhood Movement", a group of Christians from the Social Democratic Party. - Stuff.co.nz

That's the Christian Social Democrats, who are not like American Christians. They're liberal, pro-Muslim and occasionally anti-Semitic but only because they're standing up for Palestine and other third world immigration to the West. They make Barack Obama look right-wing, and out-Christian him too! These people are hostile to the United States.

Yet somehow, that doesn't make it into the mainstream press -- conspiracy > reality for selling newspapers, blogs and teenage angst -- and so we're left wondering what else is agitprop or disinfo.

One of two women involved told Aftonbladet in an interview published today that she had never intended Assange to be charged with rape. She was quoted as saying: "It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him."

In her interview, she dismissed the idea, seized on by many conspiracy theorists that 'dirty tricks' lay behind the rape allegations, because of WikiLeaks' defiance of the US government. She said: "The charges against Assange are of course not orchestrated by the Pentagon." - The Guardian

Then there's this, which seems to be setting the groundwork for blaming The Holocaust on Those Jews:

Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.


A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.


Haplogroup E1b1b1, which accounts for approximately 18 to 20 per cent of Ashkenazi and 8.6 per cent to 30 per cent of Sephardic Y-chromosomes, appears to be one of the major founding lineages of the Jewish population. - The Telegraph

First, of course, this is bad science. They didn't test him -- they tested his relatives 65 years later, after marriages of several generations, and tried to guess based on that. Depending on the technique used, they should be able to tell us roughly when this entered the bloodline. But never mind that, and nevermind that historians have looked into this accusation for years and found nothing. It's a convenient weapon. Against Hitler? No, no, no.

This is a weapon against Jews.

Could Hitler's hatred for the Jewish people have been a case of self-loathing? - NYD

At a time when our press and rock stars are fawning over Palestine, it's convenient to blame the world's most recent horrible genocide on... the victims. That takes away the validity of their suffering, and the validity of their claim to Israel in the eyes of many. How convenient! They did it to themselves -- well, so much for that idea that we need Israel then...

Dubious accusations, both from Assange ("Australian intelligence told us this was coming") and then from Swedish rape victims, and then dubious accusations against Hitler that end up being a convenient way to blame Jews for their own misfortune. And how cleverly it's all worded, so that in two years when this has fallen into the memory hole, no one will know it wasn't true -- it will become a part of public lore, and then enough people will cite it to make it "truth."

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. - Fred

Cannibals and cultural anti-relativism

22 08 10 - 07:57

About cultural anti-relativism, which is that idea that we can't compare cultures, so don't try to equate them:

The famous Carib people were reputed to be cannibals, but doubt has later been cast on this theory. The Disney Corporation has been criticised for scenes in "Pirates of the Caribbean", in which the Carib are portrayed as cannibals. Remnants of this people reportedly still live uncontacted on the border between Venezuela and Guyana. In any event, there are sound reasons for not visiting them, they have nothing to gain from contact with our civilisation. - Some Nord

This man dares to say what many can't fathom: why bother to contact people who are perfectly happy living as they are? You can't claim their way of life is primitive or that your own is better, but that means you leave out the second part of relativism, which is where we make excuses. Don't -- just leave them alone. Same idea generally applies to American rednecks and inner city ghettoes.

Narcissism and decline

21 08 10 - 12:47

From the mailbag:

Lasch, after all, found consilience in a secular school of modern decline-minded thinkers that included charter alumni Oswald Spengler and Henry Adams. The former condemned the “civilizational” phase of history enjoined by the 19th-century West, an era characterized by the ascent of money and industry at the expense of an affirming artistic and architectural anima.


In the 1970s his work began to attract the interest of cultural conservatives. In a parcel of provocative essays and several books, he extended his cutting analysis of the progressive personality type to the liberal welfare state. In the case of each, he insisted, the apparatus of the helping professions –- marriage counselors, child-welfare agencies, social workers, life coaches, psychotherapists –- chipped away at the autonomy of families and local communities in the quest to eradicate Victorian restraints on educated cosmopolitans. Extended meditations on the presumptively negative impact of dual-income parentage typically followed.


Throughout the ’80s, Lasch worked on an immense reclamation project — an original fusion of cultural conservatism and anti-capitalism. Hitherto he had sampled a host of imported ideas including Marxism, psychoanalysis, and Frankfurt School critical theory. Now he sought to accentuate American sources skeptical of the American Exceptionalism project. The result, The True and Only Heaven), attacked the idea of progress as a false god worshiped by a fallen people. Filled with an eclectic range of thinkers, theologians, and philosophers –- from Jonathan Edwards to Ralph Waldo Emerson to Martin Luther King Jr. –- Lasch’s work offered a tradition of austere republicanism and civic-mindedness as alternative to the nation’s psychically crippling mania for big, better, best. - AmCon

If you haven't read his brilliant The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations , now may be the time to do so. In it, he argues that a society of external control mechanisms has produced a self-worshipping, status-oriented populace who are completely oblivious to reality.

Growing up gifted

21 08 10 - 10:53

Saw this interesting article about gifted kids -- most of them grow and do well in school, then flounder in life:

First strategy: Do some hard work to acquire competence at things for which having a genius IQ doesn’t help a lot. Perhaps a physical skill like some form of athletics or dance; martial arts has at times served this function for me. Perhaps an artistic or mystical skill in which the difficulty lies in a shift of perception or attention rather than handling symbolic complexity; for me, being a musician is sometimes like this.


Second strategy: Reinvent yourself as a polymath. I never had to do this explicitly myself because (thanks to Robert Heinlein’s influence) I had this as a goal before I hit my doldrums. But if you are the more typical sort of young genius whose abilities have so far concentrated heavily in one field, broadening your base is valuable on many levels.


Third strategy: Develop your will and your courage and your self-image as a person who is *unconquerable*, unstoppable. Logic and brains will not get you out of the trap you find yourself in; if that were possible, you would probably be out already. What you need is intestinal fortitude, sheer guts and bloody-minded persistence. - ESR

The writer of this piece is a popularizer; he invents memes, like his famous "The Cathedral and the Bazaar," that oversimplify life but make a lot of people feel good about what they're doing.

The above quotation is a mix of happy horse-shit and some useful advice. Namely, the first strategy is good advice -- but unnecessary.

If you grow up gifted, you're surrounded by people who recognize your worth, until you leave school. Then you have to know that you're worthwhile, and instead of pleasing a requirement, gear yourself toward (a) creating a life for yourself and (b) doing right by your community. The latter contributes to the former and cannot be separated from it. With connection to your surroundings, both natural and community, you don't become a raging egomanic in order to justify yourself. Instead, you're able to see good results, and without the false/hollow notion of "charity" or "activism."

But really what you need to know is that you can no longer be in a passive role, where school lays out a challenge and you beat it. You now have to find a path in life, including career. Figure out the intersection between things you like and things you are or can be good at, and go hog-wild. Be aggressive and mindful in your unrelenting pursuit of these goals. The opportunity will probably not find you, and if it does, it won't be as easy to figure out as a school assignment. Set a goal for yourself and go wild.

His first strategy is good general advice for smart people. Find some regular work or play you like as well, so you can be a person in addition to being a brain. But don't take it farther than that, and his self-worshipping "be a polymath like me" is best ignored -- be good at what you have aptitude for, but don't artificially force yourself into being some prole discount substitute for a Renaissance man.

Practical philosophy

20 08 10 - 07:03

A mash-up, based on the idea that philosophy should reflect reality, not our projected thoughts:

In the 20th century, something peculiar happened. Some people began to feel that philosophy should be understood as a highly specialized technical field that could be separated off from the rest of the intellectual world. So there was a growing sense that there could be a discipline of philosophy that simply ignored questions about how human beings actually think and feel and focused instead on questions that could be addressed ‘from the armchair.’ This period strikes me as an aberration, a major departure from the way in which philosophy has traditionally been understood.

I think that what we are seeing now, with the surge of interest in experimental philosophy, is best understood as a return to a more traditional understanding of what philosophy is all about. - NYT

After Sapir-Whorf, academia and philosophy became an obsessive analysis of our symbols. Not how we make logic, but how we symbolize it. As a result, they drifted further into navel-gazing. Now they're coming back.

Why, you might ask?

Because navel-gazing has caused this society to crater in oblivion.

The 20s are a black box, and there is a lot of churning in there. One-third of people in their 20s move to a new residence every year. Forty percent move back home with their parents at least once. They go through an average of seven jobs in their 20s, more job changes than in any other stretch. Two-thirds spend at least some time living with a romantic partner without being married. And marriage occurs later than ever. The median age at first marriage in the early 1970s, when the baby boomers were young, was 21 for women and 23 for men; by 2009 it had climbed to 26 for women and 28 for men, five years in a little more than a generation. - NYT

Rootless, clueless, fatalistic, apathetic, narcissistic, solipsistic, deracinated, pointless lives.

An increasing number of these single Americans -- more than 31 million -- are living alone, according to the census. They make up 27 percent of all households, up from 17 percent in 1970.

About 46 percent of all households nationwide are maintained by a single person. That adds up to 52 million singles.

More than half of the unmarried Americans are women. And for every 100 single women, there are 88 unmarried men available. - Pravda.us

We've lost faith in life itself. We only have ourselves and our material pleasures now.

It also takes faith, and considerable devotion, to believe that reality is worth knowing, and that it's therefore worth struggling to discover a coherent, unified theory of everything (which we certainly don't have now). Without those dogmas, "science" only names a compendium of sometimes useful techniques and partial hypotheses which we have no reason to expect to be coherent or of any more general interest than stamp collecting. The question must then be: what sort of universe must we think this is if those dogmas are to be believable? And the answer, perhaps, is that Christian theism provides a more plausible metaphysics than currently fashionable materialism. - NDPR

Or maybe, it doesn't require Christianity -- just the faith in life, which has two components:

(a) Belief that this is all for a purpose and striving toward that purpose
(b) Paying attention to reality instead of mental constructs that do not correspond at all to reality.

It's not rocket science.

ANUS interviewed by our forum

19 08 10 - 18:36

Some time ago, our forum users asked interview questions of ANUS. We answer below. (Answers by Vijay Prozak, T.H. and K.S. with help from T.G.)

How exactly are the organizations ANUS, Corrupt, etc. working to better the world? Is it purely the spreading of information, so that educated people can be influenced, adhere to the worldview and start having children to go in jobs of power? I think that's a good choice, because that's what the jews do.

That is correct. Our goal is threefold:

(1) Achieve clarity about what ideals make sense, and what our plan would be for society, and publish it so that thinking people -- 5% of the population, maybe -- can read and understand.
(2) Unify as many people as possible around that ideal, probably about 2% of the population, as this group represents the "critical mass" required for vast change.
(3) Further our members and encourage them to take positions of power or entrepreneurial power in this society, so that they become "role models" and can communicate to others as well as taking action directly.

Ultimately, we believe in the local community (town/city under 100,000) as the defining unit of any society, and will support and foster candidacies in localities of our choosing.

Articles on the website seem to point out that there is some kind of "crash" coming, on which the author will "not spare the sword", the day when all the killing will occur. What is this situation, how is it expected to happen and why?

There's no crash coming. What's happening is a long, slow and steady decline into third world status. Third world status is not a geographical or racial designation, but describes the level of disorganization, corruption, oligarchy, filth and crime that afflicts dysfunctional civilizations. If you want to have a civilization, you need to be organized and have things like rule of law and values in common. When that falls apart, you no longer have consensus about what you want your civilization to be, and the result is anarchy. Anarchy favors criminals and perverts who create chaos, and the tyrants who pander to the normal citizens who want a strong leader to do away with these things. Over time, third world status dumbs your population down to having an average IQ in the 80-95 range, and at that point, so few people in the society can recognize an intelligent idea that any intelligent person is burned as a witch doctor.

As our society falls further into third world status, it will be time to take control of local areas and clean them up and start over. That's what we are ready to do, and in those circumstances, we cannot afford to spare anyone who is destructive to our objective. Perverts, criminals, idiots, retards and liars need to go the way of the compost heap. We derive this policy from the sensible idea of Genghis Khan, who when he invaded a city divided its population between those with trades or knowledge, and those who were unskilled labor simply because they were too incompetent to do anything else. He killed the unskilled, and kept the useful, and in many cases salvaged dying cities. We should do the same, especially since the real kicker on planet earth is overpopulation because overpopulation determines how much land we use or divide with fences, and each acre we use deprives a natural species of some of the land it needs to breed, hunt, frolic and nest. In addition, these lands (and seas) are responsible for regenerating our air and water, but they need to be relatively uninterrupted by our trash and presence to do that, and need their natural flora and fauna mostly intact. We have seven billion people on earth and most of them think nothing of throwing trash on the ground, committing slash and burn agriculture, or leaving huge mounds of toxic waste behind. That's what humanity needs to change, and it's why we cannot afford to be any more merciful than the Khan.

Most people like the idea of a crash because it's psychologically comforting. Things get bad, then worse, and suddenly everything blows up and it's over! How clean and tidy. The reality is that every third world nation out there today is the remains of a once-great civilization that couldn't get its act together, and decayed to the point of being little more than slightly educated chimpanzees.

I just read an interview on extremepolitics.org with a National Socialist who favors total extermination of all the races but caucasian. I want honesty: Does the organization support this kind of thinking? I know it doesn't right now (publicly) - but I don't feel it's too unreal that some day, out of nowhere, the organizations starts agreeing with the guy (or probably already agrees but doens't feel it's the time to say it yet) and feeling it is more realist that the caucasians will want to expand to other areas of the earth to conquer and reign.

We do not support this kind of thinking. We are Pan-Nationalists who believe in ethnic self-determination for every ethnic group. Further, we don't want to rule the world; we do want to bring it back from the point of decay into chaos, and that will require temporary totalitarian rule of enough of the earth to enact economic forces that achieve our desired results.

If ANUS somehow became dictator of Britain tomorrow would they ban burqas?

No, we'd separate ethnic populations from the indigenous Britons. They can wear burqas back in the middle east after they're deported.

Would ANUS ban McDonalds and Burger King?

Yes. Fast food would be banned for the following reasons:

  • It employs, enriches and attracts idiots.

  • Food quality is terrible at relatively high price.

  • The raw amount of waste generated is insane.

  • It's urban blight that makes city blocks ugly.

Same with nail salons, porno stores, pawn shops and other douchebag magnets.

And lastly name something typically British that ANUS would ban in the UK.

Probably the way they prepare meat by boiling it for 12 hours and then covering it in a "savory" sauce made from fermented fish testicles, or whatever that hideous gunk they call "food" is.

According to www.ANUS.com, what are the extended meanings of both AIDS and Goldfish? Are there any more colloquialisms often times used in the past or present?

AIDS: submission to the principle of taking it easy, instead of doing what is right and fixing situations that need fixing. You submit = you get sodomized by wild boars = you get the wild boar AIDS.

Goldfish: the average voter, of course. Open-mouthed gaping and vacant stare are essential!

ANUS has a rich language behind it, most of which is not my doing. We'd need to compile a dictionary to make sense of it.

What's the story behind "Pink Frothy AIDS"?

I believe it's a euphemism for Opeth, which is rock music pretending to be metal and appealing to the beta-male crowd with its pseudo-prog, pseudo-metal and all cheesy one-dimensional sentiment approach. It's for the kids in high school who had to feel "different" but weren't bright enough to get into hacking or theatre.

Does Prozak ever post here?

I do not. My time needs to go toward maintaining the site, and the forum is in capable hands (Kontinual and our Keepers).

What is he doing with in regards to ANUS and the DLA?

Currently writing reviews, with an eye toward publishing a full-length book on the origin of death metal.


Clarity in the human experience, and also, offering a place for smart kids who don't get straight answers from society. We all grew up this way and wondered why adults didn't help out. Well, it's a tiny effort, but...

Is the site for the mass extermination of mentally retarded people (down's syndrome, etc.)?

I'm not sure the site cares about anything. It's a web site, and if you're a web site, you're pretty much free from existential questions and most likely, could care less.

ANUS as an organization recognizes that overpopulation is the greatest threat to our environment, and that low quality of individual humans is the greatest threat to humanity itself. Much as sickly trees in a forest fall prey to any wandering disease, and incubate it and make it stronger and then pass it on to other trees, or fall dead and provide timber for fire, stupid/dishonest/retarded/perverse/criminal people among us are a plague on all of humanity.

We support creation of localized "town councils" of wise elders to rule over each locality. As part of their job, they would eject problem people from the local area. This would take care of the ongoing problem.

As far as the crisis -- that we've bred seven billion people and very few of them are functional -- a culling is needed. If we don't do it, nature will, and much more randomly than we will. So it makes sense to take this opportunity and form a checklist for each person: is their IQ above 115? have they done positive things with their time so far? By about age 25 it's clear what people are about. The contributors stand out clearly, and people who have nothing to recommend themselves show a pattern of delusional thinking, a semi-sociopathic ethic of convenience and dedication to pleasing themselves, and because stupidity is required to have that as your only approach to life, are generally under 115 IQ points.

If we cull all such people, we will cut the human population down to under a half-billion; this provides a sustainable level of humanity. In addition, we will have ensured that the remaining people are of higher quality and so are unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the past, starting with breeding like rabbits which is the archetypal idiot response to environmental pressures -- a smart person response is to regulate one's own environment and/or organize with others to achieve a level of civilization so that you have political stability, low crime, soap, fresh water and food.

I've seen a lot of approval of mass murder, but you say a thing that brings national socialism down to you is the Holocaust. How so, if it was merely mass murder, and of an alien people to the germans?

The Holocaust is a horribly complex issue because almost no one is telling the truth. As far as I can ascertain, mostly from Albert Speer, the Holocaust began when Germany was frustrated with trying to export Jews fast enough.

Speer and others wanted to use them as slave labor; this was a stupid idea because if you're being used by slave labor as people who think you're subhuman, you sabotage them. German munitions failed at a higher rate than even the sloppy Allied bombs because the people making bombs, shells and rifle rounds hated their captors. I admire that resistance, but it was short-sighted, because when you're dealing with a totalitarian state that hates you, it's a bad idea to assume they won't start killing you.

It seems to me that very few German Jews perished, but in the lands Germany conquered, Jews faced two threats. First, in places like Poland or the Baltics, Jews were well known for their high representation in the Communist party, especially in Russia -- I think it was something like 38% of the Soviet high command were Jewish in that era -- and so were seen as a privileged, dictatorial, abusive minority (much the way the American left now sees Israel and by extension, Jews, for the treatment of Palestinians -- which is stupid because Palestinians, as a population lagging a standard deviation in average IQ behind their Jewish countrymen, are destined to become perpetual manual labor in Israel much the way Mexicans are in the USA; since Palestinians are a newer population than Jews and originate in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, it makes sense to repatriate them there). Because Jews were seen as a Communist elite, the locals couldn't wait to shoot them in front of open pits. Second, the Germans would bundle Jews up and ship them on to places like Auschwitz during the second half of the second world war. At this point, the veneer of tolerance had slipped and prisoners were worked nearly to death and then gassed and burned, or outright gassed and burned. Even worse, at that point Germany was being bombed to hell and so food and medicine were scarce. At this point the real tragedies happened.

I think the Holocaust was a stupid idea from start to finish. Speer, normally a genius in all things practical, seems to have forgotten that his slave labor would be resentful, and that Jews per their culture (and through that, genetics) have an abnormal capacity for resentment. Even more, they're smarter than average. Put those two things together and you have expert saboteurs! I admire the Jewish resistance during this period. Further, the Holocaust was an enterprise much like make-work jobs today. It was easier than going to fight on the Eastern Front, and became a sort of boilerplate under which a German officer could claim to be doing something important when really he was avoiding more important things. On a purely practical level, the Holocaust was a disaster for the German war effort, resulting in resources applied to dead ends and sabotaged munitions. Hitler is much to blame for this, as he was unwilling to mobilize the German population to work as hard and deprive themselves as much as populations under Allied rule, at least until it was so late in the war that deprivation became inevitable.

Finally, I think the Holocaust was a spiritual turd -- for both Germans and today's Jews. For Germans, it induced a sense of doing dirty work that was highly unpleasant and unrelated to a creative goal. You cannot approach life with the attitude that if you just destroy the bad, only the good will be left; you have to create the next level of evolution above the bad, and while you have to destroy some of it, when it becomes obsessive it makes you into a monster. Of course, when Germany lost the war things went really badly, and the world used the Holocaust to further their mythos of the evil, insane, megalomaniac Hitler and the delusional Germans worshiping him! For Jews, the Holocaust has replaced positive Jewish identity with passive aggression. It's no longer "hey, we converted the Hindu and Greek spiritual systems into the underpinning morality of the West for the last 2,000 years" but "don't yell at me, I'm Jewish and since we suffered in the Holocaust, I am beyond criticism." The left has picked up on this attitude and they smell blood, because when your only political issue is human equality, you make the same mistake the Nazis did and go crazy trying to beat down those who have risen above.

Instead of a Holocaust, I think people in WWII should have calmed down and approached the issue rationally. Hitler needed to employ German women, children and elderly more in the production of munitions. Speer needed to be able to demand that, and he couldn't reason with Hitler and upper staff, which was a failure of the artistic temperment of Hitler more than the Fuhrerprinzip itself. Jews and Germans needed to read Theodor Herzl's work and realize that Jews want a different type of society than Europe does; Jews would be happier in the multicultural, cosmopolitan, intensely artistic Israel that Herzl envisioned in his novels. Further, European Christian and Middle Eastern Jewish religions are heading in opposite directions although they have lots of common ground; Judaism is inherently reductionist, while European Paganism (and hence European Christianity) is inherently mystical and idealistic. Judaism itself needed time to sort itself out, since the religion is like Christianity a hodge-podge of Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, Sumerian, Roman and Hindu thought. Jews as a population need time to self-define -- they are probably the world's first population to go thoroughly multicultural, and the resulting instability crushed them for centuries before the diaspora and still remains unresolved. Are they European? Eastern European? Asian? Middle Eastern? Jews are the only ones who can figure this out.

In addition to the Holocaust being stupid on its own, it creates a mess for us today. We have seven billion people on this planet and most of them are morons. If we even talk about thinning the herd, even by sterilizing people, we get compared to Auschwitz and Mengele (terrifyingly, some of our best early neurological research came from Nazi doctors who did unspeakable things including vivisection, but from it were able to observe the human organism much as we do with lab animals -- this, too, should be brought back with murderers and rapists, who can repay their debt to society through being medical research subjects). In summary, I think the Holocaust sucks, which is an even greater shame since Germans have invented 90% of everything worth doing or using in life, and Jews probably created the remaining 10%. Where would we be without Salk, Einstein, Feynman, Pinker, Herzl, and Scott Ian from Anthrax? This is why we will never support the Holocaust here at ANUS, and we'll oppose National Socialism until it gets over this fanaticism.

Now, I understand this site is pro-ethnic pride and anti-racism. Yet, I've noticed more than a few comments, usually from members in the upper hierarchy, about how Slavs are inferior, Slavs aren't real Europeans, Slavs should be exterminated, etc. While I'm half Polish, I understand these comments, and feel no bitterness: There is a historic struggle between Russia and Western Europe, and there's a fuckload of useless people who are Slavic. The real question is, why openly condone the massacre of Slavs (I recall a post from Conservationist saying Germany should reinvade Russia and kill them all off; then there's the user "Dinaric Leather"), and yet get butthurt towards someone assailing any other ethnic group, ie Africans or the Irish, despite the fact that a good many of them are also low-IQ and uncivilized by our standards. Why the double standard? Is this white guilt? Is there a grudge against the Slavs for not holding off the Mongols, or for catalyzing far-left sentiments?

I think our goal is to be realistic about all things, including all human biodiversity issues. However, the point is not to belabor it. I think the Slav bashing mostly came about when the far-right started to get this moony "the Russians are our future" attitude, most notably exemplified by Varg Vikernes. I believe you said:

"There is a historic struggle between Russia and Western Europe, and there's a fuckload of useless people who are Slavic."

There you have it. Poles are, by the way, not "Slavic" per se -- they are mostly Slavic with high amounts of Baltic and Germanic (Prussian) blood. Most are a hybrid of East Baltid and Slavic phenotypes. We have in the past been hard on the Irish. I tend to think the Africans already get enough flak for the obvious, which is that evolution branched and those who pushed themselves farthest (north European, north Asian) got a significant boost in intelligence. I guess my article "The African Superman" expresses my sentiments most clearly: in all racial groups, average IQs are averages; individuals will exceed. Take the smart individuals who are also healthy and moral and breed them into an aristocracy, and oppress/exterminate the rest.

There is antipathy at ANUS toward neo-Nazis and "white nationalists," most of whom are equal parts Slavic and Irish. We like to recognize reality wherever we see it, and clearly Southern and Eastern Europe are disaster populations compared to Western Europe, and the average IQ statistics back up this observation. Ireland and France are also outliers with average IQs in the middle 90s; in Ireland's case, it's very simple neolithic remnants making up much of the population, but in France's case, it is most likely a result of the extermination of their aristocrats, who were (as all aristocrats are) substantially smarter than their subjects.

I don't really like the white people patting themselves on the back and saying, "See, we're all white, that means we're all smart." Individuals vary among the white ethnies and many white people are dumb as bricks and I'd like to see them replaced with smart Asians, Africans or other Caucasians. Stupidity is the enemy of humanity, and it is the cause of most destruction in this world.

A little bird once told me that Prozak stole or otherwise appropriated his ideas about metal from other hessians in the early days of the internet. Is there any truth to this? Not that it would diminish the validity of his ideas.

Did I steal my ideas? Which ideas? I have been heavily influenced by every person or idea I have encountered that seems valid to me, but I was the ultimate arbiter of those ideas. The early years of my youth were spent discussing classical music with family members and various choir and music teachers, then during my college years I talked music extensively with people at the radio station where I worked, and my friends who were masterful musicians. After that, I got to know many death metal musicians and writers about death metal. All of these became influences where I felt they were correct; many ideas were also rejected (Primus is still garbage, jazz is for morons). I had to go through several learning stages, molting like a caterpillar each time I passed through one and leaving behind a detritus of ideas that were formerly good enough but eventually became not inclusive enough. There was also extensive reading about music, and playing of an instrument plus vocal performances. Overall, I'd say my attitude about music comes mostly from reading the literature of the past about classical music, and that has been my biggest influence. However, I am sure influence was taken from others, so I'd have to say there is "truth" to what you say, but extremely partial truth. I don't believe any of us have any truly original ideas; what I do is not to have ideas, so much as to hold the line about what is realistic and to point out the various attributes of things that most people deny or did not notice. Like that Opeth is pink frothy AIDS.

What is conservatism?

19 08 10 - 04:49

Looking for that core principle:

Conservatism consists of:

  • a deep suspicion of the power of the state;

  • a preference for liberty over equality;

  • patriotism;

  • a belief in established institutions and hierarchies;

  • skepticism about the idea of progress;

  • elitism

  • ...with American conservatism emphasizing the first three. - Secular Right

Sounds like Social Darwinism: we're less concerned with trying to level the playing field than that nothing exists to obstruct the best from rising.

I'll submit an even simpler answer: conservatism is about adapting to reality. Liberalism is about making nice on a social level.


19 08 10 - 04:39


Because bone marrow matches usually are made with a relative or someone with the same racial or ethnic background as the patient, multiracial people rarely have success.

For years, the medical community has pushed for increased donor registry among racial minorities to improve survival rates for leukemia, lymphoma and other blood diseases.

"The reality is that many organizations are afraid of addressing race period — they don't feel competent or comfortable — and when it comes to addressing mixed heritage issues, they don't want to go there, either."

The biological reason has to do with the body's response to infections, Beatty said. Because the world's ancient peoples were exposed to different diseases over millennia, each group developed different tissue antigens, substances that help fight illness.

The descendants of these peoples retain those highly varied tissue antigens, he said, making it tough to match the bone marrow of individuals from different ancestries.

Within that group, there are millions of possible ethnic mixes, and therefore millions of potential challenges for someone seeking a bone marrow match. Complicating the situation further, research shows that minorities have greater tissue variation than whites. Africans and their descendants globally have the most variation of any population in the world. - USA Today

And even more exciting:

According to a new study, that difference between European American and Korean customs is so powerful that it shapes the expression of biology: A genetic profile linked to empathy and sociability yields two very different behavioral outcomes, depending on the culture. WIRED

Genetics and culture

19 08 10 - 04:25


A team of primatologists headed by Kevin Langergraber of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, pulled together behavioural data on nine wild chimpanzee groups, and analysed DNA samples from 246 individual apes. Groups that were more genetically different turned out to have significantly more differences in their behaviours (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1112).

While there is no suggestion that behaviour is determined directly by genes – there is no gene for termite fishing – genetics might change behaviour indirectly, by influencing manual dexterity or some aspects of intelligence, for example. "We can't rule out the genetic explanation," says Langergraber. - New Scientist

Yep, reality isn't made of human wishes... but hard biological/physical/genetic realities.

Q&A with Vijay Prozak

17 08 10 - 23:46

From Paul:

I enjoyed reading the information on this website (as a web designer, I like the layout as well). You touch several aspects of society that need to be poked and prodded. Here in the US, shit like: emotional politicians, religion, bigotry, and illogical ideologies spread like cancer. Not to mention the population is too large, and it continues to increase (along with the emotional delusions). I've continued to observe and analyze the conservative social norms of society, and as I do so my empathy has corroded. I'm only seventeen years old, and I know I'm not a genius or wiseman. In fact, I'm simply a small speck within the confines of the expanding universe. Due to this, how could I along with others change society? Even just to simply push it into the outer fringe? I know this site contains info on the process behind spreading the truth, but idiots (therefore idiocy) continue to multiply...... Forgive me for my apparent apathy, but I don't see any point in me trying.

We live in a time when idiots rule because idiots are popular and many people benefit from the Invisible Tyrant that is the rule by the tastes of the masses. After all, if you're a cynical manipulator, you really make out like a bandit: you dangle symbols out there, the Crowd lunges for them, and the ensuing mess is not your fault, so you get to keep any money you made. Who are these manipulators? People like you or me, who want good schools, medical and home amenitites for their families.

The only way to reverse this situation is to get enough of the thought leaders -- writers, philosophers, police, teachers, priests and artists -- to agree on some simple ideal of what would be better. When you get 2-5% of a population motivated, and it's mostly people from this group of thought leaders, they can create enough havoc to enforce change. But first they must all agree on the basics of what they want.

We can start with the following basic idea:

There are two basic paths people take in life: either they see the individual as responsible for finding decisions that adapt to reality, or they expect to create a false human reality that then panders to the individual so the individual does not have to change/adapt/strive (and possibly, "lose") in order to be accepted and get their piece of the pie.

While good modern/postmodern trained monkeys are busy deconstructing and other pursuits that separate cause from effect and increase the distance between related concepts in our minds, we can be re-constructing a framework of actual understanding. Don't accept the partial truths; instead, offer up whole truths wherever possible to those who are capable of understanding them. Build the framework for a new culture, and you'll start the overthrow of this sick system.

As painfully slow as this process sounds, it's not -- it's how our system was overthrown. People working together, building critical mass around a meme ("liberty, equality, fraternity") and then a relatively small number of people going crazy nuts with rifles. In addition, develop your entreprenurial spirit and become influential in your community so that people have a reason to listen to you. This is how we make change in an organized society, and anything more direct is usually only good for making a brief media splash before the police snipers take you out.

The way I see it, the US along with other societies, will eat themselves shortly after crumbling down. Although I'm fairly happy as an individual, I can't say that I'm not bothered by the cancerous ways of general leaders & managers. I only fear that my lack of action will be my downfall.....but at the same time I've stopped caring. My peers and I constantly receive those generic motivational speeches, and my contemporaries (99%) fall for the delusions without a hint of critical thought. If we are the future, then the future is the past.

I agree. Past, present and future are a continuum. They create one another and transition between stages. If we look to the past, we can see a record of what has or has not worked, and since humans have not fundamentally changed, we know those designations are still true. So we should pick what works, unless we want to fail. Most people lack the ability to be so reflective; they are basically big bundles of nerves that react to stimulus, and without that external stimulus, they lose direction entirely.

Most people at this point in time are paralyzed by their desire to avoid being wrong. When we start a process of socialization, we begin considering symbols from others as equal to our own thought-tokens, and so they are almost literally "in our heads." As a result, social humiliation becomes one of the greatest fears we have, and we become addicted to some kind of social reward to carry us through. This is what it means to be externalized. Some externalize themselves through PDAs and iPads, but most do it by relying on the opinions of others, emulating their idols, and following perceived social norms (which often are the work of a zealous smaller group and not society at large).

From E.T. Myers:

Your thoughts on the anarcho-primitivism movement, especially as represented by the likes of John Zerzan?

I like John Zerzan, but what I got out of his writings was a confirmation that localization is necessary. I think we need for towns or suburbs to be able to make their own rules, so that in a conservative suburb you might find that homosexuality, premarital sex, drug use and interracial dating are illegal, but in a town a few miles away, total anarchy might rule. I think this is fair because then we see what works. If five years on, the anarchistic town is a wasteland and the conservative town is thriving, we have an answer -- and that's why very few anarchists/liberals will sign up for this plan.

I don't see a point to primitivism beyond understanding the killing effect of luxury. When you create layers between yourself and reality, you become entirely detached. Those layers can be diverse, from the 5000 square foot house to the Mexican gardeners and maids doing work you should do yourself, or even a BMW with comfy suspension. Luxury makes you not give a damn because you're no longer in contact with reality. But primitivism requires we go backward down the ladder of technology and learning, when those are not our problems. The dominance of the Crowd is our problem, and they'll be creating problems whether we all live in mud huts under "anarchy" or not.

Regarding anarchy, it's for morons. On paper, it sounds great -- this big abstraction that seems to encompass every social condition. In reality, it's the anti-civilization. Instead of mastering civilization, you run away from it, and lose the ability to collaborate in an ordered setting. I've worked with many non-profits and all of them face the same problem: if people aren't compelled to do things the right way, they do what's convenient for them, whether that's just what they find fun or just a job half-done. You need money and cops to keep order. Even people I consider enlightened drift away from "do what's right" when you're in a no-rules zone. For this reason I'm really suspicious of anything with "anarcho" attached, although I'm fond of Zerzan's writings and share much in common with him in spirit.

What role would Jesus Christ and the bible play in the reformed Christianity you are proposing?

Jesus: minor prophet, known for his doctrine of forgiveness, re-read as more of a warlike insurgent than friendly Communist.

Bible: let's revisit that Old Testament and see what we can learn from it...

Is there any “cure” for the belief that every life is sacred?

Not to be flippant, but a good war. When the bodies pile up, and lives are threatened, people drop the whole sanctity of life argument. It's a luxury. In a greater sense, I recommend that everyone study Paul Woodruff's "Reverence" or the Bhagavad-Gita. Part of loving life is being able to fight and kill those who cause problems or are simply of a lesser degree of complexity. That's natural selection, and if we love life, we must respect and uphold that. It needs to become a cultural value, because nothing else will make a firm enough bond -- political ideology doesn't do it, and in the hands of thugs Social Darwinism and natural selection become excuses for stupid brutality like The Holocaust.

If you could bring back one person from the dead, who would you choose?

I'd probably resurrect a great scientific mind and put them to work on today's problems.

If you could vote for any person, living or dead, to be president of the USA, who would you choose?

George Washington. He was a great uniter, and a great pragmatist. He would not hesitate to tackle difficult issues and sever our connections to foreign lands.

In your interview with Metal Crypt, you state that “[t]he A.N.U.S. website will ideally bring people who are sick and tired of society to certain revelations, which they will then apply in their own lives, or will fight with every ounce of their spirit and thus mark themselves forever as a certain type of intellect.” Have there been any examples of the latter thus far?

Yes -- in fact, these are probably our only successes. A number of people come through this site, often professing to hate/fear/scorn it at first, and later finding in it some wisdom and more importantly, a direction with a reading list attached. These then go on to have more life experiences and carry these revelations with them. Because they had something vital coming into the experience -- namely, honesty and bravery -- they tend to be shaped by their wisdom and stand out from the crowd as not unique/different but realistic/awakened. As a result, they often find the old intellectual excuses and social diversions are no longer sustaining them in denial, and are forced to keep pushing themselves. It's a harder path than most choose, but not as much harder as many suppose. I stay in touch with as many of these as I can, because I consider them the foundations of whatever will rise out of the third world remnants of the industrialized world.

Do you plan to engage in any formal, oral debates in the future, if you have not already done so? Do you think such debates would go a long way in giving A.N.U.S. more publicity?

I don't think such debates would be effective because the audience at large both (a) has no clue what a clear argument is, or when a speaker is committing a huge fallacy and (b) think that they do know this difference, so tend to favor the more dramatic party in any argument or the one whose view is closest to views they already hold. As a result, writing longer pieces of text -- which baffle these people -- is a more effective way to reach those who can understand and have open minds toward even views that other people(tm) tell them are closed-minded.

What are the five most beautiful books you've ever read?

Who doesn't love a reading list? You'll find this one somewhat redundant:

1. Moby-Dick, Herman Melville
2. The Iliad & Odyssey
3. The Aeneid
4. Tender is the Night, F. Scott Fitzgerald
5. A sentimental journey, Lawrence Stern

If you became the last person in the world tomorrow, how would you live the rest of your life?

I would shift efforts from explaining our existing situation to humans, and instead describe human history and a diagnosis of our problems and triumphs so that it could be encoded in a relatively neutral form and broadcast to (potentially, but not certaintly, extant) alien civilizations. I'd create the equivalent of the Voyager gold disc with as much human learning and history as possible.

Sensate culture

17 08 10 - 23:03

Sensate culture brought about the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, astonishing scientific discoveries and technological developments, democracy, capitalism -- in short, the modern world. The entire history of the West since the 14th century has been about the progressive liberation of the individual from all constraint. No one can deny that this has brought about enormous benefits, but there's a hitch, and it's a fatal one.

A further consequence of such a system of truth [sensate] is the development of a temporalistic, relativistic, and nihilistic mentality. The sensory world is in a state of incessant flux and becoming. There is nothing unchangeable in it -- not even an eternal Supreme Being. Mind dominated by the truth of the senses simply cannot perceive any permanency, but apprehends all values in terms of shift and transformation Sensate mentality views everything from the standpoint of evolution and progress. This leads to an increasing neglect of the eternal values, which come to be replaced by temporary, or short-time, considerations. Sensate society lives in, and appreciates mainly, the present. Since the past is irretrievable and no longer exists, while the future is not yet here and is uncertain, only the present moment is real and desirable.


In the introductory chapter of "Triumph," Rieff says that the overturning of Christian civilization has given rise to a civilization in which people wish to retain inherited morality without "the hard external crust of institutional discipline." But this isn't possible, according to Rieff, because any culture survives by the strength of its institutions, and their ability to "bind and loose men in the conduct of their affairs" in ways that are "commonly and implicitly understood." When a culture stops to think about why we do things this way and not that way, and there are no institutions powerful enough to say, in effect, "Because that's the way we do it" -- then you have a culture in decline.

The impact collapse of Christianity as a binding civilizational force in the West cannot be overestimated. We now live in a world where any appeal to idealism is immediately suspect. Writes Rieff: "The question is no longer as Dostoevski put it: 'Can civilized men believe?' Rather: Can unbelieving men be civilized?" That is, can people who do not believe in the existence of objective truth, and the possibility that it can be authoritatively expressed, ever form a durable civilization? - "The Crisis of Our Age," Pitirim Sorokin

From a public note by L.I. on Facebook.

John Gray, philosopher

17 08 10 - 23:00

I read an essay last night where he wrote 75 pages on "An Agenda for Green
Conservatism". These excerpts were online:

Green theory is an invaluable corrective of the
Whiggish, anthropocentric, technological
optimism by which all the modernist political
religions are animated and which has, in the
form of neo-liberalism, even infected most of
what passes today as conservatism (p. 177).

My argument has been that there are many
natural affinities between conservative
philosophy and Green thought...Conservatives
must learn from Green thought that the promise
of open-ended global growth...is delusive;
instead they must turn their attention to the
sources of legitimacy by which social
institutions could be sustained in a stationarystate
economy. In repudiating...neo-liberalism,
conservatives are merely returning to an older
and sounder Tory tradition, which perceived
the illusoriness of the sovereign, autonomous
chooser of liberal theory, and so insisted on the
primacy of the common life. The importance of
Green thought for conservatives today is that it
recalls them to their historic task of giving
shelter to communities and reproducing them
across the generations - in a context of finite
resources which dictates stability, not growth,
as the pre-eminent conservative value (p. 173).

Shades of Linkola:

Gaia, as I see her, is no doting mother, tolerant
of misdemeanours, nor is she some fragile and
delicate damsel in danger from brutal mankind.
She is stern and tough, always keeping the
world warm and comfortable for those who
obey the rules, but ruthless in her destruction of
those who transgress. Her unconscious goal is
a planet fit for life. If humans stand in the way
of this, we shall be eliminated with as little pity
as would be shown by the micro-brain of an
intercontinental ballistic missile in full flight to
its target (p. 173).

On America:

....the decline of the United States into a sort of
chronic, low-intensity ethnic civil war, a proto-
Lebanon held together only by a dwindling
capital of legalism, called into question the
Enlightenment project of citizenship grounded
in universal principles and excluding the
contingencies of historical identity (p. ix).

Read more here.

Moral purity

16 08 10 - 19:45

We're used to binary morality from Christianity, which is based on the dualistic system that thinks there's a perfect world out there we need to emulate, and we know it's a tool for manipulation. It doesn't change how you think about the world, but the methods you use on it, and it prefers neutering methods so you can do nothing but buy stuff, go to church/go to a bar, waste your time on TV and go to your job (and vote of course).

However, morality itself is a more complex realm. You can have natural morality, derived from an optimal response to the eternal aspects of being alive, as this guy discovered:

My friend, who I’ll call “D,” actually expressed some regret about his promiscuity. He said he felt as though it deprived him of some of his value as a partner in a long-term relationship, and had introduced an element of cynicism to sex itself. - The Spearhead

All those moral rules inherited through Christianity from our Pagan forebears, including Nordics, Germans, Greeks and Romans (in healthier times)? They're common sense.

But why care if you act like a cretin, or if you desensitize yourself to life?

Here's why, silly:

Henry Kissinger’s old witticism about Europe’s having no phone number is more relevant than ever. What happened? One can cite a number of factors: the persistence of nationalist egoism; the excessive importance of the EU’s two major founders, France and Germany; Great Britain’s aloofness and readiness to follow Washington’s instructions; the imbalance created by the influx of former Soviet satellites. But more decisive than any of these reasons is that since the end of World War II, Europe has been tormented by a need to repent.

Brooding over its past crimes (slavery, imperialism, fascism, communism), Europe sees its history as a series of murders and depredations that culminated in two global conflicts. The average European, male or female, is an extremely sensitive being, always ready to feel pity for the world’s sorrows and to take responsibility for them, always asking what the North can do for the South rather than asking what the South can do for itself. Those born after World War II are endowed with the certainty of belonging to the dregs of humanity, an execrable civilization that has dominated and pillaged most of the world for centuries in the name of the superiority of the white man. - City Journal

You mean that if Europeans did ten million good things, and ten bad ones, we're going to zoom in on the bad ones? Yep, that's it. Why?

We have no forward direction, no mountains left to climb, nothing left to conquer! As a result, we've become neurotic and inward-facing. But even more, we distrust ourselves because we know of our decadence. We are hedonists, sluts, whores to convenience and it has made us lie so much to ourselves that we don't trust ourselves.

I know humans and, they don't really give a damn about the genocides of the past. No one does. Some pretend to so that they look sensitive in front of women, not realizing that the only woman who wants a man like that wants to dominate and own him. But all this posturing about guilt? It's there because we want a solid reason for our self-hatred.

I think it's even simpler than that: we know we've been behaving like fools.

What part don't you understand?

15 08 10 - 19:54

I am amazed at how little Americans understand the idea of programmatic, or generative, ideas like computer code or law.

For example, this fracas over the ground zero mosque -- which is flagrantly stupid:

US President Barack Obama's endorsement of a controversial plan to build a mosque just blocks from Ground Zero poured fuel Saturday on a raging debate over religious freedom and sensitivities over the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims "have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said at an Iftar meal at the White House for Muslims breaking their Ramadan fast late Friday.

That includes "the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan." - AFP

He's right on this one. How do we tell them they can't build there? Our society is not set up for that. We cannot point to "inappropriate symbolism" in our laws. It's just not there. Even more, I have to wonder where these outraged people have been since 1965.

Or to phrase it another way:

What part of "diversity" do you not understand?

Diversity, coupled with a consumerist/democratic society (otherwise known as "liberal democracy" or a "free state"), means that if they have the money, members of any religion can build their temples wherever they can afford to.

Hamanites building in a Jewish neighborhood? No law against it. Muslims building at ground zero? Ditto. Christians buying up Madaleine Murray O'Hair's old house and turning it into a museum of creationism? All legit, by the same rule.

You're shocked that you have to press one for English, two for Spanish, three for Vietnamese, and four for Russian when you call up your local service center? Why?

What part of "diversity" do you not understand?

You're not a culture anymore, or even a nation. You're a place people become citizens of because the money and social freedoms are good. That's it. That's all that unites you. Not a spirit, not even a political outlook. In fact, you're basically in a giant apartment complex that you rent with your taxes, and your only obligation is not to upset your neighbors with loud noise, bad smells, or murder. That's all.

The rest is a vast empty plain, with nothing organizing it... and you chose it, apparently. Good thinking.

Ponzi schemes

15 08 10 - 08:14

I hear this phrase -- meaning an investment which is paid off by the money contributed by future investors -- thrown around quite a bit. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, the whole economy is a Ponzi scheme, etc.

What people don't do is turn this same lens on their entertainment sources. These are presumed to have value because people like them and therefore, they're going to be worth something real someday. In the meantime, they're worth monopoly money, but if we just keep the scam going...

The worst is Facebook. It's "worth" $25 billion, in the same way myspace was once "worth" $0.5 billion. This on actual profit of "tens of millions of dollars" from $800 million in money taken in. This is as far as anyone knows all advertising revenue, and advertising is contingent upon being effective. If you advertise for the wrong product in a profitable area, you don't get any actual results, although if you're running multiple ad campaigns, it's hard to tell which one really motivated the sale.

Facebook is in a classic sense not a Ponzi scheme, since you're not putting in money and expecting to profit from other people following your example. Instead, it's a classic speculative investment based on the new American myth that having lots of random people paying attention to something means it's going to be great value as a consumer product advertisement juggernaut. But, as Google found out, often it's a small group who generate a lot of noise but are actually not that important to the society (you can even read the French and Russian revolutions as a comparison, and you won't be far off).

We don't like to admit that we, the consumer, are not the end goal of all nature, science, God, the cosmos and possibly consciousness itself. But by doing so, we're creating de facto Ponzi schemes and overvaluing huge sectors of our economy, much as we did in the "dot com" boom under the deceptive President Clinton, who seemed to think it was OK to shift the economy from making real products into making fantasy products. When George W. Bush took over, the dot-com-ponzi-boom blew up in his face. You'd think he or Obama would be more skeptical about Facebook as a result.

Natural morality in dating

14 08 10 - 15:41

Natural morality -- where morality is an adaptation to the constraints of reality, not an imposition of a moral order derived from God or the holy equality of all humanity -- shows up in the oddest places, including this normally vapid dating advice column:

2. She never makes the first move. This issue has been debated to death, and there is no true consensus. But Daily says that she strongly believes women should never, ever pursue a man. Instead, she suggests waiting for the man to initiate and plan dates. Her reasoning: If the woman is always the one calling, she will never know if he is really interested in her or if it's just convenient for him.


4. She waits to have sex. Yes, the sexual revolution arrived long ago and few people expect a "pure white bride" nowadays. But sex is still a pretty big step for couples. Daily says that many women don't even realize just how much sex changes the dynamics of a relationship. When women have sex, they release a hormone called oxytocin (also referred to as "the cuddle hormone"), which some scientific researchers believe makes women feel extra warm and fuzzy for their sex partners. Daily warns that if women do the deed too soon, they might make too much of a relationship that barely ever existed outside of the bedroom. When you inflate the significance of a relationship, the man often bolts. Daily's advice is to wait at least one month into the relationship before having sex with your new man.


8. She does not take any crap — from anyone. A good woman never accepts bad behavior. Guys respect women with whom they can't get away with anything. If he knows there's a penalty — like getting thrown to the curb — for a serious violation like cheating, he'll respect you more, and he will be far less likely to do it. You should also never even bother to date married men, those who already have girlfriends or anyone who verbally or physically threatens or abuses you. Period.


10. She knows that love is the biggest part of the mating equation. Just how does a good woman know that she has found that crazy-for-you, toe-curling relationship? Daily says that some women have an "a-ha" moment, while love simply sneaks up on the rest. "I believe the feeling includes a unique sense of comfort and acceptance and the feeling that someone else's happiness is as important to you as your own," Daily says. - HiVillage

Conventional wisdom arises again: enforce good behavior, don't weaken your market value by sharing sex too freely, look for love, force the man into an alpha position and see if he can handle it.

Programatic theory of DNA

14 08 10 - 07:45

For some time, ANUS has said that DNA probably works like a computer program -- instructions, not a laundry list, which makes any one part of the program potentially far more important than most others.

Now we have some verified proof:

In a report published in the June 25 issue of Cell, the team identified a near complete catalog of the DNA segments that copy themselves, move around in, and insert themselves here and there in our genome. The insertion locations of these moveable segments -- transposons -- in each individual's genome helps determine why some are short or tall, blond or brunette, and more likely or less likely to have cancer or heart disease. The Johns Hopkins researchers say that tracking the locations of transposons in people with specific diseases might lead to the discovery of new disease genes or mutations.

Using their specialized "chip" with DNA spots that contain all of the DNA sequences that appear in the genome, researchers applied human DNA from 15 unrelated people. The research team compared transposon sites first identified in the original published human "index" genome and found approximately 100 new transposon sites in each person screened. - Science Daily

Just looking at them statistically, a word processor and operating system are basically the same. Roughly the same percentages of their code are instructions to disk, moving memory around, displaying stuff on the screen. But they do radically different things, and one is far more complex than the other. The same is true of DNA -- between individuals, between social classes, between ethnies/"ethnic groups", between races/subspecies, and between the traditional castes that really determine what we are.

Facing this honestly will be a big step forward for humanity.

Nihilists from Brasil

14 08 10 - 05:05

We're fortunate today to present you with a resource for Brazilians and other speakers of Portuguese:


The site's creator and founder has this to say:

Existem pessoas com diferentes níveis morais, quando todas as instituições do país estão nas mãos de pessoas sem escrúpulos isso influencia as pessoas mais maleáveis a serem corruptas, deixando assim totalmente oprimidas as pessoas que querem alguma mudança positiva Nós precisamos nos tornar a mudança que queremos no mundo. Precisamos ajudar os pobres a se estabilizarem com bolsas mas também com um planejamento familiar.São coisas difíceis quanto há tanta corrupção dos mais básicos valores da moral, dignidade e civilidade. Uma vida decente para os brasileiros já, que todos os que acreditam nisso façam a diferença.

Why this country will split

14 08 10 - 04:51

We're all familiar with this dialogue:

Crowd: Gays have the right to get married if they want to!

Minority: Conservatives have the right to live in communities that don't endorse homosexuality, drug use, promiscuity or egomania!

The Crowd goes wild. After all, the minority has inverted the one-way decline that Crowds like: zero rules, zero restriction, the individual as absolute. But what if someone takes that the opposite direction, and says "this individual chooses as 'freedom' to live in a society that isn't based on throwing out restrictions, but on finding rational ones"?

Then they freak out. One-way is the only way for them, because it's easier to say what you don't want than to re-design a society. Given autonomy and wealth, they'd redesign a society which would end up being exactly like this one. Yet one more reason not to trust Crowds.

Hail the new Dark Age!

14 08 10 - 04:37

The usual people are half-right:

Since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the great Age of Reason, we have transformed our world. While we have lurched at times into bloody conflict, we have also excelled in literature, art, science and medicine. We have expanded the rule of law and democratic systems and we have alleviated more physical poverty in our own generation than in the whole of history. The triumph of our political and economic systems has enabled us to see off the threats of Nazi fascism and Soviet communism. Yet despite all this, we are now confronting a crisis of confidence, an uncertainty and a lack of optimism in our society which I believe is profoundly worrying. The Age of Reason is in danger of gradually shifting into reverse, while the culture of “whatever” – that one word so frequently used to dismiss objective reasoning – is on the rise. - The Telegraph

But where did that "whatever" come from?

America truly is becoming a mediocre place. In my relatively short lifetime, I’ve seen first-hand the descent of our national dialog into frivolity, triviality and irrelevance. I suppose that’s what happens when you remove certain masculine concepts such as dignity, honor and restraint and replace them with snarky gossip and a soap opera sensibility. - The Spearhead

And where did that come from? The Enlightenment, of course.

When you put the individual above his role in society, there is no longer a focus on being exceptional. We are accepted for being human, and we don't need to fulfill a role or reach for a goal.

So we become mental couch potatoes and from that, our decline unfolds.


14 08 10 - 03:22

If I had to name my favorite use of a blog, or even a book (like Huxley's Perennial Philosophy), it would be the mashup: culling together disparate sources and showing a pattern.

It reminds me of picking up the three best newspapers in the country (WSJ, NYT and one of your choice) and cutting out all the interesting articles, then spreading them across a broad table and looking for the connections. Which share a common cause? And thus diagnose a common thread, or common weakness?

Google’s Eric Schmidt recently stated that every two days we create as much information as we did from the beginning of civilization through 2003. Perhaps the sheer bulk of data makes it easier to suppress that information which we find overly unpleasant. Who’s got time for a victim in Afghanistan or end-of-life issues with all these Tweets coming in?

Between reality TV, 24-hour news, and the constant hammering of the stream, I am less likely to tackle seriously uncomfortable topics. I can bury myself in a mountain of incoming information. And if my stream is any indication, I’m not alone. For me, repression used to be a one man show. Now I am part of a broader movement — mass avoidance through social media. - People's Radio

The more information you have, the more time it takes to pick any one item because you have to compare it to all other possibles.

Add in social pressures, which are a form of data themselves:

Psychologists refer to this as the paradox of power. The very traits that helped leaders accumulate control in the first place all but disappear once they rise to power. Instead of being polite, honest and outgoing, they become impulsive, reckless and rude. In some cases, these new habits can help a leader be more decisive and single-minded, or more likely to make choices that will be profitable regardless of their popularity. One recent study found that overconfident CEOs were more likely to pursue innovation and take their companies in new technological directions. Unchecked, however, these instincts can lead to a big fall. - WSJ

Soon you have taken someone, put them in power, and made them sort through the neurotic stream of crap from a crowd. Of course they get cynical, overwhelmed, jaded and start belittling people. They see more idiocy in ten minutes than a normal person will in a lifetime.

An alternate solution: stop compelling people to do anything but the tasks they need to do, and measure results instead of quantity of time served. In other words, stop compelling people to interact for the sake of interaction, when what they really need to do is goal-oriented:

For the first time this year, 1 percent of U.S. businesses say they offer unlimited paid vacation.


One of the biggest changes he sees as a result of the policy is that if co-workers are sick now, they're more likely to actually take a sick day, since it no longer cuts into a set chunk of paid time off. Lenz was also grateful for the new policy when he became a father in February.


Why the uptick in unlimited paid leave now? Studies have long shown that — believe it or not — such flexibility actually makes workers more productive and engaged. But Lenny Sanicola, with the human resources group World at Work, which surveys company benefits, suspects something more. Sanicola notes that with all the perks being cut during the recession, vacation time has held its own.

"Perhaps not being able to provide other rewards," he says, "some companies said as long as the work gets done and the productivity that we are looking for is achieved, you don't have to track your time and you can take unlimited leave." - The People's Radio

As always with ANUS, our solution is to de-socialize/de-humanize: focus on reality, not the endless neurotic chatter of the misdirected human mind in a group.

Right/left as mentality defined

12 08 10 - 21:15

From the people who are ever hopeful to get your attention and dollars for offering a placatory opinion -- namely, that the real problem in life isn't humanity not having its shit together, but that we're all victims of some vast, oppressive conspiracy:

Listening to this litany on Wednesday night in particular reminded me of a research article that came out roughly 5 years ago on political conservatism and motivated social cognition (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski & Sulloway, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” Psychological Bulletin). In a nutshell, the article—by Stanford and UC Berkeley researchers—seems to suggest that conservatism is a mild form of insanity.

A meta-analysis culled from 88 samples in 12 countries, and with an N of 22,818, revealed that “several psychological variables predicted political conservatism.” Which variables exactly? In order of predictive power: Death anxiety, system instability, dogmatism/intolerance of ambiguity, closed-mindedness, low tolerance of uncertainty, high needs for order, structure, and closure, low integrative complexity, fear of threat and loss, and low self-esteem. The researchers conclude, a little chillingly, that “the core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and a justification of inequality.”

The above list of variables is more than a little unsavory. We are talking about someone full of fear, with a poor sense of self, and a lack of mental dexterity. - William Todd Schulz, Psychology Today

The bad science here is that if you assume all of the things feared are not to be feared, you make the people who fear them look like idiots.

"This survey revealed people in it had a high degree of fear of alien abduction... hahaha! What ignorant slobs!"

Let's look at galloping doofus's list of worries:

  • Death anxiety - Easily misinterpreted as death anxiety is a healthy fear of death. People in denial of death do not have death anxiety. Normal people struggle with their mortality, because in this life there are no guarantees.

  • System instability - Most of the links I found for this phrase referenced this article itself. I'm guessing they mean the person is unstable to some degree or another. This is vague and probably suggests they measured one means of instability, while ignoring many other potential ones.

  • Dogmatism/intolerance of ambiguity, closed-mindedness - Let's make some assumptions: first, that tolerance of ambiguity is good ("who knows if we'll have a fire tonight? don't worry") and the second is that open-mindedness is a good thing, and that we define open-mindedness as a perpetual state. Anyone who has been around life for more than a few years knows that at some point, making conclusions about what you like and what you don't like is very helpful, especially if you deal with ambiguous situations. Go ahead and make that fire. Always make the fire. When you've browsed a bit, make a conclusion; a working hypothesis. Notice that nowhere here do they say "conservatives won't change their minds when given clear and equal data" only that they are inclined to have strong opinions.

  • Low tolerance of uncertainty - See above. Uncertainty is great if you live in a city apartment, are bored at your make-work job and need some spice in your life, so you do something neurotic. It's terrible if you wrangle with real issues. Low tolerance for uncertainty is a good way to force a brain to hammer out those difficult issues that most people blow off.

  • High needs for order, structure, and closure - What awful things these are! You like having a tidy house, have yourself be organized and getting one task done before moving on to another. Having seen one too many "good multitaskers" at work screwing up ten tasks at once, I'm inclined to like this ordered mental outlook instead.

  • Low integrative complexity - "The capacity and willingness to:(1) acknowledge the legitimacy of contradictory perspectives on a problem; and(2) integrate those contradictory considerations into an overall judgment." (Blackwell Online Reference) -- it's that open-mindedness concept again: if we automatically assume that assimilating any concept as true is good, then it's great to have high integrative complexity. But if you're interested in whether what you're assimilating is true or not, it's terrible -- you want low integrative complexity meaning that instead of accepting whatever half-truth gets thrown your way, you chew it over for awhile and make it pass some heady tests before you accept it. This isn't a weakness; it's a strength.

  • Fear of threat and loss - If we rephrase this as "more aware of threats" do we un-spin this jargon from negative to positive? It's true: if you want people who don't screw up in life, you want people who know what the stakes are; that way, among other things, they don't fall into confirmation bias and ignore real risks, and they treat every issue with seriousness. That sure beats trying to handle real-world problems by denying what's at risk.

  • Low self-esteem - Another mismeasurement. Do we want narcissists? People with the artificially inflated self-esteem that's been de rigeur since the 1970s in American education turn out to be narcissists; on the other hand, as the Dunning-Kruger effect illustrates, people who are more intelligent do not have the blind confidence of the dumber people -- you might call that low self-esteem, or just point out that it's a cautious outlook on life.

Here's a mature assessment of conservative values:

Each culture's morality is unique, but an aspect shared by all five-foundation moralities is that they do not regard society as a social contract created for the benefit of individuals. Rather, they see society in more organic terms, as an entity that is of value in and of itself, and they think the building blocks of society are not individuals but rather groups and institutions. The point of moral regulation is to enhance the integrity of these building blocks and to improve the way the blocks fit together, in order to ward off the ever-present danger of social decay.

The Ingroup, Authority, and Purity foundations are moral foundations because they constrain individuals; they pull them away from self-serving, pleasure-seeking individualism by binding individuals into groups and institutions. (Think about the transformation of an 18 year old who enlists in the army.) Liberals do not see this binding as necessary or as desirable, hence they do not see a moral system based on these foundations as worthy of anything but contempt. They think their opponents are motivated by greed, fear, racism, and blind obedience to scripture or tradition.

What a shame. If liberals could only step out of their righteous bubble, they'd be able to solve these riddles, which at present befuddle their thinking and curse their projects. - Edge

Contrast this to liberalism, which in my experience of my generation, has done nothing but make single, neurotic, commitment-averse, consistency-averse, unfocused and dysfunctional people. And we can see this the most in the millennials, whose schooling occurred after the 19670s boom in "positive thinking" and "everyone wins" style liberalism in the schools:

The researchers found that among college students over the past 25 years, current students are more likely to answer affirmatively to questions such as, "If I ruled the world, it would be a better place," "I think I am a special person," and "I can live my life any way I want to." In fact, by 2006 two-thirds of the students had above-average scores — 30% more than in 1982.

These results confirm what educators and psychologists have been grumbling about for years: This generation of 18-to-25-year-olds might be the most narcissistic generation ever.

"When a few students were sick and missed an exam 20 years ago, they used to be apologetic and just grateful that I would even offer a makeup," a Harvard professor said. "These days I have kids who think it's no big deal to miss a test if they have any conflict and then they think they should decide when I give the makeup. My students are more self-absorbed than ever."


"If there are more narcissists in the society, we would expect more people would favor short-term sexual relationships over long-term emotionally satisfying relationships," Ms. Twenge said. "Narcissists lack empathy and emotional warmth. They are less able to imagine someone else's perspective. Narcissists can't handle criticism and are more concerned with self-promotion than with helping others." - NY Sun

When it comes to thinking about what political personality is most desired, I think I'll go with hard evidence (what happened to millennials when we entrusted them to liberal care and ideology) versus the conjectural, biased and leading study that suggests conservatives might have these traits which are implied to be bad although that is never explained, or even given a logical foundation. Confirmation bias -- not us, surely.

The proof for this is too long to post here, but I think high self-esteem and low consciousness of the world are consequences of one another. If you're oblivious to reality, all your own decisions seem perfect. If you think you're perfect, of course you ignore consequences in reality -- that's not the feedback loop you use to measure yourself; your feedback loop begins and ends within your own skull.

Now what might make someone a narcissist? One guess is that bowing to social pressure creates a mental state where they cannot tell the difference between human judgments ("fire is bad") and logical assessments ("fire is coming our way, run!"). Accustomed to the demands of socialization, they live in a state where the opinions of humans crowd out the rest of their perception of reality, and so they make their own perceptions absolute to compete with the many judgments, critiques, and other neurotic voices around them. In order to survive, they filter out first reality (so they can pay attention to social pressures) and then, most social pressures, to defend themselves against this tsunami of moral judgment. They become solipsistic, or denying of an external reality beyond themselves, as a coping mechanism. This is how "tolerant" societies become tyrannies -- through good intentions that ultimately favor the individual too much, isolate them within themselves, and as a result make them greedy, selfish, oblivious and manipulative.

All this suggests that anger and gratitude – and perhaps other emotions, too – may be tools for turning up a partner's mental cooperation control dial, says Tooby's colleague Aaron Sell. You get angry not when someone hurts you, but when their actions betray a setting of their cooperation dial that is lower than you expect, and your anger is both a threat to turn down your own dial and an inducement to them to turn theirs up. You show gratitude not when someone benefits you, but when their dial is set higher than you expect, and this signals that you plan to turn yours up in response.


Preliminary evidence is consistent with the idea, however. Psychological tests of 281 university students revealed that those with a stronger sense of entitlement tended to be more anger-prone, as one would predict if they expected others to set their cooperation dials higher.

Stronger men and more attractive women were quicker to anger, too, Sell reported last year (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0904312106). Although stronger men wouldn't necessarily have any reason to expect better treatment in modern society, in the past they would have been desirable mates – as attractive women may still be – and so may have a stronger sense of entitlement.

And a wealth of evidence – some of it presented at last month's meeting, and some still unpublished – suggests that the cooperation control dial, or "welfare trade-off ratio", is a real part of our mental make-up, says Tooby. - New Scientist

This is of course no surprise to anyone who has stayed in touch with the last 200 years of philosophy: we know that altruism is bunk, and that with fixed agrarian societies, psychological control of one another became a necessity. Because control has to happen without seeming to be control, it hides itself as benevolence and/or injury; that is the essence of passive aggression, which is claiming an injury so that you are "owed" something by others. It's also hardwired into our emotions because it's a useful monkey control mechanism.

Do we evolve past this? Well, that's up to us -- but clearly liberalism provides no incentive to do so. In fact, liberalism is an embrace of that inner monkey, and a subsidy for its ego while loudly proclaiming that its broken viewpoint is "just as valid as anyone else's"!

The insanity has spread:

Other studies similarly confirm the pervasiveness of the “beauty bias.” About the same proportion of employees report discrimination based on appearance as discrimination based on race and sex. And economists have quantified a substantial “plainness penalty” even in occupations like law, where looks generally bear no relationship to competence. In educational settings, a cottage industry of studies have shown that teachers give lower grades to unattractive students; students give lower course evaluations to unattractive teachers.

Part of the problem is the lack of consensus that any of this is a problem. “So you Want to Hire the Beautiful” ran the title of one Business Week column. “What’s wrong with that?”

What’s wrong is the same thing that’s wrong with discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or gender. Prejudice based on looks rather than performance violates principles of equal opportunity and social justice that this nation has fought hard to establish. Beauty bias is the last frontier of acceptable bigotry. Except in a few localities, it is now perfectly legal. That needs to change. In schools and workplaces, people should be judged on how they perform, not how they look. - Boston Globe

The entitlement mentality is the idea as follows:

  • I am human, therefore, I am equal to others.

  • My opinions are equally valid even if not correct in reality.

  • No one can tell me I am wrong or that I need to change.

  • I am beautiful just as I am, and perfect for what I need to be.

The root of the entitlement mentality is equality: without having proven myself competent, I must be considered as being just as important as others, because I too am human!

This of course leads to extremes, with some trying to make food a human right and water a human right, expanding civil rights (as conservatives said they would) from "I want fairness!" to "I want to be equal to someone who is more productive/smarter/nicer than me!"

The entitlement mentality seeks to make everything a right, so that people don't need to challenge themselves with reality, beat their inner demons, and move on to live moral lives without being guided by fear of law enforcement or social ostracization. It's a struggle for us all to become self-actualized, and in past societies we used feudal castes to rank people. Those who could not control their impulses became drones; those who could control impulses, but not formulate a direction in difficult decisions became warriors; those who were able to make difficult, complex and ambiguous decisions became nobles, scribes, kings and religious leaders.

Equality and the entitlement mentality oppose any such hierarchy; they insist instead that everyone be considered equal from the outset, and regardless of ability, needs to compete on "fair" ways: the number of hours put in at a job, how popular they are, or how much money they make by pandering to morons. This presents a problem in that no longer do the best rise, but the most cynical and corrupt. As a consequence, society no longer has leadership, but an inward-looking poll-number-searching sense of serving a clientele. That in turn limits its ability to think strategically:

Big discoveries such as these from researchers outside of academia may be symptoms of a deep and systemic illness in academia, an illness which inhibits professors from making big-leap theoretical advances.

The problem is simply this: You can't write a grant proposal whose aim is to make a theoretical breakthrough.

"Dear National Science Foundation: I plan on scrawling hundreds of pages of notes, mostly hitting dead ends, until, in Year 4, I hit pay-dirt."

Theoretical breakthroughs can't be mapped out in advance. You can't know you've broken through until you're...through.

...at which point there is nothing left to propose to do in a grant application. - Psychology Today

This applies as well to science as any other field of leadership: you can only get to the big picture by taking the time out, and doing it, regardless of what is popular at the moment or in the short-term. Egalitarian societies don't reward this; they reward the short term, through the very creation of "equality" that insists on popular/lucrative results first, not abilities first. Not judging people on the basis of health/beauty, intelligence or moral character seems "fair" at first, but when you realize it creates a fervent competition on the basis of the lowest common denominator, which is repetitive tasks and pandering to the broadest and crassest tastes, you suddenly see how egalitarianism is the opposite of fair -- it's imprisoning each individual in a cage made of the wants/desires/needs of all the others.

If you wonder how we went from being Enlightened beings who inherited a beautiful earth, to grumbling industrial slaves of a crumbling empire that blights the land with its endless concrete, neon signs and litter, you can see the root of modernity at work: egalitarianism. It's our freedom and our enslaver.

Right and left are distinct mentalities. Or rather, right is: it's the original mentality of how people approach life when they are driven to solve problems, find solutions, and fend off real threats. The only real interrupt has been the left, which is egalitarianism in political form, which has sought to unify the many who are discontented and through them, gain power and depose the right, even though that inevitably means an empire drifting away from reality and toward a navel-gazing ethic of convenience which eventually deconstructs it.

What's a "make work" blog?

12 08 10 - 18:40

This phenomenon hit the internet in full stride only a few years ago, when it became clear that big media won the internet. They did this by consistently providing real investigative content -- the type that requires a trained, professional, paid journalist to investigate -- while blogs offered opinion.

Now, opinion is the most ill-defined word in the English language, because if it's a person saying something, then it is an opinion -- whether that opinion is true, mostly true, more true than your opinion, or the statement is entirely concrete in its factual nature and true ("ANUS.com is a website", "There are four marbles in this bag"). But when we talk about opinions in terms of blogs, we're talking about people adding "spin" and "color" and "flavor" and "vibe," and most of all, re-stating the paucity of facts in such a way that it tends to lend credence to the point of view with which their audience comes pre-programmed.

That's not to say that newspapers are not biased. In fact, newspapers found that if you didn't want utterly bland just-the-facts-ma'am style reporting, you need something to make a conclusion from, and that usually was a broader agenda. "This further proves that individuals are oppressed by social institutions" if you're a liberal or, if you're a conservative, "This further proves that the selfishness of some individuals is wrecking our social institutions."

When people looked back over their blogs in 2006, they realized quickly that they had become spin doctors. The news stories all came from big media; other than a few people on the ground at large events (already reported on by big media), blog "content" was opinion in the sense of "conjecture" and "personal spin." It was about personality, re-interpretation, simplification and dramatization, not "information," which was the keyword on which we sold this whole intertard thing anyway.

The result was that blogs chucked in the towel, and many just became straight up "make work" blogs. Make work means unnecessary work, like putting spin on stories that anyone with half or more of a functional brain could parse. Make work means dressing up someone else's work in a socially-friendly surface, pandering to your audience, and claiming it's "work." That's why they call it make work: it's work for work's sake, justifying itself on the basis that someone out there likes it.

Here's a prime example of make-work, borrowed from a social networking site:

(You have to see the full article to see the image; if you view it from the front page, you get a hilariously tiny and unreadable image.)

On top, the real news story by a major news outlet that has hired people to (a) do the research (b) write the article (c) fact-check it (d) edit it. Below it, we have the blog that one guy's cramming out the door, hoping it makes sense enough to get him Google advertising for the month so he can pay for his crummy city apartment.

Which one do you really need? The wire service, of course -- you don't need the blog, but he probably has idiots reading it because they like the way he phrases it in soothing terms that appeal to their confirmation bias by echoing their existing ideas.

This blog aims to be the opposite of make work because who needs more bytes of random placatory crap littering the intertard?

4chan leaps over shark effortlessly

09 08 10 - 22:03

The problem with Crowds is that they infest anything, treat it as if it were as shallow as they, and then norm/average it into the same old thing.

4chan used to be the anarchy zone; now it's another gathering place for the mostly-liberal, mostly-hipster, alienated, self-victimizing, aimless and underutilized crowd of bored white youth.

These are people who by definition cannot do anything important, so they band together in a group, find the lowest common denominator and go into self-righteous rage. Difference between them and Baptists burning witches and/or banning dancing: zero.

ACTA, or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is a proposed trade agreement which is theorized by some to be the Final Boss of the Internet. Its proponents claim the treaty to be a response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works.

Take a good look at this image and get involved in an attempt to save the internet as we know it. To ignore this is to lose the majority, if not ALL of the things we use the internet for in our daily lives.

For once, we all must join to save our one common interest.

We are Anonymous We are Legion We do not Forgive We do not Forget

That reads like any other press release, if they tried to use "edgy" youth language. We're the oppressed! Stop the powers that be! ...and we'll do good things, really, to make everyone see the New Age light of freedom and love and peace, and man, we're not hippies but if you just look at it, without those laws it could be totally beautiful.

That was the sound of 4chan jumping the shark. /b/tards, now you're mundane, run-of-the-mill, just like everyone else, normal, which means ineffective, political zealots. You've become the same self-congratulatory, Volvo-driving, high-ticket-goods craving, mincingly politically correct dipshits we've all come to loathe. Sure, you use racial epithets and sexist jokes, but you make it clear that's just for humor. You're as moral as the pope (or Michael Moore), and your morality has blinded you so that you don't want to fix the problem so much as carve out a niche for yourselves.

You've sold yourselves out, as wiser minds predicted you'd do. Now you are as relevant as any other neutred, mincing charity. You're part of the system of failure, not the antidote.

The modern order fails

09 08 10 - 21:07

We know that in Europe, bankruptcy is ripping the heart out of their social welfare system, which is additionally taxed by a swelling population.

And now in the USA, bankruptcy is hitting. We're hearing a lot about how some shady group must have stolen our economy away.

I have a different hypothesis: it was a phantom economy all along.

Now, finally, 65 years later, we're seeing the wind-down of the WWII boom. After the war, there was a baby boom, which produced many new consumers and carried us on a wealth curve through the 1980s. When that dropped off, we had an internet boom in the 1990s. Now people are hoping for an "immigrant boom," or that we can import a lot of workers, pay them little, and inject that cash back into the economy while simultaneously making them good consumers like the baby boomers.

But cracks are showing:

And when you read about America in European newspapers, what you are likely to find is a tone bordering on pity. The U.S. is depicted as a fraying empire of obesity, ignorance, debt, gridlock, stagnation, and mindless war. Sure, the iPad is cool, but it is evidence of what America was, not what it will be again. The stories are not angry, accusatory, or even ideological. It’s worse: they are condescendingly elegiac.


America is no longer admired, imitated, or feared. We remain—for now—a safe haven for dollars (of which there are too many in the world). But we increasingly are seen less as a model or as an empire than as a cautionary tale of national neglect and decline.


Writing in the Guardian, Timothy Garton Ash sees a Third World shabbiness when he visits the United States. “Every time I come back to the United States,” the Oxford don writes, “the airports, the roads, the public spaces look more tattered, battered, old-fashioned. Modernity is no longer self-evidently here.” - Newsweek

The value of a nation is based on the faith others have in its future ability to produce wealth. Wealth is loosely defined as "anything more useful to people than it is difficult to produce."

You can have a big pile of money, but all it's "worth" is the weight value of its materials if there's no faith in the nation backing it. The USA, which has come to regard its dollars as gold, and Europe which has come to regard its future as carved in stone, are beginning to see that their decline has consequences in this order:

  1. Intellectual/Artistic

  2. Social

  3. Cultural

  4. Intelligence

  5. Leadership/Corruption

  6. Ethnic

  7. Economic

This decay has been going on for some time, but has really peaked since the start of the 20th century.

Tell me seriously: The Beatles and Lady Gaga, they're high art like Beethoven -- just of a different form, which is equally as valid, because complexity and grace are arbitrary since not all of us agree on them -- right?

You must be joking.

Our movies now, they're hidden masterpieces! Our paintings of four different-colored squares and a lump of feces on canvas, they're equal to the grand masters! Our obese, subliterate, surly and criminal populations, they're equal to the pioneers!

Yes, we must be equal to the past... otherwise we're in decline.

Among other reasons, this is why the absolute equality of all people -- in power, in abilities, in wealth and in social standing -- is the defining mythos of the modern time. It is what makes the modern time an odd mix of utilitarian, consumerist, egalitarian, socialist, capitalist and individualism. Pander to the individual, band them together, and gain power through the Crowd.

But after a dozen centuries of that, and secular liberal values replacing traditional ones, we're now finally seeing the cracks in the system. In particular, we're seeing that without inventing some new "boom" every dozen years, we're going broke -- mainly because in our zeal for equality, we've spread our income too thin, and now instead of going into core industries it goes into consumer industries. This means that we all go to jobs and work at selling each other stuff, like a closed-circuit loop. That doesn't produce wealth; it spreads it around, and takes a little off the top for the greediest among us.

This self-defeating outlook was fortunately interrupted by a series of profitable wars (WWI/WWII) and then a sequence of booms that made it easy for us to keep preying on ourselves. After all, it was a Ponzi pyramid. Breed more people. When they get destroyed by following the consumer lifestyle and imitating rock stars, then import more people to pay for them. Keep someone investing time, money and themselves into the system at the bottom, and we all get to be on top for our historical 15 minutes. True equality!

Except of course that it's slow cannibalism of a civilization.

The haves are retirees who were once state or municipal workers. Their seemingly guaranteed and ever-escalating monthly pension benefits are breaking budgets nationwide.

The have-nots are taxpayers who don’t have generous pensions. Their 401(k)s or individual retirement accounts have taken a real beating in recent years and are not guaranteed. And soon, many of those people will be paying higher taxes or getting fewer state services as their states put more money aside to cover those pension checks. - NYT

The problem with spreading money around is that you devalue that money, and soon increase your obligations past what you can pay -- unless, of course, you're in some kind of insane delusional boom where people pay a half-billion dollars for myspace.com and think they've got a great deal, even if the site isn't selling a product, just giving away one and hoping to sell enough ads to consumers to make up the difference. But those consumers, they're different than 1950s consumers. They're not buying white picket fence houses and stocks; they're paying rent in apartments and buying entertainment. Crap, basically. So they're fickle and steal anything they can, and so the "service industry" model fails. They'll always go for the cheaper option. Which means that over time your fancy restaurants slowly become McDonald's, your educated newspapermen become hucksters firing out a dozen half-proofread articles a day (did I describe "bloggers"? oh noes) and your politicians go from being leaders to being advertisers. Hope, change!

In what might be the funniest misspelling in North Carolina, a road crew misspelled 'SCHOOL' near a high school in Guilford County. - Third World USA

We live in a nation of incompetents and idiots because they're the perfect consumers -- in the short term. You don't want Mom and Pop nerd who are going to spend 20 hours researching their car purchase, and get the fewest options possible. You want Joe Idiot who walks into the showroom, sees something glitzy, and spends twice what he can afford. You don't want a discerning consumer who wants to know their toaster will work still in five years. You want Suzy Dufus who's going to waddle into Target, pick out the one that matches her drapes, and haul it home and forget about it until three years later when it breaks, and she buys another one. Best of all, Suzy won't be able to do the math to notice that the cheapo version that lasts three years and costs two-thirds as much is a ripoff, since you have to buy two of them for the same time duration a good one would last and so you pay an additional 50%.

Rank the toasters:

CostDuration (in years)Total Cost of Ownership (10 years)

If your consumer understands the math above, they suck ass as a consumer.

You want Joe Dummy to wander in and buy crap, and buy lots of it. You don't want him to think -- if you're lucky, he'll be biological unable to -- you want him to buy. You want him to keep buying, to be in debt his whole life, and to pass that debt on when he dies so the government can nationalize it and absorb it. You don't even care how high your taxes are at that point, because you're making money hand over fist from these idiots.

The problem is however that these idiots never do invest in products where quality matters, so soon you lose the ability to distinguish yourself on quality. Instead, it's a race to the bottom on price. They make them in China? We're going to train lemurs to make them. They use robots? We'll use retards. Whatever it takes to make the product as cheaply as possible, and it's not your fault if it gets even more shoddily made and so you can sell more of them in that ten-year period.

The ultimate genius extension of this is the iPod. It's an entertainment product, 100% non-essential. It's backed by a mountain of hype. It also has a soldered-on battery, a flaky hard drive and lots of delicate electronic connections. It's a high ticket item easily stolen. It's easily broken. It's not waterproof. In fact, there are a billion ways for your consumer to destroy it so they can buy another one. And that's what they do. It's trendy; must buy. It's lost; must replace. When v4.0 comes out, buy again. Buy and buy. And since it's non-essential as a product, the only means with which it competes is trendiness (so easy to use, an idiot can do it -- which is who it's designed for) and low price. They can never look at it and say, it failed me. It's always in a nebulous state of being unnecessary, yet being desired, so it gets bought before steaks or oil changes. Brilliant, and parasitic.

As the empire winds down, business wants a way to make products cheaper, so they import people from third-world countries. These countries got to be third-world countries because their average intelligence is low; consequently, they export dumber populations who are also unable to notice why they should have first world levels of order, law, cleanliness, etc. So they sew chaos through the new population, and expand it. That's part of the plan, too, since they're now a new generation of consumers. But just like the native born, they get worn down by consumerism and start buying junk.

The burgeoning Chinese migrants in Tibet, including many with criminal records, has left native Tibetan people with no livelihood prospects, their cultural values and social stability in jeopardy, a report received by the Central Tibetan Administration says.

The rapid increase in Chinese immigration picked up pace with the onset of railway connectivity in Tibet in 2006 and due to numerous 'development project' initiated by the Chinese government throughout Tibet.


According to the survey, Chinese migrants own 249 shops and 52 restaurants in comparison to 5 shops and 30 restaurants run by Tibetans. There are currently 5 brothels owned by Chinese, around 11 gambling dens run by both Chinese and Tibetans, and 3 night clubs owned by Tibetans. The growing surge in prostitution and gambling in particular, pose grave threats of epidemic diseases and rising unemployment among youngster. It also adversely affects Tibetan cultural values and family relationships. - Tibet News Service

So the cycle starts anew until at some point, one brave person stands up and points out that the Emperor has no new clothes -- he's naked, and what we see in that nakedness is that there's no value in that nation anymore. It doesn't produce anything. They're really good at selling each other crap, but really bad at making new stuff. They may come up with an iPod or two, but they're not inventing any new technologies, just shuffling those around. They're living off the past, like Europe and the USA are. And that's why the world turns away, as they should, from the populations so stupid that they destroyed their ability to produce wealth so that they could shuffle the wealth around equally and all feel good about each other.

Right, left: is there a difference?

08 08 10 - 19:46

There's a lot of confusion out there about what the difference is between right and left. This is because most of you were born in a time when the differences have been blurred, although you will not die in a time where the differences are blurred.

  • Conservatism is a focus on doing right by society as a whole.

  • Liberalism is a focus on empowering the individual to do what it wants to do.

In liberalism, society is the means to the end that is the individual; in conservatism, the individual is the means to the end that is society, so that the individual is provided with a safe, stable and sane place to live.

Morality is a social construction, but it is constructed out of evolved raw materials provided by five (or more) innate "psychological" foundations. In surveys and experiments I have conducted in the USA, Europe, Brazil, and India, I have consistently found that highly educated liberals generally rely upon and endorse only the first two foundations (Harm and Fairness), whereas people who are more conservative, more religious, or of lower social class usually rely upon and endorse all five foundations.

Each culture's morality is unique, but an aspect shared by all five-foundation moralities is that they do not regard society as a social contract created for the benefit of individuals. Rather, they see society in more organic terms, as an entity that is of value in and of itself, and they think the building blocks of society are not individuals but rather groups and institutions. The point of moral regulation is to enhance the integrity of these building blocks and to improve the way the blocks fit together, in order to ward off the ever-present danger of social decay.

The Ingroup, Authority, and Purity foundations are moral foundations because they constrain individuals; they pull them away from self-serving, pleasure-seeking individualism by binding individuals into groups and institutions. (Think about the transformation of an 18 year old who enlists in the army.) Liberals do not see this binding as necessary or as desirable, hence they do not see a moral system based on these foundations as worthy of anything but contempt. They think their opponents are motivated by greed, fear, racism, and blind obedience to scripture or tradition. - Jonathan Haidt

According to Dr. Haidt, there are five moral axes:

    Protect Individuals
  1. Not harming others

  2. Reciprocity and Fairness

  3. Protect Group
  4. Loyalty to In-Group

  5. Respect for authority and hierarchy

  6. Purity or Sanctity

Conservatives emphasize the group loyalty ones more than the individual ones; liberals emphasize the individual ones. This is why the two groups don't understand each other.

David Brooks notes an important aspect of this view of morality -- it's not about a divine/inherent morality, but about a common sense response to life:

Where does our sense of right and wrong come from? Most people think it is a gift from God, who revealed His laws and elevates us with His love. A smaller number think that we figure the rules out for ourselves, using our capacity to reason and choosing a philosophical system to live by.

Moral naturalists, on the other hand, believe that we have moral sentiments that have emerged from a long history of relationships. To learn about morality, you don’t rely upon revelation or metaphysics; you observe people as they live. - David Brooks

Herein lies much of the confusion: many conservatives identify a religious basis of their conservatism. At least as far as Western religions are concerned, this makes no sense: Christianity and Judaism, by their focus on the individual, are more closely geared toward liberalism. However, religiosity as a value is a conservative trait, as is the idea that finding a moral balance between the individual and society is the root of the human experience. For this reason, the conservatism pre-dates the religion; one must be conservative in order to value religion, and pull values out of it that are not liberal. Conservatism is a secular in its most basic impulse; it is a response that demands we adapt to our environment, in contrast to liberalism which wants our environment to adapt to us as individuals.

Social policy

One interesting aspect that is rarely discussed: liberal parties appear later in the life cycle of a civilization. No society is born with them, in part because the logical extreme of the left is anarchy, while civilization is inherently anti-anarchistic. People who are too individualistic do not find a way of working together, or we'd have a nice fat list of successful anarchist societies. Instead, we have a long history of police, authorities, military and legal constraints. Individuals, when left alone, become destructively divergent -- history tells us this.

Conservative ideals -- or, if we're honest, realistic ones -- favor the creation of society. They believe in the building and maintenance of a strong social order that creates a stable space for individuals to thrive; in the conservative view, the highest good is to make a society that functions like an efficient machine, ensuring that individuals have the capacity to do what they need to. It does not specifically pander to the individuals, or dwell on exceptions, because keeping the machine running is more important than any single individual. Conservatism is an inherently unitive outlook, as opposed to "collectivist" which is a large group of individuals demanding legislation favorable to their divergent pursuits, based on social consensus and with that agreement on values, a public morality, philosophy, legal system and/or spiritual outlook.

Ultimately, as the old saying goes, in conservatism the individuals are a means to an end, and the end is more important than the means. Conservatives value achieving a stable society above all else, so if a few people become dead in the process, that's OK. From a realist perspective, this type of thinking is contra-Utopian: it recognizes that no matter what is done, tragedy follows for someone, so we cannot let the presence of tragedy stop us from doing what benefits everyone, even if indirectly (namely, a stable and prosperous society, which is very indirect -- your average person lacks the biological intelligence to conceptualize that idea that their income is the result of a stable society, and that if that stability goes away, their income changes -- or the value of currency changes; your average person can think at best two weeks into the future). In conservative logic, Goal > Method. In liberal logic, method -- respecting the individual -- is more important than achieving your goal, unless of course that goal is respecting the individual.

Opposing conservatism/realism is what we at ANUS call "Crowdism." Crowdism is what happens when a group of individuals get together and decide that they do not want their individual pursuits curtailed, no matter how divergent. Obviously, this happens later in the life of a civilization, because this attitude requires they first have a functional system under their feet that provides them with food, shelter and safety. Otherwise, they'd be concerned about more pressing needs. When individuals in such a society decide they should be free to pursue their divergent individual pursuits, they invent a convenient fabrication: the idealized individual, or an abstract concept of "a" individual who has "rights," or inherent and absolute demands they can make on their society and the world. The idealized individual requires they believe in equality of all people, but all of this activity is shorthand for what each member of the Crowd wants: a lack of oversight over his or her own divergent individual pursuits. Social standards restrain individuals from divergent pursuits; liberals, individualists and Crowds seek to reverse this situation.

When we get to modern conservatism, however, we have the legacy of WWII and the Cold War: neoconservatism. Neoconservatives are fundamentally liberals, much like those of the French Revolution. In order to stave off Communism, they offer the individual more than what Communism does -- where Communism offers equal wealth, neoconservatives offer consumerism and a chance at the lottery of capitalism, in addition to a society which has no ideal (such as Communism) and thus is unwilling to ever tell the individual what they're doing is wrong, unless it involves blatant harm to another person. Indirect harm is OK -- sell all the fraudulent products you want -- which makes such a society a free-for-all. Even if dressed up in conservative clothing, the neoconservative outlook is fundamentally liberal. They offer the individual absolute liberty in exchange for upholding capitalism. Neoconservatism was pioneered by the Americans, who wanted a reason to be superior to (a) the Nazis and (b) the Commies.


Naturally, liberals and conservatives disagree on economics as well.

The conservative view is that we should strengthen the value of the nation by making sturdy businesses, institutions and sources of wealth; the liberal view is that we should take what wealth we have, and make it more equitably distributed. To a conservative, this is silly: when money reaches the consumer, it's going to go to consumer products, not get re-injected into the heart of industry and institutions where it can be re-invested and used to make more wealth.

For the same reason, conservatives believe in "small government" that may have big bills. The idea is that concentrating wealth in the hands of government lets it re-invest; spending the money on salaries, or giving it out through welfare, stops the money from circulating as quickly as it needs to, and ends up profiting the small merchants who re-sell items produced elsewhere. When conservatives talk about small government, they mean:

  • Few government employees and only crucial employees.

  • It may move lots of money through the economy, but it does so in ways that produces more money, like R&D or stimulus, not welfare.

  • Fewer government agencies with less mission creep.

  • Less of a government hierarchy, and more independent and powerful lawmakers who get things done without hiding behind layers of bureaucracy.

  • Fewer laws, less paperwork, less focus on exceptions and more on a workable system.

  • End government mission creep: it's not here to train us in morality, how to brush our teeth, not to smoke, etc. It's here to provide a stable place for us to live.

This upsets liberals, who note that conservatives spend a lot of money through the military and in stimulus to industry. Yes, conservatives say -- because giving money to the military, and through it to heavy industry, or to industry itself, strengthens the infrastructure that produces wealth for all of society. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Even better, set up a giant corporate pond and have them employ guys like him to fish all day, and you have a "trickle down" effect that benefits the economy as a whole, and through that, each person. But there's a catch: it benefits each person according to their role in the society. Janitors get less than CEOs. The left, which is driven by individualism and thus demands equality (because every individual will want an equal share of the pie, unless they already have a bigger share), finds that offensive. They'd rather give $100 to the Janitor and CEO alike, but a conservative will point out that this money will go to the grocery stores, liquor stores and gas stations -- not to the farmers, manufacturers and oil prospectors. No new wealth is created with that re-distribution of cash.

As a result of this split in perspective, conservatives believe in a high-margin society -- where profits are huge, but costs are low -- and liberals believe in a low-margin society. In a conservative society, taxes are low and so when people sell products, they take away a huge profit that they can then re-invest. In liberal societies, taxes are high and there are numerous regulations plus welfare, so products are expensive and margins are slim, but there's plenty of money floating around, being distributed through the welfare state and the benefits it gives its citizens. Ultimately, the conservative view keeps money moving faster, and so the economy can adapt more rapidly -- but it will also run into problems when there are periodic recessions.


Although above we've discussed the values systems of conservatives versus liberals, I think there's an even more basic psychology: liberals are externalized, where conservatives are internalized.

If you are externalized, you need external affirmation in order to feel good about life. I have done x, and other people like it, or it generates money.

If you are internalized, you do not need external affirmation; as a result, all you require from the external is that stability exists, and you do not want it to intrude on what you're doing in the way an externalized person needs it to. You know your values, and if you trust those, you don't need them confirmed by others. Especially if you are, as David Brooks writes above, a naturalist -- your values are derived from adaptation to the external, and so you don't need the external to be converted into an affirmation/punishment structure. You know what works and what doesn't, and don't need your reality filtered through social pressures.

People who rely on external affirmation tend to adopt surrogates. As they come to depend on this affirmation, they soon adopt "sure things" -- ways to create this affirmation and experience it on a day to day basis. For most, these are easily acknowledged social goods: helping the poor, furthering equality, educating the downtrodden, or even buying things. This produces a society of the insincere who are as a result good manipulators of image -- poseurs, hipsters, scenesters, marketers, advertisers, politicians, liars of all stripes.

If you want to know why conservatives and liberals differ, it's this: a conservative psychology needs nothing from society but physical function, and keeps society out of your head and as a result, keeps shallow manipulators away. This is why in many ways, conservatism is far more "anarchic" -- requiring no social oversight -- than even the anarchists, who tend toward a liberal basis for their thoughts.

The ultimate extreme of such conservatism is self-actualization, or acceptance of one's role in the larger physical order of nature. A self-actualized person is aware of and accepts her limitations and strengths; as a result, she has pride without being pretentious or arrogant where her abilities are exceptional, and has humility where it is demanded by recognizing the limits of her abilities. In a group of fully self-actualized people, there comes a transcendence of the demands of the ego -- I must be just as good as everyone else! -- and a recognition instead that power/wealth should go to those with ability, so that they can provide good leadership, so that we all get a stable and prosperous society with trickle-down wealth.

Schopenhauer believed that a person inherited level of intellect through one's mother, and personal character through one's father..[39] Schopenhauer quotes Horace's saying, "From the brave and good are the brave descended" (Odes, iv, 4, 29) and Shakespeare's line from Cymbeline, "Cowards father cowards, and base things sire base" (IV, 2) to reinforce his hereditarian argument.[40] On the question of eugenics, Schopenhauer wrote:

With our knowledge of the complete unalterability both of character and of mental faculties, we are led to the view that a real and thorough improvement of the human race might be reached not so much from outside as from within, not so much by theory and instruction as rather by the path of generation. Plato had something of the kind in mind when, in the fifth book of his Republic, he explained his plan for increasing and improving his warrior caste. If we could castrate all scoundrels and stick all stupid geese in a convent, and give men of noble character a whole harem, and procure men, and indeed thorough men, for all girls of intellect and understanding, then a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles.[41]

In another context, Schopenhauer reiterated his antidemocratic-eugenic thesis: "If you want Utopian plans, I would say: the only solution to the problem is the despotism of the wise and noble members of a genuine aristocracy, a genuine nobility, achieved by mating the most magnanimous men with the cleverest and most gifted women. This proposal constitutes my Utopia and my Platonic Republic".[42] Analysts (e.g., Keith Ansell-Pearson) have suggested that Schopenhauer's advocacy of anti-egalitarianism and eugenics influenced the neo-aristocratic philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, who initially considered Schopenhauer his mentor. - Wikipedia

A society at this far level of actualization occurs at two times, I'd wager. The first is the founding of a civilization. As happened in Africa 200,000 years ago, a small group breaks away from the rest and forges toward a less hospitable climate -- purely to escape social pressures, and the tendency of Crowds to find anyone with a divergent and functional idea (non-functional ideas are non-threatening) and then brand them a Witch Doctor and kill them -- so that a group can found a new civilization. As in a military unit, all members of that sub-tribe must be realistic about their abilities and step aside when they are not the right tool -- means to an end -- for the job.

The second time occurs when a civilization has been in decline for a long time, and the remaining people who are not on welfare or bureaucrats look at each other and realize: if we don't stop these Crowdists, they will consume everything we have, destroy us, and in doing so, destroy the useful remnants of a society. These people may have read history and become aware that in the ruins of a great society, one finds dumb corrupt people who are better than average at using language to convince others, making music and socializing. The marketers took over, there. When the recognition that Crowdism is death and that it doesn't stop until it encounters force makes its way into the middle classes of a moribund regime, they either band together and depose the Crowd, or perish at its liberal hands.

Biological subversion

07 08 10 - 18:01

While we may not think of a sexual revolution the way we do a political, economic, or social-class revolution, the effects of the American sex revolution may be just as momentous as those of the more familiar kinds of social upheavals. “In spite of its odd characteristics,” Sorokin writes, “this sex revolution is as important as the most dramatic political or economic upheaval. It is changing the lives of men and women more radically than any other revolution of our time.” (ASR 19, 54, 3)

Sorokin devotes much of the earlier sections of The American Sex Revolution to documenting the claim that 20th century American culture is “sex-centered and sex-preoccupied.” In literature, Sorokin writes, almost all eminent American authors have had to pay their homage to sex, either by making it the central theme of their work or by devoting to it a good deal of attention even in books focused on entirely different topics. What is most significant is that many of these authors—including serious writers like Theodore Dreiser, Sinclair Lewis, Eugene O’Neil, Ernest Hemingway, and John Steinbeck—portray sexual excesses and sexual misconduct as if they were perfectly normal and acceptable adult behavior. - "Critic of the Sensate Culture: Rediscovering the Genius of Pitirim Sorokin," The Political Science Reviewer, p 264-379

I would argue that Hemingway and Dreiser, at least, portray these excesses as a means of pointing out their absurd and soul-destroying nature.

What he's describing here is biological subversion: if you detest a population, you want to subvert it by destroying its most basic design. One way to do this is to destroy the family. Because young people cannot see the long-term consequences of their action, and because sex with many patterns deconstructs our ability to attach to another human being in the way that is necessary for long-term familial bonding, making sex trendy "seems like a rebellious act" but is actually quite the destructive one. This essay, linked above, reminds me a lot of Tom Wolfe's critique (not criticism) of the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

The nightmare continues

07 08 10 - 07:45

A society stays together when it is founded on a small group of principles. That way, every citizen can derive the information they need to know from that founding logic. When that logic gets fractured, societies fall apart.

I wrote the following on New Year's day, 1994. America 16 years ago was a relatively content nation, though full of political sparks: 10 months later the Republicans would take the House for the first time in 40 years. But beneath all the action was, I thought, a coming unease. Something inside was telling us we were living through "not the placid dawn of a peaceful age but the illusory calm before stern storms."

The temperature in the world was very high. "At home certain trends—crime, cultural tension, some cultural Balkanization—will, we fear, continue; some will worsen. In my darker moments I have a bad hunch. The fraying of the bonds that keep us together, the strangeness and anomie of our popular culture, the increase in walled communities . . . the rising radicalism of the politically correct . . . the increased demand of all levels of government for the money of the people, the spotty success with which we are communicating to the young America's reason for being and founding beliefs, the growth of cities where English is becoming the second language . . . these things may well come together at some point in our lifetimes and produce something painful indeed. I can imagine, for instance, in the year 2020 or so, a movement in some states to break away from the union. Which would bring about, of course, a drama of Lincolnian darkness. . . . You will know that things have reached a bad pass when Newsweek and Time, if they still exist 15 years from now, do cover stories on a surprising, and disturbing trend: aging baby boomers leaving America, taking what savings they have to live the rest of their lives in places like Africa and Ireland."


The biggest political change in my lifetime is that Americans no longer assume that their children will have it better than they did. This is a huge break with the past, with assumptions and traditions that shaped us.


But they look around, follow the political stories and debates, and deep down they think their children will live in a more limited country, that jobs won't be made at a great enough pace, that taxes—too many people in the cart, not enough pulling it—will dishearten them, that the effects of 30 years of a low, sad culture will leave the whole country messed up. - WSJ

She nails something that few people are afraid to tackle: America is in decline because it has become a parasite-state.

Being a modern person, and unable to think outside the modern paradigm, she keeps returning to economics. Maybe if we just have more money flowing through, people will go back to that happy oblivion where they don't worry about consequences.

At this blog, we tend to look deeper into the past and future, because we know that more factors than economics determine events. Maybe not voters -- who have the attention span of a 2-year-old -- but the transaction of history, surely.

At that level, the entire West is fragmenting because it no longer agrees on what's important or what should be done. In turn, that has led to an end-game cycle: the left wants more entitlements, the right tries to make more infrastructure that generates wealth.

While the populist right is more realistic than the left, both sides have gotten bought out just like the voters. "Oh, there's jobs!" -- throw all other worries out the window.

An honest conservative party will start mentioning the obvious:

  • We need to be us. The only happy societies are homogenous.

  • End the subsidy state. We don't want parasites or protected classes.

  • Less is more government. Bureaucracies kill.

  • Real green action. Buying CFLs doesn't do it. Reduce population, increase national forest.

But these things are still "too extreme" for most people, who have forgotten that most of history is extreme and EVERY nation thinks -- shortly before it collapses -- that it's too big to fail, has too much technology, and is too "enlightened" for "savage" behavior like revolution and warfare.

The real indicator of failure: a nation so divided people don't know what's true and what's not:

Police investigated at Fusco Corp. in New Haven just after 11 a.m. on Thursday morning after getting a call from a security officer.

The officer at Building 4 of Science Park in New Haven reported having information about an employee, Francis Laskowski, 58, of Derby saying he understood the shooter’s mindset.

The shooter, Omar Thornton killed eight people and injured two before apparently killing himself, police said. He went on a rampage after being fired from Hartford Distributors, a beer distributor and told 911 dispatchers that HDI was a racist organization and he took things into his own hands. The company said that Thorton was treated fairly. - NBC

Which one was it? Was he an oppressed victim of racial discrimination, or a thief who stole from the trucks he worked with, then flipped out when he got fired?

It's not an essay questions. Yes or no. One or zero.

Modern people are trained by their televisions, politicians, corporate overlords and friends to say "well believe whatever you want to, and ignore other opinions." But in our hearts we all know that is dysfunctional. The truth is out there, whether we deny it or not. And denying it just furthers the conflict.

Here's another hilarious one:

Mohammed Shahjahan, 27, of Slaymaker Close, was found guilty of rape and sexual assault.

Feizal Ali, 26, of Howard Street, was convicted of sexual assault.


Shahjahan shouted: "The system is racist anyway," before being led away. - BBC

So which is it?

Is he a rapist, or a victim of racism?

It can only be one, because if he's a rapist, he's not the victim.

One or zero, yes or no. Which? We can't just be relativistic about this and say "well whatever you want to believe, man."

Reality's out there. Do we have food for today -- YES OR NO? Does this guy we're thinking of letting in to our community have the plague -- YES OR NO? These wandering Mongol herders, are they disguised attackers -- YES OR NO?

Figure it out, modern world. You've become so detached from reality you've come to consider it arbitrary. And because we fanatically insist we're all equal, you feel perfectly empowered to make any old random decision and insist it's just as valid, meaningful and "correct" as any other.

Hint: nature doesn't care. Real life doesn't care. You can only make these decisions because you live in a wealth, corrupt nation.

Reality exists. It's out there. And as we've gotten fatter and dumber, we've drifted away from the golden rule of the scientific method:

Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to a fact—a view that was advocated by Russell and Moore early in the 20th century. But the label is usually applied much more broadly to any view explicitly embracing the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified). - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

We can invent purely theoretical statements in our heads: if I invent a hofus and a rudus, which are two types of shapes, and they both fit into a goombus, I can say they're goombus-derived and have that be true. I can even deconstruct (translation: remove context, make arbitrary) that statement and have it be true. But it's "true" in a world that is not our own.

Back to reality. Yes or no. Live or die. Thrive or fail. Which do we pick?

At the present time, we're still playing with mental constructs, wondering when we'll have to pay the piper.

Political affiliation quiz

07 08 10 - 06:52

The Anus Political Affiliation Test

In these days of political turmoil it can be increasingly difficult to determine your political preference. Are you a stern conservative, a freedom loving liberal or a sharing and caring socialist? This simple test will set the record straight for you and help you deal with your insecurities caused by a depressing and confusing modern world. No longer do you have to deal with controversial topics such as pollution, crime rates and gay marriage. Just answer these five easy questions and immediately check out the results! by Umbrage

What's your favorite color?




What type of movie do you like?




Do you talk much at parties?




Are you a deep thinker?




How do you like to see yourself?

I'm a conservative

I'm a liberal

I'm a socialist



Like this test society doesn't want to disappoint anyone with the truth. And like this test people are kept stupid while their identities rely on symbols they themselves have hollowed out on the inside. All of the colorful and vibrant cultures of the west are dreary and bleak on the inside for behind every symbol and subculture in our society lies an industry that only thrives on cold cash. Occasionally the machine breaks down such as it did on Saturday 24th of July in Duisberg, Germany when 1.4 million 300.000 people from all nationalities traveled to a terrain which only had a capacity for 250.000 people to celebrate a "Love Parade". Dancing in the mud to a tired 20 year old techno beat on a diet of drugs and softdrinks the feeling of togetherness and unity quickly capsized when panic broke out. It is still unclear why the panic broke out but it was enough for people to drop their masks of love and peace and stampede their way over hundreds of their former soulmates of which over twenty died and over five hundred were hospitalized. Shortly afterwards German authorities tried to cover up the poor response from police and rescue workers because after all they want you to be under the illusion that they are in control, that everyone loves you and that everything is just fine as the machine keeps producing techno beats for you to dance to.

Our society is kept together by symbols that pacify and nullify us, just a thin thread of gold connects us all. Once that thread is severed there's chaos. Most people hide their true identities by affiliating with the things that make them feel the opposite of what they really are. Whether it's swinging liberal, christian conservative or mellowed out techno fan. They live their lives like Jekyll and Hyde, working for a company that causes pollution, buying clothes that are made in sweatshops and pretending they contribute anything of value to this planet. Nothing can justify their perverse existence except their sense of self-esteem based on the myths of modern society. But the truth is that we have no society, there's no real unity because everyone is caught up in their own little dreamworld where they can be whatever they want to be. Humans have devolved into neurotic hamsters running fullspeed in a wheel of selfish desires in an invisible cage. Society is the Santa Claus that everybody knows doesn't exist, yet we pretend he does anyway and we tell ourselves we do it for the children.

All identities expressed through consumerism function like opium that capitalist democracy produces to enslave it's followers. But whether you're punk or emo, juggalo or gangster, rasta or raver or just a concerned housewife, you're still being part of a system that's putting everyone in a blender and mixes them up to be mere statistics. The political system of democracy works the same: it offers a sense of individuality but underneath the charade and petty arguing we're all faceless robots serving the same machine. Decisions that change the world aren't made in the political arena, politicians go with the flow that's why they never change the tide. What drives and artificially unifies our ugly modern societies are the multinational companies that produce the symbols, slogans and icons that people sheepishly follow, believe in and worship. The ancient laws have been replaced with the dogma of humanism, ethnic cultures are dying while liberal fashion dictates us from Hollywood: consume - believe - be pacified - repeat.

The test you took earlier doesn't really care about what your favorite color is or what types of movies you like. All it cares about is the last question which is "how do you like to see yourself?" And then it offers you the illusion of being what you want to be while taking you another step further towards denial of reality. Because when people are confronted with the harshness of reality they usually backflip and their anxious sense of self-preservation becomes more important than the pleasant illusions they previously wandered in. So our society is based on lies because apparently that's the only way to handle hairless monkeys. As citizens we know this and subconsciously agree while we continue to work or go to college because after all nobody wants to be trampled to death by the crowd. Yet if we want to change this dangerous situation we live in we need to begin by accepting reality and returning to healthier values than Love Parades or other forms of slavish behavior (such as trying to find recognition through online personality tests)


You are a: LIBERAL!

Like this test society doesn't want to disappoint anyone with the truth. And like this test people are kept stupid while their identities rely on symbols they themselves have hollowed out on the inside. All of the colorful and vibrant cultures of the west are dreary and bleak on the inside for behind every symbol and subculture in our society lies an industry that only thrives on cold cash. Occasionally the machine breaks down such as it did on Saturday 24th of July in Duisberg, Germany when 1.4 million 300.000 people from all nationalities traveled to a terrain which only had a capacity for 250.000 people to celebrate a "Love Parade". Dancing in the mud to a tired 20 year old techno beat on a diet of drugs and softdrinks the feeling of togetherness and unity quickly capsized when panic broke out. It is still unclear why the panic broke out but it was enough for people to drop their masks of love and peace and stampede their way over hundreds of their former soulmates of which over twenty died and over five hundred were hospitalized. Shortly afterwards German authorities tried to cover up the poor response from police and rescue workers because after all they want you to be under the illusion that they are in control, that everyone loves you and that everything is just fine as the machine keeps producing techno beats for you to dance to.

Our society is kept together by symbols that pacify and nullify us, just a thin thread of gold connects us all. Once that thread is severed there's chaos. Most people hide their true identities by affiliating with the things that make them feel the opposite of what they really are. Whether it's swinging liberal, christian conservative or mellowed out techno fan. They live their lives like Jekyll and Hyde, working for a company that causes pollution, buying clothes that are made in sweatshops and pretending they contribute anything of value to this planet. Nothing can justify their perverse existence except their sense of self-esteem based on the myths of modern society. But the truth is that we have no society, there's no real unity because everyone is caught up in their own little dreamworld where they can be whatever they want to be. Humans have devolved into neurotic hamsters running fullspeed in a wheel of selfish desires in an invisible cage. Society is the Santa Claus that everybody knows doesn't exist, yet we pretend he does anyway and we tell ourselves we do it for the children.

All identities expressed through consumerism function like opium that capitalist democracy produces to enslave it's followers. But whether you're punk or emo, juggalo or gangster, rasta or raver or just a concerned housewife, you're still being part of a system that's putting everyone in a blender and mixes them up to be mere statistics. The political system of democracy works the same: it offers a sense of individuality but underneath the charade and petty arguing we're all faceless robots serving the same machine. Decisions that change the world aren't made in the political arena, politicians go with the flow that's why they never change the tide. What drives and artificially unifies our ugly modern societies are the multinational companies that produce the symbols, slogans and icons that people sheepishly follow, believe in and worship. The ancient laws have been replaced with the dogma of humanism, ethnic cultures are dying while liberal fashion dictates us from Hollywood: consume - believe - be pacified - repeat.

The test you took earlier doesn't really care about what your favorite color is or what types of movies you like. All it cares about is the last question which is "how do you like to see yourself?" And then it offers you the illusion of being what you want to be while taking you another step further towards denial of reality. Because when people are confronted with the harshness of reality they usually backflip and their anxious sense of self-preservation becomes more important than the pleasant illusions they previously wandered in. So our society is based on lies because apparently that's the only way to handle hairless monkeys. As citizens we know this and subconsciously agree while we continue to work or go to college because after all nobody wants to be trampled to death by the crowd. Yet if we want to change this dangerous situation we live in we need to begin by accepting reality and returning to healthier values than Love Parades or other forms of slavish behavior (such as trying to find recognition through online personality tests)


You are a: SOCIALIST!

Like this test society doesn't want to disappoint anyone with the truth. And like this test people are kept stupid while their identities rely on symbols they themselves have hollowed out on the inside. All of the colorful and vibrant cultures of the west are dreary and bleak on the inside for behind every symbol and subculture in our society lies an industry that only thrives on cold cash. Occasionally the machine breaks down such as it did on Saturday 24th of July in Duisberg, Germany when 1.4 million 300.000 people from all nationalities traveled to a terrain which only had a capacity for 250.000 people to celebrate a "Love Parade". Dancing in the mud to a tired 20 year old techno beat on a diet of drugs and softdrinks the feeling of togetherness and unity quickly capsized when panic broke out. It is still unclear why the panic broke out but it was enough for people to drop their masks of love and peace and stampede their way over hundreds of their former soulmates of which over twenty died and over five hundred were hospitalized. Shortly afterwards German authorities tried to cover up the poor response from police and rescue workers because after all they want you to be under the illusion that they are in control, that everyone loves you and that everything is just fine as the machine keeps producing techno beats for you to dance to.

Our society is kept together by symbols that pacify and nullify us, just a thin thread of gold connects us all. Once that thread is severed there's chaos. Most people hide their true identities by affiliating with the things that make them feel the opposite of what they really are. Whether it's swinging liberal, christian conservative or mellowed out techno fan. They live their lives like Jekyll and Hyde, working for a company that causes pollution, buying clothes that are made in sweatshops and pretending they contribute anything of value to this planet. Nothing can justify their perverse existence except their sense of self-esteem based on the myths of modern society. But the truth is that we have no society, there's no real unity because everyone is caught up in their own little dreamworld where they can be whatever they want to be. Humans have devolved into neurotic hamsters running fullspeed in a wheel of selfish desires in an invisible cage. Society is the Santa Claus that everybody knows doesn't exist, yet we pretend he does anyway and we tell ourselves we do it for the children.

All identities expressed through consumerism function like opium that capitalist democracy produces to enslave it's followers. But whether you're punk or emo, juggalo or gangster, rasta or raver or just a concerned housewife, you're still being part of a system that's putting everyone in a blender and mixes them up to be mere statistics. The political system of democracy works the same: it offers a sense of individuality but underneath the charade and petty arguing we're all faceless robots serving the same machine. Decisions that change the world aren't made in the political arena, politicians go with the flow that's why they never change the tide. What drives and artificially unifies our ugly modern societies are the multinational companies that produce the symbols, slogans and icons that people sheepishly follow, believe in and worship. The ancient laws have been replaced with the dogma of humanism, ethnic cultures are dying while liberal fashion dictates us from Hollywood: consume - believe - be pacified - repeat.

The test you took earlier doesn't really care about what your favorite color is or what types of movies you like. All it cares about is the last question which is "how do you like to see yourself?" And then it offers you the illusion of being what you want to be while taking you another step further towards denial of reality. Because when people are confronted with the harshness of reality they usually backflip and their anxious sense of self-preservation becomes more important than the pleasant illusions they previously wandered in. So our society is based on lies because apparently that's the only way to handle hairless monkeys. As citizens we know this and subconsciously agree while we continue to work or go to college because after all nobody wants to be trampled to death by the crowd. Yet if we want to change this dangerous situation we live in we need to begin by accepting reality and returning to healthier values than Love Parades or other forms of slavish behavior (such as trying to find recognition through online personality tests)


Mini-interview with Vijay Prozak

06 08 10 - 16:35

Q: What are some past civilizations you would say were closest to your ideal civilization?

Ancient India and ancient Greece, specifically the early years of Athens. These were idealistic, warlike civilizations that believed in ignoring no lies and always sought to make their surroundings better.

Q: Among other things, you and the other writers made me more interested in studying history. Can you recommend me any books that describe the demise of democratic civilizations as well as multicultural/multi-ethnic ones? I'm especially looking for texts that provide a comprehensive view of world history in general.

The big ones:

1. Plato, The Republic
2. Spengler, Decline of the West
3. Toynbee, A study of history
4. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
5. Herodotus, Histories

History is repeated patterns, like wallpaper but with more variation. Learn those patterns and surprises decrease.

Q: What is your basic assessment of Japan, China, and other East Asian countries, past and present?

Japan: recovering from WWII like the Germans, still very strong, needs to re-connect with traditional values or they will end up 4chan memes forever.

China: very varied nation that never really solidified itself as a caste/racial hierarchy, therefore I expect it to implode soon.

Korea: the other contender. North Korea is like a perfect counterpart to the South: ideological purity that can merge with modern know-how to create a nationalist superstate, which will happen as soon as China implodes.

Q: Why do you consider Theodore Kaczynski to be an important thinker? More importantly, why do you think his views are in line with yours? I've read his Industrial Society and Its Future a few times and, as far as I can tell, his primitivist vision precludes civilization and culture, and is concerned only with the basics of life, i.e., food, water, shelter and the work involved in acquiring these things as well as the considerable amount of leisure that comes from the simple primitive lifestyle. His idea of the "power process" does not appear to extend to high culture, as he seems to believe that "surrogate" (i.e. superfluous) activities include composing music, writing literature, creating sculptures, making scientific discoveries, and so forth (though I've read that he loves Shakespeare and Thackeray).

Kaczynski takes an engineer's eye look to Nietzsche's historian's eye look of history. I think he's the first to really throw out the idea that technology is a virus that may take us places we don't want to go.

Q: I'm intrigued by your "politically incorrect" comment on Hitler ("Why I am not a neo-Nazi or a 'White' Nationalist"). What is your estimation of this man? To what extent do you agree or disagree with his ideas and actions?

Hitler was a modern attempt to bring back traditional societies. He got everything right but a restoration of aristocracy, and as a result, his party was run by people performing outside their rated specifications. I am not a big fan of the Holocaust, since Israeli Nationalism (Zionism) is part of the same ur-quest as German Nationalism. We cannot afford to lose any nationalists and should enlist all that we can in the fight against dogmatic societies, with liberal democracy on one hand and socialist anarchy on the other.

In addition, let's not forget that he lost a war and created more obstacles to people seeing the death of modernity. He became the scapegoat. In so doing, however, he helped illustrate how stupid modern people are: they worry about Hitlers, but not slow corruption from within. In the grand scheme of things, Hitler was a mixed bag. Good basic ideas, and good basic administration skills; bad work habits, instability, a crazy doctor who drove him insane with quack medications, superstition and an inability to win a war against idiots. We need more stable, aristocratic leaders to fix this situation.

Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with Theodore Kaczynski and Pentti Linkola?

I think we should go ahead with technology, and fix the real problem: our society is unable to guide itself because it insists on the Flat Earth-style theory of human equality.

Q: In "Houston Residents Show Frustration With Crowd-Inspired Religion," you write, "Christianity as practiced by intelligent people is an earth-bound, contemplative religion which addresses the question of spiritual transcendence through unity with universal order, or 'God.'" Which Christian thinkers fit this description? In one place, you mention Schopenhauer, but he was an atheist (who was considerably influenced by the Upanishads and Buddhism), if I'm not mistaken.

Schopenhauer praised Christianity and Hinduism, and showed us a way these two could be similarly contemplative and transcendental religions. I would point to Johannes Eckhart and Ralph Waldo Emerson as excellent Christians, also Paul Woodruff from University of Texas is I think a Christian of sorts.

Q: How do you keep up with current events so well without watching the news or reading newspapers?

I read online newspapers and news aggregators like slashdot, moveOn, gene expression and American Renaissance.

Q: I've found some of the (hate) mail enormously entertaining, especially the one by the fellow who mistook anus.com as a pornography site and dismissed it as "scientist shit that no one cares about." How many of these letters do you think were written as a practical joke?

It's hard to tell, since so many people are accidentally absurdist. Probably a fair number.

Q: I've always wondered why you only have five people on your Heroes list. I would think there are more thinkers and artists that have had a profound impact on you (e.g. Schopenhauer and Evola).

There's room for more to be written and I need to tackle it. I'd definitely add Schopenhauer, probably Aurelius and more on W.S. Burroughs.

Q: Can you give me advice on how to live a life that is as environmentally sustainable as possible in industrial society? I'm not half as capable a man as someone like Pentti Linkola, so fishing and living alone in the woods without running water may be out of the question.

You could learn those skills. However, in my view, it's pointless to try to revert. Get yourself a normal-sized house, cook all your food from raw ingredients (as much as is sane), don't buy an SUV and raise 2-4 intelligent, well-rounded children. The best thing you can do for the environment is to have a purposeful life, and to work hard to destroy sources of useless parasites: fast food, payday loans, democracy, welfare states, and the like.

Q: And finally, a classic question: What ten books would you bring with you to a desert island (excluding practical guides to shipbuilding)?

The ten books I find indispensable:

1. Arthur Schopenhauer, The Fourfold Root
2. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
3. Plato, The Republic
4. Homer, The Odyssey
5. The Bhagavad-Gita
6. The Oxford English Dictionary!
7. Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
8. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist
9. Virgil, the Aneid
10. Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language

Q: As someone who is against multiculturalism and miscegenation, how do you regard non-Indo-European immigrants, especially those of the second generation and onwards who grew up with a culture and language that is very different from that of the first generation? Do you think it would be feasible for them to return to their country of origin and reconnect with the culture, traditions, history, and language of that country, even as adults? I'm thinking of the article "The Big Silence," where you write: "The Korean community should worry because history shows that no multi-ethnic nation has ever emerged with a culture intact, and all have immediately descended into third-world status. Their choice is to be a target or be assimilated in a once-wealthy nation whose future is much less profitable." What would be a third or fourth option for Koreans and other non-Indo-European immigrants?

I think the only feasible option is for them to re-unite with their host countries, and for all hopelessly mixed people to get sent to mixing zones like Africa or parts of the middle east. This is the order of civilization that keeps everyone happy and safe; in addition to stabilizing the USA, it stabilizes the emigrant nation by insuring their best people remain among them and that they are united by a rule that applifes to all.

Q: A question related to the one above: Is it at all possible for a person who is a member of one tribe to fully assimilate into another tribe (not race), especially if said person preferred the language and culture of the other tribe? For example, what if a Norwegian wholly preferred German language, literature, tradition and culture over his own country's language, literature, tradition and culture? Would it be very harmful for Germany if he were to move there and become as culturally and linguistically German as possible?

If the tribes are related, it's possible -- Norwegians and Germans are very close, as they share a common origin and a very similar language. However, too much bleedover and they both get destroyed.

As a general rule, I don't think it's possible to fully assimilate. One can act the part and try to be what one is not, but the end result is a schizophrenic distancing from who one is by instinct and feeling.

It's even worse with radically removed tribes. For example, an African in Norway or a Frenchman in Russia.

Q: What was the actual outcome of the debate you had with your friend (the one that was adapted into "A Socratic Dialogue")? Did you convince him that democracy is not the ideal form of government?

People often refuse to see truths; that's their one trump card, which is to say "You might be right, but I deny that possibility, and therefore I feel stronger -- I have defeated the whole world and its rules, at least in my head!" So sadly not too much good news to report here. Most of my Socratic dialogues end with the other party either:

* Storming off and calling me an asshole.
* Picking some imagined "winning" argument and repeating it, claiming I didn't address it.
* Sullenly telling me they think I might be right but they can't accept that anyway.

Every now and then I run into an honest person, who will say either "you're right, my thinking is changing" or "you're right, but that view is unpopular and so I don't want to have it."Q: As you know, some people have accused ANUS of straying from its original path. What are the most common criticisms you have received? Have there been any notable changes in the mission of ANUS in the last 23 years or so? I am only acquainted with the ANUS of 2004-2010.

One truth about the internet: people will complain about anything. If we don't change at all, they claim we're static; if we change, they claim we've sold out. The truth of it all is that people feel powerless against others unless they have a reason to criticize them, so no matter what we do "some people" are going to accuse us of something.

Our mission has not changed.

Our methods, and the depth/details of our learning, have changed. We started out wanting to Holocaust Christians; we now want a better form of Christianity. We started out wanting equality in order to avoid class warfare; now, we support feudalism, which will actually fix that problem. We started out as anti-racists because racism is unfair and cruel; now, we're pan-nationalists because that actually fixes the problem, unlike anti-racism which is basically an employment scheme for bureaucrats and lazy people. We started out supporting marijuana; now we support transcendental meditation. In each case our goals remain the same, but our methods have improved and through that, informed the details of our perspective.

Q: Do you or do you plan to use Youtube to inject your ideas into the public consciousness?

That's a good idea and we should consider it. I think however we're shying away from anything that remotely resembles "entertainment" as it attracts people who are unable to motivate themselves to anything but dead-end personal pleasure.

Q: I find your "Steps to Reform Christianity" entry fascinating. When did you come up with those ideas? Do you plan to elaborate on them in an article?

These ideas are somewhat obvious to anyone who has studied Platonism, transcendental idealism and its roots in Greek philosophy, and then contrasted those with the stripped-down version that's in Christianity. Religion can offer many, many good things; we just need a religion that isn't pandering to the lowest common denominator!

Q: Do you plan to publish any full-length books in the near future, if you have not already done so?

There is a book in progress which will be full-length, on
metaphysical/political topics, and address almost any question anyone
can have about nihilism, idealism, realism and the ANUS.

Q: Though “New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, John Loftus, and Dan Barker seem to have had some success in discrediting Christianity in the minds of many Americans, they offer secular humanism in its place, which is, as you say, a nonreligious version of Christianity (Professor Dawkins even refers to himself as a “cultural Christian”). These writers use science and logic to discredit the claims of Christianity. What could be used to discredit the claims of secular humanism?

I think the only thing that discredits any idea is the truth, and to
humans, truth is relative to social consensus, because all but a
statistically, demographically and politically insignificant few measure
what they know by the kind of approval it gets from others. For that
resaon, the only path to discrediting secular humanism and improving
Christianity is to gain social consensus around realistic ideas, and
then read Christianity/politics through that lens and see what we

Q: What period in history would the postwar world roughly correspond to?

Somewhere after this period for the Greeks:


I am not well enough versed in Hindu history to give an account there,
and it's a better match than Roman analogues.

Q: You quote G.K. Chesterton in “I'd Rather Have Wings.” What do you think of his deconstructive analysis of Nietzsche?

I can analyze the following:

> “'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of
> Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor
> from a ten-foot rule.
> This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche,
> whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one
> will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he
> was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He
> never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words:
> as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard,
> fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by
> a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, 'beyond
> good and evil,' because he had not the courage to say, 'more
> good than good and evil,' or, 'more evil than good and evil.'

I understand where he's coming from, but he didn't read his Plato
enough. Nietzsche's point is to reverse the reversed cause/effect logic
of his day. As a result, he is trying to attack the sources of
intellectual error by pointing out where they do not correspond to
patterns in reality.

> Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen
> that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does
> not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the
> sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming.
> He says 'the upper man,' or 'over man,' a physical metaphor from
> acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid
> thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man
> he wants evolution to produce. And if he does not know,
> certainly the ordinary evolutionists, who talk about things
> being 'higher,' do not know either” (ORTHODOXY, pages 106-107).

Nietzsche was, in my view, a hyper-sensitive, not necessarily a timid

I think his point is that to say the "higher" man already plays into the
game of altruistic/group-social reasoning that has reversed our ability
to think, and that when he says the overman, as when he talks about
morality in an "extra-moral" sense, he is not trying to produce new
heights, but get away entirely from reasoning where we view morality as
a cause of the rightness of any idea. Morality can only be given by God
or social forces; Nietzsche wants a morality of adaptation to reality,
much as is described in this article:


Q: My impression is that Guenon and Schuon saw nothing redeemable in
modern science. Did they throw the baby out with the bathwater? How
does your own view compare with theirs?

If I understand them correctly, their point is that modern science by
creating a schizophrenia between spirit and reality teaches us bad
mental habits, and the tool becomes the master.

I have nothing against science. In fact, science is my primary
inspiration; however, I don't like linear -- one factor at a time, and
only consider that factor -- science as an end goal. In my view, most
scientists are lazy. They study one thing, and draw broad conclusions,
when what they need is a parallelist approach uniting their many
different observations into a description of underlying structure. The
best minds work that way.

I am more of a Platonist than a modern Traditionalist (Guenon, Evola and
Schuon are from the modern time). In the Platonic view, modernity is a
pattern that appears at the end of the life cycle of civilizations;
separate from that is science, and with it technology, which can occur
at any stage but which takes precedence at the end of a civilization
because all other forms of learning have been lost.

Q: In more than one place, you write that you will subject all Undermen to the sword. Is that sword metaphorical or literal, or both? Do you
> see yourself as one of the ksatriya, like Evola did?

I am a Kshatriya -- this fact, for me, seems undebatable. At some level,
we'd all love to be born Brahmins, but reality trumps fond wishes for
me. I would subject all Undermen to the sword because Undermen, in
groups, destroy everything they touch. As individuals, they are
destructive if given too much freedom. I would rather move the starting
point for our Bell Curve of human abilities higher, so we have the same
distribution between laborers, warriors and nobles, but that we're all
raised a level of evolution. In a moribund regime, however, Undermen
have nearly taken over and their ranks need to be thinned; it's not a
problem as future generations will birth their own, but after such a
eugenic event, the laborers will be more capable and therefore it will
be easier to spot true non-performers and sell them to the Chinese as
anal catamites.

Q: What are some of the most common misconceptions that people have about A.N.U.S.?

The big one is that we're doing this for our own convenience, ego or
taste. I think ANUS is a necessary mission; if it weren't necessary, I
would gladly leave all this extra work behind.

Another misconception is that we're fatalists. To Nietzsche, a nihilist
was someone who believed in no value; to us, a nihilist is someone who
does not believe in inherent value, but derives morality from the
workings of nature. We call people who cannot form values or fight for
values "Fatalists," and they are a variety of Underman that is popular
with the same angsty depressive self-pitying types who flock to Anarchy.
The pathway of fatalism (or passive nihilism, as Nietzsche would call
it) is a path to dysfunction and death; the path of active nihilism, as
we espouse, is an "undergoing" by which you remove all bad learned
values and move on to discover new, more valid values based on nature

There are probably a million others, but the misconceptions are less
interesting than the assertions.

Interview conducted by E.T. Myers

The difference between right and left

05 08 10 - 15:24

This otherwise prosaic article caught my eye:

"The New York Times was inclined to emphasize the topic of human equality related to the legitimization of gay marriage," writes the research team, led by Po-Lin Pan of Arkansas State University. "The Chicago Tribune highlighted the importance of human morality associated with the gay-marriage debate."


Both historically and in their current-day incarnations, the Tribune is a conservative-leaning publication while the Times has a more liberal outlook. It is thus interesting to note how their different approaches to this issue reflect psychologist Jonathan Haidt's framework for the different moral worlds of liberals and conservatives.

As we have reported, Haidt argues that liberals prize justice, fairness and doing no harm to others, while conservatives are more concerned with purity/sanctity, respect for tradition and authority and in-group loyalty. - Miller-McCune

In other words, liberals think of themselves, while conservatives think of principles applied to the group.

If all you care about is yourself, of course you want equality -- that way no one will stop you from doing just about anything. It's anarchy, the ultimate freedom.

But if you're aware of the consequences of actions, you're not going to demand something so chaotic. You will want order, cleanliness, principles, abstraction, organization and other traits of conservative thinkers.

In this light, liberals look like what they are: scared children who are blaming society for their problems, and afraid that what they're doing is going to cause bad consequences. Instead of changing the cause, they alter the effects, by making social rules to ban bad effects on the individual.

In this, they're a lot like the initiates of populist religions. These want to hear that no matter what happens in life, in the eyes of God we're all equal. It's only when they drift farther down the thought chain that they start to think of what is required to cause such equality, and what its negative effects would be.

Why we beat an undead dead horse

05 08 10 - 10:08

Society changes as its thinking members -- 2-5% -- change attitudes.

That's why news, political opinion, even politician's speeches are important.

You will undoubtedly have stupid and fatalistic friends who tell you it's not worth attending to, and/or will tell you to stop tilting at windmills or beating a dead horse when you harp on something that needs changing.

But without someone harping, it never changes. Maybe that's what your stupid and fatalistic friends want -- no change? no evolution? -- because that way they're correct to not be involved. "See, we told you so, it never changes." That's why they are stupid and fatalistic.

But here at ANUS, we harp on issues that we feel not only need to change but are changing. The most difficult aspect of change is getting it done right. Because most people react emotionally, and have no idea of the underlying causes of the phenomenon they witness, they tend to carve away at the results of those causes without changing the causes themselves.

The result is -- if 1789, 1917 and 1968 are listening it would be best here -- total chaos and destruction under the guise of "empowering the People" or other happy horseshit.

Here's the latest straight talk on an undead horse issue:

"Being called a racist is the single most damaging charge for any American," said Niger Innis, the national spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality, a major player in the civil rights struggle that since the late 1960s has been aligned with the right. "Because of this new phenomenon, the NAACP....has now adopted the tactic it was formed to fight in the first place—racial terror! The same racial terror that was employed by whites in hoods is now being employed by blacks and whites in suits!


"The left has wielded racism like a dirty nuclear weapon, destroying whole cities and the hopes and dreams of many Americans, not just black Americans," said Kevin Jackson, a self-published author and blogger who calls himself "a leader in the consulting industry in America" and frequently appears on talk radio. "It's time that reign of terror ended." - Thlate

Why can't we all just get along? Because the opportunity cost for "getting along" is obliterating who we are: culture, values, customs, histories, and ethnicity.

It's flamingly obvious if you think about it, and in another twenty years, people will as widely consider that statement obvious as they consider multiculturalism "obviously right" today.

Attitudes are changing, and the left is in a panic. The left is in a panic because it makes its money and its power from convincing people they are victims, and if they just overthrow government/the rich/corporations/kings/Jesus that everything will be OK. It's a product like any other, from the "you deserve something nice today!" of commercials to the indulgence of fellow drunks at a bar.

ANUS will continue to harp on these undead horse topics because they are valid, problematic and need changing:

  • Eugenics. Most people are thoughtless, disorganized, lazy, dishonest and careless -- and these things are a product of their low IQs and bad moral character. Let's evolve. Since natural selection is gone owing to our technology, we need to do it. Sterilize the idiots, perverts, criminals, jerks and liars, and give the intelligent men as many women of good character as possible. Let's drown out the losers.

  • Overpopulation. The root of our environmental problem is too many people. You can't fix this by recycling condoms, buying mercury-based light bulbs and using sponges instead of toilet paper. We need fewer people, and fewer people who carelessly litter, pollute, dump toxic waste in New Jersey rivers, etc.

  • Space exploration. We need a new quest as a species. A quest makes us feel whole. Let's explore the stars.

  • Monarchism. Instead of electing liars, let's find the smart people, put them in control, and breed more of them with a hereditary aristocracy. Correspondingly, let's take our lowest citizens and make them serfs, since they screw up anything they touch. The people in the middle need to be challenged with hard objectives, like military and cultural renewal.

  • Culture. If you don't have culture, you get consumerism and big government. Let's renovate culture and have real activities instead of surrogates.

Doesn't sound so complicated, does it -- because it's not, although the reasoning for it is more complex than the excuses given for democracy, consumerism and equality, especially as they fail constantly. We're going to keep beating these undead horses because we're right, and it's time for our illusions to change and be replaced with better ideas.

Why control-based laws exist

04 08 10 - 15:07

You may find yourself at some point impeded by a law, and asking yourself, "Why am I banned from doing this relatively innocuous thing?"

The answer is simple: other people doing that thing caused problems. Those problems interrupted what most people in a society have in common, which is a career/family focus. Any society that lacks career/family focus falls apart if not through lack of reproduction, through lack of work ethic.

Signs of Germany's liberal public drinking laws are everywhere. Indeed, for many visitors to the country, sipping a beer while walking down the street is almost as exhilarating as a high-speed drive down the autobahn.

Increasingly, though, municipalities are tiring of public drinking -- and the inevitable public drunkenness that results. Numerous movements are afoot to ban the practice. From the country's northeast to the southwest, politicians of all stripes are exploring ways to put the cap back on the bottle.

"We have a problem with alcohol consumption in public places and with people who drink too much and cause disturbances," Reinhold Gall, a state parliamentarian in Baden-Württemberg for the Social Democrats (SPD), told SPIEGEL ONLINE. - Der Spiegel

Public drinking has always been illegal in America and legal in most of Europe -- why? And why is it changing now?

Europe originally had more of a social order, so people would of their own volition avoid causing problems with it. But Europe's social order has broken down. There is no longer an agreed-upon culture and set of values in common. In other words, Europe has caught up with America in the race toward disorder.

So now here come the American-style laws. When there's no social standard, governments need to intervene with control standards. This is the price you pay for "tolerance": lack of agreement, hence a need for bigger cops with more laws.

Good thinking, Europe. I think we now know why Europe has feigned superiority over the USA -- they're afraid they're following our path. Now they get to face the consequences.

Pan-nationalism in Mongolia

04 08 10 - 14:15

This news item got glossed over because it zooms right outside the comfy little boxes that people use to categorize politics:

Mongolian neo-Nazis: Anti-Chinese sentiment fuels rise of ultra-nationalism

Though Tsagaan Khass leaders say they do not support violence, they are self-proclaimed Nazis. "Adolf Hitler was someone we respect. He taught us how to preserve national identity," said the 41-year-old co-founder, who calls himself Big Brother.

"We don't agree with his extremism and starting the second world war. We are against all those killings, but we support his ideology. We support nationalism rather than fascism."


"We have to make sure that as a nation our blood is pure. That's about our independence," said 23-year-old Battur, pointing out that the population is under three million.

"If we start mixing with Chinese, they will slowly swallow us up. Mongolian society is not very rich. Foreigners come with a lot of money and might start taking our women." - The Guardian

American/UK media is like Hollywood: good guys and bad guys. The bad guys are bad because they want to be bad and enjoy the suffering of others. Does that make sense? Of course not! But if you repeat it often enough, the nodding heads of the horde will endorse it.

The truth is that people only react to problems once they've reached total disaster status. Most people, if given a choice, will blow off a problem until it's staring them in the face, which is when it's too late to avoid bad consequences. But that's when they act: when it reaches their front door, rushes into their living room and slaps them on the ass.

In Mongolia, they're slowly realizing how the Chinese are really going to dominate them: genetically. Once the two groups are interbred, Mongolians might as well just knuckle under and become Chinese. And then Mongolian becomes another marketing term as in, "Try this Mongolian edible lubricant!"

Watch as other ethnic groups rise up and discover that Pan-Nationalism is the only solution. At ANUS, we've advocated this for years. We walk a narrow path between the racists (ethnic haters) and the anti-racists (haters of ethnicity itself) so that we can present you an actual, functional plan.

You can read up on it now and get involved, or wait for the next race war/class war/riots/"unrest" to slap you on the ass, you fat lazy slug.

Just a news flash

04 08 10 - 12:06

Every person on earth is racist.

If you're anti-racist, that means you want everyone living together in the same community, which over time will result in all those races being bred together and thus vanishing. You want to destroy all unique races and replace them with one Master Race.

If you're a regular old racist, well, you already know you're racist.

If you think you can sidestep the issue, you're a racist because ultimately, you will allow one of the two outcomes to occur.

August 4 is National Lowered Standards Day

04 08 10 - 06:20

For years, we have struggled to maintain higher standards, but it just hasn't worked. It's inconvenient. To recognize this, we propose a Federal holiday to celebrate a lowest common denominator state of mind. This is the National Lowered Standards Day, and we celebrate it every August 4.

National Lowered Standards Day (August 4)

Europe and USA struggle with the same problem

01 08 10 - 07:59

We think of some issues as "American problems" or "European problems" but usually, we're just seeing different methods being tried to address universal problems:

French opposition lawmakers and media attacked a host of new government proposals targeting Gypsies and immigrants suspected of crimes, charging Sunday that President Nicolas Sarkozy was pandering to the far-right in a bid to boost his popularity.

Sarkozy said Friday that he wants to revoke the French citizenship of immigrants who endanger the life of police officers. The speech Friday in the southeastern city of Grenoble -- the site of recent clashes between youth and police -- was a dramatic move to the right even for the conservative leader, who has put forward a law-and-order image.

Earlier in the week, Sarkozy pushed for a change in France's immigration law to make it easier to expel Gypsies, or Roma, in the country illegally and pledged to evacuate their camps, which he called a source of trafficking, prostitution and child exploitation. - AP

Let's dial all the political bullshit back a second, and ask the real question:

What do you want your neighborhood to look like?

Unless you're independently wealthy and have lots of time to be involved with politics, you probably want political stability. Historically speaking, that throws "diversity" out the window, as diversity inevitably leads to clashes between not just ethnic groups but social classes. Who benefits from this chaos? People selling home security products and politicians who stay employed, surely.

Unless you really like fire, you probably don't want youths rioting and burning cars. Even a pyromaniac might find that disruptive and disorderly.

You might also not want a bunch of people camped out in caravans near you. Even if you've been taught otherwise, you know that people with no fixed address are probably living on the margins of society, feeding themselves through odd jobs, and like many odd jobbers, scams and crime.

You also might decide that it's more important to have social order than to look for an angel in every criminal, or to make sure that each criminal was guilty of the crime he was busted for. If you arrest a murderer for the wrong murder, who cares?

Further breaking away from what they teach you in the state-funded mental schools, you might conclude that there's something wrong with the homeless. If they can't take the few steps required to have a basic job and housing, they may have chemical addiction problems. Or be insane (wait, that's not PC -- they just "need therapy," amirite?). Either way, you don't want them in your neighborhood.

And now that you've violated the principles of good citizenship they taught you at school, you may also decide to oppose immigration. A simple point: if people are coming from a ruined nation, they bring ruin with them. And for that nation to get ruined, most of the people there had to be clueless or corrupt. So most of your immigrants are going to have problems, cause problems, and re-make your society in the image of their ruined societies.

It's a modern conceit to think that people who want social order are stodgy and stupid. Instead, they should be more active! The fact is, nitwits, that anyone who has anything going on in this life wants stability -- so society doesn't interrupt them in their pursuit of the important things in life. If you have a career, a passion, or any existence other than the job-television cycle, you don't want chaos. You want sensible order so that you can go about doing what you need to.

Who wants chaos? The people who haven't found a path in life: the losers, the bored, the busybodies, the neurotic. Add to that list the misinformed youth, which at this point includes the age range extending to 30 years, who have come to believe that their society is corrupt -- so let's throw out social order entirely, and replace it with chaos and tolerance and dysfunction! That way, we're all tolerated and none of us are oppressed by the government. But they don't stop to think that "oppression" might be a red herring, and also useful for people in power. If the solution to oppression is more chaos, that's great, because the more chaos we have, the more government we need!

But they love this victim mentality. Their disorganization and lack of direction in life isn't their fault; it's someone else's fault (societal breakdown is actually someone else's fault, but that fact is irrelevant; what matters, nitwits, is who fixes it; societal breakdown is also not what's responsible for these people having nary a clue). Therefore, anytime government does anything to reign in the chaos, someone is a victim and the Crowd sides with the victim. Watch:

Sarkozy's address in Grenoble came after nights of rioting outside the southeastern city that pitted local youth against police and saw dozens of cars torched. That violence was triggered by the police killing of a resident fleeing after an armed robbery at a casino. Officials said some youths fired on police in the ensuing unrest.

People don't flee armed robberies after they happen, unless they're perpetrators. Read between the lines: some migrant youth committed a violent act, and the cops shot him, so the whole community decided they -- not the person robbed -- were the victims and rioted. You shot our robber? It must be racism, racism, racism! Hey, it works every time.

Let's look at an American example.

Fearing that his probation for a robbery offense would be revoked because of the traffic violation, King led the CHP on a high-speed chase, eventually hitting 115 miles per hour, according to the police. By the time he was caught and ordered to exit his vehicle, several L.A.P.D. squad cars had arrived on the scene. A struggle ensued, and some of the officers quickly decided that King was resisting arrest. Sergeant Stacey Koon fired two shots into King with a TASER gun, and after that failed to subdue him, the officers, including Laurence Powell, beat him mercilessly with their batons. Time

What kind of man is Rodney King?

In November 1989, King robbed a store in Monterey Park, California using an iron bar to threaten and hit the store owner. He was convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment

On the night of March 2, 1991, King and two passengers, Bryant Allen and Freddie Helms, were driving west on Foothill Freeway (Interstate 210) in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles. Prior to driving on the Foothill Freeway, the three men had spent the night watching a basketball game and drinking at a friend’s house in Los Angeles.[2] After being tested 5 hours after the incident, King's blood-alcohol level was found to be just under the legal limit. This meant that his blood alcohol level was approximately 0.19—nearly two and a half times the legal limit in California—when he was driving.[3]

King exited the freeway, and the chase continued through residential streets at speeds allegedly ranging from 55 to 80 mph.[6][7]

Koon then ordered the four other LAPD officers at the scene—Briseno, Powell, Solano, and Wind—to subdue and handcuff King in a manner called a "swarm," a technique that involves multiple officers grabbing a suspect with empty hands. As the officers attempted to do so, King physically resisted. King rose up, tossing Officers Powell and Briseno off his back. King then allegedly struck Officer Briseno in the chest.[10] Seeing this, Koon ordered all of the officers to fall back. The officers later testified that they believed King was under the influence of the dissociative drug phencyclidine (PCP),[11] although King's toxicology results tested negative for PCP.[12]

Blood and urine samples taken from King five hours after his arrest showed that he could be presumed intoxicated under California law. - Wikipedia: The Pedophile Group Blog

Although Wikipedia is not a great source, the information above is culled from police reports and news stories at the time. Rodney King was a "victim," really?

  • He was legally drunk driving at speeds up to 115 mph through residential areas. What if he'd hit your kid?

  • He attacked police officers not once but twice, and this is after leading them on a high speed chase. You want cops to protect you, right?

  • He went to prison for armed robbery and when they let him out two years later, immediately led the police on a high speed chase. Do you want this guy moving in next door?

The fact is that a Crowd forms behind an idiot whenever authority tells an idiot to stop being an idiot. The Crowd's message is the same: we don't want anyone who can tell us to stop being idiots.

Race is their latest gambit, over the last fifty years. If you can produce a black person getting beat, that's like showing that authority is sodomizing Baby Jesus in the manger. It's the perfect victim. And then all the victims can rally around, even if the Silent Majority don't trust diversity.

The Crowd takes many forms, but they're most well represented on the left, because they are the party of individualism not social structure (like the right). Everywhere they go, they stop people from doing what's right to stop insane destructive idiots from wrecking things. The Crowd does this because secretly, they are afraid they are also insane destructive idiots.

The solution is as simple as it is difficult: disenfranchise the greatest number of people, and put power in the hands of those who are known to have good judgment and make good life decisions. Stop pointless experiments like "diversity" that are certain to fail. Instead, let's focus on reconstructing a society that has become vapid, crass, consumerist, directionless, ugly, boring and miserable.

And if we need to send a few million people back to Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, and displace the Gypsy caravans that seem to accompany high crime wherever they go, who really cares? Someone's always getting the short end of the stick, but we might as well make sure it's a few people who are out of place, instead of society at large putting up with constant race riots, political drama, and high crime.