06 08 10 - 16:35Q: 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 âNew Atheistsâ 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 âcultural Christianâ). 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 âI'd Rather Have Wings.â What do you think of his deconstructive analysis of Nietzsche?
I can analyze the following:
> â'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 eitherâ (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
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