American Nihilist Underground Society

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

Letters, Letters...

When columnists run out of things to say, they invariably take letters from their audience. I've still got ideas plentifully, but figured for a mid-week break, I'd wax democratic and see what "the people" have been saying about the writings on this site. I'll say this: they're no worse off than the "professional" critics, and often a good deal more honest.

From: "Mike Fox"
To: admin@xxx.xxx
Subject: sick bunch of bastards
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 20:01:40 +0100

I think, if you support the murder of innocent people, you all deserve to die...
You can take your sodding beleifs and take them off of the internet too.
The people who died in 9/11 did absaloutly nothing wrong, it is not their fault their government are a bunch of jackasses, and today in london, what the fuck did those people do wrong?
All the stupid islam extremists give muslims a bad name, these 'people' (if you can even call them that) murder people and then blame their religion and say that god told them to do that.

All religions say that it is sinfull to kill someone, you go to hell for that.
To be honest, holywars, binladin, al quaeda and that is a bunch of shit and to be honest, if you have even anything to do with these kind of things you should go to hell too.

Killing people is wrong, and if you think mr binladin is a great man when hes a murdering little homosexual psycopath, you ought to have your head decapitated like you seem to do to other people.

You wont be able to reply to this email but i think you should seriously look at your self, think what you are saying and take that website off the internet before my team of VERY skilled hackers do it for you.
Mike fox

One great problem of philosophy is how to create an abstraction which also works when applied to itself. Our modern society operates on the principle of universal justice, but rapidly runs into paradox when it tries to assert this justice as a solution for those who don't agree with it; if we have "freedom," don't we have the "freedom" to disagree with "freedom"? We do not - modern society is a do it our way, or get bombed and starved, proposition.

Look at your letter above. You scorn bin Laden's philosophy, assume that al-Qaeda have no reason behind their beliefs (they're "psychopaths" who "murder people and then blame their religion"), and claim that American/English dead are blameless while, by implication, the civilians starved, bombed, shot and tortured in the Iraq war and previous thirty years of Anglo-Israeli aggression were not. There's a contradiction there: if every life is sacred, and we all deserve justice and freedom, these people are getting neither under your system.

My view is nihilism; in nihilism, one removes all pretenses outside of physical reality. In physical reality, no two people or populations are identical in outlook or abilities or needs, thus one golden standard of justice and "freedom" makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, in my view, it's little more than an excuse for bigger countries to impose their order on smaller countries, which is pathetic because it's an excuse. If you need their oil, take it, but don't waste our time with excuses.

Letter from al-Qaeda

Dear Western Nations,

For years you have ignored our protests as you have supported Israel, slandered our religion and referred to us as murdering terrorist bastards in your media and entertainment sources. Recently (1991) you decided to begin bombing, in order to withhold from us any weapons with which we could disable an increasingly bellicose Israeli presence. In effect, you wish us to be submissive to your rule, or be called murders.

Consequently, we struck back, in New York City, in Bali, and now in London. The reason for this is simple: you are far more numerous and wealthier than we are, thus we cannot afford direct confrontation, but must fight you any way we can. This includes blowing your citizens into paste and destroying your economies with fear. If you do not mind starving our children, and bombing them from 30,000 feet, surely we are not expected to mind blowing up your own as we stare them in the eyes, giving up our own lives in the process?

Muslim lands do not wish to join your death-crusade in which technology and Jewish thought make your "liberal" people self-obsessed, grotesquely fat, and disgustingly detached from nature. We prefer to be poorer but keep our traditional ways, as we know these to be truth. You do not allow us this option, so we fight. What happened in London is a first taste of what will soon be a daily happening.

If you wish to re-open diplomatic relations with the true populations of Muslim lands, please do the following:

1. Stop slandering Islam at every chance you get, in your editorials, movies, news, TV shows, newspapers, newsmagazines, and Internet pornography.

2. Cease unquestioning support of Israel, and consider Muslim interests as well as Jewish and Christian ones.

3. Remove all non-believers, whether there through "peaceful" cultural assimilation (business) or warlike cultural assimilation (the "peacekeepers" occupying our lands, raping out women, bombing our homes).

4. Allow us to determine our own destiny without your intervention. Since you need our oil, if you ask politely, we will most probably sell it to you and thus preserve your superpower status.

If you are able to agree to the above - that is, treating us as autonomous countries and not future vassal states of America - we will get along just fine. Until then, you can expect more of your citizens to die in horror as we defend ourselves.

The Unpacified Elements of Islam
Pakistan, July 7, 2005source

In fact, it's quite interesting how your language mirrors that of G.W. Bush. We are "innocent people" who have been "murdered"; They are "stupid extremists" who should "go to hell" for being "psychopaths." In other words, We are innocent, they are aggressors. But what about history before that event, in which we've invaded their countries and bombed their citizens, not to mention starved them for oil embargoes? What about all of our movies in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s which portrayed every terrorist as a Muslim, and their countries as uncultured slums? You'd think we would be more considerate, seeing how the Crusades weren't that long ago either.

George W. Bush said something about how "terrorists hate our freedom." You basically say the same thing. Sorry, I've been around too long to put that much faith in a single word, "freedom," especially since that's been the excuse in every American war since WWI - the Nazis "hated" democracy, the Vietnamese were going to be "liberated," the Koreans could be given freedom, we were going to "free" Grenada from Cuban Communist oppressors, "Operation Iraqi Freedom," etc. etc. It's an excuse and nothing but.

What's amusing is that not only G.W. Bush, but the left as well, spout this rhetoric. Where the right focuses on political and economic stability of countries, the left is obsessed with the "freedom" of individuals, and so embarks on any number of civil rights causes, peace marches, and the like. But the rhetoric at its core is exactly the same as what the right says, and what you say.

Something stinks to high heaven about this. It reeks of distraction, and as our problems as a species worsen, I have less tolerance for these excuses. I know them for what they are: the promise of some absolute like Heaven that is so big and sounds so wonderful we're expected to do everything for it. Like a prize on a gameshow, or shore leave to sailors. That's the carrot that leads us to oblivion, and the stick is fear of what you're doing: fear that if we grow some balls and strike back, we'll be accused as the Aggressor, thus assumed to be automatically wrong, and will then have to defend ourselves against the misguided multitudes.

In this context, al-Qaeda is working for the benefit of the West, by showing us the delusional nature of what we assume and accept is political truth. "Freedom" is illusion. Focus on reality instead.

Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:06:13 -0700
From: "Paul B." <pb@xxx.xxx>
Subject: Just a few questions. Sorry, if the don't follow.

From what I can gather you believe that races have actual differences, and that they develop these differences in order to adapt to their surroundings. As they develop physically they develop culturally as well further adapting to their environment. Therefore, racial-mixing is suicide in that it interupts that process.

Fine enough.

But, what is the eugenics strategy for people in the United States who are already the products of generations of racial mixing? And what about the majority of people in Central and Southern America, who are a mix of European, Arab, and Native American races? Shouldn't most everyone living the the US be ousted back to their respective racial origins? Speaking of which, why do you live in the US (I'm presuming you do given that it is the American Nihilist Underground Society) if you believe in this sort of nationalism?

And, I regards to your understanding of heroic society, doesn't Gilgamesh formulate many of the same nihlistic/heroic ideas found in The Iliad, which you claim to be a testimony to the Indo-European heroic code. My point is essentially that you claim that the heroic value system, at least the one found in The Iliad, is something particular to Indo-European society. Gilgamesh, however, is not Indo-European at all, but has many of the same values. Doesn't it seem like these value systems may unrelated to ethnic character?

Anyway, thanks for your time.

Paul B.

Hi Paul. Thanks for writing a polite letter. I think you summarize the concept of why racial mixing is insane quite well; it's succinct and grasps the point. I see racial mixing as destructive in the same way that human environmental policy is, in that we replace natural diversity with a same, single-form-factor reality, whether that is concrete streets or a generic race of humans.

For people who are already mixed, I suggest forming societies of similar mixes, and breeding those to a higher level. I'll use the example of the US and Britain: these societies are composed of mixed tribal elements. For those who are 3/4 pure something or another, I suggest they rejoin that relatively pure tribe - German-Americans, Latvian-Americans, Filipino-Americans, etc. For those who are truly of mixed tribes there should be a tribe united by race alone, which should strive hard to develop a culture to match its race. One will have to be patient in such a situation; it will need to evolve both race and culture over a thousand generations. At the end of that, however, it will be a distinctive and healthy tribe.

For those who are of mixed race, I suggest finding areas where racial mixing is traditional. Some parts of the middle east and South America come to mind; there people can create a new racial designation and breed accordingly. It's important to remember that there are only three basic racial groups (Asiatic, Euripid, Negroid) and that some tribes such as American Indians are overwhelmingly one of these. You'll note I didn't say "Native Americans," because they're not Native and it's in scientific doubt as to whether they were here first. So no, I don't support repatriation of US whites to Europe.

I don't have a problem with people of mixed white tribes, although I think their task is the hardest, as they do not have a common racial-cultural bond to unify them, only a racial one. Thus I suggest to English, Americans, Canadians and Australians: get a real culture. Adopt some traditions, develop your language, and take on a national cuisine apart from the economically-motivated choices such as burgers, fish 'n' chips, etc. French Canadians have a cultural-racial bond; mixed-tribe Americans/Canadians/Britons/Australians do not. Even if these groups arbitrarily adopt culture, for example from the Germans, they will "personalize" it to their own ethnic mix - a hybrid of Nordic-Germanics, Mediterraneans, Slavs and Semites - over time, and if they breed well, will eventually remove the grossest elements among them.

Gilgamesh is something I haven't studied much, but it may well be based upon Indo-European epics, as several with this theme were written before it in India. It could also be that another society touched upon the same values. It is irrelevant to me, as I'm only concerned with my own race/tribe, that of the Indo-Europeans, and their values. For this reason, I think your "value systems may be unrelated to ethnic character" is jumping to conclusions, especially as here at least you've based it on a single example.

Nihilism, as I've always said, is a gateway philosophy. It's a way of determining what is real and important, and beyond that, one must interpret reality itself; "pure" nihilism reduces itself, as to believe in nothing is to begin not believing in believing in nothing, and so forth. For this reason, the person who has been a nihilist for more than a half-hour starts believing in things, but putting them in the context of nihilistic values, which is a stripping aside of judgments and preconditioned anthrocentric thinking, and seeing nature and the cosmos as a continuum. In this sort of view, preserving nature and preserving our racial heritages are necessary corollaries to recognizing their existence.

From: "The Glens"
Subject: Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:30:13 +1000

Shame on you for taking peoples liberty away, what do you offer Terror?
We will not go away quietly, We live in a free and democratic society!

Shame on You

I offer Terror. Even worse, I offer that Terror, Warfare, Death, Suffering, Evisceration and Sodomy are inevitable parts of life. Even more, they're necessary; conflict shapes the world. My idea is that suffering should mean something, and some ideal should be achieved by it. Unnecessary suffering is pointless and annoying.

However, I don't believe we have "liberty" in the West. We have the freedom to get some stupid job, commute to work and spend most of our money on health insurance, property insurance, life insurance, etc. to pay for the constant instability of modern society and the pollution that is steadily giving us all cancers. I don't believe we have liberty of thought, as clearly some things are so taboo you'll lose your job and your house and be forced to live in the tumor of the open streets. I also don't believe our society offers the "liberty" of thinking about any social order but its own. So, in short, "liberty" is a word, and it can mean something or mean nothing, or be simply ambiguous, which benefits the person using the word but not the person reacting to it.

We live in a "free and democratic" society - for a critique of "freedom," see above. To all you defenders of democracy, I'd like one answer: all of us acknowledge that there are hordes of stupid people out there. Why do you want to give them political power? Shouldn't we concentrate power in the hands of the most able? I'm not sure I care about having a "democratic" society, either - I'd rather have a society of shared culture and values, so we don't have to create a vast governmental bureaucracy to force some kind of abstract values upon us all.

It's possible that we've all been misled regarding this "freedom" and "liberty" and "democracy" thing. Under these ideals, have we had fewer wars - no, we've had more destructive wars, although they may be less frequent. Have we had a better life? We have better technology, including medicine, but it still screws up all the time and brings us side effects like pollution and cancer. Are people smarter and braver now? Consensus says no. Is life more meaningful? Etc.

All they have to do in order to fool us is to get us asking the wrong questions. While we're all kvetching around about liberty, freedom, and other promises of a used-camel salesperson, our inner life and our culture life - what holds our society together - is disintegrating. Therefore, there's always an enemy, and always a war on to eliminate the enemies of "freedom." Wouldn't you feel silly if you got manipulated by this rhetoric?

Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Trevor
Subject: ANUS Columns
To: prozak@xxx.xxx


I have read very little on existentialism and other philosophical
subjects, although what I have read is semi-confusing. Perhaps you could
clear something up for me? From what I have read of nihilism and
extistentialism, they seem to be very similiar. For instance both subscribe to
the theory that there is a basic non-existence of truth.
(Existentialism = truth is "created" by an individual and is to true to them,
but differs from person to person - Nihilism = giving truth to your life
through embracing what is "real"). Could you possible clarify this for me?
Do you have any suggested reading on the topic of philosophy?

You've nailed the basic difference: existentialism, truth is personal; nihilism, there is no truth, and reality is impersonal, but meaning is personal. Nihilism could be classed in the vernacular as a more extreme and less individualistic form of existentialism. To my mind, the defining statement of existentialism, "existence before essence," is somewhat reversed by nihilism, which understands that most of our essence is defined before we come to consciousness, e.g. by our genetic past and inherent abilities. If I had to summarize nihilism, it would be a belief that there is nothing besides reality, and reality is self-explanatory, if we have brains/spirit/ears to hear.

Ultimately, much of the reason the two seem similar is historical context: coming on the heels of philosophies with a Jewish origin, such as individualism and humanism, both seem troubling because they reject the idea of an absolute truth which determines all people. In individualists systems, that "truth" is the idea of moral logic designed to keep people from stopping each other from pursuing whatever crackhead vision that grabs their fancy; this is clearly the ethics of a used-camel-selling group of sandal-wearing nomads, and is designed to justify and facilitate dishonest commerce more than build a great society (history agrees). Christianity was the vehicle of introducing this Jewish thought into the West, but Communism, liberalism and Bush-style conservatism are all carriers of the same disease. Existentialism reversed this pursuit of absolute truth into a pursuit of individual truth, but it was still a passive belief that truth is found and not made. In nihilism, reality is truth, and what matters is the shaping hand of order upon it.

From: "Jon Maslow"
Subject: Buddhism
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 20:11:08 -0500

Dear Webmaster:

Regarding your article about Christianity and Buddhism (online at http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/buddhism/), I wanted to clarify some things about Buddhism.

Your writer stated that "the best way to decrease ego is to devote your life to your own "enlightenment," while taking no part in the world that reminds you that your ego is one tiny part of a large universe" and that "make the world your Self, and worship it, while considering yourself wise and merciful for abstaining from participation in the world at large." This is not the teaching of Buddhism. While there are monks and nuns who live reclusive lives, there are many who don't; and Buddhist laypeople are certainly involved in the world at large. But we don't "make the world our Self." You may be confusing Buddhism with some form of Hinduism.

Your writer also accused Buddhism of having an attitude that says, "you look weak, give up on yourself and submit to our dogma." Wrong again--Buddhism condemns blind faith. The historical founder of our religion discouraged people from following him without having an understanding of what he taught. A well-known statement from the Buddha is the phrase "Come and see" (NOT "Come and believe").

By the way, Buddhism is a humanistic religion which denies the concepts of creator god and eternal soul. The Buddha expressly denied being a god, didn't worship one, and didn't advise his followers to, either. Another famous quote from his teachings is "No one saves us but ourselves." Our path teaches personal responsibility and self-reliance.

I respect your right to reject any religions that you choose, but your arguments would carry more weight if your writings contained accurate information, rather than mere assumptions laced with inflammatory rhetoric.


Metta Jon Maslow, Chaplain
Lien Hoa Buddhist Temple

Dear Sir - I've been around long enough to know that there's a big difference between what a person, business or religion says is their agenda and the actual psychology of their agenda. One has to delve into the latter to figure out what's really going on, because anyone can say their religion is about peace, love and harmony. I'm not as unfamiliar with Buddhist doctrine as you'd like to think, and I believe my point stands: world negation in itself increases egoism, not reduces it. Of course, as seen in Evola's The Doctrine of Awakening, the sickness in Buddhism is recent.

You may find it easier to interpret this way: Buddhism, Christianity and other religions of negation, in their populist form, make the Self into the World. They do this by denying the value of the world in favor of "pure" and objective abstractions, possibly good/evil in the Christian/Jewish line or a generalized, pacifist humanism in the Buddhist line. The most ancient of religions, Vedanta, saw things differently: one should like a nihilist focus on reality and do what must be done to bring it to its most exhalted, e.g. most highly evolved, state.

The point of my article was that these flaws in modern Buddhism and Christianity point toward the changes which must be made in any philosophy in order to make it ready for the future, after millennia of delusion based in the frailties of the Self-as-external-image. I encounter plenty of people, like yourself, who seem to believe that out-of-the-box Buddhism is philosophically different from any of the other ills of this time. It's not. It's just more disciplined in its pursuit of certain mental powers, but as unfortunately it is founded upon illusion, it devotes even those to often well-intentioned pursuits, which have negative long-term consequences.

Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 21:45:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Tribes, Ethnicity & Individuals
From: "Matt The Red"
To: prozak@xxx.xxx

I had some questions about your ideas on tribes, ethnicity and individuals, specifically stemming from the "Why I am not a White Nationalist or neo-Nazi" opinion piece.

How does one determine tribe? For example, the Celts started in the British Isles, then some migrated to Gaul (modern France). Later the Normans invaded Britain. Now we've got a Britain, UK that controls Britain, and a France. So what is a person coming from those areas? Is a Gaul really a Celt? Is an Englishman really a Norman? And aren't Normans really Celts to begin with? Which period of history do you use to determine tribe? Obviously this conundrum with the Celts / Gauls / what have you is due to the intermingling of tribes, but I am still curious.

You mention elsewhere three traits which I consider an accurate portrayal of the average human: intelligence, strength and (heroic) character (or the lack thereof). You also give a good analysis of the mistakes of white power groups: they consider all whites, even worthless inept whites, equal brothers against the rest of the world. My question, then, is whether the reverse is also a mistake. I have no idea what your ethnicity/tribe is, but personally my ancestry is all from the UK. I have Welsh, Scottish, Irish and British blood; I'm more or less a mutt.

Now let's say things look up and these ideas of separating civilisations/cultures as you describe start happening. What are we to do with those of us - by and large the extreme majourity of the Western / Indo-European world - whose genetic makeup is not pure? Suppose the world is splitting into true nation-states (or tribe-states, if you will). Perhaps, to use your stereotype of the French from "Why Not All Europeans Are of Mixed-Blood," I personally, though not of French stock, share these "Mediterranean values interpreted in a cosmopolitan sense," and am hot-blooded and enjoy "fine things." When brought before the leaders of the French tribal state - imagine yourself as one of them - if I was a person of good physical strength, sharp mental talent and a brave, heroic character, possessing a like love of French culture and morality, would it makes sense to deny me passage into the French community? Likewise, would it be wise to bar an ethnic Jew or black person who shared these traits and values? I think that to answer otherwise is to adopt the very inverse and equally foolish position of the ill-fated modern neo-Nazi.

~~ Matt the Red

Hi Matt. These are good questions, but relatively straightforward ones when we establish the context of what we're doing.

First, the main reason to want culture is that culture is shared values and a familial sense of obligation and love for others; it holds together societies far better than bureaucratic government can, as history witnesses. We cannot achieve what is needed with bureaucratic solutions alone. For this reason, in areas which are working toward a stable population even if of mixed ethnic origins, I recommend letting local custom decide the population makeup. Exclude the newcomers and obvious foreign elements, and breed well, and the population will have a distinct look within a few hundred years, much as the English once did.

Nietzsche rattled on at one point about "there is no pure blood." What he was defending against, in his typical somewhat spastic way, was the potential ideology of pureness of race being the sole qualifier for membership in a society. I believe the racial question is inseparable from the eugenics question, and we should get the racial issue generally correct and then handle the rest of the breeding question through culture and societies designed to let the best rise. Social Darwinism, or the idea that the best will automatically become the wealthiest, is mostly lies; the best tend to statistically be wealthier, but many individuals and types of personae slip through the cracks as they are too confident or focused on other issues to spend the time required to accrue wealth.

I don't believe the values of the French can be summarized in a paragraph, or shared by outsiders. It may look to you like you share those values, but this psychology is akin to that of a tourist deciding Aruba is the bestest place on earth, forever and ever, amen. Culture is fairly tolerant of variation, but if you introduce something radically different, you destroy it, and that's why you exclude an ethnic Jew or black person even if they "seem to" share the traits and values which are used to describe that culture in a paragraph.

From: "wtcnyc"
Subject: JESUS
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 23:24:05 -0400

Your lost in your lonely "Pathetic world".
Stop feeling sorry for yourself and thinking everybody owes you something.
It's not your fault that your mother and father brought you up like a piece of dirt.

You are old enough to know what is right and what is BULLSHIT!
Satin is pure demon shit! He will use you over and over again,
until he's bored of you.Then you will suffer the FIRES OF HELL ---FOREVER!
Do you know what FOREVER means?

Look man,I know,I was there.
Jesus suffered and died on the cross for "YOU".
HE still loves YOU! No matter what!
Could you be beaten with rocks-knives-hammers-chains- whips- and needles all for the of and people?

I doubt it
So you coward for some loser named satin.
He could never help you with anything!
That's why he's in the "Shitty Pit"! FOREVER!

For God so loved the world
That He gave His only begotten
Son---That whoever believeth
in Him--Should not perish--
But have everlasting life--

By the way,I love you anyways--
Not satin in HELL.
Trust me on this Brother--I wouldn't lie to you.

Into Everlasting Fire - what a classic song. See, I have something in common with everyone, if you look hard enough. Lots of people want me to trust them in that they wouldn't lie to me. Many want to sell me cars, ports in Paraguay, or bridges in Arizona. But the fact remains: words are words, and the world is the world. Even if I were a fanatical Christian, I would still act as I do, because I believe the finest form of spiritual practice is to celebrate reality by working within it according to nature's rules. After all, if your omnipotent God created this world, cleary nature is his mechanism, and by acting naturally, I do his will.

To: prozak@xxx.xxx
From: Jason
Subject: Disease Running Deep
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 0:51:30 PDT


...And from this love of death, slowly (and painfully) all the illusions begin to crumble around me as death shreds them from my mind. I have felt moments of such clarity and love of existance, those moments free of the endless distraction of our time, and at the same time, I am completely consumed by fear. It feels as if everything I know is lost and meaningless, that all I desire is to sit with my fast food in front of a television with a friend and let my mind sit on idle. This fear has endlessly frustrated me and I know not where else to look to for an intelligent and helpful response. No one I know can come close to understanding what I talk about.

The best way I can describe it is paralysis, brought on by an intense anxiety. I feel like there are two selves within me, that over the years of defensively dealing with classmates, schoolwork, and family, and passively enjoying the comforts of television programs and movies, a way of behaving was formed that has deep roots in my personality, a purely defensive and passive self that serves only its own pleasure and comfort. It feels like a cancer in my mind, and it feels like something blocking my will to be assertive, to take the right action and best action instead of the easy one (or lack of any). I have mentally wrestled with it for some time, concluding perhaps it is derived from a fear of change, or perhaps simply from a general apathy and tiredness spawning from deep-rooted passive behavior. I feel as if I do not know who I am, and at the same time that I am blocking who I am; that when I have those moments of clarity that I cannot sustain them nor bring them back again. I feel like I am losing my mind, that I don't know truth or my truth or anything at all. I feel as if I am on the border of desire for blending in with the crowd, making friends, "nice" things, and of the desire for truth of the world and of myself.

I hope this letter was at the least somewhat stimulating, and I would graciously accept a response. The disease runs deep and it feels like no matter how hard I try, I can't seem to truly not care what the rest of the herd thinks, no matter how inconsequential I know their neurotic ideas are.

Hello Jason. I think you raise some good points, and one that is forgotten by nearly all: the disease of society is pervasive and it causes all of us to exist in a duality between reality and public image. My main problem with white nationalists, greens, democrats, republicans, etc. alike is that almost none are willing to tackle the issue as a whole, e.g. the problem that got us in this position in which we now stand: our society has degenerated, in part because it uses the opinions of the crowd to pull down any independent and intelligent opinions until it dumbs them down to a democratic, bureaucratic, utilitarian standard.

Your experience is not wholly unique for one born with a brain into this time and this "culture." You summarize it well as a distinction between doing what is socially acceptable, and what is a personal truth, but even more than personal, this truth is enduring - it's a perception of reality itself. The forces of socialization like "new" things and so invented the myth of progress; they like not being criticized, so they invented absolute "freedoms"; they like dysfunction, so they invented lots of fancy ways (psychology, politics) to justify them. They don't like reality, and this places the person who can see reality in a difficult spot.

My advice at this point in time is to learn to like loneliness, and yet to keep your normal social life. Do what you want with your friends, but remember that you're an actor, like Ronald Reagan or Katie Holmes. Your job is to get what you want (fun, socialization) out of an imperfect situation without revealing what you feel. If your friends are smart, I will bet money they're doing the same thing. Self-preservation, in its rawest and most effective form. While you're being social, keep the big issues away, but when you're lonely, think on truth and develop it in your head.

The kind of truth you have to adopt is one that will always be unpopular. People don't want to think about what sacrifices they have to make in order to preserve nebulous intangibles like culture, ethnicity, environment, values and breeding. They would rather distract themselves with television, bong hits, bars, cars, and degenerate sex. The latter categories are easy stimulus to accept, but the former requires long term planning. Hammer out your own beliefs until you have no doubt, and then keep them alive in your heart.

You will pass these on to your children not through what you say, but what you do. If Daddy doesn't watch TV, and doesn't care that he does not have a shiny car, and won't drink himself into a stupor to get back to work the next day, it means Daddy has something else going on; something else for which in part he lives. This is how values are communicated, as to truly value something is to make it a cornerstone of why you live. If you try to to communicate this in words, you will end up having problems, f'r example:

Person A: I'd rather have one Beethovens and millions oppressed, than millions "empowered" to create Britneypop while there's no Beethoven.

Person B: How dare you deny their rights! You hate our freedom! You're a Nazi! A bigot! A totalitarian! A Communist! etc.

Instead, work on what you can, and act according to your beliefs. You might have to play the social game, but over time people will come to trust you as a person, and at that point, it's the little things that count. Don't bother getting seriously involved in discussions over politics. Let your actions speak. Listen to Beethoven, celebrate culture, be an honorable person and don't waste time with distractions. Most people cannot socialize outside of drugs/drink and talking about things they've seen on TV. Be the exception, and people will follow. At least, so goes my experience.

I think what I've suggested is a balance between action and self-preservation. Do what is right for you first, and then branch out as you can. However, at some point, taking some form of action, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is part of what sustains you, in that it will make you feel less helpless. Anytime you can put your hands to something and make a positive change, your life has more meaning and you're less lonely, and thus you are succeeding where most others fail. Only by working on your own health, and later the health of your culture around you, can you overcome the deepest of diseases, which is the denial of the decline that most people use to obscure their sorrows. July 7, 2005