This site has been designed to be an atrocity. Only atrocity and extremity wake up the sheep from their illusions, since humanity has constructed a little bubble of peer pressure and finance with which it hopes to protect itself from reality out there, outside of human minds, beyond our control.
Originally, many of us rejected atrocity, being repelled by the excesses and cruelties of history. Then we learned that the one consistent element in human history is human stupidity, and that almost all of it is driven by solipsism, hubris, narcissism, and individualism.
So… where does philosophy begin? How should we live? According to whom? Nihilists tell us that there is are no universal truths, values, or communications; they explain this, as Nietzsche did, with relativity: “there are no truths, only interpretations.”
Your average modern person, fatuously thinking himself clever, translates this into “the truth is whatever I want it to be, I am responsible to myself for my own happiness alone, there are no rules, but we are all one, or at least that is what I say so that others feel too guilty to stop me.”
In reality, it translates to a duality:
- Anarchy: there are no inherent, absolute, or universal truths, values, or communications, therefore also no innate duties, goals, or morals.
- However: we are therefore judged and ranked by the choices that we make, with each of us recognizing those on our level and below when we see them.
In addition, the meaning of life, you may ask? It is Darwinism: adapt to your environment, reproduce, and then refine your behavior so that you avoid the various “traps” of existence like forgetting to set aside food for the winter, while doing what you as a high-IQ organism need to do to feel meaning.
So what then is meaning? There is no innate meaning, nor can we find meaning in ourselves, so the answer must be that meaning is what happens when, on top of having adapted and reproduced, we find some connection between ourselves and the idea that life is worth living.
This means that the good life consists of Darwinian adaptation to reality (realism) plus some kind of transcendental — think Thoreau, Muir, Emerson, or Siddhartha — understanding of the beauty in life despite its feral and anarchic “red in tooth and claw” nature.
To this end, we must first avoid destroying ourselves, and next avoid destroying the things that can show us imperfectly perfect beauty, like nature. This leads naturally to Half Earth:
The ongoing mass extinction of the natural world ranks with pandemics, world war, and climate change as among the greatest threats that humanity has imposed on itself. To lose so much of Earth’s biodiversity is to both destroy our living heritage, and to risk the stability of the planet, today and for all future generations.
Half-Earth is a call to protect half the land and sea in order to manage sufficient habitat to reverse the species extinction crisis and ensure the long-term health of our planet.
With that in mind, we can see humanity where it belongs: not as gods, nor masters, but as a niche within a complex structure comprised of ecosystems, where we have a role first to adapt and next to find something like meaning in our souls, without commiting ecocide.
We also learn two other important concepts:
- Quality over quantity: we cannot become meaningful by simply covering the planet in humans; we need the highest quality humans that we can get, and relatively few of them, since that way life is comfortable using only half of Earth.
- Ends-over-means: goals are more important than the methods we use to achieve them; if we are serious about a goal, we use whatever means necessary to achieve it. “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.”
With those in mind, we can focus on anarchy, which is a self-reducing doctrine. That is, if you achieved anarchy, civilization would become impossible, so anarchy cannot exist without a modifier. The first modifier to keep in mind is anarcho-monarchism:
But Tolkien was, in his choleric way, giving voice to his deepest convictions regarding the ideal form of human society—albeit fleeting voice. The text of his sole anarcho-monarchist manifesto, such as it is, comes from a letter he wrote to his son Christopher in 1943 (forgive me for quoting at such length):
My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people . . . .
And anyway, he continues, “the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men”:
Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. At least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediaevals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Grant me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you dare call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line. But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that—after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world—is that it works and has only worked when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way . . . . There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.
Last week, as I watched the waves of the Republican electoral counterinsurgency washing across the heartland, and falling back only at the high littoral shelves of the Pacific coast and the Northeast, I found myself reflecting on what a devil’s bargain electoral democracy is.
Democracy is means-over-ends, or limits what you can do based on what other people fear, contrary to anarchism and common sense; it is also quantity-over-quality, since however many warm bodies no matter their IQ, morals, or level of sanity win the vote.
Monarchy however creates for each culture a goal, which is to follow what the best people in it are doing to achieve the meaningful, and therefore, creates a hierarchy based on who achieves this goal and to what degree. That leads us naturally to equality-denying manorial feudalism:
with regard to the first point, manorialism contributed to the breakdown of europe’s clans/tribes since the manor system demanded that family units be no larger than nuclear in size. clans or tribes just didn’t fit the system. the system also contributed to the loosening of genetic ties since a peasant had to get permission from the lord of the manor to marry rather than just marry his kissin’ cousin. in fact, it would’ve been in the lords’ interests to break the power of clans or tribes ’cause they were just trouble and, as manorialism expanded, the lords would’ve been looking for a compliant, dedicated workforce — not a bunch of extended family members dedicated first and foremost to each other.
secondly, which peasants succeeded in the world of the manor? presumably hard-working, maybe kinda intelligent — but how about also able to hold off on the urge to mate until one was well-established? (sound like any group of people we know?)
under the manor system, you didn’t get to rent a farm from the lord — i.e. make a living — until he was good and ready to let you a farm. and you couldn’t marry until you had some land to work. those individuals who couldn’t hold off, reproductively speaking, until they were in a position to marry would’ve lost out — they wouldn’t have been considered responsible enough to be a part of the lord’s manor — or, at least, they would’ve wound up somewhere at the bottom of the heap — selected out.
That in turn requires that each group have its own culture which will rapidly be embedded in its DNA, so it makes sense to have a separation by ethnic group:
The left often labels big business and banking executives as elites, while the right typically targets the state itself and those who keep it running, like civil servants, bureaucrats, and elected officials, along with academics and other intellectuals, “whereas ethno-nationalism is … a definition of the nation that excludes various ethnic, religious, and racial out-groups,” he said.
Nationalism can be ethnocentric or primarily civic in focus. Some strains are more inclusive than others, often based on political principles and respect for institutions that rest on subjective identification with a nation. Ethnic-driven nationalism is often about a shared ancestry, religion, and language and a common dissent, said Bonikowski, a resident faculty member at the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies (CES).
Ethno-nationalism — probably the only meaningful definition of “nationalism” — means that each ethnic group sets its own rules instead of looking for some arbitrary universal morality like organized religion, big business, and mass media preach.
In this way, we the species humanity do not need to unite everyone as the United Nations and globalists want, but instead each group goes its own way, setting its own semi-arbitrary standards that work for it, and choosing those who fulfill them.
This rejects the modern state and replace it with a tiered structure of niches in which each person has a place in their group, and this form of anarcho-feudalism allows the individual the most acceptance, the most time off, and the most lassitude for personal eccentricity possible:
The modern state is specifically defined in geographic terms, the sovereign person (whether individual or corporate) having jurisdiction over the people and activities that take place within its borders. This is in contrast to pre‐modern, feudal government, in which the relationships of vassalage placed people in positions of authority over other people, not entire territories. Power, then, was geographically fragmented and decentralized, determined by discrete relationships, personal and contractual in nature. “Feudalism,” writes John Snape, “was about persons, rather than purposes.”
The modern state represents a different kind of control, the completeness of which was not achievable in the feudal period. It consolidated the scattered elements now associated with the concept of sovereignty. The Weberian state’s characteristic “monopoly of legitimate physical violence” was previously nowhere to be found, impossible in an age of such convoluted and overlapping powers.
Feudalism was a complex reticulated system in which the power of law as conceived at present did not follow a straight line from government to citizen. Government was a private enterprise, the feudal estate the private property of the lord. Baronies were not administrative regions of a “public” government—one owned, at least in theory, by the people—but ancestral lands of particular families.
The modern state, by contrast, is premised on an abstract, hypothetical contract, the social contract, the terms of which very specifically eschew such discrete, individualized relationships between the individual and the individual or individuals in power. Laws are to be applied, in theory, equally and uniformly, with justice blind to the differences of citizens standing before it.
Even better, this allows us to impose quality over quantity within our own populations, gradually pushing humanity out of its mediocrity:
During the first, Galton was engaged in African exploration, travel writing, geography, and meteorology. The second part began after he read the Origin of Species by his cousin Charles Darwin. The book convinced Galton that humanity could be improved through selective breeding. During this part of his career he was interested in the factors that determine what he called human “talent and character” and its hereditary basis.
This leads us to our atrocity. If left up to their own devices, humanity always comes up with some variation on “be nice to everyone,” since in terms of socializing or getting along with your buddies at the pub, this is the right answer always.
However, if we look more clearly through the lens of common sense and structural analysis, we see that what we need is “reward only the good,” a sort of modern version of “and if you harm none, do as you will” plus the Lex Talionis or “law of revenge” that holds that the bad must be removed, following Plato’s formulation “good to the good, and bad to the bad.”
Our entire philosophy now comes into focus. We reward what achieves the formulation of adaptation+transcendence, which requires both commonsense realism in adaptation, and qualitative selection for excellence in order to preserve, nurture, and visualize beauty, goodness, and joy in life.
Nothing in the modern world is designed this way, and all of us are steeped in decentralized brainwashing, namely that all of our friends, coworkers, family members, and acquaintances are busily chattering on about the dominant paradigm, which in our time is individualism, although in groups this is collectivized into egalitarianism, or the notion of “equality,” in order to motivate us toward a pathology of herding behavior.
If we want to escape this modern world, we must first stop thinking the way it does, and that begins with accepting the need for adaptation, and from that, the need for meaning. That leads us away from tolerance of the herd and instead, toward a need for paired anarchy and strong power pushing us toward the good.Tags: anarcho-monarchism anarchy culling ecology eugenics feudalism manorial feudalism perennialism