Delete Facebook

Brexit Effect and Nihilism

God and Morality

Goodbye to Nationalism

The Cosmic Viewpoint

The Noun Project

Everything is Nothing

Total Solution

Resistance may be Useless

Satanism & Nihilism

Who Defines You?

Path of Deduction

So-Called Christians

Freydis Eiríksdóttir

Sexual Revolution

Nihilism and Race

Folly of Nationalism

The ANUS Deception

Nihilism and Fundamentalism

Should I Vote?

Flight from Death

Political Dimensions

Philosophical v. Political

Where's the Truth?

Nihilism in China

Cruelest Joke

Sham of Pop-Anarchism

The Obverse Observer (Nihilism and beyond) serves to explain issues and elements of nihilism only summarized or missed entirely elsewhere in this CounterOrder website.

Delete or be Deleted by Facebook

12.04.18 If you noticed it wasn't available, Facebook deleted my account 'Freydis Nihilist' in February. I didn’t receive any warning, nor did I receive any explanation for it. I haven’t been doing anything different recently, and I’ve had the account for years, so I can only speculate on a reason. I’m sure other people have had their accounts deleted without an explanation as well. My Twitter account under Holology has been suspended but not deleted or closed ... yet. I never got an explanations from Twitter either, but at least it was easy to get it back up again. It's almost as if they don't like what I have to share ... hmmm.

Really, Facebook just saved me the trouble of shutting it down myself. And it's interesting timing because now Facebook incorporated is up to their neck in trouble; why be associated with them anyway?

Diaspora is still a better alternative. I tried using it many years ago, but it couldn’t get the number of participants that Facebook could and it was too time consuming to operate multiple sites. Maybe people will shift to smarter platforms now that they're finally recognizing the loss of personal privacy and how corporations are exploiting the personal information of their products, er, users. Some of us could see this situation coming years ago, and now it’s impact time. The situation needs to  be reversed -- we need to keep our personal data local and give permission to share only what we want on a given basis. That way we can have separate and distinct personas for different situations -- for work, play, and for friends.

Facebook is gone and I feel fine.

I’ll still be feeding news stories and updates to Holology at Twitter, however, my personal path is to unplug from the digital realm as much as possible. My focus is growing and developing in the physical world and connecting with the people around me – it’s much more rewarding and the results don’t have that sickening feeling of ephemeral immediacy that plagues the digital domain.

Thoughts on Freedom from Domination

To be dominated is to be subject to the whims or caprice of others, to have no control over whether or not they interfere with you, your life, your actions, your body. Republicans, going back to the Roman republic, have recognized that this lack of control over how others treat you is, of itself, inimical to human flourishing. [According to their philosophy], whether or not the powerful actually hurt you is actually less important than the fact that they have the power to hurt you, and you can't control whether or not or how they use that power. It is in this space of uncertainty and fear that power does its work. So, for example, that an employer can fire a worker at will is usually enough to secure the worker's obedience, especially where the worker doesn't have many alternative sources of income. Likewise, that the police have the basically unchecked power to arrest, beat and harass people in many neighborhoods produces all manner of distortions in how people live, regardless of whether they have actually been beaten or harassed. To live free is to live without this fear or this need to watch out for the powerful. And this means being equally empowered.
From: Dismantling Domination: What We Can Learn About Freedom From Karl Marx, May 2017

Embrace the Void

"To truly understand the universe, we may have to gaze into the abyss." Joshua Sokol

Nihilism: When conditions in the social organization are so unhealthy as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility.

27.06.16 The decision by voters in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, an institution structurally hostile to everyone that isn't rich, was a major shock to establishment authorities, particularly the parasites of global finance and the unresponsive rulers holding power over fake democracies, both of which assumed another vote in their favor. Glenn Greenwald had some interesting comments after the Brexit vote that parallels the Nihilism I've been writing about for years, (italics added below for emphasis):

Corrupt elites always try to persuade people to continue to submit to their dominance in exchange for protection from forces that are even worse. That’s their game. But at some point, they themselves, and their prevailing order, become so destructive, so deceitful, so toxic, that their victims are willing to gamble that the alternatives will not be worse, or at least, they decide to embrace the satisfaction of spitting in the faces of those who have displayed nothing but contempt and condescension for them. [...]

Brexit — despite all of the harm it is likely to cause and despite all of the malicious politicians it will empower — could have been a positive development. But that would require that elites (and their media outlets) react to the shock of this repudiation by spending some time reflecting on their own flaws, analyzing what they have done to contribute to such mass outrage and deprivation, in order to engage in course correction. Exactly the same potential opportunity was created by the Iraq debacle, the 2008 financial crisis, the rise of Trumpism and other anti-establishment movements: This is all compelling evidence that things have gone very wrong with those who wield the greatest power, that self-critique in elite circles is more vital than anything.

But, as usual, that’s exactly what they most refuse to do. Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, they are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to de-legitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures that there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future. Glenn Greenwald, June 2016

You don't need God to know how to behave in a Social Community

10.11.15 Many people around the world believe that moral behavior is based on God, and that anyone who lacks religious faith or a belief in God will be an immoral person with anti-social behavior. People believe this because it's what they've been told over and over yet, like so many other myths and stories taken to be fact, they only seem to be true until someone objectively or scientifically tests them for accuracy!

In fact, evidence and research has consistently demonstrated that common assumptions about social behavior and the roots of morality are entirely incorrect, and this was practically half the reason I wrote my book on Nihilism

God does not give us morality; rather, some of us project a God from the morality inside of us.

In other words, the set of behavior standards called morality is actually built into us and they just get codified (and usually warped) through religious rules.

Any social animal will develop behavior patterns that we call morality, even animals as simple as ants have shown this, it's mathematically fundamental and it emerges automatically from social interactions. That's actually how we as humans (most of us anyway) learn the rules of behavior.

The tragically common assumption that one has to have God to be altruistic, or that one can only learn social behavior through religion, has not only retarded our collective cultural and intellectual development for thousands of years, but has made human interactions more painful and unpleasant than they would be otherwise by generating tribal and punitive attitudes that target everyone outside the faith. For example,

Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality.

They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.

“Overall, our findings ... contradict the commonsense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind towards others. … [S]ecularisation of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness – in fact, it will do just the opposite.” [1]

1. Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds,  Harriet Sherwood, The Guardian, 6 November 2015.

The Nexus of God and Oppressive Government: The Feeling You're Being Watched

Several years ago, I attended the bat mitzvah of my best friend’s daughter. During the ceremony, the rabbi emphasized that “the central lesson” for the girl to learn was that she was “always being watched and judged.” He told her that God always knew what she was doing, every choice, every action, and even every thought, no matter how private. “You are never alone,” he said, which meant that she should always adhere to God’s will.

The rabbi’s point was clear: if you can never evade the watchful eyes of a supreme authority, there is no choice but to follow the dictates that authority imposes. You cannot even consider forging your own path beyond those rules: if you believe you are always being watched you are not really a free individual. From: No Place to Hide, by Glenn Greenwald, 2014, page173.

Wave Goodbye to Nationalism

In the past 30 years or so, we have learned that you shouldn't judge people because of things like gender or skin color. You don't choose the color of your passport either but, for some reason, it's encouraged to discriminate on that basis. That's going to change. The new generations are not as nationalistic or religious as the older ones; they are not so tribal. We're going through a transition that is going to help us connect in ways we have not connected before.

Modern human divisions are caused by nothing other than the limits of technology; people in England speak a different language from people in France because going between England and France, say 400 years ago, was a big journey. Now, they are not far apart at all. The world is so connected that mixing is increasing. Wait a few hundred years – nothing in the grand sweep of history – and the world is going to be very different. The balkanized institutions we have now will largely be gone. César Hidalgo of MIT, 2015

The Cosmic Viewpoint

23.05.15  The theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg recently published a book titled To Explain the World (HarperCollins Publishers, 2015) subtitled The Discovery of Modern Science. In it he describes the people, ideas and places that formed the basis for modern science, beginning with ancient Greek philosophers and concluding with the scientific minds of the 20th century. The book has plenty of interesting facts and anecdotes it, unfortunately, reads like what it is - a long university lecture. I recommend finding a copy at the library and skimming through, paying attention to the last chapter for reasons I'm about to explain.

A much easier way to learn about much of the same material, and more, is to watch the new ‘Cosmos’ (2013) series, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson. The original ‘Cosmos’ series (1980) with Carl Sagan is fascinating as well, but he has more of a particular focus on astronomy, space travel and the search for life outside Earth. I think Sagan’s show is relaxing, but my wife, a scientist herself, thinks the pacing is too slow and falls asleep while I watch!

More to the point, Steven Weinberg you may remember is the famous physicist whose quote, "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless", I use to introduce Nihilism. Although I had not previously read any of Weinberg’s books, I was familiar with him and his research, and his quote that I found many years ago was a great indicator to me that we thought on a similar wavelength. And the conclusion of To Explain the World was gratifying as a substantiation of my perception.

After reviewing the history and events leading up to today, from philosophers to alchemists and then scientists, Weinberg concludes that the underlying commonality that is key to generating the critical insights of scientific discovery is that of reduction, in other words the view of reductionism. This is because only through reduction have we been able to find the root elements and forces that unify everything in the universe. Reduction reveals something profound about the way the cosmos is.

Reductionism in this sense is not a program for the reform of scientific practice; it is a view of why the world is the way it is. -- Steven Weinberg

A purified definition of nihilism is reduction to that which is ineluctable, which is a short way of saying that nihilism is about dealing with those elements and facts that cannot be avoided, vitiated or abrogated, while accepting that all else is shades of illusion. – Freydis

Weinberg writes, just as I have, that the universe is not teleological, and that there is no ultimate purpose for existence written into the fabric of the universe. Further, the universe wasn’t made for people, nor was the Earth and life created by a God for human consumption. Traditional culture treats this revelation as heretical, pejorative, but traditional culture is dominated by superstitions, egocentrism and religious-attitudes. What I'm saying, and what great thinkers like Richard Dawkins, and Steven Weinberg, and Carl Sagan are saying, is that what's actually going on, outside the bubble of traditional beliefs is far more fascinating and powerful! But it takes a change in viewpoint to get there; whether it's through Nihilism, or science, or some other path entirely, the reward  is huge.

And so, I’ve been asked before, ‘what is the difference between science and Nihilism?’ My answer is that science is a really a process, hence the core methodology it relies on called the ‘scientific method’, while Nihilism is something like a viewpoint, an ethos or attitude. Reduction is the overlap between Nihilism and science.

The Noun Project and the Nihilism Symbol

18.08.13 I recently read about a website called The Noun Project that catalogs a variety of  icons created by participants. Interested, but not fully sure of what the results will look like, I uploaded the vector file of my symbol for Nihilism, mostly as a way to get a link to The CounterOrder and a mention for Nihilism on a new location. The result for the image appears fine, but the "Buy $1.99" in the corner was a surprise to me; apparently that's how the project recoups its expenses. However, just for clarification, any money spent at the Noun Project does not go to me, which is why I coded my Nihilism Symbol as 'Creative Commons - Attribution (CC BY 3.0)'. This means that anyone is allowed to use it for free just as long as they credit the creator: Freydis.

Everything is Nothing

“The dreadful secret of mathematics: it’s all based on nothing.” – Ian Stewart, mathematician

05.10.12 The hypothesis that physical reality is defined by mathematics has passed every single test so far. Indeed, all of the universe can be perfectly described using mathematics, with predictive power and unbroken accuracy. This is something that can’t be ignored, and although math may seem arbitrary and non-intuitive we have to remember that the universe isn’t modeled for human consumption.

Some of the simplest questions are the most difficult to answer. The question of what exactly a number is has perplexed thinkers for centuries, but it was finally solved using something called set theory. An empty set is used to represent zero, like this:

{ }

The number one is the set that contains only the empty set of zero, like this:
[ { } ]

Two is like this:
[ { }, [{}] ]

Three is composed of two and one,
[ [{}], { }, [{}] ]

… and so on

But zero and one are all that's needed to define everything, just a multitude of binary switches to create an infinite variety from pixels, particles, points, etc.

Set theory leads to the remarkable conclusion that everything is made from nothing. With mathematics ultimately derived from nothing, all of the universe is also a product of nothing. Nothing can’t be created and so the universe was never created either, just as there’s no need to invoke a creator or God anywhere in the equation because the universe, and nothing, have always existed. However, the multitude of forms that nothing can take does change, rendering the infinite variety that surrounds us.

The Spectrum of Belief

The Spectrum of Belief, by Freydis, 2012

The Total Solution

The Total Solution, by Freydis [Steel, plastic, wire, switch, paint; 30x10x8 cm]03.09.12 If there was one button in front of you that would instantly blow-up the world and everyone on it, would you push it? One solution to every artificial problem, once and for all…

Although this is presented as a hypothetical and philosophical question, considering the rapid pace in the development of military technology  (weapons being the leading edge of research as a direct necessity for enforcing suicidal patriarchal values on an international scale) something like this will be a reality someday. Eventually you won’t need a Star Wars-style Death Star to obliterate a planet.

Establishment culture speaks of the will to live but intentionally ignores the will to die. What happens when the will to die of one person impinges upon the will to live of those around them? Mass-shootings and violent suicides occur in gun-saturated America on a weekly basis, so this is hardly a theoretical question.

Creating a world that people enjoy and where they want to live and grow is a healthy and necessary start, and this is also the opposite of what we have now: a pernicious persecution culture that pervades politics and the entire capitalistic socio-economic order. The establishment culture of today, decaying and unraveling as it is, breeds feelings of futility and attitudes of self-defeat, while grinding everyone down within a milieu negative competition.

New from the Resistance is (Probably) Useless Series

Volume I – Escape to Oblivion

Volume II – Embrace the Void

Ascent to Hell, by Freydis 2014

Volume III – Ascent to Hell

More art by Freydis available as a full-color large-size format book

Satanism and Nihilism

Satanism, much like nihilism, is a superficially confusing topic with a relatively simple underlying message. Much of the confusion behind Satanism is a direct product of author and observant carnival worker Anton LaVey’s own calculated misdirection in the infamous presentation of his book The Satanic Bible. In the 1960s and 1970s LaVey took occult imagery and the mysterious mysticism of traditional witchcraft and devil-worship, as depicted by the Christian Church, and used that as a crafty cover to present his own views and ideas that were quite a bit different, and even antithetic, to those traditional conceptions of Satan worship. So, right there Satanism is immediately split into two camps, LaVey’s Satanism originating in his books and later embodied in The Church of Satan and followers of an ethically-structured philosophy of egoism, and then the traditional body of witchcraft with stories of human sacrifice, and so on, that go along with the occult brand of devil-worship whose adherents really believe in a being called Satan.  

There’s really nothing more to say about witchcraft and occult Satanism, it’s been around in various forms for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and it’s all based on imaginary fiction. Nonetheless, the belief, just like the followers, can’t be completely ignored because their actions still generate very real and tangible outcome. However, occult Satanism has nothing to do with Nihilism, and little if anything to do with nihilism as philosophy. LaVey’s Satanism is far more interesting, and does indeed have at least indirect similarities to nihilism, as many people have already realized.

As an astute observer of human nature working odd jobs at carnivals, Anton LaVey (born Howard Stanton Levey or Levy) recognized widespread hypocrisy occurring between professed moral values, in this case as generally promoted by the Christian Church, and actual human behavior that is mostly driven by internal, primarily biologically-derived, urges. Realizing this rampant hypocrisy is unhealthy for individuals and society as a whole, and also seeking a path to his own glorification, Anton LaVey made an attempt to rework the moral landscape to better allow people to express themselves as they truly are without being forced to fit into unnatural moral molds that were only being used by disingenuous religious authorities to manipulate people against their best interests just to personally benefit powers in charge.

LaVey wasn’t out to make a new God, and even pushed personal ego-worship as a path to make everyone a god, hence the glorification of one’s own birthday.  But he did want to make a religion, meaning a body of rituals and beliefs that would replace, or at least compete with, those of the dominant religions. But LaVey’s Satanism ends up suffering greatly from the heavy-use of theistic imagery. The dark and scary visuals may attract rebels and those rejected by mainstream society, but it only makes the confusion over just what Satanism really is, or should be, even worse. Even the use of the term Satanism directly implies a worship of, or at least a fixation upon Satan. Even more critical than misleading appearances, LaVey’s Satanism remains yet another irrational religion claiming one true path to salvation, or perhaps more charitably a philosophy of egoism that resides somewhere between the colorful prose of Nietzsche and Ayn Rand’s dry anti-social greed as a worldview. The primary difference remains the use of occult visuals and calculated misdirection.

Nevertheless, and although LaVey’s motivation may be open to interpretation, if it was to try and achieve a much needed transformation of the moral and cultural topology to allow everyone to act free from hypocrisy and unhealthy cultural demands, and to promote appropriately reciprocal behavior towards others, then I wholeheartedly agree with the effort.

In the end it doesn't matter what you believe or think is going to work; the 'will’ or the belief that something is achieved through sheer force of confidence is just self-delusion. Magnification of the ego and uncritical belief in self-righteousness, as well as the manufactured hierarchy and elitism that it engenders, continues to inflict terrible harm to the self and others. Beware the ego delusion.

It’s really not that complicated, but it does take a certain amount of careful effort, and that’s why so many try to take the lazy path by placing superficial imagery over underlying substance. What really matters is what we can verify and re-use, the consistent elements and forces of the world around us – that’s the brilliance of science and a functional methodology. Fiction may be fine as entertainment, but far too many people are so mentally isolated and socially-insulated that they can't distinguish between robust fact and kaleidoscope fiction, let alone determine actual cause and effect.

Thank You

12.05.11 I want to take a moment here to express my appreciation to everyone who’s read my writing with keen interest and expressed their help and support over the past ten-plus years. It’s not easy to get anyone to listen today, and even tougher to keep their attention. Even more phenomenal is the number of people who come back years later and tell me they’re still living Nihilism.

Anyone can get an audience when they're selling mindless entertainment, but when the topic is something like nihilism, something with a sharp edge and teeth in it, that’s a real challenge because it scares people away. In a human sea of shallowness and cowardice, you: the fan, adherent, unorthodox thinker and Nihilist, stand out like flames in the darkness.

Here’s to another decade, and many more!

– Freydis

Who Defines Who You Are?

25.04.11 People generally derive their behavior cues from the situation they live within, primarily because they’re seeking a self-interested outcome whether they fully realize it or not. For example, the populist ‘man of the people’ becomes President and suddenly starts supporting the establishment. Or the CEO loses their job and money and turn into a rebel against capitalism. If you consider it for a moment you can think of specific examples based on your own experiences, and you can watch a slightly unconventional and entertaining film on this issue in The Edukators [Die Fetten Jahre Sind Vorbei] (2005). And this mental malleability is an important factor to recognize because it undercuts the belief in the immutability of class, caste and culture.

The ego attaches to surroundings and institutions and personal values follow suit. This is a deceptively easy way to go, and the path of least initial resistance considering the evolutionary forces that have shaped the human mind for group living. Yet the price to pay for deriving values and behavior from immediate surroundings is a shaky and unstable way of living because these values are arbitrary, situational, and ultimately hypocritical; anomie and instability inevitably follows as the group and situation changes.

The only way out of this conundrum is to step outside of yourself and the institutions that surround you to try and achieve a sense of stability and continuity for your own mental health. Many people employ religious beliefs for this purpose, gaining a sense of continuity but ending up in an even more precarious position by relying on blind faith and obedience to mythical precepts for answers.

But faith and mystical beliefs are unnecessary when we have so many forces and factors that are consistent and verifiable. If you look carefully they aren’t hard to find. Even more important is the implementation of an analytical methodology to continually and reliably discern functional facts from transient beliefs and desires. For your own mental health, just realizing the way that most people use their situation and the people around them (or on TV and in their cultural mind) to define their political and social values puts you on the path to a brighter future.

Adolescent Fantasy #122

25.04.11 How asinine and infantile to believe that ‘we’re better’ and therefore our clique should kill those that aren’t. It’s self-assurance for dysfunctional egos.

You don’t have to massacre to fix our social problems, and to do so merely creates more trouble than it can ever solve, the cycle of revenge being the most obvious that even a half-wit should be able to detect, if they try.

We’ll always have dumb and incompetent people around, indeed you may even be one of them (they often deceive themselves by feigning superiority), but these qualifications are entirely relative and that’s why they can’t be obliterated. The answer is to build an environment that’s conducive to self-motivated improvement and development in mind and body, devoid of force or threats which are entirely outmoded, crude, and counterproductive. Fear and intimidation never generates allies; at best only closeted enemies and usually legions of desperate opponents.

The Path of Deduction and the Development of Functional Technology

04.04.10 The Guinea worm is a horrifying parasite that lives in hot regions of the world and only infects humans – it’s a three-foot long worm that grows inside the body and burrows out a year later. The worm releases an acid that sears through the skin, creating intense pain and compelling the human victim to seek water for relief, but there the worm releases thousands of larvae that eventually find water fleas, infect them, and then perpetuate an evolutionarily-derived carefully-timed seasonal cycle when unsuspecting people drink water polluted with the fleas during times when stagnant water predominates the area.

But this isn’t a story for nightmares; the tale of the guinea worm reveals many of the key forces involved in human existence and our development as a species.

The presence of the guinea worm doesn’t assist human development, there’s no evolutionary benefit to its presence in the environment as an opposing force. There’s no immunity gained from a guinea worm infection and it doesn’t ‘weed out’ the weak and leave the strong, it is, like most all negative forces in our environment, something that only hinders development, sickens us, causes us to become less productive and able to participate in society for the benefit of ourselves and others. Like most harm that resides in the biological environment, it doesn’t kill the victim; it only maims and debilitates because the parasite needs the host to live at least long enough to spread the sickness. The only valid option we have is to suffer in ignorance or wise up, develop an effective solution, and overcome.

For centuries people have been trying to treat the symptoms, but without ever learning the cause all anyone has been able to do is try and pull the parasite out once it emerges. But with as many as 60 worms infecting the victim at once, this is far from ideal treatment!

Yet through centuries of witchcraft and superstition the solution has always been remarkably simple. All that’s required to eradicate the guinea worm is the continual consumption of clean drinking water, thereby eliminating the water fleas that carry the infection. Once again, this demonstrates that the only way to overcome negative forces like the guinea worm is through the application of a methodology of reason and science. You can’t get there through belief and religion, you can’t eliminate horrific health hazards through superstition, fear. Only through the process of observation, deduction, analysis of cause and effect, and crafting an appropriate and effective solution to the problem. Even though scientists and researches use this methodology every day and we’ve built all the functional structures that sustain us with it, it's remarkable that many, if not most people, either take it for granted or ignore it in favor of reassuring superstitions!

Part of the problem is persuading people that guinea worms come from water, says Makoy [Samuel Yibi of the south Sudan government]. "They believe it comes from God or eating certain animals or witchcraft. They do not see the point of filtering water," he says. But once some families try it, the effects are so dramatic that the rest soon follow. [1]

That’s the characteristic of a successful methodology – effective results that can be repeated.

Other benefits emerge as well. Eradicating totally harmful parasites, like the guinea worm, creates space in the environment for symbiotic life to grow that cooperates rather than steals. This is a potent pattern of existence, similarly, you are not a single being but rather your body is literally an ecosystem of billions of micro-organisms functioning together for the mutual benefit (or at least under the rule of cause-no-harm) when all is in balance.

Science is such a radical departure from ingrained habit and past assumptions that it practically represents a new mind, if not a break and the beginning development of a whole new human species. Intelligent men and women arrived at this stage by rejecting the imprimatur of authority and belief, by the persistent and often rebellious search for facts and ideas that can stand up on their own, seeking to understand the nature of forces and events beyond prejudice and precedent. Rejecting thought-conformity, leaping beyond the narrowly proscribed boundaries of cultural convention to explore new places and ideas while considering alternative views and perceptions.

Nihilism – seeking answers without the use of belief

In order to solve a problem, any problem, you have to approach it with an open mind because the facts don’t care what your opinion is, they don’t care what you believe in or who you worship, or which political party you vote for. You can’t determine a valid answer and develop a sustainable solution by having more guns than the rest, more gold, or more friends. Even problems within the seemingly nebulous realm of human events are really no different. You have to reduce the situation and the problem into fundamental components, see now it functions, identify cause and effect, and proceed to develop an appropriate solution. Even more profound, this is true of everything in the known universe – the methodology for success is fundamentally the same everywhere.

1. Parasite lost: Exterminating Africa's horror worms, by Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist, 16 March 2010.


Observations of a Nihilist on Christianity and So-Called Christians

To those outside looking in at Christianity, the organized religion certainly has its problems, and it seems that today’s Christians have even more trouble on their hands. But first, if we're to objectively criticize either the people or the religion, we have to be as accurate as possible, so let’s examine just what the Christian religion really is.

Obviously, the basis of Christianity comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ, or rather the written records and the interpretations of Jesus’ statements made by his disciples. These ideas and beliefs are what form the New Testament of the Holy Bible, and that’s all simple enough. Yet the Bible also has a larger volume preceding it known as the Old Testament, what is also known to Jews as the Torah – a chronological tome of Jewish religious history. This merger of Jewish beliefs and newer Christian values are why Jesus’ teachings are often referred to in contemporary discourse as Judeo-Christianity.

Trouble arises when we recognize that the core messages that these two testaments, the Old and the New, convey to the reader are diametrically opposed, literally as different as love and hate. This opposition has for centuries given the written version of Christianity a fundamentally schizophrenic nature, because those that read the Old Testament are ordered to hate while those that read the New Testament are told to love.

In truth, contemporary Christians in their current dominant form have effectively dropped the Christianity part of the combo and fully embraced the Judeo part of the belief set. The creed of love that Jesus taught his followers has been replaced with the hatred and fear that permeates the Jewish religion. And hate and fear are really just two sides of the same coin, but anyway this coin can’t coexist with love, hence the sad state of affairs that Christians find themselves in today -- finding new enemies everywhere and making opponents where none existed before. These so-called Christians of this Judeo-Christianity minus Jesus have waged war on everything around them, liberals, secular culture, homosexuality, birth control, science, evolution, abortion, pagans, Wiccan's, single mothers, you name it and they’ve got a well-funded campaign of moral indignation to wipe it out in the name of God.

Yet, the more enemies the Church and so-called Christian’s target, the more they find themselves surrounded by new and angry opponents, and then the more the Church feels under siege by forces of immorality and evil. Threatening acts generate threatening responses in a vicious cycle that rapidly spirals ever downward; exactly what Jesus preached against with the countervailing forces of love and redemption. Even if Jesus was a Jew, he nonetheless acted the role of a revolutionary against the Jewish establishment. After all, it wasn’t the Romans that wanted him crucified, it was Jewish authorities that wanted him tortured and killed.

Hate and fear are strong motivators of human behavior, but an influential force certainly doesn’t mean a healthy or successful outcome will emerge. Hate and fear are normal human emotions but, like any emotion, without regulation from a rational mind they quickly lead to defeat and suicide.

The real battle for Christianity isn’t between secular and religious values (it never was) – it’s within Christianity itself. Until Christians realize this, they, and their Church authorities, are only continuing to rail against unnecessary opponents while fueling growing antipathy through hatred and fear. 19.02.10

Freydis Eiríksdóttir

Freydís Eiríksdóttir, whose father was Eric the Red, stepsister of Leif Ericson, was a pioneer, trader, and leader, one of the first Europeans known to have traveled to North America, around 1,000 years ago as the nominal leader of a journey to the continent from Greenland and Iceland.

In the North American region they called Vinland, possibly modern day Newfoundland or even farther south because the Sagas describe the region as not having any snow in the winter, the group encountered native people that the Norse called Skraelings. At first the Skraelings acted like reasonable trading partners, and they were particularly fond of anything colored red. Eventually the Norse traded away everything they had of value, yet the Skraelings still wanted more. Having brought their cows with them, they did have a steady supply of milk and so they gave that to the natives. Unfortunately, because of their Asian descent the Skraelings were unable to digest the milk and became violently sick after drinking it. They then concluded that the Norse had poisoned them and subsequently attacked, having the advantage of much greater numbers. In typical matter-of-fact tone The Saga of the Greenlanders describes Freydis battling the angry Skraelings but then having trouble running fast enough to catch up with the others because she was (very) pregnant at the time! Freydis was certainly a formidable woman and definitely not someone you’d want to mess with.

Living in a violent and difficult era, Freydis, unsurprisingly, had violent and aggressive tendencies. According to The Saga of the Greenlanders she tried to convince her husband to kill the other half of the Norse party in order to take their share of the trading profits. When living on the edge of the world and established civilization, it’s tempting to want to break the rules. But her husband, Thorvarõur, was still thoroughly hesitant to follow through on the plot, so out of disgust for his timidity she picked up the axe and did it herself!

Archeological studies at L’Anse au Meadow in Newfoundland revealed that the Norse really did have settlements with permanent structures in the New World. Indeed, the Norse were actually colonizing North America 500 years before the Spanish arrived! It’s fascinating to consider that Freydis, or her relatives, could have become the Norse equivalent of George Washington if given another hundred years or so.

Unfortunately for the Norse the climate began to change and became colder soon after they started trading and colonizing. Greenland became too cold and frozen to be habitable; the Norse settlements there were lost along with that strategic transit point. Europeans didn't return for hundreds of years.

Freydis and her party survived the Skraeling attack. She left Vinland a wealthy woman, albeit with a tarnished reputation. Nevertheless Freydis was an exceptionally brave and ambitious woman of remarkable character and exploit, possibly the only named female North American explorer of European descent until at least the modern age when the decline of Christian culture allowed women to act independently again. 24.10.09

The Traditional Sexual Order has been Overthrown

While the world was watching television an incredible revolution occurred that essentially overturns human sexual reproduction as we know it.  Researchers in England have developed artificial sperm from stem cells, creating another avenue for technologically-assisted reproduction, but in this case one that does not require a human male.

Females have the unique ability amongst the disparate sexes to reproduce themselves. To build a female requires only one X chromosome, but to build a male requires two: an X and a Y. The Y chromosome is an appendage whose sole function is to facilitate the formation of a male, and it’s not needed to make a female baby. If reproduction can occur without a Y chromosome then the male becomes fundamentally superfluous to human reproduction. With the advent of modern technology that can create sperm from stem cells, or mix two egg cells, the male sex chromosome is effectively written out of the story, even raising serious questions about their necessity and future presence within human society.

From an evolutionary standpoint sexual reproduction has always been somewhat of a mystery.  It’s a difficult method of reproduction because it requires the presence and participation of two different parties. Asexual reproduction is more logical and more efficient, and quite common. Nonetheless sexual reproduction must serve some benefit to the species or it wouldn’t have evolved, and indeed it seems to help by providing an increased ability to resist diseases due to the constant mixing of genes. Sexual reproduction generates greater genetic diversity, an asset of great help during evolutionary development. Fortunately we’re not losing any of the benefits of sexual reproduction with modern technological methods; we’re still mixing different genes, although cloning is entirely plausible as well.

The Y chromosome is actually decaying, and even without human technology to do away with it we would eventually, in thousands of years, have to evolve a replacement anyway. [2] For decades we’ve already been reliant upon medical technology for reproduction, and a growing portion of the human population can’t even naturally reproduce. The necessity of this medical technology for the preservation of civilization is no more dangerous or precarious than our reliance on computers, weather satellites, modern agricultural techniques, or construction engineering.

After pause for consideration, the potential in this development for human reproduction is truly stunning; the revolution has just begun. 16.08.09

Nihilism and Race

Nihilism does not uphold race as a value any more than it tells us one culture is arbitrarily better than another. We’re all biological entities built with genetic code and then defined and refined through our intellectual capacities and our remarkable ability to adapt, overcome, and prosper. Much of this success is due to the fact that humans are mentally malleable beings whose rise to the top of the food-chain has been a direct result of adopting new ideas and developing new tools and technology.

Race is a subset of species, sometimes referred to as a sub-species, and a species is defined as a group that can reproduce together. Organisms within a species group, like races, can reproduce together. Human races are relatively new creations, formed under the intense pressures of natural selection in the harsh environment of the last ice-age. Because races can intermix they will, it can’t be wrong in an evolutionary sense because it’s biologically and physically possible. The only limitation is geography and the speed of travel, that’s why human races have been preserved in many parts of the world. However, as everyone can tell these limitations of space and distance no longer hold true. Intermixing is what normally happens when separate populations come into contact; the only remarkable difference today is the scale of the event. Whereas in the past it was only a few individuals, for instance the European conquistadors that explored Central and South America centuries ago, now it’s entire populations. [2]

Because many of the physically characteristic traits of specific races are recessive genes, blue eyes and blonde hair for example, they will no longer show up in the superficial attributes of the hybrid population except in rare cases. This doesn’t necessarily mean that recessive genes no longer exist at all and go extinct; in fact since the goal of a gene is to spread as widely as possible they can actually gain from this. This demonstrates the very complex process of conflict and interaction occurring on the genetic level, far beyond what we are aware of at our own macroscopic scale.

We naturally grow and develop through continual interaction and synthesis

As even a cursory study of biology in the natural environment indicates there are a wide variety of strategies for personal and collective success, with success defined as adaptation to make the most of the surrounding environment. The individual freedom to choose your strategy, ideally with serious thought and consideration involved in the decision, is critically important because otherwise the trouble arrives when one despot, or authority group, tries to impose their own values and strategy upon others. This inevitably leads to dictatorship, authoritarian brutality, and eventual social collapse.

Actual events and technological developments have already far outpaced the traditional conceptions of race and reproduction. The real story is far more fascinating anyway when we consider the revolution in biotechnology. At some point in the relatively near future the tools and knowledge of biotechnology will progress to the point where genes, DNA, and the basic elements that build life are as fungible as Lego building blocks. This elemental simplicity is nihilism because it is ineluctable. Eventually we’ll be able to build life and rearrange it as desired. The potential is practically unlimited, for we can become literally whatever we want to be and anything becomes possible - we can cut and paste, edit out diseases, edit in new attributes, and even create entirely new life forms. The real issue is what do we create with these building blocks and what are the consequences?

To ask ‘is this technology good or bad’ is to ask a specious question because the technology is inevitable. We mustn’t hide from it or try and ban what’s physically possible because, like all technology, as fast as one narrow-minded clique rejects it another less conservative group picks it up and gains a massive advantage over the rest. Instead, it’s time to collectively develop the maturity and intellectual development to properly deal with the forcers and consequences of our tools. 14.09.08

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” - Charles Darwin

Living in the Past While Blind to the Present: The Folly of Nationalism

It’s very easy to romanticize the distant past precisely because it is beyond our own memory and experience. Traditionalists and nationalists selectively recall an idealized history in order to convince themselves that everything was better way back when, and that if we all just revert to the ‘simpler traditional lifestyle' everything will fit into place and be perfect again.

Actually, the overall well-being of everyone has improved drastically over the past century in direct proportion to technological development. In general even the poorest of the poor are better fed and healthier than they would have been just 100 years ago, and the vast group in the middle now have previously undreamt of capacities at their command. Indeed this fantastic increase in well-being has directly led to the trouble of over-population. So of course we still have significant problems to overcome but our ancestors had much greater problems plaguing their difficult and precarious lives, and with fewer tools at their disposal to solve them!

These changes have occurred so rapidly that we have not collectively had time to adapt to them, but that doesn’t mean we cannot or should not adapt to them. Traditionalism is sacrificing the present trying to live in the past, and yearning for a way of life that can’t be regained even if it was desirable. But even more to the point, the fundamental problem with nationalism is that there are more groups of people calling themselves a nation than there is physical space to create their nations. Israel and Palestine is a classic example of the problem of nationalism. Both groups require land to be called a nation yet their claims overlap, so the contest descends into a pitiless war between two implacably opposed sides that slaughter each other in bloody conflict. Europe fought violent and futile nationalist wars for centuries, millions died on the battlefield, and nothing changed -- they would just start all over again a few years later! These wars weren’t even successful as population growth control! Or look at the Balkans, the former Yugoslavia, for another prime example of the rotten results of nationalism. All fractured into tiny nations that aren’t even viable independent entities, these people have been slaughtering each other over nationalism for hundreds of years and getting nowhere because of it. Nationalism is a recipe for stagnation and decay because you can’t develop and progress when you spend your time killing your neighbors over differences, real or imagined.

Nationalism is a characteristic disease of delusional authoritarian egomaniacs.

Once you head down this path every trivial detail becomes a point of contention and a reason to exclude someone from the ‘nation’, splintering into even more opposing sects and generating an endless series of wars for blood and soil. Nationalists are willing to play because they believe they can win the war and crush the other side once and for all through genocide. Yet victory is never guaranteed. National Socialist Germany was convinced they would win during WWII, yet the Germans ended up narrowly avoiding extinction. And one of the main reasons we have to achieve collective cooperation and not foolish competition is the state of modern weapons technology. In an age of nuclear weapons, and even more hazardous chemical and germ-weapons of mass destruction, warfare no longer threatens the well-being of an isolated nation; it literally threatens the survival of all life on our small planet.

Nationalism is toxic glue for holding a group together; it works for awhile but the disastrous consequences soon outweigh the short-term benefits.

Nationalist ideologues have always been reactionary counter-revolutionaries because they don’t have anything of their own to bring to the table that’s new or widely appealing. Instead they market unrealistic myths from the past while usurping and redirecting contemporary competitive ideologies. This is exactly what Hitler did so effectively against the communist revolution in pre-WWII Germany, he took the appealing elements of revolutionary communism while claiming national ownership over an international movement, added racialism, and then repackaged it all as ‘National Socialism’. The mistake the German people made, and one that cost the lives of millions of them, was not in choosing National Socialism over Communism, it was in investing unchecked power in one individual! This is why, if we allow ourselves to have any kind of government at all, it must not only be under constant scrutiny within a robust system of checks and balances, but even more importantly it must be as impartial and value-neutral as possible. 06.09.08

The ANUS Deception

The cryptic ANUS (American Nihilist Underground Society) website is a critical topic that must be addressed unambiguously because it, and the website Center for Nihilist and Nihilism Studies (CNNS), are creating significant confusion about nihilism, and other important topics too. The ridiculous name and title of ANUS should arouse at least a minor amount of skepticism as to the legitimacy and integrity of the person (or people) behind it. And indeed things are not what they appear. The ANUS website has changed over time but in its current manifestation it purports to promote an unusual mixture of heavy metal music and extreme nationalism packaged as nihilism and marketed to nihilists. It is true that both sites do have material that is thought-provoking and intelligently written, but that is precisely the point. If they were completely useless they would not serve their true purpose. In reality the façade of nihilism is distinctly disingenuous and only serves to mask a contemporary manifestation of what are widely considered to be very racist views.

Analysis of the ANUS and CNNS websites reveals multiple elements that raise considerable doubt as to the honesty and integrity of these productions. A study of the ownership data and Internet links reveals that ANUS and CNNS are not independent productions but are actually part of a large web of connected Internet sites. More importantly when you look at the bigger picture it gives the game away:

anus com (American Nihilist Underground Society), amerika org (Al-Qaeda Appreciation Society of North America), Anarchy net (Anarchism), antihumanism com (Anti-Humanism), burzum com (music of Burzum and writings of Varg Vikernes), churcharson com (church arson), (Continuity Movement), corrupt org ("Remaking Modern Society"), fuckcapitalism com (anti-capitalism), fuckchrist com ("Support the Judeo-Christian Holocaust"), genocide org ("genocide, holocaust, and democide studies"), hessian org (The Hessian Studies Society), infoterror com ("Infoterror Internet Activist Promotions, Inc."), ihatejobs com ("I Hate Jobs"), juliusevola com ("Julius Evola: Traditionalist Visionary"), lostwisdom com ("Lost Wisdom"), necrocapitalist org ("Necrocapitalist"), nihil org ("Center for Nihilist and Nihilism Studies"), pan-nationalism org ("Pan-Nationalist Movement"), penttilinkola com ("Pentti Linkola Fansite"), pragmatism us ("Pragmatism Party - Traditional National Democratic Party"), realitynews com ("A look into the real world"), sataniccoalition com ("The Satanic Coalition"), and zionists com ("Kahanist National Zionist Party").

ANUS and CNNS serve the same purpose as ‘anarchy net’, ‘sataniccoalition com’, and the rest of their panoply of websites – they are false-fronts that serve as attractive bait designed to draw an audience into supporting their core values. So, regardless of their superficial statements, crafted to be appealing to their target audience anyway, what they actually preach and promote is rooted in simple racism, or a worldview that revolves around race and zealous nationalism. This being the case there is no honest and legitimate need to invoke nihilism as part of their platform anymore than there is to invoke Anarchism or Satanism!

ANUS is exploiting nihilism to promote a derivative white-nationalist position that is commonly considered to be racist. For example, look at the ‘ANUS heroes’ listing ( The first entry is Pentti Linkola, Linkola advocates dictatorship and eugenics”; then Julius Evola, who is he? “most significantly described as a Radical Traditionalist”, or translated at Wikipedia: “Evola is primarily known for his involvement in Italian Fascist politics”. Also on the list of ANUS’ heroes, Savitri Devi who “emphasized the continuity of ancient Vedic, ancient Greco-Roman, and modern National Socialist thought”.

Further evidence, they (Vijay Prozak is sometimes cited, but authorship is left unstated on many articles) self-describe themselves based on “tribes”, and ANUS is loaded with references to race, yet at the same time they claim to reject racism, “I love my African-American friends as well as my "white" friends (really: different Indo-European tribes, including Indians, for whom "white" is a broken general category).” and, “Because we have evolved differently, not only is race-mixing insane, but caste-mixing is insane;…” and, “Further, it's important to realize that racial separation is not an issue by itself, but part of a general program of breeding that includes division by tribe, caste, and finally, eugenics applied to individuals themselves.” From: (

ANUS continually uses loaded words like "caste" and "breeding", employs statements that are vehemently opposed to cultural, racial, and caste mixing, all the while promoting nationalism and a very violent elitism that repeatedly threatens to kill those they don’t like. In one article the author viciously attacks ‘white nationalism’, yet the collective tone and rhetoric belies the sincerity of this assault that is, in essence, a calculated effort to legitimize what is actually the same product placed in a different package.

The ‘nihilism’ at ANUS is not just centered on race but it’s blatantly elitist as well. These guys are trying to sell repackaged white-nationalism to nihilists because they know nihilists are willing to entertain attitudes that are considered unacceptable in contemporary culture. So, now it’s apparent why so many people are being confused by the ‘nihilism’ from these websites, because it isn’t nihilism but rather it’s exploiting nihilism in order to reach a secondary conclusion that promotes dictatorship and elitism, among other things.

Regardless of the interpretation, whatever ANUS really is it is not nihilism and should not be mistaken for it.

What’s Going on Here?

The people that promote ANUS and related sites, with Corrupt org at the center of the spider web, are a duplicitous and deceptive lot. And although they typically mask their agenda behind superficially appealing statements these characters are not popular anywhere but in their own little universe and self-manufactured echo-chamber that they endlessly exploit to magnify their importance far beyond actual reality. They use agents as relentless apologists, advertisers, and salesmen to troll message boards, IRC channels, and anywhere else they can gain access to in order to push their agenda, which is simply elitist fascism in an ant-heap society (placing themselves at the top, of course). The reason they are thoroughly reviled is obvious, besides the hard sell, they go out of their way to usurp and hijack others wherever possible. Anyone that gets involved with anyone of them does so at their own risk.

The reason for the deception is clear when the true agenda is revealed. You can’t publicly admit you are racist today because that term has such a strong negative connotation, so you have to alter the message to something more appealing and as a result they target the still widespread aspects of nationalism and xenophobia, sponsoring racial separation and ultra-nationalism. Indeed it’s a poignant testament to just how unacceptable these views and values are within contemporary society that they have to water-down their core beliefs and mask them behind superficially benign phraseology. 05.09.08

Nihilism and Religious Fundamentalism

The interesting article 'US exceptionalism meets Team Jesus' consists of an interview with James Carroll, a former Catholic priest and anti-nihilist, who grew up in the halls of military power in the Pentagon. The interview is certainly worth reading for the revealing discussion on how militant evangelical Christianity has infected the United States military from top to bottom. For instance Carroll points out that, “At the Air Force Academy, "Team Jesus" was one of the nicknames for the football team and one of the most vociferous evangelical Christian proselytizers was the football coach.” And not only that but a screening of Mel Gibson’s fundamentalist slasher flick The Passion of the Christ was force-fed to cadets as an official Air Force event! The consequences of this development aren’t hard to calculate, just consider the current military ‘crusade’ against Muslim Iraq and Afghanistan, but the focus of my criticism here has to do with something else of strategic significance, Carroll’s conflation of nihilism with religious fundamentalism.

Is nihilism the same as religious fundamentalism?

Catholics seem to have a particularly intense dislike for nihilism; remember ‘Nihilism - The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age’ by Fr. Seraphim Rose? Maybe Catholics are better educated than their Protestant counterparts; they must read a lot of Newsweek. Seriously though, whereas Rose equated nihilism with moral decay leading to evil in the 1960s, Carroll in 2007 equates nihilism to religious fundamentalism … leading to evil, of course.

Carroll is an apologist for Christianity. His basic message is, “Don’t surrender religion to the wackos.” But the cynical retort that instantly flashed in my mind when I read that statement was: what’s there to surrender?! The reason Carroll makes this point is fairly clear if you think about it. In order to make his mainstream version of Catholicism safe for all the believers he has to attack everyone on the fringes. But this arbitrary differentiation is the crux of the problem with Carroll’s reasoning. By maintaining that some religion is good and some religion is bad and the difference is based on how the holy scriptures are interpreted it creates a serious schizophrenic contradiction within the belief set. As Brian Flemming realized in his documentary film The God Who Wasn’t There the religious extremists and the fundamentalists are actually the only ones that have any internal consistency in their reasoning precisely because they take the scriptures in their Holy Book literally, instead of trying to modify it to fit it into reality while rationalizing and apologizing for it to the world as the moderates like Carroll try to do. In response to the simple question, if you really believe that your faith in God will get you to heaven and that the world is evil than why not kill yourself and go to heaven now? The fundamentalists follow the scriptural reasoning and reply, yes I will! James Carroll's convoluted response for moderate Catholicism is that our belief is good because we aren’t extremists but their belief is bad because they take it too far by actually believing what’s really written down in the holy book.

A mark of a fundamentalist mindset is that one's own personal virtue is the ultimate value. The American fundamentalist ethos of the Cold War prepared us to destroy the world. In other words, a world absolutely devastated through nuclear war was acceptable as an outcome because it reflected the virtue of our opposition to the evil of communism. Better dead than red. … Better the world destroyed than taken over by communism. It's profoundly nihilistic, which is also one of the marks of the fundamentalist mindset.

Carroll views fundamentalism and nihilism as the same because, in his view, both are apocalypse-seeking. And since religious fundamentalism is just extreme religious belief then extremism is the same as nihilism.

In fact most all religions have a salvation / redemption / change element within their set of beliefs, not just Christianity with its ‘born-again’ mythology. Most religions seek a salvation and redemption through radical change. So to equate salvation with nihilism is simply to state that both seek a change in the current state of events! So what?! Nihilism and fundamentalist religion both seek radical change, even though it is for completely different reasons. Carroll is clearly using nihilism as a pejorative association not a substantive one; the connection is purely illusory. Change is sought by many people, ideologies, and beliefs so without including the reasoning motivating it this just leads to a fraudulent association.

Carroll unintentionally reveals, once again, that the real problem has nothing to do with nihilism, or even destruction-seeking motivations, but it has everything to do with belief and religion, be it fundamentalist or otherwise. Foolish beliefs and unchallenged assumptions pervade an American society that prides itself on ignorance and religious righteousness.

[I]f Americans are upset with the war in Iraq today, it's mainly because it failed. If we could have "ended evil" with this war, it would have been a good thing. It goes back to the joke you began with: [How many neo-cons does it take to screw in a light bulb? The answer: Neo-cons don't believe in light bulbs, they declare war on evil and set the house on fire.] if we have to destroy the world in order to purify it of evil, that's all right. It's the key to the apocalyptic mindset that Robert J Lifton has written about so eloquently, in which the destruction of the Earth can be an act of purification. The destruction of Iraq was an act of purification. Even today, look at the rhetoric that's unfolding as we begin to talk about ending the war in Iraq. It's the Iraqis who have failed. They wouldn't yield on their "sectarian" agendas. These people won't get together and form a cohesive government. Now, we're going to let them stew in their own mess. We're going to withdraw from this war because they're not worthy of us.

Willful belief-based ignorance is easily exploited by venal authorities to gain popular support for launching wars based on religious symbolism, all for the most crass and materialistic of reasons like oil, power, and money. In this kind of environment characterized by the moral nose ring Nietzsche warned us about it’s imperative that, once and for all, we finally cut the strings of belief that corrupt authorities use to bind and manipulate the people like marionette puppets, so the super-rich can't sponsor wars and trigger conflicts for private profit while using their wealth and special influence to insulate themselves from the negative consequences everyone else has to suffer through. 30.09.07

Winners are just the first losers
in a foolish competition 


Should I Vote?

Is the glass half full or is it half empty? Deciding whether to vote or not is the same sort of question – the answer depends on your perspective and sentiment at the given moment, but the short answer is yes; let me explain.

Politics is the shit in life you can’t escape from so even though the dominant political parties that almost always win the elections (Democrat & Republican, Labour & Tory, etc.) don’t represent me or my interests, and probably don’t represent you either, the decisions they make in office will still affect us nonetheless. That leaves us in a quandary. If we don’t vote at all they will definitely win the election and can claim a mandate based on the sizeable majority of the votes that put them in office. If we do vote and participate in an election system that is a sham we risk justifying it, but can at least exert a small influence upon the outcome while at the same time gaining a legitimate allowance for criticism by virtue of participation. I like to think of voting as renewing my license to criticize the democratic political system.

If you look at the low voter turnout in the average election in the United States, for example, the pseudo-democratic system doesn’t need mass participation to justify itself. So I think to criticize voting as simply supporting a broken system is misleading and perhaps even over-simplified. Everyone is told that what we have now is representative democracy and it’s the greatest thing invented since sliced bread so very few people are willing to take the risk of openly criticizing it. Consequently the most practical and rational option is to vote in a way that maximizes the message being conveyed to the elected officials. The two ways to do this are:

  • Vote for the main opposition party to create maximum political turmoil and gridlock.

  • Vote for a 'third' candidate / minor party that actually represents your interests.

Many have rued the truism that if voting changed anything it would be illegal. But we have to put voting in perspective. Don’t expect radical change to occur but don’t completely discount the impact that your vote can have – it may not be much but it is there if you want to use it. This brings me to another major question.

Why are voters so afraid to vote for a minor party candidate even though the two party duopoly is so obviously corrupted, useless, and even outright malevolent towards the public?

I think part of it is a generational gap. Voters that are middle aged and older are still convinced that they can elect Party Left or Party Right and solve everything. Conversely, skepticism and cynicism towards the two party duopoly is widespread among youth today.

Another major impediment to seeing what’s really going on is the sports spectator effect – the popular desire to be a part of the winning team  through vicarious association, in this case by voting for the candidate that gets elected. People have to stop thinking about ‘winning’ in the election. Nobody is really winning anything in this system except the candidate that gets their meat-hooks into office and the lobbyists and special interest groups they are funneling the kickbacks too. Voting just to be a vicarious winner, instead of voting for the candidate that really represents you, is about as asinine as you can get, yet that is exactly how many voters behave!

Finally, the people that vote most often are the ones that feel they have something invested in the social and political order and as such they tend to not want it to change radically, or at all, because that could negatively impact their interests. This is why the richer the voter is the more likely they are to vote for a conservative, and vice versa. People that are disenfranchised and disaffected have much less invested in the status quo and thus they typically see no benefit to participating or supporting it and so they don’t vote. Unfortunately this short term self-interest only serves to justify and perpetuate the status quo, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. 11.09.06

The U.S. presidential race, impassioned almost to the point of hysteria, hardly represents healthy democratic impulses.

Americans are encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the political arena. Essentially the election is yet another method of marginalizing the population. A huge propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial extravaganzas and to think, "That's politics." But it isn't. It's only a small part of politics.

The population has been carefully excluded from political activity, and not by accident. An enormous amount of work has gone into that disenfranchisement. During the 1960s the outburst of popular participation in democracy terrified sectors of privilege and power, which mounted a fierce countercampaign, taking many forms, until today.

Bush and Kerry can run because they're funded by similar concentrations of private power. Both candidates understand that the election is supposed to stay away from issues. They are creatures of the public relations industry, which keeps the public out of the election process. Their task is to focus attention on the candidate's "qualities," not policies. Is he a leader? A nice guy? Voters end up endorsing an image, not a platform.

The regular vocation of the industries that sell candidates every few years is to sell commodities. Everyone who has turned on a TV set is aware that business devotes enormous efforts to undermine the markets of abstract theory, in which informed consumers make rational choices. An ad does not convey information, as it would in a market system; rather, it relies on deceit and illusions to create uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices. Much the same methods are used to undermine democracy by keeping the electorate uninformed and mired in delusion. From: Interventions, by Noam Chomsky, pages 98-99, 2007.

Film Review: Flight from Death

Flight from Death: The Quest for Immortality (2003) is a documentary that uses stock footage, vague location backdrops (usually cemeteries), and brief interviews with colorful professors you’ve never heard of in schools you didn’t know existed to attempt to answer the inveterate problem of cosmic meaning and human mortality. Although the film subtly presents itself as an independent and objective analysis this is slightly misleading because it actually approaches the issue based on the fringe psychological theories of author and cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker. Yeah I never heard of him either. Becker, and thus the film, basically believes that everything humans do is about death denial.

Tombstone of author and cultural anthropologist Ernest BeckerTo the credit of the researchers and philosophers behind this effort they have attempted to find quantitative evidence to support their contentions. However the results of their one study conducted on college-age volunteers seems dubious considering that multiple conclusions could still be drawn from the facts. But anyway, Becker and the film conclude that violence and the worst excess’ of human behavior are a product of death anxiety. Religions are personalized death denying illusion. Evil is created by the attempt to form a utopia free from evil.

The answer to all this trouble, and I’m using the actual words from the film, are to practice tolerance and kindness towards others. Further, illusions are necessary and unavoidable so we must therefore strive to create life-sustaining illusions rather than to overcome them. The seemingly obvious fact that this is simply yet another effort to form a utopia free from evil, and is therefore evil, is not addressed. Indeed the film delivered a rather stunning conclusion considering the fairly reasonable intellectual buildup preceding it.

In fact illusions are not necessary; illusions are intentionally manufactured to mask things that people don’t want to perceive. Differences of perception certainly do exist within the realm of human consciousness but that should not be an excuse to disregard the much more considerable common elements, indeed the very common concerns that the film used to construct much of their views! The flaws in Becker’s views are more than benign, they can become a very harmful way of thinking because it leads towards an obsession with physical life extension, as the film mentions. In fact death is just as important as life and most people live too long as it is – that’s a major problem we are just now facing as individuals of the human species are now living longer than ever before in history. The most reasonable answer to draw from Flight from Death is to simply recognize death as an inevitable part of life, free from exaggerated mythology and excess fear.

The meaning of lifeThe film is, in my view, overly philosophical and not materialist enough in approach but it is intellectually compelling nonetheless. Unfortunately the film does not address or offer any explanation for suicide actions, only for the common responses to the violence. Discussion of the topic of suicide is conspicuously absent from the documentary.

I found the film difficult to pay attention to mostly because the topic does not lend itself well to a cinematic format for delivery. The vocal portions are complex enough that it takes effort to interpret what is being said while the video is often showing extraneous stock footage barely related to the narration so it becomes distracting towards the effort to digest the concepts in the film. Note: the subconscious message content (possibly) included in this film has not been rated or reviewed.

As an example of a contrary, materialistic, argument that is at least as intellectually compelling, but probably not any more accurate in a holistic sense, read this one: It's the money, honey by Chan Akya. I've encountered fairly convincing views that human actions are all motivated by a desire for sex; Chan Akya thinks it’s money but the point is it could be sex, death avoidance, money, genes, memes, or something else. Human actions are driven by a multitude of factors, it doesn't have to be only one and it's probably a combination that depends on circumstance as well as historical and cultural influences. 06.01.07

"What makes being a soldier great is the nobility of it — good fighting evil. If you lose that, all this sacrifice is for no good reason."
 - Maj. Peter Kilner, West Point. From: Combat stress takes toll, June 14, 2006.

Inmate in American military operated Abu Ghraib prison, Iraq.

Philosophical versus Political Nihilism, or why can't we all just get along?

When it comes to the realm of action and thought there are two attitudes that characterize a categorical breakdown. One group is convinced that ideas are all that really matters, that theory is of prime importance over substance – this is why it is referred to as philosophy. And then there are those that are convinced practice, substance and action, are what really matter. These two attitudes are what characterize the views of philosophical and political nihilism.

The philosophers don't want to get involved in seeing the notion turned into practice because it fractures all their pretty beliefs and ideas with messy realities and pragmatic compromises. While the practical builders don't like being slowed down by dogma and theories that look nice sitting on a shelf, like a book or a trophy, but can't be integrated into real life. They are aware that without a test the hypothesis is not any more useful than the paper it is written on. Argument between the two is mostly a waste of time because no real ground for compromise exists, for as adamant as the pragmatists will state that the practice is what matters, the theorists will maintain the opposite. Consequently, most of the philosophical nihilists don't want to see nihilism turned into Nihilism because the process is messy, it's dirty and it inevitably ruins many of the cherished notions they hold dear. Far too many of them treat their conception of philosophical nihilism as a dogma that cannot grow and evolve because that means accepting change as well as a past, a present and a future that operates independently outside of them.

For a historical example of this conflict compare Karl Marx to V.I. Lenin. It’s ironic that Marx was so concerned with the struggles and triumphs of human labor but never worked a day of manual labor in his life. In fact his family nearly starved because he wouldn’t get a paying job. His ideas written down had a significant impact upon millions of people, but that impact was largely a result of the efforts of organizers like V.I. Lenin. Marx would no doubt have criticized Lenin for corrupting his beautiful theories but nonetheless Lenin turned Marx’s writing into reality.

Another example, a perfect contemporary example, is that of Jeffrey Skilling architect of the new energy trading techniques at Enron incorporated. Skilling was, and still is, a firm believer in the concept of the idea in primacy, that the idea is what really matters not the practice or execution. Skilling came up with a new form of accounting that allowed him to book profits now on the predicted future revenue from his ideas. So in other words if the concept of trading energy futures cannot produce a profit today because it is too new to have an established history but five years from now it could be worth, say, one billion a year, then we can count that profit today on the company books. It’s a new economy after all and don’t the brilliant people deserve to get paid for the brilliant ideas they come up with?! Skilling and others in the top management at Enron thought so. Now several years later, after the multi-billion dollar meltdown of their corporation, Skilling still maintains his complete innocence while on trial for financial fraud so massive it broke records. For a much more detailed explanation of this astounding process watch the documentary Enron: the smartest guys in the room (2005) DVD ¹, and find out why they didn’t ask why enough.

Please don’t misunderstand my intent. Ideas are important, theory is important too, and it would be fantastic if we all could book revenues on our expected future profits or change the world with just a graduate level philosophical dissertation. But there’s also this other force at work known as practical, functional existence, i.e. reality, and it has a nasty way of devastating anyone foolish enough to ignore it. Nearly all philosophy if adopted literally necessitates the contravention of known reality. Take, for example, the assumption that nihilism rejects all forms of organization and authority. Even if this was an inextricable tenet of nihilism, (it isn’t) such a notion simply can’t be internalized. In fact no human individual or endeavor can survive well or do much of anything without organization. We are social creatures and organization is what we do. That is why the second definition of nihilism is in the dictionary, the one that many of the existential nihilist types either refuse to recognize or simply ignore outright. Not only that, but as hundreds of participants at the Symposium forum and Online Nihilism group demonstrate on a daily basis, one can be a member and a supporter of a group and still hold independent thoughts. Imagine that!

Theory and practice can assist each other but sometimes they simply have to agree to disagree and allow evolution and the testing process to deliver a verdict. 16.04.06

Conservative, Liberal, Nihilist -- Political Dimensions of the 21st Century

What do the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ really mean? These terms are typically employed to describe political views but they also apply to other values and views in life as well, even to such an extent that conservative and liberal, right and left, essentially arbitrary terms that mask substantive worldviews, are used to instantly categorize entire segments of the population.

Politics is about change, you either want it or you don’t, and this fundamental divide serves as the basis for classical political opposition. The conservative side is the easiest to explain because of its fundamental simplicity - it strives at all costs to preserve the current economic and political order as much as possible. Conservatism isn’t rocket science and it rarely has anything to do with objective, critical analysis, but instead it’s simply an expression of primal greed and fear. If you’re at the top of the socio-political pyramid then you have much to lose (it’s a long way down) and risk is more of a hazard to your personal well being than it is as a potential source of reward. Conversely, those in the bottom ranks have little to lose and everything to gain.

Then fear enters the equation and makes conservatives out of many that have much to gain and little to lose. It’s also true that being rich is a relative condition and this is why fear of loss is such a powerful motivation when used for political gain, there's always a class below to create a fear of falling, indicating just how much worse things could be if change goes awry, or if it occurs at all.

The conservative mentality is an expression of an intense need for stability and the comfort of routine and habit. This desire for safety is so strong that it intentionally seeks to expunge all challenges to tradition, established beliefs and rituals. Consequently, the defining characteristic of the conservative label is the inability to tolerate ambiguity. Conservatives want everything to be clearly defined; they see things in black and white, figuratively speaking. Reality to a conservative consists of good and bad, right and wrong, devoid of alternatives outside those binary poles and without recognition of anything in between. The conservative mentality forces nature, interactions and all events into one of two opposite categories. The nature of actual events is nothing like this, as anyone objectively analyzing human events quickly realizes that shades of gray are what define interactions and outcomes, not absolutes. But this is the point; the conservative worldview is an artificial one and the end result of a conservative mentality is a completely synthetic way of life; this is a world of corn syrup flavoring, bleached grains and American ‘cheese’, a world where control of nature, people and events becomes an imperative necessity because anything less inevitably leads to exceptions, shades of gray, and a sudden collapse of the simplistic, Manichean view of world events.

The Spectrum of Modern Political Philosophy


The conservative mindset allows for only one correct view and explanation of events at any given moment and refuses the legitimacy of all alternative views and explanations. This is a zero-sum mentality that sees everyone as either a winner or a loser and approaches life events accordingly. In the West, monotheistic religious beliefs magnify the influence of conservatism, and not surprisingly the majority of conservatives are church-attending believers. Conservatism is characterized by a hierarchy of leaders and followers, of obedience and servitude. This simplistic order makes  the construction and coordination of large scale projects, like pyramid building and wars, much easier than without it.

Liberal is a more complex and nuanced package but it can be basically defined as the acceptance of ambiguity within human events. Generally the greater the degree of education and worldly experience the more liberal the individual becomes because they begin to see all the shades of gray, the natural differentiations and differences that exist within alternate views, opinions and potential solutions. This is a world of whole foods and soy products, where spiritual problems are likely to be resolved through paganism and atheism rather than monotheism. The liberal mindset allows for the simultaneous legitimacy of multiple of views and explanations but still maintains that mine is probably better than yours because ego and cultural favoritism are natural extensions of individual (and group) self-preservation.

By now we can begin to detect the appeal of the conservative viewpoint when considering the complexity that perceiving multiple alternate ideas and solutions creates. The more possibilities that are included in the decision-making equation the more complex and time consuming the decision becomes, but the more accurate that final decision will be.

So if we take these two primary views and extend them to logical extremes across a spectrum of variation, what do we get? A general depiction of the ultimate conservative social system can be found in the insect world, wherein every being functions as a separate organ to support a larger body or community, and where every worker is simply a genetic extension of every other worker. Independence is incomprehensible and no more possible than the left lung enjoying a separate life and consciousness from the right lung. In the ultimate conservative world nothing changes on a macroscopic scale, even as the cells and individual working components are continually living, dying and being replaced by functional duplicates. Individual purpose can never extend beyond the need to support the body, and the purpose of the body is limited by the need to support the workers. This organism seeks resources, consumes them, delivers the basic nutrients to the internal components, and continues this cycle as long as it can sustain itself. In this view the unit of scale is macroscopically measured. Significance is based upon the size of the pyramid, the gross profit of the corporation, or the amount of land and resources the nation controls. 

The ultimate liberal social system constructs significance based upon the gross influence of the component, the motive force and mental capacity of the individual. While the conservative order functions from the top down, the liberal order operates from the bottom to the top; the components influence the system instead of the system influencing the components.

When stated in extreme form the root views become evident. We can now see why liberals and conservatives can argue endlessly and still remain convinced that each side holds a singular truth. The error is in the belief that one sides holds an exclusive truth when in fact both liberal and conservative views contain valid elements.

Both of these extremes exist within any unit; after all, every corporation has its individual workers just as every individual person has its own cells and organs. But what is the eventual purpose of it all? Since values are an extension of the goals, which value do we place at the top? Do we put people in primacy or do we put the body; the components or the system? Both sides need the other but only one can be in the lead, only one value can be held at any given moment.

Does one need the other more? Can a person exist without a society? Yes they can but not very well, and they have no purpose either since their life is devoid of social context with which to structure their values and existence. But can a society exist without people? No, not at all.

A contemporary example of the liberal versus conservative value-problem is evident in the issue of corporate rights. Is the company more important than the people? Can one exist without the other? What rights does a business corporation have in comparison to an individual, especially considering that corporate entities are quick to usurp and negate the rights and values of the individual [Read: Trained to Perform Evil  and Finding Perspective in a Mad World] Companies are notorious for immoral and unethical actions despite being composed of mostly moral and ethical individuals, just as states, both totalitarian and democratic, are notorious for starting wars of aggression and domination despite the peaceful and pacifist characters of the people that compose them.

So, although both the conservative and liberal views hold core truths the values characterizing the goals and aspirations of each side are very different. The two views are clearly in competition with each other. Nonetheless, when viewed from both sides this argument would seem to lack any functional resolution.

Fortunately, if we put the issue in proper perspective then it can be resolved. Corporations and states are purely structures of convenience, and indeed they are products of individual values and not the other way around. Corporations and states have no independent existence apart from the individuals composing and sponsoring them. Although corporate and state entities can protect the individual they can just as easily destroy them. Conversely, the power of the individual is noticeably proscribed by the powers of every other individual within a system that grants a greater degree of influence to individuals than to the corporate and state collections of individuals.

People aren’t biological organisms in the same form as insects. People have independent motive forces, goals and values apart from the collective. The individual with a separate consciousness and motive powers forms a practical and very versatile component capable of constructing systems and structures in a collective fashion that are much larger than any single contributor. Unlike insects that can only build one kind of hive society, humans can form collective structures in an almost unlimited shape and form. The form of that institution does not have to be one that exploits or abuses its constituents. The necessary solution will be a hybrid of both left and right, or more accurately, something that transcends the perceptional limitations of classic liberal and conservative views. We need a new hierarchal system, one that is a non-rigid, adaptable structure capable of growth and change while at the same time holding the contents together, like a balloon.

Despotic ‘conservative’ regimes can force people to cooperate just as capitalist ‘liberal’ democracies can trick people into cooperating, but can we build a system where cooperation occurs out of genuine personal desire? Just as state governments have given way to transnational corporations, and corporations are beginning to be challenged by NGOs, so this progression will lead to transnational collective providing more than just commercial needs, but including social needs as well.

Instantaneous worldwide communication technology means that physical location is no longer the limitation it once was. One day we will be able to pick our preferred form of government just as we can change churches or school districts today. The 21st century can witness the advent of the voluntary state system. Capital need no longer reign supreme. Material support will no longer have to be paid in cash, like taxes, but can be paid in labor.

Life shouldn’t be about what you own or the people you know or how much money you have, because none of these things reflect real effort or human utility and can be taken through inheritance, theft, or special personal connections; they don't necessarily reflect the true capabilities of the individual behind them. Life can be about what you produce and what you contribute to society. But the achievement of this new socio-political dimension will not occur instantly one day just as it will not occur without effort because it's in direct competition, and even opposition, to the existing authority system. 12.11.05

Where’s the Truth?

The primary process under the rubric of nihilism is skepticism, it is to take as little for granted as possible and that includes nihilism itself. Philosophical nihilism is inherently contradictory, for instance to state that ‘no truth exists’ is just as rigid and principled as the more common assertion that a singular truth does exist. Nevertheless some people still try to use one or the other. Both are absurd, although the one of philosophical nihilism is more obvious.

Absurdity can be entertaining and enlightening but only in the way that outdated fad becomes kitsch and is therefore ‘cute’ and collectible. A message is contained within it all but it’s not a facile one. Absurdity really indicates a lack of complete information; absurdity is an error message.

The fact that some people attach so strongly to either one I think demonstrates that an irrational undercurrent runs through human nature. In the case of ‘no truth’ (anti-science) it's part rebellion, part ignorance and part fear: fear of order that might defeat their own beliefs in self-determination, or more specifically the belief in the right to ‘do whatever I want to do’. In the case of the other pole, the ‘one truth’, it’s a wish to have everything taken care of and the belief in a holy deity that controls everything and all blessing will follow from obedience.

Science originates from the ‘one truth’ view and not too surprisingly it generates some intense antagonism in the public because it doesn’t make either group happy, it undercuts free-will and also God. But the ideas behind science are completely sound: to try and find some pattern in the disorder, to try and employ some kind of consistent algorithm to find consistent results. I think the scientific method is the best tool of its kind around, so far, but it has its limits. Mikhail Bakunin once stated, "Between thought and life there is a wide abyss." Science can generate completely accurate and truthful statements but upon application in human society they can fail miserably. Even more, technology often fails even after science succeeds.

Everyone wants to find ‘truth’ but it can’t be found like a search for a singular entity, like some jungle explorer searching for a legendary gold idol. The search for ‘truth’ is the search for a definition. As humans we all start from a very distorted perspective because in order to exist we must value our life, yet the continuing order of the universe cares not a bit about us one way or the other and suicide changes nothing. But the universe is definitely not irrational; in fact if anything it is maddeningly predictable, at least on the size-scale that we exist at. Humans live by values but the universe does not – it offers possibilities but does not favor one over the other. Ultimately moral right and wrong are products of the ego, after all no one wants to be ‘wrong’ and everyone wants to be ‘right’!

Even amongst the disparity a common element can be found and I think that the natural survival instinct will suffice. It creates an internal sense of true and false but one that is not necessarily transferable to others. Nihilism can state that the overall picture does not create any absolute right and wrong, true or false, but the concept is nonetheless quite significant to the individual. So it could be said that true and false are both absolute and relative at the same time. The interface between all of the viewpoints creates a deceptive complexity; our sense of reality is the interface between all of them perpetually interacting. Indeed, trying to find a truth here is an atrocious calculus problem! This is why scientific reduction often fails in deciphering human actions and living reality but adding it all up also proves problematic because it’s never accurate, only an estimate. Truth, at least on the social level and perhaps a universal level, is statistical. 20.06.04

The Decay of Chinese Culture: Nihilism Goes to China

As any linguist will tell you studying a language can generate significant insights into the nature of the culture and people using that language. In this case I’m referring to the Chinese written language. Whereas western culture and languages are digital and stem from a deconstructive worldview, the eastern languages, particularly Chinese which is the forerunner of most other East Asian languages such as Korean and Japanese, are self-contained and result from a fundamentally holistic worldview. In other words instead of breaking things down in order to understand them, they see things as static without further need for understanding. So it shouldn’t be surprising to find out that Chinese culture is extremely authoritarian – don’t question authority or the Party line – just do what you’re told. The implied duty of every child growing up in this culture is to obey authorities and conform to their expectations.

In Chinese writing the meaning has to be extracted from the relationships between the component symbols, so context is imperative to communicate in any useful manner. This creates a language that appears complex because it relies so heavily on a shared understanding of cultural history to create meaning in the sentence. Chinese also seems ‘poetic’ and ‘mystical’ because it is so fundamentally limited in its ability to convey a concise idea or concept unlike a letter based alphabet that can be used to create an almost infinite array of new words and concepts to communicate new ideas and thoughts.

Because Chinese culture relies so heavily on centralized authorities to dictate orders and policy for the people to obey it creates an inherently temporary situation since it’s based entirely on sycophancy and blind obedience rather than questions, thoughtful criticism, and adaptation to new situations. This is not to say that the Chinese can’t take advantage of an opportunity for after all there are quite a few newly rich entrepreneurs in China today, but it does mean that the Chinese authority system is very quick to usurp the motivation of individual effort in order to maintain its dominance over the country. In fact the communist party in firm control of China today is downright paranoid when it comes to challenges to their power – economic, political or religious. Even a cult as seemingly innocuous as the Falun Gong generates the most repressive and severe police reaction from the Chinese government. The Internet is tightly monitored and censored, just as all the news and information is filtered through the lens of official opinion. Official statistics are created based not on what is really happening but on what the Party wants to see, indeed this is the perfect example of how China is run today and has been for time immemorial – Chinese authorities are motivated and supported in all their endeavors by willful delusion.

This is important to recognize amidst the current hype over the rise of China as an economic, military, and political power. Although the Chinese people themselves have immense potential and can and do express it when given the opportunity, the present Chinese communist (or some say quasi-fascist) government will do everything it can to stop this when it occurs outside officially approved channels. And the Communist Party has no plans to rescind power anytime soon; this is another tenant of Chinese authorities - never give up power and never face reality because criticism is the enemy. China’s grip of world trade is not nearly as solid as it may seem today. There’s nothing that China exports that can’t be made elsewhere and China’s cheap labor is simply a result of government subsidies. Even regardless of this the massive overproduction going on in China today is flooding world markets and will eventually initiate a deflationary spiral downward in price and profit.

So even though Chinese culture has thousands of years of history that compel obedience to official rules and precepts and negates independent thought, the Chinese people nonetheless remain thoroughly self-centered and as the flow of information leaks into their closed society new ideas are changing their attitudes. Things in China today are beginning to change because the social hypocrisy has become unsustainable. The distance between the Party’s version of truth and the truth of actual reality is a rapidly widening rift fracturing Chinese culture.

Young people in China don’t believe in the Communist Party, they don’t believe in their vaunted leaders and their self-congratulatory charades, and increasingly they don’t buy into the archaic culture and its values that are continually claimed so superior to the rest of the planet. Many of them still remain ardent nationalists though and this is one tool the Central Party can still use to whip up enthusiasm for their projects and control the populace by directing their boiling anger over internal problems against foreigners. Nationalism is one of the last vestiges holding a broken China together but a corrupt regime can’t exploit that sentiment forever. All the old gods in China are dead or dying, communism killed religion and now communism is dying too. A rising undercurrent of nihilism exists in China today, an inevitable result of blatant social hypocrisy, egregious government repression, abuse, and authority’s attempts to control the minds and bodies of their subjects. 01.05.04 & 17.11.08

Existence is the Cruelest Joke

Life is a diversion from the inevitable ending, ideally in a constructive way but often not. After all, isn't it ironic that the more free time we have the more we try to escape it?! Everything beyond survival consists of the search for escape; collecting money or toys, mindless entertainment, drugs, etc. Artist Ed Kienholz called a bar a sad place, a place full of strangers who are killing time, postponing the idea they are going to die." That pretty much sums it up.

Boredom is Hell

Nietzsche saw meaning through the continual process of valuing; an intriguing notion. However since 'good' and 'bad' can only really be applied retroactively it would seem to be a faulty one for guidance. I have a sneaking suspicion the insects and Fascists are right on one thing: life is just about doing things, even regardless of the point or value of that action. Simply doing things together creates community and camaraderie, it's not complicated! Life is action, death is inaction.

Peace is Non-Being

There is no such thing as nothingness, meaning that the abstract concept of nothingness is a religious (primarily Judaic/Christian) fantasy, for all absence is relative. Something will always exist in some form in some place. Non-being is another issue; once you’re gone you’re gone forever but parts of you can remain physically through genetic continuity and memetically through fame and ideas.

Forcing the Creeping Inevitable

All existence is struggle, life is war and peace is death; suicide is just getting there prematurely. Not considering the act of dying indicates a lack of consideration for the process of living. So, to all those who've sought peace, even bliss, in non-being - this glass is for you. 14.10.03

How many killed by the Church?

How many killed by nihilism?

Any questions?

The Sham of Pop-Anarchism

Anarchists have an admirable spirit and a motivated attitude but what they apply that energy towards is rarely, if ever, useful. Anarchist's efforts generally serves the opposite of their stated desire - it doesn't defeat authority it empowers it! Anarchism seems to be no better than the machine it replaces and even worse than capitalism because it's a manufactured ideology that has no basis in reality or human nature. After years of abuse, exploitation and poor leadership, Anarchist ideals are so watered down as to be laughable. Today "Libertarian Socialists" run for public office while others throw rocks and deface public monuments. No wonder the word anarchy itself has become just another word for mindless juvenile delinquency with a sugarcoating of political self-importance.

The fact that so many anarchists don't want to listen to reason or alternate opinion, but usually respond with invective and heated rhetoric, is a screaming klaxon testifying to the religious dogma that they adhere to. Nor do they stop and question the legitimacy or usefulness of the apocryphal causes they inveigh against, a testament to their faith in anarchism. Two prime examples of these hallowed yet hollow causes are 'Western culture' and Mumia.

Long a favorite punching bag for Marxists and their Anarchist dupes alike, "Western culture" has that quality of being sufficiently vague yet redolent of evil inequity that always pushes the red rebellion button while bypassing the brain entirely. If they just substituted 'Hollywood' or 'American' for 'Western' thus sufficiently delineating the important differences between the two it would certainly simplify the debate. Nonetheless, whatever it's called, there's no denying this culture is quite popular. So think about it, if this culture is so thoroughly despicable, why does the world gobble it up and want more? It's obviously providing them with something they think they need or they wouldn't keep coming back for a super-sized second helping. By attacking only the superficial elements anarchists gain nothing but a harmless contrarian appeal that remains impotent to rectify the underlying root problems.

Western Culture is not the problem, it's produced heroes and zeros yes, great and small alike over thousands of years true, but to condemn it in toto is a ridiculous assault. So let's put the blame where it belongs: on the aberrant Hollywood culture which has not been around for thousands of years but merely a few decades. And after all, anarchism itself is a product of Western civilization! Maybe Anarchists should declare war on themselves?

Favorite bumper sticker opinion and Hollywood-approved cause, freeing the imprisoned Mumia Abu-Jamal saturates anarchist discussions. Free Mumia? While ignoring the thousands of other wrongly accused and wrongly imprisoned persons out there? But why? What for? What difference would it make? Freeing Mumia is like giving a Band-Aid to a cancer patient. What a waste and such a typical pointless diversion from what matters! Sadly, today's anarchism is just a Trojan Horse that hijacks youthful aggression and understandable anger so as to rail against safe causes and aimless convictions.

We all dislike abusive authority, wage slavery, the excess's of capitalism, and the mind control of Hollywood, but anarchism has never solved any of those problems even though it has had plenty of opportunities in its 200 or so years of history. The failure of anarchism is a direct product of the inherent flaws within its very own fictional beliefs, especially the anarchist concept of authority, after all - the leaderless group is most influenced by its worst elements.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak

The people that become anarchists have energy, activist efficacy and intelligence, all highly commendable. But if it's wasted on the trivial and counterproductive it's not admirable, it's worse than doing nothing because it's just making the world worse while setting the stage for the victory of the despotic authorities they claim to oppose!

Some of the things that today's anarchists claim to stand against:

  • Authority
  • Intolerance
  • Bigotry
  • "Homophobia"
  • Racism
  • Hate
  • Violence, etc.

Why not just drop the phony pretext and join a church? You'd get the same message and the people would be friendlier! Yeah, and it turns out Jesus wasn't just a hippy he was an anarchist too.

If anyone wants to be an anarchist, a nihilist won't be standing in their way, but they will be there to point out their mountains of fallacies and delusions. I think it wise anarchists demand more of their ideological representation than just fashionable platitudes and childish rebellion. Nihilists destroy what needs to be destroyed, the structures, people, and beliefs that obstruct freedom, nihilism and well-being; we'll burn it all down, dead to the root. And to do that nihilists use that which is observable, consistent and verifiable, not simply what one wants to see or believe in. For example, every individual is egotistically motivated be it rational independent behavior or mass psychology - the dynamics are different but the self-interest is a constant, revolution is just a variable. This does not suggest a complete rejection of revolution here, now or anywhere, but any belief in the ultimate justice or righteousness of any revolution is a very dangerous thing, just as all faith is. We will have a revolution but it will be one based upon reason, planning, and cold-analysis of the situation. We'll have a revolution but not just another fake effort to empower dictators and bankers, one that doesn't just scorch the superstructure but one that burns the very root of belief, the source of all evil.

Revolution is tougher than you think

But more important than even that pragmatic assessment is the actual mechanics of a real revolution. Do the "revolutionaries" realize what they are up against? It's easy to toss a rock through a Starbucks window, but how many of those hotheads have ever fired a rifle? The revolution won't be fun for long when you've got police SWAT teams (or worse) barking down your snorkel. Is my point fairly clear? Who will really be by your side when the rubber hits the road? Study your history - anarchists are just the dupes who helped put the Communists into power in Russia and elsewhere and nearly in Germany.

Do you want to play games and get arrested or do you want to pragmatically asses your capabilities and work within those boundaries? Are we in it for the ephemeral action or the strategic solution? If you really what to take down the system you've got to know how to do it right and in order to do it right, you've got to know what you're up against and the realities of the situation. Whenever anarchism and authority meet, authority always wins because authority is organized, disciplined and focused while anarchism is not and cannot be without violating its own manufactured values. This is the foolishness of being guided by fantasy instead of fact and by transient morality instead of reality; a Nihilist may be cynical but at least they're under no such delusions or limitations.

The same outcome as traditional revolution can be achieved through other means; it's crucial to realize that violent revolution is a means to an end, not a cause in itself. It's also important to fit your environment, one because you blend in and don't get picked out for persecution and two because you can often get much, much further by cooperation and legality than mindless rebellion. Anarchist are very useful, I'm not standing in their way. But it is really irrelevant whether they have a name, a costume or any boilerplate self-righteous jargon backing them up. It's what they do that matters - they keep authorities occupied with minor threats.

So am I saying that Nihilism is the ultimate answer, the panacea for all our ills? Perhaps not, but it's a start, and why believe in something that isn't true? Why continue to stick with a losing team? Why continue to beat your head against a brick wall of pointless causes only becoming a nuisance to authorities rather than a viable threat? Negate your faith, don't believe in anarchism. If it doesn't provide you with a real, substantive benefit then dump it. If you get something out of it then go for it but don't lie to yourself that it will save the world or solve the problems of authority or that your fellow anarchist will really be there to bail you out when the serious heat is on!

Anarchists are always most prevalent when police forces are at their weakest and lawyers are at their strongest.

Anarchists are to Capitalism what Satanists are to Christianity - contrarians. Take away their countervailing opposition and both cease to exist. Nihilism isn't a contrarian effort against whatever the latest outrage is, be it abusive cops or a locked up celebrity. Nihilism would be fundamentally the same whether it was in Communist China, free America or the Garden of Eden. Nihilism would have different priorities in each situation but the concepts would remain unchanged, such as the skepticism of popular assumptions. Nihilism is something anyone can do, you don't have to look a certain way or associate with certain people because it's deeper than that, it's an attitude, an awareness and a world-view. Nihilism is home, work or play. Rejection of faith, idealism, philosophy, theology and teleology; while building from the simple, the observable, the verifiable. Nihilism is the vaccine against BS - whenever, wherever and whatever it is, and the best anyone has to date. 24.09.02

1. One detail in the Enron documentary that needs to be explained: Jeffrey Skilling is reputed to have used Richard Dawkin’s book The Selfish Gene as the visionary motivation for his Enron machinations, in other words as a mistaken justification for financially raping the country like the class act businessman he is. The title of Dawkin’s book actually refers to the nature of the genes being selfish in their singular desire to reproduce, not genes that makes selfish people more successful! This is obvious to anyone who has read the book and not just the cover like the dipshit scumbag Jeffrey Skilling but nonetheless it needs to be clarified lest the misunderstanding perpetuate.

2. For a remarkable look at the genetic history of European explorers, and the story of the Y-chromosome's decay, read Adam's Curse, by Bryan Sykes, 2004.

"It is impossible to modify the convictions of men without also modifying their existence." – Gustave Le Bon

Russia's Irina Chashchina


 Content & Design By Freydis
Updated: April, 2018
Created: 2001