Mailing list:

Search anus.com:

Spirit

Whispered in alleys: (The aristocracy is the root of our problems; they became decadent, and could not defend us, or do right. It was the upper classes, actually, which have always been a shill for the aristocracy. Well, perhaps it was all white people, because they represent a meta-class to all the world's people. I consider it also important that we address the role of men over women, as they have dominated women of all classes and races for time immemorial. You value your heritage, but what does it mean? Your ancestors aren't you, and you're using heritage-worship to cover up for the fact that you haven't achieved anything that important. Oh yeah? If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?)

These words mark our lives. Our lives pass in their shadow. We are told they are solutions. Every solution we try turns to disaster. Only a few can see this disaster, and the rest are happy if they can afford color televisions. The greed of the masses drives the manipulation of the elites!

Daily we are offered a number of "solutions." Some are lefty, some are righty; none are effective. Why? The fundamental beliefs of our society are so rotted that we have forgotten what we lack to tie it all together, and we dumb it down for the crowd and thus make it further into mush. You don't make a rule that says "All people must equally..." to help the lowest, but to hold down the greatest. Well, that's a problem. But it's not the root of the problem. What is?

-- For some years, the West has been in decline. There are symptoms - Christianity, corporations, crowd revolt, miscegenation, drug use, child molestation, demagogic leaders - but these are just symptoms. What happened? Our spirit collapsed, as happens to all at some point in middle age. Because we are a fecund race, when the spirit collapsed, it had repercussions as every level of society struggled to master it. Most cannot and never will be able to, even if you send them to Harvard (they lack the goddamn wiring, man). Our spirit went into a dip, a midlife crisis, a depression -- and we have not yet recovered.

But we can.

The beliefs you are offered today have several things in common, but the most fundamental is that they are all passive. Together we will eliminate some wrong - Nazis, negroes, elites - and we will be left with the purest of rarified butter, the ghee of a gleeful new future. We will not move forward until we overcome this passive mindset, and look instead of toward ideal social orders toward a purification by testing ourselves. Oh no! That would involve deprivation and for many of us, losing... possibly losing our lives. We cannot do that! -- the previous statement is the essence of passivity: have government do it, apply an order equally and through bureaucratic means upon the world, and then things will organize well by magic. The invisible hand? We'll have an army of them.

Passivity infects all belief systems in the modern time. Look at what happened to National Socialism. Its current caretakers are total failures at interpreting it correctly. Their complaint is legitimate: that modern society wishes to eliminate white people, and infest America and Europe with foreigners. Clearly that is true; anyone who objects there has his or her head in the sand. But is this the primary goal of some conspiracy, or a side effect of a lack of values? Look at France: businesspeople brought in Arabs and Negroes to be sources of cheap labor, and the population likes being French, so they don't hire them. What's the solution? In my view, let the riots continue, and if the French have enough strength, they'll grow up and realize the world isn't all peaches and cream and that one cannot solve problems by making laws, and they'll get shotguns and pitchforks and baseball bats and drive the invaders out, murdering as many as they need to. If they cannot do this, maybe it's time for France to fall, so the Germans can invade, kick out the interlopers, and set up a superior society.

But most of us just mince along, content to look at society as something that will someday, magically work. That's kind of like hoping a rapist will get bored and not bother with the task at hand, isn't it? Our society is structured on a profit basis, and profit supersedes all other concerns, so culture and heritage and values themselves even are on the auction block. Most people don't want to think about this, so they passively go into denial, and pretend that's not the case, thereby ensuring that the problem not only persists but has a home among them. Their women especially are guilty of this, but it's a paradox of life that women can be both wonderful and absolutely useless in politics. Shouldn't vote, shouldn't participate, shouldn't have opinions on it: they fail universally, with the possible exception of a few great women of genius. One can always make exceptions for the five politically capable women throughout history, and keep the others out, so they don't pacify us with more rhetoric of doing nothing about subtle but evident problems. Women encourage us to simply gain enough money that we can go around the problem, giving it a permanent home in the neighborhood. Equally guilty are the bean counters and bank presidents and lawyers who always have passive solutions. Their job is not to fix problems, but to bill hours dealing with perpetual problems. Yes, invite the Devil in! they chorus. We can make a year's income just hiding him from the view of paying customers. That's the face of passivity. If some businessperson did it, well, it earns money, so it's okay. If some impoverished shithead did it, well, he's trying to better himself, so it's okay. The Germans have a word for this kind of attitude: Sitzpinkel, or sitting down to urinate as a male. Emasculation: a lack of the active principle, vir, what makes a man feel a man, more than cheesy false machismo or one night stands with giant-racked thluts can do.

Sitzpinkel defines our modern political outlook. There can be no order; everyone can have it their own way (pluralism). We will not lead by picking the best course, but by picking the most popular one, which is inevitably the one that enriches the largest segment of society (democracy and consumerism/these are conflatable terms). We are afraid of the differences between us, so we normalize everyone by restricting their abilities (equality), and we think that if someone is good at a certain job they should rise above others, no matter what spiritual qualities they lack (meritocracy). Best of all, we're conditioned to think that if we just pick one of the above solutions, all will be okay, because by picking the best method, we've somehow cured the problem. Wrong. The problem is within: a dead, passive spirit, and the antidote to this rot occurs in few and in different degrees; we cannot all be the heroes here. Forget the image put into every movie, book, etc. that praises democratic thinking, in which at the end the entire city/village/race realizes its error and together comes to fix the problem. Symbolically that might produce happy feelings and sell tickets, but it's not reality. Can you understand that? You're lying - only 2% of you will be able to, at most, and the rest of you are faking.

Passivity is an outlook on the world that transcends politics, philosophy, even religion -- by modern standards that makes it "good" because everyone, no matter how drooling retarded or spurtingly depraved, can participate! -- because it is a way of thinking and not a goal in itself. You might proclaim yourself a pacifist, which invariably means you'll fight to keep others from fighting, so you can dominate them, but you wouldn't proclaim yourself an advocate of passivity. Where's the "American Passivity Party"? It's more subtle than that: it's a social attitude, and because it is a declining and aheroic one (as well as completely without poetry, or higher spiritual belief), it is very popular with the proles. Ask yourself: what have the poor and the working people done for any civilization, besides serve in their positions? Answer: NOTHING. They do best when they focus on what they know and of course, when they have enlightened leaders. They don't have the brains, the strength, or the spiritual outlook to lead, thus when they do, they always fail. Do we need bring up the facts that Communist Russia's mass revolt took a wealthy country and converted it permanently into a third world shithole, or that Christianity so weakened Europe it could barely resist the Great Khan, being more interested in internecine squabbles and fighting over riches? The Church hovered in the background, like a doctor waiting his payment at a deathbed, because whether Europe rose or fall, the Church would still be powerful! That's the essence of passivity: opportunism by encouraging a dysfunctional order which one hopes to survive because one is already dysfunctional. Crowdism is an offshoot of passivity; for the Crowd, no real changes will ever occur, because their lives will always be either disorganized or rigorously scheduled by needs. Therefore, their desire is to tear down those who have risen above that state, and they are willing to sacrifice entire civilizations for it, because a Crowd member is in the same fix whether a Mongol or a Jew or a Christian or a Democrat: they will always be serving an order they don't understand, doing a relatively limited range of tasks, and quite probably, disorganized at a personal level.

There were some who rose high above passivity. In ancient India, these were called "Arya" (noble), but in modern times, we often refer to them as Hyperboreans, meaning the Nordic populations who came out of northern Europe. They had discipline, and were benevolent, but were not afraid to kill, especially to kill defective people. If you want one reason to praise Genghis Khan (and this is about the only one), it's that he slaughtered useless people. The idle rich and disorganized poor alike got stuffed into mass graves. That's the kind of order we need, but it of course needs to come without the rest of Khan's poisonous plan, which produced an empire that cruised on inertia before coming apart abruptly because it had an essential lack of ideas. The National Socialists in Germany believed in killing the useless and throwing all of their weight behind the strong; this was the best part of their own agenda. In America, many of the rural populations started to take on similar beliefs, and as a result resisted the idiocy of modern times far more than the cities. But passivity grows each generation, and thanks to America's post-WWII wealth, she has led the world on a course for passivity. We can no longer blame the Church, the corporations, etc. It is a spiritual feeling all of us in the modern West share, and if we wish change, we must as Gandhi says "become the change we seek in the world." If we fix our own spirit, it spreads like a virus and soon others share the same belief, and changes occur. We cannot make laws to fix our spirit, nor can we create an economic system that avoids spirit. This war is within ourselves. If we conquer our fears and come out on the side of bravery, we will prevail; if not, hopefully the Chinese will invade so that we have an enemy to unify us.

Many of us detest White Nationalists because they are the fake solution that takes the place of the real solution in public perception. This isn't about your race. "White Nationalism" is a clubhouse of people who want to believe that if they exterminate the Negroes, everything left will be just fine; no, no, no, you blockheads. Negroes don't belong in America and Europe, much as no races other than European belong in Europe, but that's part of Nationalism, and extends to tribe; Russians don't belong in Germany either, and the Germans should feel free to slaughter them. Nationalism is confused, by "White Nationalists" and clueless liberals alike, with the issue of population quality. We're not saying that Negroes are crap, or inferior, only that they don't belong here. Confusing the two is to play into the liberal ideal that we're all of equal quality, and the idiots will trot out some quasi-scientific "science" to "prove" their point, nevermind that three years later we'll all find out the research was faked, the conclusions logically unsound, or the scientists simply biased (or Jewish, same difference). People want Nationalism to be as simple as hate, but it has nothing to do with emotional reactions or population judgment. It is simple: exclude that which is not your tribe, or your tribe will be assimilated and its days of greatness will be over - if you don't believe this, name a mixed population that has achieved anything great. Get it? Mixing is the enemy, not Negroes. Other tribes are incompatible with your own, and while you might make pluralism work for a few generations, it will destroy you. The people who insist otherwise are misinformed, or as is more likely, Crowdists who are also misinformed, but fundamentally hampered in that their brains cannot grasp the complexity of the situation. Crowdists and White Nationalists alike are passive.

Conservatives are also passive. They want to maintain a system of economics that, in theory, rewards the best among us. But what is so "best" about earning a ton of money? It requires a few skills and passes no judgment on the fitness of that person as a leader. In fact, it helps us pick the worst among us - the unbalanced, sociopathic, of low confidence and low moral aptitude - because these are the sort of people who are driven toward lots of money. Normal people want a good living and a job they don't mind, but are not driving maniacally toward the accumulation of wealth. When you see someone whose life is wholly devoted to earning excess wealth, you have to ask: what's this person's defect? They are as defective as the lazy urban poor, who have no motivation toward self-sustenance whatsoever. The two are opposite ends of the same defect. As much as conservatives are passives for relying on this idiotic system, liberals are sitzpinkel for believing that they can tear it down, leaving a giant void, and have accomplished something. Their entire goal can be described in two words: "class revenge." Tear down the better, exhalt the poorer and weaker and sadder, and hope that somehow we have evened the scales and we can all exist like robots in the exact same form. What's a worker's paradise? All of us in apartments, none in houses, and no geniuses, only loyal workers - each of which, despite lacking the brains for the task, considers himself or herself an expert on politics. Ah, yes, what a moronic fantasy.

Ancient Europe was strong because it had constant conflict, both within and without. Not organized into countries, it could afford internal warfare for the sole purpose of keeping its aristocrats strong; it battle-tested their leadership. Then in came the goddamn church and suddenly that was out, since the Church unified most of Europe. So some aristocrats became fat cats who were useless. The next centuries were busy with "democratic" and "egalitarian" ideas, slowly crushing any remains of belief that suggests some people are better designs than others for certain tasks - and that no amount of education or scientific intervention can change that. You either have the type of mind and spirit that can rule a nation, or you don't. You cannot purchase some equalizing product to make you into something you are not. After democracy and enlightenment and all that overhyped stuff whose praise somehow resembles that of starlets for their latest Hollywood film? Oh my god, the same problems remain, and they're worse. Good work, guys.

There is a better way, but to break from passivity, we cannot use the methods of passivity. There cannot be a Fuehrer, or a bureaucratic government, to deliver us from it, although we'll need some kind of political system to stop our enemies from crushing us. The change is occurring gradually, but people - the 2% who can do anything complicated in the first place - are realizing that our entire drift toward the global liberal agenda (democracy, consumerism, equality, shopping malls) has been a giant disaster and that we need something more like the ancients, but that to get to that point, we need to return to the heroic spirit. When we understand the spirit of what we desire, it will be easy to see what fits into the picture and what needs to be eliminated. And I mean eliminated - we're overpopulated, so any killing you do today is empowerment for the earth and for all of us who want to survive in some place where we can eat the fish, drink water from the streams, etc. Passivity tells us "thou shalt not kill" and therefore, that any life lost is a problem, but the more lives we have, the more we must pollute and use land and energy, rapidly consuming nonrenewable resources. That no one has violently and visibly noticed this paradox is the final proof needed that rule by the Crowd is at best incompetent; at worst, it's a suicide pact ("let's let the retard lead, and we'll be dead in no time").

You will undoubtedly argue for other paths, at least 98% of you will, probably more. You will believe like Carl Sagan that all we need is science, forgetting how easily science is swayed as it has no founding philosophy; you may argue that more tolerance, democracy, and equality will do what 2,000 years of it so far has failed to do. You might even go completely off the chart and gap about some faith in politics, religion or technology that's unfounded. Go ahead and talk. You're just proving why you're unfit to rule.

You might find my methods unsound, or horrifying, or other adjectives to cover up your inability to apply them and your fear for yourself. Relax - what matters is the health of the whole. If your life is lost, it will be a glorious sacrifice (we must hearken to the wisdom of the Aztecs, who told unwanted people they were "beloved by the gods" and cut their hearts out in a ceremony which unified the population around, among other things, a lack of passivity). If you cannot do what I recommend, it is further proof that you are to be ruled and not to rule. You get my drift?

You might make up a fantasy world where everything works out okay, and suggest that we emulate your unicorns and gremlins. But this isn't very practical, is it? You could demonstrate that your world is structurally similar to ours, and thus convince us that it will fit into reality, but instead you talk in the accountabilityless abstract of "should" and "ought." Fuck you. You're crazy, and this is proof you're unfit to rule.

You might talk about how you're entitled to certain things, or how the poor/Negroes are, but again, you're veering away from reality into fantasyland. We're all in this mess; our society is failing, and we've poisoned the oceans so much we cannot even safely eat fish. Are you fucking nuts, worry about your entitlement? You're selfish and it makes you crazy. A mass grave is your future.

When we get past the insanity - democracy, consumerism, Christianity, Crowdism, Judaism, pluralism, but most of all, passivity - we see that there is a single solution: we must become active, and the philothophical term for that is "heroic." We want to see the spirit of the Odyssey, Illiad, Aenaeid... that of settlers coming to the New World... of stormtroopers slaughtering moronic Soviets by the thousand... of intrepid artists and thinkers like F.W. Nietzsche or Ferdinand Celinne. Only this returns our red-bloodedness, the opposite of sitzpinkel, our bravery and our determination: this is what we need. As said, it is coming, because already the cracks in the wall of our current social order are evident to the first few. As more oceans are poisoned, more air becomes toxic, more food becomes prohibitively expensive, it will be clear to others. The bad guy is our own spiritual weakness. This lets the masses create stupid needs that crafty and dishonest elites fill, and keeps the rest of us too passive to change it until it wrecks our world. People are getting sick of this, however, because the daily frustration, impotence and most of all, futility of suggesting otherwise, is enraging them. They want solutions, not just talking about modifications to the existing order.

I have no doubt that massive social change is coming. However, experience in history shows us that most revolutions end up replacing a destructive social order -- with a virtual identically social order, except owned by the former revolutionaries. Serfs became comrades in Russia, and we executed the educated and upper classes - oh glorious day!, but why are we still starving, illiterate third-worlders? Notice that this condition continues in Russia to this day. Yes, Slavs are not Germans, and therefore are more prone toward submissive orders, since they did after all accept their instructions from Mongols for most of their existence, but Russia was quite a nice place... the Crowd came in and murdered its enemies, and now Russia is a fecal nightmare. But they were promising to deliver us from that! Words are cheap, kid. Revolution without understanding of the complete change that must occur is disaster.

We are renovating our spiritual outlook, and it does not limit us to one issue (environment, race, sex, drugs) but to all issues. We must reinvent our society. We do it first by achieving spiritual coherence, and we do this by making in ourselves the type of order we'd like to see, instead of trying to create in society an order based on what society's interpretation of function "should" be. How do we bring heroism back into our blood? We start by believing in things enough to die for them: our individual lands, our people, our culture, our languages, our philosophies. If you're a Zulu, kill the white man in your lands and leave nothing of him. If you're an Aztec, kick out the invaders and the Negroes. If you're a European, slaughter all non-Europeans and torture their leaders, so they know to never come back. The ultimate penalty is the only convincer. And yes, many of you will die in this, but the result will be that many more live in a sensible social order.

Passivity has us by the balls, and it will never let go, because like a cancer, it is defined not by having an intent but by having no intent except to consume and grow (cancers would not be a health problem if they did not grow). Science and technology won't save us, democracy won't save us, nothing will save us - we must do it for ourselves. Heroism grows out of idealism, or the knowledge that there are things worse than dying, and that to die upholding a concept of a better life is more noble than finding comfort and blowing off the process. Judaism says comfort is greater than ideals, and funny thing, capitalism and democracy and consumerism suggest the same thing. Are you hearing me? Wake up! These are your fucking enemies. Both tradition and super-modernity, or what's coming after post-modernism, are achieved by spiritual awakening from passivity and a heroic assertion through idealism. History is a loop, even if time is linear, and we've come full circle. The next thousand years are ours, if we choose to make our spirits pure so we avoid repeating the errors of past, and if we're ready to both love and kill with the same ferocity. Death to passivity. Death to the Undermen. Hail the future!