On Thoughts Political
1
On Justice
Justice is the great legitimizer: It is what distinguishes a true leader from a tyrant. Any society, no matter how ideal, will have its share of dysfunctional individuals. These people will seek to further their own ends, their own power, at the expense of
others and ultimately at the expense of the nation. If left to their own devices, they will
cause the fall of any nation. Thus, let us examine the topic of justice. Why is justice important? What should be
considered a crime? And what kind of punishment is appropriate? This will be important
in the times to come as governing bodies and law enforcement agencies become less and
less interested in actually defending justice and more interested in defending their own
powers. Why is justice important?
For a society and thus a nation to function, the individuals comprising it must agree
upon a set of rules, which we call laws. Ideally, the goal of these laws should be to
facilitate and protect society by prohibiting activities harmful to it. Going against those
rules would then be harming society; though the legitimacy of certain laws in current
nations is debatable, remember that we are talking about an ideal scenario for the sake of
argument. Now, imagine a criminal, as in someone who works against the greater good, usually for personal gain. Instead of examining why he must be opposed, it is better to
understand what would happen if he is not opposed. So, we have our criminal, doing dastardly deeds. He lies, he steals, he rapes, he
murders. Now, of course, the first consequence of this is that it harms society. He is
harming people and if society does not work to protect its members from harm, then it is
not achieving its goals. However, being left to his own devices, his effect on society is
outright perverse. First of all, many will see that there is no consequence to his actions. And seeing that society apparently does not benefit them, these other individuals will
become disillusioned with the idea of the society itself, therefore causing them to also
begin working for personal gain. Worse, the dysfunctional individual will often abuse
people’s good will to obtain what he needs, discouraging cooperation between these
people, sowing distrust. Eventually, without the enforcement of laws, all the individuals
stop trying to make the society function and simply try to take everything for themselves, causing national collapse. To a wise leader, there are also great benefits to being just.
On Thoughts Political
2
As discussed before, power only lays where men believe it lies. Power can be
obtained through many ways, from faith to blackmail to violence to love to respect. And
in the proper administration of justice, a leader gains a tremendous amount of love and
respect and thus power. A just leader needs not use violence or fear to retain his power. So, we can determine two tenets:
1. Without justice, society collapses. 2. A proper administration of justice empowers the leaders of a nation. So, the question arises: How can justice be properly administered?
To answer this, we must first understand what a crime is. To begin, let us all agree that a crime is harmful. To what, or whom? It matters little. But it has to be harmful to someone or something. There is no such thing as a victim-less
crime and thus any attempt at turning an activity which does no harm into a crime has no
legitimacy. Note however that the harm of the crime needs not be direct: Certain actions
are very harmful to society, yet their impact when accomplished by a single individual
will be almost invisible. Second of all, we have to agree that it causes more harm than good. Any man
pricking children with needles would be accused of child abuse, yet we fully understand
the virtue in the medical act of vaccination. This means that any action must be put in
context before being judged, so as to evaluate whether it was truly a crime. Finally, the perpetrator needs to have a degree of consciousness about his actions. This is why we do not punish children or the mentally ill as harshly. An accident and a
willful action are two different things. So, we can say a crime is an action which causes harm, does not cause more good
than harm and which was done willfully. Once this is understood, how do we enforce
laws, as in, how do we actually have justice?
The answer is simple: Prevention and punishment. Prevention aims at reducing
criminality while punishment seeks to stop its harmful impact. Prevention is a fairly
complex issue which I do not feel qualified to speak about, yet let us say that there are
many factors involved, including good socioeconomic conditions, proper education and a
strong yet just law enforcement. What I find more interesting to discuss is punishment, as
I feel it is nowadays far too often done wrong.
On Thoughts Political
3
As said before, all crimes must be punished. It is essential to protect the well-being of
a society. If the government or law enforcement refuse to punish crimes, then it actually
becomes necessary to engage in the unsavory practice of vigilantism. This is undesirable
for many reasons, including the lack of experience of the general population in dealing
with crime and its punishment. Yet, if justice is not served, then honest citizens are left
with no choice but to take it into their own hands. It is thus vital for law enforcement and
the government to make sure that they enforce law properly. But what should be the aim when punishing? How harshly should people be
punished? How is this determined?
The aim, when punishing, is to make sure the punishment feels like the crime was not
worth committing. It is as simple as that. This is why big crimes should receive worse
punishments. However, let us look at it from a pragmatic standpoint: We have
individuals here, dysfunctional yet still capable. The aim here should be to salvage them. So, while punishing the criminal, at the same time he should be evaluated and those
capable of rehabilitation should be given the chance. This does not mean that their
punishment should be any less harsh, but merely that we should make sure that they do
not turn to crime again once their sentence has been served. Likewise, any individual
evaluated as having no potential for rehabilitation should likely never leave jail, and
maybe even be executed. Though I am personally against the death sentence for reasons
I don’t want to discuss here, my practical mind sees no reason to release someone whose
first goal after their punishment is done will be to cause more harm, and I see no reason
for the nation to have to maintain their continued existence. At best, they should be put to
forced labor. But how do we know how harshly someone should be punished? To know, we simply
go back to the definition of a crime. How harmful were the actions? And was the person
aware of what they were doing? An accidental action which caused little harm should
carry little or no punishment. A planned action which causes great and irreparable harm
should carry the harshest punishment. The degree of harm should always be judged
according to how many individuals were harmed and in what way, while the degree of
responsibility should be judged according to the accused’s degree of consciousness and
intentions. So, we now understand that justice is important as it prevents the collapse of society
and empowers its leaders. We know that a crime is a willful and harmful action which
causes more harm than good. And we now understand that punishment should be tailored
according to the degree of harm done and the criminal’s degree of responsibility and that
we should still aim to salvage criminals through either rehabilitation or forced labor. Now that this is understood, you may finally know why it is such a tragedy that our
On Thoughts Political
4
Now that this is understood, you may finally know why it is such a tragedy that our
law enforcement agencies and governments are losing interest in the actual
administration of justice. And you may finally know what to do once things start
collapsing.
On Thoughts Political
5
On Rights
Rights are not protected by law, but by the citizen’s willingness to use violence
against the authorities when they are not respected. We often talk about rights. In fact, George Carlin had his own routine concerning
rights, where he questioned the legitimacy of rights as an idea and eventually came to the
conclusion that either you have all rights, or you have no rights at all. His explanation
was mostly aimed at being humorous, but I think it is important to examine what rights
are and why we have them, or rather why a government would feel inclined to let us have
them. I propose the following answers:
1. Rights are what the citizens of a nation are entitled to as long as they follow the
conditions following those rights, namely following the law. It is not laws which
dictate what rights citizens have, but their rights which dictate what laws are
possible. 2. The reason a government would rather let its citizens have rights is to avoid
violent conflict. Violence is undesirable because of the inevitable destruction it
brings and so by knowing what the government is not allowed to do unless it
wants to face a violent uprising from its citizens, violence can be averted. They
are essentially a way to have “civil discourse” if you will. Let us examine the first answer I give, namely that rights are what citizens are
entitled to as long as they follow the law, and that laws are designed around rights, not
the other way around. First of all, a citizen who follows the law should expect his rights to be respected. And even if there is an accusation against him, certain rights also protect him in that they
allow him to have a proper defense and the such. Without rights, citizens would
essentially be constantly at the mercy of their government. They would have no official
power to oppose the authority in any way. However, as long as they have rights and they are respected, then the citizens are
capable of defending themselves against potentially abusive authorities. Likewise, this is why it is not laws which should determine what rights you possess, but rather the rights you have which should determine what laws can be created. If laws
can change rights, then the government can decide which rights you have and they are
essentially meaningless. On the other hand, if laws must be designed around
predetermined rights, then the government does not have the power to create laws which
On Thoughts Political
6
predetermined rights, then the government does not have the power to create laws which
violate your rights. Yet all this is meaningless unless the citizenship is willing to enforce its rights. So we reach the most important point I am making here, which is the necessity of the
citizenship‘s willingness to engage in violence if the government denies its rights. You see, one must ask himself what forces the government to respect rights in the
first place. If they ignore them, if they trample them. what ill will befall them? Who will
stop them? The answer here is simple: The citizenship must stop them, and the only
means by which they can achieve it is through violence. Some foolish souls may claim
that merely electing a new government will change things, but voting is in itself a right
and if a government is willing to remove one right, it will not hesitate to remove another. And if one party does not suffer dire consequences for attacking the rights of the
citizenship, then the other parties have no incentive to restore those rights. Thus, paradoxically, it is violence which gives rise to rights. And rights arise and are respected
in order to avoid violence. Governments themselves have an incentive to respect rights. As said, violence is
destructive and it is far more efficient to arrive at a peaceful solution, which involves
respecting the rights of the citizenship. Though it could ignore said rights, this would be
at an undesirable cost. Or rather, it should be, which brings me to my ultimate point. This is why everything is going wrong with the west right now. This is the root cause
of all the issues which we are faced with: Governments are not respecting their citizens’
rights, yet these citizens are unwilling to use violence to defend themselves. Rather, they
sit back and grumble quietly, telling themselves that it’s preferable to lose those rights
than to engage in violence. It is not. It is unacceptable for any man who believes that he has any rights to allow these
abuses to take place. Though it is important to make sure that rights have been violated
before taking action so as to make sure one is righteous, once it is truly determined that a
citizen’s rights are not being respected, it is the duty of all to rise up and oppose their
government. Those who sit down and begrudgingly accept these repeated outrages are no
better than slaves and deserve no better fate than slaves. And so, remember this, and plan accordingly. Once your government thinks they can
take away your rights, it is time to hold on to them as tight as possible with one hand
On Thoughts Political
7
take away your rights, it is time to hold on to them as tight as possible with one hand
while thrusting your spear with the other. Otherwise, you are nothing but a slave and
deserve to be treated as such.
On Thoughts Political
8
On Free Speech
Free speech is considered a basic requirement for freedom, for a modern, civilized
society. I don’t need to explain why free speech is important, yet I will before i move on. Free speech is considered a right because it implies freedom of thought. Furthermore, it empowers ordinary citizens by allowing them to denounce corrupt leaders and it
protects them from abuse. Free speech leads to a better informed, better educated, and
ultimately stronger society. But what limits should be put on free speech? The seemingly obvious answer is none:
How can you say you have free speech if there are things you can’t say?
Yet, anyone with an ounce of sense knows some things can objectively be very
harmful to say. This is why we have slander and libel laws, as an example. You’re not
allowed to spread lies about a person or organization. But then, if you’re not allowed to
lie, what stops the powers that be from simply claiming that you are lying to shut down
your right to free speech?
And that’s not all. In war times, crucial strategic information must be censored for the
interest of the nation. Any information which is known to the public is information
known to the enemy, thus it becomes necessary to restrict free speech. Yet, again, corrupt
powers could abuse this to claim those who oppose them are helping the enemy to shut
them down. We have quite a conundrum here. So, what constitutes acceptable free
speech and what doesn’t?
Ergo, it is my belief that “free speech” should be abandoned as a concept, as it is self- defeating. Instead, it should be replaced by three more specific rights:
The right to criticize
The right to question
The right to hate
These three rights encompass everything which free speech aims to defend without
the inconvenience of ambiguity which mere “free speech” offers. They provide the right
to disagree with others and explain why you do, the right to question what you are told, and the right to dislike someone or something. Meanwhile, libel and slander are still
disallowed while censoring critical strategic information remains moral. The future ahead is difficult, it is important that we question how our rights work, or
more specifically why we have them. In this way, we can better protect what is essential
On Thoughts Political
9
more specifically why we have them. In this way, we can better protect what is essential
and prevent abuse.
On Thoughts Political
10
On Violence
Violence is the pillar on which all societies are built and its repression is tantamount
to societal collapse. For societies to function, there must be a set of agreed upon rules, which we call
laws, to govern all individuals which comprise them. Without those rules to abide by, individuals would likely work against each other and societies would collapse. Even
assuming the good will of the individuals comprising a society, having laws allows us to
determine the point at which a dysfunctional individual must be stopped by force. Of course, laws are simply words. Spoken words or words on paper, but only words. Laws gain power through their enforcement, and enforcement is only possible through
violence or the implied threat of violence. As an example, a man may pay off a speeding
ticket because he thinks it’s the right thing to do, but what stops him from deciding he
doesn’t feel like paying it is the threat of being forcefully taken to jail. And once in jail, what keeps him behaved is the threat of further confinement, which is achieved through
violence. Thus, without violence, laws cannot be enforced. If laws cannot be enforced, the laws
mean nothing. If the laws mean nothing, then nothing stops individuals from acting
against the well-being of that society. And if nothing stops individuals from acting
against the well being of society, then the society will eventually collapse. It will take
longer in societies where individuals are responsible, but it will happen eventually. What
keeps the predatory, the sociopath, from gaining full power over individuals aiming to
make society function, is the threat of violence against them. Thus, the notion that “violence is never the answer” is a laughable one. We teach (or
rather, our governments teach) our children that violence is wrong, that they must never
use it no matter what. The aim of this is to create a society of slaves who will never
protect themselves when abused. It is slave morality and we must emancipate ourselves from it. Yes, violence is
acceptable, in certain conditions. It may not be desirable, but it becomes acceptable –
nay, necessary – if one hopes to have a complex and functional society. Otherwise, what you have is merely a parody of a society, a human organization
which does not work for the good and improvement of humanity, but for the glory of its
sociopath leaders. This, in essence, is the reason behind the west’s continued descent into decadence. If
On Thoughts Political
11
This, in essence, is the reason behind the west’s continued descent into decadence. If
the decent, righteous folks who constitute the majority of mankind refuse to engage in
violence, then dysfunctional individuals won’t hesitate to take what they want by force. Over time, this will allow them to gain positions of power where they will weaken the
laws even further and allow even more dysfunctional persons into positions of power
until we reach a point where the common folk are dominated by a handful of
psychopaths, refusing to defend themselves as they believe violence is wrong while
letting violence be used to dominate them. Once such a point is reached, the less intelligent brutes will begin using violence not
because they want freedom from the dominating castes, but merely because no one is
stopping them. The decent folk refuse to use violence to stop them while those in charge
don’t care. Worse, those in charge now hesitate to use violence to stop the brutes because
it might set a precedent, teach the decent folks that violence is indeed the answer. This is
how we wind up with riots all over the place and eventually, either when someone sees
an opportunity to seize power or the decent folks finally have enough, civil war. Once
the civil war blows over, people with power and the will to enforce laws will create their
new state, with new laws, but none can tell if these laws will be the kind which allow a
civilized society. In conclusion, it is my belief that to prevent a total societal failure of the west, it is
imperative to teach violence to people again. Teach them how to do it, when to do it, why
they should do it. Remember that it is not a prayer which will keep the darkness at bay, but a sword.
On Thoughts Political
12
On Power
Before we begin, I would like to quote a passage from George R. R. Martin’s “A
Song of Ice and Fire” as it is not only relevant to this thread, but also very true: ’in a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between
them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the
great ones bids him slay the other two. “Do it,” says the king, “for I am your lawful
ruler.” “Do it,” says the priest, “for I command you in the names of the gods.” “Do it,”
says the rich man, “and all this gold shall be yours.” So tell me – who lives and who
dies?’
[…] ”Oh, I think not,” Varys said, swirling the wine in his ***. “Power is a curious thing, my lord. Perchance you have considered the riddle I posed you that day in the inn?”
”It has crossed my mind a time or two,” Tyrion admitted. “The king, the priest, the
rich man – who lives and who dies? Who will the swordsman obey? It’s a riddle without
an answer, or rather, too many answers. All depends on the man with the sword.”
”And yet he is no one,” Varys said. “He has neither crown nor gold nor favor of the
gods, only a piece of pointed steel.”
”That piece of steel is the power of life and death.”
”Just so… Yet if it is the swordsmen who rule us in truth, why do we pretend our
kings hold the power? Why should a strong man with a sword ever obey a child king like
Joffrey, or a wine -sodden oaf like his father?”
”Because these child kings and drunken oafs can call other strong men, with other
swords.”
”Then these other swordsmen have the true power. Or do they?” Varys smiled. “Some
say knowledge is power. Some tell us that all power comes from the gods. Others say it
derives from law. Yet that day on the steps of Baelor’s Sept, our godly High Septon and
the lawful Queen Regent and your ever -so -knowledgeable servant were as powerless as
any cobbler or cooper in the crowd. Who truly killed Eddard Stark, do you think?
Joffrey, who gave the command? Ser Ilyn Payne, who swung the sword? Or… another?” Tyrion cocked his head sideways. “Did you mean to answer your damned riddle, or
On Thoughts Political
13
Tyrion cocked his head sideways. “Did you mean to answer your damned riddle, or
only to make my head ache worse?” Varys smiled. “Here, then. Power resides where men believe it resides. No more and
no less.”
”So power is a mummer’s trick?”
”A shadow on the wall,” Varys murmured, “yet shadows can kill And ofttimes a very
small man can cast a very large shadow.” There are actually two lessons to take from this. The first one is obvious, the other is
not.The first one is as plain as said in the text: “Power resides where men believes it
resides.” This is an indubitable truth, something that even a brute can grasp. We see it
perfectly in the real world. However, the implications of such a statement are far grander. It means power is a fickle thing, something which you barely have control over and
could slip from your grasp at any moment. There are ways more effective than others to secure power, yet in the end, the greatest
source of power is ideas. Ideas are what cause men to believe power resides in one thing
or another. Without ideas, it is merely the well armed, the strong who rule and have
power and they rule only until someone else can kill them. The second lesson, however, is the truly interesting one. It’s one which a careless
reader may have interpreted as mere ass kissing written into the text. “And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow.” This is supposed to be interpreted as Varys complimenting Tyrion, a dwarf who is
currently acting as regent lord. However, reading between the lines, one can interpret
Martin’s true meaning, and it is something far more sinister, and the reason why the
world’s governments are so paranoid, so anxious to control everything:
When Varys says “A small man can cast a very large shadow”, what he meant is that
the most powerful men in the world are likely not kings, not rich men, not priests and not
even warriors. They are likely unremarkable men with a remarkable ability to manipulate
the world through ideas and their ability to spread them. Understanding this, one can now understand why the world’s governments are
scrambling to control the internet, to install surveillance, to track people, to control
speech; they know and understand that truth, more than you can imagine. And because
On Thoughts Political
14
speech; they know and understand that truth, more than you can imagine. And because
they understand it, they also understand that they are at the mercy of a nobody
somewhere. Maybe just some bar fly who talks a lot in a popular bar frequented by a lot
of people in New York, whose words get repeated until they affect people everywhere. Maybe some woman writing a blog about her every day life. These “small men” are
indeed “casting a very large shadow”, maybe not even intentionally. Once you understand this, you will understand just how little power many “powerful
men” truly have. And you’ll understand their paranoia, their urge to control information, their urge to control people.
On Thoughts Political
15
On Ambition
Human ambition is what drives the world forward, and so it is crucial to preserve it. But what is ambition in the first place? Let us define it as the drive to obtain more
power through achievement, to create, to improve. Here we must separate ambition from
mere envy: Envy seeks to obtain what others have. Ambition seeks to obtain something
by creating, earning it. That ambition is important is then self-evident: Without it, nothing gets done. At most, what was created before changes hands. However, there has been a noted attack on ambition in the last few decades, not to say
the last century. Anyone who has tried to achieve anything has had to experience it:
People will tell them that what they’re doing is wrong, or to stop them, or worse, to steal
their achievements away from them. These people can be divided in two categories: The
envious and the greedy. By examining these two characters, we will understand what has
been holding back the ambitious and thus, the progress of mankind. The envious are by far the more numerous, yet the less dangerous of the lot. To them, what the ambitious achieve is not grand, it is a personal insult to them. The fact that they
have not achieved as much makes them feel inferior, and so they shower scorn upon the
ambitious. The same accusations will repeat themselves endlessly: Arrogance, selfishness, misanthropy, greed, etc. They see the work of the ambitious not as progress, but as self-engrossment. However, the envious are usually impotent. They’ll cry to the four winds that the
ambitious are to be hated, yet the only ones who will listen are those who already agree
with them, for the same reasons. In the end, the work of the ambitious will be done, will
be needed or desired, and the envious will have no other option than to watch. The only
power the envious have is the one given to them rather than the one they have worked
for, yet there are plenty willing to give them this power. They are the greedy. The greedy are a much greater menace. They are those who already possess much, and see the ambitious as a threat to what they own. And yes, the ambitious can also be
the greedy. So, what makes someone not merely ambitious, but greedy?
In this case, it is the belief that others do not have the right to ambition. Two
ambitious men may compete, but only the greedy will consider competition to be wrong. When faced with competition, the ambitious will work harder, try and achieve more, etc. The greedy, instead, will try to forbid them from even trying. They will try to have laws
passed to stop them from achieving anything. They will conspire together to shut down
the ambitious. They will recruit the envious to their cause, try to have them interfere with
On Thoughts Political
16
the ambitious. They will recruit the envious to their cause, try to have them interfere with
the work of the ambitious in the name of morality or some other such tripe. Their aim is
not to create something better than the ambitious. Rather, it is to prevent the ambitious
from creating something. The greedy are those who would damn us all in the name of their ego. Yet how do we fight this? As time passes, and the ambitious are shot down again and
again by the greedy, less and less is achieved. Civilization reaches a slump, where
progress is stalled in the name of keeping the greedy at the top. The solution is twofold: First of all, we must reduce the number of the envious as
much as possible. As the ambitious are shut down again and again by the greedy, more
and more people begin believing that hard work and ambition are pointless and thus
wrong, and so join the ranks of the envious. By showing them the truth, by showing
them the importance of ambition to society, and how it is being crushed not by its own
failure but by the overwhelming masses of the greedy and the envious, we can salvage
them. As the ranks of the envious are reduced, the greedy will have less and less support
and eventually, their power will wane. The second part of the solution is less tasteful. The greedy will not be deterred and
will hang on tooth and nail to their positions, doing everything in their power to interfere. Those who do must be dealt with swiftly and violently. They must be seen not merely as
inconveniences, but as enemies of humanity, men willing to debase her so as to remain
unopposed. Once this is accomplished, society must figure out a way to never let the greedy gain
this much power again. This will be achieved through education, no more, no less. Children must be taught that the advancement of mankind is the greatest virtue of all, and
that is can only be achieved through creation and improvement, not through restriction, theft and destruction. If this can be achieved, then mankind will emerge from this age of
stagnation and find a tomorrow brighter than it could have ever imagined.
On Thoughts Political
17
On Morality
While being subjective, the existence of morality is undeniable and general rules can
still be applied as to how it functions. For the sake of argument, let us assume that there is no supreme divine authority. The
most common amoral argument is often atheistic, claiming that without the judgment of a
supreme being, morality does not exist. Better yet, some would like to claim that at most, morality is a human invention and therefore is nothing but a figment of the imagination, a
limit on the human spirit meant to degrade us. Yet if there is no deity, who else but man rules this universe? As far as we know, we
are the sole thinking beings in the universe. We thus become its masters, all while being
at its mercy. We are the thinking part of reality and therefore what we believe is not
merely relevant, but of capital importance, objectivity be damned. Hence, we can
conclude that morality does not require the existence of a supreme being to be valid; it
would exist and be relevant regardless. At this point however, we could still ask ourselves a few questions: Is there a use for
morality? Is morality beneficial or harmful to an individual and its society? Are there
certain universal tenets?
Two of these questions are intrinsically related, namely whether morality is useful
and whether it’s beneficial or not. Let us not talk of “conventional” morality. Such a concept is merely pompous drivel
from men who believe their morality to be the right one and thus “conventional”. In
truth, morality is far more subjective than we often realize, especially on more complex
issues. Still, one can easily tell whether morality is good or not, as oxymoronic as such a
question may seem. Morality can easily be defined as an individual’s willingness to harm
himself, to limit himself, for the sake of society, whether consciously or not. The
individual must limit his access to certain resources even if they would be beneficial to
him, he must deny himself certain things he desires. We can thus determine that functionally, morality is harmful to the individual yet
beneficial to society. However, in the long run, a proper morality is beneficial to the
functional individual too; it protects him from the predation of others. Morality is thus a
function of a man’s consciousness of not only his being a member of a society, but of his
capacity for abstract thought. Yet what makes a proper morality? This is where things get interesting.
On Thoughts Political
18
As morality apparently seeks the maintenance of society, a man of simple thought
might believe it is possible to have a form of objective morality: After all, there must be a
set of norms which determine whether a society will function or not. Though the thought is elegant, it unfortunately does not resist contact with reality. Such an objective morality would require the ability to predict the outcome of any action
taken at any time, something we do not possess. This comes back to what I explained
earlier, that morality depends on the capacity for abstract thought: Without it, one is not
capable of examining the possible outcomes of certain actions, especially on a large time
scale, and is thus unable to determine whether an action is moral or not. Though morality is subjective, we can still determine a constant: Survival. The
ultimate goal of morality is to increase the chances of survival of the human species, of
different human races, of different human societies and of individuals. Strangely, once
considered from this angle, all morality is simplified. We consider murder wrong, yet we
know killing another human being is sometimes not only justified, yet necessary. We
consider theft wrong, yet we know a man is sometimes justified in stealing. So you could say that the ultimate moralist is the man with the greatest capacity to
evaluate the long term impacts of actions on the greatest number of people. We could then claim that the source of all evil is merely shortsightedness. A man will
commit an act we consider evil because he does not consider its impact on a larger scale. Yet people who are capable of thinking far ahead in time on a whim are actually not that
common. In fact, humans are limited in their ability to consider the consequences of their
actions on other human beings. If you are interested in this, I recommend reading on
Dunbar’s number. This is where religion becomes important. Religion is morality simplified for the
masses. As societies grow and interactions become more complex, the common
individual becomes less and less able to predict the outcome of his action and thus their
morality. Religion aims to provide a common set of morals to the masses which they
obey unquestioningly. When a more complex issue arises, judgment of its morality is left
to elites who have a greater capacity for abstract thought. Yet in the end, religion is
sufficient for the every day life of the masses. Many variables must be considered to determine the morality of an action and in fact, the simpler minded will believe that even considering them will be immoral. Religion
will often teach the equality of all men, yet a moralist must recognize that some
individuals are more important than others. Yet in the end, morality is not an attack on
abstract thought, as some would like others to believe; it is its ultimate form. It is its end
On Thoughts Political
19
abstract thought, as some would like others to believe; it is its ultimate form. It is its end
result. Morality is the final refinement of human thought.
On Thoughts Political
20
On Self-Suf iciency
Self-sufficiency is the key to a nation’s prosperity. Any nation which cannot produce its own food and other resources required for basic
needs is essentially nothing but a vassal state, entirely dependent on the whims of the
nation providing it with goods. To understand this, I will explain what many consider a
basic concept of economy, yet which bears repeating for this discussion. The economy is
divided between three sectors:
1. Primary, which is production. This sector includes farms, mines, the lumber
industry, oil wells, etc. Basically, any activity which extracts resources and makes
them available. 2. Secondary, which is transformation. This sector concerns itself with taking the
resources and creating things with them. This is manufacturing, construction, food
processing, etc. It is entirely dependent on the primary sector to function. 3. Tertiary, which is service. This sector concerns pretty much everything else, from
selling to transport to healthcare to entertainment. Though not entirely, it is still
extremely dependent on both the primary and secondary sectors. The tertiary
sector is different from the two previous ones in that it does not actually produce
any wealth. At best, it transfers wealth from one entity to the other. Now that we’ve established this, we can explore how self-sufficiency is crucial to any
nation. To better understand, let us explore four different societies. The first one only has the tertiary sector. These nations actually exist, they rely
entirely on tourism for subsistence. As they do not produce anything themselves, they
must buy the things they need from other nations; however, they cannot do so without
anything to provide in exchange, and so they rely on tourists from other nations coming
to visit them and selling services to them. This allows them to obtain money, which they
then exchange for the goods they need. The citizens of these nations are entirely at the
mercy of the rest of the world however: Other nations may decide to raise their prices to
take advantage of them, or tourism may stop, or a catastrophe in might mean that other
nations aren’t even willing to sell to them. A nation whose economy revolves around the
tertiary sector is thus at the mercy of the international economy. The second one has both the secondary and tertiary sector. Many nations nowadays
On Thoughts Political
21
The second one has both the secondary and tertiary sector. Many nations nowadays
have taken this model, having stopped producing their own resources and instead
importing them to transform them. Such an economy is less vulnerable as it is capable of
producing its own goods, yet it still depends on other nations to provide it with the
resources it needs. The third one has both the primary and tertiary sector. It produces its own resources, sells them to client nations who transform them, then buys them back. Though it has
some leeway against other nations (if the other nations try and swindle them through
rising the prices of processed goods, as an example, it can just stop providing them with
the resources they need in return), it is still dependent on other nations. Only the fourth one is self-sufficient: The nation with a primary, a secondary and a
tertiary sector. Such an economy does not fear embargoes, sanctions, taxes or
catastrophes in other parts of the world as it does not depend on other nations to produce
its resources and process them. Thus, any such nation cannot be bullied by others in any
way except military. We can then rightfully claim that the prosperity of a nation depends on its self- sufficiency. As seen, any nation not capable of producing its own resources and
transforming them is dependent on the international economy in one way or another and
thus at its mercy. However, in the last decades, we’ve seen the opposite; with
urbanization, wealthy nations have abandoned either the primary or secondary sector, constantly placing more and more emphasis on the tertiary. The secondary sector has
been almost entirely moved to less prosperous nations. Though the effect is avoidable for
a while, it was inevitable: As the supposedly wealthy nations produced less and less
wealth, they fell deeper and deeper into debt. Solutions have been proposed, yet what
must be done remains obvious. Any nation which wishes to reverse this trend of
increasingly greater dependence on the global economy must achieve these:
1. Restart the primary resource sector, food production in particular. Feeding your
people is the most important objective one must meet, and as long as your nation
is capable of feeding itself, you’re not going to feel most methods of economic
warfare. Even if you cannot produce all the resources you need, everyone needs
food and you can always trade food for fuel and materials. 2. Focus the secondary sector on processing local resources. This means your
manufacturing sector is not dependent on the whims of the international economy. Only once you can process your resources yourself should you consider opening
industries which process foreign resources. 3. Acquire “vassal states”. If a nation can become self-sufficient, it should then seek
nations which cannot be and submit them. This is simple: Offer them what they
On Thoughts Political
22
3. nations which cannot be and submit them. This is simple: Offer them what they
need in exchange for their loyalty. One should focus on nations which can
produce resources which are unavailable at home, thereby securing them. If the
vassal state refuses to cooperate in the future, you can simply cut the flow of the
resources they need and starve them. So remember: Any man who speaks of replacing agriculture with industry and
industry with tourism is not a friend to your nation.
On Thoughts Political
23
On Education
Education is the cornerstone of any successful political upheaval. If a movement wishes for its ideas to actually change how society functions, it cannot
merely limit itself to spreading its ideas amongst the adult population. Though it is how it
will obtain power, it is not how its influence will last. Instead, it must instill its ideas in
children. As children are more easily influenced, it is easier to not only open them to
ideas, but close them to others. A proper education will allow a political movement to turn today’s children into
tomorrow’s adult followers. The morality of this might seem debatable: After all, isn’t it wrong to “indoctrinate”
children? Yet this is merely falling victim to a language prejudice: Every education a
child receives is indoctrination. Rather, the question one should ask is “What kind of
education should children receive?” or “What kind of values is it acceptable to
indoctrinate?” The answer is, as usual, fairly simple: If it favors the continued existence of the
nation and its advancement, then it is right. Otherwise, it isn’t. Issues arise when
individuals disagree over how to better promote national prosperity and progress, which
granted can be fairly difficult to discern. However, though certain things may be debatable, others aren’t. Promoting natality, fighting corruption, instilling civic responsibility are all undoubtedly good things to
indoctrinate into children. The opposite is of course wrong. Therefore, one can easily
claim that we can merely limit ourselves to teaching children about topics which aren’t
debatable. Once they grow into adults, they can make up their own mind on the more
debatable topics. Now that this has been explained, I can get to my point, which is how one should
watch what is being taught to their children. Corrupt political movements will not merely
try to indoctrinate children about clear cut concepts, but also about debatable ones. This
is how we get fundamentalists teaching children that abortion and homosexuality are
wrong or liberals teaching them the opposite. If one allows that either of the groups is
allowed to do such a thing, then one allows that the ruling government can teach children
that the leaders are not to be questioned or other even less savory doctrines. So, in conclusion, a proper education should prepare children for national
responsibility by teaching them about concepts which are beyond a shadow of a doubt
On Thoughts Political
24
responsibility by teaching them about concepts which are beyond a shadow of a doubt
good for the nation. Meanwhile, it is the responsibility of adults to keep an eye open for “questionable” organizations trying to indoctrinate debatable ideas into children. If this is not done, it will be the end of critical thought.
On Thoughts Political
25
On Echo Chambers
The last two decades have seen an astounding rise in extremism everywhere in the
world, including in supposedly first world nations. Not coincidentally, these decades
match with the rise of the world wide web. This is because the internet has allowed the
proliferation of a phenomenon which has become known as “echo chambers”. Echo chambers are a threat to the advancement of mankind through the intellectual
isolation they promote. They prevent the exchange of ideas and ultimately allow tyrants
to control the masses through careful cloaking of thought currents. They breed
intolerance and ignorance. They are the death of the human spirit. But what is an echo chamber? To understand what it is. one must examine how they
are formed. In real life, individuals must interact with one another in order for society to function. These individuals will sometimes get along, sometimes not. However, even when they
get along, there are always slight differences, slight disagreements. This is easily
overcome with a bit of tolerance; one can easily accept that other people will think
differently, have different opinions, have different values, even if only slightly. So, despite their differences, individuals will learn to not only work together, but become
friends. On the internet things are different. You are separated from those you interact with. You can choose who you talk to and if someone bothers you, you can ignore them with
the click of a button. Unlike real life, you’re not stuck with the people around you. There
are billions of people on the internet and you can pick who you want to talk to. As people
are no longer forced to deal with other people’s differences, they simply don’t. As they
don’t deal with different people, they do not grow a tolerance to dealing with different
people. And as internet communities are built, this means people who do not agree with
the community’s “mainstream opinion” are immediately considered undesirable and
removed by community managers. Ultimately, this means the people in these
communities only interact with people who think exactly like them. And as this happens, their fallacious beliefs and aberrant behaviors do not get challenged and so they become
more and more extreme. This is where the term echo chamber comes from. Members of these communities do
not go there to have an actual social interaction; they go there to have their beliefs
repeated to them and validated. It’s a form of self-gratification, and one which is
dangerous to human civilization.
On Thoughts Political
26
For you see, the effect of these echo chambers is not limited to the internet. As more
and more of people’s social interactions take place on the internet, the effect becomes
more pronounced. A man who does not tolerate dissent on the internet is unlikely to
tolerate it in real life too. Though more inclined to keep their minds to themselves in real
life because of the fear of retaliation (or worse, a challenge to their ideas), their opinions
of the people surrounding them still suffers. Someone who used to be that friendly
coworker who has an annoying habit of squeaking his chair is suddenly that unbearable
asshole you can’t wait to get away from when your shift ends. The nice girl who votes
republican is suddenly a brainwashed neo-con. The coworker who takes breaks to get a
smoke twice a day is suddenly your worst enemy. And as this intolerance builds, so does extremism. Those with a different opinion are
no longer merely different, they’re enemies. And those who even dare to suggest that you
might be wrong must be removed. In turn, this leads to a great reduction of the spread of ideas. As people are no longer
capable of dealing with differing mindsets, trying to instill ideas in them becomes more
and more difficult. This is a terrible thing in any friend of humanity, as it means a
regression, a loss. It means the impossibility of teaching others about different ideas as
they refuse to even consider them. Yet to tyrants, this is a dream come true. In fact, for most of history and in most of the
world, including the 20th and 21st century western nations, those who would seek to
dominate have used this to keep control over their population. By misinforming them, by
keeping important ideas out of their reach, by limiting their ability to connect with
others, they created echo chambers. Certainly not as exclusive and extremist as those we
see on the internet, yet still very influential. Influential enough that those who differed
from the norm would be exiled, imprisoned or executed. Logically, the internet, through its ability to connect people, should have removed
this weapon from the arsenal of the mighty. Yet, as explained, and against all odds, it has
actually made it even more efficient, even better. But how do we fight this? How do we stop this nonsense? How do we disarm this
weapon? The answer itself is discouraging: It is almost impossible to do. People are
naturally inclined to seek echo chambers, to seek people who validate them. In fact, those who seek conflict, even simple in the form of discussion, of opinions, are seen as
mentally unstable. Yet there are ways to mitigate it. First and foremost, free speech. Any attack on legitimate free speech must be seen as
an attempt to build or strengthen an echo chamber. Whether through hate speech laws, the banning of books, movies and websites or through simple terrorism, those who attack
On Thoughts Political
27
the banning of books, movies and websites or through simple terrorism, those who attack
free speech seek to silence opposing voices and prevent the flow of ideas. These people
must be fought tooth and nail. Secondly, education. We must teach our children to hear others’ ideas. We must teach
them about fallacies. We must teach them rational thought. We must teach them about
tolerating differences (not necessarily accepting them, merely tolerating). We must equip
them with the necessary tools to break away from the echo chambers forming around
them. This will not necessarily be feasible however as not all people are capable of
learning these and using them properly. However, by teaching the greatest number of
people possible about these, we can limit the damage done. Third, simply speaking out. Speak your opinions. Spread them. Do not hide them. Force people to hear them. The more people do this, the more opinions people will be
exposed to and the less effective echo chambers become. Though this may be dangerous, the internet allows you to do this fairly anonymously if you want to.
On Thoughts Political
28
On Statistics
Sanity is not statistical. George Orwell wrote those words in 1984. Back then, the meaning of this phrase was
that it does not matter how many people believe in the truth; the truth remains the truth, regardless. However, Orwell had something to say about statistics in that same book:
But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not
even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most
of the material that you were dealing with had no connection with anything in the real
world, not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just
as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the
time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of
Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at one-hundred-andforty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fiftyseven millions, so as to
allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two
millions was no nearer the truth than fiftyseven millions, or than one-hundred-and-fortyfive millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew
how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter
astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the
population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally. even the
date of the year had become uncertain. His point here, simply put, was that one should be wary of statistics. And he was
right. Statistics released by any governing body, and especially those released by interest
groups, should be viewed with a strong dose of suspicion. Statistics are how reality is manipulated. Statistics are how governments and interest
groups build narratives. Statistics are how they can make you say that black is white. Statistics are the embodiment of lies wearing a fresh suit of legitimacy. This may seem preposterous to some, but a mere questioning quickly shows the truth
of it. How do you know statistics are truthful? Because a specific person or organization
said them? Why does that make them true? Are you of those who think "You think
people would just do
that? Tell liens?. Well let me tell you, they do. People who want power over you have
a vested interest in lying to you, in concealing the truth, in keeping you misinformed. The less you know, the better. Or rather, the more what you know is in line with what
On Thoughts Political
29
The less you know, the better. Or rather, the more what you know is in line with what
they want you to know, the better. Of course, this does not mean all statistics are lies. In fact, it's why so many statistics
exist; they bury the relevant statistics in a mountain of useless ones, and the relevant ones
are the falsified ones. That way, they can keep an air of reliability while lying when it
matters to them. Or better yet, they won't be lying, merely misleading. This is why, as an
example, inflation rates seem to remain fairly equal to wages in the western world while
the price of everything from housing to food has skyrocketed in the last fifteen years. If
someone points out this fallacy, the ones peddling this bullshit will claim that's because
the price of certain goods isn't taken into account because "they vary too much". All important statistics are either likewise falsified in such a way by playing with
semantics or presentation, or they're outright fabricated. Does this mean statistics are pointless? Of course not! A governing body has great
use for them, both to understand what decisions need to be taken and whether they're
efficient or not. Crime rate statistics are useful to know whether you need better equipped
police forces and
where. Birthrates are important so you know how many schools you need, how much
time your population must spend parenting, to know if measures need to be taken to
encourage procreation. Even a very limited and libertarian government must need
statistics to know whether its army is efficient or if there's a health issue in their nation. Likewise, how acceptable is it to falsify statistics? I've spoken of propaganda before, how it is needed to simplify an issue down to a palatable level for the populace which
has concerns other than grander political schemes. However, one of my points then is
that propaganda must not lie. It may simplify a lot, it may dodge more profound aspects
of a debate, but in the end it must tell the truth, otherwise it risks being unveiled as a lie, causing a loss of trust from the population and a great loss of effectiveness for future
propaganda campaigns. So, statistics released by a responsible government should
neither be misleading or false. And so remember: Question, question, question. For if half the population of your
nation goes barefoot, you should definitely question your ability to produce shoes.
On Thoughts Political
30
On the Media
The media are the people’s eyes and ears. Hence, whoever controls the media
controls what the people see and hear and therefore what they know. There’s an unhealthy attitude in modem society, which is one of blind trust in news
media. The source of this trust is multiple; from mere naivete to indifference, from news
media which were historically reliable to confirmation bias. From the moment where
they can speak and understand the world around them, citizens of the western world are
trained to believe that what the news tell them about the world is true. Worse, they are
trained to believe that doubting what is said on the news is tantamount to insanity. But why? What guarantee do we have that what is said on the news and written in the
papers is truthful? Who controls the quality of the content? And who controls them? In
the end, we hand the mantle of guide to a pleiad of individuals who are no more
trustworthy than the common man. In fact, you should consider them even less
trustworthy, for, as said, whoever controls the media controls what the people know and
therefore, people with vested interest in controlling the masses will definitely do all in
their power to take control of the media. And as you can guess, these people cannot be
trusted. But how do they even create a semblance of legitimacy? If they were always
reporting on doubtful matter, people would catch on, right?
Of course they would, and that is why a large portion of what you see on the news is
actually the truth. What you have to understand is that they tell you the truth about things
which are irrelevant in the grander scheme of things. They’ll report on car accidents, on
meaningless crimes, on sports, on celebrities, on the weather. Reporting the truth on
these topics helps give an air of legitimacy to news organizations and so people are less
inclined to question them when these bullshit peddlers do have an incentive to lie, as in
anytime political matters are involved. And this is the issue when it comes to the masses: For some reason, it has become
common belief that if a man tells the truth about one thing, he will not be lying about
another. As if people either say the truth or lie all the time. The fallacy in this previous
statement is obvious to all, yet it is still subconsciously held by the majority of people. Thus, the key from freeing the masses from the control of the corrupt media of our times
is to remind them of this fallacy. Force them to question the news whenever it is
questionable. Show evidence of when the news lied. Evidence of governmental
interference with news reporting. And do it impartially: Remember that the fact of the
media’s unreliability remains the same regardless of who controls it. Making people
On Thoughts Political
31
media’s unreliability remains the same regardless of who controls it. Making people
question the reliability of the mainstream media simply to redirect them to just as
questionable alternatives will not help our cause. Finally, one very important action people must begin taking to understand what is
wrong
with the media is to know who controls it. The ownership of all major media
corporations is public knowledge and thus available to all. By finding who owns which
corporations and determining what links them together, it becomes possible to
understand which group controls the media, and thus who is not trustworthy. It will allow
you to know who is your enemy. To understand who wants to control what you see and
hear. Who wants to control what you know. Who wants to control you. Does this mean all news media should be abolished? After all, they are apparently
nothing more than a tool to manipulate the masses. The truth is that either different news
media organizations should be independent of each other and of their nation’s power
structures altogether, or they should all be under the control of the government. Which
one is preferable depends on the government form. In a democratic society, independent
news organizations are preferable so as to allow the public to form their own opinion. In
more autocratic governments, nationalized new media are preferable so as to keep the
masses unified, though as explained before, a wise leader would do well to keep his
populace well informed so as to keep his nation powerful. In the end, remember these facts: The media can be used to control your view of the
world and therefore control you. It is necessary to determine who controls the media in
order to fight back. And news media needs to be telling the truth to the people in order to
keep them informed, and thus to keep the nation informed.
On Thoughts Political
32
On Propaganda
Propaganda is not merely a useful tool, but a necessity in a functional nation. Propaganda has become a dark word associated with repression, disinformation and
totalitarianism. In fact, our governments will use this as a tool: Enemy propaganda is
presented as it is, propaganda. Neutral information is also called propaganda. However, the government’s propaganda will be given more pleasant names, such as “journalism” or “public service announcements”. In the end, they are all the same thing: Propaganda. Yet, the idea that propaganda is necessarily a bad thing is wrong. As explained before, the leading of a nation is beyond the grasp of the common man, and not always through intellectual limitations but sometimes merely through motivation. An individual only has so much time in his day and depending on his situation, political
activity may not be possible. The common man should not be expected to keep himself
well informed on all political events; that is the duty of the politician. However, for a nation to function, the aims of its citizens must be in line with those
of the leadership, and this can only be achieved if the citizens have some knowledge of
political issues. This is where propaganda comes in. Good propaganda does not need to lie. In fact, it must be telling the truth: If the
propaganda lies, the citizenship will find out sooner or later and their trust in their
government will be severely undermined, which in turn will make all future propaganda
ineffective. No, the aim of propaganda should not be to disinform the citizenship but to
inform it. It is meant to break down complex political issues into an easy to understand
and memorize format fit for the proletariat. Not the intelligentsia, but the proletariat. The
more intelligent members of a society will be able to understand the basics of a political
issue without the aid of propaganda and so it should not be targeted to them. Hence, propaganda should aim at being simple. Simple in that it should be easy to
remember. Simple in that it should not be morally ambiguous. Simple in that it should be
easy to convey it quickly to as many people as possible. Once that is achieved, it must be
repeated as often as possible to make sure it enters the public consciousness. Furthermore, a government should have as few propaganda campaigns at once as
possible. The more messages being sent to the populace, the less likely they are to
remember any of it. In the end, if propaganda is done well, not only will it allow better management of the
nation as the citizenship will be better informed of the leadership’s intentions, but it will
On Thoughts Political
33
nation as the citizenship will be better informed of the leadership’s intentions, but it will
also increase general contentment as people will now understand the measures taken by
their government. If it is not done well, it will sow distrust and greatly hinder the nation’s
potential. What is important to remember however is that the idea that propaganda is wrong is, itself, wrong. If our aim is to better our society and to build better nations, then we must
learn to use propaganda properly. It is the only way to gain the people’s approval and
thus their collaboration. And only once that is achieved can change finally happen.
On Thoughts Political
34
On Equal Opportunity
What today’s moral guardians call “equal opportunity” is a disgusting corruption of
the concept and this needs to be fixed. The meaning of “equal opportunity” is in the name of the concept itself: All
individuals should be judged equally based on their abilities rather than on their race, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation or any other irrelevant factor. The aim of
this is twofold:
1. Justice by allowing everyone an equal chance. 2. Efficiency by making sure we don’t ignore talented individuals based on arbitrary
factors. However, good intentioned morons have twisted this concept into an abomination
which can best be described as “equal representation”. You see, the concept of “equal opportunity” was originally intended as a method of
fighting discrimination of all kinds. Of course, a wise man would point out that this is
putting the cart before the bull: Ending discrimination should lead to equal opportunity, not the other way around. This has little relevance to the point I’m about to make, yet I
felt the need to comment on it. As the concept of equal opportunity was put in place, advocates for social justice
observed a trend which alarmed them greatly: Despite their best efforts, many jobs were
still mostly occupied by men and whites were overrepresented in many professions, especially high ranking ones. The explanation for this was rather obvious: Certain jobs
require great physical strength and average women, whether we like it or not, do not
possess the raw physical strength of average men. This is not a social construct, it is not
discrimination, it is not a patriarchal invention, it is a biological fact. As for racial representation, whether we subscribe to racial theory or not, one cannot
deny that people of different cultures will have different affinities for certain jobs. People
raised in a low income ghetto are naturally less inclined to higher studies than people
raised in a cushy, high income home. In fact, culture even has an impact on gender
representation: A culture which raises its daughters as housekeepers and its sons as
providers will naturally see a difference in gender representation across professions. Yet, the liberals were blind to this. To them, the difference in representation was not
due to these factors but rather to a failure to apply equal representation resulting from
On Thoughts Political
35
due to these factors but rather to a failure to apply equal representation resulting from
residual discrimination. Their response to this was a perversion. This is how we wound up with quotas, with affirmative action, with progressive
stacks. The aim of these methods was to combat the supposed residual discrimination
existing within societies. Better yet, we can observe cognitive dissonance as the same
people who invented these also admit the truth of my previous statements, namely that
biology and culture will naturally affect the representation of different groups in certain
domains. From this we observed the rise of the concept of “innate privilege”, which was
a proper way of saying whites and males should be discriminated against because they
have higher odds of coming from a background which promotes intellectual pursuits. And so we’re back where we started, with individuals being discriminated against
based on arbitrary factors. This time, however, the moral guardians are satisfied because
they see a fairly equal representation in certain well paying careers, failing to realize that
this goes entirely against the original point of equal opportunity: Equal chances for all
and efficiency in selecting able individuals. But how do we fight this? With nothing more than the truth. We point out how whites
and males from “underprivileged” backgrounds are getting discriminated against as much
as those from supposedly “privileged” backgrounds. We explain why lowering the
standards for access to a profession in order to meet quotas is a dangerous practice. We
point out the real reasons behind the differences in representation. We denounce the
patronizing belief that women and minorities need an advantage to succeed. We
demonize the idea that some people should be selected against by mere virtue of their
birth. At the same time, we try and propose solutions to the problem of representation. Greater promotion of intellectual pursuits in low income communities, financial support
for talented individuals from low income backgrounds regardless of race or gender, learning to educate our daughters to practice rational rather than emotional thinking. All
of these would go a long way towards fixing representation without affecting equal
opportunity. We will meet opposition when trying to achieve this, but fret not; we are the majority. They are the minority. The people who think like us are overwhelmingly numerous
compared to those who brandish the scarecrow of discrimination when we question their
methods. It is time to speak, to stop pretending that we are a few individuals who still see
the truth and realize that we are part of a silent majority. Once this is done, they will bend
and our society will be free from their idiocy.
On Thoughts Political
36
On Multiculturalism
The world should be multicultural, nations should not. Different cultures and different languages will think differently, which in turn cause a
wealth of ideas to spring forth from humanity. It is thus critical to preserve cultures
across the world in order to preserve thought. However, within one nation, multiculturalism leads to a schism of thought instead. In
order for a nation to function, its laws must be in-line with the values of its citizens. If
the said values are too disparate, then the laws become ineffective and the nation can no
longer function properly. A multicultural world is a rich world. A multicultural nation is a dysfunctional nation. Thus we reach a conundrum: Is the unification of mankind impossible? Such a
unification would require universal laws, a central management which treats all equally
and can somehow represent the values of all. But, as said, this is not possible in a
multicultural society; therefore, the unification of mankind would have to pass through
the institution of a single, monolithic culture for the entirety of humanity. However, as discussed, the existence of multiple cultures is all that allows the
existence of several different currents of thought. The establishment of a universal
culture and language would then be a step backwards in thought, limiting mankind’s
potential. Some solutions might exist, yet there is a better question to be asked: Why should
humanity be unified? The answer here is that people believe that it is only through
unification that we may achieve peace and end suffering, thus collaborate in the bringing
about of a new golden age. Though peace and ending suffering may be charming ideals, these people fail to
understand that it is never in times of peace that humanity has thrived, but in times of
strife and horror. It is not collaboration and peace which heightens the human spirit, but
competition and suffering. One could then argue that the unification of humanity is
contrary to the ultimate goal of those good thinkers, namely its elevation. The idea of ending war however is not without its merits. We have reached a point in
human history – nay, we reached it decades ago – where humanity is capable of
destroying itself in minutes before it even has a chance to consider the consequences of
its actions. Thus, it might be well advised to have a form of collaboration between the
On Thoughts Political
37
its actions. Thus, it might be well advised to have a form of collaboration between the
nations of the world, even enemy nations, to establish “tenets” of a sort which would aim
to prevent the extinction of humanity. These tenets will likely be utterly amoral, and so
they should be: Their aim is not morality, but the maintenance of humanity.
On Thoughts Political
38
On Emasculation
The wiser among you already know I’m not speaking of literal emasculation, but
figurative. There has been a movement in the last few decades to emasculate society, or more
precisely, the middle and lower class. I am not merely talking about men, but about
suppressing attributes which are classically considered masculine: Belligerence, leadership, decisiveness, rationality and action. Instead, their feminine counterparts have
been promoted: Amicability, obedience, compromising, emotionality and passiveness. Even anger has been suppressed, as if it is an unnatural emotion and that feeling it makes
you inferior. As if feeling anger towards tyrants, crooks, liars and criminals is
inappropriate. (Note: I can’t help but notice the same shift in attitude in the occult and
alternative spirituality community, mentioned in much less eloquent terms in my
experience with an entity I banished.)
The truth of this statement is self-evident, yet some would likely demand proof of
such a state of affairs, as if one would need to analyze thousands of pictures of the sky to
determine that it is indeed blue. Yet one does not have to look far to find evidence, especially within western schools where “masculine” traits are almost always considered
undesirable and even punished, unless a child is in an expensive private school. Even
rationality is only rewarded as far as it allows people to make society function. And I
need not mention the ridiculous concept of “toxic masculinity”, which would have merit
if it hadn’t been stretched to the point of encompassing all masculinity. But when did this all begin? And why is it happening?
Quite simply, it all began with feminism. It was not the aim of feminism, yet its cause
was hijacked by people with interest in doing so. Of course, the goal of feminism in the very beginning was not the emasculation of
society. Its objective was the empowerment of women, namely promoting the idea that
women had a right to vote in a democratic society, that they should have equal rights, that they should be allowed to occupy the same jobs as men, etc. If you know my opinion
on democracy, rights and equal opportunity, you’ll understand why I actually see nothing
wrong with the original cause of feminism. In a true democracy, there is no justification
for depriving half the adult population of the right to vote. Saying otherwise is denying
the very reason democracy exists, which is that in a republican government, limiting the
numbers of those who can choose their leaders increases the risk of corruption
immensely.
On Thoughts Political
39
What is important however is not what feminism wanted to achieve or whether it was
right or not. What matters is the impact it had on society, namely women entering the
work force in large numbers and getting into positions of authority. Now, whether “feminine” and “masculine” traits are inborn or learned is irrelevant, and any attempt to
take the discussion in that direction is merely an attempt to derail it. What matters is that
men exhibit the masculine traits and women exhibit the feminine traits. And now we’re
getting to the “why”. You see, as women entered the workforce, employers (read the upper classes) quickly
noticed the difference between the male and the female employee. In case you don’t
understand, review the masculine and feminine traits I listed earlier. What I mean is that
female employees are more obedient, are less likely to argue with their superiors, are
more likely to ask their superiors for directions when they’re unsure of the course to take, are less likely to fight for better conditions and better pay, etc. Likewise, politicians made
a similar observations. Female voters tend to be more emotional, they tend to favor
security over rights and freedom, they’re less likely to question what their government
does, etc. Note that in both cases, it certainly is “tends” and “more likely”. Not all women are
more emotional than rational, not all women are submissive, not all women are
indecisive. Likewise, not all men are rational, not all men are belligerent, not all men are
decisive. It doesn’t matter however, what matters is that women are more likely to have
the feminine traits, which the upper class noticed. And to them, these tarts are desirable
in a lower class. It makes their employees, their citizens easier to manipulate, to control, to dominate. And so, the upper classes, under the guise of taking up the fight of social justice, changed the course of feminism. It was no longer about empowering women. No longer
would feminism say “Women are Just as good”; rather, it became “society must
accommodate women”. Then it became “Men need to change”. And now its quickly
becoming “Masculinity is bad”. So, what can be done? That is a question I am unable to answer. It would seem
obvious to say that masculinity needs to be promoted again, that we must fight back
against “equal outcome” and bring back actual “equal opportunity”, that we must
denounce what is being done. But how to achieve all of these? A mere sensitization
campaign would immediately be shot down. I propose three solutions:
1. Instead of directly saying that masculinity is good, the “masculine” traits should
be promoted, in completely neutral way, as in without mentioning feminism or
gender politics or anything of the sort. Leadership, decisiveness, action, rationality and even belligerence must be shown as positive traits.
On Thoughts Political
40
2. Attempts to demonize these traits should be shot down. Force those who do so to
explain why they think it’s wrong, and why they think their opposite are good. Meanwhile, promote the negative aspects of the “feminine” traits. 3. Finally, and in my opinion the most devious yet most entertaining solution, would
be to teach our daughters to hold the masculine traits. This might seem strange, yet it would turn the emasculation of society on its head. As these girls grow into
women and exhibit the “masculine” traits, they will quickly learn how these traits, necessary for anyone who wishes to elevate themselves in society, are constantly
suppressed. As women become the victims of this campaign, the idea that
opposing it is misogynistic will shatter. These solutions are certainly not perfect, and I myself see many things wrong with
them, yet they’re the best I can come up with. Still, we must either act to preserve our
masculinity now or watch as our children and grandchildren am raised into pseudo-slaves
who do not question the upper classes and believe that they do not deserve more than
what they’re given.
On Thoughts Political
41
On Money
This is a topic which is difficult for me to broach as I am no economist, yet not only
must I speak of it, but there are certainly things which can be said about it which you do
not need great experience to understand. First of all, what is money? Money represents production, no more, no less. Before
the invention of currency, people did engage in bartering, but it is obvious that such a
system has many flaws. The invention of currency helped solved many problems: By
having something which represents a fixed unit of labor, it was possible to “stockpile”
labor and use it to exchange it for the product of the labor of others. This in turn allowed
greater specialization of the members of society, who could now easily produce only one
thing, then exchange their labor for the other things they need. So, before I go on, always
keep this in mind: All money is meant to represent labor, or rather the fruit of labor. To
despise money is to despise labor, to despise labor is to despise what brings us life, to
despise what brings us life is to despise life, and to despise life is to desire death. No
more, no less. Now, there are many questions surrounding more specific aspects of money, namely
what form it should take, if it should be “backed” by a physical substance of any nature, what loans are and if they’re ethical, etc. Those three aspects I named are the most
important, thus I’ll limit myself to those. First of all, let’s discuss what form money should take, and whether it should be
“backed” by some physical substance. Originally, money was made of more or less precious metals, namely gold, silver and
copper. The more precious the metal, the more precious the currency, of course. That was
because, despite the fact that money is meant to represent labor, in a society without a
centralized economy or government, the value of a currency is no more than the value of
the labor it took to extract it from the earth and mold it into shape. A gold coin is always
worth a gold coin, regardless of what happens. Of course, the value of the gold coin may
change as the availability of gold changes, as gold extraction methods become more
efficient and as molding methods become more refined. But a gold coin remains a gold
coin. Thus, currency represented labor not merely figuratively, but literally. As society developed and became more complex, economies centralized and
difficulties arose with the use of precious metal for the manufacture of currency. Gold
and silver mines ran dry while human production continued unopposed, meaning there
was no longer enough precious metal to make into currency. Furthermore, actual
practical uses were found for those precious metals, reducing their availability even
On Thoughts Political
42
practical uses were found for those precious metals, reducing their availability even
further. It quickly became obvious that it would not be feasible to keep using precious
metals as currency. This is how we wound up with paper money and coins made out of nickel and zinc. In fact, you’ll find that the materials and labor needed to create coins are usually worth
more than that needed for paper money of much greater value. But with a centralized
economy, it becomes possible to get everyone to agree to merely consider currency to
represent a certain value without actually being made of a substance which required the
labor necessary to equal that value. Though this has its own inconveniences, such as how
different economies will use different currencies which have different values, such a
system becomes necessary when societies grow large and technologically advanced
enough. In fact, with the advent of computers and virtual data storage, currency has now taken
a virtual shape, being little more than a number stored in a hard drive somewhere. After
all, if currency no longer needs to literally represent labor, why would it need a physical
form? Physical currency still has its uses, but will become less and less common as
technology develops further. However, for a long time, despite the fact that currency only symbolically represented
labor, it was also “backed” by a substance of some sort, almost always gold. This meant
that if you held money, you could go to a bank and get it exchanged for its worth in gold, and that this gold could itself still be used as currency, or again be exchanged for
currency. This created a system where, though currency was itself not made of precious
metals, it still represented precious metal which was stored in your name somewhere. However, issues arose with that system. As said, the world’s production increased
exponentially with the development of technology, while the stocks of precious metals
remained limited. Furthermore, those precious metals began seeing use in production, meaning they could not merely be stockpiled and left to collect dust as symbols
representing labor. They were needed. This meant that as time passed, currency
represented smaller and smaller amounts of precious metals, to the point where a single
unit (a dollar, a pound, a mark, or whatever else you want to call a unit of currency)
represented such a small amount of precious metal that it became inconvenient to
exchange currency for precious metals and vice versa. This is not because precious
metals were worth more or because labor was worth less, but because the stock of
precious metal necessary to represent production grew far, far slower than the production
of human society. Thus, fiat was proposed as a solution. Fiat currency no longer even represented a
physical substance. It now represented the idea of labor itself. The one advantage is
clear, which is that you no longer need to stockpile precious metals. But that is the only
On Thoughts Political
43
clear, which is that you no longer need to stockpile precious metals. But that is the only
true advantage, and the disadvantages are far too often overlooked. First of all, fiat currency’s value is at the mercy of the whim of some individuals in
powerful places. Of course, they have little reason to mess with the system; their money
is fiat as well as that of others, so their wealth is dependent on the system. Tearing it
down would hurt them more than it would help them, so it’s sort of a power check on
their ability to abuse it. However, these same individuals like to use that currency to buy
actual physical properties, meaning a large amount of their wealth is not actually fiat
currency, but houses, businesses, art pieces, resources, etc. Meaning that their own
wealth is physical, while that of people who own little but currency isn’t. In the case of a
crash of the currency’s value, they aren’t affected, at least not much. Second of all, the value of fiat currency can vary wildly. It all depends on market
forces, supply and demand, investor trust and most of all, cronyism. Two years ago, it
took 120 units of currency to buy a barrel of oil. Now it takes less than 40. Without being
backed by a physical substance, you are never guaranteed that your money, which can
only be produced through labor, will be represented by a currency which will be worth
its value. Finally, fiat currency relies on a stable society. If a catastrophe of some sort should
happen and the centralized forces which enforce the value of the currency were to
collapse, that currency would suddenly find itself worthless. Thus, it appears obvious to me that though gold-backed currencies have issues and
should be replaced by something else, they are still far better to represent money than fiat
currency. And now we approach the question of loans. A loan is merely an amount of money
belonging to one individual or organization which is given to another individual or
organization, with the idea that eventually, the latter will pay it back to the former. The
idea behind a loan is actually a good one: A man with little money has a great idea which
would produce a lot of money and improve everyone’s condition, but he does not have
enough initial capital to obtain what is necessary to achieve it. He goes to an individual
or organization, proposes his idea, and if the latter agrees to the potential of the idea and
trusts the man to see it through to the end, they loan them money, expecting to see not
only their money back, but to profit from it. Loans are thus a way for those with the ideas
but without the means to obtain the aid of those who do have the means. What is contentious is how the loan actually works. In the example I gave, the loaner
actually owns the money he is loaning to the man, and that money represents an
objective amount of labor. However, change to a fiat system, and change the loaner into
someone who has control over the creation of currency, and suddenly loans become an
On Thoughts Political
44
someone who has control over the creation of currency, and suddenly loans become an
abomination, a threat to the economy. Suddenly, the loaner can create currency out of
thin air and loan it to the man, who must then work to produce something, namely to
produce money. He must then not only pay back the “air currency” which the loaner
gave him, but a portion of the legitimate money he produced thanks to that loan. The
principle remains the same as long as the man actually sees his project through and it
does produce money. Otherwise, the damage caused by the loan is immense. First of all, this means there is little to no risk to the loaner, as they can simply create
currency. If the project goes belly up, they are not out of any money. The “money” they
loaned wasn’t money in the first place, it was, well, nothing. It was faith. It was up to the
man in charge of the project to see to it that he would create labor equal to the value of
the loaned currency. If he didn’t, then that currency is worth less. And every one he paid
with that currency is now poorer for it. In fact, everyone who uses that currency is now
poorer, except the people who create the currency in the first place because, as I said, a
large portion of their wealth is actually physical. In summary, what can we draw from all this?
1. Money represents labor, which is expressed as currency. 2. This currency itself does not need to be made of a substance which required as
much labor as it is worth as long as you have a stable society with a centralized
government of some sort. It does not even need to be physical. 3. It should however be possible to trade this currency for a physical object or
substance which requires labor for its production, though it does not necessarily
mean that it should be gold. 4. Beyond, its other issues, a fiat currency system turns the beneficial act of loaning
into a potentially very destructive one, where the loaner takes no risk and society
takes all the risk for him. This is why I advocate a return to a system where currency is backed by a substance
of some sort. As explained, it is no longer reasonable to use precious metals for this
purpose. But ANY physical substance which does not decay can be used, even sand or
dirt, as long as that substance itself requires labor to obtain. Otherwise, we find ourselves
in a society where the lower classes are little more than slaves to the whims of the upper
classes. After all, their wealth is physical, while your wealth is only worth as much as
they want it to be worth…
On Thoughts Political
45
On Bureaucracy
Some call bureaucracy a necessary evil. I call these people fools or liars. It would be absurd to expect the leader of any organization which gets large enough, whether it be a nation or a business, to oversee every single day-to-day decision made
within it. No matter how great they might be, leaders are still humans, bound by space, time and biology, and the management needs of an organization can quickly become too
much for a single individual to handle. At that time, the leader must delegate, and thus
bureaucracy is born. In essence, that is what bureaucracy is supposed to be: Individuals granted a level of
power and autonomy, though still answering to superiors and acting in line with their
wishes, who handle lesser decisions and tasks in the management of the organization in
question. Now, some would like you to believe that corruption and inefficiency become
inevitable as bureaucracy grows, as if we should accept this. Of course, the people
spreading this nonsense are those who themselves have a vested interest in convincing
people not to fight back against corruption and inefficiency in bureaucracy, or those
foolish enough to believe them. Yet, how can we prevent the dreaded C&I? It is far simpler than you might expect, though simple does not always mean easy. First, one has to understand why inefficiency comes about. Why is bureaucracy
inefficient in the first place? What does the bureaucracy do which would cause people to
judge it inefficient?
Well, this simply means looking at the decisions taken, the time it took to take them
and how much it cost. If the wrong decision has been taken, it means that the people in
charge of those decisions do not know what they are doing. If they do not know what
they are doing, then why are they in charge of that particular decision? Some would of
course claim that leaders are sometimes put in positions where they must take decisions
on topics upon which they are poorly educated, but then these leaders have a duty to
obtain advice from those who do possess this knowledge. Hence, why were the right
people not consulted? Or why were people with poor knowledge consulted?
As for time, we can ask the same question: Why did it take so long to take a decision?
Is it because it was a committee and they could not come to an agreement? Is it because
of negligence? In both cases, we can ask the questions: Why couldn’t that committee
come to an agreement? Why was there negligence? Likewise about costs. Why is it
costing so much? Why wasn’t a less pricey yet equally good decision taken?
On Thoughts Political
46
The answer to all these questions is the same: Incompetence or corruption. And in the
case of incompetence, we can ask: Why was an incompetent individual put in charge?
And our answer is a vicious cycle: An incompetent or corrupt superior. Assuming that
the upper echelons of management are not incompetent, that means that at some point, a
corrupt individual was promoted to a position of power and has been promoting other
corrupt or incompetent individuals to positions of power. So, corruption is the root of the problem. But how do we solve it?
The answer is oversight. In any bureaucratic system which is crumbling under
corruption and incompetence, one can immediately detect a lack of oversight from the
upper echelons of power. When an individual is given a position of power within the bureaucracy, they are
expected to act for the benefit of the organization, and so to take decisions in line with
this. Assuming they are honest, they will do so. However, it is entirely possible for a
dishonest individual to hide his true nature until it is too late and he has obtained a
position of power, at which point he will run amok, promoting friends and family to
positions of power regardless of their competence, harassing his subordinates and
claiming credit for their work, etc. What then prevents said individuals from doing so?
As said, it is oversight. If that person’s superiors keep an eye on what he’s doing, they
will become aware of his actions and so will be able to remove him from that position, stop him from doing more damage and maybe even undo the damage he did. Furthermore, such actions will act as a deterrent to others who might be thinking of
doing the same. Likewise, a lack of oversight will have the opposite effect, encouraging
others to do as they please since they know they won’t face consequences for their
actions. Thus, as long as superiors keep an eye on what their subordinates do and insure
they don’t abuse their powers, corruption can be prevented. Of course, it is reasonable to claim that there is a limit to how much oversight an
individual leader can have over his subordinates, and the entire point of having
subordinates is to delegate tasks to them in order to have more time for other, more
important tasks. Hence, too much oversight defeats the purpose of bureaucracy, which is
to lighten the load of leadership on individual leaders. Yet, as exposed, a lack of
oversight will damn the bureaucracy and thus be fatal to the organization it serves. In conclusion, what matters is that not only leaders must remember to keep watch
over their subordinates for signs of corruption, but they must be willing to listen to those
even further down the ladder when they denounce corruption. And when corruption there
is, it must be torn out like the tumor it is. Otherwise, you will find your bureaucracy may
On Thoughts Political
47
is, it must be torn out like the tumor it is. Otherwise, you will find your bureaucracy may
become a greater enemy than your actual opponents.
On Thoughts Political
48
On Immigration
Immigration is the expected result of freedom of movement, yet that does not mean it
should not be controlled. Immigration is a fairly recent reality in human history. Though it has always been
possible for people to move from one nation to another, it’s only in the more recent
centuries with the development of better means of transport that it has become a
significant phenomenon. The ever advancing technology has made it easier and easier to
physically move from one destination to another, and better socioeconomic conditions
has convinced more advanced nations to facilitate this process for several reasons. However, too few dare ask: what does a nation stand to gain from immigration? Too
often, allowing immigrants in is not seen as something which should be a profitable
endeavor, but as a duty of the host nation and a right of the immigrants. My aim here is
to deconstruct this perception: A nation should not be obliged to take in immigrants, it
should not feel any obligations towards foreign entities except through diplomatic
agreements and it should concern itself with its own welfare and that of its citizens
before considering that of foreigners. Does this mean immigration should be forbidden?
Absolutely not. Not only do I believe that it is quite possible to have constructive
immigration but I believe in the concept of freedom of movement, where an individual is
free to decide where he wants to go and live, within reason of course. There are many ways to classify refugees, such as economic, family, refugees, etc. These classifications are meaningless to my argument, except for that of refugee, which I
will cover later on. Regardless of their reason, good leaders would always ask
themselves: “Does the nation stand to gain from the immigration of these people?” How
can we determine this? There are two main aspects to consider in this regard. First of all, the immigrant’s background. Though different nations have different
cultures, some nations are far more alike than others. Immigrants who come from a
nation which is very similar to the host nation are likely to have little trouble adapting
and integrating themselves. Likewise, the greater the difference, the more difficult the
assimilation. Therefore, it is preferable to take immigrants who come from nations where
culture and life standards are similar first. And yes, I speak of assimilation. When an individual moves to another nation, he
should not seek to preserve his previous national identity. Refusing to assimilate to the
local culture and forming ghettos is little more than a form of conquest, where a part of
the host nation informally becomes the land of another’s. If immigrants cannot
assimilate, we obtain multiculturalism, and as I’ve explained before, multiculturalism is
On Thoughts Political
49
assimilate, we obtain multiculturalism, and as I’ve explained before, multiculturalism is
undesirable, not to say harmful. Secondly, one must consider what the immigrant will do in the host country. Is that
person going to work? Will they be able to provide for themselves? Are the resources
available to support that person? What will they contribute to the society they join? What
kind of job will they occupy? An individual whose intention is to live on the good will
of the hose nation should never be allowed in. Before moving on, let me add that the same can be applied to the families of
migrants. An individual may be fit for immigration, but if that individual would be
unable to support their close ones who move with them, then the outcome for the nation
is a loss, and so this person would not be a suitable candidate. But what about refugees? Don’t we have a moral duty as humans to protect and
rescue those in peril?
I say: According to whom? By what standard? And why would it be acceptable to
harm your own people to save others, who are sometimes the architects of their own
misfortune? No nation has a duty towards any refugees. Rather, it is the nations which
these people are fleeing who are to blame, as they are attacking their own citizens. Assigning blame might seem petty and pointless, but it isn’t. The fact is that when there
are refugees, the reason for it is war in their home country. And thus the solution to that
issue is not to give them a new country, but to end the war in the old one. This does not however mean that refugees should never be taken in. As before, the
same reasoning applies: What does the nation have to gain by letting these people in?
However, in the case of refugees, an additional dimension is added as one must consider
the harm it would do to the nation they are fleeing. If the refugees’ home nation is an
enemy to the host nation, then taking their people away peacefully can in itself be a
boon. However, this aspect must still be weighed against the other. Weakening your
enemies is pointless if it is done at such an expense to your nation that you grow even
weaker than they do. We can thus see that the question of whether a nation should take in immigrants is far
simpler than one would think, and that most nations should be taking in far less than they
are right now. So, why? Why are they doing this?
The excuses given are multiple. The first one is that developed countries’ birth rates
are too low. Yet why is the solution more immigrants instead of promoting reproduction
in the population? Then, we’re told that we are letting in skilled workers in. If we are
low on skilled workers, why is the solution more immigrants and not forming more
skilled workers at home? Then we’re told, because who cares about contradictions, that
On Thoughts Political
50
skilled workers at home? Then we’re told, because who cares about contradictions, that
it’s because we’re short on unskilled workers as the local population apparently refuses
to take those jobs. If so, why is the solution more immigrants, and not better wages and
working conditions? And at last, once backed in a corner, the globalist will speak of
some imagined duty towards the greater human race, as if it is our duty to accommodate
the rest of humanity at our expense. The true reasons for immigration are multiple, from simple naivety to outright evil. Yet, if I were to determine one common goal for all globalist leaders, it would be that
they wish to go back to the days of an ignorant, poor and powerless pseudo-slave worker
class. By flooding their nations with immigrants who accept lower wages, longer work
days, worse working and life conditions and who won’t complain, they force their
population to compete with them, and thus prevent social progress. And by social
progress, I don’t mean the immaterial and abstract gobbledygook some would claim as
social progress such as brotherly love, “equality” (read: equal representation and
outcome) and multiculturalism. I mean concrete, objective progress, such as actual
equality (before the law, actual equal opportunity), greater wealth, better life conditions, longer life expectancy, etc. Their hope is to not only stall social progress, but to regress it
and return to the days of wealthy aristocracy who had all the rights and no
responsibilities while those who worked saw but a meager return on what they actually
produced. They want to enslave their population, and mass immigration is one of the
means to do it. And so remember: No nation has any duty towards foreigners. Immigration should
only be allowed if the nation has anything to gain from it. And there is no problem in
your nation which can be solved by replacing its population with that of another.
On Thoughts Political
51
On Language
Language is not merely a tool of communication, it is a tool of thought. What I’m about to explain could fill a book, and if it interests you I highly
recommend reading up on linguistic relativity. My aim however will be to keep this short
and easy to understand, as I wish to reach as many people as possible. Did you know that there are African tribes which can’t tell their left from their right?
They don’t have words for these concepts either. Did you know we did not have a word
for the color “blue” for centuries? Or “orange”? They were named in relation to other
colors. Orange was red-yellow. Once the fruit was discovered. its color was named after
it. If a concept is not named, it is not possible to think about it, at least not properly. Likewise, the philosophies of different cultures are most affected by the language of their
people. Nietzsche noted it, and he was not alone. What is important to understand is that you cannot truly understand a concept unless
you can name it, and this affects how you think. You will notice in recent times attempts to legitimize certain dialects which are
simplified versions of a certain language. Such efforts are an abomination and must be
stopped at all costs. By limiting the vocabulary of people, whether it be simply their
ability to name things or subtler things such as the separation of the subject in persons
(first, second and third) or verb tenses, what becomes limited is people’s ability to think. Though such dialects can be an interesting field of study, they should never be promoted
as being legitimate, or being equal to fully developed languages. In fact, we often speak of the evolution of language. This is a misnomer: Evolution
does not go in one direction. It is merely an adaptation. What we should seek for
language is not evolution, but advancement. We want our languages to grow, to have
more words, to have better ways to express our thoughts in more coherent manners. The
appearance of bastardized dialects goes against this. If linguists desire to help the
advancement of language, instead of singing the praise of the malformed sentences of a
few brutes because of their distinction from proper language, they should be identifying
concepts which lack names, developing new verb tenses and promoting the preservation
of the integrity of their language. Likewise, language can be used to manipulate people. Orwell touched on that a lot in
1984, and he is far from the only person who has. I mention him however because of a
concept he described in his book known as “crimestop”. Simply put, crimestop is the
ability which people have of stopping “bad thoughts” before they can form. Even out of
On Thoughts Political
52
ability which people have of stopping “bad thoughts” before they can form. Even out of
context, this sounds like a terrible thing, yet most people are unaware that they
themselves engage in crimestop without realizing it. This is a concept which I call “thought stopping language”, which is a subset of
thought stopping techniques. Thought stopping techniques are used by politicians, leaders and very much everyone in a position of power to prevent people from thinking
about what they’re told, and thus prevent them from disagreeing with them. The most
common ones are chanting and ridiculing. Chanting is, as the name says, getting people
to chant a mantra or a slogan loudly. If you wonder why this is a thought stopping
technique, try and do even basic math while singing the chorus of “Tubthumping” by
Chumbawamba at the top of your lungs over and over. As for ridiculing, human beings
are normally afraid of ridicule, especially public ridicule. By attaching ridicule to an idea
or concept, people will automatically be repelled by it. Thought stopping words are even more devious. They are the result of ridiculing, but
to the point where no active ridiculing is necessary for people to want to avoid thinking
about those concepts. Derision and stigma are attached to those words and thus saying
them will cause your audience to stop listening to you, regardless of what you were
saying, of whether what you were saying was true, or of context. In this way, tyrannical
create protected classes, protected concepts, protected thoughts. The government would
never work against you, because that’s a conspiracy, and conspiracy theorists are crazy!
Black people in the United States do not have a higher crime rate than white people, because that implies a difference based on race, and that’s racism, and racism is bad. Democracy is perfect, because questioning it is anti-democratic, and anti-democracy
means tyranny. So on and so on. So, what conclusions may we draw from this?
First of all, when addressing people, especially about certain contentious topics, it is
important to use the right language. I am not implying that they should be lied to or that
the truth should be hidden. However, if you use a thought stopping word, you will turn
them against you, regardless of the merit of your ideas. Thus, you must identify thought
stopping words and figure out how to explain your ideas without using them. Second of all, we must create words to define concepts which are missing from our
language. One example of a word I created is “libition”. Ambition is currently defined as
the desire to achieve something. However, I decided to split that concept in two: “Ambition”, which comes from the latin “ambire” which means “going around” or “encircling”, would mean the desire to achieve something productive, to create, to learn, to grow. Opposingly, “libition”, which comes from “liberum”, which means “free”, would be the desire to achieve something destructive, usually at the expense of another. Already, with the appearance of this word, we can better separate businessmen in two
On Thoughts Political
53
Already, with the appearance of this word, we can better separate businessmen in two
categories: the ambitious, who wish to create things and to produce, and the libitious, who want to take what others produce and claim it as their own, who want hand outs. Merely doing both of these will help us greatly when it comes to fighting back
against those who wish to diminish the human spirit so as to better bind it. Learning how
thought stopping language works will allow us to go around it to reach the people
ensnared by their lies, while the creation of new words will arm us in the war of ideas.
On Thoughts Political
54
On Cronyism and Nepotism
Meritocracy is the only valid system. Any other is doomed to eventual failure. Such a statement might seem self-evident to many, yet many won’t believe it either. These people seem to think it is possible to survive indefinitely on a system where the
competent are enslaved by the incompetent. It is not so. Nature itself works this way: In
order to survive and to propagate yourself, you must be able to feed yourself and protect
yourself from harm. Humans may seem out of reach of the laws of nature, but they are
not. Humans must still feed themselves, they must still protect themselves from harm, and all the goods and technologies you see around you had to be made by someone. None of what you see around you merely appeared at your wish. Someone had to think
for it, had to put it there for you, even if that person was yourself. Keeping this in mind, we then understand that in order for society to function, people
must work. They must think. They must produce. And the more people work, think and
produce, the better society works. And the better society works, the more people are
motivated to work, think and produce. It’s a virtuous cycle, where one enjoys the product
of one’s own labor, hence is encouraged to be productive and intelligent. However, cronyism and nepotism stand in the way of this simplicity. Cronyism and nepotism are the idea that people should not be rewarded based on
their contribution to society, on their work and intelligence, but rather on who they know, who they’re related to, who they’re friends with and what they think. A system where
efforts and talent are less important than friendships, blood ties and blackmail. Though not diametrically opposed to meritocracy, it nonetheless interferes with it
immensely, as you’d expect. When cronyism and nepotism reign, people quickly become
less interested in working and learning, preferring to make the right friends and obtain
embarrassing information on people with positions of power to use as blackmail against
them. Furthermore, as time passes, those who refuse to participate in this obscene system
find themselves destitute. Their hard work and their intelligence do not pay off; instead, what they produce is stolen from them, often at gun point, or at the implication of a gun
pointing at them. Furthermore, even those who manage to both be hard working and
intelligent yet also have the good friends and family ties quickly become disillusioned, realized that they are sustaining a system of leeches. The eventual outcome of such a system is mere logic. You do not need the power of
divination to see that it is unsustainable, and thus will eventually collapse upon itself as
production falls off while the population remains as large as ever. Just become people
On Thoughts Political
55
production falls off while the population remains as large as ever. Just become people
stop working does not mean that they no longer need to eat and remain safe, and having
friends and family will not make that food and safety appear in front of you. Society is
doomed. And this is my warning to all those who may read and who seek to sustain a system
where anything but merit is rewarded: You are working against yourselves. Anything you
do to delay the collapse of that system will merely be a sacrifice, a sacrifice of
individuals and resources which will no longer be available to you when the inevitable
happens and you need to rebuild. And you will run out of things and people to sacrifice
eventually, make no mistake. And at that moment, you will face the abyss and it will be
too late. You will be swallowed up and out of the darkness you left behind, if there are
any left, they will rise up and rebuild out of the rubble you left behind. It has happened
before and if you do not change your course, it will happen again. Understand this: No sustainable system can be anything but a meritocracy of some
form. We might disagree on what merit might be, the specifics and the details. But the
undeniable fact is that anything else is society suicide in the long run, something which
no one will profit from. Cronyism and nepotism are the death of human civilization.
On Thoughts Political
56
On Democracy
The only reason democracy is still used is because those who control our
governments have managed to convince people that it is impossible to have anything
better. Why do we have democracy? Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the
worst government system except every other that’s been tried. The truth of his words will
resonate once I’m done explaining how we wound up with democracy. First of all, as democracy is a type of republic, we have to understand why we have a
republican government. There are really only three kinds of governments, all based on
how the leaders are picked, with every other type simply being variants of these. Political
scholars would no doubt claim that this is wrong, yet once you’ve read what I’m about to
explain, you’ll realize the truth of it. The first type is simply force. In such a government, the leaders are simply those who
have enough military power to take control of the nation. Some would claim this is a
good form of government as they believe that power should go to whoever is capable of
acquiring it, yet being a good military strategist and having a large army does not
necessarily make you a good leader. It likely makes you a good military leader, but ruling
a nation is more than leading a military. Furthermore, such governments are unstable, their nations prone to civil wars as people fight over control of the nation. The second type is hereditary. A hereditary government is usually descended from
another, yet that’s not really important. What is important is that in this government, leaders are chosen by other leaders. More precisely, a leader will choose his successor or
there will be a set of laws determining who will succeed him, usually one of his children. The advantages of such a system are obvious; as we know who will succeed the current
leaders as soon as they are born, it is possible to raise them for that purpose, therefore
forming leaders from infancy. The pitfalls are obvious however: You’re never guaranteed
that those chosen will have any competence, or that they’ll have the will to act for the
good of the nation. In fact, as their power is secure no matter what, they often care little
for the nation, only for themselves. The third type is the republic. In a republic, the leaders are chosen from a pool of
eligible candidates by voters and must rule the nation according to a set of laws. The
republic naturally appears to be superior to the previous two, and it is. Being able to
choose the leader in such a way not only allows the nation to have the most competent
leader possible, but also allows it to replace the leader without the use of violence if need
be.
On Thoughts Political
57
The main issue with the republic is deciding who can vote. There are many forms of
republic, their definitions depending on who can vote and thus who ultimately has power
over the government. However, how can we be sure that those who vote won’t simply
vote for their own benefits to the detriment of the nation? Thus democracy appears: By
allowing nearly everyone (minors and extremely mentally ill people being the
exceptions) to vote, you bypass the issue entirely. You remove the problem of deciding
who can or can’t vote. Simply put, in a democracy, since everyone can vote, then the
government chosen will have been voted on by the whole population and this will be the
one benefiting the greatest amount of people in the nation, and thus (ideally) the nation
itself. Though this is a fairly quick and crude explanation, it remains true. However, democracy is far from flawless. Democracy is definitely not without its pitfalls. I’ll examine the main three ones, namely: Incompetent voters, incompetent leaders and the tyranny of the masses. First of all, understand that allowing everyone to vote was never considered an ideal
solution by anyone but the most obtuse and idealistic moron. It was merely a band-aid
solution: We can’t determine who’s competent without risking corruption, thus we allow
everyone to vote. This in turn gives voting power to the incompetent. Anyone with any
degree of political knowledge knows the average voter is barely aware of how his own
government even functions, let alone the issues faced by his nation at the moment. Furthermore, to say that these people know who is best fit to lead them is laughable;
these people vote not for the most fit, but for who they like the most. And as the
incompetent outnumber the competent by a large margin, it is safe to say that the voters
in a democracy are not capable of making a constructive choice. This in turn brings us to incompetent leaders. As leaders are chosen not by how
competent they are, but how popular, the odds of getting a competent leader are
dramatically diminished. In fact, in a democracy, the leader’s job is not to rule, but to
obtain and maintain his rule. Thus, a leader in a democracy will take decisions based not
on how beneficial they are to the nation, but on how popular they are so as to secure his
rule.Finally, there is the tyranny of the majority. In a democracy, the majority always
wins. However, the majority is not always right. In fact, history shows that the majority
is alarmingly often wrong. As competent citizens represent only a minority of the voters, they are incapable of effecting any significant change and thus are forced to live under
the rule of the incompetent.
On Thoughts Political
58
There are quite a few other issues with democracy, such as the massive bureaucracy
accompanying it or the risk of being turned into an oligarchy as good examples, but I
believe I’ve made my point, which is that democracy is far from an ideal system. However, Churchill’s words ring true now: We haven’t tried anything better yet. So the
question is, can we think of anything better?
It is my sincere belief that it could be possible to replace democracy with something
better. The fact that, after centuries, we still haven’t figured out anything to replace it is
not proof that democracy is the best there is, but rather that people have given up and
simply accepted it as their system. After all, democracy favors the greatest number of
people, so the greatest number of people like it, so it is good, right?
Anyway, what could replace democracy? It obviously should be a form of republic;
the issues here are determining who can vote and who is eligible for a leadership
position. The latter is rather simple; we already have a fairly good definition in most
democracies and even in a worst case scenario, it can simply be defined as “anyone with
the right to vote”. The difficult question, as always, is “Who should be able to vote?” Can there be an objective measure of an individual’s competence to take decisions
regarding the direction of a nation? The classical answer is no, but I challenge that
perception. The criteria used to determine this are many, of course, but can be boiled
down to intelligence, knowledge, experience and integrity. This seems contradictory to
my earlier statement, as there is no objective measure of any of these except knowledge. Yet this is the question: How can we objectively measure intelligence, knowledge, experience and integrity?
The answer will surprise you: There isn’t. Some will claim intelligence can be
measured through IQ, yet anyone with any knowledge of the topic knows why that’s
wrong. Though knowledge can be determined by tests, you can never know if whoever
designed the tests is asking for the right type of knowledge. Experience can be measured
in years, but the important part isn’t how much experience you have but rather what kind
of experience you have. Finally, integrity cannot be measured at all. At best you can look
at an individual’s past history, yet you never know what he might be hiding and it does
not guarantee future integrity. Does this mean it is impossible to test these factors? Absolutely not. They can’t be
measured, yet it is possible, through pressure, to test them. As an example, you cannot
measure military prowess, yet it is undeniable that the winner of a war is superior in that
regard. Thus, we can assume that certain conditions, certain experiences, can force an
individual to display his leadership qualities for all to see in an objective manner. If we
could determine what kind of experiences are favorable to this, then we could use them
to determine who is competent enough to vote.
On Thoughts Political
59
Until we can do this, democracy is inevitably what we must rely on. However, that is
no excuse not to try and figure out something better to replace it. And if we decide to do
it, expect a lot of resistance; those who rule through democracy will do everything to
prevent success in that regard and they will have the support of the majority. Replacing democracy will depend on convincing the majority that it is not right.
On Thoughts Political
60
On Unions
Before I begin, let me dispel any possible ambiguity by stating that I am talking about
worker unions. This might sound unnecessary, but many people who post here do not
have English as their native language and may see the word “union” as meaning
something else. On to the topic itself. In an ideal world, unions would not be necessary. But this is far from an ideal world. It would be absurd to expect the lone common worker to be capable of facing his
employer alone on any issue. The employer has much greater resources at his disposal
and without proper regulations, has nothing stopping him from abusing these resources
to simply crush any demand coming his way, legitimate or not. His relationship to his
employees becomes one of pseudo-slavery: Though the employees can quit at any time, they do so at the cost of their revenue, and thus of their food, clothing and housing. The
only difference between such an individual and a slave is that he gets to pick his master, and even then that is a presumptuous assumption: He does not always have another
master to pick. And thus worker unions appear. The workers unite and work together to make
demands of the employer. Alone they are weak, but united they possess the resources
they need to force an otherwise uncaring superior to bend to their demands. Some
however question the legitimacy of unions, and point to the flaws which have shown
themselves in this system in recent decades. Let us examine this further. A common claim, especially among libertarians, is that worker unions are pointless. Supposedly, if the worker is unsatisfied with his lot, he can simply go to another
employer. This supposedly creates a system where employers must compete for
employees and only those offering proper wages and working conditions are able to
retain their employees. I am tempted to not even give such drivel the honor of a retort, but I am forced to. Too many people have fallen for these idealistic lies, and thus I must
explain why such a system is but a pipe dream. First of all, this implies that labor is a limited resource. It is not. Labor is widely
available, and in fact, the opposite is true: Jobs are the limiting factor. Jobs are in limited
supply, especially in today’s economy. A man cannot merely leave his bread-winner for
another one. He is far from guaranteed to find another one, especially if he is uneducated. So already, we see that the libertarian dream of employers having to compete for
employees is but this, a dream. Rather, it is potential employees competing for jobs. And
when your choice is between a low wage job with poor work conditions and
homelessness and starvation, it is not a choice, it becomes an obligation. Though what I
On Thoughts Political
61
homelessness and starvation, it is not a choice, it becomes an obligation. Though what I
just said would suffice to bring down the libertarian myth of unions’ uselessness, I am
not done. Another aspect that people must remember is that workers sometimes do not have the
luxury of picking. Maybe they live in a small town with only one big factory. Or maybe
they don’t have a car and there’s no public transport where they live. It matters little. The
truth is that to many people, there is only one possible employer, and moving is not an
option available to them, nor is subsistence farming. And if it wasn’t enough, we also have to consider the truth of employer collusion. Employers will collude to keep their wages and working conditions similar. They have
nothing to gain by competing for employees, and a lot to gain by agreeing to all offer the
same miserable wages and working conditions. Thus, the idea that they will compete for
workers is further proven wrong. However, this does not mean unions are perfect. Far from it. One issue which unions face constantly is corruption, and anyone who’s had to deal
with them knows of it. But the issue itself is merely the same which faces every
organization: Dysfunctional individuals seek power over others to the detriment of the
organization itself. The same answers to the corruption of bureaucracy can be applied to
the corruption of unions: Oversight, a proper system for choosing leaders and harsh
punishment for corruption. Yet it is not the main issue which unions face today. No, beyond corruption, unions face a much harsher reality: Impotence. Unions will
organize protests, strikes, pressure means, etc. And all of these will fail, because in the
end they don’t matter. Protests and pressure means don’t accomplish anything and strikes
are pointless if the state declares it illegal, starts sending police officers to arrest strikers
and people go back to work out of fear when they see their colleagues being fired or
having their pension funds cut. Strangely, to understand what a union must do to obtain what the workers deserve, one must look at the corrupt. Why do corrupt unions get so much money? Why do they
manage to get such high wages and social benefits that the businesses are forced to close
down after a few years? Because they don’t hesitate to use violence. They will ruthlessly
attack their opponents, destroy the employers’ goods, sabotage his installations, etc. When police forces are brought in to intervene, they face heavy opposition. When the
strike is declared illegal and people are fired and pensions are cut, all the employer sees
is further attacks, more sabotage, more destruction. And there is the answer. The reason why unions are seen with such loathing
nowadays is because the corrupt ones cause destruction while obtaining very little for the
On Thoughts Political
62
nowadays is because the corrupt ones cause destruction while obtaining very little for the
average worker while the righteous ones refuse to use the means necessary to obtain
what their members have a right to. All we see are either criminal organizations which
eventually cause the business to become unprofitable and close down, costing everyone
their jobs, or impotent organizations which don’t accomplish anything. It is time to change that. As explained, unions are necessary to protect workers from predatory practices from
employers. However, due to either corruption or incompetence, modern unions are
failing at this purpose. In both cases however, we can see a common cause. The
corruption is not purged or they refuse to engage in violence. In both cases, the one
problem which unions face is an improper use of violence. Members of corrupt unions hesitate to use violence to purge the corrupt from their
organization, while impotent unions hesitate to use violence to obtain what their workers
have a legitimate right to. In both cases, it is a problem of upstanding, honest, righteous
people refusing to engage in violence to achieve what is right. The only ones willing to
use violence are the corrupt, the dysfunctional. This reinforces my belief that a society where citizens are not taught the proper use of
violence is one which is doomed to fail. The present state of unions is a perfect example
of it. Thus it is my belief that while unions are not only necessary, but are a boon to the
people, being their defenders, that they will never achieve their goals until the righteous
find the will to do what needs to be done. The failure of unions is a failure of the will of the just.
On Thoughts Political
63
On Revolution
When is the right time for a revolution and how should it be achieved?
To the first question, there are two answers: The ideological one and the practical
one. Both answers are quite simple to state, yet not so easy to detect. Ideologically, a
revolution should happen when the nation is ruled by a tyrant or when leaders’
incompetence is damaging it. Practically, a revolution should happen when there is more
to be gained than to be lost. The truth is actually both: A revolution should happen if the
nation is tyrannical or incompetent and these is more to be gained than to be lost. Yet, as said, it may be easy to say this, yet it’s not as easy to determine when those
conditions have been reached. When are leaders tyrannical? When are they incompetent?
When do you know you have more to gain than to lose?
I’ll start with the first and easiest one: When do you know you have more to gain
than to lose? This one is simply mathematics yet ofttimes, revolutionaries overlook it. They’ll oust their leaders with the belief that “things could not possibly get any worse”, then things actually do get worse. Evaluate: What services does the government provide?
Is there justice in the nation? Who are our enemies and how would they react to a civil
war? Can we keep the nation supplied in food, water, fuel and other goods without the
current government? In the end, what good is it to get rid of a tyrant just to starve to
death? Or to replace incompetent leaders with even worse ones? So, all the variables
must be taken into account before engaging in a revolutionary act. As the saying goes, “Out of the frying pan, into the fire” would not be a good thing. Next, how do you know your leaders are incompetent? This is seen through
calamities; famines, pandemics, immense criminality, financial crashes, etc. Yet, these
events could be completely out of the hands of the leaders: Even the most competent
leader can’t predict, prevent or end natural disasters which can lead to these issues. However, one can tell if they had prepared for such eventualities, how they react to such
events, if they acted for the good of the nation rather than their own when those incidents
happened. It goes back to the “profits/losses” equation: Can you tell with relative
certainty that different leaders would have handled the situation better? If so, then it’s
time for a revolution. Finally, tyrants. Believe it or not, detecting a tyrant is more difficult than you’d
imagine. Even the most benevolent of leaders will have to take decisions which will
harm a minority to help the nation. To these people, the leaders will appear as tyrannical. Yet here is the key, isn’t it? If the decisions always harm as few people as possible while
benefiting as many as possible, then they’re clearly not tyrannical. So, we can define a
On Thoughts Political
64
benefiting as many as possible, then they’re clearly not tyrannical. So, we can define a
tyrant as a leader who takes decisions which benefit a minority to the detriment of the
nation at large. We can thus state the following: “If leaders are taking decisions which benefit a minority to the detriment of the nation
OR if different leaders would definitely be capable of taking better decisions AND there
is more to be gained than to be lost from a revolution, then it is time for a revolution.” Yet how can a revolution be achieved?
People think revolution and they inevitably think “violence”, yet it is not always
necessary. In fact, most revolutions are non-violent, we simply call them something else:
elections. Yet there are other kinds of non-violent revolutions. I’ll examine three types:
The violent revolution, the election and the quiet revolution. The violent revolution is the one people have in mind most of the time when they
think about revolution. Yet, it is the least desirable: A violent revolution brings about
death and destruction. Simply put: The losses incurred by a violent revolution are great
and thus will likely outweigh the gains. Still, undesirable does not mean unnecessary. To
know if a violent revolution is necessary, ask yourself two questions:
1. Is a revolution necessary?
2. Is it impossible to have a non-violent revolution?
If you answer yes to both of these questions, then it’s time for a violent revolution. The first step here would be to obtain the collaboration of people who know how to
engage in violence, namely the armed forces and the police forces. This is not always
possible, yet if it can be achieved your victory is assured and in fact will be far less
violent. When obtaining their collaboration however, make sure they have the same goal
as you, namely improving the nation. This is difficult to achieve and can only be done
through ideology, yet it can be done. Once that’s done, you should determine what needs to be destroyed and who needs to
be killed. You want to avoid attacking the country’s infrastructures as much as possible. If it’s possible to destroy infrastructures which service the ruling caste you want to
overthrow without destroying infrastructures which service the rest of the nation, then
it’s the first thing you should do. Aqueducts, power stations, oil fields, roads, bridges, etc. Destroy only what you cannot steal or disable. As for who should be killed, there are
two kinds of targets: Leaders and followers. Followers should only be killed when
necessary: When they attack you or to reach objectives. However, killing leaders (or at
the very least capturing them) should be a priority. Many of the people who follow
corrupt leaders will give up the fight once they are removed. Yet beware: The more
followers they have, the more likely the power vacuum will be filled. Yet the more
On Thoughts Political
65
followers they have, the more likely the power vacuum will be filled. Yet the more
corrupt they were, the more likely they’ll collapse when the power vacuum appears. In the end, I’m no military man and so have little expertise to provide in this matter. If a violent revolution were to be necessary, it would be best for it to be conducted with a
man of military experience. This would be why I recommend obtaining the collaboration
of the army, or at least the police. Even the collaboration of a minority of them would
provide you with strategists and tacticians with the experience necessary to achieve
results. Yet, the more interesting revolutions are the non-violent ones. We’ll go over the first and best known type of non-violent revolution: elections. Whether you’re a democracy or any other kind of republic, it is possible to remove the
current rulers and replace them with others through an election. Rather than explain such
a well-known process, I’d rather touch on when it’s time to go for something else. Namely, when the voting pool gets limited to candidates which are all incompetent or
tyrannical. The obvious answer here would be to present candidates which are neither, yet this is not always possible. So, when all candidates are incompetent or tyrannical and
it is impossible to present a candidate which is neither, it is time to abandon elections as a
viable option. The other method I would like to propose is one which was witnessed in my society, and actually in quite a few others: The quiet revolution. The quiet revolution happens
when the entirety of the population (or so close as to make no difference) stops listening
to what the authorities say at once. This works best if the enforcing bodies, namely the
military and police, collaborate with the population. In this case, citizens need to build
new, alternate power structures to replace the old ones, to compete with them. As time
passes and the new, better power structures actually do their job, the old leaders’ authority will wane and the revolution will be achieved. However, a quiet revolution
requires a very homogeneous population which is in agreement with the abandonment of
the power structure. It is a hijacking of authority, so to speak. To give a specific example, let’s imagine a government has an office of roads. They
manage roads. They do it badly. Now, a citizen says “I’ll make my own office of roads!”, receives donations from citizens and actually starts doing the job the old office of roads
wouldn’t do. Eventually, people stop paying their taxes to the office of roads and instead
start paying them to the new one. The old gets replaced with the new in a non-violent
way. As said, this is only possible if you have the collaboration of enforcing agents. If
the old office of roads tells the cops “GO ARREST THAT NEW OFFICE OF
ROADS” and they listen, then it becomes impossible to achieve a quiet revolution. So, before violence, you should attempt elections or hijacking authority.
On Thoughts Political
66
There is much more to be said on revolution, and I suggest you read up on it because
it will unfortunately be very important in the coming years. People need to understand
that revolutions are necessary, yet they also need to ask themselves two questions before
doing so:
1. Is it worth it?
2. Can we do it without resorting to violence?
If we can educate people in this matter, I am convinced we can avoid many horrors in
the near future. Denying the legitimacy of revolutions will not prevent them from
happening; it will only prevent people from learning how to achieve them properly.
On Thoughts Political
67
On Nations
This one is probably going to get the libertarians’ panties in a bunch, but bear with it. Before we broach this subject, we must define a few things. Namely what a nation is, what laws are and what a government is. Or rather, what they should be ideally. One
thing you should note is that in reality, many “nations”, “laws”, and “governments” do
not fill these definitions. That should not be a reason to dismiss these definitions as
wrong but rather a reason to question the legitimacy of said nations, laws, and
governments. A nation is a society occupying a more or less well defined territory by a common set
of laws enforced by a common government. A law is a social rule agreed upon by the great majority of the people of the nation. Laws are different from mere social etiquette in that it is considered acceptable to enforce
them through violence. A government is the entity within the nation which creates and enforces laws. Because of this role, it is considered as representing the nation and thus also takes the
role of managing international relationships. These are bare bone definitions for what nations, laws, and governments are. As said, many of them do not fit these definitions and thus bring their legitimacy into question. Now that we’ve established these, we can begin asking interesting questions, such as “Should government take greater roles?” We often assume that the government should be “as small as possible”, but why is
that? My aim with this essay will be to quickly go over what the aim of a “welfare state”
is, why it fails, why a “smaller government” is better and why it is yet still sometimes
acceptable for governments to engage in greater projects than the barest management. So, the bare powers of the government should be the creation of laws and their
enforcement. Because of this position, they also get to manage international relations, so
they also have some power over the military. To examine what a “welfare state”, AKA a
nation whose government provides many services to its citizens does, we’ll add powers
and responsibilities to the government. In a democratic society, the government is
considered to be controlled by the people and thus anything controlled by the
government is supposedly controlled by the people. We know that this isn’t true, but bear
with me. We’re examining why it isn’t true, so we must first act as if it is to reach a
logical conclusion.
On Thoughts Political
68
So, let us say we task the government with managing, say, cars. The government will
provide cars and fuel to the people. However, to do this, the government would need
money, either to buy the cars and fuel or simply to produce them. To get that money, the
government needs to tax the people. Furthermore, in order to know who needs a car and
fuel and who doesn’t, they must be able to keep records on the people. They must know
who has a car, where they live, how much fuel they use, what they use the car for, etc. And that’s not all! Now that everyone is pitching in through taxes, people want those
cars and that fuel to go to good use. So the government starts regulating what kind of car
you can have, what kind of fuel you can use, how much fuel you can use, what you can
use the car for, where you can go with that car, how much you can use the car, etc. Nevermind that simply by providing the car and fuel, they decide what kind of car and
what kind of fuel you get. So, here we can see how allowing the government to manage more than mere laws
and international regulations greatly increases its power. And the more the government is
allowed to manage things in the nation, the more power it gets. The more power it gets, the harder it is to fight corruption within it and so the more corrupt it gets. And a
powerful, corrupt government is a tyranny, no more, no less. It does not matter whether it
is a democracy or not; it is a logical conclusion. The more powerful a government, the harder it is to take action against it. The harder
it is to take action against it, the easier it is for corrupt government officials to get away
with, well, corruption. And since, as exposed, giving greater management responsibilities
proportionally increases the government’s powers, we can therefore conclude that giving
greater management responsibilities to the government corrupts it. Yet, are there things a government can do which would not increase its power? Or
can we prevent corruption in any way?
First, let’s examine what additional tasks a government could accomplish which
would not threaten to give it undue powers. Let us call those additional tasks “social
projects”. Quite honestly, it is exactly what they are: Projects which societies want to
achieve for the good of its members. However, as we’ve seen, a large scale social project
which requires constant management is a bad thing. However, we can separate social
projects into two categories: perpetual and finite. Perpetual projects are those like the one I used as an example; we want to provide
goods and services to the population, yet they require constant upkeep, therefore require
records, regulations, and so on.
On Thoughts Political
69
Finite projects are different. They’re usually about infrastructure (though not always)
and are meant to either provide something essential to the functioning of society or to
advance our knowledge. Good examples are roads, aqueducts, the space program, etc. Though governments love to keep managing the things they build, nothing forces them
to; as an example, once an aqueduct is built in a village which did not possess the money
or knowledge to build one, its management could easily be relayed to the local
authorities. These projects also somewhat increase the government’s powers since they
require greater taxation and some management for their duration, yet the potential for
abuse is much lower. Existent, yet much lower. But what about corruption? What can we do about it?
To fight corruption, one must understand its source: the will to power. The will to power is not a bad thing. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: The will to power
is what drives us to elevate humanity. However, an ill-advised will to power can be
destructive. This is what corruption is. Corruption happens when an individual with power uses it to the detriment of others
for personal gain. This may seem natural, one wishes for power naturally unless taken in
by slave morality. (Definition of master-slave morality: Master morality is built on
valuing pride, strength, and nobility while slave morality is built on kindness, humility, and sympathy. Slave morality finds value in good and bad intentions while master
morality finds value in good or bad consequences)
However, when one looks at the greater picture, it becomes obvious that corruption is
actually self-defeating: By acting to the detriment of your nation for personal gains, you
are harming the nation you are a part of, and therefore harming yourself. What you are
doing is not increasing your own absolute power, but simply increasing your power
relative to the individuals in your nation. This is why the most corrupt governments in
the world, though they possess unbelievable amounts of power over their citizens, are
usually the weakest in the international power structure. The corrupt unwittingly work
against themselves. So, how can we prevent this?
The answer actually appears quite the obvious once you know it: Nationalism. Nationalism is what teaches people the importance of the nation, it’s what teaches them
how their own power depends on the power of the nation,how harming the nation harms
them. Therefore, we can conclude that the more nationalist a nation, particularly a
nation’s government, the less corrupt a nation will be. And as the potential for corruption
becomes smaller, the scope of social projects can increase. In conclusion, this is why I denounced national multiculturalism in a previous essay.
On Thoughts Political
70
In conclusion, this is why I denounced national multiculturalism in a previous essay. The more multicultural a nation, the less coherent the people. The less coherent the
people, the harder it is to have nationalism. The harder it is to have nationalism, the less
social projects you can engage in. And with this, we can conclude the following things:
The more responsibilities are given to a government, the higher the risk it will
become tyrannical. When planning social projects, a nation should aim for finite ones rather than
perpetual ones. Nationalism reduces corruption and therefore allows greater social projects. These three principles are fairly safe bets when you want to achieve a functional
nation. It is of course possible to argue the extent to which each should be applied, yet
they will always remain true. And remember that they are not possible in a multicultural
nation.
On Thoughts Political
71
On Quebec Separation
This topic may seem unusual compared to others I've covered, as I usually touch on
fairly universal concepts. However, I want to speak of Quebec's separatist movement for
two reasons:
Quebec's separation from Canada would have far reaching consequences across the
entire world, much more than most people would expect. It concerns me personally as I am, myself, a Canadian. I won't explain the history
behind Quebec separatism, the pros and cons, its legitimacy, the cultural aspects of it or
anything related to whether Quebec should separate from the rest of Canada or not, as
the reasons and why of it all are irrelevant. Instead, I will discuss the following:
1. Why it is inevitable. 2. Why it is important to the rest of the world. So first, why is Quebec's separation inevitable?
As explained previously, for a nation to function, it must have one common culture. It
can have "sub-cultures", but there cannot be two major cultural groups within it or else
issues arise surrounding the very laws of the nation. In Canada we have two major
cultures:
1. The English Canadian culture, which is composed of several very similar sub- cultures and is almost identical to the American culture. 2. The French Canadian culture. We could also count the native cultures, yet their numbers are so small as to be unable
to tip the balance. Though relevant, I'd rather stick to the topic at hand rather than
explaining why I don't consider the native cultures of Canada to be "major cultural
groups". The initial intent of the English conquerors back in the 18th century was to
assimilate the “Canadiens” and make them into proper English citizens. As can be seen today, these efforts have thoroughly failed in Quebec and continue to
fail. And so we're left with two cultures which, though far from polar opposed, are still
too different to form one unified nation. However, Canada, instead of acting like a
confederation of different nations, acts as if it is one nation, submitting the smaller
culture (Quebec) to the larger one (Canada). As can be expected, this causes discontent, never mind tribal attitudes from both sides. So, now that we have examined how Quebec will not be assimilated into the greater
On Thoughts Political
72
So, now that we have examined how Quebec will not be assimilated into the greater
American culture surrounding it, one has to think about the future. No matter how
powerful and prosperous a nation might be, it would be foolish to assume it will never
face adversity. Now, imagine what would happen if a disparate "nation" like Canada were to face such
adversity. Say, an invasion or a major catastrophe. The first thing that would happen is
that the two cultures would turn away from each other and the separation of Quebec
would happen, all naturally. And so, we can state that, unless things change and French Canadians somehow get
assimilated into the greater American culture, Quebec's separation will inevitably happen
if pressure is applied on Canada in one way or another. The only thing that's in question
is how
this separation will happen: Will it be through a democratic process, through a violent
revolution or through something even less predictable, such as a complete dismantling of
Canada in the face of a catastrophe?
No matter the way in which it happens, we can be assured that if we wait until it
happens on its own, the people of both Quebec and the rest of Canada will suffer
immensely as the power structures disintegrate around them. But why does this matter so much? We're talking about one province of 8 million. Why would it affect the rest of the world? Well, there are several reasons, and none of
them are pleasant to think about. First of all, one has to know that many of Canada's provinces have expressed the
desire to join the United States of America if Quebec were to separate. Even without
such explicit statements, it would appear as the eventual outcome. And even one
province joins the United
States, then it is only a matter of time until the rest follows. This would give the
United States almost complete control of everything north of Mexico, including large
portions of the Arctic. It would also give them access to Canada's resources, namely its
fresh water, its iron, its gold and diamonds, its oil, its forests... The list goes on and on. I
don't think I need to explain how certain rivals of the US would react if it gained access
to all this. Yet if that was all, then Quebec's separation, though important, wouldn't affect
'the entire world'. No, there's more. Second of all, we have to understand what Quebec's separation means to the rest of
the world. This would send a message to many, MANY populations around the world, or
rather two messages:
1. It would confirm that it is indeed impossible for two different cultures to co-exist
within one nation governed by common laws. If even a peaceful, industrialized
On Thoughts Political
73
1. within one nation governed by common laws. If even a peaceful, industrialized
nation like Canada couldn't do it, what hopes do others have?
2. It IS possible to achieve separation. These populations would then become very motivated to achieve the same. You could
expect more separations to follow around the world, many through civil wars. And still, there are more reasons why this would affect the whole world. Third of all, you have to understand that the rest of Canada will not sit idly by and let
it happen. During both referendums where Quebec's citizens voted on whether they
would leave Canada or not, the federal government was preparing an invasion of Quebec
to "secure and
protect strategic facilities and resources" in the eventuality of a victory of the
separatists. This would mean civil war in Canada. Do you think the United States would
sit idly by and let it happen? No, they would quickly get involved and attempt to
"pacify" the region and forcefully annex Canada. However, this would also likely cause
upheavals in the United States and likely trigger a second American civil war. You can
only imagine the impact this would have on the world. So, not only would the United
States gain access to Canada's resources and territory as explained before, but it would
be done in a way which would cause civil uprisings. And last, but not least, we have to consider what Quebec's situation would be if it
managed to gain its independence. We're talking about a territory several times larger
than most European nations peopled by only 8 million souls, loaded with resources of all
kinds and without an army. Unless Quebec were to find a way to convince the United States to defend it, which
is unlikely to happen if the rest of Canada joins the United States, then it will be very
vulnerable to foreign invaders. If the United States act to defend Quebec from them, it
will not be an act of friendship but an act of self-defense, in which case they would
immediately seize control of Quebec, with all the consequences explained earlier. And so, you now understand why Quebec's separation is inevitable and why it will
have far reaching repercussions around the world. At this point, instead of arguing about
whether Quebec should separate or not, Canada should be preparing for it so it happens
smoothly and with as few issues as possible. Otherwise, it will result in tremendous
misery for all involved.
On Thoughts Political
74
On Confederations
And now, I arrive at my conclusion. All of what I've written so far has led to this. The
whole of what I've written will be necessary not only to understand what I'm about to
say, but to achieve it. This also means that it is my final thread. I will keep posting, as I
always have, and I will definitely create more threads, but it is the last time you will see
the beaver being used to mark my threads. And so, to the matter at hand:
Confederations are the power structures of the future, and the only imaginable
supranational entity which is functional and morally sound. But what is a confederation?
How does it function? Why is it necessary? What are the advantages'? How do we
maintain one'? Ill try to cover as much as possible, and as said, knowledge of what I've
said in the last year and a half will be necessary to fully comprehend. As I've said, multiculturalism is a blight upon the world. Nations must be mono- cultural to be functional. However, the world itself should be multicultural: Seeking to
establish a single monolithic culture for the whole of humanity would be ill-advised. Yet
in a world which is getting more interconnected, where full scale war between advanced
nations would lead to annihilation and where specialization becomes the norm, collaboration between nations becomes important. Furthermore, one can point out many
countries in the world which do not correspond to the mono-cultural definition of the
nation which I have given. The answer to these problems is the confederation. A confederation is a supra-national entity which acts as a coordinator between
different nations which all have common interests and similar, yet different cultures. It is
an additional government level, above that of the national. However, as said before, a
nation's laws can only be coherent if it is mono-cultural. Therefore, the confederation
does not create laws or enforce them. Rather, its role is to consolidate different sectors of
the governments of its member nations under a single, unified banner, as long as those
sectors do not interfere with the autonomy of said member nations. A confederate
government's role would then be to oversee the military, transportation channels between
the different constituent nations, international relationships (as in, relationships with
nations which do not belong to the confederation, or with other confederations) and
economic coherence within the confederation through the establishment of a single
confederate currency. As you no doubt understand, this would be a massive undertaking
and the mechanics of the confederation need to be established. I'll attempt to do so. First of all, how do we determine whether different nations should be part of the same
confederation? Well, first of all, their cultures should be similar enough that there would
be no ideological clashes between the constituent nations. It needs to be unimaginable
for two nations within the same confederation to ever want to go to war with each other.
On Thoughts Political
75
for two nations within the same confederation to ever want to go to war with each other. Thus, two western European nations, such as France and the United Kingdom, would do
well within the same confederation, but not, say, China and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the constituent nations must have something to gain from being part of
the same confederation. I once spoke of self-sufficiency: With confederations, a nation
no longer has to be self-sufficient. Instead, it is the confederation which is self-sufficient, and the different constituent nations which provide for each other. Free trade between the
confederation's nations is necessary to achieve this. The level of human development, as well as working conditions and average
disposable incomes should also be similar. A third world nation entering a confederation
of industrialized nations would be tremendously harmful. One does not need to explain
the harm which has been caused by allowing tree trade with developing countries where
wages and the cost of lite are low. Never mind that by purchasing goods produced by
pseudo-slavery, the development of third world and developing nations is halted as the
otherwise unsustainable system becomes sustainable. So, similar cultures, common interest and similar life conditions are the necessary
factors for different nations to form a confederation. But what form should the
confederate government take, and how do we make sure that it does not usurp the power
which rightfully belongs to its constituent nations?
First of all, the confederate government should not be allowed to tax citizens directly. Instead, it is its constituent nations which should provide it with funds in order to
function. Some may worry that a nation might decide to avoid paying its due to the
confederation, but the solution to this problem is simple: If a nation refuses to contribute, it should not be part of the confederation. And as it is in its interest to be part of the
confederation, it would be in its interest to contribute. Of course, to make sure the
confederate government does not ask undue amounts from its constituents, the nations
themselves need to have some leverage, and that leverage comes from the fact that they
can still decide to withhold payment Meaning, if the confederate government becomes
abusive, the nations have the power to starve it. But what about the army? If the confederate government controls the army, then it
has the ability to enforce its will on the constituent nations through force. There is a
simple solution to this as well: Soldiers in the confederation should not be loyal to the
confederation, but to their home nation. As long as the confederation works to help their
nation, then they have an incentive to be loyal to the confederation. But if the
confederation were to order them to tyrannize over the constituent nations, then such
orders would not be obeyed. One can however imagine that the upper echelons of
military command must never be given over to a single nation within a confederation, but
those are details which would be worked out later. What is important to remember is that
On Thoughts Political
76
those are details which would be worked out later. What is important to remember is that
a confederation's soldiers are only loyal to the confederation as long as it is functional. A
confederate government seeking to use its army to usurp the power of its constituent
nations would see its own army turn against it. Furthermore, democracy would be a dangerous form of government for the
confederation. Democracy would automatically give power to the most populous nation, no matter what. Thus, a different form of government is necessary for the confederation. A form of military technocracy might be best Going back on what I've said considering
democracy and what should replace it, we can establish that a series of objective criteria
would have to be established to determine who would be eligible not only to occupy
positions of power within the confederation, but to vote for who will occupy those
positions. The individual nations can keep their own form of governments, regardless of
what form the confederate government will take. And what about the rights of the citizens of a confederation'? Should all citizens of a
confederation have the same rights'? Ideally, they should. However, I personally believe
that the rights should be determined by nations. The rights of a citizen would depend on
his nation, not on the confederation. The confederation should also facilitate collaboration between its constituent nations. Freedom of movement between the nations would be necessary, as well as a single
currency to facilitate trade, and of course free trade. However, what of immigration'? I
speak not here of the movement of citizens of different nations within the confederation, but of extra-confederate immigration. People from outside the confederation seeking
citizenship. I've given my opinion of immigration before, and I'll restate it, but this time
taking into account the existence of confederations: No confederation has any duty
towards foreigners. Immigration should only be allowed if the confederation has
anything to gain from it And there is no problem in a confederation which can be solved
by replacing its population with that of extra-confederate elements. Thus, I believe that for extra-confederate individuals to be allowed to immigrate to
the confederation, they should have the support of both the confederate government and
of the government of whichever nation they are immigrating to. The confederate
government should not have the power to force nations to accept immigrants, nor should
nations be able to accept immigrants without the approval of the confederation. Language however should not be standardized except in the military The aim of the
confederation is to allow different nations to be part of the same entity without
threatening their autonomy or suppressing their individual cultures. Even in the case of
the military, the standardization of language is merely the lesser evil. A military can not
afford to sacrifice efficiency for any reason whatsoever, so all its members should be able
to communicate with each other.I'd also like to point out three proto-confederations
On Thoughts Political
77
to communicate with each other.I'd also like to point out three proto-confederations
which already exist, while also explaining how they're not truly confederations. They are
the United States of America, the European Union and Canada. The United States of America already function very much like a confederation. There
is an unprecedented amount of separation of powers within that country which creates a
federal government which has far less power over its constituents (the states) than any
other federal government on the planet at this time. However, it is not truly a
confederation. Could the states be considered different enough to be separate nations'? In
certain cases, they certainly can. But in others, the distinction between two states is
merely geographic. Furthermore, the federal government of the United States still has an
inordinate amount of power over its constituents which would be abhorrent in a
confederation. The European Union is seemingly an attempt at creating such a confederation, but it
fails for many reasons. It tries to legislate and standardize laws between its constituent
nations, many nations do not contribute to the Union, the life conditions in its constituent
nations can vary quite a bit and it often tries to usurp national power. The current refugee
crisis is a good example of mismanagement, especially in the case of immigration. Canada itself was meant to be a confederation from the start, but quickly became a
country like any other through different acts which centralized the powers into the hands
of the federal government Canada is definitely constituted of many different nations, yet
it tries to act as if it is but one nation. Canada is peculiar compared to the other two
examples however as it has the best potential to become a functional confederation. Quebec itself has sought more autonomy for decades now, and the metamorphosis of
Canada from a country into a confederation would help solve that problem. I spoke of
how the separation of Quebec was an inevitability and how damaging it would be for not
only Quebec and the rest of Canada, but even for the whole world. The confederation is
a solution to that problem: The constituent nations of Canada would regain their own
autonomy, while maintaining a supra-national power structure which would allow them
to remain independent from potentially predatory nations which would take over were
they not working together. It would essentially bring them the advantages of Canada's
current form, which is a united front against the rest of the world so as to maintain
control over their territory, while also removing the disadvantages, which are that the
nations interfere with each other. Yet, achieving the confederation would be difficult. The people in power right now
would not allow it: It would mean the establishment of a government level above theirs, or, if their own government level were to take the role of confederate government, the
loss of many powers. They will not allow it because they are shortsighted buffoons. They
would rather have total control of the countries they rule over even if it were to bring
their own destruction rather than accept a position of lesser control which would bring
On Thoughts Political
78
their own destruction rather than accept a position of lesser control which would bring
about an entity to surpass the Roman Empire. Thus, revolution will be necessary. What form this revolution will take will depend
on how unreasonable the current leaders are, and how urgent the formation of the
confederation is. My advice is to keep an eye on Canada: As said, it has a lot to gain
from becoming a confederation, and I would go so far as to say that it is ripe for it The
idea only needs to gain ground and it will become a reality there. And once Canada has
become a confederation and the success of such an entity has become self-evident to the
rest of the world, the dominoes will fall. Hell, maybe Canada and the United States will
join into a single confederation. It would indeed be a very effective confederation. Confederations are the future. The only other alternative is a gradual degradation of
humanity and war, as the different nations of the world become unable to cope with the
issues they face. And all we have to do to achieve this bright future is to seize it.