Part I - Family & Nihilism

More than once I've been queried on the nature of nihilism as it relates to family and child-raising. Is nihilism compatible with family? What influence does it have? The question of family really hasn't been adequately answered for the modern age. The conservatives can easily push an opinion based on inapplicable historical examples but trying to recreate the past is doomed without an adequate allowance for contemporary issues. Trying to redefine family is fraught with peril and controversy and really the only answer is one of expediency for the moment - think ahead and use what works. Be they politically conservative or liberal, when adopting concepts for the guidance and formation of a family be wary of advice from experts long on faith and short on fact.

I'm no substitute for a doctor and maybe not even a decent magazine on the topic but I'll try and cover what I know from experience and analysis. If you the reader really want all the answers on this issue just read Maria Montessori's incredible book The Montessori Method. Maria takes Nietzsche's philosophy and turns it into reality, but more on that another time.

Anyway, it's clear that kids grow and go through stages. Early development is probably the most mechanical yet also the most important in physical aspects for future health in mind and body which are dependent upon proper care here. As they get older and more mobile they start to interact with others of the same and older ages, they learn the forces of authority, power and the effects of feedback from interacting with others. We can see that really all development is based on trial and error and I would posit that we probably learn more from errors than immediate successes in life. So attempting things, especially new things is important, in some cases it comes naturally in others it should be encouraged at least in safe and reasonable ways.

 Much of child raising is mechanical and devoid of ideology and similar across cultures, kids need food, shelter, clothing, exercise, education, etc. Because of the similarity and necessity these factors can be safely ignored for the sake of brevity in this assessment. Besides that, humans have very long childhood developments and much of this is due to the need to learn the vast amounts of information and skills necessary not just for survival but for success as well.

History of the Family Network

Conformity to family or near clan can be useful and served its purpose when society was small, homogenous, and cohesive but in today's faceless modern urban society of millions, conformity and group allegiance is often not just useless but self-defeating. Like many other concepts it conveyed a benefit at one time in the past for small societies but today it has been warped and twisted to hurt not help the average person. If one understands this they can properly act but if not they're doomed to powerlessness and confusion. Now more than ever it's imperative to carefully choose you allies when possible. Similarly the belief in success through coexisting ethnic diversity is not based on facts but on blind faith and desire for an imaginary and impossible result. It is a mortal error to try and make dissimilar peoples cooperate. That's when it all started getting worse. Old style highly connected ethnic networks, ghettos, they had their problems true but they were certainly sustainable weren't they! The toughest social networks for outsiders to break into are those that have a strong history, strong sense of identity and a shared sense of collective destiny; this is why troublesome tribes or inner city gangs are such tough nuts to crack open for police and outside authorities. Family may change its name and even its form slightly but the fundamental concepts are not going away anytime soon because they are hardwired into our being. The social need for family cannot be ignored without peril, only substitutions are allowed.

Why Family?

Family has loads of cultural baggage and mythology attached to it making analysis superficially challenging and confusing but it's fundamentally a very mechanical process. Having kids is a practical method of extending the self. Immortality is the goal of every perpetuating entity and humans do this through genes and/or memes and both paths involve sacrifice. Reproducing is striving for immortality and doing this genetically involves your standard biological reproduction. The sacrifice to yourself is that only half your genetic material is perpetuated but the idea is to offset this by finding a mate genetically similar but different enough to avoid too many deleterious recessive genes from popping out in the product (baby). This process occurs constantly around the world but the participants rarely have even an inkling of what is really going on behind the scenes. Yet the genes still win anyway and in fact stupidity to a limited extent is to the genes advantage because those types are unable to comprehend much besides sex. Sex is the cheapest, most basal form of entertainment humanly possible (violence is second).

Memetic immortality is also known as fame, it is the perpetuation of the ideas and thoughts of the originator into the larger pool of collective minds. The sacrifice here is that one has limited control over the outcome - great ideas often get warped or misinterpreted but the outcome is not watered down by the need for a partner.

Family is a support element to enhance the process of reproduction, primarily biological perpetuation but memetic reproduction is predicated upon healthy biological source anyway. So the fact is that a child cannot live and grow without some kind of social support network - a family and since human childhood is so long, nearly two decades, the family has to be able to provide for the child's mental and physical needs at least that long or the perpetuation process is stunted.

Adoption of a non-genetically related child is a sacrifice usually born out of necessity coupled with the manifestation of very powerful hormonal and psychological needs built into the human essence. For the sake of brevity here I'm gong to just focus on the parents and the child and ignore these minor details and state that the child is a reflection of the parent to varying degrees. This reflection is intentional as previously mentioned.

Gangs

Modern gangs are the product of a very primal need coupled with contemporary economic and social factors. Gangs represent an inherent human need for authority structures and the childhood need for the guidance of mentors. So primarily gangs are a symptom of large youth populations within a socially unstable, economically eroded environment often exacerbated by the decay of traditional values. Not surprisingly places like Guatemala, Afghanistan, and Los Angeles California are prime examples of this phenomenon. Broken social networks initiate and perpetuate gang societies - kids don't have adult role models then grow up and act out. As political power of government decays gangs rise to fill local needs for order. Established authority structures are widely ineffective against this problem because they only police rather than try to address deeper social roots of the crisis, namely kids growing up without parental authority. And the lack of close bonds with more wise and experienced adult parents has many causes. Increasing incarceration rates have broken up many families, putting one or more parents behind bars for years. Wars and violent conflicts kill off parents and leave broken families behind; drugs and disease like HIV in Africa cause early deaths too.

From Family to Society

So we can see that the needs of children and thus society around the world are fairly simple and ideological or theological values are secondary but those values nonetheless complicate the realization of valid solutions to these serious family based problems. Kids need wise and reliable adult role models. Very young parents lack both capacities. Parents that see little connection to their kids perhaps because they aren't genetically related or simply due to unfit personality will let down their kids and thus society at large too. So too it's important to emphasize that childhood problems are eventually societies problems.

Broad generalizations for the social model can be difficult to make. What form should a family take? Does a family have to have two parents? Does a car have to have four wheels? No, but it works better that way. Ultimately the quality of the parent is a lot more important than the quantity. In some cultures kids have multiple parents, or they learn from the entire clan as a group and this is probably more useful to the child than the isolated atoms that many modern families take. Healthy exposure is important, as is the socialization process itself. The children of larger families are much healthier psychologically than those of very small ones because the one in larger families have learned how to properly interact with others and that their actions and words have direct consequences. Interacting with those of the opposite sex is equally important for the same reason.

Imparting Values

This is the real nexus for our focus on nihilism. What is good and bad? Nothing. What does that mean? Nothing. OK now that we've cleared that up ... The point is that we can think anything we want and no matter how much we believe in it that won't ever make fantasies real; no matter how much mind-altering drugs one consumes that won't change the consistent nature of that which exists outside our minds and bodies and continues long after we are gone and without regard for our own inflated egos - only the ability to perceive and respond to it. Since children are a reflection of the parent, equally the values of the parent will be impressed upon the offspring whether intentional or not. This does not guarantee a mindless clone parroting the parents ideas and rhetoric when they get older. Parents can only impart a substrata in the minds of the child as far as values and ideology are concerned and the more resistant to criticism are these values and ideas the greater the longevity in the mind and attitude of the child. And this resistance can be acquired through blind faith in religious dictums or solid logic of an objective argument.

But ultimately imparting a solid framework for thinking and learning is much more important to the child the just isolated facts and orders. It's not just 'that's the way it is' but instead 'this is why' and 'this is how we reach that conclusion'. In many ways beliefs and values are a crutch, a mental shortcut to avoid the need for justification of an opinion. Parents employ this constantly for obvious reasons. Parents tell kids not to swear for example but kids demand a reason to back up the argument, especially when the parents swear anyway. This need for validity in the argument has increased especially as force becomes less culturally palatable in molding the child's mind and attitudes. Very often the arguments parents give out are either contradicted by their own actions or simply the standard 'do what I tell you and don't question' line. Neither one works in the long run because the kids see the contradiction and react accordingly. Blatant contradictions and double standard are probably the most serious flaw in parenting.

If parents would simply justify the reasons for demanded behaviors and then apply and follow their own philosophy and moral demands in their own lives, this would solve the vast majority of parent-child conflicts especially in the rebellious teen years. And yet the religiosity of the parents is likely the greatest obstacle in this path, for faith compels behavior blatantly out of synch with reality. Parents are leaders, they have to lead by example not by mere words; it's rare for a kid to end up better mentally and emotionally balanced than their parents - think about it.

Guidance and role models are very important to human child development. Everything they see, hear and sense is going into the formation of their attitude and world-view. Kids act based upon what they see, what they hear, the surroundings, and since they are only around their parents a small percentage of their time their influences include peers and related culture such as TV, music, etc. This is why parents are often apoplectic over the content and character of mass media programs. For the most part the producers of these programs are only concerned with profits so they will produce almost anything if it can catch an audience long enough for the advertising sponsors to make a sale. In this system the audience is a commodity to be exploited and their minds to be warped into the most profitable course of action for the ones who control the dominant media outlets. Once again only substitutions are allowed. In order to win this battle the parent has to make a valid substitution to the child for the undesired content. 10.07.03

"Growing up is not just about taking responsibility; it is finally attaining the things we think will save us, 'and realising they won't." - The Telegraph newspaper, interview With Chuck Palahniuk July 27th, 2001.

Part II - Plato, Family and Future

Original communist authoritarian Plato in The Republic theorized that the family has to be abolished in order to create a regulated state where men and women's roles are interchangeable. Basically the government tells the little people 'hey, we're your family now!', and even goes so far as to pick who breeds with whom. In this case family no longer serves the individual but rather the state and individual identity is transferred to that abstract, political supra-entity.

Family has been co-opted for the service of government more than once in history. Third Reich Germany and Communist Romania are two examples which spring to mind. The belief behind this, and that which motivated Plato as well, is that every man and woman has an innate ability, basically a destiny, that they must follow in order that community is served and their own potential is maximized. In other words some people are good at making shoes and others at giving orders, some are made slaves and others are born to be masters. These roles are determined at birth but then the elites detect it at a young age and place them in training to maximize their given skills for the intended social position. It is a totally rigid, top-down, elitist system, the 'anthill' society. The problem with this belief is that it is defeated by the facts of reality for some are good at many things, some aren't good at anything and in the meantime the skills needed by society are constantly changing. Maybe that unemployable drifter in ancient Greece would be a rich software engineering consultant now. What would the Emperor of China do if he stepped off a bus in St. Louis today? Silly examples maybe but the point is still made.

Communalism in nearly any form is a sham because responsibility is abrogated and no single person has any stake in the outcome of events. Every member of the group has to have a solid sense of ownership in process, product and outcome or it will inevitably fail spectacularly no matter how glorious the start or lofty the founding ideals. Further, contrary to Plato you can't breed humans like cattle because we don't know our ultimate goal to breed towards! It's easy to control the biological characteristics of a cow because all they have to 'do' is taste good after you cook 'em. We can't know the future or the skills needed to meet its needs; the best we can possibly do is guess about the future and try to produce smart generalists capable of quickly adapting [reference Holology].

A root problem here is a blind faith in control - the belief not only that we can control these things but that we should and further that the product will be superior to what would arrive on its own without some dictator ordering it to happen. People fear chaos, they fear disorder especially when it is foreign to their rigid, heavily regulated lives. But disorder is the natural state of events, it is what created us through evolution and about the only thing we can really rely on strategically. This disorder and random course of events that we cannot and indeed should not control will shape our collective and individual future regardless of the magnitude of our egos.

Some of the most dynamic and powerful countries in history are a testament to the power of minimal control and a maximum allowance of freedom. It's amazing what can happen if you just let people be free, let them do what they want to do without micro-managing their lives or forcing them to participate in some artificial authority monstrosity of 'The State' or 'The Church'. If people want to have families let them have families; if they don't, let them do without.

This is not to say that we should be passive or afraid to change things it means that we finally recognize limitations. A general framework is much more useful than holy writ and absolute rules. Provide maximum opportunity and let people fail or succeed on their own as this provides incentive to advance and personally gain in life and allows for competition - the one thing that can save us and that most feared by elitist authority!

In the end the structures and commandments of civilization seek not to advance life and strength but to protect the weak and perpetuate a safe stasis of stagnation. Soon life ceases to be worth living because it has no future only a hollow past; life then becomes ossified laying the red-carpet for a nihilist to go in and blow it all to hell to save themselves and everyone else. 12.07.03

Kafka & The Delusion of Freedom

Franz Kafka lived in Prague during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Kafka was a unique and enigmatic author who enjoyed reading his stories to an informal audience but rejected having them published. In fact the only reason anyone outside his circle of friends ever got the chance to read most of his writings was because his best friend ignored Kafka's final wishes and kept rather than burned his collected works. This is even more ironic when considering the fact that Kafka is deemed by some to be one of the most important figures in modern literature which is largely because his writings presaged and codified much of the angst and individual alienation pervading contemporary western society.

I think my personal favorite novel is The Trial because it so neatly typifies every element of Kafka's core themes and writing style. But in general the primary theme that reoccurs beneath the superficial phantasmagoria is that even though things often make no sense one still has to try anyway; existence is struggle. So one can either accept this fundamental ... or accept it - the only alternative is denial and the only potential difference resides within your personal attitude and perceptions of it all.

Kafka's most famous novel, The Metamorphosis (1912), typifies this situation where the main character wakes one morning to find himself transformed into a giant beetle:

Not because he thinks he can necessarily defeat this bizarre turn of events but because Gregor realizes that dealing with the situation at hand always assumes primacy; a sort of pragmatic existentialism, a logic perhaps as superficially ridiculous as the situation itself. The most striking continuity is that all of Kafka's main characters address the ludicrous, random, crushing weight of the outside world upon themselves in a rational manner, just like in a dream where even the most outrageous and nonsensical events remain unquestioned but rather directly addressed just as they are. This is both the literary appeal of his novels and a source of the symbolism involved.

A more obscure but at least as enlightening novel of this primary theme comes from A Report to an Academy (1917) which is about a captured ape (or monkey) forced to become something he isn't. How much of this story is intentional or not is open for debate but the powerful symbolism is nonetheless inescapable.

26.01.03

The Sham of Pop-Anarchism

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

The fact that anarchists never want to listen to reason or alternate opinion but usually respond with invective and heated rhetoric is a screaming klaxon testifying to the religious dogma that they adhere to. Nor do they stop and question the legitimacy or usefulness of the apocryphal causes they inveigh against, a testament to their faith in anarchism. Two prime examples of these hallowed yet hollow causes are 'Western culture' and Mumia.

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

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

Favorite bumper sticker opinion and Hollywood approved cause, freeing the imprisoned Mumia Abu-Jamal saturates anarchist discussions. Free Mumia? While ignoring the thousands of other wrongly accused and wrongly imprisoned persons out there? But why? What for? What difference would it make? Freeing Mumia is like giving a Band-Aid to a cancer patient. What a waste and such a typical pointless diversion from what matters! Can't you see you are just being dragged by the nose by a clique with a shallow political agenda? Probably not, because if they could they wouldn't be pop-anarchists! Sadly, today's anarchism is just a Trojan Horse that hijacks youthful aggression and understandable anger so as to rail against safe causes and aimless convictions.

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

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak

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

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

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

Yeah those are real rebellious and gutsy positions to take a stand against. Hell, why not just drop the phony pretext and join a church? You'd get the same message and the people would be friendlier! Yeah, and it turns out Jesus wasn't just a hippy he was an anarchist too.

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

Revolution is tougher than you think

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

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

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

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

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

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

They [anti-authoritarians] demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. ... Have these gentlemen never seen a revolution? A revolution is undoubtedly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, which are authoritarian means if ever there were any. And the victorious party, if it does not wish to have fought in vain, must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.

Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed population against the bourgeoisie? Should we not on the contrary reproach it for not having made more extensive use of this authority? Therefore either one of two things is possible: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they are saying, and in this case they sow nothing but confusion, or they do know, and in this case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction. Friedrich Engels, Neue Zeit, Vol XXXII, 1, 1913-14.

Food or Faith?

Jesus said "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4) in an attempt to justify religion as one of life's daily necessities. But despite the counterintuitive word of God through Jesus, man can and does live on bread alone. Meaning that no one has died from spiritual malnutrition or a dearth of philosophy, indeed no one has even gotten sick from lack of faith in God or any 'higher power'!

In actuality it's clear that we have food and then we have faith and since nihilism is beyond transient values, 'beyond good and evil', nihilism is with the food and not the faith. The faith is interchangeable, it is a fungible, extraneous desire not a mandatory necessity. Food is a constant required by all living things but faith is a variable, and a very insidious variable to be certain because it means whatever authorities and officially sanctioned interpreters declare it to mean.

"There is nothing so absurd that it has not been said by philosophers." - Cicero

The universe doesn't hide anything from us, there is no intentional mischievousness inherent within nature. A God is not out there trying to conceal the secrets of life and the universe from us all. I've written before that the interpreters ruin the world and indeed they do because it is they who invent the fictions, create the fantasies and beliefs. Everything is already out there, all the answers are staring back at us. But if one wants to see things that aren't there, they must be interpreted or concocted out of the existing universal order. Now at times there are certain tactical advantages to creating fantasy worlds and convincing others to play along, but these benefits are inevitably negated by strategic events.

A guess without a test is a waste. Unverifiable philosophizing and 'interpreting' the universe requires immense effort with no commensurate benefit for doing so and is ultimately indicative of person(s) with far too much free time.

For the wages of unreality is death

To think that an artificially manufactured belief or interpretation is a life necessity is a serious and ultimately mortal mistake; such thinking displays a serious cognitive dysfunction - it is a disease. A nihilist does not 'believe' in nihilism because nihilism offers nothing for anyone to believe in. Nihilism is not artificially created, it's a label and symbol for the realization of the order, chaos and continual processes that are already out there and always will be. 08.09.02

Scientific Evaluation

I've said before - if it doesn't work throw it out; but how does one know if it works? If a policy achieves its desired outcome with the most efficient use of resources, that’s probably a solid definition. But this brings us to the more crucial question how does one know if the proper outcome is being generated? And here we end up in evaluation land, full of tedium and numerical datum.

It is an unstated effort to seek situations where as few decisions as possible are being made. If objective analysis and quantified studies yield consistent and viable results then the path to take should be clear. To make a simple example, if path A turns out to be expensive and inefficient while path B is cheap and effective then research has already made the decision, hasn't it? All neat and simple, the objectification of decision making creates a very nihilistic, even robotic society. This is the destruction of faith and myth through science.

Could it be that total thinking and no thinking yield the same result - nihilism? Nihilism is where the mind of God and the amoebae meet. This is in the sense that neither is making any decisions, but the difference is that one has control over their environment, the other none. It's ignorance be it intentional or not coupled with a lack of quantitative information that breeds errors, fantasies and illusions.

It's not quite that simple though because value-laden decisions and qualitative values remain. But increasingly objective analysis defeats the former bastions of subjective gray-areas. For example spiritual sensations and mystical feelings can be traced to specific region in the brain, supernatural encounters are chemical signals obeying the laws of chemistry and physics. People like God because it makes them feel good. And religion holds a society together (or can blow it apart) so that pleasure response evolved for a perfectly sensible reason.

But society didn't jump into an empirical way of doing things with open arms, heretics were burned, and wars were fought. But science prevailed because it was a superior algorithm, it could always defeat religious ways of acting and predicting. Similarly capitalism in it's most generic form has spread because it is profitable to the people that can use it. And within a money based society quantifiable methodologies have been rapidly adopted because money is a limited resource and it has to be used as efficiently as possible. And how do we know if it's being wasted or used efficiently? Research and analysis. But that is just one step, the next is accepting the results and acting upon them. But herein we collide with morality, medical science is a great example. Who is the beneficiary and why?

Ultimately it's mostly random until a reference is interjected into the equation. This is why Steven Weinberg can say "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless," and be absolutely correct. It is, the universe is completely pointless, it has no aim and everything within it has no purpose except self-perpetuation. God, and his earthly representatives held a monopoly on this for centuries. Today the holy reference point is money and people want more and more even when it's harmful. But things are shifting away from both. Plastic surgery is indicative of the obsession with self, drug and medical research is also indicative of the quest for immortality through the perpetuation of the selfish human body. But this is such a shallow perception, it will only end up on the same deathbed as money and God. God, money and the ego, all are hyper-simplistic, but in order to understand what isn't overly simplistic we need to better understand what the ME really is. Scientific evidence has yet to yield any definitive answers yet but we are getting closer. In order to find and understand the crucial, ultimate reference point we have to understand the human mind, body, genetics and memetics and who knows what else, how it all interacts into and interfaces to create consciousness and secondly even more importantly how one ME interacts with thousands and millions of other ME's. There is only one way to get there. 25.07.02

Book Review: NIHILISM - The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age By Fr. Seraphim Rose (Eugene Rose), written "early 1960's" and I believe is part of the Russian Orthodox Church. Sort of fitting institution for criticism of the topic, I suppose.

So, long story short, what is Rose's inescapable conclusion? You either choose God or nihilism, so take your pick kids! "Nihilism has failed as long as true Christian faith remains in a single person; for that person will be a living example of Truth that will prove vain all the impressive worldly accomplishments of which Nihilism is capable and will refute in his person all the arguments against God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Man's mind is supple, and it can be made to believe anything to which his will inclines."

Certain parts are just laugh out loud funny. His description of Nechayev is both ridiculous and sadly exaggerated. "Sergei Nechayev translated this theory into practice so perfectly that to this day he seems a creation of myth, if not a demon from the depths of Hell itself, leading a life of unprincipled ruthlessness and amorality, under the pretext of total expediency in the name of the Revolution. "

Other elements are close but often taken out of context. "The Realist Bazarov could state that "there is not a single institution of our society that should not be destroyed."[17] "Who wishes to be creative," said Nietzsche, "Must first destroy and smash accepted values."

Author Rose uses Nietzsche more than anyone else to support his contention of the universal evil and imperative danger of the 'Nihilist Revolution'. But as we already know, although Nietzsche discussed nihilism at length he went to great lengths to portray his ideals as anti-nihilistic. So portraying Nietzsche as the "prophet of Nihilism" just doesn't fly, he might as well be the prophet of Fascism and Satanism too.

But the final straw near the end is ... "And indeed the Christian is, in a certain sense--in an ultimate sense--a "Nihilist"; for to him, in the end, the world is nothing, and God is all." Good gosh brother, you should have just stuck with baking bread for the homeless!

The Nihilist "revelation" thus declares, most immediately, the annihilation of authority. Some apologists are fond of citing "corruptions," "abuses," and "injustices" in the Old Order as justification for rebellion against it; but such things--the existence of which no one will deny--have been often the pretext, but never the cause, of Nihilist outbursts. It is authority itself that the Nihilist attacks. In the political and social order, Nihilism manifests itself as a Revolution that intends, not a mere change of government or a more or less widespread reform of the existing order, but the establishment of an entirely new conception of the end and means of government. In the religious order Nihilism seeks, not a mere reform of the Church and not even the foundation of a new "church" or "religion," but a complete refashioning of the idea of religion and of spiritual experience. In art and literature the Nihilist is not concerned with the modification of old aesthetic canons regarding subject-matter or style, nor with the development of new genres or traditions, but with a whole new approach to the question of artistic "creation" and a new definition of "art."

The author's facts are loose and the writing is riddled with logical fallacies not to mention that he makes no effort to support his implied contention that God and Christianity are inherently better or indeed that it has any validity at all! We're simply expected to take that as a given I suppose. At the same time he connects everything that he sees as anti-God into one giant package and throws a good label onto it that will be met with disgust by his religious dupes, 'Nihilism,' and makes all the paths lead to that conclusion. Even though most (if not all of them) don't actually go there. It feels like a profound testament to the tenacity of the believer and the lengths they will go to deny facts, scientific evidence and all logical reasoning that erodes their faith and negates their fantasies.

Ultimately The Root of the Revolution is an interesting work despite it's glaring flaws and the unavoidable fact that it's a misinterpretation and twisting of facts to fit a preconceived notion. And nihilism is not related to many of the ideologies and concepts the author tries to fit it into, obviously. Nonetheless, the most remarkable quality in my view is the parallel conclusions that match with this CounterOrder web site and those of the anti-nihilist author's. It's like reaching the same point from opposite directions, which I think is testimony to the legitimacy of the logic and the fundamental quality of nihilism as an accumulation of knowledge and historical events. But if you have the time give it a read and decide for yourself.

Note, [17] is from Fathers and Sons by Turgenev but is not a direct quote despite the quotation marks, it's actually a paraphrase! And furthermore I checked a few of the other footnotes and at best they're paraphrases and at worst completely inaccurate; be warned. 23.05.02

Math and Nihilism: Reduction to Common Elements

Nihilism is an extreme form of skepticism because it questions everything and takes nothing for granted. And yet this way of thinking can result in questioning the very value of symbols themselves; does math really describe the nature of the universe or is it an artificial construction of remarkable convenience? One of the dictionary definitions for nihilism is that "nothing can be known" so technically a nihilist could say, these symbols of language and math are all false and we can't communicate or truly know anything. Towering intellects have debated this issue and still walked away with inconclusive or nonexistent results. For the moment we have to accept that math is a very powerful descriptive tool and leave it at that. And besides, ultimately we can't really know that we don't know. So I think it is a fair judgment to simply start at the level that symbols are what they are and accept language and math at face value and work from that point.

Mathematics and nihilism are worth comparing, in the sense that both are self-evident truth conveyed through value neutral symbols. Neither require belief in anything in order to achieve an agreed upon result. Like adding one apple with another apple gives you two apples. The issue is that math uses numbers but nihilism must use words; numbers are singular and objective while words have multiple shades of subjectivity. Now, I've written in the past of the difficulties in conveying nihilistic concepts using modern, value laden language, so one answer is to create a new language, a common set of symbols, but of course that's easier said than done.

Reduction to common elements is akin to building useful symbolism and generating new language much as computers use the simplest language of all - just ones and zeros on/off binary language. Life itself is coded similarly in a language of only four letters but with incredible constructive powers. Why? Because it's so simple it can easily build repetitive complexity; it's the power of symmetry.

As we progress beyond the predictable bounds of theology and ideology we travel into uncharted waters which necessitate a new understanding of morality, values, and even a new language meaning the new set of symbols necessary to convey nihilistic concepts. It will take everything at our disposal to create that language, that map, that common understanding because the unpleasant alternative is palpable - do or die, try or fail. 14.05.02

... and the Israeli military has the right idea, I like it, I like it a lot. Infrastructure destruction could well be the hottest Israeli import since the .50 caliber handgun! And the best part is everybody will (should) get a chance! But it just needs to be completed because the job of destruction done in half measure is worse than none at all. Haul out the people and march them out of the city, rocket every building, rip up the roads, and bulldoze the rubble. Done? Great! Next, if all the Israeli soldiers will kindly exit their war machines and turn over the controls to their Palestinian neighbors we'll begin stage two. Don't push now, there's plenty for everyone.

OK, turn the tanks around and drive back to Tel Aviv, Haifa, and every other population center greater than 2000 people to finish the job. Driving through the checkpoint guard shack at 30 kph in the Merkava is optional but highly recommended. Haul all the people out of the cities, rocket every building, rip up every road, and bulldoze the rubble (just about finished)! Next drive every tank into the nearest landfill, land every helicopter and every other war machine too, then get in the trusty armored CAT bulldozers and cover it allllllll up. The U.S. made F-16s and AWACS planes for instance may have to be destroyed at the airfield and I dunno anything else that looks like it deserves a little flame kissed aesthetic enhancement - but hey, details, details.

Just stop bulldozing the olive trees you hear that Sharon! Leave the trees alone damn you! Oh and everybody can keep the money (so generous)! In fact you can even go to where the banks used to be, I bet you'll find plenty just lying around on the rubble - free! It may come in handy when you need kindling.

Nihilism & Art

If you experience art through the citadel of academia or spend any time with serious artists, listening to how they converse and digesting the ideas that rattle around in their heads you'll quickly recognize the complexity of the art world. Genres, styles, code-words, good and bad, right ways and wrong ways. Art is hella complicated.

It's also mostly bullshit.

The role of popular artist appeals to narcissistic personalities because it's something that can generate positive identity as well as an aura of special skills that therefore magnify the uniqueness and importance of the artist. This is a boat everybody wants to be on since people want to be congratulated and sought after. Yet it loses its value when 'anyone' can be an 'artist' hence the creation of those widespread cliques and elitist clubs. Special interpretations and ways of being an artist are meant to exclude the majority in order to magnify the minority; the inveterate search for a monopoly through the power of definition. The clique that can define what art actually is to the masses gains enormous power and coveted prestige. Connect the dots. Today's art movements are no better than anything else, the artist are no better either they just hold a very transitory monopoly.

"It [conceptual art] is the product of over-indulged middle-class bloated egos who patronise real people with fake understanding." - Ivan Massow chairman Institute of Contemporary Arts, January 2002.² Given that the only genuine 'concept' in conceptual art is the alliance of ego and money, this is not a surprising turn of events. Clearly the art world is in desperate need of a replacement genre and I suggest a more nihilistic alternative...

A nihilist filters the sound out of the noise, they view these elements through the lens of reductionism and conclude that art be it 30, 000 year old cave drawings in France or a crucifix in a jar of urine all have a crucial common element - the evocation of emotion, the conveyance of a message. Art is communication and superior art is superior communication. Everything else is icing on the cake. Beauty, colors, form, style, all just accessories designed to enhance spread and popularity of the ideas ensconced within the art. Everyone can be an artist, but the best artists have a superior ability to convey ideas and emotions.

This is Freydis' opinion, but I think beauty can only be generated by nature and mimicked by the human artist. True beauty resides within the wispy colors of a nebular cloud or the intricate veins of a green leaf, hence the art most widely deemed 'beautiful' consists of accurate depiction's of nature be it an Ingres portrait or Church nature scene. Otherwise aesthetic values are primarily subjective and ancillary to the issue of art anyway, it just makes a good thing better.

Historically the artistic style most closely related to nihilism is dada which began as a reaction to the bourgeoisie nationalist carnage and fratricide of World War One. Dada is often referred to as "nihilistic art" perhaps because it was often devoid of rules and in direct conflict with many contemporary values. Nonetheless most dada is just nonsense. I would say dada is the closest match to nihilist art because it's reduced to common elements. Dada is a means of communication and whatever means that is effective is valid, and then some. It's not about style or training or name or prestige, it's about evoking emotion and ideas. Art is simply a vehicle, a means of conveying a message but it also contains significant subjective qualities.

But ultimately art should be more than just a source of passive bemusement, it should be a participatory activity. When art is a recipe rather than a static monstrosities collecting dust in pretentious museums, art where the viewer is part of the process, they become artists as well. Not only does this dissolve the repulsive elitism staining modern art but it becomes entertaining and enlightening too because there's nothing holy or mystical about art or the qualities an artist must posses. This is the most nihilistic and democratized art movement I can think of because it has no set genre, no clique is defining what's acceptable. Every artist creates what they are best at creating and what's most appealing to them while anyone else that appreciates the same material can use the recipe, the instructions to create their own version, slightly changed to suit themselves. Paint the walls, post on the Internet, wear it on your shirts, it doesn't matter. The more you practice the better the product looks.
Give it a try. 19.01.02

Fire

Nihilism is often best conveyed within the context of biological parallels because they're so concisely applicable to our own survival. A prime example resides in the vast stretches of forested wilderness within western North America. If you live near or visit the forests you will see the death toll, the sick and dying trees, grim monuments to a dilemma generated by a hundred years of human error and human 'solutions'. Thousands of square miles showcase natural systems driven to unnatural states forming an imbalanced order that presently defies resolution except through complete devastation.

Every summer news crews cover the outbreaks of forest fires and each year the conflagrations become more widespread, tougher to control, and more deadly to homes and fire fighters. Fire, usually in the form of lightning strikes, is a natural part of the forest life-cycle serving to clear out forest-floor detritus and prevent tree overcrowding. These natural periodic burns prevent the large scale unnatural holocaust conflagrations we now witness every summer. This is the result of a dogmatic approach to forest 'conservation' guided by wayward environmental activism and coupled with mistaken government and industrial attempts to alter equilibrium and exploit nature as a 'resource'. Consequently the only way the forest can be saved is to leave it alone, let it burn to the ground, and allow the trees to start all over and grow back from seed.

Not even the healthy are safe in a forest of disease.

The same malevolent parties responsible for reducing the western forests to a state of lingering death have brought human life to an equally unhealthy nadir. Blame government for horrendously flawed and short sighted policy. Blame monomaniacal environmentalism and the legion of similar dogmatic ideologies. Blame mass-media for conveying erroneous and overly simplified filtered views of reality, Smokey Bear cartoon truth, manic fire prevention and 'build a house in the woods'. All the while failing to properly explain the science behind the fires or the danger of living in the wilderness. Blame industry for logging off the natural life to begin with and either clear cutting or replanting with the wrong trees as well as importing foreign species that take over and wreak havoc, all for improved pulp production, faster growth or whatever the reason.

Nihilism is not moot philosophy, it's tangible and of imperative significance. Much as our forests have become unstable and doomed to destruction, warped to where sickness, disease and death are endemic so has our everyday lives. The forest of our society has become deadly to the human inhabitants, a natural system chronically corrupted, equilibrium fractured and driven to unnatural states. But it's a slow change, just slow enough that most can entertain the notion everything is fine while those perplexing problems will all be rectified without personal price or harmful collective consequence. But in parallel with the spread of subconscious unease comes knowledge of what few can admit even to themselves - the end is very near and there's only one way out.

To the nihilist, destruction for survival is not counterintuitive it's just common sense, and all the technology, all the faith, all the prayer and all the effort to stop it will not tarry that eventual event. 08.11.01

"This is a war against evil."

You and I have the benefit of being spectators and perhaps even participants in one of the greatest experiments in nihilism of our era. We're witnesses to an epic battle of Good versus Evil, and what better time than the dawn of a new century? Yet the remarkable thing is that no matter which side wins the other will not be vanquished. The reason? Both sides can accurately claim they are the sole face of righteousness while their opponent is that of pure, unrivaled evil.

By now you may have guessed the actors in the epic metaphysical battle of Biblical proportions, they're Osama bin Laden's forces and The United States of America. For if one listens objectively they will realize President Bush speaks himself of an unambiguous Holy war, a "crusade" with as much sincerity and venom as Osama does in his attacks against a satanic America.

According to a Gallup poll done in June of 2001, 41 percent of Americans not only believe in the existence of Satan, but also that people can be possessed by him. The unshakable conviction controlling many in America and the rest of the uneducated and miseducated world is that evil is not only very real but very tangible as well.

Evil and its corollary good are real indeed but only an artificial, perceived real. Good and evil are self-justification's for destructive lies and otherwise unpalatable actions, for in the imperative battle against evil there can be no quarter, no room for objectivity and no second guessing of self-righteousness. I have a hypothesis that the bloodstained conclusion of this grand experiment will show that the greatest evil is in fact the belief in evil! Let's find out.

* * *

A key quality of the nihilist is viewing events divorced from moral bias' in order to better understand them. The terrorist attack on the Pentagon and World Trade towers is a prime example of the necessity of nihilist reasoning. The faulty alternate is practiced with a fervor by hoi polloi and a sinister opportunism by politician; emotion alone merely generates reactions that will later be regretted. When one fixates on immediacy to the detriment of world and future events they're inevitably left confused and panicked by the catastrophe of the unexpected. A downward spiral of reaction ensues, war, rhetoric, reactionary policy making, violence, compounded misunderstanding, ignorance and the search for quick but hollow answers.

1) Don't believe what the experts tell you without intense skepticism. Neither you nor I truly know who did this or their exact motives, although we can make some educated guesses by deciphering the symbolism of their fiery message.

2) To target anyone for these deadly deeds under the guise of 'justice' without evidence is not justice but revenge. And to refer to revenge as justice is hypocrisy, indicative of perverted morality and a corrupt regime attempting to obscure malevolent machinations and misguided aims. If 'leaders' must resort to lies and smokescreens for the simplest of aims one should be quick to ask, what else is bogus?

The greatest tragedy is the fact that it takes the death of thousands and a terrible terrorism to dissolve the fantasies and illuminate the absurdities of a society in the death throes of a programmed self-destruction. And that it will take wayward wars and the death of many more before the reality sinks in to just the moderately astute members of American society. 21/22.09.01

Freydis Nihilizes the Entropists

The classical Russian Nihilists built their movement upon the dissemination of scientific truth, science assumed a panacea role for social ills. This somewhat naive and perhaps idealistic interpretation may owe more to the popularization by literary stars and public myths than actuality but nonetheless it was a very sound notion within chronological context. The most well known used and abused law of physics is the second law of thermodynamics, that organized states descend into disorganized ones through the process of entropy. "To summarize the three laws of thermodynamics - the conversation of energy, the non-decrease of entropy, and the unattainability of absolute zero - in a more colloquial fashion we might say that they tell us first that 'you can't win', second that 'you can't even break even', and third 'you can't even get out of the game'! Less seriously still, it has been remarked that capitalism is based upon the false premiss that you can win, and socialism that you can break even, with the trio of misconceptions completed by mysticism which is based upon the false premiss that you can get out of the game!" ¹

What most ignore through intent or ignorance is that the 2nd law is not an absolute but merely a construct of averages, it merely states the most likely outcome; allowances exist for localized and temporary contradictions of entropy. Not only that but the equations only pertain to closed systems, Earth for instance is an open system because it gains energy, mostly from the sun. Not only can we go from chaos to order we really do. So yes you can actually win the game after all, well maybe not with capitalism per se but you get the idea. 03.09.01

Misanthropy & Futility

I see no reason to acquiesce to suicidal visions of futility and misanthropic hatred because in the final analysis we're not doomed to repeat the cycles of history except by choice. For the first time we have the knowledge and technology to do things completely different. The future is what we make it to be and still the values we've used in the past to build that future are flawed and the manic avoidance of pain and suffering is one of them. It's imperative to build with values that have strategic tenability. Example the greatest revolution in human history is not information or computing it's birth control because for the first time sexual reproduction has been disentangled from the sex act; this is why the Catholic Church rejects contraceptives - it's a terrible threat to the Order. The monumental significance of this change is just now being realized while at the same time the second phase has already begun rendering the male sex biologically redundant through marvelous advances in reproductive bio-technology. Genuine revolution is not where public perceptions place it. 03.09.01

Good & Evil

What happens when everyone is a criminal? What happens when evil is institutionalized? Or what happens when no one is a criminal, when nothing is illegal? Is that possible? I tend to think not, because human psychology always dictates a hierarchy, I'm better than you are etc. And this translates into both haves and have nots and goods and bads. But for the moment, imagining a place where such a concept existed may bring us closer to some real answers.

The Biblical parallel would be Soddom with its in inhabitants of sodomists, and the neighboring city of Gomorrah. Their evil brought God's wrath upon them burning both towns to the ground along with the amoral citizenry. "Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from the Lord out of the heavens." Genesis 19:24 NIV. God sought good people residing in the twin cities and a reason to spare them but none were evident, except for Lot and his family.

Likewise Nineveh was a similar case although not with the same dramatic ending. Nineveh was a city of sin (not unlike Las Vegas) that Jonah was tasked with saving by none other than God himself. Jonah hated the town and all its rotten inhabitants so he figured, why waste my breath on them, they deserve God's destruction. Jonah was eventually convinced by certain heavenly powers to save the town.
The ancient Greeks believed in hubris, that humanities self-confidence and arrogance would bring about their self-destruction usually due to godly retribution or their own foolishness. When the humans got out of line the gods felt compelled to intervene and shoot some plague or a little bit of natural disaster the direction of Greece.

Both examples demonstrate a fundamental human idea, that morality is something that's not relativistic but tangible, absolute and quantitative. Since morality is definable then good and evil exist and punishment is inevitable for wrongdoing. This same thinking is what compels human authorities to punish their own wrong doers. It's out of inbred fear that if evil is not stopped it will destroy us all! If crime is not punished it will cause our entire civilization to become corrupt and send divine retribution our way, wiping us all out both good and evil with fire and brimstone. That bum on the street corner is the beginning of the end for our way of life if he isn't locked up.

This reasoning seems ludicrous to a modern rationalist but it's what makes our civilization tick, just like every other superstitious one before it. Indeed most people realize this and it's turned the criminal justice system into a hollow, hypocritical institution. We punish but we don't know why, but we know it doesn't do any good, but we keep on doing it because it must be better than doing nothing. Has any proof ever been shown that prison is a crime deterrent? Or is it that it just gives incentive for criminals to avoid getting caught? I would posit that prisons are an anti-deterrent. Anyone who spends any time in a state prison comes out more hardened and less able to function and survive in traditional society. It's total hypocrisy; the punishment only makes crime and criminals worse. It's not founded on rational thought but on a superstitious sense of divine authority and a subconscious link between forces we cannot control such as death, weather and disease and godly retributions. Not surprisingly Christians and other religious people are some of the most ardent supporters for stiffer penalties and stronger police authority. [Excerpted from Group Think]

American Killers

[Excerpted from the popular 1999 School Shooting's Report. ]
Everyone is influenced by collective social standards and expectations too. If you think about it America doesn’t really have too many expectations as far as civic duties go, no compulsory military service, no compulsory community service no compulsory anything except paying taxes and doing time from K-12. You don’t have to believe in a specific State religion, the Queen’s not going to give you a morality lecture, you don’t have to be part of the official Party for promotions, it’s an environment totally devoid of values like an undefined field without beginning or end, future or past, purpose or reason; welcome to America. All the traditional institutions of authority from Nixon’s White House to Janet Reno’s Justice Department to Jim and Tammy Baker’s Church have been discredited and I’m sure you can think of many more examples. The things that used to have value and significance no longer do, today little if anything has value besides the basics or survival like money, food, friends, clothing, or housing. Teens just like adults realize this and they realize the nature of the social order they live in. Adults have certain faculties and common sense that adolescents and juveniles just have not developed yet; they react to the same situation in less predictable and less mature ways. As they float in the sea of nothingness that is everyday American life they react in ways that are dangerous and foolish to themselves and others. They lose fear of authority because everywhere they look it’s either hollow or has been