center for nihilism and nihilist studies


  • Categories

  • Scientific monism

    May 7th, 2011

    Nihilism remains one of the hardest terms to define in philosophy.

    We can easily confuse it with fatalism, which I define handily as “a belief in a lack of order or purpose to life itself.” Such thinking is obviously self-contradictory since we exist in a universe with logical rules, and in which species are squeezed by natural selection until we get higher-level species like humans. There may not be a “purpose,” since purpose is a matter of human faith and interpretation, but there is an order and a sense of a goal.

    Nihilism, on the other hand, is an absence of faith in faith.

    As self-conscious beings, we become aware of our separation from the universe at large. It is our environment; in it, we appear to be independent actors. This immediately prompts two viewpoints, each pivoting on one of the two actors:

    • Human-centric. In this view, everything that happens to us has a purpose because we are the intended target. What matters is our desires, judgments and fears. The universe exists to serve us, and may in fact be part of our perception and under our control.
    • Cosmos-centric. Those who take this view see themselves as the smaller of the two parties, and events as having bigger significance and incidental consequences on the self. The self exists as part of this bigger motion.

    In the former, we have a reversed cause/effect relationship. We see ourselves as the initiating goal of actions that happen to us, as if we were the center of the universe. As a result, we judge actions by their effects (as we perceive them on ourselves) and not their actual cause.

    Faith is what allows us to draw that fundamental assumption that actions in the world are somehow directed at us because they include us. When drought strikes, we wonder at first if we are cursed by the gods; only later does it occur to us that drought struck our whole region because of sunspot activity. In the same way, we make a mysticism out of science where we correlate one activity with a certain result and assume that the correlation implies cause.

    If people who drink wine at dinner live longer, it must be the wine, not the relative opulence or healthy activities of people who like to drink wine at dinner. The implication is that if any random person starts drinking wine at dinner, they will live longer, because the wine must be the causal agent even though we have seen no proof of the exclusivity of that relationship.

    The exclusivity factor is what bonds one action to a result as cause. When we mis-attribute this for reasons of our own desiring, we call that a type of faith. We can have faith in anything, including as mentioned above, science; when we inject faith into anything, including science, we corrupt it from having a view of the world as a functional sphere to viewing the world as a reaction to us personally, with intent regarding us instead of an agenda of its own in which we are caught up.

    Nihilism rejects faith in favor of an understanding of causal relationships. Nihilists reject the first pivot mentioned above, where a human sees the universe as somehow convergent upon the human being. In seeking such a view, a nihilist arrives at clarity regarding the relationship of human to universe: we are small components within a far larger and more complex system.

    In doing so, nihilists throw away all reasons centered in what a human wants to believe, and instead focus on what it is logical to deduce or induce from the world at large, keeping in mind that humans are but a tiny portion of that world. It is a removal of anthropomorphism, a rejection of solipsism and narcissism, and a militant refusal to let “faith” stand in for understanding.

    That being said, a nihilist who found a credible logical pathway to any “belief” would not reject it, nor would he or she reject a belief because of a lack of proof for what cannot be proved. Nihilists are not atheists, but agnostics, meaning that they are not going to make positive or negative claims on that which they cannot know. If someone says the Loch Ness monster is real, a nihilist will take a middle path and say “Perhaps — but I will need proof to be interested.”

    In turn this means the nihilist is aware of how little we know of our universe and ourselves. In our view, it is just as much an article of faith to assume that the material world is all that we see, as to assume that a mysterious sky god exists who judges our every movement and at death, sorts us between good and evil.

    As we explore the world, the gap between what would “seem” to be how reality works, and how it works, lengthens:

    The concept of time as a way to measure the duration of events is not only deeply intuitive, it also plays an important role in our mathematical descriptions of physical systems. For instance, we define an object’s speed as its displacement per a given time. But some researchers theorize that this Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change. – PhysOrg

    Time is iteration-space, meaning that the sequential interaction between objects in the cosmos creates time. Where there is no interaction, no time exists.

    And space, is it relative, too?

    Gravity warps space and time, and rotating objects like Earth stir up space and time around them, two of Einstein’s predictions from his theory of relativity confirmed by NASA’s Gravity Probe B, according to the space agency. – The Star

    Space is relative to the objects within it, and is distorted by their presence. Another way to view this is that objects define the space around them. From this we see how both space, and time, are dependent upon the interactions of the objects within them. In this light our infinitely expanding universe could not be so much expanding in itself, but growing to accommodate the objects within it.

    We even get a violation of all known rules, thanks to relativity:

    At the center of a black hole lies the singularity, where matter is crushed to infinite density, the pull of gravity is infinitely strong, and spacetime has infinite curvature. Here it’s no longer meaningful to speak of space and time, much less spacetime. Jumbled up at the singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them.


    At the singularity, though, the laws of physics, including General Relativity, break down. Enter the strange world of quantum gravity. In this bizzare realm in which space and time are broken apart, cause and effect cannot be unraveled. Even today, there is no satisfactory theory for what happens at and beyond the singularity.

    It’s no surprise that throughout his life Einstein rejected the possibility of singularities. So disturbing were the implications that, by the late 1960s, physicists conjectured that the universe forbade “naked singularities.” After all, if a singularity were “naked,” it could alter the whole universe unpredictably. – NCSA

    We learn quickly how little we know.

    At the extremes of relativity, the rules break down entirely and we have no idea what exists. When cause and effect are no longer linear, time does not exist; without any dimension to space, interaction does not exist. A strange state of both stasis and infinite change could exist, but in an acausal, non-temporal and placeless state.

    Nihilism can accept the logical dimensions of what scientists tell us, and extend relativism to another idea: if non-causal parts of our universe exist, non-causality must be a fundamental part of how our universe is ordered. This means we can no longer separate our cosmos into matter and form as separate, but must look at the idea of an order the two have in common.

    The idea of non-duality, or no separation between mind and universe as well as no “second realm” (like a heaven or hell) where the normal rules do not apply, is called monism. Under monism, there is one order to all and it manifests itself in both physical (matter) and informational (form) channels. Both physicality and idea obey the same set of rules.

    Nihilism is a form of scientific monism. In it, we accept all of the uncertainty in the universe, including that as Kant suggested, we may be perceivers journeying through a vast data field and assembling a reality from the parts of it our brains can handle. How much of the universe do we know? If a bigger rule-set than the strictly material exists, we may know less than one percent, or even a hundredth of a percent.

    Time and space reduce to idea. Physicality becomes an after-effect of a larger order. Do we claim we see God? We only know that we cannot know. What we do know is that we will not project ourselves onto this volatile situation, and will remain curious explorers, looking to further understand this magical place in which we exist.

    Why nihilism is not anarchy

    November 13th, 2010

    There are many around you who use language for its flavor. They talk about what they want to believe, rather than what makes sense, because they are trying to construct an identity or an excuse for their own failings.

    They’re not interested in anything but themselves and how cool they look to their friends.

    The philosopher F.W. Nietzsche remains tied to nihilism because he was the first to intelligibly discuss it beyond the idea that some people just wanted to destroy everything. He realized that an impulse toward senseless destruction was not nihilism, but a reverse of it; it was in itself a belief.

    Nietzsche’s realization was that we as a species were coming out of a time when we believed in an inherent order: a God above, a single right way of doing things inherited from nature, a divine order of kings and aristocrats, and even an exceptional position to humans and earth.

    What replaced that vision was modern science paired with the populist revolutions of 1789: we were one planet of many, the individual is alone in the universe, a lack of logical reasons for God and a democratic order replacing aristocrats. There was no inherent order to anything, only a baffling array of choices and science which revealed connections but could not prescribe a social order or meaningful direction to life.

    As Nietzsche noted, our immediate tendency when confronted with this situation is to manufacture false inherencies. He saw Christianity as false: seeing the emptiness of existence, it invented pleasant symbols. Also false was liberalism, which originated in Christianity: the idea of a brotherhood of humans, all equal and pacifistically friendly with each other, was a false kind of inherency for Nietzsche.

    He asked instead that we take a few moments to think, and look at the three paths available to us:

    1. Inherency. Life was created by a single God for a single purpose, so we are means to that end.
    2. Materialism. Nothing exists except us and our pleasures, so we make the right to those inherent.
    3. Aestheticism. Life is the only thing that is inherent; we can choose an adaptation that brings beauty to our lives, or indulge in stupidity.

    His point was that the radical reaction to the loss of God, which was the idea of a meaningless life in which self-pleasure was the only goal, was another type of false inherency. In this false inherency, we assume that because material objects exist, they are important. Starting with ourselves, which we view as a material object, of course.

    As a good Schopenhauerian, Nietzsche knew that our “worlds” are composed our thoughts reflecting the world around us. We live in our heads. As a result, we need to look at all objects as how they relate to our consciousness, not their material role in a world “out there” that we can barely perceive. The self is the result of a physical thing, Nietzsche argued, but it is fundamentally an object of consciousness; perhaps, then, we should stop treating it as a material object because materialism feels more “inherent” than consciousness.

    Nietzsche realized that the “nihilism” of the angry Russian mob was not an assertion of no-order, but an assertion of a simple material order: we exist, and we have desires, so we demand that others support us in the pursuit of those desires.

    Why? Because we’re human too. We must all be equal, because we’re all human, and we all have these desires.

    Nietzsche saw the above as parallel to Christianity, an assertion of inherent order based on shared humanity. Science and Nietzsche agree that humans vary so widely that to construct a universal “human nature” or “human morality” is a pointless endeavor toward false inherency. No such thing exists; some humans rise above others.

    Anarchy, liberalism and other false social notions of equality and the inherent importance of man are entirely anti-nihilistic. In fact, they’re descendants of Christianity: they are falsely inherent orders based on human desires for the universe to be centered around humans. It is not. We are thinking monkeys, and it’s great we have come so far, but it’s not really that far. We’re not that great. And most of us are morons, perverts, lazybones, selfish people, criminals, or people who smoke in bed.

    If you want to confront the true face of nihilism, you cannot do it through anarchy or liberalism. You need to instead reject all notions of the inherent, and entirely make a choice based on cause/effect reasoning toward beauty. What will the effects of my actions be? Will that get me closer to a life of grace, beauty, joy and wisdom, or will that make me more like the humonkeys around me, ignorant and proud of it?

    Demanding that the universe center on the human form is the opposite of nihilism. Christianity, liberalism, anarchy and libertarianism demand that we consider a brotherhood of humanity where we all live as equals, but this is itself based on the false notion that the universe centers on humans and human desires, and that all of us are somehow important for magical religious reasons. There is no logic behind it.

    Nihilism is transcendence of the need for inherency. We are products of a logical universe and our goal is to adapt to it — like any other species. If our consciousness has attributes of the universe, that’s because it shaped us, and not the other way around. Our desires, including the social desire for happy anarchy, are entirely irrelevant. What matters is what we do with this opportunity to live, perceive, decide, create and then die.

    Degrees of nihilism

    October 13th, 2010

    If in everyday life, you are asked about continued existence after death by one of those people who would like to know everything but refuse to learn anything, the most appropriate and approximately correct answer is: ‘After your death you will be what you were before your birth.’ For this answer implies that it is preposterous to demand that a species of existence which had a beginning should not have an end; in addition, however, it contains a hint that there may be two kinds of existence and, correspondingly, two kinds of nothingness.
    -Arthur Schopenhauer

    Nihilism means accepting the world as the source of reality. Not our thoughts, not our emotions/morals/aesthetics, but the world itself, much as we’d examine a machine.

    To look at life without judgment in such a way, we must see our lives as the momentary animal existences they are — and then look at their troubling aspect, which is that through our intellect we can touch the organizational principles of this universe.

    But I said “can.” There is no guarantee. And it is unclear if most people are doing more than reacting to their impulses/desires, then fabricating a “reason why” they did what they did, and then justifying that according to Big Epic Social Goods like fighting racism, stopping fascism, making money, helping the underprivileged and keeping the peace.

    From a casual — and as D.A. Schuel will note, entirely unproven and anecdotal — viewpoint, most people seem more than half in love with easeful death. To me they seem more afraid of social censure than mortality, and so they are content to die so long as they are well thought of. Their fear is that their lives will go unnoticed, and while they do not seem to notice that in turn over generations those lives that remember vanish, they are content for family and friends to know they were here, and now are gone.

    This seems almost sensual, in a post-sense way; how would I be treated, and what would I be eating, and would someone want to have sex with me, if they were considering my death, which then forces a summarizing of my life?

    As the existentialists were fond of saying, our problem in modern existence is not a lack of life after death. It’s a lack of life after birth. Unlike the postmodernists, who are sure our mortal fear in the face of scientific knowledge is the culprit, I blame something else: there is no longer a single organizing narrative and values system so that as we fade away, we can say, “Well, I did well by all the values we hold dear together, and if I had some bad days or missed out on some things, it was in sacrifice to that.” No warrior wants to die for a numbered regulation, but they don’t seem to mind dying on the quest to obliterate a great evil or create a vast good.

    So in life, as in death, we have two kinds of existence — and two kinds of nothingness.

    Inverse Censorship

    September 8th, 2010

    We recognize displacement when we place physical objects in water. When it comes to dialogue, however, we are oblivious to displacement, even though we are vigilant against “censorship,” a term which now means any removal of content that isn’t purely illegal/immoral (racism, child porn, stolen information).

    However, if the opposite of censorship is universal tolerance, we must consider that this opposite includes a type of censorship we cannot recognize because instead of acting directly on its object, it acts by intensifying everything but its object. This behavior is analogous to, if you want to make sure your friend does not get noticed for her flattering dress, complimenting every other dress in the room.

    Most commonly, inverse censorship — a suitable name for displacement of dialogue — occurs when focus on unimportant information consumes the time, focus or resources for discussion of important information. Just as surely as censorship removes discussion, inverse censorship covers it up or hides it behind meaningless info-gunk, effectively destroying topics that the inverse censors want quieted.

    When we consider every opinion to be valid, we empower those who wish to drown out important ideas. When a debate over the color of trashcans used in the conference rooms can be vociferously presented, and when “useful idiots” exist who will take interest and loudly debate it, other issues suffocate in a lack of time for discussion.

    If you wonder why committees are useless, one reason is that the if one member insists on debating a minor issue to death, everyone else on the committee switches off brains and the meeting never moves to discuss the big issues. Our news media unintentionally uses inverse censorship on its front page stories, drowning out more complex policy reports with a flood of celebrity news, lolcats and public figure drama.

    You’ll find inverse censorship of a more deliberate sort. If you want to sabotage a group, but don’t want to do so actively as it could expose you to risk, the best method is to join the group and be an enthusiastic support. Once inside, misdirect conversation and resources toward the trivial instead of the important. That way, when the group fails, you’re not to blame — you tried — but the group fails nonetheless, which was your real goal.

    We as stone age brains are only now barely awakening to the vast possibilities that indirect attacks — asymmetric memetic warfare — offer up. Inverse censorship represents an indirect strategy that has been successful for centuries, mainly because few people can articulate what it is, so it is not recognized as a failing like a known logical fallacy, or direct action such as censorship.

    As long as we insist on the impossible mathematics that states that every one opinion is as valid as all the others, and therefore the group must pause and wait for each person to speak no matter how illogical their statements, we run the risk of being constantly crippled by inverse censorship. Any passive aggressive person can destroy a group, or any insane special interest lobby can sink national politics.

    Clearly we would be better off without inverse censorship, but for us to do away with it, we must first get over our fear of two taboos. The first is the fear of censorship, which exists in every forum because some things (child porn, racism, stolen information) will always be necessarily taboo. The second is the taboo on placing some speakers or topics above others on the grounds that they are more insightful or more important.

    Again and again, our pretense of equality sabotages us because by making every person imporptant, we allow any person to sidetrack discussion toward the trivial, and then we spam ourselves with the pointless. Like alcoholics, we ignore our real addiction, and instead blame the sticking door or broken car for our failures in life. Perhaps this article in some small way will turn the tide, like a pointed comment before sleep interrupts oblivious dreams.

    Rules for Hipsters

    September 4th, 2010

    Rules for Hipsters v1.0

    Our civilization is collapsing and there’s nothing left to do but enjoy the ride. Part of enjoying the ride is not wasting your time trying to fix problems, or have a job, but becoming important before you actually do anything important. That way, you don’t need to exert yourself, and can be a legend in your own time, a big man on campus, or just the cat who rules the hood. This is called being a hipster.

    The secret to being a hipster is to use everything — art, friendship, sex, love, your body, cigarettes, clothing, music — to make yourself look unique and special, preferrably ironic as well because that way you aren’t really taking it all seriously. You’re the dude who skated free from the whole mess, and left it for someone else to clean up!

    But before you can be a hipster, you need to memorize our handy worksheet for winning arguments with douchebags who want to show others that they’re more hip than you.

    1. Just a joke

    When someone points out that what you’ve said is complete neurotic assbabble, tell them it was a joke.

    Them: Holy shit, that’s out of line, WTF NILLA
    You: Just a joke. Ha-ha. You’re not… a queer… are you?

    2. Minimize them

    Any time you introduce absolutely anything, make sure you preface it with the idea that your audience probably doesn’t know it. This lets you make them feel small and gain control.

    Them: Just last week Elton John and I…
    You: You probably haven’t heard of it, but this object is a fork. You use it to eat your salad.

    3. Flattery gets you everywhere

    As you talk to people who may be hostile, flatter them quietly by implying they’re aware of more of the hip stuff than they think they are, so they’ll be your buddy forever.

    Them: Who’s this band Airborne AIDS?
    You: You’ve probably heard of the bands that inspired them, Penis Runoff and Toasty McButtcrack. They’re just like them.

    4. Nothing means anything

    If someone is so foolish as to have an opinion which contrasts with their own, cut them down to size. Remind them that their idea is just an opinion.

    You: I think the Planck constant is around 4 cubits, actually…
    Them: No, I think it’s 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s.
    You: Well, that’s just your opinion.

    5. You’re never wrong

    When you argue with others, remember that you are the unchanging center of the universe who is always right, and if they suggest you change yourself (or even worse, deprive yourself) they’re arguing for insanity. That’s like moving a mountain for Mohammed.

    They: I don’t think we should do this next line of crystal meth.
    You: What gives you that crazy idea? You might as well claim the sky is green. We should totally do this fucking thing right fucking now! (falls off chair)

    6. You can always win by an appeal to what’s popular

    When you get into a tight spot, just appeal to whatever most people around you will think is cool if they’re listening with half a brain.

    Them: My plan helps gay midgets.
    You: Oh yeah, bub? My plan helps gay black midget ORPHANS. You hear that? I trump your lame ass.
    Crowd: <cheers>

    Or just go for plain old populism, which is most potent when it encourages oblivion:

    Them: …and if overpopulation doesn’t get curbed, we all die!
    You: Do you think the people here want to hear about mass death? Let’s talk about Deerhoof.
    Crowd: <cheers>

    7. Be unexpected and different

    People — 99.99% of who live mundane lives of quiet desperation and all that — like to think they’re unique and different and special, in some way. You can help them feel that way by having them live vicariously through your acting out and being bold, unexpected, unique, ironic (the queen of “different,” e.g. things didn’t go as planned and we’re going to pretend there’s a moral lesson in it), different, random, or incoherent.

    Them: Gosh, I wish I could paint as well as the Dutch Masters.
    You: The Dutch masters didn’t use feathers and glitter in their paintings. I do. I’m literally moving history forward. And what did they do?
    Crowd: <cheers>

    This also applies to fashion statements:

    Them: <shows up wearing nice clothing>
    You: <show up in a bowling uniform from 1958, with a bandolier of Twinkies, a necklace made of shark teeth and a pimp hat> Ta-Da!
    Crowd: <cheers>

    8. There’s always a theory

    Facts can be tricky things. If you end up feeling like an idiot because you said something illogical, hit them up with some voodoo theory. The point is to make sure the theory suggests, in some way, that we can make reality different just by wishing it so.

    You: Cool, a wall outlet.
    Them: But that’s a 220 volt outlet, and it’ll fry our equipment.
    You: According to the theory of sodomystical relativity in the hermeneutic of dynamic opposition (first cited by Rolf and Willyburger in their 2001 paper, “Anorectal Symbolism of Nightmare Heuristics in Norway Rats”), if we approach this with a Heisenbergian dynamic the current will equalize as it attempts to negotiate an equilibrium. You probably haven’t heard of it, but it’s all the rage at Harvard and Bennington.
    Them: Well, I’m not plugging this in… theory or no theory.
    You: Fine, be difficult. I’m sure in the small trailer park where you grew up this wasn’t an issue.
    Them: Dude, we grew up in San Francisco together and were roommates at Bennington.

    9. Turn it around

    If someone makes you look foolish, imply that they are:

    • Angry
    • Unwell
    • Sexually frustrated
    • Too sober

    It’s best as a spot comment in conversation:

    You: If 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, why did they use planes?
    Them: Wait, that makes no sense… those are privately owned.
    You: Are you ok, man? You look flushed.

    You can also use it as a counter-argument:

    Them: …if we keep dumping toxic waste into our rivers and streams, soon we’ll all die of cancer!
    You: Dude, that’s extreme and harshing on my buzz. You just need to get laid or something

    10. They haven’t heard of it

    By all means the best way to start out an argument or conversation is to put the other person on the defensive, especially if you can do it without seeming like the aggressor. This way, they try to prove their worth to you, and they’ll get aggressive about it, which opens a doorway for you to use the previous nine tactics to show the assembled group that you are, indeed, superior to whatever worthless specimen of humanity dared approach you.

    Them: And she was telling me, she was like, a virgin! And I was covered in blood when her dad came home.
    You: There’s something you can use — you probably haven’t heard of it — it’s called sodomy. That way, she can stay technically a virgin.
    Them: Oh no, I knew about that. I mean, I’ve sodomized a thousand things before.
    You: I didn’t ask how much sex you had. Why are you trying to compare dick sizes with me? What is this, junior high?

    The “authorities” are wrong

    August 30th, 2010

    Civilizations take thousands of years to fully die, or lapse into being a third-world ruin like the primitive people who clustered around Angkor Wat or Tenochtitlan with no understanding of the great civilization that went before them.

    On the path to collapse, however, dying civilizations first burn any truth they can get their hands on.

    Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    Here we have a painfully simplistic view. The very statement “I have no values” is itself a value; while it negates the idea of values, that doesn’t let it off the hook for being a value statement itself. Without some inherent part of the universe that denies value, like the hand of God (H.O.G.) or science discovering it writ into the stars, there is no proof of a lack of values. So it becomes a preference like anything else, a choice to have no values based on an assessment of the universe. That in turn makes it a value system about like any other.

    In this way, we see how nihilism rapidly reduces to a search for proof of nihilism. An extreme skeptic would say “well, there’s no reason to believe that any of these things” exist, to which a nihilist might point out that the human starting point, far from a blank slate, is already biased toward a number of different things and, by the nature of being biased, oblivious to much of what would be inherent. Further, that nihilist might point out that the search for inherent reasons is fundamentally doomed unless we can communicate with a Creator or Administrator who is a direct line to truth in the universe.

    The fact is that we’re here alone, trying to figure it out for ourselves. If the gods or God exist, they’re mute to us in ways we can materially/objectively verify, and so we are here without any line to inherent value in the universe. We can make scientific observations and say “this action x consistently gets result y,” but unless we stumble across a big block of source code for the universe, we don’t know the entire mechanism. For there to be inherent value, there would have to be some central point of absolute truth that reflected the inner workings of the universe in a way that is not observed, but known.

    So what do we have? The grandfather of the scientific method: the idea that we have no inherent (“full knowledge of God or from a God-like perspective”) knowledge of life, but we have empirical or observational knowledge, and we can communicate not “truths” but approximate representations of what we have observed (as good Schopenhauerians, we enjoy his statement that the self contains a representation of reality that is all we know of reality, and thus our “truths” are representations of representations and very far from “inherent”) — observe, hypothesize, test repeat. The closest modern philosophy gets toward this maturity is the correspondence theory of truth and/or language.

    Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to a fact—a view that was advocated by Russell and Moore early in the 20th century. But the label is usually applied much more broadly to any view explicitly embracing the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified).

    The correspondence theory of truth is often associated with metaphysical realism. Its traditional competitors, coherentist, pragmatist, and verificationist theories of truth, are often associated with idealism, anti-realism, or relativism. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    Truths don’t exist, and divine insights into the universe are thus not “true” but representations from within ourselves. When we face this wisdom, we can return to life and treat it with maturity, instead of expecting some deus ex machina to hand us an absolute “truth” or “path” that we must then follow.

    Shared ways of thinking, so called memes, are what make a culture. These memes are manifold and they change over time. For example, the green movement and the idea of sustainability are quite new memes. But on the other hand we live with many old memes – and among them is one that I think makes many of us miserable. It is an idea, a mighty one, which has already tortured many people. This idea is one we hol, no matter if we are religious or not, to be holy. It is: The meaning of life. Or, meaning in general. It is the idea that there are goals to achieve and reasons to do so. It is the idea that we shouldn’t do things for no reason. It is the idea that we shouldn’t “waste time” and that we should use our time productively and usefully.

    But in the process of our social evolution something else happened: Freedom. Freedom from the social boundaries that were laid upon us. Suddenly we have the freedom to become who we want to be, live where we want to live and do what we think is right for us. Suddenly we have the freedom to decide, and, as Sartre said, with it, we are forced to decide what to do with our lives. Officially we have “freedom” at least since the French revolution, but just in the last fifty or so years our world – and our socialisation – really took a form that allows and forces us to choose.KDAS

    Being thrown out there without any backup, and told to choose the meaning of life, is a formula for failure. It crushes people daily because they assume “meaning of life” means either (a) “inherent meaning of life” or (b) some personal meaning of life that’s entirely arbitrary, except for the part about our corporeal selves enjoying material comfort, which induces an “ethic of convenience” where we do what is comfortable and evade the rest. The resulting inability to form attachment to ideologies, peoples, families, etc. creates what Michel Houellebecq calls “atomized” individuals: entirely solipsistic, entirely isolated, and 100% free — but miserable, and spreading discontent and dysfunction through society, making it moribund.

    Nihilism is the solution. The meaning of life — doesn’t exist. The personal meaning of life — doesn’t exist. Your goal is to be a good organism and adapt to your environment. In that process, you will find some things you enjoy. If you have half of a brain or more, you will also find some superior methods of adaptation, some of which suspiciously resemble a values system. If you want to avoid the false god of self along with other false gods, you will adopt this value systems, and pull yourself out of fatalism into a form of “active nihilism” where you no longer require inherent belief — you simply do what is logical.


    August 30th, 2010

    We’ve re-dedicated this site to nihilism because there are no credible resources for nihilism on the internet.

    Most people think of nihilism as fatalism, or the belief that no beliefs, values, communications or gods can exist.

    We have a simpler definition:

    Nihilism is the perception that no inherent value exists.

    We can create values, beliefs, even gods, if they symbolize the reality that’s Out There waiting to be discovered. What we won’t do is claim that we got these ideas from a direct line to the one holy truth, whether that truth is a dualistic God, or simply the notion that human life is sacred.

    We have liberated ourselves from your outdated notion that because humans choose to believe we are special, that we are; also from the insane notion that God talks to us directly. Neither notion makes sense. There is a reality; one reality. We perceive this one reality and adapt to it like any other species. Any other idea is metaphysical voodoo and we have thrown it out.

    Humans are not special. That murder, oppression, hatred, cannibalism, sodomy and eugenics are “bad” and being nice to people is good — these are hateful illusions. These are means that humans use to control one another. Whether you say “God told us this” or “all people are equal,” both are illusions of inherency. We have broken free from that illusion and instead see a reality to adapt to.

    We are free. You, addicted to control, have enslaved yourself. You can cut yourself free any minute that you choose to do so, but all but a handful of you will choose to remain enslaved.

    Welcome to the Center for Nihilism and Nihilist Studies. Enjoy your stay.

    The Futurist Misanthrope FAQ

    February 3rd, 2007

    The Futurist Misanthropy movement made waves in 2003 when two of its agents were arrested on charges of plotting to nerve gas certain shopping malls in London, United Kingdom. The arrest was made on the basis of testimony by an informer, but public interest remains in this movement of violent but seemingly fair-minded people. The Futurist Misanthrope FAQ is culled from FM manifestoes, sources, and an interview with FM spokesperson Steve Christ.

    Q: What is futurist misanthropy?

    Futurist misanthropy is the notion that modern humans are delusional and therefore worthy of misanthropy, but that we can apply that dislike of humanity toward something positive: making the next stage in human evolution. Unlike the “progress” that both governments and dissident groups endorse, this involves making better quality humans and has nothing to do with the education, propaganda and financial rewards governments these days favor.

    Our diagnosis is that misanthropy is running at an all-time high because the quality of humans is low and our society is delusional, which would make anyone sensible hate it. We’re inundated with people low in actual intelligence but “smart” in doing very specialized tasks, and they are incapable of making the type of decisions we need. From their instinct to protect each other we have gotten layers of moral manacles like humanism, materialism, philanthropy, altruism, egalitarianism, and tolerance.

    We don’t need any of these things. What we need are the few good quality people to be in charge and the rest to be either oppressed or eradicated. The essence of futurist misanthropy is a slaying of sacred cows, a putting to rest of pleasant illusions, and a disruption of taboos so that the kind of common sense a high-quality person would have predominates. We’re tired of being ruled by morons, sheep and parrots.

    Q: Is futurist misanthropy a political movement?

    We’re a movement to change society, which includes but is not limited to politics, and our slogan is “World Moron Death” and our logo is a dead happy face.

    Q: Why are you against modern society?

    Modern society is based on the concept of rule by individuals pursuing self-interest, and as a result places no premium on intelligent leadership. While it can handle easy decisions, the harder decisions — the ones for which one really needs a qualified leader — it evades. This evasion results in long-term problems steadily increasing on a path toward self-destruction for the human race.

    If we were to define modern society by its components, these would be:

    1. Liberal democracy (statistical leadership)
    2. Material self-interest (materialism, capitalism)
    3. Individualistic morality (humanism)
    4. Technology
    5. Pluralism (a subset of 3)

    These systems attempt leadership by a preponderance of opinion, social popularity or the great equalizer, wealth. As a result, we have turned our outlook from trying to create a better world to trying to divide up what we have through different methods. We have gotten to this point because the intelligent are few, and the masses are many, and so the intelligent have attempted to rule the masses through symbolic representations of truth.

    These truth-symbols are twisted, especially by that species of human of mixed mass and intelligent parentage, or the “smart” person: functionally able, but not a critical thinker capable of seeing the bigger picture. All it takes is someone willing to offer a pleasant illusion with no mention of its price, and the average person is off and running after it. Stupidity drowns out intelligence because intelligence takes into account factors which may be unpopular but correct, like avoiding long term disasters by taking on short-term gains.

    I have always known that modern society was a path to death. Adults confirmed it when I was young, and then added some ridiculous rejoinder like “but we do the best we can.” I’ve seen innumerable forests torn down to make shopping centers that a decade later are the entrances to ghettoes. All of humanity’s energy and effort is going inward toward things that are non-productive, and all of it is for the luxury of the illusion that the masses can rule themselves.

    When money and popularity are more important than being right, people who are smart but not intelligent rule. Intelligence is the ability to adapt and see multiple layers into a situation. Smart is the ability to manipulate. Smart isn’t rare. Intelligence is. When only smart people are in charge, the finer things are lost. I want the intelligent to rule because only they will preserve it all. They understand best practices.

    Best practices is the science of implementing a technology or idea not so that it just “works,” but so that it works well in the context of being built to last as near to forever as we can think of it. When you put together a best practices house, you do not save thirty cents on light fixtures because you figure that if they last ten years, that’s about good enough. You do not do environmentally destructive things, or create cheap homes that are toxic to their inhabitants because of the insulation used. You build it right, and force the profit margin to work with that, instead of toying with costs to make the profit margin wider.

    Modern society runs by making most people think they’re getting a good deal, or a good feeling like compassion or righteous anger. It does not operate according to best practices. Consequently, it is sowing seeds of long-term destruction, and most people cannot figure it out. Those that can either go into amusingly futile denial and then wonder why their kids turn out all screwed up in high school, or go insane. We’re destroying our best to please the masses. This is insanity.

    Q: What are your politics?

    I describe myself as half-hippie and half-philosopher. My hippie half likes people and is tolerant, compassionate and loving. My hippie half is forever out wandering in the fields, meeting new people and learning their stories, and thinking about better ways to do nice things for other people. Yeah, it sounds “gay,” but it’s me and I’m sticking by it. Someone once used the term “masculine empath” and I think it summarizes this side.

    My other side is nuts and bolts practical, coupled with a sense of grand design. I like the ancient societies that aspired to rise above all other humans and to do not just adequate, and not just better than mediocre, but great things. To invent anew, to build, to create, to soar… this ties into the pragmatic because I see that people who live according to this principle aren’t necessarily “happier” in some idiot survey question style, but they are more fulfilled. They have meaning to their existence, and they never question the reason for their existence. They’re not neurotic, like most people.

    The pragmatic half often horrifies me with what it discovers. It thinks like Plato, or Nietzsche, or Schopenhauer in terms of social design. This half knows that a world of a half-billion would be optimal, and that we as a species should be breeding to a level of genius coupled with clear untroubled minds, good health and beauty, and higher levels of character. That path is the only one that can inspire a species to overcome its fear of death. I am also aware that over 80% of our abilities and tendencies, if not all, are inherited, and therefore, I’m a eugenicist.

    I don’t see a reason to keep stupid, criminal, perverse, and mean people around. I think we should act and breed toward a higher level, and if this means extermination of 98% of humanity, well, who cares? The end result will be better, and those people will be happier than the masses of breeding idiots ever will. The lives of the dumb and miserable have been made worse by their own machinations, as they have made all other lives worse, so their future is not a great one anyway. But there’s a bigger point here.

    A species that keeps moving forward includes individuals who are not obsessed with themselves and are aware of their own small role in the universe. This is realistic. Even more, since it is aiming toward a higher goal, they are never without challenges that present a sense of achievement when even partially fulfilled, and there is a sense to the entire society of purpose. In contrast, a society which worries too much about its lowest members feeling equal has chained itself to an anchor from which no progress in quality can come, although political “progress” is assured and will do nothing but further adulterate its hope of growth. We depress ourselves with this anchor, and the people we use as the anchor do not have a great time of it either. So why do it?

    We do it from the pretense that we are “helping” them, but as numerous thinkers have suggested, our actual motivation is to make ourselves feel important and higher. This is fighting over details, since whatever higher we have now can be improved upon, as can whatever lower we have. This is true in any age. A time of humans with 200 IQ points average, seven-foot tall bodies of rippling muscle, and a newly supermannish clearsighted character can still improve, even if only working on teeth that never cavitize. We must always be improving, or in stagnation, we self-cannibalize.

    Q: How can you identify a moron?

    It makes sense to start judgment at age 18 to give people some time to develop, especially since the smarter kids develop later (the “prodigies” you see on TV are usually good at only one thing, and do not have well-developed general intelligence). The entire goal in assessing morons is to if possible save the person, because snap judgments can easily get carried away. So think positive. You have column “A” of good things, and column “B” of bad things, and if B outweighs A the person is a moron.

    Column “A”: Positive
    * Academic distinction
    * Led a sports or debate team
    * Volunteered in independent community service
    * Helps other smart people unbidden
    * Has IQ over 125
    * Started a business or service
    * Organized others toward a non-profit goal
    * Has fallen deeply in love
    * Has risked self to defend abstract concept

    Column “B”: Negative
    * Slothful behaviors: drug addiction, sex addiction, shopping addiction
    * Criminal behavior
    * Watches football on the weekends for more than four hours
    * Has never led a single project or team
    * Never done unassigned work
    * Is a yes-man or teacher’s pet
    * Follows a band or political leader intensely

    This is a worksheet by which you determine what positive traits someone has. A column “B” heavy person cannot think independently and has some destructive or passive behaviors, while someone with everything in column “A” is not only a model citizen and critical thinker, but someone for whom character matters. Anyone who gets more than three of any column “A” mention should probably not be terminated.

    Q: Why are you racist?

    I do not consider myself a racist, because I do not have scorn or opinions of inferiority toward other races. However, I am a pragmatist, and I know that pluralistic systems, in which there is more than one culture or dominant philosophy, do not work. When races are integrated into a single society, the process requires that they either give up their culture to join a dominant culture made of the lowest common denominator, or retain their culture, language and ways and therefore always be outsiders. Outsiders sense marginalization and work against the dominant culture. People who are assimilated lose contact with culture and become people without an overarching values system. Either or both of these are fatal to a civilization.

    It is the loss of an overarching values system that has allowed our culture to become dominated by financial interests, who because they think along a single linear path, do not consider the secondary consequences of their actions including depletion of culture, boredom and angst of people, and destruction of our environment. We need a values system in common, or a consensus on basic values, to continue to exist as a civilization, although it does not seem that way now. All of the negative effects of our way of life have been steadily increasing for generations, and as with all things, will eventually reach a threshold after which they inundate us. The other option is to reverse course toward sanity and live in a healthier, saner place.

    Q: Why are you environmentalist?

    Our environment birthed us, and sustains us with clean air and water as well as animal and plant species we need for food, comfort products, and energy. On a practical level, it should always be there. On a psychological level, we function best when in a natural environment, and I do not believe it is inculcated or genetic. Look at the experience: wandering among trees, in an order so random yet logical that repetition never exists, and witnessing the interaction of tens of thousands of logical systems of energy transfer. This is fundamentally better for any thinking person than drifting down square streets of repetitive functions.

    My environmentalism takes the form of this awareness: individual humans see their world in terms of material that can be converted for their own benefit. They have never in history and will never self-organize for the purpose of protecting more than a few token patches which become “parks” and have trails worn through them as if their few remaining species were zoo exhibits. Although oppression is an ugly word, some of it is needed to prevent the population from getting too large and too many people conquering too much land, dividing it with fences, exploiting it and covering it with concrete, basically genociding the species.

    Most environmentalists don’t want to talk about this, so I identify myself as a Socratic Conservationist, or one who sees the practical details of civilization design that affect the environment. We can’t “patch” our current civilization with non-profit organizations and government bureaucracy to fix this problem. We need to design it into our basic process, which requires deviation from the materialist/humanist standard that each person needs the freedom to exist and to pursue wealth however they find it. When we look at it from an environmentalist standpoint, materialism/humanism is license to exploit guised as human “freedom,” although we all pay the costs for the exploitation others engender.

    This realization dovetails with my belief in an ever-improving human species. Most of the people causing the widest damage are not new Platos or Beethovens. They’re people escaping shattered republics or wealthy people who want to get wealthier. And what of their quality? In the third world, most people are dumb and when given the resources of the first world, tend to exploit nature for personal profit. In the first world, we have “smart” but not intelligent people who lack the wit to restrain their rapacity for profit. Neither of these groups contributes much.

    I believe there are excellent, smart people in every ethnic group, and that we need to preserve these and encourage them to breed. At the same time, there is a vast mass of people who contribute nothing and take a lot, leaving behind waste disproportionate to their value. They know nothing else. Biologically, they can know nothing else. You cannot educate someone and make them more intelligent. You can feed them more facts and pragmas, but their innate intelligence is what determines how they will act. Most of our growth from 2 billion to nearly 7 billion people has been in the third world among people with an average IQ in the mid to low 90s. While IQ isn’t flawless, it’s a good general estimate.

    In short, humanity has gotten fat, and like when we personally get fat, the fat goes to all sorts of useless areas like the gut and ass that restrain our motion. We need to go on a diet, and think about population quality not quantity, and recognize that we can’t make a turd into a moonstone through education. Stupid people are going to do stupid, and right now our system doesn’t restrain their breeding, so they stupidly expand radically as long as the rest of us are going to tolerate it. And if we killed them all tomorrow, our quality of life would not only fail to decline, but would improve, in that we’d have more wilderness and a healthier environment meaning we breathe healthier air, have clean water, and get fewer cancers.

    If we don’t do this purge, nature is going to do it, but nature will not discriminate. Vast plagues simply kill numbers. The black plague, killer flu, or airborne ebola of the future is not going to pause at doors painted with lamb’s blood and think, “Well, this person is highly intelligent and creative and an anchor to the community, so go not here.” Nope, they’re going to wipe out everyone they can touch. The problem will be exacerbated by stupid people responding as they did to H5N1 in America and AIDS in Africa with superstition, like raping 1-year-olds to cure AIDS, or panic, namely running around screaming anytime a chicken appeared. We need cold, rational thought here and we won’t get it from most of our newly expanded population.

    Lest anyone think this is a racial genocide manifesto, it’s not. I know intelligent black, Hispanic, Asian and Indian people, and would never act against them (as a side note, I also know pluralism doesn’t work, so would relocate them). I also know excellent people of all European stripes. What I’ve seen up close too much however is the “generic modern citizen,” which comes in all races but especially that mixture of ethnicities (generic European “white trash”) and mixed-race and is exceptionally stupid. I run into these in offices when they are wearing suits just as much as I find them cruising through Wal-mart in jogging outfits. They are able to function, and do things like program computers and run machinery, but every decision they make is stupid and every preference they have is destructive. I’d like to force these not to breed, as they contribute nothing and exact damage. They are low quality human beings.

    Q: Why are you for space exploration?

    Every species faces a race against time and itself. It must first adapt to its environment, and then find a niche in multiple environments, like a bird that specializes in juniper berries and moves on to eat and nest in pines of all types. The final stage of this, for a sentient species, is space travel. Our planet can get wiped out by a number of factors and has its doom written in the aging and death of the sun. Nothing lasts forever. For this reason, we should develop technologies for space exploration and find new homes and expand. If we do not do this, our certain end depresses us and makes us think our human effort is good for nothing in the end. Why feel this way, and live this way, when our choice of something better is easy if not a trivial re-allocation of resources to space travel?

    Q: Why are you intolerant of dumb people?

    There’s a hidden cost to dumb people: they do dumb things, and no amount of education or law enforcement changes that. We cannot control our society toward smarter things because dumb people either prefer dumb things, or will tolerate stupid and parasitic behavior. For this reason boycotts don’t work: a few thousand smart people boycotting a destructive product are overwhelmed by stupid people who keep buying it. We all know fast food outlets, convenience stores and shopping centers in excess produce blight, but as long as there’s a steady traffic of morons they keep appearing.

    Politically, idiots also present a problem in that they’re easy to swindle. Promise them something new and claim it’s free (don’t mention the socialized costs and indirect consequences they’ll have to pay to avoid) and idiots will vote for it. In contrast, when you tell them something must be done which will necessitate immediate inconvenience but long term benefit, and they’ll vote against it. Periodically, they band together and decide they’re “oppressed” and must revolt, usually by killing any smart person they find. Note that countries with lagging average IQs have a direct correlation to past revolution, as in France and Russia, who fall on average 7-10 points behind their nearest neighbors.

    What defines idiocy is a short attention span and preference for immediate rewards over long-term benefits, and this produces innumerable social blight and creates a depressing society in which smart people are marginalized. When a society in the grips of humanist/materialist principles, and idiots vote for that too, decides to try to incorporate idiots, it ends up with an “averaging” effect that stops rewarding higher performance and starts rewarding that universally-accessible trend, conformity to norms and ability to manipulate bureaucratic systems. This is a passive, subtle erosion that constitutes another form of idiot revolt.

    The terrible fact of life is that any intelligently-designed system oppresses those who do not understand this intelligent design and/or are not intelligent. To reward the great, you must avoid rewarding the blockhead and average. If you do not reward the great, idiots proliferate. For this reason any system that is intelligent and rewards the intelligent discriminates against idiots, but the converse is also true: any system that is unintelligent and rewards the unintelligent discriminates against the intelligent. Until humanity can get over its moral pretense and face this reality, it will be doomed not only to remain on earth but to do so in constant petty conflict over resource allocation.

    Q: What is pluralism?

    Philosophical pluralism is the idea that one considers all possibilities, but political pluralism is the idea that all possibilities are represented constantly in the same society without every making a choice. It results in a total fragmentation of focus and an inability to make the most vital decisions, although easy things like “attack when attacked” are not affected.

    In human terms, pluralism results from an unwillingness to make the best decision because it will cut some people out of the loop. If we decide that religions based on worship of a deity named Lord Zod who demands sacrifice in blood are illogical, those who follow the Church of Zod are excluded from our society. If we decide that buying plastic junk is illogical, people who enjoy plastic junk are probably going to suffer an inability to do so. And on and on. When a decision is not made, the result is that no decisions can possibly be made.

    On many issues, it is important to have a pluralistic outlook at first and consider all possibilities. But deferring a decision when all the data is present should be seen as exactly what it is: indecisiveness. We are afraid to make a decision that would hamper anyone, and therefore end up with a gross compromise that hampers everyone. We all get more angry by the day as we realize that our society is not only not serving our interests, but seems to be unwilling to do anything but limit us from acting against that which impedes our interests. The result is sublimated tension that explodes periodically in illogical demonstrations of anger.

    Q: What is utilitarianism?

    Utilitarianism is the concept that the best action in any situation is the one that benefits the most people most of the time, but this is commonly interpreted through the responses of a majority. Since this majority is inevitably composed of less intelligent people, the solution that is selected becomes a compromise that benefits no one. We describe objects as “utilitarian” when they fit the average hand, the average ass, or the average taste, and by doing so become inappropriate for anyone who does not fit into a mathematical average human form. Since such a form exists only as an abstraction, everyone is equally not at home in the new object, but it’s the most “efficient” and “cost-effective” solution according to the utilitarian view.

    Where utilitarianism takes hold politically, the result is the mishmash of democracy and capitalism and social control through memes regulated by media that so far is our best method of control as human beings, although our least effective method of finding a best path for society as a whole. By focusing on the equality of individuals, we have enacted a nightmare compromise that ends up alienating all individuals, even if they do not notice and cannot put it into words (or worse, some idiotic survey put forth in check boxes on a scantron sheet). We create a hybrid of intentions that has no intention, and this forces those who do have a clear intention, which by nature will inconvenience or offend someone, to work outside the law.

    Utilitarianism is an offshoot of both pluralism and the material/humanist belief in equality. It believes that we can throw a question out to the people at large and have them return a cogent choice, and that from that, we can pick the best path. Utilitarian systems inevitably alienate so many people that they are immediately followed by violent revolution, the killing of smart people, and then the choice of a series of exploitative dictators. Most third world nations are former utilitarian systems, as are the crumbled republics of Rome and Greece.

    Q: Why do you say modern people are delusional?

    Delusion is defined as a belief which contradicts reality but is held to be reality. In our modern time, the greatest delusion comes through the media. A stunning example is the Iraq war, where the supposedly “liberal” National Public Radio and Smithsonian Magazine and even Rolling Stone all agreed with conservative Fox News and Bill O’Reilly that Saddam Hussein was a terrible murderer, genocidist, and probable possessor of WMDs. Any time someone can be accused of violating “human rights,” our entire confederacy of dunces society is united against them.

    The media is one aspect of this problem, but the other aspect is the values we hold to be the foundation of our society. Since we don’t have much in common, having come from all over the world, we are forced to agree on the lowest common denominator, which is basically “don’t touch my stuff, and I won’t touch yours.” It’s immature and pathetic but this is the level on which our society operates. And so every single person out there infected by this virus has a sneering contempt for anyone who might be unafraid to take stuff away from idiots, and re-arrange it to make a better society.

    People live in these little worlds they’ve made for themselves, like we are a planet of little planets moving around. They watch their favorite news source, and assume it’s fact, when months later it is shown to be wrong, consistently. They sneer at anyone who dares tell the truth and feel better about themselves for it. They send twenty bucks to feed starving children in Africa or Los Angeles and think they’re angels for the rest of the day. But they don’t go get a house in the ghetto, they don’t drive through it, and they keep working at their jobs for personal profit. Are they hypocrites? In most cases, they’re just infected with this anti-misanthropic disease of materialism/humanism.

    Q: How will futurist misanthropy solve these problems?

    Futurist misanthropy alone cannot solve a damn thing. If in the hands of smart people, it helps them cut through the delusion and see that our problem is low quality of human beings (intelligence and character mostly, but a good deal of them are also fugly). At that point, they have a choice. If they rise to power and oppress the moronic desires of morons, it’s a victory. If they line up everyone of low intelligence and bad character near the edge of a pit and shoot them, reducing humanity to the half-billion quality people it has, it’s a major victory in that every human born after that time will be on his or her way to a new level of human. We want the superhuman. We want a goal to society. We want a reason to strive and a belief that we will not just have quality of life, but we’ll develop greater quality of self.

    Q: How can this come about?

    None of the talking heads in media or the idiots you meet in jobs and churches will tell you this, but a big screwup is due soon, probably within this generation. We’ve got too many balls in the air and too many debts that need paying. This will probably not be some huge event like 9-11 squared where airplanes fly into every building and suddenly we’re in total war status, but it will be a transfer of the United States and most of Europe to third-world economies, political systems, and social expectations. You will have to bribe your way to the top, and you will never be able to rely on public resources (sanitation, education, police) for a decent way of life.

    At this point, the society as a whole will be too weak to oppose decentralized aggression from lone wolf units whose main goal will be to murder the heads of the moron groups, exterminate morons from local neighborhoods, and crush any infrastructure of control (media, government, religion) they find in their local area. These people will probably not be organized by anything but the thought that world moron death is necessary for intelligence to survive, and they will act quietly at first toward achieving it. In third world states, overpopulation is the norm and constant murder raises no eyebrows, so their efforts will probably go undetected for a decade or two until the bodies start really piling up.

    Of course, this isn’t certain. If it does not come about, the entire globe will slowly regress to a third-world status of cultureless grey races of lumpenproletariat who serve their sneering cosmopolitan masters, and humanity will never make it off this rock and will perish from internal conflict. Aliens passing by in spacecraft we cannot yet dream will look down at the ruin and comment, “Another failed species that cannibalized itself because it couldn’t stop fighting over the wealth that was and look toward the future.” That’s why we’re futurist misanthropes — we’re misanthropes because we believe in (sections of) humanity, and we want a better future that just sitting around in this masturbatory zone, fighting over bread and television.