Elitist Individualism

Image result for ubermensch

‘For as long as organized human societies exist, there will always be a division between the unconscious masses and the conscious individuals. The Christian religion may wither and die, but only to be replaced by another philosophy glorifying the qualities of the herd. It lies not in the nature of the herd to live by elitist ideals – their nature is to be cogwheels in the machinery of society, and the fact that they follow a philosophy which glorifies this quality is aesthetically nauseating to the heretic, but still necessary for society to function’ – Erik Olivier Lancelot

The quote above is, in my opinion, a perfect explanation as to why some ‘radical individualist’ or ‘anti-herd’ mentality people hold such elitist views. The term ‘elitist’ usually conjures up ideas of wealthy businessmen or billionaire tycoons or some other group of men that are ‘elite’ in the sense that they are rich and successful. But this ‘elite’ is merely a materialistic one, and like all materialistic gains it is rather minimal and pathetic compared to higher spiritual values. There is also an idea of an ‘elite’ in a less monetary way, such as an ‘elite’ athlete (meaning an athlete or athletes that are far superior to everyone else’s physical capabilities), or perhaps ‘elite’ can also mean those who are much more intelligent than the average person.

However, for the most part, these ‘elite’ (the wealthy, the physically superior, the geniuses), they are still, as Erik put it, ‘cogwheels in the machinery of society’. These elite are better than most of the people around them, but they more than likely still fall into the ‘herd’ mentality of those lesser than them.

The majority wealthy and the physically superior still abide by the laws, follow religious dogma, and for the most part, do nothing to go against the tide of society. Sure, it can be argued that the wealthy ‘exploit’ the labors of others, or cause serious damage to others less fortunate than themselves – but the wealthy for the most part prize order. They may cause damages to society but they are still very much focused on the task of preserving society. After all, without society and its laws, the wealthy would be unable to prosper. Society is specifically built in a way that makes it almost impossible for modern man to support himself without getting a job that, more than likely, is reliant on one of the businesses run by the wealthy elite. The wealthy elite also have stocks and other investments that can only function when everything is running smoothly. The idea of a ‘wealthy elite’ is a modern creation – as in primitive times this type of elite never existed. This ‘wealthy’ elite is existent only because of capitalism, materialism and consumerism – things that, although they have existed for centuries, have recently become quite gigantic, to proportions that no one in the past ever anticipated.

Thus, while I do not deny that the wealthy elite cause harm to others, the wealthy elite are still very much a part of the fabric of society. They want society to run smoothly – they want people to obey laws, to follow religious dogma, to support their military or to follow traditional norms – whatever keeps a society ‘in line’ is good for the wealthy elite.

Now, if we go to the ‘physically superior’ individuals, we see that they too are far better (physically) than everyone else around them, but they too are still cogs in a machine. Most athletes are quite religious, and have no hesitance in voicing their ‘praise’ to god for helping them win (which is quite idiotic). No – the physically elite for the most part are even more ‘integrated’ into the unconscious mass of society than the wealthy elite. The physically elite are perhaps even more pathetic too – for no matter how healthy a body is it will eventually decay with age (whereas wealth, when used properly, can easy last a person’s entire lifetime).

So, the wealthy and physically elite are nothing too special. Now, the intelligent elite, the ‘geniuses’ so to speak – are a higher category and, sometimes, they will have an ‘anti-herd’ mentality. The intelligent elite are often freethinkers or at least have some ounce of skepticism, which allows them to be weary of the ‘unconscious masses’. If one should choose between the three (wealthy elite, physical elite, intelligent elite), one should choose the third option.

None the less, being part of the intelligent elite is no guarantee for a free spirit. There are many geniuses’ in many fields who are still quite ‘unconscious’ in the sense that they are so integrated into society they fail to see their own individuality and potential, and thus sacrifice their ability to learn to please society. The most prominent example of this are the ‘research ethics’ that plague the scientific community like a virus. ‘Research ethics’ are merely a subjective lot of rather humanistic rules that prevent scientists from carrying out certain experiments that may be ‘harmful’ or such. I think this is rather foolish – as the saying goes, one must be willingly to break a few eggs to make an omelet. How else are we supposed to learn if not by experimentation? The scientists who abide by research ethics – these scientists who let some petty morality get in the way of their path to knowledge – these scientists are very much a part of the ‘unconscious masses’, scientists who would rather please society than actually take a chance and see what lies in the possible experimentation.

But I digress. The point is that there are several forms of elitism – wealthy, physical and intelligent – but the elitism that I am talking about is greater than these three. This is the elitism that is not a part of society (unlike those other three elitisms which are). The elitism I advocate for is an Elitist Individualism– one based off spiritual and intellectual elitism.

The reason why society discourages selfishness, violence, and chaos is simple – because these things disrupt society. The goal of society, of the unconscious masses, is to keep everything in order by maintaining a blind, obedient populace. Therefore, any values that go towards self-perfection are discouraged. Society discourages self-discovery because self-discovery often leads to the realization that many of the problems plaguing the individual are a result of society, and thus by discarding society one discards these problems. Self-discovery leads to the knowledge and consciousness that things like material wealth, traditional norms and societal expectations are merely subjective ideas that have been disguised as objective goals. Society discourages self-perfection and self-reliance because these things would lead to an independent individual – one who would not need to rely on societies protection or offerings.

In other words, the unconsciousness masses (society) will do whatever it takes to keep people in line, and thus those who truly think for themselves – those who truly are against the tide of the herd, will be deemed a threat and looked at as being crazy.

Elitist Individualism is therefore the highest type of elitism – an elitism that goes beyond the expectations of society – an elitist that is, as the name implies, made for the individual and defined by the individual. The reason why this is termed ‘elite’ is because only a select few, namely the conscious individuals, are those who purse this – because, as with all things, there is a price to pay, and what this price is varies from person to person and place to place. Nonetheless, those conscious individuals will not have fear in pursing their individuality, and if they do have fear it will not be the crippling type of fear, but the motivational type of fear – the fear that teaches them to be cautious and careful but nonetheless pushes them forward on their journey. Do not sacrifice your own ideals or wants for society! There is, as Erik noted, a division, or a ‘war’ perhaps, between the unconscious masses and the conscious individuals. This is natural and, if anything, should be used as a stepping-stool to reach a higher form of being.


Christianity and Liberalism

The influence of the Christian church seems to be decaying, at least in west (in Africa it is still rather strong). Nonetheless, the Christian church, who in this case refers to the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant communities, no longer holds the same power and influence it had centuries, or even decades ago.

It is no secret that Christianity has been dying in the west. Any statistic or census shows that religion has been on a rapid decline, and that for the most part people are becoming ‘secular’, or ‘non-religious’.

This is both a good thing and a bad thing. Obviously, given my antagonism towards organized religion (especially Christianity, which I view as one of the worst religions created), one would think that I would be joyful in knowing that Christianity is dying. And personally I am, but like with all things, something inevitably takes the place of the old once the old disappears.

Liberalism, and liberal ethics, seem to have dominated the west. Anyone familiar with my work will know that I strongly dislike liberals, and to be more broad, all leftist doctrines in general. The problem that I have with the death of Christianity is that the influence of Christianity, namely in ethics, is still very much present. Now, the right-wing loves to claim that Christianity is a conservative religion, but this is only true in a traditional sense. For the most part, Christian ethics are extremely ‘liberal’ in the broad sense. Sure, Christianity does condemn homosexuality and abortion, but it also promotes a universal love and to leave judgement to God. In other words, I believe that, as a whole, Christianity has liberal ethics (egalitarianism, non-violence, universal love, forgiveness), whereas certain aspects of Christianity, like any movement, have some traditional or conservative elements, but not enough to reconstruct the main teachings (which are liberal).

Nonetheless, the modern liberal ethical code is merely a modern manifestation of past Christian ethics. Simply because many diluted, Christian conservatives preach ‘anti-liberal’ political opinions does not negate the leftist tendency of Christianity. If anything, leftists are the ones who are ‘true Christians’ in the sense that they at least seem to follow the ‘big picture’ of Christian ethics, whereas the Conservatives, who are diluted and idiotic, promote Capitalism, nationalism, and violence, despite Christian ethics clearly opposing most forms of those three ideas.

Liberals, for the most part, tend to be anti-war, anti-capitalism (at least compared to the American right), pro-human rights, pro-equality, pro-coexisting, pro-multiculturalism, anti-violence and they also tend to be much more accepting of others than their ‘Christian’ conservative counterparts.

It should be noted that many liberal principles, such as equality, kindness, acceptance and this idea of sharing and caring are, in all respects, Christian ethics. The European pagans that existed before the arrival of Christianity lacked many of the same ethical codes that their descendants today carry. So whether the liberal is an atheist or a Christian, it still stands that the liberals abides by Christian-like ethics.

So, even in a decaying Christian society, the ethics of Christianity, a weak and, as Nietzsche best referred to it, a ‘slave-morality’ mentality, is still present. It is interesting to note that many far-right thinkers were, in many respects, anti-Christian. The Italian and German fascist leaders were all well-known admirers of the Roman/Germanic paganism, and Hitler himself even remarked that he believed, had it not been for Christianity, the German race would have conquered the world.

Thus, to be a Christian means that you abide by liberal ethics, and vice versa, to be a liberal means that you abide by Christian ethics. There are of course some noticeable differences, but as a whole, Christianity and liberalism are very much compatible. And it is for this reason that I believe the decaying of the Christian church is both a good thing and a bad thing. Good in the sense that it is an end to superstitious dogma and illogical belief systems. Bad because the influence, particularity in regards to the weak Christian ethical code, is still being promulgated by the popular liberal parties.

Seclusion in the Woods

Image result for nicholas roerich art
I recommend that every person spend time alone in nature – preferably somewhere forested and full of life; such as the woods.
However, a desert will work fine too – anywhere that is untouched by ‘man’ will do. By this, I mean an area of nature, regardless of its environment or climate, where there are no traces of man – no buildings, no homes, no roads and most importantly – no people.
When one spends time alone in the wilderness, one realizes how petty all their problems are. So many of the things that bother us, that hurt us, that cause us to stress – these things tend to be human creations. We worry about our financial situation, about our relationships, about our looks or body. We feel trapped, or alone, or worthless in the modern, industrialized world – with all its arbitrary rules, constricting social norms and unobtainable expectations.
But when one is in nature, one is truly free. Nature does not care how you look, or how much money you have, or what jobs you have or your eduction or what name you’ve made of yourself. Nature does not care about any of this. You could be a successful millionaire or a poor beggar – in nature, superficial titles and achievements mean nothing. In nature, it is the will and the character of the individual that determines ones worth. In nature, the only laws one must follow are the Laws of Nature.
Thus, I recommend that one spend time alone in nature in order to realize that they too, like everything around them, are merely parts of a larger whole. Personally, if it was not for the nature I probably would have killed myself long ago.
So go out and spend the day alone in the wilderness. Meditate, contemplate, or simply wander around – but go, leave this industrialized world and be reunited with mankind’s true environment.

On Psychedelics

Image result for psychedelic universeI encourage the use of psychedelics – particularly ones such as LSD, cannabis, psilocybin and MDMA. Now, I do not advocate for ‘recreational drug use’. I am also against those who do drugs simply as a means of escape. The drug use I advocate for is one in which drugs are used to help explore the mind and to change a persons perception of reality.
Aldous Huxley argued that the human brain, when sober, is always on an ‘instinct’ mode. Due to evolution, the human brain works in a very animalistic, non-creative, survive mode that relies heavily on instincts. Now, this applies not only to actions but to perceptions and thoughts. We see, feel, think and experience the world through a ‘survival-instinct’ lens. This is not to say that this ‘perspective’ is untrue or an illusion – rather, this ‘survival-instinct’ lens is only one perception and one way of viewing the world.
Huxley believed that psychedelics help suppress these instinctual lens and thus, we see the world in a new light. Anyone familiar with psychedelics, whether t be acid, psilocybin or most commonly, marijuana, will know that under the influence of these drugs one sees, hears, feels and most importantly, thinks differently. The last part, the thinking process, is most important – because under psychedelics the mind operates in a different manner – ones perceptions and thoughts are different than usual.
The idea that psychedelics ‘suppress’ the ‘survival-instinct’ lens of perception is a reasonable one. After all, any person who has been under the influence of psychedelics will know that hallucinations, abstract thinking and a distorted sense of perception can be very detrimental to everyday tasks – let alone a task as hard as survival; especially thousands of years ago, when our ancestors struggled to survive in the harsh natural environment. The ‘survival-instinct’ lens is a normal and natural part of mankinds perception; it’s what kept out ancestors alive and even today, it is what keeps us alive.
Thus, psychedelics can help one see the world in a new light – a light that is not contaminated by the primitive survival-instinct lens. Even if Huxley is wrong, this still does not take away from the fact that psychedelics distort ones reality and bring about new thoughts and perceptions.
The reason why I advocate for psychedelic drug use is so that an individual can experience a new form of their consciousness – a new area of their mind. Perception is everything, and thus, changing ones perception can change the individual. It is important for people to experience the world in different perspectives and to explore their mind and consciousness. That being said, as a person who suffers from anxiety and paranoia, I warn you that psychedelics can be very dangerous. There were many times when I felt as if I had lost my mind, or events where I would run around, talking to myself, feeling scared and freightened. The worst of course is a ‘bad trip’, which I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Nonetheless, even on ‘bad tripsm ‘ one can learn a great deal about themselves. Thus, I am not against drug use, I am simply warning you that these psychedelics can be dangerous. They will it kill you, but they can cause paranoia, delusion and other painful events that are, to say the least – terrifying.
So be careful. Read up on psychedelics before doing them, do them in a safe and familiar environment, have a person trip-sit, and most importantly – be in a good state of mind and open to new experiences.

On Love

Image result for salvador dali love

Love is just an illusion that resulted from an advanced and fragile ego that was unable to accept the inevitability of loneliness. Love is just another form of attachment; another burden, another anchor, another chain on the individual. But it is a comforting attachment; a worthwhile burden, a beautiful anchor, a chain that keeps us from falling endlessly. As William S. Burroughs wrote, love is the most natural painkiller.

Why Groups Are a Form of Imprisonment for the Individual

Related image

I don’t like groups. I don’t think I’ve ever liked groups. Groups are literally the anti-thesis of the individual. As a Radical Individualist, I strongly dislike groups because they are in every way, shape and form a weight and, in some cases, a prison for the individual.

In a group, a consensus must be created. An individual’s own opinion or preference may be discarded or ignored because it is not ‘in accord with everyone else’s’. In a group, people must make compromises – they must co-operate, and this of course means that ones individuality is sacrificed.

Most groups have a leader, but even a leader must be careful of what they do, because if their actions cause unfavorable results this could lead to their removal as leader. Thus, even the most authoritarian and dictatorial of leaders will at times compromise their true desires in order to remain in power. Compromises are abundant in groups – such as political parties, activist organizations, company boards and so on – if one wants to get even more personal, one must compromise in a family, a relationship, and with friends. Even though these ‘groups’ are not based on an ideological consensus, they still require co-operation, sacrifices and compromising.

Obviously, each individual has their own desires and opinions. In a group, you have several individuals, thus you inevitably have differing and opposing views. The only way you’d have a truly ‘unified, all-in-agreement’ group would be one in which every member is too stupid to think for themselves and, without any hesitation, these members unanimously agree with everything their leader says.

No two individuals are alike, and thus, in a group, the individual is suppressed and cannot live as they truly see fit. Groups are inevitably a threat to individualism. A true individual does not need a group to support him or herself. A true individual is fine on their own. A true individual then, is their own group.

A Better Place?

If everything is subject to change, what use is it to make a utopia, or a ‘better society’ – when inevitably this society will someday decay, alter, or be destroyed altogether? The reason why I do not care for ‘making the world a better place’ is because it will inevitably come to an end eventually. I see no reason why I should waste my time and energy trying to improve something that will someday be subject to change. Even if you do create a better world, it will eventually be destroyed somewhere along the line.