Corrupt

• Goal
• Data
• Act

CORRUPT FAQ v1.0

Like a glimpse of an ancient ruin from the window of a moving train, this Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) attempts to address CORRUPT beliefs through the queries of outsiders. It is not meant as a substitute for our primary writings, but as an introduction for those who are curious about specifics that parallel the dialogue of other political groups and functions. Since these are based on questions asked of us by others on a regular basis, this document is skewed toward the confusion of such people and not how we desire to present our ideas. For a complete view of our outlook, visit www.corrupt.org and read the primary source materials there.

I. Values

1.1 What does CORRUPT feel needs changing, and what does it propose as change?

We perceive that modern society has become corrupt because its stated values do not match the outcome toward which it seems to be moving. Even further, its values are themselves based on illusion. Here are the fatal problems of modern society:

1 - Existential: Our cities are ugly, our jobs are directionless and do not directly benefit others, and we are surrounded by predators and parasites.

2 - Biological: The best do not rise in Social Darwinist systems, so instead we are breeding humanity into two distinct groups, a vicious upperclass and a servile, near-chimpanzee stupid underclass.

3 - Environmental: We are polluting our environment, taking up too much land and dividing the rest and interrupting natural ecosystems. We have no plan to fix or supplant these systems.

4 - Leadership: Our leaders do not lead, and ignore problems while playing out a drama of inconsequential but emotional issues. Most people lack the aptitude and inclination to understand politics, so clearly Democracy will not check this progress but increase it.

5 - Psychological: We have eliminated a sense of personal accomplishment and power in life and replaced it with material conquest, which leaves us hungry for more, producing modern greed.

6 - Political: By insisting on pluralism, we are attempting to destroy all distinct societies and ideologies on earth, replacing them with one single normative average that is in effect a belief in nothing but materialism and getting along with others for the purposes of materialism. This soulless path will lead to greater conflict with less rationality behind it, albeit in the name of eliminating conflict, world peace, etc.

To fix these problems, we propose the following ideals:

1 - Holism: Instead of looking at the self, or the collective, or nature, we look at all three as an integral whole. This is the integralist/traditionalist side of our philosophy.

2 - Idealism: We recognize that thoughts, like nature, operate by a process of proliferation and natural selection. For this reason, we always use both unfettered creativity and intense competitive pressure to refine everything we do. This is the conservative/libertarian aspect of our philosophy.

3 - Transcendentalism: We accept death and suffering as part of life, and instead of trying to reduce these, we see them as meaningful as means to an end, and we focus not on controlling the means but on creating better ends so the suffering induced by the means is inconsequential. This is the existentialist/pagan aspect of our philosophy.

4 - Naturalism: As part of bonding ourselves to life, we should accept nature and natural processes including natural selection as part of a design more genius than one we have created. When we accept these things, we can again use life as a canvas to make greater art, architecture, learning, and loving relationships while not getting hung up on the methods used to achieve them. We recognize that inequality is not only fundamental to life but essential for it to avoid entropy caused by a lack of advantage to one choice over another. This is the Vedantist/Jungian aspect to our philosophy.

5 - "Don't be evil.": We borrowed this phrase from Google.com, but it sums up one aspect of our belief nicely, and that is that everything we do should be to make the world a better place, and we should treat people respectfully even in combat. Our goal is to make a better world, and people who do not agree with us are misguided but may come to see the light. They are not our enemies, nor chattel for slaughter. Even more, every life must be considered fairly and given a chance to prove itself. This is the liberal/leftist aspect of our philosophy.

6 - Nihilism/Zen: We do not judge, and we do not believe, in anything but reality. There is no form of external truth and the ultimate arbiter of what is, reality, is more important than human concepts like "justice," "rights," and "morality." We recognize morality as a tool of the herd to hold back the strong. This is the Nietzschean/Spenglerian side of our philosophy.

7 - Localization: We believe that larger governments are less able to rule all their citizens well, and more prone to collapse in the form of sea change. We favor small local communities with a great deal of power, and small central governments responsible for foreign policy. This is the leftist/liberal side of our philosophy yet again, which dovetails with the traditional.

8 - Successionism: Any idea can be done better, and our job is to take a partially working idea and make it better, instead of creating an entirely contrary abstract theory. Similarly, criticism without suggestion of a better way is empty and destructive. We oppose nothing, only seek to make all things rise to a higher level of organization. The truth is reality, and describing it we have many voices; even a fractured voice can be made more truthful. This is the side of our philosophy that recognizes the destructive futility of revolution and extremist, insurgent politics.

Which will manifest in the following solutions:

1 - Population. Currently, natural land has been reduced to approximately ten percent of usable land. This eliminates species, ruins natural regulatory processes including the production of oxygen, and ensures resource depletion. To reverse this process, we must reduce humanity to at least half its current population and thus land consumption. This places people in cities, where over half of the population currently resides. Were we to want a planet where every person could own a house, we would have to reduce our population to one-half billion. Further, we want to ensure that the smarter people in all cultures worldwide breed instead of the slower ones. We do not trust bureaucratic government to apply this policy. What makes more sense is to reduce all foreign aid from the first world, and to cease all outsourcing of labor and services from the first world. This will shrink the world economy and stop reckless growth. In addition, if we adapt a policy of putting culture before money, we can reward people for their inner qualities including intelligence and nobility of character, and therefore breed better quality people.

2 - Leadership. Democratic leaders do not lead. They listen to polls and propose nice-sounding but impractical plans. We need strong leaders who are willing to do what is unpopular if it is the right thing to do. Banning SUVs or destructive plastic products will generate cries of "oppression," but if all of humanity benefits, it is a freedom from oppression. No one can make a decision for a society at large without stepping on some toes, but as most individuals are inclined to see detail and not the whole, their desires are often inappropriate. Among our people there are those who lead intelligently, nobly and compassionately. Rigorous education in history and philosophy can round these people out, and we can start them out as local leaders and promote those that do the best job. Further, we should breed them in a special category of people, or "caste," so that we pass on the genes that produce great leaders.

3 - Freedom. The best freedom is a working society without a plethora of threats (crime, filth, parasites, predators) in which one can do anything that is not destructive. Government should stay out of regulating such things, as it should be left up to the local community to determine who they accept as a member of their community. If a citizen is acting in dischord to the values of the local community, it is not terrible that they be asked to leave and to find a place more appropriate to their values. This will lead to the creation of subcultural localities, like cities devoted to subcultures (drugs, homosexuality, heavy metal, cannibalism) that are not acceptable to others. This guarantees each the freedom they need and the freedom from having to support people with whose choices they do not agree. It eliminates endless debates over abortion, drug legalization, sodomy laws, and so forth, as each local community can define its standards without interference from an overbearing central government.

4 - Reward. When we assert culture over money, we begin looking at the inward qualities of people again. Each local area can reward what it deems important. This does not need to come in the form of money, but can be grants of land or shares in the agriculture or manufactured products of a region. Furthermore, the people we find to be of higher quality should be encouraged to breed at higher than replacement rates. This ensures that all of us will have offspring who have a chance to mate with people of higher quality.

5 - Parasites. Manipulative liars, schemers, hoaxers, thieves, perverts, leeches, and people who abuse power are part of life. Because in each generation, variation is introduced by both the recombinant factors of genetics and natural mutation, there will be people of every new batch who are fundamentally inclined toward destructive behaviors. Where in the past we spent huge amounts of money to try to "rehabilitate" many, with a high rate of failure, in the future we should not shy away from removing them. People who mean badly and intend to parasitize others will never change and the rest of society should not be penalized for their dysfunction.

6 - Clean up. Our future is our environment. With a combination of tax credits and social encouragement, we can make it feasible for businesses and individuals to remove garbage, pollution, derelict buildings, and unnecessary plastic.

7 - Isolation. There should be no foreign aid of any kind, and no international programs to reduce hunger or disease. Each locality must stand on its own and, if destroyed by natural forces, should be considered to have been a civilization not destined to survive.

8 - Ethnic self-determination. Each local culture is tied to a group by heritage, and no two groups can exist in the same place. For this reason, local cultures can decide who or who not to accept on any basis they desire, including heritage and culture. We believe this will prevent the crass and destructive racism that is a consequence of two or more populations competing for cultural and economic dominance in the same area.

9 - Existential. A future consideration for human beings should be the way we spend our time. Most of our jobs can be done in a quarter of the time we spend on them, should we be willing to adopt more efficient methods and worry less about who is offended. Committees and multiple layers of management do not increase efficiency, but are there to protect the incompetent from recognition. It is more humane to send the incompetent to a different job than it is to make all of us adapt to the lowest common denominator. When economics is not the primary measure of an individual's worth, the stigma of moving to a different job becomes far less.

We have a philosophy, called "Ascendancy," that opposes the philosophical concept of modern society, which we call "Intraversion."

Intraversion - This term implies not only going within ourselves, commonly called "introversion," but the thought of going "between" which reveals our divided self between inner world and outer world. We are a divided self marked by a suppressed inner world and an overgrown representation of ourselves in the outer world, like an avatar in a strange game made of popularity points. Intraversion takes us into the worst of life, which is a fear of death and unpopularity that paralyzes us from taking action. In this state we become absurdly passive, unwilling to criticize or act against things that are wrong but benefit others, and at the same time disproportionately aggressive in the areas society designates for competition. With our excessive reliance on our external self, we become underconfident, as we never come to know our inner world and find ourselves not at home in our own minds. Even worse, we know we are self-serving and come to loathe ourselves for being so shortsighted.

Ascendancy - In contrast to inward-going philosophies, ascendancy starts from the inner world and believes in the clarification and growth of ourselves as only we know us. An ascendant person thinks, molds themselves into an ideal of their own creation, and derives their self-confidence from that accomplishment and a knowledge of themselves. They have individuality, not individualism, and are less concerned with public perception than actual reality. They know it is easy to convince others that one is competent (pass tests), honest (don't get caught), well-meaning (flatter) and intelligent (memorize facts). They know it is impossible to fool oneself. The goal of an ascendant person is to know himself or herself fully, to discipline that self to the highest standards possible, including ethical and physical and mental, and then to apply the beauty found within to the world without. Where an intraverted person questions whether he or she dares presume to change the world, and talks in terms of rights and obligations, an ascendant person thinks in terms of making things better much as evolution made us better: create ideas, test them, and pick the best and repeat the process on that basis. Ascendant people are confident and moral and lack sneering contempt for anything but bad logic.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.1
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.1]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.1[/url]

1.2 What is linear thinking/partial intelligence?

Linear thinking and partial intelligence are responsible for most failings of humanity to see the obvious, and are things against which we educate and crusade in order to stimulate human evolution to a higher state of humanity.

Life occurs in three dimensions over time, and is an amorphous task which can be accomplished by many means; every action has multiple potential outcomes, but each outcome has a single cause. Via the successive operations of time that which has occurred already obviously had a single cause, but any action can go in several potential directions, and that action will not become a "cause" until its effect is seen. When we understand this principle of time guiding cause and effect, it becomes silly to try to make life (an action) correspond to a single effect (heaven, wealth, television).

Humans speak of the "linearity" of a system of measurement and intend by that to explain this paradox; life has many uses, but we try to assess it in terms of a single scale that goes from zero to infinity. We're trying to put experience into numbers, to classify lives by the accumulation of things, to rank each other by popular appeal. This linearity is handy for filing taxes or describing leadership in bureaucracies, but it does not represent life exactly enough, and therefore creates a "ghost image" by which we expect life to fit a certain perception and it does not, forcing us to fill in the blanks with conjecture. Both the ancients, from Krishna to Aristotle, and the postmodernists, from Joyce to DeLillo, warn us of this potentially misleading artifact: we sample the world and store it in memories composed of symbols, but when we reconstruct those memories, we project symbols onto the world and are confused when our external environment does not fit exactly into our internal quantifier.

The modern linear assessment is power through popularity; if many people want something, it is valuable; if many people vote for something, it is law; if many people expect something, it becomes culture. Because we feared that having strong leaders was too linear, we created an even more linear system in which money (consumerism), appearance (morality), and popularity (democracy) determine our future. By doing so, we not only create an illusory representation of reality that does not correspond exactly enough to predict or appreciate our external world, but we also replace the chance of strong leadership; how can a leader be popular and yet advocate the self-sacrifice and discipline necessary for the longterm health of our civilization? We have abandoned leadership for the linear scales of popularity and money, and the result is that we are pursuing pleasant illusion instead of reality; from this root all of our insanity, neurosis, and widespread but undiscussed failure originates.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.2
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.2]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.2[/url]

1.3 Doesn't your plan deny individualism?

It is a natural part of being a human being, a being capable of self-reflection and self-awareness, to ponder who we are. In our modern times, it can be said that this task has become even more difficult to answer. Existential angst is prevalent as we are seemingly thrown to the wolves to fend for ourselves, devoid of natural culture like the people of the past, and placed in front of an enormous soulless consumer oriented culture. Seemingly circumventing this problem we find there is a popular sentiment amongst the youth of our day about "being yourself." I suspect that these youth are committing a terrible error in thinking they are successful on this front, an error hinging on an important distinction.

There is a difference between being an individual and being individuated. Being an individual would be the deepest result of one who desires to be oneself. It would involve one following their own lead, their own law, with no respect for external pressuring forces. The actions one takes would be the expression of the deepest portion of the self, the consequence of obeying one's eternal law. Being individuated, by contrast, is an entirely shallow and external matter. To be individuated is to somehow be distinguished from other individuals around you from the perspective of another human observer. Various external changes will suffice in attempts to be individuated: new hair, new clothes, loud disruptive behavior, etc. When one is successfully being an individual, they tend to coincidentally be individuated. But the problem at hand is that the latter is being pursued in and of itself.

The youth of today pursue that which is new, unique or different. They desire anything that is somehow individuated from what others are doing, and as a result of being involved in these things (be they clothing, music, catch phrases, whatever), are whole-heartedly trying to individuate themselves. Seeing as this is an entirely external endeavor, and something that requires another human observer to notice, the entire motivation is social. And so, in this faulty way of "being themselves," the youth of today walk into the trap of enslavement to social concerns. Far from a journey of self-discovery, this is simply another form of following external rules while the deepest regions of the self remain untouched.

Normally, this wouldn't even be worth discussing. It is no secret that young people are impressionable and easily enslaved by their social insecurities (just look at all the trends of the past). This is not particularly special to our day. What has changed is that our youth have deluded themselves into thinking they're somehow "being themselves," being non-conformist, being truer in some sense then all those silly people who came before them. Oh, what progress they are making! A breed of youth who know how to be themselves! And yet, they have marched happily into delusion.

I see two possible reactions to this situation, once it is realized. The first is to embrace the actions that have taken one into delusion and see them for what they are: in a sense, being happy in slavery. For anyone of higher mind or character, this is clearly a sad and undesirable route into fatalism (although it may be preferable for some). "My whims are such, and I shan't change them" seems to be what it amounts to. The second is, upon realizing the deluded slave-state, to cease the actions that one is taking. From here, one will be set adrift in the difficult nihilistic state where life seems to have no meaning. You are in essence divorcing yourself from your previous identity. It can be a traumatic shift, but a liberating one as well. Then up from the depths echoes helpfully to us the words "be yourself".

Those who have freed themselves from their social bonds must now understand truly what it is to "be yourself," to attack this task at its core and learn how to be an individual. External appearances or evidence of individuation are inconsequential to this task. What matters is the internal change that involves finding within oneself their deepest foundation of values. Once there is a foundation to hold onto, one can begin to shape one?s own law. However, it is not enough to form such a law. This law must also be obeyed in action. Regardless of whether your friends think reading Schopenhauer is cool or not, for example, if your deepest reaches compel you to do so, then you must and will do so. Compromising yourself for social concerns is to succumb to slavery and to fail at the task of self-discovery.

This part of the transformation is essential: it is not enough to be centered; one must also act from this center or be thrown into contradiction and feelings of guilt and remorse. If one is diligent and focused in acting how one most deeply desires to do so, then one has come to truly being an individual, to entertaining their unified deepest sense of self and law of action. It can thus be seen that through true self-discovery one also finds true freedom. No longer is one a slave to external pressures, nor even to their own emotions, habits, and reactions, for the personal eternal law is inviolable when accompanied by the disciplined, strong will. Understanding and discovering the deepest unified self can be a difficult task, but the inner war is worth fighting. Through this self-discovery, one can truly be an individual, truly find freedom.

Although I picked on a particular trend seen in youth culture, this problem of compromising the self is prevalent throughout society, just without the delusional tag of "being yourself." It tends to be accompanied by a general apathy towards matters of the self and meaning in life. But for those who are not entirely dead to the world and seem to impress importance upon being yourself (and ultimately rightly so), you must stabilize who you are and not be swept up in external individuation. Pursue what is required for being an individual, align action with your foundation, and grow up knowing you are not compromising your integrity. Only then will you ever be truly free, free through being yourself.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.3
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.3]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.3[/url]

1.4 Doesn't your plan deny compassion?

Prowling through the archives of every major religion, at some point one will find a reference to what the Buddhists and Christians have popularized as "universal compassion"; inevitably, the religious leaders of a time long past the founding of their religion state this is the objective of that religion. And why not? The idea that we care about everybody, and leave nobody out, suggests encircled spiritual wagons ready to ward off death, terror, sadness and loss.

However, it's possible we are misinterpreting the phrase because we bring our own expectations to the religion more than we learn from interpreting it. "Universal compassion," after all, can mean two things: it can mean compassion for everything in the universe, or compassion for the universe itself, as if it were a living and sensing order which when granted the understanding inherent to compassion, will reveal its secrets to the dedicated initiate. In this sense, compassion is fully distinct from pity; one does not grant compassion only to those who need it, but feels a spiritual comradeship with the organizational impetus of the universe. Pity makes the pitier feel better and reminds the pitied of its lower place; compassion for the universe reminds us all that we have but small places in a giant collaborative order.

What emerges from this type of universal compassion is a faith in how things operate in our world and the cosmic order which produced it. It is no longer an alien, threatening mechanism to us, and therefore we do not feel a need to resist it with denial. We see the reasons why things are as they are. This in turn frees us from the prison of individualism, in which people are more afraid of their own death than they are motivated to do what is right by all. With compassion for all things in the universe, we see them as individuals in the mold of ourselves, and our own fear of death and fear of insufficiency ("fear of natural selection") we project upon them; with compassion for the universe, we see that death and natural selection are necessary and through them we achieve better life -- when we are most mature, we are not begrudging of that sacrifice of ourselves so that the universal order can be healthier.

Most of us who are not defective have a great deal of compassion. When we see another creature, whether a stalk of corn or a furry kitten or someone who works where we do, we are filled with good feelings and hopes for this person: we understand that life for them as for all of us is a struggle, and we admire their strengths and adaptations, and we wish them the best for the future. This compassion is an excellent and sustaining thing, but much as all medicines are poisonous in the wrong doses, it can go too far. To love our fellow creatures (and plants) is a wonderful thing, but it paralyzes us when we are unwilling to act in a way that will disappoint or terminate them, even if that action would have made the world better. We must have universal compassion and do first what is right for the betterment of order on earth and in the heavens, and only secondarily let our compassion guide us to treat all individual life forms well, because from a distance, our universe itself is a life-form deserving compassion before any of its components.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.4
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.4]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.4[/url]

1.5 What is nihilism and how is it related to Zen?

Think for a moment that there are stories other than yours, and that there are dreams and ambitions perhaps greater than your own. Now sustain this thought indefinitely. Consider, now, why your life is worth living in comparison to the lives of these others -- the whole of humanity -- and reason in way that does not resemble an excuse or an appeal to emotion. If you cannot justify your existence, I implore you: do not exist.

Did you take offense to that last bit? If so: why? Existentialism and the raison d'etre are not so recent developments of philosophy in the history of man, yet the Socratic entreaty ("An unexamined life is not worth living") has become little more than a novelty phrase from antiquity tossed about in college philosophy departments. Reviving this spirit, let us unravel the many layers of preconceptions, indoctrinations, and ideals, and restructure our value system from the ground up. This is nihilism: subjecting every proclaimed truth to rigorous questioning, as a child does, until one can be certain of its validity and integrity, upon which it may be incorporated into their worldview (and only then!).

Nihilism is not fatalism; nor is it simply skepticism -- faithless, it is nonetheless a belief system which places etiology, the study of causality, and logic above all else. It is a lens through which we view the world, one which does not conflate or confuse cause and effect (or attribute wrongly where there is none), or give way to emotion-laden argumentation. Nihilism is a holistic worldview that acknowledges humanity?s relationship with nature and that, just as there is no ultimate goal to be seen in processes such as evolution, so does mankind remain unattached to any linear progression towards a determined end. This philosophy thus necessitates that human endeavor does not breach the code of conduct which is grounded in practicality, appreciation for order and excellence, and sustainability of a cause. There is no compromise with regard to a temporally relative agenda.

To place nihilism on a personal level, and explain how it functions for the individual, requires that one abolish the modern liberal sense of "individuality," opting instead for cognizance of their function in a greater order, albeit one that is perpetually changing form. While morality no longer bears with it the relation to a finite, binary field as is characteristic of theistic religions, it still serves as a guideline for proper conduct so long as one remains cognizant of how it facilitates well-being, if not transcendence. Empirically, one can compare lifestyle choices to find that there is, in fact, an incorrigible link to functional practicality.

Ultimately, however, nihilism places us in a place where we must critically asses the soundness of our ideals and worldview, to determine whether our conceptualization of reality is in agreement with reality as it truly is. To that end, we are asked to leave behind indoctrination, personal theory, and subjective thought as a whole, and replace it with what is justifiably a stronger basis for experience and existence.

As nihilists, we believe in nothing, because we do not need belief -- we observe reality and act in accordance with its principles. As F.W. Nietzsche noted in his "On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense," societies with a vast disparity between thought-leaders and population attempt to create a single symbolic representation of the truth to control others. These truths, whether the Word of God or the letter of the law or even socio-political foundations like liberalism, create a false reality of public perception that differs from actual reality and makes us schizoid. We cannot write down the truth; we can offer interpretations, but much like amorphous entities such as God, there is one Reality, yet it has many voices that describe it. Nihilism is a rejection of the absolute authority of any one voice, including our own, in favor of an ongoing interpretation of reality. Naturally, as such, nihilism demands the best quality minds and personalities (character) of a people, because only the best among us can apply reality in a sea of disconnected voices.

Nihilism is a gateway to understanding reality that bypasses illusion by cutting down unnecessary "belief" and looking at the raw essence of natural design and function. When we understand how our world works, we can comprehend how we must live to experience it best and get the farthest in it. Most of the beliefs people pass around are filled with illusion, creating false moral "realities" or personal "realities" which are preferences and not fact. A nihilist deals in fact, and has no obligation toward moral or popular "truths."

Because we are realists, we are also idealists, in that we understand that much as natural selection shapes life it shapes our thoughts; reality operates in the same way our thoughts do. In this sense, we see that in order to do what is right by the real we must forego the tangible for the ideal, and operate on life at the level of its design. Nihilism is thus a method of removing illusion to discover reality and from that to discover the design science of nature and use it not only for our physical benefit but to condition our minds to the powers potentially accesible by us. Of all the philosophies currently existing, nihilism is the simplest and yet leads to the greatest mental flexibility.

Older uses of the term "nihilism" conflated it with "fatalism," or the belief that no values can exist. We believe values can exist, but that only those values which successfully reflect reality are important, and that these cannot be written down once and serve in place of an understanding of reality and active genius minds to apply it. Fatalism is a product of the modern time in which people, seeing that public "reality" (socialized illusion) is disconnected from reality, shrug and throw up their hands and figure that nothing can be done to ever better the situation.

We believe in everything and think the best of anything is worth doing, so long as it is realistic. Because at some point all knowledge is subjective, we recognize that the best among us will pick the most realistic solutions, and since we cannot "prove" with simple numbers and diagrams to all people in their subjective worlds the essential nature of our philosophy, we choose to say that "We prefer a realistic solution" and then to outline that solution instead of becoming emotionally vested in different partisan tactics within a failing system.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.4
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.4]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.4[/url]

1.6 All opinions are of equal worth!

All opinions are of equal validity, but the only determination of "worth" is how well they work in the real world. If we all had our opinions, and refused to change, there would be zero consensus on any issue. For this reason, we discipline our "opinions" (an ambiguous word that can include preferences, beliefs, fond notions, illusions, psychiatric dysfunctions as well as logical responses to the world around us in idea form) to what the best among us can perceive of reality, as this consistently produces the best results.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.6
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.6]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#1.6[/url]

II. Environment

2.1 Why care about our environment?

There are two major reasons to care about our environment: first, it sustains us. Second, it is the source of our life as well as peerless beauty, and it will make us psychologically healthier not only to witness more of it, but to feel ourselves participants in its nurturing and development. The first reason is practical: without our environment, we either die or live inside of machines. The second is philosophical: if we murder our environment, we will never forgive ourselves, but if we increase its place in our life, we will feel greater spiritual sustenance.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.1
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.1]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.1[/url]

2.2 What is your environmental plan?

Our plan is a conservation plan; environmentalism is a political outlook that hopes to find a reason within the current system to protect our environment. Conservationism is a different view of how our society should be structured as a whole around the idea of preserving, nurturing and learning to appreciate nature. The difficult balance is how to avoid destroying our environment without damaging our people. The crux of this is that each person who exists needs a certain amount of resources and space, and these are finite, so even if people live ultra-efficiently population must be controlled. Even more alarming is that individuals, in pursuit of personal wealth, often choose to disregard what is good for nature or other "socialized" (shared by all) resources. Our suggestion is that strong leadership should replace the idea that whatever people want to do that makes profit is OK, and that we should restrict our population from the least valued members of society upward. Fewer people, of a better quality, obeying leaders who are concerned about the long-term (next thousand years and beyond) view is the only combination that will save nature. Buying special products does nothing. Cutting back our lifestyles is good, but by itself, does nothing. Buying land only defers the problem until later when that land becomes more valuable and the taxes rise, or governments appropriate it. Our plan is to create a saner type of society that avoids the problems of selfishness and overpopulation as much as is possible. Only by changing the design of our society can we fix its subsidiary problems, including the environmental crisis.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.2
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.2]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.2[/url]

2.3 Won't environmental legislation cost too much money?

When a problem arises, what matters most is fixing the situation, regardless of cost, because if the problem persists it will over the long term generate greater cost obligations. Fixing our environmental problems will require an investment of money but will avoid an otherwise sure fate in addition to the destruction of natural habitats that are beautiful, relaxing and comforting to our mental outlook. In addition, there are many currently useless functions of our society that can be eliminated, saving money that can then be applied to environmental tasks.

Effective environmental legislation relies on less government, not more. The conventional way to address environmental problems is to write lengthy laws and then create bureaucracies to implement them, but this ends up hampering business and individuals while putting into place ineffective and expensive solutions. It is more sensible to construct environmental goals as part of the normal way of doing business and living, thus sparing us both another annoying federal agency and the tedium of having productive tasks interrupted by the kind of sabotage-like passive behavior only bureaucrats can indulge in.

Cost should not be our only concern. Much as in our daily lives we will undertake a more expensive purchase if the results are better, we should be willing to take on additional costs if necessary to make our future lives that much better. Allowing our environment to be destroyed will force us all to pay insane amounts for clean water, clean air, safe land, and eventually a range of filters, sealants and recyclers to allow us to live on a toxic planet. Even without these costs, we can see life is better with a functioning and healthy environment.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.3
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.3]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.3[/url]

2.4 Why should we conserve 75% of Earth for nature?

You might ask why we need lungs when only the brain needs oxygen. Our natural world is an ecosystem, or a larger system made up of many small parts in the form of species and their relationships. Rabbits keep vegetation in line, hawks keep rabbits in line, and disease fells enough of the hawks to avoid unbalanced populations. All of these things work together to produce the final result we know as the environment, but in detail perhaps a million times more complicated than our example here.

What this system needs in order to keep going is not only land, but unbroken land, regulated only by its own configuration. With unbroken land, it can maintain itself. Without unbroken land, its systems collapse, although parts remain. We can look at the parts and claim these are "nature," but inside of us we know better. Nature isn't a thing, or even a few species, but a whole process. One consequence of interrupting nature is the prevalence of "adaptative generalist" species like rats, squirrels, sparrows, catfish, raccoons and lawyers in the suburban and urban areas at five times their density in nature.

Our natural world is a collaborative process. Trees and blue-green algae produce oxygen, but they need other plants and animals to generate nutrients. Animals in vast tiered structures eat one another and keep their populations healthy in balance, so that excess vegetation gets eaten and larger animals exist on the smaller. Our streams are kept healthy by a balance between fish and the animals that survive on their dung, and our oceans kept alive by an even more complex fulcrum of species. These massive processes do not occur in land divided by fences, or in tiny patches of land.

We cannot treat nature like disconnected parts, as in a machine; it is a whole that depends architectonically on its parts. Further, perhaps an appeal to the soul: destroying things of great beauty has never made us feel good about ourselves, no matter how many extra people and associated shopping malls we were able to install in its place.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.4
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.4]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.4[/url]

2.5 Why should population be limited to a half billion?

We have two choices: a half-billion people can live moderately and do no damage to the environment, but for four or six billion to exist they must live pre-industrial lifestyles, including using small areas of land. Our primary enemy regarding the environment is land overuse, a direct consequence of overpopulation. If we limit ourselves, we live well. If we do not, we live in poverty and eventually doom ourselves through the breeding of others. We face a choice on this issue between living comfortably with some room to spare, and living on the edge of disaster and pushing our environment to retaliate against us. Note that with a half-billion people of intellectual quality and character none of our inventions or art or culture would be impeded.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.5
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.5]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.5[/url]

2.6 Why do we need another environmental party, since we already have Greens?

Our environmental parties suffer from dual goals: to protect the environment and yet to do so in a politically popular way. Since no one wants to be told they cannot have a house, or bigger car, or buy more plastic junk destined for landfills at Wal-Mart, these goals are paradoxical. This explains the impotence of environmental parties: they sabotage a few new subdivisions, prevent the construction of some factories and stop some hunting, but on the whole are limited to reminding us to recycle condoms and turn off extra appliances at night. These people are for the most part looking for an identity as "environmentally aware" more than they are concerned with fixing the global problem. For this reason, we have to look at "Green" parties as a political creation and not a practical solution.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.6
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.6]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.6[/url]

2.7 Do you want to go back to living like cavemen?

Not at all -- it would make no sense to turn our backs on technology and the powers now invested in us. However, we cannot do it with this many people. If we do not fix human problems now, our collapse is imminent, and after that we will most assuredly live like (probably radioactive) cave men! Technology, like all inventions, must be used intelligently and reasonably -- realistically. We like our technology and think it should be developed further. However, much as any great strength can weaken us, technology can destroy us, so we must find a more rational use for it than has been employed in the past.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.7
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.7]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.7[/url]

2.8 So you want us to go back to the "survival of the fittest"?

This term, and Darwinism itself, are wildly misinterpreted. We cannot return to the past. We would like to set up a society that encourages its better people to breed more, thus improving the overall population quality. Our current society rewards those who have nothing else to which to devote their lives except earning money and being popular. This means that the future of humanity will be dominated by avaricious trolls ruling over masses of low-intelligence people. "Rule by the rich of the stupid" has often been used to characterize this future, and we realize that from that kind of future no promising culture, art, wisdom or technology will emerge. Humanity will have ended its evolution through regression toward an apelike state.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.8
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.8]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.8[/url]

2.9 The Earth cannot become "overpopulated" -or- There's plenty of room for nine billion people.

Population must be viewed in two dimensions: its current number, and the next generation if all of those people breed according to the habit in their local communities. Seven billion people becomes nine in the next generation, which becomes twelve; because we are not of uniform ages, it is not a strict geometrical progression per generation, but multiple generations fit into a twenty- or fifty-year period.

Earth has a finite amount of space, and that is further limited by how much space we can use before we kill off the environment responsible for our air, fresh water and food supply. Imagine if you were sealed in a room where you had to produce your own food and oxygen; two-thirds of your room would be taken up by either plants or equipment to generate oxygen and water, and you would need some way of producing food. While you might find a technological solution that takes up less of your room, you are then entirely dependent on it -- and it in turn is dependent on natural resources such as uranium and metals which must be extracted from earth. Your choice is simple: live in a world of massive impoverished groups waging war against the wealthy who live in machines, or cut back population so we can have normal lives and breathe outside without masks.

We can "fit" plenty of people on earth, but their resource needs will then choke the planet, as will their land needs and the amount of waste they generate. History tells us that we cannot implement a plan to affect all people in the next generation, so we must assume the status quo will continue in most areas, with all of its attendant waste and error.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.9
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.9]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.9[/url]

2.10 Resource use is inconsistent, so "overconsumption" will regulate itself.

One thing that remains constant about humanity is our increasing population on a planet of finite space. When there are more people, even if their consumption is regulated, they still require a certain amount of minimum resources: two liters of water per day, a thousand calories on average, a quart or two of sewage, and that's without considering medical care, housing or entertainment. The more people we have, the more we consume. There is no way to escape this basic math.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.10
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.10]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.10[/url]

2.11 What are you going to do, kill off the extra people?

We do not have to, nor do we want to (among other things, wars generate environmental waste): we have to organize our society so that it does not encourage breeding except for its best, and encourage all others to enjoy their wealth without producing offspring. Furthermore, if we push ourselves to environmental cataclysm, all of us will be killed or future generations reduced to apelike function, and thus a worse fate awaits if we do not act. Even if we did slaughter six and a half billion people, would future generations blame us, if it meant there was a human species capable of great art, culture, technology and wisdom instead of a horde of primitive laborers ruled by greedy and manipulative rich?

If tomorrow industrialized nations stopped buying from the third world, stopped all aid programs, stopped all medical help programs, stopped accepting asylum candidates, and continued their own decline in breeding, the problem would be for the most part solved. This is done not by taking violent action against others, but by simply stopping our current destructive practices. Smart societies would further structure themselves to reward their best people, not just their most profit-making, and through that would achieve a greater degree of population quality and awareness.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.11
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.11]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.11[/url]

2.12 Why should we enforce natural selection upon ourselves?

Our media teaches us that evolution is an upward process, but the truth is that natural selection can go either way, depending on the context of "natural." When our environment is a city where going to a job and buying junk is rewarded, natural selection selects those who are most at home in this environment and thrive in it. These people tend to have "thin intelligences," meaning that while they can operate machinery or shuffle papers, their insight and broader wisdom are lacking. We have a choice: we can increase the expectations to which we hold ourselves and breed people of thicker intelligences who are smarter, nobler and healthier than those now, or we can decrease our expectations, and in consequence breed a mob of future generations who excel in bureaucracy, watching television, eating junk food and buying plastic gadgets. Stagnation, or a lack of change in our current standards, will likely lead to the latter outcome.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.12
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.12]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.12[/url]

2.13 If you're not against technology, why are you against some technologies?

Technology is only how well it is used. Disposable products, plastic packaging, styrofoam insulators, and "planned obsolescent" products all generate mounds of useless junk that create far more damage than their original function was worth. The only reason they are with us is that economies plan for the moment, and do not consider long term damages. In that misguided mode of thought, a styrofoam cup costs 0.7 cents, although we know that it costs far more than that in environmental damage, litter, byproducts and other effects. We are not thinking of ourselves a single species surviving on a single planet, but as individuals deriving profit or power from the manufacture of styrofoam cups and the like, therefore we put off indefinitely our awareness of the damage we cause. Similarly, when we produce new models of computers every year as is necessary to maintain profitability, we are not thinking of the long line of discarded devices that pile up here or in the third world. We are connected by one air, and one ocean, and when we dump toxic stuff anywhere in the world it eventually comes back to us. Plastics, for example, float in our oceans until they break down into toxic byproducts. Computer equipment rots in landfills, steadily emitting carcinogenic chemicals. Air pollution floats around until it reaches concentrations that have negative health effects on us and the animals around us.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.13
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.13]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#2.13[/url]

III. Population

3.1 Why are you against pluralism?

Pluralism, or the idea that multiple values systems can exist in the same place, is essentially a contract between society and its members to never choose a value system except pluralism itself. Pluralistic societies speak of freedom, democracy, liberty and equality but use those as a means of avoiding common consensus on values and thus the formation of culture; for this reason they are stranded forever in the materialist/humanist realm of political labor to divide wealth, with no thought of collective future.

Those who think critically can immediately see the problem with pluralism: no two values systems can occupy the same space, so they either destroy each other or form a compromise which results in the lowest common denominator of their intersection becoming the philosophy of the civilization. Such lowest common denominator thought never addresses important issues, as these are prone to requiring distinct interpretations and therefore will offend or conflict with one of the pluralistic views. Pluralism is a series of compromises which result in an averaging of all beliefs to a level where the only agreement is the maintenance of pluralism.

Pluralism takes many forms. It includes those societies which attempt to embrace radically different philosophies, religions, cultures or ethnic makeups. It does not include those societies which endorse "esoteric" systems of thought, or those which respond in increasing degrees of clarity to study, such that casual observers might know a different truth in the same doctrine as those who have devoted time and effort to its study. History provides us no examples of pluralist societies that did not immediately decay to a lowest common denominator.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.1
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.1]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.1[/url]

3.2 Why Nationalism?

As an individual particularly enjoys considering the ideal and whether it will always be relative, a moving target, or something that can only be strived for, or if we do in fact possess the capability of realizing said ideals, I take a pragmatic approach in assessing the basic conditions required for the facilitation of a transition into what would be described as "utopian" existence. The most difficult task is to acknowledge that one ultimately projects subjective values onto fellow beings who espouse a vast array of values of their own. Nonetheless, it is my aim to make the case for a political ideology which could very well attend to the ailments which currently bear the greatest sense of urgency: the argument here is for Nationalism.

Political failure has characterized this past century more than any other; one would be hard-pressed to identify a system government that has not radically changed in the last two decades -- this includes the United States, where the issues that preoccupied citizens under the Reagan administration bear no resemblance to the concerns of the American people today. The sense of betrayal among the general public, however, has accompanied every single major movement that has since failed or faced remarkable change. If it wasn't social upheaval, then structural weaknesses led to the dissolution of the system in question (as with the Soviet Union).

When government fails to attend to the concerns of the general public, it becomes obsolete. How is it that these two bodies, which are by no means mutually exclusive, are in no particular alignment with their priorities? There are two identifiable causes: the disparity within the public, and, more notably, the existence of the international or foreign lobby. Case in point: the Bush administration contributes upwards of $3 billion to Israel annually; in the "democratization" of Iraq we have spent $240 billion to date. Among the catalog of other global expenses, neither of these can be said to serve the interest of U.S. citizens.

Nationalism advocates the revitalization of the political agenda, emphasizing the practical value of attending to domestic affairs. It does not intend to impress upon other nations any of its own values, whether or not it would appear favorable for the intended recipient of goodwill. Nationalism understands that "form follows function," and moreover, that "function follows values." As values differ, so do political structures. Only an internally-oriented motivating force can result in accepted change. Thus, nationalism proffers that it is the duty of the citizens of each respective country to work towards bringing about effective change in their homeland, advocating thorough constraints on immigration -- another benefit of a culturally homogenous population is that the sense of community and responsibility for one's actions within their community is held in higher regard.

Consequently, corporations which expand beyond borders would be unfavorable; they depend on the exploitation and outsourcing of labor, which is meant to maximize profit for the company while doing little in the way of benefiting society. Smaller companies would result, which would be checked by its employees whose stake in economic and managerial matters will be given greater voice once this association with the locale is established. An unruly business would not be sustained when it relies on the satisfaction members of a surrounding community. This paradigm may be applied to the State.

This is by no means an exhaustive list or argument for nationalism, but it has provided insight into some of its many benefits. Whatever the cause -- social, economic, or environmental -- nationalism provides a logical starting point from which we can bring about honest reform.

Nationalism is not racism: Nationalism is the belief that populations united by language, cultural values and heritage are the only sane way to organize civilizations. As such, it excludes not only people of other ethnicities to an indigenous population, but those of that heritage who do not uphold those cultural values. (We expect these people will start civilizations of their own, based on the cosmopolitan values that seem common to mixed-ethnic populations, much as long ago the Semitic tribes of the middle east arose at the intersection of trade routes).

Racism, on the other hand, is the belief of superiority and inferiority of certain races. The problem with racism is that it does not take into account context, nor does it assess the quality of individuals within a race. In context, every race and every ethnic group has its place, including mixed-ethnic groups. Racism is a creation of modern time, and should not be confused with Nationalism, because while nationalism involves ethnic separation it does not do so on a moralistic, sneering, binary basis by which one group is the elect, who act and enjoy wealth, and the other is the preterite, or those born to serve the order.

Nationalist societies specify a context toward ethnicity: each group must be autonomous and rule itself according to its organic culture, instead of through the simplistic systems of popularity (democracy), profit (capitalism) or political dogma (liberty, equality, fraternity). National civilizations organize themselves by ethnicity, but do so in the context of culture, which enables them to promote the best of their own people and rule themselves justly. They are not designed for the purpose of racial superiority, except that to say in each civilization, the indigenous group is superior to all others. In a nationalist world, there is no superior race above all else, but many ethnic groups working in parallel, organically, toward producing that which is rarest in all civilizations, which is people and culture of excellence.

In the context of CORRUPT philosophy, it is important to remember that nationalism is one of several values. We believe in the organic state, the existential human, and a design philosophy that unites naturalistic realism with heroic idealism. This philosophy brings meaning to life, where all others take meaning away and supplant it with cheap substitutes like money and mass popularity.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.2
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.2]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.2[/url]

3.3 Why should drugs be legal?

When we adopt government as a means of regulating public behavior of the consensual nature, we weaken culture, which is the means through which such things should be regulated as it is more flexible and leads to fewer introductions of strong-arm statist tactics. Government can do nothing about the discontent over drug use except make drugs illegal, put more people in jail, raise the cost of drugs to make more people want to sell them, give drugs a forbidden cachet of cool that will be exploited by mass media, and build up a powerful police force that will require ever-increasing power. The "war on drugs" in America is a failure, while the tacit acceptance of some drugs in Amsterdam has resulted in a local population that uses them infrequently, and constant ill-behaved tourist traffic that uses them constantly.

Strong governments decrease culture. Strong cultures decrease government intrusion and excessive policing. When we have laws that prohibit turning people down for employment or renting or membership in our groups based on a single linear factor, like race or gender or sexual orientation, we are then required by law to accept those who have two traits, one that single linear factor and another like drug use, and therefore the same government that wages war against drugs forces us to accept drug users. A sane society permits such behavior but allows its exclusion, and a relatively happy mean is achieved. Our other option is to go totalitarian and implement penalties like death for drug use, which while effective is so socially disruptive that it seems comical. Why worry about those who are destined, as anti-drug advocates state, for failure, when we can put our time, money, energy and focus on those who are doing right and contributing?

In the United States, at least, it makes most sense to establish zones where drug use is tolerated and law enforcement restricts itself to preventing gross crimes like rape and murder, if it acts at all. Lawless zones show drug users the choice they are actually making: their culture does not approve of their choice, therefore it is not interested in supporting it, so they do so at their own risk and will not be welcome everywhere. Further, it keeps those who are hellbent on self-destruction like heroin users in a place where they can acquire their drugs cheaply, and therefore are not prone to committing endless crime in order to afford that next fix.

Most experiments in quasi-tolerance have failed because they have not shattered the dealer architecture which keeps drugs valuable and expensive and therefore requires crime; further, these societies have a hybrid tolerance system where they are willing to pay for drug users through welfare, but not reduce the cost of these drugs. Most drugs are produced through a simple chemical process (LSD, amphetamines), or an agricultural one (marijuana, psilocybin, opiates, cocaine) that without illegality would reduce daily use cost to the price of a cup of coffee. If we establish lawless zones where drugs can be produced professionally at low costs, drug users no longer have a sense of "cool" to breaking the law and violating social taboos, but are given yet another lifestyle choice where they exist apart from many things they would otherwise want. This returns the onus of decision to the user, and as seen in Amsterdam, most normal people will then opt for infrequent use if at all.

In contrast, countries with strong anti-drug policies have seen the rise of paramilitary police forces, an increase in the legal ability of the police to kick down doors and charge in with automatic weapons pointed at the populace, and increasing social and economic costs of treatment programs that have recidivism rates in the ninetieth percentile. Drug users become pariahs who cannot be excluded, yet cannot fully be tolerated, and it is the worker and the middle class who pay the tax burden of supporting these people and the army of bureaucrats and specialists who accompany them. Quasi-legalization, or lawless zones, would end this entire class of parasites as well as the drug user problem.

Some say this is cruel because it does not intervene to save drug users from themselves, but we must look critically at this situation. First, we would rather spend money on those who are likely to become contributors than those who are failing by their own hands; second, our intervention has not worked because the impetus to take drugs comes from within the person. We have been unable to "educate" people into quitting drugs, or propagandize them into staying away from drugs, so we must consider that drug users come in two groups: those who are able to take some drugs and remain contributors to society, and those who are essentially suicides bent on self-destruction. Drug users like William S. Burroughs or Hunter S. Thompson are from the first category, and of the second category, we have no recorded contributions.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.3
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.3]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.3[/url]

3.4 Why are you against speed limits?

Speed limits encourage government enforcement of a principle (only competent drivers on the road) through a contextless linear measurement (speed limit). Further, they encourage government to become predatory and profit from the poor judgment of individuals. Even worse, they debase the law by creating a useless law and parasitic enforcement that results in the message being sent to citizenry: law is illogical, so you must dodge government as a predator. There is no further proof that "government for the people, by the people" is an illusion in democracies where expensive tickets are handed out constantly yet the number of incompetent drivers increases.

One can drive dangerously and stupidly within the speed limit, but because "bad driver" is seen as a "subjective" assessment, it is not as easy to wholesale prosecute these people as it is to ticket people for the moral violation of speeding. We see the fallacy of subjective versus objective here in that there is no single number that represents whether or not someone is a bad driver, but only observation of their driving by a thinking person can tell this. The resulting conclusion is neither subjective nor objective, but gets beyond that false division (all knowledge is subjective, even if in numerical form) by dealing with the realistic, which is that those who drive poorly cause wasted time and higher costs for us all. This is compounded by the reluctance of societies without public transportation to deny anyone the right to drive, as it correspondingly reduces their employment options and thus financial self-interest.

A better solution is to allow local communities to police their own drivers and to have a public transportation system for those who are incompetent. While speed limits are popular because they empower the local person to be humble, bow before government, follow the rules and pay a few fines in exchange for escaping judgment of their overall skill at driving and level of attention to the task, speed limits are destructive because they penalize good drivers and let many bad drivers loose on the roads. When a law fails to achieve its aim, and also causes destructive consequences, it can be considered to be a non-functional solution thus not a solution to the problem, and by not solving the problem and yet generating more government, it can be considered to be destructive.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.4
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.4]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.4[/url]

3.5 What is a caste system?

A society inevitably divides into rank by ability, or fascimile thereof based on the rules and values of that society. A healthy society looks at raw ability; an unhealthy society uses surrogates like wealth, popularity or public allegiance to political or religious creeds. These ranks of ability are both horizontal and vertical: vertically, people are divided by specialization, and horizontally, by aptitude in each specialization. Vertical rank does not imply superiority or inferiority, but exceptional ability in a specific type of task. Horizontal rank creates degrees of quality within each vertical rank. Since most traits of personality and intelligence are inherited, these roles tend to be familial, barring exceptional competence or incompetence on the part of any individual. It tends to take multiple generations of competent, moral people to make a family line change to another specialization, but a single incompetent can degrade rank.

Caste systems are different than class systems because caste systems are based on ability, not earning potential. Someone whose family have been village blacksmiths inherits the role, unless grossly incompetent, and spends far less time on career worries, stress and competition than someone in a modern society. Those who might be able to get ahead financially by producing destructive products or cutting corners and thus taking more profit from the game are not as important in caste systems. Those who want a normal career in which they can work hard but then return to more time with their families and friends, in both career stability and amount of spare time, benefit from a caste system.

Surveying any society reveals that most people who are normal in appetites, ability and social network desire a solid earning in which they can display competence in their chosen field, and be recognized not only financially but as a contributing member of the community. These people do not aspire to wealth because they like having their careers and abilities. Their goal is to have work play an important role in their full lives, but not to be central. They are not interested in the potential for great wealth, but they are equally disinterested in having to compete excessively for their living, as such things do not fascinate them. These people are healthy; those with an obsessive desire for wealth are diseased.

A caste system therefore benefits the best in any society. It tends to divide people into three groups: jarls, or the mental laborers who are also responsible for religious, military and political leadership and perform well with unclear or broad scope; karls, or the artisans and professionals who can perform well within a certain scope; and thralls, who can perform unspecialized labor as instructed by others. Each group is vital to the society and by having a guaranteed place, benefits more than in the "lottery" of capitalism by which a few win big and everyone else must struggle for parity. Society benefits in turn by having each person in the place where they are most effective, and by reducing the internal strife which can consume public decision-making.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.5
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.5]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.5[/url]

3.6 Don't you think that all humans are of equal worth?

It seems both pretentious and judgmental to assign humans "worth," whether equal or inequal. A more knowledgeable outlook is to say that each person has a position in which they function at an optimum level, and that when outside of this position, they become incompetent either grossly (externally) or directionally (morally, larger-perspective decisions). On a political level, all people who are not possessed of pathological anti-social behavior like criminality or parasitism are of equal worth, but what determines "worth" in a human sense is what the individual accomplishes in overcoming the challenges life has set before him or her. "Worth" is what we mean to ourselves, and the sense of achievement we have in confronting our fears and making sanity of our lives.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.6
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.6]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.6[/url]

3.7 But isn't globalism making a better world?

There is no evidence to suggest the above is true, and in fact, all evidence suggests the contrary. Globalism is motivated by finance, and justified on the surface by the same kind of arbitrary absolute abstractions this user displays. No culture can encompass all motifs, or it is not a culture: culture is made from a values system that has a preference for some things over another; it is for this reason that we have cultures at all, and not a single culture based on a single interpretation of the same world. What will exist instead is the cultureless masses ruled over by a few rich, because in the absence of culture, only financial supremacy will matter.

Further, globalism suggests a destruction not only of culture, but of genetic distinctiveness. What is to be gained by breeding us into uniformity? Peace, we are told, freedom and prosperity. But these are easy to promise, and evidence suggests that when culture disappears, it is replaced by rigid class systems which encourage financial strife of a far greater degree than experienced in traditional societies. Perhaps with one global nation, there will not be external wars, but a neverending series of revolutions, which seem to cause greater damage.

Even more damaging, the above view suggests a norming of humanity to a level of participation in the most generic culture ever existing. "French" will be a type of mustard, not a living organic population that invents new cultural artifacts and ideas constantly. No one will have roots, and people will move endlessly in pursuit of better jobs or material satisfaction, but they will miss the satisfaction of belonging to a community and developing according to its values system. They will lose the chance to succeed internally by challenging themselves with non-material tasks and making themselves better. Their culture will come from malls and television shows, and their history will come from books printed by large corporate interests.

Another problem with "one world" culture is that the larger a civilization becomes, the more difficult it is to rule, as former empires such as the Romans have found. Without a unifying culture except money to unite them, and without a higher values system than material self-interest, the occupants of this future society will live empty lives, and from this stress will arise. Since they move constantly, they will not respect any land as holy, but will develop it all. Finally, since they have no goal in life except material self-interest, they will become the hollowest of humans ever, and will drag down any who hope to rise above their shallow regime. And they will do all of this at the expense of having destroyed traditional culture, way of life, and the specialized genetics of each ethnicity which makes it apt for its region.

While some like to portray "one world culture" as a positive thing, we can see where vast problems exist with this view. Even more, we can see how it is destructive, as if desiring to wreak vengeance upon those who are not normed to a universal culture and those who rise above a common standard. In the grand tradition of spacy promises, it is framed in an absolute with not only no necessary correspondence to reality, but no actual description of how it would work. Swindlers have often worked this style, promising vast rewards of unspecified type in order to lure in the clueless and take their money, and we must conjecture the motivation behind "one world culture" advocates and swindlers alike is a desire for revenge arising from low self-confidence. Why would we destroy what nature took millennia to create for the vengeful fantasies of "equalizers" who hate those who are different than they, or gifted in ability more than they? This is suicide, even if it is portrayed as having a beautiful face -- with equally empty rewards.

Immigration destroys both source and destination populations. At the source, it removes valuable workers and splits families, in addition to discouraging people from fixing whatever problems inspired emigration in the first place. At the destination, it dilutes the local population and subjects them to an unwelcome economic force in the form of people willing to work for less as they bear less of a burden of citizenship. The resulting friction divides the nation further and causes a disruptive level of distrust, alienation, and lack of consensus about social values.

Modern societies use immigrants for cheap labor, alienating both them and the destination population, and then justifies this cheap labor with rhetoric about "civil rights," which has become a code-word for political power to minority groups. Yet when we look at the real reason for this immigration, we see that no consensus among society finds it a good idea, only wealthy individuals and corporations who profit from it at the expense of all in both source and destination countries.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.7
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.7]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.7[/url]

3.8 I prefer progress.

Many of us today are educated enough and blessed with a keen eye to be able to perceive the many problems that plague us, yet few are equipped with the tools to correctly attribute to them their proper cause. Where we lack certainty we compensate with innocent postulation, a tradition that has been passed along throughout the centuries by the minds we can still name though they've long left the company of existence. However, when we consign that sense of certainty to the theoretical, we begin treading on dangerous ground. The modern conception of progress, that invisible chain which pulls us towards better livelihood unparalleled by times past, is a clear example of ascribing causality when there is none.

To clarify, we might wish to approach this with a counter-perspective, and these two questions: where does progress come from? What is its cause? In all likelihood, the response will be that progress is the cause in itself, a causa sui, which both leads humanity and manifests itself through human achievement and its state of welfare relative to past times. If this is the case, then ?progress? surpasses the Christian conception of God in motivating humanity; still, one cannot deny that it bears with it a question of faith: Do you believe in progress?

Consider the many factors which suggest that the workings of progress play a hand in our existence and perceptual reality: technology, the Flynn effect (or simply rise in availability and purported quality of education), higher standards for healthcare, advanced political institutions and more expansive governing bodies, increased life expectancy -- can any of these be correctly used in defense for the concept of progress? More likely, they simply suggest a departure from the priorities of values espoused by past generations; communion with nature, an oral tradition and hierarchical societal structure over a literary, egalitarian one, better overall health along with a reverence for the system of life and its eugenic methodology, and localized communities which fostered a sense of sustainability and warmth over economic gain and externalized values.

For those who might go so far as to consider that, granted this new insight, we may have degenerated, or strayed from the right path which we were once traveling along?the answer is no. The absence of progress is absolute; just as there is no path forward, there is no regression. Quite simply, there has been a change in value systems. Reconcile this within yourselves, as the question thus becomes: are we better off? Evidence which suggests that we are at a better point in history is offered from a relative, subjective standpoint, and is therefore invalid. The emergent symptoms of this modern value system may suggest otherwise, leading us to yet another question: Do we have the resources necessary to ever make a sound judgment about this issue?

There is always room for experimentation, or more precisely, to put the question to the test and apply the theoretical to the practical to see whether we have lost sight of the ideal -- that is, if democracy allows us.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.8
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.8]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#3.8[/url]

IV. Leadership

4.1 Why are you opposed to modern society, or modernity?

Modern society is more than a physical entity; it is a way of looking at society and how it should be designed. Since every form of organization implies a philosophy behind it, we can define modern society as the intersection of several forces: a mass revolt as a newly-enfranchised population overwhelmed its traditional order of kings following the materialistic reign of the Roman Empire, individualism and materialist/humanist moralism from Christianity, technology thanks to the new developments in European science, and a reliance on symbols related to both religious Word and the production of printed books. All of these came together at the time of modern society's birth. They are "growing pains" in that they are inevitable consequences of growth, and represent a threshold any species must overcome as it grows.

Sentience naturally leads to intelligence, and then technology, and from technology comes the collision of tribes and later, the need for larger civilizations. As these civilizations expand, they explore new means of self-government, and as most of their expansion occurs among those who breed above replacement levels yet are not differentiated by excessive ability, they tend toward egalitarian and democratic systems. As these systems in turn produce internal fragmentation, other systems such as utilitarianism join the fray. What results is modern society, a condition which has been replayed many times throughout history, although probably not with our current level of technology. Societies subjected to the modern mentality either overcome it, much as individuals we transcend tangible immediate material reward for intangibles of longer-lasting existential and mental satisfaction, or they are dragged down into infighting over material and thus end in third-world disorganization.

Every species faces a number of hurdles of this kind. First, there is the question of finding a niche environment and breeding; next the expansion from this niche into a general adaptation in the ecosystem. Finally, if they are sentient, they must find a balance of group dynamics and the individual, much as humans have. Each hurdle, when surpassed, rewards the species correspondingly in new abilities through heightened levels of organization. Any hurdle not passed restricts a species until it can get organized enough to again be ready to face that hurdle. Sentient species that overcome the hurdle of self-organization that hinges on the ability to bypass the material for the transcendent, by the nature of what they must undergo in self-discipline to make this leap, are able to control themselves to a new degree. It is this type of species that is fit for the next stage of human evolution.

F.W. Nietzsche posited a new evolution of humanity, the "uebermensch," who roughly correspond to what some describe as an ancient race called Hyperboreans. These entirely transcended material cares, and worked together under extreme adverse conditions out of a belief in the transcendent value of life. In Nietzsche's view, similarly, the uebermensch/overman (modern term: superhuman) would be characterized by a lack of entrenchment in material concerns, and a transcendent denial of fear of death or insufficiency in the quest to create ever-greater things within a mystical joy in life and the natural process, including natural selection. Nietzsche's superhuman worships conflict, praises victory, sees tragedic death as a noble and significant event, and eschews crowd revolt and morality as not only unnecessary but destructive. The superhuman is heroism as mundane existence, a polar opposite of the "radical evil" described by Immanuel Kant as a property of modern society, in which the mundane and accepted ways of doing things lead to long-term disaster and alienation from a love of life.

Modern society is a vortex of radical evil from which no society will emerge because instead of aiming to transcend material and look toward the creative, soulful, ambitious side of life, modern society settles into endless bickering over redistribution of wealth and equality. It is as if humanity agreed to be hung up on its negative traits, and to fight over small matters, while ignoring the future that we can have -- and while ensuring us a doom through a system that by promoting material self-interests, guarantees we will consume our environment and ourselves. Modern society is at its essence a failure to see the big picture, mostly because of the "mass revolt" of option-limiting individual materialist/humanist morality of which Nietzsche also wrote, coupled with the technology that allows us to detach from our natural worlds and build a fantasy world of our own illusion. Modern society is going inward, an emotional and psychological reaction of withdrawing, instead of accepting life's negatives (death, natural selection) as part of a beautiful process and moving on to better things.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.1
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.1]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.1[/url]

4.2 What is utilitarianism?

The underlying impetus of our modern (moral) crusades is that of utilitarianism, a principle which states that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Such a position is concerned with quantity rather than quality, and therefore seeks not evolutionary but numeric growth. Consider its "progressive" developments:

Humanism: the promotion of welfare for the greatest number is a tenet contra-evolutionary in principle, for it clings to the diseased. Perhaps the most universally accepted form of utilitarianism, this becomes the slogan for those who cannot think holistically, and therefore vitiate their morality to a purely anthropocentric mold.

Populism: political influence for the greatest number subverts any hierarchy and commonsense approach to order so that all can partake of the crumbs of the political pie, and thereby creates out of politics an appeal to the lowest-common-denominator. Special interest groups vie for ?political power,? while nothing fundamentally changes in this broken system.

Individualism: mass freedom from authority--which, according to the polarized thinking of individualists, merely seeks conformity--results in disjunction from community and social atomism. This facet of utility is the most ostensibly base, as ?happiness?--of mere individuals no less--become the ?shared? goal, and no greater ambitions are to be sought.

Collectivism: theoretically granting custody to ?the masses,? and ergo, to no one at all, this is the most abstract and utopian of the utilitarian schemas. Collectivism, however, works solely on the level of economics, and therefore does not distinguish itself from the rest of these culturally destructive ideological forms.

Economic growth and population growth are inextricably linked in a cycle of positive feedback. Economic growth is required to support an ever increasing population, yet the population must inexorably increase for the economy to be maintained. What ends up occurring in populations which embrace these utilitarian objectives is that mere sustenance becomes the sole societal priority, and any qualities associated with higher civilization vanish, for there are no resources that can any longer be dedicated to such an endeavor. With utilitarianism, quantity wins. Mediocrity dominates, and any spirit toward ascendancy is crushed, so that life can become "fair." The diseased, the unintelligent, and the emotionally dysfunctional become the normative; any thing greater becomes a form of dissent, to be leveled.

As a consequence of human population explosions, the natural world becomes denuded. Many life forms fall victim to such human waste, left for crowds to gawk at in natural history museums, but never again able to contribute to our ecosystems as a part of the living earth. Our resources become consumed, at such a rate that humanity must either prepare for radical change, or brace itself as it befalls a similar fate.

In any healthy organism, uncontrolled growth which is not checked by apoptosis, or programmed cell death, leads to carcinogenesis. The cancer of utilitarianism must be eradicated, before it becomes terminal.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.2
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.2]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.2[/url]

4.3 The past was primitive and ancient societies dirty. Technology and progress are leading us to a better life.

Ancient societies were not as filthy as we are led to believe. Prior to the Christian expansion in Europe, bathing was quite common; after the arrival of the belief that we must "mortify the flesh" and suffer to achieve religious divinity, coupled with the idea that bathing leads to nakedness leads to lust, people did not bathe as much. There is also a question of how primitive ancient societies were. While they did not possess our technology, they were not atechnological, and may have chosen most of that condition in order to avoid other evils that have since befallen us. We like to criticize ancient societies, but other than "progress" in individual rights leading to greater selfishness, and technology which is currently polluting our planet, we have nothing on them -- and it seems their art, wisdom, music, culture and personal behavior was of a higher level.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.3
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.3]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.3[/url]

4.4 Why are you against Democracy?

Democracy is rule by weight and not quality. If most people like something, and believe it to be their preference, it is decided. This immediately shifts the question of government from "What is best?" to "What would YOU like?" and as every single person on earth will affirm, most other humans are probably not up to make the choice. Besides making people selfish, it thrusts the political question before a population at large, most of whom lack the inclination or ability to make the decision (just as almost all cannot be college professors, scientists, great artists, fine athletes).

Democracy in effect creates a dual illusion that states (a) the best government is that which pleases the people but does not necessarily do what is best for them (utilitarian) and (b) that the individual is more important than doing what is right for the whole, or society and environment together as an organic entity. It is important to note that throughout history, democracies have been short-lived and have collapsed into tyrannical governments.

As one ancient writer said, "It is easy to get rid of a bad king, but a bad idea takes longer." People raised on mass media tend to see the world in a binary state of either democracy or tyranny, but this is erroneous. A good leader does what is right for the people, and most people need only limited "freedoms" since they wish to live good lives -- rewarding work, sufficient wealth, family and friends -- and are not interested in doing something so illogical it requires government protection.

The most important right/freedom is for those who have knowledge to contribute it to social discourse without being annoyed; democracies interpret this in a conflict-oriented scenario through "free speech" but it is more effective in government to avoid biased conflict and instead to take a contributive viewpoint: wise leaders listen to their people and allow them a public forum in which rewards more truthful ideas and ignores insanity, selfishness and unecessary conflict. Paradoxically, democracies by the very nature of their rewarding popular ideas and not truthful ones, strangle all actual criticism of the course of a society while allowing "criticism" that changes details but not the overall path.

It is for this reason that democracies are slow to react to anything but blatant crisis and allow internal decay to overcome them. When popularity of ideas becomes more important than how realistic or intelligent they are, illusion and denial are sure to follow. Popularity is the opposite of logicality: most people prefer pleasant illusions to the more difficult truths, as well as preferring immediate reward to long-term betterment.

In addition:

Plato, speaking through Socrates, tells us that while democratic societies make for the best standard of living, they collapse into third world economies dominated by invisible and greedy oligarchs; the cosmopolitan rich ruling over masses of stupid, tractable grey cultureless peons. A tour of failed democracies reveals this to be accurate. So why oppose democracy, when it brings us a good standard of living?

The first recognition is that democracy is not the only system that brings about such a standard of living. Any organized society which does not act according to a principle of hyper-equality, or not rewarding those who are more competent with a better material standard of living, will achieve a quality of life unless its leaders become corrupt. Democracy initially offers this option, but it nurtures corruption in its leaders by the psychological symbolism and pressures it exerts on the population.

First, in the list of psychological and political errors of democracy, is its tendency toward averaging. When one person = one vote, the only leaders are those who seek to be popular in their opinions, and accuracy is interpreted through what others want, not what is correct (it was against this phenomenon that the profoundly individualistic Romantic movement in literature arose). Those who speak unpopular truths, and rise against the assent of the masses, are seen as motivated by personal desire for power and slammed down as best they can be. Democracy admits every kind of dissident except one that profoundly criticizes the system; those who encourage people to "buy green" and "vote blue" and do other ineffective things are OK. Democracy coopts all criticism into neutralized variants.

Second, democracy encourages a shallow individualism based on material self-interest. Since the system as a whole is not steered toward any rational direction by its reliance on the popularity of ideas and not their accuracy, individuals practice shrugging and doing what they can to make their own lot in life better. The problem with this is that often individual self-interest conflicts with the needs of the whole, or with what would be an intelligent course of action, so democracies are rife with "socialized costs" or acts that in enriching individuals create costs or wasted time for the rest. In a democracy, every action or object has a price tag on it because it is necessary or will be necessary for someone's material self-interest. Democracies tend to invent capitalism of the most unregulated kind for this reason, because individual self-interest likes the idea of no confining rules interrupting the pursuit of wealth and a comfortable (although insignificant, psychologically) lifestyle. For this reason, democracies "work" when populations are small, but populations inevitably expand, bringing with them the modern lament "I'm surrounded by morons" as simplistic people succeed and breed out legions of new simplistic people. The individualism of democracy results in the comfortable standard of living mentioned by Plato, but this comfortable standard of living is not assigned to the best, but to the mass, and so the undifferentiated masses grow while competent people are beaten down for being out of step.

Third, democracy creates a morality of parasitism: since it is founded on the idea that each individual is free to pursue self-interest, any action that denies any person self-interest is "bad," even if that action results in much higher socialized costs. This means that parasitic people cannot be checked from doing destructive things because as long as their actions are passive, or in self-interest but not violating visible taboos of murder or rape, these actions are accepted. Democracies cannot curb large corporations from their abuses because democracy encourages such abuses on a psychological level, and this tendency is intensified by growing frustration with democracy. As a result, democracies are stuffed with wealthy parasites whose descendents lack any of the abilities that made the parasites succeed, furthering the degeneration of population into insignificance.

Fourth and finally, democracy creates a schizoid dualism between public perception and reality that engenders a covert, tacit and non-conspiratorial system of oligarchy. When power is achieved by convincing the voters that something is good, those with printing presses or television stations rule the society, but are best served by not taking power themselves. Instead, they support those who benefit their self-interest, regardless of the cost to society as a whole (socialized cost), and through legal forms like lobbying, donations, and supportive media portrayals they get these candidates into office. Eventually, the system of oligarchy becomes so entrenched that political candidates solicit various oligarchs for approval in order to get into office, and then are beholden to them in decisions they make. For this reason, democracies generate a massive amount of debate over trivial issues -- abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization and banning hip-hop music -- while ignoring the deeply-seated problems from whose atmosphere of lawlessness oligarchs benefit. Oligarchs usually do not act outside the law, although their legal and passive actions result in higher costs for us all.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.4
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.4]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.4[/url]

4.5 Isn't opposing democracy choosing violence and oppression over freedom?

While "freedom" sounds good to your ears, think about what it actually means: is true freedom -- the ability to do anything -- actually possible? You do not have freedom in our current society unless you are so rich a job is not required. Even then, there are limits on what our society tolerates. We will never have freedom from the requirements of life like eating and getting along with others and finding something to do with our time. Further, if you are a healthy person, how much "freedom" do you need?

You are likely to want family, friends, a solid job, and a good community in which to live. You may wish to make art or political statements. These "freedoms" are guaranteed to you by a fascist state, with the caveat that those using their "freedoms" to promote destructive or selfish ideologies will be asked to leave. In that condition, you have more "freedom" than now, in that instead of living in a society constantly split by internal argument and drama and the expense of other people's "freedom" leading to selfishness or parasitism or destructive acts, you will live in a sane and comfortable place in which it will be easier to live and raise a family if you so choose.

It is worth noting after all that democracies are among the worst societies at guaranteeing "freedom." By making the popularity of an idea more important than how realistically correct it is, democracies drown out their best thinkers. It was a democracy after all that executed the best thinker of his generation, Socrates, for spreading un-democratic thoughts. And during the last fifty years, it has been the democracies who have unleashed global conflict, bombing, and other terror, all in the name of "freedom."

Could it be that "freedom," like so many other empty symbols, is merely a promise used to manipulate you?

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.5
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.5]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.5[/url]

4.6 Who is going to run this future society of yours?

Our sympathies on this front lie with Socrates, who suggested a society of philosopher kings who ruled as was best for the population as a whole. He dictated that these would be raised and sent through education strictly according to merit, and that they then would be cast into the world to make a path for themselves so that they would understand the reality citizens face. This is superior to our current academic system, which isolates people from reality in little theoretical circles where reality is discussed but not directly influenced or experienced, as they are shielded by academia from normal jobs, housing, obligations, etc. It is also superior to the democratic system of picking the "most popular" leader, because it is easy to be popular by making illusory promises and acting covertly for one's own profit.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.6
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.6]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.6[/url]

4.7 What is wrong with current society?

Current society does some things well and others poorly. Therefore not all of it is "wrong" or needs changing. However, its overall direction is one that will lead to decay and destruction, even if this takes some years to arrive; this decay is problematic because it cannot be reversed with a few executive orders. With this long term prediction of doom that requires time and slow (if we do not wish to disrupt normal lives) changes, it is important we begin changing direction now instead of waiting for disaster to strike.

However, we can enumerate some problems of modern society. Overpopulation and reckless use of technology is wrecking our environment. Excess pollution and too few trees to replenish oxygen are causing global climate change. Economic competition is massive, yet is not producing better quality people, nor does it protect normal people from being able to lead quietly sane lives. Jobs are tedious and spiritually depleting because they do not tangibly benefit anything; we're busy selling junk to one another. Depression is rife, as are drug use and child abuse and criminality. Our cities are rotten cores from which we struggle to afford escape.

Our cultures have failed to produce great art, music, people or ideas as past generations have done. Our people steadily begin to lose distinctive characteristics and become more generic. There are fewer beautiful people, fewer geniuses, and fewer heroes ("sports heroes" obviously do not count, since most spend as much time in legal trouble as on the court).

Is this the kind of place where people want to live? Especially considering that we can do so much better, and that the problems only get worse as each time passes. Yes, statistics go up and down, but over time, the path has been one-way -- toward worsening -- despite small variations. No one believes we will escape this, yet most have no idea how to make it better, because they are obstructed by a political system based on popularity instead of recognizing reality. Current society is not all wrong, but these great wrongs need to be righted if we wish to avoid self-destruction.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.7
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.7]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.7[/url]

4.8 Why do you say Democracy is Utilitarianism?

Reality is divided into measurements that can skew how well it is assessed. In the case of consequentialism, or the family of philosophies that states that the end results of actions are more important than the intent behind them. The general idea of consequentialism seems sound; however, it is generally assessed by the assent of the majority of people in any group (Crowdism). This reflects our personal pretense of individuals getting in the way of the knowledge that some are more apt for every task, and we might have to defer to them for the best results. Crowdism is our term for this form of consequentialism, "that what the most agree is good is good," which is a form of utilitarianism; democracy is utilitarianism based on voting in political systems.

Democratic systems are easily fooled. In large groups, we do not know what others think except how we are told they are thinking by other people or mass forms of communication, from oratory to newspapers to television to the internet. Our "reality" is easily fooled, as easily as we can fool ourselves by having a delusional view of the world, because we get it secondhand. For this reason, in democratic societies the game becomes how to convince others of what "reality" is, because they will make rather obvious choices based on that. If we tell them another leader is evil, or immoral, they can by themselves come to the handy conclusion that war or denial of office is called for.

Utilitarian systems all suffer from this vital error: what people think they want can be mistaken, and the data upon which they're operating can also be false, allowing them to be easily manipulated. For this reason Plato (through Socrates) wrote that while democracies make for the best living on a material level, they all fall prey to manipulation of public opinion and therefore rule by a public drama of no consequence while behind the scenes, oligarchs manipulate society for their own ends. If people are worrying about which leader upon which to make war, the oligarchs profit from weapons sales, and no one notices their acquisition of natural resources cheaply from the leader upon whom war is made.

Democratic societies start with good intentions but rapidly degrade to selfishness. The vector of choice is the individual, and individuals become accustomed to being fooled by their leaders and the lobbies that oligarchs covertly establish, and for that reason shrug and start acting for their own interests. Society becomes a marketplace of individual material interest. At this point, every known avenue for "the common good" has become corrupt and so people give up on it, and then forget they've given up. They labor in a negativity of outlook brightened only by the thought of personal material acquisition. This enables society to decay until it is near third-world levels of disorganization and criminality and corruption, at which point a "strong leader" - inevitably a front man for some oligarch or another - steps in and leads it to a final state where a few avaricious parasites rule over a horde of confused, simplistic, dumb people.

The enemy of such decline is culture, because where cultural values exist, people can point to a common good that is independent of all political parties. Culture is the philosophy of a people. When that population sees a proposed action conflicting with its cultural values, it can deny that action on the basis of it violating the basic creed of a society. Naturally, a pluralistic society has no common creed and is easier to rule, and for this reason all democracies oppose the existence of anything but pluralistic democracies worldwide. End-stage democracies of this type are called "liberal" democracies, because while they may have putatively conservative leaders, the underlying assumption of the society is liberal.

That assumption takes many forms but all originate in the root of utilitarianism as interpreted through the assent of the majority: the individual as a vector of self-interest making society work together. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" that he presupposed guides capitalism toward good fits into this category, as do the concepts of anarchism and libertarianism, its conservative variant. Materialism arises through a lack of common values; humanism addresses the fears of the individual; egalitarianism insulates the individual against any sense that this order is insane; capitalism is created by democracies to empower individual material self-interest; and moralism results as a device to construe any who do not agree as "evil" so the majority will agree to war against them.

Utilitarian and democratic societies are psychologically unhealthy. They enforce a normative, or averaging, impulse on the citizen, because a crowd fears nothing more than those who might rise above it. Further, by encouraging people to see only personal interest, they alienate those same people from the world around them and confine them to small bubbles of personal want and fear. We feel best when we can both give and receive, because it connects us to a larger process than ourselves, and therefore we avoid neurosis and self-doubt because we have a more realistic view of where we fit. The only antidote to democracy is an organic society unified by one cultural values system and ruled by leaders selected for competence and not popularity.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.8
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.8]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.8[/url]

4.9 What is Crowdism?

Crowdism is the mobilization of individuals to achieve protection of individuality. This is interpreted as bonding together and letting public opinion damn any threats to the Crowd that inevitably forms through consensus of public opinion. Since public opinion is easily swayed, and by the very nature of getting people with disparate interests to agree on a single path becomes a simplification and normative process, the Crowd that results is a force for eliminating any who offend the public taste. Various forms of moral pretense are necessitated to enforce this Crowd-based control, but they are universally of the form of egalitarianism (equality), freedom (liberty), good will toward the individual without judgment of how destructive its actions are (humanism), and taboo of methods that might violate the individual and thus divide the Crowd (moralism).

Crowds composed of such doubting and alienated individuals do not assess the best course of action, but naturally fight a defensive war against anything that might cause a member of the crowd discontent. This is because two things divide a Crowd: first, one of its members becoming seen as having poor judgment or being in the wrong; second, a "king" or person of higher ability rising above the mass, and thus showing the rest to be perceived as deficient. This is why Crowds easily turn on their members, since a member out of line threatens the Crowd and thus all individuals, and if a member must be criticized it produces kings or those with leadership ability.

In this as in many things, Crowdism is opposed to true individuality by which someone might differentiate themselves as a leader by nature of inherent abilities or power or character. The Crowd is against leadership; the Crowd is formed by individuals wanting protection from any thing or idea that might interrupt their pursuit of individual pleasures and wealth. Crowdism forms in the absence of a cultural philosophy, or its disruption, and when it takes root creates liberal democracies which inevitably decay into failed civilizations manipulated by avaricious oligarchs. Crowdism is a natural error which unless overcome takes unstable populations and neutralizes them into what we recognize as third-world civilizations. The world is strewn with such examples, both in the form of ruins populated by illiterate peasants and once-successful societies now lapsed into insignificance.

What terrifies those in the grip of the mental dysfunction we know as Crowdism is the idea of someone being right outside of the preferences of the Crowd. They tend to lash out against anyone who identifies a threat that is not immediate and tangible to them, and through many passive aggressive actions will do whatever they can to drag down any who might be kings so that equality reigns. This is manifested actively in mass revolts like those during the French and Russian revolutions, and as history shows us, these produce acephalous populations who cannot govern themselves to this day. Crowdism is like the illogicality of old age in that it disintegrates leadership and replaces it with a slow autocannibalization which neutralizes the society in question.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.9
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.9]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.9[/url]

4.10 Am I my brother's keeper?

You are the keeper of your sisters and brothers, and they of you: together we must find a sensible order which does right by all of us, even if we do not recognize it at the time. In more practical terms, our leaders are like our parents, in that they must accumulate knowledge and the will to use it no matter how unpopular it is.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.10
[url=http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.10]http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.10[/url]

4.11 Why is nationalism environmentalist?

While for many people nationalism and ecology may seem as two different problems having little or nothing in common, there are obvious reasons why they must be considered as manifestations of a common worldview; in their approach, both ideologies render the local community as the starting point, working from the bottom up in attempting to achieve their goals. This offers both greater structural stability than can be witnessed today and a soundness (logically speaking) that is otherwise nonexistent, with regard to the extension of values beyond oneself.

Nationalism means being bound in an inseparable relationship to the environment one has lived in since one?s childhood, not only with the surrounding ecosystem and landscape, but also through sharing a common culture, habits and language.

There is no greater feeling than a homecoming, a return to familiar territory. Despite the awe we may have for the beauty of other places, which we may encounter through short vacations or extended stays, there is a strong connection between man and his surrounding environment. We are shaped, and our spirit and minds imprinted, by the particular character and landmarks that we associate with our respective homelands.

For the Finnish this may mean the lakes or, more specifically, the Karelia; for Norwegians it is the wintry woods and fjords; for Hungarians, the endless pusta and perhaps Erdely; for me (those of us from northern Slovakia) it is woods and hills around. For anybody bound to his culture and to his own country finds his natural enviroment most inspiring and enriching, wherever on the Earth he lives.

Contrary to the cosmopolitan people, who are satisfied with any place they get some fodder and social status with the lowest effort possible ("Ubi bene, ibi patria"), nationalists value their fatherland and are able to sacrifice part of their individual welfare to common values. Their work is therefore not centered only on material comfort but also on society with strong and healthy culture, values and environment.

But why is the connection necessary? The answer may be that habits, whole cultures and even our own person are not just result of accidental process--they all mirror our origins and the thousand years of cultivation through our ancestors. Therefore sudden changes of environment or culture weakens the very core of humanity, turning him into individual not only lost for his tribe, but into someone whose natural disposition or "instincts" are damaged and twisted, useful only for unnatural, multi-cultural life in cities.

What is it that differentiates the nationalist from such people?

Instead of exploiting and polluting the land only to relocate once the damage has been done and the area deemed uninhabitable, a nationalist understands that the upkeep and preservation of the land which sustains their society, both physically and spiritually, is solely their responsibility. Thus they will try to find the way to maintain a healthy relationship with their surrounding environment?and not simply through transforming it to serve their short-term needs. A nationalist will strive to sustain the natural potential of their environment for their children, family and future generations, while allowing his ecosystem to thrive with minimal altera