Individualism and the Folkish State

by Dale Peterson

August 13, 2002


If, for no other reason than for my own kindness of heart, I explain this to eyes whose capacity for reading rational sentences and reasonable paragraphs is strained at best (such people are a bromide in today's world), I should insist to the bearers of such eyes close them now, lest they be damaged. Unfortunately for them, though, my capacity for kindness towards them is strained at best.

I will therefore not go into tedious explanations of minor details here, rather I will outline the general principles and core concepts behind my thesis because I am writing to the man who can understand the fundamentals and in his own mind can extrapolate the reasoning behind details on his own. If you cannot comprehend these principles, if you expect me to justify what is self-evident to a reasonable mind, or if you require the 'proving' of such superfluosities, it would then appear that you are not he.

Part I

Rationalism and Individualism

Any man who tells you that logic and reason are flaws of the mind is telling you that he lives in a universe of infinite contradiction, and you should take notice of such men, for their numbers on this planet right now are not few, but many. He is not telling you that he is unintelligent, nor is he telling you that his knowledge is lacking, but he is telling you that his capacity for thinking alone is diminished. He might hold a Doctorate, he may even be a Nobel Laureate; but you bear an honor which today is rarer and more valuable to you than any that a dynamite inventor or professor in robes could ever bestow: an intransigent mind. That is, a mind which thinks for itself, though it might have only just realized that. You are the rational intuitive, you think in a logical fashion, and you will reject a proposal that is not conformant to that fashion no matter how many others accept it. You are an individual, but your asset is that you realize it. You live in a rational world. This does not benefit you any more than it does the brillo-haired, radio-brained, 75-IQ 'equal' who might be flipping burgers beside you, but once again your advantage is that you realize it -- Tyrone on your right never will.

Though you may well possess an intransigent mind, and the chances of that are higher than average if you're reading this right now, you may not have realized something that multiplies the value of your already-precious mind exponentially. That fact is that life, your life and my life, and the lives of all the lemmings out there are ends in themselves. They can, however by your or their or my choice, be made ends to the lives of others. The pursuit of your happiness is the goal of your life, whether you find that happiness in driving high-performance cars, firing off guns, collecting stamps, or in experiencing the joy of raising children -- you seek it nonetheless. Nobody else can experience it for you. While Bob gets a kick out of screaming down the highway on his new Ducati, or Leroy does snorting shit out of a crack pipe, their attainment of happiness does not make you any happier. Buying Bob a new motorcycle or Leroy a vial of crack cocaine will benefit you in absolutely no way. On the other hand, the attainment of happiness amongst those you care about - your son, your daughter, your wife, your parents -- can in turn make you happy through their expression of that happiness and your knowledge that in the contract of these people who have desired your happiness and perhaps helped you attain it, that you have satisfied your debt to them and performed likewise -- and are therefore happier in the knowledge of your independence.

Sacrifice for another can take many forms, but the fundamental sacrificial act is to, by your own volition, give up your life or a part of it to another for a value less than its worth to you. Where is the reason in willingly giving up something that is yours for the enjoyment of another who will not give you enjoyment in return? There is no reason in such an action -- a sacrifice is an act of irrationality. Though, I believe it is important to clear up a common misunderstanding before I proceed. Rational trade is undertaken where one man values something of another's, and seeks its acquisition by the exchange of goods or services which the second man values in an amount agreed by both parties depending upon how much they value each other's objects of trade. When one man voluntarily sacrifices something that he values, however little, to another man who may value that same object or service more or even less, he is not participating in a rational trade, but a fraud. Perhaps he was motivated out of pity -- but that he should feel sorrow for the plight of another whose plight pains him none defies reason. Perhaps he was motivated by charity, the idea that it is better to give than to receive. But if this idea were true, who would we all give to, for surely if it is immoral for you or I to be in receipt of things, why is it not for others, so to whom shall we donate our valuables? There is no sense in such ideas, ideas which have only come about through mystics who through the centuries have built their gold and stone temples and altars through convincing others of the virtue of sacrifice (usually on their altars) and that greed was a flaw to be condemned. Those centuries of conditioning have stuck in the paper moralities of the populace, particularly of White peoples around the world, and it is now generally accepted that it is better to be selfless than selfish, and better to be charitable than greedy. There is no inherant evil in those mystics, not even if they sincerely believed the destructive mysticism they preached from their pulpits, and in fact the most rational people in the whole play would of course have been the Machiavellian tyrants who knew what they were preaching was patently false, and continued to do so in order to enrich and empower themselves.

Sacrifice, as I stated before, is the voluntarily giving of your life or a part of it (this of course includes things you have worked hours or minutes of your life to acquire) to another for little or no benefit, but in any case a benefit totaling less than the value of whatever it was you donated. It is possible to give your life or a part of it to a cause, perhaps for no tangible benefit, but a benefit all the same, if you feel the benefit justifies the sacrifice. Justifying the sacrifice is the job of drill sergeants and Army recruiters, as well as propagandists and politicians, and the dead of many wars are as such not because of their lack of reason, but because of their trust in leaders who lied to them, hence justifying the trade of their physical life for a value in which they believed was greater than it, but was in fact not. A man who enlists in an army in order to fight for a cause in which he believes is worth dying for - and is. If the man dies doing such, he is not the victim of fraud - it is slander on the mind of the man to call such an act sacrifice - he is a man who traded the remainder of his life for the lives of those he cares about which will be benefited, however slightly, from his death. He wasn't a lamb to the slaughter, he was a trader doing business. A woman who starves during a time of food shortage in order to feed her son about whom she cares, is not making a sacrifice. However if she starves such in order to feed the son of the woman next door for whom she feels sorry -- or some Negroid savage in the cannibal Congo who she saw bawling through fly-specked eyes on the television -- it matters not, and in so doing allows her own son to starve -- that is making a sacrifice. In the first example the woman benefits in no way, in the second she benefits from enjoying time with her son, and enjoying the knowledge that her progeny will live a better life because of her. Her actual benefit is therefore proportionate to her cost, unlike in the former example where she was told her benefit would be proportionate to her cost, but clearly is not. This is misrepresentation, and its perpetrators, whose aims may be selfish or not, are making the woman a victim of their fraud as are the men who send a man to die in war knowing that his death will not benefit the cause they told him it would.


Peterson's writings are archived here.


Tell a friend about this article:

Back to VNN Main Page