“Traditional” cultures are utterly indefensible:

For the vast majority of history, there were no such thing as “careers”, and even the idea of a specific “occupation” would have been regarded as incomprehensibly stupid.

The “default” social structure (IE: that to which humans revert whenever they become impoverished or stupid enough) tends to be some variant of the following:

  1. A vast morass of slaves/victims
  2. A (small) number of mid-level thugs
  3. A “professional” class of liars
  4. A Thug-in-Chief

That’s it.  You can attempt to “polish the turd” all you want, but ultimately, the above sort of “structure” typically allows at least a vanishingly-small population of impoverished and ignorant savages to survive just long enough to breed the next generation of impoverished and ignorant savages.

Some observations:

  1. It is typically the slaves/victims who actually perform whatever passes for “work” related to whatever borderline-starvation conditions happen to be prevalent.

I’m not just talking about openly enslaved populations.  I’m ALSO talking about the vast majority of such populations who were de facto (as opposed to de jure) slaves/victims:

Typically (in addition to those explicitly “enslaved”), other demographic segments were similarly victimized:

  1. Females
  2. Children/youth

Even in the vast majority of cases, the (putatively) “free” segment of the (male) population were pervasively dis-empowered  in relation to those PRIVILEGED above them in the specific social/political/economic order:





So, yeah: “traditional” cultures have always (without exception) involved the vast majority of their own population being systematically fucked over, exploited, dis-empowered, and victimized, as a matter of course.

I find it tragic that self-proclaimed “traditionalists” don’t end up slaughtered en masse by their myriad victims, whenever they attempt to “enforce” whichever atrocities happen to have become “traditional” within that specific region.

Malcolm X was, in many ways, an extremely intelligent man.    Admittedly, the scope of his inquiry was rather circumscribed (in that he himself was enmeshed in an attempt to “enforce” a form of victimization on the female portion of the populace adhering to “Nation of Islam”), but….he did have some amazing things to say:

We declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.

— Malcolm X, 1965[2]

Ayn Rand made the same point (in a radically different context, and admittedly in the interest of different beneficiaries):

Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it. Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan—so throughout the world and throughout men’s history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collectivized countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values—the impotence of death. I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win—and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was “No.”


I’m going to say something pretty controversial:

Deliberately abiding by any “role” — social/political/economic etc. – without first asking “why” such a “role” is excusable — (IE: what — if anything — about the “nature and needs” of the INDIVIDUAL HUMAN ENTITY — excuses such a “role”) — is extremely dangerous.

Attempting to “police” others’ noncompliance with such “roles” is infinitely worse.








I submit that it is important for the victims (and potential victims) of such things as the above) to ensure that they — and others — are in a position to defend themselves against such victimization, forcibly compel their would-be victimizers to cease such victimization, and — if need be — utterly eradicate any social/political/economic “power structures” which refuse to cease such actions.

Either they stop (no matter how grudgingly) — or they get stopped.

If that involves “violence”, then so be it.




Further: the importance of access to such knowledge varies inversely with the level of “privilege” within any specific social/economic/political “system”.


In other words: the only ones who can RISK attempting to function at “Condition White” (IE: lack of focus, self-imposed stupor, etc.) are the PIRIVILEGED

(Interestingly enough, those who control/enforce any given “System” are seldom oblivious in that way.

I’ve concluded something rather damning: “Condition White” is actively “marketed” to those MOST likely to be victimized SPECIFICALLY to prevent them from RESISTING their own victimization.

Just a thought.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s