Sayings by P. Michael Amedeo

Prologue.

I greatly admire the works of Julius Evola, though I feel they ought to rid themselves of Buddhism, though should not conced to Kabbalah, but rather should embrace Christian trinitarianism as the substitute for the Sefirot. The syncretic amalgam of Western esotericism and Buddhism is not merely erroneous, but detrimental to the value of Western esoterics, which are of a fundamental disparity, and superiority, with Buddhism. Buddhism and Taoism are inapplicable in a Western context due to the mere tangentiality and of tenuous continuity with Western philosophy. Equally, I am interested in the works of Ayn Rand, though admittedly, I suppose I am not contiguous to the perhaps radical ideals of Objectivism, though I find the rejection of altruism and the virtue of the self as equally replete and appealing, aligning rather adequately with previous dispositions and conceptions of person, by concept. I had written these unabrogated aphorisms to adequately elaborate upon my ideals, creating a piece of writing I may defer to, and strengthen my ideological perceptions.

Sayings.

1: A human is defined as a bipedal, technical primate, made in the image of divinity, with personal agency, rationality, and philosophy. Humanity exists in perpetual, non-linear cycles of rise, decline, fall, secularization, religious revival, enlightenment, stagnation, war, peace, and unity, with a consistency in the progress of technology, art, and entertainment, with politics that bring about great alliances as equally as they bring about great conflicts. Philosophy, religion, military, and economy dominate humanity, and have since the dawn of man across the globe, on their home planet of Earth. Culture has always been the symptom, the mere distorted afterimage of the four dominants of humanity. To clarify, a human, in the simplest terms feasible, is defined as “rational biped”.

2: Culture is defined as a contingent of humans who differ in dwellings and lifestyle from their contemporaries, of which they diverge. Pertaining to culture: taboos of a culture merely exist as amoral arbiters of perpetuation, not as morals themselves, though are necessary in the preservation of the particular culture. The adherence of a particular culture and accompanying traditions are necessary to perpetuate the culture, though this serves merely a pragmatic role to retain unity.

3: I assert a morality, as I am an absolutist, and I am of the firm moral absolutist philosophy, being heavily influenced by the New Testament by the sheer evidence and historicity of the Synoptic Gospels, rationality, and the prophecies fulfilled by Christ, to which I cannot deny, even though I am not particularly religious nor spiritual. Pertaining to morality, it is abundantly apparent that moral governance is to be manifested as libertarianism, respecting the free will of mankind, though is to be passively tolerant, not to be supportive of the inoffensively immoral.

4: Without theology, there can be no morality, as all would be subjective. Any purported secular morality is easily deconstructed by the mere utterance of the word “why?”, which unveils purported absolutes of the subjective bride. Even consensus-based morality is subjective, as one must reconcile with defining how localized this morality must be, otherwise this consensus-based morality entails populations are beholden to the most charismatic leaders, with the most aggressive personalities, becoming the arbiters of all that is moral and right, molded to their whim. Moral relativism is further immoral, as one must contend with people acting as they please without any means of objection, even if these people had become murderous, barbaric coprophagics, to the moral relativist, they are equivalent to a Christian monk who denies himself and lives in virtue.

5: By statistics, social and sexual conservatism are necessary to prolong civilization, and thereby, a libertarian state is to act as a benefactor of the traditional family, the moral family, and is to advocate for culture, tradition, and identity, though obviously this is all merely unlegislated beyond merely incentivizing the traditional family unit, with the deficit of legislation being compensated by advocacy and encouragement. There shall be the inoffensively immoral, who are peoples who follow immoral lifestyles, but are not violating the liberties of others, and are thereby protected and tolerated, though their immorality is apparent. To prolong liberty through conservatism, in which the conservative social-public consciousness acts as the egg, binding the cake of society, and breeding healthy generations of strong children to catalyze golden ages. The entire purpose of the state is defined by a divine mandate to defend liberty and perpetuate itself to prolong its defense, thereby necessitating and providing further reasoning to the sufficiency of social conservatism as a necessity. The state is not merely a superfluous entity defined by secularists as a mere arbiter of equality, this or that, being deprived of rationality pertaining to the existence thereof. It is instead that it is of moral goodness to create a state, and one that conceives freedom. As the rights and liberties of mankind are mandated by God, the government’s non-legislative morality must be reflective of this religiosity to maintain a moral consistency, advocating, though going unenforced, the goodness of God.

6: Invoking “rationality”, “empathy”, or merely “humanity” all fall short as to the “why?” necessary to substantiate these purported absolute secular ethics. To merely baselessly assert that humans have some kind of inherent value is blind, being entirely contingent upon emotions, and an emotional view of humanity without answering the inquiry as to “why?”, of course without defaulting to these subjective feelings.

7: It is paramount to perpetuate the next generation of mankind, for the burdens faced by our contemporary welfare and taxation system shall be immense. The West itself is in a depressive state, and nearing suicide if she continues to huff the paint of abortion, birth control, infidelity, and a culture which is only candor to the notion that career is the only sacrosanct; this entire method of thought is derived of the feminist sterotyping of men, that career and employment are what men derive joy from, ergo the women being deprived of such a joy, and necessitating a change, a civilizational one, in which women attempt to fulfill the obligations of men in the prospects of ascertaining importance, leisure, and pleasure.

8: We, as the American people, ought to alienate ourselves from contemporary society, and demand the liberty we are both endowed, and entitled to by merit of our humanity, and the divinity which has endowed to us these liberties of life, liberty, and property.

9: An Objectivist civilization –which emphasizes virtues of self– all victory shall be attributed to the self, and the self exclusively. Conversely, a collectivist civilization's individuals may invoke divinity, philosophy, and community, and devaluing their personal virtues, exemplifying a disposition of personal detachment. The collective-minded invalidating their humanity on a metaphysical level, impeding on personal victories that are deserved, and relegating their victory to a mere consequence, as opposed to virtuous exception. For a social consciousness to so deprive others of individual achievement and renown, it is transgressive.

10: Family is a paramount institution that arbeits the stability of a civilization, ergo we must subsequently conclude family and tradition ought become the paradigm, as is a necessity for stability, in the defense of liberty and property, the most divinely mandated ideals that are imbued into our rational minds. Though ultimately, technological development is equally important, though a civilization would be utterly reprehensible in the total embracing of transhumanism. Tradition is of the concern of stability, and not more beyond a divine moral command. Technology may be freely utilized in any manner, unregulated, though equal to moral invalids, any state apparatus ought to culturally manipulate insofar as resolving the dilemma of tradition as it pertains to opposition to the persistence of technological development.

11: I reconcile the virtues of the self in contrast with the virtues of family, as I do not perceive the family as a fundamentally opposing force to the self, rather, an extension. For such reasoning, I defer to Matthew 19:6, as well as the validity and historicity of the New Testament in moral law.

12: I feel libertarianism is divinely mandated due to a trust and faith in the Declaration of Independence, which states that God has endowed men the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is elaborated upon in the Bill of Rights, and what it entails defines life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, God endorses the existence of the United States and her Constitution.

13: Why do many presuppose the moral imperative of democracy? I feel it is the delusion of egality, and the perception that exclusion is negative, irrespective of context, which is I feel influenced by a rather Marxist, and subsequently simplistic, view of the world. Of course, hierarchy of the merited ought to exist, lest the merited be stifled by the incapacity of the collective, which has prior sought in history to deprive the most merited of their entitled authority. The virtue of meritocratic hierarchy derives from the necessity of leadership, which encompasses the preservation of liberty. Is it not an inherent moral good that we harbor individuals in our society which are endowed with such apparent skill, and elevate them to leadership positions, as they are the most qualified and elegant? Without the rule of the merited, there is only kakistocracy, which is insufficient in the preservation of liberty. Hence, I detail the exclusive voting minority in the enlightened aristocracy. “Enlightened aristocracy” entails a criteria of wealth and education which must be met, lest we see the rise of the invalid, the irrational, and the abhorrent, and the imminent death of liberty. The perfect, eligible voter ought to be a culmination of wealth, land, education, moral conviction, and political acumen. Democracy provides power exclusively to the most irrational of individuals –those who undermine liberty– those who shall exclusively vote in a manner which is immediately socially acceptable, per their herd mindset.

14: To so assert and impose a purported authoritarian nature upon enlightened aristocracy is a ludicrous thought, as the system of enlightened aristocracy is specifically designed to deliberate and prolong a libertarian state, and create an environment hospitable to a constitutional republic. The diffusion and distribution of state prerogatives is an imperative. As mentioned in prior aphorisms, the state ought to be relegated to the most minute position in life, merely prolonging liberty and perpetuating itself, and the only attainable is the defense of such a sacrosanct, with this perception being more than compatible in the accommodation of enlightened aristocracy. Exclusion from the political process is not the befalling of tyranny upon those who meet an insufficient criteria to participate.

15: Humanity developed the irrational herd mindset due to the necessity of of survival, and the immediate vanquish of threats which have been imposed upon us by the natural order, and yet, as our civilizations maximally increase in size due to the domination of the natural order, the disparity of the common intellect, which aids survival, and the ruling elites-presumptive becomes far too great of a deficit, and to mitigate ramifications, we must conceive hierarchical governance as a moral and biological imperative.

16: Utilitarianism is predicated on the irreverent notion of “happiness” being a quantifiable, almost tangible, substance, which I find to be insightful into the internal psychology of individuals who espouse such notions, those who deny metaphysics, tradition, and embrace the utmost of materialism. Of course, the dilemma of quantifying happiness derives from the intangible nature in which it is confined, and how subjective happiness ultimately is, ergo, unable to be truly quantified into any applicable governance.

17: I would like to believe extraterrestrial life is not but a myth, that cosmos is merely mankind’s breadbasket, and Earth as the jewel of the cosmos. I disagree with such preconceived notions of “extraterrestrial life” as they are merely pop-fiction fantasies. From a philosophical perspective, why would one desire extraterrestrial life to exist? And accompanying this inquiry, I feel the psychology is ultimately contingent upon a negative view of humanity, and the implicit belief that mankind is not merely a creature which is in perpetual solitude, and as prior established, festering without purpose, and life only degrading. I believe in the exception of humanity, and the perfection of the cosmos, and humanity, being imperfect, entails the cosmos shan’t harbor replications of ourselves, or beings akin to ourselves. Though obviously, I believe that humans ought to conquer the cosmos, our constellations, and further, which I believe to be a right of any intelligent race, irrespective of perfection. Even in our imperfection, the cosmos cannot be tainted by our presence, akin to how Earth has not; which some naysayers proclaim “climate change” and whatnot, but that is false, as life shall continue, even if we erroneously presuppose “climate change” is anything substantial or consequential. Of course, this perception is only applicable to the philosophical matters, as opposed to a matter of the four dominants. Thus is my inclination to favor a barren universe.

18: On race itself, I would advocate for the racial constitution of all peoples to be one of amicability, and that there is nothing immoral in the support of one's heritage, nation, tribe, or attribute which constitutes a cohesive identity of both the individual and contingent. On racial segregation, however, and on the policy of whether "seperate but equal" is moral, I think that is debatable, but I would argue that it is insofar as it is voluntary, and not a beholden stipulation imposed upon a populace by a government. I believe that there will always be a disparity when accounting for government bias, thus, I feel if such dispositions were to be implemented, it should not be any government imposing them, so as to avoid any transgressions and infringements upon the endowed constitutional rights of all peoples. Thus, my argument is ultimately one I defer to my libertarian persuasions, and I make my conclusion an appeal to the Bill of Rights and minarchist government, without any capitulation nor abrogation.

19: There are two spheres of mankind: the rational and the irrational, and this entails that politics is operaesque and theatrelike, meanwhile society is driven more impulsively, though this isn't to deny intellect and agency, rather, that agency is accompanied by irrationality. In this reason, there are leaders and followers, and the march of history is exclusively driven by great men and the philosophies which they harbor and have sought to impose. These great men work to facilitate their philosophies via the sword of an army, or via the olive branch of the court, both being means to an end of exacting a philosophy via these feats. However, these great men's philosophies are wholly distinct from themselves, and thus we must not concern ourselves as studious peoples in the personal lives, but rather, their philosophies and feats, which are ultimately more important, as the feats are history, while their personal identity is excluded from this nomenclature. Civilization is grand, and the great movements, banners, colors, insignia, subcultures, and great politics are the ingredients which exist. I hold to the primacy of great men interacting with each other. A coup here, an edict there, it is all this interaction, clash of ideas, and the pursuit of either stability, alliance, autonomy, or prime authority. This is the operaesque disposition. Individuals possess agency above all, and some of these people are far more rational than others. And while impediments may be imposed upon a people, it does not negate, even for the most irrational people, to possess agency, as all people harbor a baser rationality, though for most, it is obfuscated by their inevitable fallibility. It is the consistent application of this rational mind, and overcoming certain fallibilities, which truly constitute a leader, a larger-than-life figure who contributes to the march of history.On the matter of the masses, armies and movements are composed of a preponderance of irrational people who have sought self-interest in their pursuits, meanwhile, the rational constituents, as few as they are, shall rise the ranks, as they are driven by the pursuit of a common attainable with their leader, diplomatically rising to impose their philosophies, as the leaders had.

20: I think the destruction of Rudolf Hess' memoirs, the discontinuation and criminalization of My Struggle, and the prohibition of the NSDAP are all mere admissions of impotence: that democracy must be protected via the paradoxical negation of true free thought, and these works destroyed, and thus these people who proclaim themselves arbiters and vicars of democracy then engage in similar transgressions to those they had sought to repress. If these ideas are so evidently abhorrent, then what is the burden to censor these ideas? It should be of no necessity, lest these democrats are willing to admit that not all people are sufficiently equal, and that democracy itself is the empowerment of the least rational, who will blindly follow leaders such as Adolf Hitler. I think anyone who desires to suppress the freedom of thought is an authoritarian. Is it a necessary idea to prohibit free thought? To endow the state with the prerogative to censor those who are deemed to have met the criteria of what is intolerable? A rather arbitrary criteria. Thus, the state grows into an opulent, parasitic apparatus which must censor all which it disagrees. I would find it to be deeply offensive that the state imposes legal consequence upon those who dare to speak their mind. That is an irreparable transgression, an assault on liberty itself. I believe some kind of minarchist state must exist to defend liberty, and perpetuate itself to further defend liberty. This state would only intervene when the infringement of liberty is met. This entails the absolute right for anybody, fascists, National Socialists, Stalinists, et cetera to form whatever voluntary backwater they desire, in full adherence to their ideas, but once someone is being involuntarily restricted, this entails the state must step in for its sole purpose and obligation.

21: I think moral relativism is the most sterile and filthy notion we propagate in our society. There is no reason to oppose murder, rape, or theft if the world is without divine authority, and if one appeals to there subjective emotions, then one must so happily ask "why?" as their repudiation. I am a moral absolutist, as I am in favor of Christianity, though in this matter, if there is no law prescribed in the New Testament on any matter, then I have no moral judgments to behold others to, while the inverse is true when laws are prescribed. I oppose the machine men who govern our lives, making idols of papers and organizations, and worshipping men, making their pledges and odes to their gods at the UN, and the gods of the UN pantheon reprimanding heretics such as Russia, who follow their Christian faith, which is intolerable in the eyes of the pantheon of men who demand worship and sacrifice. Is it not so disingenuous and fraudulent that men prescribe a moral system devoid of transcendent forces? That these men —equal to all other men in substance, and who are of no good nature— demand that we, the people of Earth, adhere to their rules? I follow God's rules, as God is fundamentally good by nature, and there is divine reprimand and eternal suffering if one decides to separate from God, and accepting the subsumbtion into corrupting forces, via the enactments and emulation of wrong behaviors, behaviors that are bad, as they are prescribed by God, who is good and moral by nature: that is the foundation, that is the appeal; God is good by nature. And these machine men desire to be God, they desire to act as gods in their Mt. Olympus of Manhattan: false gods, idols who demand the worship and subordination of all of the world's peoples.

22: Religion is more influential than originally analyzed, as all peoples harbor some faith, even in proclaimed atheism, everybody worships something, whether material idols, whether themselves, whether ideologues, or whether statesmen, and that is only the material religion, as others worship immaterial, perennial, or metaphysical forces, is there is a constituent portion of the brain which is fundamentally religious. Whether one is worshipping God, Shiva, the collective, the individual, the state, the media, or otherwise, all men possess an inescapable religion. Most certainly, even the atheist is inclined to worship himself, natural forces, or other syncretic forces. Although I find most Western atheists worship the ideology of atheism, which is a rather regressive ideology which parasitizes Christianity whilst simultaneously denigrating the faith, while equally being incapable of articulating why they adhere to any morality beyond invoking subjective frivolities as trite repudiation, as if the natural world is somehow good by nature, or that pain is something negative to inflict upon people for some arcane reason yet to be explained by the atheist. I think atheism will continue to rise in correlation with modern society's decadence until the next societal collapse, when men realize once more they cannot craft gods of themselves, and so revert to the faiths of old. It is a fundamental psychology. Atheism is the mere transient luxury of modernity, afforded only to those without the necessity to hope, and thus contributing to stagnation as they leech on the prior achievement of the religious men of yore who had so laboriously crafted the a society which would foolishly collapse to decadence due to the leaders becoming corrupted and liberal, as their psychologies and subsequent philosophies tangential thereto are perverted.

23: I believe Carlyle was right in believing history as an event organized by the elite, as due to a fundamental psychology, humans crave some kind of leadership, per the Bystander Effect, and thus have sought sufficient leaders who then creepingly conquer the minds of many, halted only by the irrational self-interest of most people. This is why populists are so pervasive in our paradigm, from the left, from the right, and eve from the center, there is the rise of populists, which can be attributed to a mix of Enlightenment ideals of misplaced egality --suggesting all peoples are blank slates and equally deserving of political endowment, even in an absence of proficiency-- as well as a rise in amoralism, as politicians are becoming ever secular, and so have no moral persuasions to halt the ever-detrimental march of political democratization. This pertains greatly to our Carlylean history, as this entails a time of struggle, as we have immoral peoples controlling fundamentally stupid masses who have never thought of rational concerns, and are instead preoccupied with the vanity of politics. For this reason, democracy ought to be abolished in favor of an enlightened aristocracy. I speak not in the favor of a rejection of the Enlightenment, but in ode to an Enlightenment which arbits genuine improvement, as opposed to merely empowering those who contribute nothing substantive to intellectual discourse, reprehensibly so.

24: Why must these ignorant peoples denigrate mankind? It is this silly notion that man's destruction is somehow immoral, as opposed to a monumental feat of greatness that are race may harvest resources from the earth, the rock, and beyond. It is actually a greatly misguided concept of other philosophers, to dwell within their ivory towers, taking walks through any protectorate of untouched wild emasculated by mankind's laborious endeavors of civility, then to say how abhorrent the activities of man are whilst being inexperienced. Is man truly to deprive himself of technical progress in order to satiate these transient philosophies? To deny ourselves what is right and just of species? It all seems so lame and sterile, focused so shortsightedly upon immediate dilemmas which only stagnate man's expansion. These are extinctionist dispositions held by the critics of man, and they derive their stewardship from ignorant emotionalism.

25: Surely there is no inexcusable offense in the retention and indulgence in frivolity even in one's senescence? The childlike whimsy to punctuate the dreary monotony of arbitrary life, which we are all too keen to accept, even in her blemished and impure state which seems to be immutable. I see no transgression in such admirable elusion, in fact, our ancestors in their petulant vanity had constructed follies of vast lands, just as Sargon of Akkad or Napoleon Bonaparte. Surely, must the imposing modernity which we are entrenched in erode our essence to such excess? Surely, whimsy and delusion provide such favorable intrusion info reality which penetrates the minds of heroes who conquer guided by the star of the vain.

26: The problem with democracy is that the system attempts to utilize something for broad civilizational health, culture, and apply it to governance, entirely unaware that elites produce culture, and so democracy is not the pure reflection of the popular view, but rather a reflection of the charisma exercised by those who can adequately manipulate the self-interested peoples of broader society. The people of society are aimless unless directed, and cannot produce culture, being beholden to the directions of leadership. Though culture is necessary, such as maintaining the family unit. If culture becomes immoral or deviant, then these populations behave this way, which is bad for the economy and demographics, as fatherless children are more likely to be unsuccessful. If one leader were to direct a culture into one of promiscuity or immorality, the consequences of economic and demographic collapse would occur, and the ever-self-interested population can easily fall into immorality, such as engaging in homosexual or transgender behaviors. The best system of government is one in which only the elites are permitted the prerogatives to vote, as all of these people are rational and intelligent, and so would truly vote on what matters most.

27: I feel modernity is ever-decadent and absurd. The prevailing notion of complete dissonance has predicated the archaic nature of divinity, while simultaneously self-deifying, becoming moral arbiters of all matters, Kant, their prophet facilitating the rise of the pseudo-religion, liberalism. Only few can dictate morality, men delegated this position in the UN, they metamorphize fraudulent gods while proclaiming "behold, for the gods of ancient are antiquated!", a dissonant notion, and an utterly outlandish incongruency which is all too pervasive. I feel this is a sort of self-perpetuating system, liberalism, as it is entirely contingent upon mass politics and the manipulation of those unfit for governance, as the emotional who have been beholden to a curated culture of godlessness then indulge in the religion of society. The futility of politics is apparent. Only philosophy, and the application thereto, is of any true concern, and absolute alienation from such fluidity is ideal. By politics, I mean these scandals and massacres. I believe there must be some kind of prevailing societal philosophy of governance, though ideally devoid of these petulant petty court musings.

28: All peoples are entitled to universal civil rights of life, liberty, and property, but these masses can be readily manipulated into voting for degenerate behaviors. Even if the constitution of the nation were stagnant, immutable, and would override any other laws, there is still the matter of culture, the social network, et cetera. If people are encouraged, culturally, to engage in degenerate behaviors, due to the nature of culture, these masses will engage in degenerate behaviors, and the ensuing plague of mental illness will assure the ponderous collapse of civilization. Ergo, the state is only to espouse what is moral, what is just, and essentially manipulating culture to ensure prolonged civilization. However, this idea of prolonging civilization itself is exclusively for the defense of liberty in a societal sense. Liberty is an imperative among all, and the universal civil endowments are to be protected, but how can they be protected if society is in a perpetual state of collapse due to degenerate culture which only produces mental illness? I perceive mental illness as a plague as much as I see disease as a plague. If a society begins espousing homosexual or transvestite behaviors, that leads to poor child development, later crime, which is bad for society.