Collectivism & Individualism, part five

Tiger Diorama in the
natural history museum

Is might right?
Tuesday – September 30, 2025

I once again ask you to consider the tiger, excellent in form and feature, the product of survival, of blunt and hard refinement and perfection, the tiger exists in perfect harmony with nature: do you really believe that this magnificent creature, this apex of nature, asks for permission? What does right and wrong mean to the tiger or indeed the forces that have shaped the material domain? Let the howling, cold, and stone cutting wind be your answer: the forces of perfection do not ask for permission and they do not hesitate; they simply exist and they simply act. The tiger is the product of the force in perpetual motion, and in that way the tiger is surely the polar opposite, the diametrical opposite of humans, the biological accident that is humanity. Indeed, for every man, even the man without conscience, there is such a thing as right and wrong, but be under no illusion that the creator of the universe or the universe itself care about you for one second: you are nothing but a speck in the infinite vastness of the universe, and your actions mean nothing to he who exists outside of time, he who acts for benefit of true justice, which can only be said to be the mighty and the righteous. How exactly is this relevant to the "Collectivism and Individualism series", you may ask? Well, allow me to explain what I mean by might is right and do also allow me to answer the question in the heading: Is might right? I would like to begin with paraphrasing the heading: Is the righteous mighty? The short answer is indeed that the righteous are mighty, but from the perspective of humanist materialistic notions I understand that the statement that might is right or indeed that right is might may seem not only a little bit brutish but somewhat shortsighted and clearly wrong, since most proponents of the humanist axiom and the material order would point to the supposed "win-win" relation inherent in human life. Apart from the fact that this sentiment is complete bullshit, it's also the case that nature doesn't care about your "humanity" and your human relations: the hard and blunt fact is that on your own as a individual human being, you are completely worthless and completely powerless, and in reality you deserve to be devoured by the apex predator, for this was the purpose of your creation, even though it was very much an accident. Of course, it is clear that human co-effort is a necessary prerequisite for any human life: you may not have human life without collectivism; the human sense and lust for society is simply a profound part of what it means to be human. No man in his right mind would consider to punish the tiger, but most men would consider, without much hesitation, to punish other men that they consider to stand in opposition to the reign of the contemporary order: indeed most men are not only in favor of being a part of society and the collectivist body, but they are in favor of claiming dominion over other men and increasingly all other men, this is certainly a feature of the humanist axiom and the assertion that all men are equal under the Sun. What is punishment? Is it not an attempt to restore the scales of the celestial order? Indeed, this is the purpose of punishment, but what most men fail to consider is that they more often than not stand just as much in opposition to the natural order and that their supposed organized life or attempt to organize life in its current constitution is an aberration against nature and that nature will move against man and his attempt to organize life, and when that day comes all men will very much be deserving of the wrath, the divine vengeance of the creator that will be inspired by the creators love for his entire creation. Indeed, the righteous future is post-human, it has to be post-human; this would be to restore the scales of the celestial order and it will happen. Then let's consider the parasitical relation society has to most men, the best men and the men that have earned their rank. Indeed, most of society is merely a product of the plebeian horde's parasitism towards the men of truly ascendant rank. How can any man of true rank allow this state of affairs to continue? Would the tiger allow the lowly and weak creature to diminish his might? No, he would not and this is the fundamental distinction between man and the apex predator: men simply are not deserving of high rank.

    Remember that conscience is instantaneous; it is for and by the collective. By that I mean that to act right is in the human context not to act for the benefit of all sentient life or indeed to restore the scales of the celestial order: to act in the human context is to promote the "common" goal of the group, and more often than not, especially the further away from the source we're going, those goals and interests will diverge from the source and the betterment of all sentient life. There's nothing righteous in the collectivist strain among men: indeed the collective is what has enabled the transformation into the beast and the destruction of the natural order, and collectivism is also what has enabled the need for egalitarianism, or rather the need to justify egalitarianism. Why is it that human beings are so keen on insisting on egalitarianism? Well, that's partly because of survival and because of jealousy. Indeed, humans are innately jealous, and this serves another purpose that is deeply tied to the anthropological limit: see humans need to be jealous for most of them are beasts and this has enabled them to bully men of ascendant rank into submission under the tyranny of the masses, the rule of the plebeian horde, but it's even more subtle that that: see, most beasts do not wish to rule and control themselves, so they require constant supervision by men of ascendant rank, simply put better men. What is this perversion of justice and of the laws of nature? Indeed, most human societies, particularly in the modern day, are obscene and they're all deserving of utter destruction, but their demise will come for at the close of the Kali Yuga the post-human form will perfect intelligence, raw intelligence, and that post-human form will not consider the principles of humanist morals or any other universal assertions made by the modern men: they will simply move mankind and his civilization aside. This I feel clarifies why I consider humanity to be a biological accident, but an accident that serves one important purpose: to act as an accelerator or force that moves the cosmic cycles forward, and this is why man has the ability to directly connect with the creator by ascending above the Earth and the material order, even though most of them won't and this is also why most major metaphysical tradition holds men guilty, guilty for their innate sickness and disease.

    The assertion that might is right or that the righteous are mighty breaks apart in the human context, and while this isn't exactly because of collectivism alone, I believe that collectivism was in a sense an expression of the original sin: men act as a group, not as individual and therefore they should be collectively held responsible, and this has been the case to such an extent that it can be said that man has evolved a need for community and collective, a need for community that stretches far beyond his need to adhere to the laws of nature, his need to stand in harmony with nature. At some point, most men will be wiped out and the men of truly ascendant rank will repopulate the Earth, but in the meantime I believe that there is space to allow for the thrill of nihilism to permeate the world, for the reason that most men indeed are soulless, and therefore it would seem quite appropriate and right for them to embrace the chaos and the noise of the meaningless and the formless. Indeed the collective is what shapes men into the formless political objects, the beasts, that they become. But after all, the individual cannot possibly survive on his own, and this was by design, but be under no illusion that this insight makes you or humanity special: humans are merely one small part of the creation and to that extent it can be said that humans are equal, but equal has no meaning beyond the material order, so I still refrain from using that word.

Reginald Drax – September 30, 2025.