Observations about the world, part twenty

Photograph of the Atlas globe

Preferences |
Thursday – January 15, 2026

Do you have preferences? Well, I am sure you do, and I am not going to argue with you about them. However, I would like to just highlight the individualist and modern nature of so-called preferences? After all, who in the times of the ancients would have the inclination to boast about all sorts of preferences in relation to anything? No, this didn't occur, and that's because the world of today is completely material, and really one can only think of the concept of having preferences as an expression of individualism and materialism, but in all matter concerning me, these two concepts are in fact the same thing, but again different expression of that same thing in different aspects of the material domain, and from that point of view you may also say that individualism and collectivism are the same as well; yes collectivism is really just another expression of individualism, read about the concept of "political objects" in my "Collectivism & Individualism series", really this can also be thought of as the nature of materialism as being capable of multiplicity and division. When it comes to the subject of preferences though, you see this modern confusion pretty much everywhere these days, form choosing what car to buy to who you're going to engage with in your bed, as if these things where choices, and yes they are choices but only material choices, and they belong really you could say to the temporal domain only, and they can only for a very material and short time satisfy your needs; indeed the phenomena "preferences" is really nothing other than an expression of addiction, or what can be called the precursor to addiction, and this always comes in the form of discrimination, not because you don't want more material stuff, but because that old and already experienced materialism isn't adequate enough anymore, and really this tendency is really the sources of most, if not all, conflicts and tensions between men: take such things as racism, nationalism, and again addiction; they all stem for this material urge or appetite that modern men refer to as "preferences" and once this very much political and sentimental word has been applied, nothing more can be said and everything is forgotten, even this modern evil, that the humanitarians so claim to oppose, of racism can be forgiven, only if you utter that word, preference. Yes, preference for more and more materialism and in a more and more narrow field, and this is really the expression of division so inherent in the temporal domain, but this is also conversely, although more subtly, an expression of multiplicity, because indeed modern men can never seem to satisfy their ever growing and accelerating apatite for more and more, and the narrowness expressed in material prejudice is what this tendency of simple "preferences" is. But the concept of preferences is important, because it showcases the continual and ever increasing use of emotionalism and sentimentality in the modern world: yes as long as you can provide people with the right and politically correct sentiment, it seems that you can never no wrong, even when it comes to such aforementioned social ills as racism; as long as you can cover it all up in the sentimental charm of simple individual preference, you will be forgiven and everything will be forgotten.

    This shows two things that are highly unusual in the modern world: number one, it shows that these so-called values are really nothing but very transient things and can really be replaced with almost anything else as long as that thing/pseudo-value serves the overall material order, which is why modern men never seem to think about the world themselves, and really why they have no issues lending out their minds to the revolutionary elite, and why they are nothing but beasts that operate on the level of an animal; two, it also shows that none of these so-called humanitarian values actually have any value in and of themselves, really that humanism is nothing but a completely empty enterprise that only serves to uphold the material order and to convince the masses of the superiority of this system, which also goes to show how stupid the vast majority of people are and why democracy could never work without almost immediately falling into disarray, which has been the rule for all attempts at instituting this system. But perhaps more importantly than showing the profound stupidity of the masses—which again can only be an expression of the lowest and most brutish element of any large number of persons, which is in keeping with the corrupting tendency of the quantitative character—it shows the lack of insight and skillful approach that most men posses, even in relation to the material and temporal domain, which isn't surprising since this narrow-mindedness of espoused and practiced modern men cannot, and indeed refuses, to contemplate, and action without contemplation is really nothing but chaos, or if you will an act that seeks chaos and upheaval as its only goal, really the act of embracing nihilism and meaninglessness, and this tendency is perhaps most expressed in the modern assertion that nothing can be known beyond that which can be quantified and measured, and indeed not even those things can be clearly known.

    The final question then becomes: what preference? Preference for narrow-mindedness and multiplicity in division – preference for materialism and quantity over quality. Indeed, some so-called "scientists" would even go so far as to label this an expression of survival instincts, really an expression of the most primitive and animalistic senses, and this is to be upheld as modern science. No, nothing but decomposition of knowledge can describe the state of the modern world.

Reginald Drax – January 15, 2026.