Prejudice

Hanagami Danjo no jo Arakage
(花上弾正少弼荒景)
fighting a giant salamander
By Utagawa Kuniyoshi
(歌川 国芳)

Prejudice |
Monday – April 20, 2026

Prejudice, discrimination, segregation, meaning... These are of course different sides of the same coin, but in modern jargon they mean very different things. It is for instance acceptable to segregate different objects into different categories, and to, in this regard, allow the essence of one object to define that object, and even today most people would not mind this; in fact, it happens all the time. But what about doing this with human beings? Well, actually people do that as well all the time, but when it comes to human beings of course, it gets complicated, and because of all the complications inherent in division as far as humanity is concerned, the rule of inconsistency and contradiction takes precedence – the material tyranny.

    To account for this confusion, it would be right to point to egalitarianism, but here egalitarianism only plays a rather limited role: yes, egalitarianism makes it impossible to create meaningful categories, but the issue at hand goes beyond the falsehood that all human beings are essentially the same essence, because most egalitarians will not oppose simply putting people into different categories—they do it all the time, as pointed out—the problem is really one of essence vs. substance, and in the modern world, as you should know by now, substance takes over and becomes the overriding principle which would be perfectly fine in a completely solidified and closed system, and this means that only the substantive may govern prejudice, and this is why there are and have been so much pain in connection to this, read "Multiculturalism". What moderns are essentially trying to do is to pretend as if people are not manifested in different modalities, yet they still believe in the practicality of creating division for the sake of materialism, and yes this does appear to work, until the past has been forgotten about, read "The End of History". I feel that I need to clarify: it is true that everyone is equal in substance; after all we are all just a bunch of particles, atoms, and atoms themselves consisting of the same subatomic particles, etc. So yes, it is quite right to assert that in substance we are all equal, and one can even go beyond that and assert that we are identical, because at the the extreme edge of the ontological limit, this has to be true, but then again, what the moderns are forgetting is the essential, that which may not be quantified, read "Quality".

    So why would you create a category to describe something, if that thing is identical with every other thing? Why would there be such a thing as meaning? Why would there be such a thing as music? Indeed, why would rhythmic patterns that appear to describe every system that is quantifiable make any sense? What would the meaning of meaning be? The quality and the essence within, to put it crudely, are those rhythms of existence and they have to be segregated for manifestation to occur. It is also not a matter of value or even superiority. No man is strictly superior over any other man, at least not within the corporeal modality, and this is why it makes sense that democracy and humanism speaks to the sensibilities of modern men, but what we are dealing with here are forces beyond the profane and the "ordinary", really the sensible. Then of course, there is the matter of restriction that has to be understood properly, and again to the sensibilities of men governed by addiction, it would make sense too that restrictions seem to be evil and unjustifiable. But when you actually consider the term restriction, who is more restrictive, modern men or the ancients? Is it not very restrictive to be so narrow minded as most modern are? I think so, and the world that belongs to them speaks for itself. So yes, I am not the one restricting. I am not the one promulgating all sorts of unjustifiable and positively evil restrictions and prejudices, not at all. It is indeed modern men who discriminate, who hold prejudice in their heart, and who exercise as a matter of "justice" all kinds of prejudices, and prejudices that more often than not find no place or equivalency in history, read "Gender Roles". Also, I should point out: there are almost no modern people who really, really, oppose prejudice, be that racism, "sexism", "homophobia", or nationalism; besides, these are all integral to the modern perception and conception of identity, the political identity. So, would you run into "homophones" or racists in ancient times? Of course not! These are all modern ideas, and the principles proceeding from them are even more modern. Whatever prejudice there was to speak of in ancient times had to either be fully legitimate, in accordance with the cosmos, or expressions of the demons lurking in the dark, but one thing is clear: what moderns refer to as prejudice is, and has to be, a self inflicted wound, and furthermore, it would be quite right to take prejudice and all the hysteria and vapid sentimentalism around prejudice as a sign of our times – the Kali Yuga.

    If knowledge constitutes prejudice, so be it. If competence and qualification constitutes prejudice, so be it. The entirety of the creation requires strata, because everyone within the human order cannot and will not essentially share the same modality, and this is a good thing; in fact, it is a necessary thing. What would the warrior tradition be if everyone in the nationalistic and egalitarian sense fought for their country? What is even the justification for a warrior if he did not adhere to the principles of his doctrines? Besides, what would be the justification for temporal power without these strata? There could be none, and there is none; instead moderns proclaim that the power is derived from the masses, whom they, by the way, despise for being just that, the mass man. This is indeed a very strange and unnatural relationship, but again another sign of our times, and perhaps more importantly, a sign of the times to come. So keep all of this in mind when you prepare for the golden age to come.

    So, is prejudice wrong? No, prejudice is merely a modern artifact, another misplaced aberration that can only be explained in our peculiar and strange time. It simply cannot be made to make sense, that prejudice was the basis for any action or contemplation, for that matter, in ancient times. In fact, the assertion of modern historians that history describes the course of unfolding "progress" as a kind of revolt against the natural order and that this can be described as a vector with direction and amplitude towards this inevitable and just rupture, the final solution to the human condition – is quite frankly outrageous! If this is not prejudice, it is due to retire that word entirely!

Reginald Drax – April 20, 2026.