The time has come for us as humans to admit we believe that government and civilization have failed us as methods for preserving our future. We study in schools a history that is a diatribe of human deception and opportunism while simultaneously praising the moral culture that brings out its reoccurrence transposed throughout centuries. Yet we do not articulate our fears of this fundamental contradiction in terror of debasement of all that we have so far - a fragile layer of civilization over an animalistic and yet technological reality.

In mutual distrust, we continue the sad carnival of human existence in all of its masochistic paradox. Through symbolism and politics we have made pornographies of existence by turning existence into a servitude to end-goals unified under the overarching teleology of function: we serve the governments and civilizations we have built without any objective other than the continuing servitude, as if we were denying a fundamental part of life in favor of more tangible and engrossing pursuits. Like the namesake of these entities, such pornographies simulate the experience through raw stimulus but fail to provide for the underlying context of significance that makes events relevant.

Our vulnerability lies in the fundamental weakness of control: that it is mathematically untenable because each level of control requires a meta-level of controllers, meaning that an ideal society would be paradoxical, as it would always require more members than it could have. The mistrust we use to bond ourselves in capitalist society, creating needs for protection and isolation addressable only through economic power requiring further bonding to the control structure of the system, is what ensures that we desire control; it also, however, means that those we enthrone as controllers are the same that we distrust in any other capacity. This illusion feeds off itself, until we are entirely isolated from our world by a shield of alienation which we use to justify our selfishness.

Thus we find ourselves searching for an universally applicable binding which will unify our desires, needs, and fears to a collective will; in history this has been provided by war, famine, disease or other natural disasters. As mentioned in the literature of history this has been called Leviathan, after the awesome and terrifying creatures of mythical lore that unified cities against their assaults, and it has been a prevalent theme among extreme political entities that demand absolute allegiance to a state. What if, however, Leviathan were a virtual entity in another method of interpretation - much as "God" of primitive Judeo-Christian religions could be interpreted as a metaphor for existence, Leviathan could be interpreted as a subconscious objective shared by society, rather than the society itself?

Moral theory provides a simple polarity which allows us to align our polemics toward a necessary teleology. There is "good," and there is "bad," and anything done to the other affirms the opposite pole; this furthers rather than hinders social decay as it allows the two to exist as equals in which a necessity of struggle exists. Thus societies crusade after taboo and forget the option toward a future which brought them together: the collectivization of resource to create a freedom from the necessity of distribution of value.

Moral societies, enslaved to an aesthetic fostered by the polarity of their essential value system, believe this best expresses itself in an enforced situation in which all members are treated to a confinement of equality: each person counts as a viewpoint toward the whole which is accepted not for its intrinsic contribution but its allegiance to one of the poles of the moral dichotomy. The resultant human behavior is, not surprisingly, reactive: one must justify one's actions within the context of a usefulness based only in allegiance to a paradoxical goal, and therefore every action is suspect and soon the only possible outcome of any behavior is assertion of personal need, hidden behind said justification of morality. One cannot help but to notice that this process benefits those priests of morality and infinitely aids their control of the flock.

Much as Marx observed the historical decline of capitalism into its opposite we can now see the same thing as moral societies degenerate into a commercial culture, where aesthetic principles guide acceptance and if a product conforms visibly to what is taught as dogma it is accepted, even if its eventual direction is destructive to society. Currently the Western powers find themselves in the grip of a pervasive nihilism of the most under-developed kind: a consumer mentality toward morality which permits a discarding of the entire concept, as applied through its own precepts - a raw inversion in which no values at all can be held or inferred, but all things must be "accepted" as if they were moral "good." This somewhat laughable reaction arises from the frustration of the people with the dishonesty of morality and the facilitation it provides to large bodies such as governments, corporations, and religions in their quest to reap rewards for their separate entities from the efficiency gained from collectivization throughout society as a whole. With this nihilism we as observant humans realize the new frontier of technological awareness and a philosophical gateway to the future: nihilism.

Where morality directed the efforts of individuals toward either conformity to a "perceived good" or away from what was interpreted as negative and threatening, post-moral philosophies prefer not to filter the actions of the individual at such a basic level, and instead aspire to create a structure for understanding moral action in which the relationship between action, the collective, and the self is coherent so that the collective freedom and well-being of all is understood as immediately relevant to the self, in an evolution of the original Kantian interpretation of the "golden rule": behave to others as you wish they would behave toward you. To those familiar with computers this is almost second nature, as any part of a program defines its relationship to all others and receives information feedback in the same format as the output it generates. In nature, of course, a similar rule prevails; with all in collective abundance, animals by instinct expect nothing other than a raw imposition of needs of others, and not a hierarchy by which such needs are officialized over the individual. Where autonomy prevails nihilism is not a problem.

Nazism, uniquely vilified throughout history, was not singular for its genocides, its warfare, or even its Leviathan-esque theory of government. All governments have had similar problems, from the Jewish genocide of the Canaanites as expressed in the Talmud and Bible to the ongoing genetic warfare against people of Afrikan descent in the United States of America, and organized religions have praised their own use of the same tactics while descrying the same usage by others. Neither is Nazism singular for its belief in racial politics; the Jews, who refer to themselves in their holy book the Talmud as "the chosen race of G-d" as well as "the righteous people of G-d," have practiced racial warfare as xenophobes for years, as have most groups of human organisms that could isolate themselves by phenotype. In ancient history, it was simply practical; in modern times, conservation of distinctive genetic factors in an ever-increasing traffic of visitors of unknown origin has prompted many to establish their racial identity to preserve heritage such as the pagan value system and pre-moralistic aesthetic of Europe before the Judeo-Christian invasion in A.D. 900-1400. None of these common human traits are what made the Nazis unique, nor is their extraordinary success with them the distinguishing factor.

What makes Nazism distinct is its power of the will to determine an objective for society and to follow through in a post-utilitarian methodology that allows for the best interests of society to correspond to a future goal, rather than the status quo of self-interest put together into a single vector as polemic. The unification of moral desire in philosophy with a drive toward logical abstraction, naturalist aesthetic, and pagan valuation systems empowered the Nazism to envision a system which functioned more effectively than any society before or since and took care of its people: those who understood and adhered to its value direction were given entrance to a meritocracy in which they might rise to their level of ability, and those who disagreed (such as those of Judeo-Christian traditions) were given the option to leave and eventually, simply removed by genocide. In this light it is not surprising that the Nazis were the first modern government to have an ecological policy which emphasized co-existence within the environment, nor that they were the first to emphasize the utilitarian nature of capital and consequent enslavement to the lowest common denominator. They understood the illness we as citizens of the future now suffer, and saw it begin in a demise of spirit in favor of functionality, as exhibited by the philosophies of Judeo-Christianity.

Currently our need for a new system is manifest in our suffering. Ruthless predators employ us in jobs where we are paid a fraction of the value we generate, and then disposed of when convenient; to get justice, one has to shoulder massive debt incurred by a lawsuit through a legal system biased toward capital in its time-frame and investment requirements. Ecological damage abounds as our natural world is consumed and polluted by groups of people "making money" from its raw resources without replacing or augmenting what exists. The latest generations of first-world youth stagnate in agony over their refusal to join a system that will eventually incorporate them, but have no method of articulating their dissent in its fundamental form: they do not wish to submit to the culture of coercion and function, as it has forgotten the value of life. In essence, they have unconsciously diagnosed the failure of ambition that is the hallmark of modern society; it is a club of people conspiring to keep each other from enjoying life, so that all have need for the unifying factor they trust to keep the system together: need.

Much like drug addiction, this need does little to empower the individual except when the individual need as defined by the society is precluded by one of its moves, making the individual a victim deserving of pity and recompense. This reaffirmation of the system does nothing to empower the individual to make better decisions, and so enforced ignorance continues in support of denial of the basic factors of life: mortality and decision. Looking into the living rooms of a modern civilization, we see the opiate of television and the architecture of symbolism protecting a fragile, nascent consciousness of existence kept undeveloped by its conflict with the demands of the greater whole. Without autonomy, the citizens are bound to the empire and reflect this in a resignation to its rules which hides a subtle but powerful resentment of its inability to go the final step and be an all-caring parent that, no matter how unjust, rectifies the situation with attention although not corrective action. In this light the modern problems of crime (resentment of the whole and demand that it redistribute wealth), racial hatred, drug addiction and sexual abuse come to presence as undercurrents of dissatisfaction rendered impotent by resignation and thus transformed into reactive and hateful response.

What is needed is a system for unification of individual needs with the collective interest of society that justified its inception through a promise of lesser work, greater freedom, and more associability with other humans. The only path toward this not hopelessly corrupted by the disease of reaction and moralism is one in which the individual, as paramount, sees his or her freedom as being part of a whole system in which equality is something distributed as goodwill to those willing to take part in the effort, and self-determination is a right for individuals before the demands of society. Within this there is no cause for resentment or rebuff but a facility that allows individual humans to achieve autonomy by determining their own course of learning, personal evolution, and opinion, and then by facilitating the transfer from this self-determination into an autonomous state in which decisions are guided not by fear or filtering but by objective: a direction of will to appreciate life and create within it. In short, we need to return to a system that provides benefit to individuals for working together to create a collectivized system of distribution as was the precept for the initial organization of civilization.

Nazism provides part of the answer, as does the earth-first policies of Green political groups throughout Europe and North America. A return to individualism as posited by the Libertarian party of the United States, tempered with an awareness of a collective whole (a substitution of Judeo-Christian capitalist moralism with an awareness more akin to the founding "conservatives" of that country), is also a powerful contender. The Libertarian National Socialist Green party has therefore integrated those ideas into a package of new potential for human futures, one that does not embrace capital or technology but sees them as means to an end which exists without judgment, but build on a foundation of useful collective goals. This philosophy will accelerate the return of humans to autonomous beings who feel honestly equal with one another, and who can make decisions for the whole based on the convergence of personal interests and the collective in a single articulation.

For this to succeed, the first tenet of its advancement must be education without bias: by not introducing politics into education, we can free youth to find their reasoning in conclusions they have formulated, rather than things they have been taught to repeat in the name of conformity to "good." Through the destruction of Judeo-Christianity and its deceptive moralism the values of society can be returned to a state of initiation, where no bias toward a solution or against a taboo exists, permitting a free range of consideration and bypassing the fear of new developments which has been a hallmark of human society for too long now. By disseminating information we spread power and remove the need for authority, which by its nature becomes abusive, as it pits one center of power against a diversity of needs, and can allow greater autonomous action among individuals who will then be more inclined to respect each other's needs out of a lack of personal need and resentment unaddressed. The self-respect and respect for the world that is gained will enable us to envision living together in an unpolluted and unravaged wilderness where nothing is worthy of fear or denial, but everything is what we stand to gain. Working in parallel we as humans can create a great triumph of the will in a vision of a future of freedom and splendor celebrating the efficiency of a new, better design.