Today we will be conducting a thought experiment. We first ask ourselves the following question: are there actions that can be described as wrong?
Most of us answer that question with a "yes". To molest a child, to steal from a homeless person, to unprovoked and in a group beat someone beyond recognition, these and many more actions we feel instinctively are wrong. There is a small group that will answer "no" to the first question, and these people are most likely nihilists. On one level they are right.
Nonetheless, we continue our little experiment with the next question: why are certain actions wrong?
Now it immediately becomes harder. Many answers are unsatisfactory because they lead directly to a supplementary question. "It is wrong because you shouldn't hit those who are weaker than you" for example, leads to the supplementary question "and why is it wrong to hit those who are weaker than you?".
There are two answers that our liberal society is based on, namely: 1. Because the individual has certain rights, and 2. Because we together, as members of society, agree to these rules.
Without the backing of a metaphysical worldview these are very weak answers, that any nihilist can dismantle in a matter of seconds. "I don't give a crap what you other people have agreed on, who are you to come and tell me what to do?", "where exactly do these rights come from? And why exactly those rights and not completely different ones?". In comparison with a liberal conformist who's never even questioned his worldview and can't explain it, my undivided sympathy lies with the nihilist, who can at least explain himself and is free from the prejudices of conformism (hence my interest in nihilists like Stirner and Lacenaire).
So, in order to have any argument at all against nihilism, a set of morals needs to have the backing of a metaphysical worldview. Certain actions are wrong because they violate cosmic laws. These cosmic laws also exist in the individual, a microcosm, who therefore feels instinctively that they are wrong (they are part of our "Species-Being", as Hegel and the young Marx called it). An Indo-Aryan society is to be regarded as a microcosm where these cosmic laws are respected and enforced, in a surrounding world of Chaos. This is also why it is said that the Indo-Aryan leaders not only have power, but also authority and legitimacy (sometimes even spiritual virility).
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
It is worth pointing out that every action has a reaction, every act has a consequence (karma in Sanskrit, "eye for an eye" in Judaism, blood vengeance in Norse society). This also applies to the cosmic laws. For every violation there is a consequence, and it is the duty of the leaders to see to that they are enforced. He who molests a child has forfeited his right to life, and also his right to a quick and painless death. No human being has the right to pardon a child molester, least of all a corrupt political class.
It is therefore a disgrace of cosmic proportions when European politicians brag about how "we" don't use capital punishment because "we" are so humane, or when our politicians choose to "pardon". These politicians don't have the right to "pardon" anyone, every time they do it is in fact a theft of justice from a victim of crime. The only people with the right to pardon a perpetrator would be the victim or the victim's family, no legislators or morally dubious judges.
The left's view of who is a "victim"
The current state of our penal system is however no surprise, as our politicians have a worldview that is leftist and egalitarian. From an egalitarian viewpoint there is no such thing as evil people, it's all determined by environmental factors, that is to say "poverty". The real victim of a crime then becomes the criminal himself, as he was born into such a poor family. The real victim is pretty uninteresting from such a perspective, as whoever it may be is only indirectly a victim of "poverty", "racism" or whatever.
A Traditionalist on the other hand puts the blame where it belongs, on the perpetrator. At the same time, the Traditionalist sees many of the laws in the modern West from a different perspective than progressivists and the average Joe. The classical Indo-Aryan civilisations have for example had a somewhat different view of "drug" use (as part of self-initiation and religion, but also in social settings), blood vengeance outside of the legal system, duels (professional boxing, which is currently illegal in Norway, and appointed fights between hooligan firms I guess would fall partly under this category), prostitution (cf. the hetaerae of ancient Greece), knife legislation, euthanasia/assisted suicide, etc. When it came to these issues, Evola was in fact almost an anarcho-nihilist. You don't violate cosmic laws by carrying a knife in public, and knife laws are therefore just human/social laws. They can be practical for a society to have, but that's another discussion.
Every action has a reaction, and as long as we continue to show perpetrators of heinous crimes "mercy" our societies will incur exceptionally bad karma. Which in the case of Western Europe manifests itself in the escalating gang rapes, muggings of the elderly, and so on. Again, every action has a reaction.
P.S. This article from Amerika.org on the liberal ideology of victimhood and how it leads to totalitarianism is definitely readworthy.
P.P.S. When it comes to nihilism, my impression is that many of the truly "differentiated men" (those who are "as good as Traditionalists") in our late modern society are nihilists. These are the people who are stronger and more perceptive than the average "citizen", and who have seen through the meaninglessness and hypocrisy of the society and values that the late modern plutocracy offers us. For these people, it does after all give a certain sense of freedom and of rebellious "defiance" to mock feminism and the LGBT-worshippers through crude genderpunk, to spit in the face of the limousine liberals through their choice of clothing and music, to break with the vegetative state that is our daily lives AD 2013 through drugs, and a number of other symbolic actions. The nihilist is in many cases the natural-born Traditionalist who's instinctively renounced contemporary society, but without having found a set of ideals that matches his personal equation.
P.P.P.S. While I'm at it: if you read this blog on a regular basis, please consider liking the Facebook page or following me on Twitter to let more people know about it. Feedback of all sorts is also welcomed and highly appreciated. Thank you.