BO: There are groups that seek to End the Fed. Some want to prevent the VAT, simplify the tax code, get rid of military bases, create small government, but why stop there? Why not end home mortgages? After all, doesn’t the conformist documentary film “In Debt We Trust” suggest that this is the modern version of indentured servitude?
FH: One of the best memes around today says that our leaders lack common sense. If they just had common sense, that would make things much better.
BO: So you’re saying that people just love to place the blame elsewhere instead of fixing their own thinking?
FH: Well, I mean, why bother with specific opinions on specific issues. If you’re dumb, just admit it and let smart people make the decisions. If you’re smart, how can you tolerate multiple opinions on the same subject? If different people come to different conclusions, then they must be relying on arbitrary preferences. But if so, how can they truly believe in them, knowing they’re just arbitrary preferences?
BO: Isn’t the counterargument that this is extremely dangerous when you have only one set of opinions. Besides, on most questions, there is no one right answer.
FH: That’s the classic Big Endian versus Little Endian conflict. English is written left-to-right. Arabic is written right-to-left. There’s no right answer, and that’s why it’s especially important to agree on the same standard to keep things simple.
The danger argument is just lovely. They’re too lazy to think logically, which is why they tolerate disagreement and then they come around and say you’re dangerous to try to maintain their monopoly of information-intensive quick-thinking.
BO: Look, you’re just the same. You’re merely expressing opinions every time you speak.
FH: Wholesale rejection of society is a distinct psychological event. I am the only person in the world today who has rejected society. There is a lot at stake. The minute you accept society (probably around the ages of 11-15), you submit to stupidity and self-contradiction.
BO: So in other words, accepting society means seeking the comfort of being part of the majority, since they’re in power?
FH: Maybe that’s it. You can’t eat the cake and have it, too. Either you stick to logical thought, or else you seek protection from those in power.
BO: So you’re saying everyone finds a way to do both?
FH: Sure. Every argument implies logically correct thought. And while most human communication is story-telling, argumentation is used extensively by just about everyone. Why can’t they be logical? Only because they fear losing protection of the powerful.
BO: In other words, since we’re herd animals, we believe the herd is powerful?
FH: Right, and I’d even go further and say that a lot of it becomes ingrained in childhood. So an adult who seemingly defies everyone around him (for example by clinging to his belief in the sanctity of individuals) is unimpressive to me because he learned that this was the view of those in power as a child.
BO: Surely you can’t be any different.
FH: I’m not trying to say that at all. My psychology is exactly that. I compete on the side of the strong. The strong, ultimately, are those who follow logic to the letter. Everyone else will fall.
The only true difference is that as a fascist I think long-term, whereas humanism is an intrinsically short-term ideology.
BO: How many fascists are there in the world?
FH: I don’t think anybody really ever understood fascism before me. Even I am merely a proto-fascist, not yet the real thing.
BO: So then everyone is too stupid to see that you’re stronger?
FH: No, they’re perfectly capable of understanding that. They just don’t care because they think they are their physical bodies, which won’t be around to declare victory a thousand years from now.
Future Historian 
Leave a Reply