A pleasant place, it prospered with the best blood, knowledge and bravery of the old world, blended with the if-there’s-a-will-there’s-a-way spirit of the new world.
Then the decay caught up to it.
The decay seems to catch every civilization, and it is caused by the formation of a tumor within the society. It is made of people who reverse thought itself by replacing normal cause-effect relationships with how actions appear to others.
As a result, the society enters a death spiral: its citizens demand lower accountability to cause-effect thinking, thus gain more “freedoms,” which lowers unity, and requires more manipulation by government, media and finance to keep the society from falling apart. Anarchism and totalitarianism form two halves of this cycle.
This tendency toward simultaneous narcissism and external social conformity, and toward forming a political entity that hybridizes a lynch mob, a witch hunt and an angry mob, is called Crowdism. Crowdism is the underlying cause of all decay, because it both tears society apart and by its permissive, egalitarian and relativistic nature, encourages individual moral dysfunction.
On July 14, 1789, an angry Parisian mob stormed the Bastille, a prison and symbol of state power, and overtook it. With that, they launched the modern career of Crowdism, which had been growing since the Enlightenment. This launched liberalism, which is a form of Crowdism; not all Crowdism is liberalism, but all liberalism is Crowdism.
Every form of modern liberalism descend from what they demanded at the Bastille: equal distribution of wealth, state-funded entitlements, gender equality, no national borders or ethnic origins, no common standards of behavior and no permanent internal hierarchy by ability.
At first, liberals were “soft liberals” who wanted a society with few rules where the marketplace and marketplace of ideas determined what happened. Like today’s libertarians, they allowed for free choice, knowing that most people would choose the lowest common denominator, and so achieve what liberals desired. Brave and idealistic men partially embraced this convention when they founded the USA, but also expressed their doubts and limited it with checks and balances.
Later, liberalism went full-force in emulation of the French Revolution with the rise of Marxism and the revolutions that supported it. For these “hard liberals,” free choice was not enough; the crowd knew better, and could use the modern political and economic state to enforce its will on the people.
For a long time, Americans resisted this idea, but people get weak when they see that many people around them are following a trend. After the war of 1812, Americans began importing new people and adulterating the original mix of native English, Dutch, German and Scots. The country became more inclusive and with that came instability and thus, people turned to liberalism.
At that point, slavery was on its way out, banned or soon to be banned in most European nations, and increasingly irrelevant as farm equipment improved. But it made for a handy liberal talking point, and a way for liberals to convert the country to hard liberalism by taking a “moral stance” and using guilt to silence anyone who opposed it.
Since that time, America has been in tension between those who share the reservations of its original colonists regarding liberalism, and the newer groups who want a relativistic and permissive state. We went to war for liberalism in two devastating World Wars, and then we embarked on a Civil Rights struggle designed to find oppressed groups and bring them to rights.
Finally, in 1968, the liberals won. They changed our laws to import people from third world nations, they changed our culture to be permissive toward all forms of self-destructive behavior, and they altered our politics to be permanent hard liberalism.
In the following decade, as the Cold War heated up, the West tried to compete with the threat of Communism by offering its own type of socialist system, a hybrid of capitalism, socialism and libertarianism. When Communism collapsed in 1991, the restraint that kept this system from drifting farther left fell away, and the modern state arose.
Most elections in America are won by liberals; most people endorse liberal views. It is seen as gauche, ignorant, racist and un-educated to oppose liberal ideas. All of our movies, books and theater re-tell the French Revolution story: how a few elect oppressed the many, who then joined together by accepting each other despite their failings, and overthrew the oppressors.
It would be fortunate if Americanization were limited to America. It is not; Europe, the East and even parts of the Middle East and Africa are imitating the liberal democratic model, which inevitably leads to the values of the French Revolution plus the comforts of American consumerism. The two are inseparable: once you have freedom, people have the freedom to choose the lowest common denominator in the form of convenience over quality, and the majority of them always do.
What we have as a result is a globalist civilization called Amerika that seeks to destroy all values, all organic cultures, and all independent thought in the name of the values of the French Revolution. We fight this revolution again and again, as anyone who deviates from our values is branded the new Louis XVI and battled until we can send them to the guillotine.
The problem with Amerika is that it has no home. It is everywhere that humanity is; it is eternal, because Crowdism appears in every civilization once it becomes successful. Easter Island, the Aztecs, the Maya, Angkor Wat, ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome all perished from Crowdism.
All other problems and solutions are false. Corporations are not destroying us, nor are we in the hands of new Hitlers or the KKK, nor are we being subverted by Masons, The JewsTM, Scientologists or the Bildebergers. We are dying as a civilization because the selfishness of individuals became a political sacrament and it is slowly deconstructing the basis of civilization, which is shared values.
We offer a simple solution here:
There are no easy solutions to civilization collapse, but most of what we face are non-solutions that lead to chaos, infighting and instability which will ultimately transfer power back to the Crowdists. When the going gets bad, people are at their weakest, and listen to easy “solutions” involving peace, love and equality.
If you believe in yourself, your family, your friends, nature and all things which exemplify the good in life, this path calls to you. There is a better way to live, and if you pass it up, you will feel foolish as the current path leads to nothing but more lies and decay.
We have lived for too long believing that the conservative way of life is despotism, and that individualism and social control in the form of consumerism, democracy and popularity is liberation. We need to switch direction and restore America, and banish Amerika to the dusty halls of history’s failed experiments.
What are our influences?
At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.
First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousnessâ€“the world of things and animals and men and even godsâ€“is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
Third: man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
Fourth: manâ€™s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.
What constitutes knowledge: Naturalism as a worldview is based on the premise that knowledge about what exists and about how things work is best achieved through the sciences, not personal revelation or religious tradition. The knowledge we have of ourselves and our place in nature is the achievement of a collective effort to construct a consistent view of the world that permits prediction and control. This effort proceeds by experiment and rational inquiry, and the knowledge gained is always subject to further testing as understanding matures. Wanting something to be true, or having the intense personal conviction that something is true, are never grounds for supposing that it is true. Scientific empiricism has the necessary consequence of unifying our knowledge of the world, of placing all objects of understanding within an overarching causal context. Under naturalism, there is a single, natural world in which phenomena arise.
The causal view: From a naturalistic perspective, there are no causally privileged agents, nothing that causes without being caused in turn. Human beings act the way they do because of the various influences that shape them, whether these be biological or social, genetic or environmental. We do not have the capacity to act outside the causal connections that link us in every respect to the rest of the world. This means we do not have what many people think of as free will, being able to cause our behavior without our being fully caused in turn.
The self: As strictly physical beings, we donâ€™t exist as immaterial selves, either mental or spiritual, that control behavior. Thought, desires, intentions, feelings, and actions all arise on their own without the benefit of a supervisory self, and they are all the products of a physical system, the brain and the body. The self is constituted by more or less consistent sets of personal characteristics, beliefs, and actions; it doesnâ€™t exist apart from those complex physical processes that make up the individual. It may strongly seem as if there is a self sitting behind experience, witnessing it, and behind behavior, controlling it, but this impression is strongly disconfirmed by a scientific understanding of human behavior.
Responsibility and morality: From a naturalistic perspective, behavior arises out of the interaction between individuals and their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal connections (see above). Therefore individuals donâ€™t bear ultimate originative responsibility for their actions, in the sense of being their first cause. Given the circumstances both inside and outside the body, they couldnâ€™t have done other than what they did. Nevertheless, we must still hold individuals responsible, in the sense of applying rewards and sanctions, so that their behavior stays more or less within the range of what we deem acceptable. This is, partially, how people learn to act ethically. Naturalism doesnâ€™t undermine the need or possibility of responsibility and morality, but it places them within the world as understood by science. However, naturalism does call into question the basis for retributive attitudes, namely the idea that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment.
The source of value: Because naturalism doubts the existence of ultimate purposes either inherent in nature or imposed by a creator, values derive from human needs and desires, not supernatural absolutes. Basic human values are widely shared by virtue of being rooted in our common evolved nature. We need not appeal to a supernatural standard of ethical conduct to know that in general itâ€™s wrong to lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, torture, or otherwise treat people in ways weâ€™d rather not be treated. Our naturally endowed empathetic concern for others and our hard-wired penchant for cooperation and reciprocity get us what we most want as social creatures: to flourish as individuals within a community. Naturalism may show the ultimate contingency of some values, in that human nature might have evolved differently and human societies and political arrangements might have turned out otherwise. But, given who and what we are as natural creatures, we necessarily find ourselves with shared basic values which serve as the criteria for assessing moral dilemmas, even if these assessments are sometimes fiercely contested and in some cases never quite resolved.
We believe that true ecological sustainability may require a rethinking of our values as a society. Present assumptions about economics, development, and the place of human beings in the natural order must be reevaluated. If we are to achieve ecological sustainability, Nature can no longer be viewed only as a commodity; it must be seen as a partner and model in all human enterprise.
We begin with the premise that life on Earth has entered its most precarious phase in history. We speak of threats not only to human life, but to the lives of all species of plants and animals, as well as the health and continued viability of the biosphere. It is the awareness of the present condition that primarily motivates our activities.
We believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances:
* The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose.
* The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the drive to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological or biological sustainability on a finite Earth.
* Technology worship and an unlimited faith in the virtues of science; the modern paradigm that technological development is inevitable, invariably good, and to be equated with progress and human destiny. From this, we are left dangerously uncritical, blind to profound problems that technology and science have wrought, and in a state of passivity that confounds democracy.
* Overpopulation, in both the overdeveloped and the underdeveloped worlds, placing unsustainable burdens upon biodiversity and the human condition.
The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.
1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited
In order to make ourselves more powerful, we act so we appear altruistic, but we also act to appear independent and unique so we attract others to our personalities. This causes us to act entirely through social thinking.
Through this method, individualism creates a “social reality” or a conspiracy between people to manage reality with social factors. Since we need others, thanks to specialization of labor, we use this more than reality itself.
This has two effects: first, we become neurotic because we see reality in the details but are encouraged to ignore it; second, since social reality ignores secondary effects, disorder spreads and the cost is passed on to us.
This in turn encourages us to try to break away from social obligation, since we feel it is parasitic to us, and so we break away using more individualism. This does not work, so we turn to our leaders and ask for more control.
Control is the external imposition of what some people agree is true. Unlike an organic order, or one arriving from agreement and cooperation among people, it requires force and small rewards to function.
In this way, we can see how individualism leads to disorder which requires more control, in a process and cycle that gains intensity over time, causing civilization to collapse.
Vijay Prozak, Parallelism
Imagine human beings living in an underground den which is open towards the light; they have been there from childhood, having their necks and legs chained, and can only see into the den. At a distance there is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners a raised way, and a low wall is built along the way, like the screen over which marionette players show their puppets. Behind the wall appear moving figures, who hold in their hands various works of art, and among them images of men and animals, wood and stone, and some of the passers-by are talking and others silent. â€˜A strange parable,â€™ he said, â€˜and strange captives.â€™ They are ourselves, I replied; and they see only the shadows of the images which the fire throws on the wall of the den; to these they give names, and if we add an echo which returns from the wall, the voices of the passengers will seem to proceed from the shadows. Suppose now that you suddenly turn them round and make them look with pain and grief to themselves at the real images; will they believe them to be real? Will not their eyes be dazzled, and will they not try to get away from the light to something which they are able to behold without blinking? And suppose further, that they are dragged up a steep and rugged ascent into the presence of the sun himself, will not their sight be darkened with the excess of light? Some time will pass before they get the habit of perceiving at all; and at first they will be able to perceive only shadows and reflections in the water; then they will recognize the moon and the stars, and will at length behold the sun in his own proper place as he is. Last of all they will conclude:â€” This is he who gives us the year and the seasons, and is the author of all that we see. How will they rejoice in passing from darkness to light! How worthless to them will seem the honours and glories of the den! But now imagine further, that they descend into their old habitations;â€” in that underground dwelling they will not see as well as their fellows, and will not be able to compete with them in the measurement of the shadows on the wall; there will be many jokes about the man who went on a visit to the sun and lost his eyes, and if they find anybody trying to set free and enlighten one of their number, they will put him to death, if they can catch him. Now the cave or den is the world of sight, the fire is the sun, the way upwards is the way to knowledge, and in the world of knowledge the idea of good is last seen and with difficulty, but when seen is inferred to be the author of good and right â€” parent of the lord of light in this world, and of truth and understanding in the other. He who attains to the beatific vision is always going upwards; he is unwilling to descend into political assemblies and courts of law; for his eyes are apt to blink at the images or shadows of images which they behold in them â€” he cannot enter into the ideas of those who have never in their lives understood the relation of the shadow to the substance.
Plato, The Republic, Book VII
`Come, my friends!â€™ I said. `Let us go! At last Mythology and the mystic cult of the ideal have been left behind. We are going to be present at the birth of the centaur and we shall soon see the first angels fly! We must break down the gates of life to test the bolts and the padlocks! Let us go! Here is they very first sunrise on earth! Nothing equals the splendor of its red sword which strikes for the first time in our millennial darkness.â€™
We went up to the three snorting machines to caress their breasts. I lay along mine like a corpse on its bier, but I suddenly revived again beneath the steering wheel â€“ a guillotine knife â€“ which threatened my stomach. A great sweep of madness brought us sharply back to ourselves and drove us through the streets, steep and deep, like dried up torrents. Here and there unhappy lamps in the windows taught us to despise our mathematical eyes. `Smell,â€™ I exclaimed, `smell is good enough for wild beasts!â€™
And we hunted, like young lions, death with its black fur dappled with pale crosses, who ran before us in the vast violet sky, palpable and living.