Flip

the_strong_eat_the_weak_or_the_weak_eat_the_strong

You can have one of two types of society: (1) where the strong eat the weak, and (2) where the weak eat the strong.

The first is Darwinism. The second is egalitarianism.

We can moralize about these, or talk about how they make us feel, but there are advantages to each. In the first, competence gradually increases. In the second, diversity and plurality and tolerance all increase, but competence declines. Think of your favorite tropical island paradise as described by National Public Radio.

“The villagers spend their days picking fruit, resting in the sun, swimming and hunting for fish and crabs in the tidal pools which line the white-sand beaches. Wearing colorful clothing, they dedicate most of their time to socializing, and are known as the friendliest and most open people on earth. Visitors are surprised to find themselves gifted with prized possessions and even family members by these generous, gregarious people whose lives are governed by the pursuit of pleasure more than efficiency.”

On the surface, it sounds very peaceful and comfortable. A little more analysis shows that for anyone with the ability to have more out of life than fruit salad and crab cakes, this life must be maddening. A society without the impulse to learn, grow, conquer, develop, evolve and improve. In other words, a stagnant place in the grips of entropy, made comfortable and colorful because it has given up on everything else.

Europeans grew strong when we valued excellence and supremacy. That is: we applied high standards, based in real-world consequences, across the board, and in so doing, taught our people vigorously in the ways of reality and how to discover it. The strong ate the weak, yes, meaning that those with no excellence to offer had a hard time of it, but in turn, they had a more stable society.

With democracy we switched to the third world system, weak-eat-strong, in which whoever can successfully conjure up the image of himself as a victim will get priority over everyone else. As a result, our standards have fallen and our mass culture now produces utter garbage, our government incompetents, and our business, trivial amusements. Maybe having the weaker get eaten was not such a bad idea after all.

Published by

Brett Stevens

Brett Stevens has written about realism since the late 1980s. His work can be found at RightOn, American Renaissance, Return of Kings, Counter-Currents, Alternative Right and Aristokratia.

7 thoughts on “Flip”

  1. Back with the serfdom! How to balance full awareness of this irremovable fact of life with the tendency of the strong (i.e. the excellent) with their tendency to empathy and even sympathy. Basically, the opposite of compulsive altruism.

  2. So, warfare either way?
    How about warfare when warfare is necessary, to level the field towards balance, to follow?
    Personally, I see nothing but warfare coming now, no matter what. Things are skewed so far to the left, something’s sure to break.
    But never make destruction a way of life.

    1. These polarities refer to a general order in life: either we put the best on top, or we put the worst on top, and there isn’t any middle ground. It is not warfare “per se” any more than nature itself is warfare. If there are two sides, one will always push against the other.

      But I agree warfare — and economic collapse, ecopocalypse and social collapse — are coming inevitably.

      1. As usual, as long as we read ‘the strong’ as ‘the excellent’ this is all true. I know you mean that but maybe it might be a good idea to make it really clear, just in case you get
        ‘visitors’ who don’t speak your dialect, if you get me? That doesn’t mean ‘water-down’, of course. Never that. Seriously though, If you’ve got a mention by Ann Coulter, you might be getting more hits from people who could really learn a lot from your way of thinking.

        As is often, and commendabe, I see a strong Platonic influence in your writing. So I’m sure you would agree that in The Republic he has already thought of all the pitfalls of such an oligarchy – and offered remedial options.

        But it’s always vital to understand Plato’s background and aims. He had grown up during the Peloponnesian War and saw (democratic) Athens suffer humiliation at the hands of Sparta. He had spent much time in the latter. The Republic IS Sparta, in most aspects: Plato saw it as a societal model that WORKED.

        But worked to what AIM? Simply, to produce the greatest and most efficient warriors for a world of perpetual war. But OUR aim is not this, or not only this – this is crucial. Think of this: how many philosophers did Sparta produce? What great Art is it known for? Which Spartan poets or historians are now read? WE want to be supreme, like Sparta – but in other ways.

        So, as conservatives, we choose the best parts of The Republic that are suitable to OUR problems. We want greatness in Culture as well as producing great fighting men. An elite keeping the proles under, in itself, is easy, the Soviets showed us that. We want a true renaissance. The Postmodernists, with their degenerate literature knew well that ‘the music and literature of a country cannot be altered without major political and cultural changes.’

        This article has just prompted me to dust off my old copy again – thank you! What Wisdom:

        Of ‘the Guardians’ he writes:

        ‘If we want to find out if a colt is nervous we expose him to alarming noises: so we must introduce our Guatdians when they are young to fear and, by contrast, give them opportunities for pleasure, proving them far more rigorously than we prove gold in the furnace. If they bear themselves well and are not easily bewitched, if they show themselves able to maintain in all circumstances both their own integrity and the principles of balance and harmony they learned in their education, then they may be expected to be of the greatest service to the community..,[and] shall be given authority in our state’.

        ‘And once we have given our system a good start the process of improvement will be cumulative. By maintaining a sound system of education and upbringing you produce citizens of good character; and citizens of sound character, with the advantage of good education, produce in turn children better than themselves….in a word therefore, those in charge of our state must stick to the system of education and see that no deterioration creeps in; they must maintain it as a first priority and avoid at all costs any innovation in the established physical or academic curriculum.’

        Sadly, these sentiments cannot be reduced to a 10-second news soundbite, and involve more than one line of reasoning to arrive at, so will be ignored by the vapid Ego-Cult of the decadent West.

    1. Putting the strong in charge benefits the weak, but the eternal problem of society is that by benefiting the weak, one ends up with masses of them, who then revolt and overthrow.

      So no: there is no middle ground. The weak need to be managed by the strong or society self-destructs, as we see daily. The strong by the nature of being strong are not cruel or unnecessary, but will have to slough off the lower echelons of population to avoid being destroyed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *