Proxy Warfare

tschernobyl

There is a song which the Dropkick Murphys, a silly Irish beer punk band, covered called “The Green Fields of France” (originally by John McDermott). It is a good song, worth listening to:

If it makes you feel better, everyone and their dog has covered it, and it may be the most popular “statement music” about the First World War that has ever existed. Rank it right up there with All Quiet On The Western Front and “In Flanders Fields” for the type of emotional reaction most people have to that war.

(That useless, pointless, suicidal, fratricidal, misbegotten, hateful, vile war.)

But it loses the train of thought right here:

The sun now it shines on the green fields of France
There’s a warm summer breeze makes the red poppies dance
And look how the sun shines from under the clouds
There’s no gas, no barbwire, there’s no guns firing now
But here in this graveyard it’s still no man’s land
The countless white crosses stand mute in the sand
To man’s blind indifference to his fellow man
To a whole generation that were butchered and damned.

Same basic theme as “In Flanders Fields,” but with less patriotism. However, the point where it loses its train of thought is here:

The countless white crosses stand mute in the sand
To man’s blind indifference to his fellow man

Of all the lessons one could take from the First World War, this is the last one a sensible person would take.

Indifference? War is indifference. We hate wars when they go badly or, as in the case of the First World War, they utterly fail to resolve the conditions that created them. The First World War went so badly that it paused for a generation to refill the armies of Europe so they could attempt suicide again in a paroxysmal tantrum of self-hatred at the utter futility of trying to exist as modern societies.

In the nearer term, it is obvious what caused the First World War: democracy did. The First World War was a repeat of the Napoleonic Wars, in which the democracies of Europe made war on the monarchies. The monarchies defended themselves many times over that century, and by the early twentieth century, had formed unstable alliances in order to fend off the various enemies who were circling like hyenas or vultures.

But democracy screwed them. It betrayed them all, as it always does.

First, democratic societies cannot make decisions. For this reason, politicians picked unstable alliances — because they were easy, and got more approval from the idiot voters than the more complicated task of fixing the problem would — and set themselves up with suicidal “entangling alliances,” as George Washington would have called them.

Second, democracy must always make war on non-democracies because democracy is a parasitic virus. Or rather, the idea of equality is. Equality is magic and kryptonite to humans. You mention it and women coo and men head to the bar. Everyone feels good. The reason for that: they are feeling, not thinking. Whether or not they are morons, they have made themselves into morons at that moment, and the results are predictably stupid. However, those warm feelings go away if anyone anywhere anytime succeeds with some alternate method, because that provokes cause/effect thinking instead of the emotional, egotistic and defensive thinking that humans indulge in (and which we inherited wholly from our Simian forebears). For this reason, Leftists always — because they are compelled to, in order to defend their sacred illusion — make war against anyone who is not-Leftist and democracies make war against those who are not democracies. You do not have to oppose Leftism or Democracy, only fail to be them — and they are one and the same — because if you live differently from them, you are competition, and that makes monkeys angry.

This led to a horrible war with no clear purpose except some nebulous thoughts about “the war to end all wars,” implying that when democracy conquered the world — other names for this: globalism, the NWO, internationalism — all humans would live in brotherhood forever like in the lyrics to Beethoven’s 9th. You can tell that democracy had already made people morons because they accepted this crock of stupid without murdering the people who repeated it at them, but again: feelings. Women swoon. Men glow. People love illusions that make them feel happy because they can use those to shut out the actual fears, starting with death. You talk about pacifism, or everyone being included in the group, or equality — these are all the exact same concept — and you are the star of the show. People just float around you and make happy lovey gooey stupid faces at you. It’s retardation, but it will make you rich and powerful.

After the carnage was over, the people who wanted those swoony feelings back needed something to blame. They could not blame democracy, because that in turn fingers equality, and to say equality is wrong is like going up to each individual in the group and screaming “YOU’RE INFERIOR!” to them, even though that is probably correct and would help them by encouraging them to improve themselves instead of stagnating. If you can’t blame the actual cause of the war (democracy) then who do you blame?

Oh, we found a good one… get this… it’s inhumanity.

What does that mean?

You know, inhumanity. The failure to engage in those swoony feelings and to spread the happy illusion to others so we can all be harmless, neutered, oblivious, blithe happy idiots together. We can become like a single brain cell, thinking of love and peace, instead of paying attention to reality — and, hiding in the back corner of our scared monkey brains: death.

“In Flanders Fields” came up with similar nonsense:

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Here the problem is the Foe. Gotta kill them Germans, even if the real enemy here is an illusion. If we kill all the Germans, we do not have to notice that we are in the grips of illusion, and we can go back to those happy swoony feelings. (Alert readers will notice that this is classic scapegoating, seen in our society most with those who finger The Eternal Jew™ as the source of our downfall instead of blaming democracy, or blame The Rich™ instead of blaming the low mental and moral quality of most humans which is the actual cause of their poverty. Both of these are odious in themselves because they lead to murder, but that is not why they are bad; they are bad because they are moronic, and they are moronic because they scapegoat the wrong cause, which lets the actual cause — democracy and dysgenics — run free to do more of its vile destructive work).

But no one is going to identify the actual cause, which is complex and nuanced, although that is not why they refuse to identify it. Yes, there is a tendency among humans to prefer pleasant illusions to complex truths, but very few truths are actually complex! What they are is offensive to the human individual and its pretense, because if you tell a monkey that it is not equal, man, it will feel terrible and start screeching and flinging poo, even if you were just pointing out that equal=mediocre like all averages and means, and so we need to beat that standard, not adopt it as dogma. The problem is this pretense. This pretense caused democracy and leftism, and through those, caused the First World War. Plant a poppy on the grave of democracy and equality, and only then have you honored the war dead. Everything else is just monkeytime, distractions from the real problem.

How did everything get so backward, or inverted in altright lexicon? There are two issues here:

  1. Why do humans tend toward this illusion?

  2. How did it take over Western Civilization?

The answers are evil and entropy, in that order.

Evil — a suspect term because of its centralized, manipulative power — generally means the type of error that arises from selfishness or a refusal to see the obvious because of a fear for the fragility of one’s own mental state. Evil is ego-driven stupidity, in other words, because short-term solutions always create havoc and destruction to things we care about, and people who care about nothing must be boring and stupid to find themselves so fascinating.

Entropy on the other hand is the natural process by which, as options proliferate, it becomes less likely that any one will be chosen, which is said to make the pattern more “random.” That is debatable, but in human societies, entropy is the background hum of doubt that occurs when one no longer knows by rote or by immediate inference (“intuitive”) what the right thing to do is. At first, it is clear: by any means necessary, establish civilization. Once civilization has more options, people mystify themselves with questions which magnify details because the bigger aspects of the civilization question have been answered by the establishment of that civilization.

This is why all high-IQ societies seem to die out: they grow, become powerful, lose sight of their goals, and then orient themselves toward tolerance as a means of avoiding dissolution, which results in their inclusion of non-contributing dependents (parasites), fools, con men, etc. and eventual obliteration in this wave of bad genetics and sociopathic chaos.

How do they lose sight of their goals? Civilizations succumb to a lack of awareness because they use a type of proxy warfare as a means of coordinating their citizens. The simplest example of this is ideology; when not enough people understand the goal of civilization, “smart” and “clever” people then distill it down to a few emotional and symbolic principles. This allows all of the people who do not understand the concept to act as if they understand the concept, at least until the meaning of those principles is hijacked, corrupted, altered, or eroded by entropy.

Proxy warfare exists, as Fred Nietzsche told us, in the terms “good” and “evil.” Yes, we all know what they mean, but they are a lazy shorthand that uses categorical logic instead of looking at what actually makes an event good or evil, which is the consequences in reality that it creates. By relying on these categorical terms, we shift the focus from consequences to the categories, and then our logical thinking becomes reversed or inverted because we see the category as the cause of its members, not the other way around.

Another form of proxy warfare can be found in the scene-policing of various political genres. Are you a true anarchist? Are you conservative enough? Even the alt right, which normally seems highly realist, has taken to scene policing by enforcing its borders through symbolic, highly visual issues. This weakens the alt right as focus moves away from the question of the issues, i.e. the goal, and is transferred instead to appearance, much as democracy always does.

One thing from “Green Fields of France” is for certain. Humans make the same mistakes over and over again because they cannot overcome the pathology of desire. This inverts their big brains by creating a kind of “tunnel vision” where the human fixates on one aspect of reality, and uses it to explain the rest because it is what they desire and they are unaware of how their individual perspective is not the “whole” perspective of a situation. The only way to get that whole perspective is to analyze structure and pattern, and most cannot do that. Thus, as the song says:

The killing and the dying were all done in vain
For young Willie McBride it all happened again,
And again and again and again and again

Tags: , , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “Proxy Warfare”

  1. Finnish Individual says:

    I have screamed “YOU’RE INFERIOR!!” to SO many people on my life. I also posted it very often as a facebook status, to an audience of hundreds of “friends”.

    Most didn’t take it too well.

    Best thing I have have done all my life. If only more people would do it…actual superior people towards actual inferior people, of course.

    World would be better. Bully the inferior, for fuck’s sake…

  2. Gregory DuPont says:

    Very well written. Points to ponder.

  3. Most people in my experience have little interest in the underpinnings of ideology. They just need a simple system of rules telling them that it’s evil to throw poop plus credible punishments to back it up.
    I think there’s a reason why the societies that last longest are those that tend to stratify into caste systems. The high IQ caste does its thing unobstructed while epsilon-minus semi morons pull the same lever all day. Society avoids the trap of sinking endless resources into the black pit of underclass dysfunction because everyone accepts that is the natural result of who they are.

  4. Asian Person says:

    Our denial of hierarchy at this point has reached a desire to deny reality and any difference at all. Its become a madness that we all must participate with.

  5. AntiDem says:

    One thing worth noting about leftist sophistry is their tendency to universalize their mistakes, while particularizing their claimed successes. All of those successes are due, and only due, to them and the superiority of their thinking; all of those failures were, like an unforecasted rainstorm ruining a picnic, just one of those things that could’ve happened to anybody. World War I? Man’s inhumanity to man. A hundred million dead due to communist cruelty and incompetence? “The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry.” C’est la vie – best to just leave that in the past and move on to the next untested, unfalsifiable social theory that we will impose by force and that we are so sure will work out fine that we haven’t even thought about what the failure mode for it might look like (much less what we’d do about it). Right side of history and all. Besides, the boys at Yale say it’s sure to work, and who are you to disagree with Yale?

  6. crow says:

    I didn’t count the instances – because that’s not something I do – but the term ‘human’ and its derivatives, appeared over and over.

    This focus on human, humanity, humankind, is a large percentage of the ‘human’ problem.
    See ‘human’ everywhere, and the actual world fades into the blurry background, forgotten and lost, like the life of the human, itself, leaving only the-world-of-humans in place of The World.

    Humans fail because they unerringly place human at the apex of all.
    Creator, Nature, God, tao, Reality; whatever you call it, that is the apex. Hubris can always be relied upon to bring down the whole house of cards.

    Not for nothing do I know myself as ‘crow’.

  7. NotMe says:

    This is a very worthwhile article. I have linked to it on my blog
    christianstatesofamerica.blogspot.com

  8. avraham says:

    The At Right tends to attack Democracy. This seems reflected in the old conflict between Athens and Sparta. From where I stand, I would prefer there not ever to have been any war between them. The conflict itself exhausted both. Sparta won but at that point they were so exhausted that their civilization fell.

  9. Alice Teller says:

    There is a danger to viewing history through an ideological lens. An alternative view is that WWI was a fratricidal war of royal cousins who sacrificed the best men of Europe creating an opening for women’s suffrage.

    • I agree that it is a danger. Then again, the ideological lens could be a democratic one, in which it is considered wise to blame the aristocrats. For myself, I tend to look at the overall direction of historical events, and point out the proximity and similarity between the Franco-Prussian war, the Napoleonic wars, and the first World War. In addition, with the Russian Revolution emerging from it, it can hardly be said to have been an aristocratic victory. I would also point to the proximity of colonial conflicts and the aforementioned previous anti-aristocratic conflicts, which resulted in the following:

      1. Mutual Defense Alliances

      Over time, countries throughout Europe made mutual defense agreements that would pull them into battle. These treaties meant that if one country was attacked, allied countries were bound to defend them. Before World War 1, the following alliances existed:

      Russia and Serbia
      Germany and Austria-Hungary
      France and Russia
      Britain and France and Belgium
      Japan and Britain

      Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia got involved to defend Serbia. Germany seeing Russia mobilizing, declared war on Russia. France was then drawn in against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Germany attacked France through Belgium pulling Britain into war. Then Japan entered the war. Later, Italy and the United States would enter on the side of the allies.

      http://americanhistory.about.com/od/worldwari/tp/causes-of-world-war-1.htm

      This is the classic historical view, which looks toward political causes in themselves among other things; this refers to how the political system, independent of any particular will in a direction, leads to that direction because of prior commitments or restrictions.

      As you undoubtedly recall, our first President warned vigorously of “entangling alliances” and this was a major theme in American politics until just before the WWI era.

      But another aspect of the war was simply — since you’re reading this blog, you guessed it — diversity. From the same source:

      However, later that day a Serbian nationalist named Gavrilo Princip assassinated him and his wife while they were in Sarajevo, Bosnia which was part of Austria-Hungary. This was in protest to Austria-Hungary having control of this region. Serbia wanted to take over Bosnia and Herzegovina.

      Princip is one of history’s dupes, men caught up in something larger than what they meant to unleash; his goal was to liberate South Slavs from Austria-Hungary:

      Young people don’t change things by voting people out. Violence is an option. Violence is on the table. The Archduke’s aunt will be killed by an assassin. The Archduke’s cousin died in mysterious circumstances. Assassination was part of the vernacular, the logic being, a person, a ruler is so tyrannical, it justifies action. What did Gavrilo Princip want to do? Now this is really important here: He wanted to get rid of Austro-Hungarian rule for all the people who live in that area.

      He happened to be a Bosnian Serb, but he wasn’t only interested in Bosnian Serbs. He had friends who were Bosnian Muslims, friends who were Bosnian Croats, Jewish students he worked with.

      For us to understand that fragile situation requires looking into the Ottoman Empire and its causes, which go back to the Roman Empire and Mongol invasions.

      Further, I would submit for your consideration that the royal families had lost most of their power by this time:

      Democratization

      A second 19th-century characteristic was democratization. By 1914 all the European Powers had elected lower houses of parliament, and a majority of the adult male population was enfranchised. The press was relatively free, and citizens could form parties and pressure groups. Nonetheless, in Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia ministers answered to monarchs rather than to a parliamentary majority, and the military chiefs were not subordinate to civilian statesmen. Moreover, as international tension mounted, public opinion polarized, more moderate and progressive tendencies being offset by nationalism and militarism. Europe’s socialist parties opposed wars of conquest and aggression but were willing to endorse a war fought for just cause and in self-defence, which in 1914 all the governments would claim to be fighting.

      https://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/europe-before-1914#sthash.BO25WoM0.dpuf

      The whole article is worth reading, including this part:

      Globalization

      Characteristic of the pre-1914 decades was what we would now call globalization. Trade may have risen from one thirtieth to one third of world production between 1800 and 1913; between 1855 and 1914 investment flows grew 20 times. Europe accounted for nearly two thirds of global trade and even more of global investment, and from the 1890s Europe’s major currencies were fixed in value in relation to each other under the international gold standard. Hundreds of thousands of foreign-born labourers worked in the heavy industries of French Lorraine and Germany’s Ruhr.

      We have commercial, democratic and military interests taking over from the aristocracy in the decades following the Franco-Prussian war, which is more important than our tepid memories of it communicate.

      Anyway, this is all food for thought, and I hope you enjoyed this little jaunt through history!

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>