Behave

When a society collapses, the ideas on the periphery are the first to be subverted. They transmit the infection to the fundamentals, such that after some time “common sense” is lost.

In the modern West we are at the stage where we cannot assume much in common with others. They do not share the same culture, religion, values or way of life, or at least enough of them do not that an assumption is no longer convenient. The result is that the lowest common denominator rules in every area.

One aspect of this is that people no longer know how to behave. In healthy societies of the future, we will discover (again) that common standards include behavior, so people know how to act in such a way that they do not trample on others unnecessarily.

A healthy society knows how lines work and how those who cut in line should be pushed aside. But now our people come in different stripes, including different views on lines. Some wait in orderly queues, while others mill around and then try to push ahead.

The result is the type of behavior lines were designed in order to avoid. Each person must be constantly vigilant against others trying to cheat, and the disorder means that each person waits longer. Resources like the time of whoever is helping the line gets wasted.

On the surface of course this makes for a more interesting society. Don’t do it the same old way each time — we’ll invent new, fresh, interesting ways of waiting in line! Then the reality sets in after a few weeks: other than surface adornments, there are no new ways. Only choosing dysfunction or function.

The same applies to driving. The rules and conventions build up over generations for the safety of all are forgotten. The result is constant competition on the roads, for mere feet of space, while defending against the random and reckless behavior of others.

Unlike the small subset of problems for which government is adapted, these problems cannot be solved by laws. They are cultural in origin and in solution, if culture is the intersection of shared values and customs for a group. Laws require nit-picking rules and nit-picky enforcers. Culture does not.

Even simple things as not running your cart into other people in the grocery store, not leaving trash on the ground, or even the basic principle of being efficient or orderly. We can create government agencies to force people to behave in these ways, but unless it comes from within, such behavior is soon forgotten.

Our zeal for pluralism has destroyed what may have been our greatest strength, which was our ability to cooperate toward a goal. Any tyrant can make laws and selectively punish violators in public show trials. But only a culture can unite us, and make us behave in a way that makes a society we can all enjoy.

27 Comments

  1. Esotericist says:

    In the words of Bartleby the Scrivener, I’d rather not (behave).

  2. crow says:

    This is an accurate description of England, even thirty years ago. A standard ‘behavior’ was something almost everyone had in common, until the influx of hordes of foreigners, to whom such ‘behavior’ was alien.
    One of the first things I noticed, returning after a quarter-century of absence, was that nobody knew, any more, how to ‘behave’.
    ‘Behavior’, of course, is a learned thing. It is not inherently natural. But civilization, itself, is not natural. If you want one, you must make certain adjustments. Or you won’t have one.

    That is what leftism has done for civilization: made it impossible. What we have, now, is the after-image of a civilization: the remaining trappings of what was, but without the civilization itself. If your senses are sufficiently dulled, things look fine, on the surface, while they continue to decay, a millimeter beneath.

    Civilization involves ‘behavior’. And many other compromises. What you get, in return for these compromises, is security and continuity. A full stomach and a roof over your head. When enough people dispense with the ‘behavior’ that goes hand-in-hand with civilization, the whole edifice begins to crumble.

    1. A. Realist says:

      What makes this situation most baffling is that a standard of behavior is more than a moral choice. It also leads to efficiency and greater stability, meaning better quality of outcome.

      People seem to decide to not care about this. They must enjoy waiting in lines, receiving inferior products for higher prices, having bad public services, being ruled by idiots, and so on. These are all consequences of our public disorganization, itself a result of a lack of a common standard of behavior.

      Tom Wolfe had a great riff on this about how hippies would retreat to the country to found new societies. Then they had to re-learn everything about modern society, absolutely everything, including hygiene, basic economics, and many others. The upshot was that the brand new society began to resemble the old one.

  3. A. Realist says:

    Some one else has a great rant on this topic, http://news.yahoo.com/restaurant-sends-unruly-tots-parents-outside-180400289.html

    “[I]n this modern age, no one is allowed to notice, let alone comment upon, children causing a disruption. Walk into a Wal-Mart at any time of the day or night and you will hear a cacophony of screams coming from children scattered around the store. Like sirens they blare unhindered by the apparently deaf parents.

    [...]I was in a Trader Joe’s recently and had to escape when I could no longer navigate around the toddlers with their individual carts and their middle aged mothers who didn’t think it necessary to keep traffic flowing.

    I am sorry our nation has become so obtuse that the rights of the inadequate parent supersede that of everyone else.”

    1. Esotericist says:

      If you politely ask someone to restrain their children from banging into you, throwing food or screaming at the top of their lungs in a restaurant, people react as if you insulted their very reason for being.

      I think it’s why most people have children now: to justify the parents.

      This could explain why they don’t seem to care who the donor is or what kind of world the child inherits.

      1. Ted Swanson says:

        Having a kid allows you to get away will all sorts of things! It’s like a weapon, a get-out-of-jail-free card, and a key to the city all rolled into one adorable package!

    2. Wade in Sarasota says:

      I like this topic. All the replies ring true to me. I like what Ted Swanson said- Kid’s are a get out of jail free card. My wife works over night at a 24 hour Walmart. The stories are endless. Basically the toy department is used as a baby sitter to drop your kid off at. It is very common to find teens riding bikes around in sporting goods. These are the middle class and upper middle class at this particular location.

      People no longer put things back where they find them. You can find a 5lb. tube of hamburger just as easily in electronics as you can eye liner in the bin of corn. Nobody realizes Walmart just adds on the extra labor to sort all this crap out to the prices of everything. Essentially we all pay for everyone’s misbehavior.

      1. Wade in Sarasota says:

        Oh and perishable food items left in other parts of the store are a loss just exactly like theft. Food is thrown out and tallied as loss. We all pay for this.

  4. Sun says:

    Cultures can change; evolve. Nothing is stagnant.

    Pluralism is now a Western Value, however unfortunate to some it may be.

    What we need to do is use it to our advantage.

    The ability to learn about multiple cultures does bring value, with different viewpoints.

    Unfortunately to some people, the value of what is learned about different cultures means that all cultures are universally equal and equally treasured–a big mistake to make. But to say that pluralism has no positive benefits only sow the seeds of destruction, if this writer’s utopia ever comes to fruitation (anyone who can play devil’s advocate can see why–so I won’t further explain). It is often even with in the conception of a country, the country has set up its own demise.

    One can be tremendously multicultural but still know which culture is more favorable.

    One should embrace all avenues of political thought–and then leave all. For they constrain one’s mind to limited possibilities, perpetuate heard thinking, and deny one in quest to transcend.

    A part of my innate nature (starting out as a “left wing” person myself) is the innate cynicism that I hold. To such an extent that I’m self critical. Criticism, to the point of self destruction is a huge aspect of left wing wired brain functioning.

    This is why some of the most intelligent people will often time undermine themselves. They are no longer part of a group and are willing to mock groups, even if they themselves originate from that group.

    They find moral righteousness and superiority (i.e. slave morality) in defending the oppressed while unknowingly undermining their own status. The interesting thing is, is that they think others are as individualistic as them (overestimating the human potential) and a pardon will be giving to them, as they continuously bash groups that they are sometimes a part of–partly due to slave morality complex and partly due to their hatred of group-think (integral to the mentality of their opposition).

    Some progressive minds want to explore how others TRULY see the world (not a superficial “left wing” pluralism which lacks true understanding of the other cultures and relies heavily on representation), realizing that every ideology has its strengths and weaknesses, and wants to understand each side completely on an intrinsic level.

    It is the desire to challenge one’s own thinking constantly that increases one’s own intelligence and to learn a true diverse (or “pluralistic”) understanding through internal conflict on a personal level. It is through struggle and conflict that one attains new heights. However, one must have the will to power and the intelligence to do so.

    Life is struggle.

    A constant battle in which one must overcome themselves.

    For within the moment does one see more clearly ecompassing the past and future to his collection of experiences.

    The honor lies in challenges others for the sake of growth; the most good form of altruism. The insult lies in making one dependent and decadent; the most evil form of altrusim.

    The will to power strengthens one, on a “spiritual” level; understanding of diverse topics and cultures; realing the virtue of the individual and also that of the group.

    I’ll shut up now.

    1. crow says:

      Yeah, shut up already (:>
      But some good points, there.
      I’ve often said that leftists have some fine ideas, but they are in the extreme minority, while those who flock, herd-like, to leftism, don’t understand any of those good ideas, only that they ‘sound good’.
      You can’t have a ‘civilization’ with every individual, or group of individuals, all doing their own, opposing thing.
      Meaning colored, gay, rich, poor, white, heterosexual, religious, atheist, can all subscribe to the same civilizational (not personal) values, without all of them opposing each other, or maneuvering for advantage.
      This kind of diverse, multiculturalism would have a chance of success. A chance.

      1. Sun says:

        I have to ask is there a difference between “crow” and “The crow?”

        Is one held in more esteem?

        1. crow says:

          There is no difference. I sometimes use different computers, and forget to update the required information fields. Or forget what they are supposed to be. Crows are very smart, but information-fields are something they have trouble with (:>
          There’s not a lot of difference between crows, anyway.
          Unless you are a crow.

          1. Esotericist says:

            Crows apparently recognize each other as individuals and mourn the passing of the same:

            http://www.aviannation.com/showthread.php?735-A-Crow-Funeral

            1. crow says:

              Crows are a gold mine of amazements. They can do all kinds of things that go right by humans. No human, anywhere, ever taught me as much as a tatty, orphaned crow did. Not that it set out to teach: I needed only to supply my own observational skills.
              Not for nothing do I bear the name (:>

              1. Sun says:

                Really?

                Because, I despised the awful squawking sounds that crows make. :)

                Is there a lesson of nagging that can be learned from that?

                Hey.

                I should be thankful.

                At lest you didn’t choose a pigeon.

                P.S. I prefer a lion or maybe a turtle.

                1. crow says:

                  To human ears, that squawk is unpleasant.
                  Intolerance is common among humans, especially among those who demand it of others.
                  When that awful sound becomes a source of amusement and delight, you have learned something useful from the squawker.
                  Interesting you should mention pigeon…
                  Pigeon preceded crow in a long line of teachers I have known.
                  I meet a lot of creatures. Often they are in need of assistance. My pleasure is to assist them. They make use of my help, and return to their natural lives. Unlike humans, who, if helped, often come to need ever more help, becoming ever more unnatural.

                  1. ferret says:

                    “They make use of my help, and return to their natural lives. Unlike humans…”

                    I like how you turned it towards humans.

      2. Sun says:

        True, true.

        But this means most humans base “diversity” upon visual representation.

        “Colored person” identifies as such bringing with him or her their own collection of experiences. Hence, “diversity” of a society is enhanced by his or her representation within the system. This is why the liberal overestimate the human potential by believing we can all rise above group divisions.

        The inherent system doesn’t allow it because diversity can only be achieved through representation. At the same time they believe these categories be a “social constructs.” This pathological segmentation allows them to perpetuate diversity of representation for intellectual indulgence and masturbation; the true goal and desire all along for such people.

        Even I understand this and do this. However, I satisfy my “diversity” on a deep level in experiencing the experiences myself for my own enjoyment rather then subject society at large for class division. Progress is essential to a society, but even I know that not all progress is beneficial and can lead to a degenerating society; the true gist of what conservative’s concerns are along (how do I know this, by stepping out of my own mind [this is a complex idea that I would have to get into another time] and learning the true virtue of such an ideology is another example of what I was talking about previously).

        I’m curious though as to what you mean by leftist are a “small minority” and the others just follow; in that, what do you call the followers if not “leftist,” “sleepers?” “Dumb shits?” How do you differentiate between the too?

        I know we moved on, but hey, I’m interested in what you have to say. You seem to be the only one that loves me crow.

        1. Sun says:

          I would also like to say that isn’t only really “self pleasure” as you may take that the wrong way.

          My “self pleasure” is derivative of true growth and the overcoming of one’s self which on level is the same as level as of the left wing people but on the other hand is different. It is different in that that it is not hedonistic as we classical but rather inversely hedonistic in the test to out-do myself.

          As I despise pleasure just for the sake of it without an true and purist purpose.

          Understanding how different people learn and grow can only add to your collection of knowledge and make you more powerful. “Diversity” in this sense is only a benefit. Adaptation is important to the survival of a person and a specie. There maybe gems among the stones, per say with many different ideas. That is the only point I’m trying to drive home here.

          Individualism is extreme form can be self destruction but what happens when someone is SO individualistic that they see the vices that individualism can bring? As well as the strengths? There individualism has outgrown individualism as a singular ideal.

          This is me.

          1. crow says:

            I have a feeling you have something to say, and a contribution to make, but try as I will, I can make no sense of it, yet.
            A busy, busy mind :)
            Shall we try to handle one thing at a time?
            Pick a topic.

            1. Sun says:

              Tell me what confuses crow?

              1. crow says:

                Too much to reply to.
                And now, too little :)

                1. Sun says:

                  Ah then I can’t explain if you don’t know what confuses you.

                  BTW surprisingly this seems to be a black nationalist site (which I’m not). Is this correct?

                  1. crow says:

                    If it’s a black nationalist site, I am as surprised as you are. Although, being a crow…
                    I assume I am tolerated here, not because of my feather-color, but rather in spite of it (:>

                    We are, more or less, nationalist in orientation, although we are of many differing nationalities.
                    This is, above all, a site for those able to think, perceive, discriminate and manifest honor.
                    I don’t think color is a big deal, here, within certain loosely-defined limits.
                    I, however, do not speak for anyone else.

                  2. This is a pan-nationalist site. We want a nationalist world order, so we work with nationalists of any origin. You will note an absence of racism and racial antagonism. This is because those are distractions from the real issue, which is that we either (a) live with people like us and find a consensus of belief or (b) are ruled by a corporate Nanny-State with no soul and lots of boring rules. Nationalism is a vital part of Futurist Traditionalism, but we believe the principle of nationalism stands for itself, and does not need to be supplemented with commentary on racial differences or antagonisms.

  5. [...] and myself are fortunate to have my article, “Behave,” re-printed on the British Freedom Party website. This party does interesting things and their [...]

  6. [...] I hope to have more info about my upcoming book(s) for you soon.Brett Stevens – “Behave“, “The Map and the Territory, by Michel Houellebecq“, [...]

Leave a Reply

39 queries. 0.434 seconds