Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘clash of civilizations’

Catalonia Shows The “Clash Of Civilizations” Emerging After The Downfall of Liberal Democracy

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

We are in the midst of a vast change here on planet Earth, for all of humanity. An old order has fallen, and while most of us are scrambling to catch up, all that was based on this old order is falling silently at the same time. You can feel the muted panic in the streets.

That old order is named modernism, and it is the series of ideas which flowed from The Enlightenment™ concept of individualism, where natural law and social order take a back seat to what the individual desires. To make society subsidize that by refusing to enact Darwinistic sorting on those whose desires lead to bad or useless things, individualism became egalitarianism, and from that, collectives form.

For humanity in all ages, the problem is herd behavior, sometimes called peer pressure, which is the root of our trends, gangs, stampedes, cults, panics, cliques and other behaviors that are “dark organizations” which counteract our goals as civilizations, and the actual needs of individuals versus what they will say are their goals.

It is a paradox to most that individualism is a form of collectivism, but when you think about it, there is nothing more selfish than a crowd: a group of people united by lowest common denominator wants, desiring to enforce those on others, and to do so without accountability because they are in a faceless mob.

Caste revolt of this nature has destroyed every civilization to date. The faceless mob, unaware of what they cannot understand, tears down those above them and assumes that civilization will just keep on trucking as it has in the past. Instead, they quickly find that social order begins to decay.

The recent history of humanity shows us trying to find ways to make mob rule work, and failing. Parliaments, the Constitution, Communism, Socialism, Communitarianism, Distributism, Anarchism and all of these other “isms” are simply attempts to adapt to a new reality in which we have an ad hoc hierarchy based on who has the favor of the crowd at any moment.

As with most unstable things, and following in the path of the French Revolution which led to economic collapse and ideological warfare, global liberal democracy — the political philosophy of equality, itself a form of individualism — has died of its own success. Illogical plans, when put into action, “succeed” for some time, but then their unrealistic approach causes them to collapse.

Arising from that, we are entering the age of what political philosopher Samuel P. Huntington described as “The Clash of Civilizations” in which people move away from ideological and economic definitions of who they are, and instead turn to civilization, which is formed of the intersection of culture, heritage, religion and values:

World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be-the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

What is happening in Catalonia now fits this pattern. The Spanish state has smashed, jailed, censored and disenfranchised its citizens in order to try to prevent the inevitable: the breakup of the nation-state, formed of many different ethnic groups united by ideology and economic system, into smaller civilizations based on innate identity.

In the United States, a similar sentiment has arisen with the election of Donald J. Trump; people want America “before the change” to return, and by that they mean the 1950s style Western European America. In the United Kingdom, voters opted to escape the economic and political cartel of the European Union. In Germany, the proto-nationalist party Alternative For Germany won record gains.

The pushback has become, and it is consists of people not just rejecting the mixed-racial modern state, but the mixed-ethnic one as well:

People are people; differences, even intraracial differences (as those between English and Irish, or Ukranians and Russians, for example) exist, and frictions, up to and including warfare, happen. We can’t wave a magic wand and make those things disappear.

Following this, other aspects of modernity are fading as well, including faith in democracy:

The next step will be a rejection of caste revolt itself. Cynicism toward equality is spreading. The sheer incompetence of our leaders has made us distrust the utilitarian premise of democracy, which is that whatever most people think is good, is actually good. The future includes hierarchy, both of leadership, and of social roles, with those who have the most prized traits rising above the rest.

Even more, recognition of the total failure of pluralism, or that we can coexist with those of other racial and ethnic groups, religions, philosophies and even political inclinations is collapsing on both Left and Right:

Obama was wrong when he said that we are not two countries, one blue and one red. Because, in fact, we are. Our job is to make sure that our country prevails.

As the fundamental ideas of democracy, equality, pluralism, and diversity unravel, something new is coming to take their place. It will be “new” in that, as history cycles, we will find ourselves back where we were before this disaster of modernism occurred, and when then start going the other way, toward the traditional forms of living that have protected us for millennia.

We will now be addressing the only question remaining which is that of whether, after this seemingly endless disaster, we can restore our civilization and ourselves to be something great again, as slumbers in our ancestral memory and imaginations:

I often wonder about this question: is the character or the spirit of a people genetic, and if so, is it passed down through generations — or can it be subverted by means of propaganda, dysgenics, and what amounts to psychological/spiritual warfare? Could the original character of these peoples re-assert itself, or can it be restored by conscious effort? Can decades, even centuries or manipulation be reversed?

It seems to me that we are entering a new dark age of terror as the old order falls. Most of our fellow citizens will not be coming with us into the future. Many of our most cherished beliefs are departing. But in this vast void, opportunity lurks for those who are brave and realistic. We finally have a chance to escape the disaster of modernism, and replace it with something better.

Courage!

Modernity Has Ended, And The Battle For What Comes Next Has Begun

Wednesday, July 19th, 2017

Reading about the ancient empires — Inca, Maya, Angkor Wat, Minoans, Cahokia, Aztec — always fills me with a sense of sadness. Who were these intensely vital people, so committed to living the heck out of life, and why are they not still with us? It is a putrescent shadow of mortality: nothing gold can stay, it seems, and death takes all good things.

That might swell your heart with lightless emptiness. To think that the good is doomed, and that life is merely a mechanical process by which the coarser always wins out over the finer, is to depress yourself thoroughly. Another way to view it is that life contains certain traps or pitfalls which are invisible to our minds, and until we discover their mechanism, they will keep dooming us.

We are now in the midst of one of those periods. Against the advice of the ancients, our society took an individualistic path, which is where people care more about their personal power than doing what is right in order to maintain the order of tribe, civilization, nature and the gods. Abstract order is invisible to all but a few, and the perpetually angry and voracious mob wants to hearing nothing of it!

Because we accepted a bad decision as fact, and have since that time been corralled by that assumption into its inexorable endgame of a third-world style civilization ruled by corrupt politicians, postwar Western Civilization has ended. No one credible has faith in “the system” anymore; we know that we made a fatal choice, and now our only thought is to escape.

This means that we are no longer fighting to save democracy, the West, America, Europe, or even our retirement funds. We are fighting to escape the mental conditioning toward doom — that is the biggest fight — and then to escape from or take control of the dying society so that we can enact The Purge on its failed parts, and nurture The Remnant of good people back to health in a new civilization.

But what will this new struggle look like? Mencius Moldbug gives us the basic topography of this question:

There are two basic ways of executing this divorce. We’ll call one a soft reset and the other a hard reset. Basically, a hard reset works and a soft reset doesn’t. However, a soft reset is more attractive in many ways, and we need to work through it just to see why it can’t work.

In a soft reset, we leave the current structure of government the same, except that we apply the 20th-century First Amendment to all forms of instruction, theistic or “secular.” In other words, our policy is separation of education and state. In a free country, the government should not be programming its citizens. It should not care at all what people think. It only needs to care what they do. The issue has nothing to do with theism. It is a basic matter of personal freedom.

…In a hard reset, all organizations dedicated to forming public opinion, making or implementing public policy, or working in the public interest, are nationalized. This includes not only the press and the universities, but also the foundations, NGOs, and other nonprofits. It is a bit rich, after all, for any of these outfits to appeal to the sanctity of property rights. They believe in the sanctity of property rights about as much as they believe in the goddess Kali.

He essentially advocates two forms of libertarianism: one which relies on rule of law (soft reset) and one which converts all law into civil law (hard reset) by destroying current organizational culture — the Establishment and “deep state” — and replacing it with people who admit their self-interest and in return, obligate themselves to deliver a service.

This fits within one of the more pertinent criticisms of Moldbug, namely that he is not really an innovator so much as a marketer:

Anyway, there are two possible explanations for the end of Moldbugism. One is that his arguments were not original, just stated in a new way. His assertion that Progressivism has its roots in Puritanism, for example, is not new. I was making that point 25 years ago in Usenet debates and I know I’m not the first guy to notice it. His criticisms of democracy have been around since the Enlightenment. Old ideas restated in modern terms eventually just fade into the tapestry of the intellectual movement that spawned them.

The other possibility is that the people attracted to Moldbug’s ideas, including Moldbug, came from the Left ideologically. Young people raised on Progressivism were attracted by the subversiveness of these old ideas. They moved right into Left-libertarianism, then Right-libertarianism and then eventually dissident politics of various flavors. Put another way, the Dark Enlightenment guys were merely going through a phase as they first experienced the outlawed ideas from the outlawed past. Now, they are onto other things.

For those of us who remember the Old Internet, Moldbug represents the type of writer like Pietro Scaruffi or Justin Hall who essentially brought a new style of writing and scholarship to the nerdly internet. They had read broadly in the humanities, and so could discuss concepts that were somewhat alien to the mostly-techie audience of the internet of pre-iPhone era.

His core idea, couched in an imitation of nineteenth century writing that befits his Victorian fascination, is that government acts like a corporation, and markets are the only “objective” way to measure success or failure thus “rightness,” so it makes sense to hire a government instead of the other way around. Citizens would subscribe to a government service and in exchange, receive smaller government.

His “soft reset” describes what the Alt Lite desires, which is equality with freedom of association and speech. These are tempting ideas until one realizes that civilizations have structures, and someone must decide what that is, and government action or inaction will damage or promote such structures. There is no escape from the question of what kind of civilization we want to have.

Even more, as the past two decades show us, pluralism or the idea that people can have their own cultures within a larger culture, does not work. Each culture seeks to dominate because otherwise, it is under attack from competing visions of reality, and people are mostly foolish and will wander off to whatever seems cool that week. With pluralism, no one gets culture, values or civilization.

Most people like the Alt Lite/Libertarian vision because if asked, in a utilitarian sense, most people think they want anarchy with grocery stores. Then they realize that this means that the most vicious and brutal will dominate them, and they go running to government and make it totalitarian to banish their fear of loss in a Darwinian conflict. This is the history of democracy and how it leads to tyranny.

As a writer who came before Moldbug, and encountered these issues before, libertarianism was dead to me as a concept from an early age. Socialism was even more dead, which is why people like me support capitalism, but do not believe it to be a substitute for culture or leadership. Then again, people like me are Edwardians, not Victorians, at heart.

But if you take that nascent Anarcho-Capitalism viewpoint, merge it with nationalism, and add some Anarcho-Monarchism, you have a relatively complete idea: a society ruled by culture, with a caste hierarchy of leadership, in which people are able to market their skills and products within a range appropriate to their caste. This is a complete idea. Moldbug and Rothbard offer nothing that can compete.

However, in praise of Moldbug, what he did was something every computer geek since the dawn of time knows well: he made a compendium of code fragments, a type of ur-stylesheet from which people could draw ideas to use in argument. In that, he was not a mere marketer, but a marketer who defined the frame of the market. This was no small achievement, in that it allowed former Leftists to participate in the Right.

That is a nice way of saying that the answer to civilization decline is not found in Moldbug, although he brings up the word that most of us should be using: restorationist. This means one who wants to bring back civilization after it has failed:

If I had to choose one word and stick with it, I’d pick “restorationist.” If I have to concede one pejorative which fair writers can fairly apply, I’ll go with “reactionary.” I’ll even answer to any compound of the latter – “neoreactionary,” “postreactionary,” “ultrareactionary,” etc.

The term formerly referred to those who wanted restoration of the monarchy, which also applies, since without democracy, our only options are military junta or oligarchy, that is, if we refuse to see the wisdom of monarchism.

However, one cannot restore civilization from within modernity, which is the political form of individualism. Nor can one resurrect virtue from an outside-in or materialist method. Not only that, there is no method which works except, as Michel Houellebecq reminds us, the resurrection of our desire to be good and thus, to have a functional civilization. Without that, there is nothing!

For this reason, many think that our future will be of the “patchwork” that Moldbug envisions, but a more organic type, and here they are more likely right, if we follow the hard reset path. This “balkanized” future involves a restoration of tribalism, where each group separates to its own geographical communities, based not just on race but ethnic group, caste, religion and most likely politics.

The foremost writer on balkanization, Billy Roper, expresses an idea found in Old White Nationalism, namely that nothing will change until the system crashes and dissolves. He gives us a vital insight in his description of the transition to this state:

The crisis trigger scenario which will cause massive riots, ethnic conflict, and systemic collapse is inevitable, now. In ninety days’ time, at noon, the power grid will go down and not return. The United States will begin Civil War II and balkanization. Millions of people will die of starvation, disease, and violence. Millions more will become refugees from ethnic cleansing. Whites will have a shot at an ethnostate, but there will be a chaotic period of struggle which could last years, in the meantime.

The thing to remember about modernity is that it is a bully. Hiding behind rules, it hits people where they are weak to provoke them, and then cries victim when attacked. This is why all Communists seem to point to their stays in jail as proof of having been “oppressed” when usually they were engaged in collusion toward crimes and terrorist activity. It is also why modernity defends perpetrators as much as actual victims.

Bullies tend to make their victims furious, and most people who have finally awakened to the fact that the modern West is falling just like Tenochtitlan are now enraged. They are mad that they were deceived, which requires the partial participation of the person misled, and mad that while they were trying to have normal lives, the herd has been working fanatically and pathologically to destroy everything that it can.

Since the bullying has made people enraged, the vision of blood, fire and death that Roper writes of seems quite pleasing. We all want The Purge on some level, and would be glad to see all of those who are guilty die in writhing pain. But looking at the patterns of history, we see that this vision is not quite likely as stated.

For starters, we have abundant data about how civilizations collapse because we are surrounded by their remnants. In each case, caste revolt did them in, with lower castes overthrowing the upper and then proving unfit to rule as the society plunged into chaos. But that chaos was not of the Hollywood apocalypse variety, but more like modern-day Brazil: a slow descent into crime, corruption, stupidity and filth.

Some always survive those. If you want to look at patchwork in action, see southern Brazil. There, the remnants of German communities — many now hybridized with native Brazilians or Spanish imports — stay in isolation and spend most of their time earning money to pay for the taxes that keep the rest of the country afloat.

There is also the problem that the Confederate States of America encountered, which is that if you set up a patchwork, and there is a larger group nearby, they will invade you and take your stuff. In the age of international travel, this could be China, either buying up or outright invading America. Disunited, self-interesting tribes will not unite in time to repel an invasion, recapitulating the experience of the Amerind tribes who could have resisted European conquest but failed to do so.

Another problem occurs with genetic assimilation. Small groups in the country seem fine for awhile until a girl or boy goes into the city and finds a new partner, or comes back with a half-and-half baby. Over the generations, trace admixture infiltrates the group, much as it did with the remnants of Greece and Rome. The original tribe is genocided by outbreeding, which is inevitable because young people select partners from those that are around them, and are oblivious to the threat of someone who is one-eighth something else.

Already we are seeing signs of the slow decay which will lead to division and eventually, genetic absorption of our people by the far more numerous Other:

An extraordinary new Pentagon study has concluded that the US-backed international order established after World War 2 is “fraying” and may even be “collapsing”, leading the United States to lose its position of “primacy” in world affairs.

…Observing that US officials “naturally feel an obligation to preserve the US global position within a favorable international order,” the report concludes that this “rules-based global order that the United States built and sustained for 7 decades is under enormous stress.”

…The document is particularly candid in setting out why the US sees these countries as threats — not so much because of tangible military or security issues, but mainly because their pursuit of their own legitimate national interests is, in itself, seen as undermining American dominance.

In other words, “rule-based” systems have failed, and clash of civilizations style tribalism and self-interest are rising. Although this report was written about lands outside of American borders, there is no reason to think it does not apply within the US as well, which means a de facto ethnic segregation with the most numerous group (Asians, a root race which includes Amerinds and Hispanics) absorbing the others.

That leaves us with an uncomfortable realization: the transition to tiny libertarian states is not going to work, and the balkanization that occurs will happen slowly, resulting in gradual biological assimilation. This leaves us with one option, which the realist will embrace: we either master our out-of-control countries and send away the Other and those who would thwart us, or we die out.

Unfortunately, this requires a greater plan than simply “nationalism.” Hunter Wallace shows us what form such a plan would have to take:

We do need to do a better job though of articulating our greater overarching vision of a new social order to replace the one that is failing. We have to vanquish this beast though before political change will become possible.

This is the challenge before us. Challenges of this nature are more fun than most will admit because they are hard problems which reward bold solutions and clear thinking. But no matter how we slice it, the old order is dead and we are entering uncharted territory, which means that we will be fighting for our lives — and the ability to restore our civilization.

Huntington Triumphant: Tribalism Rising As Ideology Dies

Thursday, July 13th, 2017

Samuel P. Huntington might be seen as the prophet of the Alt Right. In the 1990s, he wrote a paper entitled “The Clash of Civilizations” (later developed into a book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order) which posited that ideology had lost its ability to hold societies together, and as a result, liberal democracy was collapsing while tribalism was rising.

He was engaged in an indirect debate with scholar Francis Fukuyama, who had argued that liberal democracy was the endpoint of human history, a conclusion he seemed to dislike but accepted as rational. Fukuyama argued for a permanent era; Huntington saw this era as ending.

In a broader sense, the two men were each arguing for a different type of civilization. Fukuyama believed in one unified by ideology and organized through rules and laws; Huntington saw civilizations as being united by physical, moral, religious and intellectual similarity, and predicted a future that relied more on gut instinct and identity than rules.

We can see this conflict playing out in the “populist” (really: upper half of middle class) wave that has propelled Brexit and Trump to the tops of the political heap by acknowledging that Huntington was right:

The central remark in Mr Trump’s Warsaw speech was this: “The fundamental question of our time is whether the west has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilisation in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

Interestingly, the Financial Times included the following image with the article:

To the author of the article, it represents a reason to be afraid of “America first” actions, in that those might alienate and cut out those rising markets. But another way to see it is that it represents a declining first world with others taking up the slack. At that point, other nations rise to fill the gap, and the first world recedes into a rationalizing mindset which allows them to praise “the information economy” and “the service economy.”

Voters can be counted on to be oblivious as a group, but individual people start to snap out of their stupor when they realize that the thread is not some far-fetched prediction, but a certainty. Liberal democracy has chosen to self-destruct through thirdworlding and low reproduction rates which fit within its endgame, which is to destroy everything so that a few government employees can escape to enclaves for the rich and corrupt. This will come about through a consumer economy which will gut itself as the fake value it has generated collapses.

As this system hits rock bottom and it becomes clear that not only will it be a sure path to doom unless interrupted, but also that it was always a fake design just like the fake news, fake food, fake architecture, fake nationhood, fake love and fake friendship of modernity, the era of ideology will end and be replaced by real things which are innate to the human experience and not projections of the human ego. This will fortunate as unless we escape the modern lifestyle, we will likely die out from low reproduction rates.

Between its economic failures, the existential misery of its citizens leading to low investment in family and children, and the instability of the societies it has administered, liberal democracy no longer looks like a better option than strong authority and nationalism:

With global growth continuing at roughly 4 percent a year, the link between income and democracy isn’t actually so strong these days.

…It is again time for the West to learn from China. The emotional force of nationalism is stronger than we had thought, stability is not guaranteed, and the Western democratic status quo ex ante is less of a strong attractor than many of us had believed or at least hoped for.

If you asked the average person what was more important, order or freedom, and no one else was listen to virtue police them, you will probably see someone struggling with the fact that what they crave now is order. The great quest to make everything equal turned society into a wasteland and, while this was survivable for some time, it eventually became a great burden. Now they want the bottom line: make stuff work, and leave people alone who are productive and healthy.

The age of tolerance is over. The average American middle class European-descended person has finally gotten it through their skulls that diversity itself is the problem, so it cannot be fixed with more education, law enforcement or welfare. Diversity causes us to hate each other. They are “over it” and want to see it go away. If the Right-wing “populist” wave continues, by 2030 the average American voter will be interested in repatriation with reparations and other schemes for a soft landing for the disaster that diversity built.

Much like people have simply come to view ideology itself, like all of our news which seems to be fake, as a deceptive and threatening thing. If anyone who imbibes even a little ideology ends up in the Full Soviet state to which the EU and US have sunk, then the path of ideology is completely fatal and needs to be avoided. In their gut instinct, people know this.

Even more, it has sunk in that the great war against inequality has simply ended up making other people wealthy who are not as competent as the original group, so most people have stopped caring, unless they are personally having trouble making a decent living. This is why people care less about equality than social order, despite what they claim in social situations when asked about politics:

Researchers found that 77% of participants were willing to redistribute income from rich to poor—so long as it didn’t make person A poorer than person B. Just 45% accepted the redistribution when it changed the hierarchy. The results showed people are both interested in equality and preserving the status quo, but if these two inclinations clashed, most participants would maintain the inequality.

…Researchers could only speculate as to why people are reluctant to upend the status quo. They suggest that it might come down to survival: We may want to maintain hierarchies for fear of sparking anarchy. Researchers note, “Evolutionary theory suggests that groups with stable hierarchies have a fitness advantage.”

As liberal democracy lowers itself into collapse by its own ineptitude, people are turning to what is innate and what works. Heritage, gut instinct, making the trains run on time, and keeping happy families together have become more important than any words on paper or abstract ideological concepts. This represents a human return to sanity so that it can move upward, instead of “forward” to a dead Utopia.

Nationalist Public Radio, Episode 5: Foreign Policy

Friday, March 10th, 2017

This week the Nationalist Public Radio crew tackle a subject that will become more prevalent as war with China approaches. How would an Alt Right or nationalist government approach foreign policy? The subtopics of isolationism and imperialism are covered with the same aplomb with which we attack domestic issues. Expect to be shocked, horrified… and possibly intrigued.

0:00 – Introduction of the topic

1:50 – Everitt gives a brief overview of US-Russian relations

4:15 – What should our relationship with Russia be?

  • Brett notes that Russia is heading towards conservatism where we’ve drifted towards leftism and that ethnic differences between Russians and Europeans makes it hard to see a mutual goal
  • Does the U.S. have a Cold War hangover? – There seems to be a sentiment of anti-Russia because that is politically useful

9:15 – How will the Trump administration address the Putin administration?

  • Peter notes that realism is likely what states subscribe to and thus recognize that war is not in their best interest
  • Russian “hacking” will make things hard for Trump to get things done, however
  • According to Peter, people of his generation seem to view Russia as a totalitarian state and Europe as some monolith of Whiteness

14:45 – Are we still in the “Better Dead than Red” mindset?

17:05 – Could the U.S. have a positive energy relationship with Russia?

  • Peter notes that, despite contestation, natural gas from Russia is a key import to European countries and we might be able to operate similarly, we would just need to not impose Western values
  • Further, European states seem to take a Schmittian view whereby Russia is viewed not necessarily as a moral ‘foe,’ but as a political ‘enemy.’
  • 20:30 – The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt

22:00 – Brief history of the Arab world

24:00 – Should we push for energy independence?

  • Brett argues that, perhaps, we should invade the Middle East and take their oil (kick their ass and take their gas)
  • If this were to happen, it would have to be either a Roman style protectorate or a situation where we drive Middle Eastern nations into North Africa

28:55 – Do we have an obligation to secure peace in the Middle East?

  • Peter says no and rejects the ‘kick their ass and take their gas’ mentality
  • Peter notes that we can stabilize the Middle East via one of two ways: retrench or nuke it from orbit
  • Further, Peter argues that Iran would be a good balance to have in the Middle East

34:00 – What would happen to the Middle East if the U.S. withdrew?

42:40 – How ought the U.S. work as a leader in a nationalistic world?

50:00 – Do Nationalism and Isolationism go together?

  • Brett notes that we have to be carefully when we succeed so other rising powers don’t attack
  • Brett also thinks that we can’t be truly isolationist
  • 56:07 – The American Way of War by Russell F. Weigley
  • Peter thinks that we can be isolationist and that we should – leaving people alone promotes nationalism insofar as we respect total self-determination
  • 58:53 – All the Shah’s Men by Stephen Kinzer
  • Peter argues that even if we retrench, there will be localized spheres of influence and regional hegemons
  • Brett thinks we are entering an age of conquest

1:03:00 – What do we do in the case of genocide?

1:17:39 – Closing and outro and remember to email podcast@amerika.org

Visit our Nationalist Public Radio Archives to listen to past episodes of the show.

A New Decentralized World Order

Wednesday, February 8th, 2017

Humans move slowly because it takes us time to organize our internal assumptions, like someone packing a house for a move, before we can see the big picture. But the end of the liberal democratic world order is upon us, and we will be moving from a centralized ideology to a patchwork of many different civilizations:

Their sick ideology and false theology requires that we be enslaved or exterminated – we can’t be tolerated, and we certainly can’t be allowed to hold the reins of power.

…So the only outcome is that one side wins and the other loses. There’s no truce to be had, no possibility of a tie. And the frightening thing is that the Left is so foolish, so stuck in its bubble that it has no understanding that it can only push so far before the people with all the guns and all the training push back. That’s the problem with kids who were raised on participation trophies and who never got into a fistfight – they don’t consider the possibility that they will lose, and lose hard.

We must ensure they do. Understand your enemy. Understand that the Left will exploit your principles and morals to make you disarm yourself – figuratively and literally. Don’t play their game; don’t fall for their manufactured outrages.

In the old order, it was assumed that many different types of people — races/ethnes, religions, castes/classes, political beliefs — could coexist in the same society, so long as it was controlled by a centralized ideology and economic system. Now, we realize that we are all heading in different directions; the center could not hold. This means the demise of liberal democracy.

Taking its place will be what Samuel Huntington described in The Clash Of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order, a world defined by many different civilizations, each based on whatever it is holds them together. Some, for example, might be theocracies; others will be nationalist entities. The point is that they are not united by ideology, but by some identity that makes the group seem innate to its members.

This leads us to an important need, which is to decide what our civilizations will be:

And behind those immigration policies lies a profound question facing Americans: what kind of country do they want their country to be?

For most of our history, we have been largely a country of Europeans, a country of the West, with Western sensibilities and a shared devotion to the Western heritage. Now we are in the process of becoming something else—a mixed country without a coherent, guiding heritage of any civilization and certainly not of the West.

…The American left and most of the country’s elites considered it a natural and beneficial development, a testament to the value of diversity and a shared aversion to discriminatory practice or even discriminatory thinking. Any suggestion that this sweeping change in the makeup of the American population could be ultimately detrimental was considered an assault on the country’s core values and hence our foundations. That tended to stifle dissent. And, if wary critics got too uppity, there was always the allegation of racism to shut them up.

The old order was a binary between diversity and racists. In the new order, everyone is racist, and classist, and sexist, and elitist, probably hompohobic or transphobic, and so on. We cannot all get along, so we are all going our own ways. And through this, we will preserve the diversity of the human species and allow its internal parts to compete for which methods and principles work best.

This decentralized new order replaces the centralized New World Order of the last thirty years. Instead we have independence of association, which means that people will gravitate toward those like them. The centralized order was a fantasy by those who desired power. The new order is for those who can survive without being part of the Crowd.

Future

Thursday, January 5th, 2006

coffee_bean_comparison

Coffeeshops resemble the internet in that almost everyone you meet in such places has a strong political opinion, or a theory of changing the world. This is fortunate for those who do not desire change, as it means that any possible accord is fragmented into literally millions of perspectives that differ enough to be incompatible. Of course, if you’re trying to sound important in a chat room or hipster-beaten sofa, you need the most distinctive appearance for your political opinion possible, so consensus is not your goal.

Luckily for those who study philosophy, it’s easy to group these opinions, as they universally represent a few actual viewpoints, when one removes the trivial conflicts where the political thinker is addressing a symptom and not structural function. Despite whatever personal conceits they invent to justify the uniqueness of their opinions, these ornamentations do not affect the general theory of each viewpoint; further, if that viewpoint were achieved in reality, almost all of the decorative uniqueness would be subsumed by a larger function. Even if you’re the one republican who favors abortion, if the general theory of your outlook is that the government chooses what should be legal based on republican values, abortion will be decided by that principle, if nothing else through the opinion of a public conditioned to a certain way of doing things.

Almost everyone one encounters has some variation on the Christian-liberal theme, which is the independence of the individual and the consequent deferment of collective needs; one reason America is a political disaster, as noted by Samuel Huntington in his epic “The Promise of Disharmony,” is that the fundamental American political creed is anti-government and anti-collective: it is a form of personal kingdom that becomes selfish only when one sees that its pursuit obviates any chance for consensus or moving to a state of anything but constant debate, conflict and a see-sawing of political power. Americans do not agree on much because their only shared value is the importance of material individualism as expressed through a reluctance to agree. From our Puritan origins, and our massively powerful rhetoric during the Cold War, this amalgamated opinion is as deeply-entrenched as it is hopeless.

There are defectors, of course, most notably Communists, Greens and Nationalists. These are more pragmatic sorts who see the need for some agenda in common so that society can get past a state of constant indecision, which much as neurosis wears down the individual, over time erodes the political will to get anything done and thus leaves the nation susceptible to an ongoing degeneration of function until it reaches a point of third-world chaos. Each of these defector ideologies pulls in its own direction, unfortunately, negating the synergistic effect that could be found from looking at this commonality: they believe in a need for consensus and a higher value system than that of “if it makes money, it’s good” and represent our only chance for escape from consumerism. Their problem, in addition to their fundamental violation of the American credo of materialistic individualism, is that each by narrowing in to a specific tenet or issue has excluded from their thinking the necessity of creating a whole system. Society must go on, and cannot radically discard un-Green practices, and life for normal people must not be interrupted by the radically normalizing of Communism; even Nationalists succumb, in that they have unrealistic or nonexistent plans for the rest of society after National separation (or, in the case of the white power wackos, genocide) is achieved.

What unites these dissident viewpoints with the mainstream consumerism-democracy-individualism crowd (who will insist they are themselves individual and unique thinkers, although a structural – “philosophical” – analysis of their beliefs reveals otherwise) is a belief in revolution. At some point, whatever it is that they have found to be defective produces a need for too many changes that inevitably conflict with each other, and like an airplane trying to out-turn too many adversaries, they run out of open space and declare a need for an extreme leveling to make their philosophies work. This inevitably translates into revolution, which takes many forms including genocide, and points to a failure in their thinking: they are looking toward the past. Whether they want to resurrect fallen empires, or remove what they see as a great evil, they are viewing society from the perspective of a frozen moment instead of seeing it as a constantly growing thing. They want an immediate and final solution, and to achieve one of these, one has to eradicate organic details and make big abstract absolute statements, whether “freedom” or “ethnic cleansing,” in order to answer a question inextricably bogged down in details.

The revolutionary mindset is to be feared because it lacks a plan beyond revolution. Revolutionaries are inevitably more conditioned by social and political influences in the system they claim to be overthrowing and thus, once they’ve murdered their leaders and enacted chaos, they have no new structure to put in place and end up mimicking the old. In no small part this originates in the “individualism” of revolutionaries, who are not prone to consensus except the need for something radical to fix everything in one fell stroke. This is like trimming a tree by cutting it down, and hoping something better grows in its place, where in reality trimming a tree is a process of finding out its pattern of growing and making select (“structural”) changes. Revolutionaries look toward the past, and hopelessly out of touch with the future, instead repeat the past with a new brandname.

Those who will make any kind of positive change deal in facts, not feelings, whether those are feelings of personal uniqueness or a “it should be this way” desire. Positive change comes from accepting the reality of the situation, and trimming it so that it grows into something better in the future. It does not happen overnight; every overnight “miracle” revolution has collapsed in its own disunity. It is a slow process of nurturing, which includes both stimulating growth and cutting away that which injures correct growth. Positive changers do not look at details, or emotional reactions, but pay attention to structure and modify it so that the whole of society changes. They do not zero in to a single issue and assume that fixing it will magically resurrect the whole. They deal in facts, not feelings or appearances, and they are willing to forego some measure of self-expression in order to find commonality; this, after all, is the founding principle of society: we give up some “freedoms” in order to work together more efficiently. We’ve forgotten this in the years since founding our society.

When I think of the changes I desire, I look toward the future. I want to group people by culture (nationalism) so that they can make the changes that concern only them, and keep going in their preferred direction; culture is the only antidote to consumerism, corporate robber barons and other entities that place money at a higher emphasis than doing what is right according to a cultural ideal. I want to remove politics from education and give those who can do great things the right tools, and remove pointless barriers from their path. I want to find a way to make industry work without destroying our world, and limit our land use and population so that we do not deplete earth.

I want to do all these things while continuing to grow toward greater heights of culture, learning, art and science; I do not want to give up on civilization. Revolutionaries see only the lack of potential in our current system, and want to destroy it, but are not rebuilders. I know we can make a better future while correcting the past and that all of the sane people, the ones who do not waste time in coffeehouses or ego battles on the internet, will agree with me and give up some degree of “individualism” so we can find common ground. Perhaps this is why the ancients worshiped the sun: even a sunset is part of a cycle that will bring eventually a new day, where new possibilities are infinite.

Recommended Reading