The military and DoD have a descriptive epithet that describes an unfortunately prevalent state of bureaucratic rot that they frequently have to negotiate:
BOHICA – Bend Over, Here It Comes Again.
It seems the DoD budget is late in crossing the finish line and the current Fiscal Year will expire before Congress properly performs it’s assigned duty. In particular, the House of Representatives doesn’t want Zika money to fund Planned Parenthood clinics in Puerto Rico. This sounds like the perfect reason to defund the US Military, if you ask Osama Bin Ladin’s iniquitous poltergeist.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
But there you have it, our odious slugs of Senatorial misrepresentation are on the precipice of ¡SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT! in order to steer federal dollars to their favored abortion chop-shops and harvesters of Tissue McNuggets. Now you can either hate abortions and consider the government implicit genociders for funding these ghouls or you can show up at your senator’s office with a suggested list of races, religions and ethnic backgrounds you’d like to see bumped up to the front of the line as a social service to the rest of us. I could care less. It is an absolutely stupid and worthless reason to hold up an entire appropriations bill. Congressmaggots are well aware of this and are deliberately electioneering the shutdown. Power is more important than principle.
But those insulated from reality are predictably that blind. I remember being told once that the old Supreme Soviet had a lower reelection rate than the US House of Representatives over some 30 year period. This is not shocking and not even the safest sinecure in Washington, DC.
Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations.
People that insulated from consequence see no problem with a rigged game. They all play along, they all get rewarded. Everyone gets their swag. Eventually, there isn’t any serious philosophical difference amongst the grifters. There are only power struggles over who gets their nose in the trough first and furthest. So you can’t reach a principled agreement and wind up playing chicken instead.
The coming ¡GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN! won’t even come close to the real thing. They aren’t evacuating and shutting down hundreds of ICBM silos and daring N. Korea, China and Russia to fire at will. The EBT Cards won’t shut down if the governing classes still want there to be a Kroger or Walmart that still has two standing bricks attached by mortar. The taxpayer funded security details protecting both The Donald and The Harridan will still be standing tall. Every amenity a member of congress enjoys on Capital Hill will still be functional. The ¡GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN! will be deliberately targeted to inconvenience people these Congressmaggots do not like.
a New Guinea word meaning “a truth everybody knows but nobody speaks” – Urban Dictionary
So society gradually collapses. People won’t enlist in an army they don’t respect. People will not obey the laws of a community they consider a jail. People won’t serve as candidates or precinct captains for political organizations that remind them of The Outfit. People within the political organization get tired of the fvkkery and no longer keep mokita. Yeats would describe it as follows.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
And I can only add in rejoinder.
The destruction gradually continues apace.
The undertow claims sand; grain by grain.
From the base of a slowly tilting lighthouse –
and none notice it happening nor care.
Until the foundations lie exposed,
until the rot eats into wood and stone,
until the structure pours down into the sea.
And one less light serves to bring the fishers safe home.
This undertow of failed democracy will lead us towards increasing failure and entropy. Not tomorrow. You can still enjoy your lunch break. But as you eat that ham sandwich stop and ponder. Plan, if you are wise, where you would get that ham if the supply chain serving your local supermarket went out like the light of the aforementioned lighthouse. Then you will know the soft apocalypse continues apace.
Throughout human history, one constant has appeared in all ages: the temptation to give in to evil.
The root of evil originates in individualism, or the desire for the individual to be more important than the order of reality. In the classic view, all of reality is a hierarchy, with the divine at the top and the rest arrayed below, and everything has a place like in an ecosystem, assuring balance and harmony with a constant inner struggle that produces people and things of quality, much like Darwinism or martial competitions.
We might refer to that abstract natural order as the plan. It includes the bigger picture: the civilization, the structure of existence, the goal, ideals of integrity and conquest, morality and nature.
All people at all times contain the tendency to desire what is evil. They want the individual to be larger than the plan. They fear the plan, because it ranks the individual, and their egos want them to be bigger than they deserve to be.
This fear compels them into a psychology of resentment: they must tear down any that are higher than they are, so that the lower are just as raised as the rest, and therefore no one looks bad for falling short of an ideal. This pathological mental state appears throughout human history as a necessary consequence of individualism, and always justifies it with a form of pacifism, equality, which states that all will be included in the group regardless of how they rank according to standards or questions of contribution.
Humans have called this “evil” through history because it is pathological, which means that it repeats itself obsessively regardless of success or failure. Where most people try something, then step back to see if it worked, the egalitarians repeat their actions with obsessive insect-like reflex action, blindly destroying in their need to assert these ideas as true.
We can see this evil in operation through how it is represented in mythology. The Greeks called it hubris, or a type of arrogance that reflected self-importance above the role of that individual in the plan. In the Bible, the hubris of Adam and Eve in the Garden resulted in their exile from a life of innocence/excellence. When humans try to place themselves above God and God’s order, chaos and horror results.
This extends to the mythical fall of Satan. As an individualist, Satan thought his personal desires were more important than the plan. As a result, he fell from heaven and became king of a different domain, but this was also his punishment: in Hell, all good things are inverted or turned into their opposites.
Then we turn to nature. Hubris can be seen in monkeys as well. A monkey tribe will gang up on any monkey who does not conform to the low standards of behavior of the group, and individual monkeys will frequently challenge the leaders — alphas — of that tribe with provocations. It is human behavior, in microcosm.
The conformity that is being forced is equality, or the rule that everyone must do the same thing, and any who exceed that are seen as a threat to the rest for having raised standards. If standards rise above the mediocre, it will alienate many in the group, and that threatens the feeling of equal inclusion that seems to prevent conflict — again, this is a form of pacifism, or bribing people with acceptance, tolerance and moral relativism in order to avoid friction.
Seen through this lens, evil is more of a mathematical certainty than a mystical force. In any group, a tension will exist between having standards and having universal inclusion, with most people desiring the latter because it creates a guarantee for them personally that they will be accepted. This is why the root of collectivism is individualism, even though it is collectivized as the group demands what each individual in the group desires, much like a union, street gang or lynch mob.
From this comes the great evil of the modern time: the compulsion to dominate the personalities of others. Created from equal parts pathetic need and a mental violence that demands satiation through victimizing others, this predatory mental state demands that nearby personalities be subjugated through social pressure, including humiliation. Like other forms of mind control, this method does not use sci-fi technologies, but simple peer pressure or psychological manipulation through the threat of what others might think.
The typical vampiric predator-parasite of the modern social scene seeks others around him, usually of lower self-confidence, and immediately begins to sow doubt in their minds. He attacks what they believe indirectly, so it does not seem like an assault, and then introduces a plausible but unproven alternative. Now the passive-aggressive begging-the-question attack begins in earnest: if they do not agree, he asks them why they are denying the truth, or the obvious, or some other phrase implying social agreement with what he has said. He then bullies them into accepting his view of reality, all for the simple reason that it makes him feel more powerful, in the absence of real power like the ability to change the failure-bound direction of his society.
Personality parasites appear in abundance because people are given no other mode of power than that which can be had through enforcing the official ideology of the Crowd, which is always egalitarianism, plus a perception of individual exceptionalism. In other words, individuals demand equality because these individuals believe they are exceptional, but must rationalize their lack of influence by believing that they are unrecognized geniuses instead of entirely average. This produces the poisonous and viral state of mind which demands that they compel others to recognize them, validate them and by doing so, recognize them as exceptional; that in turn requires that everyone be pulled down to the level of a faceless mass above which the narcissistic individual believes he can rise.
All of this is illusion. Social recognition is fleeting because the impetus behind social activity is directed toward the individual, so other individuals allow themselves to be dominated in order to achieve the sense of being part of something bigger than themselves, which makes them feel important. Looking at the audience of the average rock concert or political rally, one can see that the audience acts as if they were the ones on stage, even as they acknowledge their presence there for the concentration of social energy triggered by those actually on the stage.
Monkey dynamics persist in all human behaviors, and this tendency toward projection is no exception. It reveals the true struggle of humanity, which is not for any of the various issues that people advance as part of their psychic vampirism, but for sanity. Sanity means a clearing of the mind, and then enforcement of self-discipline, so that one can first adapt to reality, and then select the most optimal means of engineering it so that the best possible results ensue.
Modern people — like any people in a society in its last stages, regardless of technological level — find themselves under constant assault by those who want to dominate them and force them into the reigning narrative. The old saying “misery loves company” applies here: most people are miserable, and wish to drag others down into that misery, to feel better both for having dominated others and having validated their rationalization of their condition as inevitable and necessary. The modern person faces a social order in which most people are outright evil in intent and conceal it behind normalcy, “everyone does it,” and other statements of social endorsement for that evil.
The war for sanity is a quest to discover reality and escape the prison of our minds. The individual mind finds it more convenient to work through other minds, since they share a language, whereas reality is not human in nature and requires application of self-discipline to understand it. This is the nature of the hive-mind, groupthink, the echo chamber, mob-rule and other forms of the Eternal Human Dysfunction: a lonely ego, finding in other egos the ability to deny the world, which is a path of least resistance compared to understanding and finding beauty in reality.
It was for this reason that our ancestors, dating back to our origin, selected from us the best: those who were able to adapt to reality and choose excellence, because that benefited the civilization. The problem is that, over time, making civilization stronger extends that protection to those who cannot understand the importance of civilization and take it for granted, thus immediately begin to conspire against it for their own benefit. They want “anarchy with grocery stores” because that provides the broadest canvas on which to splash their egos, and the unsatisfying result makes them pathologically demand more of the same, like a drug addict who has reached a high level of biological tolerance for her substance of choice and can no longer feel the high.
When power is given to the best, they become a combination of babysitter and war-leader for the rest, giving them direction where they are afraid or incapable of thinking. This will exhaust and destroy them unless the civilization implements some method of filtering out monkey behavior where it can constrained, and exile of those for whom there is no cure.
Western Civilization has been awash in parasitic, resentful and poisonous people for too long. These are perhaps a fifth of our own people, but they have disproportionate influence because they appeal to the lowest behaviors, such as panic, emotional gushing, self-pity, fear and envy. A sane society will protect its leaders by sending its toxic people away to the third world, which is more appropriate for their anti-civilizational mentality.
This is how one fights the evil that threatens to destroy civilization, the loss of which will make all work and hopes of the individual futile and impotent.
We live in an age of inversion when the definitions of common terms have not only become confused, but turned on themselves, so they mean exactly the opposite of what they originally meant. One such term is morality.
As the practice of being social, and compelling others to “like” us by modifying our behavior, spread through society, it took on a will of its own as all control mechanisms tend to do. It was no longer enough that it modified bad behavior, but it began to modify merely unpopular behavior.
The problem with this is that socializing is an extension of the human ego. Everyone wants to feel good about themselves, and included, so the temptation is to remove standards so that each person has a place — which means they must be immune from any (real) criticism, such as that involving inner traits like moral goodness, intellectual ability and character.
Since moral character is the most important part of any human being, it became the first target of the socializers. They redefined it from traditional morality, which emphasized doing what was right according to an order larger than humanity: nature, God or gods, and the hierarchy of human ability and character.
We might call traditional morality a form of “realist morality,” or morality based in the consequences of individual actions beyond the individual. Its replacement, social morality, emphasizes the appearances of acts to other people and how those acts influence the social commandment that all must be included.
Social morality will be familiar to you from your kindergarten class. What is important is that the teacher remain in control, and for that to happen, all conflicts must be erased so that everyone engages in the same activities and thus can be manipulated by the same incentives/punishment structure. Control is necessary because the natural sorting of people into hierarchy has been interrupted.
Social morality takes several forms:
Some people are starving, so we must give them money.
Some people are being arrested, so we must change our laws.
Not everyone can participate in this activity, so we must change it.
This knowledge makes some people uncomfortable, so it must not be mentioned.
Realist morality looks different:
If people are committing crimes, this damages our civilization; protecting those who are not committing crimes is most important.
If people are starving, we should look at what led to this starvation as contrasts those who are not starving, and suggest that behavior instead.
If an activity requires certain abilities for participation, then that activity is most useful when done by those with those skills.
If some knowledge makes some people uncomfortable, we should change the conditions that make them uncomfortable instead of editing our knowledge/history.
Alert readers may note that the second list is more complex in argument. It does not operate in the simple form “Some are not participating, therefore all must participate.” The nature of people is that they like simple answers because they are easier to understand. However, this does not make them correct.
Moral realism says that if some cannot participate, then the answer is to fix what makes them unable to participate, instead of altering the criteria for participation. Social morality employs moral relativism which demands that civilization lower its stands instead of holding people accountable for their ability to meet those standards.
You may notice that in your favorite horror movies, a conflict between characters arises: the more insane characters (MICs) struggle with the more sane characters (MSCs) for control of the human side of the situation, notably the question, “What do we do?” The MICs will seek to emote and will consequently dominate discussion; the MSCs have a tendency to give up and sulk because they realize they cannot make the group see sense.
In most films of that nature, the MICs win out at first, and then the group turns to the MSCs, at which point it becomes clear that “saving everyone” is not an option. MSCs at this point become more willing to sacrifice MICs for tactical advantage, as if recapitulating Darwin and perhaps history itself. Evolution rewards the saner, but only in the very end.
Humanity faces an evolutionary challenge of a similar nature. Every society that has existed so far has failed and collapsed to a third world state, especially the highly intelligent ones. Technology, power, wealth and military strength do not save them. There is something that all of us are doing wrong, and it is fatal.
An analysis of the changes in these societies throughout history shows that as they succeed, they become more concerned with social morality than realist morality. As this pre-dates even political changes, it suggests that the root of their failing can be found in this moral shift, and that it is the cause of their demises.
One thing about Western European descended people (WEDPs) today is that few of them have come to grips with the past. The massive loss, the sense of failure, the shame and the guilt.
We glaze over when we look at the battlefields of the two World Wars not because we are bored, but because it is simply too painful. So many good people ground up like the meat that goes into hot dogs, and for what?
WWI was a response to the rise of Leftism, and an attempt to balance Europe after the century of war unleashed by the French Revolution. This created fragile alliances which detonated in the First World War.
This in turn sparked WWII, which was a resolution of unfinished business, but unfortunately the Anglo-American elites and their allies in Communist Russia took advantage of the situation. Despite my many disagreements with Adolf Hitler, his intention was to create a non-Bolshevik Europe, which is admirable.
And now we fight little wars against the ongoing decay, in which few die but many are maimed, as we slowly bleed out our best so that the bourgeois proles at home can keep watching television.
Our daily energy is spent denying the shame, guilt and horror of living in a society that is in the process of dying. In the silent cemeteries of France, the dead agree.
Let us finally mourn this pass, and remove its legitimacy. All was error, originating in Leftism, which sacrificed our best for the worst impulses of the human mind. Let us finally accept the sadness.
And then, let us resolve to do better. To finally see the real enemy — individualism and its political form, egalitarianism — and stop chasing this path to doom.
Our dead ancestors are (at least) owed this respect.
Britain is experiencing the same decline as Rome in 100BC, with the collapse of civilisation inevitable, a scientist has warned.
Dr Jim Penman, of the RMIT University in Melbourne, believes Britons no longer have the genetic temperament to advance because of decades of peace and a high standard of living.
He claims that the huge success of the Victorian era will not be repeated because people in the UK have lost the biological drive for innovation.
Instead, Britain is existing in a period similar to the decades before the fall of the Roman Republic where social tensions were rife, the gap between the rich and poor was increasing and extremism was growing.
I have to disagree with him here: the majority of the damage is behavioral. Over the past two hundred years, we have crammed people into cities, made them waste their days on unnecessary and tedious jobs, and subjected them to more red tape and putting up with the stupidity of others than anyone can handle. We have broken them the same way the Communists broke them: by cucking them, and forcing them to humiliate themselves by obeying the insane rules and horrible conditions which exist for no good reason.
Who is “we” in that sentence? The voters, of course, who in groups vote by pretense and not any vestige of realism. This pretense forms a social bond that takes over in lieu of hierarchy, culture and values. People are afraid to push back against group pretense, which forces them to accept the insanity and compensate with personal behavior.
People act badly when they are thrust into a mentality of compensation, justification, and excuse-making. This causes a reversed cognitive process where instead of aiming for something and achieving it, they accept what is and then rationalize it.
As a result, they become bratty and entitled, mainly because that is their method of compensation.
Similarly, the hive-mind around Leftist ideas seems to arise from a compensatory impulse.
The current forms of genetic degradation are casual sex, divorce, caste-mixing, and the general misery caused by working for 8-10 hours a day doing nonsense work for idiots. This makes people desperate and they engage in other compensatory behaviors like perversity, alcoholism and general apathy.
After the collapse, the genetic degradation will be most extreme. As is usual for a falling empire, we have imported in the cheap labor of the third world, and will gradually incorporate it into our gene pool. At first, this “seems” like a win, because you have picked the best of these people to breed with. Then slowly over the centuries, it becomes clear that it is fatal: the problem is not bad DNA, but inconsistent DNA, which leads to lower abilities as specialized traits are lost.
Naturally anyone with a functional brain can see this, but none can say it, because they will have their jobs, families, money, property, and friends taken away from them for indulging in wrongthink.
This decay can be turned around within a few weeks. Deport everyone but the indigenous European tribes from their homelands, and anyone but Western Europeans from America, and undo all of our laws and government. Put in place an aristocracy and let them rule local communities. Allow culture to do the rest.
At that point, the potential for parasitism will be destroyed, and so that parasites will go elsewhere, as is the nature of parasites and criminals: they look for an easy score because they are morally lazy. When the West announces that it is hostile to parasites again, its strength will return.
In Leftist-land, diversity has always been the normal state of humankind but a small number of sociopaths, called “racists,” have always hated other tribes just for being different (the same thing to which SJWs attribute their social failures in high school) and depended on sadistic subjugation of those others for their own callow sense of well-being.
In reality, “racism” does not exist and never has existed. What we see instead is that each group prefers its own, but when there is a strong and prosperous morality, diversity can be engineered and the inevitable backlash — not being able to live exclusively among their own kind, and losing control of their institutions, for the majority — blamed on “racism” which then serves as a means of ascending to power or at least getting hired as a Diversity Officer.
Like most Leftist worries, “racism” is a phantom of the mind. People prefer their own groups to live around, date/marry, befriend, work with and conduct business with. If you allow them to do this naturally, you end up with nations as we have always had, and in them social hierarchy. But Leftists hate that and want to destroy it.
And so, a crusade against “racism” begins and anyone accused of being “racist” has his life destroyed. But if it succeeded, the anti-“racism” crusade would actually create a far worse outcome:
And, honestly, is it a good idea for Airbnb to set up its platform in such a way that a person of color might unknowingly wind up in the home of a virulent racist? Or vice versa? The woman who was verbally abused by the racist Airbnb host in North Carolina told a business school classmate, “I was overwhelmed with the thought of what could have happened if I moved in without him finding out I was black. Would he have assaulted me physically or verbally etc? I just didn’t feel safe anymore.”
It has become a Silicon Valley trope that the more companies like Airbnb try to change the world, the more they reinforce the problems in the world they set out hoping to disrupt. Racism in hotel bookings has not been a problem for decades. But Airbnb is now returning us to a version of the Jim Crow era when, if you were black, you needed a race-specific travel guide to offer tips and tricks on how to navigate the white world.
When you force people to live together and interact, the ugliness comes out. When you let them have their own domains, they will not only be happier but less likely to do horrible things to one another. The hilarity of this situation is that the end result of anti-“racism” will be even more segregation and resentment.
Human history consists of long periods of sanity punctuated by disturbances in which the neurotics among us, who are able to survive because civilization makes their lives less dependent on individual pro-active forcefulness, take over and sell their insanity with pleasant-sounding ideas of the nature of that which is found in cults, on greeting cards, and in sales literature for products geared toward low-IQ people.
Eventually, they gain enough power to put their crazy ideas into practice, at which point those actions fail and the bad guys are given the power to sweep in and mop up the disaster, which they usually do by sword and fire. Like all of these Utopian crusades, the “war against ‘racism'” is a problem of its own creation which is exacerbated by its putative solutions.
Some would mention Leftism, and that could well be true, but there is another interesting myth. This myth states that no one knows how to make a successful civilization.
This requires us to overlook historical successes and fall back on the callow excuses made indirectly by denigrating those times. There were good years among the humans, but every time good arrives, it saves the fools along with the deserving, and the fools — being more numerous, fanatical and dedicated to nothing else — agitate until they take over and ruin it.
We know of the successful civilization model, which can be identified by its use of the four pillars of civilization survival. This design, or structural blueprint, for civilization works in any age and at any technological level.
That offends people who are threatened by this order, which are (1) the bad and (2) the underconfident, neurotic, weak and people who are otherwise uncertain of their ability to perform when anything is asked of them. These two groups combine to agree, in the renowned wisdom of crowds, that society without standards is a better idea.
No standards is the origin of equality. Equality means equal inclusion, or that one does not have to be competent or want to contribute in order to be part of the society, and that because inclusion is equal, there cannot be a hierarchy which places some above others. Consider it a formula for mediocrity.
All of the gyrations and peregrinations of the intellect involved in finally bringing about The Enlightenment, and before it the cosmopolitan culture of Athens, involves hiding the fact that we know how to make the best civilization possible. Like a Volkswagen bug, the blueprint is there before us. We just have to make it.
When you read the constant flow of babble from the Establishment, which is always Leftist even when it hides in “conservatism” of the neoconservative type, all of it is designed to conceal this fact. They must keep luring you with a “the grass is greener on the other side” illusion, like a good salesman, and inject fear, uncertainty and doubt about anything outside of the current system wherever they can.
They are fanatics because they are afraid. They are afraid of a world where they would have to assert themselves and perform in order to survive. Jobs, school and socializing… that is easy. Taking on unknown tasks and making them work out right, that is both hard and risky. They fear it and you can smell the nervousness on their sweat.
Anything outside of the successful civilization model is essentially Communism. Individualism starts to justify non-performance, then it becomes collectivized, and that turns into some variant of Leftism, which then needs subsidies in order to operate, and then becomes totalitarian Communism to hide its lack of function. The pattern repeats.
This process then conveys societies into third-world status. Third world societies are the most individualistic on earth. People exist in their own little bubbles, and pursue their own desires, which is why the shared infrastructure and institutions are dysfunctional, which is why the society never achieves more than subsistence.
Think of how much we have to lie just to hide this simple fact.
Most humans survive — at an existential and spiritual level — by assuming that what they have known as ordinary is “normal,” and that all deviations from this are temporary.
This enables us to keep a mental map of the world which is both static and comforting. We see what we know as a baseline that will return. And yet, as the poets warn us, we cannot step in the same river twice, which means that each moment is unique and only change is the constant.
However, nature has a plan that veers down the middle between constant and change. This plan uses cycles to change between different time-dimensions of a thing, so that it can be both unchanging and constantly changing.
This leads us to the question of what the cycle is. Is it individual lives? Particular societies? Or is it humanity as a whole? Again, nature has a more complex plan: individual societies go through cycles, but instead of being triggered by time, this change is driven by the choices made by those leading each society. This is why some civilizations last for a long time, and others a much shorter time.
Much as in nature there is Darwinian competition among individuals in a species, in humanity there is competition between these societies, but not as simple as war. It is a competition to discover what enables a society both endure and have high quality of life and knowledge.
In Western Civilization, which is Western Europe and the formerly British colonies of the New World and Oceania, we now face a struggle for our survival. The path upon which we have traveled for so long has led to nothing but failure, and that failure is accelerating.
We either do something different, or fade from history and see all that we — and our ancestors — have worked for disappear into the mists of time.
Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History And The Last Man and shocked Generation X awake with his thesis: modernity had won. The modern wallpaper of society — liberal democracy, consumerism, diversity and the regulatory state — had won out over the older and presumably more primitive forms.
In stating thus, Fukuyama gave a new generation something to rebel against. Where their parents were rebelling against a conservative (or really, neoconservative or conservative methods with liberal goals) society, Generation X was confronting a society in which Progress of both industry and egalitarianism had won out against culture, honor, values, pride and history.
The years following brought an uneasy peace. The Left did crazy things and left it to conservative presidents to inherit the mess, thanks to a Left-slanted media. The Right tried to clean up, but it was like trying to plug a dike with ten thousand holes and only ten fingers. The result was a consistent Leftward drift, urged on by industry and a post-1965 electorate that wanted benefits more than stable living.
As things stand now, the wonderful Barack Obama presidency — a gift from the gods — has shown us the future of a Leftist Amerika: everyone living in apartments, working all the time, receiving some benefits but not as much as the lower contributors, and everything being very expensive, dividing this country into the super-rich (or simply: vested in government) and everyone else, much as Leftism did in Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, and so on.
The result is that Left and Right are diverging along the lines of “we cannot coexist.” Or rather, the Left has diverged from everyone else, who gets lumped into the Right because the only objections one can have to the Left are on the basis of realism: Leftism does not work, it makes life worse, and so on. But how do you argue against an emotional and populist argument like “equality”?
There is no solution.
Ergo, the two will split. The American Civil War never ended because, contrary to what the Left tells us, the war was not about slavery although the touchstone issue was found in slavery. The war was fought over the ability of people to have states which did not follow the Northeast model of big cities, industrial and social Progress, and other emotive but ill-conceived schemes that have destroyed empires throughout history.
Our problem is fundamentally a leadership problem. When the vote is handed to an ever-increasing pool of people with less skin in the game — starting with women, who if single will work until they die and want everyone else to suffer the same fate, and extending to children who want free things and minority groups who because they cannot have self-determination wish to be subsidized by their de facto rulers — society goes only one direction. All democracies come to that state, interestingly enough.
Some suggest reforms to democracy, but this is impossible. The problem is deeper than that: Western Civilization is in decline and has been for thousands of years. We need to go back to the ancient principles that made us strong, and that requires doing away with democracy, because as part of that ancient wisdom we realize that all of us are ranked on a hierarchy of quality and most people are little more than “talking monkeys with car keys” whose every opinion is poisonous, insane, stupid and destructive.
This is what the Christians call “original sin”: without improvement by self-discipline, most people are merely monkeys, and even when self-disciplined, only very few are ready for leadership and the rest are not only bad at it, but will choose a suicidal path because they prefer pleasant social appearances over literal reality. Welcome to the Black Pill, which is the gateway to all wisdom.
Even if we killed off most of humanity, the problem would replicate. The small group that would remain has the same innate tendencies as the rest of humanity and so would replicate our situation. Even if we killed off the stupid, those who are intelligent fall prey to the same idiocy, in fact perhaps more so because of their arrogance at how intelligent they are, and so we would find ourselves on the same path.
No. There is one solution, and it involves re-structuring our societies around culture, heritage, values, hierarchy and transcendental goals. I call these the “four pillars” because they distill to four concepts — aristocracy, positive reward, nationalism/culturism and transcendentalism — but they appear throughout history in many forms.
When we choose the order of our society, we have two basic options:
Lottery-ism. Set up a game and see who wins. Of course, since the game — consumerism, democracy, popularity, sexual attraction — is artificial and based on appearance, it is easily cheated by those who are both fanatical and amoral. That, then, is who will rule us.
Excellence. Directly assess who is good, and entrust them with power, wealth and prestige to be used in the ways that have made these people excellent. This creates a natural hierarchy where people compete to be good, instead of toward winning the game.
Increasingly, I see the latter as the only option. It is both frightening and chillingly clear, which creates an inner warmth at having an answer, no matter how grim, but also invokes fear and trembling among the population now. They are afraid of what will happen to them, which is why the leadership that comes must be excellent, not merely brutal in the way of tyrants.
We have tried every permutation possible of the first path, and it has failed, where only two generations ago the old order still held sway and granted us with competent (but not perfect, as nothing is) leaders and social order. Now in our revolutionary fervor, we have undone it all, and as a result we live in a third-world type society where chaos and cruelty rule us.
The question incumbent upon every red-blooded person manifests as, “What is the health of my civilization?”
A confident person knows that he or she can succeed according to just about any parameters, but if the civilization is failing, that success will become hollow and quickly erased by a history of incompetence, corruption, lies and dysfunction.
For this reason, the most “alpha” among us are concerned with the health of our civilization and whether it is heading in one of two directions: toward the default of decay, or toward an ascendant possibility of something greater, perhaps approximating what ancient Greece and Rome achieved.
Reading Bruce Charlton’s Decline of the West Explained, one must confront some vital questions about civilization itself, and in that is found the great value of this work: a highly articulate inspection of the way that high intelligence societies delude themselves and fail.
Charlton’s basic thesis: Western Civilization departed from Christianity, and thus lost any sense of purpose. In analysis, this does not hold up because the wave of liberalization, which represents hubris/evil, was the cause of this effect. Christianity had to depart because it implied a hierarchy first with God on the top, and second based on how well people fulfilled the moral mandate, and so the tendency of individualism wished to abolish it alongside with culture, values, standards and other hierarchy of behavior that could make people “unequal” as they naturally are.
However… he makes some excellent points about how de-sacralizing (removing the sacred) has contributed the decline of the West, and how what we face now is evil in the form of our decline, which comes at least from rejecting good and replacing it with a motive to destroy all good, since good reveals the emptiness of evil.
The point, in essence, is that living for worldly gratification stimulates the sin of pride and indeed regards it as a virtue. Pride and the search for gratification combine to *invite* evil into one’s life and into the world.
Here we have individualism, revealed and naked in its grotesque perversion hiding behind a veneer of social acceptability. What is evil, more than prioritizing self-interest above that of the order of nature and God? Evil sneaks into everything we do because humans are fundamentally evil, or at least fundamentally monkey, and this leads to the kind of short-term logic that rewards individualism.
This creates an economic model based on hedonism of the least interesting variety, that which is normally termed as “bourgeois” because it is an avoidance of risk and conflict. Charlton makes the point that those who seek individualistic pleasure will turn their backs on the needs of civilization and any higher goal.
So a society that values nothing higher than a pleasant life and which will seek the pleasant life whereever and whenever possible will be morally flaccid in face of opposition, will appease rather than resist, will submit rather than fight, and will therefore end-up being ruled by its most relentless and long-termist enemies – and by having an extremely un-pleasant life.
He points out the utter futility of democracy, which rewards the mass delusion at the expense of truth, which is found through individual dogged pursuit of truth against all convenience and comfort. Like Nietzsche, he defines it as a sort of mass insanity, a reliance on known impossible methods that then requires we doctor our thinking to make it seem as if the unworkable is working:
I believe that majority vote decision making is one of the most damaging aspects of modernity. As a system, it is quite simply insane – knowing what we know, knowing from experience its unpredictability, randomness, un-wisdom, distorting effects on human psychology…
He also targets other aspects of modernity:
Socialism is paradoxical, nonsensical, therefore intrinsically dishonest (in order to make sense of itself to itself).
This is why socialism unwinds into moral inversion.
One major theme in this book is how modernity requires we accept illusion that we know is destructive, and as a result, make our minds twisted and become robotic little Leftist zombies instead of whole people who can actually think:
The distinction is one between that of living under physical constraint or persecution, and that of living under a system dedicated to annihilating the soul and replacing it with political propaganda.
Charlton explains this evil and its accompany psychology very well and makes a compelling case that the West cannot arrest its decline until it decides to be moral again, and he argues that it requires a restoration of Christian faith to understand this morality.
He analyzes society as the flight away from an ethic of convenience, and instead an adoption of a compulsion toward morality: doing what is healthful for the civilization instead of what is personally flattering, profitable, easy and familiar. This moral root of civilization requires the consciousness of good and evil that is present under religion, but missing with materialism and relativism.
The anti-individualistic nature of such a morality requires the individual to deny their impulse toward self-centered decision-making, and to think of principles and ideas in terms of their effect on the civilization and surrounding world instead of in the echo chamber of social opinion, in which the egos of individuals and the group unite in agreement on what is safe, unthreatening and flattering.
It seems that our literate ancestors (such as the ancient Jews) all spontaneously recognized that for a person to live according to their spontaneous desires – living primarily for seeking gratification and avoiding (or minimizing) suffering – was morally wrong.
Where this book could expand and be refined is to look practically at the process of liberalization: the tendency toward individualism is present in all humans, and per Dunning-Kruger it is most prevalent in those who can understand nothing beyond themselves.
With that in mind, collectivized individualism stands revealed as the hubris-based initiative that unmakes civilization. This leads in a Leftward direction because “equality” is the principle required to group people together into a mob. At that point, the mob inevitably tends toward atheism.
The reason for this materialistic drift is not a rejection of religion in itself, but a taboo on what it requires. Having a god and a moral standard means that we are not all equal, because God implies hierarchy, and a moral standard also creates social rank. That offends the egalitarians, and so they attempt to destroy religion alongside culture and race so that they can create their control-oriented egalitarian paradise on earth.
The main problem is, I think, that mandarins are expert at ignoring common sense reality and focusing on abstraction.
Charlton does an excellent job of showing how human reason betrays us as soon as we go down the path of arguing from material logic. The Cathedralists or faux elites — whom he calls “mandarins” — are in his analysis the people who excel at this type of thinking, and it makes them civilization destroyers.
The greatest taboo in this time appears to be acknowledging that Western Civilization is not only far from healthy, but headed to doom, mainly because there is a huge market for distraction and denial products to make people feel better about living in a failing social entity. Mandarins are the priests of the cult of denial.
Decline Of The West Explained does an excellent job of explaining evil as the folly of human reason pointed toward the individual. Although its thesis argues for a restoration of religion, it also explains the need for a precursor in the form of a return of anti-individualistic thinking, which acknowledges the source of our decline and the relatively easy mental step required to fix it.