Posts Tagged ‘first world’
Tuesday, February 14th, 2017
Much is prone to be said about why certain countries belong to the so-called third world and why others have somehow triumphed and become the first world. The problem with this way of classifying things is that it only takes into account economic factors; that is, it is a strictly materialist way of evaluating the success of a society. Following a very American way of seeing things, material affluence is considered all there is to life.
For those who see fulfillment beyond the ability to buy products, there is a clear deficiency in this point of view. This is not to say that a manner of material prosperity should not only be desired but is absolutely necessary in order to attain loftier goals, but in a world infected by a reductionist and mechanistic way of thinking, method and quantity are confused with wealth and achievement in themselves.
What follows are a couple of observations about the third world and first world contrasted from extended first hand experience. These observations should not be unduly extrapolated or generalized, and they refer strictly to the countries and contexts mentioned. The point to be made, however, is that simple classifications into first and third world areas are a very poor way of measuring the success of a society. Furthermore, that identity, cohesion and tradition are not enough, although they are necessary, for the success of a group.
Here we might also interject that different people might have differing opinions of what success is. In this writing we will allude to the holistic success of a society. Firstly, the individual is not sacrificed as a piece of machinery for the abstract concept of the group. Secondly, the group itself is not there to satisfy the whims of the individual. Thirdly, that in so doing conditions are brought about for a flourishing culture that not only allows for but incentivizes a holistic development of individuals. Finally, and as a consequence of the previous points, the group as a whole moves towards transcendent goals of an idealistic nature, which makes it tackle obstacles with a view in the distant future and not just the immediate consequences or the possibility of momentary gain.
A brief comment on the third world of Latin America
A more accurate, though brief, description of the Latin American third world will be in order. It should be understood that Latin American countries are not all like the most multicultural parts of Brazil. In fact, there still is a great deal of segregation. The real problem is that countries divided by so disparaged groups such as aboriginals, mestizos, Africans, a very few criollos, Arabs, and others have no way of coalescing into a national identity. One should also mention that the typical North American or European generally has a hard time identifying a Latin American if that person does not look like a Mexican Indian, and that is pretty often.
In general, you could say that there are broad cultural strokes along Latin America, but unlike what is German, French or English, the lines are blurred and often rely on petty superficial distinctions when it comes to separating something that is Colombian rather than Venezuelan, or Honduran rather than Guatemalan. One should mention that exceptions to the third world rule, at least in the past, like Chile and Argentina, had large German and Italian populations that greatly enhanced the efficacy of their countries in the past. This was amplified by the fact that Spain had settled governmental centers in those areas as well, making them better organized and prepared to rule effectively from the very outset. Countries such as Argentina developed, at one point, a very distinct identity, considering themselves apart and distinct from the rest of Latin America, and something closer to a new breed of European descendants.
Most countries in this predicament take things like certain specific cuisine or their little accent variation of Spanish as their identity. Left-minded people in these countries say nonsensical things to the effect of the lack of an identity being our identity; or even worse, that a lack of identity and the diversity is richness and thus good, even though they may even acknowledge the communication and practical problems that come with that.
In the more clear cases of third world totalities, such as Central American and Caribbean countries (with the exception of lucky and equally mediocre Panama that have the canal), there is a clear case of incurable corruption. Corruption is such an intrinsic part of the attitude the population has towards the state and the rest of the population that one could almost say it is part of the culture. This stems directly from the fact that two Hondurans, for instance, rarely share something on the transcendent plane, not to mention heredity. Their connection extends no further than the beer they like, the soccer team they support and their taste in women. If you do not feel like that mass of people is truly your own, that you are a part of them as an undeniable actuality and not just as a poetic turn of phrase, then there is very little reason to feel an obligation towards them. There are, of course, individuals that are simply honorable, but that is a trait that is increasingly hard to come by.
The general poverty of Central America stems mainly from this lack of cohesion, and a lack of far-reaching vision. Here, democracy and bureaucracy show their worst face for in combination with the cultural corruption, it all serves as a cruel parody of a world that could be but in which nobody believes in. This is another huge difference you will find between first and third worlders. First worlders believe in such things, even if they are delusional, mediocre and materialistic in the end. Third worlders do not really buy all the nonsense, but they still play along, thinking things simply cannot be worse, so what could be the risk of trying again?
On the other hand, Latin America retained the old style of education of Europe, even as Europe has advanced towards Marxist indoctrination and the U.S.A. and Canada embrace an astoundingly poor model for their public education that places far more importance on the appearance of social responsibility than on the actual education of children. The result is that when a Latin American, even one from an unmistakable third world area, gets a full education in the public system, they tend to be better educated and generally better informed than the average American or Canadian citizen. Hence the general derisive attitude towards the great money lands of the north that is incensed by the often empty and ignorant boasts of U.S.A. residents — whether they are actually from, Kansas, Mumbai or Puerto Rico — which is often erroneously confused with jealousy by outsiders.
Then again, what good is all this good breeding if, on a collective basis, society as a whole is a filthy garbage disposal area? The well-educated Latin American lives off the ruins and remnants of 19th century Europe, stuck there forever in dreams and illusions of a gentleman’s society that never was; forever sad and full of complaints, and in a constant and futile tug-of-war with Marxist imbeciles with chicken brains. We return to the bottom line: no identity, no unity, no ideal to strive for; only band aids, a chronic malady of pessimistic expectations for society and conformist mentality towards life.
On the other hand, this breeds a preference for enjoying life beyond material possessions that are generally hard to come by or simply too expensive to be practical. Education is not oppressive or oriented enough to be strong in ideological indoctrination, thus a high percentage of above-average IQs escape the nets of false history and whatever political biases come their own way.
From the third world, the comedy of modern world politics is seen as if from the outside, despite a weak country’s utter dependence on the smallest gestures of the world super powers. The futility of any action against these superpowers also implies that international politics matter to these countries only in so far as how the superpowers want to use and dispose of them in the long run.
The illusion of the success of first world East Asian countries
Here we turn to countries such as South Korea and Taiwan, specifically, which are considered to be the miracle children of a capitalist-industrialist system coupled with a strong control of education and healthcare by the government. Statistically, these things are undeniable, but when one takes a closer look at individuals within these societies, a very interesting picture starts to form. In general, we can say of these countries that they never lack in material means, and there is always a way, yet the individuals often appear miserable in one way or another.
Leaving Korea aside in the interest of specificity, we will now turn to Taiwan and make a couple of observations that more clearly illustrate the general point about the illusion of first world success. China’s non-negligible shortcomings should be obvious to most readers, but Taiwan is the often-forgotten golden boy.
Taiwan was neglected for centuries until along came Imperial Japan with the intention of making it a part of itself in spirit, education and infrastructure. After the end of WWII, Taiwan passed into an American-supported dictatorship that effectively turned the country into a factory while the last remnants of intellectual inquiry (which had, under the Japanese, seen the budding of a unique Taiwanese nationalist group of thinkers) and free thought were completely crushed and education was reoriented towards the mass production of obedient and useful workers.
In a few decades, Taiwan accumulated a great amount of wealth. In the course of three generations, it went from being a developing land of mainly farmers with a Japanese-educated central intelligentsia to a country of optimized factory workers with health insurance and secondary education guaranteed. Education is measured by standardized tests, rote memorization and stats thereof. Jobs are little more than that, while long working hours past ten daily hours are the norm, yet everyone knows most of that is wasted time.
Most people will acknowledge that most of what they learn in school and how they learn it is utterly useless; the popular opinion is also that seeing a doctor in itself is usually useless, but you get cheap medicine that comes with the consultation backed by national health insurance. In short, it is a huge circle jerk where everyone knows everyone else is a hack, but will not complain because they know that they themselves are a hack. Such is life in the degenerate first world.
You fill it up with important-sounding words, long pages of stats and numbers and congratulate society on how busy it is. Business is good because everyone is buying a plastic trinket, and in the case of most Taiwanese people, this is all there is to life: work and buying trinkets, until retirement, after which your progeny is in charge of buying you more trinkets. Even after death, the general superstition (it is not really even a religion) is that you keep “buying” things and sending them via burning to your dead parents, including fake money. The next life is simply more working to buy stuff. Such is the depth of a society that is materialistic through and through.
Even more alarming to someone who is aware and mindful of the care of body and mind, is that most people, even those clearly well off, seem to suffer from malnutrition and permanent exhaustion. This goes for children as well as for adults. Genetic and nutrition-based defects are the norm and one can see it in genetic bone discrepancies, widespread eyesight problems, extreme premature aging, the widespread visible physical incapacity in coordination and muscular atrophy in young adults as the preponderance among the population.
The government encourages this sickly, zombie-like attitude towards work because that is how a cheap mass-production factory best works: lots of mediocrity in rotation fast enough that low quality is negligible, and who cares about the price to be paid; that is how the wheels keep turning at the fastest pace. The government is afraid there will not be enough money to keep its status and affluence and it pressures big heads; these in turn are worried about their own status and self-importance and so they pressure bosses under them; these in turn have an obsession with being rich, the only meaning they find in life so they treat professional and supposedly accomplished subordinates like slaves; these in turn do the same to whoever is under them and treat their own families like one more assurance that they are doing well.
Ultimately, the pressure comes down on very young children who are made to fear a low number that condemns them to hell, threatened with physical and psychological torture if they but stray from the path of obedience and self-sacrifice for their parents. Their parents also slaved for their parents, and so on. All until a premature aging and the possible satisfaction of their descendants working to let them live their last days in relaxation.
A worthless first world
The first world has escaped the poverty of the third world, but rather than convert that method into a means of achieving something greater, it has remained in a small closed circuit loop where it fixates on the material factors that elevated it from third world status. If this is the price of monetary success in a country-turned-factory, is it really success?
The core of individual and nation is not what is, but where the future direction is found. The present is already the past. The future is what shapes both present and all times afterward. In the third world, there is the possibility of striving, but in the first world, there is a smug self-congratulation about what is and therefore, an absence of motivation toward the future.
For this reason, we might see the first world as in progress toward the third world, and the third world as in progress toward the first, so long as we regard first world and third world as states of being for civilization and not discrete physical places. As in all things, the rules of attraction apply, and so the first world desires the third and in doing so, suffocates its future with negativity.
Monday, January 9th, 2017
Whenever a large group of people seems to enjoy talking about something, back yourself up and stop to think: it is a lie. Whatever the Crowd likes is always a lie, usually a paired distraction from the real problem and scapegoating of an easier target so we can beat up wimps and feel like we have done something epic.
But it is always a lie because the Crowd always chooses based on what is mentally convenient for individuals in groups, not for someone who cares about the results of his actions and therefore needs a realistic read on the world. That person, the lone “individualist,” is in fact not an individualist but a unitivist, or someone who has bonded with his world by beating down his own solipsism.
Human perception is usually defined by psychological need, not realistic adaptation. In the way of nature, a few adapt while the rest live in illusion, and over time, the adapted gradually predominate over the rest. Human civilization reverses this, of course, because the rest have more votes than the adapted.
We refer to people engaging in fantasy-as-reality behavior as LARPing, autism or sperging but in reality, it is just a nerdy version of what humanity normally does. In the ghetto, everyone is an undiscovered star; in the third world, everyone is a king; in modern America, each person is a precious snowflake. This psychology is more consistent among humans than varied.
The biggest LARP these days is talk about “The Collapse” or the coming apocalypse. The delusional people come in several flavors: some think it will be climate change, others economic collapse, still others WWIII, and the really crazy think that the Rapture will come and Satan will rule this world while the righteous get beamed to the moon for free french fries. None of these are wholly wrong, but they are minimally right, meaning that they are ingredients not end products.
For example: Climate change is the effect of too many people and too much concrete displacing our forests, which is why the usual idiots are raving on about automobiles instead of looking at the actual problem; economic collapse is the result of a circular Ponzi scheme made by our liberal leaders to keep demand-side economics afloat; WWIII will happen when multiple bankrupt nations look at each other and realize war is the only way that their presidents get to stay in power; the truth of Satan ruling this world is that people are liars and the Lord of Lies wins whenever they are not oppressed by the small minority who are not habitually dishonest to themselves and others.
In contrast to all of these Hollywood fantasies, we have a pretty good idea of what collapse looks like, because it has happened many times before. In fact, collapse is the destination to which 99% of societies go, with a lucky 1% escaping for longer than a few hundred years, mainly because humans are pathological reality-deniers and reality denial destroys societies. It is not difficult to make an enduring society once one accepts that what most people “think” is true and “intend” is in fact the usual brew of impulse control problems, disguised cleverly.
When a society collapses, it just begins to fade away. Social organizations stop being effective but retain their power, which enables them to extract money from the population like cops taking bribes. People get stupider because the intelligent, tasking with keeping the herd in hand, have become exhausted and died out from too much babysitting of idiot monkeys. Soon, disorder becomes the norm, and the true nature of humanity comes out: individualists doing whatever they want and ignoring the consequences so they have more time to feel powerful inside their minds.
At that point, a former first-world societies resembles any of the majority of third-world societies that make up human civilization. People will live on little, have no future, and produce nothing lasting. Instead they will simply exist, in a timeless fashion that demands almost nothing from the individual and so is popular, with the trade-off that nothing can be done because nothing really works.
A few wealthy mostly-whites will rule over a vast horde of Caucasian-Asian-African hybrids. Mindless tedium will become the norm, and idiots will rule because the voters will have an average IQ in the high 80s or low 90s and be completely incapable of making even moderately complex decisions. The SHFT is LARP. Instead, it is a long slow decline into irrelevance.
Tuesday, September 6th, 2016
As the media machine struggles to make sense of what is happening, it repeats the old tropes. Conservative and liberal writers have taken to their keyboards to write about how leftism is good, and anything else is bad. They claim the opposite, that they are attacking specific movements, but only non-Leftist movements are attacked.
That leads to the kind of schoolyard name calling that we see in this article from Leftist voicebox The New York Times:
The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the alt-right “a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.” Most Americans hadn’t heard about the alt-right until this election, and some not until last month, when Hillary Clinton gave a speech in Reno, Nev., linking Donald Trump to it.
The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute says it is “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.” Through his online writings and YouTube channel, Mr. Spencer is a key player in the social-media universe where this core group of Trump supporters get their “news,” from sources with which most people aren’t familiar. A quick scan shows that immigration is not only their most important issue, it’s pretty much their only issue.
“Immigration is a kind of proxy war — and maybe a last stand — for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile,” Mr. Spencer wrote in a National Policy Institute column.
The Left bemoans this as identity politics, which means voting according to your tribe’s self-interest. It is acceptable for homosexuals, Jews, African-Americans, Mexicans, Japenese, Muslims, etc. to act in their own self-interest, but not Europeans. Why? Because the goal of Leftism is to destroy the majority culture and replace it with an ideology.
We know this because history shows it to us. The Soviet Union bragged about how diversity was its strength. Rome became increasingly diverse in its final years, as did Athens, by the account of Plato. In each case, the rulers imported new people to shatter the culture, heritage and traditions of the society so that the people could be made a means to the end of that ruler’s power.
That is the decision before us at this time: be not racist, so that our leaders can replace enough of us to have permanent control, or be called racists and say out loud that diversity does not and cannot function as a positive policy, therefore it should be replaced. That means America for its founding group, the Western Europeans.
Across all continents settled by Western Europeans, the elites have had one super-weapon which they use liberally (no pun intended) and that is the epithet ¡RACIST!. Starting even before the Civil War, the elites decided they wanted to replace our people with others, first Southern and Eastern Europeans, and later, other racial groups. This made the job of being an elite leader easier, because no cultural consensus conflicted with the power of the State.
Since WWII, it has been easy — too easy — for the elites, since Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini were all nationalists, or those who believe a nation should be defined by its founding ethnic group only. This opposed the agenda of the ever-expanding Leftist State, and thwarted its power, so it needed to be destroyed.
This agenda was enforced by the social perception that “everybody knows” and “everybody agrees” what is true, and therefore, those who think differently are not just wrong, but wrong because they are bad or stupid and ignorant. This is a fundamentally social method of controlling the thinking of the masses, a type of hive-mind imposed by an appeal to the weakness and pretense of individuals.
Except that now, people are willing to be called ¡RACIST! and ignorant because they realize that this is it: this is our last shot and preventing the takeover of our civilization by the Left.
Next stop, Venezuela. Or Brazil. But it will not be the future we have been told that we have. Nope, all the wealth and technology is slowly going away as social order further disintegrates, and then we have nothing but the type of third-world strongmen we are familiar with from the news, ruling over a banana republic where everyone is corrupt, that never produces anything important ever again.
This is why events like the Donald Trump candidacy, and Brexit, have shaken the establishment to its core, but more importantly, have shocked its supporters, who are counting on riding the coattails of the “right side of history” to personal success, and being thoughtless like people who litter in national parks, care not for the consequences of their actions. Witness history being made:
The first was an almost universal surprise, since it was a truism that Leavers were a tiny handful of fruitcakes. A defeat for Remain was thus unthinkable. In fact there had always been widespread opposition to the EU among voters at all social levels, even though political parties, the media, and most national institutions had treated the idea with contempt and its adherents as eccentric at best. Suddenly the referendum rules meant that Leavers were on television making the case for Brexit nightly and, contrary to their caricature, they seemed quite reasonable. They persuaded some voters to switch to Leave, and Leave voters to be more confident of their own opinions. As the campaign developed, the polls swung towards Leave and many late polls showed the two sides as neck-and-neck. A Leave victory, though by no means inevitable, should have been seen as pretty likely.
In fact the reaction that followed surprise was a set of variations on horror, outrage, indignation, anguish and a desire for revenge. That was on the Remain side; the Leave side was pleased but not extravagantly so. For a while it simply pocketed its unexpected success and watched, bemused, from the wings while Remainers rioted angrily stage-centre. They plainly wanted the referendum result annulled but they were never quite able to explain why. Obviously they couldn’t say simply that they wanted a different result. So they had to invent a series of specious reasons that in their eyes cast doubt on its validity—that the Leave campaign was xenophobic and racist, that its voters (though not Remain voters) had not understood what they were voting for, that it had “told lies” (uniquely so in political campaigns, apparently), and so on and so forth. But the argument advanced with most passion by Remainers and repeated most often in the left-wing press ran as follows: because old uneducated people supporting Leave had outvoted young people with degrees voting Remain, these miserable old geezers had “robbed the young of their future” and, well, it wasn’t right.
We are on a precipice. The past seventy years of conservatism, 227 years of democracy, and thousand years of steadily marching toward egalitarianism have betrayed us; every year, more problems occur and our society is less the beautiful, hopeful, ambitious and excellent place it once was. Instead, we accept inferior substitutes, and are forced by social pressure into denying that oblivion threatens us.
And yet, slowly it dawns on people. This is not just another election, after which things continue as normal. Normal is terrible: our governments are broke, our jobs are slavery, our cities are cesspools and our future is worse. It will be a long, slow, painful slide down to third-world levels of oblivion. And what can we do?
The first step — the most difficult, they say — is admitting that we have a problem:
One of the paradoxes—there are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate it.
Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?
What is the future of post-Enlightenment Western Civilization? If we search our hearts, we know the answer: going out like Rome or Athens, leaving behind a civilization which is thoroughly dysfunctional and produces nothing. We are not choosing which of these relatively inconsequential platforms to adopt, but fighting for survival, starting by reserving the ability to choose to beat down our potential tyrants in the future.
In the EU and the USA, the governments are basically the same: heavy regulations, social welfare programs, Leftist agenda, and a desire to replace their citizens with third-world people or “minority” groups, who always vote Leftist. They never vote right-wing, because it is against their instinct, since it would require admitting that their homelands did it wrong and that is why they are third-world, not because of colonialism or sunspots or whatever they’re claiming this week. And so, with a few statistically-insignificant exceptions, they will never do it.
That is what globalism means, when you distill down the meaning: worldwide trade because the Leftist empire has worldwide control, at least of the first world. Globalism = Leftism. Multiculturalism/diversity is the inevitable result of Leftism as it seeks to gain this global control. All else is noise and fantasy; we either destroy this, or it destroys us.
Wednesday, May 27th, 2015
At its founding, America was a WASP nation. This acronym, originally meaning “White Anglo-Saxon Protestants,” generally included those of indigenous Western European heritage regardless of religion. English, Scots, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians, northern French and Austrians fell under this banner. Genetic outlier and admixed groups like Greeks, Italians, southern French, Slavs, Jews, Poles and Irish did not.
As industry boomed in the northeast, it needed more menial laborers: unskilled, repetitive task-doers who could be paid minimal wages which would, relativistically, be seen as a great step up in condition of life. The importation began with a flood of Irish, then Italians, Greeks and Poles. The WASP establishment disliked this process but rather than fight it, retreated behind a wall of money and exclusivity. The fuse was lit however, and during the Civil War it became clear how useful these “New Americans” were: they could be counted on to wage war on those more prosperous or simply more selective than themselves. With the advent of massed infantry charges and repeating rifles, the skill of warriors became less important than having a willing mass which would charge forward when the horn blew.
When the new century dawned, the world wars required that the West — ironically like both Napoleon and Genghis Khan — adopt a pose of being accepting of all as a means of differentiating itself from those nasty, exclusive nationalist and monarchist states. Each war increased the propaganda for acceptance and solidarity based on position, such as political stance or economic position as workers, and this enabled the West to produce the human wave it needed to win its wars. Unfortunately, in a pattern that would repeat time and again, most of the casualties were from the original WASP contingent. When you read the names in the old 13 colonies churches, you see mostly English, German and Scots names with a smattering of Dutch and French. When you read the casualties from the first two world wars, the same pattern prevails.
During the second world war American propaganda reached new intensity. Not only did it set the stage for the future of “perpetual war,” or constant definition of our purpose as struggle against impediments to ideological objectives such as democracy, but it also established egalitarian dogma as the basis of why we considered ourselves exceptional. No longer was America the “city on the hill” for its morality of doing the right thing, but for its morality of inclusivity. Not surprisingly, the so-called Greatest Generation — with non-WASPs more prevalent because of their lower casualties — voted for a series of disastrous immigration acts, first in 1958 and then in 1965, which guaranteed that the new population of the country would be mostly non-WASP.
Liberals rejoiced. Their line for years had been that the snooty WASPs, who retreated from the Irish/Italian/Polish immigration waves to gated communities, were the source of our misery and injustice. In their thinking, if the WASPs were removed, a new Utopia would reign. That event happened in the 1990s, when the work-ethic of the 1950s combined with the politics of 1968 as the Baby Boomers assumed positions of authority across the board, and the immigration that had been nascent even when Ronald Reagan made his 1987 compromise became a flood. The new rules had been posted: liberals are now in control, and everyone is welcome to come get a slice of the American pie. What occurred was predictable, since people act both in their own interests and through the path of least resistance. The third world fled its homelands and poured into the West, both America and Europe. Unable to attack the flood politically for fear of being seen as Hitler or the antiquated WASP establishment, conservatives retreated.
No one called the liberals on the failure of their plan. They promised a new land of peace, justice and equality with the demise of the WASPs. Instead what they produced was a faddish land where the new elites, generally of the former immigrant stock, chased after trends and clickbait statements to make to the press, while the newest immigrant groups joined in the civil rights experience by using the same justification that achieved affirmative action and federal benefits for African-Americans. This resulted in a society dedicated to taking from its founders and giving to new warm bodies, and no one could criticize it, or they would be branded as racist in the media and lose their jobs, homes, spouses, friends and legal protection.
Fast-forward twenty years from that point and the Rainbow Nation is in chaos. Race riots are a regular occurrence to which the only solution seems to be not to police non-white groups, who still have disproportionate rates of crime and victimization compared to WASP groups. Affirmative action has not resulted in widespread equality, but it has resulted in widespread expense, since the law does not recognize the difference between a qualified minority candidate and an unqualified one. Even more, as Robert Putnam discovered in his landmark study, diversity increases alienation and distrust even within ethnic groups. As our presidential candidates openly admit to treasonous scandals, our military is embroiled in corruption, and control by moneyed interests reaches a new peak, we might ask the role that our lack of cooperation with each other plays in those developments.
Our choice is clear: we either go back to what worked, which was a Western European only nation, or we continue down the path of diversity which is the policy that produced most third world nations. As Ann Coulter clarified for us all, this is not only a “clash of civilizations” but clash of civilization-models. In particular, our method works better; the third world method works less well; by merging our method with the third world method, we will end up with the third world method, and no one will benefit:
You fled that culture. Because it is a — there are a lot of problems with that culture. Hopefully, it can be changed. But we can share our culture with other nations without bringing all of their people here. When you bring the people here, you bring those cultures here. That includes honor killings, it includes uncles raping their nieces, it includes dumping litter all over, it includes not paying your taxes, it includes paying bribes to government officials. That isn’t our culture.
You can see the successful cultures in the world. They have been studied ad infinitum, America is about — it is the best in the world and we are about to lose it. And everyone who lives here is going to lose that. And the people who are going to suffer the most are the weakest ones. It’s the women. It’s the children. … No country has ever had the sort of respect for women that Anglo America does and that is going out the door.
Ann might as well have extrapolated to Western European culture in general: no society has had so much reverence for learning, for excellence instead of mere participation, for sacredness and sacred roles to the genders, for respect for nature, and for caring for children. Compared to us the rest of the world is a cold, dark and unforgiving place, and yet in our best of days, we were also the most warlike, vigorously squashing whatever offended our values. There is a connection: among other things, Western Europe is the culture of the hard rule. We know what we like, and what we do not, and we eject the bad and multiply the good, while being skeptical of the unknowns. At least, that is how we were during the best of our days. Since the rise of liberalism, these positive attributes have been attenuated.
The facts of this complex dilemma take two dimensions. Our society makes the first taboo, which is noticing that genetic differences result from societies which take the path we did not. The second is more complex, and relates more closely to Putnam’s revelations: homogenous societies, with a strong cultural and ethnic identity, provide the best basis for working together and therefore thrive in a lack of internal friction. Even more important is the notion of identity, and having pride in who you are and your history, so that you want to continue this beyond the threshold of personal convenience. Identity turns our method into a way of life and a tendency imbued deep within every soul. It means we do not need constant government to prevent third-world style chaos, but have high-trust societies where cooperation is more prevalent than coercion. We might call this the “first world method” because all first-world societies became that way under its rule.
In contrast, third world societies are the most individualistic, “free,” autonomous, cheerful, tolerant places on earth. There, you do whatever you want. In exchange, you have less social order and fewer functional institutions. In other words, they are closer to the state before civilization. This is why the vast majority of third-world societies are low on social standards; the focus is on the autonomy of the individual, and the unintended secondary consequences are the lack of social order, rule by warlords and gangs, corruption and high crime. But to a true individualist, this is a benefit not a curse. The individual is restrained by nothing and can do whatever he or she wants with no negative feedback from society and no enforcement of standards. These societies have more freedom than the first world, and their tolerance is such that they admit any newcomers, which is why almost all of them are mixed-race. They are also highly sexually liberated for the most part, with no tedious social standards forcing boys and girls to wait until long-term commitment for sex (even in countries with strong putative sexual morality, the reality is more liberated). The third world is the liberal ideal, although liberals want to hang on to first-world conveniences and will attempt to do so through totalitarianism, which as we see in the Russian, Venezuelan, Cuban and East German experiments, does not quite work out as expected.
In the West, the first-world method resulted in our meteoric rise to the top of the world. We then colonized it, bringing with us technology in exchange for what the left calls “oppression” but was more likely the grim process of beating radical individualists into conformity so they could actually achieve something. Where we have retreated, technology remains, but it has now become a tool of the corrupt warlords and gangs rather than a means of restraining them. In other words, the third-world method has absorbed the first-world one. The same is being attempted in the United States and European Union, but even now the writing on the wall suggests this will lead to more of what the rest of the world is doing. Nine out of ten humans live in third-world conditions or near to them, with the Western Europeans in the US and EU as the outliers. Naturally the rest of the group wants us to conform, and stop rising above their level, so that no one feels challenged by the possibility of life being better. Mediocrity loves company.
How can we pull out of this tailspin? The germ of it lies in accepting Western European exceptionalism: our method works better, but we cannot share it with others by inviting them here, only by succeeding and making them jealous and angry to the point where they implement it in their home countries. Diversity does not work. It cannot work because it is paradoxical. It assumes that all people are the same and that beating the same rules into them will achieve the same results. Yet the lesson that colonialism taught was that this approach does not work either. Each group must develop the “first-world method” on its own; it cannot be taught. Western Europeans must withdraw to our own spaces in America and Europe, and eject everyone else to take our lessons home to their countries, which badly need improvement. It is not our responsibility to fix them, because if we assume that, it takes the burden off of those countries to improve themselves. And then we would live in a WASP world with one vital change, which is that we will remove the “gated communities” plus cheap labor formula of the early WASP decline. That would look more like this promising vision from South Africa:
But in the midst of a sinking South Africa, there is one beacon of hope: the Afrikaner self-governed town of Orania.
Orania in today’s South Africa is a bit like Asterix’s village in conquered Gaul. The town is a private entity that has striven since its founding in 1991 to provide a self-determined homeland for Afrikaners. Here Afrikaans is the official language. All work, even manual labour, is done by Afrikaners. In that way, jobs for poor Afrikaners are created. There is no interference from government in how Oranians run their businesses, and there are many one-man enterprises. Apart from having to pay a low yearly registration tax, we are left alone.
Crime is virtually non-existent in Orania. Here is no violent crime, and rare incidents of theft, committed by fellow Afrikaners, are quickly resolved; in such cases, the transgressor has to do community work for minor offences, or otherwise has to leave town.
Notice the vital difference: this community requires affirmative and constructive participation, and it wields a great threat to those who do not conform, which is exile. Much as Europeans sent their unwanted to Tripoli and Americans sent them into Mexico, this population can eject those who commit crimes. The point is that being in this society is a privilege, not a “right,” and that only those who uphold the first-world method get to stay there. This makes it something to reach for by its citizens, and something to emulate by the third world. It also ends the tedious duality of importing third-worlders to do our cheap unskilled jobs, then a generation later noticing the vast social impact of creating a third world within the first. Send the Irish, Italians and Poles back; send the Mexicans, Chinese and Africans back. Restore America and Europe to their Western European roots, because that is when we were not just barely functional but great, and it gave us the pride to have the will to work together.
Monday, October 20th, 2014
Dear third world,
It’s time for us to revise our relationship. Much as we treat our own poor like perpetual gelded children, we have been treating you as the same. That not only keeps us both in a bad relationship from which we do not progress, but also holds you up by keeping you dependent on us when you should be launching into the world on your own.
Our well-intentioned aid, designed to make up for years of abusive colonialism, turns out to have retarded development of the third world across the globe. Not only that, it was given mistakenly. We see now how the technology, learning and structure given to your societies by Western occupation has enabled you to even participate in a globalist system. The net benefit was yours, even if a few million were enslaved. The smallpox epidemic we feel bad about, but it was not intentional. We can see how it is time to stop the myths of our perpetual guilt and your perpetual dependency simultaneously, because they are the same myth. The image of a cruel parent and sobbing child comes to mind and, like that relationship, implies a future of each party hurting the other.
Bad parent relationships involve a parent being both in control and guilty of excessive control, and a child being both dependent and wanting to set themselves free. Our liberals act like children who are rebelling against their parents. This means they both push back against, and yet depend upon the parent figure, which makes them perfect candidates to support large totalitarian governments. This is why tyrannies tend to follow democracies: democracies make people into self-centered perpetual children who want more benefits and guidance from government, which creates an electorate of useless people who must then receive total guidance via complete control. In the same way, you gladly accept our aid and ask more from it, but also want us to accept you as our own:
Ebola now functions in popular discourse as a not-so-subtle, almost completely rhetorical stand-in for any combination of “African-ness”, “blackness”, “foreign-ness” and “infestation” – a nebulous but powerful threat, poised to ruin the perceived purity of western borders and bodies. Dead African bodies are the nameless placeholders for (unwarranted, racist) “panic”, a conversation topic too heavy for the dinner table yet light enough for supermarket aisles.
…To be black – African or otherwise – is to be born into a world that anticipates your death with bated breath (or botched execution cocktail, or vigilante bullet, or syphilis needle). It is to occupy a position of social death, to exist in a liminal space that guarantees neither rights nor recognition under the law. It is to be a perpetual contaminant in the body of the western world.
Although our conservatives will dismiss this for its ingratitude and liberals will agree but note its lack of friendliness to trendy Western issues like gay marriage and transsexual equality, what is being said is essentially true: you will never be us. We have our own path, and it is different from yours. However, my solution is different than that of the writer. She wants more aid to the third world; I suggest total separation. We will go our path and like every other group in the world, be selfish and see only our own interests; Africa will see only its own. Then no one depends on anyone else and we can stop this neurotic, sado-masochistic, broken home of a relationship between the third world and the first.