When we look at Leftism, it makes sense to analyze it as a series of road forks and straightaways. It continues on its inertial path until interrupted, then adapts to the new reality, and continues onward, gaining momentum. These points both reveal to us the great villains of our age, and how their ideas are inevitable extrapolations from the original concept of “equality.”
Consider, perhaps, the case of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He presided over a war against the quasi-Right, partnered with the far Left, and despite his own elitist outlook, defined the next several generations of Leftism with one incendiary speech:
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights — among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Although the precious darlings in the cosmopolitan cities refused to recognize this, Roosevelt has essentially demanded that Leftism move from its first step — political equality, a result of equality under the law being interpreted pre-emptively — to its second step, in which a wealthy but dying society assumes that economic subsidies are required to give people political equality.
Those who have read this blog for some time know that we have a hardline anti-work attitude because jobs are jails. This does not mean we are against requiring all to contribute, because a civilization is made of contributors. Some will do so without jobs, and these are usually the best among us. For most, all that they know how to do is pitch in where others give them direction.
American conservatives in particular hammer out the “work hard, go to church, and have a family” line that keeps conservatives neutralized and paying taxes to fund the Leftist state. An anti-work conservative sees this, and transmutes “work hard” — nonsense language designed to mean “spend all your time at work” — into an intersection of be effective and contribute.
For example, some live impoverished lives but care for a patch of forest or aspect of culture. These are contributors, too, even if they get paid little. Others, such as homemakers, contribute more than their fair share by perpetuating the tribe and raising children to be morally alert, mentally perceptive and physically healthy.
This means that for a thinking person, there is a middle path between “work hard” and “subsidize everyone.” This path is to reduce the amount of time people spend working, to make jobs less odious, and to recognize that not all contributions come from jobs. With the advances in efficiency from technology, we should be working a few hours a day, but instead work far longer to pay for the free riders, government, irrelevant “experts” and do-gooder social programs that benefit no one.
Socialism destroys the chance of this path by taking from the contributors and giving to non-contributors. This ensures that contributors work longer hours and the group of non-contributors grows. Instead of fixing a problem by limiting it, by subsidizing the source of the problem, socialism makes it permanent and prone to take over a society.
With the above, Roosevelt set out an argument for socialism by going back to the root of idea of America, which is that people must be politically equal without a hierarchy of caste or aristocrats. This gives in to the weakest impulses of human nature and guarantees that people will, instead of cooperating, go in many different directions and compete against one another, creating internal friction.
He justifies it by appealing to our prosperity and saying, essentially, that since we can afford it, it is a good idea. In doing so he created the modern “big government” which uses a justification of egalitarianism to argue for its endless expansion and debt spending. But most interesting was this:
In the plain down-to-earth talks that I had with the Generalissimo and Marshal Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill, it was abundantly clear that they are all most deeply interested in the resumption of peaceful progress by their own peoples — progress toward a better life. All our allies want freedom to develop their lands and resources, to build up industry, to increase education and individual opportunity, and to raise standards of living.
The argument for “progress” arises again, which amounts to the increase of the personal wealth of the individual and using “education” as an excuse for how we will make rabble into wise decision-makers, a power they will exercise with the vote. This disease was spreading across the civilized world, much as egalitarianism had after the French Revolution.
Almost a century on, we can see that Roosevelt was wrong. Instead of increasing wealth, this pattern of policies reduces it by increasing the cost of every detail of the process through the taxes and costs imposed by the welfare state. Even worse, it has made citizens into entitled, destructive people.
We like to think that all people are good and like us, if just left to their own devices will do the right thing. History shows us otherwise: without a strong social order and hierarchy, people devolve into a mob in which each pursues his own interest at the expense of all others. Egalitarianism does not work.
In that context, we can see the history of Leftism as a series of failures:
Legal equality. The idea of all people being equal under the law seems intelligent, until we realize that this means that wrongdoers have their bad deeds expunged and good people are unable to point to their history of positive contributions. This results in penalization of the good, which causes them to retreat from public life as much as possible in order to avoid conflict with the wrongdoers who will use the courts against them. This creates the apathy and rootlessness common to modern societies.
Political equality. Notions of all people having the same contribution to the political process appeal to the same portion of our minds that finds pacifism appealing; if we remove the source of contention, we “reason,” then people have no cause to act irrationally. This denies the fact that most people act in illogical ways much of the time, and when they can cancel out the few votes of the sane with their number, they do so every time, which makes the illogical into policy and then into ideal. This causes the most intelligent in society to essentially give up on it and its future and act for themselves only, creating a predatory mindset.
Economic equality. In order to defend against the “winner takes all” mentality created by political equality, Leftists then demand economic subsidies, taking the form of socialism or the welfare state, in order to keep people from being ground under by the resulting highly competitive and violent socioeconomic battle. This further penalizes the most intelligent, driving them into retreat from success, while enabling those whose intent is to deceive and profit at the expense of others to the fore, effectively corrupting the social structure of society.
Where does it go after this? Let us revisit the original endgame of Leftism, which we might call The Napoleonic Cycle. Revolutionaries overthrow the more-intelligent upper castes, establish subsidies, and promptly end up in a greater plight economically than they had experienced before.
Their solution is to throw out more subsidies and go to an authoritarian state in order to force people to do what is necessary for the nation to survive. When this fails, they mobilize the nation by non-economic means, usually warfare. This creates a cycle where there must be constant warfare and so the wars expand in scope until the world is absorbed in them.
The same pattern happened with the Soviet Union. When it struggled economically, it was at its most militant, and when that failed, it collapsed inward and dissolved into third world kleptocracy and chaos. Its satellite republics suffered the same fate, leaving behind failed states.
When we embarked on the Roosevelt path, the West began to suffer The Napoleonic Cycle. The modern West, comprised of welfare states like the EU and USA, devoted itself to the welfare state, and now has no option but to expand the state while keeping the population in a state of terror through constant warfare, crisis, crime and instability.
As history churns on, we see — yet again, as these little wake-up calls happen every few millennia — that there is one right way to have a rising civilization, and that as we have deviated from this, living off the wealth of the past, we have decline both as individuals and as cultures. If we do not fully escape egalitarianism, it will consume us.
In the Middle East every step is a misstep. It can’t be any other way. Personally, it wouldn’t bother me overmuch if the whole place went code red and everyone with a trigger pulled same. Let the purists sob quietly in a corner, I care about America and western civilization, all else is either under suspicion or entertainment.
While the first part of this statement is rhetoric more than reality — nuclear war toxifies the rest of us with radiation, and the middle east must be managed or it becomes an even worse threat, either by itself or in the hands of other wannabe superpowers — the rest is pure gold, a distillation of what the Alt Right and other “original Rightist” types should be thinking.
Revisiting that statement:
I care about America and western civilization, all else is either under suspicion or entertainment.
Restoring Western Civilization is the name of the game. We know it has fallen because at the point where you get Angela Merkel and Barack Obama as leaders, your civilization has gone full retard and can no longer make intelligent decisions. Even more, we know that it has fallen because our people have stopped reproducing at replacement rates, a sure sign that they are miserable.
Even more, we can tell that it has failed because it no longer produces greatness. We have entertainment, not culture, and novelty and trends instead of profundity and continuous tradition in art, literature, philosophy, science and academia. Our governments are just beginning to encounter the pensions-and-benefits bomb that will end them, and our economies are reeling because we have imposed too many costs on them in order to drain money for our expensive social welfare states and diversity programs. There are no sane voices in public because too many things are taboo to say. It is over, and we knew this would happen, because democracy always goes out this way.
More disturbingly, something had to go wrong for us to get to the state where democracy seemed like a good idea. All of our great empires self-destructed, like the Romans and Greeks, and that alone tells us that people were thinking wrongly, maybe looking for what was convenient instead of what was right according to a natural order based on purpose and ability. We grew too fast, produced too many useless people, and then justified ourselves with The Enlightenment,™ after which point the individual was sacrosanct and any idea of cooperation, sacrifice, duty, familial loyalty, spiritual belief and culture was suspect.
In short, Western Civilization has died. This quote comes up every now and again, and seems to fit:
Someone once asked Mahatma Gandhi what he thought of Western civilization. “I think it would be a good idea,” he said.*
We can restore this civilization the way we restore anything else: trim out the dead wood and replace it, fix the structure so it is functional again, then clean it up and nurture it until works again. Like Bob Vila on This Old House, we might choose to tear down the ill-advised additions, put in the old pillars that kept the porch from leaning, and add some improvements if we can.
Forget America. As much as it pains me to say it, America has failed because it was based on a Leftist idea. You cannot have equality and a working society. You need a leadership hierarchy and a caste system. With democracy, you end up with internally divided leadership, which avoids the extremes of broken European rule at the time but compromises to the Left and dissolves in factionalism.
The Constitution is dead. It was a nifty idea that we could limit democracy. Forget it: democracy evolved and worked around it and now we have the exact type of state that our Founders loathed. Forget America as an idea, too; it made sense when it was a colony of Western Europeans, but once we let in other groups it turned into a non-culture, a giant shopping mall that will kill you for not being democratic enough.
This leaves us with Western Civilization. How do we restore it? Five percent of our society are “natural leaders,” or people whose innate competence leads others to rely on them. We need these people to understand what the goal is and then for others to emulate them. Then we need to take over and make changes. Any other methods can be ad hoc because they are not permanent.
When we get to the point where there is a cultural sense of Western European identity, a monarchic system with supporting aristocracy, a caste system whose higher echelons guide culture and consumer products, a resistance to socialism and equality of all kinds, and a sense of purpose again including that beyond this world, then we will be reborn. Until that time, we suffer.
Before the inevitable backtracking, Steve King made a provocative statement:
We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.
Almost everyone focused on the obvious bait, the pro-nationalist idea of not using “somebody else’s babies,” which leads us to realize that a civilization is comprised of an ethnic group and without that, its culture and values fade away. This offends the Left, which rejects any unit higher than the individual, and so provoked a storm.
However, King should be understood as more crafty than that. He used the controversy — following the lead of Donald Trump — to introduce the more important part of the statement as non-controversial. That segment is:
We [must] restore our civilization
By implying the necessity of restoration, King pointed out the obvious: the West has died, and now the remnant of sane people of Western European descent are focused on rebuilding. We are not, like mainstream conservatives, attempting to “conserve” a golden age within modernity; we realize that modernity was the death of what our ancestors build, and we now must rebuild entirely.
King doubled down on this later:
You cannot rebuild your civilization with somebody else’s babies. You’ve got to keep your birth rate up, and that you need to teach your children your values. In doing so, you can grow your population, you can strengthen your culture, and you can strengthen your way of life.
The above is a roadmap. First, we recognize the need to rebuild our civilization; next, we see that this happens through a specific genetic profile inherent to Western European people; finally, this is the only way to strengthen our culture and values (“way of life”). Our nation it is people, he tells us, but more importantly, our nation has failed and must be reborn.
This rebirth comes through people. These people have a tripartite of traits: Western European genetics, Western European culture, and Western European values. The sleepwalking Left missed the importance of this statement, which was hidden behind a statement that, while controversial to Leftist whites, has been accepted by others in the days since the death of diversity as a viable concept.
Western Civilization has fallen. It can be reborn through this tripartite, but it will require us to get away from both Leftist whites and Other tribes. King used the Trump method to signal this to his audience, and people support it because they are slowly realizing how corrupted, ruined and degraded the former West has become, necessitating its abandonment and re-creation.
In times of a dying civilization, all that is good is bad. Any steps we take to strengthen our nations, communities or institutions simply empower the parasites around us and prolong the mundane death scene of the West. In bad times, good people become destroyers, crushing the old institutions because they are now weapons of the enemy (“socialized entropy,” we might call it).
Part of this includes destroying the governments and quasi-cultures that rule over us. We want these entities to die because any positive changes we make will be co-opted by these forces and used for evil purposes. Think of the West as a house infested by termites: we must burn it to the ground, kill the bugs and then build an entirely new civilization free of parasites.
On the Left, where people are presumed to be universally good because they have reason and therefore are reasonable, it is presumed that civilizations die from external forces like war, climate change or disease.
To the Right, however, the more realistic scenario is that humans destroy their own civilizations by insisting on ideas that are personally flattering to them, and that this creates insane leadership and social decay, both at the hands of the thronging mob and the oblivious bourgeoisie, who ignore anything but jobs and wealth and thus work to obliterate necessary social standards.
On the Bell Curve, the two problem areas are then the far-left of lower-IQ people and the area slightly above them, where people who are smart but not intelligent enough to understand that life changes in response to our actions or failure to take action, and therefore that they cannot alter society — taking something from it — without needing to also strengthen it by maintaining social order outside commerce.
Archaeologists have long puzzled over what caused what is known as the Classic Maya collapse in the ninth century A.D., when many of the ancient civilization’s cities were abandoned. More recent investigations have revealed that the Maya also experienced an earlier collapse in the second century A.D.—now called the Preclassic collapse—that is even more poorly understood.
University of Arizona archaeologist Takeshi Inomata and his colleagues suggest in a new paper, to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that both collapses followed similar trajectories, with multiple waves of social instability, warfare and political crises leading to the rapid fall of many city centers.
…While more general chronologies might suggest that the Maya collapses occurred gradually, this new, more precise chronology indicates more complex patterns of political crises and recoveries leading up to each collapse.
The West is currently trying to decide whether it will extricate itself from a similar death spiral, sculpted from class warfare, diversity, equality, democracy and consumerism.
As far as the usual profound “out with the old, in with the new” commentary that you expect from websites today — and remember, consumer expectation defines the product — there is only this to say: the election of Donald J. Trump was a strong rebuke to Leftism and the ideals of liberal democracy, which places equality above realistic competence on its list of demands, and the crest of a wave which is the people of the West reacting to the gradual Leftist takeover since the French Revolution.
Leftism is rationalization of decline. Our civilization has been in decline for a thousand years, but decline is a gradual process, and its final stage is liberal democracy and Leftism, including disastrous programs like gender equality, normalizing perversity, diversity, socialism and pacifism. Leftism is insanity. The election of Donald J. Trump is the first of many “baby steps” toward reversing and choosing a new direction not just away from Leftism, but from civilization decline itself.
A specter haunts humanity: the knowledge that our best societies tend to implode after a relatively short time. It makes us wonder if thought itself betrays us, or if there is something dark inside of us that destroys all we hope for.
The actuality may be more prosaic. Civilizations tend to pursue the same goals, and over their lifespan, reach a point where they lack inherent purpose because their former purpose, having stable civilization, has been achieved.
At that point, errors arise. Specifically, the human tendency to collapse inward without a purpose gives rise to individualism, or the desire to reduce the risk of doing wrong by making wrong and right arbitrary categories determined by human intent alone. If you mean well, then whatever you did was acceptable, even if it turned out badly. This gives rise to ideology.
There must be a center to life. It is either found in purpose, which requires accepting reality as it is, or the self, which is formed of material reactions. Reliance on the self creates individualists who then bond together into groups through a form of collectivized individualism known as Crowdism.
This viewpoint is necessarily “dark” because it denies good, which requires purpose that acknowledges the need for balance and harmony with the order of nature, which is larger than human intent can encompass. Good requires interacting with reality and improving our lot in it according to the terms and structure of reality, and this offends the ego because it makes purpose, not the self, the focus of living.
Control is the method used to achieve the Crowdist agenda. Control occurs through “means over ends” thinking, which rejects ends because they create a goal that competes with the self. The darkness in humanity is the part of each of us that wants to be the most important thing in the world, replacing reality and the divine.
Our time derives its dark nature from this pursuit of Control, which creates neurosis by removing purpose and replacing it with methods that do not achieve their aims. In that shadowy and conflicted mental state, people become agents of destruction. This is how civilizations die.
On to today’s video…
Vikernes identifies the problem of civilization as civilization itself. He may be confusing civilization with empire or cities because he mentions the Roman and Greek empires, but not the civilizations of Western Europe that arose before and since. They were distinct from the larger empires in that they were mostly rural and did not attempt conquest and standardization.
What seems more likely is that cities and standardization bring with them the desire to protect people from the risk of being wrong. They insulate people against risk by putting them in jobs, instead of production/ownership roles, and by creating laws, guide the unwary sheep away from their natural dysfunction which might make others avoid them, creating the selection pressures necessary for evolution.
In short, cities are dysgenic, but the root cause of that is the desire toward administration and management of those who are not united by a common purpose. This shows a response to loss of shared purpose and the rise of individualism.
For a civilization, the most important goal — that which it survives on, above all else — is clarity. It must have a clear purpose. Its leadership must be singular and not divided by special interest groups with their fingers in the pie. Its standards, culture and values must be clear, so diversity is fatal. Any failures of these give individualism, always a lurking evil, the power to take over.
Succeeding civilizations on the other hand tend to give way to individualism because they are unwilling to state a purpose beyond the creation of the civilization, which makes the ego of the individual take precedent.
High functioning White societies, like Canada, built by Europeans adapted to the harsh conditions of the last Ice Age develop overactive economies that then create degenerate societies that are unable to successfully reproduce. (Note: I use “degenerate” here in a strictly technical sense, to merely indicate a society unable to maintain a birthrate of 2.1 per woman among its core population).
Unable to reproduce, these societies, in order to maintain property values, customer and client base, and taxpayer numbers, then, with the connivance of the ruling class, suck in lower functioning populations attracted by the higher living standards they are unable to achieve in their own lands.
We must ask first whether the economies are overactive, or whether that is the result of people acting individualistically. When people have purpose, they are content with enough; when they do not, they seek more than they need as a form of symbol of their importance. Social order, including caste systems, keeps this in check, but when the wrong people are allowed to have wealth, society unravels.
People refuse to reproduce for two reasons. For some, it is simply selfishness or the immediate consequences of it. They embark on an orgy of sensual experience and as a result, never get around to having families. For the vast majority however it is a sense of not fitting into a society that has become hostile to goodness and sanity, believing that life is fundamentally bad and without meaning, therefore, why reproduce?
Especially: why condemn children to the same misery that has the would-be parents feeling terrible about life? Living in a dying civilization has existential consequences, meaning that it disturbs the sense that life is good and has purpose. That feeling of well-being is replaced with uncertainty, anomie, isolation, and atomization. People become islands in themselves.
The managerial society gives rise to what we can dark organization, or the rise within an organization of an inner cult dedicated to some purpose other than that of the organization. In this case, the civilization is the organization, and the dark organization is the gang of collectivized individualists within it.
Control produces dark organization. It does so by removing the sense of shared purpose, and instead, trying to create unity through uniformity. Control regulates means and not ends, and assumes that by getting people to do the same things, it can influence them toward a goal. This works, at first, but then decays as despair spreads through the population.
We find ourselves in a decaying civilization now. While it is similar to Rome on the surface because of its quasi-imperial nature and highly organized system, at its core it resembles Athens, which went down the path of individualism over two millennia ago. See how much of this resembles our present day society.
…And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot.
…This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colours to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States.
…See too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the ‘don’t care’ about trifles, and the disregard which she shows of all the fine principles which we solemnly laid down at the foundation of the city –as when we said that, except in the case of some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy and a study –how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honour any one who professes to be the people’s friend.
…Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others –whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.
…he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he-is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.
…his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many.
Civilization decline begins with the idea that we are not here together in collaboration, but for ourselves alone, and are entitled to whatever our intent desires without concern for the results of our actions. This lack of cooperation requires motivation to be enforced instead, and it is done so by the powers that be controlling who gets access to wealth. That in turn makes people selfish, cruel and vengeful.
The reason that the greatest civilizations die is that they go down this path of control. They standardize, make uniform and employ utilitarianism as a way to keep the herd under control, but the lack of direction to the herd leads to breakdown. Soon there is nothing but attention whoring, usually through political gift-giving and virtue signaling, and empty pursuit of personal desires which never satisfy.
For a civilization to avoid this path, it must retain a sense of purpose and a clear hierarchy and power structure. With a goal, we can assess every one of our actions as pushing us closer to that goal, or holding us back. Only the former are desired. This allows us to reject those who fail, and promote those who succeed, in the method of natural selection, but without using means-based control.
The West had this wisdom long ago. It is hubris for humankind to try to design a “perfect” society, such as the figurative Utopia of Plato’s republic, because perfection is the enemy of hierarchy and selecting our best of every generation, pushing down the rest. Nature once managed us through these methods, and when we discard them, in our arrogance we chase ruin.
At least 95% of it has always been crazy and has languished in third-world status. This is primarily a result of disorganization and low average population IQ. These populations could reverse that status at any minute by selecting their intelligent people and giving them wealth and power. Those people organize the chaos.
Western Civilization has been tripping down the merry road — the path to failure is always easy and comfortable — toward third-world status for some time. It started when we reversed the principle of civilization. To have civilization, you select the good people and put them at the top. Reverse it and you fail.
Instead of taking the wealth and power and giving it to our best people, we started having little contests for who should be in charge. Who makes the best products, stock market decisions, or most popular speech; that kind of thing. The result of these is that we have chosen our leadership and our values by consensus, not reality.
Reality is what remains out there, doing its own thing, when you close your eyes and after you are dead. Not all of us can perceive much of it, but we all perceive some, in varying degrees. As the saying goes, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” and those who perceive little of it tend to be delusional and third-world in mentality.
Whatever happens in our day-to-day struggles, we must keep focus on the goal: put those who perceive the most of reality, and have a tendency to maximize it, at the top of the hierarchy. Otherwise, the rest of us gang together into Crowds who destroy all good things, as we have seen in the West.
Hope by itself is a curse. It is a deflection from reality and a journey into our own emotional infinite loop. But hope with desolation, like life with death, points us toward what we must do: maximize life. Make ourselves our hope. Or rather, make our decisions and those who make them best our future path.
The West needs many things, but they form a pyramid like Mazlow’s hierarchy. At the top of that are these essentials:
Aristocracy. Take our people who perceive reality the most and also are inclined to maximize excellence and give them the wealth and power. Beat down the merchants, con men, advertisers, lawyers, carnies and other types who flatter us with pleasant illusions and then take control.
Nationalism. Every ethnic group demands its own space, and every race its continent. In Europe, nations matter. In America, our Anglo-Saxon (Western European) heritage is our core. Our people create the social order we need, and it cannot be created any other way.
Hierarchy. Like in the military or the church, we need methods of moving the better people up higher than the rest. Most of this is done by assessing choice, but another important dimension is to avoid the subsidies that governments so relish. Let Darwin into our lives in all ways.
Transcendence. We need a goal above materiality and social pressures. This goal cannot be achievable in full, but must always be there ahead of us on the horizon, encouraging us to improve qualitatively forever, always reaching higher toward excellence, beauty, wisdom, truth and goodness.
This is our mission. Right now, we are trying to stop the decline, but we cannot do it without having an extremely long-term goal, on the order of tens of thousands of years. We must think not of our time, but of all time. And no matter what comes our way, this light shall guide us from desolation to light.
As Wikileaks releases even greater numbers of Podesta emails, people are finding more disturbing information about the activities of the Clinton Clan and their entourage and handlers.
However, these are often misinterpreted. For example, the recent outrage over “spirit cooking” mistakenly identifies something merely bad as what is in fact far worse.
“Spirit Cooking with Essential Aphrodisiac Recipes” was released by Ms. Abramovic in 1996, but the “ingredients” call for “fresh breast milk with fresh sperm milk” to be consumed “on earthquake nights.”
New York’s Museum of Modern Art called it a “cookbook” for “evocative instructions for actions or thoughts.” Another recipe calls for “fresh morning urine.”
This is not worship of Satan, but something much worse: it is worship of the human self. If life has beauty, we will make an alternate beauty which reflects our own fascinations which in turn show our avoidance of the beautiful so that nothing competes with our egos and social pretenses.
In other words, this is typical “Fall of Rome” activity. People are pursuing the fetishistic and novelty-based in defiance and denial of reality, showing how completely out-of-touch they are with anything that is part of the natural world or human world outside of their artificial, delusional social circle.
When your elites are obsessed with the preciousness of deviance and find themselves chasing after this type of trivial nonsense, it means that they have become powerful enough to completely disconnect from anything but the world of their own egos and those who flatter them.
This has been going on for some time. Modern art has always been an abomination; “spirit cooking” is just one more extension of the fixation on ugliness, bodily functions and existential uncertainty that is all that modern art expresses. When you see this, expect not a Satanic conspiracy, but a dead civilization.
The forces of destruction, or those who fear reality so much that they seek to ruin it so that it cannot compete with the blaze of glory that is their own egos, thought they had a good gig going with the Soviet Union.
The intellectuals of the early days of the Soviet Union were in almost unanimous agreement that Communism was the way to avoid the instability of capitalism, the inhumanity of man, and the torment of being working class in a middle class world.
Back then, the agreement was as widespread as certain notions now, like that climate change exists, that racism/xenophobia/intolerance are not just wrong but impractical, that smoking and drinking are terrible and that women belong in the workforce and on the pill.
In intellectual circles, to deny the supremacy of the Communist model was to be ignorant, wrong, stupid, backward, mean, illiterate and probably an agent of those evil right-wingers. It was considered irrefutable common knowledge and consensus among educated people that Communism was the future, and it was required to believe it to join high society.
Then little bits of narrative collapse began trickling out. First there were the executions, which did not bother Leftists; after all, the people getting shot were right-wingers. The real crusher came next, which was the widespread abuse of non-right-wingers, and worse, the dramatic failure of the system to feed its people.
In fact, when Western intellectuals got their first look at the Soviet Union from direct personal experience, their general reaction was, “Ick.” Ugly concrete cities, people deprived of basic necessities, and sullen workers going through the motion and trying to hide from increasingly knee-jerk authorities.
In short, the Leftists had promised Heaven and delivered Hell, yet again.
But the forces of destruction learned from the Soviet Union. It fell because it crushed the pride of its people by making everyday life a humiliating experience of deprivation. With the next iteration of an attempt to destroy humanity, the forces of decay tried something closer to the Roman and Greek model.
In this model, people do not starve, but rather drown in abundance — if, and only if, they become obedient conformists within the System. Do what the state demands, and you will live high, relative to what you would have otherwise.
This is why dying societies seem like a game of follow-the-leader where the leader walks into the sea and everyone else follows because the rule says right here that you have to follow the leader at all times. The rules are more important than reality, specifically social rules, which are how people get ahead.
And so people repeat the same lies to each other as if they were truth. To get ahead in this society, you have to say the same things everyone else does, and anyone who criticizes the narrative will not get hired or promoted. That is why all the voices in public are in unison: yes to lies, no to reality, because reality does not pay the bills.
Our current time features people talking about “collapse” as if it were a sudden, catastrophic event. This is historically incorrect. Collapse occurs through many small events which add up to the gradual irrelevance of a society as its social order fails, and thus it ceases to produce anything of relevance.
By the time the vandals show up at the gate, the society has been in a state of third-world activity for some time, trading on its military prowess which has eroded as all sane people exited and headed for the countryside. The genetics of Italians suggest mixed-race cosmopolitan cities which were then repopulated by country folk.
This takes years. By the 1950s, it was clear that the Soviet Union had gone to the padded room. It took another four decades for the fear and hope to collapse. In the same way, in 1968 the United States clearly jumped the shark. But forty-eight years later, it is still going strong. Why?
The answer is that people are as inert as crops in a field. If their particular patch has enough sun and water, they will do nothing to change the situation. They are doing well; everyone else does not matter to them. This is why civilizations collapse, because the event does not happen all at once.
Instead, the good citizens keep showing up to the trough and paying taxes as they should, unaware of the fact that they are human domesticated animals whose leaders are using them as a cash cow to fund an empire that works against their interests. They simply do not care.
Dying empires drive people into total insularity. If you care about anything more than your paycheck and whether you win lawn-of-the-month, you lose, because the society is doomed. The people who do best in these situations are those who care about the least and have the highest tolerance for tedium and forced obedience without purpose.
This is why people seem to rush into the ocean to drown themselves. They want to win that game of follow the leader. But equally importantly, they are only interested in keeping up with the person in front of them. Everything else is outside of their consciousness until the waves close over their heads.
The practical upshot of all of this is that those of us who want to reverse the decline of Western Civilization can do it with small numbers because most people are inert. They are oblivious to good and bad alike, and if they express an opinion, it is purely social.
In the meantime, small groups can gain control by aggressively demanding membership at the table, then excluding all other groups by (correctly) thinking that those groups will act in self-interest which is a zero-sum game, displacing the interest of the small group in question. No mercy for the others; exclude, disenfranchise, destroy.
A traditional problem for civilization rescuers is that they are not fanatics. Ideology is like a laser; it polarizes complex light into a single focused beam, whether right or wrong. Restorationists are more nuanced and complex in their thinking. They need to get over that and act like fanatics to win.
The USA and EU are clearly dying empires at this point. In a nod to Aldous Huxley, they are going out not through authoritarianism and starvation, but through freedom and plenty, which has made their citizens mentally obese and thoughtless. This improves on the Soviet model, but cannot duck the inevitability of entropy.
Civilization is a disease which is almost invariably fatal.1
The rich are different than you and me. In particular, they are better at making money, which requires having the pulse of trends and being able to see to some degree where they are going. From a story about bunkers/panic rooms for the wealthy comes this tasty tidbit:
Adds Mike Peters, owner of Utah-based Ultimate Bunker, which builds high-end versions in California, Texas and Minnesota: “People are going for luxury [to] live underground because they see the future is going to be rough. Everyone I’ve talked to thinks we are doomed, no matter who is elected.”
What do they know that the rest of us do not? They have probably noticed the downfall of the Obama years — the declining currency, increasing corruption, decreasing competence — and view the current presidential contest as a disaster, perhaps because of Hillary Clinton’s ability to evade prosecution for obvious lawbreaking and the tendency of media to act as her propaganda organ. These are third world events, not first one ones.
We are now at a point of what Guillaume Faye calls a “convergence of catastrophes.” This refers to what happens when 227 years of bad politics and seventy years of extremely bad Leftist rule drive a civilization, like Western Civilization, to the point of collapse. Ecopocalypse hovers on the horizon, either from environmental crash or the rising amount of environmental pollution that will eventually render the planet inhospitable. The economy is not just crashing, but leaves behind record debt and devastated industries destroyed by globalism. Political instability is at an all-time high. Leftism will leave us in a cloud of shame, again, as the destroyer of all that is good, based on an idea — equality — that was really popular because it sounded good. Appearance is not reality.
In addition, modern life is hell. Cities are designed around retreat to the home and blocking out of life around us. Jobs are tedious and pointless, usually achieving nothing but make-work and titles to peacock around with. The consummate ugliness of our architecture, graffiti, urban decay and product-oriented lifestyle is repellent. Social groups are warzones between races, ethnic groups, social classes and political factions. We are surrounded by “null culture,” or music, art and literature advertising fatalism and self-indulgence without any glimpse of what is real, beautiful or accurate.
People are asking how we got to this point. The answer is that we got conned, but as every good con man knows, the person who is conned is a collaborator in the deception because of his desires and fears. In our case, the desire to be important and to have our intent — not our will, because that would be unequal — render unto reality has made us egomaniacs, and our fear of being not equal enough has made us into nasty, squabbling people who treat everything like a negotiation at a bazaar.
How did it all come down to this?
The answer is that civilization is a deviation from the balance of nature, and unless that is compensated for, civilization quickly self destructs. The most intelligent civilizations seem to rise the fastest and fall the hardest. This points toward a disparity between what humans think they should do, and what they actually should do. The problem lies in human intent.
Intent defines our lives. We seek to adapt to our world and put plans in motion toward that end. Those plans are based on what we know of the world, plus a hypothesis about what will achieve the results we intend. The question arises then whether those results are actually the results we need. Our brains like nice, orderly, equality-based structures where each part is divisible and replaceable, where nature prefers complex tiered orders of inter-related balances based on inequality, with each part serving a different role in the organic method.
In designing human society, this leads us toward the idea of the one-step solution. If there are too many people, put them in apartments in big cities for convenience. If people are displeased, make them equal. If the group fragments, implement an ideology to keep the team together. If some do not fit in, beat them down until they do; if some fall behind, subsidize them. If it is too large to know who is good, implement proxies — tests, certifications, schools, laws, middle management — to choose the ones who can implement the goal.
The root of this failure is control. Control occurs when humans micromanage by deciding that instead of having unequal people working in parallel toward a goal, they want to specify that goal and force it to be applied exactly as they intend. It is a mark of bad leadership, and also of a situation where there are too many fools to be trusted with their own work. There is a path to power in organizing all of the fools together and telling them exactly what to do like equal interchangeable cogs, and this is the order that overwhelms all civilizations.
At the right level of zoom, humans and yeast become nearly indistinguishable in this regard. They encounter an opportunity, multiply beyond carrying capacity, and then die out. The civilization of the future is the one that solves this problem.
Amerika is a blog for hard truths, which is why it is not as popular as the blogs from the easy answers crowd, which takes infinite forms and so can come from any orientation, outlook, ideology, discipline or perspective. As such, the texts on Amerika appear to be absurdly effete, stating plain observations without the usual emotional agitation and calls for extreme action; then again, the blogs that succumb to those tendencies are either from the easy answers crowd or inevitably assimilated by it as the blog owners attempt to remain relevant and popular.
We now have a mandate for extreme change. Most people have no idea how big the screw-up is. Leftism, and its final stage globalism, have left a ruin of the first world and made its citizens so existentially miserable that they are refusing to reproduce and in many cases, refusing to leave the house. Globalism has collapsed just like the previous Leftist scheme, world Communism, has. Like the Soviet Union, it has fallen apart in a shambles of the failure of its own policies. It has no one to blame, and people are struggling out of their democratic stupor to reach this realization.
That leaves humanity with a long trail of failed Systems. National Socialism failed, Communism failed, and now it seems like liberal democracy and its socialistic understructure has failed, leaving us wondering what could possibly come next. This gives us a hint: not a System.
Systems rely on the modern notion of the mass. A mass is formed of equal people who have no hierarchy but are ruled by government. They act in self-interest disconnected from its effects on civilization or nature, a condition called individualism around here.
This mass motion acts according to human social rules, meaning that it is based on appearance and including all others in order to keep the group together. This is the basis of the universalist values that since the Enlightenment™ have formed the basis of Western political thinking. This is not unique to the modern West; universalist values arise any time a society has lost purpose, and instead of finding one, chooses control as a means to keep itself together.
Whenever people are grouped together in a mass, or group without internal hierarchy, and herded through mass motion, a System results. This contrasts the hierarchical and tiered orders of nature in which each type of thing has a role and fulfills that activity alone, relying on the combined actions of all parts in balance to produce the stability of the order.
In order for a System to work, it must create a consensual hallucination of an objective space in which symbols are actuality. We reference this space any time we say “science proves it” or “it is recognized that” in reference to an idea. The space of ideas, in a universalist system, is assumed to be shared equally among all people and therefore, people react to ideas as if they were programming distributed through a computer network.
From this come the pitfalls of civilization: the cities where people are anonymous, the accumulation of broken people and deleterious mutations, the loss of any culture or idea which cannot be spread universally, which requires it to be very simple and based on the archetype of the idea of universalism itself. These ideas flow from the basic assumption of egalitarianism which arises when a civilization becomes prosperous enough to lose its implicit goal of establishing itself against the restrictions of nature and lack of knowledge of the world, and become the toxin that destroys it.
Civilization is a trap. We go in expecting to make things better, but by improving our lot, we create a path to fatality. When civilization goes, all that we have contributed is lost. In the process, civilization forms its own sort of Darwinism that selects not for the smartest and strongest, but for the least offensive. It turns Vikings into pajama boys. It takes a thriving people, and leaves behind a stupider, more docile version, as if they were domesticated animals.
What can be done? This task seems hopeless. And yet, as the good book says, our suffering is what makes us know who we are; it is a gift from God (this is not of much comfort during the suffering, however). This is a challenge which demands our best of intellect and heart, and charges us to rise above the malaise and sloth into which we have fallen.
Instead of relying on Systems, we can move toward a traditional civilization. This will include, in addition to the “big theory” four pillars, the following methods:
Anti-Formalism. Instead of rules and laws, depend on people. That is: put your best people in power, and let them learn what life is, organically. This means a lack of uniformity, which offends our minds and pretense, but a breeding ground for people of more complex understanding.
Localism. Big, anonymous cities are death. Small cities and towns provide places where each person knows everyone else. This encourages decisions based not in the moment, but upon what someone has done with their life. Anonymity destroys trust.
Anti-Control. Control seeks to rule details from a centralized place of abstraction; traditional societies allow a cascade of authorities, from the highest to lowest, with each one managing only its domain.
Hierarchy. This has two parts: first, we elevate our best people — morally, intellectually, by character — to positions of authority, so that they may oppress the rest, as a binary option to the inverse, where the rest oppress the best. Second, we allow Darwinistic competition, including in free markets, to fill in where authority is not needed.
Incompleteness. The societies that thrive are those which preserve an internal dialogue and combat between extremes. This reinforces the reasons why for positions, instead of merely repeating thing, and strengthens them by testing.
Darwinism. In every society, some will arise who are either chronically negative or without any direction. Natural selection demands these be exiled, along with any defectives, for the greater strength of those who remain. Nature is cruel; so must we be.
Civilization creates proxies, or intermediates which can be gamed by the unscrupulous, wherever it is afraid to directly confront the question of hierarchy. It works best when administered by culture, not government, and kept focused on ongoing and unattainable goals like excellence. These things seem contrary to the very idea of civilization itself in appearance, and so they are rejected universally, despite being salvation.
As we approach the doom of this particular instance of civilization, it will cheer us to know that many civilizations have died before. This one is no different. We chose a wrong path, and now it is time to find a better one. As we discover it, we can let go of the past like memories of a fever, and instead aspire to the greatness to come.
1 — William Ralph Inge, “The Idea of Progress”, Romanes Lecture (27 May 1920), reprinted in Outspoken Essays: Second Series (1922).