We live in the age of postmortem when it is our task to look behind us in history to see how we got here and how to avoid it next time. As we wait for the inevitable crises that are caused by illogical choices like those made by those immediately before us, we bide our time by picking apart what went wrong.
Most of what we see reveals itself as fake or unnatural, meaning that it does not flow logically from need but instead is a type of panic, fad, or trend. For example, climate change became the latest mania to follow acid rain and fear of ice ages, despite being propelled by a group of people who are simply greedy and power-hungry.
As time goes on, we can track these things back to their roots. We see how demographics and social change influence what we think more than the data we claim to use. For example, climate change began its arc of popularity at the same time Western women were emancipated and became politically active.
We can see demographics and socioeconomic shifts influencing the history of the world being made right now. Across the globe, advanced societies and primitive cultures both exist in a constant cacophony of war. Usually, these wars occur within a sub-species or racial group, not between racial groups, with ethnic war the most common.
This happens because free will is nonsense; we have no “free” thought at all, but only react to what we know. Just as it is easier to make money from people that you know, it is more likely that you will make war with them. However, in our new millennia, it seems like more wars occur across cultures, races, and religions.
Samuel Huntington predicted a “clash of civilizations” in which liberal democracy would self-destruct, and different tribes would war it out not so much for territory as control of their own future, which requires eliminating nearby threats. He saw tribes as defined by a mosaic of religion, heritage, culture, and region.
Tribe can be defined that way, or more simply by looking at which language unites a group, mainly because whatever narrative it uses to describe itself and its future will use concepts from that language. Groups thrive by having boundaries, and language represents a strong boundary in most cases.
When your language is the international standard, as is the case with English, you want to tear down these boundaries so that you can “know” every group and make money from them. To that end, the clever English invented pidgin (a href=”https://www.bbc.com/pidgin” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow external”>example) so that third world people could learn enough English to conduct commerce.
This parallels other globalist initiatives. Globalism sounds like an acceptance of everyone, but really it offers a quid pro quo: you gain access to our markets, in exchange for using our standards, even if we are relativists who make a simpler version for you to make it easier.
When we look at favorite tools of the globalists such as the UN, IMF, World Bank and IFC, we see this same pattern. People across the globe are being offered a pidgin version of Western institutions so that they may participate in our financial systems, benefiting the globalists who want more wealth than a stable or shrinking society can provide.
However, using pidgin creates a quandary which I call “The Pidgin Paradox.” Briefly stated, it says Whorf-Sapir is correct and that whatever language you use shapes how you think, but most people do not realize that this means that using pidgin programs the minds of both the foreigners and the originating nation.
In other words, by adapting to pidgin, the English have changed their own language and thinking. That poses a problem because incorrect language — whether just wrong wording, hidden meanings, or being politically incorrect — can make people very angry. It gets worse when you use that language to describe your own culture.
The English have effectively done this with pidgin. They taught the third world basic English, and then brought them into England, creating a situation where English language and institutions must pidginize themselves in order to accommodate a vast group of people with nothing in common and clashing values, cultures, and genetics.
Since this has created a national language which is slowly re-defining Western Culture, civil war has become inevitable. The English are under assault by the English, or at least by their decision to pidginize, and the backlash comes swiftly, although it will be in the form of a slow cold war.
Wars of this nature seem preferable until you realize that they cannot be stopped. They are elimination rounds; at the end of them, one of the parties will not exist. Usually, even if there are many participants, at the end only one party is left standing, and everyone else is vanquished or exhausted to the point of being a shadow of themselves.
Whether you call it gradual genocide or farm murders or Communism does not matter. Constant low-level conflict cannot be stopped. This is why South Africa convinced itself to “surrender” and now Palestine is contemplating the same. The stakes are too high to keep fighting, so parties bow out before they risk being destroyed.
However, the West is fighting a slow war with itself because of pidgin language and it will therefore be consumed by its own internal slow “civil” war. We have seen this before. For example, we can look toward ancient Rome, which pidginized itself by expanding its empire to include too many disparate and warring groups.
Roman decline took place quite visibly during the second and third centuries AD, after which the Roman elite fled to Constantinople, leaving the entire western world for the barbarians, creating social disorder which was only partially rectified by the middle ages.
Greedy and power-hungry people drive trade outside of their culture, resulting in pidgin language backwashing into their own culture, eventually wiping out even the greedy and power-hungry. They are otherwise quite willing to fund war with an enemy they know, but will only proceed with a slow war against those they do not know.
That slow war ends up destroying their own friends because it entangles them with the Other and forces it to become part of how they see themselves. This creates what we might call “Dark Civilization” because it exists in perpetual civil conflict against itself, resulting in operation at 20% of its historic energy level.
If not through a third world war, then through a slow world war, the middle ages will happen again soon. It may be better to clean our language, clean our families, clean our culture, and stop the slow war because you cannot surrender to yourself; you can only commit suicide.