Amerika

Perhaps others have noticed how we seem to be living in a suspended era. That is, we are circling through the same problems and attempts to solve them, always getting better but never getting anywhere. In the meantime, obvious problems pile up leading us to wonder if we are in denial.

It seems to me that we are in a suspended reality of several layers. Politically, we are stranded in WW2, still fighting the battle of freedom, democracy, and tolerance against the evil intolerant Hitler. Although our rhetoric focuses on the 1960s, that was really the decade when the world came to terms with the war that had just passed.

Socially, we are stranded in the Victorian era, where a tale of virtuous people in poorhouses against gold-counting rich barons seems to play out well on the screen and in political speeches. We are struggling with what Galton, Darwin, and Spencer unleashed upon us, and terrified of admitting that our traditional hierarchy worked well.

Philosophy, we are probably stalled in the European revolutions from 1688 through 1848, in which modern nation-states were constituted from multiple tribes. We struggle with pluralism, individual autonomy, and the quest for equality. We still dream of Utopia although none really think it is likely to come about in reality.

Emotionally, we may well be stalled over a thousand years ago at the dawn of the medieval period. We think of the world in terms of kings, queens, gods, and rituals, but the stability and naturalistic feel of that world is too sane and therefore boring for us. We crave excitement, which means contrarian insanity and anti-realism.

From our perspective, we got through what looked like the hard part, and then stalled out because we did not know where to go further. Consequently we stay at the point where we last learned things were relatively stable, trying new ways to get out of the hole of our own ignorance.

The Victorians were the ultimate eugenicists. They realized that society would go downhill unless it bred more intelligent people, but also saw how a permanent civilization rewards the drudges and punishes the bright lights. They wrestled with this problem but never found a solution that did not offend Christian morality and social equality.

The European revolutions brought about that assumption of equality and, since it is popular, no one has thought to speak out against it with very few exceptions who usually get either destroyed in wars or ostracized from society. The popular seems to be the enemy of the necessary.

Politically, as a result, we cannot escape the WW2 narrative of the innocent underdogs for freedom and tolerance versus the entitled oppressors who like mono-ethnic societies. To speak out against this is to reject the foundations of the current world order, which implies change is upon us, and worries everyone.

On the emotional level, we all long for a simpler life in a more rural society, or at least most of us embrace these “Romantic” and “naturalistic” notions when given the choice. However, to do this means giving up on the power of modern society, and making ourselves weak by conquest of others, as Muslims, Huns, and Mongols showed in the medieval era.

A solution exists but few want to see it because it involves getting rid of our pretenses and being willing to work with knotty details to make the best of all of these systems come together. An ethnat aristocracy with a strong sense of breeding and an anti-egalitarian, realistic mindset that is not obsessed with revenge seems a tall order.

However, it is clear that what we are doing now is not working, has not been working for some time, and is coming to an end. We either find something better or we slowly fade away into third world ruins. While we fear change, the inertia is tipping, and now change is the only way to keep the best of what we have.

Tags: civilization question, collapse, the human problem