Furthest Right

The Holistic And Organic Model Of Civilization


When someone says that they do not want certain changes to be performed on their civilization, the inevitable response is that they simply hate those who are disadvantaged by rejection of those changes. This includes both Progress I, the industrial expansion of cities, and Progress II, democratization and diversity.

Because we live in an individualistic time, the usual mistake that people make is to interpret any idea as directed at the individual, but in fact they are directed at a separate concept: the whole. The whole is an organic concept, in which one looks at society not as an individual or collective of individuals, but views it as a entity on its own which has separate functions but like an organism an overall purpose and health.

If a person objects to immigration, for example, what they are doing is saying that they do not work the DNA of their civilization changed because then it will no longer exist. If they object to gay marriage, they are saying that civilization needs a principle of chastity and family-directed sexuality to be healthy.

The Left entirely denies the whole because the Left is inherently individualistic, even when those individuals bind together into a collective.

All decisions are based in their effect on the civilization as a whole, not what the individual wants to do or what the group approves of. An organic society is bigger than the group, because it is not formed of individual human intent, but how individuals interact with principles, values, culture and the biological activities of life.

People fear the holistic view because it creates a force higher than the individual, which is the goal of keeping civilization healthy and improving it when possible. This removes the perspective which is holy to most people, the “I want” and “I need” series of conjectures that usually lead to disaster.

Civilization proves even more challenging than God, because most people demand what they want and then use selective interpretation of religion to argue for it, a form of rationalization. Anything can be twisted, but the needs of a whole civilization provide a goal to which we can compare our actions. Did we help or hurt?

To say, “I do not want Japanese people moving here,” is not a preference against the Japanese, but a preference for the civilization. It does not need outside blood; it needs quality control and guidance, and it will do just fine on its own, like any other organization. Human meddling only muddles its future.

For many centuries, Western citizens have avoided talking about whole civilization because it offends us by reminding us that we are small parts, like cells, in a larger organism and that what we think we “want” is usually a mistake based in our impulsive natures or appetites.

To embrace whole civilization is to deny the human ego and its various pretensions, and instead to look at reality in a Darwinian capacity: as something to which we must adapt, primarily through civilization which has always enabled us to rise above base-level subsistence and experience life as pleasurable and meaningful.

Tags: , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn