One element of culture often overlooked is the idea of home; specifically, how important roots are when growing from a child into a man or woman.
Many in their 20s or early 30s never cared much for the idea of home, mostly due to parents who never gave them a reason to care. Most children, when raised with love, and friends and relatives nearby, will have fond memories of home and won’t jump at the first opportunity to relocate.
Too many parents foster households where kids are a nuisance; a television set but less interesting. While not exclusively their domain, the young adults from these homes tend to later move anywhere for the hell of it. “Let’s move to New York City”, “I want to try a new place out; I’m bored here”, and ultimately, jumping around for the sake of administrative/mid-level careers.
These are the type of folks you see in movies like 40 Year Old Virgin; a collection of randoms in a warm-climate city with boring jobs and zero connection to their surroundings.
Not to say moving itself is a bad thing. If one is very intelligent, and the best university for one’s area of expertise is thousands of miles away, one has to weigh the pros and cons of leaving home, possibly for most of one’s life, or not succeeding as much at one’s chosen profession.
But it’s almost expected in places where there are no large or coastal cities. This one is currently working in Scotland; that one took a job in Texas but wants to move to Chicago soon. What is life except your job and your shallow dating life, if the people you know best are constantly thousands of miles away?
This phenomenon has grown in recent years, and it matches similar symptoms of societal decay like increased immigration rates. On either side of your house, there may be a family from some third world place or other, stamped visas and all, just “getting by” with corporate jobs but otherwise holding no ties to the community.
The idea of home is robbed from us when we stop caring about who lives next door, and who runs our town. This attitude works outwardly as well; politicians from small, indifferent districts will become indifferent and corrupt when attaining higher office. This problem is like adding water to a musty basement; pretty soon, you have rot everywhere.
Later in life, the desire to move for mundane things breeds the HGTV mentality. People move to places where property is cheaper, not knowing the demographic of their new home, but not caring because it looks like something that nice lady on TV showed to the cute couple.
While it’s good to have a mobile labor force, allowing economic activity to peak during good times and land softly during a recession, that mobility at the expense of local culture only takes us as far as our base desires allow.
Culturally speaking, strong roots and a solid idea of home, including a tightly knit neighborhood where behaviors and mores are sharpened during developmental years, creates a great framework for children. In this model, local school systems would actually reflect the values of a community instead of what’s being broadcast on CNN.
The “wrong side of the track” types could still work hard and change the fortunes of their lineage, learning lessons along the way, in contrast to a perpetual welfare state for those disorganized enough to fail. Similarly, kids from wealthy or strong neighborhoods who become burnouts would change theirs for the worse.
This is more natural, and better, than forced averaging. Our fear of inequality drives us to fit all kids into the same mold, under the umbrella of “equal chances for all”. What they leave out is that no kid is 100% equal to another, and that is true as early as birth.
Being a philosopher, I’m not one to shy away from the most problematic issues facing this ‘movement’, understanding it as a body of thought aiming to unite a wide array of conservative arguments and traditions. Therefore I’ll give a brief attempt to face some of them openly, even if this will strike contrary to the popular opinion.
–> An incorrect or incomplete understanding of the political process
People think that the political process is driven by political campaigns; they think the issues people vote for decide what comes on the agenda.
Typical right/left issues feature prominently in party-campaigns to make sure the electoral base remains in support of the party. In fact, it’s hard for politicians to draw up bills of their own, due to the question whether it’s compatible with existent laws of bills, and with those the ministers and secretaries of state are preparing. This is how it usually goes:
Let’s say someone has a plan to build a large hotel in some city, the director will approach the aldermen of the city and subtly shine his intent through to them. Usually this is prepared by extensive lobbyism. He waits until they take the bait, that is, until they show a readiness to make sacrifices to endow their city with this hotel. That means that some environmental or administrative regulations will be slackened, or otherwise taxes and subsidiaries will be involved. This is why administrative regulations (bureaucracy) will more likely expand than not, because it allows governors to put leverage upon anyone who wants to do something. As such, governors are dependent on officials, too, because only those officials understand how to put leverage upon companies and other government-institutions. The system is purposefully juridically complex like that.
Other than that, the aldermen, mayors and company-directors most likely feel a sense of mutual sympathy during their wining-dinners. This is known as ‘corporatism’ or ‘old-boys-network’; they sense they are all great men entangled in important business, and will perceive of it as an outrage, as something unheard of, as against the natural order, should a majority of representatives gun down their plans. Hence that after these figureheads come to a consensus, the governors will ‘groom’ the leaders of their political fractions. With other words, to enforce the fraction discipline, that nobody will rebel against this proposal. If the party leaders follow this successfully, they will gain credit. Now instead of the hotel, imagine the interests of large-scale agriculture, the military-industrial complex, car-producers, banks, insurance-companies, you name it.
–> Stability bias
Even if a majority of representatives see a problem, let’s say in the Obamacare or the donation of European money to Greece, it won’t mean that people will take effective action to deal with the situation. Instead, people will reason as follows: “If we go into the opposite direction now, let’s say force banks to take responsibility for lending out money which never existed, this will trigger an instability that nobody can foresee, so it’s the lesser of two evils to continue going down the trodden path.”
A large crisis is needed for people to accept a drastic change in memes, but at the same time the media by which people take in their information is so fractured (and yet monotonous in its triviality) that it seems almost impossible to get everyone rowing in the same direction.
Changing policy means changing budget. If you want less crime, it will probably mean hiring more crime-fighters. If you want the war in Iraq to stop, stop funding for missiles, tanks and the wages of soldiers on duty. If you want safer roads, give more money to maintenance. In real politics every proposed amendment to a policy means an amendment to a budget for it to be effectual. A declaration of intent won’t do anything.
However changing the budget means moving dollars/euros, which means that you’ll have to grasp exactly how the budget is set up. This is a vastly difficult thing to do, especially for a few representatives together. Biggest chance is that the rest of the representatives won’t understand exactly what you propose, think that what you’re doing is fishy yet lack the ways to prove it. They don’t want to show their incompetence so they’ll just go with the budget as proposed by the governors. Those bodies have their budgets calculated and set up by hundreds of officials, a single representative and his associates can’t stand up to that.
Also, let’s say a representative convinces the governor that their alternative budget is better – big chance that the administrative body will refuse to give their seal of approval to it, since they feel they’re being made obsolete. Especially if it means a cost in government spending, which means a cost in official-employment. This happened already in very highly developed European countries.
–> The widespreadness of the infection
At some point a few adolescent friends, family members and casual acquaintances approached me and said: “People don’t live up to agreements anymore, everywhere around us we see that the code of conduct is growing coarser, people lack the discipline to do their jobs properly. It’s so hard to see what to do with one’s life in this society, no wonder people are losing inspiration for their professions. There should be some sort of new philosophy, new ideas.” I said: “Sounds interesting, we should pick a date to talk about all this properly, and gather enthusiasts to discuss these issues philosophically.” They said it was a great plan, and we started rounding up people.
Then I called them to ensure it was a go. And they said it was a go. But when the date in question came, almost nobody showed up. One had to spend the night with his girlfriend because she thought it was selfish if he was out for some discussion. Another had to go out with his buddies for a couple of beers. A third had been called to work at McDonalds . . . etc.
A requirement for the solving of any problem is first acknowledging the problem. But the people who acknowledge the problem, and therefore are the cause of the solution, are already suffering the symptoms of the problem. Thus I am extremely suspicious when people write comments such as: “This is all Fatalism, we have to start somewhere, we have to fight!” Because probably, these people are some keyboard warriors who vent their anger during the night while strictly adhering to the codes of emancipation, consumerism and egalitarianism during daily life. They are probably afraid of losing their jobs, friends, and chances with the girlies if they do otherwise. Apologies dear reverent reader, merely holding up a mirror.
–> People don’t know their philosophy
You see, if people would know their philosophy, they could focus on the elements of those philosophers that coincide with the philosophy of Amerika.org. And there’s a lot in there – you just have to master the art of close-reading (basically how people used to read romance novels, but then applied to philosophical masterpieces). Then you could go to some sort of party meeting and criticize their manifestos and proposals, basing yourself on these authoritative and highly sophisticated arguments. But those political movements are probably immune to these groundroots adjustments because they have stopped caring about their ideological foundations themselves.
–> Autonomous variety and repression thereof
How do good ideas come forward? By people who think critically of the world and are prepared to rely on their individual judgement. People who dare to look out for the Truth in a time they’re told everything is but opinion and private perception. Scholars, Engineers, Strategists, who posses the audacity to think outside of the existing frames of mind, who have the courage to pull from knowledge in a diversity of areas and seek to combine that together – to come to new insights that nobody thought of before. They yearn to rely on their own minds and to shake off the ineptitude of the masses.
Yet that’s not what companies want, or what faiths want. This begun with the Catholic doctrine which very clearly laid down what to believe, and if you set a step outside of that you were declared anathema, a recluse or heretic. Likewise if you work in a supermarket and have thoughts about a better way to organise the workplace – that’s not your job to do. I heard of a man who worked on an assembly line. The assembly line was broken, the mechanics came and fixed it. He watched. Next time the assembly line was broken, he fixed it himself. He was fired – he was a threat to the accustomed order of things, the ”that’s the way we do things around here.” Even though this man could have been so valuable to his company, or for a political party had he been a politician instead of an assembly worker.
Likewise you, as hypothetical supermarket employee, stepped out of line. You infringed upon the authority of someone else and that triggered a sort of irrational condescendence which is stronger than the rational appreciation for your courage to contribute by thinking. Any good organisation would further your courage to think critically, for the benefit of the company, but the higher echelons fear this will lead to anarchy. The complexity of this issue is that it sometimes does happen – since how many people are capable of truly coherent thought? Therefore almost nobody possesses enough strength of Character and mind to reconcile the power of unity with that of independent thought.
People may think my arguments are Fatalism but they are totally mistaken. You have to come to terms with the world before you can overcome the world. One has to be ready to sacrifice a piece of ones’ self to make a step forward. You see, I am a person who wants deepness; I want to go the bottom of things in an age of fragmentation and superficiality. I am a person who wants loyal friendships and genuine connectedness in a time of atomistic mutually pleasurable exchange, an era of brief and fleeting contacts of opportunity. I aspire to provide strong leadership and to receive clear orders, in a period of intangible influence and the universal rule of whims. Therefore it’s very hard for me to even exist.
But never do I sink into that layer where there is nothing – no time, no experience, no pleasure, no anger, not even hate – when all that remains is the humming tone of oblivious complacency, where even that fiery zeal, the conviction it should be otherwise, has died down to a cinder – that never. But that is Fatalism. So I can never be a Fatalist.
Taken altogether, it’s probably best not to put too much faith in setting up a political party. I see the future in a Philosophical Movement. The New Philosophy should be able to take both advantage of having everyone rowing into the same direction, and possess enough freedom to encourage people to experiment with their own ideas. Rise in wealth and influence. Set up schools in poor areas, and educate children in the ideas outlined here. Grope at the system from many parts at once – infiltrate labour movements, the media, the education sector, even the most progressive interest groups. So that you in time have the opportunity to guide these new students up into the ranks.
Resistance to (Post)modernism must not only be philosophical and be able to infiltrate, it must also be more centralized and uniformed than has been suggested thus far. If not, the New Philosophy will necessarily end up like White-Nationalist movements: fragmented, disagreed and confused. Because Marxists pulled the strings in many Eastern-European and Asian countries, they were able to create a domino-effect and seize power at many locations simultaneously.
That approach also has limits; The Communists failed to take Germany because Russia ordered the Communists to keep attacking the Democratic-Socialists instead of focusing their efforts on the Nazi’s. Local German Communists might have made a better judgement of the situation but their words were overridden. On close reading of this article the objection will prove to be superficial reading of it. Survival and Flourishing of the New Philosophy will be best guaranteed if every agent is capable of making independent individual decisions, not by fostering a herd-mentality which relies on order by central command. In the world we encounter a variety of different circumstances and strength will be developed by responding to each of these in unique ways.
Of course, all of the individual infiltrators will coordinate their actions based on the grander plan, which is only made possibly by virtue of the common philosophy: if some agents pull a coup in section A, they will on beforehand coordinate this action with those in section B. They will all keep each other up to date and have consult. Their strict allegiance to the common philosophy will ensure they will always do what is best for the cause, while adjusting to unique local circumstances. The philosophy can be common because it is itself true regardless of all circumstances, but allows for a different in approach per situation. The brilliance of this philosophy is that it can thrive even when consult with central command is not possible. The philosophy in the end relies on the power of mind and strength of Character of the Überman, and not of the noob, to push the world forward. Would it be otherwise the premises of the philosophy itself would be flawed.
Nationalism requires disbanding White Nationalism and reorganizing into something more profound and effective. This requires groups to change their end goal: fighting for a White America will not work. We need to split up into different groups based upon the lines of ethnicity, religion, economic ideas, and so on. We need to work to establish our own territories, cultures, and governments as the final goal of the movement. As each group defines itself as a Nationalist entity of its own culture and territory, they do not have to compete for the same space and societal structure, thus allowing for a greater cooperation between groups as they assist each other in securing a homeland.
This also allows for a much more defined platform to attract more supporters. Race, in itself, is not a platform.
Additionally, the Vanguardist/Conservative dichotomy needs to be dissolved, and instead, we need to engage our current situation from two fronts: working within the system, and working outside of the system. As mentioned before, working within the system isn’t to solve ALL of the our problems, but to reduce the impact of current ones, along with laying out the groundwork and creating conditions necessary for more complex solutions to be designed and effectively implemented.
In addition to reforming Conservatism via the Republican party, we should support third parties such as American Third Position and the Nationalist Party of America, as both present ideas too controversial to be discussed by the current establishment, and do so in an intelligent manner. At the very least, they’re able to help shift the direction of the political dialogue in ways the Conservative reformers currently can’t by presenting controversial ideas in a more overt manner. If they get people elected, that helps us even more.
The other part of the solution requires working on a more local/individual state level, both within and outside of the system. By its own design, our current system of government will not sustain itself much longer, nor will the global economy. We are facing both national and global situations that, if they don’t trigger a complete collapse, will at least require us to drastically change our economy and our government, along having to deal with the conflict and decay created by diversity.
We need to localize the economy of each area into a self-sustaining entity with as little dependence on foreign markets as possible, while also working to minimize the influence of the federal government on a state level, which will give each state more control over how it handles issues, thus making the break away from leftism much easier and paving the road for various Nationalisms. Working with secession movements will also help.
We also need to engage our communities own a social level, and work to either further develop the local culture, or to reconnect it with its European origins. This provides an alternative to the individualism-fueled national culture we currently have, leading to a more distinct identity, more solidified standards and corresponding behavior, along with fulfilling the fundamental human need for belonging- something which instant gratification can never do.
As global conditions continue to deteriorate and domestic issues reveal the liberal dogma for the sham it is, the limitations of our popularity-based government will become more visible to the population as a whole, further turning the odds to our favor. America will split apart into several nations, and each will develop in accordance with their culture. Non-white Nationalist groups will establish their own separate spaces, and liberals will have their own multiracial “feel-good” cultureless nations which will likely degenerate into directionless conflict, effectively soaking up the people who would otherwise work to cause us problems.
Posted in: Politics.
As conservation conservatives, we have at this blog taken a single viewpoint on the environmental crisis: it has a singular cause, which is land overuse, driven by another singular cause, which is a rise in human population.
We further note how many societies, including Easter Island and pre-Revolutionary France, doomed themselves by increasing their population past the carrying capacity of the land, specifically among the peasants who then initiated class warfare and killed off the capable leaders.
Even more, we’re painfully aware that all of the liberal “solutions” to the environmental crisis are bunk. The liberal solution is to make more peasants by giving peasants subsidies — in other words, class warfare, which is the liberal solution to everything.
But now as we watch more data roll in, it becomes clear that what’s killing off our plants and animals is that humans are expanding and using up all the land:
According to the latest report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) published at the end of 2010, Guatemala has experienced the most rapid deforestation of any country over the last five years.
In 2010, primary forest accounted for 1.6m hectares, compared with 2.4m 20 years earlier. Guatemala, which, after Brazil, has South America’s second-largest rainforest cover, lost an average of 27,000 hectares a year between 2000 and 2005 (a rate of 1.32% per year), increasing to 68,000 hectares a year between 2005 and 2010 (3.72% per year), meaning that the rate of deforestation has almost trebled in the course of a decade.
It is driven by two factors, explains geographer Gilles Selleron: “Thanks to satellite imagery we can distinguish between the cattle rearing, which is mainly carried by the Ladino population, people of Hispanic origin, and the traditional subsistence farming of corn, marrow and beans by the indigenous Q’eqchi, a Maya people.” Selleron, who is based at the French national research institute and the environmental geography unit at Toulouse University, is a specialist in forest dynamics.
According to Cerezo, recent trade negotiations have allowed Guatemala to increase sugar exports, so sugar cane plantations have expanded. This competition for the land in a country that has never implemented agricultural reforms is occurring at the expense of local communities, which are being forced to search for new land.
But that’s not all. “In the last five years, the biggest contribution to the rapid deforestation has been the massive increase in demand for palm oil and the narcofincas or narco-farms,” said Cerezo. – The Guardian
Notice how carefully they conceal the truth: the population has not greatly expanded, but its appetites have. (The article says “Demographic pressure does not explain the speed with which the agricultural and grazing frontier has advanced” and then promptly contradicts itself.)
Who is expanding? People who want to earn money: subsistence farmers, drug growers, palm growers and cattle rearers.
Were there not a worldwide population explosion, these people would not be there. They would not be trying to each earn money to use more of the forest. Subsistence farming would give them enough to survive and there would not be a financial incentive to do more.
Instead, as the human population expands, the forest dies.
One in 10 species could face extinction by the year 2100 if current climate change impacts continue. This is the result of University of Exeter research, examining studies on the effects of recent climate change on plant and animal species and comparing this with predictions of future declines.
“We need to act now to prevent threatened species from becoming extinct. This means cutting carbon emissions and protecting species from the other threats they face, such as habitat loss and pollution.” – Science Daily
The press are born liars who never buck a trend. They manage to bury the truth deep in the article: global warming is accelerating the process of extinction caused by habitat loss (land overuse by humans) and pollution (too many humans).
Liberals like to ignore this data because it does not confirm their bias, which is that the rich — who make products for all of humanity — are somehow being irresponsible by deciding to make money off the masses, instead of refusing and letting some other guy do it.
The reality is that a huge number of humans means a huge audience for beef, drugs, palm oil and subsistence farms. Humans expand; nature shrinks.
Our environmental problem is a small one, actually, and easily fixed. We need to recognize that overpopulation is the problem, and stop subsidizing people with foreign aid, welfare and other helpful programs. Let nature adjust the carrying capacity, because humans always screw it up.
Even more, the West needs to become self-sufficient. If we need drugs or palm oil, we need to figure out how to grow that here. We’ve beat bigger technological problems before.
The only thing holding back this type of real progress is the false “progress” that’s popular in the media and liberal circles. As long as we follow that, we’ll never fix the real problem.
As an example, we all live in “countries” or “nations.” How often do we think about how those are composed? Many think they don’t serve a purpose, and want to make us citizens of the world.
Our current concept of “a country” is based on a notion from 1789, called the nation-state. When the French liberal revolutionaries deposed their king, they realized that having a tribal identity clashed with their idea of total equality among citizens.
Ever since then, the left has hated the nation and wanted the nation-state, or a geographic area united not by tribe — culture, heritage, language, customs and values — but by political ideas. France was no longer a tribe; it was a political entity, and its people were subjects of that.
In contrast, the nation is a tribal identity. In this concept, the French people are what define the nation and its boundaries; whatever political dogma they choose is irrelevant, because they are all French. Government emerges from them, not imposes itself upon them for their own best interests.
Since 1789, the global trend has been a steady reduction in nations and their replacement with nation-states. This accelerated with the two disastrous world wars of the last century.
Others, perhaps with a nod to history, note quietly that there are reasons to not make humanity one big nation:
- Diversity. It’s more interesting to have different approaches. One big nation creates an inevitable standardizing, utilitarian, and averaging trend.
- Stability. One big nation is a single point of failure. Multiple nations create redundancy and thus, a stabilizing influence.
- Flexibility. Often, it is better to have many people work on a problem than one person: each takes their own approach, and one turns out to work in certain situations, but not others.
History may be listening. With the Cold War over and WWII (in which the nation-states of the world defeated the nations) receding in distant memory, our globe is reshuffling its power balance.
We are seeing each other as distinct civilizations instead, in which unity of tribe — culture, heritage, language, customs and values — trumps political associations, which we have seen are an even bigger disaster than the nationalist wars.
Saturday, the United States (and the global community) formally recognized nationalism, which is the idea that civilizations should be organic states composed of unity of tribe:
South Sudan celebrated its first day as an independent nation Saturday, raising its flag before tens of thousands of cheering citizens elated to reach the end of a 50-year struggle.
U.S. President Barack Obama called the day a new dawn after the darkness of war, while visiting dignitaries offered both congratulations and prodding for South Sudan and its former ruler, Sudan, to avoid a return to conflict over serious and unresolved disagreements.
Saturday meant that South Sudan and its black tribesmen would for the first time be linked politically with sub-Saharan Africa. Kenya and Uganda are already laying strong economic ties with their northern neighbor, an oil-rich country that may one day ship its oil to a Kenyan port, instead of through the pipelines controlled by Khartoum.
“From today our identity is southern and African, not Arabic and Muslim,” read a hand-painted sign that one man carried as he walked through the crowds. – Fox News
Our talking heads in the media are trying to rationalize away the truth of this situation, because they are paid to tell us pleasant half-truths and so keep everyone going to work and feeling good about themselves. The news is a business and the buyers pick the news they wawnt.
However, history will record that Barack Obama has supported a truly progressive notion in his support for South Sudan: bucking the nation-state trend, the United States encouraged the division of Sudan into nations.
This is what “From today our identity is southern and African, not Arabic and Muslim” means. An ethnic group is electing to preserve itself as separate from its cosmopolitan (mixed-ethnic) neighbors, and is returning to its organic state composed of culture, heritage, language, customs and values in unison.
While this would not be a shock to the American founding fathers, who envisioned the United States as a British nation that welcomed those from similar cultures, like Germans, Dutch, Swedes and the occasional Scot or Frenchman, it is most certainly a shock to those who have guided the United States since 1945.
If you want to know why modern “conservatives” have only a thin platform — big business, low taxes, small government and family values legislation — it’s that they have been neutered by liberalism, and so have lost the vision the founding fathers had.
The real notion of conservatism is the organic civilization, starting with the nation, a form of extended tribe. Its value lies in the fact that instead of creating a “proposition nation” formed of random people united under a political front, it is already a nation based in “consanguinity” as the American founding fathers stated it.
Elsewhere in the world, others are removing their nation-state blinders as well:
Belgium has been without an elected government for over a year after deep divisions between Flemish and Walloon, French speaking, political parties have led to history’s longest political impasse in a democracy.
Elections last June deepened the crisis after a majority of voters in Flanders, the richer Dutch-speaking north of Belgium, supported the separatist New Flemish Alliance (NVA), which supports the break-up of the Belgian state.
Negotiations to form a new Belgian government have dragged on for over a year as Belgium’s francophone Walloon minority have refused to give Flemish separatists new powers to control taxes and to run its own economy.
Mr De Wever upset Walloon politicians in the run up to the official 11 July celebration of “the Flemish community” by insisting that it was a “national day” for Flanders.
“It is a people, a community, a democracy. It was a territory, history and common values. So this is a nation,” he said. – The Telegraph
The political entity of Belgium was not created for its people. It was created for the convenience of those forming alliances among nation-states.
In so doing, they crammed together two populations — one more French-leaning, and one more Dutch-leaning. This formed an uneasy alliance which held together for many years because the alternative was worse: assimilation by a larger nation-state or hostile power.
Years later, Belgium is rediscovering the obvious: if two separate groups exist, they are not one group for a reason. They have separate cultures, heritages, languages, value systems and customs. Those are already built-in. Changing them requires a Soviet-style totalitarian Nanny State.
Nationalism (advocacy of nations, not nation-states) is defined by its emphasis on the organic state formed of unity of these factors. Nationalism is not about picking the right political system or allies. It is about preserving, defending and nurturing the uniqueness of every group on earth.
And it is quietly taking Europe by storm:
The True Finn Party in Finland has broken through the left-liberal consensus to take second place in the polls, reminding voters that Finland is not just a geographical area but a country defined by language, culture, and history, a country that has been defended at great cost against the Soviet desire to absorb it and which is now, thanks to the European Union, being robbed of its savings in order to replenish the pockets of Mediterranean kleptocrats.
All across Europe the nations are beginning to boil with frustration, at a political straitjacket that prevents them from asserting their ancient rights. The causes of this are many, but two in particular stand out: immigration and the European Union. The two are connected, since it is the EU’s non-negotiable insistence on the free movement of labor that has prevented the nation-states from exerting meaningful control over their borders. At a time when unemployment in Britain stands at more than 2 million, more than a million immigrants from Eastern Europe have come to take what jobs there are. It is impossible that such a situation should endure without strong sentiments of national entitlement among the indigenous people, and our governing elites are struggling hard to prevent those sentiments from emerging into the light of day.
It seemed reasonable, even imperative, in 1950 to bring the nations of Europe together, in a way that would prevent the wars that had twice almost destroyed the continent. And because conflicts breed radicalism, the new Europe was conceived as a comprehensive plan — one that would eliminate the sources of European conflict, and place cooperation rather than rivalry at the heart of the continental order. – Spectator
Revealed by the light of history, the EU appears to be yet another political hack job. Its purpose is to end the last century’s wars by forcing unity. However, that analysis forgets that WWI, the cause of WWII, was itself caused by forcing nation-states upon people in order to make “good” and “bad” alliances.
Like the nation-state itself, the union of nation-states is based in the liberal idea (descended from the French Revolution in 1789) that if we are all equal citizens of the world, we will not need kings and culture. All we need is — well, liberalism, actually.
That great liberal moral crusade did not work out so well for the French. After 25 years of bloodshed, and another century of instability, France emerged as something far less than the world power, cultural leader and political giant that it once was.
We can see that in our present time, people just as delusional as those French revolutionaries are still at work, still trying to destroy what is natural and replace it with Soviet-style political dogma:
It’s racially discriminatory to prohibit racial discrimination. That’s the bottom line of a decision issued last Friday, just before the Fourth of July weekend, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit ruling seems unlikely to stand. Its citation of Supreme Court precedents is unpersuasive. The proposition that a state’s voters cannot ban racial discrimination seems palpably absurd.
But it does stand as a monument to the contortions that liberal lawyers and judges will go through to perpetuate the racial quotas and preferences that have become embedded in important parts of American life. – Human Events
In the name of making peace, we sew the seeds of future conflict. We are forcing a union that does not exist, and we are doing it for political goals, not practical ones.
The great American diversity experiment enters its 145th year with mixed results. We now have an African-American president, and racial tensions are higher than ever. Flash mobs strike white people, and the Tea Party wants to end the welfare state.
Our political goals — formalized in the 1960s — make us look good, we think. We are like Christ on the cross, but secular and self-negating, a benevolent giver bestowing enlightenment, wealth, Progress and justice on our mostly ghetto-bound African cousins.
But do these policies work? Everywhere they are tried, they fail — even when combining people of the same race. Belgians, Irish, Russians and former Yugoslavian states are still wracked by conflict involving people of the same race not able to integrate.
What makes us think we can do it with people of different races? Actually, it seems like no one thought about feasibility. They were too busy riding the high of good feelings coming from the 1960s.
As in the 1860s, they thought they had eliminated the source of our division, and the future was all peace. That’s remarkably similar to what happened at the Congress of Vienna, Potsdam Conference and even the formation of the EU. If we crush the source of our difference, we will have peace (so the thinking went).
Instead, we find that forcing round pegs into square holes has resulted in constant insanity that we cannot criticize because it is linked to the political dogma that unites us — the very core of the nation-state, the proposition nation and our source of political identity:
The fire department’s gender and ethnicity quota became an unpleasant surprise for Simon Wallmark, who was informed that despite having trained as a firefighter, he was not encouraged to apply for a summer job, on account of being Swedish and male.
“The response I got from Södertörn was that I wasn’t qualified to apply for the summer jobs, because the jobs were reserved for women and people with an immigrant background,” said Simon Wallmark to SR.
He agrees that there is a need for more women and immigrants in the field, but argues that the recruiting should be done some other way.
Out of the 32 people finally hired by the fire department, 10 lacked the relevant education for the job. – The Local
Barack Obama has acknowledged that each ethnic group has the right to self-determination — in the third world, at least. Since we traditionally use the third world as objects of pity, we in the West like to apply a double standard that gives them more laxity than us.
In doing so, he has revealed how badly the European and American experiments with diversity are failing. They are falling apart at the seams, not just between whites and third-worlders, but between whites and whites.
That we continue with this insane Soviet-style political experiment shows us the true roots of the West’s drive toward diversity: just as in post-Revolutionary France, the agenda is a smashing of leadership and culture.
Our liberal contingent wants to smash those forms of hierarchy so there is no hierarchy, only a giant mob of equal citizens of the world. In order to do that, they need to dissolve power and redistribute wealth so that all have an equal share. Maybe then we’ll have peace, since there will be no cause for conflict.
However, that hasn’t come true either. When you redistribute power and wealth, what you get is a form of political heat death — a stilling of decision-making since all decisions lead to the same place, which is forced equality. Both Soviet and French liberal empires collapsed in decay.
And yet on the horizon are signs that we are finally learning from those debacles, and turning away from the nation-state, and back toward the form of civilization that has been with us since the dawn of humankind — the nation.
Vanguardists believe that Conservatives are working with a broken system and a broken culture while being too mainstream and compromising. Conservatives believe Vanguardists are too extreme and alienating, along with having a tendency to over-focus on ideas without a practical application while failing to implement the ones that do. Both are correct in their own right.
The observations of the Vanguardists tend to be spot on: Conservatism isn’t enough to save us as the Republicans are fighting to preserve the previous results of leftism, becoming more indistinguishable from their “opposition” save for irrelevant token issues and a couple of embarrassing personality anomalies like Sarah Palin. Most have no goal beyond a limp-wristed whimper of “don’t rock the boat too much guys…”, phrased with the usual memes to give off the illusion of being profoundly differentTM.
Furthermore, the non-establishment Conservative and Libertarian political figures have no interest in explicitly White concerns, preferring instead to champion their false idols of liberty, small government, and free markets as the unifying principles for all Americans. These amount to little more than the left’s abstractions of equality, tolerance, and diversity, and, like the left, appeal to the lowest common denominator (individualism).
However, it’s impossible to get elected without appealing to the lowest common denominator, as the population is too diverse to be united toward any principle other than hedonistic individualism with their favorite packaging and method of enactment, and most are too apathetic to respond to anything which doesn’t incessantly bleat their favorite meme and/or shelter their sensitive emotions. This is a consequence of the American mindset and culture itself- America was largely influenced by (if not founded upon) Enlightenment principles, and shortly after, was exposed to the Industrial Revolution.
This resulted in a proto-egalitarian framework stemming from the ideas of the Enlightenment during a period offering the potential for massive economic growth and accumulation of wealth. America began as a fresh nation possessing an incomplete and rebellious culture (which was somewhat disconnected from its European roots), occupying a massive land space with an enormous amount of resources during a period offering the potential for massive economic growth and accumulation of wealth. As a result, American identity began to solidify itself around purely material concepts: economic growth and territorial expansion, along with its founding principles of “freedom” and “liberty” to act increasingly as justifications.
Fast-forward to the present day – we have hordes of immigrants pouring into the country, rampant globalization, a near-dead economy, environmental devastation, overpopulation both within and outside America, lowered standards which continue to sink, and a lazy, confused, neurotic mass of a population who are too afraid to offend someone and too entitled to delay immediate gratification for the pursuit of long-term goals.
All of this results from a materially-oriented mindset and corresponding culture, backed by a proto-egalitarian code of values which snowballed into enforced individualism and more overt egalitarianism, making the material satisfaction of the sovereign individualTM the supreme goal. And they have a rightTM to that, godTM damn it! Predictably, all the moral causes Americans gravitate toward are disguised forms of manipulation to service the material demands of someone else, and are pursued for the sake of self-promotion (competitive altruism) in a hedonistic attempt to compensate for the void left by atomization.
As such, working within the system with a more Conservative direction isn’t enough to tackle all of the problems we face, and it never can be due to its ideological limitations and a governing system which resembles a popularity contest: both parties haphazardly propose and enact solutions to quell the disconcerted swarm- the easiest way of doing so is appealing to their immediate material interests, also while acting to benefit their corporate sponsors and/or pet projects, occasionally launching some jihad in the name of a crowd-pleasing abstraction so we can all pat ourselves on the back for doing our part while the home burns to the ground.
All that being said, Vanguardism isn’t the answer either. While Vanguardist criticism of the current political situation tends to be brazenly accurate, and their insights regarding culture and the hard sciences are useful, they have no realistic solution for implementing their ideas, and as the Conservatives often note, Vanguardists have a tendency to act in a very counter-productive manner. This usually takes the form of proclaiming the efforts of Conservatives to work within the system to be a useless waste of time, turning the concept of a destructive Jewish influence into a full-blown anti-Semitic conspiracy, and/or in extreme cases, publicly demonstrating with Third Reich symbols, engaging in theatrics for TV cameras, etc.
NONE OF THESE BEHAVIORS ARE ACHIEVING ANYTHING
…especially when taking into account that the Vanguardist strategy relies on spearheading a revolution. Most people cannot identify with or understand what is being communicated, and when the drama and theatrics flare up among the more extreme parts, potential supporters are driven away.
Despite the limitations of the Conservative approach, their efforts in engaging the current system and the mainstream population are beneficial. Working to reform Conservatism allows for steering the national dialogue away from its current leftist course by forcing the left into conversations they otherwise try to avoid, and by phrasing and presenting un-PC ideas in terms the masses can handle while demonstrating a tangible benefit. In turn, this can start shifting the mindset of a large section of the population.
It also allows for reducing the impact of current problems and furthering the discussion of them- examples being immigration, affirmative action, state bureaucracy and entitlements, and so on. While this won’t solve everything, and while the politicians Conservative activists are presenting their interests to probably aren’t racially minded, much of the necessary groundwork is laid out, and immediate problems which the average person can understand and identify with are mitigated. If we ignore this part, we’ll be trying to jump from point A to point Q, falling flat on our asses in the process.
Posted in: Politics.
In every classroom, some kids are the ones who know the answers and do great work; the rest of us trail behind somewhere. At the bottom, there are the kids who aren’t too good at anything.
Unless you want uniform interchangeable parts, the same is true for any collection of things. They call it “the bell curve,” but statistically, in most collections of objects they can be ranked according to a statistical distribution. There are a few really good ones, a few really bad ones, and a sloping curve in the middle.
Mathematically, this makes a lot of sense. It creates both stability and flexibility. If you impose a boundary on a situation, it lets the space be filled completely with a minimum of outliers, which gives those in the middle a chance to rise or fall.
However, many people hate this state of humanity. They think distinctions like leaders versus followers, smart versus dumb, and innovators versus participants are bad and worse than bad, they’re deliberately mean. They think the only reason such distinctions exist is to make the people on top feel good, which is nonsense because the people on top don’t need that to feel good. They’re on top.
Then again, what else would the people on the bottom say? “You know, I’m really not good at anything, including managing my own life. I can minimize my failure by letting smarter people lead me.” — unlikely. Instead, they claim that because we’re not all interchangeable parts, the “system” is unjust, cruel and elitist.
But in this divide you see right/conservative versus left/liberal.
The right is based on the idea of a reverent, transcendental appreciation for the natural order; for that reason, it values the past as a form of historical learning, aims for religious levels of purity of behavior, sees end results/goals as more important than methods/moralism, and hopes to create a civilization with collective values that raise it above the rest.
The right comprises a spectrum of political beliefs from moderate American Republican (small government, few laws, low taxes, family values) to National Socialism (strong central government, strong traditional laws, ethno-nationalism, eugenics).
The left is based on the idea of the individual being able to fulfill itself by doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants, unhindered by nature or human social orders; for that reason, it values the ideological and idealistic, aims for religious levels of humanistic morality, views methods/moralism as more important than results/goals, and hopes to create a civilization where every individual feels equally valued, free and important.
The left comprises a spectrum of political beliefs from moderate American Democrat (social welfare programs, strong economy, moderate taxes, pluralism) to Stalinism (absolute social welfare, command economy, pluralism, ideological goal as more important than all else).
When you combine the two, you get Totalitarian Anarchism, or a system which enables absolute individual freedom but, because it is responsive to the needs of individuals for stability, also imposes a type of totalitarian order created by media, government and social competition for the purposes of stability and obedience.
In the modern USA and Europe, when left and right fight, the result is a type of compromise of inertia that leads to absolutely nothing getting done. Our current crop of parasites, demagogues, idiots, predators, liars, flatterers, cheats, con men and sycophants loves this: it lets them keep leaching away, pretending that the bill will never come due.
Perhaps this is why the root of conservatism is consequentialism with transcendentalism. If you can think far enough into the future to see how certain actions will turn out, you try to find a meaning to it all, and when you find a reason to love life, you understand why it makes sense to play by its rules.
Everyone else is left behind by this logic, and so they in a fit of hubris demand that nature bow down and play by their rules, starting a chain reaction that always ends badly. This is why they are followers, not leaders.
Many conservatives exist who recognize, as do all people who study history, that diversity — of any form: racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, linguistic, even radical socioeconomic or average IQ leaps — is doomed to failure and brings down societies with it.
One of the major points of conflict in is between two different strategic groups: the Vanguardists or “White Nationalists,” who believe that the system is rotten, working in it is waste of time, and that it needs to be overthrown, and Conservatives, who believe we can still work within the system to reform it and achieve much greater results than the current Republicans (aka Establishment Conservatives).
These two groups tend to polarize through conflict with each other, and as a result, much drama is needlessly generated, time is wasted, and the participants look disorganized to potential supporters. The purpose of this entry is to explore the problems currently affecting White Nationalism, to analyze the viewpoints of the Vanguardists and Conservatives, and to combine the positive elements of both factions into a coherent and realistic solution. It will be divided into three parts.
Before I begin, it is necessary to discuss a major problem currently facing White Nationalism: White Nationalism itself. The only consensus reached within White Nationalism is over the obvious. Though it is comprised of a single racial group, it is still multiculturalism, and reaches no consensus in regard to economics, religion, ethnicity, social issues, government structure and function, environmental issues, and so on.
This is all without factoring in the tension between Vanguardists and Conservatives. Calls for unity to end in-fighting and to direct ourselves as a mass toward workable goals are unrealistic- inevitably, counter-productive conflict will occur over at least one of the divisive areas and by its own design, White Nationalism fails to offer a solution. This leaves two choices:
- Avoid discussing and taking a stance on any divisive issue. This entrenches White Nationalism as a reactionary ideology, thus limiting its appeal to its target audience.
- Argue endlessly over which combination works best. This prevents us from having any forward motion, and makes us look disorganized and unprofessional.
The results of either choice lead to oblivion. And when factoring in the conflict between Vanguardists and Conservatives, only more disorganization is created, and each side is further entrenched in their stances, potentially limiting the exchange of useful ideas.Thus, it seems reasonable to disband White Nationalism and rebuild it into something better: a racial nationalist movement which can both appeal to ordinary citizens and different ideological currents without becoming a bland, cultureless movement or an overly-divided mess. Part of doing so requires examining the Vanguardists and Conservatives.
Posted in: Politics.
They keep a small portion of themselves at the very center of their personalities, but allow the rest to be adopted by paying customers, guilt-bearers and social influences.
If you like chocolate mousse, it’s good food, even if all your friends think it’s horrible, or the government bans it, or big media tells you that eating chocolate mousse tortures Koalas.
Even more importantly, there is a sense of your values and what you want life to be like. These are two separate things; the first is a set of yes/no preferences, the second, a creative vision.
In the world of profit, making friends, getting along with others, writing advertising, making a crowd laugh, or selling indie rock, there is no self. There is only image.
The best artists translate that inner self through beauty toward their audience. They have resisted assimilation; it’s no surprise most of them were loners and many lived in isolated areas.
Externalization is a complex process that involves others taking over your personality because you defined your personality using external factors. It can work in either direction: you first, or them first.
You offered up yourself as a social token, and they became linked with it, in turn influencing it. Or maybe this was forced on you, and defensively, you used an external object to justify yourself. Now that rules you.
Although modern society is a nightmare for many reasons, its worst attribute is that it swallows souls.
By slowly forcing you to place the drama of others before your own needs, by convincing you to join a fake crusade of guilt and narcissistic individualism so others can think their constant self-expression is important, and by reducing all beauty in life into money, votes or popularity, modern society attempts to consume you every day.
If you listen to it, you will adopt — in the name of defending yourself — the same methods that will erode your soul and erase not only who you are, but the greater meaning of life you carry in yourself.
As we might observe watching a character in a novel, the greatest expression of self is not what it does for itself, but the values it impresses on the world. Soul isn’t about being alone with your pleasures.
Other people would love to see your soul eaten because they have, long ago, given up and now are enraged and bitter at the world. They resent it, and resent you for not being broken like them.
They want to drag you down and crush your child-like appreciation of life as theirs has been crushed. They want to make you serve them by losing what it is in you that keeps you whole.
“All must serve,” is the dogma of a tyrant, indeed, but it’s a tyrant in the souls of many. It’s a spiritual disease that afflicts those who have lost their way by allowing themselves to be externalized.
The more I venture into life, the more I see that the essence of conservatism is conserving the inner soul and the sacred, the natural and the reverent, against this tidal wave of doubt, fear, guilt and hatred.
Societies die when they lose creative goals in common.
A creative goal involves making new things: building a society, becoming the best culture one can imagine, inventing new ideas or methods, or just fulfilling a cultural mandate. It is the opposite of the competitive society, where there is no goal and so the citizens compete for existing things.
As a society ages, it supports a number of people who are unable to conceptualize, plan or execute creative goals (even small ones). These people have only one role: as employees following orders. Even if they work in “creative” fields, these are those who use already existing knowledge.
Over time, these people thrive under the leadership of the creative. At some point, however, a popular uprising deposes the role of those leaders. It may be they got a bad leader or, more likely, the people who could not be creative overthrew the creative out of spite and resentment.
The result is a society divided over its future: does it aim for self-discipline and making new things, or focus on the different ways to divide up what it already has?
The group of lawmakers who participated in negotiations led by Vice President Joe Biden have already identified more than $1 trillion in budget cuts.
Republicans want far more.
But already, $1 trillion in cuts is entering uncharted territory. The cuts would be some of the biggest in history. – CNN
The Republicans have perceived that America has a sick addiction to spending. If we want a future, we need to cut spending because otherwise, we will become inward-looking: all of our money and efforts will go toward maintaining what we do have, in a losing battle against debt.
Instead, we should cut costs, cut government, cut social programs and re-invest our cash into developing new industries, technologies and more efficient ways of having industry. Among other things, we could create a green industries boom, if new technologies are invented in that process.
Our Democratic friends would rather that we stop looking toward the future, and instead become more focused on how we redistribute money through our citizenry.
“I’ve said to some of the Republican leaders, you go talk to your constituents, the Republican constituents, and ask them are they willing to compromise their kids’ safety so that some corporate jet owner continues to get a tax break,” Obama said. “And I’m pretty sure what the answer would be.”
Obama’s solution is a populist one, meaning that it sounds good to the greatest number of people.
He is echoing an old Democratic line: raise taxes on corporations and the rich.
However, he is ignoring why we keep such taxes low in the first place. We want to encourage the money to stay in our nation and invest in it. We want that money to be re-applied to development.
Even rich people serve a public interest by in many cases owning large estates covered with forest, which they keep in mostly pristine state.
If we tax too much, we will drive those corporations away from our shores, encouraging outsourcing and offshoring.
Ending the tax break for owners of private jets, for instance, would only save a few billion dollars, hardly enough to fund the Food and Drug Administration.
“I understand the populist appeal,” Sawhill said. “But those numbers are very small.”
The Democrats are working the mob into a frenzy: “Go get those rich bastards!”
The truth is that taxing the “rich” will not close the hole. Not even increased corporate taxes will. We will merely drive those people into keeping their wealth elsewhere. (The target group, those who earn over $250,000 per year, are upper half of middle class at this point, in the age of cheap money with little backing it. They are not “wealthy” in the practical sense of not needing to work.)
We cannot beat this debt by greater taxation. Further, greater taxation sabotages our economy, making the debt more painful as our currency devalues.
Other spending categories that have grown rapidly since 2000 include: anti-poverty programs (89 percent faster than inflation), K–12 education (219 percent), veterans spending (107 percent), and Medicare (81 percent). And despite all the pressing national priorities, lawmakers approved over 9,000 earmarks last year at a cost of $16.5 billion.
Of course, not all future spending is inevitable. In the 1980s and 1990s, Washington consistently spent $21,000 per household (adjusted for inflation). Simply returning to that level would balance the budget by 2012 without any tax hikes.
An additional graph shows the changing composition of federal spending since 1962, as entitlements have crowded out defense. – Heritage
Looking at the image above, we see one thing clearly: entitlement spending has risen dramatically since the rise of Democratic power in the 1990s.
Even more, government spending on its citizens has been the fastest-rising area of spending since 1950. If you hear people talking about Keynesianism, you are seeing it in action here.
Keynes wrote his magnum opus (General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money ) in 1936, in the midst of the Great Depression. People were just beginning to learn that rampant speculation could, indeed, cause the economy to collapse. Keynes proposed government as a debt sink that regulated the value of currency by spending vast amounts to keep the economy going.
Up until recently, people thought Keynes was correct. He may in fact be correct; however, he may have underestimated the secondary consequences of Keynesian economics, namely that they like Socialism cause a leveling of worth and thus a kind of monetary entropy, where all investments become somewhat random and thus vast instability prevails.
In the meantime, his influence has caused government to balloon and even more, for entitlement spending (the opposite of “discretionary spending” such as the military) to explode, all of it being spending by the government on its citizens, including welfare, healthcare, education, and other big expenses that were virtually unknown before 1950.
Image from Business Insider.
Tax the rich? Cut defense? Tax corporations? These are fake answers designed to keep idiots busy thinking something is “being done,” while the real profits head out the door and are converted from our declining currency into other sources of wealth. (If you think dollars will be worthless real soon, use them to buy yen before that event.)
The real problem here is the concept of entitlement itself:
- It’s huge. Over half of the budget is entitlements. Further, it breeds more of itself, because each expenditure adds more bureaucracy, more laws, more policies and more people in both public and private sector dependent on the jobs they sponsor and the people they support. A job without profit behind it is not a “made job” but a dependent job, meaning that it does not contribute to the economy, but takes money out of it without creating more wealth for us all.
- It fails. Entitlements are ineffective at reducing the problems they claim to address. As extended government subsidies, they treat the effects but not the underlying causes; as bureaucracy, they encourage keeping people “in the system” to justify its existence. Even more, they often create more problems than they solve. Medicare engendered a vast labyrinth of regulations which many corporations and individuals take advantage of. In the meantime, more people than before have problems finding medical care.
- It corrupts our outlook. Entitlements create a mindset of gaming the system, where the idea is to get as much for yourself without necessarily adding to the collective wealth through effort and creativity. When people are subsidized, they have no incentive to add to the collective wealth, so the vast majority of people take more than they give. This creates a culture of gaming the system, where people become resentful and opportunistic. Even further, it demands that we create a dogma of justification for our gaming the system, such as “equality” or “justice,” which in turn corrupts the meaning of those terms. Entitlement culture is bad for our psychology.
If you want to be embittered, be embittered at that last item. The same culture of do-nothing that destroyed the Soviet Union now thrives in America through make-work jobs, a large entrenched bureaucracy, a huge welfare state and many incompetent people who make predictable mistakes and then expect government to bail them out.
The tendency toward gaming the system kills what is vital about a society. It corresponds to the victim mentality of 1980s teen movies: if you feel like a victim, you can in turn overthrow those above you and force them to give up their power, wealth and popularity. However, you’re still the person who could not create those things in the first place.
Entitlement culture savages these things:
- Values. If we all deserve subsidy for being human alone, there is no way we can make choices about what values we want in our towns and cities. Instead, we must accept everyone, and accept that everyone now has money to spend however they see fit, even if it’s crazy. This forces us all to accept crazy, and we’re supposed to smile about it.
- Natural selection. In a healthy society people are rewarded for being exceptionally good, and everyone else is tolerated unless incompetent, but incompetents are thrown out for being useless (traditionally, in America we’ve run our incompetents off to Mexico or Canada, who wised up and started sending them back with interest). When you introduce the subsidy, everyone is guaranteed survival, which specifically helps the incompetents (everyone else would have survived anyway). As a result, you have a huge population boom in the incompetent zone, propelling you further along toward Idiocracy.
- Self-reliance. When the idea that is that we all fix our own problems, and there is no subsidy waiting to descend from heaven to save us, people tend to be responsible. They get their own act together, discipline themselves, and find a path in life. When it doesn’t matter whether you’re disciplined or not, and even if you screw it all up you get the equivalent of a salary, a culture of do-nothingness is created. People just hang out, or pin their hopes on illusory dreams. Why worry? Government will save us.
- Organic society. An organic society is one that grows naturally from an agreement over values. People of like minds and abilities get together and start a new civilization up, and it grows. This type of society requires little enforcement because people generally agree on what is good behavior and what is bad. When subsidies intrude, a powerful central government is required to hand out the money and enforce good behavior. This means that a false standard has taken hold and will replace the organic one.
The above are things that we all claim to want, at least if we talk ourselves through which of the options is best. No one wants idiots — they will only admit they want natural selection when you talk them through the process like a Socratic dialogue:
Aetheryus: Send them away!
Socrates: You want to give our tyrant the ability to choose who is good and who is bad?
Socrates: So we need another way, like some kind of test, or even a challenge.
Socrates: Like natural selection?
Aetheryus: No! Yes! No — wait, natural selection is bad, amirite?
Civilizations die when they go from cultures of creativity to cultures of internal competition. They stop striving for anything, turn inward looking, and bicker themselves to death.
Luckily, this process can be restarted. All it takes is for us to reverse the culture of gaming the system, reverse the perverse notion of equality, and rip out the dead wood and start over, this time building it to last.