What Is to Be Done For the Long Term to Save Western Civilization?
By John “Birdman” Bryant
In numerous essays I have pointed out the grevious danger in which Western civilization and its founding race — the white race — now find themselves; and in pointing this out, I have emphasized that the white race is unique among races by having created a civilization which is significantly superior to any civilization founded by other races, and which indeed does not seem maintainable by — or indeed, even suitable for — any other race. Another point that I have emphasized is that — at least as far as can be determined — the threat to Western civilization and the white race comes not primarily from external enemies, but rather from one internal enemy — organized Jewry.
In preserving our civilization, there are two basic questions to be addressed: What to do in the short term, and what to do in the long. In the present essay, we will address the latter question. In particular, we will attempt to set down certain principles which we believe that a long term solution must follow. Before setting forth these principles, however, we must emphasize one meta-principle which governs all others:
GOVERNING META-PRINCIPLE: The solution to the problems of Western man is not, as a general rule, to ‘throw the rascals out’, tho this might be ok for certain special cases; rather the solution is to change the system to keep it from generating rascals.
More specifically, what needs to be done is to set up a system in which the incentives for men in power are such as to make them act honorably and in a principled manner, as opposed to the current system, in which honor and principle are sold to the highest bidder, and where the definition of ‘honest politician’ is ‘One who, once bought, stays bought’.
One special case which is important to mention in the present context is that it should not be our intent to ‘get rid of the Jews’; for the Jews have merely exploited weaknesses in the system which others could exploit just as well. What I mean is that ‘getting rid of the Jews’ would improve nothing save only to allow unscrupulous men of our own race to exploit these same weaknesses. Thus our goal should be that, by removing the weaknesses of the system, the Jews (and others) will turn their superior energy and talents away from exploitation and toward the direction of acting in a way that is productive both for them and for the society as a whole. Thus by avoiding a vengeful attitude toward the Jews, and instead providing incentives for them redirect their talents into positive channels, we reduce — and hopefully eliminate eventually — the hostility toward gentiles that has driven the Jewish race for so many centuries, and — let us admit it frankly — that has been significantly fueled by gentiles’ religious prejudice and superstition.
By saying the above, however, I am in no way saying that the Jews are innocent of abuses of gentiles in historical times. This is a question which can be debated endlessly, but is not really important. What is important is that Jews are guilty in the present day of a whole host of destructive behaviors which are on the verge of bringing down the civilization which has allowed both Jew and gentile to develop and prosper beyond anything either had ever imagined. It is these behaviors which must be addressed, and hopefully brought to an end by educating the smart but unwise Jews on the harm which they are inflicting on themselves as well as others.
In addressing the Jew-gentile conflict, it is vital that we understand the two basic dynamics of this conflict. The first, which has been explored by Prof Kevin MacDonald in his trilogy on Jews, is that the destructive behavior of Jews as involving gentiles may be readily explained as a group survival instinct — a subject which, while fascinating, is beyond the scope of the present essay. The second dynamic of the Jew-gentile conflict is that this conflict represents what in systems theory is called a feedback loop — one action leads to a reaction by the other side, which then leads to a reaction by the first side, and back-and-forth, back-and- forth in a never-ending succession of mutual hostilities. The classic situation of this type is the feud, as represented for example by the Hatfield-McCoy conflict of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The operating principle here is that, once a feud gets going, it (usually) keeps escalating until a final-blowup completely crashes the system. The only way such feuds can be stopped is to have some sort of ‘damping out’ of the action-reaction pattern. In the Hatfield-McCoy case, this happened when some of the most active principals were sent to jail; but action- reaction patterns can end amicably as well, as when the husband brings his wife that fur coat that started the argument in the first place.
PRINCIPLES FOR REFORMING THE SYSTEM
* PRINCIPLE: Take account of the Acton Dictum The most important principle by far in reforming a social or political system is Lord Acton’s dictum that ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Another and perhaps more accurate way to put this is to say, ‘the greater the power, the greater the corruption,’ to which it should be added that ‘greater power’ means ‘more greatly concentrated power’. The proof of the Acton dictum is almost if not quite tautological: To the extent that others have no power to constrain us, we will act as it pleases us; and there is no reason to expect that what pleases us will also please others. (To paraphrase one wit, It may be our intention to govern well when we govern, but it is nonetheless our intention to govern.) The Acton Dictum is so important that I have changed from calling myself a libertarian to calling myself an Actonite.
Because government is usually the most concentrated form of power, the Acton Dictum impels us to the libertarian view that, in the words of JBR Yant, ‘When it comes to government, small is beautiful.’ For this reason, we should support the return of federal power to the states, cities, local communities and other small groups. In general, the only time when centralized power should be permitted is in time of war or other major crisis when it is necessary for people to act together in large coordinated groups; but since war is often the product of centralized power, the sparing use of such power is evidently an excellent way to insure that it is rarely needed.
Because wealth is a form of power, an important implication of the Acton Dictum is that excessive concentration of wealth should be avoided. In saying this, let me be clear that I am no socialist, and do not object to people getting ‘rich’, tho I do become concerned when accumulated wealth is so great as to allow the purchase of major political influence by a single individual or small groups of individuals. Thus while there are many possibilities in placing limits on the concentration of wealth, the following seem to me to be critical in their importance:
(1) Remove the money from politics except for certain restricted instances. This can be done quite easily, as I have outlined in my Handbook of the Coming American Revolution. The result is that, instead of politicians focusing on satisfying the people who have paid them off, they can focus on doing what is best for the people they supposedly serve.
(2) Bust the trust: Big corporations can wield big influence because they have big bucks to purchase politicians. While it is reasonable that such entities have their needs represented, in the past the influence of corporate power has often been socially negative.
(3) At the death of their possessors, large fortunes should be distributed to talented private individuals in amounts that will make them financially independent so they can develop themselves without excessive concern for money-grubbing. This helps avoid the dangerous situation of having an elite upper class founded on inherited money, while at the same time ensuring that the money will be kept out of the government’s grubby hands.
(4) Dispense with large charitable foundations. These create problems similar to large corporations.
(5) Keep government power in check by limiting government money. Our Founders recognized the importance of restricting government power, but they made the strategic mistake of attempting to accomplish this by an assortment of Constitutional decrees. Their mistake was that money speaks a lot louder than words; so if the government has the money, it can buy almost anything it wants, from legislative acts to Supreme Court judges. However, as a ‘back-up system’ there should also be legal limits to government power, including the forbidding of any government action except for defensive war and perhaps a few other things. All other power should be left to local or regional governing bodies.
(6) Create an adequate monetary system. This is a complicated subject which cannot be adequately treated in the present essay, altho I have discussed it at length in other essays. Suffice it to make the following points:
* The monetary authorities, ie, those who control money and credit, should not be allowed to do it for their own profit, as the Federal Reserve has been doing ever since it was established in 1913.
* The monetary authorities should be independent of both politicians and bankers.
* The goal of the monetary authorities should be to provide sufficient money and credit so that business can be carried on easily, and so that there is no significant change in the general price level (ie, no inflation).
* The monetary authorities should establish a method of banking insurance so that people’s money will be safe when and if their bank goes bankrupt.
* Experiments with ‘local currencies’ such as the famous ‘Ithaca hours’ should be encouraged as an alternative to national currencies.
* PRINCIPLE: Communities and nations should be kept homogeneous, especially racially. Hoover Institution scholar Dr Thomas Sowell has documented case after case of racial disharmony in multicultural nations, so to avoid this, racial homogeneity should be a watchword. Likewise, religious differences have been a source of disharmony for centuries, but religion is no longer the force it once was, so that homogeneity in religion may not now be that important. Attention should be given to political disharmony, however, where it may be a good idea to separate leftists from the general population and allow them to have their own government and finally prove to themselves that leftism is unworkable.
* PRINCIPLE: Make the law simple and difficult to change, and remove the legal system from government hands. The basic ideas I have in mind are the following:
* Limit the organic law to one volume, which it will be the responsibility of all people to know. Do not allow this law to be changed without major difficulty, including a referendum by the people. This idea, of course, conflicts with the notion that representatives must meet most of the year to ‘write laws’, something which should be dispensed with in view of one wit’s remark that ‘The nation is in danger whenever Congress is in session’. The only ‘laws’ that representatives should ‘write’ are decisions on how to spend government money — a matter which is completely outside the purview of ‘law’.
* Dispense with ‘case law’, ie, the history of judges’ decisions which supposedly clarify the law and are binding on future cases. The reality is that case law makes law much more complicated, and gives judges the power to make new law by ‘interpreting’ law in any manner they choose.
* Privatize the justice system. I have described a manner of doing this in my essay “Free-Market Justice” in my book Bryant’s Law. Such a system will place each case in the hands of a judge or set of judges agreed upon by both sides, and the decision which is rendered will be final. Focus of the system will be righting the wrong done to the complaining party, not penalties imposed by government fiat. Complaints will be brought solely by private citizens, not government agents (‘District Attorneys’). Precedents (‘case law’) will not be binding — only organic law and common sense. Judges will be businessmen whose business depends on a reputation for fairness (‘pleasing his customers’).
* PRINCIPLE: Make individuals and communities as independent as possible. Centralized control is just a hair’s breadth from tyranny, and when people and communities are independent — ie, when they have independent sources of food, water, weapons and other essentials — they can’t be centrally controlled, or can be controlled only with great difficulty. It is thus important that technology and other current knowledge be employed to make people and their communities as independent as possible. An important aspect of community independence concerns technology. According to historian Murray Rothbard, the key to the Industrial Revolution which has been the source of so much wealth to Western man is specialization, or the ‘division of labor’. In particular, when men specialize in one job, rather than trying to be a jack of all trades (and master of none) or ‘generalist’, they work much more efficiently; and the Industrial Revolution helped structure society so that men would work as specialists rather than generalists. But while the division of labor results in work output of high efficiency, it carries the danger that specialists of one kind or another will cease to work, and in so doing will bring down the entire economic system or a significant part of it. We see this occurring in labor strikes, where one segment of the economy can be severely crippled by the walkout of only a small segment; but there is another and even more important case, namely, when technology migrates to other locations because of economic factors, usually lower wages. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the need for efficiency in a system must be balanced against the need for security or stability. In terms of systems theory, what we are saying is that the system must have a degree of ‘redundancy’, so that if one part breaks down, there is another one to take its place. We see such redundancy in hospitals which have backup power systems; we see it in survivalists who keep a supply of food on hand for emergencies; and we even see it in the human body, where the loss of one hand or one eye or one kidney will not bring down the system because there is another part which can serve the function of the lost one. The importance of the discussion above for community independence is that communities need to have sufficient redundancy to retain their functioning should an outside power destroy part of their system in an attempt to coerce them into submission. Thus a community needs the ability to raise its own food, take care of its own sick, and maybe even make its own steel and computer chips. Clearly for a small community this could be quite difficult, so it is no trivial decision as to how much redundancy a community should have. In conclusion it should be noted that redundancy is not only a problem for communities, but for nations as well, especially our own. Several years ago presidential contender Ross Perot warned that America would hear a ‘sizeable sucking sound’ (or something to that effect) taking American jobs down Mehico way if the NAFTA ‘free trade’ agreement was ratified, since labor was so much cheaper south of the border. Perot was mostly right, being wrong only in that the sucking sound was the snuff heard round the world, as jobs died and went not only to Mexico, but also to India, China, the Philippines, and just about everywhere else in the Turd World. The result, then, is not just that zillions of Americans are now out of work or are forced to subsist on Turd World wages, but that America has lost its manufacturing capacity — both the plants which make things and the people needed to run them. Americans may have gained by letting their products be manufactured more cheaply by Chinese slave labor, but they have lost the far more valuable capacity of making them themselves, and it will not be long till America itself sinks into Turd World insignificance as a result, perhaps to be conquered by the very countries which provided America’s ‘help’.
* PRINCIPLE: Keep education out of government hands, and under parental control. The educrats, from John Dewey and Horace Mann onward, have viewed education as a means not of educating, but rather of shaping children into their generation’s version of the New Soviet Man, subservient to the State. But if this is not bad enuf, there is absolutely no reason for formal schooling — once a child learns to read, he can get pretty much all the education he needs by himself, with no more than occasional intervention by adults for answering questions or guiding the reading itself. The only exceptions I can think of are where there are hands-on techniques to be learned, as in laboratory work, or where there is a need for expensive equipment to which an individual could not obtain access except via an institution. It is true that there may be some social benefit to the child in a classroom situation, but there is no more reason to think that this is in any way more helpful than other social situations which can readily be supplied by interested soccer moms.
In conclusion, there are probably other principles which could be added to the above without excessive objection. The collection here, however, offers a long-term perspective on where we ought to be going, and, if lacking in perfection and completeness, at least gives us something to focus on.