Tag: decline and fall

The drugs won

Louise Mensch‏@LouiseMensch
To all my dear Muslim brothers and sisters in Manchester and across the U.K., we got your back. Neither terrorists nor Nazis will divide us.

Mein Gott in Himmel…. this is why you never trust a cuck. Well, they’ve chosen their side, anyhow.

Johnny Marr‏@Johnny_Marr
Manchester stands together.

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
In what, a suicide pact? St. Breivik, pray for us.




Mayor Andy Burnham‏ @MayorofGM
 Please join us for a vigil at Albert Square at 6pm tonight.  We are grieving today, but we are strong.


A vigil. What a brilliant move! Exactly the right tactic. No one will be expecting that!

CNN‏@CNN
“Manchester will stand strong and stand together” after Ariana Grande concert attack, says Mayor Andy Burnham.

It’s so great to see Manchester’s mayor fighting Islamic terror with candles, tears, and declarations of strength and unity. Victory is certain!

I put a poll up on Twitter.

If a Muslim happens to drive a truck through the Manchester vigil tonight, what would be the correct response?

  • Laugh
  • Cry
  • Hold another vigil
  • Pray to St. Breivik

22 dead at UK concert

“A number of confirmed fatalities” reported by police at a bombing at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, UK.

How is this cultural enrichment an improvement on a traditional ethnostate, exactly?

Now they are reporting 20+ 30+ 19 22 dead.

I just did a Darkstream on the topic: Immigration Kills. Whether we will or no, the Killing Season has fallen upon the West. And the post-Christian West cannot honestly say it does not deserve it.

UPDATE: “US officials briefed on Manchester incident say UK officials suspect it was caused by suicide bomber.”


ENOCH POWELL WAS RIGHT.

Paul Joseph Watson@PrisonPlanet
U.S. officials tell NBC Manchester attack was carried out by a suicide bomber. Horrific.

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
That’s civic nationalism for you. It’s over, Paul. You’ll join the Alt-Right sooner or later. It’s inevitable.

The triumph of oligarchy

Michael Lind has an intriguing and deeply historical article on what he calls the New Class War in the American Affairs Journal.

If I am correct, the post–Cold War period has come to a close, and the industrial democracies of North America and Europe have entered a new and turbulent era. The managerial class has destroyed the social settlements that constrained it temporarily in the second half of the twentieth century and created a new kind of politics, largely insulated from popular participation and electoral democracy, based on large donors and shifting coalitions within a highly homogeneous coalition of allied Western elites. Following two decades of increasing consolidation of the power of the managerial class, the populist and nationalist wave on both sides of the Atlantic is a predictable rebellion by working-class outsiders against managerial-class insiders and their domestic allies, who are often recruited from native minorities or immigrant diasporas.

Will the result of the contemporary class war among managers and workers on both sides of the Atlantic be a revival of fascism? In some countries in Europe, populist nationalist parties have emerged from tiny fringe fascist parties, or have attracted their supporters. But talk about Weimar America or Weimar Europe is based on a misunderstanding of history, which blames fascism on populism. In reality, despite their populist trappings, most interwar fascist movements were favored by military and economic elites as a way to block social democracy and communism.

It is not the Weimar republic but the banana republic that provides the most likely negative model. In many Latin American countries, politics has traditionally pitted oligarchs versus populists. A similar pattern existed in many Southern states in the United States between the Civil War and the civil rights revolution.

When populist outsiders challenge oligarchic insiders, the oligarchs almost always win. How could they lose? They may not have numbers, but they control most of the wealth, expertise, and political influence and dominate the media, universities, and nonprofit sectors. Most populist waves break and disperse on the concrete seawalls of elite privilege.

In the American South, most populist politicians gave up or sold out. In some cases, like that of Texas governor and senator W. Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel, a country music singer, they were simply folksy fronts for corporate and upper-class interests all along. The few populists who maintained some independence were those who could finance themselves, usually by corrupt means. Louisiana governor Huey Long could battle the ruling families and the powerful corporations because he skimmed money from state employee checks and kept it in a locked “deduct box.” In Texas, anti-Klan populist governor James “Pa” Ferguson, along with his wife Miriam “Ma” Ferguson, who was elected governor after her husband was impeached on the slogan “Two Governors for the price of one,” sold pardons to the relatives of convicted criminals. As billionaires who could finance their own campaigns, Ross Perot and Donald Trump could claim, with some justification, to be free to run against the national establishment.

Those who believe in liberal democracy can look on this kind of political order only with dismay. Most of the time, coteries within a nepotistic elite run things for the benefit of their class. Now and then, a charismatic populist arises, only to fail, sell out to the establishment, or establish a personal or dynastic political-economic racket. Formal democracy may survive, but its spirit has fled. No matter who wins, the insiders or outsiders, the majority will lose.

This is broadly in line with my own expectations, but it tends to contradict anacyclosis and the Ciceronian political cycle, which sees tyranny following democracy rather than aristocracy. Of course, an elite that has learned the importance of keeping its head down may have had the wherewithal to simply skip that aspect of the cycle in favor of the amorphous vampire squid ink of the corpocracy and rule by artificial  judicial persons, each of whom can support thousands of oligarchic insiders like a legal form of Lovecraft’s Nyarlatothep.

The section on Hobson’s predictions is almost alarming in its prophetic accuracy. It’s long, but definitely read the whole thing. I’ve seen what I personally call “the pirate class” in operation myself, descending upon every promising young corporation and seeking to either drain it dry or personally profit by offering it up as a sacrifice to a larger entity.

The insanity of the imperial USA

This is a solid analysis of the lunacy of US imperialism and its intrinsic weakness:

When the leader of some imperial territory or vassal acts against U.S. interests, or even just gets strong enough that they might, U.S. assets stir up “popular movements”, “moderate rebels”, and “refugee” crises, or subvert their internal operation with NGOs, diplomats, and “grassroots” activism. Or, if that isn’t working, in case we have all forgotten 2003, the U.S. military directly invades in the name of “human rights” and “democracy”, neither of which need to ever materialize for this to work. One way or another, the leader in question ends up deposed.

The occasional genocide, mass rape, persecution of Christians and actual moderate minorities, enormous expense, damage to civilization, loss of historic sites, damage to our reputation, loss of the cultural and material produce that order would bring, destabilization of regions and populations that later need to be bailed out at our own material and demographic expense, and hostile mass-migration into the lands of our own people, which are the byproducts of this indirect form of rule, are overlooked as necessary collateral damage, unfortunate random happenstance, or, when the victim is of our own white race, even celebrated.

Why does this happen? Why are we, good people most of us, caught up in an evil empire? It’s easy enough to blame traitors and Jews and the devil, but the problem goes deeper.

The root of the problem is the principles by which the empire is administered. To start with, we don’t call it an empire, we call it “the international community”, composed not of vassals, provinces, states, territories, colonies, and protectorates, but of “sovereign” “democratic” “nations”.

In other words, we don’t even have language to talk coherently about the empire, which means it’s hard to think about it; we can’t issue orders to our “sovereign” subordinates, have no widely understood imperial authority, and can’t extract straightforward imperial tax, but still have to administer an empire. So, American foreign policy grabs the next-best mechanisms available to it: rebel groups, NGOs, subversion, “human rights” and associated leverage and inconsistencies, petrodollar shenanigans, exports of easily subverted democracy, weaponized mass-migration, and so on.

The worldview attempting to govern the empire and build coherent sub-states fails, because it doesn’t dare recognize what it is actually doing, and doesn’t dare use the “enemy” methods of effective statecraft that actually work. Instead of clear rights and duties of imperial provinces, states governed by clear chains of command and authority, and open negotiation for tribute and protection, we are forced to use destructive, clandestine methods to govern our empire, which in turn create the evilness of the empire.

Obviously, the people in charge of it are the bearers and purveyors of this destructive ideology, but they are not senselessly evil; there is a twisted logic to it all that is generated from the deep structure of modern political thought. Replacing the elite would be insufficient to fix our problems without a new imperial and political ideology. Any replacement elites, though they might go in with the best of intentions, would have the same incentives and would develop the same characteristics and ideology, if the formal structure of the thing stayed the same.

If we had a different imperial ideology, it would be possible to allow the components of the empire a much greater degree of peace and leeway to do what is right, while simultaneously exerting more efficient and fine-grained control over those aspects for which it is in our interest to do so. And we would no longer have to bear the negative by-products of a destructive and evil imperial operating system.

Don’t deceive yourself. The US is an empire that is held together by force and has been since 1865. The lack of a formal emperor doesn’t mean that it’s not an empire nor does its false veil of “democracy”; the US is observably less democratic than the Athenian and British Empires were. And the complete inability of the electorate to even acknowledge what the empire is means that it’s not even possible to discuss what it should, and should not, be doing.

Moreover, the empire is divided and schizophrenic. As the author notes, this has not escaped the attention of the other two global powers, China and Russia. There is absolutely no chance either of them, or a number of the lesser powers, are going to be inclined to follow the imperial USA’s lead, as it is inevitably leading to decline, collapse, and war. Indeed, if they are smart, they will gently assist the empire as it moves even deeper into self-destructive madness, in self-defense if nothing else.

More cause, more effect

The ever-astute Pat Buchanan knows how the trends are flowing:

You’ve written much about your worries about how demographic changes will negatively affect the nation. What do you think is the political effect that will come from this? We are currently seeing the rise of the alt right, left-wing violence…

If you see more of the cause, you will see more of the effect. How dumb can these people be. Take a look at what’s happening in Europe. You have secessionist movements in more than half a dozen countries. You’ve got nationalism across Europe, you’ve got ethno-nationalism, you’ve got pro-Russian governments rising, autocracy is more attractive to people.

People got to take a look. This isn’t because a couple of guys have been preaching something for a few years. We’ve been predicting it. It’s the events that matter. They decide things. When we ran with these issues in the 90s, you had tremendous support, but the thing people said was what we’re doing right now isn’t that bad so let’s stick with this.

If you don’t address the causes you will get the same results,  and I don’t understand people who don’t realize that.

This is precisely why I have been pointing out that the continued rise of the Alt-Right to ascendance is not merely likely, it is inevitable. Mainstream conservatism not only has no answers for the problems caused by demographic changes, it is part of the problem.

I can’t stress this enough: civic nationalism has failed in the USA. The second immigrant wave destroyed the political foundations of the state, and now the third immigrant wave has destroyed even the semblance of a nation. It’s not even remotely possible to dispute this any longer; those who continue to try will only sacrifice their own credibility and become increasingly irrelevant.

As I mentioned to a friend yesterday, my observations tend to be on the early side of the trends. If we were to compare this to the global financial crisis, we’re probably at around 2003. Right now, people can see the equivalent of the rise in housing prices, but they can’t yet grasp its link to the global financial system. In the same way, people can see the tens of millions of immigrants, their children, and grandchildren, but they can’t yet grasp their link to the dissolution of the nation-state.

But they will. They absolutely will in time.

We are the Mayans

Roosh observes that the Enlightenment is a philosophical suicide pact:

Nature does not care about education, “high quality” offspring, college degrees, equal rights, cleanliness, sustainability, philosophy, or the environment. It cares about fertility and might, and the species or race that is most fertile and most powerful will be rewarded with the bounty that the Earth provides. The people who are able to take over the planet in sheer numbers, regardless of its intelligence or manners, will come to rule the world, just like how homo sapiens came to overrun the more intelligent Neanderthals by breeding at a far superior rate. The most intelligent race on the planet can use their smarts to fortify themselves in caves as the more numerous barbarians take over the planet, even if they’re nothing more than mindless zombies.

Rational thinking from the enlightenment era, when taken to its logical end in proving that families, divinity, and traditional standards aren’t necessary, along with the notion that the individual is God, leads to the suicide of society. Rationale, in it’s beautifully cherished civilized form, leads to the end of any race who participates in it, while the stupid barbarians with IQs of 95 or lower, who follow a two-thousand year old book that implores them to conquer and chop off heads, continue to multiply and take over more lands.

We are the mistakes of nature. We are the grotesque. We have been condemned for replacement, forsaken by God for enabling over one billion abortions in just a few decades while we attempt to change the rules of nature, to declare man woman and woman man. Our goal is not one of spiritual enlightenment but of achieving the most vile feats of degeneracy.

Because of our cultural and biological sterility, I believe we have been fated for destruction.

I don’t think it is necessarily too late yet. There is no need yet to give in to the temptation of despair. But barring a sweeping Christian and cultural revival, it appears that yet another civilizational cycle has reached its peak and a return to the pagan and barbarian darkness is in process.

We are the Atlanteans. We are the Mayans. And our legacy is likely to be little more than strangely advanced archeological curiosities that will one day be discovered and puzzled over.

Why Mothers Matter

The Darkstream tonight was inspired by some thoughts on Mother’s Day and the signal importance that mothers play in defending and sustaining Western civilization.

The 2007 column I mentioned, The Mother’s War, can be read here.

And since the verdict was distinctly pro-excerpt, I’m including one on a tangentially related topic from Innocence & Intellect, 2001-2005 (The Collected Columns). I figure I’ll try to do 2-3 per week. This 2003 column proved to be an extremely controversial one and got me invited on several radio shows after its publication, including a Canadian one where all the callers lined up to take angry shots at me. Good times.

EXCERPT:


Spiting their pretty faces
February 3, 2003

A recent story floating around the variety section of a newspaper I still read occasionally reminded me of a conversation I had with a college girlfriend about six months ago. She’s a pretty woman—slender, petite, well-educated and intelligent. She has an excellent, high-paying job and even owns her own house.

She is, in short, the epitome of feminist success. And yet, she is profoundly disappointed with her life. She has, in her own words, continued to stumble upwards while somehow missing out on the only thing she truly wanted—a husband and a family.

Nor is she alone, in anecdotal or statistical terms. Not only do the majority of women who were in our college social circle remain unmarried, but according to Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, author of “Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman”, a 30-something woman is three times more likely to be unmarried than her 1970’s counterpart. While some might argue that this is a good thing, most demographics experts would disagree, as would, it appears, an awful lot of those 30-something single women.

While Whitehead correctly identifies the general problem, she is as clueless as the next feminist as to how to go about solving it. Instead of recommending that individuals change the one thing within their power—namely, their behavior—she advocates altering the entire system of courtship. Given this typically fascistic feminist approach, I am, of course, shocked that her six 30-something daughters and nieces all remain available.

But, as I told my friend, the root of the problem is that the kind of man she wants is precisely the man who is smart enough to stay away from her. Smart, educated women aren’t willing to date down on the social scale, so the higher they rise, the more they cut down on their available pool of men.

Furthermore, the smarter a man is, the more he is likely to realize that being romantically involved with an intelligent, educated, upper-middle-class American woman steeped in 20 years of feminist indoctrination is about as desirable as being flayed alive and rolled in salt.

Consider the premarital professions of the women in my social circle, all of whom are now stay-at-home moms happily married to intelligent, successful men: Farmgirl. Nanny. Teacher. Office manager. Nanny. Pipeline worker. Professional student. Church volunteer. That’s eight quality men who won’t be marrying a high-powered career girl right there.

The advice I gave my friend was succinct: In any given dating situation, think about what your instincts are telling you—then do the opposite. It’s like football… if the run is getting stuffed, then throw the darn ball.

So, in the unlikely event there happens to be a 30-something single woman reading this, here are a few pointers which might be helpful while you wait for Ms. Dafoe Whitehead and company to change the dating culture:

  • Your rights are delineated in the Constitution. Everything else is a privilege.
  • Your family has to put up with you. For everyone else, it’s optional.
  • Southern belles always get what they want. Watch and learn, grasshopper.
  • Sex as an incentive is fair enough. Using its deprivation as a punishment will backfire hideously.
  • Mocking your man in public creates a no-win situation. He can either slice and dice you verbally, which is no fun for you, or keep his mouth shut and look like an idiot. In the case of the latter, it doesn’t mean that you’ve won, or that he’s forgotten.
  • Men love happy women. Act happy and you may discover how to be happy.
  • If there’s any doubt, choose the most optimistic interpretation. That’s what he meant.
  • Honey, honey, honey—a thousand times honey. Never vinegar.
  • Conflict is not passion. It isn’t any fun, either.
  • Limit yourself to five complaints and demands a day. If you’re not counting, you’re over the limit.
  • If no one ever taught you the traditional arts, find an older woman to be your mentor.
  • Your feelings and objectively verifiable facts may be different. Learn to distinguish between them.

Now, I’m not saying that applying these principles to your dating scene will turn frogs into princes or anything, but they will get you in the game. And if all else fails, just tell your next first date that you’re thinking of quitting your job and returning to your former career as an aerobics instructor.

He’ll be intrigued, trust me.

Happy Mother’s Day

Best wishes, heartfelt gratitude, and a Happy Mother’s Day to Spacebunny and all the dedicated mothers raising the next generation of the West. These brave women fight a daily war with those who would tear them down and destroy both them and their families that is too little recognized, and they often do so with very little emotional support from anyone. The home front is the first and most important front.

One thing the Alt-Right must never forget is that the restoration of Western Civilization depends upon convincing the mothers of the European nations to cast their lot in with us rather than with the barbarians and destroyers. It is essential not to get too caught up in bitterness over feminism or negative personal experiences, but rather, to focus on the long-term objectives. The dyscivilizationists won many women over to their side, and it is up to the eucivilizationists to win them back.

Even the rabbits of Watership Down understood that a society without mothers will not survive.

The man who destroyed America

The reason white working-class Americans no longer recognize their country is because it is no longer their country. This isn’t that hard. A society is made up of the people who inhabit it. It is not some sort of immutable structure that molds people into something else; the reason non-Romans in Rome behave like Romans is because they are heavily outnumbered and they don’t wish to draw Roman attention to themselves. Once they are numerous enough that they feel they can influence, or worse, “improve” the society they have invaded, they will change it from what it was before.

This is neither difficult nor debatable. Pour milk in your coffee and you can see the same process at work. Pour enough milk into it and it ceases to be coffee and starts to become milk.

  • Nearly two-thirds (65%) of white working-class Americans believe American culture and way of life has deteriorated since the 1950s.
  • Nearly half (48%) of white working-class Americans say, “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.”
  • Nearly seven in ten (68%) white working-class Americans believe the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. In contrast, fewer than half (44%) of white college-educated Americans express this view.
  • Nearly seven in ten (68%) white working-class Americans—along with a majority (55%) of the public overall—believe the U.S. is in danger of losing its culture and identity.
  • More than six in ten (62%) white working-class Americans believe the growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens American culture, while three in ten (30%) say these newcomers strengthen society.

That isn’t a graph of “the changing face of America”. That is a graph of America being transformed into Not-America, all thanks to one man, Emanuel Celler.

Celler made his first important speech on the House floor during consideration of the Johnson Immigration Act of 1924. Three years earlier, Congress had imposed a quota that limited immigration for persons of any nationality to 3 percent of that nationality present in the United States in 1910, with an annual admission limit of 356,000 immigrants. This national origin system was structured to preserve the ethnic and religious identity of the United States by reducing immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, thereby excluding many Jews, Catholics, Italians, and others. Celler was vehemently opposed to the Johnson act, which passed the isolationist Congress and was signed into law. Celler had found his cause and for the next four decades he vigorously spoke out in favor of eliminating the national origin quotas as a basis for immigration restriction.

As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from 1949 to 1973 (except for a break from when the Republicans controlled the House), Celler was involved in drafting and passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In January 1965, Celler proposed in the House of Representatives the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which clarifies an ambiguous provision of the Constitution regarding succession to the presidency. Also in 1965, he proposed and steered to passage the Hart-Celler Act, which eliminated national origins as a consideration for immigration. This was the culminating moment in Celler’s 41-year fight to overcome restriction on immigration to the United States based on national origin.

Note that he was a third-generation immigrant. Celler is an excellent demonstration of why God considers immigrants to be a curse upon the land, and why they and their descendants should never be permitted to participate in the political process in any society that wishes to maintain its national identity. Consider:

Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there.
– Genesis 15:13

After 400 years, the immigrants to Egypt were still not Egyptians.

The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.
– Leviticus 25:23

Immigrants reside in the land as foreigners and strangers. There is no Magic Dirt transforming them into natives.

May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.
– Psalm 109:11

Debt and immigrant capitalists are literal curses.

Strangers will shepherd your flocks; foreigners will work your fields and vineyards.
– Isaiah 61:5

No doubt doing the jobs that the natives won’t do. Isn’t it remarkable how what is happening today was described so accurately several thousand years ago, when scientists can’t manage to make a simple temperature prediction ten years in advance.

Our inheritance has been turned over to strangers, our homes to foreigners.
– Lamentations 5:2

Immigration and the economic benefits they supposedly bring are a literal Biblical lamentation.

“It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
– Matthew 15:26

A nation exists for the benefit of its children. Not for the benefit of strangers, foreigners, and immigrants. No wonder Europe’s childless leaders don’t give a damn about their nations. And if there is one core lesson of history, it is this: work your own damn fields.

A tradition, now lost

Fred Reed recalls Marine boot camp, circa 1966:

A recruit was standing on a roof at Parris Island in the burning sun at parade rest. His DI had put him there to work on the roof and somehow had forgotten him. A passing sergeant noticed, stared curiously for a second, and bellowed, “Git down from there, prive.”

The private didn’t move.

“Goddamit, git down here,” bawled the instructor, unused to being ignored.

Nothing. The private looked deeply unhappy, but didn’t so much as twitch.

Another DI came along and yelled, but nothing moved the recruit. He gazed desperately ahead, either deaf or crazed by the sun. A group formed on the sidewalk, including a warrant officer, a lieutenant, and, finally, a passing light colonel.

The colonel snapped his crispest order. The private stared ahead. The crowd conferred, decided they had a mental case on their hands and prepared to send for a struggle buggy and some big corpsmen. Then the private’s DI returned.

“Jaworski, Ten-hut! Git your butt down from there.”

Down came Jaworski. From parade rest, you see, the only acceptable order is “attention”. The manual of arms says so.

“You see,” a drill instructor explained to me, “a recruit’s in a place he doesn’t understand at all, and nothing ever works for him. Back home, he knows the rules. Maybe he’s a big dude on the block, got it made. Not here. Everybody’s yelling at him and he can’t ever do anything right.

“So he figures he’ll do exactly what he’s told. It’s his way of protecting himself. If something goes wrong, he thinks at least it’s not his fault. This is what a drill instructor’s got to learn — nothing’s too crazy for a recruit to do if he thinks it’s what you told him. And you really got to think about it. Otherwise you can get him hurt.

“One time in winter a friend of mine, Sergeant Grunderling, had evening duty at some building and he wanted to go take a leak. So he tells this recruit who’s with him, ‘I’m going out for a minute. Don’t let anyone in who doesn’t know the password. You got that?’

“The recruit says, ‘Yes, sir,’ so Grunderling relieves himself and realizes he can’t remember the password. So he hollers, ‘Minter, open the door.”

“What’s the password?”

“I forget. Open the door.”

“I can’t do that, sir. You told me not to let anybody in who doesn’t give the password, sir.”

“Goddamit Minter, now I’m telling you to open the door.”

“‘No sir, I can’t do that.”

“Minter, it’s cold out here.”

“No, sir, I can’t do that.”

“By now Grunderling’s mostly frozen and so mad he can’t see straight, but he sees threats ain’t going to help him.

“Please, Minter, let me in. I ain’t gonna yell at you. I won’t do anything to you.”

“Aww, you’re trying to trick me.”

“No, Minter, honest, I ain’t trying to trick you. Open the door.’

“You’re gonna yell at me, aren’t you sir?”

“No, Minter, I promise.”

“Finally, old Minter opens the door and Grunderling nearly kills him. But he should have expected it. A recruit does exactly what you tell him.”

Societies in decline are always shocked to discover that their militaries are no longer what they once were when they run into a harder, more disciplined enemy. Just consider Athens after attacking Syracuse. Or the Spartans when they confronted the Thebans.

Today’s Marine Corps may have more advanced weapons, but it seems highly unlikely that the changes in its preparation will prove to be for the better.